Stalingrad remembered.

[JCG]

Keep the name, but it depends on the citizens. And well...I agree that the Russians could have handled the war by themselves. Probably it would have taken some months or years longer and surely it'd be bloodier, though.

[Sava]

David, you can launch into all the essays you want... you're still wrong

The Russian winter stopped Germany in it's tracks. It simply did not have the man power to occupy the Russian territory it took. And it certainly didn't have the supply chain in order to supply it's troops to go any farther than Stalingrad. Plus, by that time, the Soviets had already moved their T34 production East of the Urals (IIR). Germany would not have been able to destroy that industrial base, and Russia had more than enough manufacturing capacity to outbuild the Germans and many, many times the number of troops.

[David Floyd]

No one claimed Germany could occupy the Soviet Union. I'm just saying that the SU could not have defeated Germany without the US, and that the SU could have done no better than a stalemate, with Germany still occupying large amounts of Soviet territory in the Ukraine and Western Russia.

[Sava]

Trust me David, after the destruction that the Germans caused in invading Russia, there would be no stalemate. The Russians would send wave after wave, tank after tank until either they or the Germans lost. And with a higher tank manufacturing capacity and many more troops, Germany would not have been able to hold out. But it's irrelevant because it's not like the Western Front would remain quiet. The fact that it simply wasn't Germany vs. Russia is at the heart of the matter even though you want to make this a one on one bout. It's easy to think you're right when you play with outlandish hypotheticals, eh?

[Serb]

Re: Re: Stalingrad remembered.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

It was a decisive battle but more a turning point than the most decisive.

Well forgive me my crappy English please. Yes, turning point sounds much more correct, I agree.

I found out recently that many civilians were hiding in the city throughout the battle. Another incredible story of survival.

Yes, remained people lived in "zemlyankah"- it's just big hole in the ground, because their homes were destroyed during bombardments.

Also the life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the height of the battle was 24 hours from the time they crossed the Volga. Russia paid a very heavy price.

Actually I started this thread because of my impression after the talk with my grandfather. He was in the hell's kitchen of Stalingrad battle. He was artilerist, he and people like him stoped advance of Mainstein's tanks.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Master Zen

Yes. Can you imagine the RAF and USAAF bombing its own cities? Slaughter is evil, slaughtering your own countrymen is the utmost evil and the utmost stupid.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Soviet airforces carped bombed Stalingrad to ruins and slaughtered population of its own citizens?
Btw, within first days of Luwftwafe carpet bombardments of Stalingrad iirc, 123 000 civilians were killed.

the US had guns AND chocolate. But chocolate doesn't win wars. With the casualty rate the soviets sustained, it was impossible to maitain the levels of training and experience the western allies had. Most western troops were crap before the entered combat. Most western troops were crap when they entered combat. Most western troops were crap after they entered combat. But after months in western europe, italy, burma and the pacific, the average western infantryman was far superior than the average soviet one.

I don't get it. Are you trying to say that Allied troops had more battle experience than Soviet troops?

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I wasn't aware the US conquered Tokyo, or the WW1 Allies conquered Berlin, or the colonial Americans conquered London, for example

Absolutely different wars. Hitler oredered to fight untill last man standing. They didn't want to surrender, no matter what.

Why the hell would we want to? Why not just go around the city, put a covering force there, and defeat armies in the field, eventually forcing the besieged city to run out of supplies?

Leningrad was under seige, in complete isolation since 1941 up to 1944. What makes you think that Germans would defend their capital less than Russians defended Leningrad? What makes you think that Soviets had so much time?

[Master Zen]

Serb:

I never said anything about the soviet air force bombing stalingrad. YOU mentioned Dresden as an atrocity comitted by the western allies and that through my point of view I am making it not seem so horrible. I said yes, killing your own citizens like Stalin did would be like the RAF and USAAF bombing its own cities.

And YES, I am saying the western allies on an individual basis had more battle experience than the soviets by the end of the war because of the simple fact that less of them were killed. Do the math. I must admit, however, that those Soviets which had survived many months of the war were far better than the allied ones. As late as 1944, the german/soviet kill ratio was 1:5 at least.

As for Leningrad, it was surrounded but the germans could not bypass it. It was an important junction which had to be taken because they were unable to advance any more to the north-east. Had the germans had the strenght to make it to northern russia, Leningrad would have surely been bypassed, unless of course, Hitler would have wanted it for being LENINgrad.

[DanS]

This really is none of our business, but since you asked... I would prefer not to see it renamed Stalingrad. Stalin's image has suffered after his death.

I wonder how much of Stalingrad really survived the battle.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DanS
This really is none of our business, but since you asked... I would prefer not to see it renamed Stalingrad. Stalin's image has suffered after his death.

Thant's why it was renamed to Volgograd. Today people who wants to rename it to Stalingrad again, don't care much about the name of Stalin, more about battle which ended there 60 years ago.

I wonder how much of Stalingrad really survived the battle.

A half of the dozen houses out of entire city. After the battle it was city of ruins.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Serb:

I never said anything about the soviet air force bombing stalingrad. YOU mentioned Dresden as an atrocity comitted by the western allies and that through my point of view I am making it not seem so horrible.

It wasn't me who said this, really

And YES, I am saying the western allies on an individual basis had more battle experience than the soviets by the end of the war because of the simple fact that less of them were killed. Do the math. I must admit, however, that those Soviets which had survived many months of the war were far better than the allied ones.

Well, Soviets didn't created ENTIERLY new armies every year. Hundreds of thousands (if not more) soldiers went throught entire war from 1941 to 1945. I guess it's impossible to find proper statistic about this now. For example my grandfather, he fought since 1941 up to 1945, was wounded many times, but survived. But I must admit he was lucky, one of the three brothers who was lucky enough to survie this war.
Still, I think that in terms of battle experience Red army was far ahed of Allies.

As for Leningrad, it was surrounded but the germans could not bypass it. It was an important junction which had to be taken because they were unable to advance any more to the north-east. Had the germans had the strenght to make it to northern russia, Leningrad would have surely been bypassed, unless of course, Hitler would have wanted it for being LENINgrad.

I brings Leningrad only to point that seige of Berlin could take a lot of time.

[DanS]

A half of the dozen houses out of entire city. After the battle it was city of ruins.

In a way, having a city bearing the name of the battle trivializes one of the bloodiest battles (the bloodiest?) ever fought by mankind. Especially when it really isn't the same city.

But again, it's entirely up to y'all. I have little personal stake in the battle or the city.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

Trust me David, after the destruction that the Germans caused in invading Russia, there would be no stalemate. The Russians would send wave after wave, tank after tank until either they or the Germans lost. And with a higher tank manufacturing capacity and many more troops, Germany would not have been able to hold out.

That's not necessarily true. If Germany was purely on the defense, with commanders who could carry out useful fluid defenses, local counterattacks, etc., the casualties suffered by the SU would be way out of proportion to the number of troops they could put in the field - they would simply run out of men before the Germans would. Remember, the population gap wasn't 10 to 1 or anything like that, and the Germans would not be losing anywhere near the number of troops that the SU would. Eventually, the SU's population would reach an end - as happened historically. In 1945, both Germany AND Russia were at the end of their manpower. In my scenario, it would happen for the SU a lot sooner, and for Germany, later. This means that eventually the SU has to stop attacking for lack of men - they might be able to maintain numbers of troops, but not significantly increase them.

In terms of tanks, again, it's true that Germany was massively outproduced by the SU, but this statistic is also not quite as absolute as it seems. Much of Germany's production capability was tied up in the Battle of the Atlantic - those thousands of U-boats represented a lot of potential tanks, and even more importantly, a lot of potential man-hours that could have been directed elsewhere. Further, the US bombing offensive was very punishing to German industry. While German production was inreasing through the end of 1944, the bombing offensive was depriving Germany of things such as ball-bearing production, oil refining capacity, and things of that nature. Finally, Germany did not even switch to a "total war" production output until relatively late in the war, and production would have continued to rise absent outside interference, which the SU could not provide but the US could.

But it's irrelevant because it's not like the Western Front would remain quiet. The fact that it simply wasn't Germany vs. Russia is at the heart of the matter even though you want to make this a one on one bout. It's easy to think you're right when you play with outlandish hypotheticals, eh?

Well, without the US, the Western Front would necessarily remain quiet. Oh, Britain could launch Dieppe-type raids, and probably push the Germans out of Africa - eventually. They could possibly even launch a successful (but not wildly so) invasion of Norway, and present something of a bombing threat to Germany (although nowhere near that of the US). But invade Sicily or Italy, not to mention France? Impossible.

Serb,

Wait a minute...are you saying that Soviet airforces carped bombed Stalingrad to ruins and slaughtered population of its own citizens?
Btw, within first days of Luwftwafe carpet bombardments of Stalingrad iirc, 123 000 civilians were killed.

While we're on the topic of airpower, why is it that the Soviet Union refused to let the USAAF and RAF conduct shuttle bombing missions? That is, why would it let Allied bombers bomb German targets, then land at Soviet airfields? This would have vastly increased the bombing range and materially helped the war effort.

And don't make the objection that the Soviet Air Force could not have provided proper escorts - 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighters were in the West.

Just curious to hear your justification of this.

Absolutely different wars. Hitler oredered to fight untill last man standing. They didn't want to surrender, no matter what.

So your argument is that Japan was more likely to surrender than Germany?

Leningrad was under seige, in complete isolation since 1941 up to 1944. What makes you think that Germans would defend their capital less than Russians defended Leningrad? What makes you think that Soviets had so much time?

How is that post relevant to my response that the US/British found it more cost effective and military useful (and humane) to go after armies in the field than fortified cities? Sure, the Germans would heavily defend their cities, and so would have the Japanese. That's why we tried to avoid city battles, and that's why we avoided invading places like Rabaul. Of course, the US still took on some heavily fortified areas - read up on, say, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or Saipan.

[Ned]

Serb, How can we remember Stalingrad if it isn't on the map?

As to the battle of Volgograd, yes it was a great victory for the USSR, for Russia, for the Allies and for mankind.

We, the people of the world, say thank you for the heroic stand you took, and for the blood and sacrifice of so many thousands in the cause of freedom.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DanS
In a way, having a city bearing the name of the battle trivializes one of the bloodiest battles (the bloodiest?) ever fought by mankind.

Yes, IT was the bloodiest battle ever fought by humanity, but without the victory in this battle (and in this war) there was no Russia today. About one million Soviet soldiers died in this battle defending our country. For soldiers who survived this battle, this city was always Stalingrad, and always will be. They remember Stalingrad, not Volgagrad. I don't think that city will be renamed, but if so I wouldn't protest.

Especially when it really isn't the same city.

After the war Stalingrad was rebuild exactly in the same location where it was founded. It's not the same city, but it's exactly the same place where one of greatest and one of the most important for our survival victories was achieved.