I read that, and is one of my sources. Funny enough, KaLeu put a link to Quora asking the same question, and one of the answers just copied and pasted the article you sent me.
Which Soviet City?
-
i would have to say Stalingrad…this was the city with Stalin’s name on it…the BOSS would have been furious if his city was taken by Germany…he probably would have shot his entire general staff
how could Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili be mad about that?..its just a city…
-
After the initial attack on Moscow failed miserably, the Germans had to win extremely decisive victories both in Leningrad and Stalingrad to have any chance of winning against the Russians.
-
Stalingrad was more important (oil fields), but I voted Leningrad, because if Leningrad was taken sooner, then the troops could be redeployed and Stalingrad was taken too (probably). And Leningrad was/is an important port in the Baltics.
-
Leningrad
-
Hard to say. Leningrad was the old Russian capital of Petersburg and a major port to be used in the lend-lease shipments.
Stalingrad was a major rail and industrial city that was the only tank producer as the industries moved to the urals and was close to the oil fields of the caucasus. Moscow was simply a prestige city. Napoleon took it but it did not stop the russians. You’d have to capture the whole head of the government to end the war politically but as the Priepet marshes showed, you don’t need a government to continue fighting a war. Same went for the japanese in the phillipines when they took it. It was still a very active war zone up until the US took it back. -
I’d say Leningrad, for the same reason as has been stated by others (it would have released troops for use elsewhere) and for the additional reason that – if I’m not mistaken – it was also an important industrial centre. I didn’t pick Murmansk because, if it had fallen, the port of Arkangelsk (which was already handling about half of the Arctic convoys) would have been used to pick up the slack. As for Stalingrad, remember that the Germans actually did capture most of it (over 90% as I recall), an accomplishment which ended up hurting them substantially rather than bringing them victory. The oil reserves which Hitler wanted so badly were in the Caucasus region, which at its closest point is about 400 km away from Stalingrad. The drive on Stalingrad was originally conceived merely as a secondary operation to protect the flank of the main thrust into the Caucasus (a concept which in itself was of debatable utility, in view of the distances involved and of the huge gap it still would have left open between Stalingrad and Astrakhan), and its original aim was simply to cut off the city rather than capture it. As others have pointed out above, Stalingrad did have symbolic and propaganda value for both Hitler and Stalin…but fundamentally wars aren’t won on the basis of prestige and bragging rights in and of themselves, they’re won by destroying the enemy’s combat forces and breaking his will to resist. That’s why Hitler’s obssession to take Stalingrad (he once gave a smug after-dinner speech announcing that the city was pretty much conquered) turned out so disastrously: the Wehrmacht suffered losses in men and materiel which hurt it much more badly than the Red Army’s own losses (large as they were) hurt the Russians, and the Soviet will to resist was stiffened rather than broken by the struggle to save “Stalin’s City”. Admiral Raymond Spruance, evoking the analogy of someone going shopping, once said that all military operations should be planned with two questions in mind: how much is this worth to me and how much is this going to cost me? By those criteria, Stalingrad was a very bad return on investment for Germany.
-
@CWO:
Admiral Raymond Spruance, evoking the analogy of someone going shopping, once said that all military operations should be planned with two questions in mind: how much is this worth to me and how much is this going to cost me?  By those criteria, Stalingrad was a very bad return on investment for Germany.
Well said.
-
Leningrad was the old Russian capital of Petersburg and a major port to be used in the lend-lease shipments.
You mean Murmansk right?
-
I made the mistake of thinking Leningrad was a northern port. It was a Baltic port.
SHUT UP!!! I know my geometry!!! :evil:
Good catch.
-
If Murmansk had fallen to the Germans and turned into a German base. Do you think Arkangelsk would have been neutralized as a Lend-lease port?
-
@ABWorsham:
If Murmansk had fallen to the Germans and turned into a German base. Do you think Arkangelsk would have been neutralized as a Lend-lease port?
I don’t think so. Geographically, there are three options that Germany could have used to try to neutralize Arkangelsk, and I don’t think any of them would have been workable. Option 1 would have been to use Murmansk as a naval and air base to try to intercept Allied convoys traversing the Barents Sea as they headed towards the entrance to the White Sea. Given the large size of the Barents Sea and the chronically awful weather conditions in the area, I don’t think German naval or air forces would have had much ability to shut down the convoy routes in that way. Option 2 would have been to occupy enough of the Kola Peninsula (which is rather large) to support a base overlooking the narrowest part of the straights separating the Barents Sea from the White Sea. From this base, a combination of shore-based artillery (of limited use in a straight 50 miles wide), tactical air power (weather permitting, which would not have been often) and mine fields (which would have had to be replenished by the Germans as fast as the Russians would have swept them) might have had some effect in reducing convoy access to the White Sea, but this scenario sounds like too much effort for too little gain. Option 3 would have been to occupy Arkangelsk from the landward side, but that would have involved conquering a swath of rugged territory covering about 1,000 kilometers from Leningrad to Arkangelsk – again, a case of too much effort for too little return. If Germany really wanted to make a dent in the lend-lease shipments to Russia, they would have been much better off going south rather than north: conquering Iran and cutting off the Persian Corridor (with the added bonus that Germany would have gotten access to substantial oil reserves by doing so).
-
@CWO:
Option 3 would have been to occupy Arkangelsk from the landward side, but that would have involved conquering a swath of rugged territory covering about 1,000 kilometers from Leningrad to Arkangelsk – again, a case of too much effort for too little return. If Germany really wanted to make a dent in the lend-lease shipments to Russia, they would have been much better off going south rather than north: conquering Iran and cutting off the Persian Corridor (with the added bonus that Germany would have gotten access to substantial oil reserves by doing so).
There’s also option 4: sever the railroad linking Archangelsk to the rest of Russia.
-
Moscow.
The Russian capital acted as a major rail-road network, connecting the East front with Russia’s main industrial base in the Urals.
Without Moscow, the Russian army would would have difficulties replacing equipment, and Russia’s superior industry would be rendered ineffective.
-
Leningrad.
From a morale standpoint for both nations, it was the next biggest after Moscow. Due to its proximity and the option of flanking through Finland, it would have been the easiest to take. From there, other Lend-Lease insertion points could be cut off or captured.
Also, this would allow a unified front. If (as they did) the germans drove all the way out to Stalingrad, that army group is a major proruption from the main front line, which is easily cut off. From Leningrad, the entire army is mutually supporting and can advance together on moscow.
Suggested Topics
