Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: GeronL

I think that attacking Stalingrad was almost a military necessity. It would have been extremely dangerous to leave a military center to your rear as you advance deep into the Caucuses. OTOH, if you could take Stalingrad you could hold it with far fewer troops than it would take to cordon the area, like a seige.


41 posted on 07/26/2009 8:09:54 AM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Tallguy

I think they could have put more resources into the mission after it changed to attacking Stalingrad. But they didn’t.


42 posted on 07/26/2009 8:13:35 AM PDT by GeronL (Guilty of the crime of deviationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Tallguy

Cut off places with no logistical support can be bypassed and starved. Stalingrad was unnecessary militarily, at least the city fighting.

But thank goodness Hitler was drawn into it. All the Nazis killed there werent available to be turned against our boys later. For some real fun, look at a map of the USSR with hitlers high water mark on it. He barely made it into the county, didnt pass the Urals. It was hopeless.

I personally thing the Germans started believing their own BS and thought they simply were invincible.


48 posted on 07/26/2009 8:40:09 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson