Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

All histories of the Stalingrad battle emphasise the heroic defence of the west bank of the Volga by the Red Army in 1942. It implies that if the German 6th Army had just managed to oust the last desperate defenders then by controlling the west bank they would have controlled the city and been able to declare some kind of victory at Stalingrad and change the course of the war.

No doubt the Russians holding on were fighting incredibly bravely. And presumably their prolonged defence of the west bank bogged the 6th Army down in a war of attrition which damaged the Germans' cause.

But what if anything would have changed if the Germans had taken the whole of the west bank? Other than a small morale boost?

They would still have only held "half" the city (my knowledge of the geography of Stalingrad is hazy but most cities which straddle a river have a substantial portion on either side). They would still have had over-extended supply lines and been exhausted and under constant attack from the opposite bank.

Most importantly Operation Uranus would surely have gone ahead in just the same way with the same final outcome.

So did it matter that the Red Army clung on to that small part of the city and, if not, why is such a big deal made of it?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

So did it matter that the Red Army clung on to that small part of the city and, if not, why is such a big deal made of it?

Yes, it did. By the time the battle for Stalingrad proper had begun and ran its course for the first few weeks, the Soviet high command was already thinking of what to do next. The plan that materialized would become Operation Uranus (Uran in Russian) and needed German forces to be occupied in the city for their flanks to be less secure and easier to breakthrough for an eventual encirclement. Stalingrad proper had some 80-90,000 German troops within its confines throughout the battle for Stalingrad, if the city was taken not only would it have been a military and symbolic triumph, but it would have freed a good portion of those troops for other tasks, including the ability to reinforcing the troops guarding the two bridgeheads the Red Army established and would utilize for Operation Uranus.

share|improve this answer
2  
Good answer; do you have any sources for those of us whose interest you've piqued? –  Mark C. Wallace Jun 30 '13 at 15:50
1  
David M. Glantz's two volumes on Stalingrad (the third is due out soon-ish) would cover a lot of ground. Armageddon in Stalingrad: September-November 1942. To the Gates of Stalingrad: Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942. –  Kunikov Jun 30 '13 at 16:00

The first stage of the Stalingrad campaign (pre-encirclement), lasted from mid-September to late middle November, or just over three months. The implications would have been very different if the Russians had lost the west bank on say, September 15th, October 15th, or November 15th.

If the Germans had captured the west bank of the city by about November 15th, the result would hardly have been different. The encirclement attack would have proceeded, and captured the German Sixth Army.

If the Germans had captured the west bank by October 15th, the encirclement attack might not have succeeded. That is, the Germans would have had a chance to rest, fortify Stalingrad in safety, and reorganize their troops, particularly their mobile divisions, to face the west and guard their flanks with the Volga at their "backs." In the actual battle, some of the heaviest, and probably the most critical casualties, took place just after the "final offensive" beginning October 14th.

If the Germans had captured Stalingrad by September 15th (which they would have if the Soviets hadn't rushed reinforcements into the city), this victory might by itself forestalled the encirclement campaign. In any event, the Germans might have even enjoyed follow up successes, such as moving down the Volga, capturing Astrakhan, and cutting off oil supplies from the Caucasus.

My best source on the course of the battle is Chuikov's "The Battle For Stalingrad." The interpretations are mine, not his.

share|improve this answer

Was it necessary? No. Many Russians viewed it as symbolically important, since the Volga is considered the boundary of Europe and Asia.

I keep hearing people say that if the Germans had not made certain mistakes they would have 'won' WW II. However, the mistake was starting war in the first place. Within Europe, they were already suffering resistance from Britain, Poland, the Balkans, some parts of Greece, and the communist underground in France. In short, they were creating committed resistance movements as fast as they 'conquered', therefore a limited number of Germans were trying to run vast swaths of territory inhabited by hostile locals. The involvement of the US finished them off quickly, but it would have happened soon enough in any case.

share|improve this answer
1  
Sorry, downvote. While containing nothing but true statements true, this answer is simply irrelevant to the question. –  Felix Goldberg Jun 29 '13 at 17:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.