>>18760867
The right move was to not split up army group south, head straight for Stalingrad rather than also going south, and once the city is secured head for Astrakhan. Reaching Baku was never realistic, but cutting off the Southern Caucasus from the rest of the USSR was feasible.

>>18760867
>Nobody really knows what was the point of battle of Stalingrad.
Because it never happened, no physical evidence for the battle of Stalingrad

>>18760880
Conquering baku is unrealistic, but it was possible to destroy it. Due it fucked up oil logistics absheron penisula had open air lakes of excess mazut and crude oil (between 6 and 8m tons is my estimate).
A few squadrons could turn it into hell, but due to weather problems they would have to wait for spring, which is why german victory in the east, in my opinion, was entirely dependant on them keeping Rostov through the winter.
Baku produced 80% of soviet fuel, I don't want to sound like a basedboy but it was basically their arrakis.

>>18760867
> what was the point of battle of Stalingrad.
It was named after Stalin. Hitler was an autist.

Hitler had a speech on Stalingrad, it's on Bitchute. It was about cutting the volga access so no supplies can go through it.
>>18760924
Hitler dismissed that pozzed claim in his speech. I can't believe the same anti Hitlerian speak didn't change in 80+ years. Wild.

>>18760929
>It was about cutting the volga access so no supplies can go through it.
They already reached this goal in august, look it up, they didn't need the city.

Btw in directive 41 he said to just bomb it, NOT take it, then after success in voronezh and rostov he changed his mind and got too cocky.

>>18760867
It wasnt about Stalingrad itself.
It was about the Volga.

Army Group A: Capture the oilfields.
Army Group B: Secure the flank.
In order to secure the flank, the Volga had to be captured. The river was a natural barrier.
Stalingrad was right on the river.

So by ignoring Stalingrad, you're faced with 2 alternatives:
1. If you ignore Stalingrad, the Red Army can funnel an entire army across the Volga through the city = Army Group B has failed in its objective to secure the flank

2. If you ignore the Volga, or just decide not have an Army Group B (and instead focus all manpower and material on Army Group A and the capture of the oilfields) then the Red Army can strike virtually anywhere in the north and cut off the entire Army Group A in the Caucasus. What's the point securing the oilfields of Grozny and Maikop when you're trapped and isolated?


So yes, Stalingrad was necessary for the success of Case Blue.
Securing the Volga was not just necessary for the success of Case Blue, but also for the overall strategic situation.
As another anon mentioned, the Volga river was also a 'highway' for Soviet raw material coming from the Caucasus/Persia, most importantly crude oil coming from Baku. Securing the Volga (and Stalingrad since the city is right on the river), the USSR would be denied these resources.

It's really not rocket science. The city was necessary. The Germans and the Russians werent stupid. Saying the city had no strategic purpose and just a prestige fight between Hitler and Stalin is just some dumb boomer myth that somehow has survived.
The real problem was that Case Blue was doomed to fail from the start because Germany lacked the material, manpower, resources and logistical capability to achieve both objectives.
It was a bad plan, but it was the only plan available to them after the failure of Barbarossa. They had lost the war already in 1941, they just didnt know it yet.

>>18761008
>look it up
What source on this is better than Hitler himself? Especially when in your version of events, the battle happened for literally no reason and there is no explanation.

>>18761026
Why couldnt they encircle the city instead of trying to storm it and letting constant soviet replacements turn it into a meatgrinder?

>>18761026
>1. If you ignore Stalingrad, the Red Army can funnel an entire army across the Volga through the city = Army Group B has failed in its objective to secure the flank
No they can't, cities are bad bridgeheads.
1. Look up soviet kotluban attacks, they actually tried to break into don-volga bridgehead and failed, their casualties were so much bigger than german it's almost unbelievable. Why? Because it's easier to protect short lines.
2. Look up directive 41, Hitler didn't plan to take the city in original plan blau.

>>18761037
If they only encircle it then Soviets can still pour constant replacement.
The plan was to secure the Volga entirely so no Soviets army can cross. Why is this so hard to understand?

Also the Germans had captured 98% at one point. Chuikov was literally by the river bank and prepared to personally grab a rifle before Uranus was launched.

>>18761041
I'd rather stick to Glantz and Beevor than some 4chan schizo cherrypicking, thank you very much.

>>18761033
https://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=419
> In any event, every effort will be made to reach Stalingrad itself, or at least to bring the city under fire from heavy artillery so that it may no longer be of any use as an industrial or communications center.
It stopped being an industrial and communication center in september.

Btw, are you referring to his september 30 speech?

>>18761051
Glantaz didn't say anywhere that Stalingrad was necessary.

>>18761046
>If they only encircle it then Soviets can still pour constant replacement
How? If its encircled no new soviets can get in.

>>18761055
Yes he does. I have the book right in front of me.
I'll get back to it tomorrow cause I have to sleep now but I'm guessing you wont because you're some amerimutt freak who doesnt know shit about ww2 or European geographics.

>>18761059
The city is on the river you fucking retard. To encircle it they would have to secure the eastern banks of the river which would absolutely expose them to counter-attacks. Can you maybe just stfu and stop debating shit you dont even understand?

>>18761081
>I'll get back to it tomorrow cause I have to sleep
I will wait.

>>18761053
It's the november speech in the Löwenbraukeller.

>>18761104
By october he was simply trying to justify this meatgrinder.

>>18761108
You cut 30 tonnes of ship traffic there, including 9 tonnes of oil shipments.

>>18760867
>>18761059
you've never seen an actual large river have you?

>>18761128
They already did it in august.

>>18760867
Stalingrad cuts the Volga, secures the flank of the Caucasus offensive, and cripples the Soviet economy.
>>18761026
>The real problem was that Case Blue was doomed to fail from the start because Germany lacked the material, manpower, resources and logistical capability to achieve both objectives.
I don't think you can say Fall Blau was doomed to failure with how close they came to taking the city. Putting aside the fact that fatalistic narratives are a bit silly, they were, in some cases, literal meters shy of the western bank from September until November.

>>18760867
Asserting dominance.

>>18761793
>secures the flank of the Caucasus offensive
Here we go again, it wasn't necessary to take the city to secure the flank.

>>18761793
Even if they took Stalingrad they still wouldn’t have succeeded in taking Baku.

>>18761081
Update?

>>18762010
Whether or not the Soviets would have survived taking the city is another matter entirely. You get into a series of counterfactuals really quickly. When does Stalingrad fall? How long do the Germans have to redeploy and strengthen their defenses on the flank after they take the city? Does Stavka even bother with Uranus if Stalingrad fails? Do they just send the troops up to Rzhev? Whether or not Baku falls or how the Germans get there skips past these questions, which are probably far more decisive in terms of the strategic implications of the battle. I personally don't think the crumbling Soviet military of 1942 survives an even partially successful German offensive.

>>18761904
Strategically it secures the flank, where else do the Soviets muster? Astrakhan? While Germans threatened Stalingrad the flank of the Kuban and Caucasus were protected.

>>18761144
They reached the west bank, with the Russians still occupying the east. It's not like tag where you can just touch it and then withdraw.

>>18760867
Maybe the real point of the Battle of Stalingrad was the friends they made along the way

>>18762679
The Germans and Chechens were true pals

>>18761046
>Also the Germans had captured 98% at one point. Chuikov was literally by the river bank and prepared to personally grab a rifle before Uranus was launched.
Was it ever possible for the Germans to defeat Uranus? It seems like Stalingrad was a necessity so the real argument should be had about how to better fight it.

>>18762709
>Was it ever possible for the Germans to defeat Uranus?
It depends on when the city falls, however this all happens within the counterfactual where the city does fall. If the city falls sometime in October, Uranus might not even happen. If it happens in mid November, the 6th army probably still gets encircled, however maybe the absence of Chuikov's 62nd Army makes the liquidation of sixth army more difficult. In the situation where the liquidation is more difficult, maybe Manstein's winter storm breakout operation is successful. The point I'm trying to make with this negotiation is that this counterfactual branches consistently. Historians aren't really too concerned with this or any other counterfactual, so evidencing and arguing it is kind of pointless. I think you would have to be insistent to the point of conscious ideological blindness to say that it is impossible for Germany to do anything in 1942, but obviously a scenario so wrapped up in the political foundations of our present world order will invite contentious opposition from people that at least pretend to like the way things are going now.

>>18762709
I'm not a lend-lease shill but Soviets did use American trucks for the swift encirclement, maybe without them it would be a more messy affair or the troops would get deployed differently.

But all of this what ifs are so weird since they cascade.

What if the main spearhead with Guderian didn't get bogged down in Belarus early on
What if Stalin wasn't a retard and allowed the retreat from Kiev
What if the Finns helped with Leningrad more
What if Hitler didn't second guess himself and didn't start Kursk etc

>>18760867
In 1942 the Germans had a problem of Russians avoiding the fight - and the encirclements. They were convinced that they were stronger in a direct battle so they took the fight where the Russians given it to them. (The same happened in Kursk later on).
The second factor was that Hitler was already considering a truce with Russia at that point but he wanted to enter the negotiations from a position of strength - after an effective victory - as during previous talks the Russians insisted that they could only accept peace if Germans withdrew to the border from before Barbarossa. They could possibly agree to bigger concessions if they lost an important city.

>>18762960
>truce
What exactly was the German position here? Even with the loss of Stalingrad I do not see a realistic agreement that the Soviets would find acceptable.

>>18762709
>It seems like Stalingrad was a necessity
IT WASN'T A FUCKING NECESSETY.

Actual necessety was to clear don bridgehgeads like Serafimovich but Hitler threw all resouces of army group B into Stalingrad because he couldn't publicly admit that they can't finish the city.

>>18762571
Soviets could retake caucasus only by taking Rostov back, german push towards don as a new border was motivated by protection of Rostov, and then Hitler threw strategy away because of his arrogance.

>>18762012
>>18761081
Where quote?

>>18763064
How exactly would they drive to Rostov while an entire German Army is in Stalingrad? The plan after the Sixth army was encircled and destroyed in Stalingrad was probably to push on, but you have to get rid of the potential thorn in your side first.