1
   

Is the battle in Stalingrad really necessary to each side?

 
 
J-B
 
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 08:37 am
somebody told me that the battle in Stalingrad was so bloody was just because the name of this city. It hadn't any strategic value.

I dont quite agree about him. But actually i got no ideas too.

can you help me?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,143 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 08:50 am
Yes, it was really important. About 1.1 million soldiers and
about 100,000 civilians died. Wolgograd, today the name, is still important industry center.
0 Replies
 
J-B
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 09:03 am
But large casualties can't prove that the war is necessary.
The casulties are only the result.
I raise this questions just because of this result----is it really necessary to combat in this such kind of battle ?
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 09:06 am
John-Bush wrote:
But large casualties can't prove that the war is necessary.


Thok wrote:
Wolgograd, today the name, is still important industry center.


Stalingrad was also a strategy industry center on the river Wolga. So for the parties it was necessary.
0 Replies
 
J-B
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 09:13 am
Maybe i see.
thx
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 10:49 am
Stalingrad was the home of the Lazar (sp?) Chemical works, and there was a major railyard in the same location (German pilots referred to it as "the tennis racket"). The chemical works were by then dedicated to producing explosives for use in ammunition. Mamayev Kurgan, just to the west and a little south of Lazar, was a major elevation in the area, and was a constant focal point of the struggle in the city. The Felix Derzhinski and Krazny Octyaber tractor factories were totally given over to the production of armored vehicles--during the battle, tanks would be driven off the assembly line and turned over to crews who would drive them, unpainted, immediately into the fighting.

Von Paulus' Sixth Army was charged with taking the city in order to gain control of navigation on the Volga, a part of a larger plan to drive southeast toward the oil fields. Although it was not in the direct line of campaigning to Baku, it's position on the flank of any salient created by that drive made it significant. It was also a major rail center for the region.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 10:58 am
Ok, I had it wrote in detail...

So addition: on the Mamayev Kurganthe Soviets lost an entire division of 10,000 men in one day. It was really particularly merciless.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:10 pm
I once read (in the Guinness Book of Records) that at the beginning of the war had around 550,000 inhabitants (or it could also have been 1 million, have to look that up), and that at the end of the war, only 500 inhabitants remained (not that all others were killed; the majority had fled the city).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the battle in Stalingrad really necessary to each side?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 01:35:55