World War II, analyzed!

It was only after the battle for Moscow and the harsh winter that Hitler decided to put all their efforts to Army Group South and race to Stalingrad. Many Generals however, thought that Hitler should've continue the battle for Moscow and renew the offensive in Summer, instead of racing to Stalingrad.

What's your opinion on this, do you agree with Hitler, or with his Generals, and why?

Well, there are arguments for both options.

The Hitler option (southern front) was ok in its original intentions: getting hold of the Baku oilfields and thus cutting Stalin off from part of his oil reserves and getting hold of them for own use.

But then he got entangeld in a prestige battle...


The Generals option would have been a terrific propaganda ( and mental) victory (if it succeeded). However it would have ment going head on with major Russian forces. Possible bonus: the way would have been open to reach the Russian war industry in the Ural, since there was no significant defence line.

Kris

Moscow was a psychological, political, and economic target, worthy of attack.

Stalingrad was a target only because of it's impact on the infrastructure and logistics.

Moscow should have been completely invested, supported by the strongest Fallschirm and Luftwaffe attacks possible to prevent as many of the political, economic, and military VIPs from leaving as they could.

Stalingrad should have been cut-off, and left to wither on the vine. It would have made a great training range for artillery and air units that needed firing practice. Had 6.Armee by-passed the city, and moved on, they would have accomplished much more.