James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jul 13, 2020 18:56:23 GMT
Would Finland and Germany have been able to seize Leningrad from the Soviets during WW2?
What kind of effect would this have had on the war?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,096
Likes: 49,491
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 13, 2020 19:06:10 GMT
Would Finland and Germany have been able to seize Leningrad from the Soviets during WW2? What kind of effect would this have had on the war? From quora comes this good explanation, it would not change much as Finland couldn’t devote to much troops for full encirclement.  However, Finland was not supposed to encircle whole Leningrad. Only from the West, North and East. Which they did. The South was German. It was planned that Finland attack on the Karelian Isthmus on the west and meet Wehrmacht on the Svir river east of the Ladoga lake, thus completely blockade the city. Finland accomplished its task on September 7, 1941 and Germany was unable to fully do its part. By that time it was obvious that original objectives of Barbarossa could not be achieved on time and Germany must rather concentrate on a reduced task list. On September 6, 1941 Hitler in his Weisung № 35 decided to siege Leningrad rather then storm it. The 4th Panzer group of Erich Hoepner as well as masses of infantry were transferred to the Army group Center. This relocation significantly reduced attack capabilities of the Germans and made taking Leningrad practically impossible. They still made attempts with lesser forces but quickly change to siege tactics from October on. They were close though. The Germans tried to urge the Finns to continue advancement but Finland was unable to do so. The advancement on the Karelian Isthmus stopped at Karelian fortified sector where there were 5 Finnish divisions against 4 Soviet, just not enough. Heavy artillery was needed to overcome fortifications and these were duly asked for from the Germans only to no avail. Finnish movements in Karelia were more successful. Due to numerical superiority and with German and symbolical Sweden reinforcements Finland took a good chunk of the Soviet territory well beyond the old border, cutting the Murmansk railroad and White Sea - Baltic canal. However that was it. Finland was completely exhausted by these efforts. By the end of summer the country mobilized some 650.000 people, some 17,5% of population, ultimately the world record. Agriculture lost 70% of working hands and its production fell roughly by a good third. After Britain declared war and Sweden refused to export any grain (not that it had much) the situation was almost catastrophic. Some 180,000 men were demobilized already during and shortly after the Battle of Moscow, when it became clear that Blitzkrieg is no longer feasible. The Soviets tried to recover in Karelia but lack forces as well. They rested to guerrilla tactics. It was easy for them: the Finns promptly started severe ethnic cleansings and in general population was more then happy to revenge. The Finns also took very active part in the Siege. In fact, all major supply lines to Leningrad, with the exception of Oktyabr railroad, were cut by Finland, not Germany. The only thin line was boat/ice line via the Ladoga lake. Finland tried to cut that too by taking Sukho island, the focal point of Ladoga communication. This was called Operation Brazil of 1942 and was carried out by Finland and Germany on Italian landing ships stationed at Lahdenpohja. The capture of the island would mean the full encirclement of Leningrad. This was not successful as the Reds installed an artillery battery there and effectively sunk everything moving. 90 men on a small island that saved millions, literally. Still, 1942 was the worst in Leningrad, most people died from hunger and cold during that time. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jul 14, 2020 10:13:23 GMT
Interesting, I hadn't realised how much Finland put into the conflict. Even know some suggestions they kept some forces back and didn't push much beyond their 1939 borders but that could have been a misreading of their demoblising men because the economic situation was so bad.
Have already noticed from the WWII day by day thread that the Germans are struggling very much in the far north and seem heavily reliant on the Finns to do the bulk of the heavy lifting. Not sure if they were simply relatively inexperienced, were poorly lead or hindered by the conditions. Not particularly cold in this period but I assume a lot of woods and marshes which make attacking more difficult?
Possibly the last opportunity was lost with the decision to remove forces from AGN for action elsewhere. Perhaps if Hitler hadn't switched forces to AGC from the north they might have been able to storm or fully encircle Leningrad which would have forced its surrender. It would have meant less success in the drive for Moscow, which might not have been too bad a thing if it resulted in them not mounting Operation Typhoon and instead digging in for the winter but then that wouldn't have been Hitler.
If they had managed to take Leningrad and also probably afterwards enough of the Kola region to make the Murmansk convoys impossible - although Churchill might have still tried for Archangel then it would have improved their position in later years but not decisively I suspect.
Steve
|
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Aug 3, 2020 23:49:24 GMT
In addition to cutting off Murmansk the troops laying siege to Leningrad would have been freed up for other operations. This probably would not have made a big difference unless Leningrad was take by storm in the late summer or early fall of 1941. These troops probably would not have been able to change the battle of Moscow but the added men could have tipped the scales in the south possibly taking Stalingrad or capturing the oil fields and cutting off lend lease routes through the south. In the long run the only way Germany could have won in the east was to be able to negotiate a peace that Gave Germany most of European USSR. As long as Stalin was alive that would not have happened. If Moscow was also taken and Stalin and his cronies were removed from power than that would have been a real possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 4, 2020 10:25:04 GMT
Would Finland and Germany have been able to seize Leningrad from the Soviets during WW2? What kind of effect would this have had on the war? Yes and it would've been decisive, allowing for the cessation of Arctic Lend Lease as well as freeing up 300,000 German troops for elsewhere. The Soviets would've likely collapsed in 1942 or 1943, allowing for the Germans to achieve a stalemate against the Anglo-Americans. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,096
Likes: 49,491
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 4, 2020 15:37:07 GMT
Would Finland and Germany have been able to seize Leningrad from the Soviets during WW2? What kind of effect would this have had on the war? Yes and it would've been decisive, allowing for the cessation of Arctic Lend Lease as well as freeing up 300,000 German troops for elsewhere. The Soviets would've likely collapsed in 1942 or 1943, allowing for the Germans to achieve a stalemate against the Anglo-Americans. Do not think the Germans taken Leningrad will see the collapse of the soviet Union, but that is my take on this. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Aug 5, 2020 10:01:00 GMT
Yes and it would've been decisive, allowing for the cessation of Arctic Lend Lease as well as freeing up 300,000 German troops for elsewhere. The Soviets would've likely collapsed in 1942 or 1943, allowing for the Germans to achieve a stalemate against the Anglo-Americans. Do not think the Germans taken Leningrad will see the collapse of the soviet Union, but that is my take on this.
Would agree with that. Assuming that Leningrad is either taken by storm or totally encircled by a link up east of L Ladoga that would tie up more troops for a short period but then release a fair number in later campaigns. Not enough to reach the Baku oilfields as that was logistically very likely beyond the Germans but if a lot committed in the south in 42 might just take Stalingrad and cut the Volga for a while. Which would cause the Soviets serious problems while it lasted.
Extremely unlikely to change the final outcome unless Hitler doesn't declare war on the US but could make it a few months longer, quite possibly enough that the 1st nuke is used on Germany rather than Japan and make things in the east even bloodier. Plus of course very few of the population of Leningrad are likely to survive until the war ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 6, 2020 1:48:53 GMT
Losing Leningrad destroys something like 10% of Soviet industry and the death/capture of over one million troops. More importantly, it eventually opens up Leningrad as a supply hub via Baltic shipping. With the Finns free, their planned 1942 operation against the Murmansk Railway is launched and thus cutting off 40% of Lend Lease in a critical timeframe for the USSR. 300,000 Germans also means any Soviet attack against the flanks of 6th Army/Army Group B will fail, resulting in the collapse of the USSR in 1943.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by oscssw on Aug 24, 2020 16:14:54 GMT
Losing Leningrad destroys something like 10% of Soviet industry and the death/capture of over one million troops. More importantly, it eventually opens up Leningrad as a supply hub via Baltic shipping. With the Finns free, their planned 1942 operation against the Murmansk Railway is launched and thus cutting off 40% of Lend Lease in a critical timeframe for the USSR. 300,000 Germans also means any Soviet attack against the flanks of 6th Army/Army Group B will fail, resulting in the collapse of the USSR in 1943.
If Ewell's figures are correct (I am no expert) I agree with Ewell. Loosing 10% Soviet industry is a big loss to Soviet Logistics
Loosing 40% of Lendlease and 10% Soviet industry is a very big blow to soviet logistics. Loosing an additional million Soviet troops after mass Red Army surrenders of Barbarosa has to cause huge manpower problems.
The availability of an additional 300,000 veteran German troops against a logistically Devastated and materially reduced Soviet manpower looks like a war winner to me.
I would think uncle Joe would find himself dead at the hands of his Soviet enemies. Without uncle Joe those oil fields would be used as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations between the new Soviet leaders and Hitler. If a real civil war breaks out between the Stalinists and the AntiStalinists Hitler wins by default, takes the oil fields and frees up the German Military to take on the Western democracies alone. From what I understand, it was the Eastern front that ate up German manpower and logistics not the West. Delay the invasion of Europe by two years and the German Wonder weapons will be pitted against the Allied A Bombs. Talk about a no win situation for Europe.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Aug 24, 2020 17:27:21 GMT
Losing Leningrad destroys something like 10% of Soviet industry and the death/capture of over one million troops. More importantly, it eventually opens up Leningrad as a supply hub via Baltic shipping. With the Finns free, their planned 1942 operation against the Murmansk Railway is launched and thus cutting off 40% of Lend Lease in a critical timeframe for the USSR. 300,000 Germans also means any Soviet attack against the flanks of 6th Army/Army Group B will fail, resulting in the collapse of the USSR in 1943.
If Ewell's figures are correct (I am no expert) I agree with Ewell. Loosing 10% Soviet industry is a big loss to Soviet Logistics
Loosing 40% of Lendlease and 10% Soviet industry is a very big blow to soviet logistics. Loosing an additional million Soviet troops after mass Red Army surrenders of Barbarosa has to cause huge manpower problems.
The availability of an additional 300,000 veteran German troops against a logistically Devastated and materially reduced Soviet manpower looks like a war winner to me.
I would think uncle Joe would find himself dead at the hands of his Soviet enemies. Without uncle Joe those oil fields would be used as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations between the new Soviet leaders and Hitler. If a real civil war breaks out between the Stalinists and the AntiStalinists Hitler wins by default, takes the oil fields and frees up the German Military to take on the Western democracies alone. From what I understand, it was the Eastern front that ate up German manpower and logistics not the West. Delay the invasion of Europe by two years and the German Wonder weapons will be pitted against the Allied A Bombs. Talk about a no win situation for Europe.
If they were accurate yes but I have my doubts. Leningrad was an important industrial centre but even if it had ~10% of total industrial production pre-war how much of that was evacuated eastwards prior to the siege starting? Even more so with the city under siege I very much doubt if there was the manpower and raw materials for any industry left to operate at anything like full capacity.
300,000 men is roughly half again the size of 6thA and supporting formations. Assuming they could all be spared from the north can they be moved as far east as Stalingrad and supported there? Assuming their not drawn into the bitter urban fighting can they actually defeat markedly more numerous Soviet forces and preventing an encirclement? Especially since Hitler is going to refuse any withdraw, an order that von Paulus - fatally for his force - complied with. It could mean, assuming those forces could be pushed that far, that they prevent later Soviet advances - such as the OTL capture of Kharkov - but are themselves largely consumed in the encirclement. So possibly a bloodier - for both sides - Operation Uranus - the OTL encirclement but no or a much reduced Operation Saturn following on from this.
Its possible that there might be a coup against Stalin but for all his failures it was to him that the establishment turned in the aftermath of the invasion despite him basically going into hiding for several days. Also even if the Stalingrad disaster was avoided for Germany, its still going to be a bloodbath they can't afford and even a defence of their gains there put them no closer to the oilfields which are still outside their reach. They can possibly make a last gasp offensive in 43 but the two army groups in the south are desperately exposed being very much out on a limb and the other armies groups would have very little reserves having been drained OTL for the initial 42 offensive. Plus if nothing else by 43, with N Africa cleared the western allies can even supply direct support if necessary to keep Baku outside German control if the Germans ever looked like taking it.
Once they failed to knock out the Soviets in 41, which was always a very long shot, the Germans were never likely to manage more than a limited victory even without the handicap of Hitler and the Nazis.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by oscssw on Aug 24, 2020 21:17:13 GMT
Its possible that there might be a coup against Stalin but for all his failures it was to him that the establishment turned in the aftermath of the invasion despite him basically going into hiding for several days.
I found this while researching Barbarosa. It is from
Did Stalin Suffer a Nervous Breakdown After Germany Invaded Russia?
WORLD WAR II Apr 16, 2019 by Dejan Milivojevic in WAR HISTORY ON LINE.
I have no idea of it's credibility but it does pose an interesting what if regarding Uncle Joe. Looks like he had everyone so totally cowed no faction was willing to oppose him even after the utter disaster of his own making at the onset of Barbarosa.. So I guess Steve P. pretty much nullifies my idea anyone would topple Uncle Joe.
"The fall of Minsk was the final straw. On June 28, 1941, German troops entered the city, destroying on the way five Soviet armies.
Around 324,000 Soviets soldiers were captured along with 3,300 tanks and 1,800 artillery pieces. From Minsk, the Germans had an open road all the way to Moscow.
For Stalin, this was a catastrophe that he couldn’t ever have imagined. That evening, he left his office and went to his dacha. According to Molotov, his closest comrade, he was bewildered and disorientated.
”Everything’s lost. I give up. Lenin founded our state and we’ve fucked it up!” he swore as he was driving away from Kremlin. It seems that, at this point, he realized how wrong he had been and how huge the consequences would be of his poor leadership.
Breakdown?
The next morning, Stalin was nowhere to be found. He didn’t arrive at the Kremlin, and no one dared to ask where he was. What they found out through Molotov was that he had shut himself in his dacha.
Stalin didn’t respond to phone calls and didn’t want to see anyone, let alone to speak to anybody. Disorientated and dispirited, he just wandered around the estate. He was depressed, to say the least. This condition of his lasted for two days. During that period, the Soviet state and the Army had no leader.
The Germans were advancing on all fronts, and no one dared to take control in Stalin’s absence. Not even Molotov wanted to sign any orders, scared that Stalin might misconstrue his actions once he returned.
Only on June 30 did the members of the Politburo go to check on Stalin. They found a gloomy old man sitting nervously in his chair. When Stalin saw all of them gathered, he appeared petrified. The men later attested that Stalin looked as if he believed they had come to arrest him.
The truth was that the members of the Politburo were more frightened than Stalin. Molotov gathered the courage to ask Stalin to come back to lead them. The response was more than awkward. “Can I lead the country to final victory? There may be more deserving candidates.”
Even though it appears Stalin did suffer some kind of a nervous breakdown, many historians believe that he was playing a game all along. Stalin was the mastermind of politics; he used his fall to strengthen his position.
He remembered what the famous Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible did when he felt his rule was threatened. He withdrew from power to test the loyalty of his nobility. Stalin decided to do the same.
It was a test to see if anyone would blame him for the situation the Soviet Union found itself in. He also needed to know if he still had undisputed power now that his decisions had brought the country to the edge of total disaster. There’s no doubt, however, that he feared for his safety all the time.
But it seemed that Stalin didn’t have to fear for his throne after all. He got the full support from all the Politburo members that night. Not only did they fear him but they also knew that his name alone was the greatest inspiration for the people to fight. He was irreplaceable.
On July 1, Stalin returned to his office with his old confidence back. He was once again determined to be the ruler and to lead the fight against the Germans.
Read another story from us: Kind of Spooky Footage of 60,000 German PoWs Paraded Through Moscow
Ultimately, the way Stalin governed the Soviet Union saved his life. Every one of the highest members of the party as well as the government thought of him as irreplaceable. More importantly, they were immensely scared of him.
Those who might have acted differently in this situation had already fallen victim to his purge. His reign of terror might have saved his life, but his incapability as a commander cost the Soviet Union the lives of more than 25 million people
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 25, 2020 10:53:48 GMT
Losing Leningrad destroys something like 10% of Soviet industry and the death/capture of over one million troops. More importantly, it eventually opens up Leningrad as a supply hub via Baltic shipping. With the Finns free, their planned 1942 operation against the Murmansk Railway is launched and thus cutting off 40% of Lend Lease in a critical timeframe for the USSR. 300,000 Germans also means any Soviet attack against the flanks of 6th Army/Army Group B will fail, resulting in the collapse of the USSR in 1943.
If Ewell's figures are correct (I am no expert) I agree with Ewell. Loosing 10% Soviet industry is a big loss to Soviet Logistics
Loosing 40% of Lendlease and 10% Soviet industry is a very big blow to soviet logistics. Loosing an additional million Soviet troops after mass Red Army surrenders of Barbarosa has to cause huge manpower problems.
The availability of an additional 300,000 veteran German troops against a logistically Devastated and materially reduced Soviet manpower looks like a war winner to me.
I would think uncle Joe would find himself dead at the hands of his Soviet enemies. Without uncle Joe those oil fields would be used as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations between the new Soviet leaders and Hitler. If a real civil war breaks out between the Stalinists and the AntiStalinists Hitler wins by default, takes the oil fields and frees up the German Military to take on the Western democracies alone. From what I understand, it was the Eastern front that ate up German manpower and logistics not the West. Delay the invasion of Europe by two years and the German Wonder weapons will be pitted against the Allied A Bombs. Talk about a no win situation for Europe.
My overall conclusion is Germans at the A-A Line in 1943. With the resources of the East-particularly Ukraine-the Germans are able to fight the Western Allies to a stalemate and subsequent peace. Freed of that burden, the Germans could finish clearing up to the Urals, and end the war there. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2020 11:07:13 GMT
oscssw , That's basically what I was thinking of but a good bit more detail than I could remember. Good find. 
Don't think I've seen the idea that Stalin was actually testing the loyalty of his underlings but might have been the case. Would have been bloody risky given the mess he had made as such a power vacuum could have lead to one or a few people getting up the nerve to start taking necessary decisions and - assuming he didn't have loyal people watching to warn of such actions so he could step in and have them arrested - once things start happening and others start obeying them to keep the defence of the USSR going they could easily have decided to remove the idiotic monster responsible for the mess.
Given the terror with which he ruled he does seem to have prevented anyone even daring to think of independent action let alone removing him. If things had gone far worse, say with Moscow lost and the Soviets pushed back to the Urals - although I think that extremely unlikely - he could have possibly been overthrown then. Especially if he continued to foul up massively and was taking out too many generals because of 'their' failures to obey his orders. However I don't think we can begin to understand the mindset he seems to have established inside the USSR, especially the higher officials and figures who worked directly under him.
There is an example of his desire for control in the WWII day by day thread for 21-8-41 which illustrates his desire for personal control regardless of the costs.
Plus I'm certain there was another one I came across but couldn't see it on a quick pass through - where a commander in some forces isolated in the Baltics had detected that all the German forces were close to the front line - or foot infantry a long way behind and decided that if his forces attacked eastwards he could cause a lot of damage and destruction but when the idea was sent to Moscow for permission - which in itself shows some of the problems - it was shot down quickly and the commander was rebuked for basically trying to think for himself.
As I said to Lordroel on reading the above it seems Stalin would rather the Germans have Leningrad than have a Soviet force making decisions independent of him!
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2020 11:15:33 GMT
If Ewell's figures are correct (I am no expert) I agree with Ewell. Loosing 10% Soviet industry is a big loss to Soviet Logistics
Loosing 40% of Lendlease and 10% Soviet industry is a very big blow to soviet logistics. Loosing an additional million Soviet troops after mass Red Army surrenders of Barbarosa has to cause huge manpower problems.
The availability of an additional 300,000 veteran German troops against a logistically Devastated and materially reduced Soviet manpower looks like a war winner to me.
I would think uncle Joe would find himself dead at the hands of his Soviet enemies. Without uncle Joe those oil fields would be used as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations between the new Soviet leaders and Hitler. If a real civil war breaks out between the Stalinists and the AntiStalinists Hitler wins by default, takes the oil fields and frees up the German Military to take on the Western democracies alone. From what I understand, it was the Eastern front that ate up German manpower and logistics not the West. Delay the invasion of Europe by two years and the German Wonder weapons will be pitted against the Allied A Bombs. Talk about a no win situation for Europe.
My overall conclusion is Germans at the A-A Line in 1943. With the resources of the East-particularly Ukraine-the Germans are able to fight the Western Allies to a stalemate and subsequent peace. Freed of that burden, the Germans could finish clearing up to the Urals, and end the war there.
Doesn't that assume that, if they managed such a target, they could actually ultilise such resources. Between the local resistance and the appalling incompetence and infighting of the Nazis that does seem rather dubious that they could obtain more than a fraction of the regions resources and as other areas show their more likely to go for inefficient short term looting than really seeking to gain more than possibly raw materials from the region.
IIRC you said something about getting me access to Tooze's The Wages of Destruction a little while back? Sorry I never got back to you but I definitely would be interested, although a bit pressed for time. From what I've heard from other people it gives a lot of details of the sheer incompetence and brutal destructiveness of Nazi economic policies which is one of the reasons I have the doubts mentioned above.
Not sure there is the basis for a separate peace between the allies and the Nazis given the character of the latter. Plus by the time in 44 the Germans are able to deploy more manpower from the east the allies will have some controlling positions from which to apply their air superiority and there is always the hope at least, which we know will be fulfilled, of the atomic bomb.
Steve
PS The comment you made earlier about Leningrad having 10% of Soviet industry. Under what conditions does that apply? Possibly I could see its peace time capacity reaching that sort of level in say parts of 41-42 while the Soviets lost a hell of a lot in the Ukraine especially and more was disrupted by the moving of industrial facilities eastwards but I can see that only being a temporary thing while the Soviets reorganise. Also of course since the city was besieged from late 41 to early 43 and effectively to early 44 any military production within the city is largely going to be confined to it and won't affect the wider war.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 25, 2020 11:36:10 GMT
My overall conclusion is Germans at the A-A Line in 1943. With the resources of the East-particularly Ukraine-the Germans are able to fight the Western Allies to a stalemate and subsequent peace. Freed of that burden, the Germans could finish clearing up to the Urals, and end the war there.
Doesn't that assume that, if they managed such a target, they could actually ultilise such resources. Between the local resistance and the appalling incompetence and infighting of the Nazis that does seem rather dubious that they could obtain more than a fraction of the regions resources and as other areas show their more likely to go for inefficient short term looting than really seeking to gain more than possibly raw materials from the region.
IIRC you said something about getting me access to Tooze's The Wages of Destruction a little while back? Sorry I never got back to you but I definitely would be interested, although a bit pressed for time. From what I've heard from other people it gives a lot of details of the sheer incompetence and brutal destructiveness of Nazi economic policies which is one of the reasons I have the doubts mentioned above.
Not sure there is the basis for a separate peace between the allies and the Nazis given the character of the latter. Plus by the time in 44 the Germans are able to deploy more manpower from the east the allies will have some controlling positions from which to apply their air superiority and there is always the hope at least, which we know will be fulfilled, of the atomic bomb.
Steve
PS The comment you made earlier about Leningrad having 10% of Soviet industry. Under what conditions does that apply? Possibly I could see its peace time capacity reaching that sort of level in say parts of 41-42 while the Soviets lost a hell of a lot in the Ukraine especially and more was disrupted by the moving of industrial facilities eastwards but I can see that only being a temporary thing while the Soviets reorganise. Also of course since the city was besieged from late 41 to early 43 and effectively to early 44 any military production within the city is largely going to be confined to it and won't affect the wider war.
Not so much as using the local resources but able to put their own to better use elsewhere; the Finns made an offensive against the Murmansk Railway line conditional on the status of Leningrad for example. Romanian divisions backed up by German take divisions would also mean the Don River gets cleared in August-October of any Soviet beachheads across it, making any offensive against the flanks of 6th Army impossible. I'll send you a copy of the Tooze book; any others you want? |
|
