Originally Posted by MontyB

Because Leningrad was the end point of Army Group North, had it have fallen along with the Kola peninsula Army Group North would have provided the reserve for the other two Army Groups as it was it spent most of the war laying siege to one city.

I don't know off hand how many Soviet troops were kept at bay by AGN's siege of Leningrad? However Hitler ordered the army to siege and not take Leningrad, thinking they would never last ~ 900 days, which certainly put AGN in a holding pattern. Had the city fallen they would have went on to menace Archangel and Murmansk, cutting off some lend lease. This would have drawn more Soviet resources into the northern Russian struggle. But Leningrad stood, and you never heard much from AGN until 44 when the siege was broken by overwhelming Soviet forces and the Germans were pushes back to the Panther Line.

Originally Posted by JOC

I don't know off hand how many Soviet troops were kept at bay by AGN's siege of Leningrad? However Hitler ordered the army to siege and not take Leningrad, thinking they would never last ~ 900 days, which certainly put AGN in a holding pattern. Had the city fallen they would have went on to menace Archangel and Murmansk, cutting off some lend lease. This would have drawn more Soviet resources into the northern Russian struggle. But Leningrad stood, and you never heard much from AGN until 44 when the siege was broken by overwhelming Soviet forces and the Germans were pushes back to the Panther Line.

With the support of troops based in Norway I think it is entirely possible that AGN could have pushed on well beyond Leningrad and taken the Kola peninsula which in 1941 may have caused major issues for the Russians long term.

Obviously now though we are in realms of "What if's and might have been's".

I would say that would be a likely outcome. Which could have caused some serous implications for the Soviets. Cutoff off some lend lease supplies and demanding more Soviet resources "troops, etc.". This could have shookup the front for the USSR perhaps even later 42- 43?

The Soviets made a few unsuccessful attempts to break the siege. If I recall they took some heavy losses in the 1st attempt. When the Soviets decided to finally liberate Leningrad they brought up 4 armies for a massive offensive, the Germans withdrew in less than a week.

I may be inclined to disagree with the final comment there as the Chinese were subject to a fair bit of hardship and sacrifice as well and I think you would be hard pushed to distinguish between the two.

One is focussing on irrelevant details and speculating on secundary subjects and one is ignoring the broad picture : in the original plan (which was the only that was giving a small chance on winning) there was NO place for a battle of Leningrad,because :

1) such battle could only happen at the end of the summer,when the Ostheer would be weakened

2) such battle would mean that at the end of the summer the Red Army woud not be defeated .

These 2 points were a nightmare for the Germans,and were thus ignored :the whole planning had as aim to prevent these 2 points .

IF Leningrad was captured,this would not help the Germans : AGN would remain where it was,and could not go to Archangelsk/Murmansk .

The distance Leningrad-Murmansk is 851 miles,while the distance Paris-Cologne is 251 km : are there no bells ringing ?

Originally Posted by lljadw

One is focussing on irrelevant details and speculating on secundary subjects and one is ignoring the broad picture : in the original plan (which was the only that was giving a small chance on winning) there was NO place for a battle of Leningrad,because :

1) such battle could only happen at the end of the summer,when the Ostheer would be weakened

2) such battle would mean that at the end of the summer the Red Army woud not be defeated .

These 2 points were a nightmare for the Germans,and were thus ignored :the whole planning had as aim to prevent these 2 points .

IF Leningrad was captured,this would not help the Germans : AGN would remain where it was,and could not go to Archangelsk/Murmansk .

The reason that Leningrad was not invaded was clear. Hitler order it to be besieged plain and simple. He didn't think that they would hold out for ~ 900 days. It's that simple. It's much to the credit of the citizens and military in Leningrad that they pulled off this heroic feat at an enormous loss of somewhere between 1 to 2 million people.

In my opinion, it would be Kursk. It changed the balance of power on the Russian Front and forced the Germans into a permanent defensive posture. After Kursk, the Russians never lost the initiative.

Originally Posted by skoro

In my opinion, it would be Kursk. It changed the balance of power on the Russian Front and forced the Germans into a permanent defensive posture. After Kursk, the Russians never lost the initiative.

Kursk was a very important battle but I am far from convinced that it was "decisive" because what the battle showed was that the balance of power had already changed therefore the decisive battle (aka the one that changed the balance" had to have been before Kursk.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Kursk was a very important battle but I am far from convinced that it was "decisive" because what the battle showed was that the balance of power had already changed therefore the decisive battle (aka the one that changed the balance" had to have been before Kursk.

You make a good point.

No doubt it's unclear which particular engagement can be agreed upon as THE decisive battle in such a titanic conflict. My choice of Kursk is based on the huge numbers of men and machines deployed on both sides and the fact that although the Germans initiated that battle, they spent the remainder of the war on the defensive. It marked the clear turning point of fortunes on the Russian Front.