Monday, January 28, 2008

Stalingrad -- Decisions Under Fire




Point in Time: Early November, 1942

Stalingrad, USSR

The Soviet Army has been backed up against the Volga River after the August push by the units of the German Sixth to seize the city of Stalingrad. The fighting has been fierce and the Soviets appear to be on the verge of having to abandon their position and retreat across the Volga.




Resupply for the Soviets has been almost non-existent due to German air strikes that scuttled dozens of ships and barges rendering the river impassable in both directions. Stalingrad is located deep into the Soviet Union and the German's supply chain is over extended As winter approaches, decisions must be made. Will there be a winner and a loser?

Sense Making

In June of 1941 Germany launched a massive attack on the Soviet Union. The front reached from the Baltic States in the north to the Black Sea in the south. Rapid advances across the flat expanses of the Soviet Union's western republics were matched by a strategic retreat by the Soviet forces that resulted in the Germans coming within site of Moscow as the winter arrived. The rapid Soviet retreat had allowed the Germans to push deep into Soviet territory without establishing sufficient supply lines.

The harsh winter dictated that the Germans retreat. The costly retreat caused the Germans to focus instead on the oil fields of the southern Soviet Union. In the spring of 1942 Hitler ordered three million troops to secure the oil fields. Against the advice of his military staff, Hitler diverted part of his forces to attack the city named for his nemesis, Josef Stalin. Hitler expected Stalingrad to be under German occupation by early September.

Stalin and his staff had repulsed the German offensive on Moscow by letting the immense distances of the Soviet Union render the German logistical support mechanisms almost impossible to maintain. When Hitler directed the German forces towards Stalingrad, Stalin, apparently offended, ordered the Soviet defenders to dig in. Countless Soviet lives were lost as Stalin's orders were followed.



Decision Making

In early November in Stalingrad there are two players with two choices. The Germans with low supplies and insufficient troop numbers must choose between maintaining a focused attack on the city or maintaining defensible flanks. The Soviets with currently low supplies, can either retreat across the Volga or attack the apparently poorly defended German flanks to the north and south of the city.

The winter factors into the choices. Deep within Soviet territory, the Germans are unlikely to maintain good logistical support when winter settles in. The oncoming of the coldest season, though likely to kill many Soviet citizens and soldiers, can mean the frozen Volga can support truck traffic for supplies of food, munitions, and troops. The Germans elected to concentrate their best troops at a central point to maintain their attack thus leaving poorly trained troops spread thinly at their flanks.

The Soviets attacked the weak German flanks and in a pincer move, trapped the Germans within Stalingrad. Another look at two players and two choices might be possible when considering the turned tables of the now besieged Germans.

How modeling can help

Stepping back and simplifying the players, the history leading to the conflict, and their position at a given point in time, can allow the modeler to understand the possible outcomes for a given event. Using an historical event gives an actual outcome that can be contrasted to the other possible outcomes for purposes of becoming more comfortable at analysis of a crisis situation such as war. Boin et al. (2005) note that their analysis is restricted to crisis management in democratic settings.

I might suggest that in the case of war, democratic systems are compromised and more closely resemble the more streamlined organs of an autocratic state. In the case of Stalingrad, two autocratic dictators fought a battle in what could be considered a clash of outsized egos. While their powerful egos may have contributed to the cause of the battle, the strategic choices of the military leaders bear examination. In war many of the issues that stress civilian government are usurped by the military leadership. Similar removal of democratic systems has to occur when peaceful societies are confronted by non-war crises.

Considerations of framing the event (Boin et al., 2005) also become factors to consider when evaluating both the German and Soviet actions in 1942. Maintaining public support for war is essential for keeping a steady stream of conscripts ready for battle (Baird 1969). Propaganda by both sides also was essential for supporting international assistance and furthering broader diplomatic goals (Kimball 1996).

References:

Baird, Jay W., "The Myth of Stalingrad." The Journal of Contemporary History, July 1969. JSTOR. Western Washington Univ. Lib., Bellingham, WA. Jan. 24, 2008
http://www.links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094%28196907%294%3A3%3C187%3ATMOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A


Boin, Arjen, et al. The Politics of Crisis Management. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005


Fann, William Edwin M.D., Review of Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943, by Antony Beevor. American Journal of Psychiatry Dec. 2001
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/12/2099


Kimball, Warren, F., "Stalingrad: A Chance for Choices." The Journal of Military History, Jan. 1996. JSTOR. Western Washington Univ. Lib., Bellingham, WA. Jan. 24 2008
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28199601%2960%3A1%3C89%3ASACFC%#E2..0.CO%3B2-H