Ok, I will admit this question sounds stupid but it has kept me awake at night. So… when a country’s war planning commission plans to attack another country. How they decide which cities they should be taken and which to be put under a siege? For eg : Leningrad was under a siege (ik, they tried to take it but failed so they didn’t bother to take it again), Germans tried to take Stalingrad but failed, so why not siege it? Will result in fewer deaths and you would break the morale of both the civilians and the army.
4 Likes
Good question, seiges mostly are failed attempts to take it. In WW2 and often still cities had the crossroads making it difficult for the attacker to move forced during the. Bastogne is a prime example.
As for Stalingrad, the Germans never were in a position to seige as the river Don needed to be crossed.
Alftewards one can say the German and their collaborator found themselves in a “Festung Stalingrad seige” until they surrendered
4 Likes
For starters, no question could ever be stupid, mostly some answers are, so no worries there 
Mostly, cities are regarded as an asset or a goal because of propaganda reasons. This is , imho, why Hitler chose to go and take Stalingrad during Fall Blau, wich, spoiler, we will see he would better not take the city but rather bypass it, just securing the left flank of the offensive.
The starving of Leningrad is a deliberate action to deplete Army Group North of troops to resupply to the south…
4 Likes
Oh… so every city has to be taken unless it is too much of a hassle or it not relevant for propaganda purposes, so it is skipped.
1 Like