Could Germany have conquered Moscow? And if it does, will the USSR surrender or keep on fighting?

[paranoidsteve]

well the fins took it today and there was no surrender

 

[aitaituo]

Successfully taking Moscow in Barbarossa would not have changed much by itself. The Wehrmacht came quite close and with Moscow and environs being a warzone already, the IC there was not all that substantial and most of the industrial and agricultural heartland was successfully occupied. But the Soviets had anticipated this happening and had moved factories as far east as Krasnoyarsk. So, the Soviet counterattack in '42 would have happened just the same if Moscow fell in '41.

If the counterattack had failed and the Wehrmacht advances to the Urals or beyond in '42, there would still be no surrender as long as Stalin was alive and in charge. He would hide out in Kamchatka, just to make the Germans chase him all the way there. There are a few conceivable ways Stalin could be removed from power, though. Losing half of Russia would make him vulnerable to a coup and Siberia had a substantial amount of political prisoners already who might have revolted after a wipe of the Red Army.

 

[Milten]

Siberia had a substantial amount of political prisoners already who might have revolted after a wipe of the Red Army.

That's an interesting point actually. There were 400 thousands prisoners in Gulag and 2 millions of other prisoners in 1941, when Red Army had 2 millions of soldiers. Some hypothetical weapon supply to these prisoners would set Siberia on fire.

 

[Sharp163]

Yes, they could have captured Moscow, and no, the USSR would not have surrendered.

First of all, let me say this: Moscow was heavily fortified. Stalin knew that the fall of the Russian capital would be a hard blow to morale, and was an important industrial and storage center. An assault on Moscow would be (almost) comparable to punching through the Maginot Line.

Furthermore, Germany did not have much experience with breaking through land fortifications- the transferral of the Sudetenland brought with it almost all of Czechoslovakia's forts and defenses, and Germany had invaded France through Belgium, avoiding the Maginot Line. On the other hand, however, Blitzkreig was specifically designed to break the stalemate of trench warfare, and a head-on approach would have a moderate chance of success (at a high cost of life).

Germany would've had to transfer enough troops to capture the city. As previously stated, they would be reluctant to smash through the defenses, and instead probably gone with an encirclement campaign. Furthermore, a capture of Moscow would've had to taken place...:

1. ...before/without Fall Blau, when the German center of attention shifted to the Caucasus

2. ... after a victorious capture of Leningrad, to allow for enough troops to encircle Moscow.

Therefore, if the Nazis had decided to capture Moscow, the perfect time to do it would've been October of 1941. German superiority on the eastern front hit its peak in the fall of 41, and this was before General Winter comes into play.

Which brings me to my next point: the Russians would probably not have surrendered.

Russia has an ace up its sleeve: the greatest defense in depth tactic ever, and 500 years of practice. I strongly doubt that the Russians generals would have favored surrender, given that their strategy was about to kick in.

Furthermore, Russia had been in the process of transferring it's heavy industry to Siberia, to protect it from destruction/capture. By 1942, Russia's industrial capacity had begun to outpace Germany, and with their winter offensive it was clear that the tide was turning.

Stalin would have moved the capital to central Siberia, and kept fighting. The morale impacts from losing both Moscow and Leningrad would've been severe, but the attrition harshness on the German soldiers (in their summer uniforms) would've been even worse.

And, that just about sums it up

PS: this is just my opinion everyone has the right to disagree, just please be respectful

 

[sterrius]

I remember that russia released in 2011-2013 some WWII documents showing that if they lost moscow and the germany continued their advance they would surrender.

Those talks made some panic to the allies that increased the lease and the help to keep russia on the fight.

Moscow alone is not enough, germany need to take moscow and cripple Russia industry, manpower and international help (At least 2 of 3). Otherwise they have a chance to comeback using atrittion and they will keep on the fight.

The disposition to russia, and any other country to surrender should come from those 4 points to avoid some embarassing surrenders that exist in HOI 3. (Take 1 vp, everyone flip gray by the end of the day).

Manpower -> No soldiers no fight back
Suplys -> NO supply, they cant fight
Industry -> No IC no production.
International help -> Full blockade = They are alone.
VP -> They should still be important but no the only factor forcing a full surrender.

 

[Saeronor]

Napoleon captured Moscow and yet failed miserably, but... Moscow 1812 and Moscow 1941 are completely different targets and losing them causes different blows to the defender. Even if:

- both Napoleon and, perhaps, OKW, banked too much on "losing Moscow cripples Russian morale" modifier - while both Alexander and Stalin had many options to continue the fight elsewhere...

- industrial output of Moscow was nowhere near important with Ural transfer in full swing and Ukraine and oil and grain and so on...

...one of major differences between 1812 and 1941 is Moscow's role in railway network. While there are alternative connections, losing such a hub presents a significant problem. Suddenly USSR has two major logistical challenges on their hand rather than one - supplying troops in the middle of industry transfer and... having to cope with secondary lines and soviet roads - or "roads", if we are talking certain months. Sure, many primary connections from Moscow were cut by Germans in 1941, but as long as city itself is not cut off it's still a manageable issue. Germans were having seizures trying to handle overwhelming frontline - try doing the same while having a gaping hole in your network. Cutting off / significantly delaying some of northern LL is a bonus. Then there's a question of fuel reserves in the north. Is there a point where USSR trying to reroute everything through eastern parts, some of which are even harsher than Barbarossa-related, start to experience that German nightmare?

Theoretically, you don't even have to take Moscow to cause all those problems - though, sure, prolonged siege, vulnerable position and exposure during winter is a mass suicide.

 

[ComradeCommissar]

If they didn't forget winter equipment and got more forces to Moscow front they could get it, USSR considered such option and evacuated government in hurry. It wouldn't make USSR surrender at this point though. They didn't care much about territory and human loses, war dynamic was more important for them.
Soviet command was terrified in first year of war when Reich was full Blitzkrieg with conquering cities and capturing entire divisions every week, some sources even suggest that they were ready to capitulate and give Hitler everything west from Volga. But at the moment of battle for Moscow war became stale enough to make them ready to stand until last man.

German logistics were not strong enough to deliver fuel, ammo, and winter clothes simultaneously. To the German high command, it was either: winter clothes, but no ammo to shoot, or, ammo, but it will get chilly. The choice was fairly obvious.

Again, more forces to Moscow would have just made them collapse sooner logistics-wise. Perhaps it might have intimidated the Soviets enough to hold back some counterattacks and let the Germans stretch even more, such as when they seized a bridge over the Moscow-Volga Canal (7th Panzer Division). If the Germans poured in troops, then we're looking at a disaster: logistics would snap, and once soviet counteroffensive operations begin, they would be trapped on the wrong side of the canal.

Moscow had large concrete buildings as well. With a deficiency of infantry, an influx of defenders of Moscow, and little in the way of heavy artillery, progress would slow to a crawl.

 

[Will Steel]

Another one of these "what would've happened if xyz?" "would abc have happened?" threads...

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

Another one of these "what would've happened if xyz?" "would abc have happened?" threads...

Will, I am sorry that you feel that way. I wish I could make up for it by creating a thread of your interest in the future. You see, what happened was that I posted this thread by mistake when I wasn't ready and so it does not translate to what I had originally in mind so easily. Even the title came out weird (thanks Secret Master for fixing it so elegantly, all hail Him). I blame this on stupid smartphones and their ridiculously tiny sensitive keyboards. I am travelling through the largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon right now. I apologize for not bringing a notebook, at least.

At first, I wanted to write a small but detailed ops history about the path to Moscow that the Wehrmacht took and then follow up with the path that I would choose in HOI4.

All the while, in my mind lingered the notion that an invasion in mid 41 meant that Germany was operationally stuck at the crossroads between a rush for Moscow or a slow crawl through the center and flanks. Both have their pros and cons. I wanted to explore them a bit more deeply here with the participation of all the incredibly knowledgeable members interested because if there is going to be only one forum I'll follow even while sailing the Amazon River, it's going to be Paradox, god damn it!

People in this forum know a LOT, it's amazing how much I have learned from many of them in many fields of WW2 history, especially from those forumites that are very technical about the weapon systems used in the war. Those guys are awesome

Cheers Will

 

[WSnova]

Another one of these "what would've happened if xyz?" "would abc have happened?" threads...

If you don´t like them you can just not read them?

 

[Jmland]

I agree that the Soviets would have kept fighting. The main problem for them if the Germans captured Moscow is that (IIRC) the rail network was set up so that Moscow was the central hub. This would have meant that both northern and southern fronts (Leningrad and to a lesser extent Stalingrad) would have had logistics problems (extreme in the case of the areas around Leningrad and Novgorod). Basically the Soviets would have to establish a defensive line along the Volga, failing that, the Urals. But if the industry moved was given time to set up and begin producing significant quantities, they would not be out of the fight. But the Russian Front would not be the nightmare for the Germans like it was in real life.

 

[aitaituo]

I agree that the Soviets would have kept fighting. The main problem for them if the Germans captured Moscow is that (IIRC) the rail network was set up so that Moscow was the central hub. This would have meant that both northern and southern fronts (Leningrad and to a lesser extent Stalingrad) would have had logistics problems (extreme in the case of the areas around Leningrad and Novgorod). Basically the Soviets would have to establish a defensive line along the Volga, failing that, the Urals. But if the industry moved was given time to set up and begin producing significant quantities, they would not be out of the fight. But the Russian Front would not be the nightmare for the Germans like it was in real life.

Longer run, that's true. Leningrad would have been a lost cause without Moscow, barring a massive and infeasible UK/US convoy and airdrop operation. But the time frame isn't long enough for this to become all that relevant and the siege of Leningrad would have probably been still ongoing by the time the Soviets retook Moscow. IRL, the Soviet counter offensive began on December 5th and the Germans came closest to Moscow on December 2nd.

Even if they had committed to an all out drive on Moscow in July, I just don't see the Wehrmacht occupying Moscow before November. This would slow down the Soviet counter offensive significantly and probably make Operation Blue go better, perhaps successfully occupying Stalingrad. But I don't think that changes the balance of power at all. In the end, the Soviets primarily won through attrition and outproducing Germany. A few thousand square miles of territory that wasn't able to effectively produce anything due to battles isn't going to change that equation.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Moscow is a key logistical point. For winning a quick war , Holding it is good.

In my opinion the key to win in russia is to destroy russias logistic, the agrar industry and prevent them for recieving lend lease.

1) Germany should not start the war and wait till russia is invading some eastern europeans.
This way Germany can act as liberator and russia gets no american lend lease.

2 ) south russia is priority as most agrar industry ia located there.

3) Bomber and undercover actions can be used to destroy infrastructur in the north.

4) hold the south, dig in and wait.

1. Is completely at odds with Nazi ideology and likely had about as much success as it could have, moreso there's no real evidence to support the idea that Stalin was going to go after any territory that wasn't at some point part of the Russian empire and even that waited for German aggression to take center stage before it played out. Russians were opportunistic conquerors more then bent on world conquest the way that Hitler was.

2. They got that during the war

3. As another mentioned that infrastructure was very important to the Germans as well, moreso the Germans weren't particularly well equipped for a strategic bombing campaign and effort to change that would have been effort misspent given the other more critical areas for resources to be committed to.

4. Wait for? My guess is you're trying to starve the Russians out but frankly that's going to be an uphill battle at best and take enough time that the Soviets will be able to launch a successful attack of their own before things come to a head. While much is made of lend-lease ( appropriately so ) food wasn't really a critical delivery, the USSR certainly was under considerable strain in that area but the costs of delivering food through lend-lease were too high for this to really solve the problem in a major way. Total food delivery through lend-lease was around 6 million tons for the whole war and in the late 20s they were producing around 75 million tons a year in grains, presuming that the Soviet Union used around that much by the 1940s this would have amounted to less then 2% on a yearly basis. Now lend-lease food tended to be more calorie heavy items, canned meat in particular being a major component so you might push that up to 4-6%, which is pretty similar to Soviet grain exports before the war with around 3 million tons a year being pretty common.

None of this is to suggest that lend-lease wasn't important, you can make reasonable cases for lend-lease being pretty important to absolutely critical with myself sitting on the 'very important but not absolutely necessary' line, just that lend-lease wasn't a big factor in feeding the USSR and if you think about it it makes a lot of sense. Given the cost and throughput limitations of supplies to the Soviets sending bulk food just wasn't a viable plan, the Soviets received around 16 million tons of supplies total during the war and given the relatively small amount of carrying capacity there you were going to send more valuable things, like trucks.

Put simply, starving the Soviets out or isolating them from the other allies diplomatically wasn't going to happen unless you roll back the invasion of Poland and even then it's going to be an uphill battle.

By starting Barbarossa earlier, do you mean in 1940? Because starting earlier in '41 was pretty much impossible due to the weather.

As for the original question - no, taking it was not feasible. German didn't have to troops or resources to make a successful strike on Moscow.

If they had somehow made it, does it cause a surrender? Not immediately. But the impact on the Soviet logistics does hinder their ability to fight so it's possible that Germany could've reached a point where the SU would negotiate as a result of further fighting. I would still put things in favor of the SU, but taking Moscow would give Germany a chance.

The only wild card is whether such a high profile loss would've caused dissent amongst the Soviet leadership, potentially resulting in a coup to replace Stalin, who's position was somewhat fragile in '41 due to German success.

I agree with all of this, in reality the German army of the winter of 1941 was near the breaking point thanks to the logistical strain put on it, this was a huge part of why the Soviets had some offensive success over the winter though even then the terrible state the Soviets were in insured that they couldn't capitalize on the issues the Germans were having.

If they didn't forget winter equipment and got more forces to Moscow front they could get it, USSR considered such option and evacuated government in hurry. It wouldn't make USSR surrender at this point though. They didn't care much about territory and human loses, war dynamic was more important for them.
Soviet command was terrified in first year of war when Reich was full Blitzkrieg with conquering cities and capturing entire divisions every week, some sources even suggest that they were ready to capitulate and give Hitler everything west from Volga. But at the moment of battle for Moscow war became stale enough to make them ready to stand until last man.

Well they didn't forget winter equipment so much as had a hell of a time getting the equipment delivered to the front, which underscores the problems the Germans were having. Put simply by the winter of 1941 the German army was a logistical disaster, and as important as winter equipment is you can understand why things like food, ammunition and weapons tended to take higher priority.

The delayed attack on Moscow was basically due to the unresolved flanks. The Wehrmacht could have taken Leningrad in July if the attack had been more determined. Failing to seize Leningrad left the northern flank of Moscow open. Hitler then decided to divert his panzers south to secure the southern flank. That was of course stupid and the tanks only clogged the roads not contributing anything to the capture of Kiev.

I think this highlights the problem with the whole 'capture Moscow, win war' plan, St Petersburg managed to resist German occupation for the whole war in spite of being in a much more vulnerable strategic situation and being a city with half the population of Moscow it's hard to see how success can be conjured up. The German army of 1941 was quite comfortably the best in the world but much of what made it the best no longer applied once you got into urban combat, time and time again we've seen that the 'winner' of urban combat tends to be the one more willing and able to accept casualties and that was clearly the Russians.

Given the size of Moscow even partial success could have proven disastrous, the 6th army in Stalingrad had at one point represented around 300 000 soldiers, although by the time of surrender this was much reduced, a similar situation playing out in Moscow could have easily seen the reduction of 2-3 times as many German soldiers, first by the attrition of urban warfare and then by the final forced capitulation. Half-success in Moscow may be one of the few ways that the Soviets could end up conquering Europe right up to the Atlantic, though this too would have been a long shot.


Edit: So because this is just a wonderful read and look at the challenges faced by the luftwaffe but also touches on a lot of the logistical and supply issues faced by the Germans as a whole I dug up this seriously worth the read.

 

[Guaro90]

About the fall of Moskow, some times ago I watched a special about WW2 and the use of V1 and V2 and in the documentary said that they wuold have been WAY more usefull against moskow becouse moskow was also the main hub for the electricity distribution and that Moskow itslef produced about 60 % of ALL URSS electricity in 41", so i tried to looking for some historical document about that but i found nothing. Is that possbile?? ( not about the V1 and v2, but the enrgy production) if yes maybe the fall of moskow wuold have crippled soviet industry WAY more than the expected.

 

[Mpacc]

Because by Plan Ost Hitler wants keep only 20 mln. soviet peoples alive as slaves, and by so massacre rest 170 mln, there is no point to surrender for USSR.

About the fall of Moskow, some times ago I watched a special about WW2 and the use of V1 and V2 and in the documentary said that they wuold have been WAY more usefull against moskow becouse moskow was also the main hub for the electricity distribution and that Moskow itslef produced about 60 % of ALL URSS electricity in 41", so i tried to looking for some historical document about that but i found nothing. Is that possbile?? ( not about the V1 and v2, but the enrgy production) if yes maybe the fall of moskow wuold have crippled soviet industry WAY more than the expected.

I love when people read some shock info about something and stop think about it. How do soviets will transfer such high amount of electricity from Moscow to say Tashkent or Vladivostok?

 

[Secret Master]

We aren't discussing war crimes, slavery, massacres, genocide, or anything else like that around the HOI forum.

It seems we can't have nice threads. Thread closed.