Really, would stuff have really changed if Germany took Moscow?

[WSnova]

I mean, they were already having supply problems by that time.

The battle for Moscow would have made Stalingrad look like a minor skirmish.

The Soviets would probably have launched the mother of all counterattacks on a stretched thin German army.

And judging by the losses the Soviets took early in the war, they were not about to surrender any time soon.

Really, other than it being the capital (and it wasn´t a capture the flag match anyways) would it have changed much in the long term?

I see people always talking about "if only the germans had taken Moscow" "ohhh dumbie Hittler didn´t let his generals leave an unsecured flank to rush for the capital" and stuff, and seeing how taking Moscow is pretty much given lots of priority in HOI games I ask, would it have seriously changed stuff?

I mean, sure a coup could happen like in France, but seeing how much losses the soviets took before it doesn´t really seem that it was that high of a risk.

What would be some realistic conditions to have the USSR negotiate temporary peace?(Because I don´t think it would have lasted anyways)

 

[Krilnik]

Well, in my opinion, Soviets would only surrender when the last inch of their land is conquered. Fall of Moscow wouldn't affect things that much. Sure, their morale would probably suffer, but they wouldn't surrender unless their army was under total collapse or most of their soldiers starving to death.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Well Moscow was the railway hub for the entire Northern section of USSR. Capturing Moscow would most likely cut off at minimum 70-80% of all supplies flowing to the finish border and Leningrad. Considering how much this extended the front for the Axis and how many troops would be freed up from this, it would actually mean quite a lot.

What would a few hundred thousand troops in Finland and surrounding Leningrad be able to do for the Axis?

 

[Sernista]

Well, it is worth noting that Stalin showed a good deal of steadfastness in refusing to leave the city. Whether this would have held if it were truly falling to the enemy, one cannot say for certain, but Stalin dying in Moscow (either at his own hand or to the Germans) could have a great deal of impact of Soviet morale given the extent of his personal... I don't know that 'popularity' is really the right word for the kind of influence and presence a totalitarian dictator has for their people, but in any case he was a significant thing in the lives of the people.

Edit: And while they certainly could try to disguise his death in the classic "creative interpretations" of the facts by the Soviet information infrastructure, it seems like the main way to do that would involve saying he fled the city, which also could be pretty poor for morale.

Also, power struggle could be a very real thing.

 

[mursolini]

Well, in my opinion, Soviets would only surrender when the last inch of their land is conquered. Fall of Moscow wouldn't affect things that much. Sure, their morale would probably suffer, but they wouldn't surrender unless their army was under total collapse or most of their soldiers starving to death.

Soviets and Russians in general were rational people. They would surrender, if the war is totally lost and is hopeless. We are talking about USSR, that lost a war to Poland. Poland, and Russia that lost the war to Germany and signed armistice 2 decades ago.

Since USSR outproduced Germany from day 1 of war to the war end, and Germany was at war with GB and USA, who they had no hope defeating, it was only a meter of time, till Germany would fall, so there was no real reason to surrender.

Russians do surrender when war is lost. Its just that war being lost is not equal to enemy capturing Moskow, but their own ability to resist collapsing and leadership and population loosing faith in victory.

The reason why Russia never considered surrender IRL, is because Germany failed to inflict crippling damage to Russian ability to fight. Soviets still had more population, more industry, more natural resources, their major cities not being as essential to them as they are to Western European countries due to simply having more of them, and large amount of industry outside major urban places in towns built around a single huge plant.

Soviet economy fell to only 64% of itself in 1941, but it rapidly recovered to around 90% in 1943. The killing blow just wasn`t there.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Soviets and Russians in general were rational people. They would surrender, if the war is totally lost and is hopeless. We are talking about USSR, that lost a war to Poland. Poland, and Russia that lost the war to Germany and signed armistice 2 decades ago.

Since USSR outproduced Germany from day 1 of war to the war end, and Germany was at war with GB and USA, who they had no hope defeating, it was only a meter of time, till Germany would fall, so there was no real reason to surrender.

Russians do surrender when war is lost. Its just that war being lost is not equal to enemy capturing Moskow, but their own ability to resist collapsing and leadership and population loosing faith in victory.

The reason why Russia never considered surrender IRL, is because Germany failed to inflict crippling damage to Russian ability to fight. Soviets still had more population, more industry, more natural resources, their major cities not being as essential to them as they are to Western European countries due to simply having more of them, and large amount of industry outside major urban places in towns built around a single huge plant.

Soviet economy fell to only 64% of itself in 1941, but it rapidly recovered to around 90% in 1943. The killing blow just wasn`t there.

Moscow falling would most likely result in the following:
Finland front collapses due to railroads cut off, leningrad falls as well.
There are 750,000 men in Finland stretched along a border hundreds of miles.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Continuation_War_December_1941_English.jpg

With the railhub as Moscow gone, this front would go from hundreds of miles to a small fraction of it, and at the very least free up the 250,000 German troops assigning to Finland. Finland troops would most likely be solely defending the northern area north of Moscow, further freeing up More divisions from Army Group North.

So what happens with at minimum 250,000 extra German soldiers available and the industrial hubs at Leningrad, Moscow, and Murmansk gone as well? That's a lot of manpower freed up, a much smaller front to defend, and probably 300-400,000 Russian troops in the Finnish front captured or killed.

 

[Alias72]

An interesting counterfactual. Would Finland have used the opportunity to peace out? They were not Germany's allies, only co-belligerents against the CCCP. and the Soviets may have been willing to give up their winter war gains if they thought it would help them pull out of an encirclement in the north. The soviets would have to move fast if the Moscow rail line is cut.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

An interesting counterfactual. Would Finland have used the opportunity to peace out? They were not Germany's allies, only co-belligerents against the CCCP. and the Soviets may have been willing to give up their winter war gains if they thought it would help them pull out of an encirclement in the north. The soviets would have to move fast if the Moscow rail line is cut.

If Finland peaced out, it would be a net benefit to Germany.

Finland was already having to demobilize parts of it's army during the harvest months because it couldn't produce enough food, and Germany was providing around 200,000 tons of food to them per year in addition to the massive amounts of weapons Germany provided. In short you not only free up German manpower, but German food and military equipment.

I assume that Finland would receive the lands east of it all the way to the ocean in such a peace deal.

 

[asteris_]

It was a war of extermination. I don't know if you have heard Hitler's plans for Leningrad, if it was captured. A total war in general. I doubt if the Soviet people would give up easily. Soviets would surrender only if they didn't have the power to fight back, and that would objectively be the case if infrastructure and factories were seized. And those were in Urals and Siberia. So short answer, no. In my opinion at least.

 

[mursolini]

Moscow falling would most likely result in the following:
Finland front collapses due to railroads cut off, leningrad falls as well.
There are 750,000 men in Finland stretched along a border hundreds of miles.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Continuation_War_December_1941_English.jpg

With the railhub as Moscow gone, this front would go from hundreds of miles to a small fraction of it, and at the very least free up the 250,000 German troops assigning to Finland. Finland troops would most likely be solely defending the northern area north of Moscow, further freeing up More divisions from Army Group North.

So what happens with at minimum 250,000 extra German soldiers available and the industrial hubs at Leningrad, Moscow, and Murmansk gone as well? That's a lot of manpower freed up, a much smaller front to defend, and probably 300-400,000 Russian troops in the Finnish front captured or killed.

A lot, yes. Enough for further massive offensive that would result in SU collapse? I`m not convinced.
After all, Soviets in 1943-1945 went on massive offensives with massive cassualties. Let`s assume they cant, and front stabilises in 1942. Moskow, Leningrad are occupied. Does that mean collapse of Soviet army? Hardly. They would still be more than capable of holding the line, while Germans achieve close to nothing to aleviate their long term problem. The further they get into Russia, the less of infrastructure "net" they will see, and more of a line along the raiway, thay simply can`t bypass. Even IF Germans would capture Caucasian oil fields, that doesn`t even mean their oil supply would double, and USA still produces over 75% of world oil, alone.

Eventually, Brits, and Americans could cough up more casualties, 1-2 millions each doesn`t seem unrealistic, and that would more than compensate for Soviets not destroying massive amount of German troops in 1943-1944.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

A lot, yes. Enough for further massive offensive that would result in SU collapse? I`m not convinced.
After all, Soviets in 1943-1945 went on massive offensives with massive cassualties. Let`s assume they cant, and front stabilises in 1942. Moskow, Leningrad are occupied. Does that mean collapse of Soviet army? Hardly. They would still be more than capable of holding the line, while Germans achieve close to nothing to aleviate their long term problem. The further they get into Russia, the less of infrastructure "net" they will see, and more of a line along the raiway, thay simply can`t bypass. Even IF Germans would capture Caucasian oil fields, that doesn`t even mean their oil supply would double, and USA still produces over 75% of world oil, alone.

Eventually, Brits, and Americans could cough up more casualties, 1-2 millions each doesn`t seem unrealistic, and that would more than compensate for Soviets not destroying massive amount of German troops in 1943-1944.

Except that all f those troops freed up and the loss of 300-400,000 Russian troops would most likely create future chain reactions of events.

Stalingrad was the railhub of the south, would 300,000 more German troops being freed up from the North mean the Germans capture Stalingrad? Most likely.
That would mean all forces in the southern front would be without supplies or reinforcements.

At the very least the 300,000 men would be freed up in late 1941 or early 1942, which is exactly the time the Russians launched their counter offensive.

Beyond that it's hard to speculate, except that Moscow would create a massive chain of events freeing up hundreds of thousands of troops for uses elsewhere. At what point does the USSR surrender if Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Murmansk, etc are all captured (because in HOI that usually means that USSR surrenders)

 

[Alias72]

It was a war of extermination. I don't know if you have heard Hitler's plans for Leningrad, if it was captured. A total war in general. I doubt if the Soviet people would give up easily. Soviets would surrender only if they didn't have the power to fight back, and that would objectively be the case if infrastructure and factories were seized. And those were in Urals and Siberia. So short answer, no. In my opinion at least.

If you are responding to my post I feel I should point out I am referring to Finland. Germany and the CCCP are unlikely to make any peace deal and I am well aware of Germany's plans for the east. Finland, however, was an independent country with an independent foreign policy. I was merely wondering if Finland would take the opportunity to approach the Soviets with a deal for the land they lost in the winter war. This was their primary war aim. And would the soviets accept, given that it would allow them to pull their forces out of karelia (now cut off by rail after the fall of Moscow.)

 

[MGL 86]

In any case Germans couldn`t have taken Moscow. Moscow was at least 5 times larger than Stalingrad. Look how much Germans lost in smaller Stalingrad (850000). Could Germans suffer 1 million casualties for Moscow in 1941?

I heard somewhere when Germans reached Moscow in 1941 they already have suffered 1 million casualties (killed, wounded, missing etc) and in their last leg.

 

[mursolini]

Except that all f those troops freed up and the loss of 300-400,000 Russian troops would most likely create future chain reactions of events.

Stalingrad was the railhub of the south, would 300,000 more German troops being freed up from the North mean the Germans capture Stalingrad? Most likely.
That would mean all forces in the southern front would be without supplies or reinforcements.

At the very least the 300,000 men would be freed up in late 1941 or early 1942, which is exactly the time the Russians launched their counter offensive.

The question I have, is how would capture of Stalingrad solve any German problems? The main USSR production was behind Ural.

Beyond that it's hard to speculate, except that Moscow would create a massive chain of events freeing up hundreds of thousands of troops for uses elsewhere. At what point does the USSR surrender if Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Murmansk, etc are all captured (because in HOI that usually means that USSR surrenders)

USSR surrender when Axis outproduces Allies (with USA on allied side, assume never), or USSR loses the ability to feed it`s population(again, with USA on Allied side, consider as soon as Germans manage to cut all LL routes), or allies surrender and stop support to USSR.

In any case Germans couldn`t have taken Moscow. Moscow was at least 5 times larger than Stalingrad. Look how much Germans lost in smaller Stalingrad (850000). Could Germans suffer 1 million casualties for Moscow in 1941?

I heard somewhere when Germans reached Moscow in 1941 they already have suffered 1 million casualties (killed, wounded, missing etc) and in their last leg.

They only suffered so many due to combat around Stalingrad, because they couldn`t encircle it. If they could, the battle would be much less severe, but Soviets prioritized reinforcements for fights around the city, which is why they won eventually. In a sense, Germans assaulted Stalingrad because they were allowed to, due to city being defended more lightly then surrounding parts of frontline, and Germans erroneously believing that winning the city would allow them to dislodge Soviet positions around the city.

Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol were taken with far smaller casualties, despite being comparable in size.

 

[Victor Cortez]

In case of doubt ask that Corsican guy.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

The question I have, is how would capture of Stalingrad solve any German problems? The main USSR production was behind Ural.

USSR surrender when Axis outproduces Allies (with USA on allied side, assume never), or USSR loses the ability to feed it`s population(again, with USA on Allied side, consider as soon as Germans manage to cut all LL routes), or allies surrender and stop support to USSR.

again your making the assumption that all that matters is production. This is untrue, what matters is infrastructure.

http://www.parovoz.com/maps/electric.jpg
http://kresy-siberia.org/hom/files/Map-Overview.jpg

The 2 railroad hubs for USSR are Stalingrad and Moscow, without both of those hubs, USSR cannot feed reinforcements to the northern front or the very southern front. Any production that is built can only be brought to the very middle of USSR because that is where those lines went to (Moscow and Stalingrad).

That means the "effective" front for the Germans goes from several thousand miles to several hundred miles. The Germans wouldn't even need to capture the very northern or very southern sections because they would effectively already be cut off from the USSR. There are 0 rail lines heading to the Caucaus and there are barely 2 single tracks in the northern section.

The war is won if Stalingrad and Moscow are captured. It won't matter how much the allies can ship to USSR because Germany won't have to fight along the entire front with both of them captured, and there is 0 chance of USSR building out thousands of miles of rail in 2 years to be able to fight along the entire front. That also means 0 oil production flows to USSR because the oil fields are all cut off as well, which means USSR has to be fed oil as well from the east.

And I have no idea how much production would be cut off because of that since all the resources from the north and south cannot flow to the center, but I would estimate it would be a lot.

Definitely would be a surrender by USSR if that happened, which is the primary reason Stalingrad was such a huge battle. Losing it meant losing one of the most important cities strategically.

 

[Danhar]

If you are responding to my post I feel I should point out I am referring to Finland. Germany and the CCCP are unlikely to make any peace deal and I am well aware of Germany's plans for the east. Finland, however, was an independent country with an independent foreign policy. I was merely wondering if Finland would take the opportunity to approach the Soviets with a deal for the land they lost in the winter war. This was their primary war aim. And would the soviets accept, given that it would allow them to pull their forces out of karelia (now cut off by rail after the fall of Moscow.)

The President of Finland had to actually resign for Finland to be able to broker a peace with USSR. There had been a deal with the current President and the German representatives, blocking Finland from suing for peace without Germany's leave, so for Finland to demand peace near the end of the war, the President called that the German representatives and him alone were held by that agreement, not the government nor the people.

 

[TypicalRain]

Just ask Napoleon how he defeated Russia from capturing Moscow.

*hint hint* France lost the war.

Yes Moscow is a big railway hub. So were a lot of cities that fell. The heart of Russia is past Moscow.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Just ask Napoleon how he defeated Russia from capturing Moscow.

*hint hint* France lost the war.

Yes Moscow is a big railway hub. So were a lot of cities that fell. The heart of Russia is past Moscow.

And how exactly would the millions of tons of Iron Ore, Steel, Oil, food, etc all flow to the west from the "Heart" if there are only 2 rail connection from the Urals? I'm sure that everything needed from Northern and Southern Russia is also of little importance right?

Comparing a Napolean non industrial age to an Industrial war makes no sense, when the industrial war requires railways to move the millions of tons of materials needed. Napolean war? Horses and wagons could go anywhere and faced no such constraints.

 

[Perdition]

I think solely taking Moscow would mean nothing. Sure, the Railway to Leningrad is cut off and "Heeresgruppe Nord" would be free and most likely Finland would stay with the Axis and secure the north. But even if Germany would be able to secure Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Baku nothing important would have changed. And you said it, Stalingrad was the HUB for the South. I really doubt that the germans can encircle something that gets nearly unlimimited men and equipment. A trench war would be the consequence and that is something the germans can only lose.

They would be succesful when America decides to completly isolate itself and cut off LL to SU after the fall of Moscow und Stalingrad but that scenario is as much likely as germans nuking New York in 1945.

Edit:And dont forget that the deeper you run into russia, the more people will die winter 1941/1942 of disease, famine and the refreshing -40°C russia offers you in winter.