WIf in 1941 the Nazi seige of Moscow succesfull

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Gustavus Adolphus, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. Gustavus Adolphus Greateast emperor of Sweden

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Location:
    Woodford Green, Essex
    Wif the Germans succesfully capture Moscow in 1941, how can it be acheived and what the most likely outcome will be.... Does anyone have an idea.
     
  2. The Dude Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, D.C
    Just what does "wif" mean?
     
  3. The Red A virulent, ignorant bigot

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Location:
    Occupied Scotland
    Moscow was never enseiged, the Germans were attempting to do so when the Soviets counter attacked. The best way to actually capture Moscow would be a focus on a completely northern strategy, which would have positive and negative ramifications for both sides.
     
  4. Urban fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Location:
    The Grand Duchy of Kilmarnock
    Well the Heer’s advances was about as rapid as possible without verging into ASB territory, the Germans were insanely lucky to get as far as they did so quickly OTL. Even so by the time they reached Moscow their half-frozen, worn-out and over-extended forces couldn’t really encircle Moscow or mass sufficient troops to assault it directly. An attempt to do so could end in disaster as Soviet forces massing behind Moscow in late 1941 inevitably counter-attack, delivering Germany a major battlefield defeat instead of OTL’s setback.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  5. The Red A virulent, ignorant bigot

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Location:
    Occupied Scotland
    Basically, it would be a fitting anniversary of 1812.
     
  6. BlairWitch749 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island NY
    asb for the germans to take it... moscow was provisioned for a lengthy siege. the germans utterly lacked the fresh infantry divisions and mass quantites of heavy artillery and fresh air squadrons to make that viable

    moscow, is a big city, bigger than stalingrad... the red and I's joint tl failure before moscow answers the question of what would happen if the germans even reached moscow
     
  7. Sol Zagato Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Just better strategy starting in October really ain't gonna cut it. The farther back you put your POD, the more likely this outcome can be. The Soviets were getting a touch panicky after Smolensk. The success of a fall '41 Moscow option (instead of Kiev) pretty much completely depends on their morale- which in most cases should solidify.

    One critical point of failure in the Soviet system is Stalin. Poorer leadership on his part could cause more military failures, or cause the panic in Moscow to get out of hand. He could fail badly enough that a coup succeeds. The coup leaders would have to be very lucky to keep the kind of authority they need to pilot the beast successfully.



    PODs further back are really wide-open.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  8. Risen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Now I dont realy understand your question.
    If you ask what would have happened if somhow they did manage to take it, (by alien help for all I care) and hold it, (thats what I understand under succesfully) then it would have been a major setback for the Soviets... probably winning the war for germany... maybe..
    Considering that Moskau was not only a city of huge population, but also the center of every railway network (like Paris in Fance), taking it would mean the Reds can effectivley no longer move the troops and supplies for some time.. and even after they fix the logisctics, it will never be as effficient. The Mass of troops behind moskau that were sent from the Far east are going to have some problems but it wont be dramatic.
    Considering that Stalin was going to stay in moskau (at least thats what most belive) his death will mean a power vacuum, which will lead to other huge problems, not to mention the moral Effect of loosing Moskau and Stalin in the first 4 months of the war, the rapid advance of an unsopable German warmashine that has conquered Fance and Poland in days and has Britan the greatest empire ever trembling in fear, will probably be too much, even ifthe generals continue to fight, I dont see a way back for them.


    But if you mean what if the just manage to take Moskau, then I think it will be Stalingrad 2.0
    I dont think that in 41, given that the advance starts on June 22, germany can hold Moskau, not in the freezing cold. Guderian said that the mashineguns were freezinh...:rolleyes:. Germany did not have the strength to fight a huge battle of attrition about moskau and then keep it, not with the worn out troops in Sept. 41.

    But it the attack starts in early Aprill or so, and everything goes as in OTL, then maybe, the have a shot... though again very hard...





    If finaly you mean "how" can they take Moskau in 41, well I dont see a way.
    42 on the other hand is possible.
    In 42 Germany changed their goals (actually Hitler changet it and the OKH was not very happy but anyway) to take Stallingrad and the Ukraine, if they kept the attack Moskau would have fallen, if they would have fared better in the east is debateble...


    anywas, hope this helps... and btw I am in no way an expert and this is just my opinion, so if might all be rubbish :D
     
  9. wcv215 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    They wouldn't have won the war overall, but this would have been a major setback for the Soviets. Additionally the loss of Moscow could have made the Western nations write them off as a lost cause.

    This will result in an atomic bomb being used on Germany as soon as the United States has one.
     
  10. BlairWitch749 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island NY
    the moscow first option didn't exist... only in guderians mind... army group center's right flank would have been in the air over 1000 miles if they tried that with over 500k men from the kiev military district sitting on it... it would be begging to be cut off and destroyed... its orthadox military strategy to clear your flanks before a headlong advance
     
  11. Sol Zagato Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    1. Would the Germans go for it? (not most cases)
    2. Would the Soviets lose their minds? (Most of the time, somewhat, but only long enough for the Germans to be in a truly fucked position. They can get lucky, but it's just that, luck. )
     
  12. 1.36 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Location:
    King's Landing, the Crownlands
    It's possible if Barbarossa took place 6 weeks earlier like it was initially planed. That way the dead of winter would not be against them.
     
  13. Darth Revan Warlock First Class

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    No its not.:D:D:D Seriously though, six weeks is not going to cut it. The Germans never came anywhere close to taking it in OTL and having six extra weeks to try will likely only make them even more horribly overextended and suceptible to the inevitable counter attack.

    As for the OP, taking Moscow is far from a war winner militarily. However if the USSR descends into civil war after Stalin's death/a coup as a result of Moscow's fall, the war is essentielly over.
     
  14. karl2025 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    I imagine the Soviets would offer a Brest-Litovsk style peace, something they had thought about doing IOTL anyway. I doubt Hitler would have taken it though. The better the Germans are doing, the more likely they are to get a decent peace offering, but the less likely they are to accept a decent peace offering when they think they can get more.
     
  15. Big Tex Texas Thunderhawk

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    SEC Country
    Either way the west wins. If the Germans miraculously capture Moscow then the defense of that city will dwarf Staligrad. So much German equipment and manpower will be tied up in the heart of the SU while conversely the Soviets will be fighting for their very survival. Stalin probably bites the bullet if he fulfills his vow to not leave Moscow and essentially the Soviets and Nazis will have the geopolitical equivalent of a murder-suicide...with the Soviets winning of course since Germany will inevitably fall to the allies back west...either through direct military action or the atomic bombing of Berlin.

    In the end

    Nazi's still lose

    Soviet Union considerably weakened, even more so than OTL, and if Stalin dies there is a tiny but still there chance that you might get some kind of moderate revolution (though that also means there are similar odds of a even more radical faction taking control which might mean eventual nuclear oblivion for well...the world...but we are being optimistic here...) and the Soviet Union turns into something else...

    Western Allies take Berlin (or what's left of it), maybe even get to Warsaw and secure Poland. No Iron Curtain, much reduced Cold War...and there was much rejoicing.
     
  16. Noravea Baratheon 2016

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, New York
    If Stalin dies though, that would create some sort power vacuum. The Beria will lead the Secret Police and some radical elements of the Communist Party, Molotov would likely be supported by most of the people, and some elements of the military, but could possibly lose legitimacy due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its failure. Georgi Zhukov or some other Soviet General will try to keep the military in the war, troops will have to be pulled from the fronts to fight against the various factions, etc.

    While the Soviets have the capability to win the war, if Stalin dies in a Siege of Moscow, the successor for Stalin will be unclear for some time. It will lower morale as well.



    If the situation occurs where Soviet factions are fighting for power, the Germans can strengthen forces in Southern Europe and the Balkans. They may even try a Southern Strategy to push into the Middle East by invading Turkey with enough men to pull from the Eastern Front, and push into the Iraqi Oil fields and attack the British from the North.

    At this point, a Vote of No Confidence may be called against Churchill, and the British Empire would sue for peace.
     
  17. merlin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Cardiff
    Are we just assuming that the Germans taking German Moscow would be so impossible - because of what happened in Stalingrad!?
    Did what happened in Stalingrad happen, only because there was the example Leningrad and Moscow surviveding?
    Given that the attack on Moscow goes ahead earlier - before the civil defence had got to work, and assuming that the Russians on the southern flank had been neutralised, or contained (though I know some may find that difficult) - would the panic that did happen not be greater. Granted the City is big, but the Gemans had already been through Minsk & Smolensk.
    The Germans would have been better able to cope with the counter-attack if it hit them on the east of the city, and they had the airfields around Moscow, even if units of the NKVD were still holed out in places.
     
  18. Beer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    Southwest Germany
    Hi! I find it really funny, how people think this or that in History is impossible, would never fly, etc. just because OTL it did happen a specific way. What some persons overlook is the fact that even OTL many historic events were knife´s edge and could have gone the other way or even a third or fourth one!
    Moscow (and Stalin) falling in 41 would be a major blow to the SU, it was THE hub of the SU, traffic, industry, you name it. With the capital fallen and a war of succession in the government, Germany has the chance to mop up the eastern front in 42. Unlike 1812, as some here believe, the Sowjets don´t have the option to burn anything down before the Heer arrives, since back in Napi´s time Moscow was not that of the importance in 1941. To stay in the fight, the Sowjets have to take back Moscow halfway intact. If the Heer can hold the city against the inevitable counter attack in early 42, it´s mostly over in the east. Without Moscow, the Sowjets are seriously hindered in transportation of anything. Some OTL offensives will not happen TTL, since the hub making it possible, is in German hands TTL.
    If Germany supplies Army Group Center by air and rail in Moscow, even if it will be barely enough due to the distances involved (it will get easier a bit by the installations in Moscow), they can hold out.
    By end of 42, early 43, there will be negotiations. And contrary to what some here might think, Hitler will take that peace! TTL Hitler is still a megalomaniac, but he never suffered the Trauma Stalingrad gave him OTL and the fighting power of the US will make him hear more to some Generals and more, Hitler got what he wanted in the first place: the East. TTL Hitler will be more reasonable, since he never got the setbacks that made him the idiot of after Stalingard OTL.
    Oh, and Good Bye to the big, honking armies of the western allies coming to the rescue with atomic bombs and all! With the eastern front gone, a painful go in the Pacific and in 42/43 the bomb is still some time in the future and not an instant war-winner, it is far more likely that the war between Hitler and the western allies will become a Cold War.
    Without 2/3 of the Heer fighting Russia, there will be no successful landing in France. And that the West will fight until the bomb is ready is a hind sight myth! In 1943 there was no assurance the A-bomb will be a weapon that can be used! The development stage was still too early to say that at that time or if the development will be producing more than hot air.
    With Germany able to move the majority of her forces west, she can counter any landing and inflict far worse damage on the bombing campaign.
    It is far more likely that there will be a grudging cease-fire and a Cold War afterward.
     
  19. archaeogeek Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal
    er... You mean the same Hitler who was still talking as though the war could be won when the Soviets were at the doors of Berlin?
    Fat chance he won't have victory disease: the battle of Moscow didn't even get in the city IOTL; mopping up the ostfront? How? Besides the wrong railroad gauge, they'd be fighting all the way to the Urals and the only way to reach the Urals without getting pocketed by the Red Army is a broad front which will cost even more men to the wehrmacht: taking Moscow itself will easily require a good million men and urban fighting, something the soviets pretty much invented the doctrines for.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2010
  20. Jello_Biafra In ur means of production...

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Location:
    Earth, to my misfortune
    Taking Moscow would definitely hurt the Soviets. That much is indisputable. But it will not be enough to get them out of the fight. The stakes for the Soviets were simply far too high, and the Urals industrial zone, plus Lend Lease via Vladivostok, means they can keeping fighting.

    And they have no choice to. To the Nazis, all of the Soviet nationalities were Slavic "Asiatic" untermenschen. The Nazis were not an enemy that can be reasoned with, or negotiated with. Not for the Soviets. The Nazis made their intentions abundantly clear, and every Soviet leader and soldier understood this. The Nazis aimed to plow the whole of the Soviet Union under, to completely depopulate the entire country via genocidal slaughter and starvation, and resettle it with their own people.

    It was a war of annihilation, and the Soviets were fighting for their very survival. Which is why they'll resist to the bitter end, and most likely, end up driving the Germans out of their country.