If that's the case, then if the Germans win, the political situation would get really messy.No...? Say what you like about Stalin, and I can say a lot, but he wasn't a coward, and staid in the Kremlin against some of his subordinates' advice.
If that's the case, then if the Germans win, the political situation would get really messy.No...? Say what you like about Stalin, and I can say a lot, but he wasn't a coward, and staid in the Kremlin against some of his subordinates' advice.
Both governments would collapse before the war decisively ends.
No...? Say what you like about Stalin, and I can say a lot, but he wasn't a coward, and staid in the Kremlin against some of his subordinates' advice.
Just said what I heard, dude.
But If the Germans take Moscow and the Kremlin, Stalin is dead one way or the other. Which will make the Soviet situation much worse now that they lack a leader.
Debatable. Stalin was responsible for some dumb decisions, and there were people in the politburo and military circles smarter than him in such matters. Of course, in the event of Moscow being taken, which IMO is unlikely, this would hardly matter, given the morale problem. I also believe that Stalin would escape anyway if things got too bleak. He wasn't utterly stupid.
Curse you, Enemy at the Gates!Or the entire front for the Sovs will be like Stalingrad: 1 gets an empty gun, 1 gets ammo, 1 gets a bayonet (if he is lucky).
How? If Moscow is captured, the railway hub of the entire region is in German hands. There's no way the Russians can transport enough men and material to kick the Germans out at that point.If we take into account all the things going for the Germans and against the Soviets, Id be willing to bet the Germans will take it. But holding it is a completly different matter, since the Soviets will make liberating Moscow their utmost priority.
How? If Moscow is captured, the railway hub of the entire region is in German hands. There's no way the Russians can transport enough men and material to kick the Germans out at that point.
How? If Moscow is captured, the railway hub of the entire region is in German hands. There's no way the Russians can transport enough men and material to kick the Germans out at that point.
I don't know about the part of Axis air superiority. The main reason the Germans were able to destroy the Soviet air capacity was because they caught so many planes on the ground in the opening stages of the war. If the surprise of Barbarossa wasn't kept, then I would doubt that the advantage of OTL would be kept. However, like you said, the Germans do still have expanded manpower and industry that they did not have in OTL.
Lend lease made a huge contribution the Soviet ability to "respawn" in OTL. Without it, you could easily diminish their post-Barbarrosa numbers severly. This was stated by several people on this tread.
The Germans will basically have uncontested air power, they will have much more troops available, Germany will not get bombed, they wont have to spend lots of resources on the Atlantic wall, etc. Butterflies caused by these conditions are definately not "unimportant".
Things wouldnt be like OTL in 1941., much less in 1943.
This is not supported by the facts. LL Only accounted for about 10% of the Russian war effort through out all years and most of that didn't arrive until the last couple of years when it was not that critical. The only component that was critical was the value added component that allowed Stalin to balance the books visa-vie cash for the LL programme in the middle of 1942. With out that pressure they could duplicate what the Germans did and base every thing on credit , which means they can fight on.
The German money/credit spent on the Altantic wall was extra programmes, as was the massive production needed for 1944 on , which is why they are all refered to as emergency programmes. With out the need they will not be built and Germany in a better position finacially. However the Red Army was already fighting and winning against 80% of the Wehrmacht through until 1944 and only changed that when the second front appeared immenant in 1944.
Even without Baku fuel , the Red Army still has as much annual fuel production as Germany, so they can fight to a stalemate or as far as reestablish boarders and even carve out a buffer zone out of Eastern Europe.
I think unless the Nazis could wipe out the Soviet command hierarchy in the initial invasion, the Soviets would win. Germany did not have the industrial capacity for a long-term war, so they needed a quick win. The Soviets could have won without Allied help, but it would have taken longer & been much more costly. Who knows? The Soviets could have ended up like Britain, winning the war but struggling to hold on afterwards.
Thanks for that list of lend lease stuff. To approximate 9,000 RR cars & 1200 steam locomotives, plus lots of wheel sets etc. Look at all the rails that were sent. Basically the steel & factory type/space & workers needed to produce just these absolutely essential bits of equipment are more or less the same to produce trucks or tanks. Can the USSR produce these on their own absent lend lease, sure but what DON'T they produce to make these. And if they don't make these RR bits, then their ability to transport troops, tanks, etc, etc if vastly diminished. Look at all that leather that was sent. Unlike the RR equipment, the leather sent could not be replaced by shifting production lines. Leather=boots.
Remember that one of the problems with the sea mammal that shall not be named is that even with a POD long before 1939 is that if the Germans devote industrial capacity to making stuff for that plan, other stuff doesn't get made.
amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics