Moscow falling

Moscow falls. What happens next?

  • Germany wins in europe

    Votes: 12 23.5%
  • Germany gets nuked by the USA later on

    Votes: 18 35.3%
  • Russia would turn the tide eventually

    Votes: 21 41.2%

  • Total voters
    51
  • Poll closed .
I believe that with a POD of 1930 or so Germans could have defeated both the UK and Soviet Union in a war.

However, thankfully, the Nazis were mentally retarded.
 
I believe that with a POD of 1930 or so Germans could have defeated both the UK and Soviet Union in a war.

However, thankfully, the Nazis were mentally retarded.

They most certainly could not.

If the USSR is knocked out of the war prior to US entry like people are saying I don't see how the UK doesn't agree to a "peace with honour" (or Churchill's government falls in favor of someone who will negiotiate peace). From the UK's perspective at the time the war would be unwinnable.

Actually that's completely wrong. From the beginning the UK expected the Soviet Union to be defeated after a few weeks. If the Soviet Union isimplausibly enough knocked out then the UK's expectation will merely have been fufilled. No one really expected the SU to hold out and eventually win the war.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
For Moscow to fall you need a earlier PoD before Barbarossa and probably before the start of the war. Still Moscow falling probably wouldn't mean the defeat of the USSR.
 
For Moscow to fall you need a earlier PoD before Barbarossa and probably before the start of the war. Still Moscow falling probably wouldn't mean the defeat of the USSR.

Yes it would. Moscow wasn't like other cities; all major railroad and communications lines ran through it. Taking it would cut Soviet forces in two, break communications, and drastically lower the amount of the supplies the Soviet had.
 
For Moscow to fall you need a earlier PoD before Barbarossa and probably before the start of the war. Still Moscow falling probably wouldn't mean the defeat of the USSR.

Correct in that it would not mean the end of the USSR, but it would certainly be much worse for them. Without the logistical center of Moscow as well as it's industrial capacity relief of Leningrad is going to come very slowly. The city may even fall freeing up more troops to be moved east in '42. I understand that most production had been moved, but transportation still went through Moscow and every tank that doesn't get built slows down the counter offensive. Now the Nazis were way too harsh of occupiers which means incessant partisan attacks bog them down and the remainder of the USSR which they can never get to will be coming for them eventually. Still I think it's likely to assume that the fall of Moscow could slow the Soviet counter-offensives for several months to a year and increase civilian casualties by up to a million, further draining Soviet manpower. End result is German defeat, purely western occupation of Germany and a slower recovery of the Soviet Union following the war. This could actually have some interesting butterflies as well. Without an occupation zone in Germany it's likely the USSR misses out on German scientists, which could be harmful to both their space and nuclear programs. Also with a later German defeat it's possible Russia does not have time to open up another front with Japan. This could result in a unified Korea and possibly a divided Sakhalin and Japanese Kuriles.
 
I'll post my own view again:

Moscow falling may even make things worse for the Germans they were badly overextended already by late 1941. So if the Wehermact fights it's way into or attempts to cut of Moscow just the winter weather is at it's most severe and the Soviet armies massing behind Moscow enter the fray it could be very bad for the Germans.

IOTL Hitler ordered his troops to ''stand fast'' during the Soviet counter-offensives. They held, but only just. In this secnorio the Germans may have to fall-back in a hurry (as the generals wanted) and leave behind even more equipment & tanks that they couldnt move through the deep snow, or worse sizeable German forces may even be cut off.:eek:

Option 4: Germans lose the war in the east only quicker
 
Yes it would. Moscow wasn't like other cities; all major railroad and communications lines ran through it. Taking it would cut Soviet forces in two, break communications, and drastically lower the amount of the supplies the Soviet had.

But as you said before, Moscow can't fall.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Depends on what happens to Stalin and how he spends his final hours. Does he appoint a successor? Will the Politburo be able to stick together without him? Probably. And Molotov will be on top.

I do think that more severe Purges and Stalin (and possibly others) being captured in Moscow in '41 would be enough to shatter the USSR politically. It will become a chaos of warlodism and partisan warfare, but that's exactly what Hitler wanted to train the forces of his grotesque "Living Wall."
 
Depends on what happens to Stalin and how he spends his final hours. Does he appoint a successor? Will the Politburo be able to stick together without him? Probably. And Molotov will be on top.

I do think that more severe Purges and Stalin (and possibly others) being captured in Moscow in '41 would be enough to shatter the USSR politically. It will become a chaos of warlodism and partisan warfare, but that's exactly what Hitler wanted to train the forces of his grotesque "Living Wall."

Well, Stalin had already sent most of the goverment to Kazan.

Also you assume Moscow falls. It's a massive city even if the Germans take part of it, Stalin would still be safely ensconed somewhere giving orders.

Also given the Bolshevik regime's astonishing ability to function in the face of the worst calamities and wholesale personnel changes, I dont see it falling apart as long as the bulk of the Politburo & CC membership survive.
 
IMHO for Moscow to fall, there needs to be a few changes from OTl.

There could be minor - like up-gunning the Pz 3 & 4 guns earlier, or even have a 'heavy' tank.

The campaign may have started a few weeks earlier e.g. the Balkans different to OTL.
And/or Leningrad taken late July early August - before the defences were strengthened.
The attack against Moscow goes first without a distraction of Kiev. That is 'damn the flanks'.
Moscow is encircled from the south and the north.

Yes, Moscow is a big city, but we can't assume it will be a 'Stalingrad' because Stalingrad happened with the example of Moscow & Leningrad, and when the Red Army had the strength to cope.
The 'people' may react differently to the exodus of government officials.

If it does happen, then the Red Army or what is left of it, will go east and pray that the Germans don't follow it - they probably won't - instead going south-east Donets & Baku.
The Germans may achieve that objectives - Astrakhan/Arkangle (?) - but then invigorated the Red Army will start to fight back. But it pushes back the timetable in the east by at least six months.
 

Vladimir

Banned
I believe that Stalin had already evacuated his government 20 miles east. If Moscow fell, it would only do so after bloody street fighting. If it had fallen, the Germans would have gained a symbolic victory, but they would have had to march further east to defeat Russia. The Germans would further stretch their supply lines, and the Russians would fight all the way, trading land for the invader's blood. Germany is still forced out of Russia from sheer exhaustion.
 
Moscow falling is actually a symbolic victory for the Soviet Union. They can burn the city down, and everyone remembers the last time someone took Moscow.
 
Top