Soviet Surrender?

Honestly I don't think they would have:rolleyes:
But if we pretend that Nazi-Germany could have concentrated on the eastern front, I guess they could have pushed at least up to Moscow.

The Russians used their old technique where they moved back from the enemy, burning everything that the enemy could use... provisions... shelter...
And then when the Russian winter arrives... by by German soldiers!

What the Nazi-Germany soldiers would have needed to win;

1st of all: A Hitler that was less stubborn. It is Hitlers fault that the 6th Army (300 000 soldiers) was "locked" in Stalingrad. He was more stubborn than my grandma and refused to let them retreat.

2nd: The German soldiers would have needed better equipment.
They were badly suited for the Russian winter which claimed the life
of many, many soldiers...

If they had all this... then maybe around... 1944? (if capturing Moscow and land all the way to the Ural Mountains was their target)

Well that's just my thoughts:)
 
Honestly I don't think they would have:rolleyes:
But if we pretend that Nazi-Germany could have concentrated on the eastern front, I guess they could have pushed at least up to Moscow.

The Russians used their old technique where they moved back from the enemy, burning everything that the enemy could use... provisions... shelter...
And then when the Russian winter arrives... by by German soldiers!

What the Nazi-Germany soldiers would have needed to win;

1st of all: A Hitler that was less stubborn. It is Hitlers fault that the 6th Army (300 000 soldiers) was "locked" in Stalingrad. He was more stubborn than my grandma and refused to let them retreat.

2nd: The German soldiers would have needed better equipment.
They were badly suited for the Russian winter which claimed the life
of many, many soldiers...

If they had all this... then maybe around... 1944? (if capturing Moscow and land all the way to the Ural Mountains was their target)

Well that's just my thoughts:)

They would never surrender as long as Stalin doesn't.
You need way more crippling defeats than in OTL. Germans have to have way more manpower and equipment.

Darkaiz,
1) They did that sometimes. They didn't do scorched earth on all of their former territories because they just didn't have enough time.
2) Hitler being less stubborn is not a gurantee that the Germans will win. AFAIK that force in Stalingrad helped hold up the Russians while the Germans retreated from the Caucasus.
3) General Winter was not one of the principal causes of German defeat. In fact, Guderian in Operation Typhoon actually complained why the winter wasn't setting in faster, so his tanks didn't bog down in the mud.
 
Indeed, his stubbornness was what saved the front from Zhukov's winter offensive outside Moscow. The generals wanted an "orderly retreat"... Yeah, right, under those circumstances...

And it wasn't that the Germans didn't have winter gear; there were huge magazines of it back in Prussia. They just didn't have the logistics to get it to the troops.
 
Given Hitler's well documented ambitions for the Slavic lands and the subsequent brutal atrocities enacted in occupied territories ( both of which Moscow was well aware of) a 'surrender', as opposed to bitter peace, would be the equivalent of the Soviet leadership collectively shooting itself in the head
 

General Zod

Banned
I suppose that for the intende prupose of this thread, "surrender" effectively means Bitter Peace, i.e. the Soviet leadership reluctantly agreeing to a peace deal that gives Hitler most or pretty much of what he wants.

Which was entirely feasible, if some PoD happen.
 
I don't really say the Soviet's surrendering, when you consider what they where able to do despite catastrophic defeats and destruction of its entire peace time Army.

Maybe if they get Leningrad out of the picture and take Moscow...a last stand for Stalin in the Kremlin....ends up shooting himself with the sound of German artillery...familiar anyone? Then likely the remaining Soviets make up some bitter peace with a rump state left behind the Urals and plenty of Lebensraum for the Germans. .
 
I suppose that for the intende prupose of this thread, "surrender" effectively means Bitter Peace, i.e. the Soviet leadership reluctantly agreeing to a peace deal that gives Hitler most or pretty much of what he wants.

Which was entirely feasible, if some PoD happen.

Essentially they were already in a state of 'Bitter Peace', at least before Barbarossa.
 
Cue the classical "Stalin has a heart attack and the CCCP erupts in civil war in the middle of the war for its existence" scenario... Not entirely feasible, but more so than a lot of other ideas people have had over the years.
 

General Zod

Banned
Essentially they were already in a state of 'Bitter Peace', at least before Barbarossa.

They kept hold of Baltic states, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Karelia, Bessarabia, and Caucasus. "Bitter peace", as commonly intended, would mean a peace deal definitely unfavourable to USSR which transfers all of the above to Nazi Germany as annexations, occupations, and vassal states. Either this, which would be the good but suboptimal deal, or the border moved to Volga or Urals, which would be the optimal deal.
 
Cue the classical "Stalin has a heart attack and the CCCP erupts in civil war in the middle of the war for its existence" scenario... Not entirely feasible, but more so than a lot of other ideas people have had over the years.

Its not so much a civil war as a state of confusion. You need a level of centralization while fighting war due to the vast movements of men and material. For that you need a clear and defined executive and a chain of command running down. If Moscow is ordering one thing (assuming you have one clear voice from Moscow!) and Leningrad is ordering another, what do you do? The like result is a disorganised mess which means the Nazis cut through with even greater ease than in OTL. They don't need to be fighting each other, just having Stalingrad (and all the southern traffic) refuse to send stuff to Moscow and vice-versa would cripple the Soviets ability to defend themselves.

Its hard to see that if Stalin were to die during Barbarossa there would be an immediate and clean switch in command to someone else. Just as if Hitler suddenly died its hard to see a clear successor who everyone would support. There needn't be civil war, and the chaos might not last more than a week or three, but it wouldn't be immediate.

If Moscow falls then the USSR is probably doomed. If Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad fall then the USSR is dead. Forming a defensive line before the Urals will be difficult and if the Nazis control everything west of the Urals the USSR has pretty much ceased to exist as a recognisable entity. Remnants can be hunt down at will and some will start surrendering.
 
You need a level of centralization while fighting war due to the vast movements of men and material. For that you need a clear and defined executive and a chain of command running down
Like that of Nazi Germany? ;)

While the death of Stalin would obviously be a blow to the USSR I don't see it being a decisive one. Unlike the infamously fragmented and byzantine Nazi Party, the CPSU was a much more structurally sound and monolithic organisation. If there was a degree of wavering following Stalin's death then I would expect it to be solved in the same way as Beria and Khrushchev, ie a collective decision rapidly carried out by the rest of the Politburo

Most importantly, and again in contrast to the personality driven portfolios of the Nazis, the Party itself would most likely continue to function like the well oiled machine it was. Whoever the new leader was would be blindly accepted by the rank and file on his ordination
 
I can see Stavka taking over, at least during the crisis, and they're the legal command. The Germans can't possibly get them all unless they have some insanely good luck. Yes, there will be some fracturing, but not as bad as many like to posit.
 
Like that of Nazi Germany? ;)

While the death of Stalin would obviously be a blow to the USSR I don't see it being a decisive one. Unlike the infamously fragmented and byzantine Nazi Party, the CPSU was a much more structurally sound and monolithic organisation. If there was a degree of wavering following Stalin's death then I would expect it to be solved in the same way as Beria and Khrushchev, ie a collective decision rapidly carried out by the rest of the Politburo

Most importantly, and again in contrast to the personality driven portfolios of the Nazis, the Party itself would most likely continue to function like the well oiled machine it was. Whoever the new leader was would be blindly accepted by the rank and file on his ordination

I find it difficult to view the reaction to Stalin's panic attack at the start of the German invasion as indicative of a well oiled machine that was perfectly capable of operating without the Boss.

Yes the CPSU was more monolithic as Stalin didn't let people have the degree of independence and private empires that Hitler encouraged amongst his people. I won't deny that. Beria was on a tighter leash than Himmler and its hard to find Soviet individuals who are really comparable in power and position to Goering or Bormann.

But in ensuring that there were no private empires Stalin had butchered most who had the iniative to run things. Everyone in the Soviet Union depended on Stalin not only for any position of power but for their very continued existence. Further more relations at the highest level were hardly good. Beria, perhaps in possession of the clearest thing that could be considered a private empire, was hated by most of the rest. Beria's liquidation soon after Stalin's death would seem to indicate that the chances of a smooth working arrangement between himself, Khrushchev and the others, Molotov, Zhdanov, Malenkov etc immediately after Stalin's death are not great.
 
Beria's liquidation soon after Stalin's death would seem to indicate that the chances of a smooth working arrangement between himself, Khrushchev and the others, Molotov, Zhdanov, Malenkov etc immediately after Stalin's death are not great.
But that perfectly demonstrates the collective decision making abilities of the Politburo. If we assume that the threat of German victory is not enough to force them to work together then an arrangement would very quickly be arrived at whereby one figure/camp (most likely Beria again) is "liquidated" by the majority. What you would not see is a prolonged leadership struggle akin to the '20s or the splintering of the Party

So while Stalin's death would obviously cause a degree of disruption, it would not cause the Party to collapse into squabbling camps or become suddenly paralysed. Certainly not to the degree that the Wehrmacht would be able to gain major advantage from this
 
But that perfectly demonstrates the collective decision making abilities of the Politburo. If we assume that the threat of German victory is not enough to force them to work together then an arrangement would very quickly be arrived at whereby one figure/camp (most likely Beria again) is "liquidated" by the majority. What you would not see is a prolonged leadership struggle akin to the '20s or the splintering of the Party

So while Stalin's death would obviously cause a degree of disruption, it would not cause the Party to collapse into squabbling camps or become suddenly paralysed. Certainly not to the degree that the Wehrmacht would be able to gain major advantage from this

Well, it depends when it occurs. Obviously by 1943 I think two weeks of confusion probably wouldn't effect things that much. On the otherhand two weeks of confusion in October, at the height of Barbarossa with defeat staring the Soviets in the face, could have a significant effect on the ultimate consequence of that operation.
 
How bad would the Soviets react if Germany for whatever reason was able to capture Joesph Stalin? Insert some kind of Skorenzy raid to grab the General Secretary and I wonder what the results would be.

If Stalin were somehow captured, what concessions could the Germans wring out of the Soviet Union, and would they be accepted or would a new government refuse?

I recognize that it's kind of an outlandish WI; the cowardly Stalin would certainly never allow himself to be captured lightly; but it is at least possible. Could Stalin then be forced into signing a bitter peace and it accepted on the ground?
 
Top