Honestly I don't think they would have
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![]()
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.
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.
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.
Like that of Nazi Germany?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
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 PartyBeria'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