Was Soviet will ever close to collapsing during Barbarossa?

Was Soviet will ever close to collapsing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 66.7%
  • No

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Total voters
    24
ThTGd5V.jpg


I'm talking specifically about the will to fight within the Kremlin between June 1941 - December 1942 .
Was it ever close to collapsing and if so, what realitically could've pushed it over the edge?
 

Deleted member 1487

The closest things came was right after the Vyazma pocket was closed and German forces started exploiting East. Stalin nearly left the city, there were riots, part of the government evacuated and Soviet lines ripped wide open. Weather and mud saved the limited Soviet forces left by confining German troops to the highway leading from Smolensk to Moscow, which let the defenders concentrate their limited forces and stymie the Germans. Once it was clear the Germans weren't going to just blitz on the capital the moment passed and the Soviets rallied and continued on, holding the line against the best German efforts.
As to what could have pushed them over the edge....well the weather in that situation prevented the capital from falling, so you'd need to be able to start the invasion two weeks early to avoid that. Having the capital fall would probably be what it would take to start unraveling the regime, supposedly Stalin told Zhukov in October that if things got worse he'd have to make peace. So you'd have to have Moscow be captured somehow in October 1941 (or earlier) to really break the Soviets.
 
The closest things came was right after the Vyazma pocket was closed and German forces started exploiting East. Stalin nearly left the city, there were riots, part of the government evacuated and Soviet lines ripped wide open.

The panic, while real, was purely on the street. The actual leadership showed no sign of abandoning the fight. Even had Stalin left the city, its probable that he would have left it under martial law, like OTL, and with the army prepared to fight it out street-to-street... again, like OTL. The idea of the Germans taking Moscow off the march is pure OKH fantasy.

Weather and mud saved the limited Soviet forces left by confining German troops to the highway leading from Smolensk to Moscow, which let the defenders concentrate their limited forces and stymie the Germans. Once it was clear the Germans weren't going to just blitz on the capital the moment passed and the Soviets rallied and continued on, holding the line against the best German efforts.

In reality, the subsumption of the panic was independent of what was going on in the front, which from the Soviet perspective continued to look like a desperate affair all the way into November. And the Soviet rally was independent of the weather as well. The real reason is that the Germans had hit their culminating point with Vyazma-Bryansk and Soviet reinforcements were enough to stem the weakened, exhausted Germans. The weather was bonus in this but not decisive.
 

Deleted member 1487

The panic, while real, was purely on the street. The actual leadership showed no sign of abandoning the fight. Even had Stalin left the city, its probable that he would have left it under martial law, like OTL, and with the army prepared to fight it out street-to-street... again, like OTL. The idea of the Germans taking Moscow off the march is pure OKH fantasy.
Glantz did have a story about Stalin nearly taking the train to Kuibyshev on day, but opted to stay and fight. Everything hinges on the Germans actually taking Moscow; at that point even if Stalin survives and continues the fight the average fighting man may well give up. Remember it wasn't the political leadership that quit the war in 1917, it was the army giving up and running away that ended it. You can have a plan to fight street to street, but that doesn't mean the fighting man will do it.

In reality, the subsumption of the panic was independent of what was going on in the front, which from the Soviet perspective continued to look like a desperate affair all the way into November.
The panic was specifically because the lines were broken and the public thought the Germans would take the city in hours or at most days. When the last lines held and Stalin stayed to fight the public quieted down with NKVD assistance.

And the Soviet rally was independent of the weather as well. The real reason is that the Germans had hit their culminating point with Vyazma-Bryansk and Soviet reinforcements were enough to stem the weakened, exhausted Germans. The weather was bonus in this but not decisive.
We can debate that forever and never reach agreement, so agree to disagree rather than getting bogged down in a long pointless argument.
 
Do you mean a mental breakdown?

Yes. Khrushchev after the war horribly exaggerated its extent and misrepresented the timing of it, but Stalin does appear to have suffered a nervous breakdown when learning of Minsk's capture.

Glantz did have a story about Stalin nearly taking the train to Kuibyshev on day, but opted to stay and fight. Everything hinges on the Germans actually taking Moscow; at that point even if Stalin survives and continues the fight the average fighting man may well give up. Remember it wasn't the political leadership that quit the war in 1917, it was the army giving up and running away that ended it. You can have a plan to fight street to street, but that doesn't mean the fighting man will do it.

There is no sign that the fighting men were going to do any such thing. The panic was limited to the civilian portion of the city, the military continued to function and made concerted efforts in preparing, and actually conducting, the defense of Moscow. The same efforts which stopped the Germans and stabilized the lines. They were even making concerted preparations to continue the fight if Moscow fell. The fighting man was very much carrying out the plan.

The panic was specifically because the lines were broken and the public thought the Germans would take the city in hours or at most days. When the last lines held and Stalin stayed to fight the public quieted down with NKVD assistance.

That the panic was caused by rumors spread following lines breaking is well-established. There is no evidence, however, that the subsumption of the panic had anything to do with events at the front. That's just you conflating a correlation with a causation. But that the lines even has stabilized in mid-October was not apparent at the time or even shortly after, even to the Soviet leadership. The same rumors that had caused the panic were still flying and would continue to do so for well after the panic had subsided. So the alleged causative link isn't really there.

We can debate that forever and never reach agreement, so agree to disagree rather than getting bogged down in a long pointless argument.

Fair enough.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Khrushchev after the war horribly exaggerated its extent and misrepresented the timing of it, but Stalin does appear to have suffered a nervous breakdown when learning of Minsk's capture.

Stalin's breakdown was due to him falsely believing he'd be removed from his position of General Secretary of the party for his failure, because he was de facto leader of the Soviet Union, not absolute leader. People such as Mikhail Kalinin held similar amounts of power.

I rather think the Wehrmacht could of briefly taken portions of Moscow but you'd likely have a similar situation to Stalingrad, and the Soviets could of easily regrouped, after all, Moscow is only half way to the Urals. Even in this scenario had Stalin been taken and shot, he'd become a martyr, and Kalinin, Molotov etc were all competent leaders. It would make a good alternate history, Moscow briefly taken, Stalin shot, Kalinin becomes dear facto leader, dies in 46 like OTL, the war turns out much the same, Molotov becomes dear facto leader as Party General Secretary. Molotov was an Anti Revisionist, incredibly intelligent and a mighty fine diplomat, a very good opportunity to feasibly see no Sino Soviet split and Stalin dies a Hero of the Soviet Union for Molotov to immortalise like Lenin before him.
 
Top