so in this hypothetical, we're projecting that Stalingrad falls "easily" and they secure the oil in the Caucasus and are able to continue a fairly unchecked roll into eastern russia?

Think Tank section please

Think Tank section please

what if they didn't halt their armor and had annihilated the British at Dunkirk in 1940? would they have taken england?

I don't think there was ever any realistic scenario where they occupy the home island. Germany did not have the navy to pull off that operation. If they destroy the British Army though, is there the will to carry on the war?

the germans don't win any scenario unless they secure malta and them and their jr. partner the italians, win n. africa first. if that happened, every british naval/merchant craft, would have had to sail around s. africa. they had over 1 year to accomplish this (italy entrance into the war - may 1940 until barbarrosa june 1941). the afrika korps was a reaction to italian futility, the germans had totally ignored the importance of n. africa and eliminating malta as a massive stone in the shoe. an example is the military (strategic and tactical) intellect of kesselring vs. goring.

at the end of the day, the germans couldn't keep up with reserves. if there was a 115 mile front and the soviets and germans each had 6 divisions on those 115 miles, the soviets may have had 3 reserve divisions, the germans had none. will never win any war of attrition that way.

i agree with the article.

They'd lost an air campaign by then too and did not achieve necessary air superiority to overwatch an invasion.

The Quarterly Journal of Military History put out a "What If" article in the early 2000s that lead to a series of books. One of the scenarios that always fascinated me was, what if the Germans took Moscow in 1941. The consensus of historians in those essays was that it wouldn't have mattered. Just like Napoleon, the Russians would have pulled back and carried on.

I am not certain though mostly because Josef Stalin lead through a cult of personality and fear. If he's trying to run the country while on the run does the entire system collapse? Warfare is about the will of a nation to sacrifice and carry on. And if Moscow falls like Paris, the Soviets political system might collapse into chaos. What do the military historians here think? Would it matter if the Nazis took Moscow, or does it just push back their defeat a few months?

This is a very practical answer, but if war was just about the numbers France would not have fallen in a month.

i think the fall of france has been dissected - the french had numbers, but their tactics and land doctrinal focuses have nothing to do with why the germans failed against the soviet union and would have likely failed - even if they had captured moscow, in an alternative scenario.

i believe that franz halder was famous for lamenting that the germans would annihilate 8 soviet divisions and then 8 more would replace them. the germans did not have that luxury after they lost a full army in stalingrad.

my analysis would be that the soviets tanks were vastly underrated and the german tanks overrated and over-engineered. the soviets had the reserves, they had lots of wiggle-room to lose soldiers along with equipment and gain experience - at the loss of those soldiers and equipment. by 1943, the germans were fighting a front in italy and the soviet union and also worry about an invasion in france. war over. they desperately needed the japanese to open a 2nd front...something the japanese wisely avoided.

They'd lost an air campaign by then too and did not achieve necessary air superiority to overwatch an invasion.

Have read a bit about this subject and there is quite a bit of discussion about the decision by the Germans to pour resources into armor production over the development of long range heavy bombers, this decision also steered resources away from the German Navy as well, but the Germans had gamed Operation Sea Lion came to similar conclusions the US did when it came to invading Japan, there would be massive casualties, and it would require tons of resources. The British still had a substantial home fleet and it would be almost impossible to provide support for landing ships.

There was also the miscalculation during the Battle of Britan where they went away from attacking air bases, which was very successful early, to bombing cities.

However, the decision that impacted the Moscow campaign the most was likely the attempts made to secure oil fields in the Caucuses, early on there was a realization of the need to secure oil sources.

The Japanese did open another front. Unfortunately for the Axis, it was against the United States. Germany's inability to match Soviet numbers was their undoing. Obviously, I do wonder if taking Moscow in 1941 would have changed anything.

Hitler's career shows how much propaganda and perception influence events. He really had no business taking over the country. It was a remarkable accomplishment. And he also played a role in the early victories.

Yet, when you read The German Generals Talk, every loss was due to Hitler and every victory due to their own genius. Hitler has become a bumbling fool who slept in and lost the war. I would say his military sin was underestimating his opponents, and he did not have the numbers or allies to take on Britian, Russia and the United States. After taking Paris, victory fever did him in. When you have nary a setback from being in prison to being the master of Europe it's going to alter your psyche.

Dan Carlin's podcast on the perception of Hitler vs. Alexander the Great is pretty fascinating. And I wonder if the Panzers had arrived in Moscow earlier or if the weather cooperated a bit more if Hitler's legacy is completely different. History turns on muddy roads, and a devastatingly cold winter.

that's not quite the front the germans wanted opened...

as far as schickelgruber - the germans signed an armistice and when there wasn't one allied soldier on german territory. for that, their economy was shackled, they lost their colonies and they were not allowed a military of a nation it's size. their economy collapsed and i can understand the peoples' frustration.

as far as the japanese - the japanese were angered at the hypocrisy of the usa - no oil for japan's moves into china, yet the usa had it's bag of territories (philippines, guam, panama, puerto rico, hawaii)...while the british, french, dutch and portugese had territories in japan's backyard. when the usa embargoed resources, the usa took a clear stance on supporting china. i can understand japan's anger - everyone can have colonies and territories except us.

History turns on muddy roads, and a devastatingly cold winter.

the germans had how many fronts in 1943 and 1944? it wasn't a numbers game in the spring of 1940. plenty of reserves.

that's not quite the front the germans wanted opened...

as far as schickelgruber - the germans signed an armistice and when there wasn't one allied soldier on german territory. for that, their economy was shackled, they lost their colonies and they were not allowed a military of a nation it's size. their economy collapsed and i can understand the peoples' frustration.

as far as the japanese - the japanese were angered at the hypocrisy of the usa - no oil for japan's moves into china, yet the usa had it's bag of territories (philippines, guam, panama, puerto rico, hawaii)...while the british, french, dutch and portugese had territories in japan's backyard. when the usa embargoed resources, the usa took a clear stance on supporting china. i can understand japan's anger - everyone can have colonies and territories except us.

Japan defeated Russia in 1905. They jumped in on the side of the Allies in World War 1 to grab German colonies. They took Manchuria in 1931. And they were busy trying to swallow China for most of the 30s. Maybe if they didn't proudly broadcast their atrocities against civilians and ally themselves with Nazi Germany they wouldn't have to be mad about an oil embargo.

They had 30 plus years of aggressive military expansion by 1940, and their treatment of conquered people made European colonialism seem benevolent by comparison.

as far as the japanese - the japanese were angered at the hypocrisy of the usa - no oil for japan's moves into china, yet the usa had it's bag of territories (philippines, guam, panama, puerto rico, hawaii)...while the british, french, dutch and portugese had territories in japan's backyard. when the usa embargoed resources, the usa took a clear stance on supporting china. i can understand japan's anger - everyone can have colonies and territories except us.

I've never heard the oil fields having any impact on the drive to Moscow. I've heard that encircling and destroying the Russians at Kiev slowed the advance on Moscow, but I don't know how you leave that force out there. The first few months of Barbarossa was devasting. It was an incredible effort by the Soviets to not surrender and respond. The Nazis turning it into a war of annihilation, perhaps, made it inevitable

WARNING : NON PC COMMENTS AHEAD -

You have to remember the world during that time. Why didn't we (US) have a problem with the British and Aussie's in Japan's backyard and we having colonies along w/ those other countries and not japan? Race. Plain and simple. The Brits/Aussies looked like us and the Japanese didn't. That's why. Racism if you want to call it but that is how the people running the world back then viewed non-European people. And that policy was carried over into Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, S.America, Middle East, and all over the world where we stuck our nose in other people's business.

I've never heard the oil fields having any impact on the drive to Moscow.

He had to though. He needed food and oil and the Ukraine was how he was gonna get it.

He went south for the oil.