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?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

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?

_________________
'Your AT&T Universal Card has arrived'? Oh God, Kick-fucking-ass, I got a Master Card! I don't believe it, man. Life is kinda cool sometimes.

Not talking about the Stalingrad campaign, which was the summer after. What if the Nazis take Moscow in late 1941?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

That certainly would have prolonged the war on the western front by several years. I believe it also makes it more likely we nuke in Europe. France is probably liberated on a similar time line. I doubt market garden happens.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

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.

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?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

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

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

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

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Battle of Britain did not start till after Dunkirk.

Stalin only kept power because he controlled the important parts of the Soviet government. If the Germans would have taken Moscow, he would have accidentally brutally cut his head off whilst combing his hair. He almost lost it all when they invaded. He went into shock and I am surprised he wasn't removed then.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

I love the last story in Cold War gone Hot.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

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

It is in your analysis. The French could match the German numbers.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

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.

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.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

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.

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

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

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.

This guy knows his shit!

_________________

im using this next thanksgiving

_________________
'Your AT&T Universal Card has arrived'? Oh God, Kick-fucking-ass, I got a Master Card! I don't believe it, man. Life is kinda cool sometimes.

Well, not just active fronts but garrisons
active front Russia and Africa

Large Garrisons-France,low countries, Greece,Yugoslavia,Norway(over 200,000). Plus you had all the men involved in the final solution. And this is a big one,the Germans did not go to a wartime economy footing until 1944

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

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.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

History gave a pass to the Japan Atrocities during that period you discuss. The reason was the institutionalized eurocentric view in academia that has finally started to shed in the last decade. Chinese and other Asian conquered people did not carry the same weight as Europeans in the eyes of the pompous arrogant historical establishment of that time. Their lives did not count vs holocaust victims and other groups the Nazi's exterminated.

And Japan does not teach this to their people. It is said to be part of their culture but I don't buy it. They don't teach Pearl Harbor too. When I was back home and running my limo business, I use to pickup a lot of tourists from the mainland after they visited the Pearl Harbor Memorial. They use to tell me how appalled they were of Japanese tourists who were clapping and cheering when they showed the attack. I don't blame the Japanese people really for this ignorance, but their government that never teaches it.

This really should be moved to think tank. Brick - can you move it?

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.

Operation Edelweiss, or the Caucasus campaign was one of Hitler's goals, they wanted to capture the resource rich territory in the Ukraine, kind of odd that history keeps repeating itself, but the oil fields were essential in order to supply fuel to the armored units which were essential to the success of the German operational doctrine. There was a substantial diversion to the south which lessened the resources directed toward Moscow and gave the Russians time to build defense lines and eventually bring in Siberian troops.

The Russians lost 2-3 times more men than the Germans, but they could continue to throw men into the meat grinder, the German supply lines became over extended, and after Kursk it was a steady annihilation of the German army as the Russians pushed them back all the way to Berlin.

The Western powers also completely underestimated the capabilities of the Japanese, especially the English, who were routed in Singapore and numerous other colonial outposts by the Japanese Army. Did read one interesting book were the author put out a fairly solid case detailing the lack of resources directed toward the Pacific war in comparison to what was being directed toward Europe. The author felt that Japan could have been conquered a year or two sooner if the full war effort was directed toward the Pacific.

Do also find the Soviet demolition of the Japanese army in Manchuria at the end of the war interest because it is rarely discussed and have even read some stuff about how there was a plan for Japan to be invaded by both the US and the USSR with the island being divided like Germany was after the war. There are even some that theorize that the real reason the Japanese surrendered was not because of the atomic bomb, but because they were terrified at the prospects of a Russian occupation because of the rather acrimonious history between the two countries.

_________________