Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MontyB Its a good question and I have certainly seen nothing that would have indicated that had Moscow fallen the Russia would have thrown in the towel. |
Hello Monty.
I feel you are not properly taking into consideration what the fall of Moscow would mean to the ability of STAVKA to direct large scale operations or what the impact would be on the civilian population.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MontyB My opinion is that had they concentrated on on the oilfields right from the start and captured those it would have made the Russian position during the winter of 1941-42 untenable, however this would have meant that the main thrust of Barbarossa would have to have been south of the Pripyat marshes with AGC hooking north through Kursk-Orel toward Moscow and AGS heading straight at the Caspian sea with the bulk of the armour. |
The only way your suggestion would have worked was if Barbarossa had been planned as a 2 season campaign. Sure they would have secured Kiev and the Donets basin but there is simply not enough time for the Germans to reach the Baku oilfields and secure them before the onset of winter and the expected Soviet winter counter-offensive. Take a look at a map and see how far it is from the initial Russo-German border to the Caucasus area - it's a bloody long way even just to drive, never mind having to fight your way through hostile armies operating a scorched earth policy.
So, if it's a 2 season campaign then it's a viable strategy. If not then it's mission impossible and folly. The German armies would be even more extended than they were historically (assuming they got that far) and the resultant losses would probably be even more decisive than they were historically.