Something new...

Russia had massive numbers but most of them were conscripts and forced to fight. Germany tried to defeat Russia in battle rather than strategically which is where they lost it.
 
In my opinion, ever since Peter the great made Russia into a great power, it was and has always been impossible to conquer Russia and expect to hold much of it for more than a year or two. Simply because there is a lot of it, it's inhospitability, it's giant population (which was once a lot greater during the days of the sovjets) from which it's army can draw from, the fact that the people in it will hate any invader's guts and will do everything to resist them, and the fact that holding it's capital had historically proven to be little more than a symbolic victory. So in my opinion, anything Germany could have realistically done would do little more than change the date of it's defeat.
 
One thing I am not sure anyone is taking into account in this scenario is what Stalin would have done had the Germans captured Moscow, would he have stayed and died in the process or would have have jumped on the last train out and left Moscow to its fate.

The reason I ask this is that I am not sure Russia would have fought on had there been anyone else in charge to be honest I am not sure they would have stayed in the fight as far as Moscow had he not have had his iron grip on the helm.
 
Stalin would have left Moscow and carried on the fight else where. A country is just not about one town or City it is about the will of the people to succeed.
 
Russia had massive numbers but most of them were conscripts and forced to fight. Germany tried to defeat Russia in battle rather than strategically which is where they lost it.
Please explain the second sentence ?
What is the meaning of 'defeating Russia strategically ' ?
 
Stalin would have left Moscow and carried on the fight else where. A country is just not about one town or City it is about the will of the people to succeed.

I disagree, Stalin was very much a dictator and a one man band (as was Hitler) and I believe had he been removed from the picture Russia may very well have just thrown in the towel especially with the loss of its capital, leader and the vast losses they had experienced to that point.

As to whether Stalin would have left Moscow or not, I think that is open to discussion as rumours indicated he had plans for a last minute departure from the capital had it been necessary but he has also stated that he intended to stay no matter what, so had he left Moscow I think his authority would have been severely diminished.
 
As to whether Stalin would have left Moscow or not, I think that is open to discussion as rumours indicated he had plans for a last minute departure from the capital had it been necessary but he has also stated that he intended to stay no matter what, so had he left Moscow I think his authority would have been severely diminished.
He very nearly left on 18th October, 1941. The whole city was in a state of mass panic and for 24 hours was almost completely paralyzed.
 
I am really just wondering about the psychological effect on the Russian war effort had they lost Moscow especially had AGN been able to capture Leningrad and AGS Kiev, basically I am wondering whether it would have caused the Russian defense to collapse.
 
I don't think that Stalin would have died for Moscow, he was more interested in the survival of Communion. Russia had lost Moscow before to Napoleon but that did not not have any affect on just how they fought the war then, to most people it was just another City to be fought over.
 
I don't think that Stalin would have died for Moscow, he was more interested in the survival of Communion. Russia had lost Moscow before to Napoleon but that did not not have any affect on just how they fought the war then, to most people it was just another City to be fought over.
Moscow was much more important in 1941 than it was in 1812.
 
Back
Top