what if thread

[kritter]

what if ....

Let's say that the Germans never held off invading Russia to take care of things in Yugoslavia etc . Let's say the Germans invaded Russia at that point in time and managed to get to Moscow a few months before winter and control it . Now this game , when you take control of Moscow the capital is moved and the battle goes on .

In reality , let's say the Germans DID take control of Moscow , what would have been the consequences ? What would have been next ?

[JerseyJohn]

I think the Soviet capital would moved much farther east and, if the disasters continued, Stalin would have been ousted but the Russians, either as Soviets or as a different form of government would have fought on.

The part of the German line most affected by the Balkan delay was Army Group South. The operation against Crete also caused problems and, again, the units involved were earmarked for Army Group South.

Taking that into consideration, Moscow could probably have been taken, along with Leningrad, if Hitler had ignored the stalled drive on Kiev and continued moving east and North with the other two Army Groups.

The main problem is he held back in the north to straighten out the south and, by doing so, had to try to regain momentum in the very areas that hit hardest and earliest by the severe Russian weather.

It didn't really take him by surprise, as is often supposed. The truth is his staff emphasized the importance of taking Russia from the north to the south. It was only Hitler's inate genius that saw through their stilted reasoning to create his brilliant delayed Moscow and Leningrad campaigns.

I think it's possible that an armistace would have been agreed to if Germany took it's major objectives of Leningrad and Moscow and also secured the Caucasus running up to and along the Volga. How long lasting such an arrangement would have been is anyone's guess.

[hellraiser]

1. the problem is germans did not stick to their initial objectives ... moving around forces, especially armoured formations, instead of keeping the momentum was a very big mistake.

2. the russians would have continued to fight even if moscow fell - because their industry was quickly redeployed in safer areas so their economic potential was still superior to Germany's even after losing ukraine's donbass mining area and other resources as well.

Russia outproduced germany in every aspect and, very interesting, the costs for manufacturing war equipment was several times cheaper than germany's.

After all it became clear that german army was not designed for campaigns of such length and for so vast distances russia had. For example german lack of a competent strategic bomber force allowed russia to produce safely far behind the lines and in the end the economic differential between the two countries mattered a lot.

3. Russian fighting spirit - this was a brilliant thing for stalin to do: he told russians 'you're fighting for mother russia' , not for communism - russians are very nationalists and this 'mother russia' thing worked wonders

[it's Les]

Stalin ousted?

Yeah right, he killed anyone that even lived next to a person that knew a guy that ate lunch with a friend of a buddy that thought like that.

If Moscow had fallen, he would have just killed off those responsible for the failure, and then moved the capital to a further location.

[JerseyJohn]

Stalin went into seclussion after the initial German invasion and was at his dacha outside Moscow when a delegation from the politburo finally arrived to find out what his plans were.

He cowered in his study and thought they'd been sent by his own cronies to execute him.

Stalin was amazed and later amused that those around him who realized he was responsible for the initial disasters hadn't killed him and replaced him with someone more capable.

If Moscow had fallen and if the German offensives proved unstoppable Stalin would have been killed and replaced by those around him.

This isn't speculation, it's documented history.

What are you basing your statement on, anything at all?

KGB The Inside Story Christopher Andrew & Oleg Gordievsky

The State Within A State Vevgenia Albasats

At Stalin's Side Valentin M Berezhkov

The Russo-German War 1941-45 Albert Seaton

Stalin Walter Laqueur

Stalin's Shadow Rosamond Richardson

The Inner Circle Andrei Honchalovsky and Alexander Lipkov

[it's Les]

Just opinion.

Some days I am right some days I am wrong, and never does it keep me up late at night worrying over it

[JerseyJohn]

I have to stay up late because I'm an insomniac!

You're right, these things are pure speculation. Attempting to anticipate either Stalin or Hitler is particularly rough because both were so unpredictable and it usually worked to their advantage.

Pure fear never works, though. After Stalin's death the most feared man in the USSR, Yvrenti Beria, was killed by the other top Soviet leaders. He wasn't put on trial, he was quietly strangled in a meeting room by the leaders themselves while his KGB agents stood guard outside the door. When it was done the KGB did nothing in reprissal, it's head had been chopped off so it quietly accepted a new chief commissar.

Stalin combined fear with dependancy and loyalty. By WWII, those around him at the top feared not having Stalin as their protector more than they feared Stalin himself!

Up till the day of Barbarossa actually being launched Stalin seems to have genuinely trusted Hitler to keep his word. He had warnings from all over the world, including Berlin itself (through Canaris) and from his own agents and refused to believe any of them. This alone is still baffling; as the war progressed he quietly disposed of army officers who knew that it was Stalin who refused to allow any moves toward readiness for fear of upsetting the Germans! In many instances they were among his most capable officers, which meant nothing to him.

By the time von Bock's troops reached the outskirts of Moscow, it looked as though rebellion within the USSR was already starting to break out. In Moscow itself people on the street were cursing commissars and bitching openly, something utterly unthinkable only days earlier.

[it's Les]

It's important to remember, Stalin and Hitler were in charge.

And they either had people afraid of him, or in Hitler's case, his early war victories gave him false credibility.

But these two men excelled at being brutal politicians.

As brilliant generals, nope, they likely couldn't hold their own against even a bland level novice wargamer.

Right place right time has many times made a person seem like they were more than they really were.

[kritter]

Well , i believe that the fact the Germans didnt take Moscow was a huge morale boster for the Russians . Had the Germans controlled Moscow that would have done alot more damage psychologically then people think .

[JerseyJohn]

Both Stalin and Hitler had the same approach, they took credit for anything that worked and passed the buck on anything that didn't.

They both had a ridiculously firm hold on power. Hitler moreso than Stalin, but Stalin's was comparable.

That Hitler was still the top dog in Germany even hovering in an undergroud bunker, his empire a shambles, much of his (adopted) country in ruins, and the head of the Reich even while holding a pistol to his head, is beyond belief.

Both men did as much as possible to transform themselves literally into religious icons.

Regarding Moscow, aside from the importance of it's size and as a manufacturing center, it was also extremely important as a railroad hub, something that is difficult to show in a strategic level game. In terms of moral, yes, I believe it's loss would have been a very serious blow to the Russian people, but not one that would have crippled their war effort. It might well have meant an irretrievable loss of confidence in the socialist regime.

By 1941 Stalin had already collectivized nearly all of the country and in the process caused millions of deaths and untold suffering, especially in the Ukraine and Belorussia. Historically those areas were pleased to see the Germans taking over. That didn't change till the Germans themselves proved themselves to be even worse and more brutal overlords than their own commisars had been.

While Stalin succeeded in distancing himself from the actual atrocities -- millions of Russians said "If only Comrade Stalin knew what they are doing he would make things good again!" -- the Soviet system itself was already widely hated. When Hitler talked about kicking the door in and having the whole rotten structure collapse he wasn't far wrong.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Aliens and god would have intervened.

[JerseyJohn]

Hmmm -- I've never heard that theory before but who's to say it wouldn't have happened? I can imagine God intervening to save Stalin and afterwards, embarrassed, saying, oops!

[Liam]

Interesting that people discuss the meaning of The Russian and German conflict had it gotten any worse for the Reds.

I think our game SC represents it quite well in a way. You know that losing Moscow hurts a lot, retaking a city as was retaking Stalingrad for the Red Army in '42 a pain...I'm sure the casualty figures were massive. So retaking Moscow would've been prime on the agenda. If the Germans had managed to hold it and not had thin lines<especially since they were much better vs the Reds in late '41 throughout some of '42 in holding land> it could've been a stark future for the Russians. Could the Germans then have relaxed and easily focused more attention at knocking Leningrad thus eventually cutting of the North and slowly creeping in on the Urals and the heart of the Russian Industrial Sector?

One thing is sure, many Russians would've died in Moscow, the morale of their people and army would be ruined. The Germans only managed to take Stalingrad in WW2 and that was taken back fairly soon after... We could speculate, but I think if anything it would've been a Million man loss for the Russians to retake a reinforced Moscow backed up with good German defenses.

If Russia failed there, I could estimate the war being over for the Russians and with the slow snail likepace of the Western Allies the end of the War for all times.. <speculate what Rommel's Afrika Corps would've done behind Von Bock in a spearhead into Moscow in late '41? instead of eating dirt out in the middle of tripoltania and egypt>

Stalin was a fool. Not as foolish as Hitler IMO. Neither man was anything to write home about. I think we'd all chew them up in SC, we're all far more intelligent. Though very few of us could probably give a decent speech to incite Millions to Insanity? Or drive fear into the hearts of everyone in a Super Power? Even Churchill was a WW1 Screw up, who had lots of Charisma and liked a challenge. I've never heard much bad about FDR, I think he may have been the most capable leader of the war

[SSNEED]

But these two men excelled at being brutal politicians.

As brilliant generals, nope, they likely couldn't hold their own against even a bland level novice wargamer

Les? Hitler was NEVER wrong before 1941,but NEVER right after 41. Stalin after the intial debaucle let his STAVKA run the war.Your comments show a lack of a novice wargamers understanding....LOL

[Shaka of Carthage]

I think some of you are falling for the post WWII propaganda that was put out. Don't get the wrong idea and think that I am pro-Hitler or pro-Stalin, but when you objectively think about it, you have got to admire the accomplishments those two men achieved.

Stalin basically took an agrarian nation and turned it into a superpower. Hitler equalled and almost exceeded Napoleons dream of controlling Continental Europe.

Think about Alexander the Great (whom they are doing a movie on btw). Comparing him to our version of a contemporary male, he falls far short of what we expect from a man. But compared to his peers, he was no worse than any other man of his day and age.

Granted, Stalin wasn't a great Grand Strategist, so just about any of us would beat him in SC... but the problem would be that he would make sure that none of us lived to finish the game... hence he would win by default.

[JerseyJohn]

Neither Stalin nor Hitler were strategists in the military sense but both were outstanding political strategists and coldly ruthless.

They used the same tactic of divide and conquer. Stalin outwitted scores of men who had ability and intelligence than himself, such as Trotsky and Zinoviev. He surrounded himself with mediocre assistants such of Voroshilov who he knew he'd be able to control and relied heavily on the vastly underated Molotov for special tasks and diplomatic missions. He employed numerous henchmen through the 20's and 30s and periodically he'd dispose of them to insure none would be able to become a rival. Beria lasted the longest and was himself slated for elimination at the time of Stalin's death.

Hitle, while not as cold blooded in his dispossal of subnortinates -- at least not after the night of long knives purging of Roehm and his S. A. cronies -- also employed divide and conquer by overlapping functions. Goering, Himmler and Canaris all ran rival intelligence agencies, for example, and in the end this paid off in exposing Canaris activities in helping the Allies. Goering was tied in with "The Final Solution" and both he and Himmler competed with the Wehrmacht to form military formations.

Hitler seemed comical in the early thirties and was taken in by the Weimar capitalists, who thoought they would be able to use him. Stalin, overshadowed by Trotsky and others, made a show of reluctantly accepting a post no one else wanted, that of Party Secretary. Within a year he was eavesdropping on communications and shortly afterwards controlling which of his rivals gained access to Lenin.

Martin Borman held a similar position later on with Hitler.

Stalin was never actually a soldier and had very limited exposure to land battles during the Russian Civil War of c1919-21. His main contribution was the purging of high ranking former czarist officers serving in the Red Army.

Hitler fought in the Western Front trenches in an infantry unit between 1914 and 1918. The odds of a man surviving four years of the trenches were incredibly small. He possessed no leadership qualities whatever and rose no higher than corporal despite winning the Iron Cross twice! Which is significant in light of his later actions as a commander in chief and self-styled War Lord.

The main difference between the two is Hitler actually identified with his people and believed all the racial dogma he made speeches about. Stalin probably believed in nothing other than his own existence.

This can be seen by the fact Hitler appointed a successor while Stalin died of old age with all the candidates sitting around waiting to hear him make the announcement. It never came. They quickly murdered Beria and went on to settle things more peacefully amongst the survivors, most of whom sought only to retire in safety.

I don't think it's quite true to say Stalin catapulted Russia into becoming a world superpower. She was already heading in that direction when WWI broke out. Lenin did most of the rebuilding and Stalin set grand designs in motion but did they really need to be done at the expense of tens of millions of lives?

I don't think so.

Aside from which, with Europe in ruins at the end of WWII, and the USSR rebuilding after it's bloodbath, Russia and to an even greater extent the United States, were in the position of filling a vacuum.

It can be said of Stalin that he plundered much of Eastern Europe, Manchuria and North Korea, both in material terms and also in the abduction of population and manpower. Manpower which included millions of German, Balkan and Japanese POWs used as laborers who never returned home. He saw this as rightful compensation for Soviet manhood wasted by the Axis invasion of the USSR. So, in a sense his ruthless methods as a postwar leader may have suited the situation better than anything a more civilized leader might have done.

[ November 04, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Hold on a second, give me the Wermacht, the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in 1939 what could I have done with it what could each one of you done with it?

Similarly with the Massive Red Soviet Expanses

I think you guys over rate these men, but they definitely seized 'power'

difference would be would we of bothered to kill our nation in an attempt at world domination? Stalin was a bit wiser in that regard<though barely>

[guinty1]

Having recently read some books on stalin i would have to say that he was one of the most well read political leaders in history,like many a psychopathic maniac he had a very high i.q.

[guinty1]

and p.s. jersey john ...where did u get the *beria was strangled by the politburo* from ? ,1st ive heard of it...........

[JerseyJohn]

The account I heard, many years back, was that Kruschev, Malenkov, Zhukov and several others lured Beria to a closed meeting and there they killed him with their own hands. A Russian discussing it in an interview said Beria was strangled.

Thanks for asking about this. I've looked up the event in some of the books listed in the post I made a few back (Inside the KGB & KGB, State within a Stat) and according to both, in slightly different accounts, Beria was indeed lured to a closed meeting on 26 June 1953 and there Kruschev produced a handgun and denounced him as a traitor.

In these accounts, however, Zhukov entered the room immediately, accompanied by regular army soldiers and officers, who cuffed Beria and led him away with them. A Red Army tank division had meanwhile entered and encircled the grounds of the meeting place, encouraging Beria's KGB men to not intervene. Beria was put on trial in December 1953, accused among other things of having been a British agent since 1918. He did not appear in his own defence as he was already dead, though the Russian people were not told of this.

Molenkov had inherited Stalin's old position of First Secretary and Kruschev displaced him soon after Beria's arrest. In short order Kruschev soon had Zhukov appointed to a romoe command, effectively removing him from any further chance to influence political actions in Moscow. He also forced both Molotov and Molenkov into what might be called semi-reitement.

Essentially the significant point is that Beria, the most feared man in the USSR, was the first to be toppled. Fear alone never works, if anything, it's a guarantee of being overthrown.

This is an excerpt of the events from a site on Russia under the Soviets, it starts with other issues and you'll need to scroll downwards till reaching the events we're discussing here:

< Website Article Beria information is taken from >

On July 10, 1953, Soviet newspapers announced Beria's arrest. The groundwork for Beria's removal had been laid by Khrushchev, in a deal with the other members of the Presidium of the Central Committee. The arrest was carried out by the military group, headed by Marshal Zhukov and assisted by Ivan Serov. Beria's fall brought the end of the first triumvirate. The prestige and influence of Khrushchev, the organizer of the plot against Beria, increased significantly. Malenkov, without Beria's support, came to depend all the more on Khrushchev, who very quickly assumed control of the party apparatus. Khrushchev was not yet able to dictate his own decisions, but even Malenkov could no longer act without Khrushchev's consent; each still needed the other's support. Khrushchev controlled not only the party apparatus; the army, which he had used to eliminate Beria, was also behind him. Zhukov, Konev, Moskalenko, who had directly executed the logistics of Beria's arrest, as well as Marshal Bulganin, who was utterly devoted to Khrushchev, were assigned to the most important political and strategic area - the Moscow Military District.

The official trial of Beria and his accomplices was held in December 1953. (Beria was already dead, although the people did not know this.) Among other things, he was accused of organizing "a group of anti-Soviet conspirators whose aim was to seize power and to restore the rule of the bourgeoisie." It is doubtful, however, that Beria would have sought to restore power to the bourgeoisie rather than for his own dictatorship.

At the same time Beria was declared to have been an agent of British intelligence since 1918. He was tried and sentenced to death along with several other high-ranking members of state security, including some former ministers and their aides. In 1954 Ryumin, the man personally responsible for the "doctors' plot," was tried and shot. The same fate later befell the former minister of state security, Abakumov, who was found guilty, among a multitude of crimes, of fabricating the Leningrad affair.

After Beria's removal, the state security establishment was reorganized.