Stalin captured and moscow lost 1941

Count me in amongst the confused .

Back to the original topic my opinion is that if the Germans manage to take Moscow and avoid a 1941 Stalingrad (a very big if) the loss of Moscow is not going to be as irrelevant as some posters imply, whether it's going to be decisive is another matter.

Let's look at the physical capability to wage war first, don't know much about the soviet 1941 rail system but without the Moscow hub the troops outside Leningrad look cut off so may be unable to keep supporting the besieged city as they did historically. If Leningrad is goes the loss of their two major population centers with associated industrial capability and recruiting base is a very heavy blow (heavy industry can be moved, more labour intensive light industry cannot unless you somehow manage to shift the whole population). Loss of the Moscow staging area, and the Germans having a strong central position from which to reinforce threatened sections of the front has strong operational significance as well. So if the soviets continue the fight it will be from a significantly weaker position. On the other hand most Soviet leaders are veterans of the civil war, they know how to make good use of the distances so Geman control of the country is going to remain shaky as long as national will holds (think partisans and cavalry).

The real issue are the moral and political effects. I generally mistrust the mixed feelings about Stalin in memoirs written in or after the Kruschev era, distancing oneself from the dictator was the "politically correct" thing to do in a country where not being "politically correct" was still a very bad career move. So it's difficult to understand how much Stalin was critical to the USSR's unity, even assuming he's not, a protracted succession fight, with resulting military paralisys, if not outright civil war and disintegration of the USSR is a real possibility. So if we stay within the initial assumptions of the tread (both Moscow and Stalin gone) it looks bad. If Stalin survives most of the following is too unlikely to be worth discussing.

But with him out of the picture some really far out scenarios can happen.
Will the threat of Hitler's racial policies be enough to mantain political unity? IMO not a sure thing. Even without a complete reversal of the policies if the Germans decide to play the nationalities that made up the USSR against each other, some sort of Balkans on a continental scale, will they succeed? without a strong soviet central leadership the potential is there as recent events proved.
The one I like most is: assume a non communist general stages a local coup and takes hold of a Pacific Ocean port, are the western allies going to supply him or will the keep their commitment to Stalin's successor?

 

I'm highly skeptical of the military importance of either Moscow or Leningrad. Looking at the railroad map makes me even more so; it appears that while Moscow may have been a central destination of several railroads, it was hardly a vital "hub" of rail transportation. My understanding is that Soviet industries located in the western part of the country, including Moscow, had been pretty much relocated eastward along with all their machine tools and their labor forces, so the loss of industrial capacity is more or less exaggerated by those who use that argument

When I was in college I took a two-semester course on the Political History of the USSR. The professor was a Russian who had managed to get out of the USSR in the early '50's. His comments about Stalin's popularity was that Stalin was cordially hated by many different factions in the Soviet Union and the only way he was able to get unity on the war effort was to portray it as a fight for "Mother Russia". According to this professor, many in the USSR would have cheered the news of Stalin's death, but would have kept on fighting the Germans to the last man. I don't know if that was a universal feeling in the USSR, but my professor said it was and he was there.

I think you are seriously underestimating the strength and political resilience of the Communist Party in the USSR during this period. Stalin's death would have set off a succession crisis, but, given the importance of the war effort, the Party would have certainly made sure that it did not become disruptive of the military situation. There were plenty of men who were capable of stepping into Stalin's shoes had he been killed, and some of these men undoubtedly would have provided better leadership than old Uncle Joe. Stalin was probably a lot less "indispensable" than was Churchill in Britain or Roosevelt in the US.

 

The Russians hated Stalin. Except the most fanatical NKVDs and Politruks, I don't think Stalin's death would have mattered all that much. From the interviews I have read in Ivan's War, even the True Believers felt that they owe their loyalty to the Communist Party, not Stalin personally. There wasn't a Führerprinzip in Soviet Russia, and from what I could make out of, most Red Army troopers were good communists but no worshipers of Stalin. I also remember reading about an interview when Merridale asked a old Red Army veteran if they screamed "for the Motherland and for Stalin" when they charged--it brought a wry smile from the veteran. He said: "Oh, I don't remember. We shouted a lot of things, some of them unprintable, but I don't remember shouting for Stalin."

 

Don't agree with you here, Stalin's policy of "removing" (mostly by killing) possible rivals is likely to create at least a long power struggle if not worse before a successor emerges. While the Soviets didn't practice "personality cult" much, and the party was not built around Stalin like the nazis were around Hitler or the fascists around Mussolini, his disappearance would have created a huge power void at a critical time. He definetly had more personal power than either Churchill or Roosevelt and no clear cut successor. And I can hardly believe a nation could put of the sort of fight the USSR did with a strongly unpopular leader.

 

European Russia is a big place, Germany could not've have held such a big area with the troops it had.

 

In area controlling business I recall Hitler often thought about how the British Umpire was able to control the whole of India....

 

Yep Kai, but India for example, had an ambiviant population for the most part until their own leadership was born and I don't mean the Mahirajas or whatever. A few whitemen in place certainly did do the Empire well...The natives always seemed to do our bidding. But Russia in the forties was a much different place to Empire of the Victorian days...The empire would have gone without ww2....The populations were restless and a few Brits in position would not have held it back for long WW2 or not.

 

As Stalin managed to kill Trosky in august 1940 ...CIVIL WAR in HELL... while up here ...IMHO... the soviet army would have continued the war against the invasion... my question is ... Who would have been the leader.? Beria , Molotov ? And how would became leader? Zukov? ... a politician or a general?

 

It is interesting what Hitler himself thought about this question.

It seems that Hitler was convinced in necessity of pushing Russians over the Urals to control the Lebensraum. Convinced in the success he has refused Stalin’s offer in 1941: handing Germany the Baltic countries, Poland, a large part of Belorussia and Ukraine. Again, in 1943 Stalin repeated his offers but that time he has requested return to 1941 borders and Hitler refused that rather generous offer. Hitler obviously lacked capability to adjust his wishes to the reality. For him the ultimate goal was to see Russians over the Urals or six feet under.

Allegedly, Stalin has defended Moscow to outdo Kutuzov: To save Russia without abandoning Moscow.

About capturing Stalin: impossible. Stalin was obsessed with his own security and was better protected than any other man.

 

Yes, but as Stalin decided to stay in Moscow he put his future in the hands of fate. If Germans would be able to take Moscow he would end up in the same net as others.

ABout who could lead the nation: In late Sept/Oct Molotov,Berija and Zhukov went to see Stalin in his villa. Stalin was afraid that his time had come. Instead the group asked for Stalin to keep on fighting the war as he was the only one who could motivate the country and people to fight the nazis. My opinon though is that if Stalin died or refused to rule (??) Zhukov would probably be the next person in charge in the situation of Crisis late 1941.

 

I've heard something about that episode that took place on June 30th 1941 when Stalin was absent for few days in his dacia. When Politbeureau members came to visit him they found him sitting on the chair asking them: »Why have you come? «, suspecting the plot. However, his visitors wanted him to return to take charge in new »War Cabinet«.

»But, can I lead the country to victory? « he asked. »There may be more deserving candidates. «

He has created yes-men around him who couldn't picture Russia without him. Without him they were lost. Maybe Zhukov was better choice but he couldn't control the country like Stalin did with Beria. Indeed, among all those yes-men, Stalin was the best choice because he has eliminated worthy competitors.

 

I personaly think Stalin may have stayed, Had he not, Russia could still continue the war, Past history shows us when an invading army has captured Mosocw they have still been thrown out eventually, Russia has constantly used distance as there ally.

Had he stayed though, Killed or simply kept alive, The following days, weeks and months would be crucial, While the idea of Communism might sound good.. Simple fact is that it has constantly been used as a source of power and greed, More then likely you would see alot of infighting, So much that a good portion of the oviet forces would surrender or join the Axis. Even if they didnt surrender or join, With lines of supply all buy gone for the time being, And the failure to be able to combine massive forces due to splits in loyalty you would see the Germans be able to steam roll over the Russian forces, Even in there weakened state and long supply lines.

Unless you have a clear line of succession a country can not stand togethor as one, And seeing as Stalin was so fearful of being overthrown himself, He didnt have any clear line of succession. That made the Death of Stalin the death of Russia. Even if Russia didnt die out completely, but sued for peace, Giving up vast swaths of land (Belarus, Ukraine, Caucasus? etc) while they would eventually be able to fight back, taking into the likely hood od massive amounts of damage to logistics routes, factories, equipment numbers etc they would not be able to fight the Germans for some time. In that time Germany may very well hold off against the British/Americans until there publics grew so tired of war they sued for peace.

 

Again the best analogy might be what happened a generation earlier, in WWI - the new regime ended the war, ceding to the Germans mainly what they already controlled, blamed the defeat on their predecessors, and concentrated on consolidating power in the remainder of the country, which, despite the loss of those "vast swaths of land" was still the biggest on earth, with extensive industries and natural resources, much like Russia today after the breakup of the USSR (and in this scenario they would still have their central Asian republics).

One odd aspect of the war ending in 1941 is that the Germans would not yet have reached the Caucasus and its oilfields. Would they demand cessation of territory beyond what they had achieved through force of arms, and if so would whoever claimed to rule Russia be willing or able to accede? Odd though it sounds, would the Germans decline an offered surrender so they could carry out an "Operation Blau" in 1942? Or would they settle for a treaty which promised continued supplies as the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact had?

 

Well from what i understand, Hitler wanted basically what they had been given in 1917, So i believe had they guaranteed to keep supplying Germany with oil then Hitler would have gone for it. Germany's biggest land based threat left in tatter's, Gain vast swath of prime land, Even if Hitler intended to make another run at Russia, Gain more territory he may be inclined to settle.. For the time being anyway.. More then likely see Germany and Russia building up there forces for another confrontation a couple years down the track. In that time increased logistics support to Rommel in NA defeats the Allied units there and they take Egypt and the Mid East. In that time Germany also introduces the Panther, Tiger I and a few other more powerful capable weapons. May also provide relief and time for other minor Axis nations to begin upgrading there forces, Hungary, Romania, Italy et all suffered from poor equipment or simply inferior equipment. Time to upgrade and train there forces with newer more advanced equipment may make them far more useful to Germany.

 

Just reading some info.. As I'm sure others know, Russia's railway system was old, Very old.. Dating back in a lot of cases to the Czar's. Few lines were double gauge, and many of the single gauge lines were rarely or never used for years due to them running to places trains never went past. On top of all this, Being such a poor old system, There were few points of connection, The most important point connecting the railway lines, Moscow.. So take Moscow.. And you leave the Russian railway system crippled.. Sure they could take workers from the factories in the Urals to lay down new tracks, But that would take time considering the vast distance nd would mean a down grade in production numbers.

 

old, Very old.. Dating back in a lot of cases to the Czar's.

That would be 24 years old as of 1941......most of the railroads in Europe, the United States, and other industrial countries were built in the late 1800s or early 1900s, although they were progressively upgraded to handle heavier loads. Most Russian railroads were considerably younger than the Pennsylvania, Baltimore & Ohio, Union Pacific, etc.

Few lines were double gauge......

The term is double track, and having two or more tracks in the same right-of-way does indeed offer considerably more capacity than a single track with passing sidings. "Gauge" refers to the distance between the two rails of a track. It's significant in the case of Russia because they used a slightly wider gauge than the European (and American) standard. Thus Russian tracks had to be re-gauged before German trains could use them. One break for the Germans was that they needed to move the rails closer, about 3", which just means respiking one of the rails on the existing ties and trackbed; widening the gauge would be considerably more work.

 

Apologies for my mix up, Thanks for the correction Carronade.

Though my point still stands, While it may not have been as old as others, It was not maintained, And the layout of it across Russia was ill conceived. Relying on so few locations of congregation allows for the highly resource hungry forces to be left stranded in the field by taking out these locations. If there where any place in Russia that Barbarossa should have aimed to capture or bomb it should have been these, Would have done the most damage, or delayed Russians long enough for the Germans to get settled.

 

Stalin had already planned to leave Moscow for Gorki I believe it was but shall have to check.

 

Stalin never planned to leave. There was however; a special train waiting for him just in case... Destination would have been to the same city where all the staff eas evacuated...Kubeshuev

 

Yes it was Kuibyshev.
He would have left without doubt.
This was in his nature and the train was not prepared for nothing.