Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Stalin captured and moscow lost 1941


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:18 PM

I was just wondering what would have happened if German´s had managed to take Moscow...and Stalin with it?

What do you think Hitler would have done to him? hanged him? Kept in prison forever? Or would Stalin have stayed in Moscow until the end?

I myself believe that Stalin would have escaped and begun the battles from a HQ probably behind the Urals, or maybe somwhere closer. But as he had the factories in safe and lend lease was pouring, he would have good reasons to continue fighting.

;)
Posted Image

#2 De Vlaamse Leeuw

De Vlaamse Leeuw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:35 PM

In fact, a lot of people surrounding Stalin fled Moscow. But Stalin himself didn’t leave the city.

So he stayed and was captured by the Germans. Or maybe he killed himself.
Probably A.H. ordered the SS to capture Stalin so that he could be hanged in public.

And without Stalin and Moscow, Russia would surrender.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#3 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 24 February 2003 - 07:39 AM

What? No more opinions on this?? Well, ok , but I hoped there would be some different opinions on what would have happened if Stalin was caught..tabula rasa??

:confused:
Posted Image

#4 DUCE

DUCE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts

Posted 24 February 2003 - 01:14 PM

I'd have to go with the flow here...

I don't think Stalin would have fled Moscow, I think he would have stayed to show "support".

If Moscow was taken, I have a feeling that Hitler would have had Stalin killed almost immediately. It's hard to say what use Stalin would have been, so there would be no need for him to be kept alive.

Just some thoughts....

Il DUCE
"Tolerance has never brought civil war; intolerance has covered the earth with carnage" Voltaire
"War is the fruit of man's depravity; it is a convulsive and violent sickness of the body politic.." Diderot

#5 PzJgr

PzJgr

    Drill Instructor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,076 posts
  • LocationJefferson, OH

User's Awards

2   

Posted 24 February 2003 - 04:28 PM

I think Stalin would have left at the last minute and continued the fight. Had he been captured, I agree with Erwin, the war would have ended. The people would have joined with the Germans until they discovered the Nazi plans for their future. Had Germany taken the path of liberation, they could have achieved all that they wanted. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#6 Brad T.

Brad T.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts

Posted 26 February 2003 - 01:00 AM

I dont think the Soviets would surrender until Germans were Atleast in the Urals and Caucasians, and Stalin would have fled, he was not a stupid man, also, what if Moscow was captured in 41, anyone think that would be a earlier Stalingrad.
Go-Flames-Go

#7 dasreich

dasreich

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts

Posted 28 February 2003 - 11:45 PM

Moscow was critical to the Soviet war effort. Besides being a major rail center, and the connection between Soviet forces fighting in the north and south, it was the capital. A loss here would have been devastating to the Russians, but perhaps not a TKO if Stalin could escape to the Urals.

Had Stalin been captured, he would have found a way to commit suicide, much like Himmler after the war ended.
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

#8 Friedrich

Friedrich

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,547 posts

Posted 01 March 2003 - 03:52 AM

I think that Stalin would have left the city after the situation became unbearable and if not, he would not have allowed being taken prissoner. It would have been like Hitler in Berlin in 1945. Without Stalin, the Soviet government would have collapsed and without Moscow, the strategic situation would have collapsed too...
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

#9 dcjeepgc

dcjeepgc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 05:35 AM

By December of 1941 there appeared a re-surgence of mythical Russian pride that was sweeping the civilian population of the country. Talk of what was happening to Russian prisoners of war, civilians, political commisaars and Jews was probably widespread by this time as well. Surrender to the Russian civilians would have no doubt brought to mind a surrender to these conditions, which are hardly better than fighting it out and taking a German soldier with you. I believe that regardless of the loss of Moscow, and/or Stalin, the Russians would have surrendered. They would have had more to gain by continued resistence through partisan operations in the rear and a re-organisation of command structure, organization of establishing new armies and war production beyond the Urals then succumming to Hilters "Arianization" of their counrty. They would still have the re-assurance that the rest of their allies would support them in whatever capacity they could to keep an "eastern front" going.

#10 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 07:21 AM

Had the capture of Moscow become imminent, Stalin would definitely have gotten out. I remember reading of preparations for evacuating the Soviet government officials, including Stalin. Hell, even Lenin got out of town and he was dead!

And no, the capture of Moscow wouldn't have meant the end of the fighting. Stalin would have simply set up a new capitol somewhere to the East and continued fighting. Hitler made a grievous miscalculation when he decided he could knock the Soviets out of the war by capturing Moscow.

Even if Stalin had been killed, it wouldn't have meant the end of the Soviet Union, nor the Red Army. There were plenty of ambitious Communist Party members who would have been only too happy to take over Stalin's post. If no leader had emerged from the Communist Party there was still several Soviet Generals who could have held the country together as a military dictator.

#11 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 21 November 2009 - 02:07 PM

There was a massive panic in Moscow in Oct-Nov 1941 which only disappeared when Stalin decided to stay in Moscow whatever happens. This was naturally also spread in the papers and radio news to calm down the people. I believe one of the reasons why the Soviet frontline held was the fact that Stalin stayed in Moscow.
Posted Image

#12 Guaporense

Guaporense

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 04:41 PM

The capture of Moscow would probably imply in the end of the second world war.

Moscow was the communications center and transport hub of the soviet union (and was an important industrial and population center), to lose it would mean to lose the capability to execute strategic maneuvers. Without Moscow the soviet union would lose all of its European possessions and would have to retreat to the Urals to fight a guerrilla war or sign an armistice.

Anyway, in the two cases the USSR would become a rather minor player in the war, and Germany would be able to allocate millions of soldiers and materiel to make fortress europe impregnable agaisn't the western allies.

Also, with the resouces freed from the eastern front the germans would be able to make a fleet of aircraft carriers and troop transports to destroy the RN and take over England, protecting their european possesions agaisn't the allies. However, without the USSR as a major ally I think that Churchill would sign an armistice.

#13 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 05:44 PM

There was a massive panic in Moscow in Oct-Nov 1941 which only disappeared when Stalin decided to stay in Moscow whatever happens. This was naturally also spread in the papers and radio news to calm down the people. I believe one of the reasons why the Soviet frontline held was the fact that Stalin stayed in Moscow.


Perhaps, but panic in Moscow was of minor consideration to the Red Army.

As far as Stalin being present, that's simply propaganda. The Soviet public seldom knew where Stalin was from day to day; the Soviets could have said he was on the moon and the Soviet citizen couldn't prove otherwise. It really didn't matter if Stalin was in Moscow or not, as long as the average Muscovite thought he was and that was simply a matter of rumor.

#14 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 05:58 PM

The capture of Moscow would probably imply in the end of the second world war.

Moscow was the communications center and transport hub of the soviet union (and was an important industrial and population center), to lose it would mean to lose the capability to execute strategic maneuvers. Without Moscow the soviet union would lose all of its European possessions and would have to retreat to the Urals to fight a guerrilla war or sign an armistice.


Moscow was not the only communications and transport hub inn the Soviet Union. The Red Army could have continued the war quite effectively without control of Moscow. To claim otherwise is to make the same grievous underestimation of the Soviets that Hitler did.

Anyway, in the two cases the USSR would become a rather minor player in the war, and Germany would be able to allocate millions of soldiers and materiel to make fortress europe impregnable agaisn't the western allies.


The only way the USSR would become a "minor player" in the war would be if the Red Army was destroyed; the mere capture of Moscow would in no way accomplish this. The concept of "fortress Europe" was simplistic Nazi propaganda and such a reality never existed, nor could it exist. Again to withdraw troops from the USSR, Germany would have to destroy the Red Army and that wasn't in the cards.


Also, with the resouces freed from the eastern front the germans would be able to make a fleet of aircraft carriers and troop transports to destroy the RN and take over England, protecting their european possesions agaisn't the allies. However, without the USSR as a major ally I think that Churchill would sign an armistice.


This seems to descending into sheer fantasy. Aircraft carriers? The Americans were commissioning one every six weeks in 1943; the Germans weren't able to complete even one in six years. What a joke!

#15 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 06:00 PM

Perhaps, but panic in Moscow was of minor consideration to the Red Army.

As far as Stalin being present, that's simply propaganda. The Soviet public seldom knew where Stalin was from day to day; the Soviets could have said he was on the moon and the Soviet citizen couldn't prove otherwise. It really didn't matter if Stalin was in Moscow or not, as long as the average Muscovite thought he was and that was simply a matter of rumor.


Not sure about that Devilsadvocate. Stalin stayed in Moscow in order to show the people he wasnt going to run. Him staying in Moscow served as an inspiration and motivation for the population. He also made public speeches for this reason. Had he been captured and taken prisoner the population would know and that might have spelled catastrophe...
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#16 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 06:04 PM

The capture of Moscow would probably imply in the end of the second world war.


Devilsadvocate is correct. Moscow was actually expected to fall and preparations were made to conduct the war in case such a scenario occurred. Kubishev was the designated capital in case Moscow fell and all except Stalin and his were ordered to evacuate. The war would have continued...
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#17 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 06:09 PM

Not sure about that Devilsadvocate. Stalin stayed in Moscow in order to show the people he wasnt going to run. Him staying in Moscow served as an inspiration and motivation for the population. He also made public speeches for this reason. Had he been captured and taken prisoner the population would know and that might have spelled catastrophe...


Well, I suppose there is room for debate, but the record is that several cities and regions in the USSR were defended with ferocity without Stalin being present and I think Moscow would have been, as well.

Worst case, Stalin leaves Moscow, the defenders panic, and surrender. The Red Army still fights on despite the setback. They even planned to do this if Moscow fell.

#18 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 06:17 PM

Well, I suppose there is room for debate, but the record is that several cities and regions in the USSR were defended with ferocity without Stalin being present and I think Moscow would have been, as well.

Worst case, Stalin leaves Moscow, the defenders panic, and surrender. The Red Army still fights on despite the setback. They even planned to do this if Moscow fell.


Agreed.
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#19 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 21 November 2009 - 08:11 PM

I for myself believe that Stalin stayed in Moscow because he knew losing the city would be a major setback for the warfare situation. It is a fact that the Soviet resources were massive but to keep those resources believing in the cause is another thing. Stalin made a huge change of direction by giving the church an ok sign, and saying it was the motherland they were fighting for instead of communism, but losing ,say, Leningrad and Moscow, and Stalin speeding away from the front, what do you make of it? Would the front crumble to pieces? Stalin did not want to take the risque there.

Edited by Kai-Petri, 22 November 2009 - 12:53 PM.

Posted Image

#20 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 08:38 PM

I for myself believe that Stalin stayed in Moscow because he knew losing the city would be a major setback for the warfare situation. It is a cttc that the Soviet resources were massive but to keep those resources believing in the cause is another thing. Stalin made a huge change of direction by giving the church an ok sign, and saying it was the motherland they were fighting for instead of communism, but losing ,say, Leningrad and Moscow, and Stalin speeding away from the front, what do you make of it? Would the front crumble to pieces? Stalin did not want to take the risque there.


Well said, Stalin also changed the theme song so as to rally ALL the Soviet nations to defense from invasion rather than the Internationale which certainly didn't inspire all the sections of the USSR.

It was, as you say a morale issue as much as a strategic issue. The USSR could have survived without the Moscow base, but in a very truncated version temporarily. The Nazis had NO CHANCE of extending their influence much beyond the Volga (if at all), and even less beyond the Urals.
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#21 Alan Trammel

Alan Trammel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 21 November 2009 - 09:55 PM

The capture of Moscow would probably imply in the end of the second world war.

Moscow was the communications center and transport hub of the soviet union (and was an important industrial and population center), to lose it would mean to lose the capability to execute strategic maneuvers. Without Moscow the soviet union would lose all of its European possessions and would have to retreat to the Urals to fight a guerrilla war or sign an armistice.



I can't argue with your logic. Taking Moscow worked out well for Napolean, I'm sure it would do the same for the Germans.
  • Sloniksp and ickysdad like this

#22 Avalon

Avalon

    recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 November 2009 - 06:21 AM

If Moscow did fall, then I think people west of the Urals would become partisans. Everybody east of the Urals, will hold the line there. I truly do not believe that Germany, fighting a war on two fronts, will be able to take the Urals.

#23 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 22 November 2009 - 06:50 AM

I can't argue with your logic. Taking Moscow worked out well for Napolean, I'm sure it would do the same for the Germans.


Taking Moscow worked out well for Napoleon???

Uhm, well I guess if one doesn't mind losing one's entire Army and being forced to retreat clear back to France, one could take that view.
  • Sloniksp and ickysdad like this

#24 Totenkopf

Totenkopf

    אוּרִיאֵל

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts

Posted 22 November 2009 - 07:12 AM

Stalin's HQ under the Moscow stadium was supposed to be able to hold out for 6-8 month until relief came. I would think that if Moscow was lost, the Red Army would have been able to retake it quick enough to releive him.

Heh.. they are scratching your paint job, Helmut!


#25 eddie

eddie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 November 2009 - 02:23 PM

I think that Stalin would have left the city after the situation became unbearable and if not, he would not have allowed being taken prissoner. It would have been like Hitler in Berlin in 1945. Without Stalin, the Soviet government would have collapsed and without Moscow, the strategic situation would have collapsed too...


Stalin did not care about anybody life but his. He will certainly escape from Moscow if situation become critical.
Napoleon in 19th centaury and Poles in17th centaury took Moscow and what happened? We all know….
I think that Russian resistance will continue…




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users