Capturing Moscow - decisive?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

Several people think that Moscow would have been decisive, but I think there are lot of factors speaking against that…

a) Government and such were evacuated to Kuibysev, no big deal.

b) Communication, for example radionetwork controlling spies were evacuated to Kuibysev, and it only caused tiny break.

c) Communist had total control of news and information - if a thing like having 130+ division to start war with, and losing 160 divisions soon cannot break countrys (moral, political) back, then nothing can. They would have only played it’s significance down using media.

d) Moscow was a railway center, but capturing it would only directed all soviet forces to march towards Moscow, leading to a static consumption battle - exactly what germans needed to avoid.

e) Loss of Moscow wouldn’t have been surprise for UK, US…

Personally I think that germans should have put more power in the southern part of Soviet Union: Soviet Union had just barely enough food for population, and even with limited amount of divisions germans captured 50% of several key food related natural sources. Had germans put more divisions in southern sector, Soviet Union would have lost most of the it’s coal, food, iron ore etc. There is no way that Allied supply could have covered all the lost resources for Stalin. It doesn’t matter how many million men you have, but without food, coal etc one cannot continue fighting.

#2

I think the German Army should have made Moscow their first objective instead of going down to Kiev if they had captured the Russian capital it would have had a profound effect on Russian morale and most importantly the Germans were ill equipped for the impending Russian winter and it was already setting in when they made their push to Moscow after capturing Kiev with one of the most brilliant encircling movements in military history.

#3

I don’t feel it would have mattered if Moscow had been taken. It would have been a burnt out hulk by then and production might lay in the factories beyond the Urals anyway…

#4

Agreed Twitch.

#5

Government and such were evacuated to Kuibysev, no big deal.

Stalin refused to leave Moscow, and Zhukov was with him.

#6

I won’t argue about the significance of Moscow, but the least that Hitler could have done was allow Guderian to take it. It was poorly defended.

#7

It would have helped that Russians that they had lost Moscow before in 1812 and bounced back. Even if Army Group Centre had taken Moscow could they have held it in December and January against the Siberian divisions. I suggest that Russian quantity has the edge over German quality in city fights.

#8

Have to agree with this. Numbers have a quality all of their own sometimes.

#9

He might not have left but I believe he was considering it, his train was ready and waiting.

#10

Considering that:

  • Loss of Kiev
  • Loss of Minsk
  • Loss of Smolensk
  • Loss of Rostov
  • Siege of Leningrad
  • Annihilation of almost all divisions in western part of Soviet Union
  • Loss of critical food areas
  • Etc

…Did only have minor affect on Russian morale, then why would have loss of Moscow affected so much?

#11

Canaris Wrote:

Even if Army Group Centre had taken Moscow could they have held it in December and January against the Siberian divisions. I suggest that Russian quantity has the edge over German quality in city fights.

Yes but with the loss of Moscow would the Soviets had been able to mobilize as quickly?

And the Winter offensive that actually occured was not very well supplied or supported, its just the Winter had caught the Germans with their pants down.