How close did Hitler come?

Slonisp;
Taken Helsinki-The Finns REALLY did not want to advance into Purely Russian territory (and were threatened by Great Britain on this subject). Moreover; Finland was a democracy and leery of both Fascism and Stalinist Communism. All Von Mannerheim cared about was preserving Finnish Independance and he largely succeeded. He-and the Finnish nation- were treading a fine line under the most hazardous conditions imaginable.
A short history of Finland - Google Books
JeffinMNUSA

 

I agree completely. Finland only advanced as far as her previously lost territory in the winter war with Russia.

This is why I asked, what could Hitler have done to persuade Finland to declare all out war? (as advancing into Leningrad would have resulted in just that).

 

Slon;
Hitler could have out and out invaded or engineered a pro fascist coup. Neither happened, and the Finns pursued their own interests throughout the conflict.
Jeffin
PS. Here is an expert debate on the "Moscow First" theory; http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=124758 With great cases made by both sides.

 

Russia would have kept fighting after loseing Moscow and it's industry and it would give a heroic stand but would not be able to wage war/been combat ineffective.

If the Germans had taken Moskow then leave a small token defense force to defend it,this is assumeing AGC had taken it,then AGS aswell as a contengeant from AGC with it's origin being Moscow could have come up behind the Russians in the south.

With there Capital flying the swastika and being surounded/cuttoff the Russians in the south would figh untell there supply ran dry or the Germans ran out of bullets.

The Russians in the North would have a choice of keep up the fight with the German AGN or leaveing a token force and takeing the capital back.

Im going to stop because i fear im getting alittle to much into the "what if".

 

I agree with others who posted above - the Russians would have continued the war without Moscow. Although the loss of Moscow would have damaged the rail network, most of the industry was already moved East, and significant forces remained outside the Moscow area.

 

Remember Napoleon, anyone? Even if the Germans had occupied Moscow, which they couldn't have because of Stalingrad, which they couldn't have stopped because Hitler was OBSESSED with it, it wouldn't have done any more than those few chaotic days during te beginning of Barbarossa.

 

How does Stalingrad (Sept. 1942-Feb. 1943) effect Moscow (Oct-Dec. 1941)?

 

With hindsight(I love it ,you are always right )one can say that in september the Germans had no more chance to finish the war in 1941.They were weakening every week,the Russians get stronger every week:USSR:june frontstrenght 2.7 ,September 3.2 ,december 4.2 Germans june:2.9 september 2.9 december 2.6 . They had to win before september,but failed. After september they tried to get to Moscow but they failed.

 

In fact, the German Army was 20 miles from Moscow. But in reality, they had many more miles to go. The soviets had moved, by Trans-Siberian Railway, their major production centers. The Germans could move until their supply lines were a distant memory and the Soviets could still keep fighting. Unless Japan came around the back in a war they were just as unprepared for, the Germans had no chance of doing severe damage to Soviet military production. Thus::aa_ussr::smg::i_surrender:

 

Btw Jadgtiger, you're right and i'm an idiot but with stalingrad casualties the Germans were completely unprepared for another advance on Moscow.

 

Cheese;
So where in Wisconsin are you from? No you are not an idiot. I am reading Colonel David Glantz's account of the German drive across Southern Russia in 1942? You are correct that the Wehrmacht spent a good deal of it's military strength during the drive on Stalingrad. Soviet strength (how do we define this term? For certain the Sovs grew in expertise and material as the conflict progressed) was growing throughout 1942 and the dictator Stalin at first refused to believe Hitler was focusing on the Caucasus-and concentrated his forces in the North expecting another drive on Moscow. It is questionable that Hitler had the military strength to drive on Moscow in 1942. After Stalingrad the writing was pretty much "on the wall." Which is not to say that "Der Fuhrer" couldn't have pulled some tricks out the bag-NAZI remained a bitter and dangerous foe no matter what the balance of military strength.
JeffinMNUSA

 

Hi Chesehead,

No worries, your not an idiot we all make mistakes

 

Some are bigger than others. Thanks for replying

 

Hey jeff did i say i was in wisconsin if so I didn't mean it NY here and ty for telling me im not an idiot

 

"Cheesehead" means "someone from Wisconsin" in these parts. NY though? "S'all good." So..did Hitler fuggup by swinging South in 1941? It's all pretty academic...For certain he was one vile little man who took down a great nation and a goodly part of Europe with him. Yeah I think it was a militarily incorrect decision but then again the principle of "securing one's flanks" has merit. Still "an all out drive on Moscow in 1941 would have been a gamble.. The military leader of the Third Reich chose not to risk it and well..what can you say? HE lost the war.
JeffinMNUSA