Stalin captured and moscow lost 1941

Stalin was in the train yard, but his political instinct said he might be making a mistake if he left. Also though it would have taken a miracle for Germany to have captured Moscow before winter, it was simply too much for German logistics and possible manpower.

 

I still have some doubts. Could you please support your claims with reliable literature sources.

You knew Stalin personally.

 

Nobody around him ever knew what he really thought and now many television fiction series written by journalists claim that they knew exact Stalin thoughts. How? By time-shift long-distance psychoanalysis?

 

Not sure what you mean by "in his nature" but I do believe that he would not allow himself to be captured.

What is impressive to me, however; is that he stayed when all seemed lost.

 

He stayed with train waiting to go if things started looking bleak.

 

Read a few books on him or the things he wrote and said and you will get a jist of what the man was like.

 

Well why do you think he had a special training ready and waiting?
I have read several books on Stalin the last one being Stalin by Robert Service all have said he was going to leave Moscow.

 

Of course he could not leave to early as the Moscowvites may then offer no resistance and he could not go to late or he may not get out.
Hence why he was waiting with a train kept ready to go.

 

There is a "small" problem with that episode where Stalin stands at the Moscow train station scratching his mustache wondering: "To leave or not to leave the question is now."

Has that ever happened?

It is well documented that on 15 October, Stalin ordered evacuation of the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow to Kuibyshev (now Samara), leaving only a limited number of officials behind [Glanz]. Stalin has remained in Moscow - that is a fact too. Stalin considering leaving is fiction.

Despite the fact that Stalin hasn't left, the most of "authors" on the Battle of Moscow heavily emphasize an episode that hasn't happened and want to persuade us that Stalin hasn't left just because he felt safe. In that particular case speculation has gained much more weight than the historic fact. In my view, that is just a Cold War rhetoric used to trash anything positive connected to "Russians".

Finally, what really counts is that Stalin has shown confidence in his Red Army by staying in Moscow. In that way he stiffened the resolve of the Red Army and boosted the civilian morale. He properly understood that that was his duty as a leader of the state and the supreme commander of the Red Army.

History must be founded by facts, not fiction.

 

Careful Slava, you could say the same thing about old AdolF!

 

Tamino I have to quibble a bit with you. (would you expect anything else )

The fact that the General Staff and other civil servents were evacuated, plus his personal escape route, convince's me Stalin did consider leaving Moscow. He would have been a fool, and very un-Russian otherwise. I agree with you that train station story is likely pure fiction. Possibly of Cold War western manufacture or perhaps his own.

Stalin was a showman in his own right and such a fable would play well with the Russian people.

Personally I suspect he planned to stay until either the city was about to be encircled or over run, then leave to his new HQ. Russian leaders have done this though out their history and I very much doubt Stalin would be much different.

Like Slava, I don't think that if he failed to escape the fall of Moscow he would allow himself to be captured. Something similar to Hitler, though I suspect he would do a better job of preventing his remains falling into enemy hands.

 

Ohh which authors would these most be?

 

No it is established fact.

 

Quibbling is the best way to concieve the truth.

First of all, I would like to apology if I have disturbed anyone, including you, by insisting on precise analysis of historic facts. That wasn't my intention whatsoever; neither now nor in our previous debates.

Of course Stalin would have left Moscow; I have no doubts about that; he was a reasonable man. I suppose, he send his co-workers to safety before to make his escape as fluent as possible. I am sure Soviets had plans to relocate the remaining factories to the east too, but not too soon. In that case, for the Germans, capturing Moscow without Stalin and Stavka would have been just like capturing any other Soviet territory of the same size. Nothing more and nothing less. At that time they have been overextended anyways and every kilometer gained towards east was just increasing the burden on the German army.

However, what I wanted to say is that for history as a science it matters what has happened and matters that might have happened are of much lower importance or even confusing. Therefore, giving so much importance to possible Stalin's flight from Moscow in 1941 is not well founded.

Stalin has understood his role in the defense of Moscow: his preparedness to give military decisions into Zhukov hands and his presence in Moscow were vital elements of the failure of Operation Typhoon. His possible flight from Moscow, however, is irrelevant except for boosting sales of books.

 

It is an interestingwhat if. Would the troops have fought for Moscow if Stalin had left. There was a bit of a panic and troops had to restore order, if it was realized that Stalin had left how much confidence would the populace have had.

 

Ignoring Stalin being captured or not, Capturing Moscow would have had been in my view a fairly decent victory based on the Soviet infrastructure at the time. I can't find the map yet but around that time much of the rail net work passed through Moscow, Taking Moscow would have for a period of time hindered Russian engagements on other fronts, Specifically around Leningrad and the various other engagements North/North-west of Moscow. As for how long this would be I can not say as the Soviets retaking Moscow or building new rail lines are a completely different subject (and I have no idea how proficient they were at building the railways nor the terrain they would be up against).

So tactically it was an important target, But other then that I dont put too much faith in Moscow falling signalling the mass surrender of Russians.

 

I believe Stalin was all set to go.

There existed a bunker in Stalingrad that it was said by Russians who saw it, to be decorated much in the style that pleased the Maximum Leader. And where else would you go? Stalingrad, in 1941 was as far away from battle positions as any other major city in the soviet Union. They were not to know that it would soon be right up there. Only an idiot, thought the soviets, would spread their military assets so far and wide, rather than concentrating them for a knockout punch at a target that actually mattered.

Soviets surrendering? Not likely. They had a lot of space to retreat into. the planners of Barbarossa were not even sure just how far they should go before the magic surrender happened. Their "objective" for Barbarossa was a vague 'line' drawn somewhere East of Moscow and Gorki I don't think it's in the Russian character to give up so easily when your country is invaded as it was. Stalin would have been replaced with someone else from the Party. His death did not mean that The State ceased to exist, after all. There were hundreds of millions of Russians spread across many millions of square kilometers. Surrender? Their backs were to the Steppe....and the further the German advanced, the more likely he was to make errors, grave errors, to be capitalized on.

I think the officials of the communist Party would have made many funeral noises, bestowing Hero of the Soviet Union etc....and then turned to other things...like survival of the revolution, which Stalin always claimed was bigger than himself.

God and the Revolution were the ONLY things bigger than Big Brother.

I think Sloniksp would laugh at the idea of the Soviet Union surrendering.....Slonik, what say you?

 

here's the problem reaching Moscow. It would have been September before AGC could have moved due to the logistical stop. Note only Guderians units moved, the rest of AGC essentially stood still. It would have taken about a month for the first pocket to be eliminated. this puts in October and the start of the rain. So it would be November for the Germans to do the next pocket. By the time the Germans reach Moscow winter is around the corner, do the Germans try to assault the city and risk the casualties and be in horrible shape for the counter attack or do they try to surround Moscow and leave the units on the other side when winter hits.

 

To achieve this we would need an alternate history that could bring it about.
I can think of two.

1. Chamberlain offers no Polish Guarantee thus the Germans end up in a one front war with the Soviets in 1940 or 1941.
2. Hitler persuades Mussolini not to attack Greece and thus Barbarossa begins 3-5 weeks earlier with more resources.

 

Both of those points are flawed.

1. Had there been no Polish guarantee what makes you think that Hitler would attack the Soviets in 1940/41? From my knowledge I have built up over the year's I am of the belief that Hitler planned to build up his forces before any major war. Any invasion of Russia would have taken place only in 1941 or later, No sooner.

2. It has been shown many times that in this 3-5 week period there was a large downfall in rain making any fast moving warfare difficult at best and impossible at worst. In my personal view attacking in this period would not only bog down your advance but could also very well buy the Russians enough time to adapt and prevent Axis forces getting as far as they did historically.


If we are to think of an AH that could bring about the capture of Moscow then it would need a few key points. Take place no sooner then 1941, Preferably 1942. In the years of build up provide European Axis allies with better equipment (Pz III's, PZ IV's, Stug's, Stuka's and fighter aircraft) and bring Finland closer to Germany politically then they were historically with the aim to have them capture the Kola peninsula, the Karelian regions and Leningrad. Doing so would secure one of the important objectives with out the need to put at much resources into it as they historically did. It would also free up some 200,000 German troops that had been stationed in Finland due to the front line being shortened from the 1,350km+ to 450km give or take.

But that's just my thought on what would have been needed to take Moscow not that I believe capturing Moscow would bring about Russia's surrender.