Who saved Moscow in December, 1941?

IRU;
I would also factor in the terrain around Moscow (Ivan the Terrible chose his Capitol wisely!). http://grognard.com/bfm/map.pdf
Hitler planned to encircle Moscow-as opposed to getting into a bloody city slugfest-and throttle the Soviet state at it's source. Could have a German ring around Moscow have held? Possibly before the decision to attack SOUTH (but then of course Hitler would hav e had to have left the Minsk Armies intact and they could perhaps have launched a flank attack).
But after the Minsk battles and the Rasputitsa; what with Winter setting on, the Axis supply lines badly overextended, the Axis forces badly depleted, the Soviet Eastern forces moving into position up the Trans Siberian railroad, and the horror stories about massacres of POWs and civilians in the occupied territories gaining real word of mouth credibility? Doubtfull...
Also I would add veterans- those bolder soldiers of the Barbarossa slaughters who chose to strike off on their own overland for friendly lines rather than be caught in the nets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_(1941)
I am fairly certain these scenarios have been played in the defense computers in Moscow and Washington and perhaps we will see the results in a generation or two.
JEffinMNUSA

 

You guys have it all wrong....

It was the tireless efforts of our fearless leader, Stalin, that saved the front, the city, the country, and the revolution itself.

Let us all please stand and give many minutes of applause for the Chairman of the Party of Workers and Peasants, our Maximum Leader....UNCLE JOE.

Dissenting opinions please leave the auditorioum by the back entrance, where our security forces will be waiting to deal with the problem.

 

No doubt why December 5th should be celebrated in Russia, stopping the seemingly invincible Wehrmacht in it's tracks in December '41 was the first step in the long hard road to Berlin for the Red Army.

As others have already stated there's a myriad of reasons as to why the Wehrmacht was fortunately stopped at the gates of Moscow, but I'd probably go along with Erickson in 'The Road To Stalingrad' who says, in the end it's probably the amazing resilience and unbreakable will of the ordinary Russian soldier, [who abysmally led from the top down, & went through a slaughter that would have probably broken any country in the World] took in all on & gradually turned it around & eventually ended up in Berlin.



On Stalin's impact on the Soviets war effort.

Although he sits jowl by jowl with his partner in crime Hitler as the worst of the worst & there's hardly a redeeming feature about him, [& was a millstone around the Red Army's neck early in the war] but by launching a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization, it's strongly possible he enabled the USSR to survive against the Nazis [even though the upheaval in the agricultural sector disrupted food production, resulting in widespread famine & death]

By 1937, 80% of Russian industrial output came from plants built since 1928.


And Laurence Rees on.....What Was the Turning Point of World War II? » HistoryNet........

Rees cites Moscow as the turning point of WW2, but thinks October was the crucial date & Stalin played a major part.

In Moscow at that time, there was an atmosphere of pure terror & panic in the Soviet capital, for it seemed almost inevitable that the Germans would arrive in a matter of days, if not hours, & the Government led by Stalin was on the verge of bolting.

Lees goes on to say.......''which leaves us to answer the vital question—what would have happened if Stalin had boarded that train on October 16, 1941, and had made a run for it? Well, having looked at the documents and met many veterans who fought in the defense of Moscow, I am convinced that if Stalin had left Moscow, the Soviet capital would have fallen. Stalin would have been disgraced, his authority fatally damaged. As a consequence, the Soviets would have then made peace with the Germans. There was, after all, a precedent for this. In March 1918 the fledgling Soviet Communist government had signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which had given away to the Germans huge amounts of territory, including Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States.

That's why October 16, 1941, gets my vote as the turning point of the war—probably the turning point of the 20th century, because if the Soviets had left the war in the autumn of 1941 it's hard to see how the Nazis could ever have been dislodged from Europe without nuclear weapons.

But I don't necessarily expect you to agree. Not for one minute. For, as I said, argument is one of the great pleasures of history.''

I think Laurence certainly got that last bit right.

BTW, some of the views by historians on the turning Points of World War II, don't seem to make much sense, eg, a German historian stating the Allied decision not to bomb Auschwitz was the key turning point, & Overlord for instance, others go for Pearl Harbour etc.

 

Apologies for the double post.

I tried to correct the double 'Red' army at top off the post, but all I got was a double post with the same problem about the 'Red' army.

If someone could delete one post [ and one ''Red'' army, I'd be most obliged]

Think I may need a new computer.

 

I will not say what I am thinking of pseudo historians using the term "key(haha)turning point",but I would not object if some one would talk of nitwits,amateurs,etc

 

Thanks for that LRusso216!

Not sure I'd go that far, everyone to his own opinion I guess, but some certainly make you scratch your head, that's for sure.

 

well,the idea that in a total war between powerful industrialized countries,there was a turning point,i.e.a battle that was deciding this total war,where at 08a.m. the Germans were winning the war,and at 08.p.m.,the Germans lost the war,is ridiculous and people talking about key turning points (more than 1 haha) and thus suggesting the existence of non key turning points(haha),are,IMHO,amateurs,bunglers,journalists .....

 

I was quite serious, thankyou very much.

This is very much the view of the Modern Russian historian. The attitudes , proclamations and terror machine initiated by I.V. Stalin put the proverbial "Rod of Steel" in the spine of the Soviet people. Remember, Zukhov was appointed to the post of Commander of the Moscow "Front" after one and another previous commanders had blown it. Buddenny barely escaped from the Vyazma pocket. An estimated 750,000 badly needed Soviet soldiers didn't. Zukhov was outnumbered for "Typhoon", however he was fighting on territory that he was born and raised on. The State Security Service had to remove his family from their village, as it was right in the path of AGC.

Zukhov was hand picked by Stalin for the job at the most crucial phase of the entire European conflict, and maybe in Russian history entire.

I wasn't kidding. Without the terrifyingly firm grip that Stalin had on the people of the Soviet Union, it's difficult to see how else they could have weathered the tidal wave.

It is this very factor that poisons the minds of many Russians today. They seek to excuse the crimes of Josef Stalin on these grounds. I'm not sure I can excuse a man with so much blood on his hands, but I must agree with the Russians on one point.

He was their war leader....and they might not have done it without him......

As another Russian put it...

"We had a choice between two dictators. We preferred to support the one that spoke Russian."

 

There are many mentions about Stalin. I would also like to speak about him.
On Stalin in general.
There were a theoretical doctrine - communism. Lenin began to realize this theoretical teaching in Russia. Stalin continued to that implementation. Everything what he did in Russia, was an attempt to build a communist society. Evaluating his activities, we must always remember that.
Why, in October 1941, Stalin decided to stay in Moscow?
Already on July 3, the main shrine of Communists - Lenin's body was taken out from Moscow to Tyumen city.
October 15, it was issued a decree of the State Committee of Defense of moving capital in Samara (Kuibyshev).
The General Staff and all the Russian government moved to Kuibyshev. All close relatives of Stalin were also evacuated. Stalin could leave the capital by train or by plane at any time. But while the headquarters of the Western Front was between him and the advancing Germans - he did not do it. I mean, if the situation became even worse - he had possibility to leave the capital. Why did he risk it? Due to the retreat of the Red Army, he had been losing confidence by the Russian people. November 6, a terrorist - single fired his car. The terrorist was detained. He was a simple soldier. During the interrogation, he said: "Before the war, our leaders in newspapers and on radio has always argued that if war comes, we shall fight on enemy territory. But it turned out the opposite - German farther goes, has reached up to Moscow. How many people were killed. Here I decided to make his own personal trial of the supreme authority for deceiving the people. " I think it is very telling example.
What was the role played by the fact that Stalin remained in Moscow?
Certainly it had supported the soldiers and all Russians. This supported the authority of Stalin in the eyes of foreign politicians. But not enough to stop the German offensive. It continued after October 19 (the day issued a decree declaring a state of siege in Moscow, began to shoot looters and restore order to the streets of Moscow). It continued after the military parade on November 7.
Some facts about this parade.
A decision on the parade was made only several days before Nov. 7. Even the participants did not know what they were prepared. The parade started at 2 hours before the scheduled time. (To confuse the possibility of air raid the Germans). At this time, the Germans were within 30 kilometers from Red Square. Participants to the parade were announced: "If there would be air attack, the dead and injured pull off to the side, the parade would does not stop." In the building across the square (where the store GUM now) to this case had been deployed field hospital. Commander of parade was Marshal Budyonny. Parade lasted 25 minutes. Due to the fact that the parade start time was moved, the film crew had no time to remove Stalin's speech. Therefore, throughout the newsreel recorded replay of his speech, rather than the original.
There are video of his parade: YouTube -

 

Interesting IRu, by all accounts the soldiers on the parade marched straight off to the front [which wasn't far to go]

As you say there was panic engulfing Moscow & if Stalin high tailed it at that point the panic would become overwhelming & as Rees says Moscow would probably fall, which would have bad but not necessary fatal consequences according to Glantz.

You say the Commander of parade was Marshal Budyonny.
Think that may have been his forte.

 

Stalin made some pretty good choices when the war started 1941. He did not ask the people to fight for communism but for their country. He also let the Church and priests back to the people. He did not change his military tactics until summer 1942, the massive losses of the Red Army in spring 1942 still reflect the stubborn Stalin´s view on war, but after that he realized that a change must come. However, still before Zitadelle Stalin demanded attack first, but fortunately Zhukov was able to change his mind.

Also Zhukov already shown he was capable as he stopped the Germans before Leningrad. And he was one of the few who were not afraid to say against Stalin, which might have been very dangerous, and formmany was.

I´d like to remind that Lenin said in his last wish that he did not want Stalin to be in any top position for the Communistic party. Stalin was capable to make allies of several top politicians and held onto his power. But like said, Lenin wanted him out.

 

Yes, I agree
Since 1921, the relationship between Stalin and Lenin were difficult. For anyone who interested in this topic, I would recommend the book by Edward Radzinsky "Stalin. Life and Death." As far as I know, it was published in English. In my opinion, some of the conclusions of this historian are debatable. But most importantly, there are detailed and reliable information of how to build communism in Russia. The book uses a lot of unique archival materials. There is a site of this writer, but I checked, English version does not work http://www.radzinski.ru/

Agree about Zhukov, too.
He was a tough guy. Stalin had trusted him. October 10, he appointed Zhukov to Commander of the Western Front. In fact, he confided to him the fate of Moscow. And Zhukov’s situation assessment also influenced Stalin's decision to stay in Moscow.

 

Sorry, I have to clarify.
Budyonny was «Taking the Parade». And «the Commander of the Parade» was a General Artemyev.
The fact is, the military tradition required that «Taking the Parade» should visit all the troops, standing in the square. This is done on horseback. Nothember 7, it was very slippery and therefore dangerous. Budyonny was a great rider. Perhaps that is why he was «Taking the Parade» in that time.

 

Having in mind the above it is obvious that there is not only one reason for the German failure.
For sure the fact that the Stalin stayed was important. Maybe for first time he was an example which could inspire the others, from the last soldier to the first general.
However before this fact i beleive that the game was already lost for the Germans. They have already lost the correct timing and many factors were against them.
History teaches that if you invade Russia you must defeat the Russian armies west of river Dniepr and this must be done latest by middle of autumn. If not, after Dniepr there are more than 2-3 directions to follow and it is impossible to hold with one arm 2 or 3 water melons! The weather also after middle of autumn make the things difficult for the invader who is away from his base.
In the beggining Hitler wanted to take Leningrad, so to liaise with Finlands and also secure the Baltic side.
However as a politician he could realize the importancy of agricultural Ukraine and the industrial area of South Dniepr river land.
Those targets are far away the one from the other and it is difficult to be achieved with one try.
The generals like Halder and Browhitchz wished to take Moscow. Not because Moscow was a symbol but because in this direction they would defeat and destroy a big mass of the Red Army.
The resistence of the Red Army became day by day more hard and make the German troops to slow down.
They needed 5 days to reach Minsk but 3 weeks more to reach Smolensk. It was a big problem for an invader that there was only one road (with the European standard characteristics) in the way to Moscow so not only the army but the supplies also arrived too slow to the destinations.After Smolensk Hitler decided to focus to the Leningrad and secondary to Moscow or Ukraine. The big mass of the Red Army around Kiev make Hiltler but the generals also like von Kluge to try to defeat this army first and then to turn North to Moscow. this cannot be done otherway. If they continue to Moscow, always they will have the fear to be attacked from the South from these Soviet troops. And German had a glorius victory with 600.000 prisoners!
So you see initially target is Lenigrad, then Moscow or Ukraine, then Kiev, then Lenigrad again and then Moscow again.
It was already October. Still they had a chance depending on the weather but in 1941 autumn was too rainy and winter came earlier. The wet ground and the resistence of the Red Army and the capability of the Red Army which was more skillfull day by day make the German try too difficult. When the ground was frozen they made another try. 2nd of December they were outside Moscow fighting in the forests around Moscow in extreme conditions, daylight only till 15:00 and very low temperature which make the lub oil of the machine guns to freeze. Of course these conditions were same for the Russians too but the difference was that Germans were exhausted and the willness of Russian unbeatable. Some units of the 2nd Panzer battallion and of the 258 infantry battallion reached up to outskirts of Moscow and they may have a look of the Kremlin before Russian workers from the nearby factories armed with hammers and other tools stop them.
So i think that what happened was necessary to happen. I beleive the Germans took the right decisions having in mind the circumstances. They just were not enough to win till the end.
Another thing, important also. Germans did not have 100% superiority in the air like their previous campaigns.

 

I think the only way Hitler could have had any real chance of defeating stalin, he had to first win in africa, win over the Russian people who seen the Germans as liberators, and capture the vital sea ports in the north and get to the oil fields before winter, and if he could do all that and capture importent citys like Moscow, Veronez and Starlingrad then he might of had a slim chance, I suppose you could also throw in about the Japanese having a go in the east and up gunner his armour and giving the troops a good anti-tank gun too.

 

first win in Africa ? why
capture the vital sea ports in the north .Which ones .?and why were they vital ?
get to the oil fields before the winter .Why ? Whatever,in 1941 ,it was impossible
Stalingrad in 1941 ? Impossible
Japan would not and could not intervene .

 

To defeat the British and give them no ground to wage a land war so that vital German resources could be transported from Africa and used in Russia, the two sea ports of Arcangel and Murmansk (sorry about the spelling) so that no aid could be sent from the Allies, I forgot to add that if the Germans could capture all the arms factories before they could be shipped futher east away from German bombers (Tankograd) the Soviets would be hard pressed to replace all the Armour lost in the invasion and produce the T-34. I think over Japan if the Soviets still thought that Japan was still a threat (they got a tip off that the Japanese had no intentions of invading Russia)they would still be looking over there shoulder. I know that I was a little over the top about the oil fields and Stalingrad in 1941, but given the options I have aluded about above the Soviets would be in a weeker state to stop a German attack in the south in 1942, amd I read somewhere that the rail link at Voronez was vital in the transport of man and weapons to the south, maybe that could also have an affect on the capture of the oil fields and Staligrad.

 

What "vital resources" were these? Also open to question is how they guarantee a win in North Africa and what it's likely to cost them (both there and elsewhere).

There were two other LL routes that I believe carried the majority of the aid historically.

If you look it up I think you will find that the Soviets starte shifting production to the East before the war started.

I believe the Soviet forces posted in the far east have been published on this board and it's worth noteing that they didn't decline as precipitiously as many think. The Soviets were still looking over their shoulder historically. I also don't see what you are suggesting that would have prevented the Soviet Intel network from picking up on Japan's intentions.

The German attack in the Caucuses failed well before Stalingrad collapsed and from what I recall well short of the oil fields. Just what are you saying the Germans could have accomplished here?