Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moscow should have been the do or die objective because Moscow was to the USSR what New York, Chicago and Washington combined is to America. Even today Russia has a hub and spoke transportation, electrical power and communications system and the hub is Moscow. Soviet central planning at its best makes for a vunerable nation.
This was brought up earlier in the thread, before it got derailed for a time, but it is not a universal that taking Moscow would have assured a German victory. I don't think it is the death blow that you seem to be implying. The Soviets already had moved their industry east of the Urals, they had contingencies for evacuating the capital, etc. Chances are a direct assault on Moscow would have simply been an earlier Stalingrad.
There is also a lot of speculation over whether or not the Germans could have even reached Moscow sooner then they did, even if they hadn't split off their armored groups to support AG North and AG South. Assuming the war played out exactly as it did up to that moment, it isn't a sure thing that the Germans could have even taken Moscow at all or put up much more of an assault then they did historically.
Like TonyT said, it was one of those things we will never know. The Germans planned an annihilation battle where the objective was to destroy the Soviet Army in the field, not take specific cities/regions. This is the same method they used in France and dominated their tactical thinking from the late 1800's through WW2.
So, I guess we are left with two questions which were debated earlier in this thread:
1. Given the tactical and logistical realities the Germans faced following the elimination of the Smolensk pocket, could they have launched an earlier attack on Moscow and given themselves a better chance at taking the city?
2. If they were able to take the city, would that act alone be enough to force the Soviets to capitulate?
Moscow should have been the do or die objective because Moscow was to the USSR what New York, Chicago and Washington combined is to America. Even today Russia has a hub and spoke transportation, electrical power and communications system and the hub is Moscow. Soviet central planning at its best makes for a vunerable nation.
1.Conquering Moscow didn't help Napoleon's case.
2. The reason that today's Moscow is a "hub" has got not much to do with "Soviet central planning" but it's more about the Western banks reps who were sitting in Moscow ( and St. Pet) from Soviet days, waiting for their time to come to spring to action...
1.Conquering Moscow didn't help Napoleon's case.
2. The reason that today's Moscow is a "hub" has got not much to do with "Soviet central planning" but it's more about the Western banks reps who were sitting in Moscow ( and St. Pet) from Soviet days, waiting for their time to come to spring to action...
In Napoleon's time Moscow wasn't as important as it was in WW2. It was more or less just the capital. Not so during WW2. The rail network, communications, the spirit of the Soviet Union, the sole man moving the war (Stalin) all lay in Moscow. A German victory may not have meant victory but it would be the icing on the Russian cake and would of forced the crumbling union to accept humiliating peace terms.
Location: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic
1,132 posts, read 2,104,370 times
Reputation: 1018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrachris
In Napoleon's time Moscow wasn't as important as it was in WW2. It was more or less just the capital.
Actually it's incorrect - during Napoleon's time Moscow was NOT the capital of Russia - St. Petersburg was. Moscow became capital in 1918 after the revolution.
In Napoleon's time Moscow wasn't as important as it was in WW2. It was more or less just the capital. Not so during WW2. The rail network, communications, the spirit of the Soviet Union, the sole man moving the war (Stalin) all lay in Moscow. A German victory may not have meant victory but it would be the icing on the Russian cake and would of forced the crumbling union to accept humiliating peace terms.
You are missing the point. Again. The WWII for Russia and Germany was not about the "humiliating peace terms" as it was during the WWI, and not about the "crumbling union," it was about the destruction of Russians as a race.
Moscow has (always had) a special sentimental value for every Russian for historical reasons, not necessarily because it was "the spirit of the Soviet Union." "The sole man moving the war" could have moved to a different location - meaning to the Eastern part of the country and the war would have still go on.
Watch these two parts of the Unknown War closely; the plan of industrial evacuation was definitely put in place early in the war and followed through in spite of all the losses on the Eastern Front. In the same manner the government could have been relocated to a different place and would have still functioned.
You are ascribing too much importance to the Soviet ideology, which definitely had its place, but was not the defining factor of the Great Patriotic War.
I can't help but to think that if Hitler didn't halt Army Group Center to attack North to Kiev then they would of captured Moscow and the war would be over.
I can't help but to think that if Hitler didn't halt Army Group Center to attack North to Kiev then they would of captured Moscow and the war would be over.
Rewind about a dozen pages or so for my rebuttal and evidence to the contrary.
Hello, everyone. I study WWII history for hobby. While doing some reading on WWII casualties by each nation, I encountered some unbelievable statistic. My questions for you guys are three-fold.
1. Why was the Soviet casualties extremely high compared to other Allied nations such as U.K. and U.S.? U.S. only sustained 400,000 casualties during the entire WWII campaign compared to Soviet' 27 million which is almost 70 times the rate.
2. How many of those 27 million death were inflicted by Nazi troops? I understand the majority of those 27 million casualties were civilians slaughtered by German troops who regarded Russians as "sub-humans" and "Bolsheviks."
3. This question is the most mind-boggling to me. How on earth do you beat the best-trained and best-equipped army under the great generals like Von Manstein, Guderian, Paulus and the likes with poorly trained army with old weapons and lack of leadership?
Based on research, "The purge of the Red army in late 1930's removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars."
I don't care if you have 20 million-man army. Without strong and brilliant generals, you can not win a war, especially against well-trained and well-led German troops at the time. How did the Red Army beat the Germans despite the severe lack of leadership?
Thanks in advance for any insights.
I think you are being rather unkind to the Russians. They were unprepared for the type of war the Germans brought to their doorstep just like every other allied country. What the Russians did to defeat the Germans is amazing however and that poorly trained and poorly outfitted Army became the best trained and equiped military in the world by the end of WWII all the while killing the German Army. 9 out of 10 German soldiers who died in WWII were killed by the Russians.
Make no mistake, the Soviets won WWII. The Americans and Brits played a vital part but without the blood and valor of Soviet troops, the Germans would have won.
I think you are being rather unkind to the Russians. They were unprepared for the type of war the Germans brought to their doorstep just like every other allied country. What the Russians did to defeat the Germans is amazing however and that poorly trained and poorly outfitted Army became the best trained and equiped military in the world by the end of WWII all the while killing the German Army. 9 out of 10 German soldiers who died in WWII were killed by the Russians.
Make no mistake, the Soviets won WWII. The Americans and Brits played a vital part but without the blood and valor of Soviet troops, the Germans would have won.
American equipment and Russian lives. A big misconception I had in my youth was that the convoys in the atlantic were mostly headed to britain. I'd no idea just how many trucks, blankets, planes, ammunition, food etc. were shipped into Russia....and the extent of casualties suffered.
I have a great deal of pity for the Russian people having suffered through both Stalin and Hitler, I sometimes wonder whom killed more Russians.
Millions of Soviet troops were surrounded and captured in the first year. They were shipped to labor camps and died there. The excuse that the Geneva Conventiion did not apply to Communist, Socialist, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies or Gays was almost as valid then as it is now. The Nuremberg Doctrine doesn'y exclude anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
