say the Nazis actually took Moscow, how the Hell do they win from there? How could Hitler possible take out Russian infrastructure in the Urals or to the east? Meme historians and even half of the mainstream consensus seems to be the Soviets were on the verge of losing, why do they think this?
Not looking to bait I'm genuinely curious and feel like I'm missing some understanding here. it was my understanding Stalin put a lot of infrastructure in place in the case of a successful invasion and capture of Moscow.
Remove trains and your fighting a WW1 style of war (which the germans won)
Anthony Sanchez
Actually, I played an interesting HOI4 game as Germany.
Denmark went Communist and the UK declared war on them which lead to Communist Denmark joining the Commintern and the Allies went to war with the Soviets.
As Germany I gave Slovakia to the Poles for Danzig. Then seeing me as not as a threat the Poles formed their own faction in the Baltics. I back stabbed the Poles without a gurantee from the Allies and occupied them and the Baltics.
Then I joined the Allies war on the Soviets. France invaded through Finland and the UK through the Crimea.
Eventually I got the Japanese to invade Siberia and we put down the Soviets without having to go all the way to the Urals.
After that I declared war on the Allies.
Benjamin Murphy
Taking Moscow doesn't mean they can't move trains east of it. Germany's railways weren't exactly efficient either.
Lucas Ramirez
It was impossible, no matter how you go about it. The only reason they didn't see this was they actually believed their own propaganda about the Soviet Union being a weak, corrupt, unpopular regime. The reality was very different.
Kevin Jackson
Germany would never be able to take Moscow though
Gavin Taylor
Guderian got east of moscow, if he had attacked 1 month earlier(as planned) his tank army could have succeeded.
Adrian Gomez
Moscow was more fortified than Stalingrad, it was going to be a very costly victory at best
Alexander Torres
Yes, but "plan"was to surround and bombard it
David Wood
He'd still have to deal with large losses in manpower, equipment, and fuel, and distance from repair and supply bases just as he did in November. Right, because that worked so well with Leningrad. Not to mention Moscow isn't facing water, doesn't have an allied army to the north, and is larger - you have to surround the entire city of 4 million with your troops.
Isaac Hughes
any recommended reading so I can understand Nazi invasion of Russia as well as you guys?
Tyler Gray
The axis army had 1.2 million troops at Moscow, im sure thats enough to surround it.
Leningrad was supplied via a frozen lake and still had 3 million dead-you think Moscow could last 1 winter without food?
Christian Bennett
I think the troops from Siberia would have arrived and did exactly what they did outside Moscow except they'd have the support of reorganized forces in Ukraine that Germany couldn't go and fuck up seeing as they were focusing on Moscow so it would be even more disastrous for Germany
Brody White
Oh your one of the, fine
The battle of Brody(1941) showed the ukrainian army to be a disorganized mob that was easily picked off.
Elijah Cooper
Doesn't matter, it's another front your surrounding forces have to handle when they couldn't even handle the Kalinin offensive historically with a far more defendable geographic position
Levi Harris
If this is operation Mars your taking about, then it was hardly a soviet victory. Also, the russians would be forced to try and break a seige of moscow and would not have the luxury of building up substantial forces-which would lead to piece-meal attacks and a WW1 type of battle
Brody Hill
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army stopped Hitler by David Glantz is a great introduction to the topic. Operation Barbarossa and Germany's defeat in the East is a comprehensive book that focuses only on Barbarossa, and provides a good overview of the logistical side. Germany and the Second World War, volume IV was published by the office of military history for the German armed forces and comes in at nearly 1400 pages, covering everything from the reasons behind the invasion, the operations of the army and the air force, the economies of the occupied territories, and the supply of the armies. archive.org/details/GermanyAndSecondWorldWarVolumeIVAttackOnSovietUnion Yes, they had 1.2 million troops. The Soviets had around the same number. The question is, do you have the supplies and the means to transport them while under constant attack by the Red Army? Only one-third of motor vehicles are operable at this point, the equipment needed for armored and motorized divisions to move effectively and encircle the city. Hundreds of thousands of horses, which supply the infantry, are already dead or dying. Fuel is getting more and more scarce as large amounts of the reserves have been used up. As forces move further and further from the railheads, the already depleted supply trains have to travel further also, all while being counterattacked. There's a reason why the Wehrmacht dug in the winter of that year - the Soviets were in a bad position, but so were the Germans. As for the starvation of Moscow, they'd probably have it very tough, but Leningrad never surrendered despite horrific losses, and Moscow probably wouldn't either, assuming it could be surrounded in the first place.
Luke Kelly
>, do you have the supplies and the means to transport them Apparently they did, which is why Hitler sent Guderian's tanks on a round trip to Ukraine and back again, and Hoths to Leningrad
Joshua Garcia
>which would lead to piece-meal attacks and a WW1 type of battle Germany can not win a war of attrition against the Soviet Union, and even if Germany does capture Moscow, why would that suddenly end the war?
Levi Garcia
It wouldnt end the war, but the soviets would take alot longer to build up the enormous forces they used in their offensives-in fact they probably couldnt supply a bagraton sized offensive without trains.
John Clark
Bagration was in Belorussia in 1944, so I really don't know why you're bringing it up seeing as in order to launch it they'd need to retake Moscow first
Mason Bennett
Those were actions that happened when German forces weren't 1,000 kilometers into the Soviet Union, had larger amounts of equpiment of fuel, and Wehrmacht held the complete initiative while the Red Army was still retreating.
Landon Foster
getting into moscow in 42 probably would've ended the war earlier if anything for the germans
Lucas Barnes
Hitler lost when he decided to conquer the USSR instead of restoring the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Blake Powell
Hitler wouldn't have been able to force the USSR to accept such a treaty anyway. Hitler lost when he decided to invade Poland.
Nathan Clark
Hitler lost when he was elected.
Austin Garcia
Hitler lost when he was born
Austin Wilson
theyd have lost it during the following winter months and quite possibly the entire army group center stopped existing, just like in 1945
you need to understand that history channel tier history is false, barbarossa was not a cakewalk, the wehrmacht payed dearly for every gained ground before operation tyhoon, they lost 2/3 of their equipment and 1/3 of their personel and you want to launch an offense with this force on the capital of the USSR...
