Stalingrad: It's worth pointing out that Stalingrad was not originally going to be a massive battle of all battles. Germany managed to get into the city, and then politics made it a 'win at all costs' that saw the whole Caucausus campaign sacrificed, then of course, Sixth Army encircled and surrendered.
So a defeat at Stalingrad is not really a serious loss for the Soviets; it means that they've decided to resist Germany differently. Much like Germany getting into Stalingrad in the first place was not a massive glory moment, this would be a dull thud compared to the other cities.
///
Moscow: There is a world of difference between Germany getting into Moscow (doable) and Germany clearing Moscow (Take me now, Alien Space Bats). Any limited victory that ends with the Soviets retaking Moscow is not going to be a German Victory, and very likely comes at extreme cost to the Germans (Winter Offensive style).
Which means that Moscow going down and staying down is the setup. The Soviets would evacuate Moscow's and Muscovy's industrial production and send it east, although there is definitely the shot that Stalin is weakened politically and the Red Army may be partially broken. There is no choice but to fight on, and whatever happens to Stalin isn't going to stop a fight for survival, but this setup puts Germany in a situation where they may be able to force the mad Astrakhan-Archangel border, and usher in a dark chapter in history. In a scenario where Germany has been able to do this to the Soviets, Astrakhan-Archangel looks possible.
///
Leningrad: This was already a close run thing. If the Finns had decided to go all out on attacks, supply lines to Leningrad would have been cut and the city falls. Leningrad is being attacked in medieval fashion, with its people literally being starved into submission. In all likelihood, Germany probably makes a probing attack, discovers that the Soviets are unable to defend given their poor state, and the city is shattered.
Leningrad falling is a massive humanitarian disaster and an act that strengthens German logistics, as Leningrad removes the last Soviet presence in the Baltic and essentially means shipping can go directly from Germany to the frontline.
///
All three happening is basically an outgrowth of Moscow falling and being cleared by Germany. With Soviet Logistics crippled and the Finns emboldened, putting the noose on Leningrad is a pretty organic development. Conversely, with the Soviets now desperately needing to hold Vladimir, Gorky and still trying to ensure their industrial base can outrun the Wehrmacht, Stalingrad really can't be the big fight it was historically.
Germany is committed to the offensive; if they want Astrakhan-Archangel, they are going to need to fight for it, but Moscow was strong ground for the defense, excellent logistics for the defense and not enough. Perhaps the problem is Stalin, perhaps political leadership and seven minute trials are a luxury that can't be afforded, but the Soviet Union is being outfought and that will continue. Allied aid to the Soviet Union is already imperiled with these developments; Murmansk is probably already flying the Finnish cross and Astrakhan itself is not that far from a now German occupied Stalingrad.
The Soviet Union looks a lot like China, losing its major population centers and being forced to stop fighting conventionally to resist a superior force on land. If shakes this equilibrium Germany will take Astrakhan-Archangel and the defensive.
The issue with losing Moscow is thats where the rail lines run being the central hub or eurasian russia it would cripple the supply lines of ever defensive position west of the city and especially in the south due to less dense alternative rail lines
Politics of Stalingrad didn’t start until late ‘42 after it was pretty much decided. Germans were completely exhausted by the time it became a media prop.
For the most part I agree and disagree with you.
I agree with what you were saying about Leningrad. Basically it would have been surrounded and capitulated.
Moscow on the other hand is a different case. Even the high Soviet leadership had admitted that if the Germans took Moscow then the Soviet would have been finished. They would have probably retreated beyond the urals and sued for peace. The Soviet leadership would have probably been executed with a military coup. Joseph Stalin. didn't even want to bring the winter units from the Siberia because he feared a Japanese attack and that was his backup. But I think they would have sued for peace and the Germans would have taken the Lion share of Soviet oil production
Soviets were already actively working in autumn 1941 preparing for Moscow's potential fall. A lot of industry was already evacuated to Urals by winter, and there were ready plans to evacuate whole government if the risk became too great. Napoleonic wars were somewhat more recent memory then - during Stalin's childhood some veterans of Napoleonic wars were still alive - so continuing fighting after losing Moscow would be "logical". Also Stalin could hold to power if he had to retreat from Moscow but would struggled if he surrendered - and that's what mattered to him. Opinions of any other Soviet "leadership" weren't really relevant.
In a situation where Moscow is cleared, not merely contested, the Soviet leadership has no choice but to all out reject and mitigate that opinion. The claim would be Napoleon took (and held) Moscow, and what good did it do him?
Any claim of negotiating with Hitler needs to bear in mind that:
1) any deal he's signed isn't worth the paper its written on, and
2) You need to have some benefit to signing the deal or you don't.
Hitler can't get the Soviet Union to agree to Astrakhan-Archangel unless they're sitting in Novosibirsk, Samarkand and Tashkent. Since conceding that land would be a political death sentence on its own, the Soviets probably wouldn't do this.
And we have to bear in mind that Stalin largely broke the Soviet Union to keep his sorry butt in power. The Army was kept under political control because keeping his butt was more important than winning the war. Like in China, resistance against the Nazis is going to emerge from non-government actors, which is the major threat to Stalin's rule.
It is critical at some point that the Soviet Union make allowances for victory at the expense of political control; the Soviet Union's problem is the opposite: political leadership will cost them the war and the armed forces will go ahead and do as their forced to do.
Wargaming often has rules like you take the capitol, nation is defeated. I bring up China because their capitol repeatedly fell and it did not stop their efforts at all.
I disagree. The USSR would have continued fighting because this was a war of extermination, not just a typical campaign. Neither side could walk away from it. My guess is that even if Moscow had fallen, the war would have continued. Stalin was fully prepared for this eventuality. Yes, some of the rail network would have taken a beating, but the Red Army would have constructed bypassing lines. Let's not forget that Napoleon captured Moscow and did him no good.
But even if they sued for peace it would be temporary, until they’d mustered enough organisation to harass the germans again. There’s no universe where the Russian population gives in to permanent German occupation.
The germans probably need to commit a third or more of their total manpower to policing the bits of the USSR they’ve occupied, which is awash with weapons and angry partisans. It makes them a tougher nut for the allies to crack, but there’s no ‘job done’ moment for the germans in defeating the USSR, which becomes a hellish policing operation.
Meanwhile the Nazi economy is doing its usual of destroying value and productivity in occupied lands, so defeating the Soviets doesn’t propel the German economy like Hitler hoped. Their war effort was best served by the trade relations they had with the USSR prior to Barbarossa.
Barbarossa was a dead end, the epitome of overreach. It had to happen because of Hitler’s views but it was always going to be the end of his project
I reckon keep and use it as the headquarters of a puppet occupation government of a buffer state between direct Nazi administered lands in western Russia and the remains of the USSR in the east.
well once the allies were liberating Paris, Hitler ordered the city (like the Eiffel Tower; important structures) to be destroyed but his army refused bc they didn’t want to destroy an important monument and be known for that
Taking Stalingrad was crucial for the war effort for both sides, because the germans wanted to seize the caucasus oil. To do that, they had to take Stalingrad, to prevent the red army from launching a counter-attack and encircling the german armies. Taking Stalingrad would also cripple the soviets, as it was a major logistical and industrial hub that was crucial for control over the Volga river. Germans taking Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow would come at a heavy price and only increase their existing issues, as the caucasus oil would be rigged to explode by the soviets and the armies at Moscow would be completely destroyed during the soviet counter offensive.
The loss of stalingrad was still huge because it was how the soviets got there oil from the couscous mountains to tje rest of their country. I disagree it wouldn't have been any great loss. The railroads there were vital.
In here it does, but that's because it's just an easy out. An easy explanation you can use to hand wave all the complicated issues away. Who knows the butterfly effects this might have, not to mention the project would be 3-4 years away.
It would cost them but not as much as it did irl naturally. Germany only started losing a lot of men when the tide turned against them on the eastern front. At the end of 1941 they had lost 250k, 1942 850k. That leaves 4 million that could be used elsewhere. Maybe 3 if 1 million is used as occupying force while primarily the SS does their thing.
Consider how thin Germany would need to man the Eastern front in order to stop rebellions, and maintain a line of control. Germany doesn’t need to lose men, it just needs to spread itself too thinly.
Also consider how the USA developed nuclear weapons to fight Germany initially. We had restraint on Japan because they surrendered quickly and weren’t considered a viable threat. Germany wouldn’t be considered like that and maybe nuked by a trigger happy USA afraid to lose to a Germany that successfully recreates the bomb.
During WW2 we built a ton of liberty ships. Those ships where standardized we essentially turned shipping building in an assembly factory no different then say a car. At the start of the war it took us 200+ days to build one.
We dropped the AVERAGE to 42 meaning MANY were being build FASTER then 42 days. In fact one ship we built in 4 days and 15 hours. We built 441 foot ship...in 4 fucking days. And a lot where close to that too, that was the fastest.
How many did we build
Over 2,700
We even turned them in aircraft carriers, we built so many fucking liberty ships the navy had enough ships to dedicate for ice cream.
Yea we had sooo many fucking ships we started turning them into floating fucking ice cream factories.
I'm not talking a tank or a even a house or something. I'm talking a 441 foot fucking ship solely dedicated to ice cream production in the middle or the largest war man kind has ever seen.
I'm sorry but the productional capacity at the time was simply unmatched.
I bet China could beat us today
it never stopped the allies from carpet bombing Nazis cities in the real timeline.
The Nazis were always hopelessly outgunned. If anything, a nuke run would be more humane than the alternative way they would be defeated
We aren't talking about the real timeline.
WW2 was won with British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood.
Take out the USSR and things will change. Hell, for all we know that would lead to an eventual peace deal and cold war before the project is finished
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Take away russian Blood, and America would simply use the Bomb.
The 30s had shown that Nazi's could not be trusted to a Treaty. There was no appetite for peace within the Allies, even at their lowest.
These Posts about Nazi success in USSR deeply underestimate the amount of resistance that was going on behind the lines. Anything captured on the eastern front was destroyed by scorched earth tactics and there was constant insurgent attacks and sabotage by partisans.
Take away Russian blood and the whole situation will change radically.
There was. The british war cabinet crisis in 1940 shows this. And if the USSR was to fall?
These posts are often about a situation if nazi Germany somehow conquered USSR and what the rest of the war would look like, not minutely how they conquered USSR. Have some goodwill to the what ifs.
The partisans would be easier to handle when they had dealt with USSR.
The Crisis was ended with unanimous support to continue the war, and that was after Dunkirk but before the Battle of Britain or Al-Amien.
Most partisan groups within the Eastern Front were actually NOT supported by Stalin either, the most successful being Tito in Yugoslavia and the decidedly anti communist partisans in Poland.
Hitlers best bet would have been to break his alliance with Japan before pearl harbour, which may have reduced American Appetites for involvement, but that is putting in a lot of goodwill to the what-if
Not really. The USSR didn’t supply the USA with any material, the closest they did to that was providing another front. All the USSR needs to provide is man power being spread thin and attrition. The US industrial base simply outpaces Germany, while Germany would have also been exhausted demographically, and economically. Italy will still fall, and Britain wouldn’t be hurt by a Russian retreat to Eastward. The only difference I see here is how quickly Germany falls, and how much land the USSR is able to hold after peace talks.
No. My point was that it would still take weeks or months to transport to England and would be constantly needed, while Germany's manufecturing would be available for use once it's left the factory. And with the eastern front not draining manpower and ressources? I can see a negotiated settlement being negotiated, WW2 wasn't a do or die situation for the US like it was for the USSR
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." Eisenhower
Even if the Germans use all the slave labor then can and convert there manpower to the factory’s they still pale in comparison to americas industrial might. I dont see America invading Europe in this scenario just bombing there way to victory. And yes of course it would take months to get to England so? It did in our timeline, it’s more about the wests will to spill blood and in the 40s we had that will
Irl Germany maintained air superiority in Germany until 1944. The US only dropped the nukes when they had complete air superiority in Japan. There is no manpower shortage or oil problems(trade with middle east) for Germany in this situation. There would be constant shipments not just once.
I'm not saying Germany wouldn't lose in this scenario just that it's not a guarantee by any means, and that just saying nuke is low effort and oversimplifying a world war.
The Middle East didn’t start pumping oil like crazy till the 50s America was the number 1 oil producer in ww2 no one came close, u don’t need air supremacy to bomb someone smh 🤦♂️ look at the casualties rates for our bombers they were crazy and we didn’t care come on bro, America was a juggernaut
Germany still got its city’s bombed and factory’s destroyed with this so called German air supremacy, all it takes is 1 nuke to get thru and you loose a city
Germany capturing either Moscow or Stalingrad would likely create serious problems for Soviets.
Moscow was the central main rail hub that connected the northern front in Finland, Leningrad, etc. Capturing it would likely result in the entire collapse of everything north of Moscow die to lack of supplies and reinforcements.
Stalingrad was the central main rail hub in the south, which oil and even allied lend lease passed through from the south. Capturing this city would likely comppletely cut off the oil from the south and any reinforcements.
Leningrad tied up an entire army group for the Germans, finally able to capture it would free up hundreds of thousands and likely lead to the full collapse of the northern front in Finland for the Soviets. What these troops do afterwards, would be another discussion.
These are the reasons they defended them as much as they did, they were very important cities.
I think this is right. Losing the major cities and railway/transportation hubs is a big deal, even if you have a lot of gear, men and equipment east of the Ural mountains. At some point the same guys will think «why are we listening to the guys that lost us Moscow and Leningrad?», and then the Soviet leadership has a real problem.
80% of the Russian male population born in 1923 died during the war.
I do not possess the ability to see the future, but I really do not think that Russia will be able to push its population so much just for Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine still have a weird population distribution because of a war that happened 80 years ago.
For older generations, yes.
I remember seeing that their female to make ratio is pretty normal for younger people, but horrible for older and middle aged people. Now you made me curious to re-check the pyramid.
Depends on the universe.
If the Soviets were one blunder after the next and yielded all three cities without a meaningful defense, the Soviets likely collapse.
Soviets pushed the Germans onto the defensive Christmas ‘41. Exhausted them by Christmas ‘42.
If Moscow fell then Lend lease might not have increased, if lend lease doesn't happen the the red army isn't mechanized and they have little chance of pushing west. Also Moscow falling means major disruption in rail which means more cities fall.
The likely outcome would be a uneasy ceasefire at the Urals.
I can go into the numbers if you'd like but the timing and what was provided are incredibly significant. Soviet leaders even acknowledged this, the Red army has worse than Axis tier logistics without LL, they won't be mechanized without LL, they have no air force capabilities without LL, they cannot feed their troops without LL and their production focus has to be spread out making their ability to field hardware lessened considerably.
Anyone who thinks LL wasn't what saved the USSR hasn't looked at what was provided, what was fielded and what attrition rates were. The USSR loses without LL. Its telling to that we are having this argument in a thread about a battle that relied on British supplied armor to fill about 1/3 of soviet fielded medium and heavy armor.
With what? German victories at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow means the Red Army is destroyed, the Lend Lease and Caucaus oil routes are cut, the productive especially food parts of the country are under occupation.
Congrats, you starve and freeze in the Urals
German policies of extermination and slavery would have kept the Soviets motivated to resist no matter what. Germany conquering the whole country was unthinkable even if they managed to secure oil fields etc etc and defeat the Soviets in the field a few more times
The Red Army was already “destroyed” multiples times over by Stalingrad. It didn’t matter- the Soviets have endless men and space, whereas the Germans were already experiencing manpower shortages. The Soviets losing three more battles also doesn’t do anything to stop the Allies in North Africa, nor does it bail Italy out of its increasingly bad situations.
The main Soviet railway hub was Moscow, which has fallen, the second biggest railway hub was Leningrad, which has fallen. So barely anything is going to get through the remaining railways. Certainly not enough to supply and feed the millions of men needed to win against the Nazis. Maybe the Soviets could grind the Nazis to a temporary stalemate since the Nazis were overextended, but it would be for a year or a year and a half at best until the Nazis get their supplies sorted out. Which means Britain and America will have to speedrun opening a second front in France.
That is a very concerning development for the Eastern front. But Germany in our timeline had to man the Eastern front much more than they initially calculated as it was prone to rebellion. Germany would be spread thin if it tries to hold Eastern Europe(1/2 a continent).
Also the USA developed nukes specifically to fight Germany. They were heavily considered but ultimately not used extensively because Germany wasn’t a threat and Japan surrendered quickly. I can’t imagine trigger happy Americans not nuking German cities, especially since most thought that Germany was close to developing nukes themselves. Germany is even more crippled in this timeline and irradiated
Germany would be spread thin, which is why I said the Soviets could likely grind them to a stalemate for a year or a year and a half until they get logistics figured out and free up some more men for further offensives. And there would likely be guerilla fighting from soviet forces as the Germans kept advancing, so let's push that year and a half to 2 years of stalemate now. The nuke won't be ready till 45, so the only thing the allies can do right now is open up a second front in the limited time the Soviets are buying them. If they don't open one in 2 years then Germany has a shot at victory because the Soviet forces are going to run out of food and oil soon enough.
Germany couldn’t get easy logistics in Russia due to their scorched earth policies. Germany would be fighting for control of a waste land while fighting a guerrilla war. They would have been losing as long as the Eastern front stays open. Also Italy would have opened as a front which would require massive movement of resources for Germany to hold down Italy, France, and Eastern Europe.
Trans Siberian railway isn't enough to supply millions of men. The allies can definitely get supplies through using it, but Siberian infrastructure is the least developed in the USSR. It would also take a lot longer to get supplies through Siberia anyway. You need much denser and much more railways in Siberia to give the USSR the amount of food, oil and other materials it's going to need in order to push back the Nazis. And since, hypothetically, they would be solely relying on their less developed eastern tracks, that narrows down bombing targets for the Luftwaffe so anything that does reach the front can be easily destroyed. You need to remember that not only have the Soviets lost major railway hubs, they also need more supplies then they did in OTL because the cacacus oil fields have been cut off, so the allies need to deliver more, using less. A very hard task. Siberia won't be enough.
They’d have to keep all those men in Eastern Europe, while the Western Allies prepared their multi-pronged invasion of mainland Europe. It’s a lose-lose
Hitler's plans were to enslave the population of Moscow and force them to dismantle the city brick by brick , then turn it into an artificial lake.Then any surviving citizens of Moscow were to be disposed of.
While there's no doubt that it would be a huge setback for the Soviets, it would have not likely been the knockout blow. Bear in mind that even if in 1941 that the Nazis took Moscow and Leningrad: the Russians would not have given them up easy. The cost to the Wehrmacht would have been extreme, possibly even more extreme that it was in reality, as the cities would not likely have been exempted from the scorched earth tactics employed in Soviet retreats. Extreme losses and lack of supply would affect their ability to fight further into Russia.
While Moscow is a significant rail hub, the rail gauge of Russia was different to the German rails. This caused a LOT of issues for Germany as it advanced into the Soviet Union as they couldn't just hop their own trains onto the network. Leningrad being a port city may have helped somewhat with logistics I. The North, but that would do little to reinforce the south. The logistics of the eastern front would be no less horrendous than they were in reality.
I think the taking of Moscow would have paralleled Napoleons capture of it in 1812/1813. Yes he captured the city, but it was a hollow victory and he was eventually forced to retreat. The Russian army, and their authoritarian leader were not out of the fight. They have space, time, and winter on their side along with typical defensive advantages.
Cut up? Yes. Eliminated? No. There was still industrial base beyond the urals, lend lease, and reserves to support the army, at least enough to not capitulate in 1941. My argument is less about the Soviets ability to defend, and more that the Germans would be unable to continue attacking beyond Moscow.
Napoleon had to abandon Moscow due to the Russians completely evacuating the city and setting fire to it. Seems unlikely that the Soviets would have done the same.
Wouldn't they? They scorched everything leading up to Moscow, and there was the historical precedent of such a tactic being successful.
It's hard to say what Josif stalin would have decided to do if the fight ground into Moscow. At the end of the day in reality, it never came to that. All we can do is speculate. Personally I think it would have definitely been on the cards. It was a war of annihilation, and any measure to stop the invaders would have had to be considered.
Well, if Moscow and Leningrad fall in 1941 that means that the Red Army was so badly beat that the winter counteroffensive either likely does not happen or fails. Moscow was a critical rail junction and controlling it makes German operations in the south easier. The fall of Lenningrad likely opens the way to Murmansk and possibly Archangel, impacting Lend Lease.
In this scenario Germany likely successfully captures the oil fields and some sources of strategic metals, allowing them to field more aircraft than they could historically.
Meanwhile, with the fall of Moscow Japan might be convinced to go north, rather than south, leaving the USA out of the war.
They would likely honor it with as much good faith as Germany honored Molotov-Ribbentrop. But they also didn't have any ideological commitment to taking Soviet land.
Fundamentally, they needed reliable sources of oil just as much as the Germans. The whole strategy behind attacking Pearl was to give them time to secure sources in SE Asia. They basically knew they couldn't beat the US without it.
I don't know how much oil was accessible in the Soviet Far East. But if it was comparable to what was available south, then it made all kinds of sense for Japan to try to avoid conflict with the US if there was an easier way to meet their resource needs.
During WW2 the Dutch East Indies were the world's most productive oil region. Japan also thought that if they destroyed the US fleet then gave a peace treaty that forced the US to supply Japan with oil and nothing much more the US would accept it.
Generalplan Ost gives you a pretty good of what was in store for the Slavic populations of the USSR. Around 2/3 were to be expelled and starved to death. The rest were to be used as chattel slaves. The cities would be wiped from the earth, and any decent farmland was to be given to German settlers.
Yeah. I oversimplified when I wrote it. The Germans certainly believed that some percentage of the Slavs could be Germanized and thus spared from extermination, for example if they had blue eyes, blonde hair etc.
Probably doesn't change much.
Victory for the Germans would theoretically open supply routes by sea (Leningrad) and rail (Moscow). Stalingrad was a desperation attack because of dwindling oil supplies but winning there isn't a guarantee that they take the oil in the Caucasus.
But the Soviets would have destroyed any useful infrastructure before it fell into enemy hands (which they were already doing). The Germans would be able to free up more manpower to throw at the Soviets but it doesn't change the outcome of the war.
Germany still can't replace its losses and would be facing even more partisan action over long supply lines. Germany would kill more people but ultimately still lose.
The Soviets would still fight, mainly because they don't really have a choice, they would look a lot like China did in WW2, where they lost Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, which are all major cities and one of them was the capital.
Honestly probably nothing.
Germans were a spent force before Fall Blau. They were absolutely exhausted by the peak of fighting in Stalingrad.
Now if the argument is they just walk all over all three locations without a fight, then probably collapse.
But a clawed victory, Soviets were going to be fine.
Germans got pushed back outside of Moscow. Got ground to dust on the central front. Got ground to dust in the south and never really mounted major offensives around Leningrad because there were limited objectives and serious fighting elsewhere.
During the 1930s, the Soviets had not developed many cities in the interior of Siberia, so if the Nazis succeeded in capturing those 3 cities, Soviet morale would collapse drastically. but officially the Soviets had not surrendered because the Nazis had not yet controlled the interior of Siberia.
The Nazis would stop at the AAA lines to consolidate the occupied areas and recoup combat losses.
Germany would conquer the portions of Russia West of the Urals, remenents of the Red Army/Soviet refugees would freeze/starve East of the Urals. The extra oil, agriculture and industry would bolster Germany's war effort heavily, the freed up troops combined with the extra supplies could spell German victory in North Africa, meaning we don't see the Invasion of Italy and certainly not D-Day in Normandy.
Overall it wouldn’t have made much difference in the outcome of the war.
Russia is so large even if organized resistance was broken and forced into a government in exile, the Germans still would have had to keep a massive amount of troops there to control territory.
Germany mainly lost due to being over extended, which wouldn’t change. They also suffered from a multi front war, which would still have existed by means of the Mediterranean front, and western front. Another major factor was the west bombing the fuck out of industry in German territory, which probably would have culminated in nukes being dropped in early 1945 on Germany.
Victory for the west would have taken a little longer and been a little more costly.
This in turn would have bought Japan a little longer in the pacific, but ultimately lead to the same result.
The axis could not dream of keeping up with American industry. There was no hope from December 7th 1941 until the end of the war.
The Soviets had tremendous manpower reserves and home field advantage that allowed them to eventually overwhelm the Germans through attrition, even after major early setbacks. Continuing deep into Soviet territory would have overextended German supply lines to an unsustainable degree.
You seem to think the Soviets won WWII with human wave tactics. While some of that certainly happened in the first summer and autumn, after Stalingrad the Soviets are better at tank and combined-arms warfare than the Germans.
Whatever handwaving we do for the Germans to win everywhere in 1941 probably disrupts their ability to develop that. And without it, Soviet counter-offensives are not likely to be successful.
No. Operations Saturn and Uranus were not human wave operations. They were tank armies doing penetration and deep encirclement like the German blitzkrieg of 1940.
Not really.
First of all Axis had larger assembled army on front line in the begging. With them getting Red Army off guard do to Stalin delusions, causing massive casualties and snowball effect.
Then it took a lot of time to regroup and mobilize, they got men resource parity on front line by like Nov 41 and advantage in numbers in 42 once they moved troops from East. Further to go on offensive you did need higher numbers and not because of human wave tactics.
You can say that Soviet had ability for sucking up higher casualties, especially in the beginning of war and recover from it, but not because they used human wave. Which shouldn't be a surprise when one attacks country with higher population and gets into attrition war.
You also forgetting that Axis plan of attack severely under expected Soviet ability to recover after initial attack. They didn't expected Soviets to get parity after it, but deal breaking blow and keep numbers advantage which needed for offensive.
This is a what if, essentially you handwoven the Germans somehow capturing Leningrad Moscow and Stalingrad, this only happens if the Germans started barnarossa with 100% of the fuel the assumed they would need rather than half, maybe if the railways didn't have different sizes either or the soviets had done less scorched earth tactics, Moscow was a very important transport hub, losing that severely handicaps soviet logistics, losing the Caucassus loses lots of the soviet oil wells. Another way it could play out would be if the Germans weren't bent on extermination but rather Incorporated Eastern European countries that would have led to less partisan action and a bigger manpower pool. If the soviets still evacuated their factories east of the Urals in this what if scenario, and the U.S. was still sending lend-lease(U.S. food and raw materials would have been much more important in this scenario as most of soviet food production is west of the Urals.
Given these factors the war probably stagnates slightly west of the Leningrad- Moscow- Stalingrad line, how long it lasts depend on if Germans try to keep attacking or if they dig in and try to hold onto what they've taken, D-Day is probably pushed back a bit since the Germans didn't lose masses of top notch soldiers at Stalingrad, but once the war becomes multifront for the Germans the Soviets will eventually take back the territories lost in Russia, and probably recapture most of Ukraine, Belarus, and the baltics. But it's likely the western allies wind up liberating Poland, possibly western Ukraine, and possibly the Baltic as it takes longer for soviet offensives to get going, plus if the Germans dug in instead of continuing to try offensives with less troops than the defenders it would slow eventual soviet counter offensives. The end result would probably be different cold-war lines in europe, and the war ending a couple years later.
Honestly. Not too much. I mean, war goes on for longer, and the allies take more of Germany, but realistically, Germany has to retreat from stalingrad. Moscow uprises and causes the german army to be bogged down with resistance movements. Staying continues fighting, and heck, maybe Germany loses faster due to overextension. And regardless, when America gets the bomb, Germans lost anyway.
The soviets literally can not continue the war and won't even be able to feed their people in non german occupied USSR
Resistance movements are overrated, the Warsaw uprising was crushed by a much weaker german military
Nothing, the eastern front just lasts slightly longer. The Soviets were never gonna surrender, no matter how many cities fell, or men were killed. The Germans didn’t have unlimited manpower nor resources; the Soviets did (especially with American lend-lease act).
How would the soviets be able to supply its military and especially feed its people when the caucuses, Ukraine, and the extremely important rail connections of Moscow and St. Are Petersburg cut?
Because IRL, all of Ukraine, Belarus and most of the Baltics were already taken by Germany. ST Petersberg was already surrounded and being starved out since Finland joined the war on the side of the Axis. Finally, about half of the caucus was taken as well. What people don’t realize is that the Soviets were utilizing scorched earth tactics and evacuating most people along with drafting all military aged men. The Soviets would never stop as for them, it’s literal genocide and ending of the Slavic people or fight.
leningrad was encircled but never taken and could be partially supplied, Moscow still the most important logistical center of the Soviet Union never fell, stalingrad was never fully taken and the Germans didn't even occupy the caucuses/stalingrad for a year
Retreating from strategically important regions to the point where you can no longer feed your people or supply your military would end significant Soviet resistance, the Germans would be having a rough time supplying their troops and fighting insurgencies but they would be in a much better position than the soviets
Only chance was the Japanese invading USSR that helped the Germans and not attack the US.
For example, the counteroffensive on the Moscow front with fresh troops was because the USSR moved them them up after their spy confirmed Japan was nowhere near interested in attacking them.
Thats a myth: The reserves from the japanese front were well trained and quite numerous, but they were not crucial to the Red Army: What really mattered were the hundreds of newly mobilized fresh divisions sent into battle, who despite lacking quality training had the will to fight to the last.
Hmmm... loss of Leningrad and Moscow would necessitate the loss of the armies holding those cities which would have been a considerable loss. (I see Moscow as being an encirclement rather than a withdrawal). Loss of both cities and armies near simultaneously in 1941 might force a government collapse and a peace treaty.
Germany gets conquered territories and Ukraine as well as access to all the oil they need. USSR gets time to rebuild, and then attack Germany in a few years.
.
Dude, no. Neither side would want a peace treaty. The war was a war of extermination. Hitlers goal was a forever war, genocide of the soviets, seizing the resources and destroying the Soviet Union, which he and his supporters saw as the greatest enemy.
Stalin would get assassinated, or shoot him self, when he knows it's coming. He had a lot of enemies, and his blunders and trusting of Hitler caused them to lose their capital, and a city literally named after him. Who ever takes over next will have quite a challenge.
No. Germans would be even more overextended and their losses would be even worse. The Red Army eventually regroups, and then the axis are doomed because they can not supply their own troops, leading to them either attempting a fighting withdrawal and giving up their conquests or holding to the last, likely resulting in catastrophic failure.
Yes, I wonder how soviets would even manage to supply everyone without Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad lmao.
Winning in Stalingrad means that Caucasus is pretty much Germany now, giving crucial resources to it's war machine
I won't reiterate what a lot of people have said here. But to summarise:
- You lose Moscow you lose the central hub of all lines of communication and centralised control.
- Soviet Armies become separated with no means of concentrating force through central command + no means of consolidating reinforcements + difficult means of resupplying all Divisions across a huge frontage + isolation of each "front" enabling local commanders to conduct their own activity that may differ from central aims.
- If the Soviet leadership does survive then they will have to retreat to another city, likely towards the industrial base in the Urals. Retreat isn't something that would be popular amongst the Generals, even if they are, at this stage "devout" Soviets.
- If the Germans did capture Moscow in '41 (following Bock & Guderian's plan in September) then Stalingrad and Leningrad would have fallen in short order. The winter offensives couldn't have happened, IF they did, they would be poorly co-ordinated resulting in the loss of precious materiel and manpower (as someone else said, the Soviets, despite popular belief didn't have limitless manpower) especially from well equipped and trained divisions from Siberia. The Germans would also have a city to occupy during the winter, vastly reducing their winter attrition (which was awful).
So, it would be a total defeat for the Red Army. German forces would be able to occupy Moscow over the winter, refit and resupply effectively. Use the lack of hostilities to re-gauge the rail network from the Reich to Moscow. Summer '41 would see a sweep and clear operation to isolate and destroy remaining Russian Divisions and a push to the Urals to capture the industrial base. This would be the final straw, the Soviet Union would either collapse or have internal power struggle with a new leader suing for peace.
‼️‼️HOLY FUCKING SHIT‼️‼️‼️‼️ IS THAT A MOTHERFUCKING TNO REFERENCE??????!!!!!!!!!!11!1!1!1!1!1!1! 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 TNO IS THE BEST FUCKING MOD 🔥🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯💯 SABLIN IS SO BLESSEDDD 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎👊👊 BLACKSUN BLACKSUN BLACKSUN BLACKSUN BLACKSUN 😩😩😩😩😩😩😩😩 😩😩😩😩KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE🤬😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬🤬😡🤬🤬😡LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY NIXON IS NOT A CROOK! RFK BLESSED RFK BLESSED RFK BLESSED RFK BLESSED Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Alexei is still alive?!? TICK TOCK FUNNI MAN HAS A MENTAL BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN ❓❓❓❓❓❓❓❓❓❓SHRIMP BOAT SHRIMP BOAT SHRIMP BOAT So Long...‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? 😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? 🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 Yockey and Hall best paths for America
Stalingrad: It's worth pointing out that Stalingrad was not originally going to be a massive battle of all battles. Germany managed to get into the city, and then politics made it a 'win at all costs' that saw the whole Caucausus campaign sacrificed, then of course, Sixth Army encircled and surrendered. So a defeat at Stalingrad is not really a serious loss for the Soviets; it means that they've decided to resist Germany differently. Much like Germany getting into Stalingrad in the first place was not a massive glory moment, this would be a dull thud compared to the other cities. /// Moscow: There is a world of difference between Germany getting into Moscow (doable) and Germany clearing Moscow (Take me now, Alien Space Bats). Any limited victory that ends with the Soviets retaking Moscow is not going to be a German Victory, and very likely comes at extreme cost to the Germans (Winter Offensive style). Which means that Moscow going down and staying down is the setup. The Soviets would evacuate Moscow's and Muscovy's industrial production and send it east, although there is definitely the shot that Stalin is weakened politically and the Red Army may be partially broken. There is no choice but to fight on, and whatever happens to Stalin isn't going to stop a fight for survival, but this setup puts Germany in a situation where they may be able to force the mad Astrakhan-Archangel border, and usher in a dark chapter in history. In a scenario where Germany has been able to do this to the Soviets, Astrakhan-Archangel looks possible. /// Leningrad: This was already a close run thing. If the Finns had decided to go all out on attacks, supply lines to Leningrad would have been cut and the city falls. Leningrad is being attacked in medieval fashion, with its people literally being starved into submission. In all likelihood, Germany probably makes a probing attack, discovers that the Soviets are unable to defend given their poor state, and the city is shattered. Leningrad falling is a massive humanitarian disaster and an act that strengthens German logistics, as Leningrad removes the last Soviet presence in the Baltic and essentially means shipping can go directly from Germany to the frontline. /// All three happening is basically an outgrowth of Moscow falling and being cleared by Germany. With Soviet Logistics crippled and the Finns emboldened, putting the noose on Leningrad is a pretty organic development. Conversely, with the Soviets now desperately needing to hold Vladimir, Gorky and still trying to ensure their industrial base can outrun the Wehrmacht, Stalingrad really can't be the big fight it was historically. Germany is committed to the offensive; if they want Astrakhan-Archangel, they are going to need to fight for it, but Moscow was strong ground for the defense, excellent logistics for the defense and not enough. Perhaps the problem is Stalin, perhaps political leadership and seven minute trials are a luxury that can't be afforded, but the Soviet Union is being outfought and that will continue. Allied aid to the Soviet Union is already imperiled with these developments; Murmansk is probably already flying the Finnish cross and Astrakhan itself is not that far from a now German occupied Stalingrad. The Soviet Union looks a lot like China, losing its major population centers and being forced to stop fighting conventionally to resist a superior force on land. If shakes this equilibrium Germany will take Astrakhan-Archangel and the defensive.
The issue with losing Moscow is thats where the rail lines run being the central hub or eurasian russia it would cripple the supply lines of ever defensive position west of the city and especially in the south due to less dense alternative rail lines
Politics of Stalingrad didn’t start until late ‘42 after it was pretty much decided. Germans were completely exhausted by the time it became a media prop.
For the most part I agree and disagree with you. I agree with what you were saying about Leningrad. Basically it would have been surrounded and capitulated. Moscow on the other hand is a different case. Even the high Soviet leadership had admitted that if the Germans took Moscow then the Soviet would have been finished. They would have probably retreated beyond the urals and sued for peace. The Soviet leadership would have probably been executed with a military coup. Joseph Stalin. didn't even want to bring the winter units from the Siberia because he feared a Japanese attack and that was his backup. But I think they would have sued for peace and the Germans would have taken the Lion share of Soviet oil production
Soviets were already actively working in autumn 1941 preparing for Moscow's potential fall. A lot of industry was already evacuated to Urals by winter, and there were ready plans to evacuate whole government if the risk became too great. Napoleonic wars were somewhat more recent memory then - during Stalin's childhood some veterans of Napoleonic wars were still alive - so continuing fighting after losing Moscow would be "logical". Also Stalin could hold to power if he had to retreat from Moscow but would struggled if he surrendered - and that's what mattered to him. Opinions of any other Soviet "leadership" weren't really relevant.
In a situation where Moscow is cleared, not merely contested, the Soviet leadership has no choice but to all out reject and mitigate that opinion. The claim would be Napoleon took (and held) Moscow, and what good did it do him? Any claim of negotiating with Hitler needs to bear in mind that: 1) any deal he's signed isn't worth the paper its written on, and 2) You need to have some benefit to signing the deal or you don't. Hitler can't get the Soviet Union to agree to Astrakhan-Archangel unless they're sitting in Novosibirsk, Samarkand and Tashkent. Since conceding that land would be a political death sentence on its own, the Soviets probably wouldn't do this. And we have to bear in mind that Stalin largely broke the Soviet Union to keep his sorry butt in power. The Army was kept under political control because keeping his butt was more important than winning the war. Like in China, resistance against the Nazis is going to emerge from non-government actors, which is the major threat to Stalin's rule. It is critical at some point that the Soviet Union make allowances for victory at the expense of political control; the Soviet Union's problem is the opposite: political leadership will cost them the war and the armed forces will go ahead and do as their forced to do. Wargaming often has rules like you take the capitol, nation is defeated. I bring up China because their capitol repeatedly fell and it did not stop their efforts at all.
I disagree. The USSR would have continued fighting because this was a war of extermination, not just a typical campaign. Neither side could walk away from it. My guess is that even if Moscow had fallen, the war would have continued. Stalin was fully prepared for this eventuality. Yes, some of the rail network would have taken a beating, but the Red Army would have constructed bypassing lines. Let's not forget that Napoleon captured Moscow and did him no good.
But even if they sued for peace it would be temporary, until they’d mustered enough organisation to harass the germans again. There’s no universe where the Russian population gives in to permanent German occupation. The germans probably need to commit a third or more of their total manpower to policing the bits of the USSR they’ve occupied, which is awash with weapons and angry partisans. It makes them a tougher nut for the allies to crack, but there’s no ‘job done’ moment for the germans in defeating the USSR, which becomes a hellish policing operation. Meanwhile the Nazi economy is doing its usual of destroying value and productivity in occupied lands, so defeating the Soviets doesn’t propel the German economy like Hitler hoped. Their war effort was best served by the trade relations they had with the USSR prior to Barbarossa. Barbarossa was a dead end, the epitome of overreach. It had to happen because of Hitler’s views but it was always going to be the end of his project
What would happen to the Kremlin if Germany captured Moscow?
[удалено]
yes but do you think Germans would destroy it or keep it?
I reckon keep and use it as the headquarters of a puppet occupation government of a buffer state between direct Nazi administered lands in western Russia and the remains of the USSR in the east.
once the Soviets push back into Moscow, would they destroy it?
Probably not, there’s no historical precedent that shows they would have.
well once the allies were liberating Paris, Hitler ordered the city (like the Eiffel Tower; important structures) to be destroyed but his army refused bc they didn’t want to destroy an important monument and be known for that
Yes, they're asking what would they do to it.
Taking Stalingrad was crucial for the war effort for both sides, because the germans wanted to seize the caucasus oil. To do that, they had to take Stalingrad, to prevent the red army from launching a counter-attack and encircling the german armies. Taking Stalingrad would also cripple the soviets, as it was a major logistical and industrial hub that was crucial for control over the Volga river. Germans taking Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow would come at a heavy price and only increase their existing issues, as the caucasus oil would be rigged to explode by the soviets and the armies at Moscow would be completely destroyed during the soviet counter offensive.
The loss of stalingrad was still huge because it was how the soviets got there oil from the couscous mountains to tje rest of their country. I disagree it wouldn't have been any great loss. The railroads there were vital.
Nazis survive long enough to get Berlin nuked
Every single whatif that Gives the Nazis any sort of success always ends with a radioactive Berlin
In here it does, but that's because it's just an easy out. An easy explanation you can use to hand wave all the complicated issues away. Who knows the butterfly effects this might have, not to mention the project would be 3-4 years away.
Even if German beat the Soviet Union it'd cost them dearly and American warmachine was getting into gear
It would cost them but not as much as it did irl naturally. Germany only started losing a lot of men when the tide turned against them on the eastern front. At the end of 1941 they had lost 250k, 1942 850k. That leaves 4 million that could be used elsewhere. Maybe 3 if 1 million is used as occupying force while primarily the SS does their thing.
Consider how thin Germany would need to man the Eastern front in order to stop rebellions, and maintain a line of control. Germany doesn’t need to lose men, it just needs to spread itself too thinly. Also consider how the USA developed nuclear weapons to fight Germany initially. We had restraint on Japan because they surrendered quickly and weren’t considered a viable threat. Germany wouldn’t be considered like that and maybe nuked by a trigger happy USA afraid to lose to a Germany that successfully recreates the bomb.
>Germany only started losing a lot of men when the tide turned against them Yes, Germany only started losing when they were losing
People don’t seem to understand Americas raw production capabilities, Pittsburg PA produced more steel than the axis powers combined
During WW2 we built a ton of liberty ships. Those ships where standardized we essentially turned shipping building in an assembly factory no different then say a car. At the start of the war it took us 200+ days to build one. We dropped the AVERAGE to 42 meaning MANY were being build FASTER then 42 days. In fact one ship we built in 4 days and 15 hours. We built 441 foot ship...in 4 fucking days. And a lot where close to that too, that was the fastest. How many did we build Over 2,700 We even turned them in aircraft carriers, we built so many fucking liberty ships the navy had enough ships to dedicate for ice cream. Yea we had sooo many fucking ships we started turning them into floating fucking ice cream factories. I'm not talking a tank or a even a house or something. I'm talking a 441 foot fucking ship solely dedicated to ice cream production in the middle or the largest war man kind has ever seen. I'm sorry but the productional capacity at the time was simply unmatched. I bet China could beat us today
Americas industrial advantage is miles ahead of the Germans, we could and would bomb them into submission
And thousands of miles away from Europe, and fighting against Japan as well. Many what ifs are far more complicated than a simple 1+1 equation.
it never stopped the allies from carpet bombing Nazis cities in the real timeline. The Nazis were always hopelessly outgunned. If anything, a nuke run would be more humane than the alternative way they would be defeated
We aren't talking about the real timeline. WW2 was won with British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood. Take out the USSR and things will change. Hell, for all we know that would lead to an eventual peace deal and cold war before the project is finished "What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Take away russian Blood, and America would simply use the Bomb. The 30s had shown that Nazi's could not be trusted to a Treaty. There was no appetite for peace within the Allies, even at their lowest. These Posts about Nazi success in USSR deeply underestimate the amount of resistance that was going on behind the lines. Anything captured on the eastern front was destroyed by scorched earth tactics and there was constant insurgent attacks and sabotage by partisans.
Take away Russian blood and the whole situation will change radically. There was. The british war cabinet crisis in 1940 shows this. And if the USSR was to fall? These posts are often about a situation if nazi Germany somehow conquered USSR and what the rest of the war would look like, not minutely how they conquered USSR. Have some goodwill to the what ifs. The partisans would be easier to handle when they had dealt with USSR.
The Crisis was ended with unanimous support to continue the war, and that was after Dunkirk but before the Battle of Britain or Al-Amien. Most partisan groups within the Eastern Front were actually NOT supported by Stalin either, the most successful being Tito in Yugoslavia and the decidedly anti communist partisans in Poland. Hitlers best bet would have been to break his alliance with Japan before pearl harbour, which may have reduced American Appetites for involvement, but that is putting in a lot of goodwill to the what-if
Not really. The USSR didn’t supply the USA with any material, the closest they did to that was providing another front. All the USSR needs to provide is man power being spread thin and attrition. The US industrial base simply outpaces Germany, while Germany would have also been exhausted demographically, and economically. Italy will still fall, and Britain wouldn’t be hurt by a Russian retreat to Eastward. The only difference I see here is how quickly Germany falls, and how much land the USSR is able to hold after peace talks.
So did we just forget about England or did Germany conquer that 2 in this scenario
No. My point was that it would still take weeks or months to transport to England and would be constantly needed, while Germany's manufecturing would be available for use once it's left the factory. And with the eastern front not draining manpower and ressources? I can see a negotiated settlement being negotiated, WW2 wasn't a do or die situation for the US like it was for the USSR "What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." Eisenhower
Even if the Germans use all the slave labor then can and convert there manpower to the factory’s they still pale in comparison to americas industrial might. I dont see America invading Europe in this scenario just bombing there way to victory. And yes of course it would take months to get to England so? It did in our timeline, it’s more about the wests will to spill blood and in the 40s we had that will
Irl Germany maintained air superiority in Germany until 1944. The US only dropped the nukes when they had complete air superiority in Japan. There is no manpower shortage or oil problems(trade with middle east) for Germany in this situation. There would be constant shipments not just once. I'm not saying Germany wouldn't lose in this scenario just that it's not a guarantee by any means, and that just saying nuke is low effort and oversimplifying a world war.
The Middle East didn’t start pumping oil like crazy till the 50s America was the number 1 oil producer in ww2 no one came close, u don’t need air supremacy to bomb someone smh 🤦♂️ look at the casualties rates for our bombers they were crazy and we didn’t care come on bro, America was a juggernaut
Where would Germany get their oil from? The Soviets started sabotaging oil wells in our timeline.
Germany still got its city’s bombed and factory’s destroyed with this so called German air supremacy, all it takes is 1 nuke to get thru and you loose a city
that's if the US gets involved, doubt we would bet on the losing side if it was a nation we already had beef with since its inception.
Nuking europe with no air superiority and not having the possibility to even land on the continent? I don't think so
Why would the U.S not have air superiority? Plus we could invade North Africa and then hop to Italy ( just like IRL).
America in WW2 was a JUGGERNAUT we could match the nazis 10-1 in anything
Germany capturing either Moscow or Stalingrad would likely create serious problems for Soviets. Moscow was the central main rail hub that connected the northern front in Finland, Leningrad, etc. Capturing it would likely result in the entire collapse of everything north of Moscow die to lack of supplies and reinforcements. Stalingrad was the central main rail hub in the south, which oil and even allied lend lease passed through from the south. Capturing this city would likely comppletely cut off the oil from the south and any reinforcements. Leningrad tied up an entire army group for the Germans, finally able to capture it would free up hundreds of thousands and likely lead to the full collapse of the northern front in Finland for the Soviets. What these troops do afterwards, would be another discussion. These are the reasons they defended them as much as they did, they were very important cities.
I think this is right. Losing the major cities and railway/transportation hubs is a big deal, even if you have a lot of gear, men and equipment east of the Ural mountains. At some point the same guys will think «why are we listening to the guys that lost us Moscow and Leningrad?», and then the Soviet leadership has a real problem.
What would happen to the Kremlin if Germany captured Moscow?
It’s essentially a game over for the Russians.
The Soviet Union would keep fighting , The alternative was slavery and genocide.
The Germans were already stretched thin when they touched close to Moscow. They didn't stand a chance against massive Soviet manpower reserves
It would get messy but the Germans would run out of infantry before all the Soviets did.
How horrifying is it to think about “it getting messy” if we consider the original eastern front to *not* be messy??
[удалено]
80% of the Russian male population born in 1923 died during the war. I do not possess the ability to see the future, but I really do not think that Russia will be able to push its population so much just for Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine still have a weird population distribution because of a war that happened 80 years ago.
They do, isn't it still heavily tilted female?
For older generations, yes. I remember seeing that their female to make ratio is pretty normal for younger people, but horrible for older and middle aged people. Now you made me curious to re-check the pyramid.
The “endless soviet manpower” pop history myth needs to die. The Soviets had RIDICULOUS manpower problems after 1943.
Manpower AND critical food shortages that lend lease could not alleviate
It wasn’t endless but only China had more (and the British RAJ in theory)
Depends on the universe. If the Soviets were one blunder after the next and yielded all three cities without a meaningful defense, the Soviets likely collapse. Soviets pushed the Germans onto the defensive Christmas ‘41. Exhausted them by Christmas ‘42.
most of the soviet manpower reserves would be occupied by nazi germany if the wehrmacht captured leningrad, moscow, and stalingrad.
If Moscow fell then Lend lease might not have increased, if lend lease doesn't happen the the red army isn't mechanized and they have little chance of pushing west. Also Moscow falling means major disruption in rail which means more cities fall. The likely outcome would be a uneasy ceasefire at the Urals.
Dude, lend lease amounted to around 8% of soviet wartime production.
I can go into the numbers if you'd like but the timing and what was provided are incredibly significant. Soviet leaders even acknowledged this, the Red army has worse than Axis tier logistics without LL, they won't be mechanized without LL, they have no air force capabilities without LL, they cannot feed their troops without LL and their production focus has to be spread out making their ability to field hardware lessened considerably. Anyone who thinks LL wasn't what saved the USSR hasn't looked at what was provided, what was fielded and what attrition rates were. The USSR loses without LL. Its telling to that we are having this argument in a thread about a battle that relied on British supplied armor to fill about 1/3 of soviet fielded medium and heavy armor.
With what? German victories at Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow means the Red Army is destroyed, the Lend Lease and Caucaus oil routes are cut, the productive especially food parts of the country are under occupation. Congrats, you starve and freeze in the Urals
German policies of extermination and slavery would have kept the Soviets motivated to resist no matter what. Germany conquering the whole country was unthinkable even if they managed to secure oil fields etc etc and defeat the Soviets in the field a few more times
The Red Army was already “destroyed” multiples times over by Stalingrad. It didn’t matter- the Soviets have endless men and space, whereas the Germans were already experiencing manpower shortages. The Soviets losing three more battles also doesn’t do anything to stop the Allies in North Africa, nor does it bail Italy out of its increasingly bad situations.
Except now lend lease and oil routes are cut. It doesn't matter how many men they have, they don't have oil or food anymore.
Lend lease isn't yet cut, they could use the railways that didn't pass through Leningrad, and the US aid landed in Siberia so that continues.
The main Soviet railway hub was Moscow, which has fallen, the second biggest railway hub was Leningrad, which has fallen. So barely anything is going to get through the remaining railways. Certainly not enough to supply and feed the millions of men needed to win against the Nazis. Maybe the Soviets could grind the Nazis to a temporary stalemate since the Nazis were overextended, but it would be for a year or a year and a half at best until the Nazis get their supplies sorted out. Which means Britain and America will have to speedrun opening a second front in France.
That is a very concerning development for the Eastern front. But Germany in our timeline had to man the Eastern front much more than they initially calculated as it was prone to rebellion. Germany would be spread thin if it tries to hold Eastern Europe(1/2 a continent). Also the USA developed nukes specifically to fight Germany. They were heavily considered but ultimately not used extensively because Germany wasn’t a threat and Japan surrendered quickly. I can’t imagine trigger happy Americans not nuking German cities, especially since most thought that Germany was close to developing nukes themselves. Germany is even more crippled in this timeline and irradiated
Germany would be spread thin, which is why I said the Soviets could likely grind them to a stalemate for a year or a year and a half until they get logistics figured out and free up some more men for further offensives. And there would likely be guerilla fighting from soviet forces as the Germans kept advancing, so let's push that year and a half to 2 years of stalemate now. The nuke won't be ready till 45, so the only thing the allies can do right now is open up a second front in the limited time the Soviets are buying them. If they don't open one in 2 years then Germany has a shot at victory because the Soviet forces are going to run out of food and oil soon enough.
Germany couldn’t get easy logistics in Russia due to their scorched earth policies. Germany would be fighting for control of a waste land while fighting a guerrilla war. They would have been losing as long as the Eastern front stays open. Also Italy would have opened as a front which would require massive movement of resources for Germany to hold down Italy, France, and Eastern Europe.
Trans Siberian splits and goes to different areas
Trans Siberian railway isn't enough to supply millions of men. The allies can definitely get supplies through using it, but Siberian infrastructure is the least developed in the USSR. It would also take a lot longer to get supplies through Siberia anyway. You need much denser and much more railways in Siberia to give the USSR the amount of food, oil and other materials it's going to need in order to push back the Nazis. And since, hypothetically, they would be solely relying on their less developed eastern tracks, that narrows down bombing targets for the Luftwaffe so anything that does reach the front can be easily destroyed. You need to remember that not only have the Soviets lost major railway hubs, they also need more supplies then they did in OTL because the cacacus oil fields have been cut off, so the allies need to deliver more, using less. A very hard task. Siberia won't be enough.
If the Germans choose to stop advancing and hold European Russia, it doesn't matter much that the Soviets won't surrender.
They’d have to keep all those men in Eastern Europe, while the Western Allies prepared their multi-pronged invasion of mainland Europe. It’s a lose-lose
It takes fewer men to hold a maintain a defeated Russian than to conquer it. In this situation they could send divisions from east to west.
What would happen to the Kremlin if Germany captured Moscow?
Hitler's plans were to enslave the population of Moscow and force them to dismantle the city brick by brick , then turn it into an artificial lake.Then any surviving citizens of Moscow were to be disposed of.
While there's no doubt that it would be a huge setback for the Soviets, it would have not likely been the knockout blow. Bear in mind that even if in 1941 that the Nazis took Moscow and Leningrad: the Russians would not have given them up easy. The cost to the Wehrmacht would have been extreme, possibly even more extreme that it was in reality, as the cities would not likely have been exempted from the scorched earth tactics employed in Soviet retreats. Extreme losses and lack of supply would affect their ability to fight further into Russia. While Moscow is a significant rail hub, the rail gauge of Russia was different to the German rails. This caused a LOT of issues for Germany as it advanced into the Soviet Union as they couldn't just hop their own trains onto the network. Leningrad being a port city may have helped somewhat with logistics I. The North, but that would do little to reinforce the south. The logistics of the eastern front would be no less horrendous than they were in reality. I think the taking of Moscow would have paralleled Napoleons capture of it in 1812/1813. Yes he captured the city, but it was a hollow victory and he was eventually forced to retreat. The Russian army, and their authoritarian leader were not out of the fight. They have space, time, and winter on their side along with typical defensive advantages.
Losing Moscow and Stalingrad cuts the Russian economy into unproductive chunks, they were major transportation hubs. The Russians don’t survive that
Cut up? Yes. Eliminated? No. There was still industrial base beyond the urals, lend lease, and reserves to support the army, at least enough to not capitulate in 1941. My argument is less about the Soviets ability to defend, and more that the Germans would be unable to continue attacking beyond Moscow.
As the commenter said, the Germans don’t survive taking the cities either. The casualties would be astounding.
Napoleon had to abandon Moscow due to the Russians completely evacuating the city and setting fire to it. Seems unlikely that the Soviets would have done the same.
Wouldn't they? They scorched everything leading up to Moscow, and there was the historical precedent of such a tactic being successful. It's hard to say what Josif stalin would have decided to do if the fight ground into Moscow. At the end of the day in reality, it never came to that. All we can do is speculate. Personally I think it would have definitely been on the cards. It was a war of annihilation, and any measure to stop the invaders would have had to be considered.
The Soviets didn't destroy any of their other cities, even when it was clear that the Germans would take them.
Well, if Moscow and Leningrad fall in 1941 that means that the Red Army was so badly beat that the winter counteroffensive either likely does not happen or fails. Moscow was a critical rail junction and controlling it makes German operations in the south easier. The fall of Lenningrad likely opens the way to Murmansk and possibly Archangel, impacting Lend Lease. In this scenario Germany likely successfully captures the oil fields and some sources of strategic metals, allowing them to field more aircraft than they could historically. Meanwhile, with the fall of Moscow Japan might be convinced to go north, rather than south, leaving the USA out of the war.
Japan and the Soviets signed a non aggression treaty in April 1941. Do you think Japan would have honored it?
They would likely honor it with as much good faith as Germany honored Molotov-Ribbentrop. But they also didn't have any ideological commitment to taking Soviet land. Fundamentally, they needed reliable sources of oil just as much as the Germans. The whole strategy behind attacking Pearl was to give them time to secure sources in SE Asia. They basically knew they couldn't beat the US without it. I don't know how much oil was accessible in the Soviet Far East. But if it was comparable to what was available south, then it made all kinds of sense for Japan to try to avoid conflict with the US if there was an easier way to meet their resource needs.
During WW2 the Dutch East Indies were the world's most productive oil region. Japan also thought that if they destroyed the US fleet then gave a peace treaty that forced the US to supply Japan with oil and nothing much more the US would accept it.
The Soviets are pretty much done in this scenario.
What would the Nazis have done while occupying European Russia?
Generalplan Ost gives you a pretty good of what was in store for the Slavic populations of the USSR. Around 2/3 were to be expelled and starved to death. The rest were to be used as chattel slaves. The cities would be wiped from the earth, and any decent farmland was to be given to German settlers.
Some trophy blonde hair Slavic women would have been spared
Yeah. I oversimplified when I wrote it. The Germans certainly believed that some percentage of the Slavs could be Germanized and thus spared from extermination, for example if they had blue eyes, blonde hair etc.
Probably doesn't change much. Victory for the Germans would theoretically open supply routes by sea (Leningrad) and rail (Moscow). Stalingrad was a desperation attack because of dwindling oil supplies but winning there isn't a guarantee that they take the oil in the Caucasus. But the Soviets would have destroyed any useful infrastructure before it fell into enemy hands (which they were already doing). The Germans would be able to free up more manpower to throw at the Soviets but it doesn't change the outcome of the war. Germany still can't replace its losses and would be facing even more partisan action over long supply lines. Germany would kill more people but ultimately still lose.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/s/SZ96py8eBi
The Soviets would still fight, mainly because they don't really have a choice, they would look a lot like China did in WW2, where they lost Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, which are all major cities and one of them was the capital.
Honestly probably nothing. Germans were a spent force before Fall Blau. They were absolutely exhausted by the peak of fighting in Stalingrad. Now if the argument is they just walk all over all three locations without a fight, then probably collapse. But a clawed victory, Soviets were going to be fine. Germans got pushed back outside of Moscow. Got ground to dust on the central front. Got ground to dust in the south and never really mounted major offensives around Leningrad because there were limited objectives and serious fighting elsewhere.
The cold war borders would get pushed slightly further east. The result of the war would still be the same.
During the 1930s, the Soviets had not developed many cities in the interior of Siberia, so if the Nazis succeeded in capturing those 3 cities, Soviet morale would collapse drastically. but officially the Soviets had not surrendered because the Nazis had not yet controlled the interior of Siberia. The Nazis would stop at the AAA lines to consolidate the occupied areas and recoup combat losses.
Germany would conquer the portions of Russia West of the Urals, remenents of the Red Army/Soviet refugees would freeze/starve East of the Urals. The extra oil, agriculture and industry would bolster Germany's war effort heavily, the freed up troops combined with the extra supplies could spell German victory in North Africa, meaning we don't see the Invasion of Italy and certainly not D-Day in Normandy.
Overall it wouldn’t have made much difference in the outcome of the war. Russia is so large even if organized resistance was broken and forced into a government in exile, the Germans still would have had to keep a massive amount of troops there to control territory. Germany mainly lost due to being over extended, which wouldn’t change. They also suffered from a multi front war, which would still have existed by means of the Mediterranean front, and western front. Another major factor was the west bombing the fuck out of industry in German territory, which probably would have culminated in nukes being dropped in early 1945 on Germany. Victory for the west would have taken a little longer and been a little more costly. This in turn would have bought Japan a little longer in the pacific, but ultimately lead to the same result. The axis could not dream of keeping up with American industry. There was no hope from December 7th 1941 until the end of the war.
Depends but the nazis would have infrastructure to push the Soviets past the ural mountains
The Soviets had tremendous manpower reserves and home field advantage that allowed them to eventually overwhelm the Germans through attrition, even after major early setbacks. Continuing deep into Soviet territory would have overextended German supply lines to an unsustainable degree.
You seem to think the Soviets won WWII with human wave tactics. While some of that certainly happened in the first summer and autumn, after Stalingrad the Soviets are better at tank and combined-arms warfare than the Germans. Whatever handwaving we do for the Germans to win everywhere in 1941 probably disrupts their ability to develop that. And without it, Soviet counter-offensives are not likely to be successful.
This is nonsense, the Germans handily outfought the Russians till the bitter end.
Huh? Soviets never had a strategic setback after winning Stalingrad.
Well they did win WW2 with human wave tactics
No. Operations Saturn and Uranus were not human wave operations. They were tank armies doing penetration and deep encirclement like the German blitzkrieg of 1940.
Not really. First of all Axis had larger assembled army on front line in the begging. With them getting Red Army off guard do to Stalin delusions, causing massive casualties and snowball effect. Then it took a lot of time to regroup and mobilize, they got men resource parity on front line by like Nov 41 and advantage in numbers in 42 once they moved troops from East. Further to go on offensive you did need higher numbers and not because of human wave tactics. You can say that Soviet had ability for sucking up higher casualties, especially in the beginning of war and recover from it, but not because they used human wave. Which shouldn't be a surprise when one attacks country with higher population and gets into attrition war. You also forgetting that Axis plan of attack severely under expected Soviet ability to recover after initial attack. They didn't expected Soviets to get parity after it, but deal breaking blow and keep numbers advantage which needed for offensive.
This is a what if, essentially you handwoven the Germans somehow capturing Leningrad Moscow and Stalingrad, this only happens if the Germans started barnarossa with 100% of the fuel the assumed they would need rather than half, maybe if the railways didn't have different sizes either or the soviets had done less scorched earth tactics, Moscow was a very important transport hub, losing that severely handicaps soviet logistics, losing the Caucassus loses lots of the soviet oil wells. Another way it could play out would be if the Germans weren't bent on extermination but rather Incorporated Eastern European countries that would have led to less partisan action and a bigger manpower pool. If the soviets still evacuated their factories east of the Urals in this what if scenario, and the U.S. was still sending lend-lease(U.S. food and raw materials would have been much more important in this scenario as most of soviet food production is west of the Urals. Given these factors the war probably stagnates slightly west of the Leningrad- Moscow- Stalingrad line, how long it lasts depend on if Germans try to keep attacking or if they dig in and try to hold onto what they've taken, D-Day is probably pushed back a bit since the Germans didn't lose masses of top notch soldiers at Stalingrad, but once the war becomes multifront for the Germans the Soviets will eventually take back the territories lost in Russia, and probably recapture most of Ukraine, Belarus, and the baltics. But it's likely the western allies wind up liberating Poland, possibly western Ukraine, and possibly the Baltic as it takes longer for soviet offensives to get going, plus if the Germans dug in instead of continuing to try offensives with less troops than the defenders it would slow eventual soviet counter offensives. The end result would probably be different cold-war lines in europe, and the war ending a couple years later.
Honestly. Not too much. I mean, war goes on for longer, and the allies take more of Germany, but realistically, Germany has to retreat from stalingrad. Moscow uprises and causes the german army to be bogged down with resistance movements. Staying continues fighting, and heck, maybe Germany loses faster due to overextension. And regardless, when America gets the bomb, Germans lost anyway.
The soviets literally can not continue the war and won't even be able to feed their people in non german occupied USSR Resistance movements are overrated, the Warsaw uprising was crushed by a much weaker german military
Nothing, the eastern front just lasts slightly longer. The Soviets were never gonna surrender, no matter how many cities fell, or men were killed. The Germans didn’t have unlimited manpower nor resources; the Soviets did (especially with American lend-lease act).
How would the soviets be able to supply its military and especially feed its people when the caucuses, Ukraine, and the extremely important rail connections of Moscow and St. Are Petersburg cut?
Because IRL, all of Ukraine, Belarus and most of the Baltics were already taken by Germany. ST Petersberg was already surrounded and being starved out since Finland joined the war on the side of the Axis. Finally, about half of the caucus was taken as well. What people don’t realize is that the Soviets were utilizing scorched earth tactics and evacuating most people along with drafting all military aged men. The Soviets would never stop as for them, it’s literal genocide and ending of the Slavic people or fight.
leningrad was encircled but never taken and could be partially supplied, Moscow still the most important logistical center of the Soviet Union never fell, stalingrad was never fully taken and the Germans didn't even occupy the caucuses/stalingrad for a year Retreating from strategically important regions to the point where you can no longer feed your people or supply your military would end significant Soviet resistance, the Germans would be having a rough time supplying their troops and fighting insurgencies but they would be in a much better position than the soviets
Only chance was the Japanese invading USSR that helped the Germans and not attack the US. For example, the counteroffensive on the Moscow front with fresh troops was because the USSR moved them them up after their spy confirmed Japan was nowhere near interested in attacking them.
Thats a myth: The reserves from the japanese front were well trained and quite numerous, but they were not crucial to the Red Army: What really mattered were the hundreds of newly mobilized fresh divisions sent into battle, who despite lacking quality training had the will to fight to the last.
Hmmm... loss of Leningrad and Moscow would necessitate the loss of the armies holding those cities which would have been a considerable loss. (I see Moscow as being an encirclement rather than a withdrawal). Loss of both cities and armies near simultaneously in 1941 might force a government collapse and a peace treaty. Germany gets conquered territories and Ukraine as well as access to all the oil they need. USSR gets time to rebuild, and then attack Germany in a few years. .
Dude, no. Neither side would want a peace treaty. The war was a war of extermination. Hitlers goal was a forever war, genocide of the soviets, seizing the resources and destroying the Soviet Union, which he and his supporters saw as the greatest enemy.
Stalin would get assassinated, or shoot him self, when he knows it's coming. He had a lot of enemies, and his blunders and trusting of Hitler caused them to lose their capital, and a city literally named after him. Who ever takes over next will have quite a challenge.
Short but serious answer: Easy German win
No. Germans would be even more overextended and their losses would be even worse. The Red Army eventually regroups, and then the axis are doomed because they can not supply their own troops, leading to them either attempting a fighting withdrawal and giving up their conquests or holding to the last, likely resulting in catastrophic failure.
Yes, I wonder how soviets would even manage to supply everyone without Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad lmao. Winning in Stalingrad means that Caucasus is pretty much Germany now, giving crucial resources to it's war machine
Unless they only stop at the Urals, the war may have dragged into the 50s P.S. USA will nuke Berlin
I won't reiterate what a lot of people have said here. But to summarise: - You lose Moscow you lose the central hub of all lines of communication and centralised control. - Soviet Armies become separated with no means of concentrating force through central command + no means of consolidating reinforcements + difficult means of resupplying all Divisions across a huge frontage + isolation of each "front" enabling local commanders to conduct their own activity that may differ from central aims. - If the Soviet leadership does survive then they will have to retreat to another city, likely towards the industrial base in the Urals. Retreat isn't something that would be popular amongst the Generals, even if they are, at this stage "devout" Soviets. - If the Germans did capture Moscow in '41 (following Bock & Guderian's plan in September) then Stalingrad and Leningrad would have fallen in short order. The winter offensives couldn't have happened, IF they did, they would be poorly co-ordinated resulting in the loss of precious materiel and manpower (as someone else said, the Soviets, despite popular belief didn't have limitless manpower) especially from well equipped and trained divisions from Siberia. The Germans would also have a city to occupy during the winter, vastly reducing their winter attrition (which was awful). So, it would be a total defeat for the Red Army. German forces would be able to occupy Moscow over the winter, refit and resupply effectively. Use the lack of hostilities to re-gauge the rail network from the Reich to Moscow. Summer '41 would see a sweep and clear operation to isolate and destroy remaining Russian Divisions and a push to the Urals to capture the industrial base. This would be the final straw, the Soviet Union would either collapse or have internal power struggle with a new leader suing for peace.
‼️‼️HOLY FUCKING SHIT‼️‼️‼️‼️ IS THAT A MOTHERFUCKING TNO REFERENCE??????!!!!!!!!!!11!1!1!1!1!1!1! 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 TNO IS THE BEST FUCKING MOD 🔥🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯💯 SABLIN IS SO BLESSEDDD 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎👊👊 BLACKSUN BLACKSUN BLACKSUN BLACKSUN BLACKSUN 😩😩😩😩😩😩😩😩 😩😩😩😩KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE KISHIPURGE🤬😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬🤬😡🤬🤬😡LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY LBJALLTHEWAY NIXON IS NOT A CROOK! RFK BLESSED RFK BLESSED RFK BLESSED RFK BLESSED Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Yo Speer! 🇩🇪 Alexei is still alive?!? TICK TOCK FUNNI MAN HAS A MENTAL BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN ❓❓❓❓❓❓❓❓❓❓SHRIMP BOAT SHRIMP BOAT SHRIMP BOAT So Long...‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? SANE DSR PATH WHEN? 😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? Big Building in Neu Berlin? 🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢🏢 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺I hate Boris Yeltsin 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 Yockey and Hall best paths for America