[AuContraireVoltaire]

1. It's been pretty well confirmed that Operation Barbarossa had been delayed before the Balkans campaign, due to late rains in the Soviet Union (swelling rivers and muddying roads) and from memory the Germans were still making logistical prepartions.
2. The troops diverted came entirely from Army Group South, which left two whole army groups uneffected.
3. Army Group South didn't go near Moscow, Army Group Centre did.

Obviously I meant Centre, and that was just a slip of the tongue, so there was no point in mentioning that.
And your second point has no relevance. It does not matter where the troops came from; the invasion could not begin until there was relative peace in the Balkans.

[Smilin' Dave]

Obviously I meant Centre, and that was just a slip of the tongue, so there was no point in mentioning that.
And your second point has no relevance. It does not matter where the troops came from; the invasion could not begin until there was relative peace in the Balkans.

The two points are inter-linked and quite relevant. Firstly, the only vague chance of victory for the Wehrmacht was to capture Moscow. Next is the common argument that AGS were somehow handicapped by having their troops diverted. So acknowledging that AGC wasn't handicapped and in the only position to actually win the campaign in 1941, it's pretty important.

But my first point makes all of this moot anyway. The invasion couldn't have started earlier anyway.

[Tailz]

I concur with Smilin'Dave. Although I don't necessarily agree that had Moscow been captured, the Soviet state would have capitulated or collapsed - that buys into the "kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" narrative a little too much.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think it's hard to say with Moscow. At first glance it might not have been any more important than any other city lost in 1941. But Moscow was the central hub of the network that ran the Soviet war machine and economy. If the Germans had that, then they might have crippled the Red Army if not perhaps immediately ended the war. Then on the other end of the spectrum is the consideration that the Germans would have still had to capture Moscow, which would have been much tougher than Stalingrad, and with the prospect of a simiar Soviet counter-offensive and encirclement at the end.

[Tailz]

I think it's hard to say with Moscow. At first glance it might not have been any more important than any other city lost in 1941. But Moscow was the central hub of the network that ran the Soviet war machine and economy. If the Germans had that, then they might have crippled the Red Army if not perhaps immediately ended the war. Then on the other end of the spectrum is the consideration that the Germans would have still had to capture Moscow, which would have been much tougher than Stalingrad, and with the prospect of a simiar Soviet counter-offensive and encirclement at the end.

But if I am not mistaken, almost all of the central bureaucracy and apparatus of state had been moved out of Moscow by the time the Germans were knocking on the proverbial door. I'm not saying that had the Germans captured Moscow it would not have been a major blow to the Soviet System - just that I don't think it would have caused the Soviet State to throw in the sponge.

While on the other hand, had the Germans captured Moscow, we may have seen what happened at Stalingrad happen instead at Moscow with a different outcome at Stalingrad since Russian forces would have instead been employed at Moscow instead of Stalingrad. I don't think the Germans would have won Stalingrad, but they may have decided to cut and run and just turn Stalingrad into a field of rubble for everyones trouble.

[pugsville]

Moscow was a very major hub of the rail network. With the capture of Moscow, defending leningrad was much much harder, if the the west of Russia can be conquered in 1941 camp again then it's a simpler front the Germans place in 1942. IT's a matter of taking some major objectives and making the active front smaller for the campaigns later. I think if made the objective in 1941 moscow is very takable. Eastern Russia it's harder to take objective X and draw a line. With Leningrad and Moscow taken, the Russians would be hard pressed to hunt major actions in Western Russia, the rail network would drake it very hard to deploy large forces there, it can become a backwater when the focus shifts east in 1942.

IT would be a major blow as would Leningrad. More than Stalingrad which I don't think was achievable in 1941. The Long attritional campagain would always favour the soviets assuming they stay tough and get western lend lease assistance.

The Chopping and changing of Objectives, the lack of adequate planning for logistics, the Intelligence failure and the size of the Russian army feeding into the planning, the total failure to really take advantage of the Politics. The remans if they had not been such Nazi's could have made much of coming as liberators , especially in the Urkraine and they could have got so much more support and harnesses some of the areas taken much more economically with a cooperative attitude, Instead their intense racial ideology and inclinations meant there brutal brutal treatment of almost everyone meant that the population quickly came to prefer Stalin rather then the Germans despite how extremely brutal Stalin had been.

[R_G]

Germany stops at France.
Germany gives Rommel what he needs and takes over Africa.
Germany puts 80% of their forces into the Soviet Union, but by overloading Finland they take Moscow and create a new border. They make alliances with India and Japan to hold the remaining Soviet Union in check.


As for what the turning point in WWII was. Operation Barbarossa without question.