rommelrommel
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2002
- 4,426
- 3,209
- 146
... my point was they would have been able to *attack* moscow, much the same as they were able to *attack* stalingrad. but it wouldn't have fallen like you think. you'd just shift what happened at stalingrad over to moscow.
if theres a benefit to attacking moscow, it'd be in sacking the kremlin and the potential disruption that'd cause in russian ranks. but i'm sure russia had fallback command centers. overall, the oil in stalingrad area is worth more to an army.
The Russians were essentially ready to lose Moscow, there would have been no Stalingrad-esque stand there. Anything that could be moved had been moved.
It may not have been fatal, but anything would have been better than driving on all three fronts (Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad) and not really succeeding on any of them decisively.