What if stalingrad fell

Stalin alone remains in Moscow until mid-November, when the first German troops reach the city in force. Nonetheless, the Soviet troops withdraw rather than fall prey to yet another disastrous encirclement, and on November 30—precisely two months after Operation Typhoon begins—it culminates in the capture of Moscow.

The above scenario is historically correct in many respects. The three major departures are the absence of the rasputitsa, which did indeed bog down the German offensive for two crucial weeks; the headlong drive toward Moscow rather than the diversion of units to lesser objectives in the wake of the victory at Bryansk and Vyazma—a major error; and, of course, the capture of Moscow itself. But would the fall of Moscow have meant the defeat of the Soviet Union?

Almost certainly not. In the Soviet Union endured the capture of numerous major cities, a huge percentage of crucial raw materials, and the loss of four million troops. Yet it still continued to fight. It had a vast and growing industrial base east of the Ural Mountains, well out of reach of German forces. And in Joseph Stalin it had one of the most ruthless leaders in world history—a man utterly unlikely to throw in the towel because of the loss of any city, no matter how prestigious.

They had been guarding against a possible Japanese invasion, but a Soviet spy reliably informed Stalin that Japan would turn southward, toward the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines, thereby freeing them to come to the Moscow front. Let us agree that these are sufficient forces to pull back a big part of the Red Army. Having control of the Volga River the main artery connecting the European part of the country with Transcaucasia and Central Asia , Nazi Germany would have seriously impaired the supply of Soviet troops in the European part of the country, as well as Soviet industry, which worked mainly for the needs of the Red Army from to As we recall in the fall of , German troops occupied most of the Kuban and the North Caucasus, but after the defeat in Stalingrad, they were forced to retreat due to the threat of encirclement.

And here's why. First of all, in the fall of , when the situation in Stalingrad was ambiguous, German troops had already captured most of the North Caucasus. Secondly, and this is already more interesting Stalin most likely would have thrown all his reserves to another sector of the front.

In , mobilization was carried out in Turkey, its armed forces reached a population of 1 million people. With the beginning of the German offensive, about thousand of them were transferred by the Turks to the Soviet-Turkish border in the Batumi region.

So, Stalin's reserve armies would have been put forward to meet them. And if we assume that the joint actions of the Turks, Germans and their allies would have been successful, then it is likely that the Empire of Japan would have also attacked the eastern borders of the USSR.

Hence, the Land of Soviets would have waged war on two fronts, like Germany in both world wars. And we know that this makes for misery. And now the main question - how would have ended the Second World War if the Germans had captured Stalingrad? In my personal opinion, the war would still end with the defeat of Nazi Germany, but this took more time and, sadder, with much greater losses.

But did the USSR have forces for this? Yes, it had! Of course, one should not deny the fact that the Soviet people won WW2 thanks to the workers of factories and plants. Thanks to the dedication and self-sacrifice of a simple Russian soldier, the intelligence of military designers, and the skillful command of Soviet officers of all ranks. We start under conditions I would never have dared to hope. Russia has held, Egypt for the present is safe. There is a hope of clearing North Africa of Germans in the near future Russia is scoring wonderful successes in Southern Russia.

Although a stretch, it could be argued that the fate of Stalingrad and the fate of Europe were one and the same. Following on from the previous scenario, Stalingrad has fallen with little loss of German life, the Caucasus oilfields have been taken intact and Russia has sued for peace freeing up a vast amount of German troops to head for other fronts, including North Africa.

Soon Egypt falls, cutting Britain off from its vital Mediterranean transport route. The Middle East follows suit, Britain has now lost its oil. German resources are shifted to the Atlantic, putting even more pressure on British supply lines.

Huge numbers of aircraft are released from the Soviet conflict meaning the Germans can undertake a second Battle of Britain and this time the Luftwaffe takes control of the skies. A land invasion comes next and Britain falls. Whilst America still prevails in the Pacific and the Manhattan Project is a success, the US has lost the ability to launch its bombers from the British airfields, meaning Germany remains out of reach of US atomic bombs.

Europe has now fallen. With the resources of Russia now at their disposal, Nazi Germany becomes a global superpower. The US and Germany reach a peace agreement, potentially heralding in an alternative Cold War but this time played out between the Americans and the Nazis.

Whether or not Stalingrad could have won the war for Germany is up for interpretation, but one thing is for certain, losing it cost them the war.

What if Stalingrad had fallen? Hitler Russia. The war drags on a little longer but with the same result. So Stalingrad has fallen and the Germans have conquered the city. But at what cost? The Soviets surrender but the Western Allies hold firm.

The Nazis conquer Europe and win the war. Read more about: Battles The man who didn't shoot Hitler. Most Recent.