Importance of Moscow to the USSR

[KDF33]

Here, Soviet railways in 1941. Moscow doesn't appear so critical.

Regards,

KDF

[stg 44]

For the area northwest of Moscow it does. Having 2 one direction rail lines once Moscow is gone is pretty rough to supply it. Its not fatal for the south, but its not pleasant to lose it.

[KDF33]

I agree that losing Moscow probably means losing the area North and North-West of it, but then that's not going to deliver the death blow to the USSR. Apart from the LL ports, there's little of value up there, as well as little population.

Regards,

KDF

[stg 44]

I agree that losing Moscow probably means losing the area North and North-West of it, but then that's not going to deliver the death blow to the USSR. Apart from the LL ports, there's little of value up there, as well as little population.

Regards,

KDF

I mean there is the Tikhvin bauxite mining area. But the political fallout from losing Moscow and Leningrad and Murmansk, probably Archangelesk too would all be very damaging to Stalin and may result in a coup if he's still alive. Then there is the issue of losing the Moscow communications exchange, which AFAIK was the heart of the system. Its loss would make land line communication very difficult.

[KDF33]

Well, even if there's a coup, whoever succeeds Stalin will not make peace, given that the Germans plan on exterminating the Russians. I don't see any scenario in which the USSR capitulates.

Do you know how much bauxite came from the Tikhvin area? I was completely unaware of it!

Regards,

KDF

[stg 44]

Well, even if there's a coup, whoever succeeds Stalin will not make peace, given that the Germans plan on exterminating the Russians. I don't see any scenario in which the USSR capitulates.

Do you know how much bauxite came from the Tikhvin area? I was completely unaware of it!

Regards,

KDF

http://www.mindat.org/locentry-107471.html
No idea how much there was.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/96 ... -9608.html

Hitler wouldn't have accepted a surrender if he was winning:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/96 ... -9608.html

[Chepicoro]

stg 44


The information is from 1942 not 1941 sorry.
"Determination of Fighting Strength USSR" Vol 1. the Central industrial region includes Moscow, the information is on page 41.

https://www.caja-pdf.es/2016/01/07/figh ... er-ussr-1/

Edit... your last link is a duplicated from your second link. could you put the correct link please? I am interested.

[stg 44]

I can't edit the last post, but this is what I was trying to post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Moun ... i_planning

[historygeek2021]

Here is General Thomas' assessment of the economic importance of various regions of the USSR on October 2, 1941:

Thomas Oct 2 1941 economic survey.png

https://history.army.mil/html/books/104 ... 104-21.pdf

The Germans succeeded in capturing most of the territory described in items 1 and 2, but, contrary to Thomas' assessment, the Soviet Union proved more than capable of waging war west of the Urals.

[stg 44]

Here is General Thomas' assessment of the economic importance of various regions of the USSR on October 2, 1941:

Thomas Oct 2 1941 economic survey.png

https://history.army.mil/html/books/104 ... 104-21.pdf

The Germans succeeded in capturing most of the territory described in items 1 and 2, but, contrary to Thomas' assessment, the Soviet Union proved more than capable of waging war west of the Urals.

You do realize he said the Moscow-Tula-Leningrad areas including the cities, right? Those cities were the key prizes and they never fell. Kandalakasha was also the Murmansk region and that didn't fall either. So at least half of the major industrial prizes he mentioned weren't taken historically, so I don't know where you get off claiming the majority of the territory described in item 1 alone were taken. Item 2 was only half taken, as Maikop didn't fall in 1941 and was only lost for a relatively short period of time. LL also threw that calculation off as well. This quote really only says if all that falls in 1941, not 1941-42 and with LL. He is correct that had that been taken the USSR would have economically collapsed, but historically most of that wasn't achieved in 1941 and even in 1942 it wasn't even fully achieved and by then LL was kicking in. Still per Mark Harrison the USSR's economy was on the brink of collapse by Autumn 1942 and it was only the offensive successes of late 1942 that saved them.

[historygeek2021]

Kandalaksha was never going to fall because Churchill and FDR put the fear of God into the Finns about endangering the lend-lease routes. The Finns were not going to go to war with the UK and USA (the UK declared war but it was essentially nominal, since the Finns stopped their advance).

But as this is a thread about Moscow, let's see some evidence for the economic importance of that city to the USSR ...

[History Learner]

Kandalaksha was never going to fall because Churchill and FDR put the fear of God into the Finns about endangering the lend-lease routes. The Finns were not going to go to war with the UK and USA (the UK declared war but it was essentially nominal, since the Finns stopped their advance).

But as this is a thread about Moscow, let's see some evidence for the economic importance of that city to the USSR ...

It’s literally been explained by multiple posts with citations, including this very page?

[historygeek2021]

Kandalaksha was never going to fall because Churchill and FDR put the fear of God into the Finns about endangering the lend-lease routes. The Finns were not going to go to war with the UK and USA (the UK declared war but it was essentially nominal, since the Finns stopped their advance).

But as this is a thread about Moscow, let's see some evidence for the economic importance of that city to the USSR ...

It’s literally been explained by multiple posts with citations, including this very page?

There's no factual information in this thread except a few random anecdotes about factories here and aluminum there, and some unsourced railway maps.

[stg 44]

Kandalaksha was never going to fall because Churchill and FDR put the fear of God into the Finns about endangering the lend-lease routes. The Finns were not going to go to war with the UK and USA (the UK declared war but it was essentially nominal, since the Finns stopped their advance).

But as this is a thread about Moscow, let's see some evidence for the economic importance of that city to the USSR ...

It’s literally been explained by multiple posts with citations, including this very page?

There's no factual information in this thread except a few random anecdotes about factories here and aluminum there, and some unsourced railway maps.

Here is THE map about Soviet rail lines in 1941:
https://kresy-siberia.org/hom/element/e ... -map-1941/

Notice Moscow is the hub of the high capacity double line routes.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Re the the idea that taking Moscow cuts Leningrad down to a single rail line - not specifically mentioned in this thread but frequently stated - the idea is demonstrably false: