Fall of Moscow or Fall of Washington

[david_herdson]

The Germans came within 20 miles of Moscow. It's far from impossible that they could have invested a siege. However, there's a big difference between that and actually controlling the city and a Battle of Moscow could easily have become a bigger and earlier version of Stalingrad. That said, and while I'm not as familiar with the details of the American Civil War, defence was probably easier in the 19th century when those attacking had less firepower at their disposal.

In either case, it'd be more likely to come down to a political or social capitulation rather than a military one - and on that score, the Soviets were the more vulnerable - unless the defenders did something pretty stupid and the attackers took rapid advantage. However, there are enough examples of stupidity throughout history for it not to be ASB.

 

[Syphon]

confeds getting dc is more ASB.

capturing moscow is a better possibility but not exactly a good one.

things that could have made it possibly.
Hitler orders gas used as first strike weapon on soviet forces.
they had something like several thousand tons of tabin at this time.
the soviets had something in excess of a hundred divisions in range of a first strike
soviet losses would have been huge.

but there is a bit of asb in this as Hitler was deathly afraid of war gases.
possible yes likely no.

for the confeds they need ak-47's
they lacked manpower industry and resources though they probably had better generals in Jackson and Lee but they don't make up the differences in other areas

 

[ObssesedNuker]

So, in your opinion, what are the mistakes Stalin could/would have to make for Moscow to fall to the Germans?

He panics and abandons the city or meddles in a more disastrous manner in the defense of the city... things like that.

An interesting one stems from the prospect of Stalin accepting that the Germans are going to attack him and in response attempting a Soviet pre-emptive strike in 1941. To say this would be a bad idea is (if anything) an understatement. Stalin would use both what was IOTL the first and second strategic echelon (the former was wiped out on the 1941 border region and the latter was wiped out at Smolensk) in the attack and these would be wiped out together. The third strategic echelon (which historically was wiped out at Vyazma-Bryansk) would be wiped out on the 1941 border. And then the forces that IOTL halted the Germans at Moscow and launched the winter counter-offensive is wiped out at Smolensk. Then who is left to defend Moscow?

The answer, of course, is whatever new forces the Soviets can put together after that. But one needs a certain minimum of quality in order to stop a German attack and hence the question becomes wheter the quality degradation for that final round of new reservists be the straw which breaks the camels back for the Soviets? Or would it be enough to still stop the exhausted Germans? That is a simple unknown and could be flipped either way. But if the answer is that they are not qualitatively good enough, then the Germans can take Moscow.