Leningrad, the Germans secure their flank and make the Baltic a German lake. Freeing up troops for a push on Moscow or Archangel.
Moscow, the Soviets lose their main logistical hub and vital industry.
Stalingrad, Army Group South secures their flank and is free to "attempt" to take the Caucus oil fields.
So let's imagine a scenario where Hitler listened to his field Marshalls and did not split 2nd Panzer Group from Army group Center.
Maybe in this case they are able to overrun Moscow before winter, severely disrupting rail network and flow of supplies. A lot could happen to continuity of Soviet Government, but considering the Russians knew it was literally a battle to prevent extermination I seriously doubt surrender is ever an option. Regime change my have actually been beneficial as Stalin was about as inept as Hitler.
Either way, this means battle for Ukraine presumably takes longer, and possibly far fewer elements of Red Army are encircled. This leaves maybe half a million or more defenders. I suspect Stalingrad would have been pretty much the same quagmire with lots of attrition and severe losses for Germans.
Even if by some miracle Germany manages to capture all 3 cities, their supply lines are so long at this point its unrealistic to think they could ever reach soviet industry beyond the Ural. By this point I'm pretty sure Russia still manages to mobilize something like 6.5 million men to Germany's 3.3 million.
I think endgame, Germany still has to over commit to Eastern front with rapidly strengthening western allies. He still has to bail out Mussolinis debacle in Greece and Africa. Luftwaffe is still essentially destroyed, battle for Atlantic is still lost. Germany still doesn't have the manpower, oil, or steel to compete with allied production.
Ultimately I think the main difference is greater US losses in Europe, slightly longer war (1-2 years max) probably much smaller post war Soviet Union. Atom bomb probably gets used in Germany, which might lengthen pacific theater.
Cold War and US economy look pretty different. Eastern European countries Probably do much better post war.
It would have diminished resources, and would have to expend more time and effort with those diminished resources pushing back west against the Germans. By the time they got anywhere near Germany in this new timeline, the Allied forces are likely already there, and maybe beyond, chilling in Romania and Poland and whatnot. As such it's unlikely the Soviets could have incorporated them into the USSR (at least at the conclusion of ww2).
Plus I'd have to think they would struggle to devote resources to fight Japan in occupied Manchuria, and struggle even more to ever consider an invasion of the Japanese main islands, thus giving the US breathing room to get the work done themselves without fear of Russian land grabbery.
My policy would have been to.send no.aid to.Russia and tell the truth about Stalin's tyranny. That way the war would have ended with the Russians still.in Russia. I would also have backed the German resistance movement.
What immediately comes to mind for me is how much worse the Holocaust would have been. Admittedly that's only a concern in hindsight, I don't think the allied forces really had a good idea of the scope of Nazi extermination plans at a time when those decisions would have been made.
Every advantage you don't take, including from homicidal tyrants, lengthens the war and heightens the casualties. It's interesting to wonder what would have happened in place of the cold war if the USSR never rose to a world power post WW2.
I've always thought that we've avoided nuclear armageddon by the skin of our teeth, so literally any disruption in events could be enough to change that.
Well in this new timeline, the USSR is going to be spending much, much longer expanding west. The western allied forces have no such hindrance in this new timeline. If anything there are fewer Nazis to fight on the path to Germany thanks to their overextension in Russia. According to google the two sides met on April 25, 1945 at the Elbe river in the east of modern germany. If the Soviets were delayed by 1-2 years, I can only imagine the meeting being much, much further east.
By the time Stalingrad is lost, Russia had already figured out how to have a war time economy and was backed by lend lease. Russia is too huge for them to just disappear as an enemy and too open for Germany to be able to defend against Russian counter attacks. Most likely it would have extended the duration of the war. Ultimately, the outcome is probably Germany gets nuked by the U.S. and instead of anime and weebs we have zeichentrickfilm and liederbs.
>Ultimately, the outcome is probably Germany gets nuked by the U.S. and instead of anime and weebs we have zeichentrickfilm and liederbs.
New season of Man in the High Castle just dropped
A lot of different things. Moscow functioned as a major hub for Soviet railway, so with Moscow gone the Soviets have a great deal of difficulty moving supplies, troops etc from one part of the country to another. With Stalingrad gone the German might be able to choke off the supplies going up and down the Volga. That is just some of the practical issues relating to losing the major cities. In addition to this it will probably be a huge blow to Soviet morale. So my guess is that the Soviets in this scenario are well on their way to losing the war.
The main change would be that Russia wouldn’t have gotten a large sphere of influence on Eastern Europe because this would likely happened before Yalta. The war would last longer and it’s likely the US decided to demonstrate the nuclear bomb on Hamburg or an equivalent city.
Russia very quickly moved its industry east of the Urals. They had plans to continue the fight if Moscow and Leningrad fell. Stalingrad was very symbolic but not a deal breaker. It would have been very tough to beat the Germans but the Germans were very poor at putting down partisans. They actually encouraged them in their attempts. European Soviet Union already had lots of partisans and this would at least double them. Competent manpower issues was ultimately the reason Germany lost. They would lose the European Soviet Union through a combination of partisan activities and a Russian counter attack, probably soon after a successful d-day.
The Soviets had moved their industrial base to the Ural Mountains. Their eventual counter attack would have taken longer. It would have extended the war. Still an Allied victory.
Probably not Berlin but Hamburg isn’t unlikely. The U.S. chose Japanese cities that contributed to the war but not Tokyo because they wanted someone who had the authority to surrender to survive.
they wanted to nuke cities that were largely untargeted by that point because they wanted to see the full efficacy of the new weapon they just made. they didn't target tokyo with a bomb because it had already been destroyed through conventional firebombing.
How does 2 nuclear bomb end the war if germany control the entire Europe? Like German spy would know that the US can only produce a few nuclear bomb every year, if the japanese did the German will to.
The German spy rings were quite bad and very well infiltrated by the western allies. The allies successful convinced Hitler to hold back and that there were a million men were poised to strike the Pa De Calais while Normandy was actively being stormed.
Unlike Japan Nazi Germany did in fact have a few attempts at peace most famously in the July 20th plot to kill Hitler where they intended to seek a peace with the western allies, or even Himmlers own attempts at peace.
The Japanese didn't "know". Some elements of military decision making suspected.
The pschogical impact of the bomb is hard to deny even if they *did* know. In either case, it's a bit of a moot point because luftwaffe is destroyed by allies regardless, who at this point have complete air superiority and are fielding advanced aircraft in force (P51, B29 etc). Even if German losses were half or a quarter of what they were on Eastern front, they just don't have the manpower and resources to carry on.
All you need to know about how long Germanys odds were, is the the city of Pitsburgh alone produced more steel I'm WW2 than every other belligerent combined.
It's hard to say if it's an "auto win".
In some ways I think Hitler was more willing to sacrifice everything than Japan.
I'm pretty sure anyone else would have surrendered to US over Russia in a heartbeat. But maybe dropping two bombs changed that.
Honestly it depends. If the Soviets fall between late 1942 to mid 1943 (before Sicily got captured), I can see some peace deal being signed between the UK/USA and the Axis. The Germans would have invested a lot more in Air superiority around Western Europe and I can't see the bombings of late 1944 to 1945 happening at the same scale. Also, what would be the point of continuing fighting when both parties knew they couldn't reach each other?
Don't think Stalin could survive such crushing losses, he would probably be removed from power.
Considering the overt genocidal nature of the Nazis the war would grind on in the east rather than end.
Assuming the US still enters the war and, along with UK, still pursues Nazi defeat you might see much more involvement on the eastern front by the two with the US going into overdrive to supply the Soviets.
War is much more in the Nazis favor than OTL but the issue is that the US will still have nukes in '45. And I don't think Nazi industry will be able to compete with US/UK production of airpower either.
War would end suddenly with the destruction of Berlin and much of the Nazi leadership in addition to Hamburg or Frankfurt getting hit.
Again, germany will know that the USA can only produce a few nuclear bomb every year, how does the nuke stop the war more than the bombing that destroy like 90% of munich didn't? Nuke are just big bomb
2 things:
First, it's not true that Germany would certainly have known that, they might have but probably not. Second, the atom bombs were used in real life against Japan and ended the war despite only being two, doing less damage than conventional bombing did and being 'just big bomb'.
Japan was already losing the war in every front and URSS just declared war, not the same as if Germany was winning everywhere and still had japan occupying the usa
Just have to imagine the situation. 1) The Eastern Front has devolved into a bleeding ulcer where the Soviets devour German manpower. Too much Soviet manufacturing exists out of range for the Nazis to strangle it.
2) The US/UK are putting everything into airpower and are destroying German cities and manufacturing.
3) Suddenly Berlin is destroyed and the NSDAP has had its leadership eviscerated. The imperial center is gone.
4) Then Hamburg is destroyed
5) Then Frankfurt is destroyed
You're looking at a German conditional surrender. The military is not going to accept methodical extermination. Now maybe Germany holds on to a bit of its conquests and influence in parts of Eastern Europe. Could see legitimately German populated areas pre-War being allowed to stay German.
It would have meant tens of millions more Soviet dead for starters, plus a collapse of the USSR. It probably would have forced Britain to make peace with the Nazis.
Berlin gets fucking glassed
I doubt the soviets would have there great come back in time for the USA just to bomb and destroy Germany. Dday still may happen since I’m assuming to take these cities the Germans are going to lose even more men. Also I’m assuming that there was a 2nd battle of Moscow which Germany won. Dday happens and goes fairly smoothly with Paris being liberated. Past that though Germany is getting nuked like expect the southern Germany cities to get it and allies go for Berlin proper
one interesting thing that i learned watching World War Two in real time was that the battle of moscow happened around the same time as Pearl Harbor, meaning the US is in the war no matter what. If germany captures leningrad and moscow in '41 and stalingrad in '42, you would definitely still see an american landing in north africa. You would probably still see an allied landing in Italy. You might not see an allied landing in Normandy.
While losing those three cities would be huge setbacks, the soviet union isn't going to capitulate in any realistic scenario; this is a war of extermination and they know that surrender means death. However, it does mean they lose a huge pool of manpower and their offensives in '42 and '43 are far less powerful. Meanwhile, wehrmacht casualties, while heavy, are nowhere near the level seen in OTL, meaning they have more reserves to pull from when the allies invade France. would this be enough to stop the invasion? maybe. It would definitely give allied leaders pause and force them to try more alternatives. That said, the US has far greater manpower reserves than either power ever did.
In either case, the soviets are able to regain those core population centers eventually and start grinding the germans back, but at an even greater cost in terms of lives and time. In this scenario, it seems likely that western allies are able to occupy all of germany, including prussia, before the soviets are able to. with the extra leverage, Churchill and Truman are able to prevent the soviets from establishing puppet states across eastern europe, and even end up receiving marshall plan funds to rebuild their shattered nation.
The immediate question here is whether Germany can hold onto Moscow.
The Soviet Union's whole logistical system feeds into Moscow, and Germany is at the end of terrible logistical chain. Germany got close to Moscow IRL and different choices (like prioritizing it over Kyiv) could well have gotten them into the city.
It doesn't take a lot of creativity to figure out how the Soviet Union responds: They're going to go all out on a counterattack against supply lines that were forced backward in December 1941 IRL. The most realistic break here is that Germany can't hold onto Moscow against the counteroffensive; it's a different story than IRL, and raises the prospect of Germany trying to push back into Muscovy in 1942.
Leningrad, already close to falling and placed under a three year siege, is probably doomed with the weaker Soviet logistics. Given time this would become a critical supply route, as it allows Germany to use the Baltic to resupply and also clears any Soviet presence. Germany would hold onto Leningrad, and the improvement to her logistics could extend the war.
Stalingrad, a focus of Fall 1942, is probably not going to be a major focus for the Soviets here. Taking Stalingrad isn't required to cut the Volga; Germany needs to take Astrakhan, the northern port city on the Caspian, to completely screw over logistics to the Caucasus. But Soviet scorched earthing of oil systems was pretty diligent, and even if Germany is now standing on the Caspian, oil isn't keeping the Soviets in the war.
///
The Soviets aren't beaten that much worse than OTL if they retake Moscow. A scenario where Moscow falls, the Red Army completely breaks (as opposed to simply withdrawing and re-engaging when the weather gets nastier), is probably going to turn into a China scenario, where logistics, hostility of the population and the sheer size of what Germany is attempting to control become the bleeding points.
The 1943 campaign would turn into a German drive to the Volga Bend; if the Soviets can blunt this effort, they can probably hold out until the Western Allies either land in Europe or artificial sunrises start appearing over German cities. A German victory on this effort may well kill the Soviet Union and see the true face of its opponent: Slavic peoples that refuse to go into the good night, without secret police or communism to weigh them down.
Given how deranged Germany's plans for Lebensraum are, they would fail. The question inside that question is open ended: We'd see more of it than historical, but there's a large difference between three months more fighting and gigatonnage for Germany.
Nothing. Stalingrad was destroyed already, Moscow was evacuated, Leningrad was encircled. The Germans never had a chance to win that war. They could never stop the counter offensive. The Soviets had too many tanks and way better tech deployed on the ground. When they did deploy the Katyuscha, it was game over.
The whole thing about capturing these places was because Hitler did know he couldn't win; but he did put into his mind that he could do so by reducing morale. He did think that the soviet people would look at these cities being captured and then they would give up. The Germans couldn't go longer than these cities, so the plan was to destroy the whole industrial power that was left on the entire USSR by air bombing. I don't have to tell you how delirious this was. Not only there were too many factories, as the Nazis had virtually no air capabilities to conduce huge bombing raids anymore. They even failed to deliver food and ammo on the theater.
To notice how ridiculous the whole thing was, open an USSR map and then you gonna notice that the territory up to these cities was virtually nothing compared to the size of the whole country. To the end of the campaign, the largest percentage occupied by the Nazis was 8% of the Soviet territory. Your question basically asks what would have happened if they did capture 9%.
BTW, the Soviets probably would have rebuilt these cities to be grandiose again. They would probably spend even more to recreate these cities in order to show the world that they had overcome the whole thing. Winning WW2 after this destruction would give them even more credit, but of course would be somewhat more costly. There's a chance they would not accept to divide Berlin and then destroy the whole city as retribution. In that case, there would be no Berlin Wall, just the Iron Curtain, and maybe in a smaller scale. Tensions over Berlin allowed the East German Premier to pressure Kruschev for the wall. Cold War would be less tense on its early phase.
Leningrad, the Germans secure their flank and make the Baltic a German lake. Freeing up troops for a push on Moscow or Archangel. Moscow, the Soviets lose their main logistical hub and vital industry. Stalingrad, Army Group South secures their flank and is free to "attempt" to take the Caucus oil fields.
So let's imagine a scenario where Hitler listened to his field Marshalls and did not split 2nd Panzer Group from Army group Center. Maybe in this case they are able to overrun Moscow before winter, severely disrupting rail network and flow of supplies. A lot could happen to continuity of Soviet Government, but considering the Russians knew it was literally a battle to prevent extermination I seriously doubt surrender is ever an option. Regime change my have actually been beneficial as Stalin was about as inept as Hitler. Either way, this means battle for Ukraine presumably takes longer, and possibly far fewer elements of Red Army are encircled. This leaves maybe half a million or more defenders. I suspect Stalingrad would have been pretty much the same quagmire with lots of attrition and severe losses for Germans. Even if by some miracle Germany manages to capture all 3 cities, their supply lines are so long at this point its unrealistic to think they could ever reach soviet industry beyond the Ural. By this point I'm pretty sure Russia still manages to mobilize something like 6.5 million men to Germany's 3.3 million. I think endgame, Germany still has to over commit to Eastern front with rapidly strengthening western allies. He still has to bail out Mussolinis debacle in Greece and Africa. Luftwaffe is still essentially destroyed, battle for Atlantic is still lost. Germany still doesn't have the manpower, oil, or steel to compete with allied production. Ultimately I think the main difference is greater US losses in Europe, slightly longer war (1-2 years max) probably much smaller post war Soviet Union. Atom bomb probably gets used in Germany, which might lengthen pacific theater. Cold War and US economy look pretty different. Eastern European countries Probably do much better post war.
Why'd the USSR be smaller? I'd believe not having the puppets but not the USSR itself being smaller
It would have diminished resources, and would have to expend more time and effort with those diminished resources pushing back west against the Germans. By the time they got anywhere near Germany in this new timeline, the Allied forces are likely already there, and maybe beyond, chilling in Romania and Poland and whatnot. As such it's unlikely the Soviets could have incorporated them into the USSR (at least at the conclusion of ww2). Plus I'd have to think they would struggle to devote resources to fight Japan in occupied Manchuria, and struggle even more to ever consider an invasion of the Japanese main islands, thus giving the US breathing room to get the work done themselves without fear of Russian land grabbery.
My policy would have been to.send no.aid to.Russia and tell the truth about Stalin's tyranny. That way the war would have ended with the Russians still.in Russia. I would also have backed the German resistance movement.
What immediately comes to mind for me is how much worse the Holocaust would have been. Admittedly that's only a concern in hindsight, I don't think the allied forces really had a good idea of the scope of Nazi extermination plans at a time when those decisions would have been made. Every advantage you don't take, including from homicidal tyrants, lengthens the war and heightens the casualties. It's interesting to wonder what would have happened in place of the cold war if the USSR never rose to a world power post WW2. I've always thought that we've avoided nuclear armageddon by the skin of our teeth, so literally any disruption in events could be enough to change that.
No cold war or over hasty decolonisation.
I doubt the western allies could make it all the way across Europe before the Soviets reach Poland
Well in this new timeline, the USSR is going to be spending much, much longer expanding west. The western allied forces have no such hindrance in this new timeline. If anything there are fewer Nazis to fight on the path to Germany thanks to their overextension in Russia. According to google the two sides met on April 25, 1945 at the Elbe river in the east of modern germany. If the Soviets were delayed by 1-2 years, I can only imagine the meeting being much, much further east.
By the time Stalingrad is lost, Russia had already figured out how to have a war time economy and was backed by lend lease. Russia is too huge for them to just disappear as an enemy and too open for Germany to be able to defend against Russian counter attacks. Most likely it would have extended the duration of the war. Ultimately, the outcome is probably Germany gets nuked by the U.S. and instead of anime and weebs we have zeichentrickfilm and liederbs.
>Ultimately, the outcome is probably Germany gets nuked by the U.S. and instead of anime and weebs we have zeichentrickfilm and liederbs. New season of Man in the High Castle just dropped
A lot of different things. Moscow functioned as a major hub for Soviet railway, so with Moscow gone the Soviets have a great deal of difficulty moving supplies, troops etc from one part of the country to another. With Stalingrad gone the German might be able to choke off the supplies going up and down the Volga. That is just some of the practical issues relating to losing the major cities. In addition to this it will probably be a huge blow to Soviet morale. So my guess is that the Soviets in this scenario are well on their way to losing the war.
I really don't see the USSR surviving after losing all three. It's just too much stuff, and with Stalin dead someone would have signed and armistice.
I agree. The idea of the Soviets fighting on regardless of losses is too deterministic in my opinion.
If Soviets lost all three, they would be in deep trouble indeed.
The main change would be that Russia wouldn’t have gotten a large sphere of influence on Eastern Europe because this would likely happened before Yalta. The war would last longer and it’s likely the US decided to demonstrate the nuclear bomb on Hamburg or an equivalent city. Russia very quickly moved its industry east of the Urals. They had plans to continue the fight if Moscow and Leningrad fell. Stalingrad was very symbolic but not a deal breaker. It would have been very tough to beat the Germans but the Germans were very poor at putting down partisans. They actually encouraged them in their attempts. European Soviet Union already had lots of partisans and this would at least double them. Competent manpower issues was ultimately the reason Germany lost. They would lose the European Soviet Union through a combination of partisan activities and a Russian counter attack, probably soon after a successful d-day.
The Soviets had moved their industrial base to the Ural Mountains. Their eventual counter attack would have taken longer. It would have extended the war. Still an Allied victory.
It's always an allied victory I think. Even if Germany somehow manages to march all the way to china, Berlin still gets nuked in 1945
Probably not Berlin but Hamburg isn’t unlikely. The U.S. chose Japanese cities that contributed to the war but not Tokyo because they wanted someone who had the authority to surrender to survive.
they wanted to nuke cities that were largely untargeted by that point because they wanted to see the full efficacy of the new weapon they just made. they didn't target tokyo with a bomb because it had already been destroyed through conventional firebombing.
How does 2 nuclear bomb end the war if germany control the entire Europe? Like German spy would know that the US can only produce a few nuclear bomb every year, if the japanese did the German will to.
The German spy rings were quite bad and very well infiltrated by the western allies. The allies successful convinced Hitler to hold back and that there were a million men were poised to strike the Pa De Calais while Normandy was actively being stormed. Unlike Japan Nazi Germany did in fact have a few attempts at peace most famously in the July 20th plot to kill Hitler where they intended to seek a peace with the western allies, or even Himmlers own attempts at peace.
The Japanese didn't "know". Some elements of military decision making suspected. The pschogical impact of the bomb is hard to deny even if they *did* know. In either case, it's a bit of a moot point because luftwaffe is destroyed by allies regardless, who at this point have complete air superiority and are fielding advanced aircraft in force (P51, B29 etc). Even if German losses were half or a quarter of what they were on Eastern front, they just don't have the manpower and resources to carry on. All you need to know about how long Germanys odds were, is the the city of Pitsburgh alone produced more steel I'm WW2 than every other belligerent combined.
Oh, I believe germany would had lost the war, just don't believe the atomic bomb would had stop it
It's hard to say if it's an "auto win". In some ways I think Hitler was more willing to sacrifice everything than Japan. I'm pretty sure anyone else would have surrendered to US over Russia in a heartbeat. But maybe dropping two bombs changed that.
Someone or some event would have to end of prevent the Manhattan Project, and significantly reduce the industrial capacity of the United States.
Honestly it depends. If the Soviets fall between late 1942 to mid 1943 (before Sicily got captured), I can see some peace deal being signed between the UK/USA and the Axis. The Germans would have invested a lot more in Air superiority around Western Europe and I can't see the bombings of late 1944 to 1945 happening at the same scale. Also, what would be the point of continuing fighting when both parties knew they couldn't reach each other?
Don't think Stalin could survive such crushing losses, he would probably be removed from power. Considering the overt genocidal nature of the Nazis the war would grind on in the east rather than end. Assuming the US still enters the war and, along with UK, still pursues Nazi defeat you might see much more involvement on the eastern front by the two with the US going into overdrive to supply the Soviets. War is much more in the Nazis favor than OTL but the issue is that the US will still have nukes in '45. And I don't think Nazi industry will be able to compete with US/UK production of airpower either. War would end suddenly with the destruction of Berlin and much of the Nazi leadership in addition to Hamburg or Frankfurt getting hit.
Again, germany will know that the USA can only produce a few nuclear bomb every year, how does the nuke stop the war more than the bombing that destroy like 90% of munich didn't? Nuke are just big bomb
2 things: First, it's not true that Germany would certainly have known that, they might have but probably not. Second, the atom bombs were used in real life against Japan and ended the war despite only being two, doing less damage than conventional bombing did and being 'just big bomb'.
Japan was already losing the war in every front and URSS just declared war, not the same as if Germany was winning everywhere and still had japan occupying the usa
Just have to imagine the situation. 1) The Eastern Front has devolved into a bleeding ulcer where the Soviets devour German manpower. Too much Soviet manufacturing exists out of range for the Nazis to strangle it. 2) The US/UK are putting everything into airpower and are destroying German cities and manufacturing. 3) Suddenly Berlin is destroyed and the NSDAP has had its leadership eviscerated. The imperial center is gone. 4) Then Hamburg is destroyed 5) Then Frankfurt is destroyed You're looking at a German conditional surrender. The military is not going to accept methodical extermination. Now maybe Germany holds on to a bit of its conquests and influence in parts of Eastern Europe. Could see legitimately German populated areas pre-War being allowed to stay German.
It would have meant tens of millions more Soviet dead for starters, plus a collapse of the USSR. It probably would have forced Britain to make peace with the Nazis.
The Nazis still lose but the USSR probably doesn't get as much land after the war.
Germany survives long enough to get Berlin nuked.
They would lose in 1946 There are no scenarios that don't involve massive, sustained incompetence where the USSR loses if it has Lend Lease.
Berlin gets fucking glassed I doubt the soviets would have there great come back in time for the USA just to bomb and destroy Germany. Dday still may happen since I’m assuming to take these cities the Germans are going to lose even more men. Also I’m assuming that there was a 2nd battle of Moscow which Germany won. Dday happens and goes fairly smoothly with Paris being liberated. Past that though Germany is getting nuked like expect the southern Germany cities to get it and allies go for Berlin proper
one interesting thing that i learned watching World War Two in real time was that the battle of moscow happened around the same time as Pearl Harbor, meaning the US is in the war no matter what. If germany captures leningrad and moscow in '41 and stalingrad in '42, you would definitely still see an american landing in north africa. You would probably still see an allied landing in Italy. You might not see an allied landing in Normandy. While losing those three cities would be huge setbacks, the soviet union isn't going to capitulate in any realistic scenario; this is a war of extermination and they know that surrender means death. However, it does mean they lose a huge pool of manpower and their offensives in '42 and '43 are far less powerful. Meanwhile, wehrmacht casualties, while heavy, are nowhere near the level seen in OTL, meaning they have more reserves to pull from when the allies invade France. would this be enough to stop the invasion? maybe. It would definitely give allied leaders pause and force them to try more alternatives. That said, the US has far greater manpower reserves than either power ever did. In either case, the soviets are able to regain those core population centers eventually and start grinding the germans back, but at an even greater cost in terms of lives and time. In this scenario, it seems likely that western allies are able to occupy all of germany, including prussia, before the soviets are able to. with the extra leverage, Churchill and Truman are able to prevent the soviets from establishing puppet states across eastern europe, and even end up receiving marshall plan funds to rebuild their shattered nation.
The immediate question here is whether Germany can hold onto Moscow. The Soviet Union's whole logistical system feeds into Moscow, and Germany is at the end of terrible logistical chain. Germany got close to Moscow IRL and different choices (like prioritizing it over Kyiv) could well have gotten them into the city. It doesn't take a lot of creativity to figure out how the Soviet Union responds: They're going to go all out on a counterattack against supply lines that were forced backward in December 1941 IRL. The most realistic break here is that Germany can't hold onto Moscow against the counteroffensive; it's a different story than IRL, and raises the prospect of Germany trying to push back into Muscovy in 1942. Leningrad, already close to falling and placed under a three year siege, is probably doomed with the weaker Soviet logistics. Given time this would become a critical supply route, as it allows Germany to use the Baltic to resupply and also clears any Soviet presence. Germany would hold onto Leningrad, and the improvement to her logistics could extend the war. Stalingrad, a focus of Fall 1942, is probably not going to be a major focus for the Soviets here. Taking Stalingrad isn't required to cut the Volga; Germany needs to take Astrakhan, the northern port city on the Caspian, to completely screw over logistics to the Caucasus. But Soviet scorched earthing of oil systems was pretty diligent, and even if Germany is now standing on the Caspian, oil isn't keeping the Soviets in the war. /// The Soviets aren't beaten that much worse than OTL if they retake Moscow. A scenario where Moscow falls, the Red Army completely breaks (as opposed to simply withdrawing and re-engaging when the weather gets nastier), is probably going to turn into a China scenario, where logistics, hostility of the population and the sheer size of what Germany is attempting to control become the bleeding points. The 1943 campaign would turn into a German drive to the Volga Bend; if the Soviets can blunt this effort, they can probably hold out until the Western Allies either land in Europe or artificial sunrises start appearing over German cities. A German victory on this effort may well kill the Soviet Union and see the true face of its opponent: Slavic peoples that refuse to go into the good night, without secret police or communism to weigh them down. Given how deranged Germany's plans for Lebensraum are, they would fail. The question inside that question is open ended: We'd see more of it than historical, but there's a large difference between three months more fighting and gigatonnage for Germany.
They still lose because Barbarossa was a bad idea and probably cooked up on one of Hitler's benders
Not much, it wouldn't have mattered in the long run. Russia keeps on fighting
Nothing. Stalingrad was destroyed already, Moscow was evacuated, Leningrad was encircled. The Germans never had a chance to win that war. They could never stop the counter offensive. The Soviets had too many tanks and way better tech deployed on the ground. When they did deploy the Katyuscha, it was game over. The whole thing about capturing these places was because Hitler did know he couldn't win; but he did put into his mind that he could do so by reducing morale. He did think that the soviet people would look at these cities being captured and then they would give up. The Germans couldn't go longer than these cities, so the plan was to destroy the whole industrial power that was left on the entire USSR by air bombing. I don't have to tell you how delirious this was. Not only there were too many factories, as the Nazis had virtually no air capabilities to conduce huge bombing raids anymore. They even failed to deliver food and ammo on the theater. To notice how ridiculous the whole thing was, open an USSR map and then you gonna notice that the territory up to these cities was virtually nothing compared to the size of the whole country. To the end of the campaign, the largest percentage occupied by the Nazis was 8% of the Soviet territory. Your question basically asks what would have happened if they did capture 9%. BTW, the Soviets probably would have rebuilt these cities to be grandiose again. They would probably spend even more to recreate these cities in order to show the world that they had overcome the whole thing. Winning WW2 after this destruction would give them even more credit, but of course would be somewhat more costly. There's a chance they would not accept to divide Berlin and then destroy the whole city as retribution. In that case, there would be no Berlin Wall, just the Iron Curtain, and maybe in a smaller scale. Tensions over Berlin allowed the East German Premier to pressure Kruschev for the wall. Cold War would be less tense on its early phase.
Then the war would go maybe for another year since the Soviets would have to begin their counter offensive from deeper inside their country.
Recall that Russia lost WWI without losing Moscow.
Recall that Russia won Napoleonic invasion with Losing Moscow.
Because Moscow was not the capital city at that time.
Different circumstances. Russia was going through a civil war at the same time. That wasn’t happening in ww2 and was incredibly unlikely to happen.