Stalin...

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

War with Romania = war with Germany. This is the same guy who minutely and savagely monitored and punished anything remotely resembling a "provocation." I'd say taking the Ploesti oilfields is damned provocative.

Not happening. Not in 1941. He was, as a matter of fact, in the process of diplomatically caving to the Germans in spring of 1941 and prepared to make all sorts of concessions to maintain the pact.

Stalin would have waited until conditions were ripe.

Icebreaker is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy. It doesn't make a lick of sense or stand up to sustained scrutiny.

I wasn't refering to Icebreaker, thankfully.

I reread my sources to check, and Glantz does pose that MP-41 put more troops over the Southern part of the Pripiat Marshes because Stalin evaluated that Hitler would go for the resources in Ukraine in priority, thus why he massed more troops in the south area. And while I don't trust Glantz on spewing numerical data directly from Soviet archives as if they were gospel, I have no reason to doubt his presentation about MP-41. It's more likely than going for the Balkans, I agree.

So I stand corrected, and I retract my assertion about going for the Balkans as soon as 1941 as untrue. [:)]

[Aurelian]

Zhukov's proposal of a possible premptive offense was nothing more than normal contingency planning. Much like how the US had one called War Plan Red. (War against the UK and Canada. declassified in 1974.)

As Flav noted above, the Red Army was in no shape for war in 1941. Glantz's book "Stumbling Colossus" makes that very clear.

Also, Zhukov's proposal, while having Timoshenkov's initials on it, it doesn't have either Stalin's initials or the usual notes he would scribble in the margins.

[marcpennington]

Zhukov's plan was also hand-written, not typed, giving strong indication that it was never even that serious of a contingency plan.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Red Army was not prepared for war in 1941, either on the offense or defense, and Stalin knew this full well. He was stalling for time. Suvorov assumes capabilities that simply did not exist.

Stalin may well have been hoping to hit Germany at an opportune time once it was exhausted and stretched from its war efforts, but 1941 plainly wasn't the time.

+1

Tank divisions without tanks and motorized divisions without transport does not an invasion force make. [:D]

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

That's a big strawman, Mehring.

Keep it on the subject: My argument is on Soviet data on armament, casualties report, manpower registers, etc.

If you wrote "Stalin learned good news, because keep in mind what happened to people who told bad news to Stalin." and I believe you did, I'm on subject. Stalin learnt all manner of news, he just had an unorthodox way of dealing with it, particularly the bad stuff.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
As Lord Palmerston pointed out, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Stalin, as the Russian nation, or representative of the nascient bourgeoisie, would make and change any friend he deemed necessary, but since the 1920s he consistently opposed socialist revolution in every situation and context because it was never in his interests.

This is what I see things Soviet Union had no interest to attack Nazi Germany. It is totally other way around Nazi Germany had interest they needed more raw material and oil production. Weakness of Soviet Union in Winter War gave Nazi Germany opportunistic chance to fill this interests they had by attacking in Soviet Union. Attacking Soviet Union was not only plan Nazi Germany made to fill up their interests their original plan was offensive against Middle-East witch they even prepared to continue after Soviet Union would have been beaten.

Every country that sits holding oil or raw material production during world war two was potential target of Nazi Germany interests of get more access on those resources. Romania was small country that needed German weapons so it was possible for Germany fill their interest on Romanian oil and fuel trading them with Weapons and other German goods. It was not possible to trade with Soviet Union in the same level than with Romania. It was not possible for Germany to trade with UK or USA.

Why Soviet Union attacked Finland? Finland has been part of Russia in historically and Soviet Union had interests of maintaining superpower identity and project power to prevent territory leave from their sphere of control. Not being able to control territories leaving from superpower would have risk breakup of Soviet Union.

[Captain]

In trying to gauge Soviet intent in 41, you have to look beyond the propaganda. Soviet propaganda, based on traditional marxist ideology, called for socialist revolution in every country.

In 1917, the Bolshevik leaders did believe revolutions were about to break out throughout Europe. When they did not, they split into two broad groups on the issue. The ideologues, which included Trotsky, wanted to foment revolutions around the world. The realists, which included Stalin, wanted to concentrate on consolidating their power at home. In the early 20's, Russia was weak and isolated. It needed to establish diplomatic and commercial relations with other countries. It could not do that if it was at the same time fomenting insurrection in those same countries.

So the USSR under Stalin acted like every other great power, it made decisions solely based on its national interest.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Captain

In trying to gauge Soviet intent in 41, you have to look beyond the propaganda. Soviet propaganda, based on traditional marxist ideology, called for socialist revolution in every country.

In 1917, the Bolshevik leaders did believe revolutions were about to break out throughout Europe. When they did not, they split into two broad groups on the issue. The ideologues, which included Trotsky, wanted to foment revolutions around the world. The realists, which included Stalin, wanted to concentrate on consolidating their power at home. In the early 20's, Russia was weak and isolated. It needed to establish diplomatic and commercial relations with other countries. It could not do that if it was at the same time fomenting insurrection in those same countries.

So the USSR under Stalin acted like every other great power, it made decisions solely based on its national interest.

Along with your

there is no proof that Stalin was going to attack Germany, this was Nazi propaganda to justify their attack.

The evidence shows that Stalin was bending over backwards up to 1941 to avoid any conflict with Germany.

You make me laugh. let me guess, you are of Russian nationality?

Next week I shall post a response on this thread but very unfortunatley I left my source to quote from at work.

Mark

[Captain]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox


You make me laugh. let me guess, you are of Russian nationality?

not at all, just someone who actually READS history books:

"Lenin", by Robert Service;

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Biography-R ... t_ep_dpt_3

"Stalin", by Robert Service;

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Biography- ... 305&sr=1-1


"The Road to Stalingrad", by John Erickson;

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Stalingrad-C ... 371&sr=1-1

what's your excuse?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

You make me laugh. let me guess, you are of Russian nationality?

But please! That was a bit below the belt! What captain says is pretty much the standard view, I learnt much the same when studying East European and Soviet history at university.

[Q-Ball]

I can't imagine Hitler not attacking the Soviet Union ideologically, but....

What happens if the Germans don't in 1941?

The Germans HAD to send significant forces to Romania to protect the OIL there, regardless, and the Soviets were justifiably concerned about German troops movements into satellite nations. Romania, Hungary, and Finland were very willing partners as a buffer to the Soviets, for obvious reasons.

Even keeping the bulk of the Wehrmacht in Europe, the Germans could have sent more Airpower to the Med, and perhaps by extension helped the Regia Marina get more troops and supplies into Africa. Maybe an invasion of Malta would be realistic.

I suppose a Soviet/German clash was inevitable at some point.

I can see the Western Allies making an impact in the Mediterranean by themselves, as once the US was in the war, they could establish air and naval superiority. Finding the ground forces for an invasion of France would have been tough though.

[HCDawson]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I can't imagine Hitler not attacking the Soviet Union ideologically, but....

What happens if the Germans don't in 1941?

The Germans HAD to send significant forces to Romania to protect the OIL there, regardless, and the Soviets were justifiably concerned about German troops movements into satellite nations. Romania, Hungary, and Finland were very willing partners as a buffer to the Soviets, for obvious reasons.

Even keeping the bulk of the Wehrmacht in Europe, the Germans could have sent more Airpower to the Med, and perhaps by extension helped the Regia Marina get more troops and supplies into Africa. Maybe an invasion of Malta would be realistic.

I suppose a Soviet/German clash was inevitable at some point.

I can see the Western Allies making an impact in the Mediterranean by themselves, as once the US was in the war, they could establish air and naval superiority. Finding the ground forces for an invasion of France would have been tough though.

It's interesting to think just one of the Panzer Groups, an airfleet and handful of infantry divisions would have likely been enough to secure Egypt and Malta. Thus the opening the door to the entire Middle East and encouraging more assistance from Spain for a landward attack on Gibraltar. Even without the latter,even Med actions would be risky.

[DesertedFox]

Captain

not at all, just someone who actually READS history books:

what's your excuse?

I exercise my judgement with what I read. Why don't you?

But please! That was a bit below the belt! What captain says is pretty much the standard view, I learnt much the same when studying East European and Soviet history at university.

The Soviet Union taught in schools for many years that they not only defeated Germany practically single handedly, but also Japan. Where did you say you went to university?

Thus were you to talk today to someone 50+ years old from Russia, who has had no other exposure to history they would swear this is the truth. They have an excuse, no other exposure. Those who participate in this forum, have no excuse, other than myopic vision.

Stalin was as vile as Hitler, to believe less is truly tragic. Just ask the eastern Poles of 39, or the Fins of 1940, or maybe even the Bessabarians in 1940. Actually lets skip those 3 nationalities and lets ask the 4000 Polish officers and intellectuals of Katyn Wood?

Stalin was about world domination, to say he was not is just rubbish. He and Hitler belong in the same rubbish bin.

I am sure the same people believe the cold war was the fault of the west....yeah sure. Who built he Berlin Wall? I have read and seen documentaries about people attempting to escape FROM  Poland, East Germany, Romania and Hungary after WW2, yet to find one about people trying to go the other direction and enjoy the personal freedom and wealth available to so many in the communist countries.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

In August 1939 Stalin was in a position in which he could prevent Hitler's invasion of Poland, the invasion that started World War 2, and he knew it well and said so. But at that decisive point in history, instead of preventing war, Stalin did the opposite. He cleared the way and provided guarantees for Hitler to invade, after he knew for sure that this will start a war not just in Poland but also in Western Europe, a war that the Communist ideology expected, planned and prepared for, and desired. Then, with Germany at war with Britain and France, Stalin's Russia moved to the 2nd phase of its long term preparations. Russia moved to a maximum effort war regime in which it enormously expanded its military force and military production rates, expanded its territory westwards, by force, which also gave it a long common border with Germany, and finally in 1941 began to mobilize millions and transferred its enormous attack-oriented forces to the German and Romanian borders, and prepared to enter the European war in a gigantic attack that would:
[ol][*]Immediately cut Germany's main source of oil in Ploesti, in southern Romania, just about 120 miles from the Russian border, in order to paralyze Hitler's armed forces for lack of oil (as eventually happened in 1944).
[*]Defeat the exhausted Germany and its allies across the entire front from the Finland in the North to the Black Sea in the South - a mirror image of the German attack that eventually started in June 22, 1941.
[*]Continue with the Communist "liberation" of the entire Europe, by advancing all the way first to Germany, then to France, and Spain, bringing all of Europe under the brutal totalitarian regime which the Russian people already "enjoyed" then, that made Russia one big prison with countless prisons in it. [/ol]Hitler's Germany managed to be the first to attack, by a narrow gap of a few weeks at most (Suvorov's conclusion, based on various evidence, is that Russia's Red Army was going to attack on July 6, 1941, so Hitler got ahead of them by exactly two weeks).

Thankyou Speedy,

This is the Gospel truth.

I'll give an excellent reference next week to add to add to this. A must read for many about the possibilities the Germans could have taken to win or obtain a draw in the war.

Did the Nazis try and justify their attack on Russia by claiming it was in response to an immediate threat from Russia, you bet they did. Funny thing about the Nazis, they liked to lie a lot.

Little did they know at the time, they just beat the Russians to the punch. The Russians of course, deny this. Funny thing about Communists, they like to lie a lot.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox


You make me laugh. let me guess, you are of Russian nationality?

Two extreme neighbours, one left the other right, are bound to clash sometime, I agree with you there. The soviet union was absolutely not ready for war in 1941..

But that is beside the point I wanted to make... Why on earth would you respond to a decent post the way you just did?

[Captain]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

I exercise my judgement with what I read. Why don't you?

If you want to have a rational discussion, present some facts. Attacking someone just because you don't agree with their argument is pretty juvenile. It is not what I expected on this forum.

[randallw]

I have not read that a huge amount books on the East, so of course I haven't read the viewpoints of that many authors; from what I have read the belief is that Stalin wanted peace for awhile then maybe/probably would begin the war on Soviet terms, after Germany had become embroiled in a long draining war in the West ( which didn't work out as Stalin hoped ).

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Captain

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox


You make me laugh. let me guess, you are of Russian nationality?

not at all, just someone who actually READS history books:

"Lenin", by Robert Service;

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Biography-R ... t_ep_dpt_3

"Stalin", by Robert Service;

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Biography- ... 305&sr=1-1


"The Road to Stalingrad", by John Erickson;

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Stalingrad-C ... 371&sr=1-1

what's your excuse?

I suggest you change your reading list. Robert Service is himself an ideologue of the worst sort, one who distorts, lies, ignores what is not conducive to his theme, and writes with utter contempt for historical fact and scholarly standards. His recent biography of Trotsky has been trashed by Bertrand Patenaude in the American Historical review, June 2011, in these terms-

“It appears that he [Service] set out to thoroughly discredit Trotsky as a historical figure and as a human being. His Trotsky is not merely arrogant, self-righteous, and self-absorbed; he is a mass murderer and a terrorist, a cold and heartless son, husband, father, and comrade, an intellectual lightweight who falsified the record of his role in the Russian Revolution and whose writings have continued to fool generations of readers—a hoax perpetrated by his hagiographer Isaac Deutscher. In his eagerness to cut Trotsky down, Service commits numerous distortions of the historical record and outright errors of fact to the point that the intellectual integrity of the whole enterprise is open to question.”

He goes on at length, here's a taster, http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/ahr.116.3.900 to reveal the complete inadequacy of Service's work as anything but anti-Trotskyist propaganda, actually worthy of Stalin, the great falsifier himself. This should come as no surprise as Service is himself a Stalinist sympathiser. Could it be from him, per chance, that you get the idea of Stalin's 'realism'?

Because something is written by someone with a position in a respected university and published by a a similarly respectable house should mean the reader might not have to question their every sentence. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

[Captain]

Funny, I read about half of Service's "Trotsky" and found it a well researched, well balanced book. It portrays Trotsky as what you would expect: an intelligent, charismatic man who was a leader of the Revolution and was outmaneuvered by Stalin. Service lays out all the facts, discusses all the theories and has copious detailed footnotes. Service is actually tougher on Stalin and Lenin.

Oddly enough, most of the critics of Service's book are Trotskyites who are upset that he does not present Trotsky as a saint. I don't know what book this guy Patenaude read, but it was not the same one I did.

If you want to talk about a book with dubious scholarship, we should discuss Suvorov's book.[;)]

[Mehring]

I've already made my comment on Suvorov as represented by Speedy. But upon what you base your estimation of Serivice's scholarship is anyone's guess. You only need to read the concrete criticism's of Sevice's books, and this one in particular, to realise that Service's works are neither well researched, honest, balanced, or with any of the qualities you attribute to them. Clearly you have not troubled yourself to do so or, like Service himself, you would not trouble yourself to defend them.