Soviet Barbarossa

[chaos45]

exactly No idea.....military operations in real life are unbelievably more difficult than in the game of moving counters around lol.

So with only roughly a month before the operation alot would have had to be prepared and practiced for. Even Stalin wouldn't have been crazy/stupid enough to take on what was at the time considered the worlds most powerful and trained army off the cuff without letting his military units/leaders prepare some. It would have been regime suicide IMO.

I do firmly believe that sensing alot of weakness or maybe in another year or so of preparations the Soviets/Stalin might have attacked the Germans...but not in July of 1941.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: chaos45
No Army preparing for an offensive in a month would even think they had a chance of success in such a dilapidated state.

I refer you to 56ajax's post:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Then again the Russian s thought they were the best army in the world, and to say otherwise would label you as counter revolutionary and lead to the firing squad. Furthermore, training breaks equipment, especially aircraft, which leads to you being classified as a saboteur and here comes the firing squad again. Best leave aircraft, tanks, guns etc in the shed.

Do not apply cold logic to how the Red Army operated, it required two years of bloodbath (mostly of their own making) before they were ready to accept rules of cold logic and allow for certain honesty in reports. Some people say Glantz's books are pro-Soviet, but even they are chock full of authentic reports from lower to upper echelons of command which were deliberately misleading in order to cover fuckups they made in order not to lose their post (or head), and completely unrealistic orders from upper to lower echelons of command, demanding impossible, without taking into account actual troop numbers, and readiness, formed on the basis of wishful thinking instead of actual recon. So it's not possible to say that USSR didn't plan to attack Nazi Germany because they were unready in objective terms. Yes, they were unready for offensive and defensive ops, but they lied to themselves that they are, so they could start the war if the only decisive person in their government would say the word. And they prepared for such eventuality, as all armies actually do. The only problem is we won't ever know with 100% accuracy what date (if any) Uncle Joe had in mind. There is certain evidence preparations were quite advanced, while some will counter these saying it was purely defensive mobilization. But a what-if scenario of Soviet attack in July 1941 is actually more sound than some other possible what-if scenarios.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: chaos45
No Army preparing for an offensive in a month would even think they had a chance of success in such a dilapidated state.

I refer you to 56ajax's post:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Then again the Russian s thought they were the best army in the world, and to say otherwise would label you as counter revolutionary and lead to the firing squad. Furthermore, training breaks equipment, especially aircraft, which leads to you being classified as a saboteur and here comes the firing squad again. Best leave aircraft, tanks, guns etc in the shed.

Do not apply cold logic to how the Red Army operated, it required two years of bloodbath (mostly of their own making) before they were ready to accept rules of cold logic and allow for certain honesty in reports. Some people say Glantz's books are pro-Soviet, but even they are chock full of authentic reports from lower to upper echelons of command which were deliberately misleading in order to cover fuckups they made in order not to lose their post (or head), and completely unrealistic orders from upper to lower echelons of command, demanding impossible, without taking into account actual troop numbers, and readiness, formed on the basis of wishful thinking instead of actual recon. So it's not possible to say that USSR didn't plan to attack Nazi Germany because they were unready in objective terms. Yes, they were unready for offensive and defensive ops, but they lied to themselves that they are, so they could start the war if the only decisive person in their government would say the word. And they prepared for such eventuality, as all armies actually do. The only problem is we won't ever know with 100% accuracy what date (if any) Uncle Joe had in mind. There is certain evidence preparations were quite advanced, while some will counter these saying it was purely defensive mobilization. But a what-if scenario of Soviet attack in July 1941 is actually more sound than some other possible what-if scenarios.

I agree to some extent that we cant apply cold logic only (and the huge adventage of knowing what happened with the soviet army in 1941) to this situation, but unless Stalin was an utter idiot (something he wasnt) I dont see how he had on mind 15 th july of 1941 as invasion date (I acknowledge later dates, in 1942 or 1943 could be possible).

First, Stalin was in the middle of an organizational change. He acknowledge that tanks and mechanization were key in modern warfare. That is why he ordered the mech corps be rebuild after being aware of what had happened in France. But those mech corps were mostly being formed in mid 1941. Why would Stalin attack when his main units were still "in the works"?

Second, even if Stalin lied to himself (or others lied to him) about the sorry state of soviet forces, the winter war should have give him something to consider that his forces werent as good as he might have thought.

Thrid, Stalin was always cautious on his dealings with foreing affairs. By cautious I mean that he didnt act until he was sure the pieces were in place. He didnt start expanding in the east until he struck a deal with Germany. I dont see why would Stalin attack Germany in 1941, a Germany who had no enemies left on the continent, without first securing help from the UK (besides being already at war with Germany) or the USA.

Fourth, Stalin might think his armies were superb and could roll on everything, but having lead troops himself, I am sure he was aware that units needed some time to make plans and train before attacking. The winter war surely taught him that if he didnt know it. However, no soviet general was aware of offensive ops for july 1941?

[morvael]

On the other hand no army is ever achieving the goal of being 100% ready. Improvements are a continuous process and some parts of the army may be at lower readiness because of that. The goal is to be ready enough, not fully. And you can cheat yourself into thinking you're ready enough.

[demyansk]

Stalin may have had something on paper but forces totally inadequate for any type of offensive action. The purge of 1937 resulted in dire consequences. Besides, the German military was second to none by 1941/42. It will be an interesting read and Glantz is the top rated author on Eastern Front.

[Gefreiter Wardstein]

Although its many years since I read it, in "Thunder on the Dnepr" by Brian Fugate & Lev Dvoretsky (1997)the basic premise is that although the Soviet High Command had wargamed the possibilities of a Soviet pre emptive attack in 1941, Soviet doctrine at the time was for the frontier formations to hold their positions and repulse the German formations and then with reserve formations to counter attack and thus drive the Germans back.... as they successfully did later at Kursk.

The book does make clear though that there were no realistic plan or strategy for a Soviet pre emptive strike.

[Telemecus]

Perhaps Viktor Suvorov is the main one making money on the lecture circuit for this thesis. So worth seeing what he says I suppose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Clv-c6QdBs

[Capitaine]

Very good presentation from Suvorov. Of course his points are accurate, and he presents some supporting documentation along with his rationale. And you see this is not a stupid position. It's very cagey. We'll have to see what may be forthcoming on this.

[Telemecus]

Yes I agree all the points can be correct, documentation accurate and rationale reasonable. Just I do not think that leads to saying Stalin had definitely decided to attack Germany - only a mind reader could know that. Without that all conclusions have to be provisional, and probably always will be for what-ifs of dictatorships. I followed the same debate about Franco during the second world war - was he going to invade France, was he going to attack Gibraltar, was he in the pay of the British secretly, or just playing everyone off each other. Although Falangist Spain was less absolutist, most now agree nobody can ever get a final definitive answer from inside Franco's head.

[Dinglir]

when Soviet signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Stalin knew this would spark a German invasion of Poland and he hoped that the Western allies and Germany would tear each other apart in a long and bloody conflict. When Poland and later on France fell very quickly, Stalin became trapped by his own politics. He had supported the build up of the German war machine hoping that it would bleed to death against France, while his own Soviet military could build up its strength, to march over the ruins of Europe.

In 1941 Stalin frantically wanted peace to continue with Germany. He knew the Soviets were not prepared (it was not dangerous for him to know this, only to say it) and he feared for his own position should war break out. I read somewhere that Zhukov, playing the Germans in a war game, had managed to penetrate deep into Russia some months before the outbreak of the war. In short, Stalin was rather certain a palace coup would have him ousted (and executed) should war break out.

The Soviet high command were acutely aware that the Soviet Union was in no position to fight Germany in 1941. The lessons from France and Finland clearly showed the difference between the two nations.

When war did break out, Stalin went to his dacha and did nothing for several days. I believe he was actually sure, that the palace coup would come and he would be executed. It was only after the other members of STAVKA all backed him, that he began fighting back.

Based on this, I find it extremely unlikey that Stalin should seriously contemplate going to war with Germany in the summer of 1941.

[Rusty1961]

https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-St ... dpSrc=srch

For those of us who are familiar with Victor Suvorov, this is old news. While this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-St ... dpSrc=srch

came out in 2013, he wrote at length about Stalin's agitation for war back in 1991 with "Icebreaker".

https://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-WHO-S ... dpSrc=srch

He uses geometric logic to make a strong case that Stalin was the "Main Culprit" behind WW2 as well as planning to attack German in the summer of '41.

[tomeck48]

Exactly what Dinglir said. The reading I did years ago was that Stalin was expecting another 1914-18 in the West and he could move in when they were exhausted. So he was planning something a few years out. It doesn't make sense that the reality of 1940 would make him move up the timetable 4-5 years. And with the T-34 production just getting started, why jump the gun?

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: tomeck48

Exactly what Dinglir said. The reading I did years ago was that Stalin was expecting another 1914-18 in the West and he could move in when they were exhausted. So he was planning something a few years out. It doesn't make sense that the reality of 1940 would make him move up the timetable 4-5 years. And with the T-34 production just getting started, why jump the gun?

Read "The Chief Culprit" and it will all make sense

[postfux]

Even a delusional soviet leadership couldnt expect to steamroll Germany in 41 with the Wehrmacht in its prime. So they would have a planning horizon of at least 2 or 3 years.

That are 2 to 3 years for continental Europe to rally behind Germany. Even Britain and the US could not want a German defeat when the SU is attacking. Landing own troops to fight Germany and trust the Soviet juggernaut to stop for them would be a very risky option. Not unlikely they even wouldnt be very welcome in France if the came to possibly pave the way for the Red Army.

The US and Britain would have to decide to either let Germany (and likely the rest of Europe) run out of fuel at some point or to start supporting it. Thats the decision between communist rule over Asia and Europe or negotiatons with Germany.

If Germany isnt isolated Europe offers strategic depth. Even Turkey is a dangerous flank for the SU in this case. In the east Japan is waiting for an opportunity. They are allies of Germany after all and cant be interested in a victorious SU. Nobody could be. A soviet attack would be a strategic game changer.

These years would also be years with horrendous losses for the Red Army, even if succesfull to some extent. The Red Army would be fighting on hostile soil with the propaganda having a hard time to keep the soldiers fighting with spirit when there are setbacks.

In my eyes a Soviet attack in 41 is not a recipe for World Revolution but for an attritional war against the whole world and Red Army mass desertion and revolting front line armies.

History isnt always made by rational decisions. But attacking Germany in 41 would be an extraordinary gamble.

[Capitaine]

You're substituting your 20/20 hindsight and sense of reality for the highly politicized thinking present contemporaneously. If you want to do that, fine. But making such seemingly rational observations has no bearing on the truth of the matter whether you like it or not.

[postfux]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

You're substituting your 20/20 hindsight and sense of reality for the highly politicized thinking present contemporaneously. If you want to do that, fine. But making such seemingly rational observations has no bearing on the truth of the matter whether you like it or not.

Since the event did not happen I am hardly guilty of hindsight.

If you think I am only seemingly rational, please point out where I am not.

If you think I am right in my observations but you believe the Soviet leadership would not share these thoughts I would greatly appreciate why you think this is the case. And I am very serious about this.

If you are not ready to share your thoughts I can also live with that.

[Capitaine]

My thoughts are not as concrete on this as yours seem to be. I only know that historically, nations do things militarily that turn out disastrous, and likely predictably so, because they are driven by politics. The USSR had some of the best offensive materiel in the world. They were trained exclusively in offensive tactics. Where is the evidence that they were staunchly taking a defensive posture? The Germans and Italians were sweeping up the Balkans in early 1941, an area of historic Russian influence and interest -- it was their interest there that was responsible for the start of WWI. They had already moved offensively into Bessarabia. Do you think they were going to sit still as Germany consolidated its hold on their own targets for annexation?

[tomeck48]

If they had "some of the best offensive material in the world" then why did so many of their counterattacks fail so miserably? Yes, the T34 outclassed anything in the German Army (except the 88s)but there weren't enough of them and their doctrine was somewhat lacking.

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: tomeck48

If they had "some of the best offensive material in the world" then why did so many of their counterattacks fail so miserably? Yes, the T34 outclassed anything in the German Army (except the 88s)but there weren't enough of them and their doctrine was somewhat lacking.

SU in 1941 had more tanks than rest of the world together. They failed miserably because top leadership were incompetent dilettantes and ignorants. Most of the top dogs highest education was 2-3 grades in primary school without any military education.

[tyronec]

My thoughts are not as concrete on this as yours seem to be. I only know that historically, nations do things militarily that turn out disastrous, and likely predictably so, because they are driven by politics. The USSR had some of the best offensive materiel in the world. They were trained exclusively in offensive tactics. Where is the evidence that they were staunchly taking a defensive posture? The Germans and Italians were sweeping up the Balkans in early 1941, an area of historic Russian influence and interest -- it was their interest there that was responsible for the start of WWI. They had already moved offensively into Bessarabia. Do you think they were going to sit still as Germany consolidated its hold on their own targets for annexation?

What is the evidence that the Soviet Union was intending to expand by military conquest ?
My understanding is that they were willing to make an agreement with the UK and France to stop Germany advancing into Czechoslovakia. Then when they realised that there was no commitment from the West they set about creating buffer areas on their own frontier - Poland, Baltic states, Finland, Bessarabia. Looks like a defensive action to me.
Finland was a mistake but imagine playing WITE starting on the Polish/Baltic states borders, might well have swung the war in favor of Axis. So in actuality good military judgement and politically they got away with it without alienating the West too much.
Yes, they did a land grab against Japan at the end of the way but the Allies were pushing them to attack. And yes, they took advantage of what they held after the defeat of Germany - but that is very different to initiating a war.

There is good publicity to be made by coming out with a dramatic proposition, many authors have made their living out of it. Am not persuaded yet that this one is worth the investment of time and money to read the book.