would the soviets have attacked

Mike Marauder · Post by **Mike Marauder** » Thu May 10, 2001 1:15 am

Hi Folks,

Heres my question would the soviets have attacked Germany if Hitler had not struck
first.
I have read a few contempary sources and they seem to think that it is a possibility my question is what do you think.
I think Yes.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu May 10, 2001 1:29 am

IMHO noone will ever know it for sure, but I stronlgy believe that Stalin would not attack in 1941 and Von Manstein's opinion(Lost Victories) about Russian troops deployment in the begining of campaign '41 enforces this point of view. What are your sources and arguements?

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Thu May 10, 2001 1:36 am

Well according to the theorys of chief-ideology Zhdanov socialism had to break fascism first and go for the destruction of capitalism thereafter.

This subject is very interesting altough impossible to answer. Well in my humble opinion its all down to what military strenght the axis-powers possessed. A strong germany, with the russian forces fighting outside their borders, well I dont think Stalin should have dared that. But this question should ultimately be connected with the discussion regarding Germanys war-success against the western powers.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu May 10, 2001 1:54 am

Originally posted by Mist:
IMHO noone will ever know it for sure, but I stronlgy believe that Stalin would not attack in 1941 and Von Manstein's opinion(Lost Victories) about Russian troops deployment in the begining of campaign '41 enforces this point of view. What are your sources and arguements?

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

I will have to check some of my sources, although as you nobody would know for sure. I have read some fairly strong arguments that Stalin was leaning toward an attack but not until at least 1942 as he knew there were too many problems with the Red Army based on the Finnish war. I think the only way he would have attacked would have been a German army distracted by some kind of serious fighting in the West or Africa, taking advantage of the situation to seize what territory he could.

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Thu May 10, 2001 2:29 am

Originally posted by Mike Hulme:
Hi Folks,

Heres my question would the soviets have attacked Germany if Hitler had not struck
first.
I have read a few contempary sources and they seem to think that it is a possibility my question is what do you think.
I think Yes.

Mike

Here is the best case scenerio for the Axis (worst for us).
Hitler decides not to attack the Soviet Union but use the strength he has to crush
England and its interests in the Med.(from
late '40 to late '41)
It is not unrealistic to assume that this
could lead to a crippling of the commonwealth
position and near total isolation of England
with the RAF a shadow that only emerges at night.
The US would see the situation as is and end up being distracted by Japan so it has an excuse not to intervene in Europe.(Hitler of
course is not really stupid enough to declare war on the US, this time)
The Soviet Union sees the situation as it is and rightly declines from taking on the Axis.
(look at Finland)
Stalemate.
This scenerio could have resulted in a 'win'
for the Axis if it eventually drives England to a cease-fire by '42 or '43 and who could blame England?
All i can say is thank god that hitler attacked the Soviet Union. An intact and powerfull Germany would have been a FAR worse
threat to world peace and survival than the Soviet Union turned out to be.(hindsight)

All the best, Nick aka Loki of the Aesir

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Thu May 10, 2001 2:42 am

There can be a hypothetical situation for just about any period of history.

Possibly Germany could not cripple England in 1941-40? By 1941 England was out producing Germany in war material, whose to say that they could not have kept them at bay until the arrival of the Americans?

Sure, they could have possibly secured North Africa, but, could not have progressed much further. Going into India, central-south Africa, etc. would be over-extending their resources. Plus, the sole reason for Germany going to war was expansion Eastward. The war in the west was merely an incident, and as far as I know, global domination was not in their agenda, unless it is similar to 21st Century America's plan.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu May 10, 2001 2:43 am

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
All i can say is thank god that hitler attacked the Soviet Union. An intact and powerfull Germany would have been a FAR worse
threat to world peace and survival than the Soviet Union turned out to be.(hindsight)

I would also prefer Hitler to break his neck somewhere far away from my country. History would probably be very different.

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Thu May 10, 2001 2:50 am

Originally posted by Major Tom:
There can be a hypothetical situation for just about any period of history.

Possibly Germany could not cripple England in 1941-40? By 1941 England was out producing Germany in war material, whose to say that they could not have kept them at bay until the arrival of the Americans?

Sure, they could have possibly secured North Africa, but, could not have progressed much further. Going into India, central-south Africa, etc. would be over-extending their resources. Plus, the sole reason for Germany going to war was expansion Eastward. The war in the west was merely an incident, and as far as I know, global domination was not in their agenda, unless it is similar to 21st Century America's plan.

Major Tom,

Be carefull how you characterize Americans. In 1966 when I was in Australia, I got to know an Australian whom I had told I was from America. Every time he introduced me to his friends, he referred to me as his Canadian friend.

Svar

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu May 10, 2001 4:00 pm

Originally posted by Major Tom:
Possibly Germany could not cripple England in 1941-40? By 1941 England was out producing Germany in war material, whose to say that they could not have kept them at bay until the arrival of the Americans?

England almost lost the war in the air over England. Had the Luftwaffe stayed with its attacks on the RAF, Germany could have claimed air supremecy making an amphibious assault possible.

As for the US, if Hitler had not declared war, making the whole issue moot, FDR would have had problems getting the US involved with Europe, especially after the war with Japan began. Its an open question on whether the isolationist Americans would approve of a Declaration of War against Hitler.

global domination was not in their agenda, unless it is similar to 21st Century America's plan.

Yea, our McDonalds, Coca Cola, blue jeans, and country music will bring the world to its knees. Long Live the Big Mac!!!

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Thu May 10, 2001 4:18 pm

"I would also prefer Hitler to break his neck somewhere far away from my country. History would probably be very different".[/QB][/QUOTE]

OK

Mist

The comment was objective of course. It does not try to belittle the enormous loss the Soviet peoples suffered in Barbarossa. The germans WERE defeated by the USSR above all others and their sacrifice should never be
forgotten.
If Australians had suffered your losses there would be no more Australians.

To Major Tom

"Possibly Germany could not cripple England in 1941-40? By 1941 England was out producing Germany in war material, whose to say that they could not have kept them at bay until the arrival of the Americans? Sure, they could have possibly secured North Africa, but, could not have progressed much further. Going into India, central-south Africa, etc. would be over-extending their resources. Plus, the sole reason for Germany going to war was expansion Eastward. The war in the west was merely an incident, and as far as I know, global domination was not in their agenda, unless it is similar to 21st Century America's plan."

Well what an inviting situation.

1.Are you saying that the Germans, minus what would be needed in the med could not supress
england? They were more than half way there in Sept '40 and remember i'm talking best case for them. I know its a trite thing to say but even with my limited experience, given the Luftwaffe in a staff situation i think i could grind the RAF to dust.

2. Who says the Americans are going to arrive? They were not fools and to engage in a war they could only hope for stalemate in would be a fools choice. Was FDR a fool?

3. Why would they need to advance beyond N/africa? Maybe the top of the persian gulf
and that could be secured later.They realisically only needed a secure germany. With no eastfront this is well within the bounds of possibillity

"Plus, the sole reason for Germany going to war was expansion Eastward.The war in the west was merely an incident, and as far as I know, global domination was not in their agenda, unless it is similar to 21st Century America's plan."

You were there!! Well i stand corrected.
The germans could not have re-evaluated their situation and continued from that point?
Give them some credit for inovation, even (some)NSDAP members have some common sense.

The 'American' plan is purely corporate and beyond our sphere of interest.

Nick, aka Loki of the Aesir

Ps Yanks(sorry you southeners)are Ok by me.
Your constitution is great but some of the amendments are a bit whiffy. Come over here and live in the land of 'NO WORRIES' and crud like big brother on the box.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Fri May 11, 2001 6:11 pm

IMHO, I don't think that Stalin would have attacked Germany at least before 1942 at the very earliest. Its performance in Finland 1939 to 1940 was very feeble, even though the Finns were tough as nails.

The best time for the Russians to stab Hitler in the back would've been in May 1940, just after Hitler sent his forces into France. There were fewer than 20 weak divisions defending east Germany/Poland. The Russians could've have rolled into Berlin without breaking a sweat. Of course they'd have to mobilize quickly, because the French/Brits et al effectively collapsed within 3 weeks.

Stalin was a monster the equal of Hitler, but he was more shrewd and realistic. In 1938, he saw the Nazis as Russia's greatest threat/enemy. A year later, he signed a non-aggression pact with his erstwhile 'greatest enemy', without which Hitler may NOT have dared attack Poland. In 1945 he plays host to Churchill and FDR at Yalta. In 1946, Uncle Joe was the bogeyman again.

Anyways, Stalin probably knew (after all he had purged some of his best generals) how feeble the Soviet army was in 1941, which was why in the initial few days of Barbarossa, he tried to send peace feelers to Berlin via Bulgaria. He would have contemplated attacking Germany only if the Germans had been stalemated or defeated by France/Britain .

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat May 12, 2001 10:37 am

Originally posted by jager506:
Anyways, Stalin probably knew (after all he had purged some of his best generals) how feeble the Soviet army was in 1941, which was why in the initial few days of Barbarossa, he tried to send peace feelers to Berlin via Bulgaria.

I've always been interested in Stalin's reaction to the invasion. Some of you may have heard the part about Stalin isolating himself when Barbarossa began, as if in shock, or in denial that it had happened. It was several days before he "recovered". There's also the signals the Soviets were getting that clearly spelled out an imminent attack. They even had deserters come across the border and tell them the exact hour of the attack. Stalin refused to believe any of the information.

He already knows that the next war will be with Germany, and that Germany has reached the same conclusion. He knows that it is essentially inevitable, and even expects his own country to be the attacker in '42 or '43. So why or how would Stalin refuse to see the clear signs that Germany intends to strike first? Surely he didn't believe in the non-aggression pact with Hitler, not after watching what Germany did to Czechoslovakia. Puzzling.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sat May 12, 2001 1:49 pm

Yeah, Stalin had a nervous breakdown of sorts for about 10 days (until about July 3) when he suddenly recovered with amazing rapidity.
I remember reading (forget exactly where, maybe Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy) that while Stalin didn't trust his own people (except maybe Beria) he actually trusted Hitler to at least keep the non-aggression pact (supposed to last till 1949). After all, both sides gained from it - raw materials and foodstuff for Germany and German technical and engineering expertise for Russia etc.

Trusting Hitler turned out to be Stalin's biggest mistake in his entire career, but he recovered and died as happy as a dictator can go.

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Sat May 12, 2001 2:34 pm

I wrote an essay on this topic some years ago with the title "Josef Stalins knowledge of operation barbarossa 1939-1941". Concentrating on the diplomatic relations, I studied how the to regimes acted and also how cremlin handled the romours of invasion.

My conclusion is that Stalin knew of the invasion, but unwilling to engage in war he hoped to survive the summer of 1941 to let the winter isolate his country. Then in 1942 his country would be much more ready for war.

But knowing about the threat and acting against it is two diffrent things. The sovietunion was clearly not prepared for war in 1941.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Sat May 12, 2001 5:41 pm

The Soviet Union called up 800,000 reservists in March, 1941. In May and June, 4 armies were redeployed from the interior to positions in the Operational Echelon, placed at Velikie Luki, Gomel, south of Kiev, and at Shepetovka, joining 3 armies already deployed at this general depth. The forces at Velikie Luki and Gomel played a large role in fighting in July/August, 1941. The initial divisional strength showed around 65 divisions in the first Tactical Echelon, with 95 or so in the secondary Operational echelon. Many of these secondary divisions were not full strength, so the strength was probably fairly evenly divided. Many of the front line pilots were away for "training" when the war started, so the Soviets lost a huge number of planes but the pilot losses were not so heavy. Finally, Zhukov asked Stalin to call up the Strategic reserves on June 14, but Stalin refused. Preparations to move factories east were also made prior to June 22, and some movement possibly began, but that is supposition by one writer.

Stalin may not have reacted to the situation well, but the Soviet Union had carried out a large number of preparatory steps for war. Considering the state of the army after the purges, there may not have been much else for them to do, except call up the final reserves. Why was this final step not taken? That I can't answer, but at least one historian suggests Stalin did not want the Germans to know how prepared the Soviets were. This is a stretch to me, but they were not totally surprised and unprepared either. The Germans did get tactical surprise though, and were just so much more superior than the Soviets.

gdpsnake · Post by **gdpsnake** » Sat May 12, 2001 5:42 pm

I think Stalin would have attacked after waiting till Germany was on its knees like he did with Japan. Wait till everyone else does the dirty work and then move in at the last minute to grab territory.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Sun May 13, 2001 1:14 am

Originally posted by gdpsnake:
I think Stalin would have attacked after waiting till Germany was on its knees like he did with Japan. Wait till everyone else does the dirty work and then move in at the last minute to grab territory.

Agree. It would be ideal for every state to attack its enemy at the time of enemy's great weakness. But I did not understand second sentence of your post. Is it about Stalin's actions during 1941-1945 before the war with Japan or about Allied landing in Europe in 1944?

[ May 12, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sun May 13, 2001 5:12 am

Originally posted by gdpsnake:
I think Stalin would have attacked after waiting till Germany was on its knees like he did with Japan. Wait till everyone else does the dirty work and then move in at the last minute to grab territory.

If i may ask. How would Germany be driven to it's knees if it was'nt fighting the Soviet Union in the first place? Do you imagine that a Normandy style invasion would work (or even happen) with Germany unengaged in the east?
It took the allies 2 months to break out of
Normandy facing ~30% of german strength that had already lost the bulk of it's best on the eastfront. Personally i think the Luftwaffe
by this time would have outmatched the USAF
in quality if not in numbers and how do you launch a Normany without air dominance.
As i proposed earlier. No Barbarossa enables
Germany to suppress western plans to a point
where no invasion can happen and thus the
bulk of the German forces are not 'drawn off'
allowing Stalin the opportunity to attack.
As many of you have said earlier, Stalin was cunning and if Hitler gave him no option in this area and maybe even sweetened the standing treaty with co-operative plans on moves south to the gulf exct?????

Nick

Ps For all you pundits out there who might say that come '45 The US could A-Bomb germany to make it surrender.Well A) First you have to get over a German city with several thousand Ta-152's,Comets, exct exct waiting for you. And most of all B)Do you really think the US would Abomb a white/christian/western nation that has Long range bombers and nerve gas? Even 100 planes
loaded with Sarin hitting London would do a far better job than an Abomb(And the Powers at the time knew it).

Barbos · Post by **Barbos** » Sun May 13, 2001 8:39 am

Although there exist many arguments pro et contra hypothetical Stalin's attack against Germany in July 1941, my personal opinion is negative. The Red Army was obviously feeble that moment. Undoubtedly Stalin did not trust Hitler, the war was inevitable, and probably planned the attack on the next year. I think Stalin did not believe warnings from his intelligence mainly for two reasons:
1. Germany cannot wage war on two fronts simultaneously - this proved fatal in WW1.
2. Wehrmacht is not prepared to severe Russian winter.
This is why Stalin did not issue even necessary orders on June 22 and was so shocked when the war began.

On the other hand Hitler also understood the situation in the same way and probably saw the best chance for survival in the immediate surprise attack. Btw, what could he do else? Wait until 1942 when Stalin grows unbeatable? Some historians propose that in 1941 campaign he should have turned to North Africa and Middle East to secure resources, but who knows... Anyway Hitler risked and lost.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sun May 13, 2001 8:58 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Barbos:
On the other hand Hitler also understood the situation in the same way and probably saw the best chance for survival in the immediate surprise attack. Btw, what could he do else? Wait until 1942 when Stalin grows unbeatable? Some historians propose that in 1941 campaign he should have turned to North Africa and Middle East to secure resources, but who knows...

Even after losing the battle of Britain, Hitler held all the aces. With most of Europe under German control or allied to Germany, and with the USSR supplying essential raw materials to Berlin, he could have built up the Luftwaffe and U-boat arm and eventually do to Britain's merchant marine what the US actually did to Japan. Britain would eventually be starved out and Churchill's government would have collapsed. There would have been no need for an actual cross-Channel invasion.

And in the meantime, with no Russian front, a strong Afrika Korps (2 to 3 times what was actually deployed), properly supplied, would have cleared North Africa and given the Germans access to the oil of the Mideast region. But Hitler was too limited in his strategic mindset - lebensraum was about all he could envision for Germany, when there were other easier and potentially more rewarding options available in late 1940/early 1941.