Hitler came to this decision by an incredibly convoluted and illogical process. Since Britain refused to sign a peace treaty, and since invading Britain would be extremely hazardous given the strength of the Royal Navy and the weakness of the German navy, Hitler concluded that the only way to overcome Britain would be to destroy the Soviet Union. Hitler decided that Russia was Britain’s chief remaining hope for assistance, its “continental dagger,” and once the Soviet Union was destroyed, the British would see reason and give in.
[...]
A war against Russia would be nothing like the war in the west, where distances were limited, populations concentrated, objectives close, and the Atlantic Ocean a finite boundary.
I thought it was now an established fact that Hitler only invaded the USSR because the USSR was just about to invade Germany (via Poland). From Hitler’s POV it was simply the lesser of evils to invade.
It’s far from being an established fact. It’s just a non-implausible possibility.
Bruce G. Charlton said, “Hitler only invaded the USSR because the USSR was just about to invade Germany (via Poland).”
Szopen says, “It’s far from being an established fact. It’s just a non-implausible possibility”
It’s not implausible at all, and as time goes on every time more information is released it appears more and more plausible. For myself, I’m convinced that Russia was going to invade Germany from the data I have now.
Sam J., it’s beyond doubt that Stalin would invade Germany eventually, maybe even in 1942. The point of contention is only whether he wanted to invade around June 1941.
In the past I followed a hundred-page long thread in the forum.axishistory.com forum, and I really do not think that Soviet attack in 1941 was an established fact.
A lot of the posts in those threads could be summarized by “you are idiot” “no, you are idiot” but other than that, there are occassionaly also well-referenced arguments and counter-arguments.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=114958&start=15
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=4566&hilit=suvorov+icebreaker
I would recommend that people take the time to read Sean McMeekin’s recent book “Stalin’s War“. Lots of food for thought there.
McMeekin is less definite than Suvorov (“The Chief Culprit“, 2008) about Stalin having been on the point of invading German-occupied Poland from Soviet-occupied Poland when Hitler beat him to the punch. But he presents lots of suggestive material, such as Western diplomats earlier in 1941 reporting the masses of troop trains transporting Soviet armies from the East to the border with German forces.
Alexander’s idea that Hitler would have attacked the USSR simply to frighten tough-nut England into surrender is pure English self-glorification — and fantasy.
The reverse is more likely true — that Hitler’s aim all along with Lebensraum in the East. If the English & French had not so foolishly declared war on Germany, Hitler would probably have ignored non-combatants on his West.
Gavin Longmuir: “If the English & French had not so foolishly declared war on Germany, Hitler would probably have ignored non-combatants on his West.”
So you think this quote is a fabrication?
“I thought that I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only after that against the East. But the sequence of these things cannot be fixed. Nor should one close one’s eyes to threatening situations. I wanted first of all to establish a tolerable relationship with Poland in order to fight first against the West. But this plan, which appealed to me, could not be executed, as fundamental points had changed. It became clear to me that, in the event of a conflict with the West, Poland would attack us.”
https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English56.pdf
Szopen,
We can all cherry-pick quotes, and trust that the quote is real and the translation is accurate. Even assuming the quote is accurate, what was the context? What does this tell us in a world in which reasonable leaders change tactics as situations change around them? What does this tell us in a world in which (as Biden, Fauci, Milley and the rest of the Swamp Creatures demonstrate today) leaders are totally willing to bare-faced lie?
If we are to understand the past, we need to look at as much of the total picture as we can — not hang our hats on one translated quotation.
A key military issue which makes me lean towards Suvorov’s assertion is the obvious fact that, with the technology of WWII, prepared defenders were very tough to dislodge. Advantage Defense. Stalin had a year and a half after his conquest of Eastern Poland to get his forces dug in — yet when Hitler attacked, his forces were easily over-run because they were in motion, in the open, disorganized. Just as if they were moving forward in preparation for an attack, rather than prepared to defend.
Read “Stalin’s War”. There was a lot of stress between Germany and the USSR in a number of areas in the months before Barbarossa.
On the question of Suvorov, it’s basically nonsense. Stalin was extremely paranoid about Hitler, for good reasons. He had also just gotten the crap kicked out of his army by Finland, so he was weaker than he had thought. Hitler had just kicked the crap out of France, so he was stronger than Stalin thought. Stalin’s position in June of 1941 is a lot worse than it was in June of 1940. He needed time to repair the damage his purges had done, and he knew it. He also was no fool, and would not have attacked the Germans without Allied inducements. And we know that all sorts of people figured out that Germany was going to attack Stalin and warned him. No one seems to have thought that Stalin was planning to attack Hitler. There was a lot of stress in the relationship, yes, but not because Stalin was about to attack the Wehrmacht at its height with zero promises from the allies.
Gavin,
Hitler didn’t attack Stalin to scare the UK, but he did attack them to get the resources he thought he needed to beat the “international capitalist Jewry”, which is what he thought was behind the US-UK alliance. The US, at this point, has signed Lend-Lease and has ordered its ships to sink German ships on sight. From his POV, he’s already at war with the US, not just the UK.
Of course, Lebensraum in the east was always the goal for Hitler, so it was not hard for him to convince himself that this was a good idea.
The Germans in 1941 had indeed destroyed the Red Army as it existed on 22 June of that year. But the governmental and societal breakdown thought to be inevitable did not occur. Stalin had 14 million trained reservists he could call upon and that made all the difference.
Cassander: “Stalin’s position in June of 1941 is a lot worse than it was in June of 1940. He needed time to repair the damage his purges had done, and he knew it.”
Not sure I follow what you are saying there. Quick time line:
1937-1938 — Stalin’s purges of the Red Army
Aug 1939 — Stalin invaded Japanese-held Manchuria, culminating in a stunning victory over the Japanese.
Sep 1939 — Stalin invaded Poland, and seized more than half the territory.
Nov 1939 — Stalin invaded Finland and successfully secured the key area necessary for the defense of Leningrad, albeit at very high cost.
Jun 1940 — Stalin invaded and occupied Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and parts of Romania.
Jun 1941 — Hitler invaded Russian-held eastern Poland.
By the time of Barbarossa, Stalin’s purges of the Red Army were 3-4 years in the past, and the Red Army (despite under-performance in the invasion of eastern Finland) had accomplished every military goal set for it. Not a shabby performance.
If Stalin was going to attack Germany, then proof of that should be easy to find. It is impossible to hide after all these years a several-million-man offensive. It would have appeared in all German reports. So if there is still contention about that, it tells me there wasn’t.
Gavin Longmuir says: “A key military issue which makes me lean towards Suvorov’s assertion is the obvious fact that, with the technology of WWII, prepared defenders were very tough to dislodge. Advantage Defense. Stalin had a year and a half after his conquest of Eastern Poland to get his forces dug in — yet when Hitler attacked, his forces were easily over-run because they were in motion, in the open, disorganized.”
YES,YES,YES, it’s all there. All Stalin’s money and production was focused on offensive weapons. Massive air borne invasion training of, if I remember correctly, hundreds of thousands of troops trained in airborne invasion. Masses of arms and equipment piled up near the border.
It’s all there. To me it seems indisputable. The only reason people say different is that it is a different line from what we were taught in the past. People stubbornly ignore all the mass of evidence and, somehow, seem to think the default line needs not defend it’s intellectual position while the idea that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany must jump through hoops to PROVE POSITIVE that it’s the correct notion.
I say you people who believe that poor little Stalin was just minding his own business and that wicked Hitler attacked him need to prove their position because there’s very little evidence that this is so.
If Stalin was on the defensive then…where were his defenses????
Szopen says, “In the past I followed a hundred-page long thread in the forum.axishistory.com forum, and I really do not think that Soviet attack in 1941 was an established fact.”
So I look at the first link and read just a little. Immediately I see the kind of thinking there. Kunikovm: “The Red Army was rearming itself, it was in the midst of that rearming when the war began.”
What nonsense. I can see I’m not going to spend a lot of time reading this stuff with that kind of thinking. The Russians had a massive, massive, massive force of tanks and aircraft. I mean, they built an extraordinary amount of equipment. You can here about how surprised Hitler was himself when they found out about all this.
Hitler: “We did not ourselves understand how strong [the USSR] was armed. If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I’d have said, ‘you are crazy!’”
Hitler speaking to the Finnish military commander Mannerheim in 1942.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec
If you can’t consider yourself armed with 35,000 tanks, then what does it take to be armed?
Reminds me of the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven. Clint goes in the bar to get revenge for the killing of his friend. He asks who owns the bar. When the bar owner speaks up, Clint shoots him down with a shotgun. When Clint is told he just killed an unarmed man in cold blood, he replies, “He should have armed himself if he was going to decorate his saloon with my friend [dead body].”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmhGYB4NdYc
Gavin,
Stalin won against Japanese units that were lacking in artillery and tanks and who were outnumbered 2-1. He invaded Poland once the Germans had already crushed the Polish army, and the Baltic states offered up no meaningful resistance. Finland inflicted 100,000 dead or more on Soviet forces. It was a huge wakeup call. And you’re ignoring the battle that mattered most in Stalin’s calculations, the Battle of France. Germany proved itself MUCH stronger than Stalin thought. He wasn’t going to pick a fight with that bear unless he had to.
re: “YES,YES,YES, it’s all there. All Stalin’s money and production was focused on offensive weapons.”
I’m sorry, but this distinction just isn’t meaningful. The Soviets were planning for eventually offensive war, yes. That doesn’t mean they were planning for an invasion in 1941. No one is claiming that Stalin was minding his own business. We are claiming that he was afraid of Hitler. And given that Hitler got within 50 km of Moscow, he was right to be afraid! And, yes, I’m not afraid to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there isn’t even good ordinary evidence that stalin was about to attack, just circumstantial claims.
Sam J.,
Most of those 35,000 tanks were totally obsolete when the war started. Ditto most other Soviet equipment.
Lucklucky says, “ If Stalin was going to attack Germany, then proof of that should be easy to find. It is impossible to hide after all these years a several-million-man offensive. It would have appeared in all German reports. So if there is still contention about that, it tells me there wasn’t.”
Here, I’ll help you out. Hitler saying first hand that the USSR wanted to attack Germany and rule all Europe @ 6:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec
Hitler, “This all was naturally inevitable…Molotov…it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war…the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end…”
So is first hand testimony from Hitler himself that he thought the USSR was going to attack good enough? Or is it only good enough if there’s paperwork?
Cassander says, “Stalin won against japanese units that were lacking in artillery, tanks and who were outnumbered 2-1.”
“…most of those 35,000 tanks were totally obsolete when the war started. Ditto most other Soviet equipment.”
So in one case having all these tanks makes all the difference and in another case, well, they don’t matter.
Please, if you are going to make arguments, at least don’t argue both sides of a point in the same comment. At least split them up.
And as for the Russian tanks being inferior, well, the US tanks were inferior at the end of the war, and they still beat the Germans, because we had so damn many of them.
What’s that saying? “Quantity has a quality of it’s own.”
And, by the way, the USSR had some of the best tanks of all the combatants in WWII.
https://www.rbth.com/history/331671-3-of-ussrs-best-tanks
“I’m sorry, but this distinction just isn’t meaningful. The Soviets were planning for eventually offensive war, yes. That doesn’t mean they were planning for an invasion in 1941.”
What weapons mix is funded is certainly meaningful. Just saying it isn’t so is not any sort of argument you would use if you wish anyone to take it seriously. Prove it that the mix of armaments has no bearing on whether they are defensive or offensive. I would like to see this as it’s certainly a novel idea.
Otherwise I’m not even sure what you are talking about. I’m not arguing any time line of Stalin attacking Germany. You’re saying that like I have or anyone has done so. I’ve only seen the argument that Hitler knew Stalin was going to attack Germany and did so first which…is what happened.
Notice how the argument used to be that Stalin was never going to attack Hitler and now it’s that he wasn’t going to attack right away or in a few months.
Next thing we’ll be confronted that Stalin wasn’t going to attack the Germans in 3 weeks instead of 6 weeks and somehow it will be plastered on us that our position is 2 weeks.
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander:
“After the destruction of France’s military power in 1940, Britain was left with only a single armored division to protect Egypt and the Suez Canal. Germany had twenty armored divisions, none being used. If the Axis — Germany and its ally Italy — had used only four of these divisions to seize the Suez Canal, the British Royal Navy would have been compelled to abandon the Mediterranean Sea, turning it into an Axis lake. French North Africa — Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia — could have been occupied, and German forces could have seized Dakar in Senegal on the west coast of Africa, from which submarines and aircraft could have dominated the main South Atlantic sea routes.”
I think he is right, sort of. I think he would have had to take Gibraltar. That would cap the Med.
I wonder if the reason he didn’t do this was there was just not enough time to do so. Not enough manpower. Too many variables?
Look at this timeline.
https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-timeline-1779991
It’s super-compressed. I don’t think we can leave out that the Germans had to help the Italians with Greece. That sapped a huge amount of energy, men, and materials. It also delayed the invasion of the USSR. Without Hitler bailing out the Italians it might have been possible.
I’m thinking that Hitler knowing eventually the Stalin was going to invade him he felt that spreading his men all over Africa was too risky. If they were in Europe he could rapidly move them by rail but if they were in Africa, Egypt and elsewhere that becomes a problem if Stalin attacks.
Maybe he could have won doing what Alexander says, but it also could have been as soon as he moved his men to the Med, Stalin attacks and ruins him.
There’s also the oil problem. He notes that the Middle East could solve his oil problems, but I’ve read that they had NO OIL, that the problem was so severe that maybe moving all this stuff to the Med to attack could have made it where they completely ran out. Attacking the USSR was moving them towards known oil reserves.
Cassander says, “And yes, I’m not afraid to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there isn’t even good ordinary evidence that Stalin was about to attack, just circumstantial claims.”
I think the evidence shows that it’s not me that needs to defend extraordinary claims; it’s you that needs to somehow explain how it is that Stalin with all these offensive weapons was not going to attack. We also have speeches he made where he said when the capitalist were bogged down in war he was going to attack them.
Where’s your extraordinary evidence he was NOT going to attack?
If you listen to the Hitler talk I linked Hitler was worried about Russia taking the Romanian oil wells so he may have kept Men near in Europe to warn Stalin. If they were in the Med….well we don’t know.
Sam: “So in one case having all these tanks makes all the difference and in another case, well, they don’t matter.”
Having obsolete tanks matters a lot against the Japanese that don’t have anti-tank weapons. It doesn’t matter against the Germans that do.
“And as for the Russian tanks being inferior, well, the US tanks were inferior at the end of the war, and they still beat the Germans, because we had so damn many of them.”
No, the sherman was pretty much the best tank of the war. But even if it wasn’t, there’s a world of difference between a sherman that maybe doesn’t have quite as powerful a gun as you’d like and 9 ton t-26
“Notice how the argument used to be that Stalin was never going to attack Hitler and now it’s that he wasn’t going to attack right away or in a few months.”
No, my argument has always been that hitler and stalin had a tense relationship. Suvorov is the one who claims that stalin’s attack on hitler was imminent and that the early battles in the east were because germany caught the soviets in attack positions, not defensive ones, because an attack was coming in days or weeks. You’re confused about the argument you’re citing, it seems.
“Where’s your extraordinary evidence he was NOT going to attack?”
I’ve given that evidence repeatedly. you keep ignoring it because you don’t like the implications and prefer disproven cliches like “the sherman was a terrible tank.”
“Here, I’ll help you out. Hitler saying first hand that the USSR wanted to attack Germany and rule all Europe @ 6:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec”
Really? do you think others are that stupid?
Cassander,
It seems you are dismissing Zukhov’s 1939 (post-Stalin purges) stunning defeat of Japanese forces at Khalkin Gol in Manchuria — and treating Soviet advances in Poland, Finland, the Baltic states & Romania as trivial. That may not be a realistic assessment of Stalin’s armies.
As a wise man said, listen to what people say, but pay much more attention to what they do. Incontestably, the Japanese were fearsome warriors in WWII. They had defeated China and took on the British Empire and the USA — but they did not attack the USSR. Maybe the Japanese had more respect for Soviet forces at the time of WWII than you seem to have?
An interesting point McMeekin makes in “Stalin’s War” is that Hitler wanted the Germany-Japan treaty to result in Japan invading Siberia — thus giving Stalin the problem of a two-front war. (This was the same alliance that resulted in Hitler foolishly declaring war on the US along with Japan.) However, Japan decided to leave Stalin alone and instead wage war on the English & Americans.
Perhaps you are underestimating Stalin’s armies in 1941? Which brings us back to that great puzzle: why were Stalin’s armies (which were fearsome enough to frighten off the Japanese) so ill-prepared for a well-telegraphed German assault?
“Soviet advances in Poland, Finland, the Baltic states & Romania as trivial.”
In Poland advances should be treated as trivial and not indicative of any real Soviet fighting ability, because my government took the absolutely stupidest decision in the world and ordered the remaining army not to fight with the Soviets and to withdraw to the Romanian border. Heck, when the Soviets were invading and were already fighting with the KOP units (border guard units), the government was still asking the local commanders whether they know what is the purpose of the Soviets and even, would you believe that, ordered to sent emissary in order to find out. The complete, utter idiocy of those actions is really hard to grasp.
Fights like in Grodno (20-22 September) were carried out by local units disobeying direct orders from their superiors.
Szopen: “… my government took the absolutely stupidest decision in the world …”
Hey! There is a lot of competition among governments for that award! Both back in the 1940s and today!!
Cassander says, “No, my argument has always been that hitler and stalin had a tense relationship.”
You continuously make vague and vacuous statements that amount to nothing and prove nothing and have no substance. “hitler and stalin had a tense relationship” what the hell does that mean? It means nothing.
“Japanese that don’t have anti-tank weapons”
More incorrect and vacuous statements. Germans used anti-aircraft and artillery to defeat tanks. You telling me the Japanese had none of this?
https://en.topwar.ru/159322-protivotankovye-sredstva-japonskoj-pehoty-vo-vtoroj-mirovoj-vojne.html
https://www.quartermastersection.com/japanese/artillery/
And note this excellent comment full of wisdom,
Gavin Longmuir says, “As a wise man said, listen to what people say, but pay much more attention to what they do. Incontestably, the Japanese were fearsome warriors in WWII. They had defeated China and took on the British Empire and the USA — but they did not attack the USSR. Maybe the Japanese had more respect for Soviet forces at the time of WWII than you seem to have?”
““Where’s your extraordinary evidence he was NOT going to attack?”
I’ve given that evidence repeatedly.”
More vacuous statements. You give no evidence. None. Nada, Nyet evidence.
Suvorov gives multi-chapter detailed list of the numbers and types of weapons systems made, summaries of speeches by Stalin saying he was going to attack, an immense amount of evidence but of course that’s of no use to you because “Hitler and Stalin had a tense relationship.”
Well SHAZAMM and golly gee I expect that just does in that damn fool Suvorov and his silly KGB training in logistics. Why those fancy counters and scribbles don’t mean a thing when there’s a “tense relationship”.
And when you’re not putting out vacuous statements of no meaning you just make shit up and credit it to others.
“You don’t like the implications and prefer disproven cliches like ‘the Sherman was a terrible tank.’”
You have the quote right above you. Once again you contradict yourself by quoting me then saying something completely different in the same comment (getting to be a habit). I said, “US tanks were inferior at the end of the war.” And they of course were. A fact. So you just made it up that I said, “the Sherman was a terrible tank.”
I happened to find a site, with lots of the standard line nonsense in it, but it does have the number of tanks Hitler launched the attack with: “There were 183 Axis troop divisions, containing about 3 ½ million men, as well as about 350 Axis tanks [a mistake on the site; it's 3,400 ].”,
3,400 tanks against (I had no idea the number was so small. No wonder they don’t mention this ever because it blows the whole “Hitler bad Man do sneak attack on good commie Uncle Joe” all to pieces. It makes no sense at all that they got their asses kicked by this rinky dink tank force),
vs.
“The Soviets had a much larger tank force, consisting of at least 22,000 tanks [almost ten times].”
AND
“By July 3, 1941, the Soviet Byelorussian Group, commanded by Marshal Semyon Timoshenko had been defeated by Germany’s Army Group Center. Nearly 300,000 men were taken prisoner. More than 2,500 tanks and almost 1,500 artillery pieces were lost.”
then,
“Army Group Center then moved on to capture Smolensk. By August 5, Smolensk had fallen to the Germans, who took 185,000 prisoners. The Soviets lost more than 2,000 artillery pieces and more than 2,000 tanks.”
So in fact that blows you’re whole argument to pieces. If 25,000 tanks and 3,500 artillery pieces can’t stop 3,400 tanks then, they must have obviously not been in defensive positions.
If you are in a defensive position you have targets and areas marked off with prearranged fire to cover these positions. Surely you are not saying the Russians were so incompetent that they didn’t know this? If you do say this we will immediately know you are full of shit. This is basic stuff and the Russians weren’t imbeciles.
Give up you have lost. As I said before every time we get new information it looks worse and worse for the standard, “Hitler bad sneaky Man attack peaceful commies” scenario and more like, “Stalin bad Man sneak attack.”
https://www.tanks.net/tank-battles/world-war-ii-operation-barbarossa.html
“Do you think others are that stupid?”
It’s very simple. Hitler did not know he was being recorded and this was his actual thoughts.
Hitler, “This all was naturally inevitable…Molotov…it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war…the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end…”
This means that Molotov had stopped being diplomatic. Stalin was through with working with Hitler and let him know it by demanding sacrifices that he knew Hitler would never agree too and Hitler knew this. He knew that Stalin’s delay to rearm was over and soon he would be attack.
It never ceases to amaze me that people, even when a a historical story makes no sense, like the complete collapse of millions of USSR soldiers with 25,000 tanks and stupendous amounts of artillery supposedly set up for defense.
When we have new data that does make sense of the situation they continue to cling onto silly notions as if it were a life raft and they were in the middle of the Atlantic.
All of this story that Stalin was just peacefully fulfilling his duties and had no plan to attack Hitler never made any sense and was wrong. It was always nothing but commie propaganda.
And let’s recognize one fact that ought to bring pause to anyone that knows their behavior and reputation for truth telling, the people on the side of Stalin an angel are Jews.
Oops, facts. Damn those facts that scour our perfect image of good ole loving Uncle Joe.
“The Soviet attack plan, Suvorov explains, called for a strike on two major fronts: the first, west and northwest, into Germany proper, and the second, equally powerful, southwest into Romania to quickly seize the oil fields there.”
So Hitler would have made a huge mistake to go gallivanting around the Med. for “possible” oil supplies instead of trying to guard “actual” oil supplies in Romania. I could be wrong but it’s my impression that ready middle east oil supplies we not developed at this time.
https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p28_Michaels.html
Suvorov proven correct again. Every scrap of paper that comes to light just adds to this.
Gavin,
“It seems you are dismissing Zukhov’s 1939 (post-Stalin purges) stunning defeat of Japanese forces at Khalkin Gol in Manchuria — and treating Soviet advances in Poland, Finland, the Baltic states & Romania as trivial. That may not be a realistic assessment of Stalin’s armies”
The Japanese army in Manchuria was woefully deficient by Soviet standards (to say nothing of western) in tanks, trucks, planes, anti-tank weaponry, and artillery. At Khalkin Gol it was outnumbered at least 2:1. There’s nothing stunning about that victory. The Japanese army was simply not up to the task of fighting a modern war. They had learned bad lessons fighting the even more woefully underequipped Chinese, and Japanese industry was not up for equipping a mass army at scale.
As Gavin says, the Poles didn’t fight back, the Baltics were even less prepared than the Finns, and the Finns gave the Russians a bloody nose.
“They had defeated China and took on the British Empire and the USA — but they did not attack the USSR. Maybe the Japanese had more respect for Soviet forces at the time of WWII than you seem to have?”
Not many people have good things to say about the quality of Japanese assessment of their enemies prior to WW2, and for good reason. But the truth is Japan was not a match for ANY of their rivals one on one, much less when they had a million-man army running around China. The Japanese distance from their enemies allowed them to delude themselves into thinking they were much stronger than they actually were. They had an uncomfortable encounter with reality at Khalkin Gol, but to the navy faction this was just proof that the army was inept and the navy way was the way forward.
“Perhaps you are underestimating Stalin’s armies in 1941? Which brings us back to that great puzzle: why were Stalin’s armies (which were fearsome enough to frighten off the Japanese) so ill-prepared for a well-telegraphed German assault?”
Because Stalin refused to believe that the assault was coming for reasons that can never be known, and the USSR did what Stalin wanted.
Sam J.,
Is your thesis that Hitler invaded the USSR because of Soviet preparations for invasion in 1941? If so, then it’s clearly wrong, because we can be sure Hitler’s decision to invade was taken earlier.
If I were to cherry pick Hitler’s speech from those links you have provided, then Hitler clearly states that after finishing off with France he started moving divisions to the East. Moreover, he says that they had to help Italy with the situation in the Greece and Albania, which means he already wanted to invade before April 1941 and BEFORE the mentioned discussion with Molotov. In your link Hitler FIRST explains that because of having to help Italy he couldn’t prepare “tank arm in the east” and THEN he states that at the same time he met with Molotov. In fact, in your link he states “with our weapons I could not start a war in September or October” because “the transfer to the east wasn’t that advanced yet” and “units had to first reconsolidate in the west”.
Moreover, according to Wikipedia:
“On 5 December 1940, Hitler received the final military plans for the invasion on which the German High Command had been working since July 1940 under the codename “Operation Otto”. Hitler, however, was dissatisfied with these plans and on 18 December issued Führer Directive 21,[g] which called for a new battle plan, now code-named “Operation Barbarossa”.”
If the plans were ready by December 1940, high command would have had to start working on them few months earlier, which would mean that decision to strike east could not be provoked by anything happening after December 1940.
“The Germans had begun massing troops near the Soviet border even before the campaign in the Balkans had finished. By the third week of February 1941, 680,000 German soldiers were gathered in assembly areas on the Romanian-Soviet border”
To conclude: nothing which happened after December 1940 could be the reason which prompted Hitler to invade in 1941, because clearly his decision was made earlier. In fact, the link you have provided clearly indicates that Hitler was considering invasion in fall 1940. The link indicates also that whatever Soviet preparations were, Hitler was unaware of them.
Cassander: “At Khalkin Gol it [Japanese army] was outnumbered at least 2:1. There’s nothing stunning about that victory.”
Oh! Come on, Cassander. The USSR victory was stunning to the Japanese! And it is no surprise that Japanese forces were outnumbered — common rule of thumb in military planning is that the attacker should have local superiority of at least 3 to 1 to have a good chance of prevailing. The challenge is to get that local superiority without tipping off the other side that an attack is coming — which Germany failed to do with the Barbarossa attack on USSR-occupied Poland.
Further, USSR’s victory over the Japanese in 1939 was an indication to Western governments that the Red Army was still very effective despite the presumed effects of Stalin’s earlier purges.
And, really, don’t be so dismissive of the Japanese army. This was the Japanese army that shortly thereafter vanquished the French in IndoChina, the English in Singapore, and the Dutch in Indonesia. And yet that powerful Japanese military refused to attack Stalin.
It seems that your mind is made up, Cassander, for reasons as unfathomable as you claim for Stalin’s mind prior to Barbarossa. It is ok to have strong opinions, but we should all try to be open to new information. I would strongly encourage you to read Sean McMeekin’s Stalin’s War.
Per McMeekin, in January 1941, Soviet war games “assumed that the Soviets — after an initial attack by Germany and its allies that somehow failed to gain traction — would go on the offensive.” (This Soviet desire to have the Germans be seen as the aggressor is parallel to the huge efforts FDR made to open his desired war by having the Japanese attack the US).
McMeekin: “…it is significant that the Soviet war plan of May 15, 1941 spoke explicitly for the first time of the ‘sudden blow’ of a preventive or preemptive strike. ‘It is necessary’, Timoshenko and Zhukov advised Stalin, ‘to deprive the German command of all initiative…’ “
After many more pages of information, McMeekin concludes: “Any lingering notion, which one still sometimes encounters on general histories of the Second World War, that Stalin and his generals were asleep at the wheel as Hitler’s generals prepared for Barbarossa, must now be dismissed as absurd.”
Stalin knew an attack was coming, and was assembling massive forces on the USSR side of the border. And yet those forces were not in defensive positions, prepared for the expected German attack. The Occam’s Razor explanation is obvious — and does not require any unprovable suppositions about Stalin’s state of mind.
Tell me, if the Soviet Union was about to attack, how the hell did they not detect the German attack? Do you think you attack with millions of men and do not even do recon the enemy?!
And why in May 1941 were Communist-linked parties defending the Nazis in Western Europe?
Gavin:
“The challenge is to get that local superiority without tipping off the other side that an attack is coming — which Germany failed to do with the Barbarossa attack on USSR-occupied Poland.”
Germany failed to do that because they didn’t have anywhere enough troops to get that much superiority.
“Further, USSR’s victory over the Japanese in 1939 was an indication to Western governments that the Red Army was still very effective despite the presumed effects of Stalin’s earlier purges.”
You keep ignoring the massive material disadvantage that the japanese operated at, and the germans did not.
“And, really, don’t be so dismissive of the Japanese army. This was the Japanese army that shortly thereafter vanquished the French in IndoChina, the English in Singapore, and the Dutch in Indonesia.”
They vanquished poorly equipped colonial forces. the japanese were extremely good light infantry, there is no doubt. but light infantry does very poorly against mechanized forces, nas the japanese learned to their dismay at Khalkhin Gol.
“And yet that powerful Japanese military refused to attack Stalin.”
They didn’t refuse to attack him; they tried and got their butts handed to them.
“I would strongly encourage you to read Sean McMeekin’s Stalin’s War.”
I have. I’ve recommended the book here. But it rejects the idea that Stalin was poised to attack the Germans.
“Stalin knew an attack was coming, and was assembling massive forces on the USSR side of the border. And yet those forces were not in defensive positions,”
They were actively building them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Line
“The Occam’s Razor explanation is obvious — and does not require any unprovable suppositions about Stalin’s state of mind.”
No, Occam’s Razor says that if in 1941 people as disparate as Winston Churchill and Stalin’s spy ring in Japan saw information about a German attack on Stalin, and no one saw any indications of a Soviet attack on Germany, an attack that was massively contrary to Soviet interests (because, as you cite Meekin saying, Stalin did not want to be seen as an aggressor), you assume Stalin was not planning an imminent attack.
Cassander: “… no one saw any indications of a Soviet attack on Germany …”
Au contraire, Cassander. As you know from reading McMeekin, there were lots of diplomats in the USSR reporting the large scale movement of troops westwards in 1941. And we know those troops were not digging in in defensive positions.
It is also clear that Stalin’s views (more properly, timeline) was evolving — as they should have as circumstances changed. He went initially from wanting Germany, France, England to bleed each other dry before he attacked, to being ready to launch an attack on Germany as soon as the Germans fired the first shot, to gearing up to take pre-emptive action.
Given the number of spies on all sides, and Stalin’s suspicious personality, it is no surprise that Stalin did not take out a full-page ad in the New York Times to update the world on his changing plans. Occam’s Razor remains that the simplest explanation for the abysmal initial performance of the Red Army when attacked by Germany & its allies was that they were caught on the hop, in the middle of preparing for their own attack.
Gavin:
“And we know those troops were not digging in in defensive positions.”
We know that they were. the molotov line was real
“He went initially from wanting Germany, France, England to bleed each other dry before he attacked, to being ready to launch an attack on Germany as soon as the Germans fired the first shot, to gearing up to take pre-emptive action.”
You’re asserting facts not in evidence.
“Occam’s Razor remains that the simplest explanation for the abysmal initial performance of the Red Army when attacked by Germany & its allies was that they were caught on the hop, in the middle of preparing for their own attack.”
No, the simplest explanation is the same army that defeated france in a month was capable of devastating the (generally) more poorly equipped, more poorly trained soviet army. You do not conspiracies to explain why the Wehrmacht, at the height of its powers, was capable of being successful.
Cassander: “No, the simplest explanation is the same army that defeated france in a month was capable of devastating the (generally) more poorly equipped, more poorly trained soviet army.”
Hmmm! Let’s see what McMeekin has to say about the correlation of forces for Barbarossa (p. 295 of your copy):
Tanks: German 3,300 vs USSR 15,000
Planes: German 2,250 vs USSR 15,000
Artillery: German 7,146 vs USSR 37,000
Astonishingly, the German army had to rely on horses for much of its transportation because it was so short of trucks. Another area where the Red Army had an advantage.
Although the Red Army massively outnumbered the Germans, much of its equipment was destroyed at the beginning of Barbarossa since it was sitting in the open, un-camouflaged. As McMeekin concludes: “… the Red Army of 1941 was not designed for defensive operations”. Which raises the question — what was it designed for? Why was it there?
Anyway, Cassander — no sale. You have not presented any information that would sway an open mind. My mind remains open, having already changed perspective on the “Good War” in the last few years, and I am ready to change it again. If you ever come up with information rather than opinion, please do share.
> Hmmm! Let’s see what McMeekin has to say about the correlation of forces for Barbarossa (p. 295 of your copy):
You’re comparing part of German strength to all of Russian strength and ignoring quality.
> Astonishingly, the German army had to rely on horses for much of its transportation because it was so short of trucks. Another area where the Red Army had an advantage.
No, the Russian army was mostly not mechanized. Ditto the French. Only the British and Americans fielded a fully mechanized armies in ww2.
> … the Red Army of 1941 was not designed for defensive operations”. Which raises the question — what was it designed for? Why was it there?
(A) what it was designed for and what it was doing do not have to be the same.
(B) all large armies are designed for offensive warfare.
> You have not presented any information that would sway an open mind
No, you’ve made it quite clear that you’ll accept no evidence that contradicts what you want to believe, and treat the wisp of a rumor like fact when it suits you.
Cassander: “You’re comparing part of German strength to all of Russian strength and ignoring quality.”
That is a negatory, Cassander. As you know from reading McMeekin, that was the comparison of only the forces on the German/USSR front at the time Barbarossa was launched. German forces faced USSR forces which were 3 to 5 times larger. And that excluded the USSR’s massive reserves, whereas Germany at that point had relatively few uncommitted reserves.
Fair point about quality. But as Stalin said, Quantity has a quality all of its own. Recall that the USSR ended up defeating German forces despite the losses during Barbarossa of millions of trained men and masses of its best equipment.
Stalin knew the Barbarossa attack was coming — even to the extent of getting copies of secret German communications from UK codebreakers. He had massively more forces in theater than Hitler. Yet Hitler prevailed, despite the major disadvantages of lacking surprise and having only a fraction of the opposing forces.
That is the kind of anomaly that needs more than an arm-waving explanation. If you ever develop such an explanation, I will be really interested to hear it. Seriously!
The Germans also beat the French and Brits, despite them having much more of almost everything. The Wehrmacht was a very good army, and it was at its absolute peak in June 1941. The Soviet army suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties against Finland. No further explanation is needed.
Szopen says, “Is your thesis that Hitler invaded the USSR because of Soviet preparations for invasion in 1941?”
HAHHA damn those “facts”. The idea that Stalin was preparing all along to attack Germany is seriously hard to dispute if you look at the facts. Ever fact that comes up shows the idea that Stalin was some poor little non-aggressor that was ruthlessly attacked by the evil Germans is shown to be dumb and uninformed.
Since you can’t make that argument stick you’ve now moved on to the typical Jew tactic of trying to pretend that I’m arguing some other exotic nonsense that you dream up. Anything but talk about the facts as they’re not working for you. DEPLOY SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!
My suggestion is you go off in a corner and argue with yourself on all these things that you make up me being for or against. I’m not biting.
Next you will tell us that we’re not Christian enough and being closer to God we will prevail,(always popular with the Jews as a point to argue endlessly about and derail the conversation).
Cassander says, “Because Stalin refused to believe that the assault was coming for reasons that can never be known, and the USSR did what Stalin wanted.”
There it is: “feelings”. Stalin was just not “feeling” it.
Of course he did “feel” it enough to take almost the whole entire GNP of the whole country to make a massive offensive weapon with extraordinary amounts of armaments. He also felt it enough to train hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (always good for defense?) while spending next to nothing on defensive fortifications in the country itself. He also felt it enough to make 35,000 tanks and a massive amount of attack aircraft.
But he didn’t “feel” that the Germans would attack. No, no, he would never feel that.
Gavin Longmuir says, “It seems that your mind is made up, Cassander, for reasons as unfathomable as you claim for Stalin’s mind prior to Barbarossa.”
His reasons are perfectly clear to me. He wants to demonize the Germans and Hitler. Nothing else matters.
Gavin Longmuir says, “Stalin knew an attack was coming, and was assembling massive forces on the USSR side of the border. And yet those forces were not in defensive positions, prepared for the expected German attack. The Occam’s Razor explanation is obvious — and does not require any unprovable suppositions about Stalin’s state of mind.”
The important part: “those forces were not in defensive positions,” because, there weren’t any. Very little to no effort was spent making them because they would not be needed for attacking Germany.
Lucklucky says, “Tell me, if the Soviet Union was about to attack, how the hell did they not detect the German attack? Do you think you attack with millions of men and do not even do recon the enemy?!”
They did but what I read was that they had spies watching the factories that made winter clothing and they monitored German issue of light oils for weapons that would work in winter. They felt these were iron clad guarantees of evidence that Hitler was going to attack but Hitler fooled them by not doing any of these things.
The messages from the front and intelligence about troop movements were constantly warning about an attack but they were ignored because they had so much faith in these alternate indicators related to supply. I think it was David Irving that wrote about this but I couldn’t be sure.
“And why in May 1941 were Communist-linked parties defending the Nazis in Western Europe?”
To not tip their hands for the coming commie attack of course.
Cassander says, “the Molotov line was real.”
Smoke screen. Disinformation.
“When the Axis powers attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), most of the line remained unfinished, and hence posed a negligible obstacle to the invading forces.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Line
So you’re trying to tell us that almost the whole of the economy was dedicated to producing weapons, and they couldn’t take time out to work on some defensive pill boxes?
No, it was much more important to Stalin to build offensive weapons as was seen.
Gavin Longmuir says, “Stalin knew the Barbarossa attack was coming — even to the extent of getting copies of secret German communications from UK codebreakers. He had massively more forces in theater than Hitler. Yet Hitler prevailed, despite the major disadvantages of lacking surprise and having only a fraction of the opposing forces.”
I think if Stalin had moved up supplies, troops and all in fighting units where each unit had all the supplies, or most, of what they needed it may not have been such a disaster. Their jumbled pilling up of supplies and equipment on the border did them in.
It may well have been that they were in a hurry. The original plan was to wait until Germany was tied up fighting France and Britain and then attack, but that didn’t work out, and they knew that once Hitler was through with Greece he would probably attack. Seeing as how their spies related to supply chains did not show yet that the Germans were preparing to attack they decided to pile everything up as fast as possible so they could move out in mass with a attack but it…didn’t work out.
Sam J.,
I’m asking because I want to know what I argue against. Since I was young (which was 20 years ago) I knew — and it was not uncontroversial — that Stalin surely planned to move on west eventually. Maybe it was controversial in the west (which I can believe; I have the impression that you westerners sometimes are incredibly gullible), but not in my circles of friends.
Moreover, because I am Polish, no one needs to convince me that Stalin was an evil, ruthless criminal responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. After all, one of the first national actions he ordered was so called “Polish action” targeted at the Polish minority in the USSR.
Stalin was a monster, just like Hitler, who was an even worse monster, responsible for millions of deaths.
However, the Suvorov thesis was not just that Stalin would attack eventually, but that he was to attack in 1941 and Hitler’s attack caught Soviet units just weeks or less before their attack. Some others even say that in fact Hitler was forced to preemptive attack BECAUSE of those preparations. In my opinion, as I stated above, that theory that Stalin was moving to attack is not impossible, though it’s in my opinion improbable given what I have read and heard. On the other hand, the idea that Hitler was FORCED TO ATTACK because he knew Stalin wanted to attack in 1941 is absurd. Just as everyone knows that Stalin would eventually attack west, everyone also knows that Hitler planned eventually to attack east.
After all, when German envoys were trying to entice Polish politicians in 1938-39 they were saying things like “Odessa is a port too”. And, from the very talk given by Hitler, from the link YOU have posted, it’s clear that German HQ started to prepare war plans of invasion in July 1940 already.
Sam J.,
One more thing — are you using “Jew” as invective? I don’t know if I have any Jewish roots, and I wouldn’t care if I found out that I have. You are also saying something about “demonizing Hitler,” as if this monster needed to be demonized. Do you think Hitler was not an evil monster?
Sam J.: “One more thing — are you using ‘Jew’ as invective?”
Jews have a certain way of arguing that is crooked, dishonest, full of deceit and slanted towards hiding and destroying the truth and no I don’t like it. I don’t like what Jews have done to my country or the west in general.
And I find any of the “supposed” good Jews never do a damn thing to stop the worst of them so I see no redeeming value for Jews, in my country or the west or anywhere. Maybe 10, 100, are decent though I couldn’t name a hundred of any virtue. Maybe they exist but I’m skeptical. I could probably really stretch and name 10.
I know the Jews did 9-11 it’s obvious with building 7 falling the same speed as if air held it up. This has of course caused a lot of dead people all over and a ruination of our financial situation, as if them monopolizing and sucking the blood out of the economy wasn’t enough.
I know they have used the Jew run FED to take over the whole economy and in the process buying out lots, and lots and lots of manufacturing and moving them to China destroying the country and the economy in the process.
I know they have used money, blackmail, murder and the abuse of children to blackmail a vast portion of our legislature at all levels including the intelligence services, local police and just about all branches of authority.
The Jews own all the mass means of communication and feed us constant lies.
The Jews are the most awful, evil people who exist on the face of planet earth. They say they do the things they do to protect themselves but it’s all a lie. If they would stop being so evil people would pay them no mind. It’s direct response to their psychopathic attacks on everyone around them that causes a reaction to them. Many Jews have said much same as it’s obvious what is going on.
The end effect of Jews moving to your country is that of a band of psychopaths moving to your country. Now I’m not saying every Jew is a psychopath but the end result of Jews moving in any large number to your country is indistinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths moving into the country. So whether they all are or not is immaterial.
Even if the “mentally ill” Jews do end up murdering everyone with the vax and leaving just Jews, I don’t think this will happen the Chinese and other Asians will not let you run amuck like the Whites have, then in the end the psychopathic Jews will start in on each other and ruthlessly kill each other off until…there is no one left and we will, or what’s left, will be back to living in caves.
So no I’m not a fan of the Jews. I know what the Jews have done.
Szopen says, “Sam J., I’m asking because I want to know what I argue against.”
I see no value in figuring out what you should argue against.
Sam J.,
Ooookey. Have a nice day.