Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Would Stalin attack?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by HSU21, Jun 2, 2007.

  1. HSU21

    HSU21 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    If Hitler did not invade the USSR, would have Stalin attack Nazi Germany? I think Stalin would have, eventually.
     
  2. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    donno, since he already purge the army of many capable leaders, this can be seen in the earliest stages of the german attack, also his air force was obsolete with no chance to keep the luftwaffe at bay
     
  3. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Maybe eventually but he had to take care of Finland first and that turned out to be much more difficult than the Soviets expected.
     
  4. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    I rather see him attack the Japanese in Machuria first. They are easier to beat.
     
  5. HSU21

    HSU21 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ya, I think I would agree on the fact he would attack or get revenge on Japan. Manchuria.
     
  6. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    142
    via TanksinWW2
    After seeing the way that Germany had destroyed the armies of Poland and France, both in the matter of a few weeks, I doubt if Stalin was planning an attack any time soon.
    He was evil, not stupid.
     
  7. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    There was almost certainly ging to be a German - Soviet war by the summer of 1942.
    If Hitler had not attacked, then Stalin would have. By the summer of 1942 the Soviets would have essentially completed requipping their forces and Stalin was far from realisitc about the capabilities of the Red Army even after the German invasion. Look at the winter 1941 counter-offensive and the May 1942 battle near Kharkov.
     
  8. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    but the soviets underestimated the germans and the battle of kharkov was a disaster for the soviet army
     
  9. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Exactly my point, Stalin was not dissauded by the perfromance of the Heer against the Soviet Army, I doubt he would have let the Polish and French defeats stop him from attacking Germany. He may not have been stupid, but he could certainly be opinionated and over optimistic.
     
  10. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    from the book kharkov 1942 anatomy of a military disaster by david m. glantz:
    in spring 1942, after the germans suffered heavy losses from the winter and the soviets reserves, josef stalin determined that one great offensive by the red army, aimed at spiting the german central and souther group, would send the nazis reeling out of russia once and for all, this gigantic attack was aimed at the german front near the city of kharkov.
    unbeknownst to the soviets, the germans had assessed their problem, collected their strength and were planning a renewed offensive of their own. stalin was unaware that the red army would not be attacking a thin, defeated enemy but against an opposing german build up with it's own designs to finish off it task of the previous summer.
    in the first few days of the kharkov offensive, the red army, through sheer weight of numbers, penetrated 20 km. in to the german front. but then they found panzers were in their flanks and the luftwaffe filled the sky above. the german were nor running, they were closing in. nearly 300,000 soviets soldiers become casualties as the attacking russian armies were cut off, and in a sustained battle, nearly annihilated
     
  11. HSU21

    HSU21 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I do not think the Soviets would have attacked that early. Lets face it the Soviets did not prove very well in the early days of the war. I would think maybe if the Western Allies had maybe weakend the Germans. Then maybe the Soviets would have attacked.
     
  12. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    A while back on here Izaak Stern made a pretty good case for the Soviets being prepared to attack westwards IIRC.

    The Red Army was in the process of a massive armaments modernization in 1940, whilst much of their existing equipment was obsolescent it was being replaced with much more capable and modern designs. I-16s and I-15s were being replaced in the front line by the newer LaGG, Yak and MiG fighters, the T-34 and KV-1 tanks were starting to arrive in front line formations.

    The soviets had the unpleasant shock of the Winter War with Finland, but I believe that they had learnt from mistakes there, they certainly changed tactics in the latter part of the Winter War and combined with increasing exhaustion on the part of the Finnish troops the Red Army performed much better in the later part.

    I think lot of the reason initially for the poor showing of the Red Army in the opening phases of Barbarossa can be blamed more or less directly on Stalin, his refusal to accept that Hitler may betray him (Before he had a chance to betray Hitler? ;) ), led to his refusal to accept any of the intelligence or even outright warnings of the impending attack. Border and front line formations were ordered not to respond to German intrusions incase they triggered an incident and this in part led to paralysis of the Front line units when they were actually under attack, commanders stuck to their orders for fear of facing the NKVD if they disobeyed.

    Overall, I think that neither Hitler nor Stalin had any illusions of the Molotov Ribbentrop past lasting indefinitely. The two regimes were polar opposites in doctrine and ideology, it was a matter of who went for who first.

    The Soviets would have finished modernising by probably about spring 1942 I'd guess. I don't think an invasion westwards into the General Gouverment would have come much later. Stalin was certainly no fool, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact bought him time and a little extra space (Eastern Poland), as it was though it wasn't enough time to beat Germany into making the first move.

    I doubt the Soviets would have put too much effort into Japan at that stage, Germany was clearly the more dangerous foe and I really can't see the Red Army allowing itself to get too distracted in a lesser theatre where they had so little to gain, especially not risking the embarassment of another Finland when they didn't need to. If Japan had got a bit more agressive there, maybe, but again the Japanese were far too practically minded to risk antagonising the Soviets too much when all they were likely to gain out of the deal was Siberia.
     
  13. HSU21

    HSU21 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I understand what your saying Simonr1978. I do not agree with everything you are saying. For one, I think Stalin would have like to see Germany and NAZI IDEAS wiped off the earth, but I think Stalin knew that he needed help in destroying the Germans. I also think Stalin was glad not to go to war with Germany, until she was finally ready. But not in 1942. The Red Army was way to far behind in the WWII Technology area.They learned this technology from the Germans not by their own leaders. Also, remeber Stalin purges, really hurt the officer corps. Even Zukov, was at odds with Stalin. I would agree with Stalin attacking in 1944 or even late 1943.
     
  14. HSU21

    HSU21 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Simonr1978,

    I respect your views, I wonder what would have happened if the Soviets did attack in 1942 or 1943. Who would have won?
     
  15. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, T-34's against panzer IV's with a small barrel, i favour the Russians.
     
  16. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    If anything things were the other way around.

    Considering the frontline equipment being delivered to the Red Army from 1940. The T-34 and KV tanks as Quillin has indicated were far from "Far behind" their German equivilents.

    In the air as well the disparity is much less than "Far behind" Germany. The Petlyakov Pe2 bomber which was entering service in late 1940 would give any western contemporary a run for it's money, this is the bomber that outran it's Hawker Hurricane fighter escorts.

    The Ilyushin Il2 was also entering service in its initial guises in 1940 too, as were a whole host of modern monoplane fighters which would serve in increasingly potent versions throughout the Great Patriotic War.

    Without the disruption to production caused by the German Invasion and the factory relocation, the Soviets would have been able to re-equip their army and airforce much sooner.

    All of this the Soviets achieved themselves, they learnt none of this from the Germans.

    Conversely, much of German training for the embryonic Panzer and Luftwaffe was done covertly prior to the public repudiation of Versaille in the Soviet Union. Germany learnt from the Soviets probably more than the other way around.

    I'm not sure, it certainly would have been a very destructive war. In Izaak Stern's posts of a while back he seems pretty confident that The Soviets would have swept all European resistance aside, but to be honest I think there is a distinct element of over confidence in his assessment.

    Militarily, whilst there is the case that quantity has a quality all of its own, as the Finnish experience in the Winter War proved, quality certainly has its place in warfare too. Although the Finns ultimately had to accept Soviet terms, Finland is a tiny nation in comparison, if they'd had greater reserves of manpower they could almost certainly have held out longer.

    What would have made the difference I think is what went on Politically.

    Would the Commonwealth and Germany put aside their differences in the face of a Soviet attack against Europe as a whole? Bearing in mind that up until that point the Soviets were basically Axis co-belligerents and many in the British establishment were justly fearful of the consequences for them of a Bolshevik government.

    What would that mean for any US involvement in Europe? Without a German declaration of war on the US would FDR have been able to convince America on any sort of "Europe First" policy without this? Might there have even a Soviet/Japanese "Axis" of sorts?

    These unfortunately are far more difficult to establish. To be honest I simply don't know enough about the US home front to speculate on that aspect. But the idea of an at least temporary pro-German about turn on the part of the UK doesn't seem too impossible to imagine. A lot militarily would depend though on whether the Soviets could be stalled early enough to make the difference with regard to any further intervention.

    BTW, wouldn't this be better off in the WWII section?
     
  17. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    Idd, it should be moved.


    Back to the topic. Great Brittain and Germany working together. That is if there's a British army left in 1942. Without Hitler attacking the USSR he would keep attacking the British, bomb Malta of the chart, defeat the British in Egypt. Not to mention all the extra U-boats that will come because the Germans will probably not suffer haevy tank losses like in the Russian campaign so that is more steel for ships. Thus less american material that arrives in Great Brittain
     
  18. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I doubt all of Germany's resources would have been directed against the UK by a long shot. Hitler too was not stupid and I'd expect a fair amount of resources to be tied up guarding the eastern frontiers of the Reich. What were German tank losses like up to spring 1942? I can't imagine that freeing up a decisive amount of steel, even then there's the capacity of the shipyards too, more steel does not automatically mean more ships.

    Even if more are produced ASW measures were improving all the time too, would the additional submarines that would have been produced (Given the vaguries of Nazi economic policy) have been enough to tip the balance completely?

    In all honesty, even if the British were defeated in the desert, would it automatically have made a catestrophic difference for the British as a whole?

    To stand a chance of defeating the British permanently, Germany would have had to have invaded Britain itself and that's simply something they were not going to be up to by 1942.

    These are more like thoughts on the subject rather than hypotheses, I'm not a ship man so especially when it comes to the subs I'm posing questions rather than views.

    I wonder how much material was appropriated from the captured territories in the east that wouldn't have been available to Germany without Barbarossa?
     
  19. HSU21

    HSU21 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Well put Simon. I would place my bet on the Germans wining only if the Americans and British had stayed out of the war. Otherwise those three combined would be to much for the germans like historically.
     
  20. ANZAC

    ANZAC Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    20
    via TanksinWW2
    My two cents worth.....

    The Stalin attack theory has gained ground recently with books like ''Icebreaker'' by Vladimir Rezun [Viktor Suvorov] although credible experts such as David Glantz refute his claims.

    I think their were good reasons why Stalin would probably never chance attacking Nazi Germany.

    Stalin's paranoia, his concern with consolidating power, and his unfounded concerns with possible internal threats, which led to a wide ranging set of purges, where he gutted the entire officer corps of the army, having 35,000 officers from Marshals down shot or imprisoned, plus millions of others shot or sent to the Gulags during the 30's.

    That [his hold on power] was paramount to him, I doubt he would be willing to take any chance of attacking West, unless Germany was virtually on it's knees [such as from the Allied bombing in '45.] He'd be satisfied with taking territory from countries like Finland, the Baltic states and Poland and rebuilding his army.

    Plus in 1940, Stalin had the opportunity to invade Germany when about 90% of the Wehrmacht was fully occupied with fighting the French and British.

    Although the Red army was still in bad shape at that stage [and also in '41] it still had over 100 divisions and thousands of tanks facing 10 German divisions in the East, plus two in Berlin.

    There was virtually nothing to stop him over running German occupied Poland and capturing Berlin, the war might have been finished then and there.
    But he didn't move an inch, more's the pity.
     

Share This Page