Stalin... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Footslogger -> Stalin... (8/18/2011 1:06:09 AM)

Was there any proof that Stalin was going to attack Hitler first?



paullus99 -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 1:12:50 AM)

There were Stavka plans - Stalin knew eventually he'd go to war against Germany, he just hoped it would have been on his terms (and no earlier than 1942).



Jakerson -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 9:36:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

There were Stavka plans - Stalin knew eventually he'd go to war against Germany, he just hoped it would have been on his terms (and no earlier than 1942).


And there was a lot more proof that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were allied and divided Europe together in cooperation in Molotov – Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols.

Soviet Union already controlled immense territories and really did not need more raw materials like Germany. Germany had shortage in iron ore and oil while Soviet Union had everything more than they needed.
Stalin knew that Germany is strong as Germany had already beaten many countries and Soviet Union could not beat tiny Finland. Stalin simply had no reason to break the ally treaty with Germany as Soviet Union had much less to gain from Attacking Germany than the opposite way.

Germany on the other hand needed iron ore and fuel to be able sustain war efforts and was sure that Soviet Union is very weak after tiny Finland was able to halt offensive made by full power of Soviet Union. I don’t think it was even original plan of Hitler to attack Soviet Union but after tiny Finland repulsed Soviet offensive it looked like perfect opportunity for attack and get badly needed iron ore and oil reserves. Germany was so sure about quick victory against Soviet Union that Hitler did not even prepare for Winter War almoust at all. This tell the story how weak they saw Soviet Union at time.



Jakerson -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 9:38:09 AM)

..



JAS Gripen -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 12:38:37 PM)

Hmm, I'd say that

A. if Stavka didn't have plans for a war, preferably offensive on enemy territory, with Germany they'd have neglected their duties big time. Plans always exist, their existence means nothing per se. Pentagon probably has plans on invading Canada laying in some dusty closet.

B. Hitler's vision was from the start to gain territories and resources from East like USA had expanded to West a hundred years earlier. By necessity with violence and subjugation.
The date was a variable, the intent not.

C. Hitler thought, probably correctly, that Stalin would betray the pact if Germany some day would be fully committed to West. Not for resources but for power through expanding communist area.

Hitler also knew that time was working against him. For example one could take his reaction when briefed about new VVS planes (MiG-1).




paullus99 -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 1:46:07 PM)

Stalin knew his armed forces weren't in the best shape (particularly after Finland) & was doing everything he could not to look aggressive to the Germans - and frankly, he was also surprised how quickly France capitulated - I believe he hoped that Germany would get bogged down in the West (just like WWI) and allow him to take advantage of that sometime in 1942.

I do believe that both Hitler and Stalin realized they eventually were going to fight for domination of Europe - it was all in the timing.



Mehring -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 1:51:41 PM)

Stalin followed policies of peaceful co-existance with imperialism and 'socialism' in one country. Together, if indeed Stalin had ever grasped it, these political formulations constituted a fundamental break with the Marxist conception of historical development. They also expressed, at first in an unconscious way, the interests of a new Russian bourgeoisie which began to coalesce around and take shape within the Bolshevik Party in the early 1920's.

That Stalin used Russia's influence in working class politics to strangle revolutionary struggles the world over, at the time most notably in Germany and Spain, is ample proof that Stalin sought to protect Russia's borders not by supporting revolution abroad, but by deals with imperialist nations. The pact with Germany and its secret protocols is the most notorious product of this policy.

Supplamental to this powerful political evidence, there is much anecdotal evidence that Stalin greatly admired Hitler. Certainly each borrowed methods from the other until the only thing differentiating one regime from the other was the economic base upon which each rested and the fact that nation states are essentially antagonistic towards one another. It was Russia's misfortune that Hitler's understanding of Germany's interests was particularly antagonistic towards her. Indeed, Hitler saw conquest of Lebensraum in the east as the cure for Germany's competative disadvantages against the British Empire and the United States.



Captain -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 2:34:30 PM)

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

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

Stalin was a very cautious politician who even after he was in total control after 1929 always moved in incremental steps. In foreign policy, he avoided war whenever possible and only moved when he knew he was certain of victory, for example the 1939 war with Finland, the occupation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and forcing Rumania to surrender Bessarabia.

Even after the war, when the Red Army occupied eastern europe and heavily outnumbered US/UK forces, he was very careful to camouflage Soviet involvement in the communist coups and in the Korean war.

I seriously doubt Stalin would have risked war with Germany in 1942-43 and risk losing everything.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 3:01:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAS Gripen

A. if Stavka didn't have plans for a war, preferably offensive on enemy territory, with Germany they'd have neglected their duties big time. Plans always exist, their existence means nothing per se. Pentagon probably has plans on invading Canada laying in some dusty closet.


Having recently read 'The Bloody Triangle', covering the Southern front in the early days of Barbarossa, it comments that each Soviet Military District had prepared plans in the event of war. The Kiev Special Military District plan was named KOVO-41, for the mobilisation and deployment of each military echelon, which includes taking the fighting onto enemy territory as soon as possible, in line with Soviet doctrine for all Districts at the time.

This does not mean an intent to attack, but, just as we will never find a piece of paper signed by Hitler saying 'start the Final Solution', so it is also unlikely that we will find evidence of Stalin's deepest plans. He had displayed the will to seize opportunities before and who knows what he might have done if the War had gone seriously wrong for the Germans, but I doubt he would have taken the initiative against Germany at the height of its powers in 1941, or even 1942.

However, it's a good basis for a WiTE scenario, such as 'Patriotic War 42', that was created for WIR, giving the chance for the Soviets to take the initiative, instead of having to suffer the first hit every time. [:)]



Speedysteve -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 4:14:23 PM)

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



Mehring -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 6:00:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

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



You speak with the benefit of hindsight and attribute certain knowledge of particulars to Stalin which nobody had. How did he know the invasion of Poland would lead to world war? Did Hitler's previous invasions lead to war? How did he come to deal with Hitler, anyway? Having delivered the Spanish revolution to Franco to prove his counter-revolutionaryness to Britain and France, the latter would not deal with him. He had to make a deal with Hitler. On what basis, then, could he depend upon Britain and France to go to war to defend Poland?

Stalin could have prevented WW2 long before the splitting of Poland. Having subordinated the Third International to 'left' trade unionists and nationalists then seen the consequences in the defeat of the British general strike and the Shanghai massacre the next year, he swung from right to ultra left. He divided the German working class with his 'social fascism' policy which declared that since Social Democracy was bourgeois, it was the same as fascism. Thus denied a united front between communists and social democrat workers, the German working class was defeated without a shot being fired. How does this figure with 'Communist ideology?" It doesn't.

Having abandoned 'social fascism' Stalin hurtled from ultra left to ultra right, to the 'popular front,' an essentially Menshevik idea which subordinated the working class to the very forces which had previously been declared 'social fascist' as well as overtly capitalist parties such as liberals. Socialist revolution was thus put on the backburner to a long distant future which of course would never come. How does this figure with 'Communist ideology?" Again, it doesn't.

Why, as a communist, did Stalin sabotage socialist revolution in Germany, Spain, China, France and elsewhere? Was he just stupid? Well, more than a little, but he was also shrewd, the two are not mutually exclusive.

You say that a new world war is "a war that the Communist ideology expected, planned and prepared for, and desired". Really? Where do you get that from? Marxism declares that the antagonism between competing national economies and the imbalances between them at certain stages of history create the conditions both for war and revolution. Revolution is desirable because it is necessary, but, no more than war is it something to be chivvied along. If it does not occur of its own accord, the conditions for socialist revolution are not ripe. The purpose of Marxism is to give conscious direction to the historical process.

Why, assuming Stalin really did know or even believe war was inevitable, did he not promote socialist revolution? Because socialist revolution was not something he could control or something that served his interests. On the contrary, if there was one thing that could re-ignite socialist consciousness in the Russian working class and prove the fallacy of his 'theories' of 'socialism' in one country and peaceful coexistance, it was new revolution abroad. Likewise, a new world war made Stalin look very stupid politically. it would only prove that the peaceful coexistance at which he worked so hard by ingratiating himself to, and stregthening his most mortal enemy, was a sham, nothing more than an interlude between war.

A couple of years after decapitating the Red Army, Stalin then witnessed the hopeless unpreparedness of Russia's armies in the occupations of Poland and attack on Finland To suggest that Stalin was preparing for a war for which Russia had no economic or even ideological need, can only be the product of the most appalling selective use of material not worthy of an historian. Sadly, such 'historians' abound.

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



Flaviusx -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 6:24:16 PM)

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

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



Speedysteve -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 6:47:18 PM)

Mehring. I don't say anything. Suvorov does [;)]



WingedIncubus -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 7:50:37 PM)

Defence, what defence? Russia had the time had no modern defensive military doctrine. In fact, Russian "defensive doctrine", which was also published in all Russian propaganda to the masses of the time, was basically "crushing the enemy over his territory". In other words, counterattack and going on the offensive.

For someone so eager to "defend his motherland", all Russian units in the West were massed almost onto the Western frontier lines, with next to no reserve left behind and no breathing space to absorb the shock of the attack, stop it, and counterattack. Its aircraft flotillas were positioned in forward airfields and positions too close from the frontiers. Russia's starting OOB was poised for attack, not defence.

Russia wasn't preparing to invade Germany in 1941, but it was sure getting prepared to get further in the Balkans, after taking Bessarabia and Bukovina. That is why the Southern fronts had better allocation of troops and tanks, and why, by accident, at first Army Group South had a rougher time making its breakthroughs than the other two German Army Groups. (EDIT : Demonstrated as untrue.)

Besides, the idea that Stalin "knew" the Army wasn't ready is ludicrous. Stalin learned good news, because keep in mind what happened to people who told bad news to Stalin. People like Vannikov, Commissar for Armaments, who got sent to the NKVD and died because he disagreed with Stalin over the mere choice of replacement Marshalls, Or people like Pavel Rychakov, the Soviet Air Chief of Staff, who got shot just before the war because he dared say to Stalin that his aircrafts blowing up in testing wasn't because of foreign sabotage, but faulty design and quality control. People who brought bad news to Stalin, like any information remotely arguing that the Red Army wasn't getting ready at all, either died or disappeared. So what did Russian public servants do? Produce false or phony "positive" reports about manpower, production, arm design, etc. And what did cronies and staff officers do? Say only what they thought Stalin would want to hear. With all the phony data and production sheets sent upward to Stalin to make sure he was happy and no one would be sent to be "dealt with" with the NKVD, I'm certain Stalin was feeling perfectly ready to deal with Hitler if he comes because on paper, he was.

That is why I have a hard time taking data glaned from Glantz seriously. When I read When Titans Clashed all I was saying to myself was "that would be a good narrative of the Soviet side of the war, if the data wasn't comming wholly from Stalin-era reports and data sheets, especially on the subject of armament production, and thus completely open for dismissal because the agents who were producing them didn't want to die or have their teeth tore off by NKVD torturers". And that book was printed in 1993, so Glantz had next to no time to vet the combat reports and production data to evaluate the validity of the sources, which is made even harder by the fact that Stalin was one of the worst control freaks in history.



Mehring -> RE: Stalin... (8/18/2011 11:20:09 PM)

Drakken, do you think someone told Stalin the invasion of Finland ended victoriously in a week and concealed the bloody truth?



fiva55 -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 12:39:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Drakken, do you think someone told Stalin the invasion of Finland ended victoriously in a week and concealed the bloody truth?



Clearly Stalin did learn of the Finland campaign, and reforms did happen afterwards, though not all of these were completed before Barbarossa. It wouldn't be unthinkable though, that when reporting the progress of these reforms to Stalin, results might have been exaggerated, leading to Stalin becoming overconfident in the capabilities of the Red Army.

Admittedly, this is pure conjecture.



WingedIncubus -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 12:41:21 AM)

That's a big strawman, Mehring.

Keep it on the subject: My argument is on Soviet data on armament, casualties report, manpower registers, etc. In other words, every piece of data that current and otherwise very competent historians use to argue that the Red Army was some undefeatable juggernaut with limitless manpower and producing tens of thousands of state-of-the-war tanks and aircraft DESPITE relocazing its whole Western industries in the Urals, when in fact these data sheets were made to be consistent with whatever propaganda the Soviet regime wanted to be believed, and based on totally inflated reports made by agents who's main interest was to make sure Stalin wouldn't have them thrown in Lubianka to be shot because they had bad news for Stalin.

Hell, even Soviet maps obtained by German intelligence announced paved ways in the area between Smolensk and Moscow, and the Germans from AGC rapidly found out that these were in fact Potemkin villages, i.e. nonexistent.

For instance of an unreliable Soviet casualties report, when Von Manstein attacked and took the Kerch bridgehead he reported annihilating two Soviet Armies, taking over 160,000 prisoners and over 350 tanks captured or destroyed (the latter confirmed by Montefiore). The official Soviet data for the Kerch defense, as quoted by Glantz in his appendix in When Titans Clashed, was that on 249,000 Soviet soldiers, 162,282 where killed OR missing (I remind you, von Manstein reported over 160,000 Soviet PoWs), 14,284 wounded, and no tanks nor any vehicle claimed destroyed or captured. So magically, the tanks have disappeared and von Manstein made up the destroyed Soviet tanks in the Kerch offensive?



Flaviusx -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 12:45:53 AM)

Once again: Stalin knew full well the Red Army wasn't up to scratch. The reforms in no way were complete, as shown clearly in the winter 1940 wargames.

Those wargames cost Meretskov his job, and put Zhukov in his place as Chief of Staff and were quite a fiasco. Stalin asked any number of pointed questions, and flatly refused to believe claims that a Red Army division was equal to a German one. (A claim he labeled as being fit for the propaganda manuals only.)

Stalin in his own way was both a realist and a cautious person. (And, of course, a monster.) Launching an offensive war in 1941 with the only recently humiliated Red Army against Germany at the height of her powers is NOT his style.




WingedIncubus -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 12:50:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Once again: Stalin knew full well the Red Army wasn't up to scratch. The reforms in no way were complete, as shown clearly in the winter 1940 wargames.

Those wargames cost Meretskov his job, and put Zhukov in his place as Chief of Staff and were quite a fiasco. Stalin asked any number of pointed questions, and flatly refused to believe claims that a Red Army division was equal to a German one. (A claim he labeled as being fit for the propaganda manuals only.)

Stalin in his own way was both a realist and a cautious person. (And, of course, a monster.) Launching an offensive war in 1941 with the only recently humiliated Red Army against Germany at the height of her powers is NOT his style.




Stalin woke up that the data presented to him might be bullshit after these wargames and the Finland fiasco. But the usual behavior of Stalin when faced to a bad news he wasn't asking for was death or the gulag - mostly death. So most people underneath, even Zhukov, kept feeding these false reports because they never knew when Stalin might shot a fuse and have you murdered.

And like I said, I agree Stalin wasn't preparing to invade Germany in 1941, but going further in the Balkans, and the Soviet OOB on B-day was consistent with the "doctrine" of defence through offence, by placing units so close of the frontier without any breathing space to stifle a potential attack on Soviet mainland, and the forward airfields placed too close from the German frontier.

(EDIT: The former has been demonstrated as wrong, and accepted as wrong. Stalin placed more troops south as per MP-41)

Either the Soviet high command was very dumb and careless, or they were placed there for a very specific reason. Because I agree that Stalin was as realist as you can get I go for the latter, and eventual attack - but not in 1941.

So we have to agree to disagree. [;)]



Flaviusx -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 1:04:18 AM)

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

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

Stalin would have waited until conditions were ripe.

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



WingedIncubus -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 1:12:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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

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

Stalin would have waited until conditions were ripe.

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


I wasn't refering to Icebreaker, thankfully.

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

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



Aurelian -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 2:32:24 AM)

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

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

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



marcpennington -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 2:35:19 AM)

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




Panama -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 5:50:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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

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


+1

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




Mehring -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 11:21:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

That's a big strawman, Mehring.

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


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



Jakerson -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 11:22:33 AM)

quote:

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


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

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

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



Captain -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 1:50:37 PM)

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

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

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



DesertedFox -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 2:44:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

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

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

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


Along with your

quote:

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

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


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

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

Mark




Captain -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 3:01:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox


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




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

"Lenin", by Robert Service;

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Biography-Robert-Service/dp/0674008286/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

"Stalin", by Robert Service;

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Biography-Robert-Service/dp/0674022580/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313762305&sr=1-1


"The Road to Stalingrad", by John Erickson;

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Stalingrad-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304365416/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313762371&sr=1-1

what's your excuse?



Tarhunnas -> RE: Stalin... (8/19/2011 3:15:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

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



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



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.390625