Soviet Offensive Plans

[OutOfBreath]

Remember, his troops didn't wait "2 weeks" to start defending. They started as soon as they were attacked.

Of course they did, as the russian generals believed it and were preparing for it.

That's a naive view over Stalin: if there's something he wasn't, it's naive.

Not naive, perhaps, but like all totalitarian dictators that routinely execute people who disagree or are otherwise inconvenient, he could be a bit eccentric in many respects. I dont think he was completely rational at all times, see his shifting paranoias about various ethnic groups and (perceived or real) internal enemies.

We dont know much detail about this event and what Stalin himself really thought and so on, but for the Great Leader to be silent for 2 weeks, while the Foreign secretary made the public speeches in the immediate aftermath smells to me like something was up with Stalin.

Peace
Dan

[Matthew Ellard]

Of course they did, as the russian generals believed it and were preparing for it.

Yep the Polish Russian War ends in 1921 with the Treaty of Riga. The Nazi come to power and thus the 1932 Russian Polish non aggression treaty. However Stalin wants to move Russian defensive troops into Poland in 1939 and gets support from Britain and France, as this would prevent German western attacks. The Poles refuse. As I had previously evidenced, the Red Army on the borders with Poland was a defensive army and "marched" into Poland.

We dont know much detail about this event and what Stalin himself really thought and so on, but for the Great Leader to be silent for 2 weeks, while the Foreign secretary made the public speeches in the immediate aftermath smells to me like something was up with Stalin.

There is a lot more information coming out of many different sources. Few people know that Stalin's house keeper was his sexual partner up until he died. Stalin suffered paranoia and probably had small strokes near the end.

[supervitor]

Remember, his troops didn't wait "2 weeks" to start defending. They started as soon as they were attacked.

Of course they did, as the russian generals believed it and were preparing for it.

That's a naive view over Stalin: if there's something he wasn't, it's naive.

Not naive, perhaps, but like all totalitarian dictators that routinely execute people who disagree or are otherwise inconvenient, he could be a bit eccentric in many respects. I dont think he was completely rational

I disagree precisely here

at all times, see his shifting paranoias about various ethnic groups and (perceived or real) internal enemies.

That is indeed the perception we have over him. But just think, would a paranoid person be relaxed over or expecting a potential attack?
(to me being paranoid doesn't imply irrationality. we can have both)

We dont know much detail about this event and what Stalin himself really thought and so on

We don't, we can only form opinions.

, but for the Great Leader to be silent for 2 weeks, while the Foreign secretary made the public speeches in the immediate aftermath smells to me like something was up with Stalin.

I think that was really his style. My impression is that he had never addressed the people before, we don't know if because of his noticeable Georgian accent or just his choice.

Peace
Dan

My view is that he was indeed very rational: All I have to do is watch the old footage of Yalta or Potsdam and how he was around (also powerful) people, that's clearly the impression he gives.

I think on his legacy: he picked a backward undeveloped rural country and left a superpower that took 45 years of downward spiral to self-destruct.

[OutOfBreath]

My view is that he was indeed very rational: All I have to do is watch the old footage of Yalta or Potsdam and how he was around (also powerful) people, that's clearly the impression he gives.

He would either way, wouldn't he? I mean, he wouldn't be on camera shaking hands if he was "under the weather" at the moment.

I think on his legacy: he picked a backward undeveloped rural country and left a superpower that took 45 years of downward spiral to self-destruct.

Now, that is rose-painting it a bit too much dont you think? "He" didn't do all that himself, and the methods employed to "modernize" were atrocious and brutal. He encouraged a personality cult about his person and executed/deported whole classes of people on a scale rivalling Hitler's. (something to keep in mind re: his rationality)

Besides, Russia always were a "great power" you know. Same as China. Big powers suffering a low with civil wars and unrest before making a come-back under ruthless and charismatic authoritarian leaders.

Peace
Dan

[supervitor]

My view is that he was indeed very rational: All I have to do is watch the old footage of Yalta or Potsdam and how he was around (also powerful) people, that's clearly the impression he gives.

He would either way, wouldn't he? I mean, he wouldn't be on camera shaking hands if he was "under the weather" at the moment.

You missed the point: the point is the way he deals with people: to me feels someone very savy and in control of himself: in a word, rational.

I think on his legacy: he picked a backward undeveloped rural country and left a superpower that took 45 years of downward spiral to self-destruct.

Now, that is rose-painting it a bit too much dont you think? "He" didn't do all that himself, and the methods employed to "modernize" were atrocious and brutal.
He encouraged a personality cult about his person and executed/deported whole classes of people on a scale rivalling Hitler's. (something to keep in mind re: his rationality)

You'll be kind to notice that I don't mention his methods or ideology. We're speaking about "being rational". I'm commenting him as a Statesman, a person who's job was to protect, mantain, perpetuate a State. That's what he did.

Besides, Russia always were a "great power" you know. Same as China. Big powers suffering a low with civil wars and unrest before making a come-back under ruthless and charismatic authoritarian leaders.

We can never answer questions like "how would have been, if not for him". But I argue, for instance, that Mao didn't left China in a much better shape than when he found it. I would argue that in this case it was Deng Xiaoping the Statesman.

And yes, it was a great power on Europe, together with Britain, France, Germany, Austria (and depending on the timescales we can add a couple more). I would argue that by the time of the begining of the century they had lost that status (unindustriazed nation in an industrialized world) and that's why they had to turn inwards. By the end of the 2nd world war, they were one of 2 superpowers in the world.


Peace
Dan[/quote]

[Jeff_36]

I personally think Stalin was a colossal ignoramus who let his paranoia nearly ruin everything. The man had two of the best Generals in the world, Iona Yakir and Mikhail Tukhachevsky at his disposal in the 30`s, and yet he chose to execute them and place his trust in the five thousand year old out of touch Cossack dinosaur Semyon Budonyy. That backfired spectacularly. The USSR only started winning the war when he delegated more to his Generals. He literally had to drag Konstantin Rossokovsky half dead out of a GULAG where he had been rotting since the Purges, put him back in charge of his army, and get him to help save the country.

It`s clear as to the OP: If the Soviets had been planning an attack they surely would have used the German buildup as a excuse to push it forward. Stalin would not have ignored warnings and he certainly would not have sought to extend the peace agreement in the months leading up to the attack. He was simply caught with his pants down. He gambled and lost.

As for his absence: easy, nervous breakdown. I`ve had them on two occasions, you can`t do anything, can`t think of anything. Just rest, breathe easy, and get back into shape. Getting sucker-punched will do that.

[supervitor]

I personally think Stalin was a colossal ignoramus who let his paranoia nearly ruin everything.
The man had two of the best Generals in the world, Iona Yakir and Mikhail Tukhachevsky at his disposal in the 30`s, and yet he chose to execute them and place his trust in the five thousand year old out of touch Cossack dinosaur Semyon Budonyy. That backfired spectacularly.

Really? I wonder how all of that turned out for him.. Yes, he did lose the war spectacularly in the end. Poor little Stalin

The USSR only started winning the war when he delegated more to his Generals.

Hmmm, I guess he was rational, then. Seems like you're missing your first point

He literally had to drag Konstantin Rossokovsky half dead out of a GULAG where he had been rotting since the Purges, put him back in charge of his army, and get him to help save the country.

Yes, Stalin did it, in the end. What was your point?

It`s clear as to the OP: If the Soviets had been planning an attack they surely would have used the German buildup as a excuse to push it forward. Stalin would not have ignored warnings

are you sure he did?

and he certainly would not have sought to extend the peace agreement in the months leading up to the attack. He was simply caught with his pants down. He gambled and lost.

Again, your view of the war seems to clash with History itself. you should present your references. Most of the world actually think Germany lost and the USSR won

As for his absence: easy, nervous breakdown.

Uau, you really have psychic abilities. Not only a different version of history, but also a remarkable ability to invent stuff

I`ve had them on two occasions, you can`t do anything, can`t think of anything. Just rest, breathe easy, and get back into shape. Getting sucker-punched will do that.

Yes. Obviously, it makes all the sense in the world you using your personal experience to assert why Stalin only addressed the nation in July. Looking at historical facts is not your business, is it?

[Jeff_36]

It can be boiled down to two points:
1. They won in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

2. The notion of Barbarossa as a justified preliminary attack is false and not backed by evidence.

[Jeff_36]

are you on the side of Suvrov, or the sane people?

[supervitor]

It can be boiled down to two points:
1. They won in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

It's your personal opinion: we will never know for sure, all we know was that it was under Stalin leadership that the war was won. I tend to think that they would also have won in spite of not having Stalin, if that was the case.

2. The notion of Barbarossa as a justified preliminary attack is false and not backed by evidence.

Also agree. The Germans wanted to go east, do a Napolean

[supervitor]

are you on the side of Suvrov, or the sane people?

I am only arguing that Stalin was a rational man, contrary to some unjustified popular belief in the West

[Jeff_36]

Also agree. The Germans wanted to go east, do a Napolean

Good man. This is a theme that goes back to the 20's and is a clear intent in 1939. The nazis had a rather nasty set of plans for the occupied USSR territories, google "The Hunger Plan". Brutal stuff. Not just that too, but a ban on education, mandatory forced labor, no legal rights for the local population, major cities wiped out, entire local populations deported. It would have been armageddon. That more than anything underscores the evil of racism in general and national socialism in particular.

[supervitor]

I think there's a quote from Goering somewhere, visiting Ukraine, after conquering it, something like:

"No wasted resources here. Those that can't work, will die. those that can work, will work for the Reich, until they themselves die"

[Matthew Ellard]

I think there's a quote from Goering somewhere, visiting Ukraine, after conquering it, something like:

"No wasted resources here. Those that can't work, will die. those that can work, will work for the Reich, until they themselves die"

Do you have a citation for that?

[supervitor]

I think there's a quote from Goering somewhere, visiting Ukraine, after conquering it, something like:

"No wasted resources here. Those that can't work, will die. those that can work, will work for the Reich, until they themselves die"

Do you have a citation for that?

Not really, it's just something I remember hearing, I'm paraphrasing, hence the "I think"

He probably used "no useless mouths to feed" instead of "no wasted resources here", something like that

[Jeff_36]

I read a book on the Eastern Front, where one of the higher ups was documented as proposing the killing of all adult males over 15.

Himmler explicitly called for the extermination of "200 million Russians" in a 1943 speech.

Koch of course was a lunatic.

[OutOfBreath]

Re: stalin's rationality, he (if we assume he was in charge of his state's actions) did cause the ukraine famine "holodomor" through failed collective farming producing less food and fixed export quotas. He was basically starving millions of peasants to death to meet export deals with germany, convinced that the ukrainians were sabotaging him and deserved it. No wonder many ukrainians fought on the nazi side in the war.

As an SS commander was reported to say: "If the collectivized farm system wasn't already in place, we'd have had to invent it." (Paraphrased from Timothy Snyder's book "Bloodlands")

Peace
Dan

[supervitor]

Re: stalin's rationality, he (if we assume he was in charge of his state's actions) did cause the ukraine famine "holodomor" through failed collective farming producing less food and fixed export quotas. He was basically starving millions of peasants to death to meet export deals with germany, convinced that the ukrainians were sabotaging him and deserved it. No wonder many ukrainians fought on the nazi side in the war.

He just didn't care about the people. Like you said, his goal was exports, not feeding. He went with centralization because otherwise the peasants might not starve themselves to dead before giving away the food.

As an SS commander was reported to say: "If the collectivized farm system wasn't already in place, we'd have had to invent it." (Paraphrased from Timothy Snyder's book "Bloodlands")

Good example. The nazis were also very rational and skillful organizers.

Peace
Dan

[OutOfBreath]

I think you're confusing "rational" for "goal-oriented". Both stalins communism and the nazis had deeply irrational policies embedded in their ideologies. But they were methodic in the execution of their lunacy. Not the same as being rational.

Peace
Dan

[supervitor]

I'm not talking about ideology. I'm talking about a person acting rationally. Here: I'll quote myself where I expressed this clearly:

You'll be kind to notice that I don't mention his methods or ideology. We're speaking about "being rational". I'm commenting him as a Statesman, a person who's job was to protect, mantain, perpetuate a State. That's what he did.

If you want to talk about ideology irrationality, most ideologies that diverge from our own are usually seen as irrational. I do that. And it's not the same thing as acting irrationally

[OutOfBreath]

I wouldn't describe people acting on irrational beliefs as acting rationally, even if they themselves may see it as such according to their own delusions. If that was the standard every psychotic person on the planet would behave "rationally" given their beliefs/thoughts, rendering the description void of meaning. So I disagree to such a definition of the term.

Was Stalin some loony bin that couldnt hold it together? No. He had the outer appearance of a composed man. But like any supreme dictator with total power he grew increasingly paranoid and eccentric over time.(How many times did he purge the leadership/government/party ranks?) Since he executed thousands on whims, he didnt get anything else than yes-men around him either who didnt dare do anything but nod enthusiastically to his often misguided plans.

So, no, I wont agree that the best description of his behaviour is "rational". Ruthless and cynical perhaps. Towards a goal certainly. Deluded and megalomaniac perhaps. But not really rational. He had way too few reality checks for that while in power.

Peace
Dan

[supervitor]

I wouldn't describe people acting on irrational beliefs as acting rationally, even if they themselves may see it as such according to their own delusions.

Probably because you're not taking into account the context in what those beliefs were created: I would say, pretty rational response from a leadership class that wanted to grab/keep the power centralised from a people that was in the process of grabbing it: communism is the solution for that sector of the right, give the people some of what they want, as long as we get to keep the power. Like I said before, from your perspective it may seem irrational, but it is not, from theirs.

If that was the standard every psychotic person on the planet would behave "rationally" given their beliefs/thoughts, rendering the description void of meaning. So I disagree to such a definition of the term.

You are again confusing: psychotic beliefs with world view or just beliefs.

Was Stalin some loony bin that couldnt hold it together? No. He had the outer appearance of a composed man. But like any supreme dictator with total power he grew increasingly paranoid and eccentric over time.(How many times did he purge the leadership/government/party ranks?)

That's the view we have of him. Although I see recently that a similar image of Putin is being created in the West. And that I know to be untruthful: which begs me to ask: was he really irrational as we portrait him? I will say no, all those acts were justified according to his perspective

Since he executed thousands on whims, he didnt get anything else than yes-men around him either who didnt dare do anything but nod enthusiastically to his often misguided plans.

I see now that you're pointing out correctly the motivations for his actions: he wanted power
[/quote]
So, no, I wont agree that the best description of his behaviour is "rational". Ruthless and cynical perhaps. Towards a goal certainly. Deluded and megalomaniac perhaps. But not really rational. He had way too few reality checks for that while in power.
[/quote]
I didn't say "best description". a description, and accurate, together with many other descriptives. We disagree: I think he was rational. I think being leader of Russia is a reality check in itself, specially in a period of World War and later animosity from the entire West

Peace
Dan

[Jeffk 1970]

Hi. New to the forum.
This is actually a favorite topic of mine.
My opinion on this is that in 1941 Stalin didn't want war with Germany. I think after the Winter War with Finland Stalin realized that the Red Army was not capable of large scale offensive operations. Zhukov urged Stalin to attack Germany in May of 1941 but Stalin refused.
The Red Army was ill-equipped and ill-led in 1941. Their tanks lacked radios, the Red Army still used flags to direct their tanks. Stalin's purges decimated the high command, generals and officers. What happened at the beginning of the German invasion was no surprise considering the state of the Red Army.
I think Stalin considered the possibility of war with Germany likely but not until the British were defeated.

[Matthew Ellard]

I think after the Winter War with Finland Stalin realized that the Red Army was not capable of large scale offensive operations.

Entertainingly, I went to the White War Museum in Helsinki, which has a "walk along path" chronologically detailing Finland's bigger and bigger victories over Russia in the White War. When you walk around the next corner, there was only one tiny little sign. "The Moscow Peace Treaty was signed between Finland and the Soviet Union on 12 March 1940"

The museum has German Stug IIIs and 75mm Pak 40's in the staff car park. I like to go look at German tanks in Eastern Europe.

Stug III in Helsinki.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... of_Finland

[psychiatry is a scam]

My favourite "American economic power" anecdote is about Rommel in North Africa. He was desperate to have 50 tons of fuel shipped to North Africa to move his tanks. He goes to a captured American airfield and discover 60 tons of Christmas cakes, sitting in aircraft, after being shipped from America to troops in Nth Africa. He told his aide de camp, the "war is lost".[/quote]


there is a scene in the battle of the bulge movie about fresh cake .
is there a link for the Rommel story ?

[scrmbldggs]

Hi. New to the forum...

Welcome to SSF, Jeff. Followed you on the HC blog comments and am looking forward to see more of your skillful activity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think there's a quote from Goering somewhere, visiting Ukraine, after conquering it, something like:

"No wasted resources here. Those that can't work, will die. those that can work, will work for the Reich, until they themselves die"

Do you have a citation for that?

Not really, it's just something I remember hearing, I'm paraphrasing, hence the "I think"

He probably used "no useless mouths to feed" instead of "no wasted resources here", something like that

It does sound familiar. No citation here either, however. How's your google-fu?

[psychiatry is a scam]

yep first thing on google - his first thought was to kill all males over 15 , then realized working them to death was more -

--- infoukes ---

[Gawdzilla Sama]

yep first thing on google - his first thought was to kill all males over 15 , then realized working them to death was more -

--- infoukes ---

Link?

[scrmbldggs]

I guess it's this one pertaining to Ostarbeiter, it seems.

[supervitor]

I think there's a quote from Goering somewhere, visiting Ukraine, after conquering it, something like:

"No wasted resources here. Those that can't work, will die. those that can work, will work for the Reich, until they themselves die"

Do you have a citation for that?

Not really, it's just something I remember hearing, I'm paraphrasing, hence the "I think"

He probably used "no useless mouths to feed" instead of "no wasted resources here", something like that

It does sound familiar. No citation here either, however. How's your google-fu?

I think I heard it on a french documentary about the war, Apocalyspe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy9nX5IleJw?t=28m36s

Probably you heard it there too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've been reading on WWII since 1965.

[scrmbldggs]

https://youtu.be/yy9nX5IleJw?t=28m40s

"No useless mouths to feed. Those who can work will work for the Reich, the rest will die."


Also here: "89,199. We want no useless mouths to feed. Those who can work will work for the Reich. The rest will die. Those that work will give everything they have until they themselves die. Marshall Goering"
http://www.littlebookofjohn.com/quotes/s/soviet-union/3

[Denying-History]

Sort of off the current topic but its relevant to the Soviet Offensive Plan.

https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

[iwh]

Sort of off the current topic but its relevant to the Soviet Offensive Plan.

https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

I was going to buy it on Amazon uk, but at £32 I thought.....nope. Best go to the good ol' library.

[Denying-History]

Sort of off the current topic but its relevant to the Soviet Offensive Plan.

https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

I was going to buy it on Amazon uk, but at £32 I thought.....nope. Best go to the good ol' library.

His book "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War" is a written refutation to the claim Hitler's invasion of the USSR was a preemptive strike. It's really good, and coencides well with a reading the "Third Reich at War".

[Jeff_36]

Sort of off the current topic but its relevant to the Soviet Offensive Plan.

https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

I was going to buy it on Amazon uk, but at £32 I thought.....nope. Best go to the good ol' library.

His book "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War" is a written refutation to the claim Hitler's invasion of the USSR was a preemptive strike. It's really good, and coencides well with a reading the "Third Reich at War".

If it's Suvorov killers that you're interested in, Gabriel Gorodetsky is unparalleled.

[iwh]

Just ordered it

[Jeffk 1970]

Sort of off the current topic but its relevant to the Soviet Offensive Plan.

https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

I was going to buy it on Amazon uk, but at £32 I thought.....nope. Best go to the good ol' library.

His book "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War" is a written refutation to the claim Hitler's invasion of the USSR was a preemptive strike. It's really good, and coencides well with a reading the "Third Reich at War".

I checked, sadly no electronic copy. I’ll stick it on my list to order at some point.

[Jeffk 1970]

Of course, I have to get through all of the other books I’ve got stacked up.....