Operation Barbarossa

[NKVD]

If Hitler had not launched Operation Barbarossa, the Third Reich may still have been existent today and one of the three superpowers. There were practically NO REASON to dishonour the brave non-aggression pact between Muscow and Berlin.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The Soviet Union and Germany were the two strongest military powers on Earth at that time, and together, they could have CONQUERED THE PLANET! But no, when victory seemed imminent, Hitler chose to attack his BEST ALLY in their back.

The Soviet Union gave Germany GRAIN, COAL and other natural resouces and materials which Germany needed to wage war against it's western enemies. Since 1926, Germany and the Soviet Union had been friends.

Of course, you could claim that the Soviet Union was a Judeo-bolshevist state, but that is an INCORRECT LIE. The great purge in 1936-1938 had erradicated the bolshevists of Lenin's generation. Stalin was an ANTI-SEMITE!

Look here.

http://rusich.by.ru/history/images/beria1graf.gif


These are the members of the Communist party. The pink line shows Jews, the blue line shows Slavs. The Soviet Union was not controlled by Jews in 1941.

In fact, Germany should have attacked AMERICA instead due to ZOG control.

Btw, what is your opinion on the last free country in Europe - Belarus?

[Arrow Cross]

Operation Barbarossa was launched because the Führer was informed and convinced that Stalin prepared to attack the Reich. Whether this information was true, or false, Molotov's visit in the 25th of November, 1940 played a key part in the decision of this preventive strike.




I took a decision only when I saw that Russia had reached the hour to advance against us at a moment when we had only a bare three divisions in East Prussia, when twenty-two Soviet divisions were assembled there. We gradually received proof that on our frontiers one airdrome after another was set up, and one division after another from the gigantic Soviet Army was being assembled there.

I was then obliged to become anxious for there is no excuse in history for negligence. I am responsible for the present of the German people and as far as possible for its future. I was therefore compelled slowly to take defensive measures.

But in August and September of last year one thing was becoming clear. A decision in the West with England which would have contained the whole German Luftwaffe was no longer possible, for in my rear there stood a State which was getting ready to proceed against me at such a moment, but it is only now that we realize how far the preparation had advanced. I wanted once again to clarify the whole problem and therefore I invited Molotov [Russian Foreign Commissar] to Berlin.

He put to me the four well-known conditions. First, Germany should finally agree that, as Russia felt herself again endangered by Finland, Russia should be able to liquidate Finland. This was the first question which I found difficult to answer. But I could not do otherwise than refuse this.

The second question concerned Rumania, a question whether a German guarantee would protect Rumania against Russia. Here, too, I stand by my word. I do not regret it, for I have found in General Antonescu a man of honor who at the time blindly stood by his word.

The third question referred to Bulgaria. Molotov demanded that Russia should retain the right to send garrisons to Bulgaria and thus to give a Russian guarantee to Bulgaria. What this means we know from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In this question I said that such a guarantee was conditioned by the wishes of the country whose guarantee was to be given and that I did not know anything about it and that I would have to make inquiries and to consult with my allies.

The fourth question referred to the Dardanelles. Russia demanded bases on the Dardanelles. If Molotov is now trying to deny this, that is not surprising. If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow he will be no longer in Moscow, he will deny that he is no longer in Moscow.

He made this demand and I rejected it. I had to reject it. This made things clear to me and further talks were without result. My precautions were called for.

After that I carefully watched Russia. Each division we could observe was carefully noted and counter-measures were taken.

[NKVD]

Stalin would NOT have attacked the Third Reich in July 1942, as some nutcases are proposing. SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CRAZY, and Stalin was a RATIONAL STRATEGIST. It maybe could have had some reason to attack Hitler in the back in may 1940, before the collapse of the French, but thereafter - nay.

The Soviet army were put on offensive stature, but the goal was not to attack eastern Prussia, but to get German support for Soviet liberation of the Dardanelles and access to the Mediterranean.

If that frightened the Germans off enough to make them prepare for war, then it was a great tragedy. And why should the Germans not let the Soviet Union have access to the seas? Is that not a continuation of British imperialism? A continuation of the strategy to landlock Russia?

[Trojan]

There is a strong posibility that Stalin would have either attacked Germany in 1942 or moved against a region Germany found crucial.

Stalin was not content with his position in 1941.

Hitler erred in his decision to attack in 1941, he would have been better served to force a defeat or containment of the British by concentrating his efforts on the Med.

Give Rommel five more divisions and uninterrupted supplies, and Britain is out of the Med before the end of 1941.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Operation Barbarossa was launched because the Führer was informed and convinced that Stalin prepared to attack the Reich. Whether this information was true, or false, Molotov's visit in the 25th of November, 1940 played a key part in the decision of this preventive strike.

Thats strange, since the Nazis had virtually no intelligence apparatus within the USSR and the Soviet troops along the German border were in no way poised for offensive military operations. They wern't even dug in for proper defensive ones.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There is a strong posibility that Stalin would have either attacked Germany in 1942 or moved against a region Germany found crucial.


I think it incredibly unlikely that Stalin had any intention of invading Germany anytime soon after Germany's quick defeat of France. The Soviets were shocked at the rapid collapse of the French and British forces.

[Kodos]

I think it incredibly unlikely that Stalin had any intention of invading Germany anytime soon after Germany's quick defeat of France. The Soviets were shocked at the rapid collapse of the French and British forces.

Sulla my best friend in college was a russian jewish guy his grandfather was a high ranking commisar in the Baltic. He was the 1st person who told me this. Based on that I tend to think its true. (He can also read the primary Russian sources on this while neither of us can). He planned to attack in 1942 (stupid since he would in no way be ready before 43).

[Trojan]

I think it incredibly unlikely that Stalin had any intention of invading Germany anytime soon after Germany's quick defeat of France. The Soviets were shocked at the rapid collapse of the French and British forces.

July 1942 would have been two full years after the defeat of France.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla my best friend in college was a russian jewish guy his grandfather was a high ranking commisar in the Baltic. He was the 1st person who told me this. Based on that I tend to think its true. (He can also read the primary Russian sources on this while neither of us can). He planned to attack in 1942 (stupid since he would in no way be ready before 43).

I have not read a single book on Stalin, the Red Army, the USSR, or WWII which mentions these plans, with all due respect to the grandfather of your best friend in college.

[Sulla the Dictator]

July 1942 would have been two full years after the defeat of France.

July 1942 would have hypothetically meant a Germany at peace, with the full resources of the Wehrmacht ready for defense or counter attack into the USSR. It would have meant formations of Tiger's and Panthers online, broader distribution of Panzer IVs, and a new fleet of German aircraft. It would also have meant the entire range of European resources and manufacturing power at Germany's disposal.

But most importantly, it would have meant a much better armed force of German Allies, which would have been able to do the job they COULDN'T do in 1941; fill gaps and pacify rear positions. The Soviet Union wouldn't have stood a chance in 1942, and the Soviets had a much better intelligence network in Germany than Germany did in the USSR, meaning that the Soviets would be much more likely to know the disparity of power.

[Jake Featherston]

German border were in no way poised for offensive military operations. They weren't even dug in for proper defensive ones.

If Soviet troops on the German border were not dug in for defensive measures, it seems quite reasonable to suppose they were intended for offensive measures.

[Trojan]

July 1942 would have hypothetically meant a Germany at peace, with the full resources of the Wehrmacht ready for defense or counter attack into the USSR. It would have meant formations of Tiger's and Panthers online, broader distribution of Panzer IVs, and a new fleet of German aircraft. It would also have meant the entire range of European resources and manufacturing power at Germany's disposal.

But most importantly, it would have meant a much better armed force of German Allies, which would have been able to do the job they COULDN'T do in 1941; fill gaps and pacify rear positions. The Soviet Union wouldn't have stood a chance in 1942, and the Soviets had a much better intelligence network in Germany than Germany did in the USSR, meaning that the Soviets would be much more likely to know the disparity of power.

Tigers and Panters did not reach front line units until 1943, Without the need to match the T-34, they would no have appeared sooner (in fact, since the Panther's design was spurred by the T-34, it would have appeared in a diffrent form wthout the T-35 experience.)

But Yes, Germany would have been better prepared, and may have driven Britian from the war by July 1942.

[Sulla the Dictator]

If Soviet troops on the German border were not dug in for defensive measures, it seems quite reasonable to suppose they were intended for offensive measures.

Not really. Stalin was paranoid about the border troops provoking the Germans in any way.

[Trojan]

Not really. Stalin was paranoid about the border troops provoking the Germans in any way.

Correct, in the first hours of the invasion, Stalin ordered his troops not to return fire during the artillery bombardment.

[Captain Marinesko]

If Soviet troops on the German border were not dug in for defensive measures, it seems quite reasonable to suppose they were intended for offensive measures.


They were in the process of digging in on some areas, and in other areas they were dug in. Remember that the Soviet Union had annexed new territory in 1939 and 1940, so they had to move up their defenses.

[Kodos]

I have not read a single book on Stalin, the Red Army, the USSR, or WWII which mentions these plans, with all due respect to the grandfather of your best friend in college.

Your post after this one attributes a military competence to Stalin (and prior to the sobering 1st two years of war with Germany where he was staring defeat in the face and he began to listen to his generals) that there is no evidence he possessed.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Your post after this one attributes a military competence to Stalin (and prior to the sobering 1st two years of war with Germany where he was staring defeat in the face and he began to listen to his generals) that there is no evidence he possessed.

Stalin's 'ineptitude' at military affairs can be seen in his absurd belief that the Germans would honor their agreements. There is absolutely no evidence that the Soviets planned on violating their non-aggression pact. While I'm more than willing ot believe that Stalin had designs on Europe, there is zero evidence that he planned on doing it before the non-aggression pact expired, and very little evidence he planned on doing it very soon after.

But whats more, the Germans had NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of any aggressive plans by the Soviets. Even people who believe the silly assertions of Icebreaker must accept that the Germans had no viable intelligence network within the USSR to know these 'secrets'.

[Atlas]

"If, if, if"...

Obviously, Hitler shouldn't have invaded Russia, and the Japanese should have never attacked Pearl Harbor, if things would have been that way, not impossible that most of Europe would still belong to Germany to this day.

[<access denied>]

For those like NKVD who believe in tales about "great Stalin" who was sympathetic to national socialism, I suggest reading:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060604035834/http://hedrook.narod.ru/library/istislav.htm

or

http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html


There was no "Great Patriotic" war, it was a "Second Civil War". Stalin, although no friend of Jews, was still the enemy of Hitler and ANTI-ARYAN. The war of 1941-45 was between two non-Russian empires. By choosing the USSR over the Reich, Russians have doomed not just themselves but the ENTIRE white race.


See interrupt_00h (yarowrath)'s more recent posts:

http://yarowrath.livejournal.com/4837.html

http://yarowrath.livejournal.com/4909.html

[Captain Marinesko]

That is absolutely idiotic. Hitler was not "pro-Aryan". He was a German nationalist who was upholding the status in Central Europe. He initiated hostilities with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, anyone who calls the USSR non-Russian is not familiar with the reality of culture under Stalin's time. Stalin wasn't sympathetic to National Socialism, and rightfully so. National Socialism failed because of its lack of internationalism as well as its superstitious "Jewish question".

[<access denied>]

Hitler was not "pro-Aryan". He was a German nationalist who was upholding the status in Central Europe.

In the worlds of Rudolf Hess, "National Socialism is applied biology". Hitler was a RACIALIST. Stalin was only a "nationalist" (and not even a "Russian" nationalist, since he used such propaganda - including Zionist propaganda - whenever it suited him) and had no coherent race theory.


He initiated hostilities with the Soviet Union.

Actually, there were two "good" possibilities (neither of which include a permanent "peace" between the Reich and USSR, which was ideologically impossible).

The first was that Stalin strikes first, getting ALL of Europe. While the effects of this would have been uncertain (Stalin had no race policy), it would have been far better than leaving half for the USA.

But that possibility disappeared with Barbarrossa. There was still, however, another alternative - Hitler getting all of Europe. This would have solved the threat from China (divided between the Reich and Japan), and the USA.

Because Stalin did NOT strike first, and STILL won, one beast is saved (the USSR) and another is created (NATO). Europe is in ruins, China is left to threaten the white race, the USA is Judaized, and Israel is created.

I'll take my chances with the Reich, even if Hitler was "Russophobic" (very doubtful - the revisionist literature on this is extensive). Our obligation to the Aryan race is far more than that to any one nation.


National Socialism failed because of its lack of internationalism as well as its superstitious "Jewish question".

National Socialism failed because of Stalin.



Oh yes, and NKVD should read some of what his hero (http://technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=profile&mode=viewprofile&u=77) wrote about dinosaurs before putting one as an avatar:

About mass. Surely, you know why dinosaurs were dead-end of evolution? Because they had so large mass, that to keep themselves they had to have huge bone structure, having very low "useful mass".

"""OT, but dinosaurs were not a "dead-end" of evolution. That's the old view (I became a big dino-buff after Jurassic Park )."""

Old view, eh?

Well, do you see ANY possible lines of dinosaur evolution?

"""Dinosaurs were the most successful order up to their time (only supplanted by insects)."""

Great Chasms of Cosmic Vacuum!

How can you compare insects, that not just arised BEFORE dinosaurs, but actually EASILY SURVIVED enviroment change, that EASILY EXTERMINATED dinosaurs, and are STILL CONTINUING their evolution today, adapting to new types of enviroments!

Insects are perfect. They only lack good lung system to provide energy.

They are EXTREMELY energy-efficient, but they have too few energy.

Add lungs to insects, and they will soon take on the Earth.

Insects superior, dinosaurs inferior! [Smile]

"""They were highly specialized for their environment, and when it very dramatically changed in a very short period of time, they did not have time to adapt, or evolve."""

Look, Kolzene, dearest of all my friends, the stuff you just said is EXACT DEFINITION of "evolutionary dead-end".

"""Plus, most dinosours (98%) were actually chicken to human sized, just like mammels, they only had a much bigger "top-end"."""

That doesn't really matter. What really matters is that most of them had neural system below the level of chicken.

Relation of brain mass to size gave dinosaurs reputation of "dumb lumbering brutes".


Better look at squids. They have neural system that is superior to human. Their problem is the same as insects - low energy consumption.

[Felix the Cat]

The Germans went into WWI contemptuous of the French and fearful of the Russians. They were defeated in France and won great victories in Russia.

They "learned" from this experience by entering into WWII contemptuous of the Russians and fearful of the French. They then won great victories in France and were defeated in Russia.

[NKVD]

In the worlds of Rudolf Hess, "National Socialism is applied biology". Hitler was a RACIALIST. Stalin was only a "nationalist" (and not even a "Russian" nationalist, since he used such propaganda - including Zionist propaganda - whenever it suited him) and had no coherent race theory.




Actually, there were two "good" possibilities (neither of which include a permanent "peace" between the Reich and USSR, which was ideologically impossible).

The first was that Stalin strikes first, getting ALL of Europe. While the effects of this would have been uncertain (Stalin had no race policy), it would have been far better than leaving half for the USA.

But that possibility disappeared with Barbarrossa. There was still, however, another alternative - Hitler getting all of Europe. This would have solved the threat from China (divided between the Reich and Japan), and the USA.

Because Stalin did NOT strike first, and STILL won, one beast is saved (the USSR) and another is created (NATO). Europe is in ruins, China is left to threaten the white race, the USA is Judaized, and Israel is created.

I'll take my chances with the Reich, even if Hitler was "Russophobic" (very doubtful - the revisionist literature on this is extensive). Our obligation to the Aryan race is far more than that to any one nation.




National Socialism failed because of Stalin.



Oh yes, and NKVD should read some of what his hero (http://technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=profile&mode=viewprofile&u=77) wrote about dinosaurs before putting one as an avatar:

Yes, that WAS great, posting a link to a site where you MUST CREATE AN ACCOUNT TO SEE SOMETHING. Brilliant. Wtf is that site anyway?

[<access denied>]

Yes, that WAS great, posting a link to a site where you MUST CREATE AN ACCOUNT TO SEE SOMETHING. Brilliant. Wtf is that site anyway?

Interrupt_00h had thousands of posts in technocracy.ca from 2003-2005. Most of his views are expressed there.

Or course, you need to register to view them, but registration is free and self-explanatory for anyone who knows how to use a web browser:

http://www.technocracy.ca/user.php?op=check_age&module=NS-NewUser


His introductory post from 2003:

Hello. I am founder and leader of Russian Technobolshevik movement. Your site is very interesting.

However, I have some comments. First of all, North America is not the most technologically advanced region. North America is best mostly in production of consumer goods, even though Japan is a potent rival in this part.

As scientist, I have chance of seeing Soviet military technologies. Now, THAT'S real power! The only problem is that they will be never be used by current Russian leaders - neither in military, nor in industry.

First of all, scientific control over economy will require large-scale informatisation of almost every aspect of human life. Using modern Western technologies, it is too hard even for America. However, Soviets have sophisticated x-ray optics technology - Kumakhov's len. It can be used to produce computers of sub-micron integration level almost as cheap (by here and later I mean economical cost, not just "price") as producing matchbox.

Second, growing economy will require massive space program, both for research and economical development. Using American Shuttles for such purpose? No, they are too expensive to use, they require lots of time for preparation and they can only be launched from special launch pads. However, Soviets were working on Molniya - space shuttle that starts off large An-225 aircraft, can be used anywhere, anytime and each kilogram of weight will cost almost 40 times less than if being delivered by American Shuttle.

Third, industry will require lots and lots of energy. Producing it with thermal or atomic power plants (by the way, first atomic power plant was built in Soviet Union) is nice, but... Soviet project of Tokamak can lead to creation of thermonuclear power plant, which will offer huge amounts of energy.

Fourth, high-tech production requires advanced robotics. American and Japan robots are good, but they have huge flaw - they move from one static position to another, which limits their speed and efficiency. Soviet robots can move without having static position. To illustrate this rule here's example: Western walker robots can only walk, Soviet robots can run.

Also, Soviets are so far the only ones who have successfull experience of building scientifically-controlled economy. In 1970ies, Soviets developed DISPLAN - interactive dialogue-style system of controlling economy with feedback circuit, prediction curcuit and so on. Unfotrunately, it was only used in military industry.

[Captain Marinesko]

In the worlds of Rudolf Hess, "National Socialism is applied biology". Hitler was a RACIALIST.

Hitler was not a racialist, and his concept of race was clearly malleable based on political necessity. Otto Strasser even reported that Hitler considered Germany's ruling class to be "of a superior race".


Stalin was only a "nationalist" (and not even a "Russian" nationalist, since he used such propaganda - including Zionist propaganda - whenever it suited him) and had no coherent race theory.

And yet miracously, the European parts of the Soviet Union remained European. Could it be that economics has a bigger determining influence than philosophy in this case?




The first was that Stalin strikes first, getting ALL of Europe. While the effects of this would have been uncertain (Stalin had no race policy), it would have been far better than leaving half for the USA.

Stalin had not such delusions, unlike Trotsky.


But that possibility disappeared with Barbarrossa. There was still, however, another alternative - Hitler getting all of Europe. This would have solved the threat from China (divided between the Reich and Japan), and the USA.

It would have also lead to as much as 80 million Slavs in the Russian states alone being starved to death, according to the Germans' own predictions.


Because Stalin did NOT strike first, and STILL won, one beast is saved (the USSR) and another is created (NATO). Europe is in ruins, China is left to threaten the white race, the USA is Judaized, and Israel is created.

When did the USA become Judaized exactly? Why is Israel such a problem if you don't like Jews in your own country?


I'll take my chances with the Reich, even if Hitler was "Russophobic" (very doubtful - the revisionist literature on this is extensive). Our obligation to the Aryan race is far more than that to any one nation.

As probably the only "revisionist" that specifically tackled that issue, I can assure you that Hitler was more than "Russophobic" and you need only to look through Mein Kampf to see that. German soldiers posing with a sign reading "A Russian must die so a German can live" also speaks volumes. Either way, I've noticed that "revisionists" can be trusted about as far as you can throw their fat asses.




National Socialism failed because of Stalin.

Stalin crushed them because their "racial"(nationalist) policy entailed stealing land that happened to be Soviet territory.

[Kodos]

Hitler was not a racialist, and his concept of race was clearly malleable based on political necessity.

How do you explain his political idiocy regarding the jews and slavs?

[Captain Marinesko]

Hitler was not a racialist, and his concept of race was clearly malleable based on political necessity.

How do you explain his political idiocy regarding the jews and slavs?


I don't, that goes to prove my point that he was not a "racialist". In reality "racialist" is a fairly new ideology anyway.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Any state with an OFFICE for 'race and settlement' is a racialist state. By definition.

[Captain Marinesko]

Any state with an OFFICE for 'race and settlement' is a racialist state. By definition.

Maybe but their definition of "race" was radically different than "racialists" today.

[Kodos]

Any state with an OFFICE for 'race and settlement' is a racialist state. By definition.

Hes right that racialism is a new term and I think it implies something more moderate then Hitler...

Nazi Germany was an old fashioned racist state.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Maybe but their definition of "race" was radically different than "racialists" today.

I don't even know if I agree with that. I've watched dozens of German vs. Slav threads, or "Nords vs. Med" threads over the years on racist BBs. The Nazis just felt they didn't need to 'settle' for the 'white race', and could be even more discriminating.

But they shared the attitudes of racists to the various other races, despite their complicated view of the white race. We can see that in their sterilization of the black Rhineland children.

[<access denied>]

Once again, others (http://community.livejournal.com/russia_love/209211.html?thread=1587515#t1587515) have put this more eloquently:

I don't see any irony. In terms of sheer numbers, Russians were second ethnos in Hitler's army. Russian White Guard triggered emergence of German Nazis on the first place, starting with pre-Revolution (and even pre-WW1) secret societies like "Thule" and "Balticum".

There were many high-ranked Russian emigrants in Nazi regime, and Hitler himself authorized construction of several Russian Orthodox Churches in Berlin. Only few of White Guard emigrants refused to support Hitler (examples are Denikin and Bunin), others joined "crusade against Bolshevism". Just think of General Krasnov and his cossacks, who fought againts Bolsheviks both in Civil War and in WW2 (or, as they called it, Second Civil War).

In total, several million ethnic Russians fought on Hitler's side. Some fought in cossack divisions, some in special Russian divisions, some fought in Wermacht, some fought in Waffen-SS, some fought in armies of Russian Republics, even originatelly pure-German elite divisions (like Hitler's personal bodyguard regiment) included Russians by the end of the war.

In total, the problem is misunderstanding of choices Russians have to made. When people say "Hitler fought against Russia", that is not correct. There was no such thing as "Russia" on map of world in 1941. There was USSR, the regime which butchered tens of millions of Russians, and which didn't include ethnic Russians among elite.

Hitler fought against USSR, and real Russia (that is: local Russian population and Russian emigrants abroad) supported him. Territories which were liberated from Bolsheviks got their Russian administration, resulting in emergence of Russian republics, ruled by Russian Nazi party (like Lokot Republic and Lepel Republic). That is extraordinary thing, since last Russian republic (Novgorod Republic) was defeated by Moscow-Mongol alliance around five hundred years ago.

Russian republics had their own republic-type government, their own army and air force, and even their own intelligence and counter-intelligence services. Russian republics had full autonomy: if they caught German soldiers doing illegal things, they executed them by their own laws. Now, compare that to USSR, where Russians couldn't even PROTEST against commissar, not mentioning EXECUTE him.

So, when you talk about irony, I find nothing ironic. Regime which Germans helped to install was better than Bolsheviks and better than Tzars, it was return to original pre-Mongol Russian democracy. It was our chance to finally get freedom - and this chance was lost, probably forever.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There was no such thing as "Russia" on map of world in 1941


Coincidentally, there was no such thing as Russia in German maps of their post war Europe either.

[Mike Jahn]

I have not read a single book on Stalin, the Red Army, the USSR, or WWII which mentions these plans, with all due respect to the grandfather of your best friend in college.

Read Viktor Suvorov's book The Icebreaker and his second book on the subject titled The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. Originally Stalin planned to conquer the Third Reich in the summer of 1942 but the quick surrender of France in 1940 forced Stalin to move the invasion plan up a year to July 1941.

[Felix the Cat]

We've had many discussions about Suvorov here. While it's true that Russia posed a threat to Germany in the longer term, there was no serious danger of a Russian attack in 1941.

[Mike Jahn]

We've had many discussions about Suvorov here. While it's true that Russia posed a threat to Germany in the longer term, there was no serious danger of a Russian attack in 1941.

Proof? The reason the Luftwaffe destroyed so many Soviet planes sitting on airfields in the first days of combat is because they were stationed so close to the Soviet border. Winston Churchill was sending messages to Stalin in late 1940 requesting a Soviet invasion of the Third Reich.

Stalin was going to invade Europe in July 1941. Suvorov's book was popular in Eastern Europe when it was released, only in the west has the necessity of Hitler being to blame for the Nazi/Soviet war been upheld.

[Felix the Cat]

This topic comes up regularly. The most recent discussion is here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45951). In short, there could have been no Soviet attack in 1941 because of

1) Russian weakness. The Red Army was in the middle of major reorganization in 1941, in consequence of the mauling it received in Finland. It was in no condition to fight a war with Germany at that time.

2) German strength. The Germans were at the peak of their military strength and preparedness after the defeat of France, since the war with Britain was a primarily air/sea affair in which the bulk of the German Army was not involved.

The Russians needed time to complete their internal reforms and mobilizations, and they needed the Germans to get themselves into difficulties in the West (eg. a botched invasion of Britain, or U.S. entry into the war). To have provoked war with Germany without meeting these preconditions would have been extremely reckless, which would not be in character for Stalin.

[Mike Jahn]

This topic comes up regularly. The most recent discussion is here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45951). In short, there could have been no Soviet attack in 1941 because of

1) Russian weakness. The Red Army was in the middle of major reorganization in 1941, in consequence of the mauling it received in Finland. It was in no condition to fight a war with Germany at that time.

In the early fall of 1941 Hitler mentioned to Finnish general Mannerheim the impressive quality and quantity of Soviet tanks the Germans were encountering in the first months of the conflict, that doesn't sound like the Red Army was unprepared at all.

[Felix the Cat]

I should not have used the word "weakness" (in the other thread I used "formidable" rather than "strong" for precisely this reason). Nobody denies that the Red Army was immensely powerful - its problems were of organization and leadership, not material strength. These problems were in the process of being resolved in 1941, but this process was still not complete when the Germans invaded.

[cerberus]

Mike Jahn
Winston Churchill was sending messages to Stalin in late 1940 requesting a Soviet invasion of the Third Reich.

Hilter was consider Russia in 1940 and firmly decided after Molotov's falied embassy to Berlin in the winter of 40 that Russia would be invaded - he made the decision before Molotov left Berlin.

Churchill was warning Russia of German intentions which they were aware of - Stalin ignored them all and Churchill was proven to be correct.

As far as a potential partner against Hitler - Churchill was more focused on the USA.
There was no absolute guarrentee that Russia would have beaten the Germans or that they having been able to take (what they considered to be)vital regions would not have come to terms with the Russians.

I have to agree with Ignatz that Russia was not in a fit state to take on Germany - Stalin had been shocked by the success and rapid defeat of the Western powers and appreciated how isolated Britain was - he was also aware of his own poor showing against the Fins and that the Red Army inspite of its huge size was badly organised and equipted.
Stalin need ed time and he was more than happy to keep Hitler sweet as long as he was focused in the West and what took plac ein 1941 seemed to confirm that if he discounted Churchill's warnings.
German expansion seemed to be directed towards the Med.
Crete , Greece , Balkans , the dispatch of a force to North Africa - all away from Russia - on the map it looked like German interests lay elsewhere.
It was not until 1941 that that German input intrade agreements started to falter and slow down - and Stalin like a man in a faling marriage tended to ignore that which he didn't want to see and focus on that which comforted him and confirmed his views.

He was wrong.

[Captain Marinesko]

Read Viktor Suvorov's book The Icebreaker and his second book on the subject titled The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. Originally Stalin planned to conquer the Third Reich in the summer of 1942 but the quick surrender of France in 1940 forced Stalin to move the invasion plan up a year to July 1941.

Suvorov is a joke. His claims are simply insane, literally insane. See this article for an example:

http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/208/108/lang,en/