USSR plans if there was no barbarossa

[ja3ko]

A question to you alt history aficionados on the forum:

What do you think Stalin would have done if the Germans hadn't attacked?

We know that the soviets where on a full scale war production before the onset of war.
In the last two years had raised about 200 divisions massively increased the size of their airforce and had begun to mass produce the T34.
On a diplomatic front they had expanded into the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland and Romania.

Without being attacked by Germany what do you think the soviets would have done with all that military power?

 

[ikeokp]

A question to you alt history aficionados on the forum:

What do you think Stalin would have done if the Germans hadn't attacked?

We know that the soviets where on a full scale war production before the onset of war.
In the last two years had raised about 200 divisions massively increased the size of their airforce and had begun to mass produce the T34.
On a diplomatic front they had expanded into the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland and Romania.

Without being attacked by Germany what do you think the soviets would have done with all that military power?

In Von Manstein's journal he describes the formation of the USSR as not offensive in nature as many troops were placed far behind the border. But adds that if the USSR had decided it wanted to go on the offensive, they could do it in no time with a gigantic swarm of men. If the USSR had seen opportunity to grab land from Germany (Political reasons or D-Day), I believe it would have attacked for sure.

Hitler's reasoning for inavding Russia very much had to do with this. He knew eventually he would have to fight the USSR and wanted to do it on his own terms rather than the USSR's. Thus he invaded before the USSR could finish rebuilding and expanding their army.

 

[dramamoose]

Honestly, I don't see a situation in which Stalin doesn't take advantage of the War one way or another.

If he felt completely safe from attack by Hitler but didn't want to challenge him directly he may have gone to the East, creating a PRC under a proto-warsaw pact institution.

I think he has to take advantage of the situation in the west, though. Bring communism to the areas where it already had some support in Europe, maybe pushing all the way to France and 'liberating' them under a communist regime. I don't see him being okay with having literally Hitler on his western flank for a very long time.

 

[frolix42]

I think Stalin's larger strategy was pretty clear, he didn't trust Hitler but at the same time felt no pressure to attack Germany preemptively. Adam Tooze:

Stalin knew, apparently better than Hitler, that Germany was incapable of defeating the UK, in large part because the United States would increase support to Great Britain to prevent it from falling. Furthermore, after the fall of France, the relative strength of Germany was in decline. Hitler had orchestrated the occupation of most of continental Europe, inadvertently cutting it off from the global market. The economic structure of Europe essentially was falling apart while the British Navy enforced it's economic blockade.

So in light of these facts, the obvious strategy for the USSR is to wait until Germany's conflict with the UK, Commonwealth and USA weakened Germany to the point where invasion of the Großgermanisches Reich would be as unchallenging as possible. This is in fact the exact strategy the USSR executed when they invaded the Japanese Empire in August 1945.

 

[BBBD316]

I still think Stalin was quite happy to join the Axis, this would have opened up Turkey and the Middle East for him.

Problem for Hitler was it would make the Germans the junior partner, maybe not straight away but still.

 

[ikeokp]

I still think Stalin was quite happy to join the Axis, this would have opened up Turkey and the Middle East for him.

Problem for Hitler was it would make the Germans the junior partner, maybe not straight away but still.

In hindsight it would have been in Germany's best interest to ally with Russia and conquer the world but meh.

 

[frolix42]

In hindsight it would have been in Germany's best interest to ally with Russia and conquer the world but meh.

But who would be the leader of this unholy alliance, Hitler or Stalin? Between July 1940 and June 1941, Germany was in a position where they were forced to trade away machine tools and finished goods for the raw materials needed to fuel their war against the UK. This made Germany stronger in the short-term, but at the same time it made the USSR stronger in the long-term. If the USSR could help Germany to the degree that it could break the power of the United Kingdom, that would have given Germany hegemonic power over Europe.

Stalin: "Comrade Hitler, I helped you conquer the UK, our deal was for you now to help me conquer China."
Hitler: "OK friend, just move all your troops to the Far-East and attack. I'll be right behind you"

 

[Septawn]

Stalin wanted to "liberate" Europe. He was counting on the Fascists and Capitalists bleeding each other dry then exploit the weakness of both sides to ferment and instigate Communist coups/revolutions coinciding with the "liberation" of Europe from both sides. Effectively he wanted to do what he did to Eastern Europe to all of Europe (and if possible, Asia). Frolix had the right of it for the most part. The exact timetable for this is in dispute, entirely because there is no existing time-table that's been found in fact Stalin's pragmatist, if still ideological approach, to Geo-politics means he probably had no set timetable but was waiting on his own calculations of European power.

Stalin was a committed Bolshevik and he wanted to see World Revolution. He just much more realistic about it than his Communist detractors give him credit for. I.E. the Trotskyite criticism that Stalin had somehow abandoned the Communist cause. It's hogwash. He was much better reader of Geo-politics than nearly any of the old guard Bolsheviks. Hitler blindsided him because he didn't believe Hitler would risk a two-front war.

 

[Oddb@ll]

Stalin wanted to "liberate" Europe. He was counting on the Fascists and Capitalists bleeding each other dry then exploit the weakness of both sides to ferment and instigate Communist coups/revolutions coinciding with the "liberation" of Europe from both sides. Effectively he wanted to do what he did to Eastern Europe to all of Europe (and if possible, Asia). Frolix had the right of it for the most part. The exact timetable for this is in dispute, entirely because there is no existing time-table that's been found in fact Stalin's pragmatist, if still ideological approach, to Geo-politics means he probably had no set timetable but was waiting on his own calculations of European power.

Stalin was a committed Bolshevik and he wanted to see World Revolution. He just much more realistic about it than his Communist detractors give him credit for. I.E. the Trotskyite criticism that Stalin had somehow abandoned the Communist cause. It's hogwash. He was much better reader of Geo-politics than nearly any of the old guard Bolsheviks. Hitler blindsided him because he didn't believe Hitler would risk a two-front war.

Very much this. Stalin could afford being patient and building up his warmachine while the capitalists and nazis wore each other out.

 

[adam_grif]

I think Stalin's larger strategy was pretty clear, he didn't trust Hitler but at the same time felt no pressure to attack Germany preemptively. Adam Tooze:

...

So in light of these facts, the obvious strategy for the USSR is to wait until Germany's conflict with the UK, Commonwealth and USA weakened Germany to the point where invasion of the Großgermanisches Reich would be as unchallenging as possible. This is in fact the exact strategy the USSR executed when they invaded the Japanese Empire in August 1945.

To clarify, Stalin did not expect that Germany had the landpower to defeat the French so swiftly and decisively either. The comment re: seapower almost seems like a post hoc rationalization given in July 1940. Like "oh yeah we totally planned for the Germans to have full control of the continent west of us this quickly... the RN is super great so it's all still going according to plan."

Regarding Japan, I don't think it's the same strategy insofar as I don't think they had any strategy for invading the Japanese at all, at least not a long term one. They didn't really plan for the Japanese to attack America and China and weaken themselves before the Red Army swept in - the far East was a sideshow for Moscow.

I do agree that sweeping in to Germany after the Germans and Allies were both drastically weaker was the eventual plan though. Or rather it wasn't set in stone, but that was one distinct possibility that Stalin was hoping might come to pass. The plan would be to gradually tighten the noose around Germany's neck, given that Stalin now controlled most of the Reich's foreign trade in certain critical war materials including super important ones like food. They would demand harsher payment terms or threaten to cut them off entirely. This profits the USSR directly, even if no war comes to pass. Then, if the opportunity arises that the newly reforged Red Army could attack Germany from the east with ease, then he would take that opportunity.

 

[Sir Garnet]

It is well known Stalin was waiting for his enemies ot weaken each other and create conditions ripe for revolution in Europe. Stalin was waiting for the Alllies and Axis to wear each other down on the fortified frontiers and

Stalin was was shocked and his strategic appreciation shaken by Germany's successful gamble deeply unsettled Stalin and upset his plan to let the Allies and Axis wear themselves down in the kind of war everyone expected, causing economic and social strains that would leave Europe ripe for communist takeover one way or the other as the war wore on for years. France broken and Germany ascendant in a few critical weeks was deeply threatening. Time was no longer necessarily working for the Soviets. Even worse, the Soviet army was far less ready for war and its equipment far less ready for battle against the Germans than Stalin believed. Which would lead the Soviets to play for time to prepare (such preparations proving inadequate.).

 

[aruon]

...he may have gone to the East, creating a PRC under a proto-warsaw pact institution.

sorta wrong actually (in a comically ironic way too!) the USSR actually supported the ROC for a long time before instead supporting Mao. the PRC with its ambitions (mongolia) and intra-ideological differences probably weren't very well appreciated by the russians before stalin died. because they sure as well weren't afterward.

 

[amalric de g.]

But who would be the leader of this unholy alliance, Hitler or Stalin? Between July 1940 and June 1941, Germany was in a position where they were forced to trade away machine tools and finished goods for the raw materials needed to fuel their war against the UK. This made Germany stronger in the short-term, but at the same time it made the USSR stronger in the long-term. If the USSR could help Germany to the degree that it could break the power of the United Kingdom, that would have given Germany hegemonic power over Europe.

Stalin: "Comrade Hitler, I helped you conquer the UK, our deal was for you now to help me conquer China."
Hitler: "OK friend, just move all your troops to the Far-East and attack. I'll be right behind you"

The german and SU relationship is much older than this, the story begins in 1921-22 treaty of Rapallo, the germans delivered machine tools and trained SU soldiers, the germans build airplanes, tanks and trained their officers in the Su.

 

[Mannstien]

After the losses sustained in the Winter War and the purge's I would suspect by 42' the Red Army would have finished replacing a lot of their light tanks in their Mechinazed Corps with the new KV-1 and T-34's to let them do whatever Stalin decreed. He would have had a continuous line from the Baltic states all the way to Southern Romania and if prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a Non-aggression pact in the East to alleviate keeping a large congigent of troops there. It's really hard to say what his scheme's were other than he would have had a large built up Military with a huge pool of replacements should he decide to pursue any military objectives in the West.

 

[Mathrafalovich]

Stalin wanted Europe (in fact, Soviet agents helped the Nazis gain power, on the theory that the Nazis would govern ineffectively giving them an opening for communist revolution). Most likely he'd sit around and build up the Red Army until Germany started to fold. When that happened he'd roll west and try to grab as much as he could. It's possible however that, Stalin being Stalin, his caution would have sabotaged him and he would have entered to late in the war.

 

[Secret Master]

Without being attacked by Germany what do you think the soviets would have done with all that military power?

Well, the question is vague as stated. (Probably because you want to invite a wide range of feedback. )

We need more clarification. Do you mean 1941? 42? 45?

I don't think the Soviet Union was preparing for an immediate war in 41 or 42 (no matter what proponents of the Icebreaker hypothesis might think). This is not the same thing as saying they would never attack, but it seems clear to me (based on industrial production) that the immediate goal was to continue a build up of war material. Stalin knows time is on his side, so there is no immediate hurry.

When we get past 43, it gets complicated. The question, to me, is this: how weary are the combatants in the war? Would they be willing to even resist a Soviet attack on an unaligned country, like Sweden? And if Stalin feels that one side or the other is collapsing, would he more directly intervene? I'm pretty sure that if the Axis looks like it is losing, he might intervene.

But...

The terms of the alliance between Japan and Germany make it clear that if the Soviets start the war, it brings Japan in automatically. And the Axis minors will no doubt join without any coercion at all. A Soviet attack upon any member of the Axis would perhaps draw unaligned countries into Germany's orbit. Franco said no historically, but if the Soviets attack the Axis, would he be more amenable?

What about the Allies? If the Allies seem to be falling apart (Britain in particular), would Stalin risk going into India? I'm not sure. Maybe he might move on the Middle East, but how would the Axis react if they are winning to a Soviet move against the oil of the Middle East?

The only thing I can say for certain is that with no Barbarossa, Iran falls under Soviet influence completely, whether by force or diplomatic effort. It's the most logical move to make.

 

[panzerzombie]

What about the Allies? If the Allies seem to be falling apart (Britain in particular), would Stalin risk going into India? I'm not sure. Maybe he might move on the Middle East, but how would the Axis react if they are winning to a Soviet move against the oil of the Middle East?

The only thing I can say for certain is that with no Barbarossa, Iran falls under Soviet influence completely, whether by force or diplomatic effort. It's the most logical move to make.

The possibility to have harbour facilities in the indian ocean and becoming THE oil exporter ( beside USA) would be very tempting for Stalin I guess. Sure it would need major efforts to link it to existing railways but they certainly didn´t plan small back in the days.

 

[Secret Master]

The possibility to have harbour facilities in the indian ocean and becoming THE oil exporter ( beside USA) would be very tempting for Stalin I guess. Sure it would need major efforts to link it to existing railways but they certainly didn´t plan small back in the days.

No, Stalin did not plan small: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...the-worlds-naval-powers.529044/#post-12239590

Doable in HOI3, but damn, that's a lot of steel....

 

[cacra]

In hindsight it would have been in Germany's best interest to ally with Russia and conquer the world but meh.

I don't think this is right. I don't think it is even right to call the Germans 'German', they were Nazis through and through. Hitler consistently put the interests of himself and the Nazi Party above the interests of Germany and he (and others) made countless strategic errors because of their fanaticism. To say it was in their best interests to ally with communists is to fundamentally misinterpret Nazism.

 

[cacra]

Stalin was a committed Bolshevik and he wanted to see World Revolution. He just much more realistic about it than his Communist detractors give him credit for. I.E. the Trotskyite criticism that Stalin had somehow abandoned the Communist cause. It's hogwash. He was much better reader of Geo-politics than nearly any of the old guard Bolsheviks. Hitler blindsided him because he didn't believe Hitler would risk a two-front war.

Actually, Stalin repeatidly attacked Trotsky for supporting World Communism in the years following Lenin's death. Stalin believed that 'the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone.'