USSR plans if there was no barbarossa

[Septawn]

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.'

You completely misunderstand what was being said. Stalin was (correctly) explaining that World Revolution was not possible AT THAT TIME. He never abandoned the cause, but the early attempts at fostering revolution (i.e. the attempted revolution in Germany that Trotsky had supported and Stalin at initially voiced his opposition to) were doomed to fail. The thing that Trotsky and his revisionism seems to be willfully ignoring is that Stalin was correct. Not only were other nations not ready to go Communist, the Soviets were no position to offer much support. On top that the initial attempts had made the SU an international pariah and was constricting its access to loans and resource that it desperately needed. It was Stalin's backing off of that nonsense that eventually made Britian and France restart loans and industrial assistance trade deals.

The fact is that Trotsky intentionally misrepresented Stalin's pragmatic argument.

 

[cacra]

You completely misunderstand what was being said. Stalin was (correctly) explaining that World Revolution was not possible AT THAT TIME. He never abandoned the cause, but the early attempts at fostering revolution (i.e. the attempted revolution in Germany that Trotsky had supported and Stalin at initially voiced his opposition to) were doomed to fail. The thing that Trotsky and his revisionism seems to be willfully ignoring is that Stalin was correct. Not only were other nations not ready to go Communist, the Soviets were no position to offer much support. On top that the initial attempts had made the SU an international pariah and was constricting its access to loans and resource that it desperately needed. It was Stalin's backing off of that nonsense that eventually made Britian and France restart loans and industrial assistance trade deals.

The fact is that Trotsky intentionally misrepresented Stalin's pragmatic argument.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration? It follows that this question contains two different problems:

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.”

Stalin expressed his desire for world communism as a desire to protect the Soviet people from the 'guaranteed danger of intervention and restoration' capitalist neighbors promised. World communism is a means to protect the utopic framework already in place in the Soviet Union. His views are over-simplified in many textbooks but his public work on the matter is clear - unless you are aware of some private documentation where he expressed a different view?

 

[hkrommel]

Aaaand thread hijacked by pointless ideological debate

 

[Adonnus]

Manstein AFAIK tends to distort history to his own ends, I would not consider him a reliable source. From memory the Soviet plans/doctrine were actually offensive in nature, demonstrated during the failed Winter War and the invasion of Poland. And this left the USSR unprepared for a defensive war.

As for the title question I agree with the sentiment. Anyone who knows how Stalin thought, knows his strategy was always to divide (or let be divided) and conquer, to wait until a moment of enemy weakness and attack. He was never one for a fair fight. From memory, again, Stalin planned for a war in 1942 but put far too much faith in this misjudged prediction, so much that he wouldn't believe the 1941 attack when it had already started.

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.

Interesting thoughts, but I think if Stalin really wanted a world revolution he would have attacked the West in 1945. That was the time, and he knew this, in which the Allies had the least amount of atomic bombs and he had the most amount of troops. The longer he left it - and I'm sure he knew this - the worse the power gap would grow as the Allies achieved more atomic bombs and better technology. Building his own was one way to counter this but in the end he didn't use them, which speaks to me that, as usual, everything Stalin did in this respect was based around the ultimate goal of preserving his own power. He also didn't do much to help out the Chinese Communists - he was aid wise until 1945 a bigger donor to the KMT.

This is the "buffer zone" theory that the buffer was made by Stalin to protect the USSR, by extension himself, from the West by putting more room and bodies between them. Which also ties into the Molotov Ribbentrop invasions. I tend to side more with this one than he really really wanted a world revolution but wasn't able to get to it. The fact is that Stalin didn't care for ideology nearly as much as his own power and in my view used ideological statements to make him look like a real Bolshevik, a successor of Lenin and to take steam out of the Trotsky train. I would say his overall goals were more personal based and less far reaching than you posit.

 

[fredgiblet]

The least amount of nukes? Perhaps. But the Soviets had no chance of attacking America, in fact they wouldn't have even gotten close with Britain and Japan serving as naval buffers on each side. Meanwhile the Americans had B-29s and a few nukes, enough to level Moscow with ease and whatever other cities the Nazis hadn't burned with impunity. Confronting the Allies would have resulted in the Soviets crushing the Americans and British on the continent, then watching as we nuked their cities one by one until they gave up.

 

[Mannstien]

The least amount of nukes? Perhaps. But the Soviets had no chance of attacking America, in fact they wouldn't have even gotten close with Britain and Japan serving as naval buffers on each side. Meanwhile the Americans had B-29s and a few nukes, enough to level Moscow with ease and whatever other cities the Nazis hadn't burned with impunity. Confronting the Allies would have resulted in the Soviets crushing the Americans and British on the continent, then watching as we nuked their cities one by one until they gave up.

It would have taken them until probably the 50's at a minimum to build a fleet from all I've read that could challenge anyone and that's just the building program much less the training and doctrine etc.

 

[fredgiblet]

And that's assuming that they aren't having their cities levelled one by one. After Moscow we'd probably hit places like Leningrad and Vladivostok the moment we figured they'd be building a navy.

 

[FOARP]

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.

It should be pointed out here that Stalin's comments were somewhat self-serving. Stalin, according to Khruschev, had completely dismissed the possibility of a surprise attack, rejected all reports that one was going to occur, and left the USSR unprepared for war.

It should also be pointed out that Germany was hardly "cut off from the global market" whilst it could trade so heavily in all manner of materiel with Stalin's USSR, nor was Germany exactly lacking a friend with whom it could strike deals whilst the USSR under Stalin remained so amendable to assisting Germany in, say, dismembering Poland, or dividing up the Baltic States, or dividing Rumanian territory.

 

[Cowsnipe]

All I know, in HoI3, that if I leave the USSR alone as Germany, they will find the perfect opportunity during operation Seelöwe to roll over the plains of Poland, even before I start the scripted event when London falls.

In 5 years of playing HoI3, I've only managed once successfully to stave them off while half my army is in England. Playing as Poland trying to fend off the Germans, it works perfectly well to reverse the same defensive line.

 

[fredgiblet]

Yeah, it's a lot smarter to just toss interceptors at England and keep a few armored unit back to fend off any invasions, saving them for after the Soviets have been crushed. I actually tried to game the system and SURROUND London when taking them, but it didn't keep the Soviets from attacking. Thankfully I only had a few divisions tied up in England and they were almost defeated already.

 

[Daztek]

. . . 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 . . .

But if Hitler doesn't attack the USSR, he concentrates on the British in the Med. The full force of the Luftwaffe and more German mobile divisions in North Africa could easily see the Axis in control of Suez and the Middle East, including the Iraqi and Iranian oilfields. After that it's only a matter of time before Malta and Gibraltar fall. Which opens Africa for Axis access to rubber and metals. If Japan can be dissuaded from attacking the US but taking Indochina and the NEI (and maybe India, which would be threatened from two sides, and Australasia), this raises the possibility of a stable three-bloc world.

I doubt Stalin would attack the Axis in these circumstances. He was very cautious in foreign affairs. His only big adventures were the Pact and the resulting annexations, which were done in concert with Germany, and Manchuria, which was covered by Japan's collapse against the US.

 

[Polarisan]

I like the idea of germany going all out on the Med but the fact remains that there's a huge risk involved. Despite Italia's navy not being a pushover on the Med, the moment the german army moves en masse to the other side of the sea, the soviets have a clear shot at the enemy, and with some luck, the UK can stop the german army from leaving North Africa.

And who's to say that the USSR would not move on Iran before the germans take Suez just to limit their expansion to Irak? And why not divide Turkey as well, Istambul goes to the Axis, Anatolia to the USSR.

 

[wingo]

USSR was very interested in controlling Bosphorus, so Istanbul would be non-negotiable.

 

[frolix42]

But if Hitler doesn't attack the USSR, he concentrates on the British in the Med. The full force of the Luftwaffe and more German mobile divisions in North Africa could easily see the Axis in control of Suez and the Middle East, including the Iraqi and Iranian oilfields. After that it's only a matter of time before Malta and Gibraltar fall. Which opens Africa for Axis access to rubber and metals.

From this point it's easy to get sidetracked into a discussion about the feasibility of the Axis's Western Desert Campaign. but I think it's pretty unlikely that Germany would've been able to exploit the oil of the Middle-East before the decisive strength of the United States is brought to bear against Germany. It's even more unlikely that Germany would be able to daisy-chain itself across the globe to Japan. Essentially this strategy would be Germany choosing to fight the British and it's Commonwealth on their terms in a global naval conflict. This hypothetical scenario should make Moscow ecstatic.

If Germany beats UK, Stalin's calculus remains the same. It's a pretty common and simple calculus, the USSR won't attack Germany until it judges that Germany is at it's weakest. Germany, assuming that it wins these Middle-Eastern campaigns, will be exhausted from the effort and won't be able to exploit it's oil for years. This would be the perfect time for the Soviets to troll Hitler by attacking Germany through the Caucasus.

If Japan can be dissuaded from attacking the US but taking Indochina and the NEI (and maybe India, which would be threatened from two sides, and Australasia), this raises the possibility of a stable three-bloc world.

Invading the Netherlands, allied to Great Britain, would probably cause the US to go to war with Japan.

I doubt Stalin would attack the Axis in these circumstances. He was very cautious in foreign affairs. His only big adventures were the Pact and the resulting annexations, which were done in concert with Germany, and Manchuria, which was covered by Japan's collapse against the US.

I think you are right. If Germany manages to never become an attractive target for the Soviet Union, Stalin would never invade Germany. But it's pretty unlikely that this would happen and the Soviet Union never becomes an attractive target for Hitler. History diverges from the game on 01 JAN 1936, so anything is possible. I don't think it's likely for National Socialism and Communism not to come into direct conflict. The movie 'Highlander' says "There can be only one". Authoritarian states in close proximity tend to conflict sooner rather than later.

 

[Loke]

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?

Bullying some of their neighbours like Finland, Romania, Turkey, Iran and/or China.

 

[fredgiblet]

Invading the Netherlands, allied to Great Britain, would probably cause the US to go to war with Japan.

Why? We did nothing when Britain itself was under imminent threat of invasion from Germany.

Fact is that at the time the US population didn't want to get involved in the world war. Had Germany not declared war on us we probably wouldn't have involved ourselves more in the European theater, and had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor we probably wouldn't have done much in the Pacific either.

 

[TheDungen]

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

You are assuming that they really sought to conquer the world.

Also no the best intrests of germany would have been to find themselves only fighting the soviets. There were many in the west who supported Hitler, his willingness to pick a fight with the west ruined that. He could have set himself up as a bulwark against communism instead of a conqueror.

 

[fredgiblet]

Also no the best intrests of germany would have been to find themselves only fighting the soviets. There were many in the west who supported Hitler, his willingness to pick a fight with the west ruined that. He could have set himself up as a bulwark against communism instead of a conqueror.

Yup. Don't press the attack on Britain after taking France. Don't declare war on the US, then when the fight with the Soviets starts propagandize yourself as being on the side of capitalism. Bare minimum you'll probably keep America out of the war, and Britain might be amenable to ending hostilities...maybe.

 

[hkrommel]

but I think it's pretty unlikely that Germany would've been able to exploit the oil of the Middle-East before the decisive strength of the United States is brought to bear against Germany.

Especially since most of it hadn't been discovered yet lol.

The full force of the Luftwaffe and more German mobile divisions in North Africa could easily see the Axis in control of Suez and the Middle East, including the Iraqi and Iranian oilfields.

The force needed to defend that would be prohibitive to be honest, at least initially before indigenous forces were brought up to speed. Besides, the limitations on the Axis in North Africa were not numbers, but logistical capacity. It would be incredibly difficult to keep a force much larger than the one they had supplied in Libya. I'm fully convinced that the Afrika Korps' chance at victory was during Operation Crusader, when Cruewell could have completely encircled 7th Armored and most of 30th Corps itself. Unfortunately for the DAK he spread his armor out rather than concentrating it, and won a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Basically I think if the Germans don't attack the USSR and if they manage to win North Africa (which would certainly be easier in this situation) and if they manage to push as far as Iraq and Iran and if Turkey joins the Axis (which would actually be likely in that scenario) and if the Germans improve the logistics of the Caucasus region then Stalin cannot attack the Germans. They would be able to threaten the Baku fields, at the very least with bombings.

 

[Daztek]

Had Germany not declared war on us we probably wouldn't have involved ourselves more in the European theater, and had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor we probably wouldn't have done much in the Pacific either.

This is my assumption. Aside from the historical gambit of overwhelming the USSR in a surprise attack, Germany's only realistic path to superpower status was to gain as much as possible from its war with the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, while avoiding conflict with the US and the USSR.