Barbarossa - False Myths?

[Jacek]

The short story of the beginning of Barbarossa: Hitler cannot advance on Britain, therefore he decides to conquer USSR easily and
1) Get the Lebensraum he wanted for so long
2) Get hold of Soviet oil and other raw materials

However: some historians, more or less professional say: NO! The real reason was Hitler fear of a stab in the back. After USSR´s annexion of Bessarabia and N.Bukovina Stalin was just a few steps from the only oil fields Hitler could count on: Romanian. Morover: the bulk of Soviet army (RKKA) was ammassed at German border, ready for attack. German aerial recon has shown this on innumerable occasions. The annexiation of N. Bukovina was a flagrant provocation, against the terms of the Soviet-German pact.
RKKA transferred parts of its Dniepr Flotilla to the delta of Danube, thus forming a new Danube Flotilla, with lots of ships, amongst them - heavily armed monitors. The flotilla was theoretically able to help in the invasion of Romania and capture of oilfields - a lifeblood of Wehrmacht and all German economy.

Does history need rewriting?

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

It is possible to combine several motivs.

Lebensraum + oil & other resources + secure the back + weak Soviet Armed Forces (judged from the performance in Finland) e t c

I think is is a fact that the Red Army lost several battles in the opening phase of "Barbarossa" because it was deployed for attack and not for defence.

The Germans lost "Barbarossa" because their Herrenvolk mentality. They were greeted as liberators, especially in Ukraine, but treating the Russians as Untermenschen the Germans turned a peaceful population into resistance fighters and partisans.

There was the Vlassow Army recruited amongst Soviet POWs, but for years the Germans could not decide to use it or not.

Given totally different politics, the Germans could easily have won "Barbarossa" just by treating anti-communist Russians well and supporting them to fight the bolscheviks. Germany had the posibility to transform "Barbarossa" into a Russian Civil War, but missed to do this.

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Stellan Bojerud

Given totally different politics, the Germans could easily have won "Barbarossa".

Had the Germans (that is, Adolf) trusted their allies, the Japanese, they would have co-operated to leave the Japanese Army in Manchuria and make some noise instead of go off and start a new war by raiding Pearl Harbour. With no Japanese forces threatening his east, Stalin was able to bring dozens of divisions back to the Caucasus to stem the German onslaught, and through sheer numbers and Lend-Lease assistance, overwhelm the Germans.
What could have been Russia's fate if the United States had not entered the war in Dec '41, or indeed if it had faced a simultaneous Japanese attack from the East?

[Jacek]

Why do you, Stellan, think that RKKA was weak? Compared with Wehrmacht?

Do you really think that the officer purges could have weakened RKKA so much? I´ve read a book about the purge: "Pochemu Stalin obezglavil svoyu armiyu?" by Viktor Suvorov aka. Vladimir Rezun. ("Why did Stalin behead his army?"). I presume, you know Russian, though.

The book says it was a fully rational disposition. Stalin wanted his own officer corps, people who owned their promotions to him. He wanted them to be younger and wished to get rid of old bolsheviks, thinking in the categories of civil war.
There were some mistakes: Rokossovsky f. ex. and some others were returned from Gulag, fed and sent back to form new divisions. Just in time to be ready for the big jump on Europe in June-July ´41. Says the book.

Of course, the fact that Hitler started off first was of paramount importance. But for ideological reasons it was impossible to have a big Russian or Ukrainian army. Hitler came there to stay and not to give Russia back to its owners.

Partisan movement: yes, right. The majority of them were trained soldiers sent behind front lines and not a spontaneous movement. Their commander was Voroshilov, right?

Anyways, Hitler believed in one more easy victory. And when it turned out it was a mirage - it was too late. But even then he refused to see the facts in the eyes. Strange man, Hitler.

To make it short: My point is that RKKA was not weak. There is evidence that it was about ready to invade Europe and, imo, fully capable to do so.
I am not saying that Barbarossa was a purely preventive undertaking, but the fear of Soviet attack was one of the most important reasons to strike.
In this light, my hypothesis is that Hitler managed to save ½ of Europe from becoming Soviet vassals.

Conc. the Japanese: they have learned a lesson in 1939 when Zhukov beat their 6th Army in Mongolia. Japan´s interests were not in USSR, why they signed an non-aggression treaty with USSR in 1940 (afair). Good espionage was also something Stalin was better at than Germans: Richard Sorge supplied evidence of impending Jap. attack on USA. Besides, the US was in itself provocative enough to lead Jap. eyes off USSR.

Are there any objections?

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

Originally posted by Jacek
Why do you, Stellan, think that RKKA was weak? Compared with Wehrmacht?

Do you really think that the officer purges could have weakened RKKA so much?

No, I don´t think that. I think Hitler and hes planners thought so. Purges & weak performance in Finland.

[Jacek]

"I think is is a fact that the Red Army lost several battles in the opening phase of "Barbarossa" because it was deployed for attack and not for defence."
Says Stellan.
I cannot disagree. Why was RKKA deployed for attack in 1941. Attack whom? Its partner Germany?

Many a scholar laughs at Viktor Suvorov. But, as yet, I haven´t seen a serious attempt at repudiation of his main point:
"Stalin was readying for attacking Germany in summer 1941".
The said scholars often find a minor mistake here or there, and in this way try to discard Suvorov and his books.

I think it´s a mistake. I think the man is right and history needs rewriting on this point. If RKKA was able to reach Berlin using 15% of Soviet prewar industrial potential, it was surely able to do so with 100% in 1941.

Why is Suvorov wrong? Is he?

[Jacek]

Not many enthusiastic correspondents or fervent opponents...

I´ll try a little citate from Wikipedia then:

"According to Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen, by 1935 the Red Army "... possessed more armoured vehicles, and more tank units than the rest of the world combined." (p. 107 of Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984. Arms and Armour Press, London.
(...)But from 1937 to 1941, the Red Army's officer corps, the armour design bureaux, and leadership of the factories were gutted by Stalin's Great Purge. Tens of thousands were executed. Military knowledge completely stagnated and armoured vehicle production dropped drastically (though still remaining the world's largest). Nevertheless, by the eve of World War II, the Soviet Union had some of the world's best tanks (including the T-34 and KV-1, which were basically a generation ahead, coming as a shock to the Wehrmacht)."

One: There were many voices, there always are, that Stalin´s officer purge was a lunatic and paranoid undertaking, maybe even originated in Germany. Suvorov-Rezun ( in further entries just Suvorov) disagrees, saying that it was pragmatic and even needed. Fresh blood, fresh energy, blind loyalty... There is always a greedy vice- behind every boss.

My feeling is that Stalin (temporarily called Uncle Joe) had more ambitious plans on conquering the Earth, or at least Europe than Hitler had.

Is there anybody here, who DISagrees?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Gentlemen,

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you all that the primary focus of this forum is the friendly exchange of information and opinion related to the activities of the Canadian and Commonwealth armies of WW2.

While we all tolerate a certain degree of divergence on our topics, some topics such as this will be better served in other forums, Tanknet being one of them (I'm also one of their Administrators ).

With this in mind, and as well to keep things around here civil and in context, I am closing this topic and would kindly request that topics such as this be refrained from in future unless there is a direct bearing upon Canadian and Commonwealth military activities.

Thank you,

THE MANAGEMENT