>>893605
No. Suvarov is an idiot. If you honestly believe him, you have either not gone over the material very thoroughly, or you are also an idiot.
By the way, "Oh yeah, he might attack me at some point in the indeterminate future, but also might not, depending on how things going, so I'll attack him now" does not make a pre-emptive attack. At best it's a preventative attack, and more likely it's just a flimsy rationalization.
>>893611
Tbh, I haven't even read him, I just know that there are people who hold this theory, and I thought starting a discussion between those who believe such theory and those who disregard might would make an interesting thread and a way to understand the reasoning behind such theory and see whether it's faulty or not.
>>893623
>disregard might would
I meant "disregard it would".
>>893623
The "theory" is based primarily on what happened in the opening days of Barbarossa. The overwhelming majority of the Soviet army in the field (so, not counting reserves) was placed within 90 miles of the border, and without much depth to their formation. A lot of troops in a semi-line right up front, but pretty much nothing behind. It was disastrous when attacked, because the Germans would break through somewhere, penetrate deeply, and tear through the lines of communication supporting said armies, or just envelop and destroy them.
It was, put simply, completely useless for a defensive setup, and far more characteristic of an offensive setup. Ergo, the reasoning goes, the Soviet troops were arrayed in such a fashion because they were not expecting to defend, they were expecting to attack.
The problem with it is that it overlooks the post-army purge environment that had been created, where ideology and toeing Stalin's will is more important than proper military expertise. Defense, especially defense in depth, which regards loss of territory as an inevitable temporary measure, was defeatist, cowardly, capitalist, and gulag-worthy. Even guys like Zhukov, who stood up to Stalin as much as anyone did in that environment, kept to the heavy border presence and no backup when sparring with the Japanese on the borders of Manchuria, and nobody's suggested that the Soviets were hellbent on invading the Far East in 1938-39. It was simply the way they played ball, and badly, as it turned out.
1/2
>>893662
Furthermore,there are all sorts of odd omissions in the Soviet border setup in the late spring of 1941, preparations that they did not make but did make in places they actually did invade in recent memory, like Finland and Romania: Heavy artillery wasn't kept with its organic transport to be able to keep pace with an advance. Infantry reserves weren't kept near railheads where they could be moved quickly to support an advance. Planes hadn't done reconnaissance, and in fact fuel was restricted from issue to their forward bases. An enormous part of their vehicle park was in repair shops.
Also, look at Stalin's style. He wouldn't even invade Poland until 2 weeks after the Germans did so, and after they had eviscerated 5 of the 7 Polish armies. Against Romania and Finland, slow, cautious, make demand, get rebuffed, make a series of small, limited attacks, use the hostilities as backdrop for negotiations, get concessions based on the war continuing. And this is against tiny little weak countries, not a power of Germany's caliber. What do you have leading up to Barbarossa? No demands at all. Germany is the USSR's biggest trading partner. Hell, the German troops overran some freight trains bound for the Nazi state. They weren't envisioning a war in anything close to resembling the short term, if they were envisioning it at all.
And lastly, if the Soviets WERE planning to attack the Germans, why then? Soviet states of readiness weren't much different in 1940 as opposed to 1941, and if they had attacked when Germany was gearing up to attack France, they'd have caught Hitler's nuts in a vice. If Stalin is really that opportunistic, power hungry, aggressive and expansionist, that's when he would have attacked. He'd be the savior of Europe, coming unexpectedly to the aid of France and Britain.
The very idea is stupid, and usually the province of neo-nazi revisionists who want to make Hitler the good guy; it's not serious history.
>>893605
You do remember how Barbarossa actually worked out? Hell no, the Soviets weren't idiots. They were totally aware of their unpreparedness for a full-scale war with another major European power. Whether they would've taken a more aggressive stance a few years later however is up for debate.
>>893664
>Heavy artillery wasn't kept with its organic transport to be able to keep pace with an advance.
Always thought it was interesting how Soviet military equipment, in this case tractors to haul artillery, were used communally and had to be recalled from farm use.
>>893759
>Is it really that much different from having your soldiers being recalled to bring in the harvest, which happened to Italy in 1940-41?
I just mean it's an interesting aspect of a major communist society at war, something usually portrayed instead by the use of women in the Red Army; that even farm equipment had a military duty as well as the reserve; obsolete T-27's being converted into tractors.
>>893605
I thought the myth was the other way around, that Stalin wanted a preventative war?
>On 15 May 1941, General G, K. Zhukov, then Chief of the Red Army General Staff, sent Stalin a proposal for a preventative offensive against German forces concentrating in Eastern Poland. Although Defense Commissar S. K. Timoshenko initialed the proposal, there is no evidence either that Stalin saw it or acted upon it. The proposal and other fragmentary evidence provides the basis for recent claims that Stalin indeed intended to conduct a preventative war against Germany beginning in July 1941 and that Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa preempted Stalin’s intended actions.
>>893662
>It was, put simply, completely useless for a defensive setup, and far more characteristic of an offensive setup. Ergo, the reasoning goes, the Soviet troops were arrayed in such a fashion because they were not expecting to defend, they were expecting to attack.
/thread
>>893605
Yep.
Take it from senpai himself:
https://youtu.be/NVqxoA52kjI
Or we can go with the "insanity" justification, seems more simple.
>>893664
this ignores the actual 'icebreaker' theory. Stalin wanted the western powers to exhaust themselves before he attacked. He was going to wait for Germany or britian to triumph and then 'liberate' europe from the capitalists or fascists.
The whole goal of the red revolution was to unite the workers without borders. Never happened. But Stalin saw himself as the guy to do it.
Thats the theory.
Then you have stuff like Russian to german phrase books produced en masse in May before barbarossa. Why would they need this?
Why amphibious tanks if you plan on defending? Just drive over the bridge and blow it up. Invest in a defensive tank.
Why put the planes so close to the border?
Why move cannon fodder troops to the border?
I don't really know what Stalin had planned but I think the theory atleast holds enough ground to be considered seirously.
We do know Hitler took away Russia capabaility to take all of europe with barbarossa.
>>893848
>I don't really know what Stalin had planned but I think the theory atleast holds enough ground to be considered seirously.
it doesn't if the Soviet troop deployment was consistent with their version of a "cult of the offensive" even when defending (see - far eastern troop deployments), and it doesn't if the Soveit troop deployment was in no way similar to an actual offensive troop deployment (see - winter war troop deployment, reserve readiness and availability, artillery formations [un]availability etc.)
No. It's nonsense from a known revisionist thats been picked up by /pol/ to depict Hitler as an eternal dindu.
>>893662
>>893664
Bretty gud but doesn't mention that Stalin, believing Hitler wouldn't attack so soon, had the Red Army abandon the Stalin Line and begin construction of the Molotov Line on the border with Germany in 1940-41. The USSR didn't have any major defenses set up because Uncle Joe gave up the ones he had and wanted new ones at the worst possible time.
>>893662
>>893611
To be fair there was something called the "Weltreichlehre" before WWI. Notions of it were popular in every major belligerent. In essence it states that you need to have an Empire so survive and that the world will boil down to 4-6 Empires and that you should try to rule in one of them. Russia was to become one of them and if you look at the key figures (steel output, access to resources etc.) this was sort of plausible. Hitler (based on his table talks) certainly believed this (due to poor education and stuff). So one might argue that he THOUGHT he was running out of time and that they had to attack Russia and that he did not meet much resistance here since the theory was popular amongst his generals too.
If you know German read this: http://www.amazon.de/Weltmacht-Untergang-Weltreichslehre-Zeitalter-Imperialismus/dp/3506761021
It is a great study despite the author being in tons of pleb tier documentaries.
>>893811
Or we think he was bullshitting to forge an alliance with an reluctant Finland. Also Mannerheims argument is flawed because the prevailed in the Winter War. Fucking impressive Stalin: Losing against Finland.
>inb4 that retarded looking sniper
Yes it was. Most of the /his/torians of course do not agree with such a thing since most of the Jewish history books tend to give totally different view of matter.
These are the actual words, motivation and reason behind Barbarossa spoken by Adolf Hitler. No Jewish speculation, just a secret recording of Adolf Hitler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0
>This all naturally was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Molotov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to - impossible, to forestall him. There was - this was the only - because the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him - not publicly...(fades out).
>Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to - negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter - because I always feared - that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall - and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, than Germany would have been lost. It would have required - just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.
>>894315
>In Romania we had of course - at that time - no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently - and what we did have there was laughable. They only had to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn't that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west. First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had - yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack - before the spring of 19, 41. And if the Russians at that time - in the fall of 1940 - had occupied Romania - taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.
>Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions - they are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons of Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war - and would have had to let it be - and that was my big worry. Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations 'till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because - those demands were simply naked extortion's. They were extortion's. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west. They could really extort everything from us. Only when Molotov visited - then - I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren't acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.
Yes
There's more than enough evidence and reasonable doubt for it.
Communist retards like to say that
>stalin just wanted to stay and play around in Russia
While at the same time he was invading or was planning to invade Finland, Bulgaria, Romania
>>894327
>stalin just wanted to stay and play around in Russia
Well he obviously didn't since he got half of Poland.And the army he was building wasn't a defensive army...He was waiting for Germany and France/UK to deplete themselves so he can take over with ease..But Hitler took France way too fast for Stalin's plans and liking
>>894315
We have literally just been over this see:>>894278
>Hitler was right and my proof for this is something that Hitler said
Top notch source criticism there buddy.
>>893605
A lot of the German high staff legitimately feared a Soviet invasion. I think it was Guderian who wrote about it in his journal
>>893848
Consider the following
Hitler has written down on in his book on how the east should be invaded for German living room
Hitler has conquered Europe and is bleeding the UK dry
What would his next step be anything but settings his sight on the east?
And there is no way that Stalin could not have known that Hitler would come eventually.
So the troops by the boarder could have just been there to scare them off.
>>893759
Any source to read on all this ?
Hasnt Russia already opened up their documents what happened back then back in the in the 90s?
>>894551
>>894551
Yes. And the majority of historians agrees that Stalin planned to exploit a coming war but that he was not planning to attack Germany prior to Barbarossa.
http://www.amazon.de/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892
http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/02.html
Historians claiming otherwise are mostly right wing like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hoffmann
Problem right now is that the Russian archives are mostly close once again (thanks to Putin).
>>893611
> No. Suvarov is an idiot.
This.
The whole "pre-emptive attack" idea stinks of politics and Cold War.
>>894337
>Well he obviously didn't since he got half of Poland
You should study some 1910-1920s history of Eastern Europe before claiming such things
>>893605
It wasn't exactly the reason for it but yeah. If not for that Stalin would've betrayed Hitler sooner or later. Two tyrants working together never lasts long.
At the end of WW2 Stalin invades half of Europe and keeps it.
>OH NO HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT IF HITLER HADN'T ATTACKED FIRST
>STALIN WAS A GOOD BOY HE DINDU
Die in a fire, idiots. Stalin was coming for Europe, Hitler or not. Grow a damn brain.
>>893605
No, Stalin was an idiot who genuinely thought that Hitler was his ally. He was warned several times of a nazi attack and didn't heed their warning.
>>894919
>At the end of WW2 Stalin invades half of Europe and keeps it.
>>893605
Both leaders thought they'd fooled the other with their peace treaty. So yes, in the sense that war was ultimately inevitable, making any attack a preemptive strike. But there isn't enough evidence to support the idea that Germany knew of a specific Russian invasion plan.
>>893662
> It was, put simply, completely useless for a defensive setup, and far more characteristic of an offensive setup.
In a hindsight.
Also, that nothing to do with purges. Soviets were simply looking at things with the WW1 in mind. It's not like there were purges in French or Polish armies.
>>893664
> He wouldn't even invade Poland until 2 weeks after the Germans did so, and after they had eviscerated 5 of the 7 Polish armies.
Yes, except that has nothing to do with armies. Stalin "invaded" Poland only because Germans claimed that Poland existed no longer (and any and all contracts/pacts that referred to it were null and void).
That meant Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was over and Soviets needed to either claim Eastern Poland for themselves or lose all of Poland to Germans.
I'd like to remind people that League of Nations recognized only Winter War as Soviet invasion. Not (yet another) division of Poland.
>>894088
> Bretty gud but doesn't mention that Stalin, believing Hitler wouldn't attack so soon
Well, strategically speaking, Stalin was correct.
It would require a very special kind of idiot to invade Russia without sufficient preparations. Kremlin expected many things, but it didn't expect Reich to be that dumb.
>>894919
> At the end of WW2 Stalin invades half of Europe and keeps it.
Also kills a lot of innocent German soldiers.
Is he serious or is he trolling? I can't tell. This is 4chan.
>>895020
So it's a fact that Hitler betrayed Stalin but it's impossible to think that Stalin himself was such a friend of Hitler that he would gladly stick with him after receiving his part of Europe?
>>894088
To be fair, a lot of the reason for the abandonment of the Stalin line in favor of the Molotov line was that the Soviet borders moved quite a bit westwards. Plus, due to the way the Baltic sea is shaped, the Molotov line is much shorter than the Stalin line, always a good thing if you're defending.
>>894266
Hitler's beliefs =/= Actual reality. And an attack to secure resources based on some global notion of national struggle isn't a pre-emptive attack.
>>894418
On the Italian disbanding of the army for agricultural reasons? Douglas Porch's The Road to victory touches on it, I don't have something in depth on the very issue at hand: Most histories of Italian stuff in WW2 is in a context of larger issues.
>>894966
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html
Polish territory was promised to the USSR in the MR pact; they divided it up with Germany before the invasion. The timing of the Soviets claiming their turf had everything to do with caution, armies, and wanting the Germans to do the bulk of the fighting.
And who cares what the League of Nations thought? They were a dead letter.
>>894966
>Yes, except that has nothing to do with armies. Stalin "invaded" Poland only because Germans claimed that Poland existed no longer (and any and all contracts/pacts that referred to it were null and void).
>That meant Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was over and Soviets needed to either claim Eastern Poland for themselves or lose all of Poland to Germans.
You do realize that Germany and USSR divided up Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, right? Oh wait, no you don't, because you have never read a book in your life.
