Customer Discussions > History forum

Why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 347 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 25, 2013 9:22:27 PM PST
Al says:
Anyone who wants to understand World War Two had to understand why Adolf Hitler made the decision to invade the Soviet Union in June, 1941. Very simply, had he not invaded, Stalin would've invaded, not just Germany, but all of Europe, and probably occupied all of it, right up to the Atlantic.

A book that proves this is Icebreaker, by Russian historian Victor Suvorov, who shows that the USSR was developing technology that would be more effective in Western Europe than in Russia, such as tanks which were designed to be more effective on good roads than on so-called roads one found in the 40s in the Soviet Union.
Here's his book:
Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?

A good article which makes the case that Stalin was planning an aggressive war against the West in 1941 is here:
http://theneworder.org/news/2013/02/the-day-hitler-saved-the-world/

Posted on Feb 25, 2013 9:30:14 PM PST
Britain or I should Winston Churchill convinced Hitler to invade the Soviet Union and promised the world in support and political treasures.Ooops!!!,Churchill lied and the rest is history.

Posted on Feb 25, 2013 11:06:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 25, 2013 11:07:20 PM PST
Read the book Stalin's Folly by Constantine Pleshakov, he takes Suvorov's idea and expands on it with more research provided by the work of Russian historian Mikhail Meltyukhov who saw in Russia's newly opened military archives in 1991-1992 documents and maps of the many Soviet plans to attack Nazi occupied Europe that were created from October 1939 right up to May 1941.

Western historians who continue to deny this reality lack credibility because their motive is unhistorical, mentalities such as "You can't say that Stalin was going to attack Hitler because that would make Hitler look good" is not a legitimate method for historical research.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 6:03:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 26, 2013 6:04:14 AM PST
Debunker says:
"the day Hitler saved the world".

Uh huh.

'nuff said.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 6:08:08 AM PST
the usa has plans to invade every country on earth
that is for CONTINGENCY
not that they plan to do it

although if we get another brain dead idjut like baby bush all bets are off
today iran
tomorrow the world
bwaahaaahaaaaah

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 6:43:21 AM PST
yeah hitler saved the world

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 6:45:47 AM PST
Debunker says:
Speaking of "brain dead", how are you today?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 6:46:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 26, 2013 6:46:32 AM PST
Debunker says:
Check out the article referenced in the mook's OP.

Posted on Feb 26, 2013 7:03:37 AM PST
Yo says:
Hey, if a Neo-Nazi websites endorses it, it must be true!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 8:17:32 AM PST
Wulfwig Fox says:
The German decision to invade was made in 1940. Hitler received the plans for Barbarossa in December, 1940.

Stalin's hypothetical plans would've been neither here nor there in that plan.

Especially since the original plan called for an invasion in mid-May 1941. That had to be postponed because of the operations in the Balkans.

Posted on Feb 26, 2013 8:30:36 AM PST
S. Kessler says:
Hitler wanted the Soviet steppe to serve as the breadbasket for the Reich. His plans included using the Slavs as slave labor to grow food that would feed Greater Germany.

Bloodlands

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 8:36:10 AM PST
Debunker says:
And just think. All these years we thought Hitler was the bad guy.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 11:15:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 26, 2013 11:54:30 AM PST
F. Gleaves says:
No, Hitler decided Churchill would never make peace unless Stalin was defeated first.

Stalin was scared to death that he'd be next after Hitler defeated France, as he figured Britain would make peace.

When the Royal Navy sank or knocked out the French fleet at Mers el Kebir in July 1940 he knew Churchill intended to continue the fight, and began making preparations for war with Hitler before Hitler could attack him in 1942. And Soviet military doctrine was all about seizing the initiative by attacking - what they called an 'active defense' rather than the passive defense which had failed France.

As 'Suvorov' wrote, Stalin didn't need to be attacked before he 'counter-attacked'. That's what he called it after the NKVD staged a phoney Finnish attack on a Soviet village near Leningrad n 1939.

When Hitler postponed Operation Sea Lion in 1940, Stalin was sure Hitler would take out Britain in 1941 before attacking USSR in 1942. So he continued building up Pavlov's mechanized force in the Bialystock salient on the border while ordering the 'Molotov Line' on the new border with the Germans completed by October 1941.

Stalin also kept building up forces and defenses on the revised Romanian border after seizing Bessarabia and Bukovina from them, in easy striking distance of the Ploesti oilfields supplying most of Germany's oil.

Gabriel Gorodetsky wrote in 'Grand Delusion' that he thought Hitler was sincere in offering Stalin alliance with the Axis if he would attack the British south and east of the Caspian Sea and Baku oilfields, and not interfere with Romania until after the British had been defeated.

Intead the Soviets seized Romanian islands in the Danube controlling the shipping lanes, right in the middle of the November talks in Berlin between Molotov and Hitler. For Hitler that was the last straw, and he gave the orders to proceed with deployment for the attack.

Hitler wasn't worried about a Soviet attack in 1941, but he was suspicious of Stalin cutting his oil supply from Romania if he attacked Britain, and his nickel and timber supplies from Finland. And Stalin kept insisting that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave him the right to do anything he wanted anytime he wanted in the Balkans or Finland.

Churchill didn't need to do anything to encourage Hitler to attack the USSR. But Hitler would have been happy to sign a peace treaty just to end the British naval blockade and let him buy oil, trucks and raw materials to keep his war machine running until Stalin was defeated.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 11:35:53 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 27, 2013 8:05:47 AM PST
F. Gleaves says:
Mikhail Meltyukhov wasn't simply a post-Glasnost Russian historian, but an accredited Soviet historian years before the break-up of the Soviet Union.

He finds fault with some of Suvorov's wilder claims, such as Hitler knowing details of Soviet attack plans in 1940, but shows that Stalin hoped to take advantage of Hitler's reluctance to fight a two-front war and attack while Hitler was preoccupied with Britain.

That Stalin thought this was the case in 1941 is shown by Barton Whaley's "Codeword BARBAROSSA" published in 1973, and the updated "What Stalin Knew" (2005) by David E. Murphy. Whaley was the CIA's top consultant on deception plans, and Murphy the head of the CIA's Soviet Operations for many years.

While 'Suvorov' thinks the Soviets would have attacked on the Sunday before completion of the Soviet deployment ordered 15 May, i.e. on 6 July 1941, I think Stalin intended this as simply the covering force for full mobilization for a Soviet attack to be launched in late summer after the Germans had drawn down their forces on the Soviet border for the invasion of Britain.

They would only need to seize or destroy the Romanian oilfields and German supply depots, airfields and fortifications near the border before withdrawing if necessary to the newly-completed 'Molotov Line' for the winter. By spring 1942 the Germans would be too short of oil to launch an offensive on the scale of Babarossa.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 1:07:02 PM PST
*Anyone who wants to understand World War Two had to understand why Adolf Hitler made the decision to invade the Soviet Union in June, 1941. Very simply, had he not invaded, Stalin would've invaded, not just Germany, but all of Europe, and probably occupied all of it, right up to the Atlantic.

Hitler long wrote about lebensraum and to remove the backward slaves from wasting the vast land that was under their feet. We have to look that Germany attacked Poland then the British and French decliared war on Germany. So Germany simply took the war to France and the British Empire.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 2:07:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 26, 2013 3:21:58 PM PST
F. Gleaves says:
Stalin knew what Hitler had written in "Mein Kampf" - both that he intended to make slaves of the Slavs and that he thought getting into a two-front war had been the undoing of the Kaiser's Germany.

Stalin knew that Hitler would never have attacked Poland if he thought Germany would be starved into surrender by a Royal Navy blockade as in the Kaiser's War. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was designed to eliminate that concern, providing Germany ample grain, oil, and coal and other resources to defy a British blockade indefinitely.

And Stalin was crafty enough to hold off marching into the portions of Poland lost by the Soviets in 1920, promised in the secret clauses of the Pact, until two weeks after Britain and France had declared war on Germany and the defeat of Poland was almost complete.

So he had finally drawn the Capitalist West into the catastrophic war amongst themselves which Lenin had foreseen in 1920 would be necessary to allow the triumph of Communism. He merely had to make the Red Army ready to join their western comrades in the Revolution of the Proletariat when the warring nations had fought one another to the point of collapse.

Or so he thought, until June 1940.

He still couldn't imagine Hitler thinking that the Soviet Union would be as easy a conquest as France or Poland. So the British and American warnings that Hitler was planning to attack him must be disinformation, trying to draw the USSR into the war prematurely to save Britain.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 3:14:22 PM PST
Debunker, historical truth doesn't operate on "good guy" "bad guy" memes, it operates the way F. Gleaves below is describing it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 3:27:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 26, 2013 3:40:12 PM PST
James,

It's necessary to draw some critical distinctions. Suvorov is dismissed by most serious scholars not because he proposes that Stalin might have been entertaining the notion of eventually launching a preventive strike against Germany, but rather because the lack of evidence for the timetable he suggested (i.e. an attack in July). (As well as the abundant evidence that Stalin was obsessively trying to avoid provoking the Germans right up to 22 June.) The irony is that the carelessness of Suvorov's work has become a major distraction from the work of other scholars who have suggested that Stalin may indeed have been contemplating an EVENTUAL attack, and this may have been long-term gameplan all along.

Short of a seance, there's no way to conclusively resolve exactly what Stalin was thinking in the lead up to 22 June. I think that a reasonable case can be made that Stalin expected Germany to be bleeding itself on the Maginot line far longer than was in fact the case. France's rapid collapse I think constituted the equivalent of a "broken play" that required Stalin to "scramble". Thus, I think that it's entirely possible that Stalin hadn't yet made up his mind concerning a new long-term strategy. He might very well have still been turning over his options.

Bear in mind that the "plans" you reference were essentially staff studies. They were not "plans" in the sense of being an endorsed "plan" to initiate hostilities. To date, no one has turned up the equivalent of a "warning order" or anything comparable which would prove that Stalin had decided to attack, or when such an attack would occur. Thus, I think that we have to accept that any discussion of a timetable for a Soviet attack is inevitably speculative.


HOWEVER, this is not the end of the story, because there is some evidence that Stalin's thinking was not entirely defensive; that in fact it was evolving toward what would eventually have become a more offensive stance. IMO, that evidence has not received the attention it deserves. (In part, because the moment the discussion starts, someone brings up Suvorov and whole discussion swings away from the evidence and instead becomes monopolized on the flaws of Suvorov's particular argument. Maddeningly, the Suvorov strawman becomes the alpha and omega of the discussion to the detriment of other scholars who have offered more modest and plausible arguments.)

For a fairly balanced and scholarly discussion of this topic, I would recommend

Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 4:01:25 PM PST
Mickey says:
Al,

Counterfactuals can never be proven. And I certainly won't defend Stalin, but I do wonder why you offer so many excuses for Hitler. Are you a Nazi?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 4:14:23 PM PST
why does anyone start a war or invade a country

because they can

evil people like baby bush did it twice
why are you so surprised that hitler did it too

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 4:15:08 PM PST
baby bush is far more evil than hitler and stalin
how about some excuses for his stoopid crazy invasions

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 9:09:40 PM PST
Al says:
Great post, F. Gleaves. I'd never heard of Meltyukhov; I'll have to investigate him.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2013 10:37:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 26, 2013 10:39:08 PM PST
Lientje says:
Al: I've always been a bit curious as to why Hitler started the War in the first place. There are
several semi-logical reasons why. He wanted power; he wanted more land; he was angry about the
way the Allies (were they called that during WWI?) treated Germany at the end of the first war; he
needed a diversion for the terrible condition the economy was in. And maybe others too. I have to
confess that I was not aware until quite recently how involved Hitler and the Soviet Union were
with each other for a number of reasons.

So, maybe Hitler did save the world from Stalin, but that was co-incidental. That hardly makes him
the "savior." of Europe or any place else. And while The Soviet Union played a huge part in doing
Hitler and Germany in, had push come to shove, we could have beat them too.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 3:16:34 AM PST
Al, Wikipedia has a good page on Meltyukhov's book which has not yet been published in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Missed_Chance

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 3:46:50 AM PST
Debunker says:
James,

Obviously you have trouble recognizing sarcasm. I'll try to be a little clearer for you next time.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  347
Initial post:  Feb 25, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions