Many people claim that Stalin would attack Hitler, if Hitler didn't attack Stalin yet, but:
1. Is this based on evidence, or is it merely an assumption? Surely the Soviets could have gains from attacking Germany at some point, but what other targets were out there for them?
2. Would a Soviet attack against Germany fair good? The Soviets lacked the experience, were still recovering from the purges and did not have Land Lease.
So the Red Army might succeed in the beginning, but it is a fact that it took the Germans 6 months to get the Wehrmacht to the outskirts of Moscow, while the Soviets needed 2 years (after Stalingrad) to get to the outskirts of Berlin. The Germans were quite good on defence, even when facing superior numbers. Perhaps an invasion by Stalin would be all that Germany needed to envelop and annihilate large portions of the Red Army, allowing them then to launch a counterattack. Whether or not Stalin would be able to get Land Lease is a total different question. However US public opinion would show more sympathy to an attacked Soviet Union than to a Soviet Union being the aggressor.
A possible side-effect of a failed Sealion with big losses for the Germans may have been a reshapement of the entire German strategy. Hitler may actually discover, that Britain is the true foe that needs to be beaten and Stalin may be more of a friend to him than he thought. He would still need big masses of troops to secure his eastern borders, but he may decide to focus on Britain. Going to N. Africa with more troops, taking out Malta may be very good options for him at this point.
If those campaigns were successfull German troops may be in the Middle East by 1942 and then who knows what happens next? Perhaps Stalin decides to grab himself a piece and invades Iran/Iraq himself?
1. Is this based on evidence, or is it merely an assumption? Surely the Soviets could have gains from attacking Germany at some point, but what other targets were out there for them?
2. Would a Soviet attack against Germany fair good? The Soviets lacked the experience, were still recovering from the purges and did not have Land Lease.
So the Red Army might succeed in the beginning, but it is a fact that it took the Germans 6 months to get the Wehrmacht to the outskirts of Moscow, while the Soviets needed 2 years (after Stalingrad) to get to the outskirts of Berlin. The Germans were quite good on defence, even when facing superior numbers. Perhaps an invasion by Stalin would be all that Germany needed to envelop and annihilate large portions of the Red Army, allowing them then to launch a counterattack. Whether or not Stalin would be able to get Land Lease is a total different question. However US public opinion would show more sympathy to an attacked Soviet Union than to a Soviet Union being the aggressor.
A possible side-effect of a failed Sealion with big losses for the Germans may have been a reshapement of the entire German strategy. Hitler may actually discover, that Britain is the true foe that needs to be beaten and Stalin may be more of a friend to him than he thought. He would still need big masses of troops to secure his eastern borders, but he may decide to focus on Britain. Going to N. Africa with more troops, taking out Malta may be very good options for him at this point.
If those campaigns were successfull German troops may be in the Middle East by 1942 and then who knows what happens next? Perhaps Stalin decides to grab himself a piece and invades Iran/Iraq himself?