Was Barbarossa Doomed from the start?

That's a reference to Sudaplatov's account, he's the "intermediary" the review mentions.

Do you think that there will be a video recording of this, or an official paper signed in Stalins blood?

This is what you get, what you ask is additional evidence that would require future technology of brain scanning capabilities and time traveling technology to definitely prove what was inside Stalins mind.

For me it is obvious that Stalin would have traded away those lands and peoples.

Especially when you factor in that before Hitler attacked, Stalin said that what Hitler would do is gradually ask for territories such as the Ukraine and through that such a thing would be reasonable under the right circumstances

THEN add the fact that in July of 1941 after the red army had suffered huge losses Stalin was worried that he would be dethroned and executed.

THEN add the purges and that Stalin was constantly purging people he perceived as a threat

You add all of these pieces and you get a dictator who obviously is interested is perceiving his own skin above all else, that is why he did the Purges. So in August - October 1941, Hitler COULD in my opinion reached out to Stalin and would have accepted because Stalin was worried.
 
This is the actual text of Sudaplotov’s account, translated:

"August 7, 1953

I report on the following fact known to me.

A few days after the treacherous attack of fascist Germany on the USSR, approximately the number of June 25–27, 1941, I was summoned to the office of the then-Commissar of the Interior of the USSR Beria.

Beria told me that there is a decision of the Soviet government, according to which it is necessary to find out unofficially, on what conditions Germany will agree to stop the war against the USSR and stop the offensive of the German fascist troops. Beria explained to me that this decision of the Soviet government is intended to create conditions that allow the Soviet government to maneuver and gain time for gathering forces. In this regard, Beria ordered me to meet with the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR Stamenov, who, according to the NKVD of the USSR, had connections with the Germans and was well known to them <...>.

Beria ordered me to put four questions in a conversation with Stamenov. Beria listed these questions, looking in his notebook, and they boiled down to the following:

1. Why Germany, violating the non-aggression pact, started a war against the USSR;

2. What would suit Germany, on what conditions Germany agrees to end the war, what is needed to end the war;

3. Will the Germans arrange the transfer of Germany to such Soviet lands as the Baltic States, Ukraine, Bessarabia, Bukovina, the Karelian Isthmus;

4. If not, what territories does Germany additionally claim?

Beria ordered me to talk with Stamenov not on behalf of the Soviet government, but to raise these questions in the course of a conversation on the military and political situation that had been created and to clarify Stamenov’s opinion on the substance of these four questions.

Beria said that the point of my conversation with Stamenov is for Stamenov to remember these four questions well. At the same time, Beria expressed confidence that Stamenov himself would bring these issues to the attention of Germany ... ”

Original untranslated text here:
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/article...-byl-gotov-otdat-gitleru-pribaltiku-i-ukrainu

This is not a negotiation for peace: this is just sending out feelers saying "Hey, what would be acceptable for peace?" There's not even a meeting of ambassadors! The one meeting was an informal meeting between Suboplatov and the Bulgarian embassy. This is extraordinarily preliminary stuff.

Attempting to open negotiations doesn't mean they were in good faith. Diplomatic overtures are a low cost tactic that can be used to disrupt or stall an enemy. If they fail, nothing is lost save ink and words (and the occasional Bf 110 and Deputy Fuhrer).

Certainly by 1941 no one would have expected Hitler to enter into such negotiations in good faith, or to abide by any terms agreed.
 
This is the actual text of Sudaplotov’s account, translated:



Original untranslated text here:
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/article...-byl-gotov-otdat-gitleru-pribaltiku-i-ukrainu

This is not a negotiation for peace: this is just sending out feelers saying "Hey, what would be acceptable for peace?" There's not even a meeting of ambassadors! The one meeting was an informal meeting between Suboplatov and the Bulgarian embassy. This is extraordinarily preliminary stuff.

Attempting to open negotiations doesn't mean they were in good faith. Diplomatic overtures are a low cost tactic that can be used to disrupt or stall an enemy. If they fail, nothing is lost save ink and words (and the occasional Bf 110 and Deputy Fuhrer).

Certainly by 1941 no one would have expected Hitler to enter into such negotiations in good faith, or to abide by any terms agreed.



This whole forum is about alternative historical possibilities.

In the scenario I purpose Hitler does not want all of the USSR initially in one bite, but can take several bites or even just be satisfied with a big bite.

I am pretty sure that Stalin in August - October in 1941 would have accepted a deal.

There is only one important question here which you skipped.

If Hitler were to make the offer would Stalin accept.

My opinion is yes he would.
 
Yes, so what? There’s a difference between possibilities and probabilities.


And fundamentally, opinion is all you have.

Yes this whole forum is about alternatives to what happened, and in this alternative Hitler makes a peace offer.

And all you have is opinion as well because Hitler never made the offer. You can not prove that Stalin would not have accepted.

And my opinion is based on these facts:

#1 In July of 1941 Stalin was worried that he would be dethroned and executed because of the military failures he even asked if "they had come for him" when there was a military meeting, Stalin was worried.

#2 Stalin had only had the Baltics for a year, giving them up is not a big change.

#3 Stalin had only had Moldova for a year, giving it up is not a big change.

#4 Stalin had only had half of the Ukraine and half of White Russia for 2 years, giving those lands up is going back to how it was 2 years ago. The OTHER halves however are a somewhat big change, but manageable.

#5 Stalin did want to offer those lands according to the the book, and I trust the books authors interpretation more than the newspapers authors interpretation.
 
Yes this whole forum is about alternatives to what happened, and in this alternative Hitler makes a peace offer.

Because... why, again?

And my opinion is based on these facts:

#1 In July of 1941 Stalin was worried that he would be dethroned and executed because of the military failures he even asked if "they had come for him" when there was a military meeting, Stalin was worried.

Well, to start with, it wasn’t a military meeting. Rather what happened was that after Minsk fell, Stalin withdrew to his dacha. After a few days, the rest of the Politburo went out to meet him. He never asked if "they had come for him", rather he asked "what are you doing here?" Accounts are contradictory as to whether the question was asked in a fearful or casual tone, but regardless what happened was that the Politburo begged him to come back to work and lead the Stare Defense Committee, which ceded even more power to Stalin. After that, Stalin never showed any fear of an internal revolt and for good reason. The rest of the leadership had, after all, just demonstrated their complete loyalty to him.

What's more, in later meetings in July and August, Stalin expressed complete confidence that the frontlines would still be "in front of Leningrad, Moscow, and Kiev" by winter time as noted by Antony Bellamy. Even when he was proven wrong in the case of Kiev in September, he didn't show any sign of worry over the German advances, decisively refusing to leave Moscow even as the Germans approached the city. If Stalin was worried, then he wasn't showing it.

#2 Stalin had only had the Baltics for a year, giving them up is not a big change.

#3 Stalin had only had Moldova for a year, giving it up is not a big change.

#4 Stalin had only had half of the Ukraine and half of White Russia for 2 years, giving those lands up is going back to how it was 2 years ago. The OTHER halves however are a somewhat big change, but manageable.

None of this is evidence Stalin was willing to give these up.

#5 Stalin did want to offer those lands according to the the book, and I trust the books authors interpretation more than the newspapers authors interpretation.

I've read Court of the Red Tsar and in it, Montefiore does not interpret Stalin as being automatically. He takes a much more neutral stance then that, noting that the it could have been a stalling tactic. And Montefiore's source is, as I noted, Sudaplotov's account which I've already linked too above where the attempt is explicitly made out to be a stalling tactic. Only the newspaper article you linked too turns it into a honest effort at negotiation. So what your doing isn't trusting the books authors interpretation: rather your trusting the newspaper authors interpretation of the book authors interpretation of the actual source.
 
Because... why, again?

The name of this thread is "Was Barbarossa Doomed from the start?"

The name of this forum is Alternative history.

So in an alternative where the axis treat the people "humanly" AND Hitler asks for peace in August - October 1941, then no Barbarossa was not doomed.

Well, to start with, it wasn’t a military meeting. Rather what happened was that after Minsk fell, Stalin withdrew to his dacha. After a few days, the rest of the Politburo went out to meet him. He never asked if "they had come for him", rather he asked "what are you doing here?" Accounts are contradictory as to whether the question was asked in a fearful or casual tone, but regardless what happened was that the Politburo begged him to come back to work and lead the Stare Defense Committee, which ceded even more power to Stalin. After that, Stalin never showed any fear of an internal revolt and for good reason. The rest of the leadership had, after all, just demonstrated their complete loyalty to him.

What's more, in later meetings in July and August, Stalin expressed complete confidence that the frontlines would still be "in front of Leningrad, Moscow, and Kiev" by winter time as noted by Antony Bellamy. Even when he was proven wrong in the case of Kiev in September, he didn't show any sign of worry over the German advances, decisively refusing to leave Moscow even as the Germans approached the city. If Stalin was worried, then he wasn't showing it.

You write it yourself

He went to his dacha, because he was sure he was done and wanted to die there. Why else would he go there during a war after the army had suffered major defeats.


None of this is evidence Stalin was willing to give these up.

Yes it is, nothing changes that much on those first 3,5 he goes back to how it was 2 years ago, the other 0.5 point that is a larger change but manageable. Stalin signed a peace deal with Finland in 1940 and then again in 1944, which shows that he was capable of being pragmatic.

I've read Court of the Red Tsar and in it, Montefiore does not interpret Stalin as being automatically. He takes a much more neutral stance then that, noting that the it could have been a stalling tactic. And Montefiore's source is, as I noted, Sudaplotov's account which I've already linked too above where the attempt is explicitly made out to be a stalling tactic. Only the newspaper article you linked too turns it into a honest effort at negotiation. So what your doing isn't trusting the books authors interpretation: rather your trusting the newspaper authors interpretation of the book authors interpretation of the actual source.

I have also read the book and others as well but it was some years ago, by the way I have read many of your comments over several years and agree with many of them, except of course these one here.

For me when I add all of these events AND THE PURGES, I come to the conclusion that if Hitler had offered peace then Stalin would have accepted. Stalin was a dictator whos primary concern was Stalin.
 
The name of this thread is "Was Barbarossa Doomed from the start?"

The name of this forum is Alternative history.

So in an alternative where Hitler asks for peace in August - October 1941, no Barbarossa was not doomed.

So "because I say so" and not "because this is something Hitler would realistically do". I don't know if you didn't notice, but this forum is for realistic alternative history. We have a separate forum for unrealistic alternative history. In any case, what your talking about is not Barbarossa, but rather something completely different and vastly less ambitious.

You write it yourself

He went to his dacha, because he was sure he was done and wanted to die there. Why else would he go there during a war after the army had suffered major defeats.

Unfortunately, what I went on to say about what happened afterwards also contradicts your claim that Stalin was worried enough to accept a peace offer afterward. Your claim is about August-October, not late-June/early-July. The evidence seems to indicate that the result of that incident was that Stalin gained the confidence to reject any notion of the USSR losing despite these defeats, which is the opposite of your claims.

Yes it is, nothing changes that much on those first 3,5 he goes back to how it was 2 years ago, the other 0.5 point that is a larger change but manageable.

All you did is describe what the state of the territories are but that tells us nothing about Stalin's willingness to do it.

Stalin signed a peace deal with Finland in 1940 and then again in 1944, which shows that he was capable of being pragmatic.

I don't see how Stalin dictating a victorious peace treaty in a war that he has won is the same as him being eager to accept a peace treaty in which the USSR sacrifices so much.

I have also read the book and others as well but it was some years ago, by the way I have read many of your comments over several years and agree with many of them, except of course these one here.

For me when I add all of these events AND THE PURGES, I come to the conclusion that if Hitler had offered peace then Stalin would have accepted. Stalin was a dictator whos primary concern was Stalin.

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, does not go away. That Sudaplotov and Montefiore does not say what you claim they said is written rather solidly in print and no amount of backpeddling on your end will change that.

And there's nothing to show the purges factored into his calculations after the war began at all so I don't know what your bringing that up for.
 
So "because I say so" and not "because this is something Hitler would realistically do". I don't know if you didn't notice, but this forum is for realistic alternative history. We have a separate forum for unrealistic alternative history. In any case, what your talking about is not Barbarossa, but rather something completely different and vastly less ambitious.

Yeah all of that is just your opinion, you do not decide what is and is not allowed to be written in the alternative history forums. Indeed you are projecting, just because you say so does not make it so. That whole argument from you, is possibly the most ridiculous you have ever made online, that you get to decide what someone else can write in an alternative history forum that YOU get to decide.

Unfortunately, what I went on to say about what happened afterwards also contradicts your claim that Stalin was worried enough to accept a peace offer afterward. Your claim is about August-October, not late-June/early-July. The evidence seems to indicate that the result of that incident was that Stalin gained the confidence to reject any notion of the USSR losing despite these defeats, which is the opposite of your claims.

That is just nit picking and ignoring the whole context. Stalin is a dictator. Stalin murdered many so that Stalin could be the dictator. Stalin was constantly worried of enemies everywhere assassinating him. During a war after suffering major defeats he goes to his dacha. This all is not done by someone who is confident. Obviously he was shaken, and just because he was not murdered right there and then, does not mean he suddenly would not have accepted a peace deal.[/QUOTE]

All you did is describe what the state of the territories are but that tells us nothing about Stalin's willingness to do it.

This connects to the previous and next reply, in this scenario Stalin removes one problem, the war, and can focus on his other constant problem, his mind, where he is constantly worried about "traitors" everywhere.

AND

Then we have this: Stalin and Molotov instructed Beria to sound out Hitler about a negotiated peace, even if it required the sacrifice of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the Baltic Republics.

So yes, for me it is obvious.


I don't see how Stalin dictating a victorious peace treaty in a war that he has won is the same as him being eager to accept a peace treaty in which the USSR sacrifices so much.

He was pragmatic in that he did not force everything to the very end. So therefore giving up some land in this scenario is possible because he gets to keep some land as well, the rest of the USSR.

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, does not go away. That Sudaplotov and Montefiore does not say what you claim they said is written rather solidly in print and no amount of backpeddling on your end will change that.

And there's nothing to show the purges factored into his calculations after the war began at all so I don't know what your bringing that up for.

The purges show the character of Stalin, that he was worried about being dethroned, that he cared about himself above all other things. That he was willing to murder and imprison people as long as he could be the one in charge.

And yes Stalin did want to offer those lands, but obviously you need a time machine and a brain scanning device as proof, which are impossible to provide.
 
Last edited:

thorr97

Banned
I could see Stalin trying to pull such a deal with the Nazis. One or two more failed counter-offensives on the Red Army's part. A couple more crushing German victories. A bit more of an advance by the Wehrmacht here, another route of Red Army troops there, and "the Man of Steel" might've got just that much more desperate to have attempted such a maneuver with even greater intent.

And that could've allowed Barbarossa to have succeeded.

By this, I mean things could then have spun out of control back in Moscow. Word of Stalin's attempts to "surrender" to the Nazis could've been the final straw for some truly desperate and terrified men. Men enraged and desperate enough to give Stalin a "Tokorev's Kiss." This, only to then find that holding the nation together in his stead was an even more impossible task. Bereft of its "Dear Leader" the Soviet Union falls to chaos, civil war, and division. Thus making the conquering work all the easier for the Germans.

That could've made it happen...
 
I think the problem with any 'peace in the East' deal is that when the Russians might go for it, the Germans wouldn't - they wouldn't more and thought they would get it, and when the Germans might have gone for it - too late the Russian steamroller was on its way - no stopping it now.

It might be different in a Germany victorious situation - where Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad have all fallen and the A-A line is within reach. hitleer I think would've gone for an end to hostilities & 'Peace' with objectives met and no further resistance to worry about.
 
I could see Stalin trying to pull such a deal with the Nazis. One or two more failed counter-offensives on the Red Army's part. A couple more crushing German victories. A bit more of an advance by the Wehrmacht here, another route of Red Army troops there, and "the Man of Steel" might've got just that much more desperate to have attempted such a maneuver with even greater intent.

And that could've allowed Barbarossa to have succeeded.

By this, I mean things could then have spun out of control back in Moscow. Word of Stalin's attempts to "surrender" to the Nazis could've been the final straw for some truly desperate and terrified men. Men enraged and desperate enough to give Stalin a "Tokorev's Kiss." This, only to then find that holding the nation together in his stead was an even more impossible task. Bereft of its "Dear Leader" the Soviet Union falls to chaos, civil war, and division. Thus making the conquering work all the easier for the Germans.

That could've made it happen...


You go a few steps beyond my thinking but it is possible

Also the other part you may have missed is that the axis do not misstreate the local population but instead keep the behavior in check until after a peace deal is settled.

I think the problem with any 'peace in the East' deal is that when the Russians might go for it, the Germans wouldn't - they wouldn't more and thought they would get it, and when the Germans might have gone for it - too late the Russian steamroller was on its way - no stopping it now.

It might be different in a Germany victorious situation - where Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad have all fallen and the A-A line is within reach. hitleer I think would've gone for an end to hostilities & 'Peace' with objectives met and no further resistance to worry about.

Yes it so, they would not have, and there is the twist I would purpose to offer peace in August - October 1941 AND also not to treat the local population or captured soldiers poorly.

By the way it is Soviets not Russians ;)

Sudoplatov also claimed that the Red Army liberated Denmark.

Indirectly it did, and the Red Army did liberate Norway in part, but that does not change that specific instance of Stalin being ready to offer those lands however of course I see your point. For me it is 99% obvious that Stalin would have accepted the offer if Hitler had made it.
 

thorr97

Banned
OGF,

You go a few steps beyond my thinking but it is possible

Also the other part you may have missed is that the axis do not misstreate the local population but instead keep the behavior in check until after a peace deal is settled.

My thoughts are more along the lines of the Red Army's falling apart due to the political chaos that would follow Stalin's being assassinated for having attempted to make the peace with the Nazis. There'd be the factions declaring Stalin a traitor to the workers and the people of the Soviet Union and there'd be the factions declaring the assassins as the traitors. With the chaos and conflicting orders coming from Moscow it'd be much easier then for the Germans to destroy and pocket even more Soviet troops and that'd start a true cascade failure of the Soviet defenses. Thus the German treatment of the conquered populations wouldn't have had a chance to have had an effect on the rest of Barbarossa's operational success.
 
OGF,



My thoughts are more along the lines of the Red Army's falling apart due to the political chaos that would follow Stalin's being assassinated for having attempted to make the peace with the Nazis. There'd be the factions declaring Stalin a traitor to the workers and the people of the Soviet Union and there'd be the factions declaring the assassins as the traitors. With the chaos and conflicting orders coming from Moscow it'd be much easier then for the Germans to destroy and pocket even more Soviet troops and that'd start a true cascade failure of the Soviet defenses. Thus the German treatment of the conquered populations wouldn't have had a chance to have had an effect on the rest of Barbarossa's operational success.

I do not think there would be an assassination of Stalin, after the purges he did he was in full command, there were no challenges to his power. Stalin could possibly even convince many that this was "a good deal". So I do not think there would be all of these factions because of the deal.

About the treatment of the local population, I am quite sure that as soon as the axis began mistreating them the resistance increased. Initially the axis were greeted as liberators, that all changed when their true intentions became obvious which was not long after the invasion. So by treating the people well constantly, the nazis would be in an even stronger position, having more soldiers and more supplies because less soldiers and less supplies would be lost to resistance.
 
Top