What if the USSR had attacked Germany first?

Anaxagoras

Banned
Considering the difficulties the Red Army had in coordinating a defensive campaign, they would do far worse than they did IOTL, for offensive operations are much more difficult to control than defensive ones.
 
We've had this out before - the OTL situation would tell us that the Red army was incapable of launching such an attack as it was in its peacetime quarters etc which is why it did so badly in defending against against the German invasion

However IMO had the decision been made with plenty of time to prepare for the attack on such a day say in April 1941 then the Red Army is not going to be in its 'peacetime' quarters - units are going to be stood up and shortages in Equipment, ammo, men and stores addressed. Reserve formations are going to be moved into the region under the Aegis of wargames and training, swapping of units etc (with the swapped unit not actually leaving etc).

I am not suggesting that they would defeat Germany with such an attack and I am not convinced that they were capable of conducting the 'Deep battle' in 1941 but initially the initiative would remain with the Russians as they could dictate the time and the place of the early battles and concentrate forces accordingly.

If a good enough maskirovka is maintained and surprise is complete then I can see the German Army suffering many reverses early on before they can regroup and counter attack and its possible that the Red army can close up to the Vistula before the Germans bounce back off of the ropes swinging hard.

However with a POD that reduces or even does away with the Purges of the late 30s - preferably with I believe that the Red Army (and Russia as a whole) would be a far more formidable creature with names such as Tukhachevsky and his peers revered as masters of warfare. Perhaps something Nasty happens to 'Ioseb' in the early 30s and he either dies or does not cement his power as a dictator over the Party as per OTL?

This would result in a superior Staff and experienced core of Corps and Divisional commanders allowing the Red Army to perform that much better.

But whatever happens I've always maintained that if the Red Army is properly prepared for an offensive against the Germans in Poland it would do 'better' than the OTL poorly prepared affair that was its efforts to defend against the Germans in OTL 1941. For example the 57 Second echelon and still forming up Divisions that OTL were being stood up on the Dvina when the Germans invaded where for the most part undetected until the Axis forces bumped into them.

Although the Germans have moved 3 million men into Poland and Romania by this time they would still be preparing for the attack and it would have been they and not the Russians who would have been taken by surprise - although I would imagine that the Germans would recover far faster than the Russians did and its entirely possible that the whole 'adventure' ends badly for the Red Army - but even if defeated I cannot see it being anyway near as disastrous as the OTL defeats and any subsequent Axis invasion of Russia would be taken from the back foot vs an alert and fully stood up Red Army.
 
But whatever happens I've always maintained that if the Red Army is properly prepared for an offensive against the Germans in Poland it would do 'better' than the OTL poorly prepared affair that was its efforts to defend against the Germans in OTL 1941. For example the 57 Second echelon and still forming up Divisions that OTL were being stood up on the Dvina when the Germans invaded where for the most part undetected until the Axis forces bumped into them.

Although the Germans have moved 3 million men into Poland and Romania by this time they would still be preparing for the attack and it would have been they and not the Russians who would have been taken by surprise - although I would imagine that the Germans would recover far faster than the Russians did and its entirely possible that the whole 'adventure' ends badly for the Red Army - but even if defeated I cannot see it being anyway near as disastrous as the OTL defeats and any subsequent Axis invasion of Russia would be taken from the back foot vs an alert and fully stood up Red Army.

This would totally change the political/diplomatic situation though. Hitler would be able to argue that continuing the war against him amounted to supporting a communist takeover of Europe.

"Invasion of Russia, what invasion of Russia? Who says we were planning an invasion of Russia, except Churchill to justify keeping his country in a war he knows they cannot win?" Hitler glares out from the podium, staring out at the international press and Party faithful in the audience. "The Bolsheviks attacked us! The troops in eastern Europe were from our concern the Bolsheviks would attack us, and they did!"

OTL Winston Churchill had substantial opposition from higher level British politicians who thought the war effort was doomed and the UK should try to get out with the best deal it could. Suggesting sending aid to the Soviets after they attacked westward would have triggered fierce opposition. Stalin would still have needed it in the long run for the reason he needed it OTL, but how many of us think it would have been supplied for what was initially an aggressive war?

I see a Soviet attack being brought to a halt with heavy losses. How well the German attack east goes after that would depend on relative losses, effects on troop morale of a different aggressor nation, the possibility of all this changing how Western Europe, Britain and the US governments view who the bigger threat is...
 
This would totally change the political/diplomatic situation though. Hitler would be able to argue that continuing the war against him amounted to supporting a communist takeover of Europe.

Rubbish. In May 1941, Britain is locked in mortal combat with Germany. The U-boats are slaughtering British shipping. British troops are fighting for Crete and Tobruk. The fires of the Blitz are still burning in London. A powerful new ally would be welcomed. Indeed, the reaction of anyone not already on the Nazi side would be "Hooray for Stalin!" Particularly as the USSR would cover its attack by claims about Nazi crimes in occupied Poland - which could be entirely true.

Hitler's denials would be easily exploded as lies: the British and the Soviets had a mountain of intelligence about German preparations for BARBAROSSA; and everyone in the German high command knew - they'd been working on the plans for months. So would Germany's allies, as they too were involved in the planning.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
In this situation, a lot of Americans would be tempted to take Truman's advice: support the Germans if it looked like the Russians were winning and support the Russians if it looked like the Germans were winning, and thereby cause Hitler and Stalin to bleed one another white.
 
In this situation, a lot of Americans would be tempted to take Truman's advice: support the Germans if it looked like the Russians were winning and support the Russians if it looked like the Germans were winning, and thereby cause Hitler and Stalin to bleed one another white.

FDR would push hard for support to Stalin and I have no doubt Churchill would say that if "Hell's armies attacked Nazi Germany, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."
 

Deleted member 1487

This would be around 1941 after the fall of Greece.
Seriously are you trying to start arguments on this forum? This is how you start arguments.
We've actually discussed this here before several times and the general agreement is that the Soviet military was so messed up in 1941 and would telegraph the attack so badly and then fail so badly on the attack that it would make their defeat easier and give the Germans cassus belli. I think Halder even lamented that the Soviets wouldn't do them (the Germans) the favor of making things easier by attacking first. It be a worse (proportionally speaking) disaster than 2nd Kharkov was. Much worse. It would be a Luftwaffe turkey shoot on a much more concentrated frontage than they had IOTL, while Soviet armor would break down on the way to the battlefield (they did IOTL on their own turf).

However IMO had the decision been made with plenty of time to prepare for the attack on such a day say in April 1941 then the Red Army is not going to be in its 'peacetime' quarters - units are going to be stood up and shortages in Equipment, ammo, men and stores addressed. Reserve formations are going to be moved into the region under the Aegis of wargames and training, swapping of units etc (with the swapped unit not actually leaving etc).

I am not suggesting that they would defeat Germany with such an attack and I am not convinced that they were capable of conducting the 'Deep battle' in 1941 but initially the initiative would remain with the Russians as they could dictate the time and the place of the early battles and concentrate forces accordingly.

If a good enough maskirovka is maintained and surprise is complete then I can see the German Army suffering many reverses early on before they can regroup and counter attack and its possible that the Red army can close up to the Vistula before the Germans bounce back off of the ropes swinging hard.
The problem with the above is that the Soviets lacked enough equipment to supply all their units, even in Zhukov's offensive proposal only about half of Soviet divisions would even be usable on that attack. That already means they are badly outnumbered by the forces they'd be attacking, which was Romania and Germany. They were in the midst of a unit reorganization of all their units, an expansion of forces, recovering from a purge, and adopting modern equipment while phasing out the old. They'd really just not be able to do much besides use a fraction of their forces with all their old equipment, worse than the Germans standard of 1941, and use their inferior logistics (remember the Soviets side of the border was a different rail gauge than the German side and the roads were a lot worse). Plus the Germans had excellent radio intel at the time, plus overflights, as well as agents all over Ukraine, East Poland, the Baltics, and even as deep as Belarus IIRC, which means they'd know for sure what was coming and react accordingly. Effectively the Soviets would have given away their plans and would pull in Italy to help defend Romania, get Hungary and Slovakia as enemies, and probably even have to deal with Finland, while also having a lot of hostile recently occupied minorities sabotaging them and reporting to the Germans.

Maskirovka in 1941 was effectively non-existent compared to even 1943-44, so don't count on that happening. Logistics were so bad and trucks so limited given stocks even in the civilian economy, mitigated by using only half of the army to attack, and within the TOE of mechanized corps that moving around at the point of their choosing is not an option, especially given Luftwaffe superiority in training, equipment, and experience, plus organization, communications, bases, etc. and they are on alter for the invasion. So the Soviets would rapidly lose air support, including in large part due to accidents (IOTL in 1941 over half of Soviet aircraft losses were due to non-combat causes), which leaves the Germans completely able to use their air power to smash up any threatening ground concentrations, plus they can use their landline communication to maintain communication superiority, while the Soviets, badly lacking radios in 1941, couldn't even fall back on their landlines, which they did IOTL. That leaves them pretty much out of command and supply in most situations is a much worse rerun of 2nd Kharkov, but with the Germans being much more concentrated, prepared, fully equipped, on their own turf, etc. while the Soviets are the ones with all the material deficits.

There is a reason that Zhukov's offensive proposal wasn't even given to Stalin IOTL, no one in the Soviet high command thought it was even remotely rational.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This would totally change the political/diplomatic situation though. Hitler would be able to argue that continuing the war against him amounted to supporting a communist takeover of Europe.

"Invasion of Russia, what invasion of Russia? Who says we were planning an invasion of Russia, except Churchill to justify keeping his country in a war he knows they cannot win?" Hitler glares out from the podium, staring out at the international press and Party faithful in the audience. "The Bolsheviks attacked us! The troops in eastern Europe were from our concern the Bolsheviks would attack us, and they did!"

OTL Winston Churchill had substantial opposition from higher level British politicians who thought the war effort was doomed and the UK should try to get out with the best deal it could. Suggesting sending aid to the Soviets after they attacked westward would have triggered fierce opposition. Stalin would still have needed it in the long run for the reason he needed it OTL, but how many of us think it would have been supplied for what was initially an aggressive war?

I see a Soviet attack being brought to a halt with heavy losses. How well the German attack east goes after that would depend on relative losses, effects on troop morale of a different aggressor nation, the possibility of all this changing how Western Europe, Britain and the US governments view who the bigger threat is...

Just to add some context to what you are saying this is the same Hitler who has broken virtually every single international promise and virtually every treaty he has made and has overrun multiple neutral nations comprising most of Western and central Europe by the end of 1940 and who's word is of a value less than Piss Steam by 1941?

The Party Faithful might lap it up and Nazi apologist would very likely present it as a defence for all the Nasty stuff uncle Adolf did but the International press would not.

As for Britain - National day of Celebration - of course they send stuff to the Russians - what an odd notion - No fierce opposition of any kind would have been present in Westminster - the Enemy of my enemy is my friend. One of the most powerful nations in the world has not only turned its back on our enemy but they are at war with him! Happy day!
 
Worst case is it's bad enough to cost them the war right in 1941. Best case is the Germans run out of steam at the D'niepr line, leaving the Soviets with enough resources to rebuild a even stronger Red Army in 1942. That means come mid-42, both the Germans and Soviets are a whole lot stronger then they were OTL mid-42. That generally favors the Soviets in the longer-run, but in the medium-run it means a truly titanic clash in '42 along the Leningrad-Smolensk-Kiev line (give or take a bit). The middle-case, and most probable, outcome leave the German seizing roughly as much territory as they did OTL but avoiding the massive overextension and casualties they suffered in the winter of '41-'42... meaning come the campaign season of '42, the Soviets are weaker and the Germans are a whole lot stronger. That is a recipe for a potential Soviet collapse in '42. As you can tell, 2 of 3 of these scenarios ends with the USSR collapsing and thus leaves the war to be won or lost entirely by the Americans. Not a pleasant prospect for anyone except the Nazis and their supporters...

There is a reason that Zhukov's offensive proposal wasn't even given to Stalin IOTL, no one in the Soviet high command thought it was even remotely rational.

There's considerable evidence that the proposal wasn't so much a plan as it was a concept, like a whole lot of Soviet "plans" in 1941. The Soviets just weren't making any sort of plans that envisioned war in 1941.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
FDR would push hard for support to Stalin and I have no doubt Churchill would say that if "Hell's armies attacked Nazi Germany, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

But popular opinion would be very different than IOTL. This would be a bigger problem for FDR than for Churchill, since the British were already fighting the Germans. In America, it would certainly increase sympathy for neutrality.
 
Why exactly does the USSR do this in contravention of nearly all of their thinking up to this point? You need a more specific POD for this major of a shift.
 
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but another important factor to consider was the flooding among the various rivers in the region that didn't subside until around mid-June and helped to delay the start of Barbarossa.
 
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but another important factor to consider was the flooding among the various rivers in the region that didn't subside until around mid-June and helped to delay the start of Barbarossa.

Very true - this IIRC was of greater importance to the Air Forces than the Ground forces as Airfields were flooded in May making mass sorties impossible.
 

Deleted member 1487

Very true - this IIRC was of greater importance to the Air Forces than the Ground forces as Airfields were flooded in May making mass sorties impossible.
Got a source on that? All I've seen is that rivers were still flooded so crossing was impossible, which made offensive operations without captured enemy bridges impossible.
 
Got a source on that? All I've seen is that rivers were still flooded so crossing was impossible, which made offensive operations without captured enemy bridges impossible.

Ahh I see - I'm not suggesting that Rivers were easily 'crossable' and to be clear I appreciate that the Swollen Rivers would have made Ferrying and Bridging activities far more difficult / dangerous than normal (not impossible but probably too difficult to trust in an attacking scenario) - just that Airfields were flooded making air ops very difficult during May and that the Luftwaffe was vital to a successful attack.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ahh I see - I'm not suggesting that Rivers were easily 'crossable' and to be clear I appreciate that the Swollen Rivers would have made Ferrying and Bridging activities far more difficult / dangerous than normal (not impossible but probably too difficult to trust in an attacking scenario) - just that Airfields were flooded making air ops very difficult during May and that the Luftwaffe was vital to a successful attack.
Fine, but do you have a source on the airfield point? I've not seen that as an issue in any of the reading on the subject. Not only that, but the Germans will be operating from paved airfields and pre-war air bases both their own and Polish and Romanian. Some fields will be unpaved of course, but then that is an issue the Soviets will have too.
 
I think we can agree that the Soviets were screwed if they attacked first in 1941. But what a Soviet offensive on 10 May, 1940 at the same time a Plan Yellow? The German border was lightly guarded as the Reich threw all its weight in the West, might be that the Russians can take Warsaw and Konigsberg before being repulsed. Either way, I don't see the Germans winning a two-front war, so Paris doesn't fall and maybe the Reich goes as far as say Kiev?
 
1941, It was very unlikely that the Sovs would do much harm to the Reich. Maybe later but I personally don't know.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think we can agree that the Soviets were screwed if they attacked first in 1941. But what a Soviet offensive on 10 May, 1940 at the same time a Plan Yellow? The German border was lightly guarded as the Reich threw all its weight in the West, might be that the Russians can take Warsaw and Konigsberg before being repulsed. Either way, I don't see the Germans winning a two-front war, so Paris doesn't fall and maybe the Reich goes as far as say Kiev?
Right after the mess of the Winter War? No happening. Plus logistics are even worse for the Soviets in 1940 than they were in 1941, they still have the rail gauge change, old equipment, not enough equipment, not enough trucks, terrible logistics in East Poland and unimproved logistics linking them well with the USSR, no bases, no preparations for the offensive like stockpiling munitions and other telegraphing military activities on the border, plus the Baltic states and Romania are still unoccupied. As it was Stalin wanted Hitler to move West in 1940 to buy him time to build up his military AND wear down the Allies and Germans in the meantime. It actually makes all the sense in the world to assume that the war in the west would take so long that Stalin would have time to prepare for war, while his enemies (both the Allies and Germans) would wear each other out and leave him open to sweeping the field when he was ready. No one expected the level of success the Germans had in 1940, no one, not even the Germans. So it was like and ASB disaster just happened, how do you adapt? The Germans victory in June 1940 should have been the signal to prepare for war for Stalin, but rather than taking the shortest route to preparedness for 1941, he took the long route for defensive preparedness in 1942 and maybe offensive preparedness in 1943.
 
Top