WI: Soviet War Plans

What if researchers in Russia discovered plans by Stalin of invading Europe, but his invasion was only a couple of months away when Operation Barbarossa began?

I know there's a lot of arguments against this, but I consider two things I've read.

The USSA did invade Poland about the same time.

A Soviet invasion would explain the sheer numbers of soldiers captured by the German armies.
 
In spring 1941 the Red Army was in no position to attack or defend. It was experiencing a massive overhaul at all levels, stretching down into supporting industries like gun and truck production. Offensive contingencies were created by STAVKA in May 1941, but were never implemented. What was implemented was a series of defensive directives and mobilization orders which were clearly defensive in nature. That's what matters, not half baked theories about Stalin's grand plans to conquer Europe.
 
They would be denounced as fakes they were. As Julian said, Red Army was in process of modernisation, which went a long way toward their bad performance as old stuff wasn't produced anymore but new stuff wasn't produced in alrge numbers yet.

The large numbers are explained by Soviet doctrine of forward defense combined with rapid switch to counter offensive. Plus SU expanded west (Poland, Balts, Moldavia) but army wasn't emplaced yet so they were caught in the open, so to speak.
 
I wouldn't discount the possibility of somewhat longer-term plans by Stalin to attack Germany sometime between late 1942 and 1945, but the idea that Barbarossa was preempting an imminent Soviet invasion is absurd.

Also the USSR attacking Poland was part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact agreement, not a unilateral move by the Soviet Union.
 
Also, you might be interested to know that the "researcher" you mention does exist, he's called Viktor Suvorov and while I find his attitude and writing style quite entertaining, the accuracy of most of his claims are...doubtful.
 
I can accept that. So attack plans for the late 1940s is more possible. Maybe Stalin had planned on an attack, but wanted to modernize his army as soon as possible.
 
I wouldn't discount the possibility of somewhat longer-term plans by Stalin to attack Germany sometime between late 1942 and 1945, but the idea that Barbarossa was preempting an imminent Soviet invasion is absurd.

Also the USSR attacking Poland was part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact agreement, not a unilateral move by the Soviet Union.

I believe Stalin planned to attack germany sometime in 1943.
 
IIRC, the modernizations would have been finished by sometime in 1942. But Stalin being the cautious dude he was, probably would have waited until he decided that Germany was really in deep sh*t before attacking. My understanding is that he was content to have the "imperialist powers" (of which Germany was one) duke it out with each other as long as possible.

Frankly if Hitler hadn't been hell-bent on conquering Russia at some point I do think it would have been possible for Stalin to let the Nazi-Soviet pact last indefinitely. He could provide Germany with a trickle of the necessary resources (this was done IOTL until June 1941) to fight Britain and France in exchange for technology and perhaps even Jews and other people the Nazis don't like to be sent to Siberia.
 
Stalin's calculus had changed radically following the Fall of France. Before that he believed that the Anglo-French and Germans could bleed each other white. Afterwards however Germany was not fighting the massive war of attrition Stalin wanted; instead it was fighting a limited conflict in the air, in the Atlantic and in North Africa. While Germany would become progressively more subservient to the Soviet Union economically, they would not come any closer to collapse. At the same time Hitler would continue to stonewall Stalin on spheres of influence in the Balkans and Finland. It's difficult to see a situation where Stalin, faced with an Anglo-German conflict that is unlikely to serious deplete either side for years on one hand, a blatant betrayal of the terms of the M-R Pact on the other, and an invincible army at his disposal, wouldn't seek war with Germany.
 
Well I would think that to convince Hitler to not order Barbarossa, you would probably need some event like France being able to put up more of a fight (not sure of the details but its probably possible to make the French army less of a pushover). By late 1940 you have British as well as French troops fighting the Wehrmacht on the ground, perhaps with Paris as a Stalingrad of the West, who knows. Anyway Stalin might do well to sit tight and be content until one side prevails. If Germany wins Stalin might decide to go for the Oder or send the RKKA to visit Serbia; if Germany loses he might give the Germans "military assistance" and effectively turn them into a junior ally before it can be invaded. In any case Stalin can get his Balkan gains and more if the war against France goes badly for Hitler
 
Well I would think that to convince Hitler to not order Barbarossa, you would probably need some event like France being able to put up more of a fight (not sure of the details but its probably possible to make the French army less of a pushover). By late 1940 you have British as well as French troops fighting the Wehrmacht on the ground, perhaps with Paris as a Stalingrad of the West, who knows. Anyway Stalin might do well to sit tight and be content until one side prevails. If Germany wins Stalin might decide to go for the Oder or send the RKKA to visit Serbia; if Germany loses he might give the Germans "military assistance" and effectively turn them into a junior ally before it can be invaded. In any case Stalin can get his Balkan gains and more if the war against France goes badly for Hitler

I don't think France had the political will for a long war fought on its soil; certainly in Belgium and the border regions, but not at the very gates of Paris. The government would probably sue for peace regardless of their ability to continue resisting.
 
Top