WI Soviets attack Germany first?

Edward IX

Banned
Basically, WI the Soviets attack the Nazis before the Nazis prior to Barbarossa? I realize that it will be hard given the purges and the like. Would they have the equipment with out lend lease? Reactions from the WA? America is not in the war, what difference does it make?

I don't think of the German Military was built at the time for defence. Do we see a repeat of WW1 or September in Berlin? I don't know all of the personalities at STAVKA or OKHW at the time, so I would appreciate your thoughts.
 

GarethC

Donor
So, here are a few scenarios:

1) On 1 October 1939, Stalin orders the Red Army to move from operations against Poland to operations against Germany as well, since they're on a roll and Hitler is a lying weasel who you wouldn't trust as far as he could throw you.

2) On 14 March 1940, after the surrender of Finland, Stalin's ears twitch and he suspects that the successful conclusion of affairs in Finland may be only the beginning, and orders planning for a campaign to the West. On 15 May 1940, with the surrender of the Netherlands coming on top of other French defeats, Stalin becomes paranoid that Hitler is just going to win in the West and then turn East, and orders the Red Army to implement the plan and attack west. D-Day is scheduled for 1 June.

3) On 30 May 1941, Richard Sorge advises Moscow that Germany is going to attack the Soviet Union by the end of June. Stalin happens to be looking at a picture of von Ribbentrop when he is briefed by Beria and is so irritated by the German Foreign Minister's image that he decides to believe Sorge's intelligence, and orders plans for a counterstrike, to be launched on June 20 to give time for the rasputitsa, the time of mud, to dry out.

I think 3) will be a disaster for the Soviets, leading to earlier encirclements than OTL and greater losses overall. Moscow may even fall, which will at least severely curtail Soviet warmaking ability, if not cause it to sue for peace altogether.

2) is probably enough to keep Mussolini out of the war and the French in it. Initial Soviet performance will be poor, with the officer corps, inventory, and logistics train all going through reshuffles at the time the order is given. Casualties will be high, but the Polish occupation forces will retreat towards Germany (no fight-to-the-last-bullet Fuhrerbefehlen at this stage). This proper two-front war will see Germany sue for peace (possibly after Hitler shoots himself shaving), which the Soviets may accept (after they annex all of Poland), but the French and British will not, as they are thinking about phrases like "so that no stone stands upon another" and "plough the fields with salt".

1) is unlikely because it's such a bad idea, as France and Britain aren't in a position to really press the war in the West yet, and Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway aren't involved. Germany can hold off further French advances into the Saar while keeping their eyes on the prize in the East, and will probably rout the RKKA in the field after an initial getting-to-know-you period. Everything bogs down in the snows a bit east of the prewar Polish borders, and in the spring the Entente is ready to play. The war ends in late 1942 with French troops in Berlin and Soviet ones in East Prussia..
 

Deleted member 1487

So, here are a few scenarios:

1) On 1 October 1939, Stalin orders the Red Army to move from operations against Poland to operations against Germany as well, since they're on a roll and Hitler is a lying weasel who you wouldn't trust as far as he could throw you.
They weren't really doing well in Poland (their performance led to a number of reforms as a result), while, according to a lecture I just watched about Stalin, he actually wanted Germany to attack west and cause a long destructive war so the Soviets could sweep in and spread the revolution (he apparently thought that since WW1 had resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia that another great war in western Europe would result in the populations turning to communism themselves and Stalin could sweep in and facilitate their rise).

3) On 30 May 1941, Richard Sorge advises Moscow that Germany is going to attack the Soviet Union by the end of June. Stalin happens to be looking at a picture of von Ribbentrop when he is briefed by Beria and is so irritated by the German Foreign Minister's image that he decides to believe Sorge's intelligence, and orders plans for a counterstrike, to be launched on June 20 to give time for the rasputitsa, the time of mud, to dry out.
Part of the problem is that Sorge already advised Stalin about the actual original attack date of May 15th; when it didn't happen and instead the Balkan campaign happened Sorge lost a ton of credibility. Stalin also in general did not rate Sorge highly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge#Wartime_intelligence_supplied_by_the_Sorge_Ring
Stalin was quoted as having ridiculed Sorge and his intelligence before "Barbarossa":

There's this bastard who's set up factories and brothels in Japan and even deigned to report the date of the German attack as 22 June. Are you suggesting I should believe him too?[38]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) On 1 October 1939, Stalin orders the Red Army to move from operations against Poland to operations against Germany as well, since they're on a roll and Hitler is a lying weasel who you wouldn't trust as far as he could throw you.
2) On 14 March 1940, after the surrender of Finland, Stalin's ears twitch and he suspects that the successful conclusion of affairs in Finland may be only the beginning, and orders planning for a campaign to the West. On 15 May 1940, with the surrender of the Netherlands coming on top of other French defeats, Stalin becomes paranoid that Hitler is just going to win in the West and then turn East, and orders the Red Army to implement the plan and attack west. D-Day is scheduled for 1 June.
These work out rather well in the long-run for the Soviets, even if the Red Army's sorry state means it'll probably get routed back possibly as far as Smolensk and Kiev in the short run.
3) On 30 May 1941, Richard Sorge advises Moscow that Germany is going to attack the Soviet Union by the end of June. Stalin happens to be looking at a picture of von Ribbentrop when he is briefed by Beria and is so irritated by the German Foreign Minister's image that he decides to believe Sorge's intelligence, and orders plans for a counterstrike, to be launched on June 20 to give time for the rasputitsa, the time of mud, to dry out.
This, on the other hand, is an absurdly risky gamble that only could work out in favor of the Soviets in a "best case" sort of situation. Anything less, and the Soviets do as badly as IOTL or worse. Worst case, it's enough to lose the Soviets the war.
 
Basically, WI the Soviets attack the Nazis before the Nazis prior to Barbarossa? I realize that it will be hard given the purges and the like. Would they have the equipment with out lend lease? Reactions from the WA? America is not in the war, what difference does it make?

I don't think of the German Military was built at the time for defence. Do we see a repeat of WW1 or September in Berlin? I don't know all of the personalities at STAVKA or OKHW at the time, so I would appreciate your thoughts.


German armed forces were much better equipped for defence than offense in 1941. Most of the HEER was infantry divisions and the long term plan was to reach offensive mechanised capability until the mid 1940s.
 

Deleted member 97083

This, on the other hand, is an absurdly risky gamble that only could work out in favor of the Soviets in a "best case" sort of situation. Anything less, and the Soviets do as badly as IOTL or worse. Worst case, it's enough to lose the Soviets the war.
What do you think the (vanishingly unlikely) best case scenario would have been there?
 
In this scenario – where Russia attacks first there is always going to be an advantage for the attacker

The attacker has concentration at the point or points of attack - the defender is not concentrated so is locally outnumbered and until they can concentrate is going to be at a disadvantage.

The attacking side knows that they are fighting and where etc and are therefore prepared and logistically supported as well as they can be. The defender is going to be less well prepared and therefore much more likely to be subjected to the shocks and misfortune of war.

The attacker is fully mobilised with reserves in place while the defender may be in garrison with a given units sub units spread around making individual divisions far less effective.

So assuming that the Germans are not prepared or are unable to prepare (i.e. are still fighting in the West or have just finished combat ops in Poland) then such an attack may very well catch them off guard

I have no illusion that the German war machine in late 1939 or mid 1940 was very likely able to rally and mount an effective defence against such an attack but with the Red army ‘stood up’ and in fighting ‘trim’ regardless of how ineffective it was post Purges is going to make a far better showing than it did during Op Barbarossa when it was the woefully unprepared defender and was unable to resist the shocks and misfortune of war.

While it will probably end in a disaster for the Red Army when the German Armed forces ultimately recover and counter attack it would still likely be a better result than OTL when they were effectively curb stomped – with sub units spread about, ammo not distributed, logistics (limited it may have been) not even active, AFVs not undergone full maintenance with spares not pushed to units where required. During Barbarossa they were scrambling for months never really catching up allowing the German army to retain the initiative.

With a Russian attack the Germans will first have to regain that initiative and if fighting is still going on in the West at the time……
 
Soviet army logistics were in the process of replacing and upgrading during late 1940-1941 and probably won't have sufficient spare parts, fuel, ammo and trucks to maintain an offensive into prepared German Wehrmacht positions in mid 1941...

Luftwaffe recon was also on-going and reaching at least 500 km into soviet territory from the new German-Soviet border of 1939...

The build up would show up in their recon photos and radio traffic among with ground Intel will tell the Heer that the Soviets were up to something...

If the soviet army plans to attack on June 1st 1940, this might be feasible as long as Soviet logistics can keep up with their offensive capabilities of 1940 combat strength tho the recent purges will have some detrimental leadership situation as former sargeants take commands of battalions and former captains take commands of regiments and even divisions with reduce command staff while their promoted former colonels tries to lead corps n armies while trying to keep their logistical tail to keep up...
 
In this scenario – where Russia attacks first there is always going to be an advantage for the attacker

The attacker has concentration at the point or points of attack - the defender is not concentrated so is locally outnumbered and until they can concentrate is going to be at a disadvantage.

The attacking side knows that they are fighting and where etc and are therefore prepared and logistically supported as well as they can be. The defender is going to be less well prepared and therefore much more likely to be subjected to the shocks and misfortune of war.

The attacker is fully mobilised with reserves in place while the defender may be in garrison with a given units sub units spread around making individual divisions far less effective.

So assuming that the Germans are not prepared or are unable to prepare (i.e. are still fighting in the West or have just finished combat ops in Poland) then such an attack may very well catch them off guard

I have no illusion that the German war machine in late 1939 or mid 1940 was very likely able to rally and mount an effective defence against such an attack but with the Red army ‘stood up’ and in fighting ‘trim’ regardless of how ineffective it was post Purges is going to make a far better showing than it did during Op Barbarossa when it was the woefully unprepared defender and was unable to resist the shocks and misfortune of war.

While it will probably end in a disaster for the Red Army when the German Armed forces ultimately recover and counter attack it would still likely be a better result than OTL when they were effectively curb stomped – with sub units spread about, ammo not distributed, logistics (limited it may have been) not even active, AFVs not undergone full maintenance with spares not pushed to units where required. During Barbarossa they were scrambling for months never really catching up allowing the German army to retain the initiative.

With a Russian attack the Germans will first have to regain that initiative and if fighting is still going on in the West at the time……

I agree, particularly since this means the Red Air Force isn't almost destroyed on the ground the first day, Red Army units won't be paralyzed waiting for orders from Stalin and it would almost certainly be a surprise for the Germans. In scenarios one and two Hitler looks like a fool being outplayed by the "Slavic Untermensch" . In the third it well might boost his standing even further as there would be proof positive that the Soviets were going to stab them in the back.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Reactions from the WA?

The British and French (or Free French) cheer the Soviet initiative against Hitler, and root for Soviet success. They won't trifle over who attacked who first because they are already at war with Hitler and so anything th

America is not in the war, what difference does it make?

Americans on the sidelines may have a more “even-handed” attitude but the FDR administration and pro Allied opinion will see the Soviets as the lesser evil until the Germans are defeated and driven back home.
 
One more thing to consider is that the Germans would likely be in shock the first day or two while the Allies rally. In scenarios one and two France likely never falls.
 
Top