Suppose that Stalin, knowing Adolf would come after him sooner or later, decided on a preemptive attack under the most favorable circumstances. In this scenario he initially adhered to the nonaggression pact of '39, brought Zhukov back west, and avoided the war with Finland. When the reich was fully engaged in the West, late in May 1940, the USSR struck with the bulk of its forces. What would've happened?
WI Stalin double crossed Hitler 1940?
- Thread starter starman
- Start date
Tannenberg 2.0-the Red Army just had the purges and TTL hasn't learned some things in Finland, and in late May, the Allies are collapsing, allowing Germany to get forces back to the east soon enough to stop, say, the Soviets taking Berlin. Based on the Red Army's horrible condition, whatever is on the border can probably slow them down and inflict significant casualties.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Looks like Hitler might have a chance at winning the Eastern Front in this case.
Red Army was in shambles after the purges and without the experiences of Khalkin Gol to teach them some vital lessons, they will suffer heavy casualties.
Also, the scale of the invasion will prompt an earlier total war economy for Germany.
BoB will stop, most planes will get transferred east and remaining squadrons will only patrol over France.
And there's no lend lease coming to the USSR from USA because they are clearly the aggressors in this scenario.
Red Army was in shambles after the purges and without the experiences of Khalkin Gol to teach them some vital lessons, they will suffer heavy casualties.
Also, the scale of the invasion will prompt an earlier total war economy for Germany.
BoB will stop, most planes will get transferred east and remaining squadrons will only patrol over France.
And there's no lend lease coming to the USSR from USA because they are clearly the aggressors in this scenario.
marathag
Banned
Would not be so sure on that.
No tears would be shed on a Soviet Sneak Attack on Greater Germany while the BoB is ongoing.
But would Stalin even ask for L-L at this point?
Deleted member 1487
There was no L-L at the time. Nor would the US grant it to Stalin at this point, they only did in October to prevent the USSR from collapsing during the Nazi invasion; at this point no one wanted to see Stalin defeat Hitler and dominate continental Europe.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Most Luftwaffe units would be shifted east.
Hitler doesn't want Sovs driving to Berlin.
When in 1940 does the actual strike by the USSR happen? Starting movements, much less build-up, should be moticed by German border guards. Deployments will likely be affected by this alone. Without Western help the Red Army is also going to have a hell of a time with logistics as well. Could Germany counter early enough to avoid the worst of a milder winter?
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Was this ever a worry from 1933-1940? Only real right wing cranks qere thinking of Germany as Europe's shield against the Godless Asiatics.
BlackDragon98
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich
But it was a Russian who put out the theory and he was supported by more of his compatriots.
Deleted member 1487
Yes, British foreign policy from 1935-39 was trying to push Hitler East until the public revolted. Even then Chamberlain was still trying to salvage the policy in negotiations with Hitler until he declared war and forced Chamberlain's hand. Even then both the British and French governments were almost more interested in fighting Stalin than Hitler once Stalin started occupying territory in Eastern Europe and attacked Finland.
marathag
Banned
That was more the British playing the old game of 'let's you and him fight' than being concerned about the Soviets attacking Germany and then sweeping thru the rest if Europe.
Would the USA agree to sell raw materials and mfg goods (trucks) to the USSR for gold? The material could be shipped to Vladivostok and then shipped by rail West. This would help stimulate the US economy.
Estimating Soviet Gold Production — Central Intelligence Agency
Estimating Soviet Gold Production, Richard Flynn. The USSR has long maintained a veil of strict, unbroken secrecy on domestic production of gold. The State Secrets Decree of 1947, amended in 1958, forbids disclosure of data on the quantity of gold produced, plan goals, production capacity of...
www.cia.gov
Deleted member 1487
It's hard to quote an entire book, but that thesis of this one is basically Chamberlain's governments's fears of the USSR and their efforts to push Hitler into dealing with them or at least being strong enough to resist their influence in Central Europe:
A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe and the Economic Origins of World War II: Hehn, Paul N.: 9780826417619: Amazon.com: Books
A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe and the Economic Origins of World War II [Hehn, Paul N.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe and the Economic Origins of World War II
www.amazon.com
Deleted member 1487
It did, that's why they were able to buy from the US in cash before and after Barbarossa, but before L-L was extended to them.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
OK, that's the first battles, then what?
Also, what stance is Romania taking? Who is it trading with? Are the Soviets assaulting them or bypassing them to focus solely on Prussia and Poland?
Depends on your value of winning. Some armistice where the Soviets end up with less territory than they had at the start? Maybe. Soviet loss of Moscow and European Russia west of the Volga? No way.
They had fought Khalkin Gol by this time. How widely lessons were absorbed is another story. Then combat hard knocks would start teaching more lessons
Let me fix that for you:
Being a betraying aggressor, all things being equal, makes a country look bad. But all things aren't equal. Aggressively betraying the guy who is worse than the devil makes you look good, far better than you looked when you made a deal with him 9 months prior.
Got it. Again, between the logistics of their army and need for deployment I wasn't sure if the OP date was the declaration or actual execution so thanks for clarifying.
It only takes a few people to screw things up and I think Hitler would be a lot more receptive to the idea of Soviet betrayal than Stalin was to Nazi betrayal.