Stalin's ignorance

Discussion in 'The Eastern Front' started by J_McAllister, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. J_McAllister

    J_McAllister Member

    With all the intelligence that was gathered through the Russian spy rings such as the Rote Kapelle, Richard Sorge and ULTRA(United Kingdom), why did it seem that Stalin was caught with his pants down when Hitler launched Barbarossa?
     
  2. Marina

    Marina Senior Member

    Simon Monterfiore's 'Court of the Red Tsar' gives a wonderful account of this - it would have been funny if it hadn't been so tragic. My reading of it is that his paranoia and suspicion led him to believe that everyone was trying to dupe him; plus he seemed to suffer a kind of stunned shock that he had in fact been duped by the Germans. He just could not accept that what was happening was happening.
     
  3. T-34

    T-34 Discharged - Nazi

    literature is not a reliable source of information anyway.
    stalin had his reasons: molotov-ribbentrop pact is one of them.
    the only problem was that the red army was not as skillful and experienced as that of nazis (the best army of all times in fact).
     
  4. J_McAllister

    J_McAllister Member

    I would have to say that literature is all I can count on to acquire information on history.

    I agree that Russia may have been behind in technology and technique vs. the Germans at the time and Stalin did have alot of disinformation coming his way, which might have influenced him to disregard all of the intelligence that was being thrown at him from all corners. Perhaps it was part of his strategy to allow the German forces to penetrate deeply into Russia, thus thinning their supply lines and than launching counter attacks after the Russian armies have been properly organised.
     
  5. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    The amazing thing is that the only man he trusted was the man who was actually his enemy: Hitler.

    But that's a sideline to paranoia, I've read somewhere...despite their distrust of the world, they're susceptible to flattery.
     
  6. J_McAllister

    J_McAllister Member

    The amazing thing is that the only man he trusted was the man who was actually his enemy: Hitler.

    But that's a sideline to paranoia, I've read somewhere...despite their distrust of the world, they're susceptible to flattery.

    Match made in heaven...........I mean hell.:)
     
  7. T-34

    T-34 Discharged - Nazi

    The amazing thing is that the only man he trusted was the man who was actually his enemy: Hitler.
    But that's a sideline to paranoia, I've read somewhere...despite their distrust of the world, they're susceptible to flattery.

    rubbish, mythology once again...
    stalin was politic alright.
    after all, he won ww2 defeating the best army ever - army of wermacht,
    which at the moment consisted of troops that had unequalled victorious spirit
    and skills no other armies had.
     
  8. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    rubbish, mythology once again...
    stalin was politic alright.
    after all, he won ww2 defeating the best army ever - army of wermacht,
    which at the moment consisted of troops that had unequalled victorious spirit
    and skills no other armies had.

    Slight mistake therr T34 - Stalin did not win WW2. The Russians defeated the MAJORITY of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front but Stalin did not. The Allies were instrumental in the victory over Germany both Western Allies and Russia
     
  9. BulgarianSoldier

    BulgarianSoldier Senior Member

    Dudes Hitler send troops to advice toward Moscow all this time Stalin didnt balive that Htiler would attack.But when the germans almost take Moscow Stalin told the people that he let the Germans come and this was part of his plan.This is why the Russians didnt defence themself in time.
     
  10. Stephen

    Stephen Member

    John Erickson the well known WW2 historian (ofton seen on the History Channel) wrote an article about this in 2001 and his conclusion was ".......a rational Stalin, a geopolitical operator, interested in negotiating for European peace, but his presumption of being a possible arbiter seduced him from awareness of the German threat. A misreading of the political scene, coupled with his near paranoid suspicion of the British, led him to discount his own intelligence reports; but worse, military errors impelled him to adopt a policy of outright appeasment towards Germany which led inevitably towards disaster".

    The German military build up on the Soviet frontier was known to Stalin and his military leaders but given the state of the Red Army, and Stalin was to blame for this, what could they do. Ordering a mobilisation could have brought on war as in WW1.

    Stalin thought this was a way of putting pressure on him to give Hitler what he wanted in future talks. This theory was also believed by the British till the end of March and the British were still not sure what the purpose of the German build up was till about the end of April.

    As we know the result of Barbarossa it is easy to say Hitler was a madman for invading the USSR. At the time it did not appear like that, British Intelligence before the attack was estimating he could be in Moscow in four weeks and the campaign could be over in six weeks. The German army could be moved back to the west and an invasion attempt made on the UK in September 41. You can only act on available information and nobody in the world in June 1941 thought enything but that the USSR was probably finished. Hitler did gamble but it looked like a sure thing, he had taken gambles all through his career and had become the master of most of Europe.
     
  11. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    policy of outright appeasment towards Germany

    Of all the things Stalin could be called I'd never thought of him as an appeaser. The Western Governments, yes. I'd always thought The Non-Aggression Pact was agreed from a postion of strength. Obviously not.
    It just seems strange seeing those two words together. Stalin & Appeasment.
    This is what I like about this Forum. Being shown things in a different way.
     
  12. smc

    smc Member

    He definitely did not trust the British and until the attack did not trust Churchill at all whom he remembered as the most vociferous supporter of intervention against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. Consequently, he always believed any information coming from the British was trying to undermine the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    Two Russian biographers of Stalin, Radzinsky and Volkoganov, have basically said the same thing regarding Stalin's suspicions and paranoia. Having grown up as a member of an illegal and clandestine political group in Tsarist Russia and always operating with the distinct threat of a death penalty if caught, Stalin would have only surrounded himself with people he really trusted and would have been careful about falling into the trap of false information, something he took into and retained whilst in power.
     
  13. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Wasn't Churchill at one stage going to send troops to support Finland in the war with Russia, but decided against it. In the first world war Field Marshal Alexander led the Baltic Landwehr in Latvia. Maybe these contributed to Stalin's paranoia. He had Trotsky eliminated on false evidence because Trotsky was going to be elected to top spot in the Communist Russian hierarchy. Purging your army of it's higher levels of command, when you have an unstable Europe on your doorstep, don't seem the actions of a person in control of his faculties.
     
  14. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    There are a few questions to be answered here.

    Why did Hitler think that he could fulfill his ambition of defeating Russia?

    Why did the British et al believe it would be over in a matter of weeks.

    What options did Stalin have open to him to resist Hitler.

    Had he (Stalin) moved his army to resist the invasion, what would the result have been? Worse/Better??

    Whether Stalin's tactic's were purposeful or not what other tactic would have defeated the might of the German army?

    It does seem logical in hindsight that it was the best tactic.
     
  15. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Barbarossa was an absolutely devastating hammer-blow. I don't believe the Red Army could have reacted much differently during that first disatrous year at all. Regardless of what Stalin 'knew'. While their doctrine of Strategy (Eg.deep battle) and nascent, military technologies were technically highly advanced for the time, it would take the shock of the German advance to encourage their development and actual application 'on the ground', a slow process that they eventually achieved magnificently.

    I suspect if any other strategy had been applied by moving troops forward in 1941 (and deep battle would largely militate against too much forward placement in defence anyway) it could only have led to even worse destruction for the Soviets, and at the same time handed more diplomatic justifications for his actions to Hitler. The Red Army was savaged tactically. Improvements in tactical doctrine, if carried out 5 years before, may have made a difference if the advanced ideas had been properly introduced to the men on the ground. It was the geography of Russia that largely dictated the strategy.

    I believe Stalin handled a grim situation as best as possible given the circumstances.
    The fact that the SU survived at all is a credit to Stalin's intellectual, political & delegationary abilities...... if not to his morals.
     
  16. Marina

    Marina Senior Member

    I don't think Stalin had a battle plan. Montefiore tells of frantic calls from the military requesting orders as the Germans advanced - and how they got none. Stalin also seems to have suffered some sort of collapse because he retreated to his summer house and ignored all calls from his cabinet asking what to do next. They were too afraid to make decisions in case their loyalty became suspect, and eventually had to go in convoy to the summer house to see him.
    In the meantime, massive damage was done to Soviet Armies and Air Force.
    Marina
     
  17. T-34

    T-34 Discharged - Nazi

    ...Stalin did not win WW2. The Russians defeated the MAJORITY of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front but Stalin did not.

    if not for stalin, russia would lose. it's him who conducted necessary purges, thus eliminating the traitors and bolsheviks from the red army and political board.
    it's him who build up a nation of soviet people and resurrected the so-called "russian idea" along with all old values intact.
    he done it all with a stern ruling because nobody at the moment knew what to do, and everyone went into outright panic when nazi invaders came, 'cause no one ever seen such a troops of such military spirit and skills as those of wermacht before.
    at the time, red army consisted mainly of workers and peasants, and against those professional soldiers of hitler war machine they were like sheep against wolves.
    stalin scared all that "sheep" spirit out of them and made them fight bravely.
     
  18. BulgarianSoldier

    BulgarianSoldier Senior Member

    At the meeting in Tehiran betwen Stalin Churchil Rusveult ,Churchil want to start an invasion from the Balkans not from Normandy but Stalin refuse and he disagree also Rusveult agree with Stalin and thenks to this the allies start an ivasion from Normandy.And maybe this affect the war because a start from the Balkans would be a madnes.Balkans cant be attack easy the region is full with mountains and highlands a perfect defensive posicions.And most of the ships would be sink befor they get to the balkans.

    About Stalin i fully agree with T34 about it he is fully right and you all shoud balive him because we know best about it.
     
  19. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

     
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    if not for stalin, russia would lose. it's him who conducted necessary purges, thus eliminating the traitors and bolsheviks from the red army and political board.
    it's him who build up a nation of soviet people and resurrected the so-called "russian idea" along with all old values intact.
    he done it all with a stern ruling because nobody at the moment knew what to do, and everyone went into outright panic when nazi invaders came, 'cause no one ever seen such a troops of such military spirit and skills as those of wermacht before.
    at the time, red army consisted mainly of workers and peasants, and against those professional soldiers of hitler war machine they were like sheep against wolves.
    stalin scared all that "sheep" spirit out of them and made them fight bravely.

    T34. While I could concede that Stalin, despite the dark side, was a powerful force that helped push the Soviets to eventual Victory I can not possibly accept that the Military Purges were 'necessary' or in any way helpful.

    In the late 20's and early 30's the Red army was about the most forward thinking in the world, they may not have successfully implemented the new ideas of Armoured and mechanised warfare but this was largely due to insufficient infrastructure rather than a lack of will to do so. Stalin's purges of the officers eliminated many of the people actually in the process of creating and implementing the new doctrines. The impact of this cannot be underestimated. He removed the cream of his military thinkers at a stroke, several of those that survived but were in 'disgrace' were later quietly restored as the enormous mistake of their removal was realised, The military purges were a large helping hand to the Nazis and only contributed to setting the Army back by many years. Without them the Red Army may not have had to have gone through the horrible wartime learning process it endured in order to bring itself up to scratch as one of the Worlds most effective armies.
    Cheers,
    Adam
     

Share This Page