If Stalin attack the West, what year and month was optimum?

Stalin was a very smart stateman. He did not have any of Hitler's ideas of race superiority nor he had the mentallity that "we will win because God is with us" Did he want to conquer Europe? Of couse he did, however being such an experienced leader, he realized that there was no chance of succeed in such an endeavor right after the end of the war or in any other time. Between 1945 and 1948 Stalin did not have the means to feed a Western Europe destroyed by a Communist invassion and the war that it would have caused. Neither he could feed his own forces. Besides that, suppose that he goes all the way to Gibraltar. Did he have the right airforce and the navy to make an invassion to the British Islands similar to Normandy? His losses in that task would have dwarfed Berlin, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Kurks or any other battle of WWII. And if he could not occupy the Brits what good was to own the rest of Western Europe? The Yanks would have obliterated his occupation armies anyhow. Another thing that I am sure that the old bear thought about. What would be the reaction of Ivan when he was not treated like untermetch and when they saw cities and countries that were one hundred times better socially and politically than where he was coming from? We must not forget the hundred of thouzands of Soviets soldiers that tried not to return to the Soviet Union at the end of the war. No, Stalin knew that the train had left him at the station and he had to wait for another opportunity that historically we now know that did not happen again. However there was an opportunity that Stalin lost and it was in 1940 when Hitler invaded the West. Either he thought his army was not ready (it really wasn't) or more likely he thought that the Werhmatch would be swamped in France like in WWI and after they and the Allies were exhausted from the strugle he would then be able to pick the fruit right from the branch. We all now what happened and the old bear was left with his army waiting in the border. Then came 1941 and Stalin is convinced that Hitler will not attack untill he attains some kind of truce with the Brits. So he places 150 divisions on the western borders and prepares for attack. No training or preparation was made for a defensive war because they were going to attack by July 1941. What happens then? Hitler attacked a few weeks earleir and the rest is history.

 

I would suggest that if he could have found a way to defeat the B29 and the atomic bomb he would have attacked.

Western Europe would not have been destroyed any greater than it was at the end of the war. For example the march through Western Europe in the Spring of 1946 – 48 would have been a cake walk. The US and Britain had demobilized at a tremendous rate and there were virtually no combat forces left in Europe. The few divisions that were there were ill trained, unprepared, ill equipped, inexperienced policemen. So the invasion itself would have been very bloodless and swift.

I have studied the famine quite closely. Evidence shows us that despite the famine there was indeed enough food for the Soviet Union to feed itself. It looks like Stalin chose to starve to death 1.5 million of his own peasants who he deemed expendable. His armies and loyal followers did not suffer greatly. In fact he sent massive amounts of food to Poland which he could have used to feed his peasants.

Navy no. Could his air force been modified to take out the RAF…yes.

Not so much. See the previous answer.

England was full of delusional yet powerful communists who had not yet figured out the horrors of Stalinism. I would suggest that if Stalin played his cards right and provided the right carrots and stick that Britain was so broke and worn out that it might have not been a threat for long. I could envision a scenario were Great Britain is a toothless lion and decides to stay neutral.

How? With the atomic bomb etc.?

I would suggest that either Western Europe was a barren, starving wasteland or had the resources to be appealing enough to the average die hard Soviet veteran to produce mass desertion. You really can’t have it both ways.

If it was the starving wasteland you eluded to earlier than Stalin has nothing to fear politically or socially. If it is not a starving wasteland then it is ripe for plunder and that solves the supply problems.

Once the Red Army invaded Western Europe where would those deserters go? What would happen to their families? Was not the main reason that the POWs did not want to return was the fact that they faced prison and death? How many Soviet soldiers deserted at the end of WWII from Eastern Germany to the West? Why would they do it enmass after all of Europe lay at their feet?

Why did he keep a massive fully supplied army in offensive positions throughout 1945-48? It was very expensive to do so. If he wasn’t seriously thinking about it why did he squander his resources?

Good points.

 

This being a forum about WW II, I´ll discuss the possibility of Stalin using his huge army to invade Persia a few weeks after Hitler invaded France (He knew that Germany could not attack the USSR while it was busy in France. In 1940 Stalin was Hitler's most reliable and powerful ally. Stalin had over 10,000 tanks and planes, in contrast Britain had extremely few troops, tanks and planes in the middle east and depended on the oil from Abadan (the largest refinery in 1938) to fight Germany and had its hands full defending France. Losing Persia would have doomed Britain and opened a huge area for the USSR, including Iraq, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, etc, All of which were poorly defended. These former provinces of the the Ottoman empire would have provided Stalin access to ports in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. With all the major European powers involved in France and with America so far from Persia, Stalin could have safely invaded it. Moreover, his new officers (he had killed 30,000 Soviet officers between 1937 and 1939) could gain invaluable experience in logistics, tactics, etc, against smaller armies with older equipment. Most importantly, controling the oil resources of the USSR and Persia, etc, Stalin would become an even more formidable power.
Moreover, in 1940 Stalin not only invades Bessarabia in Romania, but invades all of Rumania, gaining control of another major oil producer in Eurasia.

 

If all that happened, Staling invading several different oil producing regions, Its more likely the Germans and British and French will make peace to deal with the larger threat. Taking French and British territory, taking a German friendly state, taking all the major fuel resources available to countries involved in the war, Germany relied heavily on Romania, And Britain on Persia, take those and there both very nervous and angry with Russia. More likely would see peace come to western europe very early and then combined armies marching against Russia.

 

As long as Stalin continues selling oil, chromium, manganese, grain, etc, to Hitler on credit, the latter will continue advancing in France. Once France falls, Hitler can send his planes to Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Libya, etc, where they will be much more useful than fighting over Britain.
Churchill knows that without help from India, Australia, etc, Britain cannot fight Germany, Italy and the USSR, so he can either resign himself to lose the colonies or continue fighting a war he cannot win.

 

Even invading Persia in September 1939, simultaneously with the invasion of Poland makes much more sense and produces more benefits at a lower cost than invading Finland in the crude winter of 1939, one of Stalin's most stupid decisions.

 

It has been proved,IRREFUTABLY,that the Red Army had NO offensive capability in 1940,neither in 1941.
As Britain was not depending on the Persian oil to fight Germany,and as Stalin did not more oil (he was EXPORTING oil),there was no reason to attack Persia .

 

About the 30000 Soviet officers killed in the purges:this is the typical exemple of a WWII myth (better:a préWWII myth) :the number of 30000 is the total of military arrested/fired,of whom only a small part was killed .

 

Actually, Britain was dependent upon the Persian oil, for it was bankrupt in 1940 and did not count on lend lease yet, so it had to pay for any oil imported from the States, which also was exposed to German subs on the way to Britain. Not to mention the difficulty of supplying the eastern fleet with US oil.

The USSR had plenty of offensive power, as proven by its invasions of Bessarabia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and even Finland (in the worst possible conditions and which was promptly defeated after the winter fiasco) and Persia (in the middle of Barbarossa, far more difficult than in 1939 or 40, when it was Hitler's ally.

 

Bull. Let's start here, we (US) didn't bankrupt the Brits in 1940, nor were they bankrupt even though it was a gold bullion "cash and carry" program for American goods from American ports in British hulls. Nor were they fully dependent on oil from the Persian fields. For the UK, British Isles oil imports in 1939 and into 1940 were as follows:

46.2% - Caribbean - mainly Venezuela, but includes Trinidad and Mexico
30.8% - Middle East - Persia (Iran), & Iraq
19.2% - US
(the rest came from Rumania)

Then with Italy entering into the war in mid-1940, and the Central Med. a war zone, middle east oil became more expensive since it had to be shipped around the Cape to the home islands, so they were used "in house" from the mid-east toward India, Australia, New Zealand, et.al.. The UK's oil purchase shifted to the western hemisphere, and Britain still had gold bullion with which to purchase goods. One of the final gold bullion shipments to the US for material was in early 1941, from South Africa, carried on a US War ship and delivered to New York before Lend-Lease was approved. In fact that gold delivery was one of the requisite terms so Lend-Lease being approved for FDR. FDR couldn't sell it to Congress until late in 1940! And then only with a little "proviso" which kept Congress from stalling and tabling the proposition, and it was a straight up payment in gold bullion.

That little "gold bullion" proviso had to be agreed upon by Great Britain in Sept. of 1940, since the US Congress wouldn't approve the proposed bill until the gold was assured for delivery. In response the Heavy Cruiser Louisville (CA-28) was dispatched to Simonstown South Africa and eventually loaded up with the last of the British gold reserves still held in that area.

The ship departed Simonstown for New York with $148,342,212. 55 worth of British gold in mid-January 1941. And that value was set at America's standard per ounce level, not global trading value. Wasn't that $35 per ounce? That would work out to be 4,238,348.93 ounces or about 134 tons of gold. Less than two months later the bill was passed; which is pretty "quick" when one considers the Congress of America both then and now!

In consequence by 1942, no middle east oil was sent to the home islands, both Persian and Iraqi oil production/refining was scaled back short term (civil unrest didn't help), and that which was produced was used "in house", i.e. the MTO, plus some sent to India, especially after the loss of the Far East oil producers; NEI, Burma, Borneo and Malaya to the Japanese. So the picture for UK petroleum supply by late 1941/early 1942 under lend lease is thus:

60.0% - US,
40.0% - Trinidad, Venezuela and Mexico (Rumanian oil purchases stopped in 1940, but they had accounted for only 4.2% of British imports that year anyway)

By 1944, 79% of Britain's oil imports would be from the US; 21% from the Caribbean, as those sources could be purchased and shipped at less expense than those from the mid-east.

 

I am of the opinion that the Cold War was predominately a politically expendient bit of hype.
Both sides economies were dominated by War Production.
That both sides used bluff and bravado to ensure their economies were kept
bolstered by military production until peaceful economies could be established.

The best and only time Stalin could have pushed west into Allied Occupied Europe was the day Germany surrendered.
Would the Soviet Forces, having been allies for the past 5 years, move wholeheartedly and decisively against its former Western Allies at that juncture?
I seriously doubt it. Soviet losses vs Berlin, continuing its sledge hammer tactics, against a broken and defeated opponent were some:

• Total casualties: 361,367 men
• 1,997 tanks
• 2,108 artillery pieces
• 917 aircraft

Stalin was not a stupid man. He was a master strategist.
He was far from stupid enough to push against his allies.

He needed all the manpower he could lay his hands on to de-mine etc mother Russia before desperately needed food stocks could be grown again.
That was the focus of post war Soviet Union.

 

If Britain was not bankrupt, why did Roosevelt decide to undertake the unprecedented task of convincing the American people to basically give away tens of billions of dollars in invaluable mititary equipment & supplies to a country that had lost every land campaign to the Germans in 1940 (Norway, despite the overwhelming advantage of the RN and France, Belgium, Holland)?

If Persia was irrelevant, why did righteous Britain and a collapsing USSR invade the neutral country at the total cost of fewer than 100 men in August 1941? Persia's oil and location (facing the Soviet oil fields) made it crucial. Fortunately, Hitler never realized this.

Had Stalin taken Romania & Iran in 1940 Hitler would not have been able to invade the USSR without the Romanian oil and army. By invading only Bessarabia, Stalin forced Romania to ally itself to Germany, a rather stupid move.

 

I recall Bessarabia was part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov deal so Germany was aware what was about to happen... and probably was aiming for making Romania an ally.

"...the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. "

 

But Stalin didn't honor the R-M pact by invading Lithuania and Germany was in no condition to do anything. Had Stalin occupied all of Romania when Hitler was busy in France, Hitler could have done nothing, especially since he desperately needed oil because sythetic oil production in 1940 was still low.
At the outset of Barbarossa Hitler had the ridiculous amount of 7,200 cannon and 3,000 planes for a 3,000 km front and the powerful and well trained Romanian army, with more artillery pieces than Germany (though more primitive) was an invaluable asset. Had Stalin captured Romania (which had few tanks and planes, while Stalin had over 10,000), HItler would not only have lost a powerful ally but would have had much more difficulty fighting against the abundant Soviet artillery, army tanks, etc, in the Carpathians than in the Ukranian plains.
Moreover, once in Romania, STalin could have easily linked up with Friendly Serbia, invaded Hungary, etc,

Moreover, while capturing Iran and Romania, Stalin could have easily used his considerable army in Poland to occupy the rest of Poland in 1940, which had extremely few German troops, armor and planes. HItler was dumb enough to trust Stalin completely, which was no smart, as proven by Stalin not honoring the R-M pact.

 

As I explained in another thread the reality and beliefs are two different things.

Yes, we all know that the red army had no real capability to attack in 1940/41 - at least not against a strong enemy. This however did not affect Stalin's decisions since he was under an opinion that the soviet army was still (even after the Winter War) a formidable force.

I agree with you about the reasons not to attack Persia.

 

There were two main reasons for why to conquer Iran: to secure the oil fields and to ensure the allied supply lines to the SU. The Iranian monarch was also seen as too friendly towards the Axis.

 

After reading a few instalments over in the pen and ink section I have a further comment to make in this regard.

Virtually unguarded is not unguarded and how long they would stay that way if the Soviets had attacked is an other matter. It's also a serious question what was in these depots and when.

The problem here is in most cases the most demanding type of supply as far as the log system goes in tons is ammo. In particular artillery ammo. US stocks wouldn't be of much use to the Soviets and there's a good chance most would be blown in any case. The next is probably fuel. It is easy to destroy and again isn't of much use to the Soviets as they used diesel and the the Western allies used gasoline.

They simply couldn't reasonably make the progress you seem to think they can in the way you have stated.

 

There was $24 billion dollars in equipment. Enough for 90 US divisions to continue the fight to the East if need be to take Berlin. One depot had 25,000 trucks and a million tires for them. If you don't know what was in the depots then you can't say what was not in them. Everything to keep and army of 90 divisions supplied and ready for war for up to six months. Virtually nothing from January 1945 on was shipped back and most was not used.

The Soviets never lacked for ammo for their artillery and could use the US guns along with their ammo, tanks, trucks etc.

I would envision that the Soviets would take the closest depots by airborne attack. The farther away ones by having French communist march in under desguise and take over the depots defending them with the very equipment they just captured depriving the attacking forces from gettin go their heavy weapons and ammo. Almost half of the French government was Communist and a large population of the country was also.

The Soviets marched 820 Km in 10 days in Manchuria against a far more fanatical enemy then they will find in Germany and France.

I'm not going to rehash all the old arguments here. If you wish to join the fun of discussing the WWIII 1946 story I will PM you with another venue where it has been discussed for the past 2 years and all questions have been answered. Otherwise enjoy the story or don't. I will no longer discuss the story here.

Stop reading it if you object to it.

 

Source please. Given that the "Red Ball Express" was only using ~5,000 trucks it seams unlikely that 25,000 were just sitting in a depot in France. There was also a general shortage of food in the Summer and Fall of 45. Certainly The Organization and Role of The Army Service Forces makes it clear that there was no vast surplus of anything in Europe at the end of 44 and in early 45. http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-3-1/CMH_Pub_7-3-1.pdf furthers that.

Where have I done so?

That seems very optomistic from the sources above.

I seriously question the "virtually nothing was used" part. The final offensives saw considerable expenditure of both POL and ammo. Furthermore food and transport were both in short supply in post war Europe leading to a continued consumption of military supplies for the populace as well as the military. Then there were the units which headed for the Pacfic for Olympic and postwar distribution of equipment and supplies to allies. You may be correct as to what was in the various supply dumps at the time of your work but I'd like to see your sources.

What an absurd thing to say. There offences typically ran out of steam due to lack of POL and ammo. They didn't launch an offensive until they had pleny but it took them weeks or months to move forward enough for such an offensive. Based on their other offensives they would be lucky to reach the Rhine if a few places much less cross it. While they could indeed use US equipment reequiping on the fly and keeping there organizational structure intact is highly unlikely.

Some of the depots in Germany might be taken and held by airborne units but I would be surprised to see any thing in France or indeed much of western Germany holding out and even if it did attacks by artillery and aircraft would likely do considerable damage to the stocks. Finding enough French Communist who were both well trained with the equipment and willing to go along with this would be highly problematic and even a few turning could blow the whole show.

That doesn't mean they wanted to become a Soviet pupet state. My impression of the French is that finding someone who desired that goal would be rather difficult even among the Communists.

???? That's really overstating the case. The Kwangtung army was a hollow reminant of what it once was. The ratio of POWs compared to other campaigns in the Pacfic make that clear. Furthermore it was a force that was hardly prepared for amored wafare in either defence of offence. Furthermore it looks to me like most of the Soviet troop movments were well under 820 Km and the Soviet attacks came from over 270 degrees.

All the questions answered? Perhaps but I doubt the quality of the answers but go ahead and send me the link. I may take a looks.

If you are posting here you should be willing to discuss it here. You certainly should expect to recieve comments on it here.

Trying to order me around is likely to produce a contrary effect.

 

We are done here. Have fun picking a fight with someone else.