Was Hitler right to attack the USSR in 1941?

I believe the Middle Eastern oil fields have been discussed here quite a bit in the past?

Two question have never been answered. Where in Middle East would the Germans have gotten this oil, and how was it going to find its way back to Germany?

 

Where:Iraq and Iran
How :impossible

 

I'm sure someone already said this but 1941/1942 was the best time to attack the Soviets they were at thier weakest with the "incident"with Findland.Some of thier best millitary officers and Millitary weapon designers were dead or in a camp in the middle of Sibera.Plus every one hated Stalin and untold thousands or mybe millions would have had faught alongside the Germans.

Also i belive the germans had a good chance of defeating the Soviets if they arent dumd enough to try to cross the urals.Battles like Stalingrad and Moscow could have been won by the Germans if Hitler stop trying to butt in everything and let his generals work.

 

I guess you could find something like an answer in this post, not mine, freebird

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if-mediter...n-middle-eastern-front-wwii-2.html#post506422

There where two Pipe lines to Syria´s Med cost.

How the Axis’ army could to arrive there : I have not idea… Logistics.



And this other post (mine) Oil in the Middle East 30s


Burgam Oil field It looks easy. If you are able to arrive.

It was a little out of topic, wasn´t it?

 

Iran is not in the Middle East and im not sure Iraq even had any oil fields tapped (perhaps someone else could remind us, ny memory slips).

 

I knew I could count on you!

 

Just read this piece of work.

JESUS! Where on earth do you guys get these ideas??? Is it before or after you finish watching RED DAWN?!

*Rant over, lets get back on topic....

 

claims that the USSR were planning to attack Germany are nonsense. Sloniksp is right; Stalin shared Lenin's view that the "world revolution" was not going to happen through conquest.

in answer to the question, obviously Hitler wasn't right to attack in 1941 but we can only see that because we have knowledge of later events. to Hitler, who had seen the USSRs disasterous attack on Finland in 1939 and Stalin's purge of the Red Army, Barbarrossa might have looked like an easy task.

at the end of the day, you've got to remember that Hitler was, and there's no other way of saying it, mad. therefore, trying to assess the rationality of his military decisions is almost pointless. he hated the USSR and communism, and wanted to exterminate the slavic race.

could he have waited? yes, but i doubt he would of. he was impatient after the distractions of fighting France, Britain and the Balkans Campaign and wanted to begin his true plan: the conquest of lebensraum in the east and the extermination and enslavement of the "racially inferior" slavs.

 

Sloniksp,

You are spot on reguarding co-operation between the Soviet Union and the Weimar Republic. I will take it a step farther and state that Hitler and Stalin could co-operate when it suited them. That co-operation however was tinged by the belief of both dictators that they were useing the other for short term gains. Germany needed freedom to take Poland, and defeat the Allies, Stalin needed time to fix his military that he had foolishly broke.

Reguarding your second point. The proposition that Stalin was simply honoring a promise made to FDR, is I think, somewhat over-generous. Uncle Joe made a good number of promises to the western Allies and his track record in this is, to put it charitably, uneven. I suspect that the Soviet offensive in the east was motivated by many factors. The war in the Pacific after Dec. 7th, 1941 had become a western, predominately American, war. It would demonstrate the US to be a true Global power. Russian military action in Mongolia/China/Korea would signal that the Soviet Union was at least an Asian power, as well as a European power. Further, it would allow them to more easily support communist parties in China and Korea, thus providing Russia with client/buffer states on her border. It is also true that the SU took back to Russia a great deal of industrial material once belonging to Japan. Russia could have some claim on Germany for what it did, but the argument does not hold up reguarding Japan. "Spoils" can take many forms.

A war between Germany and Russia Did Not have to happen unless Hitler decided that it must. The argument that the best way to nuetralize Britain was to conquer the Soviet Union is a strech. There were better, more direct ways, to achive that goal. A maximum effort in the Med and Middle East to destabilize the British Empire, or offering France and the BeNeLux an honorable peace with no occupation, would have undermined the British position (politicaly at least) that they were standing alone against the evil empire. Without American and Russian might, the British Commonweath, grand as it was, could not hope to defeat Hitler's Germany alone.

I further suspect that had Russia not been attacked by Germany, the Soviet Union would have been content to remain nuetral and watch the west bleed itself white in the confrontation that Marx/Engle/Lenin had felt was inevitable. Once this happened, then Soviet Union would sweep in to rescue the poor mistreated workers and prolotariat in the west.

 

This has been mentioned by several members in the past. Stalin was many things, and one of them was an excellent politician. His reputation for NOT breaking treaties is unquestionable to the point of perhaps being naive (Barbarrossa warnings). I am unaware of any promises and/or treaties which Stalin broke or failed to honor to the allies. The attack on Japan was just that. After fighting Germany, Japan (for Stalin)was a piece of cake which was already crumbling, this was not a difficult promise to keep.

I too hold this view.

 

Sloniksp,
in response to your comment about my post;

JESUS! Where on earth do you guys get these ideas??? Is it before or after you finish watching RED DAWN?!


here are some historical facts written by experts on the topics that you claim are BS and that you claim come from RED DAWN

From 1957 through 1961, Khrushchev openly and repeatedly threatened the West with nuclear annihilation. He claimed that Soviet missile capabilities were far superior to those of the United States, capable of wiping out any American or European city.

On November 18, 1956, while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow, Khrushchev used his famous "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you" expression, shocking everyone present.

By 1947, US president Harry S. Truman's advisers urged him to take immediate steps to counter the Soviet Union's influence.
The American government's response to this announcement was the adoption of containment, the goal of which was to stop the spread of communism. Truman delivered a speech that the Truman Doctrine, which framed the conflict as a contest between free peoples and totalitarian regimes.

One of the more significant impacts of containment was the outbreak of the Korean War
Even though the Chinese and North Koreans were exhausted by the war and were prepared to end it by late 1952, Stalin insisted that they continue fighting, and a cease-fire was approved only in July 1953, after Stalin's death.

Enunciation of the Truman Doctrine marked the beginning of a US bipartisan defense and foreign policy focused on containment and deterrence that also led to the Vietnam War

The shoe incident occurred during a speech by Francis O. Wilcox, an Assistant U.S. Secretary of State. The chaotic scene finally ended when General Assembly President Frederick Boland broke his gavel calling the meeting to order, but not before the image of Khrushchev as a hotheaded buffoon was indelibly etched into the collective memory of the international community. Another observer said that while Khrushchev was banging a shoe on the table, he had shoes on both feet, which would imply that he had brought a third shoe for the gesture: in other words, the incident was staged and was planned in advance.

Now some historical Facts on Hitler and Communism
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." -Adolf Hitler

Hitler hated Communists. He thought that the goal of economics should be efficiency and not equality (he believed economic equality was WRONG) and that Communists were "rabble rousers" who interfered with patriotic production.
Communists were the very first group to qualify for sentencing to death camps, even before Jews and Gypsies. This is because Hitler thought Communism was a Jewish conspiracy to take power. He recognized that Karl Marx, the founder of Communist philosophy, had been 100% ethnically Jewish, although an Athiest, and that many Jews in Germany were Communists. Non-Jewish Communists, according to Hitler, were even worse, they were "race traitors" (Himmler quotes) who wished to share power and wealth due the Aryans with "mud-people".

The destruction of Russia and communism had always been Hitler's number one priority. He states in Mein Kampf 'the Communists never have and never will be our friends

One of a number of acts by Hitler that should have alerted Stalin to possible invasion was the signing of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. The Führer signed simply to give his armies time to further prepare for war. Hitler’s history of pact breaking, as demonstrated by the absolute dismantling of the Treaty of Versailles and his disregard for the non-aggression pact with Poland was indication enough that Hitler could not be trusted. In addition, as Germany absorbed more and more land it should have become obvious to Stalin that the next move on the part of the Nazis would be in the direction of Russia. Hitler’s long standing desire for Russia’s industries and agricultural lands as part of his belief in lebensraum or living space, had been public knowledge since he wrote Mein Kampf


After the Reichstag fire Hitler said
After viewing the damage, an emergency meeting of government leaders was held. When told of the arrest of the Communist arsonist, Van der Lubbe, Hitler became deliberately enraged.
"The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up.

In defense of my OPINIONS which were based on known facts about Hitler, his stated goals and also the Cold War
you can see all of my comments are based on known historical facts, I did state MY OPINIONS based on these historical facts. Although you may not agree with my opinions or conclusions that does not change the historical facts which obviously did not come from RED DAWN but from true history.

I never said the SU planned on invading Germany however it is Clear that Hitler believed the SU would attack Germany and his goal all along was an attack on the SU so I felt he was right to attack when he did as Russia would have had time to build up its forces by waiting.

 

The "Red Dawn comment was based solely on your Cold War observations and the idea that the SU was ever going to attack the United States. Kruschev talked a lot but his "history is on our side, we will bury you" comment was intended as a warning to the US in case the Unites States wanted to attack. The "containment" was an invention of the United States, and the "Dominoe Theory" was a myth. The the Korean War was a local matter which the U.S. got involved in and Vietnam only turned to communism after the Western powers laughed Ho-chi-min out of the UN. To claim that the only reason why the SU did not attack the United States is because of U.S.'s nuclear arsenal is silly. Same can be said about the U.S. not attacking SU because of her nuclear arsenal.
RUSSIA WAS NEVER GOING TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES!!!

Lets move on from the debate above and stay on topic.

Until Hitler came to power the relations between the two countries were excellent. I believe that if it wasnt for prapoganda reasons, Hitler made himself believe of an impending Russian attack. If Russia was going to attack Germany, then why re-build her military and train her officers such as Guderian? Hitler was well of aware of this co-operation between the two states and put an end to it when he came to power. Why? Perhaps because if the public found out then he might lose his spapegoat? These of course are only speculations but I believe that Bolshevism was a scapegoat which Hitler needed in order for his own party to succeed. I dont believe that Hitler ever thought Russia would attack him, he simply created it.

As for Mein Kampf, Stalin read the book (it was quite popular) and knew of Hitlers intensions. He signed the pact in order to get breathing room so he could build up his military. He just never imagined that Hitler would conquer Europe so quickly. Upon signing the treaty he told Molotov, "Im reluctantly signing this treaty with the very nation who ultimately seeks to destroy us".

From a historical perspective I too think that Hitlers best chance of success in Russia was in 1941. This was the time when Russia was most vulnerable.

 

Earlier In the Spanish Civil War Stalin´s agents ordered, directed or influenced the killing of my countrymen, not only fascist REPUBLICANS too , Democrats and CONSERVATIVES as Melquiades Alvarez, (enemies of the people) wasn´t them? Carcel Modelo -Paracuellos... or the anarchist POUM in Catalonia (read George Orwell)...POLAND: KATYN ... Stalin allowed the Wehrmacht to annihilate the free Polish. Later, the Soviet Union crushed Hungary and Czechoslovakia...

Consider the USSR as a threat does not seem wrong to me... But Stalin might never have dared to attack an army as efficient as the Wehrmacht... Who knows?

The attack on Mother Russia with the media available to the Nazi Germany was stupid. It´s a matter of fact. IMHO, May be the question should be this:

If you assume that USSR would atack...Would have been an untouched Wermacht able to stop the soviets in 1942 ... 1943 ?

 

Sloniksp,

Greetings, sorry it took me so long to reply...pesky job...

Reguarding Ho Chi Minh your timeline is off. H.C.M. became a communist in the early 20's and then traveled to Moscow in 1922/1923 were he joined the Comintern. He was rebuffed at the Versailles confrence as they carved up the former territories of Central Powers. The UN, of course was formed in 1945. The communist's were active before the Japanese occupation of French Indochina and the American OSS actively worked with the communist forces. H.C.M. did try again to get independence in 45' hoping to play on American efforts to 'decolonialize' the French/British overseas empires. Clearly communists were already entrenched in Vietnam long before the UN was created.

Moving back to our original discussion, I am willing to concede that Stalin was a consumate politician. Anyone who could navigate the russian revolution, and its aftermath, to become the dictator of russia is no slouch. As for Stalin's veracity I submit the following,

In 1944 Stalin called for the pro-west resistance in Warsaw to rise up and join the Soviet Armies in the liberation of that city. When they did rise up, the Soviet armies stopped and the uprising was brutally crushed. Why the armies stopped might be debateable, the fact that Stalin did little of much note to aid these people, and actively prevented western allied attempts to come to their aid cannot.

The Yalta agreement called for free elections and the right of self-determination for all areas captured/liberated by Soviet armies. Stalin would alow this so only long as the "liberated" nations determined to be communists.

Yalta called for four occupation zones in Berlin (Russian/British/French/American). Russia blockaded the land supply/comminication routes in 1948 to Berlin in order to force the west out of Berlin. While it is true there was no actual treaty concerning the land supply routes, there was an informal agreement allowing access and the Yalta agreements did call for western zones and the attempt to force the west out violated the spirit, as well as the intent of the Yalta Agreements

Germany was supposed to be returned to single soveriegn nation after denazifacation was complete, however with the failure to force the west out of Berlin, we got two Germany's and the Iron Curtain which is certainly not what was expected from the Yalta agreements.

If I have left the impression that I equate Stalin with Hitler, that was not my intent. The comparison does not hold up. Stalin was, for the most part, content to remain within his own borders. Stalin would not have begun a general war solely for land, resouces, or spoils as Hitler/Mussolini/Japanese Imperialists did. He did use force and the threat of force to insure that states bordering the Soviet Union were either pro-Soviet or outright communist reguardless of the desires of people affected.

Stalin was somewhere between Hitler and Roosevelt. Not a nice man, but not a ravening monster either. There is a quote atributed to Stalin which I feel sums up the man- "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths, mearly a statistic"

Reguards, Belasar

 

In the Road to Berlin, Erickson paints a different picture. He writes that Stalin was unaware of the uprising until it was too late (or so we are to believe). From what I have read, the Red Army needed rest as their previous offensive was quite large.

Not disputing anything above, however; considering the circumstances, can you blame him? All of the countries which Red Army "Liberated" have either been part of the Russian Empire or were on the German side. By turning these countries in the Soviet "sphere of influence", Stalin solved two problems, incorporated Russia enemies into the Soviet system and created a buffer zone. Not all countries fell victim though, Austria and Finland are

All world powers had and have spheres of influences; its just politics.

Well put.

 

The Soviet Union in my opinion was just as scared of the West, as the West was scared of the SU.

There is no doubt that Stalin was ruthless and his actions such as Katyn are inexcusable.

 

Stalin was somewhere between Hitler and Roosevelt. Not a nice man, but not a ravening monster either. There is a quote atributed to Stalin which I feel sums up the man- "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths, mearly a statistic"
Reguards, Belasar

there have been a number of attempts in recent history to try to "whitewash" the history of Stalin to portray him as more of a hero to the modern Russian citizen. Putin has put forth attempts to paint him as a "hero" of Russian history.

Stalin however was just as much as a murderous monster as Hitler was and is no where near Roosevelt nor in between Hitler and Roosevelt. He ranks right up there with Hitler and some consider him even worse that Hitler.

here is part of an article on Stalin which will show you why some believe this.

Critics have taken exception, however, to numerous excerpts, which they say are essentially attempts to whitewash Stalin’s crimes.

In the West, it has been widely accepted that in the 1920s millions were shot, exiled to Siberia, or died of starvation after their land, homes and meagre possessions, were taken to fulfil Stalin’s vision of massive ‘factory farms.’

In the 1930s millions more whom he considered or suspected a threat to the USSR were executed or exiled to Gulag labour camps in remote areas of Siberia or Central Asia, where many also died of disease, malnutrition and exposure.

Historians believe up to 20 million people perished as a result of his actions - more than the six million killed during Hitler’s genocide of the jews.

here are some comments that were submitted in regards to the above article written by Will Stewart in a UK paper recently

Stalin was a complete monster. He had friends and colleagues as well as perfect strangers murdered on his whim. He was paranoid and saw everyone as a potential threat. He is the greatest mass murderer of all time.

I have recently been reading about Stalin and what I find so very disturbing is that there are a very large number of Russians who even today consider him to be a great hero. We in the west know that he was one of the most evil monsters of all time but millions still venerate him.

 

www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html

this is a great article about Stalin and it also includes a very interesting time line on him and his massive murderous spree.

 

The argument that the best way to neutralize Britain was to eliminate the SU,is NO stretch,in reality it was the ONLY way .The Med and the ME were only illusions .Offering France and the Benelux peace without occupation,would mean 1) withdrawal of the German troops and thus no Uboat and air attacks on Britain 2) a rearmament by these countries,otherwise they could not protect them against British landings .