State of the Soviet military in 1939

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTuh-hRoCNU

According to this video, the Soviet military wasn't the sort of victmin "obligated" to sign the MR Pact, in order to gain time to rearm and not be destroyed by Hitler (at least the video suggests it didn't think like that in August of '39).

If the Russians were able to sent so many troops to defend Poland, it seems that the whole idea of the MR Pact and division of Europe with the Nazis seems to have been an opportunist and higly immoral action from the Soviet government.

 

I recall that the first phase problem was that Poland would not let the Red Army enter Poland if Germany would attack. That would make the pact by the USSR and Britain and France pretty useless. However, Stalin found a better pact with Hitler, by gaining the Eastern Poland, Baltics and Finland into its influence, and also making in the future the war between Germany and France/Britain inevitable, and after a long war, Stalin could enter the central Europe with ease, or at least that how he seems to have thought.

 

I know that the Poles did not wanted the Soviets in their lands. However, my point is: the Soviets needed to have the pact for "safety" reasons? People who defend the Soviet position say that yes, because the Red Army Army was supposedely in poor shape in 1939. However, this doesn't have logic with what that news report says. The numbers they mention the Soviets could bring to Poland are totally capable of deal with the German Army, even if the Soviets were not in Poland. This would be specially the case if Stalin told Hitler that he would not tolerate an agression in Poland. The Wehrmacht would have to defeat the Poles, and immedeately after deal with a Red Storm. It would not be so easy for the Germans do this, and Stalin was fully aware of this. This is why there people who say that Stalin "allowed" Hitler to start the war.

In case Germany get in a long war with France and Britain, the Soviets would gain considerable military leverage. Let's say that such long war occurs, and in 1942 or '43 the Anglo-French start offensive war against Germany. It would be the pefect opportunity for Stalin to unleash the Red Army as a mob, to get as much European territory as possible. Of course that by this time there woud be the possibility of confilict between the Anglo-French, perhaps the US and the USSR. And here the USSR would not be in a so favourable position. Therefore, perhaps Stalin would not be so ambitious and would only maintein it's part of Poland, the Baltic states and expect Communism could be spread in the post-war world, while the Red Army would be ready to defend the territory of the Soviet state. Alternatively, perhaps in the war between the capitalist countries Communist revolutions could take place in countries like France (I found that unlikely, however. The Germans were not as strong as in WWI. The Anglo-French military backed by the US would smash Germany in an attrition war).

 

The problem is that Poland was the only way to get to Germany, the Poles rightly knew once in it would be difficult for then to get the Soviets to leave. There is also the belief of Stalin that the west was trying to get Stalin and Hitler to fight and not help the Soviets.

 

Jenisch, you are absolutely correct!

Stalin had no reason to doubt his army's capabilities. The soviet army had thousands of modern (by 1939 general standards), although not quite the very best, planes and more tanks than the rest of the world combined. The manpower was already 1,8 millions and rising rapidly.

The communist army had won the white and foreign armies in the Russian civil war. It had also beaten the Japanese in 1938 and was about to beat them second time at the time of MR-pact in 1939. The communist ideology was expected to produce the superior soldiers compered to the "capitalist" armies, ordinary soldiers of which were supposed to just wait for the communist "liberation".

Stalin had no reason to ally with Hitler for "gaining time". He didn't think he needed any more time. Hitler simply gave him what he wanted - free hands to deal with Finland, the Baltic, Poland and Romania. The west did not offer him any such promises.

To prevent the German attack on Poland Stalin would have only needed to declare, that such attack would be seen as hostile towards the USSR. There was no need for a prior soviet invasion of Poland. Hitler couldn't/wouldn't have risked a war against Poland, France, the UK AND the USSR at the same time. After all for Hitler a major war was too early in 1939 - and the French-British declaration of war was a cold surprise for him.

With the soviet-German alliance Stalin fooled Hitler to attack Poland and to get Germany into war with the West - exactly as Stalin had hoped for.

 

But even if this was the case, there was no need for agression against Poland and the other countries the Soviets invaded. The Soviets had an Army capable of deal with the Germans (or at least they perceived to have it in August of '39).

It surprises me that people generally accept Stalin's mass murders, but have problem to understand his abuses in foreign relations. If the former was done, why the latter could not be?

 

Soviet strenght in the invasion of Poland:

466,516–800,000 troops[2][3]
33+ divisions
11+ brigades
4,959 guns
4,736 tanks
3,300 aircraft

German strenght in the invasion of Poland:

1,500,000 men
60 divisions,
6 brigades,
9,000 guns,[1]
2,750 tanks,
2,315 aircrat

Polish strenght:

Poland:
39 divisions (some of them were never fully mobilized and concentrated),[4]
16 brigades,[4]
4,300 guns,[4]
880 tanks,
400 aircraft[1]
Total: 950,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_poland

 

Counting bayonets has led to many nations downfall.

Numbers do mater, up to a point but other factors have as much importance as sheer numbers.

What seems to be forgatten is that the Soviet Union had to keep a massive and restless population under control this alone required considerable forces. Then there is the vast border that had to be defended, again sucking up large numbers troops. The Soviet Command was aware of other factors that limited their combat effectiveness. The vast majority of their units were not combat ready, lack of spare parts, trained specialists and full TOE meant that while they could look good on parade, actual combat was another matter. The Officer purges led to severe command limitations, which were not helped by the re-organisation of the Mechinized forces.

These problems showed themselves in Finland and the Soviet occupation of Poland.

 

True, but those soviet problems remained to be found out at the time of the MR-pact - BEFORE the soviet occupation of Poland and especially before the attack on Finland. They could not have affected the soviet thinking in advance.

The soviet army was only one of the soviet militaristic organizations. E.g. the NKVD had troops of it's own to keep the masses in control.

I don't think the soviet Command really was aware of the huge limitations in the army's combat effectiveness. The officer purges were supposed to strengthen the army by liquidating the "traitors". The soviet army did not only look good on parade but on paper as well. Even after the disaster in Finland there were lots of excuses why that "border skirmish" (according to the soviets...) was an exception (the weather, the terrain etc...) and not to be seen as a clear demonstration of the soviet general military inability - although quite a few changes were made after it.

 

Now this is strickly my opinion but ...
I believe Stalin did not think the Soviets could survive a concerted attack by the West in the 30's or 40's. He did however seem to believe in the eventual triumph of Communism. Thus he wished to make the USSR stronger, inlcuding adding territory and/or puppet regimes, when he could provided he could avoid a military confrontation with the West. Note that Trotsky was in favor of pushing the spread of communism with more vigor and Stalin considered that a dangerous enough policy that he ordered Trotsky killed even in exile. To that end the acquistion of part or all of Finland looked like a safe and easy way to improve his position. That it proved otherwise clearly shocked him. The deal with Germany allowing him the Balkan states and eastern Poland was a similar thing.

Note that understanding the reasons behing the conquest does not mean that they were not an " opportunist and higly immoral action". Indeed I would so catagorize them.

 

The whole idea that the Soviets would collect the fruits of a showdown between Germany and the West is viewed with skepticism by me. The reason being simply that the West was much stronger than Germany. According to information provided by Adam Tooze in The Wages of Destruction, the German generals were aware that if they didn't defeat France quickly, Germany would be doomed. And the problem was by no means with only the Anglo-French. The Americans were becoming increasingly hostile to Germany by the late 1930s. The impression I have, therefore, is that Stalin wanted to seize the oportunity to grab more territory and expand Communism. However, I don't think he would go much far. Imagine people, France survives in 1940 and a few years later the military of Britain, France and perhaps the US were in Berlin, This would be a huge military contingent, and one that the Soviets would think twice in confront. The Soviets however, would be in a good defensive position if they were envolved in the war. It's my impression of the Soviet thinking at the time.

 

Other thing is that while the Germans could have well been stopped in France, they also could have defeated the French quickly (what of course happened). If the Soviets felt vulnerable, it would not be good to take the risk without absolute necessity. The idea that Stalin was paranoid about the West pushing Germany to confront him seems to have some sense therefore.

 

During the 30's there were numerous war scares by the Soviets and considering the allied plans to bomb Baku there is some basis for Stalins belief. It was a basic Stalinist contention that there would be a coordinated attack by the capitalist countries against the Soviet Union, so it would make sense for Stalin to allow Germany and the west to get involved in another WW1 type fight that would give the Soviets a chance to cherry pick eastern Europe and possibly Germany, by the tine the west had recovered the Soviets would be ready.

 

Well, yes. If France didn't fell in 1940, and an attrition war started, how much time for the Anglo-French smash Germany? 3,4 years? By the time the Anglo-French would be fighting in Berlin, the Soviets, with millions of men and thousands of tanks, would be with their arms crossed in Poland and other territories they conquered. It doesn't seems that the West would be willing to face them in this situation.

 

Surely you meant the Baltic countries...

 

Ah,the old Molotow-Ribbentrop pact and the usual PC moral indignation : maybe one should first lok at the following

1)Poland wanted to preserve the statu quo

2)Adolf wanted to change the statu quo

3)Stalin wanted neither could preserve the statu quo

4)Britain and France were indifferent :the only thing they wanted to avoid was a war between Germany and Poland,because such war would have as result that they would be involved .


Now,some one could explain why Stalin could/should help Poland ?

If Hitler attacked Poland,Stalin had to show his colours: fighting against Hitler,or watching while Hitler occupied Poland .

 

I ask the same thing for the West...

 

I've always asked the same question...Chekeslovakia yes...Poland? Britain...? Really? What did we have in common at that time...Poland had more in common with Germany...and I know that will start ww3 here...but its the way I see it.

 

It's strange that Hitler first attacked Poland and not France. This may be well an indicator that Hitler did not expected war with France, at least in '39.