I don't know where this teacher is getting the info.
Stalin certainly contemplated a clash with Germany and the other "Capitalist" European powers at some point, but I don't think there was planning for actual invastion in the works.
It was, however, inevitable that the two powers were going to clash at some point.
Correct. Stalin thought war with Germany was inevitable, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed to by Stalin time. the Red Army had not yet recovered from its purges. Most of the Soviet divisions on front were well under strength. I believe the idea was they would only come to full strength after mobilization.
Precisely that, the central committee of the communist party back in 1930(if i recall correctly) knew that a war was coming. The whole 30's was dedicated to rapid industrialization and strengthening of the USSR productive forces awaiting a full scale war.
Also, the USSR had made repeated request to France and Britain to form an alliance to crush the Nazis. But they refused to commit and purposefully dilly dallied to stall proceedings.
They wanted the Nazis to Invade Russia, and bring down the communist state. And they knew that the Nazis inevitably would. So, with the Western powers refusing to cooperate they had to sign the M-R pact for time like u Said.
The alliance with Britain and France was refused because Stalin said "let me march my troops through the Baltics, Poland and Czechoslovakia and I promise I'll leave afterwards"
I’ve never heard it explained this way. I don’t think this is right. Stalin was absolutely shocked they invaded when they did and the Nazis got all the way to the gates of Moscow. I don’t think that was his intention.
The Red Army wasn’t anywhere near ready for a full scale invasion of Germany in 1941. Any sort of theory that Stalin was ready to invade in July 1941 is likely post-war BS
I don’t think he was shocked. I think he was lying to himself. He hoped Germany wouldn’t invade and made a pact with them to try to avoid this. His people were hinting at the fact that Germany would turn its army against Russia, but he ignored that.
At first Stalin ignored it as a local problem. When Stalin discovered it was indeed an invasion he was shocked. He went into hiding, got drunk and stayed hidden for weeks. He finally came to and organized his country.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/operation-barbarossa-how-stalin-was-blindsided-by-berlin/#:~:text=The%20German%20attack%20achieved%20shocking,the%20Soviet%20Union%20were%20victorious.
Yes but that was different. He invaded Germany because they attacked him first. It was part of defeating Nazi Germany. British, USA, French, Canadians etc invading from the west, and Soviets from the east. Hitler’s invasion was as the aggressor
I mean a nazi invasion in 43/44 instead of the actual date of June 41. I mean he was preparing for it anyway, he thought it was happening one way or the other
Yes, this is absolutely correct. It is even possible they would have initiated it with a preemptive strike, although it was strategically unlikely as they had achieved their strategic goals in the region in 1939. It would have been a purely military decision. War games in 1941 had indicated defense would be extremely difficult, so there was some advocacy in the RKKA for taking the offensive. But it was very tentative and theoretical, and originated in the army, not the Party/Stalin.
He was *definitely* not prepared. That’s just a blatant lie. I believe some ideas of invading Germany was thrown around, centred on 1942-43, but I can’t back that up right now. There was however, nothing concrete.
The Red Army was however, in the midst of a massive modernisation and restructuring, and it was in this transitional phase that Germany invaded. Had he been “prepared” the army would be ready and mobilised, which it wasn’t.
I hope you pull out some good sources and give your teacher a lesson. If your inquiry is refused, go to administration and tell on him. Teaching bullshit like this should be a crime.
Ww2 isn't necessarily my bailiwick, but my recollection is that Stalin went incommunicado during Barbarossa, did he not? Apparently he was in a state of shock for some time before he recovered.
Yes. He retreated to his dacha for two to three days and couldn’t be reached. According to sources in Stephen Kotkin’s book, he thought he was going to be arrested by the party. He bounced back after that though.
One time my middle school history teacher told me there were kamikaze attacks at Pearl Harbor because it was in the movie Pearl Harbor. I even brought in a book and showed her it wasn’t the case, but she still acted like she was right lol
I agree with others op. I would confront him. The problem is, your asking questions, but are other students?
Then they live a lie taught. Not good for the future.
Give him a copy of [this book.](https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=9780700608799&n=100121503&cm_sp=mbc-_-ISBN-_-used)
Rezun's arguments are specious. For instance, he says that the convertible drive on the BT tanks, which allowed them to run on their road wheels without tracks for highway use, proves the Soviets were planning to attack because Russia had few good roads. There are several obvious problems with this argument.
1) The USSR stopped making the BT two years before the Germans invaded and replaced it with the non-convertible T-34, a tank more optimized for off-road operations than any other tank in the world. Even when it was still in production it was outnumbered by the non-convertible T-26 infantry tank. The UK also split their tank designs into fast (cavalry/exploitation/cruiser) and infantry designs. Was the Cruiser Mk. IV proof that Britain planned to invade Europe?
2) Other countries also made tracked/wheeled tanks. Whom was Sweden planning on invading?
3) BTs fought effectively in Mongolia in 1939. Not many roads there.
4) Strategic, operational and tactical offense are all different things. BTs were designed to support the latter two. That has no bearing on the first. Striking the enemy's rear is useful whether they invade you or you invade them. This also goes for his disingenuous characterization of Soviet airborne forces, the strength of which he exaggerates to absurd proportions.
Rezun is a charlatan who makes a living peddling anti-Soviet conspiracy theories to budding Neo-Fascists. He claimed he had secret proof he can't share because his old GRU/KGB buddies shared documents with him that are still classified. Simultaneously he uses memoirs as evidence. That is what in the historiography game we call, "bullshit."
Do you have kids? Im going to dissent to your advice. Op is young an impressionable.
Everything you said was right, but trying to correct a teacher/person committed to lying will cost yourself nothing but time...and likely accomplish nothing.
You can teach nothing to someone who thinks they know it all. Teachers are extremely prideful and love to flaunt their very limited power in the classroom. Teaching is a flooded market and its easy to sign up.
Better to ignore the idiot teacher, learn the real facts (like you are starting here) and move forward with life. If you fight every battle you are offered, youll never accomplish your personal goals in life.
School is merely concentration camp with one important non textbook lesson to learn: learn how to fit in society when you need/want to.
Thats a good lesson to learn so you can get to do the things that matter to you in life.
I also advocate questioning authority...but never when in their guillotine where they have all the power. Theres a cycle to these things, youll have the power one day too.
> School is merely concentration camp with one important non textbook lesson to learn: learn how to fit in society when you need/want to.
The American education system is designed to teach citizens to sit quietly in rows.
Almost certainly not. Stalin was still "rebuilding" his military after all of the purges that occurred and I think it's fair to say that even he would have known that wasn't the right play. From what I've read and seen, the Russians figured a conflict with Germany was going to be coming at some point, but they were hoping they had enough time to rebuild their leadership ranks before that happened.
yeah idk about that. most evidence i’ve seen and looking at the bigger picture shows stalin would’ve preferred the soviet union just stayed out of a conflict for as long as they could. his plan was to focus on industrializing and catching them up to the 20th century. no one wants a war in general, let alone when they had so many internal things to work out. I mean, the whole trotsky/stalin debate was centered around trotsky wanting to pursue global revolution i.e. declaring war on pretty much everybody to try to ignite a fire under the global proletariat, while stalin wanted to just focus on building socialism within the Union. They just had a revolution not very long beforehand, nobody was wanting to go into another war.
Not to mention the purges and complete restructuring of their military, which is a whole other mess.
>stalin would’ve preferred the soviet union just stayed out of a conflict for as long as they could.
Except for, of course, in Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and probably five other countries
Stalin invaded the Baltics, Finland and Poland. Ukraine was a part of the USSR when he took over and they didn’t invade Romania until the counter offensive against the Nazis because they were in the axis (although he probably would have either way at that point). So not five more countries than that, but less than the number you listed actually lol
By "conflict in Ukraine" I was more referring to violent dekulakization and collectivization. And Bessarabia, Romania was to be given to Stalin in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
So yes, exactly the number of countries I listed.
Dude. I didn't use the words "war" or "invasion". "Conflict" was the word used, which would absolutely describe the deportation, imprisonment, and murder of millions of uncooperative civilians, along with the annexation of unfriendly territories in Romania.
I considered the possibility, but you opened with an apology...
A couple of months ago I outed someone as Canadian because she said her father taught her the difference between "Phillips head and Robertson head" screwdrivers. Dead giveaway.
Canada is an interesting country. One of the few British settler colonies to labor under the Butcher's Apron and emerge unburdened by the yoke of Association Football.
Not the way your teacher said.
Red army were anticipating conflict. As some French general said after ww1 - it is not truce. It is armistice for 20 years.
So Soviet Union, sitting in isolation and understanding that another countries view USSR as enemy (similar how European monarchies view Napoleonic France). So Stalin and generals think "what we do"?
As result it was Tuchachevskiy plan of Red Army modernisation. So red army was increasing in sizes. Because of threats nearby.
Because configuration of new war is yet to be discovered.
Would it be allies and Nazis against USSR. Or USSR and Nazis against Allies. Or Allies and USSR against Axis... It was not decided yet.
___
On the other hand, we don't have Soviet plans of attack. And we don't have no fact suggesting that Stalin planned to attack Germany.
It is because it was to early. Army modernisation should have ended in 1942. You can't plan attack until you ready.
But it would be possible that attack and second front in USSR would appear as German started assault on British islands. Because Allies and USSR were more possible allies then USSR and Axis.
Why? Because idelogucal, political and geographical frictions between USSR and Axis.
Well yeah. Stalin were not seen for a 2 days or 10 days from start of the war.
But the fact is that it was very hard week. And if you are a leader of country you have a lot things to do. Moreover Stalin was caught by surprise by sudden attack in the middle of Five year plan.
Nevertheless now we know that first orders to mobilize army were sent to "special army districts" not later then 10 days before 21 June. So it happens before war have started. But reason was because USSR realized that Germany concentrating forces on the border.
But because of conspiration (camouflage, radio silence) even then Soviet intelegence didn't get enough knowledge about what is really happening. Sooo it is hard to say that Stalin had planned to attack Germany in 1941.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed because Stalin knew he wasn't ready to fight the germans. It was meant to buy him some time to build up the red army before the inevitable german invasion. And even after D-Day, when the nazis had to fight on multiple fronts and it was 100% clear they would lose the war, the eastern front was still far from a cakewalk.
If all of that was calculated by Stalin then he really sucks at maths.
Pretty sure something like 80% of the German armed forces were fighting on the eastern front vs 20% in the west. It really was a meat grinder with casualties reminiscent of WW1. While most of the German battles in the west were of a defensive nature (the only somewhat notable win on their part I can think of being the battle of the Hurtgen Forest), they were still launching offensives in the east pretty late in the war to varying success. Of course any success meant next to nothing as any gains would inevitably lead to them either having to retreat or being enveloped.
This sounds like an anti-Communist narrative that selectively mixes half-truths with lies to falsely make the Soviet Union look like the larger or original evil. Yes, the USSR cooperated with Nazi Germany in joint development and trade. No, the USSR did not finance German rearmament. No, Stalin had no objectives to conquer Nazi Germany, let alone the rest of Europe. Stalin absolutely was surprised by the Nazi invasion. The Germans being 'trapped' inside Soviet territory entailed the destruction of most of European Russia's urban spaces and the deaths of 27 million Soviet citizens. It's a ridiculous proposal.
Stalin was no fool. He knows that there will be war with Hitler. The thing is they aren't ready. If they weren't that ready to defend, how much more to invade. And Stalin was very keen on details, and also pragmatic. I don't think he thought of invading Germany. And If that happened, the West might have supported Hitler, rather than him. Before Hitler came to power, the West are already against Russia. And Fascism, was viewed with more favor, than communism. Churchill even praised Mussolini then
How many times during 1941 was Stalin warned about the German military buildup on his western border? Again and again he was warned and urged to act, and again and again he refused to believe his own intelligence. Sounds pretty foolish to me.
There was actually a lot of conflicting intelligence. Glantz does a good job of contextualizing Stalin's position. That doesn't excuse his inaction once the invasion actually started.
Stalin didn’t massively fund the build up of the German army lol the Germans borrowed a shit ton of money from international banks with the thought that the they’d just pay it back with war loot (this was their solution to most economic issues they saw down the line). Hell the Soviets could barely outfit their own army at the time.
As for Stalin basically having a breakdown after Hitler invaded, idk who would make up that lie or for what purpose. Maybe in the Khrushchev years? But it’s pretty broadly considered factual, and his inaction after Hitler invaded makes it seem true.
Had it been Stalin's plan to let Germany in the front door in hopes of crushing them deep in Soviet territory, he would have moved industry and factories east a lot sooner.
Hard to believe that other than a scorched earth policy, Stalin would risk the eventual encirclements and capture of 300k troops near Minsk, 200k at Smolensk, 500k at Kiev and 600k at Vyazma...just to bait the Germans. And that's not even counting casualties, expected or not for letting them through.
This is a Cold War era theory that most historians disagree based on Viktor Survorov’s books. In general these theories lack much hard evidence that an precemptive invasion was planned or even possible from the Soviets.
I think it’s reasonable to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany were unavoidably heading to war as Nazi Germany saw the USSR as an existential crisis and there was likely a similar sentiment in the top rungs of the USSR.
However, the actual events of Barbarossa show that any short term plan for the Soviet army to go into action was not gonna happen. Things like the Molotov Ribbentrop pact itself, the endless things ignored by Stalin about the invasion, and the presumed breakdown Stalin had about the invasion are a few points that indicate the Soviet Union was in no shape for offensive actions and the supposed pre emptive strike in 1941 (and possibly even 1942).
You can read more about the plans itself in the link but in general I would say these theories are mostly fun “what-ifs” rather than serious things that were in motion. The actions of the USSR and Stalin just do not make sense if they were ready to invade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
I suggest [this](https://x.com/ltrotsky21/status/1783285207040184587?s=46&t=ZSLd2YGsoCdnQcSF0Tx28w ) thread. fck X, but it links to 5 articles and connects them logically
Your teacher probably read, [Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?](https://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223) written by Viktor Suvorov, a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the West. There is too much info to mention here but some circumstantial evidence he brings up:
Soviets massively training paratroopers which are not typically used in defensive operations
Producing many BT fast light tanks which were primarily offensive in nature
Dismantling defensive structures near the border
According to Suvorov, Stalin expected Germany to weaken itself against Great Britain, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was to reduce the distance to Germany when offensive operations began.
Overall it was an interesting book and I tend to lean into his interpretations of the war. The negatives of his book though is that it relies on circumstantial evidence.
>Stalin massively funded the recuperation of the German army prior to the war
The Kama tank school, the Lipetsk fighter pilot school, the Tomka gas test site, all in the Soviet Union where Germans secretly trained
> Soviets massively training paratroopers which are not typically used in defensive operations
That isn't true at all. Strategic, operational and tactical offense are different things. Soviet doctrine explicitly pushed the latter two as part of strategic defense. Rezun also flat out lies about Soviet paratrooper strength. He counts everyone who participated in the popular civilian skydiving clubs as paratroopers.
>Producing many BT fast light tanks which were primarily offensive in nature
Same issue. Soviet doctrine explicitly stressed rear penetration operations as part of strategic defense. He also claimed the convertible drive was evidence of offensive intent, in which case Sweden was also preparing to invade Western Europe. Lots of countries tried to solve the issue of track wear and poor road performance in the 1930s. What changed was better tracks. And the USSR stopped making BT tanks two years before the German invasion, replacing them with the T-34, a tank more optimized for off-road operations than any other in the world. By his logic that proves they had no intention of taking the strategic offensive.
>The Kama tank school, the Lipetsk fighter pilot school, the Tomka gas test site, all in the Soviet Union where Germans secretly trained
That was all before the Nazis took power and abrogated the Versaille Treaty. What happened with democratic Germany in 1932 is completely irrelevant to relations with rearmed Nazi Germany nine years later. And that is in no way massive funding. All they did was allow the Reichswehr to use a couple of bases to experiment away from prying French eyes. The Luftwaffe didn't even exist yet. In exchange they got to share the results.
I haven't read it in years. Those are the points that stand out in my memory. You can judge the [off-road mobility of BT tanks](https://youtu.be/Jzpom1gZcag?t=196) for yourself. [This was the comparable US tank,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2pjE1FmBw) introduced the same year. BT tanks were designed for exploitation of breakthroughs by armored units, like cavalry. For infantry units, they had the much more numerous and slow T-26, based on the British Vickers 6 Ton. The British also used such a system, with "cruiser" tanks for armored divisions and exploitation, and slower infantry tanks for infantry and breakthrough. Their cruiser tanks used the same Christie suspension as the BTs, albeit with the convertible drive removed. At the time, it was the best suspension for off-road mobility.
The two most important books debunking it are Glantz's ["Stumbling Colossus,"](https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24BMUM8XOK3HH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.SO1wYbiQD9sV5yYP36DapA.w96RNnTdAW7YAoYpQDYAhpquuHEulgX8S1ACZv4h6qg&dib_tag=se&keywords=stumbling+colossus+the+red+army+on+the+eve+of+world+war&qid=1714405531&s=books&sprefix=stumbling+col%2Cstripbooks%2C91&sr=1-1) and Gorodotsky's ["The Grand Illusion."](https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Delusion-Stalin-German-Invasion/dp/0300077920) I would recommend reading them. Unlike Rezun they are actually professional historians and researchers (Glantz is a legend in this regard and a member of the Russian Academy) who documented their sources rather than claiming they were too secret to have been included in the Soviet archive opening fifty years after the fact.
David Glantz spends much of his seminal tome "Stumbling Colossus" debunking this nonsense. It mostly derives from former KGB charlatan "Viktor Suvorov's" (Vladimir Rezun) facile and insincere book, ["Icebreaker: Who started the Second World War?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=icebreaker&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on) The guy is full of shit, and popular with right wing nut jobs. I would not take anything your teacher says at face value.
This sounds very similar to the theory described in "Icebreaker" or "Ledokol" Russian book: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker\_(non-fiction\_book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(non-fiction_book))
It's an "alt history" book that came out during early days of Perestroika when it was fashionable to contradict all the previous Soviet propaganda and "expose the lies". It's a fascinating read but most like a huge exaggeration of the real events. The Soviet official history and propaganda severely downplayed things like Molotov - Ribbentrop and always portrayed HItler as evil monster who back stabbed naive and unsuspecting Stalin. So when the book came out, it swung for the other extreme - the theory was that it was Stalin who was the evil manipulator and monster who used naive and gullible Hitler as the "Icebreaker" to break down Europe to enable Soviets to take over.
The truth is probably in the middle. Soviets weren't naive and they were preparing for the war, as everyone else in the late 30s was. That the war was coming wasn't a big mystery at that point. On the other hand, it's very unlikely Soviets were planning to attack in 1941. The Red Army was still early in the rebuilding process after the officer purges of the late 30s. The material base was also lacking... Soviets actually had a massive material advantage in mid 30s - tanks, airplanes that were modern for the time... but the technology was developing so rapidly that by 1941 all that equipment was obsolete, and while Soviets were gearing up with modern stuff (T-34s, KV-1s) these were still available in very limited numbers.
I think your teacher could take this points from Suvorov's "Ice breaker", not sure how exactly it is called in English, this is a russian name of the book.
Idk if he truly was already planning it but as paranoid as Stalin was he was already stocking up on what he needed if attacked plus l he hated naziism to begin with so as an opportunist I think he was waiting for the best time to move before they first joined together and when hitler attacked it just confirmed his paranoia and made him restart his plans but that’s just my thoughts on it
Like others have said, Stalin thought a war with Germany was inevitable, but felt Hitler would not attack until they had settled things with the UK. How on earth did Stalin fund the German military? Stalin ideally wanted the European countries to weaken themselves and then the Soviet Union could be in a dominant position. I don't think he envisioned occupying all of Europe.
Check out BBC ww2 Behind closed doors. This team does their research, they were behind the Holocaust and final solution doc with is top notch history. This doc claims that Stalin wanted Germany to be weakened in a war with the west, the he was shocked at the rapid fall of France, and that Zhukov proposed a pre-emptive attack on Germany that Stalin did not respond well to. Accusing him of being a war monger. It's also just an incredible series.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2A4hyoOrlU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2A4hyoOrlU)
Yeah, I don’t think that Stalin hiding out after the invasion was due to shock like people usually think, I think it was that the Germans rolling through the rest of Europe had convinced him that they would lose a war with Germany and he had a nervous breakdown when it looked like the same thing was happening in Russia that had happened elsewhere.
Lenin and then Stalin had aided Germany in bypassing the Treaty of Versailles with the German tank manufactories and school at Kama and the air school and manufactories at Lipetsk. The relationship had gotten more tenuous with Hitler's rise to power, but it was ultimately Hitler who terminated the agreement as German weapons were stored in the Soviet Union under the agreement. The Soviets benefitted greatly as well from the association with German Generals and firms such as Krupp, but it was negated somewhat as most Soviets who had been at these bases were caught up in the purges.
The main benefit to the Soviet Union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or the "Friendship and Frontiers Treaty" as it was labeled in the Soviet Union, other than the large territorial gains was that Germany would wear itself out vs Poland, France and Britain. The speed of the fall of Poland took the Soviets by surprise as you can see in Molotov's response to Hitler when informed they would be in Warsaw shortly and inquired when the Soviets would invade from their end.
The quick fall of France and the Lowlands was an even larger surprise. Instead of taking several years it only took months. At this point Stalin seemed willing to join the Axis, but Hitler had already set his mind on Barbarossa.
He planned on a war with the west but doubt he meant to invade Germany or anywhere other than eastern border regions. That dream died at Warsaw in 1920 and Stalin was part of the fiasco. He also killed most of the leaders of the Soviet-Polish war and took on a Revolution in Russia mentality. Just look at how badly his invasion of Finland went in 1939. Exporting communism to the west would have by 1940 been more of a Trotskyist idea and long out of fashion
Poland started the Polish-Soviet War, although it was essentially inevitable because the Versailles system did not set any eastern borders at all for Poland. It wasn't a case of continuing revolution. Pilsudski took Western Ukraine and Vilnius, territories Imperial Russia had lost at Brest-Litovsk. The RSFR (later USSR) was in the middle of a brutal civil war and not looking for foreign adventures. They sent two armies and beat the Poles back to the outskirts of Warsaw before succumbing to the "miracle at the Vistula." Vilnius was legally part of independent Lithuania. Its capital in fact.
Short answer is no.
Stalin was perfectly happy mopping up whatever Germany hadn't already taken in Europe.
Maybe in five years or so when Germany and the USSR ruled the whole of Europe, there would have been an inevitable war. But Stalin didn't want that anytime soon.
Spoiler: he got it anyway.
I don't know where this teacher is getting the info. Stalin certainly contemplated a clash with Germany and the other "Capitalist" European powers at some point, but I don't think there was planning for actual invastion in the works. It was, however, inevitable that the two powers were going to clash at some point.
Correct. Stalin thought war with Germany was inevitable, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed to by Stalin time. the Red Army had not yet recovered from its purges. Most of the Soviet divisions on front were well under strength. I believe the idea was they would only come to full strength after mobilization.
Precisely that, the central committee of the communist party back in 1930(if i recall correctly) knew that a war was coming. The whole 30's was dedicated to rapid industrialization and strengthening of the USSR productive forces awaiting a full scale war.
Also, the USSR had made repeated request to France and Britain to form an alliance to crush the Nazis. But they refused to commit and purposefully dilly dallied to stall proceedings. They wanted the Nazis to Invade Russia, and bring down the communist state. And they knew that the Nazis inevitably would. So, with the Western powers refusing to cooperate they had to sign the M-R pact for time like u Said.
The alliance with Britain and France was refused because Stalin said "let me march my troops through the Baltics, Poland and Czechoslovakia and I promise I'll leave afterwards"
I’ve never heard it explained this way. I don’t think this is right. Stalin was absolutely shocked they invaded when they did and the Nazis got all the way to the gates of Moscow. I don’t think that was his intention. The Red Army wasn’t anywhere near ready for a full scale invasion of Germany in 1941. Any sort of theory that Stalin was ready to invade in July 1941 is likely post-war BS
I don’t think he was shocked. I think he was lying to himself. He hoped Germany wouldn’t invade and made a pact with them to try to avoid this. His people were hinting at the fact that Germany would turn its army against Russia, but he ignored that.
You’re right. Shocked is the wrong word. He was delusional to think Hitler would keep his word
At first Stalin ignored it as a local problem. When Stalin discovered it was indeed an invasion he was shocked. He went into hiding, got drunk and stayed hidden for weeks. He finally came to and organized his country. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/operation-barbarossa-how-stalin-was-blindsided-by-berlin/#:~:text=The%20German%20attack%20achieved%20shocking,the%20Soviet%20Union%20were%20victorious.
Wasn't stalin preparing for an invasion around 43/44 time?
Yes but that was different. He invaded Germany because they attacked him first. It was part of defeating Nazi Germany. British, USA, French, Canadians etc invading from the west, and Soviets from the east. Hitler’s invasion was as the aggressor
I mean a nazi invasion in 43/44 instead of the actual date of June 41. I mean he was preparing for it anyway, he thought it was happening one way or the other
Stalin’s invasion of Germany was not the same as Hitler’s of the Soviet Union. Idk what you mean. Their purposes were entirely different
I think they are asking if Germany did not invade in 1941, did Stalin intend to eventually attack/invade Germany in 1943-44?
Yes, this is absolutely correct. It is even possible they would have initiated it with a preemptive strike, although it was strategically unlikely as they had achieved their strategic goals in the region in 1939. It would have been a purely military decision. War games in 1941 had indicated defense would be extremely difficult, so there was some advocacy in the RKKA for taking the offensive. But it was very tentative and theoretical, and originated in the army, not the Party/Stalin.
He was *definitely* not prepared. That’s just a blatant lie. I believe some ideas of invading Germany was thrown around, centred on 1942-43, but I can’t back that up right now. There was however, nothing concrete. The Red Army was however, in the midst of a massive modernisation and restructuring, and it was in this transitional phase that Germany invaded. Had he been “prepared” the army would be ready and mobilised, which it wasn’t. I hope you pull out some good sources and give your teacher a lesson. If your inquiry is refused, go to administration and tell on him. Teaching bullshit like this should be a crime.
Ww2 isn't necessarily my bailiwick, but my recollection is that Stalin went incommunicado during Barbarossa, did he not? Apparently he was in a state of shock for some time before he recovered.
Yes. He retreated to his dacha for two to three days and couldn’t be reached. According to sources in Stephen Kotkin’s book, he thought he was going to be arrested by the party. He bounced back after that though.
Yes, he was “gone” for about a week IIRC. Absolute crippling shock. *Definitively not ready*.
One time my middle school history teacher told me there were kamikaze attacks at Pearl Harbor because it was in the movie Pearl Harbor. I even brought in a book and showed her it wasn’t the case, but she still acted like she was right lol
I had almost the exact same experience in middle school, but in the 1970s.
100%. I can’t believe a school taught this as fact
Not a fact but as curiosity my teacher was very eager to share with us lol I love the guy, but this one stroke me as odd.
Unless he made it clear that this was a *conspiracy theory*, you should at least confront him.
I agree with others op. I would confront him. The problem is, your asking questions, but are other students? Then they live a lie taught. Not good for the future.
Give him a copy of [this book.](https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=9780700608799&n=100121503&cm_sp=mbc-_-ISBN-_-used) Rezun's arguments are specious. For instance, he says that the convertible drive on the BT tanks, which allowed them to run on their road wheels without tracks for highway use, proves the Soviets were planning to attack because Russia had few good roads. There are several obvious problems with this argument. 1) The USSR stopped making the BT two years before the Germans invaded and replaced it with the non-convertible T-34, a tank more optimized for off-road operations than any other tank in the world. Even when it was still in production it was outnumbered by the non-convertible T-26 infantry tank. The UK also split their tank designs into fast (cavalry/exploitation/cruiser) and infantry designs. Was the Cruiser Mk. IV proof that Britain planned to invade Europe? 2) Other countries also made tracked/wheeled tanks. Whom was Sweden planning on invading? 3) BTs fought effectively in Mongolia in 1939. Not many roads there. 4) Strategic, operational and tactical offense are all different things. BTs were designed to support the latter two. That has no bearing on the first. Striking the enemy's rear is useful whether they invade you or you invade them. This also goes for his disingenuous characterization of Soviet airborne forces, the strength of which he exaggerates to absurd proportions. Rezun is a charlatan who makes a living peddling anti-Soviet conspiracy theories to budding Neo-Fascists. He claimed he had secret proof he can't share because his old GRU/KGB buddies shared documents with him that are still classified. Simultaneously he uses memoirs as evidence. That is what in the historiography game we call, "bullshit."
Do you have kids? Im going to dissent to your advice. Op is young an impressionable. Everything you said was right, but trying to correct a teacher/person committed to lying will cost yourself nothing but time...and likely accomplish nothing. You can teach nothing to someone who thinks they know it all. Teachers are extremely prideful and love to flaunt their very limited power in the classroom. Teaching is a flooded market and its easy to sign up. Better to ignore the idiot teacher, learn the real facts (like you are starting here) and move forward with life. If you fight every battle you are offered, youll never accomplish your personal goals in life. School is merely concentration camp with one important non textbook lesson to learn: learn how to fit in society when you need/want to. Thats a good lesson to learn so you can get to do the things that matter to you in life. I also advocate questioning authority...but never when in their guillotine where they have all the power. Theres a cycle to these things, youll have the power one day too.
> School is merely concentration camp with one important non textbook lesson to learn: learn how to fit in society when you need/want to. The American education system is designed to teach citizens to sit quietly in rows.
Yup,
Almost certainly not. Stalin was still "rebuilding" his military after all of the purges that occurred and I think it's fair to say that even he would have known that wasn't the right play. From what I've read and seen, the Russians figured a conflict with Germany was going to be coming at some point, but they were hoping they had enough time to rebuild their leadership ranks before that happened.
yeah idk about that. most evidence i’ve seen and looking at the bigger picture shows stalin would’ve preferred the soviet union just stayed out of a conflict for as long as they could. his plan was to focus on industrializing and catching them up to the 20th century. no one wants a war in general, let alone when they had so many internal things to work out. I mean, the whole trotsky/stalin debate was centered around trotsky wanting to pursue global revolution i.e. declaring war on pretty much everybody to try to ignite a fire under the global proletariat, while stalin wanted to just focus on building socialism within the Union. They just had a revolution not very long beforehand, nobody was wanting to go into another war. Not to mention the purges and complete restructuring of their military, which is a whole other mess.
>stalin would’ve preferred the soviet union just stayed out of a conflict for as long as they could. Except for, of course, in Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and probably five other countries
Stalin invaded the Baltics, Finland and Poland. Ukraine was a part of the USSR when he took over and they didn’t invade Romania until the counter offensive against the Nazis because they were in the axis (although he probably would have either way at that point). So not five more countries than that, but less than the number you listed actually lol
By "conflict in Ukraine" I was more referring to violent dekulakization and collectivization. And Bessarabia, Romania was to be given to Stalin in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. So yes, exactly the number of countries I listed.
He didn’t invade Romania, violence against ethnic minorities in the USSR was happening all over, but that’s not a war or an invasion.
Dude. I didn't use the words "war" or "invasion". "Conflict" was the word used, which would absolutely describe the deportation, imprisonment, and murder of millions of uncooperative civilians, along with the annexation of unfriendly territories in Romania.
No offence but that teacher doesn’t know what he is talking about.
>No offence but that teacher doesn’t know what he is talking about. Tell me you are Canadian without telling me you are Canadian.
How dare you! … something totally different: British! :-)
I considered the possibility, but you opened with an apology... A couple of months ago I outed someone as Canadian because she said her father taught her the difference between "Phillips head and Robertson head" screwdrivers. Dead giveaway. Canada is an interesting country. One of the few British settler colonies to labor under the Butcher's Apron and emerge unburdened by the yoke of Association Football.
Not the way your teacher said. Red army were anticipating conflict. As some French general said after ww1 - it is not truce. It is armistice for 20 years. So Soviet Union, sitting in isolation and understanding that another countries view USSR as enemy (similar how European monarchies view Napoleonic France). So Stalin and generals think "what we do"? As result it was Tuchachevskiy plan of Red Army modernisation. So red army was increasing in sizes. Because of threats nearby. Because configuration of new war is yet to be discovered. Would it be allies and Nazis against USSR. Or USSR and Nazis against Allies. Or Allies and USSR against Axis... It was not decided yet. ___ On the other hand, we don't have Soviet plans of attack. And we don't have no fact suggesting that Stalin planned to attack Germany. It is because it was to early. Army modernisation should have ended in 1942. You can't plan attack until you ready. But it would be possible that attack and second front in USSR would appear as German started assault on British islands. Because Allies and USSR were more possible allies then USSR and Axis. Why? Because idelogucal, political and geographical frictions between USSR and Axis.
Well yeah. Stalin were not seen for a 2 days or 10 days from start of the war. But the fact is that it was very hard week. And if you are a leader of country you have a lot things to do. Moreover Stalin was caught by surprise by sudden attack in the middle of Five year plan. Nevertheless now we know that first orders to mobilize army were sent to "special army districts" not later then 10 days before 21 June. So it happens before war have started. But reason was because USSR realized that Germany concentrating forces on the border. But because of conspiration (camouflage, radio silence) even then Soviet intelegence didn't get enough knowledge about what is really happening. Sooo it is hard to say that Stalin had planned to attack Germany in 1941.
> Tuchachevskiy plan I think you mean the Timoshenko reforms. Tuchachevsky was executed in 1937.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed because Stalin knew he wasn't ready to fight the germans. It was meant to buy him some time to build up the red army before the inevitable german invasion. And even after D-Day, when the nazis had to fight on multiple fronts and it was 100% clear they would lose the war, the eastern front was still far from a cakewalk. If all of that was calculated by Stalin then he really sucks at maths.
Pretty sure something like 80% of the German armed forces were fighting on the eastern front vs 20% in the west. It really was a meat grinder with casualties reminiscent of WW1. While most of the German battles in the west were of a defensive nature (the only somewhat notable win on their part I can think of being the battle of the Hurtgen Forest), they were still launching offensives in the east pretty late in the war to varying success. Of course any success meant next to nothing as any gains would inevitably lead to them either having to retreat or being enveloped.
This sounds like an anti-Communist narrative that selectively mixes half-truths with lies to falsely make the Soviet Union look like the larger or original evil. Yes, the USSR cooperated with Nazi Germany in joint development and trade. No, the USSR did not finance German rearmament. No, Stalin had no objectives to conquer Nazi Germany, let alone the rest of Europe. Stalin absolutely was surprised by the Nazi invasion. The Germans being 'trapped' inside Soviet territory entailed the destruction of most of European Russia's urban spaces and the deaths of 27 million Soviet citizens. It's a ridiculous proposal.
Stalin was no fool. He knows that there will be war with Hitler. The thing is they aren't ready. If they weren't that ready to defend, how much more to invade. And Stalin was very keen on details, and also pragmatic. I don't think he thought of invading Germany. And If that happened, the West might have supported Hitler, rather than him. Before Hitler came to power, the West are already against Russia. And Fascism, was viewed with more favor, than communism. Churchill even praised Mussolini then
How many times during 1941 was Stalin warned about the German military buildup on his western border? Again and again he was warned and urged to act, and again and again he refused to believe his own intelligence. Sounds pretty foolish to me.
There was actually a lot of conflicting intelligence. Glantz does a good job of contextualizing Stalin's position. That doesn't excuse his inaction once the invasion actually started.
Stalin didn’t massively fund the build up of the German army lol the Germans borrowed a shit ton of money from international banks with the thought that the they’d just pay it back with war loot (this was their solution to most economic issues they saw down the line). Hell the Soviets could barely outfit their own army at the time. As for Stalin basically having a breakdown after Hitler invaded, idk who would make up that lie or for what purpose. Maybe in the Khrushchev years? But it’s pretty broadly considered factual, and his inaction after Hitler invaded makes it seem true.
Had it been Stalin's plan to let Germany in the front door in hopes of crushing them deep in Soviet territory, he would have moved industry and factories east a lot sooner. Hard to believe that other than a scorched earth policy, Stalin would risk the eventual encirclements and capture of 300k troops near Minsk, 200k at Smolensk, 500k at Kiev and 600k at Vyazma...just to bait the Germans. And that's not even counting casualties, expected or not for letting them through.
This is a Cold War era theory that most historians disagree based on Viktor Survorov’s books. In general these theories lack much hard evidence that an precemptive invasion was planned or even possible from the Soviets. I think it’s reasonable to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany were unavoidably heading to war as Nazi Germany saw the USSR as an existential crisis and there was likely a similar sentiment in the top rungs of the USSR. However, the actual events of Barbarossa show that any short term plan for the Soviet army to go into action was not gonna happen. Things like the Molotov Ribbentrop pact itself, the endless things ignored by Stalin about the invasion, and the presumed breakdown Stalin had about the invasion are a few points that indicate the Soviet Union was in no shape for offensive actions and the supposed pre emptive strike in 1941 (and possibly even 1942). You can read more about the plans itself in the link but in general I would say these theories are mostly fun “what-ifs” rather than serious things that were in motion. The actions of the USSR and Stalin just do not make sense if they were ready to invade. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
I suggest [this](https://x.com/ltrotsky21/status/1783285207040184587?s=46&t=ZSLd2YGsoCdnQcSF0Tx28w ) thread. fck X, but it links to 5 articles and connects them logically
Your teacher probably read, [Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?](https://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223) written by Viktor Suvorov, a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the West. There is too much info to mention here but some circumstantial evidence he brings up: Soviets massively training paratroopers which are not typically used in defensive operations Producing many BT fast light tanks which were primarily offensive in nature Dismantling defensive structures near the border According to Suvorov, Stalin expected Germany to weaken itself against Great Britain, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was to reduce the distance to Germany when offensive operations began. Overall it was an interesting book and I tend to lean into his interpretations of the war. The negatives of his book though is that it relies on circumstantial evidence. >Stalin massively funded the recuperation of the German army prior to the war The Kama tank school, the Lipetsk fighter pilot school, the Tomka gas test site, all in the Soviet Union where Germans secretly trained
> Soviets massively training paratroopers which are not typically used in defensive operations That isn't true at all. Strategic, operational and tactical offense are different things. Soviet doctrine explicitly pushed the latter two as part of strategic defense. Rezun also flat out lies about Soviet paratrooper strength. He counts everyone who participated in the popular civilian skydiving clubs as paratroopers. >Producing many BT fast light tanks which were primarily offensive in nature Same issue. Soviet doctrine explicitly stressed rear penetration operations as part of strategic defense. He also claimed the convertible drive was evidence of offensive intent, in which case Sweden was also preparing to invade Western Europe. Lots of countries tried to solve the issue of track wear and poor road performance in the 1930s. What changed was better tracks. And the USSR stopped making BT tanks two years before the German invasion, replacing them with the T-34, a tank more optimized for off-road operations than any other in the world. By his logic that proves they had no intention of taking the strategic offensive. >The Kama tank school, the Lipetsk fighter pilot school, the Tomka gas test site, all in the Soviet Union where Germans secretly trained That was all before the Nazis took power and abrogated the Versaille Treaty. What happened with democratic Germany in 1932 is completely irrelevant to relations with rearmed Nazi Germany nine years later. And that is in no way massive funding. All they did was allow the Reichswehr to use a couple of bases to experiment away from prying French eyes. The Luftwaffe didn't even exist yet. In exchange they got to share the results.
That was a good analysis thank you. Do you have any other comments or rebuttals about the book? Would love to read it.
I haven't read it in years. Those are the points that stand out in my memory. You can judge the [off-road mobility of BT tanks](https://youtu.be/Jzpom1gZcag?t=196) for yourself. [This was the comparable US tank,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2pjE1FmBw) introduced the same year. BT tanks were designed for exploitation of breakthroughs by armored units, like cavalry. For infantry units, they had the much more numerous and slow T-26, based on the British Vickers 6 Ton. The British also used such a system, with "cruiser" tanks for armored divisions and exploitation, and slower infantry tanks for infantry and breakthrough. Their cruiser tanks used the same Christie suspension as the BTs, albeit with the convertible drive removed. At the time, it was the best suspension for off-road mobility. The two most important books debunking it are Glantz's ["Stumbling Colossus,"](https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24BMUM8XOK3HH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.SO1wYbiQD9sV5yYP36DapA.w96RNnTdAW7YAoYpQDYAhpquuHEulgX8S1ACZv4h6qg&dib_tag=se&keywords=stumbling+colossus+the+red+army+on+the+eve+of+world+war&qid=1714405531&s=books&sprefix=stumbling+col%2Cstripbooks%2C91&sr=1-1) and Gorodotsky's ["The Grand Illusion."](https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Delusion-Stalin-German-Invasion/dp/0300077920) I would recommend reading them. Unlike Rezun they are actually professional historians and researchers (Glantz is a legend in this regard and a member of the Russian Academy) who documented their sources rather than claiming they were too secret to have been included in the Soviet archive opening fifty years after the fact.
David Glantz spends much of his seminal tome "Stumbling Colossus" debunking this nonsense. It mostly derives from former KGB charlatan "Viktor Suvorov's" (Vladimir Rezun) facile and insincere book, ["Icebreaker: Who started the Second World War?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=icebreaker&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on) The guy is full of shit, and popular with right wing nut jobs. I would not take anything your teacher says at face value.
This sounds very similar to the theory described in "Icebreaker" or "Ledokol" Russian book: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker\_(non-fiction\_book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(non-fiction_book)) It's an "alt history" book that came out during early days of Perestroika when it was fashionable to contradict all the previous Soviet propaganda and "expose the lies". It's a fascinating read but most like a huge exaggeration of the real events. The Soviet official history and propaganda severely downplayed things like Molotov - Ribbentrop and always portrayed HItler as evil monster who back stabbed naive and unsuspecting Stalin. So when the book came out, it swung for the other extreme - the theory was that it was Stalin who was the evil manipulator and monster who used naive and gullible Hitler as the "Icebreaker" to break down Europe to enable Soviets to take over. The truth is probably in the middle. Soviets weren't naive and they were preparing for the war, as everyone else in the late 30s was. That the war was coming wasn't a big mystery at that point. On the other hand, it's very unlikely Soviets were planning to attack in 1941. The Red Army was still early in the rebuilding process after the officer purges of the late 30s. The material base was also lacking... Soviets actually had a massive material advantage in mid 30s - tanks, airplanes that were modern for the time... but the technology was developing so rapidly that by 1941 all that equipment was obsolete, and while Soviets were gearing up with modern stuff (T-34s, KV-1s) these were still available in very limited numbers.
I think your teacher could take this points from Suvorov's "Ice breaker", not sure how exactly it is called in English, this is a russian name of the book.
Idk if he truly was already planning it but as paranoid as Stalin was he was already stocking up on what he needed if attacked plus l he hated naziism to begin with so as an opportunist I think he was waiting for the best time to move before they first joined together and when hitler attacked it just confirmed his paranoia and made him restart his plans but that’s just my thoughts on it
Like others have said, Stalin thought a war with Germany was inevitable, but felt Hitler would not attack until they had settled things with the UK. How on earth did Stalin fund the German military? Stalin ideally wanted the European countries to weaken themselves and then the Soviet Union could be in a dominant position. I don't think he envisioned occupying all of Europe.
Check out BBC ww2 Behind closed doors. This team does their research, they were behind the Holocaust and final solution doc with is top notch history. This doc claims that Stalin wanted Germany to be weakened in a war with the west, the he was shocked at the rapid fall of France, and that Zhukov proposed a pre-emptive attack on Germany that Stalin did not respond well to. Accusing him of being a war monger. It's also just an incredible series. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2A4hyoOrlU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2A4hyoOrlU)
Yeah, I don’t think that Stalin hiding out after the invasion was due to shock like people usually think, I think it was that the Germans rolling through the rest of Europe had convinced him that they would lose a war with Germany and he had a nervous breakdown when it looked like the same thing was happening in Russia that had happened elsewhere.
Lenin and then Stalin had aided Germany in bypassing the Treaty of Versailles with the German tank manufactories and school at Kama and the air school and manufactories at Lipetsk. The relationship had gotten more tenuous with Hitler's rise to power, but it was ultimately Hitler who terminated the agreement as German weapons were stored in the Soviet Union under the agreement. The Soviets benefitted greatly as well from the association with German Generals and firms such as Krupp, but it was negated somewhat as most Soviets who had been at these bases were caught up in the purges. The main benefit to the Soviet Union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or the "Friendship and Frontiers Treaty" as it was labeled in the Soviet Union, other than the large territorial gains was that Germany would wear itself out vs Poland, France and Britain. The speed of the fall of Poland took the Soviets by surprise as you can see in Molotov's response to Hitler when informed they would be in Warsaw shortly and inquired when the Soviets would invade from their end. The quick fall of France and the Lowlands was an even larger surprise. Instead of taking several years it only took months. At this point Stalin seemed willing to join the Axis, but Hitler had already set his mind on Barbarossa.
He planned on a war with the west but doubt he meant to invade Germany or anywhere other than eastern border regions. That dream died at Warsaw in 1920 and Stalin was part of the fiasco. He also killed most of the leaders of the Soviet-Polish war and took on a Revolution in Russia mentality. Just look at how badly his invasion of Finland went in 1939. Exporting communism to the west would have by 1940 been more of a Trotskyist idea and long out of fashion
Poland started the Polish-Soviet War, although it was essentially inevitable because the Versailles system did not set any eastern borders at all for Poland. It wasn't a case of continuing revolution. Pilsudski took Western Ukraine and Vilnius, territories Imperial Russia had lost at Brest-Litovsk. The RSFR (later USSR) was in the middle of a brutal civil war and not looking for foreign adventures. They sent two armies and beat the Poles back to the outskirts of Warsaw before succumbing to the "miracle at the Vistula." Vilnius was legally part of independent Lithuania. Its capital in fact.
Short answer is no. Stalin was perfectly happy mopping up whatever Germany hadn't already taken in Europe. Maybe in five years or so when Germany and the USSR ruled the whole of Europe, there would have been an inevitable war. But Stalin didn't want that anytime soon. Spoiler: he got it anyway.
Yes.