Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > The Road to the German-Soviet War


Posted by: Dénes April 10, 2007 08:27 pm
Below is a study I intend to include in my upcoming book on the air war on the Southern flank of the Eastern Front (June-October 1941).

I would appreciate any comments.
Thank you.

Dénes Bernád

* * *

The Road to the German-Soviet War

Most historical studies – published both in the East and West – still regard the German-Soviet confrontation during World War Two – the largest armed conflict in the history of mankind – as an aggression committed by the up-surging and bellicose Germany against a militarily unprepared Soviet Union, which was first surprised, then overwhelmed by the unexpected onslaught of the Wehrmacht. However, in view of new information that surfaced in the past couple of decades, from previously inaccessible sources, it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be realistically sustained any more in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.

It now appears that the opening act of the Eastern Front was neither an unprovoked aggression by pugnacious ‘Nazi’ Germany, nor a legitimate, pre-emptive strike of a ‘clever’ Hitler. It was rather the outcome of a parallel gear-up for a total war by two totalitarian regimes, led by similarly thinking and planning dictators, who acted quasi-independently of the other, with the final scope of annihilating the other side by force.

Despite the non-aggression and mutual assistance pact – proposed by the signing parties to be valid for ten years – signed by the foreign ministers of the USSR and the IIIrd Reich – Vyacheslav M. Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop, respectively – on 23 August 1939, pact that surprised many, as well as divergent diplomatic moves, both sides actually prepared fervently to attack the other.

On 18 September 1940, the Soviet Chief of the Stavka (short for Shtab verkhovnogo komandovanya, or General Headquarters), Army General Kirill A. Meretskov, and the People’s Comissar for Defence, Marshal Semyon K. Timoshenko, prepared a war plan that envisaged attacking the IIIrd Reich, in form of a giant pincer, starting from Byelorussia and Bessarabia, respectively. Hitler and his generals did not sit idle, either. Despite the vague directions given much earlier by Hitler in his ominous Mein Kampf, and other political pamphlets of the National-Socialist Party (NSDAP), by 1940 there was not clear cut, detailed German military plan to attack the USSR.
In mid-1940 – approximately at the same time with the similar Soviet war plans – Hitler assigned the OKW (short for Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or the Armed Forces High Command) the task to prepare detailed plans for the eventuality of an anti-Soviet war. Simultaneously, both sides initiated the relocation of troops closer to the other state’s current borders. The Soviets amassed men and matériel to Byelorussia, Western Ukraine, and the newly acquired territory of Bessarabia, while the Germans transferred troops to the conquered Poland, and also moved ‘instructional troops’ to the allied Rumania. Parallel to these military movements, both sides also acted on the diplomatic front as well, in attempt to deceive and outmanoeuvre the other. This travesty had little success, however.

Hitler decided to actually go to war against his Reich’s giant Eastern neighbour following the Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov’s visit to Berlin in mid-November 1940. He signed ‘Directive 21’ – code named personally by him as ‘Operation Barbarossa’ probably to stress the idea of a “crusade against Bolshevism” – on 18 December 1940. It was ordered that all war preparations to be commenced immediately, and be concluded by 15 May 1941.

On the opposing side, Stalin did not make up firmly his mind as of yet, and instructed his general staff to work on further stratagems. However, his actual attack timeline was apparently way behind Hitler’s. Stalin actually hoped that Hitler will loose many months in fighting the Western Powers, allowing the Soviets to catch up in building the Red Army and preparing it for war. Stalin regarded the period of enforced peace after the Hitler-Stalin pact as an opportunity to build up and reorganize the Soviet military while Germany was busy in the west. The occupied areas of Finland, the Baltic states, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Bessarabia, no less than the forward-deployed troops, were seen as a barrier behind which this military preparation could be accomplished. Moreover, Stalin was absolutely convinced that Hitler would attempt nothing until he had resolved his conflict with Great Britain. He was encouraged in this preconception by a well-orchestrated German deception operation. When the head of Soviet military intelligence, Lieutenant-General Ivan I. Proskurov, explained Stalin already in August 1940 that Germany could not successfully invade Great Britain, he dismissed him (he was executed in October 1941). Stalin did not want to see the true situation as, at that time, his army needed at least a year to be ready to attack his de jure ally. Thus it was that Stalin was able to ignore the massive military build-up on his borders, and to dismiss every warning of a German attack as disinformation or provocation, right up until the early morning of 22 June 1941.

By early 1941, both sides feared their war plans could be crossed out by the other; therefore, they sped up the build-up of forces, while keeping an apparently diplomatic façade towards each other. The German High Command finished detailing the anti-Soviet war plans in early February 1941, with hostilities to actually start by late spring. The war was predicted to be over in less than half a year, counting on the military and morale collapse of the USSR. Hitler, like Stalin, was a victim of his own preconceptions. But, in contrast to Stalin, he was ill served by his intelligence services, as were most Western governments in regards to the USSR. In mid-1939, the British and French military intelligence specialists did not believe that the Red Army could crush the Wehrmacht. The only confidence was in the Polish Army, which was the "sole, real opponent to the German Army". In fact, almost everybody out of USSR thought that, after Stalin's purges, the Red Army would disintegrate when faced with a powerful invasion of the country. When Hitler met Antonescu on 12 June 1941 (i.e., ten days before ‘Barbarossa’), the self-styled Rumanian Conducãtor told him that the Red Army would collapse very quickly, as the population wanting to be liberated…
The Germans overestimated their own capabilities, as well as they underestimated the Soviet combat force and its capacity to resist an overall attack. The first paragraph of ‘Directive 21’ stated that: “Soviet Russia is to be crushed in a quick campaign, before the end of war with England”.

Stalin and his marshals lagged behind with their preparation. In January 1941, a major command war game took place with the participation of a handful of important Soviet military leaders. The details of this command-level drill were further refined in May 1941 by the new Chief of General Staff, Army General Georgi K. Zhukov, and Marshal Semyon K. Timoshenko. Stalin himself held a far-reaching speech at the Kreml, on 5 May, declaring, among others: “The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army”, which clearly was at odds with the USSR’s official defensive policy. It has to be said, however, that the Soviets’ war preparations appear to be somewhat lesser in scope than the Germans’, not envisaging to conquering the entire IIIrd Reich, only the occupied Poland, Eastern Prussia and most of Rumania, while Hitler intended to occupy the whole European area of the USSR.

In the meantime, Soviet war production also had geared up to full steam, simultaneously with the mobilization of manpower. Germany, too, built up its forces on the Eastern areas that were under Berlin’s military or political control. Both sides tried to conceal their real goals, by attempting to outmanoeuvre the other side on the diplomatic arena, and to hide the strategic movements of their troops towards the common borders. Neither side truly believed the other one would actually attack beforehand. Both Moscow and Berlin relied on the effect of a surprise attack, followed by an envisaged quick victory.

In mid-June, the Red Army had overall superiority over the Wehrmacht and the small Axis allies in almost all military aspects. The ratio was approximately 1.1:1 in manpower, 3.6:1 in armour, 2.5:1 in aircraft, and 8:1 in artillery to the Soviets’ advantage (it has to be noted, however, that the dry figures are somewhat misleading, as the majority of Soviet aircraft and armour was obsolete to the day’s military standards. A much lesser percentage of the Germans’, and somewhat more of the Axis allies’ war matériel could be considered obsolete. Also, the majority of the German soldiers and aircrew had built up combat experience in the previous war years, which cannot be said of most of the Soviet soldiers and flyers – except of those who fought in Spain, Finland, Mongolia and Manchuria, and were still active in VVS). Nevertheless of its numerical superiority, the Red Army was still in full build-up on 22 June 1941, and thus was caught by surprise, when the Wehrmacht and its Rumanian ally struck Sunday at dawn, at 3:15.

The Reich’s Small Axis Allies Join In

On 26 June 1940, the Soviet Foreign Minister, V. M. Molotov, demanded Rumania to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina – incorporated into the country some 21 years earlier, a move Moscow never acknowledged – within twenty-four hours. This demand came at a hard time for Rumania, who was isolated internationally. France – Rumania’s traditional ally – had been defeated, while Great Britain, another supporter of Rumania, was under siege. Hitler declined to intervene in the dispute, as under terms of the German-Soviet pact, Bessarabia was within Moscow’s sphere of influence. Therefore, abiding to the ultimatum it could not refuse, two days later Rumania ceded these territories to the USSR.
This significant territorial loss further increased tensions between the two countries. Armed clashes on the new frontier along River Pruth became regular, on ground and in air, too, as detailed later on.

On the political front, during the same time period, tensions in Bucharest increased to a boiling point. In the wake of massive anti-government protests in opposition to the territorial losses, King Carol II abdicated in favour of his son, Michael I, on 6 September 1940. On the same day, the young new king asked General Ion Antonescu to lead the country, assigning him unlimited powers. The general, who declared himself Conducãtor (i.e., Leader), decided to form a new, one-party government with the far-right Iron Guard (a.k.a. "The Legion of the Archangel Michael"), and declared the Kingdom a "Legionary State". All other political activity has been banned. On 23 November 1940, Antonescu signed in Berlin the ‘Tripartite Pact’, following the arrival of the German Military Mission to Rumania from 12 October on. These Wehrmacht troops were sent to train the Rumanian army and air force, as well as to protect the vital Ploieºti oilfields and refineries. Later on, they would become the spearhead of the sizeable German armed force that would strike the USSR next June. By March 1941, a total of 680,000 German troops were stationed in Rumania.

On 14 January 1941, in Berlin, Hitler revealed to Antonescu his general plan to attack the Soviet Union. The Führer asked for full co-operation of the Rumanian armed forces. Antonescu enthusiastically agreed, fuelled in part by the wish the recover the territories lost a year earlier and in part by his anti-Communist convictions. Both sentiments were largely shared by most of the Rumanian officer corps and political élite. The Rumanian armed forces were thus unhesitatingly committed by the Rumanian dictator to the “Anti-Bolshevik Crusade”. In exchange for his unequivocal support, the ‘Conducãtor’ asked for Hitler’s help to destroy the Iron Guard, in order to have free hands to prepare his Army for the imminent war. Rumania became the only ally of Germany, which took active part in the anti-Soviet campaign from the very first day of war. Rumania also committed, by far, the largest military resources to the anti-Soviet campaign among all of Germany’s allies.

In contrast to Rumania, Hungary did not have any territorial claims against its big Eastern neighbour. The differences between Budapest and Moscow were rather ideological. Hungary’s Regent, Vice-Admiral Miklós Horthy – a highly decorated, experienced veteran officer and battleship commander of the Austro-Hungarian Navy of W. W. 1 – was a fervent anti-Communist, as was most of the Hungarian officer staff. Hungary was the first power to adhere to the ‘Tripartite Pact’ on 20 November 1940. However, this was not enough to persuade Budapest to join Berlin in attacking the Soviet Union.
Initially, Hitler did not count on Hungary’s participation in the upcoming war either. Hungarian troop build-up at the country’s North-Eastern borders, dully observed by the Soviets, were more of a precautionary role than other. It was an unexpected incident, the bombing of city of Kassa (now Košice, Slovakia) on 26 June, which triggered Hungary’s entrance in the anti-Soviet war. Next day, war with the USSR was officially declared. With it, Hungary became the last of the small Axis powers to join in the “Anti-Bolshevik Crusade”.

Tiny Slovakia, a newly created state on the ruins of Czechoslovakia following the German occupation of the Czech Lands in March 1939, signed the ‘Tripartite Pact’ on 24 November 1940. However, President Monsegnior Dr. Jozef Tiso committed his country only reluctantly to Hitler’s aggression against the big neighbour, inhabited by fellow Slavs. It was mostly done as a ‘thank-you’ to Hitler for helping create the Slovak state.
The Slovak government began its preparation for war with the Soviet Union already in March 1941. There was a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the population that the war against bolshevism is vital, and that only the victory of the IIIrd Reich will assure the perpetuation of the Slovak State. The Slovak Army also planned ahead, so the decision to join the Wehrmacht in attacking the USSR came promptly. Accordingly, Slovakia declared war on the Soviet Union already on 23 June, the second day of the war.

Although Mussolini’s Italy declared war on the Soviet Union already on 22 June, alongside Germany and Rumania, it did not commit troops to the new front from the onset. Later the summer, a few Italian volunteer pilots did fly several combat missions over the southern front, which will be briefly noted.

Finally, Bulgaria – a nation with close historical and cultural ties to Russia, and thus the Soviet Union – although signed the ‘Tripartite Pact’ on 1 March 1941, managed to remain neutral in the Soviet-Axis confrontation, until Soviet troops reached its frontiers in early September 1944. Nevertheless, Bulgarian warplanes on coastal patrol service did occasionally pursuit Soviet aircraft swaying into Bulgarian airspace.
(...)

Posted by: mabadesc April 11, 2007 03:19 pm
Denes,

Very interesting introduction. Well-written and clearly stated. Here are a couple of comments:

QUOTE
It now appears that the opening act of the Eastern Front was neither an unprovoked aggression by pugnacious ‘Nazi’ Germany, nor a legitimate, pre-emptive strike of a ‘clever’ Hitler. It was rather the outcome of a parallel gear-up for a total war by two totalitarian regimes, led by similarly thinking and planning dictators, who acted quasi-independently of the other, with the final scope of annihilating the other side by force.


I would agree with your statement, but watch out so you don't get branded as a "revisionist". You're shifting some of the blame from Germany and placing it on the Soviet Union. In today's politically correct world, your theory may not be accepted so easily. Good for you that you have the courage to go ahead with this.

QUOTE
Simultaneously, both sides initiated the relocation of troops closer to the other state’s current borders. The Soviets amassed men and matériel to Byelorussia, Western Ukraine, and the newly acquired territory of Bessarabia, while the Germans transferred troops to the conquered Poland, and also moved ‘instructional troops’ to the allied Rumania.


You may want to be a bit more specific regarding the number and positioning of troops, especially Soviet ones, in order to reinforce your initial hypothesis.
Also, it has been said (you need to research this) that approximately 50% of the relocated Soviet troops were facing Romania. You might want to make the connection between this and Stalin's intention of quickly depriving Germany of Romanian oil resources once the war was launched.

QUOTE
Stalin himself held a far-reaching speech at the Kreml, on 5 May, declaring, among others: “The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army”, which clearly was at odds with the USSR’s official defensive policy.


Good quote, but in this very same speech, Stalin made even more aggressive statements which may better support your theory.


QUOTE
On 26 June 1940, the Soviet Foreign Minister, V. M. Molotov, demanded Rumania to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina – incorporated into the country some 21 years earlier, a move Moscow never acknowledged – within twenty-four hours.


True with regards to Bessarabia, but you may want to double-check your sources with regards to N. Bukovina. Also, I think it would be beneficial to your study to mention the German-Soviet negotiations with regards to Bukovina. AFAIK, the Soviets initially asked for all of Bukovina. Hitler was surprised by this, and in the end they settled on a portion of Bukovina (N. Bukovina, to be more exact). Nevertheless, the fact that the Soviets did not limit themselves to Bessarabia remained a point of contention in Hitler's mind and contributed to his distrust of the USSR.


These are mere suggestions. I think you have a great start. Take care.


Posted by: Imperialist April 11, 2007 08:15 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 10, 2007 08:27 pm)
It now appears that the opening act of the Eastern Front was neither an unprovoked aggression by pugnacious ‘Nazi’ Germany, nor a legitimate, pre-emptive strike of a ‘clever’ Hitler. It was rather the outcome of a parallel gear-up for a total war by two totalitarian regimes, led by similarly thinking and planning dictators, who acted quasi-independently of the other, with the final scope of annihilating the other side by force.

The "new information that surfaced in the past couple of decades, from previously inaccessible sources" shows the Soviet Union was not unprepared militarily and not surprised by the strategic direction from which an attack would come from.

I really don't see how it shows the opening act was not an act of aggression. You say it was not an unprovoked one, but if it was provoked then it was legitimate.

take care





Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 16, 2007 04:44 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 11, 2007 01:27 am)
However, in view of new information that surfaced in the past couple of decades, from previously inaccessible sources, it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be realistically sustained any more in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.


Interesting, well written. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I generally agree with Mabadesc and Imperialist. I think you may have a mountain to climb here.

Are these "previously inaccesible sources" included in your footnotes/references, and are they now available/verifiable?

Is this your book introduction? If so, it seems not immediately focused on your stated topic, the airwar?

IMO, so radical a hypothesis (if I understand correctly, it's that of a previously unknown "Russian Barbarossa" plan) might warrant a separate monograph. If such were aimed at the general reading public, it could catch on and potentially generate a huge sales market. Then you could do the air war book as a sequel, and sell even more copies that way.

The WWII book market looks pretty crowded to me, but something like this could stand out. Just my take. Good luck.

Posted by: Florin April 26, 2007 12:11 pm
QUOTE (cnflyboy2000 @ April 16, 2007 11:44 am)
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 11, 2007 01:27 am)
However, in view of new information that surfaced in the past couple of decades, from previously inaccessible sources, it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be realistically sustained any more in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.


Interesting, well written. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I generally agree with Mabadesc and Imperialist. I think you may have a mountain to climb here.

Are these "previously inaccesible sources" included in your footnotes/references, and are they now available/verifiable?

............................................

The aggressive intensions of Soviet Union were not that secret even in the lower ranks of the Red Army. My grandfather learned first hand that Soviet Union planned its attack for 1943. He was on Eastern Front, and the source of information were some Red Army officers, prisoners of war, with ranks lower than general.

I agree with Denes that today the approach regarding what happened in those days is more open minded than it was 40 years ago, or 30, 20 years ago. As a personal remark, the historians, writers and editors on the North American continent are more concerned to be "politically correct" on the expense of the historic truth, compared with historians, writers and editors from Europe.

Returning to the text we comment, would be a good idea to add one sentence or two to remind that Hitler was very determined to attack in May 1941, but because of the unexpected "coupe d'etait" in Yugoslavia, combined with the successful stand of the Greeks against the Italians, OKW had to plan "Operation Maritza", which in spite of its spectacular success, drained enough resources, among them gasoline, to delay the invasion of USSR to June 22. Those few weeks of delay proved to matter a lot a half of year later.

Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 26, 2007 02:42 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2007 05:11 pm)
QUOTE (cnflyboy2000 @ April 16, 2007 11:44 am)
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 11, 2007 01:27 am)
However, in view of new information that surfaced in the past couple of decades, from previously inaccessible sources, it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be realistically sustained any more in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.


Interesting, well written. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I generally agree with Mabadesc and Imperialist. I think you may have a mountain to climb here.

Are these "previously inaccesible sources" included in your footnotes/references, and are they now available/verifiable?

............................................

The aggressive intensions of Soviet Union were not that secret even in the lower ranks of the Red Army. My grandfather learned first hand that Soviet Union planned its attack for 1943. He was on Eastern Front, and the source of information were some Red Army officers, prisoners of war, with ranks lower than general.

I agree with Denes that today the approach regarding what happened in those days is more open minded than it was 40 years ago, or 30, 20 years ago. As a personal remark, the historians, writers and editors on the North American continent are more concerned to be "politically correct" on the expense of the historic truth, compared with historians, writers and editors from Europe.

Returning to the text we comment, would be a good idea to add one sentence or two to remind that Hitler was very determined to attack in May 1941, but because of the unexpected "coupe d'etait" in Yugoslavia, combined with the successful stand of the Greeks against the Italians, OKW had to plan "Operation Maritza", which in spite of its spectacular success, drained enough resources, among them gasoline, to delay the invasion of USSR to June 22. Those few weeks of delay proved to matter a lot a half of year later.

Interesting, but I think Denes' thesis has to do with 1941( and earlier), not 1943. By that later date, (post Stalingrad) I think it's generally acknowledged that the Soviets were going on the offensive big time, and their intentions were no secret to anyone, soldiers included.


I'm not sure how accurate your blanket generalization re N. American PC vs European is. There's certainly no shortage of critical historical thought and debate here, and in any case, I seriously doubt the Europeans have suddenly cornered the market on objectivity.

IMO, if anything, some Europeans tend to be even MORE lefty( if that's what PC is taken to be), in concorcdance with their general quasi socialist (socialism "lite") political culture extant postwar. (Maybe France will prove the exception to that generalization, this year, but I doubt it.)

Posted by: Florin April 26, 2007 04:11 pm
QUOTE (cnflyboy2000 @ April 26, 2007 09:42 am)
............................
Interesting, but I think Denes' thesis has to do with 1941( and earlier), not 1943.  By that later date, (post Stalingrad) I think it's generally acknowledged that the Soviets were going on the offensive big time, and their intentions were no secret to anyone, soldiers included it.)
................................

Regarding this particular matter, I am afraid you missed the point.
It is not about the real history as it occurred (the Axis advances of 1941-1942, and the turn of the tide in 1943).
It is about the plans of Soviet Union to attack Germany in 1943, based on their assumption that they (i.e. the Russians) would be the first to attack. That was based on the hope that Germany would not dare anything until the Russians will make the first move. This plan was known even by some officers below the rank of general, as I mentioned before.

QUOTE
.................I'm not sure how accurate your blanket generalization re N. American PC vs European is. There's certainly no shortage of critical historical thought and debate here, and in any case, I seriously doubt the Europeans have suddenly cornered the market on objectivity................

I will give you one example. A guy wrote a book proving how badly were treated the German prisoners of war in the hands of the US Army, depending on case to case, of course. As an example, those captured by Patton were more lucky, while those under the direct "care" of Eisenhower were more unfortunate.
The author could not find any editor willing to publish the book in the U.S., so he had to print it in Canada.

In other occasions, it is not the omission of a fact, but the way you consider it.
Example: While is a fact that Japan proved to be an evil aggressor by attacking the U.S., Roosevelt allowed the enlistment of the American pilots to fly for the Chinese Aerial Forces, in the days the U.S. was neutral. Same with all the help for the United Kingdom. These are examples of violations of neutrality, but all I can see is pride in doing it.

As nobody is perfect, if we would start to list examples of violations of neutrality, we would never end, and we will deviate badly from the original topic. An example close to our topic (the balance of power in Eastern Europe, between USSR and the Reich) was the Romanian allowance for Poland to evacuate everything - troops (who fought later at Monte Cassino, Normandy, Arhenm etc), airplanes, government, gold. I am not surprised that the German leadership was enraged by this.

Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 27, 2007 01:43 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2007 09:11 pm)
QUOTE (cnflyboy2000 @ April 26, 2007 09:42 am)
............................
Interesting, but I think Denes' thesis has to do with 1941( and earlier), not 1943.  By that later date, (post Stalingrad) I think it's generally acknowledged that the Soviets were going on the offensive big time, and their intentions were no secret to anyone, soldiers included it.)
................................

Regarding this particular matter, I am afraid you missed the point.
It is not about the real history as it occurred (the Axis advances of 1941-1942, and the turn of the tide in 1943).
It is about the plans of Soviet Union to attack Germany in 1943, based on their assumption that they (i.e. the Russians) would be the first to attack. That was based on the hope that Germany would not dare anything until the Russians will make the first move. This plan was known even by some officers below the rank of general, as I mentioned before.

QUOTE
.................I'm not sure how accurate your blanket generalization re N. American PC vs European is. There's certainly no shortage of critical historical thought and debate here, and in any case, I seriously doubt the Europeans have suddenly cornered the market on objectivity................

I will give you one example. A guy wrote a book proving how badly were treated the German prisoners of war in the hands of the US Army, depending on case to case, of course. As an example, those captured by Patton were more lucky, while those under the direct "care" of Eisenhower were more unfortunate.
The author could not find any editor willing to publish the book in the U.S., so he had to print it in Canada.

In other occasions, it is not the omission of a fact, but the way you consider it.
Example: While is a fact that Japan proved to be an evil aggressor by attacking the U.S., Roosevelt allowed the enlistment of the American pilots to fly for the Chinese Aerial Forces, in the days the U.S. was neutral. Same with all the help for the United Kingdom. These are examples of violations of neutrality, but all I can see is pride in doing it.



My friend; I'm only going by what Denes writes in his opening paragraphs. I'm taking that as his point. ("the opening act of the Eastern Front.....")

Re PC history: I have no doubt you can find examples of controversial/skewed historiography "A guy wrote a book.....", but imo you will have a difficult time establishing them as the rule for N.A. historians.

I like your examples of Cheanault's "Flying Tigers" and of the prewar efforts for Britain, and I agree that presents an interesting example of how events can be interpreted through an ideological lens.

I'd only add that the events leading to Pearl Harbor (the oil squeeze put on Japan by Roosevelt) is part of that picture, similarly contrroversial, and hashed over by mainstream historians in a very non PC way for years.

cheers.




Posted by: Imperialist April 27, 2007 03:14 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2007 04:11 pm)
Regarding this particular matter, I am afraid you missed the point.
It is not about the real history as it occurred (the Axis advances of 1941-1942, and the turn of the tide in 1943).
It is about the plans of Soviet Union to attack Germany in 1943, based on their assumption that they (i.e. the Russians) would be the first to attack. That was based on the hope that Germany would not dare anything until the Russians will make the first move. This plan was known even by some officers below the rank of general, as I mentioned before.

Hi Florin,

Like Cnflyboy2000 said several times on other threads, plans are plans. Everybody makes them.

take care

Posted by: Florin April 30, 2007 03:17 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 27, 2007 10:14 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2007 04:11 pm)
Regarding this particular matter, I am afraid you missed the point.
It is not about the real history as it occurred (the Axis advances of 1941-1942, and the turn of the tide in 1943).
It is about the plans of Soviet Union to attack Germany in 1943, based on their assumption that they (i.e. the Russians) would be the first to attack. That was based on the hope that Germany would not dare anything until the Russians will make the first move. This plan was known even by some officers below the rank of general, as I mentioned before.

Hi Florin,

Like Cnflyboy2000 said several times on other threads, plans are plans. Everybody makes them.

take care

Hi "Imperialist",

I have a Romanian magazine printed in September 1939 ("Realitatea Ilustrata") showing the military expenses of the major powers, in the 1930's.

Soviet Union not only spent more money than Nazi Germany for military build up.
It was the country who spent the most in the whole world.
This means "plans", as you called them, were based on some hard cash, too. wink.gif

Posted by: Imperialist April 30, 2007 05:04 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ April 30, 2007 03:17 pm)
Hi "Imperialist",

I have a Romanian magazine printed in September 1939 ("Realitatea Ilustrata") showing the military expenses of the major powers, in the 1930's.

Soviet Union not only spent more money than Nazi Germany for military build up.
It was the country who spent the most in the whole world.
This means "plans", as you called them, were based on some hard cash, too. wink.gif

The info I have about the said expenses shows the Soviet Union being trailed closely since 1936 and eventually surpassed by Germany in 1938. Already in 1939 Germany's military budget was 2 times bigger than Soviet Union's. In 1940 it was 3 times bigger.

take care




Posted by: Florin April 30, 2007 05:34 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 30, 2007 12:04 pm)
....................
The info I have about the said expenses shows the Soviet Union being trailed closely since 1936 and eventually surpassed by Germany in 1938. Already in 1939 Germany's military budget was 2 times bigger than Soviet Union's. In 1940 it was 3 times bigger.

take care

Possible the truth is in-between.
The magazine was printed on September 5, 1939, and I do not remember if they included the data for 1939.
Interesting enough, Soviet Union was the only country whose expenses could not be traced after 1936, so in that magazine it is mentioned very clearly that for Soviet Union, after 1936, the expenses were "estimated".
I remember for Germany the latest data were 90 billion Reichmarks (90,000,000,000). This sounds very impressive, but I do not know the strength of one German Mark.

Posted by: Dénes May 04, 2007 08:49 am
I enclose the final version of my study, sent to the Publisher yesterday.

I took some of the advices of the forum members. Many thanks for them.

Best wishes,

Dénes

* * *

The Road to the German-Soviet War
- By Dénes Bernád, 2007

Most historical studies – published both in the East and West – still regard the German-Soviet confrontation during World War Two – the largest armed conflict in the history of mankind – as an aggression committed by the belligerent Germany against a militarily unprepared Soviet Union, which was first surprised, then overwhelmed by the unexpected and unwarranted onslaught of the German Army. However, in view of new information that has surfaced in the past two decades, from previously inaccessible sources, for example, the uncensored version of the Zhukov Plan of 15 May 1941 (1) addressed to Stalin, and mentioned below, or in published works, such as M. I. Meltyukhov, Stalin’s Missed Chance &#8211 (2); it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be sustained realistically any longer in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.

It now appears that the opening act of the Eastern Front was neither clear aggression by the pugnacious Nazi Germany against the undoubtedly defensive USSR– the common view currently hold by most historians – nor a pre-emptive strike of a ‘clever’ Hitler in order to beat Stalin’s plans – as alleged, for example, by Russian author V. Suvorov in his controversial book, Icebreaker (3). Rather, it was the outcome of a parallel gear-up for a total war by two totalitarian regimes led by similarly thinking and planning dictators, who acted quasi-independently of the other, with the final scope of annihilating the other side by force.

Despite the non-aggression and mutual assistance pact, which was proposed by the signing parties to be valid for ten years, and signed on 23 August 1939 (4) – a pact that surprised many – as well as producing divergent diplomatic moves, both sides actually prepared fervently to attack the other.

The Generalniy Shtab (General Staff) (5) of the Red Army had already begun developing a sketchy plan for an assault on Germany in October 1939 – almost simultaneously with the defeat of Poland conducted in co-operation of the Wehrmacht (which attacked first, from the West) and the Red Army (which followed suit, from the East, 17 days later).

----------------------------------------------
1, Source: TsAMO RF, f. 16, op. 2951, d. 237, l. 1-15. Original (as in http://osteuropa.bsb-muenchen.de/dig/1000doktest/0024_zuk/@Generic__BookTextView/502;cs=default;ts=default;pt=502)

2, Mel'tiukhov, M. I., Upushchennyi shans Stalina: Sovetskii Soyuz i bor'ba za Evropu: 1930-1941. Dokumenty, fakty, suzhdeniia. Vеchе, 2000 (ISBN 5783811963)

3, Suvorov, Viktor. Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? (Viking Press/Hamish Hamilton; 1990) ISBN 0-241-12622-3

4, By the foreign ministers of the USSR and the Third Reich Vyacheslav M. Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop, respectively

5, Forerunner of Stavka (short for Shtab verkhovnogo komandovanya, or General Headquarters), which was former soon after the Axis attack
---------------------------------------------

The planning process intensified in March 1940, and at least four different versions of the plan were developed throughout 1940 and 1941. On 18 September 1940, the Soviet Chief of the Generalniy Shtab, Army General Kirill A. Meretskov, and the People’s Commissar for Defence, Marshal Semyon K. Timoshenko, prepared a detailed war plan that envisaged attacking the Third Reich and implicitly Rumania, by means of a giant pincer, starting from Byelorussia (to the north) and Bessarabia (to the south). Hitler and his generals did not sit idle either. Despite the vague directions given much earlier by Hitler in his ominous Mein Kampf and other political pamphlets of the German National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP), by 1940 there was no clear-cut, detailed German military plan to attack the USSR.

In mid-1940 – at approximately at the same time as the similar Soviet detailed war plans – Hitler assigned the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or the Armed Forces High Command) the task to prepare detailed plans for the eventuality of an anti-Soviet war. Simultaneously, both sides initiated the relocation of troops closer to the other state’s current borders. The Soviets amassed men and matériel to Byelorussia, Western Ukraine, and the newly acquired territory of Bessarabia, while the Germans transferred troops to the conquered Poland, and also moved ‘instructional troops’ to the allied Rumania. Parallel to these military movements, both sides also acted on the diplomatic front as well, in an attempt to deceive and outmanoeuvre the other. This travesty had little success, however.

Hitler decided to actually go to war against his Reich’s giant Eastern neighbour following the Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov’s visit to Berlin in mid-November 1940. He signed ‘Directive 21’ – code named personally by him as ‘Operation Barbarossa’ probably to stress the idea of a ‘…crusade against Bolshevism’ – on 18 December 1940. It was ordered that all war preparations were to be commenced immediately, and be concluded by 15 May 1941. However, the unexpected Yugoslav about-face and the subsequent quick German attack on the country on 6 April, as well as the swift parallel Greek campaign, upset and delayed Hitler’s plan for a major spring offensive against the USSR by a critical five weeks.

On the opposing side, Stalin had not yet decided decisively, and instructed his general staff to work on further stratagems. However, his actual attack timeline was apparently way behind Hitler’s. Stalin actually hoped that Hitler would loose many months in fighting the Western Powers, allowing the Soviets to catch up in building the Red Army and preparing it for war. Stalin regarded the period of enforced peace after the Hitler-Stalin pact as an opportunity to build up and reorganize the Soviet military while Germany was busy in the west. The occupied areas of Finland, the Baltic states, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Bessarabia, no less than the forward-deployed troops, were seen as a barrier behind which this military preparation could be accomplished. Moreover, Stalin was absolutely convinced that Hitler would attempt nothing until he had resolved his conflict with Great Britain. He was encouraged in this preconception by a well-orchestrated German deception operation. When the head of Soviet military intelligence, Lieutenant-General Ivan I. Proskurov, explained to Stalin as early as August 1940 that Germany could not successfully invade Great Britain, he dismissed him (he was executed in October 1941). Stalin did not want to see the true situation since, at that time, his army still needed time to be ready to attack his de jure ally. Thus it was that Stalin was able to ignore the massive military build-up on his borders, and to dismiss every warning of a German attack as disinformation or provocation, right up until the early morning of 22 June 1941.

By early 1941, both sides feared their war plans would be compromised by the other; therefore, they sped up the build-up of forces, while keeping an apparently diplomatic façade towards each other. The German High Command finished detailing its anti-Soviet war plans in early February 1941, with hostilities planned to commence by late spring. The war was predicted to be over in less than six months, relying on the military and morale collapse of the USSR. Hitler, like Stalin, was a victim of his own preconceptions. But, in contrast to Stalin, he was ill-served with intelligence. All intelligence submitted to the Führer at this time went through Ribbentrop, who was passing only a fraction of what came to him from Germany’s intelligence agencies. It was thus Ribbentrop’s actions, which lead to Hitler having incomplete assessments, not the information gathering services. Similarly, most Western governments were misinformed in regards to the USSR. For example, in mid-1939, British and French military intelligence specialists did not believe that the Red Army could crush the Wehrmacht. The only confidence was in the Polish Army, which was the ‘sole, real opponent to the German Army.’ In fact, almost everybody outside the USSR thought that, after Stalin’s purges, the Red Army would disintegrate when faced with a powerful invasion of its Motherland. When Hitler met General Antonescu – the de facto iron-handed leader of Germany’s most important East European ally, Rumania – on 12 June 1941 (i.e., ten days before ‘Barbarossa’), the self-styled Rumanian Conducător (Leader) also told him that the Red Army would collapse very quickly, as the Russian population wanted to be liberated from the Bolshevik yoke. However, the Germans overestimated their own capabilities, and also underestimated the Soviet combat force and its capacity to resist a significant attack. The first paragraph of ‘Directive 21’ stated that: “… Soviet Russia is to be crushed in a quick campaign, before the end of war with England.”

Stalin and his marshals lagged behind with their war preparation. In January 1941, a major command war game took place with the participation of a handful of important Soviet military leaders. The details of this command-level drill were further refined in May 1941 by the new Chief of General Staff, Army General Georgi K. Zhukov and Marshal Semyon K. Timoshenko to a comprehensive war plan. The Zhukov Plan of 15 May 1941 – discovered in the Archives of the President of the Russian Federation several years ago – outlines the Soviet Command’s proposal of the time to Stalin. For ultimate security, the original twelve-page text had been handwritten by then Major General, later Marshal, A. M. Vasilevski, and addressed to the chairman of the USSR Council of Peoples Commissars, Josef Stalin. The document, marked ‘Top Secret! Of Great Importance! Stalin's Eyes Only! One Copy Only!’ was authorized and approved by Timoshenko and Zhukov. A key passage in this plan, not previously cited, reads: ‘In order to avoid this [a surprise German attack], and to destroy the German Army, I consider it imperative that under no circumstances the initiative for freedom of action be given to the German High Command and/or warn the enemy. [I consider it essential] to attack the German Army when it is still in the stage of deployment and has not yet had time to organize his front(line) and the mutual support of between his different services.’
Thus Zhukov had proposed to Stalin precisely what the German Army would do only five weeks later.

Stalin himself made a far-reaching speech at the Kremlin, on 5 May, declaring, amongst other things: “The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army…” which clearly was at odds with the USSR’s official defensive policy. It has to be said, however, that the Soviets’ war preparations appear to be somewhat lesser in scope than the Germans’, not envisaging to conquering the entire Third Reich, but only occupied Poland, Eastern Prussia and most of Rumania, while Hitler intended to occupy the whole European area of the USSR.

In the meantime, simultaneous to the mobilization of manpower, Soviet war production also had geared up to full steam. Germany, too, built up its forces in the Eastern areas that were under Berlin’s military or political control, along with intensifying war production. Both sides tried to conceal their real goals, by attempting to outmanoeuvre the other side on the diplomatic arena, and to hide the strategic movements of their troops towards the common borders. Neither side truly believed the other one would actually attack beforehand, however. Both Moscow and Berlin relied on the effect of a surprise attack, followed by an envisaged quick victory. It happened that Berlin was the first one to act. The ultimate proof for Stalin’s real intentions – the attack itself – of course never actually happened, Hitler being the first one to strike. Therefore, any indirect proof is dismissed by traditionalist historians as being ‘only’ plans on paper, vague intentions, and war games. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence to the contrary starts to emerge…

In mid-June, along the would-be front zone, the Red Army had overall superiority over the Wehrmacht and the small Axis allies in almost all military matériel aspects, except for manpower, where the Axis enjoyed slight advantage(6). However, very large Red Army forces were fed into the battle in the course of the early summer, partly from reserves in the interior, but mostly as a result of overall mobilisation. Hence, the Red Army’s short-term human potential had certainly well exceeded that of the Axis. It has to be noted, however, that the dry figures are somewhat misleading, as the majority of Soviet aircraft and armour was obsolete to the day’s military standards. A much lesser percentage of the Germans’, and somewhat more of the Axis allies’ war matériel could be considered obsolete. Also, German troops and aircrews had built up combat experience in the early war years, which cannot be said of most of the Soviet soldiers and flyers – except of those who fought in Spain, Finland, Mongolia and Manchuria, and were not purged and executed. The Red Army was still in full build-up on 22 June 1941, and thus was caught by surprise, when the Wehrmacht and its Rumanian ally struck on Sunday at dawn, at 0315 hrs.

-----------------------------------------------
6, Except for the South-Western and Southern Fronts – discussed in this book – where the Red Army held approx. 1.2 to 1 advantage over the Axis
-------------------------------------------------


The Reich’s small Axis allies join in

On 26 June 1940, the Soviet Foreign Minister, V. M. Molotov, demanded Rumania to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina – incorporated into that country some 21 years earlier, a move Moscow never acknowledged officially – within twenty-four hours. This demand came at a hard time for Rumania, which was isolated internationally. France – Rumania’s traditional ally and advocate – had been defeated, while Great Britain, another supporter, was under aerial assault. Hitler declined to intervene in the dispute, since under terms of the German-Soviet pact, Bessarabia was within Moscow’s sphere of influence. Therefore, abiding to the ultimatum she could not refuse, two days later Rumania ceded these territories to the USSR. This significant territorial loss further increased tensions between the two countries. Armed clashes on the new frontier along the River Pruth became regular, on ground and in the air, too, as will be detailed later on.

On the political front, during the same time period, tensions in Bucharest increased to boiling point. In the wake of massive anti-government protests in opposition to the territorial losses to the USSR, Hungary and Bulgaria – i.e. Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the USSR, Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria, King Carol II abdicated in favour of his son, Michael I, on 6 September 1940. On the same day, the young new king asked General Ion Antonescu to lead the country, assigning him unlimited powers. The general – who declared himself Conducător, i.e. Supreme Leader – decided to form a new, one-party government with the far-right Iron Guard (a.k.a. ‘The Legion of the Archangel Michael’), and declared the Kingdom a ‘Legionary State’. All other political activity was banned. On 23 November 1940, Antonescu signed in Berlin the ‘Tripartite Pact’, following the arrival of the German Military Mission to Rumania from 12 October. These Wehrmacht troops were sent to train the Rumanian army and air force, as well as to protect the vital Ploieşti oilfields and refineries. Later on, these German ‘instructional’ units would become the spearhead of the sizeable German armed force that would strike the USSR the following June. By March 1941, a total of 680,000 German troops were stationed in Rumania.

On 14 January 1941, in Berlin, Hitler revealed to Antonescu his general plan to attack the Soviet Union. The Führer asked for the full co-operation of the Rumanian armed forces. Antonescu enthusiastically agreed, fuelled in part by the wish the recover the territories lost a year earlier and in part by his anti-Communist convictions. Both sentiments were largely shared by most of the Rumanian officer corps and the political élite. The Rumanian armed forces were thus unhesitatingly committed by the Rumanian dictator to the ‘Anti-Bolshevik Crusade’. In exchange for his unequivocal support, the Conducător asked for Hitler’s help to destroy the Iron Guard, which had grown to a threat to his power and obstacle to his ambitions, in order to have free hands to prepare his Army for the imminent war. Rumania became the only ally of Germany, which took an active part in the anti-Soviet campaign from the very first day of war. Rumania also committed, by far, the largest military resources to the anti-Soviet campaign among all of Germany’s allies.

In contrast to Rumania, Hungary did not have any territorial claims against its giant Eastern neighbour. The differences between Budapest and Moscow were ideological. Hungary’s Regent, Vice-Admiral Miklós Horthy – a highly decorated, experienced officer veteran and battleship commander of the Austro-Hungarian Navy of the First World War – was a fervent anti-Communist, as was most of the Hungarian officer staff. Hungary was the first power to adhere to the ‘Tripartite Pact’ on 20 November 1940. However, this was not enough to persuade Budapest to join Berlin in attacking the Soviet Union. Initially, Hitler did not count on Hungary’s participation in the upcoming war either. Hungarian troop build-up on the country’s North-Eastern borders, dully observed by the Soviets, was more of a precautionary move than anything else. It was an unexpected incident, the bombing of the city of Kassa (now Košice, Slovakia) on 26 June by three warplanes, identified at that time as Soviet, which triggered Hungary’s entrance in the anti-Soviet war. Next day, war with the USSR was officially declared. With it, Hungary became the last of the small Axis powers to join in the ‘Anti-Bolshevik Crusade’.

Tiny Slovakia, a newly created state built upon the ruins of Czechoslovakia following the German occupation of the Czech Lands in March 1939, signed the ‘Tripartite Pact’ on 24 November 1940. However, President Monsegnior Dr. Jozef Tiso committed his country only reluctantly to Hitler’s aggression against its ‘big neighbour’, which was inhabited by fellow Slavs. The two countries did not have territorial claims against each other, and did not even share a common border. It was mostly done as a ‘thank-you’ to Hitler for helping create the Slovak state.

The Slovak Government began its preparation for war with the Soviet Union as early as March 1941. There was a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the population that the war against Bolshevism was vital, and that only victory by the Third Reich would assure the perpetuation of the Slovak State. The Slovak Army also planned ahead, so the decision to join the Wehrmacht in attacking the USSR came promptly. Accordingly, Slovakia declared war on the Soviet Union and sent its troops to combat.

Although Mussolini’s Italy had declared war on the Soviet Union on 22 June, alongside Germany and Rumania, it did not commit troops to the new front from the onset. Later that summer, a few Italian volunteer pilots did fly several combat missions over the southern front, which will be briefly noted in the following text.

Finally, Bulgaria – a nation with close historical and cultural ties to Russia, and thus to the Soviet Union – although having signed the ‘Tripartite Pact’ on 1 March 1941, managed to remain neutral in the Soviet-Axis confrontation, until Soviet troops reached its frontiers in early September 1944. Nevertheless, Bulgarian warplanes on coastal patrol service did occasionally pursue Soviet aircraft swaying into Bulgarian airspace.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist May 05, 2007 10:51 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ May 04, 2007 08:49 am)
The Road to the German-Soviet War
- By Dénes Bernád, 2007

Most historical studies – published both in the East and West – still regard the German-Soviet confrontation during World War Two – the largest armed conflict in the history of mankind – as an aggression committed by the belligerent Germany against a militarily unprepared Soviet Union, which was first surprised, then overwhelmed by the unexpected and unwarranted onslaught of the German Army. However, in view of new information that has surfaced in the past two decades, from previously inaccessible sources, for example, the uncensored version of the Zhukov Plan of 15 May 1941 (1) addressed to Stalin, and mentioned below, or in published works, such as M. I. Meltyukhov, Stalin’s Missed Chance &#8211 (2); it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be sustained realistically any longer in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.

It now appears that the opening act of the Eastern Front was neither clear aggression by the pugnacious Nazi Germany against the undoubtedly defensive USSR– the common view currently hold by most historians – nor a pre-emptive strike of a ‘clever’ Hitler in order to beat Stalin’s plans – as alleged, for example, by Russian author V. Suvorov in his controversial book, Icebreaker (3). Rather, it was the outcome of a parallel gear-up for a total war by two totalitarian regimes led by similarly thinking and planning dictators, who acted quasi-independently of the other, with the final scope of annihilating the other side by force.

It has to be said, however, that the Soviets’ war preparations appear to be somewhat lesser in scope than the Germans’, not envisaging to conquering the entire Third Reich, but only occupied Poland, Eastern Prussia and most of Rumania, while Hitler intended to occupy the whole European area of the USSR.

Saying the attack on the USSR was not a clear act of aggression is a wrong conclusion, IMO. The act was a clear aggression as the term was understood in contemporary context:

QUOTE

Article 1.
Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes to accept in its relations with the other Party, from the date of the entry into force of the present Convention, the definition of aggression framed by the Committee on Security Questions of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, following on the Soviet delegation's proposal.

Article 2.
Accordingly, the aggressor in an international conflict shall, subject to the agreements in force between the parties to the dispute, be considered to be that State which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

(1) Declaration of war upon another State;

(2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State;

(3) Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State;

(4) Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State;

(5) Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, not withstanding the request of the invaded State, to take in its own territory all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.


Convention between Lithuania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the Definition of Aggression. Signed at London, July 5th, 1933

http://www.letton.ch/lvx_33lt.htm

I also underlined a contradiction. It is said in the introduction that they acted with the final scope of annihilating each other, yet when it comes to the Soviet preparations for that final scope, it is admitted they did not have such final scope afterall.

take care

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas May 27, 2007 08:57 pm
QUOTE
Most historical studies – published both in the East and West – still regard the German-Soviet confrontation during World War Two – the largest armed conflict in the history of mankind – as an aggression committed by the belligerent Germany against a militarily unprepared Soviet Union, which was first surprised, then overwhelmed by the unexpected and unwarranted onslaught of the German Army. However, in view of new information that has surfaced in the past two decades, from previously inaccessible sources, for example, the uncensored version of the Zhukov Plan of 15 May 1941 (1) addressed to Stalin, and mentioned below, or in published works, such as M. I. Meltyukhov, Stalin’s Missed Chance &#8211 (2); it appears that this outdated view of the origins of the giant armed clash on the Eastern Front cannot be sustained realistically any longer in a scholarly and apolitical contemporary study.

It now appears that the opening act of the Eastern Front was neither clear aggression by the pugnacious Nazi Germany against the undoubtedly defensive USSR– the common view currently hold by most historians – nor a pre-emptive strike of a ‘clever’ Hitler in order to beat Stalin’s plans – as alleged, for example, by Russian author V. Suvorov in his controversial book, Icebreaker (3). Rather, it was the outcome of a parallel gear-up for a total war by two totalitarian regimes led by similarly thinking and planning dictators, who acted quasi-independently of the other, with the final scope of annihilating the other side by force.


This is very interesting interpretation and the synthesis is admirable. But, perhaps it is hard to deal with such a complex and controversial subject, without detracting from the real content of the book?

Looking exclusively to troop dispositions and the projects/plans of either the German or the Russian General Staffs, without putting these things into any kind of context with the other available evidence regarding Stalin and Hitler's intentions, seems to go down the same road as Suvorov. It can also appear to ressemble the methods and procedures used by revisionist historians.

I have only one book about this subject 'The Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia' by Gabriel Gordetsky (Yale University press 1999), but it does go to lengths to put these plans into context, with all the other diplomatic and archive evidence of Hitler's and Stalin's intentions, and what else was happening in the war.

It might have been better, in such a short introduction to what is a fairly controversial subject, to make some reference to all of this other material, and to why many historians still see German aggression as important in the outbreak of the war, rather than so much detail on certain fairly limited aspects.

Because, without even mention of all of this context, the evidence quoted just does not seem enough to justify the fairly wide ranging and big claims made about it. Especially backing them up by claiming them as scholarly and apolitical, and opposing views as 'outdated'.





Posted by: Dénes May 27, 2007 09:03 pm
As I said, I had very little room in the book to include what I wanted to point out. Even so, I wrote much more than originally intended. Therefore, this is the best I could come up with, given the size and topic of the book (which is, after all, the air war on the Southern flank of the Eastern Front, not the political and military aspects of the origins of the German-Soviet war). Nevertheless, I am glad I could make my point and - hopefully - make some people think about it and dig further in, despite of the attacks I will most probably be subject of by the 'traditionalist' historians and their followers.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Let me point out, again, that I distance myself clearly from Suvorov and his school of thought. My thesis is entirely different.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas May 28, 2007 05:16 pm
It is indeed much easier to criticise than to write these kind of introductory summaries.

But, you have, at least in my case, acheived your aim, in that I have continued reading, and gone back over, Gordetsky's book, whereas previously I had not gone further than 80 pages into it. So much goes on, that it is hard to keep track.

Many of the points you made, he supports, but adds more.

I wonder if views on the origins of Hitler's decision to attack Russia are not influenced by the subsequent Nazi and Soviet propaganda, and the way the war developed, making it seem like a predetermined ideological and racial clash.

While I have been reading Gordetsky's book, I have noted the manner in which he links Stalin and Hitler's actions to more traditional foreign policy objectives, while pointing out that Hitler always had some ideological basis to draw on if necessary, and if the need arose.

Posted by: guina May 29, 2007 07:29 pm
Dear Denes
Most russian historians of the new wave accept this scenario in their books and documentary films that were presented on russian tv chanels until2001-2002.
Now ,oficialy this subject is a tabu, on tv at least.
In 2000 i saw an interview with marshal Konev (NTV Chanel,Shot earlier) in which he , with a broad smile on his face, half admits this scenario. Unfortunately,his memoirs,of the period 39-41 are still secret and there is little chance we will see them in the next decade.

P.S Romanian minister to Kremlin, G.Gafencu, left very interestig memoirs about the last two weeks before the war in Moscow.

Posted by: Petre June 02, 2016 05:47 pm
Source : The Aleksandr N. Yakovlev (Internet) Archive
What Stalin knew about the aggression being prepared, 15 july 1940 – 17 june 1941
Document №17
Information of « Eshchenko (Eşcenko) » from Bukarest
24.03.1941
To Chief Intelligence Direction, General Staff, Red Army
In addition to the raport, «ABC» informed :
1) La Berlin Killinger a avut o mare dispută cu Himmler, care l-a acuzat că a adoptat o poziţie politică greşită în raport cu legionarii. Este vorba de faptul că Killinger a fost pe deplin solidar cu Аntonescu şi i-a acordat sprijin în lupta lui cu legionarii. Autorităţile militare germane din România l-au susţinut deasemenea pe Antonescu contra legionarilor. Nazişti în frunte cu Himmler au declarat că Killinger denaturează sprijinul politic al Germaniei în România.
Killinger a reuşit să declare în faţa lui Hitler şi a lui Goering că legionarii nu pot fi în prezent un sprijin pentru Germania şi că aici trebuie înfiinţat un nou partid politic.
Killinger urmează să revină pe 23 martie.
2) La întâlnirea Antonescu – Goering de la Viena s-a discutat despre rolul României în războiul pe care Germania îl va avea cu URSS. Încă de la întrevederea cu Hitler, Antonescu şi-a oferit serviciile pentru o participare la războiul contra URSS.
La Berlin s-a remarcat că Antonescu este extrem de ostil faţă de URSS şi la fiecare întrevedere cu factorii responsabili germani cere un război rapid contra URSS şi să i se dea posibilitatea să intervină contra URSS în primele rânduri.
La întrevederea cu Antonescu de la Viena, Goering i-a dat o serie de indicaţii pentru punerea de acord a planului de mobilizare a armatei române cu planul de mobilizare german, având în vedere un plan general de război cu URSS.
3) La Berlin sunt extrem de răspândite zvonurile despre un viitor război al Germaniei cu URSS.
Militariştii germani sunt îmbătaţi de succesele proprii. În rândul militarilor se afirmă că Armata Roşie este destul de slabă, că nu se poate opune armatei germane, că îi este inferioară ca mecanizare, că invazia până la Moscova şi Urali nu reprezintă o mare greutate pentru germani.
Se arată că URSS a fost mereu şi a rămas inamica Germaniei, că luptând cu Anglia, nu poţi lăsa în spate un aşa inamic ca URSS.
Unii exprimă şi asemenea idee : dacă Germania porneşte contra URSS, atunci Anglia în niciun caz n-o să ajute URSS. Ea ori va încheia imediat pacea cu Germania, ori va suspenda acţiunile militare contra Germaniei.
Militarii vorbesc : avem sub arme 12 milioane de soldaţi. Ei doresc să se bată şi să învingă. Trebuie să la dăm posibilitatea să se bată.
Unii indică chiar şi data – războiul cu URSS trebuie să înceapă în mai.
În prezent, la frontiera URSS de pe teritoriul fostei Polonii a fost transferată din Franţa o mare cantitate de armament.
4) Ambasada germană din Bucureşti remarcă în ultima vreme o amplificare a activităţii elementelor comuniste din România şi Ungaria. În general, Ungaria este considerată centru al propagandei comuniste în Balkani. Ultimele proteste, starea de spirit la Constanţa, Brăila, Galaţi din cauza lipsei produselor, sunt văzute la ambasadă ca mişcare comunistă, inspirată din URSS.
5) În cercurile germane se presupune că grecii vor capitula în zilele următoare. În caz contrar, trupele germane vor invada Grecia.
6) «…» informează că, din zvonuri din cercuri germane, în Moldova a fost trims un mare număr de muncitori germani, la construit hangare şi aerodromuri.
S-au dat indicaţii pentru a clarifica informaţia în detaliu.

(sent to Stalin, Molotov, Voroşilov, Beria, Timoşenko, Jukov)

Posted by: Petre June 03, 2016 05:58 pm
Source : The Aleksandr N. Yakovlev (Internet) Archive
What Stalin knew about the aggression being prepared, 15 july 1940 – 17 june 1941
Document №15
Information of « Eshchenko (Eşcenko) » from Bukarest
15.03.1941
To Chief Intelligence Direction, General Staff, Red Army
La 14 martie Korf a avut o întâlnire cu avocatul Socor, care a spus :
1) Un maior german care locuieşte în apartamentul unui prieten, I-a spus aceluia la o întrevedere : «S-a schimbat complet planul nostru. Ne ducem spre răsărit, în URSS. Luăm din URSS pâine, cărbuni, petrol. Suntem acum de neînvins şi putem continua războiul cu Anglia şi America».
2) Col. Rioşanu, fost prieten cu un ministru, prieten cu Antonescu, la o discuţie privată cu Socor a spus : «S.M.G. al Armatei române împreună cu germanii se ocupă acum cu elaborarea planurilor de război cu URSS. Că acest război e de aşteptat peste trei luni».
3) Din mai multe opinii Socor trage următoarea concluzie : «Nemţii se tem de o intervenţie a URSS în momentul în care ei intră în Turcia. Dorind să preîntâmpine un pericol din partea URSS, nemţii vor să preia iniţiativa şi să execute primii o lovitură, să ocupe cele mai importante raioane economice ale URSS şi întâi de toate Ucraina».
4) În Bucureşti întâlneşti mulţi soldaţi germani nou veniţi, mai ales mulţi cu vârste 17–18 ani, având însemnele aviaţiei (însemnul aviaţiei pe fond grena).
5) Circulă zvonul despre venirea lui Hitler la Bucureşti. Că la Bucureşti a venit deja o parte din garda personală a lui Hitler.
Grat informează : în Moldova s-a introdus cenzura la toată corespondenţa. Nemţii se află în număr mare pe graniţa iugoslavă. Conducerea CFR a încheiat cu Societatea germană Todt un contract prin care toate lucrările de amenajări la calea ferată să fie executate de Soc. Todt.

(Sent to Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kuznetsov, Berya, Golykov)


Document №17
Information of « Eshchenko (Eşcenko) » from Bukarest
26.03.1941
To Chief Intelligence Direction, General Staff, Red Army
«ABC» informed :
«După întoarcerea de la Berlin l-am informat pe scurt pe consilierul Hoffmann că există zvonuri despre un viitor conflict între Germania şi URSS.
Hoffmann a arătat că nu e la curent cu acestea, dar mi-a spus următoarele :
«Acum câteva zile am avut o discuţie cu Ministrul de stat M. Antonescu, pe care îl consider prietenul meu român. Antonescu mi-a spus că unchiul său, Conducătorul Statului Antonescu, încă de la întâlnirea cu Hitler din ianuarie a fost inclus chiar de Hitler în planurile războiului Germaniei contra URSS şi că despre asta au mai discutat iar Antonescu şi Hitler la Viena. După părerea lui M. Antonescu, legat de aceste discuţii sunt în desfăşurare în prezent măsurile româneşti pentru mobilizare şi alte pregătiri militare ale conducerii Armatei române. Mai multe prierenul meu Antonescu n-a dorit să-mi spună. Doar în încheiere mi-a mai precizat că el consideră ca fiind critică luna mai pentru conflictul cu URSS şi că pe baza datelor, Conducătorul Statului Antonescu a promis Germaniei participarea activă a României la campania germană contra URSS».

(Sent to Stalin, Molotov, Timoshenko, Zhukov)


Document №36
Special information from Intelligence Direction, General Staff, Red Army
«About the military preparations of Romania»
№ /660586, 5 june 1941.
Armata română execută pregătire de luptă.
De la mijlocul lunii aprilie comandamentul român a trecut la creşterea efectivelor armatei. Chemarea rezerviştilor şi ofiţerilor de rezervă începută la 21 aprilie a luat caracter de mobilizare generală secretă. Instrucţiuni privind mobilizarea în termen scurt au fost înmânate direct mobilizaţilor. Instrucţiunile au fost înmânate de echipe special pregătite. Trimiterea mobilizaţilor a avut supraveghere specială din partea poliţiei.
La 1 iunie 1941 compunerea trupelor române era următoarea:
Аrmate 3, Corpuri de Armată 7, Div.infanterie 20, Div.gardă 1, Div. inf. motorizate 1, Div. cavalerie 4, Brigăzi trăgători munte 4, Brig. indep. cavalerie 2, Brigăzi motomecanizate 1, Brigăzi de fortificaţii 2.
Dinte acestea în Moldova se află 9 div. inf, 2 div. cav, 2 brig. munte şi, din date neverificate, la Piatra a fost remarcată o brig.motomecanizată.
La această grupare se poate adăuga Gruparea dobrogeană, constând din 2 div. inf şi o brig. cav.
Astfel, contra URSS sunt adunate 11 div. inf, 2 div. cavalerie, o brigadă mecanizată, 2 brig. munte şi o brig. indep. cavalerie.
Folosind toate resursele umane şi cu armament german, Armata română poate ajunge la 40 div. inf., totalizând până la 1,800,000 oameni.
În ultima jumătate de an comandamentul român a acordat o atenţie specială unităţilor de aviaţie, de tancuri şi de geniu. Sub conducerea ofiţerilor germani la Reg. 1 şi 2 tancuri, precum şi în Şcoala de aviaţie de la Tecuci, corpul ofiţeresc din Armata română a parcurs şi parcurge instruire susţinută. 380 ofiţeri cu pregătirea încheiată au fost trimişi la unităţile amplasate în Moldova.
Se remarcă prezenţa unui Corp de cavalerie, până acum cavaleria nu era reunită într-un Corp.
Armamente pentru Armata română vin de la Fabrica Skoda şi din Germania.
Ofiţerii Armatei române au primit în luna mai hărţi cu partea sudică a URSS.
În prezent în Moldova sunt reduse trenurile de pasageri 10 zile.
Din informaţii oficiale, în partea de nord a României se concentrează trupe.
În fâşia de graniţă cu URSS se observă trupe terestre ocupând tranşeele din prima linie.
Se confirmă evacuarea instituţiilor de stat din oraşele Moldovei, de asemenea populaţia din zona de graniţă. BNR şi-a evacuat arhiva din Bucureştiа la Predeal. Există dispoziţii să fie amenajate în oraşe şi sate, cu forţele proprii ale fiecărei familii, tranşee sau adăposturi primitive de bombe până la 15 iunie.
Ministerul a dat indicaţii privind examenele de absolvire în şcoli, astfel ca clădirile să fie pregătite pentru cazărmi şi spitale. Examenele trebuie să se încheie la 10 iunie. Se notează chemarea la înrolare a studenţilor din ultimii ani la medicină, ca şi a studenţilor de alte specialităţi.
Ofiţerii SMG român confirmă că din daclaraţii neoficiale ale lui Antonescu, războiul dintre România şi URSS trebuie să înceapă curând.
Şeful Direcţiei Cercetare a St.Maj.General al Armatei Roşii
Gen.locotenent Golikov

(Sent to Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Timpshenko, Berya, Kuznetsov, Jdanov, Zhukov, Malenkov)


Document №37
Special information from Intelligence Direction, General Staff, Red Army «About the military preparations of Romania»
№ /660606, 7 june 1941.
Mobilizarea din România este confirmată de multe surse. Sunt chemate contingentele 19 - 42 ani. Chemarea se face cu telegramă. Este mobilizat concomitent şi efectivul de cai şi căruţe.
În urma mobilizării Armata română va ajunge la un milion de oameni şi poate desfăşura până la 30 divizii.
Căile ferate, reducând mişcările de pasageri şi mărfuri obişnuite, execută transferuri către Moldova şi Nordul Dobrogei ale trupelor germane venite din Iugoslavia şi Bulgaria, de asemenea armamente (artilerie, tancuri, proiectoare, etc.) şi muniţie de război.
În ceea ce priveşte Germania, aici de la 4 iunie au fost reluate transporturi intense pe calea ferată şi autostrada dintre Kustrin şi Frankfurt (ambele pe Oder, la est Berlin) către est. Sunt transportate efective umane, tancuri, artilerie grea, a.a şi de câmp, transportoare, proiectoare şi combustibili.
Raionul Poznan reprezintă literalmente o tabără militară.
În acelaş timp se remarcă continuarea întăririi trupelor germane la graniţă prin aducerea unor unităţi de la …
Concluzii :
Considerînd în mod corespunzător mobilizarea românească ca mijloc de a continua întărirea flancului drept german în Europa, se impune acordarea unei ATENŢII DEOSEBITE întăririi trupelor germane care continuă pe teritoriul Poloniei.
Şeful Direcţiei Cercetare a St.Maj.General al Armatei Roşii
Gen.locotenent Golikov

(Sent to Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Timoshenko, Jdanov, Malenkov, Zhukov, Kuznetsov, Berya)

Posted by: Petre January 22, 2017 06:27 pm
Sourse - Net (rus)
The informations of «Еshtchenko» ( Eşcenko ) from Bukarest about the german point of view on the positions of Romania and Russia

14.04.1941
To the Chief Intelligence of General Staff, Red Army

ABC informează : imediat după ce s-a reîntors, Killinger a avut mai multe discuţii cu Antonescu. Detaliile sunt următoarele :
1. Killinger l-a informat că Hitler vede în el singura persoană la conducerea statului român şi o garanţie pentru evoluţia liniştită a României, de care Germania este interesată.
2. O intervenţie a României de partea Germaniei nu este prevăzută. Germania se gândeşte să încheie singură victorioasă acest conflict, pentru care dispune de mijloace militare bogate.
3. Antonescu nu trebuie să fie îngrijorat de poziţia Rusiei, pentru că aceasta se fereşte vădit să intervină contra Germaniei, deoarece este prea slabă pentru a-şi asuma riscul unui conflict cu Germania. Rusia ştie că orice acţiune militară contra României, ale cărei graniţe sunt garantate deschis de Berlin, ar stârni o lovitură de răspuns din partea Germaniei. România nu trebuie să provoace URSS, deoarece în prezent Germania, până când nu încheie războiul în Sud-est, vrea să evite o ciocnire cu URSS. De aceea trebuie arătată o anumită îngăduinţă în cazul conflictelor de frontieră, evitând potestele şi în nici un caz să nu se recurgă la măsuri de răspunsuri militare. Conducerea de la Berlin interzice ferm lovirea avioanelor ruseşti.
4. Antonescu a adus mereu vorba la Bassarabia, după cum a declarat Killinger. O va primi, dar acum nu trebuie să ne legăm de Rusia. Momentul ruperii cu URSS îl stabileşte Berlinul, nu Bucureştiul. Ruşii trebuie doar să acţioneze la fel ca până acum, şi atunci le rupem gâtul rapid.
Flirturile cu Turcia şi Yugoslavia vor costa Moscova. Toate astea reprezintă un material minunat pentru o Cartă albă germană, care va fi o avanpremieră publicistică la războiul cu Rusia.
Însă toate forţele trebuie concentrate pentru scopul imediat. Rusiei nu i-a venit încă rândul.
5. Killinger a declarat că el este convins că reconcilierea între Legiune şi general nu este posibilă. Generalul i-a spus că în mod automat ar cere sprijinul armatei, care este 100% cu el, dacă dacă s-ar împăca cu Legiunea.
Pe România n-o ajută arhanghelul Mihail, ci o armată capabilă de luptă şi deşi Legiunea se bucură de prestigiu în Germania, generalul nu poate totuşi să admită participarea ei la conducerea Statului.


Către tov. Panfilov, tov. Dronov, tov. Stalin, tov. Molotov.

Posted by: Petre June 22, 2017 05:59 am
Source : Net (rus)

Note of NKVD USSR to the Central Committee of the Com. Party to I.V. Stalin, V.M. Molotov

№ 4459, 22 oct.1940, Top Secret

NKVD URSS prezintă transcrierea discuţiei … сu căpitanul Grolmann – aghiotantul gen. Daluege – rudă cu Şeful St.maj. al gen. Lutz.
Germania contează pe terminarea războiului contra Angliei nu mai târziu de primăvara anului următor. Аviaţia britanică de vânătoare şi apărarea A.A. s-au dovedit de două ori mai puternice decât au estimat germanii. Această situaţie şi vremea rea din august-sept. au făcut ca eficienţa bombardamentelor germane să fie cu 40% mai redusă decât se aştepta.
În cercurile Comandamentului militar suprem se vorbeşte deschis de inevitabilul război contra URSS, considerând că Un. Sov duce o politică curtenitoare faţă de Anglia şi SUA, ceea ce Germania nu tolerează. În aceleaşi cercuri se consideră că Germania nu a renunţat la ideile ei de «înaintare spre Est» şi va veni vremea când «pe calea politicii sau a forţei, graniţa de est va fi împinsă înapoi».
Referitor la scopul intrării trupelor germane în România, părerea generală este că prin aceste măsuri Germania şi-a asigurat petrolul şi grâul românesc şi în fapt a făcut din România un aliat militar. La toate acestea Germania, considerând foarte precară situaţia politică internă din România, prin aducerea trupele sale a decis să întărească regimul gen. Antonescu. În pofida afirmaţiilor oficiale că în România au fost trimise numai unităţi de instrucţie, cercurile militar-politice din Germania nu fac secret că numărul trupelor germane din România atinge 120,000 oameni.


USSR People s commisar of internal affairs, L. Berya

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)