Soviets preparing their own invasion of Europe, Myth or reality?

Yes, my case is ruined.... I never said that USSR attacked Poland in the first place, what I said was what USSR intended to do with this war on their hands. I already acknowledged that the West, till 1920, wanted to supress the russian revolution, and Poland (like Romania in Hungary) was given a free hand. The problem is that Lenin and his henchemen intended to transform this conflict into an all european class-struggle warfare... Please read books instead of nit-picking every small detail I don't mention (because it's not relevant!!!)...

If you want a more balanced view of things check this link:

http://www.answers.com/topic/causes-of-the-polish-soviet-war

This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 16, 2005 07:06 pm

You're talking about Lenin... he managed to conquer Russia with a handful of men, turned back every White uprising, defeated the Western Powers... Lenin prefered small but highly organized and specialized troops...it was in his blood...

While he did not thought of conquering Europe in a classical way with 36 divisions, he most certainly believed that by sparking revolution in the West, he could have fulfilled the dream of Marx... Imagine the armies of France and Germany turning red...like it happened in Hungary and Bavaria...

OK, to close this subject, I agree.
In fact, I never disagreed that the SU was ideologically driven or intended to export revolution.
I only questioned the link between the 1920 war and Soviet ideology and Suvorov's devastating proof of a Soviet plan to attack Europe, a plan preempted by the Germans, a plan that without the German attack would have occurred on "D-Day".
What you mentioned - mobilisation, armoured divisions, artillery and obscure "orders" to attack (what?) after the germans attacked - is not proof enough of a Soviet invasion. Its conjecture.

It's not a direct link, not a causality. It was mere an example of how the external policy of USSR was shaped during the interwar years. In fact, even during Cicerin's benevolent years, USSR proved its warlike intentions...

From what you said,

I thought the link was pretty direct.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

I recommend to anyone interested in the topic to read the following article, published in The Journal of Historical Review, volume 20, number 5/6, September/December 2001, titled: Revising the twentieth century's 'perfect storm': Russian and German historians debate Barbarossa and its aftermath:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html

It sheds new light on the whole affaire.

Gen. Dénes

The main argument of the article seems to be Zhukov's operational plans.
Yet, in the same logic one can say that a Soviet attack before June 22 1941 was in fact justifiably preempting a German attack. As the German plans for Barbarossa started in 1940, and Zhukov's operational plans in May 15 1941, who can dismiss that claim if history would have been like that?

Secondly, I beg to differentiate between operational plans and actual attack.
As Germany became the main adversary in Europe the russians started to develop operational plans in case of war with it.
As Germany and Japan were increasingly perceived as threat, the US started since the beginning of 1941 to make plans of operations against these 2 countries.
Yet neither the US neither the SU were compelled to attack first.

War is not started on the basis of enemy operational plans. Neither are operational plans sufficient proof of imminent attack.

The question is what sort of proof would you need to convince you that the Soviets were indeed preparing for an overall attack? There is only one ultimate proof: the attack itself. Since this did not happen for obvious reasons, anything less could be shrugged off as speculation.

Then I am asking this: what proofs could one find of an impending German attack against the USSR a few months before the actual offensive? Only plans and troops build up - exactly what the Soviets did, too. Only they were apparently beaten to the punch...

Gen. Dénes

Excellent question that makes sense from a logical point of view.

The Army Staff's business is to create operational plans against all kinds of potential enemies.
What will convince me?
Seeing the political decision that gave that operational plan the go-ahead. The Directive. With main goals, forces to be used, date etc.

Here is a quote from an important speech of Stalin, done in front of the graduates of the military academy, at Kremlin: "The Red Army is a modern army and a modern army is an attacking army."
The date of speech: May 5, 1941.

It's not the proverbial 'smoking gun', but it pretty much sums up the would-be Generalissimus' strategical thinking six weeks prior to the war on East to start.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 18, 2005 03:52 am

well this can bee seen as a propaganda speech at best. the russian army was nothing a modern army was. after killing almost all the officer core, the low literacy rates, undertraining, lack of equipment and infrastructure....oh yeah, what a modern army. too bad he did not say" a modern army is a 10 million soldier army"...much closer to the truth.....