Joe Doakes from Como Park emails re an argument that has kept historians ripping each others hair out for seven decades:
Yes, yes, Literally Hitler, embodiment of Evil, Holocaust, blah, blah, blah. But what if he had not broken the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact to invade Russia? Could Russia have conquered all of Europe?
Could the truth be less absolute and more nuanced than we’ve been led to believe?
Churchill told the House of Commons, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it,” a paraphrase of Santayana’s famous quote. But what is the correct lesson to learned from Operation Barbarossa?
Joe Doakes
On the one hand, the USSR had built up an awful lot of troops on their western frontier.
On the other hand, even Stalin had to have known that the Soviet Army, in the wake of the purges, wasn’t in much shape even to defend the USSR (as Barbarossa showed), much less conduct a coherent offensive (as the Winter War showed). Even the most Stalin-indulgent history I’ve read so far indicates Stalin wasn’t entertaining the idea of invading the West until well into ’42, if not later.
Note: anyone in the comment section equating a serious discussion of the “what ifs” of the most consequential event of the past 200 years with pining for Naziism will be blocked. Forever. As in, you’ll be looking way, way up to see “Dog Gone”, status-wise.
There will be no more warnings.
I have read, from more than one historian, that the Germans would have had a lot more resistance from the civilian population in Russia, had Stalin and his predecessors not confiscated so many privately owned firearms. Many of the people apparently hid at least one gun and ammo, but what resistance there was, was disorganized and sporadic.
Well, it is pretty obvious that after the war Stalin wanted all of the lands conquered by the Germans.
In hind sight, anyhow, Stalin should have gotten more pushback from Roosevelt and Truman.
On the other hand, WW3 wasn’t fought, and I doubt if the American people would have supported a new war against Uncle Joe and the USSR. Certainly the Brits and the French were done.
But people need to recognize that the choice for the people of Germany in the 1930s was not “Hitler or democracy.” It was “Hitler or Stalin.”
Perhaps the argument could be flipped on its head.
Was it Hitler who saved Stalin?
Granted, Stalin was nibbling away at Europe. A little bit of Poland here, a bit of the Baltics there, maybe a taste of Finland, but he was always looking over his shoulder at his enemies at home.
Expanding into Europe meant taking on the combined forces of Britain, France, Germany and Italy.
And then what?
How do you hang onto that?
Sure the local communist parties would wrap their iron claws around the levers of power like they did in Eastern Europe – but remember, the communist rode home on the tanks of liberators, not conquerors.
The other thing about Stalin’s army was, much of it ran on American equipment.
Like Uncle Joe said himself, “England gave us time, America gave us equipment, we provided the manpower.”
Like Uncle Joe said himself, “England gave us time, America gave us equipment, we provided the manpower.” Cannon fodder, not manpower.
It was US and UK that saved half of Europe. And I think Churchill would have backed US push to Moscow. People of eastern Europe can thank FDR for decades of repression and people of China for Mao terror. Who knows what would have happened if FDR supported CKS when asked. Roads not taken, millions of lives lost.
Does Russia have a deep water port available year-round in its territory? And isn’t their land mass devoid of natural barriers/defenses – other than massive distance – such as mountain ranges to slow down invaders? Russia will always look for more land, and a port, to survive.
My grandfather served on a Liberty ship, and one thing he was told that although the tires they were delivering to the Soviets clearly said “Firestone” on the side, that they were actually made in the USSR. I don’t think that, apart from U.S. aid, the Soviets would have had a path through Germany even if Schicklgruber hadn’t come to power. Their supply chain was that bad.
(they also tried to get my grandfather and his crewmates drunk to get secrets….he figured it out easily…and quite frankly, precisely what they would have learned from guys whose job was to steer a ship around U-boats and such would be debateable….they wasted their vodka and caviar, IMO)
One side note is that the early German armor for WWII was indeed tested in Russia, even before Schicklgruber, so the Soviets knew darned well that the Germans did not plan on lying down for any invasion from either the east or west.
the Germans would have had a lot more resistance from the civilian population in Russia, had Stalin and his predecessors not confiscated so many privately owned firearms
The only problem with this being that Stalin too would’ve had a lot more resistance. Years earlier. Especially in the Ukraine.
Another side note: wasn’t the primary ideological struggle between the Stalin and Trotsky factions whether to expand the revolution or build communism in one state?
Stalin was not necessarily expansionist. He would take what he easily could – but it was Trotsky who wanted to conquer the world.
NW – indeed they do have a deep-water never freezing port. On the east coast. Way east, think Vladivostok. Port of StP is also used year-round, albeit with help of icebreakers in the winter.
Since ancient times, the adage “you will never win a land war in Asia” had been proven time and time again. But I still wish Macarthur would have been allowed to march on Moscow.
“But I still wish MacArthur would have been allowed to march on Moscow.”
In the west (europe) Patton wanted to march on Moscow, I don’t ever recall MacArthur wanting to march from Seoul to Moscow ( a long slog with a daunting supply chain).
MacArthur wanted to go nuclear on China.
“Boy I wish MacArthur would have been allowed to H Bomb China”
Eye roll.
I don’t think that, apart from U.S. aid, the Soviets would have had a path through Germany even if Schicklgruber hadn’t come to power. Their supply chain was that bad.
So much of Russia’s tactical supply chain depended on imported vehicles that, according to a few historical accounts, the Russian vernacular term for “truck” for years after the war was “Studebaker”. (I’ll defer to JPA on that one). It allowed them to focus on building less mundane, more martial stuff, like tanks.
And not even all their tanks. Among the things that they got from Lend Lease:
. And the list goes on.
The Soviets logistics were stretched to the breaking point in 1945, and their manpower losses had been so catastrophic they were drafting 16 year olds for front-line service.
MacA, you are absolutely correct, I got my generals mixed up.
Another point of reference is that during the Korean War, U.S. pilots initially refused to strafe and bomb North Korean supply convoys because the pilots rightly recognized them as Studebakers and Fords–though most of them were copies, courtesy of Soviet “borrowing” of not just the trucks, but also the designs.
Regarding Patton continuing and taking on the Red Army, I don’t know that we could have done it–long supply lines, etc.. But if somehow you’d succeded, imagine how many lives would have been saved from Communism–ten million or so in the USSR, another sixty million or more in China, two million in Cambodia, millions in Vietnam, etc..
Mitch, just checked with my mom. Everyone knew of Studebakers as gifts from the Americans because they were ubiquitous after the war. But no, it was not used in a vernacular. At least not in the part of the country where she grew up.
another sixty million or more in China
Russian campaign would not have saved them, but FDR support of CKS would have.
The key to understanding this is actually the Winter War itself, along with its sequel, the Continuation War.
The Winter War cost the Soviets over 1 MILLION casualties in just 105 days those stubborn Finns, who were supposed to roll over and surrender as easily as the Poles did.
[For those who don’t know, the invasion of Poland occurred on Sept. 1, 1939 around the time of the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact between Hitler and Stalin. The Soviets then launched their own invasion into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in a similar manner a few weeks later. Then the Soviets invaded the Finns on Nov. 30, 1939 expecting the same results but the Finns held them off for 105 days.]
It was only after the Soviets understood that they needed to change tactics did they gain ground against Finland’s Mannerheim Line. They changed for the entire Army, not just the divisions engaged.
Hitler thought that because the Finns, who did receive a lot of supplies from Germany via Sweden) killed so many Soviets, that the Soviets must be weak. Operation Barbarossa was designed to exploit a perceived weakness.
The Germans soon learned that the Soviets were not as weak as believed (because Soviet doctrine and tactics had changed) thereby getting the Eastern Front bogged down in a quagmire.
It truly is a fascinating part of WWII history.
#creditwhere due ^ I find that a piece of insight I hadn’t appreciated before (that the Finns gave AH a false confidence for Barbarossa). That is some butterfly effect, downstream consequences shit.
I’m a Swede, more so than anything else, and I kinda hate the Germans… have lamented that the Swedes were so cautious and duplicitous during the war… hard to fault them for letting German supplies traverse the country to go to Finland.
JPA, my thought is that if Patton had taken Moscow in 1946, Communism might have died a well-deserved death, Mao would not have taken Beijing in 1949, and hence the Cultural Revolution might never have happened. Who knows if it would have been possible, but a fascinating thought, no?
getting the Eastern Front bogged down in a quagmire
Generals Mud and Snow probably had something to with it too.
I’d have to say that the Germans did OK in year 1 having started the operation a couple of months late (to save Mussolinin’s a55 in Yugoslavia). In addition, there was the choice of encircle and capture of 800k (I think in Ukraine) or continue onward towards Moscow. They chose the former.
Lots of wheels in motion.
This is a great series on YouTube; the host is taking the war week by week, and trying to avoid spoilers, to give a sense for what everyone was experiencing. Here is the excellent segment on the Winter War (which I made my daughter watch before she emigrated to Finland back in March). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M8s3eH-gfE
Since ancient times, the adage “you will never win a land war in Asia” had been proven time and time again.
The Japanese conquered China. The Russian Empire grew by conquering other kingdoms in Asia.
The Turks conquered the Persians, and so on.
I hate cliche’s.
MO – have they been able to keep the gains? They may have won the battle but lost the war.
Night Writer, you are right, it’s one of the best series on Youtube.
By definition every country in exitence, even those in Asia, have kept the land that they have conquered. There are still Tatars in the Crimea, fer God’s sake.
Anyway, I hate cliche’s.
History is made by people ignoring common wisdom and doing what has never been done before. The princes of Muscovy started conquering their neighbors in the 17th century & the Russians still run the show over most of the continent.
Since ancient times, the adage “you will never win a land war in Asia” had been proven time and time again
It was a satirical and erroneous observation made about Vietnam, made popular by a movie in the ’80s.
Not a historical truism.
Most every nation is Asia was created by someone, somewhere in History, winning land wars.
There are still Tatars in the Crimea, fer God’s sake.
And they are in charge?
What’s wrong with cliche’s? Just like with stereotypes, they borne of a truism.
Howzabout a sea war in Asia? Will the gods of cliche’s allow us to win that? Maybe we should jusr nuke the Asians from orbit? It’s the only wa to be sure.
The cliche seems to be a reflection of the failure of Western powers to conquer the Russians in 1812 and 1941-42 (no mention is made of the Russian surrender to the Germans in 1917).
I suppose that, generously considered, the cliche is a warning against invading a country while you can’t supply your army. Well, duh.
That wasn’t an issue in Vietnam, of course.
Asia is not a magical kingdom that defies invasion like Lothlorien in the Tolkian books.
I will die on this hill!