Did Stalin plan to invade Europe?

Also, even if the Russians had by some miracle trained a million airborne soldiers, can someone please tell me how they intended to deploy them? Whilst I accept that the Russian air force had many a plane, how many of these would be as capable of delivering airborne troops as the Dakota or the Ju52? Airborne divisions usually require hundreds of such planes simply to land their forces, assuming from your posts that Stalin intended to drop even 1/2 of these troops before an invasion, and an average of 30 to a plane (generous considering), we end up with over 1600 planes I somehow doubt Stalin's russia could afford to divert 1600 large planes for such a role Especially when the bombers were intending to attack airfields, how exactly would Stalin have planned to do both?

This, you will note will be at the same time as towing numerous "glider-tanks" into the battlefield, something that, if not in concept flawed, in practice would have been. Winged tanks need planes to tow them, it seems to me the air force would have been stretched enough already in it's numerous roles. Some of the information I've read claims that the Russians had no more than 500 bombers in the western military district, less than the total needed to transport a corps of airborne troops (in one lift) let alone a million. Now it could be a vast reserve was hiding somewhere in the other areas, but seriously, a million airborne troops, plus bombing missions, plus winged tank transporting? I find this unlikely, if you look at:

http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/russia/wfront.html

Click to expand...

It suggests that the notion of no fighters is also innacurate. Of the 1812 planes in the area, only 489 were bombers, 1043 were fighters and 239 were assault or recon and 41 were misc. This makes me wonder who came up with the idea that the soviets had gone "bomber heavy"

Generally, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the majority here, though the evidence is interesting, it is also scattered and as has been said, open to criticism due to the source's authors. As case says, it needs special evidence to prove such a thing.

Like the oders, I d'ont think that would have happen and I wont go in all of details to prove it. But, keeping in mind that scenario are suppose to be funny, I think this subject would make a great scenario. The people are bored by the huge collection of world war two scenarios, I know that a lot of them are cool, but its always the same thing. I am curently doing a world war two scenario, but with all this information, i'll make a new scenario wich will take place in 1942, but the context will change. Hitler won't learn what happen until the Soviets Invasion begin. I hope I'll have the support of everybody, this will be my first big scenario and I'll work hard for this. For those who want to help me in the production of this scenario, I'll start a new thread as soon as possible.

One more comment. Soviet's war goals were always to secure their country. That included aggressive, unprovoked, attacks/occupations against Poland, the Baltic countries and Finland, and would probably also in time have meant a pre-emptive attack against Germany. But the Nazi apologist explanation that Germany were protecting Europe against the bolshevik menace has no basis in reality.

True, I agree Hitler didn't want to save Europe, but he probably wanted to save germany for being communist since he was anti communist.

Originally posted by Smirnoff2k
True, I agree Hitler didn't want to save Europe, but he probably wanted to save germany for being communist since he was anti communist.

Click to expand...

That may be so. However, Hitler's rationale for invading the USSR was territorial expansion, pure and simple. Under the German's plans, the Russian population was to be enslaved and put to work under German colonists. Hitler would almost certainly have tried to impliment this plan no matter what the nature of the government in Moscow - expanding into Russia was always his ultimate goal (see William S. Shier's classic 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich').

i doubt all of this accutally happened.....but it would make a heck of a movie trilogy!

No, because then Hitler would be a good guy who was defending himself against being attacked, and what studio would put Hitler in as a good guy.

You're full of s**t.

Moderator Action: Alright, pls be more polite with your posts. Warned. - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Who, me?

I agree with portions of what MattE has posted here. 1000000 Paratroopers seems high but the Soviets did have at least 100000 of them and a standing army of around 5 million or something similar. They also did develop airborne and amphibious tanks.

I also think Stalin would have come west eventually- maybe not in 41 but probably not to far off that date. I think MattE is to optimistic about the Soviet offensive capabilities here though. They lost alot of troops vs Finland although the Finns had terrain, weather and skill on their side. Vs the Germans even with surprise on their side I doubt the plan would have gone as well as MattE lays it out. Looked great on paper not so great in reality.

I'm not a Nazi revionist but Hitler probably did save Europe from Stalin but that was a side product of his aggressive war for space and resources. The USSR was kaput at wars end and the allies had the A-Bomb.

I alsohaven't read anything about the Germans capturing maps of Germany/Romania in 41 or of any captured red envelops containing orders to attack Germany. I think the threat was there but perhaps not as dramatic as MattE's conclusions.

What is worth remembering is that Joe Stalin was called the red Tsar. The Soviet Union that he became General Secretary of was smaller than the old feudalistic Romanov's Tsar's Russian empire. I think Stalin rather looked for opportunities to regain bits lost.

When Germany invaded Poland. Stalin jumped in and grabbed the eastern third. I think that he saw similar things from Germany as likely to happen elsewhere and had told the the Russian army to adopt an offensive capability and plans, so that he could seize for example Eastern Yugoslavia if Hitler seized the Western part.

He probably reckoned that this would ultimately result in war with Germany, but he decided that if there was going to be a war with Germany anyway (I think it is safe to assume that the KGB had read Meine Kampe and therefore knew that Hitler aspired to have his empire in Western Russia); it would be better for Russia if the war was fought in Finland, Poland, Roumania, Yugoslavia than in Russia proper. This is supported by Stalin's demands for land concessions and miltary bases from Finland before the 1940 Finnish-Sovier war.

However his officer corps tried to organise a coup d'etat against him, and the Germans were far too quick for him, they defeated France in 1940 (I suspect that Stalin thought that the French would hold for a year or two) and the Germans then seized Yugoslavia and Greece even more rapidly while Stalin was still busy purging his officer corps.

And by the way, preparation for war does not mean a preference for war. It is important to remember that the Soviets regarded the struggle for communism as being cultural, economic, ideological, political, social and scientific rather than military.

Their attempt to export communism to Poland in 1920 by military means had failed very badly. I think that Stalin was planning a limited offensive into non German territorites to secure ground for a forward defense in depth, while relying on activists to spread communism by indoctrination, organisation and propaganda and other non military means. I don't think that Stalin ever had any intention to militarily conquer Germany before Operation Barbarossa.

The soviet army might be committed to support a revolution, if that revolution was in jeopardy, but only after that revolution was already underway. I.e. He wanted the next Spanish civil war to be won by the communists because the soviet union, not Germany, could interene.

It is worth noting that for some countries divided between left and right parties, there were geographical complications for Stalin e.g. not necessarily having a land frontier, so maybe that is why he was planning to develope airborne troops to assist a revolution.

It is worth noting that for some countries divided between left and right parties, there were geographical complications for Stalin e.g. not necessarily having a land frontier, so maybe that is why he was planning to develope airborne troops to assist a revolution.

Click to expand...

That may be a reason. However, the usual reason given is that the Soviets prided themselves on embracing 'progressive' and new ideas. In the military sphere, this lead to the USSR being the first country to embrace the post-WW1 doctrines in a big way, resulting in the construction of huge fleets of tanks and aircraft organised into inovative and effective organisations long before the other major powers embraced these doctrines.

Paratroopers neatly fitted into the category of 'progressive' thinking, and the Soviet government made a big deal out of the possibilities of parachuting for both recreation and military reasons. Recreational parachuting became something of a fad, with the government widely publisising this as a means of showing off the advances it was supposedly delivering to ordinary workers.

I agree very strongly with EdwardTking's conclusions regarding the original topic.

There is no historical evidence that the USSR was going to attack Central and Western Europe.

Except in Hitler's propoganda world.

Originally posted by pomsa
No, because then Hitler would be a good guy who was defending himself against being attacked, and what studio would put Hitler in as a good guy.

Click to expand...

not really, i meant it in the post hitler years, in the 60s 70s or 80s

Originally posted by joespaniel
There is no historical evidence that the USSR was going to attack Central and Western Europe.

Except in Hitler's propoganda world.

Click to expand...

Not after they're "Finland" test that's fer sure.

Actually the internal coup and destablization was the marxist
method, it was working in, France, Italy, Germany and England
(not Britain) until the dictators arrived or war broke out.

Finland is a bit different, since it was part of the Russian Empire until after WWI. However, I can't defend the decision to make war on the Finns, nor the occupation of the Baltic States.

Stalin was a cold blooded black mailer to be sure, but he had no designs as described in this thread.

but he had no designs as described in this thread

Click to expand...

And of course you know being so close to Stalin - trying not to sound hostile while writing this.

Yes, it has been proven that he was a cold blooded black mailer. And what I say in this thread may not have been proven - But it has also not been disproven.

People straight away say no this is not true but how do we know? I'm not saying it is because I don't know either. I'm just asking you to keep an open mind.

I'm not a revisionist or trying to change history, I just want people to think that maybe this could've happened.




I'm gonna get blasted for this I know.

Originally posted by MattE

And of course you know being so close to Stalin - trying not to sound hostile while writing this.

Click to expand...

I've never made his aquaintance, however I do tend to pick up books when I'm not posting at CFC.

Originally posted by MattE
I'm not a revisionist or trying to change history, I just want people to think that maybe this could've happened.

I'm gonna get blasted for this I know.

Click to expand...

No, Too much chaos and too little educational/mechanical
knowhow in USSR to make it pausable, maybe that guy
who made Pearl Harbour would buy it, if you wrote a script.

I think WW2 saved Stalin's arse, without it the worsin' conditions
would have broken the state, like they did in the 1980s, WW2
prolonged it by 20 to 30 years IMHO.

It is common knowledge in Russia that Stalin DID plan for an invasion of Germany and it's allies, thus "liberating" Europe and bringing the revolution there. Soviet forces WERE arrayed in offensive position, otherwise Germans wouldn've advanced so far. Stalin planend to invade later then Hitler planned to, so it was just a matter of Hitler attacking first. If he was more bogged down, say, in France or in the Balkans, Soviets would easily have attacked his forces, and probably it would be nearly the same as the German invasion of USSR but backwards.

And Ozz, what broke up USSR was Gorbachev's program, not the worsening conditions. Not that I am saying this against Gorbachev and his program, rather for it. And there was quite enough educatinal and mechanical knowledge in USSR (though I am not sure what exactly do you mean by it influenting the possibility of an invasion. If you mean advanced technology, please, do look up Soviet tanks in early WWII), and Stalin's purges DID actually do one good thing - reduce chaos. The problem was rather in leadership.