Did Hitler save the West?

[Terxpahseyton]

Since some time the so-called "Icebreaker-Theory" has been around depicting Operation Barbarossa rather like a preemptive strike than an unprovoked attack. It is based on the assumption that the USSR was determined to attack Germany and conquer Europe - a war for which it supposedly had been heavily preparing before the surprise attack of Germany. As a conclusion it is also claimed that Hitler saw himself forced to carry out this attack in order to at least have a slight chance in fighting off the USSR. Saying it has been an preemptive strike
A longer description of the grounds for this evaluation can be found here.

This theory has been met with a lot of skepticism and the majority of historians found the evidence (which is not that unimpressive) insufficient.
I personally don't agree that Barbarossa can be characterized as a preemptive strike in general, as Germany had attacked with or without a Soviet thread arising. The rest of the theory is IMO interesting.

Now last year new inquiries seem to have substantiated the Icebreaker-Theory. Thus a "war of extermination" had been planned by the USSR since as early as 1930. The means to do so included according to the planning 50,000 tanks, 40,000 airplanes and chemical warfare agents.
Here can an article of the German newspaper "Die Welt" be found which explains the result of those inquiries more thoroughly. Sadly I have not found an English article so far.

So assuming this proves to be valid, could it be said that Hitler saved Europe from an Soviet invasion? He still was an insane bastard causing immense suffering, yet this is what seems true to me right now.

What are your thoughts?
Have you noticed those new insights? Do you recognize them?
Is it probably all just Western propaganda to make Russia/Communism look bad?
And would you favor an history without holocaust but with a Soviet invasion of Europe?

Discuss

 

[trader/warrior]

Uh, Didn't hitler talk about conquering russia and "lebensraum" way before the war in mein kampf etc.? Drang nach Osten?

And would you favor an history without holocaust but with a Soviet invasion of Europe?

How about a Hitler that doesn't start WWII and instead cooperates with the allies to defeat the red extermination army? Certainly, if I was the one who ruled Germany and had the info that would be what i would do. Not sure of wether the theory is Hitler knew about this threat before outbreak of war with the allies or after? But if it is after, it's already common knowlege that war was inevitable, extermination army or not, so I don't get it. No suprise that USSR prepares for war when Germany is going berzerker. And if Hitler knew before, pretty stupid to make yourself the bad guy and get yourself a bunch more enemies beforehand. "two front war always works, it's the only way to defeat the bolsheviks"

 

[Cutlass]

Or, a Germany that wanted to stop a Russian invasion of, say, Germany, could have met the Red Army head on in Poland instead of dividing up the nation with them and then sharing a border.

 

[Phrossack]

I can only understand a little of it, but does the article say why Stalin didn't attack?

 

[Serutan]

Because he knew he was screwed if he did. The Winter War showed how inept the
purges had made the Red Army command (in fact the purge didn't completely end until
just after the German invasion), and according to both David Glantz and John Ericson,
the 'reforms' of the Red Army started in 1940 were proceeding at a glacial pace.
So if he had attacked, IMO it would have been a laugher for the Germans. Think the
attempted 1942 Kharkov offensive on a much, much larger scale.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Mindless conspiracist ramblings.

 

[LightSpectra]

Seems like Hitler did the communists a favor by allowing them to rape and occupy everything up to the Iron Curtain without objection from the Western Allies, leaving most of the West too financially exhausted in order to drive the Soviets out.

The real man who saved the West was Józef Piłsudski.

 

[Shekwan]

What are your thoughts?
Bunk!
Have you noticed those new insights? Do you recognize them?
I was not aware of these new insights.
Is it probably all just Western propaganda to make Russia/Communism look bad?
Zheng Heism more likely.
And would you favor an history without holocaust but with a Soviet invasion of Europe?
Probably, because we'd still win, Israel would be less likely to exist, and a lot more Jews/Slavs/sundry would not have been killed.

 

[Verbose]

My thoughts?

That in 1941 the Soviet Union was clearly unprepared for war in the immediate future, and banking on the Nazis finding the M-R-pact useful for another couple of years. After which all bets might be off.

That certainly the Soviet Union was arming itself and building up its forces, and under Stalin at some point it would have thought it judicious to use them aggressively.

While at the same time all through the 1930's Stalin did in fact scale back on the whole World Revolution gambit, for fear of going off half-cocked and provoking responses that would lead to a defeat, actively reining in Communists in other parts of the world through the Komintern.

That the Soviet Union at some later point might have been contemplating military conquests I find entirely unsurprising. All manner plans for future conflicts are drawn up by armed forces, and I'd be more surprised if the Red Army of the 1930's hadn't crunched some numbers and made lists of requisite assets for a campaign to take the west.

 

[warpus]

The real man who saved the West was Józef Piłsudski.

Hear hear (although that WAS 20 years before all this)

 

[Glassfan]

It had always been a goal of international communism to spread across the world (Comintern), but the USSR was not prepared to do so through the use of military power in the 1940's. Germany's attack on the Soviet Union - requiring it to arm itself and counter-attack westwards accelerated the process and made Europe more vulnerable. I've never heard of this theory Sill mentions (but I'll look it up), but it would have to be heavily substantiated by evidence to overcome the wrong-headedness of it.

 

[Lord Baal]

Mindless conspiracist ramblings.

This.

The 'evidence' for this theory is very tenuous, based on the lack of evidence to the contrary rather than confirming evidence, and is basically no different than any other crackpot theory, such as that the lizard people secretly rule us. I think the people behind this theory have played a little too much Red Alert. It's a great game, but it isn't good basis for historical extrapolation, unless NOD is operating from the shadows and only these guys know it.

Now, it is true that one of the goals of international communism - and for all he strayed from Marx's ideology in practice, Stalin still supposedly believed in Communist theory - was a world revolution backed by arms, and as the world's sole Socialist state, the USSR would lead any such effort, including by outright military conquest. But there is no evidence to suggest that Stalin's efforts in Eastern Europe were anything but defensive, for all their barbarity, prior to WWII; he went out of his way to accommodate his neighbours, signing defensive treaties with several and non-aggression pacts with most, and purged the armed forces and civil service of threats to his power. He attempted first to align with the West, Poland and Czechoslovakia against Germany, and only joined forces with them when Poland and the West spurned his advances repeatedly.

After the war broke out, Stalin proved himself to be highly opportunistic. But that's not so different from what other world leaders would have done faced with a similar situation. Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman also used WWII to expand their spheres of influence, or at least made the attempt. Stalin was simply more successful and brutal.

There is no evidence to support this theory, and numerous evidence to the contrary. And none of the evidence SiLL provides is even new; I read all that stuff in one form or another years ago.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Uh, Didn't hitler talk about conquering russia and "lebensraum" way before the war in mein kampf etc.? Drang nach Osten?

Correct, which is why Barbarossa hardly can be called an preemptive strike. Also Germany was not aware of the Soviet power-buildup. However the question remains if Hitler unintentionally saved the West.

How about a Hitler that doesn't start WWII and instead cooperates with the allies to defeat the red extermination army? Certainly, if I was the one who ruled Germany and had the info that would be what i would do. Not sure of wether the theory is Hitler knew about this threat before outbreak of war with the allies or after?

They didn't. Roosevelt even greatly helped the USSR in their effort for armament since 1936. So this is hardly an option.

No suprise that USSR prepares for war when Germany is going berzerker. And if Hitler knew before, pretty stupid to make yourself the bad guy and get yourself a bunch more enemies beforehand. "two front war always works, it's the only way to defeat the bolsheviks"

The USSR had been preparing for a large-scale war well before WWII and Hitler playing mad. This is a fact proven by the sheer numbers. Also it is a fact that Stalin was certain Hitler would not attack and believed Hitlers talk about Lebensraum to be only a trick to fool France. True story.

Or, a Germany that wanted to stop a Russian invasion of, say, Germany, could have met the Red Army head on in Poland instead of dividing up the nation with them and then sharing a border.

And risking a two-front war? That this happened anyway does not negate the fact that Hitler wanted to avoid one really bad as he also wrote in Mein Kampf.

I can only understand a little of it, but does the article say why Stalin didn't attack?

Because Hitler attacked before Stalin felt ready. Time clearly was on the USSRs side. Firmly believing that Germany would never go against the USSR he also did not see any use or need for haste.

Because he knew he was screwed if he did. The Winter War showed how inept the
purges had made the Red Army command (in fact the purge didn't completely end until
just after the German invasion), and according to both David Glantz and John Ericson,
the 'reforms' of the Red Army started in 1940 were proceeding at a glacial pace.
So if he had attacked, IMO it would have been a laugher for the Germans. Think the
attempted 1942 Kharkov offensive on a much, much larger scale.

Not entirely true. The forces on the eastern front were according to the article prepared for an offensive war way better than a defensive one, which is also a fact as far as I know. In historic canon this is called offensive defensive or something. And don't make the same mistake as Germany by judging the Soviet war capability solely on the failures in Finland.

Seems like Hitler did the communists a favor by allowing them to rape and occupy everything up to the Iron Curtain without objection from the Western Allies, leaving most of the West too financially exhausted in order to drive the Soviets out.

True, as long as Germany did leave the USSR alone the war was exactly what Stalin wanted and as a matter of fact expected.
So assuming everything had stayed peacefully and nice while the USSR worked on its military world domination plain you think if the USSR eventually had attacked Europe/USA had beaten the crap out of it?

The real man who saved the West was Józef Piłsudski.

Who?

This.
But there is no evidence to suggest that Stalin's efforts in Eastern Europe were anything but defensive, for all their barbarity, prior to WWII; he went out of his way to accommodate his neighbours, signing defensive treaties with several and non-aggression pacts with most, and purged the armed forces and civil service of threats to his power. He attempted first to align with the West, Poland and Czechoslovakia against Germany, and only joined forces with them when Poland and the West spurned his advances repeatedly.

So Stalin annexed foreign countries and territories to defend against an enemy he evidently never thought would attack?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Who?

Polish dictator who entered in a conflict with the young Soviet state because he wanted to push Poland's borders further east and managed to stop Soviet counteroffensive.

 

[Yeekim]

What are your thoughts?
Have you noticed those new insights? Do you recognize them?
Is it probably all just Western propaganda to make Russia/Communism look bad?
And would you favor an history without holocaust but with a Soviet invasion of Europe?

Discuss

1) His most important thesis is almost certainly correct. He also makes some mistakes, for instance attributing initial success of Barbarossa to "offensive placement of Soviet forces", whereas the most decisive factor was probably their low morale and motivation at the start of war.
I suggest checking out http://www.solonin.org/en/books as another good source on topic.
2) I once made a thread on that same subject...
3) He is almost completely unpublished in English. And most widely known in places where noone ever needed to "make Communism look bad".
4) I can't even guess under which scenario would the casualties have been smaller (keep in mind that those who perished in holocaust were relatively small part of casualties), so I can't really answer that question.

 

[Cutlass]

And risking a two-front war? That this happened anyway does not negate the fact that Hitler wanted to avoid one really bad as he also wrote in Mein Kampf.

And yet he had a 2 front war. Because, you know, he started wars on 2 fronts.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

2) I once made a thread on that same subject...

Well plainly the Icebreaker theory itself does not convince me. Though having good points I can see why it is not accepted as conclusive. But new evidence found in old Soviet documents caught my interest. I read about them in an German popular science/history magazine and also found the linked "Welt" article. I hoped someone could come up with an English-speaking source referring to it, but it seems like the English-speaking wold preferred to not take notice so far.

3) He is almost completely unpublished in English. And most widely known in places where noone ever needed to "make Communism look bad".

Yeah, my question about the propaganda was more like a mock.

And yet he had a 2 front war. Because, you know, he started wars on 2 fronts.

Come on Cutlass, you can do better than that.
If it had nothing to do with avoiding two fronts why exactly do you think Hitler attacked the USSR not right away but waited until France was beaten and the UK proved to not be beaten anytime soon hm?

 

[Aquila SPQR]

...

And I thought that this nonsense about "Hitler saving the west" died with him in his bunker.

 

[Dragonlord]

Interesting article - but nothing really new.

I am convinced that the Soviet armies were indeed arrayed in an offensive posture on their border, rather than a defensive one. I am also convinced that Stalin would have used them to attack Western Europe at some point, but only at an opportune time and after the reorganisation after the purges and the modernization of the equipment had been completed - in other words, at some point, but not in 1941. Thus, Hitler's attack in 1941 was not preemptive - he wanted to achieve his goal of 'Lebensraum in the East' and saw the opportunity with the Russians unready.

I read Icebreaker and was impressed by the evidence for the basically offensive posture of the Soviet armies - but not so much by the rather flimsy evidence for Stalin's purported intentions for an imminent attack.

Basically, I think Stalin just screwed up - he arrayed his armies in an offensive posture so he could attack at a (later) time of his choosing w/o giving warning, but didn't reflect that this left them vulnerable to being attacked in their turn in the meantime... and then, of course, he gravely misjudged Hitler.

 

[Cutlass]

Come on Cutlass, you can do better than that.
If it had nothing to do with avoiding two fronts why exactly do you think Hitler attacked the USSR not right away but waited until France was beaten and the UK proved to not be beaten anytime soon hm?

+

Some people would recommend, you know, ending one war entirely, before choosing a second front.