Was the USSR set to attack Germany before Operation Barbarossa??

[76mm]

The quotes Suvorov provides regarding the fortification situation at the border in no way supports the assertion that the Stalin Line was, in a sense, being moved to the new frontier. Suvorov provides quote after quote from officers involved with minelaying, the creation of defensive lines and more, all of which contradict the assertion.

Here is a lengthy quote from the account of Vladimirsky, the deputy head of the operations section of the 5th Army, responsible for defending the Vladimir-Volynsk sector (published in 1989).

Vladimirsky notes that for some fortified zones the fortifications along the border were only intended as the "security zone" for the main defenses, which were intended to be 20-40 km from the border but on which work had only just begun by the time the war started (ie, site selection, etc.). In other fortified regions, the main defensive fortifications were directly on the border, and were only partially complete. Generally, important parts of the fortifications, including anti-tank obstacles, etc. were incomplete (25%).

I've provided the Russian text for those that which to avail themselves of Google translate, but in summary he says that the fortifications were far from complete, and were marked by several significant defects, but that they would have been of some assistance for defensive operations had the troops had time to occupy them before the war (which generally, they did not).

******************************

Приграничные укрепленные районы

В полосе 5-й армии вдоль государственной границы весны 1940 г. силами войск и двух военно-строительных отрядов осуществлялось строительство укрепленных [38] районов: Ковельского УРа № 9 — на участке (иск.) Влода-ва, Городло (7 км сев.-зап. Устилуга); Владимир-Волынского УРа № 2 — на участке (иск.) Городло, Скоморохи (5 км сев. Сокаля) и два северных узла обороны Струмиловского УРа № 4 — на участке (иск.) Скоморохи, Крыстынополь{26}.

Состояние и готовность указанных УРов к началу войны были следующими: в Ковельском УРе была основательно оборудована только полоса обеспечения (предполье), проходившая вдоль государственной границы и состоявшая из 14 батальонных районов и одного отдельного ротного опорного пункта{27}; к строительству долговременных сооружений главной полосы обороны этого УРа, намеченной по линии Дубечно, Крымно, Нудыжа, Згораны, Любомль, Пузув (20—40 км от границы), планировалось приступить в 1941 г., но до начала войны были проведены только рекогносцировка и определение мест установки дотов. Постоянный гарнизон Ковельского УРа состоял из двух пулеметных батальонов.

Во Владимир-Волынском УРе также была оборудована полоса обеспечения глубиной от 1 до 4 км, включавшая в себя десять батальонных районов полевого типа, построенных вдоль правого берега Буга. Готовность — 80—90 процентов.

Главная полоса обороны УРа была оборудована долговременными сооружениями только на 30 процентов. Из намеченных к строительству 7 узлов обороны с общим количеством 25 опорных пунктов к началу войны построили, и то не полностью, только 4 правофланговых узла обороны, в которых из 13 запланированных опорных пунктов было построено 8 опорных пунктов с общим количеством 97 долговременных сооружений, но были вооружены [39] и заняты гарнизонами только 61 дот{28}. Постоянный гарнизон Владимир-Волынского УРа состоял из четырех пулеметных батальонов и одного артиллерийского дивизиона капонирной артиллерии, которые с 5 июня 1941 г. занимали четыре правофланговых узла обороны.

В двух северных узлах обороны Струмиловского УРа, входивших в полосу 5-й армии, из девяти запланированных к постройке в них опорных пунктов было закончено строительство только пяти.

Постоянный гарнизон этих двух узлов обороны состоял из двух пулеметных батальонов, усиленных капонирной артиллерией.

Главная (долговременная) полоса обороны Владимир-Волынского и Струмиловского УРов создавалась на удалении 1—3 км от границы, а на отдельных участках примыкала к пей (в районе Михале, 4 км сев. Крылува, и на участке Потужицка Вулька, Крыстынополь), сливаясь с полосой обеспечения.

Основными недочетами в системе долговременной обороны приграничных УРов являлись: малая глубина обороны, включавшая в себя только одну полосу при отсутствии подготовленных рубежей в тылу; равномерное расположение оборонительных сооружений вдоль фронта без уплотнения их на наиболее важных направлениях; малочисленность постоянного гарнизона УРов, изолированность оборонительных сооружений, не связанных между собою ходами сообщения, что не обеспечивало взаимодействия и маневра подразделений в ходе боя; слабое развитие связи. План строительства наземных линий связи был выполнен всего на 32 процента, а подземных линий— только лишь на 13 процентов{29}; неудовлетворительная маскировка сооружений; слабое оборудование УРов в противотанковом отношении: план устройства противотанковых заграждений был выполнен на 25 процентов. Этот недостаток относился и к полосе обеспечения; между узлами обороны оставались широкие промежутки, не заполненные дотами и не занятые войсками.

Вследствие этих недочетов долговременные сооружения приграничных УРов вместе с их гарнизонами могли рассматриваться лишь как некоторое дополнение и усиление системы полевой обороны. [40]

В целом же вся система приграничных оборонительных сооружений, включая оборудованную на 80—90 процентов полосу обеспечения и недостроенную главную полосу УРов, несмотря на все недостатки, представляла собою довольно развитую инженерную основу для ведения упорной обороны войсками дивизий первого эшелона армии, но при условии своевременного занятия ими подготовленных сооружений.

*************

In addition to Vladimirsky's account, Isaev's Antisuvorov has an entire chapter on the topic of border fortifications. He points out (as I have already done), that there was no need to dismantle fortifications in the event of an attack, and indeed the fortifications were not dismantled (as detailed in post-Barbarossa German reports).

But, according to the official Soviet account,

The armies . . . were to deploy directly along the state frontier ... in spite of the fact that its geographical outline was entirely disadvantageous to defence..."The fortified regions of the Molotov Line were built right up against the frontier. They were not protected by a security zone, and in the event of a surprise attack the garrisons would no longer have time to occupy their combat installations and bring their weaponry to full readiness. Unlike those along the Stalin Line, the fortified regions of the Molotov Line were not very deep. Everything which could have been built on the frontier itself, was in fact built there. Defence positions were not built in the rear, nor was it ever planned to build any. (Lieutenant-General V. F. Zotov, Na Severo-Zapadnom Fronte, Moscow Nauka 1969, p. 175)"

The fortifications were not sited on positions which would favour defence, but followed every bend and twist of the state frontier. The new combat installations were not protected by barbed wire, mines, ditches, stakes, hedgehog entanglements or anti-tank tetrahedrons, nor were any engineered defences erected in the area of construction. Neither were the new installations camouflaged. For example, in the fortified region of Vladimir-Volynsk, 'out of 97 combat installations, 5-7 were covered with earth, while the remainder were virtually decamouflaged'. (VIZH 1976, No. 5, p. 91)"

It is difficult to argue that the Soviet forces on the frontier were well deployed, but it is relevant to note that

(i) generally the positions right on the border were occupied by border guards, not the army--and where else should border guards be but on the border?

(ii) part of the reason for the fortifications following "every bend and twist" of the border was that many of them were constructed on twisty-turny rivers constituting the border;

(iii) As to the lack of mines, camouflage, obstacles, etc., the fortifcations were work in progress and these steps had not yet been completed;

(iv) at least in the Kiev Military District, the main defensive line was to be built 20-40 km from the border.

Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Kulik, who had secretly arrived in Byelorussia, discussed the situation with Colonel Starinov. 'Let's have mine-detectors, sappers and trawl equipment!' he demanded (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 179)

I had hoped to track down the context of this quote, but unfortunately don't have the time to do so. I will note, however, that Kulik might have been the biggest buffoon in the pre-war Soviet Army (no mean feat!), and that many of this other pronouncements about tanks, etc. are so off-base that they are laugh-out-loud funny. In one example, in a Kremlin meeting after the wargames in January 1941 (ahem, after two German blitzkrieg campaigns), Kulik still argued that deploying tanks was a mistake, and that the future was with horse-drawn guns. So it is difficult to accept him as a credible source about anything.

What I've presented is by no means the full array of intelligence indicators pointing, not to the creation of strong, combat stable defenses, but of assembly areas and jumping off positions for a massive attack against Germany.

I'm not sure why you find it so hard to accept that that failure to create "strong, combat stable defenses" is not the same thing as planning to launch a pre-emptive offensive? Since the French and Polish also failed to establish "strong, combat stable defenses" I guess they were planning to attack Germany as well?

[dsf]

...What you have to understand about the Soviet occupation of the Kresy is that it involved...

6) A two year reconstruction of the railways costing 3 times the budget allocated for investment in the railways of the entire Soviet Union over 5 years...

This was clearly a huge project that only started in the Spring of 1941.

It's worth noting that the principal contractor for the Soviet government was the NKVD. They would be doing the construction work, at the same time (!) as they were building new fortifications along the Molotov Line, building new airfields (complete with dispersal points, fuel bunkers, ammunition bunkers, AA emplacements, control towers, barracks, etc.), repairing bridges and roads, etc. The NKVD wore many hats. They were also the government's landlords, they formed the Customs and Border Guards, there were NKVD regiments and battalions that fought alongside regular Red Army troops, and of course ran the intelligence agencies, prisons, and death squads.

That said, the NKVD, despite its reputation, was just like every other part of the Soviet bureaucracy — very slow, complex, tedious, woefully inefficient, compounded by overlapping jurisdictions and jurisdictional rivalries. The construction work was hampered by lack of supplies, equipment and manpower, irrational planning, contradictory orders, lengthy delays, and so on, so typical of the whole schmozzle. It's not a coincidence that the construction work along the western frontier was many months behind schedule in June 1941.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[76mm]

I meant to raise a few other points from Vladimirky's account:

1) He says that most bridges on the border weren't mined because the border was the NKVD's responsibility, and they wouldn't let the army mine them.

2) While there was a plan for mining other bridges, away from the border, the demolition charges were stored in central locations--not pre-emplaced on the bridges--and in the chaos of the invasion most of the demo charges were never placed.

3) A key defect of Soviet defensive planning was that all plans were timed not to the beginning of war itself, but from the order to move to war footing. Soviet units anticipated that they'd be ordered to war footing at least a few days before the beginning of hostilities, and chaos resulted when this didn't happen. Troops could not occupy their defensive positions, bridges not mined, etc. To make things worse, the Sovs only had one defensive plan--defend on the border after proper mobilization--and did not have any contingencies to deal with the surprise attack which actually occurred.

[poesel]

...

German soldiers even called each other 'Kameraden' or Comrade.

...

Please note that the German word 'Kamerad' doesn't have the communist connection the English 'comrade' has. The German equivalent would be 'Genosse'.

I'm no linguist but I guess 'Kamerad' is much older than communism. Likely it stems from Latin 'camera' = room in the sense that these people lived together in one room as soldiers did.

[Haggard Sketchy]

6. Control over all forms of domestic communication to the extent technically possible. Normal practice is to use this control to distort peoples' view of their state and the world around them. i.e. propaganda/brainwashing.

For example, under such a propaganda system, the dominant ideology would be described in nice terms such as "democratic" and "free market". Any opposition would be demonized under a convenient umbrella term...like say, "totalitarian" or "extremist".

"The list goes on and on" because your points are all redundant phrasings of "state uses force" which describes every existing social system ever. Anyone can play that game:

Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and uneven combat – of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.

I mean, that other guy even brought up "they both have red flags" lol. These are the graspiest straws in all of Strawsville. And no communist would condone any of the ones you listed, whereas fascism is explicitly in favor of them. Not exactly two sides of the same coin there.

The similarity between Communism and Fascism is underscored by Russia's continued official honoring of its Soviet past. Soviet flags and symbols are still very much a part of the modern Russian state. You don't see that sort of official encouragement of ties to the past in the ex-Warsaw Pact and Baltic countries. You're also seeing the open rejection of it in Ukraine now with the dozens of destroyed Lenin statues. Which, BTW, Russians view with a degree of horror.

Yeah, still-commie/nazi/fascist Russia versus totally non-fascist ex-Warsaw Pact countries. I guess the lionizing of Bandera counts for nothing. Man, Marx wasn't kidding about that spectre, was he? Reds everywhere!

[Sailor Malan2]

:

... And no communist would condone any of the ones you listed, whereas fascism is explicitly in favor of them. Not exactly two sides of the same coin there....

There is an implicit point in discussing Soviet vs German 1930's systems. This is that the term 'communism' applies to the political system then present in the USSR, not the idealistic 'true communism' of Marx et al. Thus, points like the above, whilst true, are a red herring.

For what it is worth, no one has yet actually tried communism, so we don't know how it would work. I have my suspicion...!

The closest I can think of is an ant colony. As someone once said 'communism; right idea, wrong species'!

[altipueri]

Good thread guys. It's kept me reading. Lots of stuff I didn't know.

[Battlefront.com]

For example, under such a propaganda system, the dominant ideology would be described in nice terms such as "democratic" and "free market". Any opposition would be demonized under a convenient umbrella term...like say, "totalitarian" or "extremist".

"The list goes on and on" because your points are all redundant phrasings of "state uses force" which describes every existing social system ever. Anyone can play that game:

Only if you cherry pick over the list and forget about emphasis within state policy. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union murdered millions of their own people without any influence from abroad. This sets them apart from other nations who use force against their own people, such as the United States during the McCarthy era.

I mean, that other guy even brought up "they both have red flags" lol. These are the graspiest straws in all of Strawsville.

Hardly. It comes from a deep understanding of the two systems of government as practiced. The similarities between the two systems are far more than their differences. Obviously each would vehemently denny this, of course. And if I lived in either system I would be thrown in jail (or likely worse) for merely suggesting such a comparison. Which partially proves my point

And no communist would condone any of the ones you listed, whereas fascism is explicitly in favor of them. Not exactly two sides of the same coin there.

Huh? I'm not sure what your point is, but the Gulags in the Soviet Union were certainly not holiday resorts. Plus, why bother moving a couple million people out of Ukraine to kill them when you can instead starve them to death in place.

So what specifically did I list that Communist governments (Soviet Union in particular, but any one will do) would not "condone"? I'm curious because I based my list on what Communist governments have actually done, not what I imagine they have done.

Yeah, still-commie/nazi/fascist Russia versus totally non-fascist ex-Warsaw Pact countries. I guess the lionizing of Bandera counts for nothing. Man, Marx wasn't kidding about that spectre, was he? Reds everywhere!

Modern Russia is governed by an every increasingly repressive Fascist government. Some have subcategorized it as a "Kleptocracy", which I think is kinda redundant because Fascist (and Communist) forms of government inherently have a major component of self enrichment.

As for former Warsaw Pact countries... they might still have a ways to go to improve themselves politically, but their transformation over the last 25 years is one of the most stunning peaceful political transformations in history. 50 years of ruthless repression after hundreds of years of autocratic rule is a tough thing to overcome. No country within Russia's sphere of influence has made a similar transformation without warfare (Georgia and Ukraine in particular).

But I get your point. You have a particularly strange perspective and understanding of history and it has caused you some mental discomfort to see what I wrote. Which has caused you to respond with a snarky and empty response because that's all you are capable of mustering.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There is an implicit point in discussing Soviet vs German 1930's systems. This is that the term 'communism' applies to the political system then present in the USSR, not the idealistic 'true communism' of Marx et al. Thus, points like the above, whilst true, are a red herring.

More than that, it is either a deliberate attempt to rewrite history or a position of severe ignorance.

I wonder what Haggard Sketchy would make of the fact that the early forms of the NSDP had a political platform barely different than that of the Communists they later went on to attack. Or why many members of the NSDP were former members of various left wing and Communist political groups and then, once again, ardent Communists after the collapse of the Nazi state. It's easy to flip-flop between two ways of being that aren't really all that different from one another.

For what it is worth, no one has yet actually tried communism, so we don't know how it would work. I have my suspicion...!

Communism is an ideal state of being and ideal states tend to be unobtainable. Partly because there is no consensus that it is, in fact, ideal. Fascism also is an ideal state of being and it too has always failed to live up to its stated goals. Once again partly because there is no consensus that it is ideal.

The closest I can think of is an ant colony. As someone once said 'communism; right idea, wrong species'!

Yup, I'd go along with that.

Steve

[sburke]

Yup, I'd go along with that.

Steve

I wouldn't, but that is only because I have to hope and dream that humanity is capable of more than it has done so far. Granted it will take two things. The ability to lift all of humanity out of poverty - out of a subsistence lifestyle, and a fundamental change in perspective where our pursuit of our ambitions are a bit more selfless.

Yes I know, I am a total dreamer, but it is just my nature to feel that humanity is capable of more. We have progressed, why can't we continue that? We just need to speed it up a bit before we destroy our home.

[womble]

Communism is an ideal state of being and ideal states tend to be unobtainable. Partly because there is no consensus that it is, in fact, ideal. Fascism also is an ideal state of being and it too has always failed to live up to its stated goals. Once again partly because there is no consensus that it is ideal.

The same can be said about Democracy and Capitalism as practised to date.

[altipueri]

Well I just Googled "Did Stalin plan to attack Hitler" and got a whole stack of links including a review of Murphy's book on the CIA website.

I think it a pity that of the wartime leaders only Churchill wrote memoirs and those were pre disclosure of Enigma and so were a bit evasive on some issues.

What would the Battlefront guys be doing for a living if there were no WW2.

[Baneman]

...

What would the Battlefront guys be doing for a living if there were no WW2.

Ah, this one I can answer - creating and supporting the "Space Lobsters of DOOM" game, obviously !

This plainly shows that it's Hitler's fault we don't have a "Space Lobsters of Doom" game !

[Erwin]

Cm: Zombie/(ebola) Apocalypse

[Michael Emrys]

Communism is an ideal state of being and ideal states tend to be unobtainable. Partly because there is no consensus that it is, in fact, ideal. Fascism also is an ideal state of being and it too has always failed to live up to its stated goals. Once again partly because there is no consensus that it is ideal.

Reminds me of something I wrote about 25 years ago, which was that just about any political ideology could be made to work if we were perfect human beings who always acted wisely and humanely. Unfortunately we are not, and all ideologies I have seen thus far stumble over that fact. Some sooner some later, but all at some time or other.

Michael

[DMS]

Plus, why bother moving a couple million people out of Ukraine to kill them when you can instead starve them to

Lol, that "Ukraine" became Ukraine in beginning of 1920's. Evil anti-ukrainian regime gave to Ukrainian republic historically Russian regions. And forced learning Ukrainian language in schools. Oh, they also starved people in 100% Russian Volga region just to confuse future researchers.

[Battlefront.com]

Lol, that "Ukraine" became Ukraine in beginning of 1920's. Evil anti-ukrainian regime gave to Ukrainian republic historically Russian regions. And forced learning Ukrainian language in schools. Oh, they also starved people in 100% Russian Volga region just to confuse future researchers.

And what does this have to do with the 2-4 million Ukrainians that were deliberately starved to death by Stalin? Or are you saying that because they were able to teach Ukrainian in schools that was an acceptable price to pay for millions dead?

Bah, why bother. I've debated more than one Soviet apologist and it never ends well. The Soviet Union was in the top 5 most murderous and repressive regimes in the 20th Century. Depending on how you define it, the worst (even more than Nazi Germany). Though I would put Pol Pot's Communist Cambodia near the top of the list as well.

Steve

[Sailor Malan2]

Reminds me of something I wrote about 25 years ago, which was that just about any political ideology could be made to work if we were perfect human beings who always acted wisely and humanely. Unfortunately we are not, and all ideologies I have seen thus far stumble over that fact. Some sooner some later, but all at some time or other.

Michael

If humans were all perfect, wise and humane, you wouldn't need a political ideology... people would just be nice and get along!

Of course, you would also not have most forms of progress, as almost every step forwards involves someone somewhere trying to better themselves rather than all of humanity. Whether it is a parent scrimping and saving to give their child an education or a ticket to the West, or working long hours in an office to afford the expensive life style... you wont see the same behaviours to enable them to buy the whole village a well, or give everyone a day at the beach.

However, back on topic - If Russia was planning an assault on Germany anytime sooner than 1943 then they were even more incompetent and clueless than the Nazis. I mean, if you wanted to make sure Germany lost the (probably inevitable) war that Hitler was bound to provoke at some point, what better way then start it 3 years earlier than the earliest plan, with an economy not geared for total war, hopelessly too few U boats, and then go from a situation where you are shocked at how fast France is defeated to assuming you will be home from Russia before the weather gets more than a little crisp in the mornings!

At least Stalin learned not to interfere, one thing that Herr Schicklgruber never did...

[Cuirassier]

Reminds me of something I wrote about 25 years ago, which was that just about any political ideology could be made to work if we were perfect human beings who always acted wisely and humanely. Unfortunately we are not, and all ideologies I have seen thus far stumble over that fact. Some sooner some later, but all at some time or other.

Michael

I don't think so. Some ideologies are just intentionally nasty. If everyone was humane, moral, wise, etc., there would be a whole stinking pile of ideologies that wouldn't exist. Hitler wasn't trying to be a boy scout...

[DMS]

And what does this have to do with the 2-4 million Ukrainians that were deliberately starved to death by Stalin? Or are you saying that because they were able to teach Ukrainian in schools that was an acceptable price to pay for millions dead?

Bah, why bother. I've debated more than one Soviet apologist and it never ends well. The Soviet Union was in the top 5 most murderous and repressive regimes in the 20th Century. Depending on how you define it, the worst (even more than Nazi Germany). Though I would put Pol Pot's Communist Cambodia near the top of the list as well.

Steve

Most of them would be surprised, if you say them that they are ukrainians. By the way, did U.S. goverment starve to death people in 1929-1933?

It is very well, but you tell it to person, who lives there. ) I know sources, from which Western people know about "brutal regime", Soljenicin, Saharov, other dissidents, they are misinformed in best case, lied for getting citizenship in worst case. "50 millions of Stalin's victims" © Soljenicin is a kind of anecdote in Russia, 50 millions is more than adult male population in USSR. Real number of executed is 700 thousands for 30 years, in my opinion fabricating fantastical numbers for political purpose is worst form of disrespect to the dead.

[sburke]

Most of them would be surprised, if you say them that they are ukrainians. By the way, did U.S. goverment starve to death people in 1929-1933?

What?! As matter of state policy absolutely not, where the hell did that red herring come from?

[76mm]

...Soljenicin, Saharov, other dissidents, they are misinformed in best case, lied for getting citizenship in worst case...

:confused::confused:

[fatehunter]

As a merchant mariner I worked with officers from the eastern block from 1996 to 2003 in Europe. Most (not all, especially Russians living in Ukraine) from the former soviet states (Poles, Ukrainians, Rumanians) were aware that their education in history was very different than what their eyes told them when they saw the rest of the world. They tended to be very reflective with politics and history and tried to learn as much as they could, even if they did not agree. In my experience, however, a least half of the ones from Russia stuck to the line that USA bad, USSR good. It was an interesting to see how effective education of a people really is.

Mariners have always seen the dirty underbelly of the world. They are not tourists, but get to see all the ****ty ports, and deal with the cultures from a business perspective. Hence the reason why I may think of the Netherlands very differently than one who visits the Museums and tulip fields.

[Battlefront.com]

Most of them would be surprised, if you say them that they are ukrainians. By the way, did U.S. goverment starve to death people in 1929-1933?

It is very well, but you tell it to person, who lives there. ) I know sources, from which Western people know about "brutal regime", Soljenicin, Saharov, other dissidents, they are misinformed in best case, lied for getting citizenship in worst case. "50 millions of Stalin's victims" © Soljenicin is a kind of anecdote in Russia, 50 millions is more than adult male population in USSR. Real number of executed is 700 thousands for 30 years, in my opinion fabricating fantastical numbers for political purpose is worst form of disrespect to the dead.

Your insightful and detailed posts have convinced me that all 25 years of studying the Soviet Union was a waste of my time. I apparently don't know anything and that means the degree in History I have is worthless. Thanks to you I now know that the Soviet Union was a wonderful place to live in and the millions of people who fled from the Soviet Union to the United states are all liars. My mistake!

That's great info to know!

But I wonder why so many countries that used to be part of the beautiful, loving Soviet Union were so happy to break from it in 1989/1990. And why few of them are in fear of Russia taking over their territory again. I guess it's just one big misunderstanding by the people that lived through the Soviet era?

Steve

[sburke]

Nah they are just pissed the wall came down. It was such a nice facility for racquetball and ever since then the eastern bloc states have suffered in international competition due to the loss of such a wonderful practice facility.