Could Russia have won in 1941?

[Sergei]

Fantasy time, again. Your assessments are welcomed.

What was Red Army's operational capability in spring 1941?

How strong defences did Germany have in Poland at the time?

If Stalin hadn't been such a pussy and peacenik and instead opted out for a preemptive regime change in Germany while Hitler was fighting in the Balkans, what chances could the Red Army of the time have had to win before Germany could have turned her attention to north? Supposing that the Soviet offensive came before Greece had been conquered.

Is there any knowledge of German contingency plan for such a scenario?

And what would have been the likely position of Britain, USA et al? USSR wouldn't have fallen victim to an unprovoked aggression but instead would have done so herself, so is it possible that even those in Britain lobbying for an alliance with Stalin would have been able to gain a majority backing?

[Sergei]

Oh, and has anyone thought of making scenarios of the hypothetical situation where in June 1941 it's the Soviets attacking in force against unprepared Germans?

[Grisha]

Sergei,

The Red Army in 1941 was mainly a shell when it came to operational capability. Nearly all the work done by Soviet military theorists in the 1920s and 1930s was considered taboo from 1937, on. Those military officers who had any education from those times (and were alive and not imprisoned) had to tread very lightly when considering disseminating any of that knowledge to the younger officers.

Also, the Red Army was in the middle of a structural change which had stopped in 1937, then restarted partially in 1940. A massive mechanization program was underway that still had a ways to go - likely at least until 1942 before quotas could even begin to be satisfied.

So, to answer your question, Red Army operational capability was at its nadir in spring 1941.

[Sergei]

So would you think that any Soviet offensive would have bogged simply because of operational inability even before meeting any serious resistance?

In 1938 Zhukov beat the Japanese, so I suppose the army was able of doing something. In 1939-40 it ran into serious trouble in Finland, partly because of the terrain and then the weather. Yet it was able to press on despite early setbacks and by March 13th reach city of Viipuri after a change in tactics. So I suppose it could have been worse, but we have to remember that Finland had hardly any AT guns, no ATR's and only a handful of obsolete tanks. Artillery suffered from a severe lack of ammunition. Attacking Germany, even if she has concentrated her best divisions to south, would have been a very different game, despite that Poland is more favourable country for attacker than Finland, and there was less snow.

So I agree that it would not have been any easy job. Not possible, more likely. Especially when attacking Germany would have required much more forces than battling the Japanese or the Finns. There was a lack of competent leaders, as you said.

As such, would a mobilization remained unnoticed from Germans at the time? Probably not, as Germans were conducting intelligence for Barbarossa. But Red Army was deployed in attack formation already, so it might have been hard to tell if an actual attack was coming or not.

Another issue is would USSR have suffered more than it did in Barbarossa. I would say, no, because at least then the Red Army wouldn't have been surprised and so many aircraft bombed to the airfields. What would have followed as soon as Germany got into counter-attack gear, would then IMHO have stopped much more to the west than it historically did in winter of 1941.

[ May 14, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Slappy]

I just don't buy it. If you can't handle your supply communication and coordination issues on the defensive, you'll have no chance on the offensive. Supply lines lengthening rather than shortening, greater materiel loss on the attack and far more complex maneuver requirements would have eaten them up. I'll give you the element of surprise, but I think that only buys you about 100km at best. After that, it's a rout.

[Sergei]

But they would have been better prepared than at the beginning of Barbarossa, no? And they would have had air cover. So I don't think you should look at what the supply situation of a surprised Red Army was.

[With Clusters]

Of course, in such a 'what if?', you'd probably have to factor in 'justifications' and 'morality'. In WWII, the Russians fought hard because their Motherland was being invaded. Would they have fought as hard if it was their own crappy dictator who'd started the war? Some things go beyond mere 'numbers' and such...

[Andreas]

I don't think the Red Army would have stood a chance. The Wehrmacht would have taken them to the cleaners, on the defense and with shortened and working supply lines even more so then on the offense.

You are talking about the Wehrmacht at the apex of its capabilities here, even in Spring.

[MikeyD]

Assuming there were sufficient survivng Soviet officers worth their salt at the time, a Soviet invasion through Poland into Germany would've probably gone the same as a German invasion into Russia. Germany would first have to absord the body blow, recoil into their heartland, and allow the Russians to exhaust themselves in the initial push. Winter 1941 you'd be looking at Germany sitting on its supply bases and Russia having to transport supplies huge distances over their own frozen steppes. Sound familiar?

An interesting comparison would be the relative 'revolutionary zeal' of both sides. The Soviet forces wouldn't just be doing the will of the dictator Stalin, they'd be freeing their proletariate brothers from the yoke of fascist capitalist oppression, and just a few years after WWI and the Great Depression they'd have a fair number of fellow travelers waiting to welcome them with open arms!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Winter 1941 you'd be looking at Germany sitting on its supply bases and Russia having to transport supplies huge distances over their own frozen steppes. Sound familiar?

Actually Russia would have benefited more than that, because she could have used intact rail lines to haul supplies through those steppes. Not through Poland until the railroads were fixed and converted, but I believe the road network there might have been slightly better... this could well be a false belief, however. Anyway, Berlin is closer to the start line than Moscow. The advancing Red Army would have disrupted German industries in the area of present-day Poland. Meanwhile Soviet industries wouldn't have required evacuation at least yet, so there wouldn't be breaks in production. That too is a factor to consider, a factor that favours the attacker.

An interesting comparison would be the relative 'revolutionary zeal' of both sides. The Soviet forces wouldn't just be doing the will of the dictator Stalin, they'd be freeing their proletariate brothers from the yoke of fascist capitalist oppression, and just a few years after WWI and the Great Depression they'd have a fair number of fellow travelers waiting to welcome them with open arms!

Yes, that worked remarkably well when creating the Socialist Republic of Finland! But it is possible that the Poles would have risen against the Nazi occupators when Soviets came closer. Hmm, this sounds familiar as well...

[Grisha]

Sergei,

To answer your third post, yes, I believe Red Army operational capability was so poor in spring 1941, that they would've bogged down even before meeting serious German resistance.

Another thing to consider that Andreas points out is the Wehrmacht was at the peak of its abilities at that time. What is instructive is the Wehrmacht was built upon the Reichswehr, led by von Seeckt. Because of the restrictions of Versailles the post-WWI Germans had to come up with a doctrine that could diminish these limitations, primarily from a defensive perspective. The German military was built upon a doctrine that emphasized intelligent, timely, and decisive reaction with a mechanized, combined-arms force. Many may think the Germans had a nasty left hook, but where they really laid into you was with their counter-punching.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Sergei,

To answer your third post, yes, I believe Red Army operational capability was so poor in spring 1941, that they would've bogged down even before meeting serious German resistance.

Another thing to consider that Andreas points out is the Wehrmacht was at the peak of its abilities at that time. What is instructive is the Wehrmacht was built upon the Reichswehr, led by von Seeckt. Because of the restrictions of Versailles the post-WWI Germans had to come up with a doctrine that could diminish these limitations, primarily from a defensive perspective. The German military was built upon a doctrine that emphasized intelligent, timely, and decisive reaction with a mechanized, combined-arms force. Many may think the Germans had a nasty left hook, but where they really laid into you was with their counter-punching.

Yah, that pretty much says it.

In Spring '41 the Wehrmacht was at it's peak, while the Red Army was a hollow shell.

A Soviet invasion of Germany would have been a disaster --- for the Soviets!

[Big Jim]

Hitler might even have approved as the Germans were already preparing for Barbarossa, so they could have let the Russians come at them (Battle of Masurian Lakes and Tannenburg 1914 style) and then wiped the floor with their army (1941 style).

I think the greatest difference would be political- would Britain and the USA condone an 'unprovoked' attack? This may have had an effect in that even if Russia then still won against Germany, the Anglo-American armies might have then clashed with the Red Army...

[Sergei]

But the question remains - would that have been worse for the Soviets than the outcome of Barbarossa, or better? Or would it have mattered... as I guess it comes down to that if the attacker is unable to act, he gets cut down like Graziani in 1940. But at least one thing can be said - Luftwaffe wouldn't have dominated the skies in the central fronts. While much of what was lost in the surprise attacks on airfields may have been in as bad shape as Red Army in general, I think it would have hampered one basic element of Blitzkrieg.

[Big Jim]

I see your point- being fully prepared rather than being caught with the proverbial trousers down would definitely make a difference initially.

No enforced relocation of industry would also matter- but I remember a thread a while back about Germany winning alone: the German economy reached its peak in 1944, when the Soviets were knocking at the door of the Reich. Surely a Soviet invasion would have kick-started the Germans into 'Totale Krieg' from the get go, and combined with a highly professional army which hadn't gone through 3 years of war already in the depths of Russia might have actually led to a German victory- or a negotiated settlement reminiscent of Brest-Litovsk imposed on the Bolsheviks in 1917.

The French air force and RAF didn't make that much of a difference in 1940 either, and although airpower was central to the concept of Blitzkrieg, I don't think it would make a huge difference. It would depend on how good the Soviet pilots were, and they were nowhere near as experienced as the Luftwaffe.

No, the more I think about it, the more I think it would have been an utter disaster for the Red Army to attack in spring 1941.

[Grisha]

Sergei,

One other comment that seems to not be impressed these days is just how ungodly fast the Germans operated at any branch of military art. For the time, nobody deployed, then moved as fast as they did. There simply was no precedent historically given the sheer size of combat formations (million-man armies). While the Soviets had delved deeply into the theory of deep and successive operations in the 1920s and 1930s, their practical understanding of what was truly possible had some catching up to do.

Had the Soviets conducted an offensive through Poland into Prussia/Germany, they would've been toast. Moreso than what actually happened because of the greater complexity of offensive operations, and the extension of their supply lines over a railway of different gauge.

[White Phosphorus]

It wouldn't have won, but it would be definitely better off than it was defending. They'd get to keep their industries intact which could result in a different weapons mix than they originally had. T-34Ms, T-50s, Tu-2s very nasty. And I don't think that their equipment losses could get any worse than they were in the defensive battles, when there was no transport or gas and whatever wasn't destroyed fell into the enemy hands. Stuff would at least be breaking down on friendly territory.

[Big Jim]

If Russia had had a good solid defence, which had been deployed in depth and ready for counterattacks, then I think Russia could have (pretty much) won in 1941.

If the Germans had blunted their armoured pincers by attack solid defensive positions, and then been counterattacked by Soviet armoured forces things would have been very hairy for Germany- maybe by 1942 victory could have been Soviet.

However, this idea relies on a lot of 'what if's', namely-

1. Stalin paranoid about Hitler, not his own people, instead of vice versa.

2. No purges.

3. A level of operational art which was only fully achieved after the Germans had made them learn after kicking the living daylights out of them for two years.

With probably a few more thrown in for good measure...

[Big Jim]

With a similar number of 'what if's', Germany could have won the war by 1942 though.

[Woodey]

Leadership would still be the defining deficit of the early Soviet Army. Terrible leadership while on the defensive is, well, terrible. Terrible leadership on the attack would have been catastrophic. Imagine human wave attacks and their armor equivalents along the entire front for a month.

The German army was gutted by Operation Barbarossa. In 1942 they were only able to conduct a major offensive action on one front instead of three because of the first year’s losses. On defense they would have exacted very heavy casualties from the Soviets and reduced their own losses by hundreds of thousands.

The surprise losses the Soviets actually had in their air force and tank arms would have not happened but most of these machines were antiquated and possible a majority not even working. The Luftwaffe was not the force it had been before the Battle of Brittan because of the pilot losses but would still have wiped the Soviets from the sky.

I would envision the Russians advancing 75 to 100 km and then being hurled back that far and another 100 km beyond The Russians would have lost huge numbers of soldiers although maybe less than the real 1941. The German’s casualties would have been about half of what they had in the real Barbarossa. The next year would have told the story. Soviet production would not have suffered from the initial overrunning or forced evacuation of some of their industrial areas. The Germans would have ramped up their own production instead of the reduction that actually occurred. Germany’s supply problems would have been only a fraction of what they had really suffered at the beginning of 1942 with their now current proximity to Germany.

I don’t think the German’s could have taken Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad. The German’s problem with supplying there armies would not have improved over their historical capabilities. The offensive would have ground to a halt

I would think that after a devastating advance by the Germans in 1942 the Soviets might be ready for an armistice. Russian casualties might be half a million to a million higher than what was really lost up to the end of 1942. Hitler might be ready for one also since the 1942 assault would have cost the German’s similar casualties to the actual 1941 assault. Then again Hitler was a nut. He might have thought just one more push would win the war.

In short I think that no, the Soviets could not win with a 1941 offensive. At best it would have lengthened the war and at worst they would have had to accept an armistice that gave away the Ukraine, the Baltic states and a few other areas.

[Big Jim]

Agreed.

Originally posted by Woodey:

The Germans would have ramped up their own production instead of the reduction that actually occurred. Germany’s supply problems would have been only a fraction of what they had really suffered at the beginning of 1942 with their now current proximity to Germany.

I don’t think the German’s could have taken Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad. The German’s problem with supplying there armies would not have improved over their historical capabilities. The offensive would have ground to a halt.

But with German production racing ahead, could that have swung the course of the Eastern front? Supply problems would remain- but Partisans may not be as easy to recruit to fight the Germans if the Soviets had been the aggressors...

[anthony59]

i have read all these messages no one but no one talks about ukraine yes ukraine is the big picture if the ussr had invaded germany in 39 or 40 they would have pushed into germany as far as the warta and oder rivers thats it the nazis would of held there lines for a spring offensive push into poland again then into ukraine now we all know that ukraine lost her independents in early 20s and ussr annex ukraine so i think things would have ben pretty shaky for ussr if ukraine would of broke away from ussr again ..

[Joachim]

The only what if regarding the Ukraine is not who was the attacker but who treated them better. If the Germans had treated the Ukraine as friendlies and promised them independece (installing an widely accepted regime), they would have had a big ally... bringing along several million potential motivated soliders, some arms factories and lots of grain.

...that leads to the question... could Germany have won the war without an "Übermenschen" theory... only trying to occupy some Polish and lots of Russian soil?

Having all the Jewish brains wouldn't have hurt research and the difference in production between well-fed Czeck workers and slave labor is obvious (same as grain imports from Ukraine and grain harvest in occupied Ukraine).

Gruß

Joachim

[Bartokomus]

Originally posted by Joachim:

...that leads to the question... could Germany have won the war without an "Übermenschen" theory... only trying to occupy some Polish and lots of Russian soil?

Having all the Jewish brains wouldn't have hurt research and the difference in production between well-fed Czeck workers and slave labor is obvious.

Gruß

Joachim

But isn't that always the problem with those Nazi guys and when one postulates "what ifs"? The leadership was a group of wicked men implementing a horrendous ideology which called forth and amplified many of our baser characteristics. Everything they did was mtoivated out of the same place as that which created the Holocaust; concentration camps and the murder of the indigenous poplulations in the countries they occupied came from the same place as their admirable battle qualities and their emphasis of martial qualities in their boys...

If the Weimar republic still existed we wouldn't have seen Barbarossa.

I guess the point of my speechifying is this: we can't distill the immense skill and courage in battle of the German forces from the very motivations for the war; except on the individual level.

My thoughts, fwiw

[Woodey]

The question of what would happen if the German leadership had actually been a bunch of nice (or even sane) guys is a totally different “What if”. I think it would have made a huge difference if for no other reason than hundreds of thousands of willing hands to build and improve railways to the front. Of course the “good guy” theory leads to the question of why they would start a war in the first place.

I don’t think the German expertise in war was directly related to the racial theories of their leadership. The Germans were excellent soldiers in WW I without Himmlers and Hitlers. Unfortunately the Versailles Treaty reparations and the Great Depression made desperate people open to incredibly stupid decisions about their leadership.