Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Stalin's goal was to start war with Germany
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Bain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

What do you think about this article?

Its an interesting set of ideas and would make total sense, but does it?

What do you guys have to say?
Un-Amurikan Bastage
It isn't all that farfetched, given that Hitler attacked the USSR because he knew they were going to attack him, and also given how Stalin acted after the Nazi defeat (setting up the Soviet bloc). Hitler just found it strategically more sound to attack the Red Army when it was weak and piss-poor rather than be attacked by it when it was re-equipped and actually prepared for any kind of fighting. In all honesty, I thought the idea that Stalin was planning to attack the Nazis was a founded idea; I didn't know it was being debated really.
Ulster_Niko
I don't think Stalin ever held such an aggressive view with regards to Nazi Germany. Stalin's prime concern in Soviet Foreign Policy was gaining security for the USSR, this would not been achieved by attacking a militarily strong Nazi Germany with a large, but weak Red Army. More likely was that he wanted the Allies and the Axis to destroy each other whilst the USSR moved in to pick up the pieces and establish authority in Europe.
AlkaliLizard
That sounds interesting, I'm not in school so I'm probably not the greatest at History, but I used to be ok at it. I kind of worry that this kind of view might lead to people trying to pin the blame of the Second World War entirely on Stalin instead of squarely on Hitler. I know by 1941 Stalin was definatly in control of the USSR but don't know whether he could safely start a major war with a powerful enemy without facing some kind of backlash from his own party, although knowing how Stalin planned and acted mostly on his own I would say that it's not unlikely he had that kind of plan. I mean, he must of been thinking what he would do after Nazi Germany was inevitably defeated. Hitler wasn't as smart as Stalin so it makes sense that he could have been duped.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(Ulster_Niko @ Apr 19 2008, 06:36 AM) [snapback]1415558[/snapback]
I don't think Stalin ever held such an aggressive view with regards to Nazi Germany. Stalin's prime concern in Soviet Foreign Policy was gaining security for the USSR, this would not been achieved by attacking a militarily strong Nazi Germany with a large, but weak Red Army. More likely was that he wanted the Allies and the Axis to destroy each other whilst the USSR moved in to pick up the pieces and establish authority in Europe.

The USSR was only concerned with security after the second World War, because they'd been trashed by foreign invaders twice in almost 30 years at that point. The Red Army was only weak at the time of Operation Barbarossa - by around 1943 it was something to contend with, given the T-34s and all the new weaponry and equipment that was introduced, let alone tactics that allowed them to deal with the Wehrmacht. This combined with the weakening agent of the Allies would have made such an attack by Russia not so far from feasable.

@AlkaliLizard
You can't really place the cause of WWII on Stalin over Hitler no matter what you do. Fact is Hitler started it and the Allies bent over and let him. It also depends on how you like to place blame. I for one blame all those responsible for the Treaty of Versailles.

And I doubt any kind of "backlash" - Stalin was the party and nobody dared dispute that. Even during the war when Stalin proved himself among the most incapable military commanders in history, noone dared advise him (and those who did saw quite a fate...).

And also you use "inevitably defeated" pretty loosely. I hate going into theoreticals, but the Normandy invasion was arguably what ultimately led to Germany's defeat; with that in mind, the Normandy invasion was a pretty fragile operation and could have been totally thrashed if Rommel had used his tanks. I'm just saying that you can't entirely dismiss the possibility that Hitler could have gone much farther than he did - it's these possibilities that help us learn the most.

And also, Hitler and Stalin were both very intelligent men. Hitler was the epitome of political brilliance and had the sense to place the technicals of the war in the hands of capable men whom he could trust. Stalin was a paranoid and unstable man who trusted nobody and preferred to direct things with his own hand at nearly the cost of the entire war. I don't think one can fairly say that either man was any smarter than the other...
NCP
Yeah it's plausible, but then I'm asking myself this: why did Stalin eliminate his generals when he was planning an attack?
I mean that's why he lost so much and so fast in the beginning of '43.
0bs3n3
QUOTE(Un-Amurikan Bastage @ Apr 21 2008, 09:54 AM) [snapback]1417006[/snapback]
And also, Hitler and Stalin were both very intelligent men. Hitler was the epitome of political brilliance and had the sense to place the technicals of the war in the hands of capable men whom he could trust. Stalin was a paranoid and unstable man who trusted nobody and preferred to direct things with his own hand at nearly the cost of the entire war. I don't think one can fairly say that either man was any smarter than the other...


But not enough of it was placed in their hands. You could argue that if Hitler did not act like he was a great military mastermind (he was only a Corporal in WWI, but he thought he was an amazing strategist) they could of gone a lot further if not won the war. Might be a bit of a wild claim, I'll put it out there and see what happens though.
Caliph
Stalin's war against Nazi Germany was the only thing I disliked about the Allied Front during World War II. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, or even worse, when it came down to treating his own people.
BIG FUCKING SPIDER
QUOTE(Caliph @ May 5 2008, 01:45 PM) [snapback]1430597[/snapback]
Stalin's war against Nazi Germany was the only thing I disliked about the Allied Front during World War II. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, or even worse, when it came down to treating his own people.

I think Stalin was the bigger bastard, he killed more Russians than the Hitler ever did(Indirectly of course)

Back to the original subject, Un-Amurikan Bastage is correct. Stalin had started a massive build up of his forces, cetainly preparing for action against Europe. Germany grabbed the inititive by invading earlier than the USSR would have expected, also at a time when the Red Army was largely disorganised following the war with Finland.
TrIgGeR HaPpY
Stalin is pretty messed up, he tried to breed humans with chimpanzee's to create a super human. And a creature that didnt complain about the food they eat. lol wtf
Bain
QUOTE(NCP @ May 5 2008, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1430529[/snapback]
Yeah it's plausible, but then I'm asking myself this: why did Stalin eliminate his generals when he was planning an attack?
I mean that's why he lost so much and so fast in the beginning of '43.



Maybe he wanted better generals to attack with or some new ones he thought were better suited or more loyal for that particular war or cause? I have no fucking clue, actually.
Caliph
I heard Stalin used to watch every single Russian movie before it was released to the public. He was also very vain and in love with himself, the guy appeared in almost every Russian movie ever made at that time.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(NCP @ May 5 2008, 02:57 AM) [snapback]1430529[/snapback]
Yeah it's plausible, but then I'm asking myself this: why did Stalin eliminate his generals when he was planning an attack?
I mean that's why he lost so much and so fast in the beginning of '43.

Because he was paranoid - he wanted all of it to be controlled and planned by his self because he thought no one else could fulfill his vision without fucking it up. And generals are very close to the big man and very powerful individuals...he feared a coup, he feared assassination, he feared the threat of intelligent men in such high places with such power with him.
NCP
Ofcourse, but if he was planning an attack on Germany he wouldn't do that, because you can't run a war on your own. Especially in the 40s it's unthinkable to not have a commander on the front. I know why he did the Great Purge, but in this situation it just doesn't make sense. Even a moron would know that's the dumbest thing to do when preparing for war. He was lucky he had general Zhukov, because he succesfully defended Leningrad and won Stalingrad which was the turning point. But I guess you misunderstood my post.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(NCP @ May 23 2008, 09:59 AM) [snapback]1440404[/snapback]
Ofcourse, but if he was planning an attack on Germany he wouldn't do that, because you can't run a war on your own. Especially in the 40s it's unthinkable to not have a commander on the front. I know why he did the Great Purge, but in this situation it just doesn't make sense. Even a moron would know that's the dumbest thing to do when preparing for war. He was lucky he had general Zhukov, because he succesfully defended Leningrad and won Stalingrad which was the turning point. But I guess you misunderstood my post.

Ah, I see what you're saying - I guess I did. In that case yeah, there was really no logic there, mental fixations or not. I don't even know. He wasn't a retard, so it doesn't really make any sense there either. Maybe he did understand that need for a commander, hence why he kept those generals that we now recognize as having saved the USSR, like Zhukov?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.