Soviets Attack in 41

[ChaosNDiscord]

So at least one 'historian' by the name of Vladimir Rezun argues that the Soviet Union was actually planning for an invasion of Nazi Germany in July of 1941. The evidence is pretty shaky and a lot of it seems circumstantial, but... what if he were right?

What would happen if Barbarossa were delayed and the Soviet Forces launched an offensive against the German buildup?

Also, what if the German's learned of the plan and decided to take the defensive, then once the Soviet attack was spent, counterattacked?

How would this change the Eastern Front in WWII?

Sorry if this has been asked before (it seems like every question of WWII has been covered by now).

 

[Snaut]

Also, what if the German's learned of the plan and decided to take the defensive, then once the Soviet attack was spent, counterattacked?

How would this change the Eastern Front in WWII?

In OTL the Germans had the element of surprise and were free to prepare without being troubled by supplying an already active front, the Red Airforce bombing railways and so on. In this scenario a German counterattack is expected, begins at a point farther west and cannot be prepared nearly as meticulously because of the fighting already underway. The counterattack therefore deals less damage then Barbarossa and gains much less territory. (Would it make any significant gains at all?) So the Soviets are in a much better position by the end of 1941 then in OTL, with more forces, access to more resources, infrastructure and recruitable population of more territory.

 

[pattersonautobody]

What people often ignore is that an early Russian attack means the Germans inevitably surround more Russians closer to their bases of logistics, and that Russian reserves are smaller in the rear are smaller.

So, it requires a full mobilization on the part of Stalin to actually change the situation, but if this be the case the Germans probably catch on to it as defectors will surely warn of what's coming, and the Germans were already doing recon for their own invasion.

It can go either way, but more likely in the German's favor, as the Russians bogged down in Poland and then get totally surrounded as a result.

 

[Spare Change]

In OTL the Germans had the element of surprise and were free to prepare without being troubled by supplying an already active front, the Red Airforce bombing railways and so on. In this scenario a German counterattack is expected, begins at a point farther west and cannot be prepared nearly as meticulously because of the fighting already underway. The counterattack therefore deals less damage then Barbarossa and gains much less territory. (Would it make any significant gains at all?) So the Soviets are in a much better position by the end of 1941 then in OTL, with more forces, access to more resources, infrastructure and recruitable population of more territory.

On the other hand, with the Soviets the agressor and losing in 1941 it would be a lot easier for Hitler to cut a deal on favorable terms for Nazi Germany.

Of course Hitler is likely not saavy enough to take such a deal until late 1943-1944.

 

[Killer300]

What people often ignore is that an early Russian attack means the Germans inevitably surround more Russians closer to their bases of logistics, and that Russian reserves are smaller in the rear are smaller.

Why inevitably surround?

So, it requires a full mobilization on the part of Stalin to actually change the situation, but if this be the case the Germans probably catch on to it as defectors will surely warn of what's coming, and the Germans were already doing recon for their own invasion.

The same Germany that had horrid intelligence services I'd remind you, and was completely infiltrated by the NKVD.

It can go either way, but more likely in the German's favor, as the Russians bogged down in Poland and then get totally surrounded as a result.

Assuming they don't pull out of encirclement.

With all this said, Stalin doing this is unbelievably shaky, as it doesn't fit his style of foreign policy.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Soviets first echelon likely smash themselves against the German forces. The Germans break them up and destroy them, then star the advance eastwards. From there, the war likely proceeds large as IOTL. The biggest change will be the Germans are taking heavier casualties earlier and only begin advancing eastward later in the year, which affect things once we reach September-October, but for the Summer we can largely expect their IOTL gains.

 

[pattersonautobody]

THis whole conversation was essentially already had in the "what if the RUssians attack when Germany in 1940" thread, and all I have to say is I would just reiterate what I already said there, but remind everyone that Germany is in a stronger position because they would not be in the middle of fighting a great power.


A better thread would be what if the Germans ran into only light screening forces on the front and actually held the bulk of their forces in reserves, so they can counter attack the Germans when their logistics are stretched. THis was in reality Stalin's best strategy. ANy strategy that commits more Russians closer to the border than they were OTL will only hurt, not help the Russians.

Unlike some people here, I don't think the Russians do better no matter what or the Germans do better no matter what. If someone's response to these differing PODs is that the Germans always do better or that the Russians always do better, then that says a lot about how much critical thought is involved in their speculations concerning the POD.

 

[Snaut]

Unlike some people here, I don't think the Russians do better no matter what or the Germans do better no matter what. If someone's response to these differing PODs is that the Germans always do better or that the Russians always do better, then that says a lot about how much critical thought is involved in their speculations concerning the POD.

Communism and the USSR are the very last thing I expected to be accused of unthinkingly "wanking". But I simply cannot see how this could go noticeably worse for the Soviets then OTL.

The worst case scenario for the USSR which I can think of after the first Soviet offensive and highly successful German encirclements is Soviet losses presumably comparable to OTL. Except that the Germans are going to be at the Bug and Niemen instead of the Dniepr and Dvina. They have suffered higher losses due to not fighting a disorganized enemy and not destroying much of his airforce on the ground at the beginning of war and due to exhaustion and disruption of supply lines inevitably caused by the conflict, I do not see how the "alt-Barbarossa" which ensues is going to gain nearly as much ground as OTL. Meanwhile Stalin continues to conjure new armies out of nothing, except that he now has a lot more nothing to conjure them out of.

 

[aktarian]

Ah, the Icebreaker.....

That book has been debunked by most WW2 historians.

 

[eltf177]

Personally I believe Stalin would attack but in 1942-43, the Soviet Union was simply not prepared in 1941 but was building up.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Zaius worst case is very much the worst case for the Soviets, likely to be a whole lot better.

Barbarossa OTL is successful because the Red army is at peacetime deployment with ad hoc counterattacks allowing it to be defeated in detail as they try to respond to superior german mobility with non existent communications and limited supplies. Even so there are corps and army sized battles behind the spearheads for several weeks.

In the even of a Russian attack - it will be a coordinated front wide series of blows with something much closer to full mobilised strength. To achieve encirclements the Germans will either have to fight through rather than maneuver round Red army units with commensurate losses once they have fought off the initial attacks with the spearheads at serious risk of being stalled by reserve forces coming up as OTL around Smolensk much closer to the front.


The Red Air Force is going to be critical. By existing its going to severely curtail both Luftwaffe offensive and recon operations until they gain commmand of the air, if they ever do.


OTL the AGC actions had encircled 32 rifle and 10 tank/mot/cav and arty div. That sort of action near the frontier destroys a significant ( well most) of the peace trained soviet junior leadership and technical specialists which the red army possibly never really rebuilt during the war.

Much more likely is a a soviet offensive about as successful as Mars, still a defeat but one that is exhausting for the Germans.

 

[aktarian]

Zaius worst case is very much the worst case for the Soviets, likely to be a whole lot better.

Barbarossa OTL is successful because the Red army is at peacetime deployment with ad hoc counterattacks allowing it to be defeated in detail as they try to respond to superior german mobility with non existent communications and limited supplies. Even so there are corps and army sized battles behind the spearheads for several weeks.

In the even of a Russian attack - it will be a coordinated front wide series of blows with something much closer to full mobilised strength. To achieve encirclements the Germans will either have to fight through rather than maneuver round Red army units with commensurate losses once they have fought off the initial attacks with the spearheads at serious risk of being stalled by reserve forces coming up as OTL around Smolensk much closer to the front.


The Red Air Force is going to be critical. By existing its going to severely curtail both Luftwaffe offensive and recon operations until they gain commmand of the air, if they ever do.


OTL the AGC actions had encircled 32 rifle and 10 tank/mot/cav and arty div. That sort of action near the frontier destroys a significant ( well most) of the peace trained soviet junior leadership and technical specialists which the red army possibly never really rebuilt during the war.

Much more likely is a a soviet offensive about as successful as Mars, still a defeat but one that is exhausting for the Germans.

Don't forget Red Army was in the middle of massive reequipment which made them extra vulnerable.

 

[Dan]

Personally I believe Stalin would attack but in 1942-43, the Soviet Union was simply not prepared in 1941 but was building up.

As I understand it, Stalin kicked off a 5 year plan for the armed forces beginning in 1937.
In the event that this is kept to plan without interuptions, (i.e. Barbarossa), then in theory they could be in a position to consider an attack from around 1942 onwards. That's not to say that any attack before then would be an unmitigated disaster, but I think it would not have worked out as well for the Russians as OTL did as I believe they would have lost much of their top line units very early on if they attacked Germany.