Stalin's best play in 1940?

LordKalvert

Banned
What if Stalin had in 1939-40 tried this:

First building up his forces in the West near the old border out of range of a German strike. Then once the Germans start attacking France in May 1940 he begins moving them forward to await events letting the Germans and the Allies slug it out. While keeping his options open. This way he can meet all contingencies-

If the Allies win, he can then sweep into Poland and get some easy pickings

If the Germans win, he can strike before they have a chance to recover from the French campaign, turn their army around, rebuild their war stocks, assimilate the captured French and British equipment or get Hungarian and Romanian allies

How do you think it plays out-
 

Henriksson

Stalin expected a reprise of World War 1, with both sides wearing each other out and not making much headway either way. With the Red Army screwed due to the Great Purges, it makes sense to hold out on actual conflict with Germany for as long as possible. From our view the best move then would be to do as you suggest, but hindsight is 20/20. Besides, if Stalin wanted to fight with the French, then maybe the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn't such a bright idea.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Yes, but I'm suggesting he take a course which opens the best move for all contingencies. He may have expected a long slugfest in which case his forces can be built up for the swing through Europe (after four years of fighting each other everyone would be exhausted)

I think he really did think that war with Hitler was inevitable- he was just thinking it would be much later. Another good move by Stalin would be, after getting his spoils from the Ribbentrop pact and then stabbing Hitler in the back and striking a deal before France is beaten

But our scenario is that he waits for events to play out in the West and then striking Hitler. What do you think happens next?
 

matzeskatze

The big question is how does he analyze the Polish and Finish Campain.

The Polish could have been a clusterf..k if only the Poles had some troops and the werewithall.
The Finish Theater wa also a "realy good" showing of Soviet prowes.

So how do you get him to commit his "supperior" troops to such an "eniviteble" victory parade? Because after two near brushes with defeat (only averted by Soviet numbers) he had to do something. See the frantic pace of reorganisation and rearmament in mid 40 to Barbarossa.

If the untested Red Army goes on the offensiv they will most likly gain the first 50 - 100 km and than bog down. Not in the German resistance, but in their own inability to supply the troops. (And the Germans too when they get troops into the east.)
 

DoomBunny

I liked him in Hamlet, but I think overall Macbeth was his best performance. He captured the paranoia better than any actor could.
 
DrakonFin

DrakonFin

One small thing he could do: abandon the plans to conquer Finland (as well as all political and military pressure on the Finns) and wholeheartedly support a Finno-Swedish alliance/union when the idea is floated. Also, offer the Finns and Swedes cheap food, weapons and resources. Thus, avoid the Finns allying with Germany, pre-empt the Finnish front of a potential Barbarossa altogether (as well as the Siege of Leningrad) and give extra security to Murmansk and the Murmansk railway, helping the arrival of future Lend-Lease shipments.

This would cost him nothing (it would cause a lot of raised eyebrows all around, though) and give the USSR several benefits it did not have IOTL.

(OK, not so easy and likely as it might sound. But there is potential there.)
 

I want to learn

I think Stalin's strategy was solid. Under cover of war between the western powers, the USSR annexed the Baltic states, chunks of Poland and Romania, and bullied Finland. The weakness of the Red Army was discovered early in those adventures, which revealed backstabbing Germany impractical. Even if the fall of France was an upset to the long and brutal trench warfare paradigm, the war itself was still going to be long and costly, because Britain refused to surrender. Stalin would have profited nicely from a few more years of bullying Eastern European states and selling stuff to the Nazis. It would have worked too if Hitler didn't decide to gamble for all the marbles for the umpteenth time.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Avoiding the Finnish War would have been smart and it would be natural if his plan is along the lines I suggested- let the Germans and the Allies fight it out and take advantage of whatever happens

The Soviet Army was in bad shape in 1940 but it was in bad shape in 1941 as well. With this move the German army is in much much worse shape than it was in 1941 Have to think Stalin fares much better than he did in OTL
 

Magnum

IMHO:

Press on after Khalkin Gol - optimally until spring of 1941. Like the SCW, it gives you some really nice experience in an enclosed, controlled environment (building up of the purged officer cadre, testing of weapons and tactics, experience for pilots and ground crews as well as regular ground troops etc etc). It should be a wake-up call ala Finland, only without the appalling casualty ratio and with genuine victories to point to.

Sign the M-R pact, occupy Poland, Baltics, Bessarabia. Maybe attack Finland in the early spring of 41 - should go much better given the different weather and experience gained in the east.

Then, if France is still kickin', deploy aggressively against the Germans and backstab them as soon as they start loosing.

If France has fallen, deploy a screening force on the border and the main army behind the Stalin line. Deploy bulk of airforce somewhat further back, keep a sacrificial fighter contingent near the border to shoot down recon aircraft. If Germany has not gone with some sort of Med option, cut off all trade with them and brace for impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top