PDA

View Full Version : Was Operation Barbarossa a LIHOP conspiracy? I guess so! (long read)


CHF
8th January 2008, 10:33 AM
We hear lots about the "9/11 warnings that were ignored" or the "NORAD stand down" and how it points to a LIHOP plot to give justification to expanding US power in the Middle East. Incompetence, arrogance and out-dated systems are explanations that truthers have no time for. After all, "how can the US spend billions on the military and intelligence and yet not intercept 19 hijackers?"

I'd like to pose a similar question regarding Operation Barbarossa – the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

Stalin's USSR was probably the most paranoid police state in history – a place saturated with spies and NKVD forces; a place where children denounced their parents; where an anti-government joke resulted in death or prison. So how is it then that Russia was caught so off-guard by one of the biggest military operations of all time?

Consider the obvious German hostility:

- Germany had invaded Russia in World War I, destabilizing the regime to the point where it was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.
- Nazis blamed the defeat of 1918 largely on "Jewish bolshevism" and openly vowed revenge.
- Nazis fought street battles with local communists in the 1920s and had them arrested and/or killed once in power.
- Jews were persecuted across the Reich and Hitler viewed the millions of Jews in the Russian Pale of Settlement as the center of Jewish power.
- Hitler’s Mien Kamph devoted an entire chapter to the need to conquer and destroy the "sub-human" Slavs in the east – areas that would then be resettled by Germans.

But rather than oppose Hitler, Stalin signed a non-aggression pact in 1939. The previous year, as part of the purges of the Great Terror, 30,000 military officers were executed on trumped-up charges of anti-revolutionary activity, severely weakening the Red Army.

Then came the warnings, some of which included....

- Agents reported in July 1940 that preparations were underway to shift German troops east. Stalin didn’t pass this info on to his generals.
- Soviet intel received numerous reports of a Nazi attack from sources planted in the German Economics, Air and Foreign ministries. Stalin dismissed them as "disinformers."
- British intelligence, having cracked the Enigma code, passed on info on German troop movements. Stalin received warnings from Roosevelt and Churchill starting in January 1941 that placed the invasion in spring.
- On April 17 an informant in Prague predicted an invasion "in the second half of June." Stalin scribbled "English provocation! Investigate!" on the bottom of the report.
- Spy Richard Sorge, based in Tokyo with contacts in the German embassy, sent a steady stream of intel beginning in November 1940. In March 1941 he provided a German telegraph indicating an attack would occur in mid-June; on May 15 he put the date as June 20 and later sent a copy of the German order of battle, as did the embassy in Berlin. Stalin dismissed Sorge as "a little sh*t" and warned his generals against "Germanphobia."
- In June intel reported that German embassy staff in Moscow were leaving the country with their families and German ships were leaving Soviet harbours.
- On June 21, the Soviet ambassador in Berlin confirmed the attack would happen the next morning as did the German ambassador in Moscow; Stalin dismissed the latter warning as a blackmail plot.

Barbarossa should also have been pretty obvious from front-line reports.

- From March 28 to April 18, 1941 German aircraft made 80 recon flights over Soviet territory, one of which crashed and was found to contain a camera, film and maps. Soviet air defenses was banned from shooting at the planes.
- For months border units reported a build-up of German troops. A commander in Kiev proposed moving troops into defensive positions and was reprimanded by Stalin for "provoking" the Germans.
- In the weeks before the invasion, Soviet troops reported a steady roar of engines coming from the German lines.
- One of the last warnings came on June 21 when a German soldier crossed the border into Soviet occupied Poland and warned of the impending invasion. Stalin had him shot! :eek:

All together Stalin received no less than 84 warnings!

At 4am on June 22, 1941, German planes blasted Soviet airfields and cities while over 3 million troops poured across the border.

Amazingly, when first told that German planes were bombing the USSR, Stalin attributed it to rogue generals and insisted that it all must be a "provocation" that was happening without Hitler’s knowledge! "The Germans are well known masters of provocation," he said. "They might even begin to bomb their own cities." :faint:

When told that the German government had in fact declared war, Stalin continued to hold out hope that it was not a real attack, before retreating to his villa where he sank into depression and stared off into space for two weeks. By the time he returned to regroup his forces, over a million Russians were already dead.

Within a few short months, millions more had been killed and SS death squads were ramping across the Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus. It was the worst military disaster in Russian history.

So how do we explain all this?

Was Stalin:

A) a foolish and incompetent dictator who put far too much faith in appeasement and not enough energy in looking out for the safety of his nation, or

B) did he stand-down his army and ignore the German threat in order to lose 20 million lives and achieve justification for expanding westward and enlarging his empire?

Using truther logic I suppose we’d have to go with B.

JamesB
8th January 2008, 10:45 AM
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?

There are even more examples than you cited. Stalin actually had intelligence officers executed for spreading disinformation for reporting that Hitler was going to invade (kind of hard to hide an army of 3 million soldiers after all). At least one German soldier defected and informed the Soviets the exact invasion date, he was also executed.

I read an interesting book (although a bit of a conspiracy type book) when I was in Russia years ago called Ledokol (icebreaker) which proposed that Stalin ignored signs of Hitler invading, because he intended to invade himself, and couldn't imagine Hitler beating him to the punch. Ego is a powerful thing among dictators.

plumjam
8th January 2008, 10:45 AM
closer to a) than b)

is there a prize?

BenBurch
8th January 2008, 10:51 AM
Well, after the humiliating defeat in Finland, Stalin decapitated his military, and it was a shambles. That explains a lot of this. Plus, he was a madman.

CHF
8th January 2008, 10:59 AM
Well, after the humiliating defeat in Finland, Stalin decapitated his military, and it was a shambles. That explains a lot of this. Plus, he was a madman.

Stalin's worst purges actually preceeded his attack on Finland. I read somewhere that after the Red Army fiasco he actually released some of the generals he had jailed in 38.

Also, Stalin had been assured by the head of the Finnish communist party that Soviet troops would be greeted as liberators by the Finns and so he didn't bother to give his forces proper winter clothing since the invasion would be over in a few days.

Stalin's paranoia also resulted in not using Soviet troops from the local area since he feared they might have sympathies with the Finns. Instead he brought in troops from southern Russia who weren't used to the cold weather.

Even though the Soviets eventually got what they wanted from Finland (though weight of numbers), the Winter War goes into the record books as more of a defeat. Finns killed: 20,000. Soviets killed: 200,000+

SDC
8th January 2008, 11:00 AM
Stalin was no madman. Unless we decide that mass murder is, technically, madness. I'm sorry to say that I don't think it's a useful criterion.

Another element in Stalin's failure to anticipate the invasion was his extreme suspicion of the western allies, particularly Churchill and England. He (Stalin) thought -- with some justification -- that the English hoped to set Nazi Germany and Communist Russia against one another. Which suspicion in turn goes back to the Russian Civil War of 1918-22 and the Allied occupations of slices of the old Russian empire in those years...

SDC
8th January 2008, 11:01 AM
Deleted as duplicate. Too many Stalins.

kookbreaker
8th January 2008, 11:13 AM
Constantinople was an inside job too, by troother logic. Someone left that gate open!

SDC
8th January 2008, 11:38 AM
Constantinople was an inside job too, by troother logic. Someone left that gate open!

Damn... Byzantine history was one of my graduate fields... Now I'm going to have to go back and research it. There was actually something... The Italian mercenaries?

Where's that Runciman book?

CHF
8th January 2008, 11:42 AM
Constantinople was an inside job too, by troother logic. Someone left that gate open!

And Troy...obviously an inside job! I mean c'mon, a wooden horse???

Alferd_Packer
8th January 2008, 11:44 AM
I think LIHOP, in this case, stands for "Let It Happen (because) OF Paranoia."

There is a lot to be said for the power of inertial thinking.

Sword_Of_Truth
8th January 2008, 12:26 PM
Stalin was no madman. Unless we decide that mass murder is, technically, madness. I'm sorry to say that I don't think it's a useful criterion.

Stalins antics were madness both on a moral level and in a more practical sense as well.

I've read (can't remember where, please forgive the lack of sourcing) that the millions killed under Lenin and Stalin (and thousands killed under subsequent Soviet leaders) robbed the soviet union of manpower that could have enabled a soviet victory in the economic contest of the cold war. Or at the very least, drawn it out another decade or so.

aggle-rithm
8th January 2008, 12:31 PM
Stalin was no madman.

But he did have a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder.

Good thing he didn't become a priest, as he originally planned!

SDC
8th January 2008, 12:57 PM
I've read (can't remember where, please forgive the lack of sourcing) that the millions killed under Lenin and Stalin (and thousands killed under subsequent Soviet leaders) robbed the soviet union of manpower that could have enabled a soviet victory in the economic contest of the cold war. Or at the very least, drawn it out another decade or so.

I think that's unlikely. The economy of the USSR was such a wreck, so misconceived and mismanaged, that nothing would have helped.

And I'd argue that the cold war was, in fact, primarily a political contest, not economic. While marxism would argue that the economic basis determines the politics, I believe that the political ideologies determined the economic methods.

I remember reading a science fiction writer (really getting off topic here!) -- Rbt Sawyer? in Analog? -- arguing precisely that: the cold war was strictly an economic contest. (I have no idea why this has stuck in my mind.) If that had been the case, of course, the Sovs would have had no need for many of the wacky measures they undertook, including the incessant purges of their own leadership, and the false trappings of democracy.

I'd better shut up before I'm told to take it to the political section.

bignickel
8th January 2008, 12:57 PM
According to Truther Logic, it's obvious LIHOP. How could any Truther think otherwise? (unless they believe that Bush et al are 10 times more evil than Stalin)

BenBurch
8th January 2008, 02:15 PM
Much of our perception of Soviet power in the Cold War was just that; Perception.

When our intelligence analysts would say things like "Russia has between one and 40 nuclear attack submarines." the message that went into planning was "Russia has at least 40 attack submarines."

And of course, that's always the safest way to estimate one's enemy unless your overestimates are so great as to demand capitulation.

JamesB
8th January 2008, 02:37 PM
According to Truther Logic, it's obvious LIHOP. How could any Truther think otherwise? (unless they believe that Bush et al are 10 times more evil than Stalin)

But they do:

"Cheney may be the worst mass murderer and traitor not just in US history, but in the history of the world."
-Kevin Barrett-

Corsair 115
8th January 2008, 04:21 PM
It must have been a conspiracy! How else can one explain why the Germans invaded Russia with an armoured force only 30% larger than that used to attack westwards in May of 1940 even though the battlefield area was over twenty times larger? They clearly were not invading Russia with a sufficiently sized military force! They must have known the Russian military was going to stand down!

aggle-rithm
9th January 2008, 06:19 AM
The overlooked LIHOP example I always think of is McArthur's defense of the Phillipines in WWII. It's funny how much people focus on the "ignored warnings" of Pearl Harbor when they have the Phillipines fiasco, in which they knew everything about the coming attack, including where the Japanese base of operations was, but still got caught with their pants down.

Of course, this would require cracking a history book, something a troofer would never do.

Byzantine Magpie
10th January 2008, 12:30 AM
Constantinople was an inside job too, by troother logic. Someone left that gate open!

And I suppose with Octavian with regard to the assassination of Julius Caesar, he LIHOP too?

How clever was he? Only 19, and in Greece at the time. What a brilliant alibi.

portlandatheist
10th January 2008, 01:12 AM
Stalin was no madman.

I think Stalin genuinely trusted Hitler to follow their treaty and just couldn't accept all the evidence of the contrary. In this sense, I think he was delusional.

aggle-rithm
10th January 2008, 06:02 AM
I think Stalin genuinely trusted Hitler to follow their treaty and just couldn't accept all the evidence of the contrary. In this sense, I think he was delusional.

Right. Delusional like a FOX!!!

;)

MG1962
10th January 2008, 06:25 AM
Gee wiz there is a lot of guessing going on here. First Stalin knew Hitler was comming - It was a matter of when. He thought he had about another 12 months. Stalin's actions were governed by the need to watch what Japan got up too - He had a real fear of a backdoor invasion, and could not really commit to a plan till that played out

The Soviet army was in a shambles - but was actually in the process of a very good re-organisation. The grand Soviet plan was to allow the Germans to invade towards Moscow, and to counter attack from the Starlingrad sector - Most of the new T34 and KV tanks, plus the more elite units were being funneled down there. If you look at that daily advances of Army Group South, compared to the others, you will see that resitance was stiffer and better organised

The Germans played their part - Intial planning estimates suggested the Soviets could field a maximum of 110 divisions in the field - they only started to realise the depth of their problems when they had destroyed or captured 115 divisions, and reports were comming in of at least another 100 divisions in the field. Then the Soviets began to re-inforce. In the field, the Germans where without peer, what their greatest weakness was, came from logisitcs, as their supply lines lengthened, their ability to fight decreased

Stalin was many things - mad, crazy blood thirsty, a bully - but one of the things he was not too bad at was strategy, and he was a brilliant organsier

leftysergeant
10th January 2008, 07:00 AM
Stalin was playing for time. He needed manufactured goods and iron from Germany. Germany needed wheat. Stalin had wheat. He thought Hitler would rather trade for the wheat while he went about securing France. Stalin needed time to build more tanks and guns, and he needed chemicals that Germany could produce in greater quantities. He probably thought the invasion would not come while the wheat was still in the fields.

Dumb mistakes.

Not that Hitler was all that bright.

He expected the USSR to fold at once. He expected the Ukrainians to be glad to see him, because they hated the Russians. He was right about that. But he was such a brutal "savior" that the Ukrainians decided they really didn't hate the Russians that much, after all. So they torched the wheat and started resisting by guerrilla tactics.

Doesn't this sound a wee bit like Iraq in 2004?

MG1962
10th January 2008, 07:10 AM
He expected the USSR to fold at once. He expected the Ukrainians to be glad to see him, because they hated the Russians. He was right about that. But he was such a brutal "savior" that the Ukrainians decided they really didn't hate the Russians that much, after all. So they torched the wheat and started resisting by guerrilla tactics.



I heard a funny quote/joke about that on a program discussing the Eastern Front

"So how did the Russian people decide between Hitler or Stalin?"

"Stalin was the only dictator that spoke Russian"

SDC
10th January 2008, 12:29 PM
I heard a funny quote/joke about that on a program discussing the Eastern Front

"So how did the Russian people decide between Hitler or Stalin?"

"Stalin was the only dictator that spoke Russian"

So what's the joke?

SDC
10th January 2008, 12:31 PM
Duplicated.

MG1962
10th January 2008, 02:28 PM
So what's the joke?

LOL - that the two dictators were so similar in their treatment of people, attitude to the Russians etc - the only thing splitting them was the fact one spoke Russian and one didn't

SDC
10th January 2008, 02:37 PM
Aha. Like the classical definitions of communism vs capitalism:

Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under communism, it's the other way around.

Used to knock 'em dead back at the old Laughing Cossack Saloon.