German & Soviet armistice offers 1939-1944

[PanzerGeneral]

I read a very interesting book recently called “Stalin’s Folly” written by a Russian author. In the book, Stalin’s cowardice and paranoia were exposed for all to see, thus puncturing the much inflated myth of his courageous heroism created by Communist propagandists during the war. Stalin who was planning on invading Germany first in July 1941, was shocked by the almost unbelievable rapid German military successes of Operation Barbarossa. He issued orders for counterattack which ensured that surrounded Soviet armies would not be able to escape encirclement by German forces. When informed of the scale of defeat, he considered a second Red Army purge, but limited it to the commanders of the Western Military District.

When the Germans captured Minsk on or about the tenth day of the war and it appeared that Moscow would fall within another month or two, Stalin attempted to sue for peace through a Bulgarian intermediary offering Germany the Baltics and Ukraine in exchange for an armistice, but it appears that the Germans never received it. When no response was received, he then went into seclusion half expecting a military coup to overthrow him. When the other Soviet leaders went to his dacha to get him out of his seclusion and proposed to place him at the head of a Military Committee in charge of setting up a Red Army High Command or Stavka, he gained courage and returned to the Kremlin. This of course creates a very interesting “what if” scenario. What if the Germans had received Stalin’s plea for an armistice in late June or early July and Hitler had accepted his terms thus gaining in two weeks what it took the Germans three and one-half years of fighting to gain with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

The Germans would have captured Moscow by August-October 1941 had Hitler not halted them for two critical months to allow Army Groups North and South to catch up with Army Group Centre on its flanks, thus handing Stalin ultimate victory in the war. I highly recommend the book “Hitler’s Panzer’s East” by an old favorite author of mine which details how that might have happened. This book serves as the basis for my “Stalin’s War” alternate WW2 history book’s thesis in which the Imperial Germans allied with their Free Russo-Ukrainian allies capture Moscow in September 1943 and occupy all of western Russia to the Dvina and Volga rivers which then becomes known as Russia-Ukraine—a German client state.

As conservative authors noted shortly after the end of WW2, Stalin was the only victor in this war. Stalin having murdered nearly 30 million of his own people by 1941 cared not a wit if 20-25 million more died at his and German hands during the war years if it allowed him to conquer much of Europe in accordance with his prewar plan to invade Germany and the Balkans and occupy Europe all the way to the French Atlantic coast.

While Churchill’s delaying of a second front bought time for Stalin to occupy and enslave all of eastern and much of central Europe, I am not sure the Allies really were ready to invade Normandy in summer 1943. I think that Churchill’s idea to land troops in the Po River Valley in northern Italy in order to capture the Balkans in advance of the Soviets was a good one, in fact, his best idea of the war. Some have argued that there were insufficient port facilities to support a large Allied force based in northern Italy making such a landing too risky, but I would argue that once the Allies had captured northern Italy they might have cut off Italy from Germany entirely, thus enabling an earlier coup against Mussolini and cutting off German intervention on the peninsula which would have enabled all of Italy’s large ports to fall into their hands to support their Balkan thrust.

Alternatively, the Allies could have won the war much sooner had Ike thrown everything we had in support of Patton’s army and giving him command of the US 1st Army Group to enable him to cross the Rhine and drive on Berlin in fall-winter 1944 and win the war by Christmas 1944 thus saving untold millions of lives and sparing all of Central and part of Eastern Europe from Stalin’s murderous grip.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by PanzerGeneral

I read a very interesting book recently called “Stalin’s Folly” written by a Russian author. In the book, Stalin’s cowardice and paranoia were exposed for all to see, thus puncturing the much inflated myth of his courageous heroism created by Communist propagandists during the war. Stalin who was planning on invading Germany first in July 1941, was shocked by the almost unbelievable rapid German military successes of Operation Barbarossa. He issued orders for counterattack which ensured that surrounded Soviet armies would not be able to escape encirclement by German forces. When informed of the scale of defeat, he considered a second Red Army purge, but limited it to the commanders of the Western Military District.

When the Germans captured Minsk on or about the tenth day of the war and it appeared that Moscow would fall within another month or two, Stalin attempted to sue for peace through a Bulgarian intermediary offering Germany the Baltics and Ukraine in exchange for an armistice, but it appears that the Germans never received it. When no response was received, he then went into seclusion half expecting a military coup to overthrow him. When the other Soviet leaders went to his dacha to get him out of his seclusion and proposed to place him at the head of a Military Committee in charge of setting up a Red Army High Command or Stavka, he gained courage and returned to the Kremlin. This of course creates a very interesting “what if” scenario. What if the Germans had received Stalin’s plea for an armistice in late June or early July and Hitler had accepted his terms thus gaining in two weeks what it took the Germans three and one-half years of fighting to gain with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

Let's start with this because I will be the first to (as Penn and Teller would) call BS on this. Can you point to source documents on any of this, or can you quote someone who has read them? The author of this book (Constantine Pleshakov) did not. Most of sources are secondary sources and older memoirs. He did little if any research. It's just rehash of neo-Nazi type revisionism that Hitler launched Barbarossa as a pre-emptive strike. It holds about as much water as the story of "Polish border provocations" in Gleiwitz and elsewhere along the border, and in the Polish Corridor leading to the invasion of September 1, 1939.

I find Pleshakov's sense of "balance" ironic. David Glantz is one of the foremost authorities on this subject (yet does he appear as a source in this book?), and that while Glantz acknowledges contingency plans were made back in the 1930's for an invasion, there is no evidence to support that it was actually Stalin's intention to do any such thing, and certainly not in 1941 with his officer corps still in total disarray. At that time in fact Rokossovky was in prison, under a death sentence for allegedly being a Polish spy. Even the author admits, on page 13, in the book's Prologue:

It is now clear that Stalin was indeed preparing a preemptive strike against Germany, a subject long debated by historians. Though no smoking gun has been found in the archives yet -- no document signed by Stalin naming the date of the attack -- the new evidence demonstrates the leader of the Soviet people started planning as early as the summer of 1940 and hoped to launch the invasion by the summer of 1942.

I added the bold formatting. No smoking gun, even your so-called source admits that. At best he claims "hopefully" in summer of 1942. Hopefully.

Here's another quote from page 69:

"Stalin spent the first weeks of spring in mental agony. He fully intended to strike at Germany first -- hence the fortifications, airfields, and warehouses on the border, hence the troops in the western salients. However, he knew that for an attack to succeed, he would have to move a huge number of reinforcements to the frontier area. He would then reach the point of no return -- he would be forced to forsake the defensive option altogether. Was it a good time for a preemtptive strike or not? He needed to predict Hitler's next moves, and he felt he could not do so.

I didn't realize that Stalin shared his "mental agony" with Pleshakov, or that he couldn't predict anything about Hitler. Again, supposition. And again, I would point out that, if anything, according to Pleashakov, Stalin was planning a "preemptive strike" because one thing was for certain. Nazi Germany wanted lebensraum in the east, and they planned on getting it at the expense of USSR. Stalin flubbed on the timing of Barbarossa, no doubt, but anyone who knew anything about Hitler knew that was his eventual intention. So not to plan a preemptive strike might well be considered treasonous. But again, it wasn't going to happen in 1941, much like the Western Allies were not going to invade France in 1943. The Allies weren't ready in 1943, and nor was Stalin ready in 1941.

Pleshakov's book appears to be mainly hypothesis and conjecture since central to his thesis is that Stalin was planning an invasion and yet he cannot prove it. No proof really of anything. So where is the evidence, real evidence that you have of a July 1941 attack date? By someone who has actually done the reading of the documents? As I said, even Pleshakov admits he doesn't have it.

And where are the sources on the armistice proposals? In books with real sources? Or ones with "secret" sources?

It's fine to interpret history in a liberal, open minded way. In fact it is refreshing. But to concoct it, and claim it as fact, as Pleshakov does, is simply pathetic. And I say that without even mentioning his numerous mentions of "Soviet Panzers" and "Soviet Panzer Divisions". Wow, what a World War II expert he is!

I'm reminded of those old Wendy's commercials with the little old lady, from circa early 1980's.
Wheres_the_beef_commercial.jpg

[PanzerGeneral]

Jim,“Let's start with this because I will be the first to (as Penn and Teller would) call BS on this. Can you point to source documents on any of this, or can you quote someone who has read them? The author of this book (Constantine Pleshakov) did not. Most of sources are secondary sources and older memoirs. He did little if any research. It's just rehash of neo-Nazi type revisionism that Hitler launched Barbarossa as a pre-emptive strike. It holds about as much water as the story of "Polish border provocations" in Gleiwitz and elsewhere along the border, and in the Polish Corridor leading to the invasion of September 1, 1939.”Hitler did not deliberately launch Operation Barbarossa as a pre-emptive strike. I mean he had been planning it since at least 1924, but in point of fact that is exactly the effect that it had. Stalin had the Red Army deploy offensively in preparation for his planned Operation Thunderstorm—the Soviet invasion of eastern Germany, Poland and Romania which some sources say was planned as early as July 1941. That is why he neglected his defenses. He did not think he would need them. That is why he deployed all of his forces so far forward and airbases practically right up on the frontline anticipating major gains in the first weeks of his offensive against Germany.Stalin had been planning war with Germany for many months if not years, but he was planning it on his own terms and he was shocked and surprised that the Germans beat him to the punch. Too dismiss this as neo-Nazi type revisionism I think suggests closed-mindedness to say the least particularly in view of the fact that Stalin far exceeded Hitler in terms of the number of mass murders he committed and the fact that he planned and executed the takeover of eastern Europe and east Asia in accordance with Lenin’s strategy.“I find Pleshakov's sense of "balance" ironic. David Glantz is one of the foremost authorities on this subject (yet does he appear as a source in this book?), and that while Glantz acknowledges contingency plans were made back in the 1930's for an invasion, there is no evidence to support that it was actually Stalin's intention to do any such thing, and certainly not in 1941 with his officer corps still in total disarray. At that time in fact Rokossovky was in prison, under a death sentence for allegedly being a Polish spy. Even the author admits, on page 13, in the book's Prologue:---Quote---It is now clear that Stalin was indeed preparing a preemptive strike against Germany, a subject long debated by historians. *Though no smoking gun has been found in the archives yet -- no document signed by Stalin naming the date of the attack* -- the new evidence demonstrates the leader of the Soviet people started planning as early as the summer of 1940 and hoped to launch the invasion by the summer of 1942.---End Quote--- I added the bold formatting. *No smoking gun*, even your so-called source admits that. At best he claims "hopefully" in summer of 1942. Hopefully.”I have read multiple books on the subject, but have never even heard of David Glantz so I can’t agree with you that he must be considered the foremost authority on this subject. You might have a case if Pleshakov was the only one claiming Stalin was planning a full-scale offensive against Germany for July 1941, but I have found at least seven other authors stating the same thing citing Soviet archives and contemporary statements. I have all of their books except the first to claim this upon review of the opened Soviet archives—Viktor Suvorov who has written multiple books on the subject. The most credible book is “Stalin’s War of Extermination—1941-1945” which is very heavily cited.Here's another quote from page 69:---Quote---"Stalin spent the first weeks of spring in mental agony. He fully intended to strike at Germany first -- hence the fortifications, airfields, and warehouses on the border, hence the troops in the western salients. However, he knew that for an attack to succeed, he would have to move a huge number of reinforcements to the frontier area. He would then reach the point of no return -- he would be forced to forsake the defensive option altogether. Was it a good time for a *preemtptive* strike or not? *He needed to predict Hitler's next moves, and he felt he could not do so.*---End Quote--- I didn't realize that Stalin shared his "mental agony" with Pleshakov, or that he couldn't predict anything about Hitler. Again, supposition. And again, I would point out that, if anything, according to Pleashakov, Stalin was planning a "*preemptive* strike" because one thing was for certain. Nazi Germany wanted lebensraum in the east, and they planned on getting it at the expense of USSR. Stalin flubbed on the timing of Barbarossa, no doubt, but anyone who knew anything about Hitler knew that was his eventual intention. So not to plan a *preemptive* strike might well be considered treasonous. But again, it wasn't going to happen in 1941, much like the Western Allies were not going to invade France in 1943. The Allies weren't ready in 1943, and nor was Stalin ready in 1941.”Well I agree with you that Stalin was not quite ready in June 1941 to launch Operation Groza against Germany and her Balkan allies, but he was nearly ready and might have been ready to launch an offensive by late July. Hitler was fortunate that he launched Operation Barbarossa when he did or else Germany would have likely have been defeatedand overrun by the Red Army two years earlier. Not all of the books that I have read that argue that Stalin planned to attack Germany say that he was uncertain whether he should strike first or absorb the first blow. Plehakov’s is one of the few that state that. So I would be willing to concede your point that Stalin was not of two minds at all and that he planned to attack first whether you want to call that “a preemptive strike” much like Germany’s preventive attack against France in 1914 or not. “Pleshakov's book appears to be mainly hypothesis and conjecture since central to his thesis is that Stalin was planning an invasion and yet he cannot prove it. No proof really of anything. So where is the evidence, real evidence that you have of a July 1941 attack date? By someone who has actually done the reading of the documents? As I said, even Pleshakov admits he doesn't have it.And where are the sources on the armistice proposals? In books with real sources? Or ones with "secret" sources?It's fine to interpret history in a liberal, open minded way. In fact it is refreshing. But to concoct it, and claim it as fact, as Pleshakov does, is simply pathetic. And I say that without even mentioning his *numerous* mentions of "Soviet Panzers" and "Soviet Panzer Divisions". Wow, what a World War II expert he is!”You need to read the other books on the subject. I can send you a list when I return home from work. This book was only the most recent I have read on the subject and certainly far from the most authoritative. Yes, there were a few translation errors in the book like these that were annoying.Regards,PanzerGeneral

[Lancer44]

Hi Panzer General,

I started to read your post three times today and each time I could not finish it... Nothing against what you wrote. It is interesting and well worth discussion.

But your text is not legible at all! Your choice of font, lack of space, lack of paragraphs makes it difficult to read, review or even understand.

I don't know if other members and MODs agree with me, but in my opinion by making text edited, easy to read and pleasant to view, each member of the Forum show respect to others.
We meeting here so often, that Forum is like our pub, we want it nice, with nice atmosphere and easy for eveyone.

I'm afraid your posts are not easy...

I hope you understand - nothing personal or against meritum of your writing.

Regards,

Lancer44

[Jim O]

I agree with Lancer and I have made suggestions to PanzerGeneral that he use the practice forum and not cut and paste from another text editor but they have evidently been a waste of web space. David, if you want to be taken seriously your posts need to look like you care about the reader.

David, I'm surprised that a well read person such as you could say

Originally Posted by PanzerGeneral

I have read multiple books on the subject, but have never even heard of David Glantz.

Most English speaking readers of this period who have studied the Soviet-German War of 1941-1945 know who David Glantz is. He has written many well researched books and papers without an agenda other than to learn about what actually happened without the political propaganda for which many others are known.

Please show me some actual sources, like I said. If Suvorov is the best that you can do you have a credibility problem on my end. He's another revisionist, like Pleshakov. He also wears his agenda on his sleeve.

And do check out this page and this page for some of the writings of this prolific US Army Colonel (retired) and true expert on the subject. Further educate yourself with some unbiased histories written without a pre-conceived agenda.