Did Stalin deliberately prolong the war?

[MAGNA]

Originally Posted by grognard

Stalin certainly did not prologn the war--logistics dictated the limits of many advances--and German resistance had something to do the time it took.

Look at it this way: a superficial analysis could produce the conclusion that the western allies prolonged the war when they didn't take Berlin in 1944--after all the Germans in France were completely shattered and the west wall wasn't complete--so why didn't keep going? Logistics and German resistance.

the fact the Germans regrouped enough to hold Ags 12 & 21 at bay through the fall 0f 44 and winter of 45 is sometimes referred to as "the miracle of the west"--that's how bad it was for the Germans after Falaise, etc.

I agree with this one. Allied intelligence was never too sure what Germany had left right up till the end. A loss at that stage of the war would have weakened the prospects at the bargaining table as far as the Soviets were concerned. The Western Allies didn't want large casualty lists at this time as it would have been politically untenable to voters when victory was a forgone.

The logistic argument carries huge weight here too as it was not just Germany having difficulty keeping up supplies and manpower.

[LAH 1 SS]

i think and this is my opinion only that stalin was held up by the defence the german armed forces put up and an overstretching of his armies. it is well known that the german high command (against hitlers orders, dreams and wishes) knew the war was lost and that the german high command wanted to surrender berlin to the americans and the british (which they did when hitler passed and Doentiz surrenderd to them) it was also widely known that the german public feared the russian army. it was also widely known by the germans that the allies never saw eye to eye or trusted one another. with the overstretching of his army and the defence by the germans stalin i feel was able to rebuild his armies to a much stronger point than the americans or british were at that time in the war. it was well known that stalin never trusted the allies and i feel that berlin became the new battle ground or stand off point once the germans were defeated . the theory im putting forward is stalin prepared himself for a possible conflict between the allies and himself after the defeat of germany. with a much stronger and slightly rested army than the allies it would have been easy for stalin to move on to paris if he had so desired. i know this never happened and history tells us what transpired but the question i pose is why did germany become the battle front for the cold war if stalin had not thought along these lines at some stage during the closing of the second world war or even prempted a possible conflict after germany was defeated

[Kiwiguy]

Couple of thoughts. Halting at the Vistula may have been necessary for logistical reasons to let the supply train catch up.

Another poit to note is that Prince Kanoye was a peace emissary to Moscow and tried to negotiate with Stalin to save Hitler. It is quite possible that Stalin was playing both sides against each other. dealing with the Axis and the Allies.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Kiwiguy

Couple of thoughts. Halting at the Vistula may have been necessary for logistical reasons to let the supply train catch up.

Another poit to note is that Prince Kanoye was a peace emissary to Moscow and tried to negotiate with Stalin to save Hitler. It is quite possible that Stalin was playing both sides against each other. dealing with the Axis and the Allies.

He may have been "playing" with Prince Konoye, but anyone would have seen through it. If two world leaders ever truly hated one another it was Stalin and Hitler. There is no way that late in the war, when it was obviously won, that Stalin was going to allow Hitler to live. If the Allies didn't recognize that they needed to open their eyes and put on their spectacles.

[Kiwiguy]

Of course Stalin may have seen through it, but my thought is that he may have been playing the western Allies off against the Axis powers. Stalin was quite capable of such ploys.

It may have been been that Stalin needed to trick Hitler that he had halted at the Vistula in response to Japanese peace feelers when in fact he needed the supply train to catch up with soviet forces and replenish them.

[Jim O]

That wasn't my point. You made the point that Stalin may have been "...playing both sides against each other. dealing with the Axis and the Allies.". My comment was with respect to Churchill and Roosevelt. Do you think that they wouldn't have seen right through it in 1944? The obvious answer is of course they would have. The last thing they had to worry about was Stalin making a deal with Hitler in late 1944 or after. Maybe in 1942 or 1943 even, but not when he was at the gates of Warsaw. The only deal Stalin was going to make with Hitler at that point was to accept his unconditional surrender so that he could have hanged him in Red Square.

[Kiwiguy]

Stallin was applying pressure to the western allies to open a second front and right up until 6 June 1944, Roosevelt and Churchill were trying to placate Stalin, so it may well have been that whether or not they saw through it that in the west the leaders may have feared Stalin stopping on the Vistula and saying you first.

There may yet be classified documents to emerge which could indicate that Stalin openly let it be known he was talking with the Japanese about armastice with Hitler on the Vistula.

The question is often asked why the Soviets would not intervene in support of the warsaw uprising ?

Another point is that at the Tehran conference Stalin and Roosevelt agreed to dismantle European colonialism after the war and they fashioned an agreement that the post war world would essentially fall into two power blocs, one Soviet and one American. Churchill already knew in 1943 that Stalin and roosevelt were playing a game to exclude Britain from the post war world. Just because he could see through it didn't mean Churchill could alter it.

Also if you read "Major Jordan's Diaries" you will learn that Roosevelt was secretly re-exporting Canadian uranium-oxide for the Manhatten project against Churchill's wishes to help Stalin develop nuclear weapons long before the war ended.

In fact Churchill may have been so irate as to discretely tip off the Nazis as the Monsoon U-boats of 1944 specifically set out to intercept two Uranium carrying convoys to Persia in mid 1944. These convoys were Special Group 300 and 301 of which SS John Barry sunk off Oman by U-859 was a member.

There was an extraordinary exchange of diplomatic protests following the sinking of John Barry in which the US actually accused the British of being to blame.

Stranger things have happened in WW2.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Kiwiguy

Stallin was applying pressure to the western allies to open a second front and right up until 6 June 1944, Roosevelt and Churchill were trying to placate Stalin, so it may well have been that whether or not they saw through it that in the west the leaders may have feared Stalin stopping on the Vistula and saying you first.

There may yet be classified documents to emerge which could indicate that Stalin openly let it be known he was talking with the Japanese about armastice with Hitler on the Vistula.

The question is often asked why the Soviets would not intervene in support of the warsaw uprising ?

Your timing is off on the "you first theory" since Operation Bagration occurred after D-Day. The maps below shows the positions. Note the start was 22 June 1944. As you can see, Soviet troops were not at the Vistula until the second week in August, two plus months after D-Day and when it was clear that France would soon be liberated completely (heck Paris was liberated that month).

BagrationMap2.jpg

The opening of the "second front" was a fait accompli long before that. While high casualties would have been involved in taking all of Germany, the Western Allies would have been more than happy to do so, and to liberate Eastern Europe as well. It was never Stalin's intention to allow that. If you believe that Roosevelt and Churchill did not know that I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

The reason the Soviets stopped at the Vistula was that they needed to stop there. They had no choice. They had clearly outrun their supplies and they needed to rest and refit their armies. To attempt a crossing at that point they would have had to divert troops from further south to make a go of it and that was conter to their strategy. Recent reviews of opened Soviet archives confirm that. I'd point you to David Glantz' "When Titans Clashed" for a detailed analysis of that exact subject (among others). The Soviets might well have been beaten back had they attempted to take Warsaw right away. Why they choose not to allow the Allies to aid the uprising at first was more complicated, no doubt a combination of Stalin's political agenda (he had no interest in helping the Polish government in exile) and a basic mistrust of the British and Americans. The question as to why the Soviets stopped at the Vistula may be asked a hundred different ways but the answer will always be the same.

As for "Major Jordan's Diary" hos allegations are basically unsupported. Whether they are true or not is a matter of faith. Remember also the time at which it was written was the "McCarthy era" here in the US. There were lots of BS claims being made about Soviet agents and "communist sympathizers" being everywhere. Amazing that the walls never came tumbling down when old Joe the drunkard died at 48 in 1957. Every book I have ever read on the subject has concluded that while the Soviets requested Uranium they were not supplied with it. Perhaps you have verifiable sources for such allegations? Even if true however, the Soviets still did not test a nuclear fission device until 1949, and surely would have within a few years, with or without any uranium from Canada as they developed a multitude of their own mines, plus they owned Czechoslovakia by then.


This has all gotten way off the topic which is "Did Stalin deliberately prolong the war?" to which the answer has been shown again and again to be a definite and resounding no, he did not.

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by Kiwiguy

Also if you read "Major Jordan's Diaries" you will learn that Roosevelt was secretly re-exporting Canadian uranium-oxide for the Manhatten project against Churchill's wishes to help Stalin develop nuclear weapons long before the war ended.

I have never heard this before but it supports my "The USA Creates Its Enemies" hypothesis.

The British gave the allies top o' the line jet engine to the Russians near the end (shortly after I think) of WWII. That engine was used in the Mig 15 which is why it was so evenly matched in performance to the Saber.

You have to have a credible enemy to perpetuate War. The "War on Terror" is one example. It's the "perfect" war because if there is never another terrorist attack the government can say, "gee, look what a great job we are doing, we need to keep spending money on anti-Terror." If there is another attack, (easy to stage) they say, "See, we need to spend more on military to protect ourselved from ever present threats." A brilliant ploy but nothing new. I will spare you the rest of the details supporting my hypothesis ...

[sample]

Originally Posted by Jim O

A bit off topic I know but it is also true that Soviet had just completed a major offensive (Operation Bagration) which basically destroyed Army Group Center, and had stretched supply lines very far at that time.

Attachment 438

Logistically, crossing the Vistula and defeating the Germans in Warsaw would have been nearly impossible. Not that this didn't play into Stalin's hand politically, but the fact is that his forces were probably not capable of taking Warsaw at that moment, and doing so would have required a shift in tactics and strategy.

He did not wanted to help the Warsaw insurgents; most of the pre-ww2 polish-soviet animosity dated back to the stunning, the unexpected Polish victory which crippled the Bolshevik forces at the gates of Warsaw during the polish soviet war in 1920. In the following months, several more Polish victories secured Poland's independence and eastern borders.

best regards