Soviet Collapse: Was it Possible ?

[Dark Age]

Hello, I seen numerous threads on here discussing a possible German victory or favorable stalemate on the Eastern Front. I commonly read that if hypothetically the Germans invaded the Soviet Union to destroy Communism and liberate the Eastern populations from Soviet control, the Soviet Union might have possibly collapsed. Initially from my understanding, Eastern European populations in the Baltic States, perhaps Belarus and primarily in the Ukraine had suffered greatly under Stalin and possibly could have been encouraged to revolt after the intial German victories if the Germans did not enslave and kill them. I have my doubts about this however as these Eastern European populations were probably too few in number and even if they were I cannot see how Germany could adequately feed their populations and supply Eastern European units with arms and equipment adequately to fight the Red Army. This also ignores the absurdity of claiming that "Nazi Germany should not have held such insane, inhuman Racial views that saw the Slavs as subhuman" as I feel this is like claiming water should not be wet. Nonetheless I made this thread because I wish to better understand Soviet Society; namely how much opposition to Communism existed within Russia itself and was the Soviet Union ever truly in danger of collapsing internally.

In a discussion with a friend, he claimed that Germany could likely have been victorious had it attacked the Soviet Union as a liberator against the Red Menace with the intention of inspiring the remaining White Russians living in Russia itself. My friend informed me that it was possible the remaining White Russians or anti-communists could have overthrown the Soviet regime or started another Russian civil war. I have never heard of this alternative as I assumed by 1941 the Communists were in firm control of the country. Also I assume it would be impossible for Germany to inspire both the White Russians and Eastern European minorites to rebel as their interests certainly are incompatible as I cannot imagine any Russians would favor Ukraninan indepedence, Communist or not. Yet I still wish to explore this. Was there sufficient opposition to Communism amongst the Russian population that could threaten to overthrow the government or lead to civil war should the Soviet Union face military disaster? Was there any real danger of the Soviet Union collapsing at all whether from Anti-communism in Russia or from the rebellion of subjugated Eastern European populations?

I myself find my friends statements hard to believe simply because despite Anti-communists in Russia, I cannot expect these people to be Anti-Russian and Germany invading whether as a ruthless conqueror or liberator certainly does not help Russia at all.


Thank you

[BDV]

I think that this is a worthy question.

But Nazi Germany went into Barbarossa with a brutal minimalistic approach, as manifested in the Kommissarbefehl and Das Verhalten der Truppe im Ostraum. It was, literally, "kill all jew and bolshevik and make the remainder serfs".

AFAIK, there were some spontaneous attempts by Russian nationals to create antibolshevik militias in the german controlled areas (Luga basin), but these had no support from the Wehrmacht, and NKVD snuffed them out easily by sending assassins to murder the leaders.

[Carl Schwamberger]

....

In a discussion with a friend, he claimed that Germany could likely have been victorious had it attacked the Soviet Union as a liberator against the Red Menace with the intention of inspiring the remaining White Russians living in Russia itself.

I myself find my friends statements hard to believe simply because despite Anti-communists in Russia, I cannot expect these people to be Anti-Russian and Germany invading whether as a ruthless conqueror or liberator certainly does not help Russia at all.

You are right. If the nazis took that route, then they would not be nazis, and probablly not attack in the first place.

Now to my point. This question of what the Gemans could do is the wrong one. Fact is the nazi regime & the Wehrmacht were at the top of their game in 1941. They could not really do much better. Sure this or that thing can be tweaked a bit and it all ends a kilometer closer to Moscow or whatever. But without massive changes to Germany extending back into the 1920s or earlier it is not possbile to reach a decisive result by altering things on the German side.

To put it another way, the war was not for the Germans to win. However on the other side it is possible to propose believable or possible events or decisions that could lose the war by the USSR, or Britain. That is to say the war was for the Reds to lose. Investigating decisions or events that would put the USSR or Red Army in a worse position are more likely to hand Germany a victory than anything practical on the German side.

[stg 44]

I doubt the Soviets could lose in 1941 in any circumstance given logistic constraints the Germans had. The Soviets could lose Leningrad and then Murmansk if they screwed up even worse perhaps, but that's about the high water mark; after that its up to the the Germans not to expose themselves at Stalingrad/the Caucasus after which they could bleed the Soviets by anchoring a strong line on the Don and fighting an attrition war in retreat for the next several years unless they have some game changes like Operation Eisenhammer go through. I don't see a screw up possible for the Soviets to actually lose the war at all in any circumstance, as they pretty much made all the possible mistakes until the winter of 1942-43 and then capitalized on German mistakes. Frankly the Germans could only ever stalemate the Soviets IMHO its just a question of how far East they would be by the time Stalin gives up and cuts a deal.

It certainly hurt the Germans to be at war in the West at the same time as the war in the East and also lacked strategic bombers to deal Soviet industry several very damaging blows; without the war with the Western Allies Germany could have won in the East by using their fully strength there along with their allies in Europe, but a victory in that case would simply be a Brest-Litovsk style victory, as full collapse of the Soviet state is just not possible, even with maximal Soviet errors.

[ljadw]

The plan was to defeat the SU in a short campaign which would be decided in the summer,in the region between the border and the Dwina/Dnjepr line . When this failed,Germany had lost,Irrevocably .

Why was the plan to defeat the SU in a short campaign ?

2 reasons :

1) It was impossible to defeat the SU in a long war

2)Even in the SU was defeated in a long war (in 1943),it would not help Germany:meanwhile,Germany would have lost against Britain and the US .

Other points : if there was no war with the West,there could be no war with the SU .And,if there was meanwhile NO LONGER a war with the West,there was no reason for a war with the SU .


The war against the SU started not in a vacuum :the reason for Barbarossa was the German failure to finish the war with Britain .

[Dark Age]

....

In a discussion with a friend, he claimed that Germany could likely have been victorious had it attacked the Soviet Union as a liberator against the Red Menace with the intention of inspiring the remaining White Russians living in Russia itself.

I myself find my friends statements hard to believe simply because despite Anti-communists in Russia, I cannot expect these people to be Anti-Russian and Germany invading whether as a ruthless conqueror or liberator certainly does not help Russia at all.

You are right. If the nazis took that route, then they would not be nazis, and probablly not attack in the first place.

Now to my point. This question of what the Gemans could do is the wrong one. Fact is the nazi regime & the Wehrmacht were at the top of their game in 1941. They could not really do much better. Sure this or that thing can be tweaked a bit and it all ends a kilometer closer to Moscow or whatever. But without massive changes to Germany extending back into the 1920s or earlier it is not possbile to reach a decisive result by altering things on the German side.

To put it another way, the war was not for the Germans to win. However on the other side it is possible to propose believable or possible events or decisions that could lose the war by the USSR, or Britain. That is to say the war was for the Reds to lose. Investigating decisions or events that would put the USSR or Red Army in a worse position are more likely to hand Germany a victory than anything practical on the German side.

Thank you for your response. If the proper questions is "what can the Soviets do to lose" then I still wish to know if there was legimate reasons to believe that there was a sufficient number of anti-communists in Russia that could cause an internal collapse of the state should the Red Army suffer enough disasters. Usual "what ifs" focus on Germany treating the Eastern European minorities in Russia more favorably, which as I stated seem to have flaws due to limited resources. I never saw someone claim that it was the White Russians or Anti-Bolsheviks that should have been compelled to overthrow Stalin.

I simply do not see a Soviet collapse as likely simply cause any aggressive invasion of the country , whether to slaughter all the subhumans, or vanquish communism and liberate the Ukraine and Baltic and put them under German protection, is directly opposed to Russian interests. Maybe Stalin and his government could have been overthrown and civil war ignited by anti-communists due to a large number of military disasters as any nation suffering enough disaster can collapse. This happened with Russia in World War One but took 3 years of conflict. In the Second World War, like the First, I just do not see it happening anytime in the short term.

So why did the Germans (and the Americans and British when assessing the German invasion of the Soviet Union) believe the Russian state would collapse quickly? Even if there were a large amount of Anti-Communists how can they be expected to be Anti-Russian?

[LWD]

The plan was to defeat the SU in a short campaign which would be decided in the summer,in the region between the border and the Dwina/Dnjepr line . When this failed,Germany had lost,Irrevocably .

Why was the plan to defeat the SU in a short campaign ?

2 reasons :

1) It was impossible to defeat the SU in a long war

As has been mentioned numerious times this is your opinion and not a fact. Indeed defeating the USSR was a possibility. In general the Germans (as most militaries) preferred short wars as they are far less costly than longer ones and if you have a plan that allows for the potential of a quick victory it is very attractive.

2)Even in the SU was defeated in a long war (in 1943),it would not help Germany:meanwhile,Germany would have lost against Britain and the US .

Based on what was known at the time this too looks to be far from certain. A distinct possiblity but not by any means a certainty.

Other points : if there was no war with the West,there could be no war with the SU .And,if there was meanwhile NO LONGER a war with the West,there was no reason for a war with the SU .

This seems very much to be counter to the thoughts and feelings of the time. Indeed Hitler didn't want war with France and Britain when it occured. From what I've read he hoped to deal with the Soviets first. So a lack of war in the west in no way prevents a war in the east.

The war against the SU started not in a vacuum :the reason for Barbarossa was the German failure to finish the war with Britain .

But the war with Britain was due to German designs on territory in the East and Poland was just a steppng stone.

As for the Original question certainly a Soviet collapse was possible it very much depends on what you change and when how likely it would have been though. I personally don't see many reasonable scenarios where the Nazis can inflict such a collapse though.

[ljadw]

Without first a war with the West,a war with the SU was impossible . This should be obvious . :roll:

A war with the SU was impossible without Germany capturing first Poland,because,if you don't know : prior to the fall of Poland,Germany and the SU had no common border .And a German attack on Poland triggered a DOW from Britain and France .

To prove that Barbarossa could happen in a situation where B + F were neutral,you have to prove

a)that Poland would have become willingly a German satellte :which means : no German attack on Poland,thus,no B+F DOW.


or

b) that B+ F would have remained neutral when Germany attacked Poland:which means : no DOW on Germany .


As we know that and A and B did not happen,and as there is no evidence that they could happen,the logical conclusion is that Barbarossa without war with the West was excluded .

[ljadw]

1) It was impossible to defeat the SU in a long war

As has been mentioned numerious times this is your opinion and not a fact.




Indeed defeating the USSR was a possibility. /quote]

THis is your opinion and not a fact .


Reality is that in the OTL,Germany failed to defeat the SU in a long war .And,as no one has been able to prove that Germany was able to defeat the SU in a long war,conclusion is that it was impossible for Germany to defeat the SU in a long war .

Realiry is supporting me :Germany failed in the OTL,thus YOU have to prove that what was impossible in the OTL,vcould happen in the ATL .As long as you can't do this, I am right .

[Old_Fossil]

The death of Stalin early in the campaign would lead to a host of possibilities that could result in the collapse of resistance. If the inevitable internal power struggle is also confronted with "Germany as liberator" the possibility of success increases.

[Old_Fossil]

Contrarily, the death of Stalin and his replacement with more competent leadership could make things worse for Germany.

[LWD]

Without first a war with the West,a war with the SU was impossible . This should be obvious . :roll:

Not really. Indeed just the opposite would seem to be the case. If a war in the West didn't require a war in the East why should the reverse be true.

A war with the SU was impossible without Germany capturing first Poland,because,if you don't know : prior to the fall of Poland,Germany and the SU had no common border.

That leaves a number of possiblities though doesn't it. For instance a German Polish allilance. Or a Soviet attack on Poland. Or Germany going after Poland before Checkoslavkia and avoiding the British and French guarantees. Numerous other possiblities exist.

To prove that Barbarossa could happen in a situation where B + F were neutral,you have to prove

As there is nothing to prevent it it is rather obvious that it could.

a)that Poland would have become willingly a German satellte :which means : no German attack on Poland,thus,no B+F DOW.

Thats one possiblity, see you just disproved your own conjecture.

b) that B+ F would have remained neutral when Germany attacked Poland:which means : no DOW on Germany .

That's another.

As we know that and A and B did not happen,and as there is no evidence that they could happen,

That's a rather extreme logical leap. There are numerous ways that it could have happened given different decisions at various points.

the logical conclusion is that Barbarossa without war with the West was excluded .

No logic to that conclusion at all. Not that it is unexpected given the source.

1) It was impossible to defeat the SU in a long war

As has been mentioned numerious times this is your opinion and not a fact.
Indeed defeating the USSR was a possibility. /quote]
THis is your opinion and not a fact .

It is a reasonable observation. Given that an event has not been proven impossible it is logical to assume that it is indeed possible.

Reality is that in the OTL,Germany failed to defeat the SU in a long war .And,as no one has been able to prove that Germany was able to defeat the SU in a long war,conclusion is that it was impossible for Germany to defeat the SU in a long war.

You have much to learn about logic and reason. Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. That's like saying that saying in 1902 since no one has flown in a heavier than air powered vehicle it can't be done.

Realiry is supporting me :Germany failed in the OTL,thus YOU have to prove that what was impossible in the OTL,vcould happen in the ATL .As long as you can't do this, I am right .

Actually I don't have to prove anything. You are the proponent. You have stated certain things were impossible it's up to you to prove them. I have merely called your assumptions to question. You have repeatedly failed to present any well reasoned fact based argument to support your position by the way where I have on a number of occasions presented facts that call your opinions to questions and pointed out both logical and factual fallacise associated with your position. The balls in your court.

[LWD]

Contrarily, the death of Stalin and his replacement with more competent leadership could make things worse for Germany.

Indeed, however not only would the replacement have to be "more competent" it would have to be fairly quick and well accepted. Any prolonged internal struggle even if it produced exceptional leadership could be to Germanys advantage. There's also the possiblity that such leadership would do away with the Soviet Union in fact if not in name. Thus you could have a situation where the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany both loose.

[BDV]

Now to my point. This question of what the Gemans could do is the wrong one. Fact is the nazi regime & the Wehrmacht were at the top of their game in 1941. They could not really do much better. Sure this or that thing can be tweaked a bit and it all ends a kilometer closer to Moscow or whatever. But without massive changes to Germany extending back into the 1920s or earlier it is not possbile to reach a decisive result by altering things on the German side.

Obviously I disagree. The Barbarossa plan was a pinnacle of slapstick planning. Only Benzino's foray into Egypt was more risible in its amateurish "we just need to show up and Victory is ours".

To put it another way, the war was not for the Germans to win. However on the other side it is possible to propose believable or possible events or decisions that could lose the war by the USSR, or Britain. That is to say the war was for the Reds to lose. Investigating decisions or events that would put the USSR or Red Army in a worse position are more likely to hand Germany a victory than anything practical on the German side.

Maybe. However, June 20th 1940 is such a high watermark for Nazi Germany, it is a fair question whether the obvious blunders in the following 17 months were what doomed Nazi Germany and its Axis underlings, or whether the Axis was doomed as of June 20th 1940, anyway.

[ljadw]

Without first a war with the West,a war with the SU was impossible . This should be obvious . :roll:

Not really. Indeed just the opposite would seem to be the case. If a war in the West didn't require a war in the East why should the reverse be true.

A war with the SU was impossible without Germany capturing first Poland,because,if you don't know : prior to the fall of Poland,Germany and the SU had no common border.

That leaves a number of possiblities though doesn't it. For instance a German Polish allilance. Or a Soviet attack on Poland. Or Germany going after Poland before Checkoslavkia and avoiding the British and French guarantees. Numerous other possiblities exist.

To prove that Barbarossa could happen in a situation where B + F were neutral,you have to prove

As there is nothing to prevent it it is rather obvious that it could.

a)that Poland would have become willingly a German satellte :which means : no German attack on Poland,thus,no B+F DOW.

Thats one possiblity, see you just disproved your own conjecture.

b) that B+ F would have remained neutral when Germany attacked Poland:which means : no DOW on Germany .

That's another.

As we know that and A and B did not happen,and as there is no evidence that they could happen,

That's a rather extreme logical leap. There are numerous ways that it could have happened given different decisions at various points.

the logical conclusion is that Barbarossa without war with the West was excluded .

No logic to that conclusion at all. Not that it is unexpected given the source.

1) It was impossible to defeat the SU in a long war

As has been mentioned numerious times this is your opinion and not a fact.
Indeed defeating the USSR was a possibility. /quote]
THis is your opinion and not a fact .

It is a reasonable observation. Given that an event has not been proven impossible it is logical to assume that it is indeed possible.

Reality is that in the OTL,Germany failed to defeat the SU in a long war .And,as no one has been able to prove that Germany was able to defeat the SU in a long war,conclusion is that it was impossible for Germany to defeat the SU in a long war.

You have much to learn about logic and reason. Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. That's like saying that saying in 1902 since no one has flown in a heavier than air powered vehicle it can't be done.

Realiry is supporting me :Germany failed in the OTL,thus YOU have to prove that what was impossible in the OTL,vcould happen in the ATL .As long as you can't do this, I am right .

Actually I don't have to prove anything. You are the proponent. You have stated certain things were impossible it's up to you to prove them. I have merely called your assumptions to question. You have repeatedly failed to present any well reasoned fact based argument to support your position by the way where I have on a number of occasions presented facts that call your opinions to questions and pointed out both logical and factual fallacise associated with your position. The balls in your court.

No,no,again no :

In post 7 ,you said : Indeed,defeating the SU (in a long war) was possible : I ask you,again,but with the knowledge that as usual you will avoid to answer: prove it .

If some one is saying that man could land on the moon in 1950,he has to prove it,I have not to prove that it was impossible . And,he has to explain why it was not done .

If someone is saying that Overlord was possible in june 1943,he has to prove it,I have not to prove that it was impossible,and,he has to explain why it was not done .

If someone is saying that it was possible for the Germans to invade successfully Britain in 1940,he has to prove it,and also to explain why they didn't it .

If someone is saying that 9/11 could be prevented.......
Etc,etc....

YOU (not me) said in post 7 that it was possible to defeat the SU in a long war .YOU have to prove it,and YOU must explain why it was not done .

Of course,you will prove nothing and explain nothing .