Benes says Stalin's war plans "nipped in the bud"

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
Post Reply
michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Benes says Stalin's war plans "nipped in the bud"

#1

Post by michael mills » 28 Sep 2003, 06:41

The following material is sourced from the book "Memoirs of Dr Eudard Benes: From Munich to New War and New Victory", 1954.

On page 145, Eduard Benes, the former Czech President, begins to deal with Soviet preparations to enter the war. First he describes the Soviet attempts to maintain its position of neutrality vis-a-vis Germany, by such actions as recognising the independent pro-German Slovak government on 16 Septemebr 1939, and subsequently expelling the Czech enoy Fierlinger from Moscow in December of that year.

Benes continues:
In addition, I gave much attention to the way in which the Soviet Government emphasized the 'insignificance of these various formalities,' - the description envoy Fierlinger told me had been applied to the recognition of Slovakia, the abolition of our Legation, etc. when he left Moscow. It was clear that the Soviet Union was bribing Germany to prolong the period of neutrality [my emphasis]. Consequently, in spite of all these events, which for our people at that time were very depressing events, I again said in my broadcast address to the homeland when France fell that I was convinced that the fall of France did not mean the end of the war and that I was still counting on the intervention in the war of the 'great eastern factor' - the Soviet Union [my emphasis]. I always retained this conviction.
The breaking out of the Soviet-Finnish war on November 30th, 1939, seemed to me a very significant event which fitted exactly into my interpretation of the future course of world events. I interpreted it as showing that the Soviet Union, regardless of the German-Finnish alliance and Germany's general policy, was consistently and undeviatingly pursuing its aim of wishing to protect itself against German both territorially and strategically. At the same time, it was ready to bear all the consequences of its actions: expulsion from the League of Nations and the attempts of Daladier to draw France and Great Britain into some form or other into action against the Soviet Union. The object of this manoeuvre was in line with Daladier's earlier plan. France was to disengage itself from the war against Germany and Germany's activities were to be diverted towards an attack against the Soviet Union, at the same time agreeing to make peace with the Western Powers.
Benes then goes on to describe two initiatives he undertook at the end of 1940 to determine the future course of Soviet policy. One was to send an unofficial representative to Moscow; this envoy, Colonel Pika, was sent first to Istanbul where he maintained contact with the Soviet intelligence service, and finally was admitted to the Soviet Union.

The other was to find out what had happened to the unit of Czech troops under Lt Col Ludvik Svoboda which had crossed into the Soviet Union after the fall of Poland. It was ascertained that they were being held in a temporary camp in Ukraine and relatively well treated. Benes asked the Soviet authorities to allow those soldiers to be sent to the West to join Czech troops there; the Soviets agreed, and after a few weeks two detachments were transferred to the Near East, where they were taken over by the British and sent to join Czech units in Great Britain.

Benes continues (page 147):
These two developments left me in no doubt as to the situation. But it was becessary to proceed, on our side, with the utmost discretion and not by our negligence to cause the Soviet Union any difficulties in respect of its neutral position towards Germany. We succeeded. And so from the beginning of 1941, my political calculations became an absolute conviction - after I had checked them with the probable Soviet plans. I was sure that the participation of the Soviet Union was in reality only a question of time. It was simply a question whether it would take place according to Communist suppositions, that is to say, not before the end of the war and in the form of a revolution and with the help also of German Communists (which I never ceased to doubt) or whether it would happen in accordance with my own expectations and opinion, in the near future and not simply on the revolutionary plane. The reports I received from Germany, soon brought me to the conclusion that in the end the deciding factor would be the Germans themselves, that is to say, Hitler, and not Stalin.
Page 149:
Not long afterwards reports which reached me from Prague fully confirmed my expectations. The Soviet Union was still trying to postpone its participation in the war as long as possible. But when Hitler in the Battle of Britain in the autumn of 1940 failed to break British resistance and force it to sue for peace, he was obliged to resolve a dilemma which for Germany was really desperate: what was he to do if Britain should continue its resistance, strengthened more and more by the help of the United States and if the preparations of the Soviet Union either to enter the war or to evoke a great social revolution should increase to a maximum intensity? [my emphases]

For Germany these were catastrophic prospects and Hitler, actuated by his character and his lack of education, immediately made his fatal and amateurish decision, expecting in his political narrow-mindedness that he would get out of this situation somehow in the end. The United States not being in the war, he decided that the time was opportune for an attack on the Soviet Union to break its strength before this could be sufficiently developed, thus nipping in the bud its war preparations and its plan to enter the war and stage a revolution later on [my emphasis]. At the same time he hoped that it would be possible to convince the Western Powers that the Soviet Union was planning a European and world revolution and induce them to make peace with Germany and give him a free hand in the East. Petain's France was without doubt ready to do so.
It is obvious, therefore, that Benes, who manifestly was no friend of Hitler of Germany, considered that Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union was essentially pre-emptive, to "nip in the bud" Stalin's preparations to enter the war against Germany at a time of his own choosing.

It is noteworthy that Benes does not see a German desire to seize "Lebensraum" or achieve an ideological goal as the motivation for Hitler's decision; he sees it as purely strategic.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#2

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 28 Sep 2003, 06:57

too bad that Hitler does not agree with Benes then :wink:


User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

#3

Post by Steve » 08 Oct 2003, 04:15

The views of Benes are interesting but he was not a member of either Hitler or Stalins inner circle or as far as we know recieving reliable information on the two dictators strategic ideas. His views on their intentions is educated guess work. The reasoning for the assault on the Soviet Union was probably because of the strategic situation that Hitler believed needed to be solved if Germany was to be sure of winning the war. This reasoning was not as unbalanced as many people believe as you can only make a decision according to the information you possess. However the mind that produced the idea that Germanys long term survival was dependent on elliminating the Soviet Union was undoubdedly influenced by thoughts of racial superiority and greater living space and this may have tipped the scales between invading or not invading.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#4

Post by michael mills » 08 Oct 2003, 06:16

Benes claims to have had a highly developed network of agents in the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia and in Germany itself, consisting both of Czechs and anti-Nazi Germans.

There were also Czech liaison officers in Moscow, in contact with Soviet intelligence, who were feeding information back to Benes in London.

Finally, Benes was getting information from the Czech Communist Party, which had good contacts in Moscow.

If Benes's claims about his intelligence network are true, then he was in a position to have reliable information about the intentions of both Hitler and Stalin.

john2
Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: 04 Feb 2003, 00:25
Location: north carolina

Reply to michael mills.

#5

Post by john2 » 08 Oct 2003, 21:24

Then please explain the following quote to me.

Adolf Hitler at a conference of military experts on 20 January, 1941 (Domarus, Hitler Reden 1932-1945, Volume 4, page 1655, after IMT 134-C)
A Russian claim due to our marching-up in Rumania has been placed and will be correspondingly rejected. The Russians always become impudent when you can to them no harm (winter). From America, even if they should enter the war, I see no great danger. The greater danger is the giant block Russia. We have very advantageous political and economic agreements with Russia, but I’d rather rely on my means of force. As long as Stalin lives, there is probably no danger; he is clever and careful. In earlier times Russia would have been no danger at all, because on land they are not at all dangerous to us. But now, in the era of air power, the whole Rumanian oil region can be turned into a smoking heap of rubble from Russia and from the Mediterranean. [Translator’s note: Hitler left it open if such attacks might be staged by Russia or if Russia might only allow the British air force to operate against Germany from its territory. At any rate, Hitler obviously expected no such threat to materialize as long as Stalin was in power.] It is necessary to have an enormous force of anti-aircraft guns with very much ammunition, because there may come the time when the war is conducted only by the air force and the navy.
Does this sound like someone fearing a Soviet attack?

User avatar
Starinov
Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 18 Apr 2002, 17:29
Location: Québec, Canada.

#6

Post by Starinov » 08 Oct 2003, 22:32

Before you start a new thread about the possibility of a German pre-emptive attack against USSr, I recommend you read the following thread: Operation Barbarossa and Icebreaker. I guess you will find it exhaustive...

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#7

Post by michael mills » 09 Oct 2003, 01:23

John2 wrote:
Does this sound like someone fearing a Soviet attack?
Obviously Hitler did not expect the Red Army to come crashing westwards in January 1941, at the time when he made the quoted statement.

However, the content of the statement shows that he was aware of the strategic threat that the Soviet Union posed for the near future, ie it could launch a sudden attack by air, destroying Germany's only non-Soviet source of oil in Romania, and thereby at one blow rendering it incapable of continuing to fight.

[Note for readers: The "translator's note" appearing in the quote is not in the text given by Domarus. It is an insertion by a former member of this forum, who originally introduced this particular passage, and from whom John2 has apparently copied it, rather than from the text in the Domarus volume. Therefore, it is an interpretation by the former forum member, which may or may not be valid.]

Look again at what Benes wrote in his immediate post-war memoirs. He is describing his analysis in 1940 of the future course of the war, and in particular the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union.

He concludes that the current Soviet neutrality was only temporary, and that it would eventually enter the war against Germany. The only question was whether it would do so at a time of its own choosing, ie at the end of the war, when both Germany and Britain had become exhausted and there was a revolutionary situation that it could exploit, or whether it would be forced into the military action by forces beyond its control.

Benes concludes that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union first. He bases that conclusion on the fact that in 1940 Hitler was faced with a dilemma; on the one hand, the strength of Britain, backed up by the United States, would increase, and on the other, the preparations of the Soviet Union to enter the war, might "increase to maximum intensity". Benes therefore concluded that Hitler would try to break out of the dilemma by attacking the Soviet Union before its war preparations had reached "maximum intensity" and before German strength had been further weakened by a continuation of the stalemate with Britain.

As Benes himself terms it, Hitler thereby "nipped in the bud" the Soviet Union's war preparations and its plans to enter the was against Germany at a later time (all the indications are that Stalin was planning to be ready by Spring 1942) and stage a revolution.

The clear implication of the analysis by Benes is that the German attack was preventive, ie that its purpose was to prevent the emergence of a clearly foreseeable future situation where Germany would be so weakened and the Soviet Union so strengthened that it could renounce its neutrality and launch a successful westward offensive (as it did against Japan in August 1945). That does not mean that Germany in January 1941 feared an impending Soviet attack.

john2
Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: 04 Feb 2003, 00:25
Location: north carolina

Reply to michael mills.

#8

Post by john2 » 09 Oct 2003, 02:17

He concludes that the current Soviet neutrality was only temporary, and that it would eventually enter the war against Germany.
And I am saying that Benes must be wrong. Your interpratation that the Hitler said there was no danger because it was January doesen't make sense. Look at the excerpt from the quote again.
As long as Stalin lives, there is probably no danger; he is clever and careful.


Hitler is clearly saying there is no danger because Stalin is too cautious to enter the war and that as long as he lives Germany doesen't have to worry about an invasion. This however does not mean that Stalin couldn't black mail Hitler into giving more territory but does mean that Hitler faced a different sort of danger then an attack.

Btw I was not trying to be dishonest about keeping the "translator's note" I thought Roberto had copied it directly from Damurus's work.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

#9

Post by Steve » 11 Oct 2003, 04:42

"He has led a reign of terror. He has hurled countless people into the profoundest misery. Through his continuous terrorism, he has succeded in reducing millions of his people to silence............We have displayed a truly unexampled patience, but I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings."

Adolf Hitler on Benes April 14 1939, clearly Benes was a madman whose views should not be taken seriously.

User avatar
Dora
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 17:36
Location: Hanover, Pennsylvania

#10

Post by Dora » 12 Dec 2003, 19:22

All,
Regarding the discussion of attack and preemptive attack vis a vis Germany and Russia, David Glantz has much to say about this very subject in his 1998 work "Stumbling Colossus".
Dora
800mm

Post Reply

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”