June 20, 2005
FIGHTS IN WHICH ONE HAS NO DOG:
Stalin's Blindness: He deceived himself about Hitler, and it cost millions of Russian lives; a review of What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa by David E. Murphy Andrew Nagorski, 06/27/2005, Weekly Standard)
Stalin's apologists have always maintained that he had no choice but to agree to the pact with Hitler, since he needed to buy time to prepare for war. Britain and France's appeasement at Munich a year earlier, and their lack of serious interest in forging an alliance with Russia, left Stalin with no choice, they claimed. In fact, Murphy points out, the Soviet leader was much more than Hitler's reluctant partner. He was enthusiastic about dividing the spoils of Poland, which he attacked from the east 16 days after Hitler's armies attacked from the west, and seizing control of the Baltic states. And, most tellingly, he slipped quite comfortably into the role of defending Germany and vilifying the British and the French.So comfortably that the case can be made that Stalin may have wondered what kind of outcome he really wanted from the war he helped unleash. In the most controversial part of his book, Murphy offers the first English translation of a speech Stalin allegedly made on August 19, 1939, right before formalizing his agreement with Hitler. In it, he argued that if the West defeated Germany in a long war, that country would be ripe for Sovietization; but if Germany won in a long war, it would be too exhausted to threaten the Soviet Union, and a Communist takeover would be likely in France. Hence a win-win situation for the Soviet Union, and his conclusion that "one must do everything to ensure that the war lasts as long as possible in order to exhaust both sides." [...]
[S]talin let slip similar comments on September 7, 1939, in the presence of several of his top aides. Discussing the war "between two groups of capitalist countries," as he characterized the Western powers and Germany, he asserted: "We see nothing wrong in their having a good fight and weakening each other."
There's not much you can say in Stalin's favor, but he did understand that much better than FDR, who intervened when two totalitarians were weakening each other. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 20, 2005 3:44 PM
My best guess about "The Enigma of Barbarossa" is that Stalin initially thought it was a spoiling attack. Stalin, I believe, was preparing to attack into German-held territory, probably the next year.
A spoiling attack is launched, not to gain an objective, but to disrupt the enemy's preparations for an attack of his own. You attack, force the enemy to redeploy forces to block your attack, to use up supply stockpiles, and to destroy infrastructure (bridges etc.) on your apparent route of advance; then you pull back to your original lines before the enemy's redeployed forces can inflict heavy damage.
Stalin had many reasons to suspect a spoiling attack. He was after all planning an attack, of which Hitler might have learned. Hitler's fundamental policy was to avoid a two-front war. A real attack on or by the USSR would open up a second front. A spoiling attack would be aimed at delaying it.
The German army was pitifully unprepared for a long campaign in Russia. It lacked heavy winter coats, and lightweight winter oil for its vehicles. Stalin was much more impressed by physical evidence like this than by documentary evidence. He knew too well how easily documents could be faked.
Also, part of the good weather for fighting had already been lost by the time the Germans attacked. If the Germans were only planning a quick spoiling attack, none of this was a problem. It would be over before General Winter took command. But if the Germans were planning a long campaign to, say, take Moscow, it didn't make any sense.
So Stalin took no action, hoping to minimize the disruption. Only when the German attack continued rather than pulling back, did he realize it was for real. His mistake, then, was assuming that Hitler's actions had to make sense.
Unless I'm making the mistake of assuming that Stalin's actions made sense, this seems to me the most likely explanation.
"FDR, who intervened when two totalitarians were weakening each other."
there is so much wrong in that sentence.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 21, 2005 12:10 AMI cannot concur. Once again, American policy had been brilliant. World War Two was almost as slick as the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. We managed the conflict to allow the totalitarians to chew each other up. In the end, we beat them both without getting chewed up ourselves.
Posted by: Lou Gots at June 21, 2005 5:41 AMIf the alleged speech by Stalin was fact, or if FDR also held Stalin's reasonable analysis, then FDR had no choice but to intervene when he did.
Posted by: Genecis at June 21, 2005 10:20 AMthree years later when the situation was reversed?
Posted by: oj at June 21, 2005 10:32 AM