Was the Red Army worth a preemptive strike on the Wehrmacht?
As you know, Nazi Germany attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941. At the cost of tens of millions of lives, the Soviet people accomplished a real feat, ending the war four years later in the lair of the aggressor, Berlin. For many years, the anti-Soviet tried to equate Comrade Stalin with Hitler, attributing to him the plans for an attack on the Third Reich.
The so-called “Viktor Suvorov”, whose real name is Vladimir Rezun, our former intelligence officer who became a defector, was especially “distinguished” in this simpler way. His fantasies in an essay entitled “Icebreaker” have long been refuted, and they are not the subject of this discussion.
But, if you try to ignore real historical events, was there in the very idea of a preemptive strike on the territory of the enemy, the war with which is inevitable, healthy grain? Let's try to speculate on this topic. We emphasize that we in no way ascribe these plans to the Soviet leadership, since there are no facts, this confirms, except for the speculations of Suvorov and his followers. The question will be in the format “what if ...”, and a convincing request not to take the hypotheses to heart. We are not talking about a kind of "revisionism."
Consider two basic options that could theoretically take place in the case of the decision to “beat first”. Suvorov even personally came up with the name for such a plan - Thunderstorm. The followers of Rezun indicate that the Soviet leadership concentrated 1941 million soldiers, more than 2,2 thousand guns and mortars, 37 tanks and more than 6500 tanks and armored vehicles on its western border by May 8000. Allegedly, all this force was supposed to invade Eastern and Southeastern Europe and move to Berlin first.
With the most optimal outcome of events, Soviet troops could theoretically encircle the German forces and defeat them. Europe is not Russia, dear beautiful, Berlin is just a stone's throw away. In the event of a series of high-profile defeats, the Allies would have turned their back on Germany very quickly and sided with the USSR.
France at that time was actually deprived political subjectivity, Great Britain sat on its island and did not have a sufficiently strong land army to quickly occupy the "denazified" Western Europe. The United States did not yet become a superpower. And then the rich imagination of some authors even draws a blessed picture:
But still try to be closer to reality, even in our "alternative" history.
Unfortunately, 1941 and 1942 showed that the Wehrmacht surpassed the Red Army of those years in terms of training and the effectiveness of the execution of the plan. Even if the Soviet troops were the first to cross the border and inflict a series of defeats, using the effect of surprise, the German command would quickly regroup forces and, taking advantage of speed and maneuverability, begin to produce swift encirclement of the Red Army units with their subsequent inevitable defeat already on its territory.
Soviet soldiers would end up in cauldrons and die under enemy flank and rear attacks. And from such a trap they would not have any chance to get out. A defeat on enemy territory would already be more terrible and crushing than what was in reality.
Fortunately for all of us, a similar adventure was not realized by the leadership of the USSR, and the war ended the way it ended.
The so-called “Viktor Suvorov”, whose real name is Vladimir Rezun, our former intelligence officer who became a defector, was especially “distinguished” in this simpler way. His fantasies in an essay entitled “Icebreaker” have long been refuted, and they are not the subject of this discussion.
But, if you try to ignore real historical events, was there in the very idea of a preemptive strike on the territory of the enemy, the war with which is inevitable, healthy grain? Let's try to speculate on this topic. We emphasize that we in no way ascribe these plans to the Soviet leadership, since there are no facts, this confirms, except for the speculations of Suvorov and his followers. The question will be in the format “what if ...”, and a convincing request not to take the hypotheses to heart. We are not talking about a kind of "revisionism."
Consider two basic options that could theoretically take place in the case of the decision to “beat first”. Suvorov even personally came up with the name for such a plan - Thunderstorm. The followers of Rezun indicate that the Soviet leadership concentrated 1941 million soldiers, more than 2,2 thousand guns and mortars, 37 tanks and more than 6500 tanks and armored vehicles on its western border by May 8000. Allegedly, all this force was supposed to invade Eastern and Southeastern Europe and move to Berlin first.
Fast victory?
With the most optimal outcome of events, Soviet troops could theoretically encircle the German forces and defeat them. Europe is not Russia, dear beautiful, Berlin is just a stone's throw away. In the event of a series of high-profile defeats, the Allies would have turned their back on Germany very quickly and sided with the USSR.
France at that time was actually deprived political subjectivity, Great Britain sat on its island and did not have a sufficiently strong land army to quickly occupy the "denazified" Western Europe. The United States did not yet become a superpower. And then the rich imagination of some authors even draws a blessed picture:
A socialist camp created within the framework of the Old World would control most of the Earth’s resources.
But still try to be closer to reality, even in our "alternative" history.
A terrible defeat?
Unfortunately, 1941 and 1942 showed that the Wehrmacht surpassed the Red Army of those years in terms of training and the effectiveness of the execution of the plan. Even if the Soviet troops were the first to cross the border and inflict a series of defeats, using the effect of surprise, the German command would quickly regroup forces and, taking advantage of speed and maneuverability, begin to produce swift encirclement of the Red Army units with their subsequent inevitable defeat already on its territory.
Soviet soldiers would end up in cauldrons and die under enemy flank and rear attacks. And from such a trap they would not have any chance to get out. A defeat on enemy territory would already be more terrible and crushing than what was in reality.
Fortunately for all of us, a similar adventure was not realized by the leadership of the USSR, and the war ended the way it ended.
Information