Posted by: Some_Guy_from_RI
Posting time: 2.8 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 5/5/2018 10:00:00 AM
Views: 279
SCP: 6
6 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
~2 user(s) here now
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] HarlandKornfeld14 ago
You are underestimating the Soviets. If they struck before Hitler had all his stuff on the borders they could've taken out the Romanian oilfields and thrown the whole thing into disarray.
[–] DukeofAnarchy ago
No, you're overestimating them. The resources needed for my proposed strategy would not have precluded adequate defensive preparations in the east. Also, you're forgetting that, in the case of a Soviet war of aggression, Japan would have been obliged by the Tripartite Pact to declare war. So Stalin would certainly have been faced with the prospect of a war on two fronts. And what would the British do? From Stalin's point of view, it was quite possible that the British would at least take the opportunity to negotiate a favorable peace with Germany, if not join the war on the German side. Then the USSR would be fighting alone against the combined forces of world capitalism.
[–] HarlandKornfeld14 ago
Stalin delayed his plans to launch a preemptive strike against Germany because he thought Rudolf Hess was going to broker an alliance with the British.
If German troops have to fight the British in North Africa then they are going to vulnerable to that Soviet first-strike, considering the loses they already suffered at Crete impeded Barbarossa.