What if: Hitler didn't attacked Russia?

[michaelmaltby]

As part of M-R pact Stalin occupied Bessarabia, a region with strong German roots that had been part of the Ukraine prior to the end of WW1 but was in 1939 part of Romania. In 1940 German troops moved into Romania to "protect" and later that year Romania joined the Axis.

Parsifal's analysis is historically correct - my point about Romanian oil is shadowed by the reluctance historians have to accept the "Ice Breaker" scenario (that Stalin was poised to go on the offensive around October 1941). This explains why Soviet troops were positioned where they were in June 1941 and why they had no "orders". There is much of Sokolov's (sp?) Ice Breaker theory that I have difficulty swallowing - like tanks with Christie suspensions that were designed not for cross-country but fast highway travel on wheels - but overall Stalin knew he had to do it to Hitler before Hitler did it to him, and preventing Hitler from accessing Romanian oil was a No 1 consideration in containing Hitler.

In supporting this "shoot first" thesis I remind readers that just last year we learned from Putin historians in Russia that England and France caused WW2 because, if they had just reneged on their treaty with Poland and had given Stalin permission to advance west through Poland in 1939 (pre M-R Pact) WW2 would have been prevented.

It's a great debate. What if - indeed

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

No tomo - it is in '39 or '40 - post M-R Pact. I'll find a date/details and post but the action was what prompted the Romanians to ally with Hitler.

MM

So they occupied Besarabia - no oil there. If Stalin was to attack Germany, he would not supply them with oil (and other stuff) all way to Barbarossa.

 

[tomo pauk]

The reason for attacking Rumania was about establishing a strong presence in the balkans. Stalin was seeking to establish political control over Europe, and traditionally the starting point for that was through dominating the balkans. Thats why the balkans was known as the "backdoor to Europe". Stalin wanted to gain political influence over the Germans and prevent them from dominating the whole of Europe. The fact that it was a gross overestimation of Russian capabilities is irrelevant really.

The M-R pact was seen in Sovie Union as a pact between two equal subjects.
After splitting of Poland, Germans overran Norway, Low Countries and France, already having Austrian and Czechoslovakia firmly in their hands, plus great influence in Hungary Bulgaria, the balance shifted to German hands - and Stalin was aware of that. So he moved to Baltic States Beassarabia in order to compensate.

 

[michaelmaltby]

" ...The M-R pact was seen in Soviet Union as a pact between two equal subjects. .."

Perhaps in Stalin's eyes, tomo, but certainly not in Hitler's. Your comment in an earlier post about the Balkans (gateway)was more correct and insightful.
No oil in Bessarabia - true - but also much German influence from the distant past there. And definitely moves the yard sticks into post-1918 Romania. The occupation of the Baltic Republics was a long time Soviet ambition - they had been part of the Imperial Eagle's jig saw puzzle since Peter - and were chucked out by Independence Movements in 1918-19. Stalin wanted them back. Hungary and Bulgaria were never spheres of Russian influence - not Slavic in any way shape of form. Stalin was a hegemonist as well as a (international) communist

IMHO the only part of your statement that is really true "pact between two equal subjects" is the equality with which each man believed he was smarter and more cunning than the other. In the short term Stalin misjudged Hitler and was wrong, in the long term he was right - and survived to create a post WW2 superpower.

You make no comment about my several references to "Ice Breaker". Do you not have any thoughts on this subject that you'd care to share, or, do you like many believe that Russia was blind-sided by Hitler on that fateful June 22nd morning??

Yes, I am well aware that train loads or ore, oil, and other necessities rumbled over the border just hours before the cannons started .... but ... Stalin was warned by Churchill several times of the exact date and hour of the German attack. Soviets don't willingly acknowledge this but it is nonetheless true. The question is why did Stalin play "dumb" when he knew this information: the answer is that he was buying time for his own first strike, and that he truly believed that Hitler was just "maneuvering". After being warned by the British about Barbarossa, Stalin took that information seriously enough to get intelligence agents all across Nazis occupied Europe to check the fur market - sheepskin, rabbit, cowhide, whatever. The market was FLAT - no rush, no hoarding, no inflated prices, nada. From this intelligence Stalin determined that rumor of Barbarossa was a BLUFF - after all - no leader in his right mind would contemplate war with Russia without preparation for WINTER

Well - Stalin was wrong. He couldn't envisage the daring and audacity of an attack that was betting on taking Moscow by end-September '41. Not only was Stalin wrong, but he was thoroughly shaken psychologically. That's why he just disappeared for the better part of the first week of the war. Poof - gone. Let the Generals bumble and stumble without plans or orders.

Stalin was a chess player. Hitler was a gambler.

Health, my friend.

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

" ...The M-R pact was seen in Soviet Union as a pact between two equal subjects. .."

Perhaps in Stalin's eyes, tomo, but certainly not in Hitler's. Your comment in an earlier post about the Balkans (gateway)was more correct and insightful.

My comment about Balkans as gateway? From what post?

No oil in Bessarabia - true - but also much German influence from the distant past there.

Care to shed some light about that influence, and how that effected superpower match unfolding in early 1940es?

And definitely moves the yard sticks into post-1918 Romania. The occupation of the Baltic Republics was a long time Soviet ambition - they had been part of the Imperial Eagle's jig saw puzzle since Peter - and were chucked out by Independence Movements in 1918-19. Stalin wanted them back. Hungary and Bulgaria were never spheres of Russian influence - not Slavic in any way shape of form. Stalin was a hegemonist as well as a (international) communist

Bulgaria not Slavic? Wrong there, my friend As for Hungary - the country was geographicaly as close to Soviet Union as it was to Germany, and Germans had it in their camp. Not looking good in Stalin's eyes. I agree Stalin was hegemonist.

IMHO the only part of your statement that is really true "pact between two equal subjects" is the equality with which each man believed he was smarter and more cunning than the other. In the short term Stalin misjudged Hitler and was wrong, in the long term he was right - and survived to create a post WW2 superpower.

OK

You make no comment about my several references to "Ice Breaker". Do you not have any thoughts on this subject that you'd care to share, or, do you like many believe that Russia was blind-sided by Hitler on that fateful June 22nd morning??

Never read the "Ice breaker"
Was Stalin preparing against (German) attack? He surely was.
Was he/Red Army prepared? Nope.

Yes, I am well aware that train loads or ore, oil, and other necessities rumbled over the border just hours before the cannons started .... but ... Stalin was warned by Churchill several times of the exact date and hour of the German attack. Soviets don't willingly acknowledge this but it is nonetheless true. The question is why did Stalin play "dumb" when he knew this information: the answer is that he was buying time for his own first strike, and that he truly believed that Hitler was just "maneuvering". After being warned by the British about Barbarossa, Stalin took that information seriously enough to get intelligence agents all across Nazis occupied Europe to check the fur market - sheepskin, rabbit, cowhide, whatever. The market was FLAT - no rush, no hoarding, no inflated prices, nada. From this intelligence Stalin determined that rumor of Barbarossa was a BLUFF - after all - no leader in his right mind would contemplate war with Russia without preparation for WINTER

You assume many things that weren't - Hitler being in 'right mind', broken German economy buying furs for soldiers, German HQ Hitler concern about logistics.
Again, Stalin/Read Army DID react vs. apparent German invasion. They massed the 3/4 of their armed forces, 300 km deep from border with now-Germany their satellites. Thus, serving them on silver plate for Blitzkrieg-seasoned army.

Well - Stalin was wrong. He couldn't envisage the daring and audacity of an attack that was betting on taking Moscow by end-September '41. Not only was Stalin wrong, but he was thoroughly shaken psychologically. That's why he just disappeared for the better part of the first week of the war. Poof - gone. Let the Generals bumble and stumble without plans or orders.

Nothing new for me there...

Stalin was a chess player. Hitler was a gambler.

OK

Health, my friend.

MM

Cheers

 

[stasoid]

Never read the "Ice breaker"

Dont bother. Waste of time. En ex-KGB (Rezun-Suvorov, defected) making his living on publishing tabloid style sensationl fantasies on WW2 matters. A lot of technical flaws. Not worth reading, imo.

 

[michaelmaltby]

My comment about Balkans as gateway? From what post?
Sorry, my mistake tomo. Parsifal's post. But correct IMHO.

Bulgaria not Slavic? Wrong there, my friend As for Hungary - the country was geographicaly as close to Soviet Union as it was to Germany, and Germans had it in their camp. Not looking good in Stalin's eyes. I agree Stalin was hegemonist.

Bulgarians - my mistake. Meant Romanians. Bulgarians are Slavs and the language is Slavic. Romanians (which I intended to write) are not Slavs and Romanian is a Romance language with roots in Latin, like all romance languages.
As for Hungary - physical proximity has nothing to do with "influences". Hungary's roots are Magyar and the language is Finno Ugric (sp) - same as Estonian and Finnish. All non-Slavic peoples in the region tend to look west, not east - as the direction from which progress came. That's why Great Peter built his new capital on the Baltic, facing west.

Care to shed some light about that influence, and how that effected superpower match unfolding in early 1940es?
Sure, I'll try to. There were historically "pockets" of Germans - as opposed to Slav - peoples throughout the western USSR. Many had been there since Peter the Great and Catherine. Czars often imported Germans to "bootstrap" a district or region economically. (Millers, stone masons, whatever. Skilled craftsman.) Just as Peter went to Europe and worked in a shipyard to learn a trade, before acending to the throne. After 1917, these pockets were a cause of concern to the Soviet, were often deported east. And when the Germans came in 1941, they were often greeted warmly by the locals (if not for long . Bessarabia historically had been influenced by "imported" Germans. As had the Ukraine which mustered a pro-Nazi cossack army if I'm not mistaken.
Stalin - watching Hitler develop through the late '30's - could see that Hitler was expanding Naziism under the guise of pan-Germanism: Rhineland, Austria, Sudetanland etc. All this had a bearing on how these two leaders viewed/trusted each other and motives.

You assume many things that weren't - Hitler being in 'right mind', broken German economy buying furs for soldiers, German HQ Hitler concern about logistics.
Again, Stalin/Read Army DID react vs. apparent German invasion. They massed the 3/4 of their armed forces, 300 km deep from border with now-Germany their satellites. Thus, serving them on silver plate for Blitzkrieg-seasoned army.

I assume very little - certainly not that Hitler was in his right mind . As for the broken economy - by end of 1940 the German economy was certainly not broken. The Germans had integrated the wealth, population and means of production of Austria, France, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, etc. etc. Finding BTW in each of these countries a portion of the population who welcomed an enemy of communism. As you well know - Waffen SS regiments were raised throughout the conquered lands.
The positioning of the Soviet forces - without clear orders or strong defensive positions is as much evidence of Stalin's plans for October '41 as for effective defense in June '41. Stalin didn't believe Hitler would gamble.

As for Stasoid's anti-Ice Breaker post. He is free to hold whatever view he wishes. I myself already posted that I was a sceptic in many, many ways. But I think you should decide for yourself whether or not any of the "evidence" Suvorov "musters". The story of the furs is his - not mine - but could be cross checked. Buying sheep skins for boots, rabbit for glove linings - these aren't luxury furs and ANY military thinking of war with Russia would make winter uniforms - but not Hitler

tomo I realize I sound like an anti-slavik bigot but I am not. Nonetheless the historical record is the historical record. I am very suspect of Soviet era thinking. Facts were not allowed to get in the way of social engineering.

Criticize as you like.

Chairs.

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry if you think I'm criticizing for sake of it

Re. nations, languages proximities - while similar nations and similar languages might or might not tailor strategic issues, the proximity of one country is well within those issues. So Romania was much greater issue for Soviets, then for Kingdom of Yougoslavia, for example.

Re. ethnic Germans in Soviet Union: you over estimate the influence ethnic Germans might have. 1st, they were to few compared to total population, 2nd, ethnic minority in a non-democratic country would find itself in problems for saying "we are minority, therefore we have rights", let alone to try gain influence over majority. 3rd, main part of German majority were "povolški nijemci" (="Germans by river Volga") - so, couple of thousands of kilometres away from Ruso-German border. In short - to few, to weak and to far away to be important.
You also overstate ethnic-German influence in Ukrainian relations with Stalin. It was Stalin that killed, via starvation, millions of Ukrainians - motivating them to welcome Germans from 22.06.1941.

Re. German economy not broken: Wehrmacht fielded under 20% of it's infantry divisions as motorized in early 40es; none as mechanized prior 1942. Soldier walked in order to go to combat. Main prime mover for artillery was horse - despite just capturing thousands of French AFVs. Luftwaffe fielded under 700 Bf-109 fighters for Barbarossa, with total of way under 3000 combat planes. They looted and plundered any contry they captured. For needs of an army tasked to defeat largest army in the world, the German economy was not able to provide.

Re. orders possitons of Red Army units: theiy could not be as strongly entrenched as they were before fall of Poland because of simple fact that those positions were in Red Army hands a year or two, compared with almost 20 years available for previous positions. Orders like 'go there and stay' were as clear as any you like.

The story of the furs is his - not mine - but could be cross checked. Buying sheep skins for boots, rabbit for glove linings - these aren't luxury furs and ANY military thinking of war with Russia would make winter uniforms - but not Hitler

Than I rest my case about furs

As for anti-this or anti-that bigot: people make mistakes even in the fields of their expertise, let alone outside. Me included.

Nonetheless the historical record is the historical record.

Meaning?

I am very suspect of Soviet era thinking. Facts were not allowed to get in the way of social engineering.

Do you mean other establishments were saying the truth all the time?

 

[michaelmaltby]

"German economy not broken: Wehrmacht fielded under 20% of it's infantry divisions as motorized in early 40es; none as mechanized prior 1942...." Germany was not on a war footing economy until 1942-43. Women not mobilized in the work force as in USA or USA or GB. This semi-peacetime mode is just another symptom of Hitler being delusional.. Guns AND Butter.

"Meaning" - I think you greatly underestimate the influence of Germans on pre-1917 Russia. Regions like Latvia and Estonia looked entirely to Germany for culture and religion. Lithuania looked to Poland - which was Catholic not Orthodox. And it had been thus for hundreds of years - these countries were first colonized by Teutonic Knights and were Hansiatic states before Peter.

Again - acknowledging generalizations - tribes such as Balts, Estos and Magyars had always been threatened from the east by hordes that sprung up - whether Huns, Mongols or the Tsars army.

"Do you mean other establishments were saying the truth all the time?" Truth doesn't come from establishments - I think we both know that. History is called upon by establishments to legitimize a particular narrative that they want to sell. Russia has always portrayed itself as "Mother" to various slavic peoples. Germany has always looked "east" for expansion because they needed room, resources and markets. The Anglo-Saxon people have been influenced by their history and their island status to see themselves as above and outside the realm of continental Europe. These of course are all gross generalizations and I concede that but use them here to illustrate what I meant by "the historical record is the historical record".

That said - I think that under communism - black was often white and white was black. For a political system responsible for the lives of its citizens and the nation's well-being, that kind of pseudo scientific dogma is disastrous. That is not to say that 1,000's and 1,000's of people didn't/don't believe that communism is the key to world peace and the brotherhood of the proletariat. I say "good luck with that" but personally - I see no examples that spring to mind that support that premise in a positive way. Russia became a global superpower after 1945 because (1) they occupied much of the field, (3) had survived the Germans (and Stalin's purges) thanks to the same blood is thicker than water love of Russia that had served Czars in previous crises, and (4) got the atomic bomb thanks to an intelligence network put in place outside Russia in the economically tough 1930's when otherwise intelligent people started believing their system had failed them.

I live in a country that constantly is under the shadow of a powerful USA and is fed a diet of US culture and historical revisionism (too strong a word but none else comes to mind). That said, there are vast orders of magnitude between the "truth" of the US cultural output and that of the communist Soviet Union. I know which one I prefer. And much of the world agrees with me - even if anti-American in disposition.

Never for a moment do I underestimate the power and strength of Russia - which is why my favorite hockey contests are Canada-Russia - and not Canada-USA. And I have the greatest respect for the contribution the Soviet Union-Russian people made in WW2. But North America is a free society - ideas are allowed out of jars and - while there are lots of cases of facts being withheld - generally it is the exception rather than the rule. I have no confidence that the same openness applies in the (former) USSR and its legacy lives in modern Russia. Truth is what a nation and a society make of it - but truth is not play dough - if you make the wrong choices with it, over time that will be reflected in your social, political and economic well being. For example - decline in male life expectancy.

So with all respect tomo - please don't dismiss the notion that Stalin would have struck at Germany first. That idea has been declared verboten because the message (and reality) of the Great Patriot War - when victim Mother Russia reeled but never broke - has been so effectively sold. Even in the USA there is no appetite for that view because it would simply make clear that Hitler was a more driven gambler than Stalin.

Chairs,

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

Germany was not on a war footing economy until 1942-43. Women not mobilized in the work force as in USA or USA or GB. This semi-peacetime mode is just another symptom of Hitler being delusional.. Guns AND Butter.

German economy was not in position to sustain the needs of it's armed force, even after Stalingrad. So if they had butter prior that, it was gone after. And soldiers still had to walk.

I think you greatly underestimate the influence of Germans on pre-1917 Russia. Regions like Latvia and Estonia looked entirely to Germany for culture and religion. Lithuania looked to Poland - which was Catholic not Orthodox. And it had been thus for hundreds of years - these countries were first colonized by Teutonic Knights and were Hansiatic states before Peter.

I've never said anything about German influence to pre-communist Russia - and that issue is not related to this thread.
Another thing is influence that German minority from Russia might have in regard to Russo-German relations - and it was negligible. If you think that opinions of citizens of Baltic states and Poland after 1939/40 meant anything in Soviet Union, I'd say you're idealist

Again - acknowledging generalizations - tribes such as Balts, Estos and Magyars had always been threatened from the east by hordes that sprung up - whether Huns, Mongols or the Tsars army.

What this had to do with thread escapes me

These of course are all gross generalizations and I concede that but use them here to illustrate what I meant by "the historical record is the historical record".

Thanks for clearing out - I generally agree with you.

So with all respect tomo - please don't dismiss the notion that Stalin would have struck at Germany first.

We'd never know, I say.

Chairs,

Sofas

Michael, it would be redicoulus from me to claim former communist countries had more speech freedom than W. European or N. American. Yet, during last almost 70 years, the intelligence networks would've provided enough of evidence (not some sensastionalistic chit-chat) that Russians were to strike 1st - yet they weren't.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... during last almost 70 years, the intelligence networks would've provided enough of evidence (not some sensationalistic chit-chat) that Russians were to strike 1st - yet they weren't."

Reasonable argument, tomo. I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories and have acknowledged in this thread already that there is much I disagree with in the "first strike Stalin" theory. Having said that, I am constantly being surprised by what is turning up now when and where the "ice melts" I read the claims of Putin historians last year that WW2 in Europe could have been prevented if France and England had only abandoned Poland and allowed Stalin's forces to move west and checkmate Hitler - I read that statement with amazement. Not because I didn't believe that Soviet diplomats had proposed that (I believe they did) but rather because of the (current day) attempt to paint the USSR as a proactive "peace maker" in 1939 - months before M-R Pact - and BURNISH Stalin's image and legacy. In essence their message: if you in the west had done what we asked there wouldn't have been war, you didn't, so we signed a deal with your enemy even though we knew he hated us and was committed to destroying communism and using us as slaves. If modern Russia can "overlook" Stalin's actions and the actions of communists throughout - from 1917 onwards - then that tells me there is a very casual regard for historical facts in some quarters of society. All of which is fine with Mr. P. I'm sure

As for my goings on about Germanic enclaves in Tsarist Russia, or the fears of Balts, Estos, Magyars or others .... their views and aspirations may not have mattered a whit - I never said they did - but Hitler believed that the USSR would coming crashing down from within upon the strike of Barbarossa (shock and awe) Why is that "premise" of Hitler's so hard to accept? For the first few months after June '41 it looked like he was right.

Chairs,

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

I found that sentence about 'allowing' USSR to crush Germany prior M-R pact, and then after Poland was attacked, hilarious.
1st, USSR had no direct border with Germany before oct '39. So the attack would involve invading Lithuania (at least) to capture East Prussia. The viability of such attack (both political and military) is questionable at least.
If such idea was looming in Stalin head (both prior and after 17.09.39.), he would not ask West if that's okay - he would do it on his own. Not to mention such action was very unlikely, since he has just signed the pact
The German war vs. West was seen just as such in Stalin's eyes - and he minded his own business.

Hitler expected that people of whole Soviet Union would've revolted vs. communists, not just minorities (Magyars do not fit in this picture anyway). He was a fool not to use such happenings, and also failed not to bolster that happening.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...'allowing' USSR to crush Germany prior M-R pact".

I believe that word I used was checkmate, not crush, tomo

The only reason Magyars entered this conversation was when you suggested that Hungary's geographic proximity to Russia made Hungary naturally in the Russian sphere of influence - and I suggested NOT. By the same argument Estonia and Latvia do NOT consider themselves - and never have - within the Russian sphere - rather - consider Russia 'the horde' on the other side of the Narva River. This view may or may not be fair to Russia, tomo, but judged by recent Moscow-inspired activities like cyber attacks on Estonian IT infrastructure (for what cause? - for the relocation of a communist-era statue that Estonians found revolting and historically revisionist) - I'd say that Estonians are probably prudent to be suspicious of Moscow.

Of course I stand to be corrected but I'm not sure you will erase my decades of western political indoctrination

Chairs,

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

I believe that word I used was checkmate, not crush, tomo

I see. Somehow I don't see Stalin applying 'just enough' force when dealing with enemy - he was more akin to applying overwhelming force.

As for Magyars, well, you've put them in the same sentence together with other nationalities adjacent to Russia, so I replied

As for indoctrination - 25 years ago I was convinced T-34 was the best tank in WW2 (Tiger worst), MiG-21 the best jet (B-52 worst), M-84/T-72 best modern tank, surface to air missile was infailible.... Yet I came to my senses eventually

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... 25 years ago I was convinced T-34 was the best tank in WW2 (Tiger worst), MiG-21 the best jet (B-52 worst), M-84/T-72 best modern tank, surface to air missile was infailible.... Yet I came to my senses eventually.."

I appreciate your candor, tomo. 25 tears ago would be before the collapse of the Soviet system, would it not? So you can be forgiven for believing those things - back then.

But new facts change one's perspective if one has an open mind - do they not? New facts are continuously being unearthed.

And that is precisely my point.

Many would argue - including Germans - that the T-34 was the best tank in WW2. I'd be one of them.

Chairs,

MM

 

[stasoid]

I read the claims of Putin historians last year that WW2 in Europe could have been prevented if France and England had only abandoned Poland and allowed Stalin's forces to move west and checkmate Hitler - I read that statement with amazement. Not because I didn't believe that Soviet diplomats had proposed that (I believe they did) but rather because of the (current day) attempt to paint the USSR as a proactive "peace maker" in 1939 - months before M-R Pact

In fact Litvinov worked hard on Collective Security agreement. It took months, even years of negotiations with Britain and France before Munich Treaty and even after when those two became Hitler's best friends and Russia was left to fight singlerhanded. From this perspective, yes, the Soviets looked like peacemakers. These simple facts have nothing to do with Putin or current Russia's historians. Check Wiki, unless you beleive that Wikipedia is controlled by Mr. Putin too

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Check Wiki, unless you beleive that Wikipedia is controlled by Mr. Putin too

You are not serious are you? Wikipedia is not the best source to use. It can be written and updated by anyone. There is a reason why Universities over here in the United States do not allow it to be used as a source for papers and assignments.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... and Russia was left to fight singlerhanded."

Is this your understanding of history, stasoid? That Russia was fighting Germany singlehandedly.

England, Poland, France and the Commonwealth went to war in September, 1939. At that moment Russia was just concluding it's eastern "incident" with Japan and was about to invade Finland. Is that the "fighting" you are thinking of

I don't think Wiki is controlled by Mr. P. And I know who Litvinov was. I am claiming that Mr. P is "burnishing" Stalin's image - that is all

MM

 

[stasoid]

Wikipedia is not the best source to use.

I agree, Wiki is not the best source, just one among others, but it provides instant access to most of basic facts and Wiki is being moderated as far as I know.

It can be written and updated by anyone.

And this it why it makes it difficult to manipulate public's opinion, unlike mainstream media which are in hands of either governments or corporations.

 

[stasoid]

"... and Russia was left to fight singlerhanded."

Is this your understanding of history, stasoid? That Russia was fighting Germany singlehandedly.

I was reffering to the period of time between Munich Treaty and M-R Pact.
Please review the chain of events in late 30's to better understand geo-politics in Europe of that time.

- Berlin Olympics
- Civil War in Spain - Soviets fighting Axis, western democracies standing by
- Munich Treaty - Hitler and western powers are now allies
- Chechoslovakia - Hitler moves to the east
- Japan's rapid advance and military build up at the Far East
- Soviet attempts to sign Collective Security agreement failed
- Skirmishes with japanes troops at the Mongolian border ready to turn into a full scale military conflict.

Now, by the end of May 1939, it looked like Russia is facing a war very soon on two fronts and singlehanded, yes. It's a tough choice what you do in this situation. In 39' there is no T-34, no Yak-1, Mig-3, Il-2. They are not even on paper. What do you do to protect yourself?