Operation "Groza" Soviet Invasion of Western Europe, July 6, 1941

[Desert Fox]

Some points-

1]Bulk of these 'paratroopers' were badly trained.And soviets didn't have a sufficient transport fleet to make use of them.
2]Conscription had been in place since 1925 and the soviets had begun a steady industrial and military buildup since then.It was not a sudden thing.
3]Stalin did think war with germany was inevitable and was preparing.He admitted to churchill as much.But to say he intended to start it is not corroborated by evidence.
4]Most important - the military doctrine of the red army was offensive.A variation of the deep battle doctrine.The soviets had no intention to trade large parts of russian territory and subject them to german occupation.Their plan was to launch immediate large scale counterattackjs.If u see the first days of operation barbarossa u'll notice several suicidal soviet counterattacks all along the front.So offensive preparations are not uncommon.
5]Importantly the large scale field exercises of 1940-941 didn't simulate a russian attack on germany as is claimed but a blue force's invasion of soviet territory followed by russian counterattack.The russian commander was removed after unimpressive results in this exercise.
6]The other 'offensive weapon' the flying tank didn't begin development till dec 1941,AFTER the german invasion had begun.

Also this theory hasn't really much evidence except some supporters.No former major soviet commanders corroborate it.

"Bunich published three volumes with the title "Operatsia Groza" — "Operation Thunderstorm" — the first one in 1994, the last one posthumously in 2004. In these books he communicates a plan of Stalin for an invasion of whole Western Europe: "Operation Thunderstorm". It can be found in the so-called "Osobaya Papka", a file which contains about 100,000 Top Secret documents. In this file it is document Nr.103202/06. The paper is signed by Marshal Semyon Timoshenko and the chief of the General Staff at that time Merezkov. It is dated 18 September 1940, three months before the German "Operation Barbarossa" was signed. After Georgy Zhukov became chief of the general staff in February 1941, the plan was called MP 41 (Mobilisatsyonni Plan 41). Bunich points to the Russian military archives, where it can be found (ZAMO, f. 15A, op.2154, d.4,l. 199-287). This document contains information about the Soviet military power in June 1941: 300 divisions, 8 million soldiers, 27,500 tanks, 32,628 airplanes."
Igor Bunich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is more probabale was that stalin wanted france and germany to bleed each other like in ww1 and then maybe wait for an oppurtune moment in 1939-1940.One of the reasons why an infuriated stalin was shocked and letting out choice verbal insults at the rapid french collapse.After the fall of france it is almost certain that stalin didn't plan on an immediate attack at all.He actually took every step not to antagonize hitler and buy time.

That's not true. In fact, contrary to that, Stalin made more territorial demands from Hitler in Europe, and this was at a time when Hitler was seriously contemplating an invasion of Britain. Stalin was shocked at the speed at which the Germans subdued one nation after another in Western Europe and South Eastern Europe, but Stalin still by no means tried to hide his own intentions. Soviet Union annexed Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, invaded Finland, and made similar moves towards Romania.

Stalin was on the verge of signing a pact with the anti-German Yugoslav gov.t after the pro-German gov.t had been overthrown in a coup assisted by the British. He was by no means hiding his intentions.

The British also were beginning to plan on a similar plan - just the opposite one. A brainchild of Churchill, it was aptly called Operation Unthinkable. All top Allied leaders like Monty/Eisenhower etc(except Patton) rejected this plan out of hand. But there was a contingency draft to attack Soviet Europe immediately after the German surrender. Churchill even kept captured German soldiers in a way better than their American counterparts - hoping to enlist them in the anti Bolshevist crusade. The world however had enough of bloodshed for the time being and his plan was dumped.

I find this hard to believe. Such a move by the allies would make absolutely no sense since it was the very same Churchill and Roosevelt who divided Europe between themselves and Stalin at Yalta.

Secondly, the Red Army would have made easy work of Allied armies in Europe in the event that the Allies provoked the Russians.

The perfect timing for any such American/British attack against Soviet Union was 1941-1944, if they had assisted the Germans since Hitler did offer his alliance to Britain countless times.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Allies had plans to....for attack or Soviet attack. By that time in the war...if you didn't plan ahead for any turn of events....you were an idiot or already occupied. This thread makes me wanna go listen to the "Red Alert" opening.

Any such Allied plan, if implemented, would have been fatal for the Allies as the Red Army was at its strongest in 1945 with more than 6 million men and thousands of T-34/85's and Joseph Stalin Tanks within Soviet occupied Eastern/Central Europe.

The only plan the Americans and British had with regards to the Soviet threat was that of appeasement which is why they handed over to Stalin all anti-Soviet Russian emigres, Red Army POW's, Nazi officials, and any German/Axis POW's who fought on the Eastern front but ended up in Allied occupied Zones.

Meanwhile, the few thousand American and British POW's who were in German POW camps which ended up in the Soviet Zone were never released by the Soviet authorities.

 

[airmarshal]

The Kharkov works produced the BT high speed tank which was capable of 100km/h and had a range of 700km. Based on a design by the American tank genius J. W. Christie, these tanks had their engine and transmission systems at the rear and were twenty-five years ahead of their time. By 1936, BT tanks were fording deep rivers underwater and driving along river beds.

Is this article a joke?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

"Bunich published three volumes with the title "Operatsia Groza" — "Operation Thunderstorm" — the first one in 1994, the last one posthumously in 2004. In these books he communicates a plan of Stalin for an invasion of whole Western Europe: "Operation Thunderstorm". It can be found in the so-called "Osobaya Papka", a file which contains about 100,000 Top Secret documents. In this file it is document Nr.103202/06. The paper is signed by Marshal Semyon Timoshenko and the chief of the General Staff at that time Merezkov. It is dated 18 September 1940, three months before the German "Operation Barbarossa" was signed. After Georgy Zhukov became chief of the general staff in February 1941, the plan was called MP 41 (Mobilisatsyonni Plan 41). Bunich points to the Russian military archives, where it can be found (ZAMO, f. 15A, op.2154, d.4,l. 199-287). This document contains information about the Soviet military power in June 1941: 300 divisions, 8 million soldiers, 27,500 tanks, 32,628 airplanes."
Igor Bunich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's not true. In fact, contrary to that, Stalin made more territorial demands from Hitler in Europe, and this was at a time when Hitler was seriously contemplating an invasion of Britain. Stalin was shocked at the speed at which the Germans subdued one nation after another in Western Europe and South Eastern Europe, but Stalin still by no means tried to hide his own intentions. Soviet Union annexed Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, invaded Finland, and made similar moves towards Romania.

Stalin was on the verge of signing a pact with the anti-German Yugoslav gov.t after the pro-German gov.t had been overthrown in a coup assisted by the British. He was by no means hiding his intentions.


I find this hard to believe. Such a move by the allies would make absolutely no sense since it was the very same Churchill and Roosevelt who divided Europe between themselves and Stalin at Yalta.

Secondly, the Red Army would have made easy work of Allied armies in Europe in the event that the Allies provoked the Russians.

The perfect timing for any such American/British attack against Soviet Union was 1941-1944, if they had assisted the Germans since Hitler did offer his alliance to Britain countless times.

Churchill wanted a British dominated Europe. Not a Nazi dominated one. But Operation Unthinkable is declassified and beyond dispute.

Massive troop and armored concentrations, buildup of new airfields as well as expansion of existing ones proves that this wasn't just a plan on paper, rather something which was in the works.



Questioning a historical event is not considered denying it. All the articles posted on that website reference reputable sources.

Lets not derail this thread because if it makes you feel any better, i can post similar articles from other websites as well.

Yes - if you consider David Irving, Ernst Zundel etc as credible sources. There is a line between questioning the conventional narrative and propaganda. But then I have read a great deal of memoirs, docs etc and this is my opinion. If you believe that they are correct, you are free to stick to your POV

That said there is no denying the Soviets had plans for world domination. But we dont know how serious and advanced they had gone to implement them.

And yes, non IHR references will be most welcome.

Is this article a joke?

That part(at least) - Completely

The BT tanks were 11 ton light(okay very light) tanks. They were woefully inadequate - especially if the Russians had plans to breach the East Prussian line or the Czech line(it was under Nazi control by 39).

 

[Desert Fox]

Churchill wanted a British dominated Europe. Not a Nazi dominated one. But Operation Unthinkable is declassified and beyond dispute.

In the end Europe was neither British dominated nor German dominated, only the US and USSR dictated the geopolitics of the continent.

Yes - if you consider David Irving, Ernst Zundel etc as credible sources. There is a line between questioning the conventional narrative and propaganda. But then I have read a great deal of memoirs, docs etc and this is my opinion. If you believe that they are correct, you are free to stick to your POV

David Irving is a very reliable source since most of his books are based on actual archives and interviews, and this has been admitted by many mainstream historians (even those who opposed him).

I don't know who Ernst Zundel is.

That said there is no denying the Soviets had plans for world domination. But we dont know how serious and advanced they had gone to implement them.

Very 'serious' and very 'advanced', which is why Communism didn't limit itself to the Russian border.

And yes, non IHR references will be most welcome.

As i stated earlier, the article on the website itself references outside sources like the following historians of Russian and non-Russian origin who have written many books and articles on this particular subject:

Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

In the end Europe was neither British dominated nor German dominated, only the US and USSR dictated the geopolitics of the continent.




David Irving is a very reliable source since most of his books are based on actual archives and interviews, and this has been admitted by many mainstream historians (even those who opposed him).

I don't know who Ernst Zundel is.



Very 'serious' and very 'advanced', which is why Communism didn't limit itself to the Russian border.



As i stated earlier, the article on the website itself references outside sources like the following historians of Russian and non-Russian origin who have written many books and articles on this particular subject:

Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi.

Ok

 

[notorious_eagle]

Is this article a joke?

It is indeed a joke filled with fallacious and absurd claims. Its amazing how people will believe whatever they want to believe, and produce invalid and falsified evidence to back up their absurd claims. If there is one thing history scholars agree with in regards to WWII, it was that Hitler from Day 1 wanted to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. His hatred for communism was well documented in his book 'Mein Kampf' and he could only achieve his dream of 'Lebensraum' by destroying the Soviet Union.

@Joe Shearer Give us your take Sir

 

[somebozo]

When history will be revised Hitler will cherished into a European hero! there was a competition to expand the empire into Europe and Germany and USSR were both pitted against each other.

 

[vostok]

Brzezinski once said: "To destroy the Russian ideological supports we need to equate Stalin with Hitler."
And in this direction West spent just phenomenal, titanic work. Probably they could stop the famine in Africa, if spend the same resources.
But the worst thing - someone believes.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is indeed a joke filled with fallacious and absurd claims. Its amazing how people will believe whatever they want to believe, and produce invalid and falsified evidence to back up their absurd claims. If there is one thing history scholars agree with in regards to WWII, it was that Hitler from Day 1 wanted to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. His hatred for communism was well documented in his book 'Mein Kampf' and he could only achieve his dream of 'Lebensraum' by destroying the Soviet Union.

@Joe Shearer Give us your take Sir

You are absolutely correct.

I sincerely wish people would not haunt anti-Semitic web-sites, read the rubbish published there, and promote those stories as revisionist history. They are just anti-Semitic propaganda.

Barnum said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." In this case, we don't need to go beyond his second clause.

What a waste of time!

 

[Desert Fox]

It is indeed a joke filled with fallacious and absurd claims. Its amazing how people will believe whatever they want to believe, and produce invalid and falsified evidence to back up their absurd claims. If there is one thing history scholars agree with in regards to WWII, it was that Hitler from Day 1 wanted to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. His hatred for communism was well documented in his book 'Mein Kampf' and he could only achieve his dream of 'Lebensraum' by destroying the Soviet Union.

@Joe Shearer Give us your take Sir

That's a tall accusation there. Do you have any evidence that the information is "falsified" mr. so called "think tank consultant"??

Gee, i didn't know that the title of "think tank consultant" on a internet forum gave some average Joe armchair general the authority to make foolish accusations against the research and work of well established historians and insiders like Victor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi all of which have the qualifications and research to back their claims.


So mr pdf "think tank consultant" which qualifications do you have to label the effort and work of such well established people as "invalid falsified evidence"??? I doubt anyone even knows who you are outside of this forum.

Ok

Unless, of course, you have proof that all of the following people are "neo-Nazis"?:

Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi.

 

[vostok]

Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,

Learn something truthful about the Soviet Union from these people as likely as learn about Christianity from Judah or Satan or Antichist.

 

[notorious_eagle]

That's a tall accusation there. Do you have any evidence that the information is "falsified" mr. so called "think tank consultant"??

Gee, i didn't know that the title of "think tank consultant" on a internet forum gave some average Joe armchair general the authority to make foolish accusations against the research and work of well established historians and insiders like Victor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi all of which have the qualifications and research to back their claims.

Not a tall accusation at all. The entire world of history academia has come to the same conclusion as i have repeated. Open any website, open any scholarly article and you will find the same conclusion as what i have told you. It is very convenient how you have ignored their research and are using tangent research by controversial scholars to further your claims.

I mean for Gods sake you have stated that David Irving is a reliable source. David Irving, the man who denies holocaust and is a closet Neo Nazi. You are using him as a source, i guess than its fair game to use Zaid Hamid as a scholar source for Pakistani Affairs.

So mr pdf "think tank consultant" which qualifications do you have to label the effort and work of such well established people as "invalid falsified evidence"???

I doubt anyone even knows who you are outside of this forum.

Not my qualifications, qualifications of highly qualified authors whom have arrived at the same conclusion as i have. Ask yourself this question, whether the history academia agrees with my point of view or your point of view. Your point of view is only supported by a handful of these Pseudo Scholars. On the other hand, my point of view has been corroborated and supported by not just one but majority of the history academia.

You can try to spin doctor this event as much as you want, your side of the story has already been busted not just once but multiple times. One does not need to look that far, all one needs to do is a read 'Main Kampf' to come to the conclusion that war between Germany and Soviet Union was inevitable. To achieve his dream of ''Lebensraum'', he had to attack the East which he did. Too bad it ended very badly for him as the Red Army smashed the Wehrmacht to pieces and finished Hitler like the dog he was.

Learn something truthful about the Soviet Union from these people as likely as learn about Christianity from Judah or Satan or Antichist.

Very well said

But than again, people will believe whatever they want to believe. They will find tangents, and hold onto those straws.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

That's a tall accusation there. Do you have any evidence that the information is "falsified" mr. so called "think tank consultant"??

Gee, i didn't know that the title of "think tank consultant" on a internet forum gave some average Joe armchair general the authority to make foolish accusations against the research and work of well established historians and insiders like Victor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi all of which have the qualifications and research to back their claims.

So mr pdf "think tank consultant" which qualifications do you have to label the effort and work of such well established people as "invalid falsified evidence"??? I doubt anyone even knows who you are outside of this forum.


Unless, of course, you have proof that all of the following people are "neo-Nazis"?:

Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, Igor Bunich, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans like Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker and Austrians Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch, and two American historians Richard Raack and R. H. S. Stolfi.

Why you pick on me?
I agree that the Sowjet Union would have invaded Germany if they had a good chance of success. I don't know about everyone but Joachim Hoffmann writes for the IHR. There is a fine line between Historical revision and outright denial. But then some people have a habit of selective denial. Pick what you love, trash what you don't. David Irving, Lipstadt, Hoenecker, Guderian, Manstein, Zhukov, etc - I have read them all. The Sowjet Union was an evil state but there is no need for the anti Communist propaganda. There is enough of trash that is genuine. Remember - Gulags, kulak massacres, Holodomor etc is not fiction.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is no point in continuing this conversation with someone who selectively looks for pseudo-evidence that suits his case. For some reason, @Desert Fox identifies with the Nazis - not the Germans, who are a people who have made their mark in history, but particularly for their psychotic social expression, the Nazis. His arguments pick up lousy sensationalist accounts by renegades who have to make a living out of bad-mouthing their former masters, and then it is argued that these renegades are authentic historical sources, rather than shills trying to stay out of the cold by peddling their books to the gullible. Not surprising;

But then some people have a habit of selective denial. Pick what you love, trash what you don't.