|
Grand Delusion:
Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia
Gabriel
Gorodetsky
Yale University Press: London, 1999
Reviewed
by: Dr. Truman Anderson, The London School of Economics
Historians of Soviet foreign policy and the Second World War will
welcome the arrival of Garbriel Gorodetskys Grand Delusion: Stalin and
the German Invasion of Russia, the first study of Soviet
decision-making between the Nazi-Soviet pact and the outbreak of the
German-Soviet war to be based upon thorough research in Soviet as well as
western archives. This is often an insightful and thought-provoking book
that fills an important gap in the existing literature on the origins of
the terrible struggle between Hitlers Germany and the USSR.
Gorodetskys stated aim is twofold. First, he seeks to discredit
further the "preventative war" thesis popularized in works such
as Victor Suvorovs Icebreaker: Who started the Second World War?
(London, 1990). Gorodetsky has already published extensively on this
question and has succeeded admirably in revealing Suvorovs case (and that
of like-minded German-speaking authors) as a tissue of speculation and
distortion. It therefore comes as no surprise that Grand Delusion
further undermines the flimsy edifice of right-wing revisionist works on
the roots of operation "Barbarossa". Accordingly, this review
will concentrate on Gorodetskys other objective, namely, his painstaking
effort to explain Stalins policy toward Nazi Germany in this period, a
policy that culminated in the Red Army being caught unprepared by the
German onslaught of 22 June 1941.
Gorodetsky sets about this task by offering a very detailed look at
the actual conduct of Soviet, German, and British diplomacy between the
invasion of Poland and the start of "Barbarossa". His approach
is very similar to that of Donald Cameron Watt in How War Came: The
Immediate Origins of the Second World War, 1938-1939 (London, 1989),
which Gorodetsky praises in his introduction. At the same time, he
provides the reader with exhaustive documentation on the intelligence
flowing to Stalin from myriad sources, including his foreign ministry,
the NKGB and Soviet military intelligence (the GRU). Gorodetsky
maintains that when we place this intelligence in its elaborate
diplomatic context, Stalins decisions - long derided by western
historians as colossal blunders - become much easier to understand.
According to Gorodetsky, Stalins intelligence about Hitlers intentions
and military preparations was far from unambiguous, and tended,
catastrophically, to reinforce his quite rational assumptions about
Germanys aims and probable course of action. Stalin belatedly recognized
the scale of the German threat and took steps to prepare the Red Army for
the worst. At the same time, however, he clung desperately to the hope
that he could avoid war by appeasement, and this delusion hamstrung the
Soviet militarys efforts to make ready for the onslaught up to the very
last moment.
Gorodetskys argument largely discounts the role of ideology in shaping
either Stalins or Hitlers actions, and unfolds thematically and
chronologically in the following manner. Stalin, whose main concern was
the security of Soviet Russia, scored a major success in the Nazi-Soviet
Pact. This success was shattered, however, by Germanys unexpectedly
swift victory over France, which demonstrated the superiority of the
Wehrmacht. Faced with such a dramatic shift in the balance of power,
Stalin reacted by occupying the Baltic states as a buffer zone, and by
attempting to negotiate a new power-sharing relationship with Hitler.
The Soviet leaders objectives were to keep the peace with Germany and at
the same time to gain control of the Danube estuary against Russia would
fall, for none of these historians questions the seriousness of Hitlers
interest in the East.
Most readers who are familiar with the extensive literature on Hitlers
foreign policy will find Gorodetskys case less than convincing. It is
hamstrung by his failure to take the pre-war history of Nazi Germany into
account, especially Hitlers relationship with the armed forces and his
decision for war in 1939. Gorodetsky simply does not deal with German
motives for the Nazi-Soviet pact, or with Hitlers explanations of the
pact at the time:
Alles was ich unternehme, ist gegen Rußland gerichtet; wenn der
Westen zu dumm und blind ist, um dies zu begreifen, werde ich gezwungen
sein, mich mit den Russen zu verständigen, den Westen zu schlagen,
und dann nach seiner Niederlage mich mit meinem versammelten Kräften
gegen die Sowjetunion zu wenden.
(Everything I undertake is directed against Russia; if the West is too
stupid and blind to grasp this, then I will be forced to come to an
understanding with the Russians, strike the West, and then after its
defeat turn with my assembled forces against the Soviet Union.)
Hitler never considered the Nazi-Soviet pact to be anything but a
"marriage of convenience" (Vernunftehe), and the
step-by-step appearance of the Barbarossa decision should not be
interpreted simply in the light of immediate diplomatic circumstances.
There is no scope in this review for a detailed comparison of multiple
studies, but Jürgen Försters balanced account, which takes the
entire sweep of Hitlers foreign policy into consideration, answers
Gorodetskys objections to "ideological" interpretations
perfectly well. This is perhaps particularly true of Gorodetskys claims
regarding the primacy of the Balkans in Hitlers thinking.
Happily, Gorodetskys treatment of Hitlers decision does not prejudice
the balance of Grand Delusion, which offers a very valuable
discussion of the final weeks before the outbreak of war. Gorodetsky
has left no stone unturned in his quest to understand the information
flowing to Stalin, and his blending of dozens of sources into a smooth
and convincing narrative is very deft indeed. Using documents in many
cases brought to light for the first time from a plethora of archives
(Russian, Yugoslav, Bulgarian, British, Swedish, French and American)
Gorodetsky demonstrates the often equivocal character of the reports that
came to Stalin from his best informed sources, including Maisky, Golikov
(head of the GRU), Dekanozov (the Soviet ambassador in Berlin) and Beria
himself. Often, these reports contained highly accurate raw intelligence
about the nature of German deployments, together with soothing
predictions about German intentions. Beria, for example, gave Stalin a
very detailed description of German deployments on 2 June 1941 which
nevertheless concluded:
With the capture of Crete the next stage of the Anglo-German war will
come to an end. If Germany really wants to start a war against the
Soviet Union, then it will probably be the result of an Anglo-German
agreement which will lead to an immediate cessation of hostilities
between Germany and England (pp. 275-76).
Gorodetsky also illustrates how German disinformation (which flowed
from the highest levels of the Reich government) dovetailed with the
misleading anti-war machinations of the German ambassador, von der
Schulenburg. Gorodetskys discussion of Soviet-British diplomacy is
particularly good, and shows emphatically how mutual suspicion fed
Stalins misperceptions of British maneuvers, even when Churchill was
intent upon helping him. Gorodetsky reminds us that there was in fact a
consistent element of deception in British approaches to Stalin, the best
example of which was the attempt to accentuate Soviet fears of a peace
between Germany and Britain in the wake of Hess flight.
None of this to say the Gorodetsky excuses Stalin for clinging to his
delusions even after the German attack had begun, or for creating the
general climate of terrified toadyism that led to such a profound
distortion of his intelligence in the first place. The last two chapters
of the book are largely devoted to demonstrating how Stalin confounded
Timoshenko and Zhukov in their attempts fully to mobilize and deploy the
Red Army to meet the coming blow. Gorodetsky levels the blame for Soviet
unpreparedness squarely where it belongs with Stalin. Nevertheless, the
book ends on an oddly equivocal and somewhat contradictory note, for
Gorodetsky finishes by asserting that there was ultimately little that
Stalin could have done to improve the overall strategic position of the
USSR:
Stalins failure to prepare for the German onslaught primarily
reflected the unappealing political choices which the Soviet Union faced
before the outbreak of the Second World War, and even more so on the eve
of the Great Patriotic War. It was however aggravated by Stalins
self-deception and miscalculation, a reflection of his authoritarian
rule. And yet, even with hindsight, it is hard to devise alternatives
which Stalin could have safely pursued. If he had made a pre-emptive
strike, the blow would at best have been softened but definitely not
averted.
If nothing else, this statement seems to contradict his very strong
statements about the (false) inevitability of Hitlers decision to turn
east. It is also worth remembering (as Gorodetsky himself points out)
that one of the crucial stumbling blocs to better Soviet-British
relations prior to Barbarossa was Molotovs demand that Britain recognize
the annexation of the Baltic states. Stalins problems with Britain were,
to an extent, of his own making, and he had greater flexibility than
Gorodetskys closing remarks would seem to imply.
There are minor stylistic and editing problems in Grand
Delusion. Gorodetskys diction is not always clear, but most of these
shortcomings reflect badly on the Yale University Press rather than the
author. There is consistent trouble with German names
("Jödl" instead of "Jodl", "von
Schulenburg" instead of "von der Schulenburg",
"Ueberschör" for "Ueberschär", "von
Paulus" instead of "Paulus"). There is also an
inconvenient inconsistency in the citation of sources, in that some works
cited in the notes do not appear in the bibliography.
On balance, Grand Delusion is a valuable work. Greater
attention to the background development of foreign policy, particularly
with respect to Germany, would have strengthened the book, but
Gorodetskys ambitious reach has not exceeded his grasp. His contribution
to the "preventative war" debate, though not discussed in this
review, is commendable, but more important, Gorodetsky has offered a
detailed and revealing look at Soviet decision-making on the eve of
operation "Barbarossa".
February 2000
Author's Response
|