[JohnRawls]

This is a topic of what the countries/leaders wanted before the war started mostly and not how it played out. And i would like people to think and express their opinions before they post and not just say everybody wanted to 'conquer the world'.

Britain/France: Didn't want the war. After they won WW1 pasifict tendecies and the their victory made the situation in their favoure. They were the top dogs of the world, they wouldn't want anything could shatter that position. France mostly concentrated on fortifying its Majenought line in the 30s while Britain tried to restrain germany politically, even by some concetions.

Germany: Obviously the one who wanted the war to restore its power. Since the nazis came to power persude heavy militarisation policies in preparation for this war. Tried restoring german power in a peaceful way but failed. At some point realised that they dont have enough manpower to fulfill the conquest of europe dream, so the 'genocide' policies were a consequence of this.

Soviet Union: So what exactly did the Union want? Well after the defeat of Trotsky, Stalin happily adopted most of his policies that he was against, so a socialist europe was on his mind. Specially the molotov-ribentrop pact fits into this. It started the war and let Hitler conquer most of europe. Significant buildup in the 20s and 30s means that the union didn't want to sit this one out. So in the end, soviet union wanted to participate, so why the molotov-ribentrop pact? Well in my opinion Stalin wanted to pull out a Napoleon-Alexander scenario. Let Hitler conquer most of europe then attack him and 'free' all of europe. Would have made whole europe communist in the process and would also solve the problem of persuading the countries to be socialist. If he just attacked before the war started, the resistance would be severe but if he is the saviore, things get rather simple.

At some point Hitler might have figured out the plan or just go really lucky. Probably the 1st because german army started Barbarossa totally unprepared for it(Means they were in a hurry) or they really believed that it won't last longer than 9 months. Anyways it played like it did and it seems Stalins plan worked, although hitlers attack let him conquer only half of europe.

[Smilin' Dave]

Germany: Obviously the one who wanted the war to restore its power. Since the nazis came to power persude heavy militarisation policies in preparation for this war. Tried restoring german power in a peaceful way but failed. At some point realised that they dont have enough manpower to fulfill the conquest of europe dream, so the 'genocide' policies were a consequence of this.

I think Germany's intent went beyond a restoration of their previous level of power, their plans for the east were considerably more grandiose than that.

Not really sure genocide was a clear intention for Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII, and when the decision was made during the war it doesn't seem to have been in terms of military manpower.

Soviet Union: So what exactly did the Union want? Well after the defeat of Trotsky, Stalin happily adopted most of his policies that he was against, so a socialist europe was on his mind. Specially the molotov-ribentrop pact fits into this. It started the war and let Hitler conquer most of europe. Significant buildup in the 20s and 30s means that the union didn't want to sit this one out. So in the end, soviet union wanted to participate, so why the molotov-ribentrop pact? Well in my opinion Stalin wanted to pull out a Napoleon-Alexander scenario. Let Hitler conquer most of europe then attack him and 'free' all of europe. Would have made whole europe communist in the process and would also solve the problem of persuading the countries to be socialist. If he just attacked before the war started, the resistance would be severe but if he is the saviore, things get rather simple.

At some point Hitler might have figured out the plan or just go really lucky. Probably the 1st because german army started Barbarossa totally unprepared for it(Means they were in a hurry) or they really believed that it won't last longer than 9 months. Anyways it played like it did and it seems Stalins plan worked, although hitlers attack let him conquer only half of europe.

Wow.... where to begin:
- There isn't actually anything to suggest that Stalin ever adopted Trotsky's foreign policy. The emphasis of Socialism in One Country was actually pretty consistent.
- Your assumption that a Soviet military build up being offensive and expansionist in nature is problematic. I mean compare it to your narrative for Germany - where you mention a major build up, but imply this was only for use in 'regaining power', and you even went so far as to suggest that the military option was only pursued to when peaceful means failed.
- There's actually a simpler explanation for Soviet military build up - fear of its neighbours. The one common assumption in Stalin's and Trotsky's foreign policy was fear of hostile powers of their borders and encirclement.
- You're kind of ignoring attempts by Stalin to ally with Britain and France pre-war to contain Nazi Germany... which would make no sense in your scenario.
- Your Napoleon/Alexander scenario doesn't actually match what you're describing. Neither Napoleon nor Alexander the Great allowed someone else to conquer everything first before going on the march. What you've described is actually Suvorov's "Icebreaker" theory... Saying Suvorov's theories has been discredited is perhaps too mild.
- You claim that Germany launched Operation Barbarossa unprepared, when if fact there was a long and drawn out build up for it, beginning in 1940.
- Stalin's considerable reluctance to launch a pre-emptive strike prior to Barbarossa, despite all the warnings he had, doesn't fit into the picture of someone who was planning an imminent offensive of his own. The Red Army's apparent lack of preparedness (in fact it was still in the process of being reorganised) also implies an offensive wasn't planned in the short term.
- It's not apparent that Stalin's "plan" worked. With some exceptions (eg. Poland), none of the Eastern European states that fell into the Soviet sphere after the war had been invaded by Nazi Germany (though some were 'occupied' to stave off collapse in the face of Soviet offensives late war).
- Your narrative also doesn't seem to make sense in terms of Stalin's annexation of the Baltic states and part of Romania, or the attack on Finland.

It actually makes more sense to characterise Soviet foreign policy in this period as conservative, but with a strong streak of opportunism.

[fuser]

Someone is reading the long discredited "Suvorov". Suvorov's theories are as credible as flat earth theories.

[JohnRawls]

Someone is reading the long discredited "Suvorov". Suvorov's theories are as credible as flat earth theories.

I haven't read suvorov, i don't actually know who he is to be honest.

- There isn't actually anything to suggest that Stalin ever adopted Trotsky's foreign policy. The emphasis of Socialism in One Country was actually pretty consistent

If he didn't adopt his foreign policy why did he send 'help' to Spanish communists. He supported the comminterns also although they were generaly a nest of trotskyist influence. Although the higher eshelon was changed, still the regular members were more pro-trotskyist since he was favoured in western communist circles. It was a tool of USSR foreighn policies expantionist at that. Failed communist uprising in Estonia. Heavy support of communists in the Weimar republic. Soviet support in the Sino-Japanese war. Some of things that come to mind.

- Your assumption that a Soviet military build up being offensive and expansionist in nature is problematic. I mean compare it to your narrative for Germany - where you mention a major build up, but imply this was only for use in 'regaining power', and you even went so far as to suggest that the military option was only pursued to when peaceful means failed.

I didn't say that germany had a legit reason to do that. I said that their goal was regaining power. I never said they had some kind of moral superiority over the USSR. I am not patronizing the Nazis here. It was your assumption.

- There's actually a simpler explanation for Soviet military build up - fear of its neighbours. The one common assumption in Stalin's and Trotsky's foreign policy was fear of hostile powers of their borders and encirclement.

But the only way to battle that is to creat more socialist states or expansionist foreighn policy. There is no other way around it. Either your neibhours are socialist/communist or they are enemies.

- You're kind of ignoring attempts by Stalin to ally with Britain and France pre-war to contain Nazi Germany... which would make no sense in your scenario.

You do understand this is the same scenario as what happened during ww2? If you send troops across borders to other countries to 'protect' them usually the governments tend to fall and be replaced with pro-whoever just came to protect us. Same thing happened with the bases agreement for the baltic states. He didn't do this out of the goodness of his heart you know. If this happened half of europe would be socialist but the USSR would suffer less damage overall, a lot less.

- Your Napoleon/Alexander scenario doesn't actually match what you're describing. Neither Napoleon nor Alexander the Great allowed someone else to conquer everything first before going on the march. What you've described is actually Suvorov's "Icebreaker" theory... Saying Suvorov's theories has been discredited is perhaps too mild.

Ehem, Alxander the 1st of Russia and Napoleon. Not Alexander the Great. Napoleon conquered whole of europe, when he went into russia, he got defeated and then Alexander 'freed' all of europe, occupied france and was the hero of Europe for quite some time.

- You claim that Germany launched Operation Barbarossa unprepared, when if fact there was a long and drawn out build up for it, beginning in 1940.

They were not prepared for winter warfare. They had no winter gear and that in the end came to bite them in the ass. There is only 2 explanations i can think of, either they thought they can win the war before winter comes or they were in a real hurry. No opperation is launched without build up but logistically and equipment speaking they were not well prepared, well atleast not for a war during winter. From 40 to 41 the majority of german casulties were 1) 761,825 Axis wounded unknown Axis sick and frostbittes and 2) only 220,645 Axis killed in action unknown Axis dead of wounds (included in the wounded) Source is wikipedia for this. If you don't believe it, i will waste some time and will find you some other source.

Stalin's considerable reluctance to launch a pre-emptive strike prior to Barbarossa, despite all the warnings he had, doesn't fit into the picture of someone who was planning an imminent offensive of his own. The Red Army's apparent lack of preparedness (in fact it was still in the process of being reorganised) also implies an offensive wasn't planned in the short term.

He wanted Britain to fall. He was reorgonizing the army for an offensive that was the whole point why Hitler attacked, since army was reorgonizing the start of barborossa was a success. Stalin needed 5-6 months more to actually start an invasion which Hitler didn't give him.

- Your narrative also doesn't seem to make sense in terms of Stalin's annexation of the Baltic states and part of Romania, or the attack on Finland.

How come, he was spreading socialism and exanding the USSR. How does this not fitt in into the narative, if you think he needed to 'free' all of europe, that was not the point. He didn't have the manpower to force all of europe to become socialist, he surely did have the manpower to conquer neibhours. In the end, the goal is the same, Socialist Europe.

[Smilin' Dave]

I haven't read suvorov, i don't actually know who he is to be honest.

I probably shouldn't encourage this but here you go - Icebreaker.

If he didn't adopt his foreign policy why did he send 'help' to Spanish communists.

Opportunism. The political crisis in France boiled over pretty well under its own accord. France and Britain hadn't involved themselves so there was a vacuum of power that could be filled.

He supported the comminterns also although they were generaly a nest of trotskyist influence.

Again taking advantage of an institution which already existed when he came to power could easily be described as opportunist, rather than part of some master plan. Which would be why Comintern members got caught up in the purges. And his attempts to impose his own policies on the Comintern can hardly seen as supportive if you see it as fundamentally Trotskyist.

Failed communist uprising in Estonia.

If you're referring to the events of 1924, that's hardly an example of Stalin's foreign policy. This was the period where the troika was the primary power block, and Trotsky hadn't been political defeated yet.

Heavy support of communists in the Weimar republic.

Which wasn't aimed at creating the 'permanent revolution' of Trotsky's model, indeed the KPD was used during the late 1920s/early 1930s because of their power in parliament.

Soviet support in the Sino-Japanese war.

During which period Stalin often neglected the Chinese Communist Party in favour of the KMT. Hardly supportive of international revolution, is it?

I didn't say that germany had a legit reason to do that.

I seem to recall having an argument with you in past because you claimed Hitler was the greatest leader of all time. So forgive me if I don't believe you entirely...

I said that their goal was regaining power. I never said they had some kind of moral superiority over the USSR. I am not patronizing the Nazis here. It was your assumption.

The Soviets in the inter-war period could just as easily be portrayed as trying to 'regain power' as well if you buy into the theory that they were grasping for much of the same things Imperial Russia had. But for some reason you continually insist anything they did was part of an expansionist plan. Similarly everything the Nazis did could be described as an expansionist move (and unlike the Soviets, Mein Kampf explicitly laid out an expansionist plan...) but you instead make the point of creating a narrative where they exhaust all peaceful options first.

If somehow our defective logic wasn't intentional, it does in any case highlight a massive blindspot you've developed.

But the only way to battle that is to creat more socialist states or expansionist foreighn policy.

Or create a powerful military and economy that isn't threatened by encirclement. In other words, the practical aims of Socialism in One Country.

There is no other way around it. Either your neibhours are socialist/communist or they are enemies.

I refer to again to the example of Soviet relations with the KMT.

You do understand this is the same scenario as what happened during ww2? If you send troops across borders to other countries to 'protect' them usually the governments tend to fall and be replaced with pro-whoever just came to protect us. Same thing happened with the bases agreement for the baltic states.

You're doing it again:
- Nazi Germany = using all peaceful means to get what it wants before running out of options.
- Soviet Union = everything is part of some supervillain scheme.
So when Hitler was mobilising his army against Czechoslovakia, was providing material support to Sudeten and Slovak separatists, when he complains that the Munich negotiations spoiled his war plan.... you call it peace. The Soviet Union offered diplomatic support and if necessary, military support. It did not ask for bases in Czechoslovakia, only passage for its troops in the event of war (which Germany seemed to be ready to launch).

Ehem, Alxander the 1st of Russia and Napoleon. Not Alexander the Great. Napoleon conquered whole of europe, when he went into russia, he got defeated and then Alexander 'freed' all of europe, occupied france and was the hero of Europe for quite some time.

Then your theory is even stupider. Russian troops fought Napoleon on central European battlefields before they 'conquered all of Europe'. There is no evidence the Alexander I was playing some genius game, in fact there is more evidence to suggest he was naive or even an ideological fellow traveller of Napoleon in his early years. And Russia didn't end up dominating all of Europe afterwards, in fact the status quo was largely restored.

They were not prepared for winter warfare.

The offensive wasn't launched in winter and funnily enough military units don't like to carry any more gear than they absolutely have to.

There is only 2 explanations i can think of, either they thought they can win the war before winter comes or they were in a real hurry.

- The two are not mutually exclusive.
- Nazi Germany could have been in a hurry for reasons other than an imminent offensive.
- Hitler had every reason to think the war would be over pretty quickly, the Red Army after all had just embarassed themselves in Finland and the Soviet hold on the country was widely believed to be weak.
- You might also like to consider an third possibility - Germany's infrastructure wasn't actually that good at providing for the army. Was the spam production of dubious tank designs pre-war like the PzI & II indicative of a need to counter some French offensive... or was it because that was what won the political battles/suited was was available? Were the continually logistical failures on pretty much every front the result of haste and panic, or a military that hadn't actually finished mechanising properly but still conducted massive long range fast campaigns?

No opperation is launched without build up but logistically and equipment speaking they were not well prepared

They would have had to spend years producing enough trucks, surplus rail and re-arranging their military and industry in general in order to fix the problems that became apparent after the invasion (so add in hindsight to the wishlist). And they probably would have had to run it with materials they had to trade for with the Soviet Union.

He wanted Britain to fall.

That makes no sense, try again. The Soviets didn't launch a pre-emptive strike, when they had all the evidence in the world that they were the target (the Polish border is a strange place to build up for an invasion of England after all...) because they thought Britain was about to fall? They didn't launch an immediate strategic counter-offensive once the attack began why?

He was reorgonizing the army for an offensive that was the whole point why Hitler attacked

You've claimed that offensive was imminent, that Hitler seemingly barely had time to throw together an invasion force and supplies. Yet the Red Army by your own acknowledgement hadn't even finished reorganisation.

Stalin needed 5-6 months more to actually start an invasion which Hitler didn't give him.

Why would the Soviet Union launch an offensive in winter? Perhaps you think the Red Army would just turn on the their magic Russian-ness and ignore their own roads etc. turning to sludge at the start of their offensive?

How come, he was spreading socialism and exanding the USSR. How does this not fitt in into the narative

He wasn't spreading socialism (all the examples you gave were of indigenous movements, pre-dating Stalin's rise to power), and he didn't start expanding the USSR until WWII had already started. Contrary to your narrative all of the targets were not invaded by Nazi Germany first.

if you think he needed to 'free' all of europe

I didn't say that, stop talking shit.

[JohnRawls]

Sorry for not replying earlier SD but TLDRs just don't attract me any more, lets keep it as simplfied as possible because this debate seems to be moving into TLDR ad infinitum direction.

To sum it up you say that opportunism about any action of the soviet union but that can be said about any event in politics, it doesn't mean that it wasn't planned to happen that way(which is usually unlikely) or that better said, is that opportunism is usually linked to plan of some sorts which is usually adopted to suit the situation.

A good example would be 9/11. They had a plan even before 9/11 in case of war against iraq and hell yeah they wanted to invade it. 9/11 just gave them the reason to do so. Same goes for arab spring and libya. Opportunism doesn't mean that it was not planned to be honest.

I seem to recall having an argument with you in past because you claimed Hitler was the greatest leader of all time. So forgive me if I don't believe you entirely...

I troll too much lately. I Confess, Hitler riles people up, so its fun to a degree. I dount anybody with a name JohnRawls would be a full suporter of Hitler or would consider him the greatest leader.

The Soviets in the inter-war period could just as easily be portrayed as trying to 'regain power' as well if you buy into the theory that they were grasping for much of the same things Imperial Russia had. But for some reason you continually insist anything they did was part of an expansionist plan. Similarly everything the Nazis did could be described as an expansionist move (and unlike the Soviets, Mein Kampf explicitly laid out an expansionist plan...) but you instead make the point of creating a narrative where they exhaust all peaceful options first.

If somehow our defective logic wasn't intentional, it does in any case highlight a massive blindspot you've developed.

As i said, i don't really care about justification of any of the sides. I consider both soviets and germans expansionist(Americans too by the way) in that period. But this is not about justification, i am trying to discuss the moment and the actions. You as a communist, seem to think that i condemn the USSR for some reason because of this. No i am not, it was history and it is history. Right and Wrong are non-existant in politics in my opinion.

Or create a powerful military and economy that isn't threatened by encirclement. In other words, the practical aims of Socialism in One Country.

This is not possible in an isolated single country. Just not possible for 1 to keep up with the whole of the world, technologicaly, militarily or economicaly.

You're doing it again:
- Nazi Germany = using all peaceful means to get what it wants before running out of options.
- Soviet Union = everything is part of some supervillain scheme.
So when Hitler was mobilising his army against Czechoslovakia, was providing material support to Sudeten and Slovak separatists, when he complains that the Munich negotiations spoiled his war plan.... you call it peace. The Soviet Union offered diplomatic support and if necessary, military support. It did not ask for bases in Czechoslovakia, only passage for its troops in the event of war (which Germany seemed to be ready to launch).

As i said, we are not discussing justifications here. If it makes you happy, Nazi germany was an expansionist war machine, most of its action were not justified in the 2nd world war which includes among many things invasions of czechoslovakia, poland, denmark, norway, france, benelux etc

Then your theory is even stupider. Russian troops fought Napoleon on central European battlefields before they 'conquered all of Europe'. There is no evidence the Alexander I was playing some genius game, in fact there is more evidence to suggest he was naive or even an ideological fellow traveller of Napoleon in his early years. And Russia didn't end up dominating all of Europe afterwards, in fact the status quo was largely restored.

It was given as an example of what happened. The status quo was not restored, russia ruled over france and occupied it for a good decade. They put it under military occupation and appointed the head of france, one of their krimean governers. Anyways moving on. It was an example of how a victory and dominance of 1 is accepted by the majority with joy although it goes against their wills/more beneficial situation.(Freedom of the serfs/people against monarchy and in the end choose monarchy for the most of europe)

- The two are not mutually exclusive.
- Nazi Germany could have been in a hurry for reasons other than an imminent offensive.
- Hitler had every reason to think the war would be over pretty quickly, the Red Army after all had just embarassed themselves in Finland and the Soviet hold on the country was widely believed to be weak.
- You might also like to consider an third possibility - Germany's infrastructure wasn't actually that good at providing for the army. Was the spam production of dubious tank designs pre-war like the PzI & II indicative of a need to counter some French offensive... or was it because that was what won the political battles/suited was was available? Were the continually logistical failures on pretty much every front the result of haste and panic, or a military that hadn't actually finished mechanising properly but still conducted massive long range fast campaigns?

I understand, it just doesn't sit in my head. Germany had the best generals at the time, nobody does even dispute that. They did such an insane blunder then and logistically, germans army was impecable, it always prepared itself before the wars started. It has historically been there thing and to all of the sudden lunch a campaign against the Soviet union without much preparation with disregarding all of the previouse historical encouters. Just seems rather odd. Well ofcourse Hitler wasn't the most brightest military commander in the world, but the people around him sure were good and he didn't write the plans himself, so MEH. This is puzzling.

That makes no sense, try again. The Soviets didn't launch a pre-emptive strike, when they had all the evidence in the world that they were the target (the Polish border is a strange place to build up for an invasion of England after all...) because they thought Britain was about to fall? They didn't launch an immediate strategic counter-offensive once the attack began why?

You answered it yourself previously. You said the soviets were not prepared they were reforming and reorganising after the war with FInland the occupation of the new territories.

You've claimed that offensive was imminent, that Hitler seemingly barely had time to throw together an invasion force and supplies. Yet the Red Army by your own acknowledgement hadn't even finished reorganisation.

Well Hitler didn't want to wait for them to finnish. Soviet army in that time was more technically stronger, the tanks of the SU were better than the german ones. The planes not so much i'd say they were even. Soviet just didn't have as good generals as the germans did. But anyways, if the soviet union reorganized, Hitler would be just driven into the sea, or atleast this is my opinion.

Why would the Soviet Union launch an offensive in winter? Perhaps you think the Red Army would just turn on the their magic Russian-ness and ignore their own roads etc. turning to sludge at the start of their offensive?

To be honest i am not logistics specialist and i don't know how long the reorganization would take. Obviously they wouldn't launch an offensive in winter. Near summer perhaps.

He wasn't spreading socialism (all the examples you gave were of indigenous movements, pre-dating Stalin's rise to power), and he didn't start expanding the USSR until WWII had already started. Contrary to your narrative all of the targets were not invaded by Nazi Germany first.

I didn't say that, stop talking shit.

That not i ment, sorry this made me laugh a bit. I ment that Stalin didn't need to the savior in the whole of europe, ofcourse he could forcefully take some. I didn't mean it in a way that you said it. I ment it in ' Lets think about this ' way. And yes you didn't say it. Comas and stops be damned but i guess for this kind of cases, cart the grammar nazi has a point.

[Smilin' Dave]

but TLDRs just don't attract me any more

Based on the length of your reply, this seems to be pot calling the kettle black.

To sum it up you say that opportunism about any action of the soviet union but that can be said about any event in politics, it doesn't mean that it wasn't planned to happen that way(which is usually unlikely) or that better said, is that opportunism is usually linked to plan of some sorts which is usually adopted to suit the situation.

Planning and opportunism really can't go hand in hand. Precisely how does one have a plan for an unexpected opportunity? I also point out you haven't produced any evidence of a plan. The 21st century military campaigns you referenced were all documented well before the fact. They were also often contigency plans for what were essentially emergencies - which differ greatly from what the sort of planning you accuse Stalin of.

As i said, i don't really care about justification of any of the sides.

Look, I've already shown that this clearly isn't the case. I won't be taking your word for it, as if nothing else it suits your argument better to appear neutral.

You as a communist

You just can't get anything right, can you? Having a knowledge of Soviet history does not make me a Communist.

No i am not, it was history and it is history.

History requires evidence and logical analysis, which your theories fail to provide.

This is not possible in an isolated single country. Just not possible for 1 to keep up with the whole of the world, technologicaly, militarily or economicaly.

The progress that resulted from the early five year plans and the Soviet ability to compete in the Cold War without occupying other countries shows this is incorrect. What evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Nazi germany was an expansionist war machine, most of its action were not justified in the 2nd world war

Bolding mine. You don't give such caveats for the Soviet Union.

I note you're also using this "I'm not biased!!!1" response to 'reply' to my points without actually addressing them. You made factual errors, I pointed them out... and you talk about bias only.

They put it under military occupation and appointed the head of france, one of their krimean governers.

The Bourbon monarchy is from the Crimea now?

Germany had the best generals at the time, nobody does even dispute that.

Actually this is often disputed and depends on which generals you're talking about (Hitler's general staff had its share of political appointees). And more importantly the generals weren't always the ones calling the shots on strategy.

and logistically, germans army was impecable

The logistical problems the German army experienced in France and North Africa show this is not correct. Like a lot of modern militaries the Germans tended to underestimate just how resource hungry armies on the move can be. In fact the Battle of France set a bad precedent for the Germans, because it reinforced their belief that all major campaigns would be short and hence that plans for a long war would not be necessary.

it always prepared itself before the wars started.

As it did prior to Barbarossa. The Lossberg study for example was commissioned back in September 1940

Well ofcourse Hitler wasn't the most brightest military commander in the world, but the people around him sure were good and he didn't write the plans himself

Goering and Jodl were good now? As to writing the plans, when the boss tells you "write up a plan to invade by this date", you don't really get to write a plan that doesn't involve invasion or a delay. Keitel, not exactly a stellar leader but with party connections, warned Hitler against the invasion and was ignored.

You said the soviets were not prepared they were reforming and reorganising after the war with FInland the occupation of the new territories.

Which contradicts your claims that the Soviets were on an offensive posture, or that they were imminently about to attack. Keep working on it, you'll get there.

To be honest i am not logistics specialist and i don't know how long the reorganization would take. Obviously they wouldn't launch an offensive in winter. Near summer perhaps.

Taking the previous point into consideration, if they wait till summer you're talking about a supposed Soviet invasion in mid 1942. This doesn't really support the Nazi rush to war in 1941. You could say that Hitler just wanted to get his boot in before the Soviets were in a better position, but this then creates the problem that without this supposed offensive posture etc. then there isn't a clear motivation for Hitler to attack in the first place.