University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 2017+ University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2018 German Defeat/Red Victory: Change and Continuity in Western and Russian Accounts of June-December 1941 David Sutton University of Wollongong Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses1 University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Sutton, David, German Defeat/Red Victory: Change and Continuity in Western and Russian Accounts of June-December 1941, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong, 2018. https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses1/301 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] School of Humanities and Social Inquiry Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts German Defeat/Red Victory: Change and Continuity in Western and Russian Accounts of June-December 1941. David Sutton This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Wollongong 2018 i Abstract The second half of 1941 has become a major focus in the writing of the history of the Nazi-Soviet War in the English-speaking and Russian-speaking worlds. For decades, historians outside of the Soviet Union tended to view 1941 as more of a German defeat brought about by Hitler’s mistakes and the weather rather than a Red victory brought about mainly by the resistance of the Soviet state, army and people. The reverse was true in the Soviet Union where historians explained the German failure to capture Moscow as a triumph of Soviet resistance. In more recent years, there is a trend among Western historians to reframe the Battle of Moscow as a Red victory, while in Russia the whole question of a Red victory has been problematised following the collapse of Communism and the opening of the Soviet archives. This thesis argues that the strongest trend evident in this literature is the repositioning of the Soviet state as an active rather than a passive actor in the events of 1941. While the history of the war is constantly being revised, a trend towards viewing the saving of Moscow as more of a Red victory than a German defeat is observable across the sample of accounts published in English and Russian studied for this thesis. ii CERTIFICATION I, David Dennis Sutton, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution. David Dennis Sutton 15 February 2018 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people to thank for their care and support in the writing of this thesis. First and foremost is my supervisor Doctor Stephen Brown, for his support, patience and guidance throughout my candidature. This thesis would not be possible without his encouragement, care, and perceptive input. Thanks also to Doctor Konstantin Sheiko, for teaching me Russian, assisting me with the finer points of translation, and supporting me as both a scholar and a friend. This thesis would not have been possible without the support of my family and friends. First to my wife Catherine, who has been a pillar of support in the long years of my candidature. Cat has been a constant source of encouragement through many long years of research, writing, Russian lessons and messy offices. I cannot thank her enough for her love, support, and friendship. Thanks also to my parents Rod and Jayne Sutton and my brothers Ben and Mark, who have always supported me, encouraged me, and shown their love in all my pursuits. This work would not have been possible without their support, love, and understanding. Thanks also to my colleagues at the Australian War Memorial for their encouragement, help and friendship in the late stages of my candidature. Many people have made this work possible, and it is not possible to thank them all. Any errors that it may contain are entirely my own. iv This research has been conducted with the support of the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract p. ii Certification p. iii Acknowledgements p. iv A note on p. vii transliteration and sources Introduction p. 1 Chapter One Issues and Controversies p. 40 Chapter Two The Halder School p. 59 Chapter Three Cold War Western Accounts of p. 78 1941 Chapter Four Paradigm in Transition p. 100 Chapter Five A New “Red Victory” Paradigm? p. 132 Chapter Six Responsibility for the War p. 191 Chapter Seven The Official Soviet View of the p. 211 War Chapter Eight The “Revisionist” Critique p. 238 Chapter Nine The National-Patriots p. 262 Conclusion p. 300 Bibliography p. 308 Table I p. 28 Table II p. 133 Table III p. 191 vi A NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND SOURCES All Russian words have been transliterated using the Library of Congress ALA-LC Guide. However, in cases where an alternative spelling is in common usage in English (for instance, ‘Joseph Stalin’ rather than ‘Iosif Stalin’), the more familiar spelling has been used. Spelling used in original quotes has been kept with the form of transliteration used in the original text. The same applies for American spelling of certain words (‘armor’ instead of ‘armour’ etc.). All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. As this is a historiographical work, lengthy summaries of a particular historian’s work are at times required. To avoid unnecessary clutter, summaries are referenced with a single footnote containing bibliographical details. On a number of occasions, multiple editions of the same work have been employed in the writing of this work. There have been two causes of this. Firstly, in some cases there has been a need to utilise two different introductions in an edited work, such as those by Harrison E. Salisbury and David M. Glantz in different editions of Zhukov’s memoirs. Secondly, on some occasions after reading and taking notes on a work, that particular edition has become unavailable and a new edition has been purchased. For example, both the 1971 and 1993 editions of Albert Seaton’s The Battle for Moscow have been used in this work. The content is the same, but the page numbers differ. To avoid confusion, when the 1993 edition is cited the year of that version’s publication has always been included in square brackets. All editions are listed in the bibliography. vii Introduction Reflecting upon the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid decline of the once official version of Soviet history, Richard Overy wrote, in 1998, that “[t]he history of the Soviet Union is in turmoil. In twenty years’ time it may be possible at last to write something approaching a definitive history”.1 Nearly two decades later, it is appropriate to ask whether such a definitive history is in prospect. It is not clear what standards Overy would set for a ‘definitive’ history, but presumably it would require that historical accounts produced in the English-speaking and Russian- speaking worlds are moving into rough alignment. To explore this issue, this thesis will examine trends in the Western and Russian historiography around the spectacular initial success and equally spectacular failure of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. In the West, the issue of whether the Wehrmacht could have captured Moscow and perhaps ended the Soviet-German War successfully in Adolf Hitler’s favour in 1941 was for decades one of the most vexed questions of the entire Soviet period.2 During the Cold War, the answer most often encountered in the literature was that the Germans failed to capture Moscow because of their own strategic and tactical errors: a “German defeat”. With the end of the Cold War and the partial opening of the Soviet archives, new military histories have appeared in the West. Writing in 2005, the American historian Robert Citino suggested that a new frame for viewing the Battle of Moscow was needed, arguing that “rather than the Wehrmacht ‘losing’ it, the Soviet army won it”.3 The question asked in this thesis is whether viewing 1941 as a “Red victory” is the new, post- archival orthodoxy. 1 Richard Overy, Russia’s War (Great Britain: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1998), p. xiii. 2 John Taylor, ‘Hitler and Moscow, 1941’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol.