Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Question of the Day #6

I think Churchill was up for smashing the Russians, as he rightly saw communism as a huge threat to the West. However, Britain and the allies were particularly fed up with the war and could never have been persuaded to go all out. However, I'd say that if push were to come to shove, and we had engaged the Soviet union in all-out war, then we would have won within a year or two. Russia was so reliant on western logistical and intelligence help that the edge would have been ours. Also, the development of the atomic bomb would have given the US the decisive capability to either destroy or coherence Russia into submission.

Interesting scenarios to consider would what would the allies have done with Germany during a war with Russia? Would we have employed the huge reserve of German manpower and expertise we had in POW cages? How would the war with Japan have progressed? According to some historians, Japan did not surrender because of the atomic bomb, but due to the huge Russian armies coming down upon them in the north...
 
Allied offensive against Soviets was unlikely -- Britain & Commonwealth were far too war-weary (Britain had reached the bottom of its manpower barrel before end 1944 and Canada was in a similar situation).
Without a severe Soviet provocation, US would've had tough time to justify the war against the USSR to its soldiers and citizens, as Red Army were the west's had been painted as the "good guys fighting on our side" by western propaganda since 1942 -- the disillusionment of the Cold War was still a few years away.

Western soldiery had no appetite for offensive operations at this point -- everybody had suffered enough by this stage.

That said, the USA was probably the only nation left who could've sustained a few more years of war relatively easily.

The USSR was in a paltry economic state and its war effort was propped up by lend lease to a far greater extent than Stalin would admit ... the USSR's economy was in ruins (with especially much of the western areas such a Belarus and Ukraine wastelands of ruined cities and starving populations) and, while the Red Army was HUGE, it just about had also scraped the bottom of the manpower barrel by the time Berlin was taken -- besides the Guards armies, much of the Soviet army was a rabble at this point -- if lavishly equipped with unbelievable numbers of tanks and guns.

Of interest would have been how effective Western tactical air power would have been against the Red Army -- stretegic bombing would have been problematic, as most targets in USSR would've been out of range of everything but the B-29's and pretty dispersed.

Not sure how effective the A-bombs would have been in 1945-6 -- US didn't have too many of those ready for quite a few years (not recall the numbers now)
 
Yup, for me I think @Harmes just about nails it in regards to the outcome of an all out war, putting aside the advantage of atomic WMD's the Russian armed forces would have been in a depleted state (although still dangerous) by this time whereas in contrast the USA would have still had a largely untapped manpower pool and a powerhouse of war production capability with which to arm it, no longer of having to supply Russia with war aid would have also made a difference, more so for Russia.

Public opinion would have been dead against it and who could blame them.
 
Interesting to imagine how the world would be different today, assuming that the allies did indeed attack, invade, and defeat the Soviets. Berlin would have never been split. The cold war would never have happened. What other wars would have been avoided? Korea? Vietnam? Would the Russian citizens have embraced capitalism, as Japan did?
 
Bootie said:
I wonder if more people died due to the cold war than would have if western forces had pushed on east in WW2?
Click to expand...

How far would they or could they have pushed?

Russian resistance would have been fierce in the face of what would have been seen as a "grand betrayal" and the 2nd great patriotic war.

Would it have been enough to push Soviets out of eastern Europe? ... as far as Baltic states or eastern Ukraine (which had anti-soviet partisan civil wars going on until late 40's)
I don't think the western powers would've had the stamina to push on to Moscow -- would it have been enough to topple the Stalin regime?
 
Bootie said:
I wonder if more people died due to the cold war than would have if western forces had pushed on east in WW2?
Click to expand...

As far as I recall, USSR superiority was 3:1, US had allready decreased infantry formation to 8 weeks, US tanks were hardly match against USSR one and US and British staff found this plan really "unthinkable"

Even with atomics my guess is that USSR sardaukar would have defeated west forces, roll over Europe and I would speak russian at this time... Just a guess though.
 
With Rico and Bootie.

Bootie's question was really I think in two parts. Firstly the taking of Berlin by the Western Allies was probably doable assuming the hectic defense thrown up against the Russians went the same as it did in history, giving the West a 'free pass' beyond the Elbe to take Berlin. You could see the political gains and German high commands desire see American tanks instead of Russian tanks reaching the city first. Stalin would have been pissed however if it played out like that. :D

Small note, I'm guessing the honour would of fallen to Hodges First Army rather than Patton purely down to positions at the time.
Advance_through_Germany_-_5-18_April_1945.jpg


Secondly the 'Unthinkable' scenario. I think it was a far off pipe dream for both sides for reasons outlined above. The sheer exhaustion and manpower depletion concerns would have to be on the military command's collective minds. Not to mention America still being committed to a separate theatre in the Pacific which was still in full swing beyond May.

If war did breakout between the former Allies I think The Russians would have the edge for the simple weight of men and material they could still employ in 1945. Allied airpower is one concern but as it's been stated above, but strategically it would have been of limited value given Soviet industrial targets which were out of range. The Commonwealth was a spent force and the Americans had the Atlantic to cross which was an enormous logistical headache the Soviets didn't have. Maybe if the Allies could convince Finland and other SOviet enemies to participate to spread our the Red Army... maybe... but still a long shot. As an American General I'd want to fight a defensive war against the Red's in May '45.

There's also a very clear historical school of thought that the use of the Atomic Weapons against Japan was more a signal to the Soviets than for Japan by August to not get any ideas. (And hope they didn't work out the Americans didn't have many reserves of these new weapons to call upon).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top