Did US and UK plan to attack USSR after WW2 in 1945 ?

[Afro-European]

"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 / 001

http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

[willytee]

Interesting stuff. Good find! It would be interesting to also see Russia's plans for their 'Operation Unthinkable'.

[helomech]

It seems like Gen Patton wanted to:


The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap10.html

[Alfacentori]

Interesting stuff

The Western Allies had sided with the Soviet Union against the greater enemy, the Axis powers, but I think by 1945 and probably far earlier they realised, despite some euphemistic optimism, that post war the wartime alliance would falter and that the Soviets would not keep to their earlier agreements regarding free elections in Eastern Europe.

I mean lets face it pre war the west didnt want to know the Soviets and its not an unreasonable hypothesis to assume that if war had not broken out that this state of affairs would have continued.

Alfa

[Connaught Ranger]

Seeing it just about used up all their available assets to finish of ze Germans, and Japanese.

I seriously doubt they would have bashed heads with Joe Stalins mob, even with the "bomb" on their side.

Too long supply lines, to much possibility of Partisan style attacks on those very long supply lines by communist sympathizers and not enough forces to take and hold the area they invaded.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Well I guess the military plan for all kinds of contingencies (on paper) but just because there's a plan gathering dust on a shelf somewhere it does not mean there was actually any real intention of following it.

The UK in 1945 was in no state financially or otherwise to start another war after 6 years of total war with Germany, Italy and Japan and I guess the population of the USA was pretty much fed up with war by then as well.

[martinexsquaddie]

as Churchill said if "herr hitler had invaded hell I'm sure I'd find some kind words for the devil"

[Kitsune]

The Patton quote above in a wider context:


"I believe that Germany should not be destroyed, but rather should be re-built as a buffer against the real danger, which is Russia and it's bolshevism.

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

Russia KNOWS what she wants. WORLD DOMINATION. And she is laying her plans accordingly. We, on the other hand, and England and France to a lesser extent, don't know what we want. We get less than nothing as a result. If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on, we will get weaker and they will get stronger. Let's keep out boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Russians. This is the only language that they understand and respect. If we fail to do this, then I would like to say that we have had a victory over the Germans, and have disarmed them, but we have lost the war.

The one thing that I could not say, and cannot yet say publicly, is that my chief interest in establishing order in Germany was to prevent Germany from going communist. I am afraid that our foolish and utterly stupid policy in regard to Germany will certainly cause them to join the Russians and thereby insure a communistic state throughout Western Europe. We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages and all of Europe with communism."

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

There were was enough momentum in the post war US military to carry out such a plan but no real political support for it, the allies other than Canada and Australia were no shape for anything other than restoration.
The USSR was just getting its second wind at the end of the war and would have been a non trivial foe in any conventional war. You do get a lot of anti-communist historians ramble on about missed windows of oppertunity.

[KoTeMoRe]

Well I guess the military plan for all kinds of contingencies (on paper) but just because there's a plan gathering dust on a shelf somewhere it does not mean there was actually any real intention of following it.

The UK in 1945 was in no state financially or otherwise to start another war after 6 years of total war with Germany, Italy and Japan and I guess the population of the USA was pretty much fed up with war by then as well.


Oddly enough the vice versa case, even though vague, kept you folks quite heated up. For a "plan gathering dust on a shelf somewhere", that is.

[rchad]

I think that military staff, for most governments that can afford it, always have contingency plans for every conceivable threat. The U.S. probably has a plan for invading Canada (being a little facetious).

The insinuation is that the planning was based on an intention instead of a contingency.

I agree with a_very_ex_STAB.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Oddly enough the vice versa case, even though vague, kept you folks quite heated up. For a "plan gathering dust on a shelf somewhere", that is.

The same could equally be said about the commies. In fact the Russians are still getting all heated up about NATO!

[KoTeMoRe]

The same could equally be said about the commies. In fact the Russians are still getting all heated up about NATO!


Very true, if the count starts from the 1940's...

[One Man Gang]

I think that military staff, for most governments that can afford it, always have contingency plans for every conceivable threat. The U.S. probably has a plan for invading Canada (being a little facetious).

The insinuation is that the planning was based on an intention instead of a contingency.

I agree with a_very_ex_STAB.

Actually there was just such a plan in the 1920's positing a US/UK war over Canada. It was called War Plan RED. It was more a theoretical exercise in logistics and planning than any actual machinations against the Frozen North. War College classes would be split and given assignments such as this:

Blue Team: "Move a sufficient amount of troops and supplies across the St. Lawrence River to assault the political Center of Mass of RED while conducting a holding action west of the Mississippi. Consider too, possible amphibious actions to neutralize/secure the RED port of Vancouver."

Red Team: "Defend southern RED against an invasion by BLUE forces until re-inforcements can arrive from Britain."

For obvious reasons, this plan was kept SECRET until the mid-70s when it was finally released, much to the amusement of all concerned. Of course, it being the 1970s, there were some breathless headlines about "Our Out-of-Control Military" and so forth. This was about the same time a poll was taken of USAF enlisted and a majority said they wouldn't fight to defend their own airfields. It was, as they say, an interesting time!!!

[Afro-European]

Well I guess the military plan for all kinds of contingencies (on paper) but just because there's a plan gathering dust on a shelf somewhere it does not mean there was actually any real intention of following it.

The UK in 1945 was in no state financially or otherwise to start another war after 6 years of total war with Germany, Italy and Japan and I guess the population of the USA was pretty much fed up with war by then as well.
Any military with any sense makes contingency plans, most of which are never used. I'm sure the US Army and the Red Army made plans for fighting each other too, but cooler heads prevailed.

As at the end of WWI, when the US and Britain briefly involved themselves in the Russian Civil War, there just wasn't the public will to continue the war any longer and those plans went on the shelf

[deagle]

i think it was just a thought. at the time as allies, they were just cooperating. but in case the relationship turned for the worst, pre-preliminary plans were probably being thought up for defense/counter-attack.

[el borracho]

As at the end of WWI, when the US and Britain briefly involved themselves in the Russian Civil War, there just wasn't the public will to continue the war any longer and those plans went on the shelf

Correct, this is a very little known fact of American history. Woodrow Wilson authorized an American expeditionary force on a joint mission with Britain to link up with the White Russian forces and counterattack the Bolsheviks. Once the force landed they were plagued with severe weather and logistical problems and the battles they fought were mostly inconsequential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

[LineDoggie]

Meh....

We had a War Plan Emerald to Invade Ireland too. Every Military has Contingency Plans for Operations against the widest number of Variable enemies. Common sense dictates that. "IF" the Soviets had decided NOT to stop at the Elbe, if you dont think there would have been fighting your nuts. But most "Dogfaces" regardless of nation just wanted to go home

[lightfire]

Despite of what was said about rather impossibility of such an action by the West against the USSR, many people in Eastern Europe have waited for this. Esspecially for the americans via "Radio free Europe". Some partisans in my country were fighting and lifting their morale by only single thought - "when the americans will come, by next Christams". Of course, this was an ilussion, but in way of impossible total war, partisan movement in Eastern and Central Europe could have been rather usefull

[LineDoggie]

Correct, this is a very little known fact of American history. Woodrow Wilson authorized an American expeditionary force on a joint mission with Britain to link up with the White Russian forces and counterattack the Bolsheviks. Once the force landed they were plagued with severe weather and logistical problems and the battles they fought were mostly inconsequential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia)


Your leaving some important facts out:

rescuing the Czech Legion from the Bolsheviks so at least they could continue the fight on the Western Front. They were being Betrayed to the Germans by the Bolsheviks who withdrew their promise of safe passage.

Guarding the Vast amount of supplies sent to the Russian Government from falling into either German or Bolshevik hands. Why give the Germans such resources?

He also hoped(stupidly) he could reopen the Eastern Front against the Kaiser.

[KoTeMoRe]

Your leaving some important facts out:

rescuing the Czech Legion from the Bolsheviks so at least they could continue the fight on the Western Front. They were being Betrayed to the Germans by the Bolsheviks who withdrew their promise of safe passage.

Guarding the Vast amount of supplies sent to the Russian Government from falling into either German or Bolshevik hands. Why give the Germans such resources?

He also hoped(stupidly) he could reopen the Eastern Front against the Kaiser.


Meh that would be fine if other nations didn't showed up against the bolshevik threat. Wich unfortunately was the case and contributed heavily to the besieged citadel myth in the USSR.

[Afro-European]

Correct, this is a very little known fact of American history. Woodrow Wilson authorized an American expeditionary force on a joint mission with Britain to link up with the White Russian forces and counterattack the Bolsheviks. Once the force landed they were plagued with severe weather and logistical problems and the battles they fought were mostly inconsequential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia
Thanx for the link El B.After WWI,Churchill even went so far as to present plans for a massive shifting of troops from the old Western Front to the Crimea in order to support the White Russian's against the Red.
The British public, via their government, pretty quickly said, "No thank you. There's been enough people killed already."
Was that a mistake in judgment? That case could be made, but their decision makes perfectly good sense when viewed through the lens of that time. The Great War had decimated all combatants and nobody wanted more war.
The same was true after WWII. Most of Europe and the Far East was destroyed, millions of refugees were on the move and it would be decades before anyone knew just how terrible the slaughter had been.The people of this miserable planet were sick of war.

[T-Rex]

Sorry, dont mean to spoil the fun, but towards the end of WW2 General Patton had the means and the intent to push all out towards the Russians. It was only under the direct orders from the White House that prevented him from carrying out an all out assult on the Russians. Patton believed the Russians were just as bad as the Germans. Going forward a bit, it should be clear that during the cold war both sides had drawn up plans to invade eachother.

[Afro-European]

Sorry, dont mean to spoil the fun, but towards the end of WW2 General Patton had the means and the intent to push all out towards the Russians. It was only under the direct orders from the White House that prevented him from carrying out an all out assult on the Russians. Patton believed the Russians were just as bad as the Germans. Going forward a bit, it should be clear that during the cold war both sides had drawn up plans to invade eachother.
He should have executed the plan and finish Russia off.Would have saved the world the misery of the Cold War and a lot of other conflictsp-).
On a serious note:Patton was not a politician and erratically argued alot of things,most of which would have resulted in ww3 before ww2 even ended.

[TR1]

Sorry, dont mean to spoil the fun, but towards the end of WW2 General Patton had the means and the intent to push all out towards the Russians. It was only under the direct orders from the White House that prevented him from carrying out an all out assult on the Russians. Patton believed the Russians were just as bad as the Germans. Going forward a bit, it should be clear that during the cold war both sides had drawn up plans to invade eachother.

YEs, I'm sure he would have been extremely succesfull.rofl

[T-Rex]

Apparently I have to read up on my Patton, since last time I checked he is like the most celebrated of American Generals. So I think he had the skill, temper, and ability to drive the Russians back before they started grabbing up what was left of Europe.

[Pleonasm]

Apparently I have to read up on my Patton, since last time I checked he is like the most celebrated of American Generals. So I think he had the skill, temper, and ability to drive the Russians back before they started grabbing up what was left of Europe.I'll take the battle hardened Guards Tank Armies of the RKKA over Patton's temper, thanks.

edit: Funny how every thread about Operation Unthinkable derails sonner or later to a scenario in which Moscow is the aggressor.

[GazB]

Apparently I have to read up on my Patton, since last time I checked he is like the most celebrated of American Generals. So I think he had the skill, temper, and ability to drive the Russians back before they started grabbing up what was left of Europe.

They grabbed up all those bits of Europe because they were between the Soviets and Berlin. The fact that Stalin consolidated these states into puppet states that served as a buffer between Moscow and Bonn is no surprise.

Regarding the possibility of insurrection in the newly occupied territory of Eastern Europe I would suggest the other problem would be just as big. Very few of the soldiers on the ground saw the Soviet soldiers on the ground as the enemy and after several years of war they were happy enough to call it all finished and hang up their rifles. After fighting non stop a ground war from Moscow to Berlin the Soviet forces certainly learned how to fight a ground war... the hard way.
What is interesting is that the NATO tactics of a fighting withdrawl designed to use relatively mobile forces constantly retreating trading land for time but also giving the enemy forces a seriously bloody nose and doing real damage as it retreated was bascially Nazi Germanys tactics... which failed.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

They grabbed up all those bits of Europe because they were between the Soviets and Berlin. The fact that Stalin consolidated these states into puppet states that served as a buffer between Moscow and Bonn is no surprise.

Regarding the possibility of insurrection in the newly occupied territory of Eastern Europe I would suggest the other problem would be just as big. Very few of the soldiers on the ground saw the Soviet soldiers on the ground as the enemy and after several years of war they were happy enough to call it all finished and hang up their rifles. After fighting non stop a ground war from Moscow to Berlin the Soviet forces certainly learned how to fight a ground war... the hard way.
What is interesting is that the NATO tactics of a fighting withdrawl designed to use relatively mobile forces constantly retreating trading land for time but also giving the enemy forces a seriously bloody nose and doing real damage as it retreated was bascially Nazi Germanys tactics... which failed.

It still took the Russians what 41, 42, 43, 44 to even be truly on the offensive and liberate Soviet lands am I correct?

This from a nation that had virtually the full weight of the whole world against it and was fighting not on 1 but 3 fronts.

Yeah sure the tactic failed. Tactically I'd take a German Wehrmacht Battalion over a USSR Battalion any day.

[Afro-European]

Towards the end of the Second World War there were Germans who were convinced that the US and UK would attack USSR then.So they wanted Germany to quickly surrender to the western allies and then change sides, much like with Italy.
It would have been quite something if the western allies did.They were so exhausted after WW2 as was Germany and Eastern Europe.It would have been even much worse.Perhaps the western allies might also not have been able to conquer the USSR,such as also only been able to go as far as Moscow.

[Ichabod]

It still took the Russians what 41, 42, 43, 44 to even be truly on the offensive and liberate Soviet lands am I correct?

This from a nation that had virtually the full weight of the whole world against it and was fighting not on 1 but 3 fronts.

You can't say that the situation in 45' wasn't very different then it was in 41'.

Yeah sure the tactic failed. Tactically I'd take a German Wehrmacht Battalion over a USSR Battalion any day.

Yeah well,you know what ole' Joe said.....''Quantity has a power all on its own''.

[lightfire]

Perhaps the western allies might also not have been able to conquer the USSR,such as also only been able to go as far as Moscow.

they wouldn't have to. I doubt, that any strategic plan to attack SU would have an objective to conquer the whole country. Bring the SU on it's knees, take back Eastern Europe and keep SU weak, out of the club (for Finland, for Poland for instance) would be very optimistic objectives anyway.

[TR1]

Well since operation Unthinkable was dismissed at militarily unachievable, lol, good luck staying in Europe let alone taking Moscow.

[Kilgor]

Well since operation Unthinkable was dismissed at militarily unachievable, lol, good luck staying in Europe let alone taking Moscow.

and what if moscow was glowing green instead of red ?

This is a non story anyway. It was just a attack plan, doesn't mean it was ever going to happen.

[Mastermind]

I agree with Exstab on this...a plan does not mean aything...really, it reads more like a study of potentialities.

In my rather cynical view of the matter, I think Everyone involved (of the major powers leaderships) knew there was a serious danger of peace breaking out all over the world. Who was there to oppose us at the time? As the worlds sole nuclear armed military, Russia really did not stand any chance if the allies decided to go on the offensive...to demand the head of Stalin at the time might have actually worked...to force Russi from her gols of encroaching on Europe probably would have had a degree of success if it had been backed with a serious nuclear threat. But, we should also realize, Roosevelt was (arguably - I admit) a lover of Stalin and so were his cabinet heads...Truman inherited a nest of commie lovers. Britian, as it turned out, was also equally infested with them.

The massive indusrial complex built up by the war was not going to just dry up and blow away...the world need some realistic level of tension if the people were going to accept the high and higher costs of continued military production. The B-36 was on the verge of flying, hundreds of nuclear cores were on the assembly lines, the US navy was eagerly eyeing their new nuclear powered fleets and billions of dollars in tax money were at stake. If Russia was not allowed to press, if she were humiliated into aquiesence and peaceful coexistance, then all that Admiral-General dream was up in smoke. Those military leaders had already been through the terrible thirties and knew what real peace meant. They left Russia and Uncle Joe alone to fester like an untended wound and sure enough...their clever plans worked much better than they could have ever hoped for.

As we have seen since the decline of the USSR, long term peace brings on it's own degrees of disaster...the last US Presidential election is only the beginning of it. I don't think the Generals of 1945 were all that wrong.

[Afro-European]

they wouldn't have to. I doubt, that any strategic plan to attack SU would have an objective to conquer the whole country.
Indeed but wether US/UK 'd have have succeeded is another matter. Russians due to their fortitude,courage,resourcefulness,dedication and toughness defeated Nazis.They endured things we cannot imagine and came out victorious in spite of everything.

Bring the SU on it's knees, take back Eastern Europe and keep SU weak, out of the club (for Finland, for Poland for instance) would be very optimistic objectives anyway.
There were countries that fought on the Axis side or showed sympathy to their cause just because of the fear of the Soviets and communists.Finland is a good example.Many countries (Baltic states in particular) were more afraid of the communists in the SU than of the fascists in Italy and Nazis in Germany.

[GazB]

It still took the Russians what 41, 42, 43, 44 to even be truly on the offensive and liberate Soviet lands am I correct?

By the end of 43 the result was clear on the eastern front. The German Army was a spent force and was basically operating in a fighting withdrawl retreat mode desperate to protect the fatherland from the revenge of those they had such a short time ago dismissed as subhuman.

[California Joe]

Firstly, there are plans that already exist for every hot spot and potential hot spot and even lukewarm spots on earth. I've seen them. Analysts live for that sh*t. Do you know how many military analysts there are? I mean people that get paid by the government to do it professionally. Not like us...:) The "what if" scenarios get played out constantly. It's what they do.

Secondly, if I remember correctly the Soviets had sustained far higher casualties during the war than were ever made known to the West. Nearly double if I'm not mistaken. I remember reading about the opening of old records after the USSR imploded and historians writing of being shocked by the tru figures. I'm sure Lokos would know the true figures. Supposedly the records were kept secret so they would not appear to be vulnerable to potential new enemies...

Thirdly, I think the boots on the ground all wanted to go home. I seriously doubt there was any strategic thinking about future political systems and their pitfalls going on among the Joes or Tommys or Ivans etc. I think starting another world war after there had just been one would have been a clusterf*ck of even more epic proportions. If we were thinking of doing that we should have made a secret peace with the German Generals, let them escape to the West before they got destroyed in Berlin etc and deputized them all to fight against the Soviets with us. That's a memo to the troops that knew about Malmedy, and the camps etc that I wouldn't have wanted to have to explain...

Frankly, like Mastermind suggested, if the US had simply said "F*ck it, you will withdraw back to Russia and like it, or we will rain atomic bombs on you like Hiroshima" the vaunted fighting ability and toughness of the Soviet army would have been a moot point. That's common sense.

[TR1]

Firstly, there are plans that already exist for every hot spot and potential hot spot and even lukewarm spots on earth. I've seen them. Analysts live for that sh*t. Do you know how many military analysts there are? I mean people that get paid by the government to do it professionally. Not like us...:) The "what if" scenarios get played out constantly. It's what they do.

Secondly, if I remember correctly the Soviets had sustained far higher casualties during the war than were ever made known to the West. Nearly double if I'm not mistaken. I remember reading about the opening of old records after the USSR imploded and historians writing of being shocked by the tru figures. I'm sure Lokos would know the true figures.

Thirdly, I think the boots on the ground all wanted to go home. I seriously doubt there was any strategic thinking about future political systems and their pitfalls going on among the Joes or Tommys or Ivans etc. I think starting another world war after there had just been one would have been a clusterf*ck of even more epic proportions. If we were thinking of doing that we should have made a secret peace with the German Generals, let them escape to the West before they got destroyed in Berlin etc and deputized them all to fight against the Soviets with us. That's a memo to the troops that knew about Malmedy, and the camps etc that I wouldn't have wanted to have to explain...

Frankly, like Mastermind suggested, if the US had simply said "F*ck it, you will withdraw back to Russia and like it, or we will rain atomic bombs on you like Hiroshima" the vaunted fighting ability and toughness of the Soviet army would have been a moot point. That's common sense.
Frankly, the US could not have "rained" down atomic bombs back then.

[LineDoggie]

Well in 1945-1947 the Soviets sure as hell couldnt have. It took traitors in the US to give them that ability

[California Joe]

Yeah, cause that's the point I was making and the Soviets were positive the US didn't have a hangar full of them. Get over yourself for f*ckssakes. Nobody is insulting the Motherland of 65 years ago. You don't think a couple of them strategically dropped might have caused some consternation?

No of course not. That's just crazy talk.

[Kilgor]

imagine the result of (let alone), one on moscow, leningrad and baku ?

[California Joe]

I don't care who you are, it's hard to be a toughguy when you're melting.

[Mastermind]

The Us nuclear arsenal was tuned to produce about two nuclear weapons a month at the time and was rapidly approacing much more capacity. Being four years ahead of the SU in that category was very advantagous...it meant, there would not be a "Stalingrad" or any other sort of military death bog. Also, the SU was very naked in terms of strategic bombers. They could never have hoped to protect their industrial complexes by sheer distance as they had from the Germans. They aslo managed to avoid food bankruptcy during the war becasue the western allies fed them. With the German occupation of the Russian developed food production areas and oil production facilities, the SU was highly dependant on this outside vital supply help. In event of the west attacking an already depleted SU, I doubt there really would have been a repeat of the German experience. Also, let us not ignore the masses of German military reserves in allied pow camps...all of whom would have no doubt contributed if rearmed and re supplied. their experiences in the East would have been quite invaluable.

However, this is all a cute little mental masturbation considering the actual outcome and the larger consideration of having a pretty exhausted military in just about every nation of importance in the day. I wonder what the US and British forces would have thought if actually asked to go on fighting toward Moscow instead of just going home. That would have been a pretty hard sell at the time.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Frankly, the US could not have "rained" down atomic bombs back then.1-2 would have been enough. Thankfully it didn't happen. Moscow, Kiev? A continued war would have been just as brutal and bloody as 39-45.

[Kilgor]

maybe not towards Moscow, but a return to the pre Molv. Ribb. pact borders to return europe to a "clean" slate.

[CG51]

The Us nuclear arsenal was tuned to produce about two nuclear weapons a month at the time and was rapidly approacing much more capacity. Being four years ahead of the SU in that category was very advantagous...it meant, there would not be a "Stalingrad" or any other sort of military death bog. Also, the SU was very naked in terms of strategic bombers. They could never have hoped to protect their industrial complexes by sheer distance as they had from the Germans. They aslo managed to avoid food bankruptcy during the war becasue the western allies fed them. With the German occupation of the Russian developed food production areas and oil production facilities, the SU was highly dependant on this outside vital supply help. In event of the west attacking an already depleted SU, I doubt there really would have been a repeat of the German experience. Also, let us not ignore the masses of German military reserves in allied pow camps...all of whom would have no doubt contributed if rearmed and re supplied. their experiences in the East would have been quite invaluable.

However, this is all a cute little mental masturbation considering the actual outcome and the larger consideration of having a pretty exhausted military in just about every nation of importance in the day. I wonder what the US and British forces would have thought if actually asked to go on fighting toward Moscow instead of just going home. That would have been a pretty hard sell at the time.

Don't waste your time man. The Su single handedly defeated the Nazis. The Lend Lease Act had no effect on the war. The SU defeated Japan single handedly. D Day was just a side show. yadda yadaa. That is all you will hear from the revisionist here on this board.

[California Joe]

I agree it would have been an incredibly hard sell for the exhausted allied troops. That's why the nukes are the ultimate ace in the hole. If we had seriously considered using them with malice aforethought it would have been very effective and absolutely heinous. But it damned sure would have worked...

[Breakfast in Vegas]

I agree it would have been an incredibly hard sell for the exhausted allied troops. That's why the nukes are the ultimate ace in the hole. If we had seriously considered using them with malice aforethought it would have been very effective and absolutely heinous. But it damned sure would have worked...And some nations would have played that card, take that for what it is worth.

[KB]

The original thrust of this thread was whether the US/UK intended to attack the USSR. While a plan probably existed for such an eventuality, the actions of the leaders of the US/UK themselves indicated it wasn't an anticipated likelihood.

Numerous histories of the last year of WWII have shown there was unease over the Soviet advance into Europe: PM Churchill badgered Gen. Eisenhower to use the US/UK forces to beat the Soviets to Berlin. Eisenhower was more than happy to stop at the Elbe and let the Soviets have the honor (and the casualties). FDR basically ceded eastern Europe to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, in return for assurances the Soviets would invade Manchuria following Germany's defeat, which they did on August 10, 1945. Churchill didn't like it but given the UK's dire economic circumstances couldn't do much but go along. At this point the atom bomb was still a theory and casualty projections for the invasion of Japan were into the millions. FDR/Churchill knew their respective homefronts were growing war weary and wanted the Soviets to help take on the Japanese.

It would have been hard to get the Soviets to invade Manchuria if the western Allies were fighting them in eastern Europe. The domestic US opinion of the Soviet Union remained largely favorable following the end of hostilities; it wasn't until the post-war behavior of the Soviets in eastern Europe and the exposure of the Manhattan Project spy ring that sentiments began to change.

[TR1]

Yeah, cause that's the point I was making and the Soviets were positive the US didn't have a hangar full of them. Get over yourself for f*ckssakes. Nobody is insulting the Motherland of 65 years ago. You don't think a couple of them strategically dropped might have caused some consternation?

No of course not. That's just crazy talk.
I was merely pointing out that the American nuclear advantage did not utterly nullify the Soviet conventional advantage in Europe. I don't see why you must respond in such a hostile manner.

[Lokos]

1) Without bursting any bubbles, the likelihood of this event happening was about as high as that of Britain going to war with America in 1945. The daydreaming of one sprightly old man aside, there was no serious consideration given to going to war with the Soviet Union - or a Soviet prosecuted war against the Western Allies. This is made obvious by the fact that the Soviets were busy transferring troops and vast quantities of equipment to the Russian Far East (in preparation for August Storm) as early as April 1945 - that is to say, before the conclusion of the war against Germany. By the jump-off date of said operation, there were two million Soviet troops in the RFE and thousands of tanks and aircraft.

2) HAD such an unlikely event somehow conspired to take place, and HAD the Soviets not spent the last two months of the war shifting their focus elsewhere, the WA would have been in serious trouble. Sidestepping idiotic arguments about who contributed 'more' to Germany's defeat, it is patently obvious to any competent observer that the RKKA of 1945 was the largest, most capable conventional force around. This is no slight against the US Army, it is simply a truism. Conventionally, the WA forces in Europe would have had an enormously difficult time advancing against Soviet forces. And that's the scenario under consideration, yes? A US-led advance into Eastern Europe? They would have failed, and failed spectacularly.

Common rebuttals:

- The USSR was on its last legs

Incorrect. Its manpower had been growing steadily since 1943, despite roughly steady losses. And the new classes of recruits were actually larger than previous ones. The USSR could still sustain a war of some scale.

- The USAF would be decisive

It would have had an impact, but it would have been no more 'decisive' than it was against a hopelessly weakened Germany in '44-45. Aerial forces did not 'win' battles - or by virtue of their presence guarantee the success of operations. One would be remiss in giving such credit to WW2-era air forces. Especially considering that the VVS and the PVO were not exactly fledgling, lesser opponents. The Soviet air force of 1945 was a huge, multi-faceted and very capable institution - with an unparalleled tactical aviation arm. Assumption of any superiority is silly.

- Atomic weapons would have decided it

Firstly, consider your timeline.

Does your hypothetical war begin in May 1945, or later?

If it begins in May, you're two months of enormously damaging, enormously difficult fighting away from the first test of a nuclear weapon. If it begins later, there's a lot more contextual discussion that needs to take place. For example, how do the Allies deploy their forces in Europe between May 1945 and the hypothetical beginning of the campaign against the Soviets? How do the Soviets respond? Are Fat Man and Little Man used against Japan, taking into account that the next weapon is three weeks away, at the earliest? Does Japan surrender, even with FM and LM deployed, without Soviet intervention in Manchuria? Where are the US' priorities, at that stage?

This seems to me a wasteful discussion.

L.

[LineDoggie]

Guys, dont you all realize, the Western Allies were nothing, nothing ever happened west of the Elbe, no contibution other than the Soviets ever counted for anything in Great Patriotic War. Why your all delusional compared to the all knowing RKKA & Stavka.

All Hail the great and all knowing Koba

[California Joe]

I was merely pointing out that the American nuclear advantage did not utterly nullify the Soviet conventional advantage in Europe. I don't see why you must respond in such a hostile manner.

Sorry, instinctive reaction to fanboyism. IMO American nuclear advantage nullified anything anywhere on earth at the time. Period. Should they have chosen to use it. They didn't exactly have to start a war before they had a few more bombs ready to go.

Lokos knows that I have the utmost respect for his historical knowledge, especially regarding this subject matter. I wouldn't dispute a goddamned thing he posts. That would be silly.

My scenario in this bit of mental masturbation takes place as actually happened, with Nagasaki and Hiroshima etc. as is, only then the US starts making suggestions that the Soviets withdraw beyond a certain point or things may start getting glow in the darkish. It's the Ike Turner model. You set an example and then start making threats. You act like allies and play nice and set boundaries right up until you drop another nuke.

[Mastermind]

Soviet airforces were large enough to cause problems..but they were entirely classed to fight a very different sort of enemy using obsolete fighters and no strategic bombers and no nuclear weapons. Thus, in spite of their numbers, they would have been up against a whole generation later aricraft and superbly trained pilots. Let us not forget the allied masses of Ac and navy in the pacific. American -allied forces would not have to get at russia via western Europe as the Germans had to...we had China as a launching point and forces that alrady had been amassed for the gargantuan invasion of Japan.

Now, this gambit is taking place with a defeated Japan as a very near base to the SU. We should also assume the impetus for the attack on SU is taking palce at least a year after the defeat of Japan...that makes sense form the time table of deteriorating cooperations with the SU in Germany and the spoils of Eastern Europe. The SU was not all peaches and cream at this time. Uncle Joe not only had his forces widely disbursed grabbing in all he could in one massive gulp, he had serious trouble in the Ukrane and even in Belorus...remembering his post war brutality to quell dissent in the outer reaches and the millions he slaughtered in order to maintan control. One has to wonder what might have happened if wetern forces had taken advantage of these disruptions and had both given them hope of success and material support. Stalin was successful because he did not have any distractions. In fact, there is some viable speculation the SU was barely able to hold itself together after the war. An attack at the right time could have shattered any hope of keeping it and the government together.

forgive mispells...I'm too tired to go back and check it..see ya tomorrow..MM

[el borracho]

Sorry, dont mean to spoil the fun, but towards the end of WW2 General Patton had the means and the intent to push all out towards the Russians. It was only under the direct orders from the White House that prevented him from carrying out an all out assult on the Russians. Patton believed the Russians were just as bad as the Germans. Going forward a bit, it should be clear that during the cold war both sides had drawn up plans to invade eachother.

I get so sick of hearing "Patton this, Patton that." Patton wasn't in charge in the European Theater, Ike was. Being 3rd Army Commander is no small achievement, but it's not the same as commanding the entire US Army. To those that actually were in charge Patton was nothing more than a loudmouthed subordinate who needed to be put in his place.

As for the AEF in the Siberian excursion, Wilson could not have sold the real mission of regime change to the war weary American public. Instead he cited the less aggressive excuse of evacuating the Czech legion and securing war materiel. Russia was still in a chaotic state politically at that time, but the US and Britain quickly discovered that overthrowing the new government would require a much more dedicated effort than the sideshow they put together, so the plan was abandoned.

On a related note, in the Erich Hartmann biography "The Blond Knight of Germany," Hartmann mentioned that in more than one aerial battle where the Luftwaffe was sandwiched between US and Soviet aircraft, the Germans were able to slink away because the Americans and Russians turned on each other. He even mentioned that despite the confusion of aerial combat US aircraft were hard to mistake since their natural metal finishes gleamed in the spring sun, so it would be hard to believe the Russians' excuse that the attack was accidental because they confused the US planes with Germans.

[socom6]

The original thrust of this thread was whether the US/UK intended to attack the USSR. While a plan probably existed for such an eventuality, the actions of the leaders of the US/UK themselves indicated it wasn't an anticipated likelihood.

Numerous histories of the last year of WWII have shown there was unease over the Soviet advance into Europe: PM Churchill badgered Gen. Eisenhower to use the US/UK forces to beat the Soviets to Berlin. Eisenhower was more than happy to stop at the Elbe and let the Soviets have the honor (and the casualties). FDR basically ceded eastern Europe to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, in return for assurances the Soviets would invade Manchuria following Germany's defeat, which they did on August 10, 1945. Churchill didn't like it but given the UK's dire economic circumstances couldn't do much but go along. At this point the atom bomb was still a theory and casualty projections for the invasion of Japan were into the millions. FDR/Churchill knew their respective homefronts were growing war weary and wanted the Soviets to help take on the Japanese.

It would have been hard to get the Soviets to invade Manchuria if the western Allies were fighting them in eastern Europe. The domestic US opinion of the Soviet Union remained largely favorable following the end of hostilities; it wasn't until the post-war behavior of the Soviets in eastern Europe and the exposure of the Manhattan Project spy ring that sentiments began to change.

Many Russians never understood this, especially the ones here. Even in my country the sacrifice of the Soviet people against fascism during WW2 were well documented and praised to the effect that one wondered if the wartime authorities were communists. In the US people had a healthy respect for the Soviet Union and attitudes were indeed positive judging from war time home front accounts.

But it had to take Stalin to **** up a good thing by looking at the capitalist west as decadent and useless, exactly as how Hitler saw it. Two murderous brutes with the same outlook.

[Lokos]

Guys, dont you all realize, the Western Allies were nothing, nothing ever happened west of the Elbe, no contibution other than the Soviets ever counted for anything in Great Patriotic War. Why your all delusional compared to the all knowing RKKA & Stavka.

All Hail the great and all knowing Koba

You definitely do justice to your nickname. Congratulations on a post devoid of relevance, substance or visible evidence of intelligent design.


Soviet airforces were large enough to cause problems..but they were entirely classed to fight a very different sort of enemy using obsolete fighters and no strategic bombers and no nuclear weapons. Thus, in spite of their numbers, they would have been up against a whole generation later aricraft and superbly trained pilots.

And what gave you this impression? Obsolete fighters? What was obsolete about the Yak-9? Or the La-7?

If the discussion was centered on the VVS/PVO of 1941, you would have a point. But... it is not. As things stand, I'll refute any data you provide on its own merits - I'd prefer to not spend serious time on generalizations. In 1945 the VVS was an excellent, capable institution - and the pilots it produced would match their US counterparts very well indeed in the Korean War.


with Nagasaki and Hiroshima etc. as is, only then the US starts making suggestions that the Soviets withdraw beyond a certain point or things may start getting glow in the darkish.

As a tactic, this is essentially sound. As a strategy... Why would the US insist on Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe? Which US interests are threatened by the Soviet presence there? Is the potential for another sweeping war across continental Europe an acceptable risk, in exchange for an angry, embittered Soviet leadership that would no doubt redress the balance and reassert itself at all costs? At what point does the SU, as a state organism, feel it has nothing to lose by gambling on an offensive war, as its interests have been so fundamentally challenged?


Uncle Joe not only had his forces widely disbursed grabbing in all he could in one massive gulp, he had serious trouble in the Ukrane and even in Belorus...

What 'serious trouble' was that? Apart from Vatutin's assassination, what is the 'serious' trouble you are referring to?


One has to wonder what might have happened if wetern forces had taken advantage of these disruptions and had both given them hope of success and material support.

And how would they have done so? The Ukraine and Belarus were not exactly fringes of Soviet power...


Stalin was successful because he did not have any distractions. In fact, there is some viable speculation the SU was barely able to hold itself together after the war.

... What viable speculation is that?

Details, please.

L.

[Kilgor]

You definitely do justice to your nickname. Congratulations on a post devoid of relevance, substance or visible evidence of intelligent design.



And what gave you this impression? Obsolete fighters? What was obsolete about the Yak-9? Or the La-7?

If the discussion was centered on the VVS/PVO of 1941, you would have a point. But... it is not. As things stand, I'll refute any data you provide on its own merits - I'd prefer to not spend serious time on generalizations. In 1945 the VVS was an excellent, capable institution - and the pilots it produced would match their US counterparts very well indeed in the Korean War.

.

Soviet fighters at the end of the war were very good, but were optimized for the low level combat on the eastern front. A stream of high altitude bombers and fighter cover would be a very different combat situation to previous theaters. The SU could not also produce high octane aviation fuel in quantity, this would even further lessen performance. I would be willing to bet the delivery of atomic weapons on major SU cities would still be achievable.

[domokun]

As it has been said plans were made as just in case studies.

Reasons why Soviets crushed any change for democracy in eastern and eastern central Europe was pretty simple. Paranoia and "never again" mentality, they simply wanted to have little more ground for defense and scorched earth policy, it's much better to do on someone elses land... bit more sustainable. Securing new communist countries were drop in ocean in Stalin's Currilum Vitae, most of his "body count" was made in 30's. Recaptured and occupied areas were given quite light treatment when compared to purges of 30's and Soviet civil war.

Soviet ground forces were much more numerous than forces of western allies even when they would have used German POW's as part of own army. American economy could have equipped Germans too pretty fast. But in reality Soviet army could have won the day on ground, no matter if west would have had some edge in air war. Soviets managed to operate against Luftwaffe even when Luftwaffe could get local aireal superioty, by being more flexible. Even German superior troop quality detoriated as casualties became unsustainable in east, best troops of Wehrmacht were depleted in battles before 1944 and at same time Soviets got more and better trained troops. Luftwaffe was having same problem both in east and over Germany, in the end Luftwaffe consisted of aces and guys who had very little training, even as on same time German war production was getting to real war time speed. Germans didn't have trained personell and fuel use all their equipment.

During war lend-lease equipment was very important to Soviets, not tanks but basic trucks as all Soviet production capacity was put make tanks. Besides fuel, food and trucks Soviets got massive amounts of ammunition from west. Ammunition itself was made/loaded in Soviet Union, but exlosives used came for at least significant part from west. Soviet production probably reached peak capability at end of war as recaptured area started to produce equipment and food.

Only way west would have won is nukes. Soviets would not have been in sustainable position when most important cities and industries would have been vaporized. But most of ground forces of west would have been killed or driven to sea well before that.

Most of Europe would have been lot happier without Soviet Unions "liberation" for sure. Why Finland, Romania and others joined as minor axis allies was quite simple, you had to choose between Soviets and Nazis. At that time German war machine seemed to quite unstoppable. For Finns situation would have been quite sh!tty, Finland didn't have enough food production capability to feed own citizens, we had to import food like before war and quite large part of farm land were occupied by Soviets. Basically desicion was made between war and famine. Germans were seen at that time as lesser evil, alliance with Soviet Union would have led to occupation by Soviets and we had been attacked by them just before.

[Afro-European]

Numerous histories of the last year of WWII have shown there was unease over the Soviet advance into Europe: PM Churchill badgered Gen. Eisenhower to use the US/UK forces to beat the Soviets to Berlin. Eisenhower was more than happy to stop at the Elbe and let the Soviets have the honor (and the casualties). FDR basically ceded eastern Europe to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, in return for assurances the Soviets would invade Manchuria following Germany's defeat, which they did on August 10, 1945. Churchill didn't like it but given the UK's dire economic circumstances couldn't do much but go along. At this point the atom bomb was still a theory and casualty projections for the invasion of Japan were into the millions. FDR/Churchill knew their respective homefronts were growing war weary and wanted the Soviets to help take on the Japanese.

I think Churchill wanted to try and get across the Rhine before the Autumn of 1944 in order to be able to liberate Czechoslovakia and maybe part of Poland. He would have felt honour bound to try and save some of the Poles and Czechs and it would probably have given him a better position at Yalta if it was British and Commonwealth forces that were first into the Reich (that might also explain why the Americans were less than supportive).
Whether the Western Allies were ever likely to try and beat Stalin to Berlin is a bit more debatable.I think the Russians wanted their pound of flesh and baulking them would have caused more trouble than it was worth. There's also the fact that the push for Berlin was quite hard on the Red Army and might have weakened Stalin's westward ambitions (it was bad luck for the civvies in the Russian's path though).The British were certainly prepared to go flat out and face the Russians to Denmark.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

First of all, the prowess of the Red Air Force and American atmoic forces has already been discussed, however, this connection has not been made: US atomic bombers would have to reach their targets before American atomic weapons would be useful. The atomic bombings of Japan went off without a hitch because the Japanese air arms were spent forces and what few aircraft they had left were being held back for service as Kamikazes. With nuclear strike forces, only a few bombs would have been in the air as part of a strike package and downing a single bomber could save an entire city.

Overall, the way I see it is thus:

Russia was even more war weary as the western Allies in 1945. Yes, the British were weak and the Germans were crushed, but both the Russians and Americans had the capability to carry on a war with each other in 1945. Each side had tens of millions of men under arms, tons of equipment and more modern equipment in the pipeline. The USSR had an advantage in numbers and armored forces, the USA had an advantage in strategic bombers, nukes and naval forces.

However, although neither side liked or trusted the other side, neither side wanted war. They were tired of it. Some idealists like FDR hoped USSR/USA cooperation would continue post WW2. Most people just wanted peace.

This meant that the only way either side would have gone to war was in self-defense. And neither side was willing to go on the offensive in any way.

And when I say any way, I mean it. Look at France and Italy: Both nations had large communist resistance groups during WW2. These groups could have easily, with a little Soviet aid and prodding, become insurgent forces trying to bring communist revolution to western Europe. They didn't. Stalin didn't even support the Greek communists. Likewise, the USA didn't provide any support to anti-communist insurgencies in Eastern Europe, in places such as the Baltics, Ukraine, Poland and Romania.

One more historical note, about nuclear weapons:

It is true that the United States had a monopoly of nuclear forces. However this monopoly did not last long. It only lasted until 1949.

American officials that were part of the Manhattan Project suspected there were traitors inside the program passing info to the Soviets. However, they didn't do anything about it because they were trying to build the bomb as fast as possible and needed these people for their work. So it's entirely likely that American leaders thought that, although the USSR didn't have a bomb in May 1945, they probably would have one very soon (although they wouldn't know the exact time frame), and then America's nuclear monopoly would be gone.

[GazB]

Regarding being tired of war, I remember reading the memoirs of a British soldier who came across a Luftwaffe airfield and the commanding officer came up to him and said the planes were all armed up and ready but needed fuel, if the British would bring the fuel up they would be happy to man the German fighters to fight the Soviets. The British soldier rounded up the Germans and put them in a truck for processing as POWs and secured the aircraft for later analysis. (They were relatively new models of FW I believe.)

[LEB101]

minus nukes i dont think Us/Uk could have won against the Su the Su had more and better tanks more men and more land to fight from . t34 would have killed shermans

[oldsoak]

We could not have gone toe to toe with the Russians. The average soldier didnt see them as the enemy for one and we were in no position to fight them. We were a small country, we'd kept on fighting for almost six years thanks to our kith and kin from overseas and American industrial input and now that the allies had beaten the Nazis, everyone wanted to go home. The US might have been able to do it, I doubt we could.

[DS73]

What is interesting is that the NATO tactics of a fighting withdrawl designed to use relatively mobile forces constantly retreating trading land for time but also giving the enemy forces a seriously bloody nose and doing real damage as it retreated

And? it's an obvious and basically the only available strategy. There is not so much that can be invented or used.
As often is the case "the taste is in the details."



was bascially Nazi Germanys tactics... which failed.Actually it wasn't. Due to continuous Hitler's interference and probably of other ideological leaders the Germans wasted a plenty of seasoned fighters in a plenty of useless fights or in isolated pockets. Army Group Courland and the fate of 6 army are the best examples.

The name of the plan says it all: "Unthinkable". If to read people who were designing it, the point was to make some contingency plan if the dialog between Russians and allies snaps. Nobody was really amused about this possibility.

[LineDoggie]

minus nukes i dont think Us/Uk could have won against the Su the Su had more and better tanks more men and more land to fight from . t34 would have killed shermans

Hmmm, Funny as every single T34/85 vs. M4A3(76)w encounter in korea ended exactly the opposite way.

[CG51]

Hmmm, Funny as every single T34/85 vs. M4A3(76)w encounter in korea ended exactly the opposite way.

No man, those were export models. rofl

[Mastermind]

minus nukes i dont think Us/Uk could have won against the Su the Su had more and better tanks more men and more land to fight from . t34 would have killed shermans
The Shermans by 1945 were well on their way to the scrap heap. The new M-46's were being bilt and they had already proven themselves combat capable against the panthers and probably would have served very well against the JS-1 and even 2's...being more nimble and very well armored and gunned. The T-34's were very capable, but crude and poorly sighted to stand against the more modern Allied tanks, including one of the vbery best tanks in the world coming out of Britian, the Centurions.

It was a matter of manufacturing might and will power as regarding the equipment problem. The allies had geared up fantastically with new plants and highly efficient resources to feed the raw materials to them. Russi was running on momentum and last gasps of effort. The allies had been carrying a critical share of the Soviet war needs with critical precision parts, rare materials and engineering design and expertise. The SU was rapidly becoming distracted in social problems and home grown dissentions. A sudden cut off of these and other critical contributions to the SU war effort would have a major impact, as it ultimatley did as relations between the SU and the other allies deteriorated.

Admittedly, a great many of these shortages were made up enough to allow JS to develop the nuclear weapons ...but, one has to wonder how distraction in defending against a western aggression would have impeded the nuclear bomb effort or how much the bomb effort would have drawn from convential arms manufacturing capacity. The soviet post war economy was practically bankrupt and the nation had hardly any economic capacity to make up the shortfalls.

I would speculate the SU would have been very hard pressed to resist a realy serious allied effort to foce them at least out of Eastern Europe. I doubt Uncle Joe would have pressed overly hard if given an ultimatim. He was given Eastern Europe on a silver platter by a doddering old man who was dying (Roosevelt). The allies were not prepared politically to go on with another major hot front and Jow knew that. Having a fellow communist like roosevelt in his corner made it practically a no-brainer that he could grab what ever he wanted. Truman was not about to push against him and as long as he was able to hold up a friendly smile under that onerous mustach, the west would gladly believe what ever he chose for them to believe.

In short...it just was never going to happen. But, assuming Uncle Joe dropped his cards or over played his hand, I think the Western powers could have forced the issue to their advantage. The Allied problem would have been overly aggressive commanders, ala Patton or McArthur, intent on pushing on past the Russian frontiers ... at that point, knowing how determined and dedicated to Mother Russia Russian soldiers are...I would see a disaster forming for the allies no matter what their supply and manufacturing advantages.

[Lokos]

Hmmm, Funny as every single T34/85 vs. M4A3(76)w encounter in korea ended exactly the opposite way.

With a good crew the M4A3(76) could kill a Panther at very respectable ranges. Even Tiger Is were not immune to its cannon. Does that make both tanks inferior to the Sherman? Please do not use the experiences of US tank crews in action against North Koreans to justify the likelihood of similar results against their Soviet counterparts. The Germans had a very healthy respect for both Soviet tanks and crew. And they had a very good basis for comparison.

There are also two things your blithe retort forgot to mention.

1) The vast majority of Shermans, even in 1945, were armed with the decidedly inferior 75mm cannon.

2) On technical specs alone, the T34-85 could put a Sherman out of action at almost any conceivable range. Therefore, since both vehicle are relatively vulnerable to each other, the only factor of divergence lies in the human faculties of the crew.


The new M-46's were being bilt and they had already proven themselves combat capable against the panthers and probably would have served very well against the JS-1 and even 2's...being more nimble and very well armored and gunned.

I'll respond by way of several bulletpoints.

* The T54 (originally designated T44B) completed its trials in February 1945 (and was accepted into service in April/March). Armed with a 100mm cannon, it was at the very least an analogue to the M26/M46 tanks, and compared favorably to both.

* The M46 was fielded in extremely low numbers - with a total of 1,200 built. They only constituted 15% of US armored forces even in Korea. It was also only fielded after 1948. You are probably referring to the M26 Pershing, which first saw combat in the ETO in February 1945.

* By March 1945 the first JS-3 production models were being deployed, though they would not be seen before the V-Day parade in Berlin.


The allies had geared up fantastically with new plants and highly efficient resources to feed the raw materials to them. Russi was running on momentum and last gasps of effort.

Completely untrue. If anything, by September 1944 the Soviets were gearing down, as the numbers of weapons systems they were churning out could no longer be justified by battlefield losses. The production of artillery and small arms, especially, took a nosedive, as the war reached its conclusion. But this was no 'last gasp' situation.

The Soviet tank park for example, by 1945, was absolutely enormous. Only a fraction of that tank park could be actually deployed in the field units, at any given time.


The SU was rapidly becoming distracted in social problems and home grown dissentions.

I asked you before to provide details of these alleged 'social problems' and 'home grown dissent'.


The soviet post war economy was practically bankrupt and the nation had hardly any economic capacity to make up the shortfalls.


Before continuing this discussion, I would prefer it if you had a look at Mark Harrison's 'Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment and the Defense Burden 1940-1945' first, so that we can avoid needless tangents.

L.

[Mastermind]

Good points and I'll have to dig out my old books to get the references on the social problems. The USSR was, as I have pointed out, not going to be a pushover. But, it certainly had it's problems and some that were not going to be easily contained.

I am aware of the M-26 being presented in low numbers at the time. However, it was rushed into production to catch a bit of the war in order to test the new design concepts as much as help win the war. No doubt, the up-gunned and armored M-4's were certainly able to handle the remains of the German forces. I doubt it would have been "THE" tank to handle the massive numbers of the T-34s available and certainly not the new T-54's. But, then we are talking hypothetical BS regarding the potential of the West against the SU post war war...And, we must take on some rather expanded assumptions.

If the west actually had a need and a strong desire to reduce the Soviet influence post war, I think a great deal of pre war work would have been done (to make an obvious understatment). This would almost certainly have involved massive production of the new tanks. The M-46 was in view on the (seeing just past the M-26) and I have assumed it would be "THE" tank to meet the Soviet threats. I am also assuming the west would not sit idly by and allow soviet mass production of heavy and medium heavy tanks while they held onto a vast armada of B-29's and nuclear weapons.

So, my speculations are freely admited as bull scatology. We will never know how this war that never was would have turned out. But, it does make for some very lively discussio

I think the way things actually turned out were for the best. We avoided devolution into rampant peace for fifty years.

[oldsoak]

I'd agree. The old "cold war" where everyone knew what MAD really meant and kept their damn place in the queue had a lot going for it.

[Russian_dude]

On a side note, I never understood this whole "Asiatic" thing. Russians are basically slavs/finns with a dash of scandinav and turkic in them. They have nothing in common with Mongols. No more then an American is a "savage red-skin" or a German a Hun.

[oldsoak]

Its a cold war thing. We liked to portray the WARPAC as not really European. It was easier to create the "Them" and "us" mentality. The fact that Russian culture, philosophy, literature, music etc was interchangeable with that of Europe was ignored.

[lightfire]

Let's try another path,


After May 1945 the relations between the Allies and the SU have been going down. Only the need of soviets to crush the japanese and obligations to shape the face of Europe kept relations at reasonable level. It later very rapidly developed into the Cold War.

Let's assume, the West went on confrontation path with the SU earlier. Not direct one, but the style, soviets used themselves later on. Since 1946 they had "elections" in Central and eastern Europe, while there was still resistance movements going on. Up until 1949 soviets did not have nuclear weapon.

Despite being tired of war, the West supports anti-communist forces in Europe, overwhelmed by the soviet rule. Just like the French resistance, anti-communist forces could receive material support, training etc in a more massive scale than it actually happened.

The resistance to the pupet governments might increase as well as to the soviet rules to full scale rebelions promting the soviet reaction.

And what of soviet reaction? It was hostile anyway, provoking, however, being provoked it would have to go to an offensive war against the West itself - rather uncomfortable, while the West would have no other choice, but to defend itself.

The point here is - support Eastern and central Europe without direct confrontation, weaken the SU and it's authority in those regions of Europe. Soviets did the same in Korea and Vietnam later, so why not to strike first?

[KoTeMoRe]

Let's try another path,


After May 1945 the relations between the Allies and the SU have been going down. Only the need of soviets to crush the japanese and obligations to shape the face of Europe kept relations at reasonable level. It later very rapidly developed into the Cold War.

Let's assume, the West went on confrontation path with the SU earlier. Not direct one, but the style, soviets used themselves later on. Since 1946 they had "elections" in Central and eastern Europe, while there was still resistance movements going on. Up until 1949 soviets did not have nuclear weapon.

Despite being tired of war, the West supports anti-communist forces in Europe, overwhelmed by the soviet rule. Just like the French resistance, anti-communist forces could receive material support, training etc in a more massive scale than it actually happened.

The resistance to the pupet governments might increase as well as to the soviet rules to full scale rebelions promting the soviet reaction.

And what of soviet reaction? It was hostile anyway, provoking, however, being provoked it would have to go to an offensive war against the West itself - rather uncomfortable, while the West would have no other choice, but to defend itself.

The point here is - support Eastern and central Europe without direct confrontation, weaken the SU and it's authority in those regions of Europe. Soviets did the same in Korea and Vietnam later, so why not to strike first?

Because there was a direct moral and psychological impact from the war that actually stemmed pro-communist movements all over the world. Trying to play cat and mice could have sparked civil wars (Greece comes to mind)...and I'm not sure you'd liked that sight!

Again I see that merely young people want a dystopic path for the recent past, a path that is beyond me, when I look back.

[Flounder]

West vs Russia in '45? Pffft, kick in the front door of Russia and the whole rotten structure would collapse. You wouldn't even need to bring along winter uniforms because the whole thing would be over before the first snow fell.

[KoTeMoRe]

West vs Russia in '45? Pffft, kick in the front door of Russia and the whole rotten structure would collapse. You wouldn't even need to bring along winter uniforms because the whole thing would be over before the first snow fell.

You succeed at sarcasm!

[Connaught Ranger]

West vs Russia in '45? Pffft, kick in the front door of Russia and the whole rotten structure would collapse. You wouldn't even need to bring along winter uniforms because the whole thing would be over before the first snow fell.

Just like it worked for Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler:roll:

[C.Fodder]

Nice one Flounder :)

[Breakfast in Vegas]

West vs Russia in '45? Pffft, kick in the front door of Russia and the whole rotten structure would collapse. You wouldn't even need to bring along winter uniforms because the whole thing would be over before the first snow fell.woot That's a great plan! You first, I'm right behind you! :)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Well as they say. Third time lucky

[oldsoak]

...and the troops on the ground say

"we've got a better idea - lets all go home "

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

You don't have to go all the way into Russia...just drive them back to the Polish-Russian border.

[Connaught Ranger]

Megaraptor;3823133']You don't have to go all the way into Russia...just drive them back to the Polish-Russian border.

And you think that would have been the end of it?:roll:

[Xaito]

Megaraptor;3823133']You don't have to go all the way into Russia...just drive them back to the Polish-Russian border.

you and what army?

[KoTeMoRe]

you and what army?

http://gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net/o1/gamestar/objects/249964_main.jpg

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

And you think that would have been the end of it?:roll:

Then the Western Allies would have been on the defensive.