Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the US have gone to the Eastern Front?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Could the US have gone to the Eastern Front?

    Here's a thought, could the US have when it entered the WWII have instead of joining the North Africa Campaign have gone to the Eastern Front via Iran for example? Was it ever considered? Would it have been practical?

    If it had been done the US would have been able to fight and detroy the mian Japanese Army in China, instead of the nightmare of the Pacific?
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

  • #2
    Originally posted by sparten
    Here's a thought, could the US have when it entered the WWII have instead of joining the North Africa Campaign have gone to the Eastern Front via Iran for example? Was it ever considered? Would it have been practical?

    If it had been done the US would have been able to fight and detroy the mian Japanese Army in China, instead of the nightmare of the Pacific?

    I would think that taking an army that far would be highly problematic in the first place. Also, when it comes to the idea of fighting Germany on the Eastern front, it was probably much easier to integrate British and US troops. The language barrier and desperation on the Russian side would have been an ugly environment for American troops.
    For the Pacific, the Japanese Navy was a bigger threat to American interests. Plus, taking an army through the Himilayas or Southeast Asia to attack the Japanese occupation forces would have been too much of a hassle. They really needed to drive for Japan itself rather than getting stuck in mainland China.
    I guess those are just my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to smack me around and correct me. Haha.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by sparten
      Here's a thought, could the US have when it entered the WWII have instead of joining the North Africa Campaign have gone to the Eastern Front via Iran for example? Was it ever considered? Would it have been practical?

      If it had been done the US would have been able to fight and detroy the mian Japanese Army in China, instead of the nightmare of the Pacific?
      Far easier for the United States to move in from the west. Iran didn't have anywhere near the infrastructure to support a large scale American force, and the Soviets were having difficulty finding the rail and truck transport capacity to support the historical offensives they launched. American troops would have been largely extra mouths to feed, although an air force presence could have been useful.

      As for moving against Japan through China, the same problem applies. China had primarily light infrastructure, and both the Japanese and Chinese armies lacked mechanization. An American force would have required far too much oil, and far too extensive roads/rail to really do much good in China. Besides, ultimately we would have had to invade Japan in order to end the war, and in order to do that we would have to be able to get a fleet into the area. That meant penetrating the perimeter that Japan had set up in the Pacific.

      Comment


      • #4
        The plan to fight Germany was always predicated on an invasion of France first. Liberate France and you have a modern and friendly nation in which to base your thrust into the German heartland.

        The Sovs didn't have the kind of infrastructure to support a large, modern army, theirs or anyone else's.

        Plus, no one trusted the Sovs, and for good reason.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dalem
          The plan to fight Germany was always predicated on an invasion of France first. Liberate France and you have a modern and friendly nation in which to base your thrust into the German heartland.

          The Sovs didn't have the kind of infrastructure to support a large, modern army, theirs or anyone else's.

          Plus, no one trusted the Sovs, and for good reason.

          -dale
          I think you are colouring your assesment because of the later history with the Soviets. At the time the Russians were fighting for their lives (literally). No one could expect them to suddenly join the Germans.
          "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sparten
            I think you are colouring your assesment because of the later history with the Soviets. At the time the Russians were fighting for their lives (literally). No one could expect them to suddenly join the Germans.
            I am talking about trusting the Sovs to support an Allied army on their soil as opposed to taking all the equipment and supplies, etc. The Sovs balked at having an allied long range bomber base too, although they thought it was fine to take a B-29 and copy it rivet for rivet.

            So, would they join the Germans, no. Would they make maximal use of an allied army while leaving it autonomous? Not a chance.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dalem
              I am talking about trusting the Sovs to support an Allied army on their soil as opposed to taking all the equipment and supplies, etc. The Sovs balked at having an allied long range bomber base too, although they thought it was fine to take a B-29 and copy it rivet for rivet.

              So, would they join the Germans, no. Would they make maximal use of an allied army while leaving it autonomous? Not a chance.

              -dale

              Go to the thread about the bloodiest battles. And than look at how many in the top ten were on the Eastern Front. If the Americans had offered, the Russains would have accepted them with open arms. And they would have taken "all the strings attached". Beggers cannot be chosey.
              "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sparten
                Go to the thread about the bloodiest battles. And than look at how many in the top ten were on the Eastern Front. If the Americans had offered, the Russains would have accepted them with open arms. And they would have taken "all the strings attached". Beggers cannot be chosey.
                Thanks, but I already know plenty about the OstFront casualty ratios. But the key failure of your point is that the Sovs did not have the logistical ability to support a foreign army operating on their soil even if Stalin would have been open to such a thing, which he would not have been. If he HAD accepted it would have been under a pretense and would have been ill-used, if used at all.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dalem
                  Thanks, but I already know plenty about the OstFront casualty ratios. But the key failure of your point is that the Sovs did not have the logistical ability to support a foreign army operating on their soil even if Stalin would have been open to such a thing, which he would not have been. If he HAD accepted it would have been under a pretense and would have been ill-used, if used at all.

                  -dale
                  Around 10 polish divisions and 2 Chezh divisions fought on Eastern Frond by 1945 on Soviet side.... around 60 French fighters joined Russian air force but remained independent French command..... around 100 French died in this unit.

                  US was following the logic of Brittain, where Churchil did not want to risk in land war against Germany after he evacuated from Dunkerk.... The war in North Africa is so small in terms of how many German troops were involved there. Most of troops there were Italian - 9 divisions while germans had around 3 full divisions and some small units..... compare this with hunreds of divisions engaged on eastern front.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Garry
                    Around 10 polish divisions and 2 Chezh divisions fought on Eastern Frond by 1945 on Soviet side.... around 60 French fighters joined Russian air force but remained independent French command..... around 100 French died in this unit.
                    You have got to be joking. You are bringing up the Polish divisions?????

                    Besides, whose equipment did they use?

                    US was following the logic of Brittain, where Churchil did not want to risk in land war against Germany after he evacuated from Dunkerk.... The war in North Africa is so small in terms of how many German troops were involved there. Most of troops there were Italian - 9 divisions while germans had around 3 full divisions and some small units..... compare this with hunreds of divisions engaged on eastern front.
                    I know that lots of guys died in Russia. That has nothing to do with the main question.

                    And I don't understand your comment about U.S. and British strategy. As early as 1935 U.S. planners were already drawing up plans for a contingency to invade France to turn back a resurgent German army. If it were left up to the hard-fighting but shell-shocked Brits, there never would have been an invasion of the Continent at all - the main drive would have been up through the Balkans.

                    -dale

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "Go to the thread about the bloodiest battles. And than look at how many in the top ten were on the Eastern Front. If the Americans had offered, the Russains would have accepted them with open arms. And they would have taken "all the strings attached". Beggers cannot be chosey."

                      Simply not true. The Russians outright rejected US proposals to base US heavy bombers in the Rodina, let alone a whole army.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        Simply not true. The Russians outright rejected US proposals to base US heavy bombers in the Rodina, let alone a whole army.
                        You are correct, but I must add that even if the Russkis were willing to accept US divisions, they still wouldn't have made much of an impact. There was not enough infrastructure to supply that many more additional troops, and building it over the vast distances required would have taken years. Much better to just invade France as we did historically.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          You are correct, but I must add that even if the Russkis were willing to accept US divisions, they still wouldn't have made much of an impact. There was not enough infrastructure to supply that many more additional troops, and building it over the vast distances required would have taken years. Much better to just invade France as we did historically.
                          Plus, we already had the maps. Literally. More than one U.S. General Officer landed in Normandy with his decades-old West Point Cadet exercise maps in tow. Maps that showed a multi-division landing by joint U.S. and British forces in the Cotentin/Normandy area.

                          Small world, ain't it?

                          -dale

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X