What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

[Bill]

"industry was also on the roll..."

One overflight by a B-29 followed by a bright flash...and that's the end of Soviet Industry.

[WeeGiZ]

"industry was also on the roll..."

One overflight by a B-29 followed by a bright flash...and that's the end of Soviet Industry.

How many of B-29's with "bright flash" bombs were deployed at 1945?

[Bill]

The US had one available Fat man device in 1945 on V-J day.

If you read through the "Could Germany have won WWII" thread, detailed information on the US bomb program delivery schedule is quoted.

[WeeGiZ]

Yes, I've read that.
Maybe OT: the name of Thread is W.Allies vs. Russia (USSR). I wonder if NO ONE would ally with soviets in this case?

[Bill]

Like who?

There was only one true world power in 1945, the US, and all the minor players were either in smoking ruin(france, Germany, low countries), or would support the US(UK, Canada, ANZAC, etc).

China was Russias only realistic chance at an ally, and to be honest, they were in no position to help anyone in 1945, and i highly doubt they'd want to play "Lets get Beijing nuked".

[WeeGiZ]

Like who?

There was only one true world power in 1945, the US, and all the minor players were either in smoking ruin(france, Germany, low countries), or would support the US(UK, Canada, ANZAC, etc).

China was Russias only realistic chance at an ally, and to be honest, they were in no position to help anyone in 1945, and i highly doubt they'd want to play "Lets get Beijing nuked".

Don't know really - that's why I'm here - to find out answers . Yugoslavia? They expeled naciz by their own...
But overall you're right about "minor players were either in smoking ruin"...
EDIT: as read in first post "Patton should get his wish"..so US would be kinda agressor? errmm like a Germany in 193x?

[lwarmonger]

Like who?

There was only one true world power in 1945, the US, and all the minor players were either in smoking ruin(france, Germany, low countries), or would support the US(UK, Canada, ANZAC, etc).

China was Russias only realistic chance at an ally, and to be honest, they were in no position to help anyone in 1945, and i highly doubt they'd want to play "Lets get Beijing nuked".

Also, that was the high point of the civil war. All of Mao's energies were focused on beating the Nationalists.

[Enzo Ferrari]

You got a point - in first stages of WWII soviet ground forces delayed germans enough for "vastly superior industrial base (over Germany) to come into play".
We can say that after 4 years of fighting, Soviet army was expierienced, hard-trained, industry was also on the roll...

People always forgot the importance of Lend-Lease, then the Soviets won because they can concentrated energies to produce even more T-34, Su guns, IL-2,...etc.(also the stupid Nazi forgot to develop long range bombers too...)

[Enzo Ferrari]

[QUOTE=Prosto ILya]



40 years?! Wow!!! You now, right now I called my grandfather and asked, does he remember any breadlines in 1960-1975. He said “no”. And because my grandpa is steel good friend with his brain and sanity, and not real fan of Politburo, I can trust him. True breadlines appeared in times of a late Almost-zombie-Breznev reign and in Gorbachev times of Perestroika. And that is not a crap. But, for example. In USSR it was quite hard if not impossible to get bananas or pineapple.

QUOTE]

Sorry to remind that the living standard of Communist world were far far far worse than the capitalism (or Western) world, you could ask anybody living at your former satellite countries, how many of them want to go back to join your "evil empire"?

[Garry]

The debate has been going on for decades.

ToE and OrBat wise, the Soviets were at a disadvantage. Everyone forgot the Canadians and the Australians who would field another 20 combat veteran divisions.

Naval wise, the Soviets were at a lost with no navy against the world's four biggest at the time (ABCA).

Industrial wise, the Soviets plateaued. They were exhausted. With 7-15 million military dead, their equipment lost was equally horrendous. By the end of the war, they were producing just enough to replace their losses. This at a time when Wehrmacht combat capabcity was in decline.

This being said, let's be honest. The world was exhausted by war. No one had the stomach for another one.

I agree with you OE! Soviet Union deadly needed a pause in the war.... nobody could take such hit of stupid Stalin decisions without paying cost of that.

Plus I guess that Germans would have joined against Red Army. USSR would have needed to pull back and consolidate positions inside the continent somewhere in Poland and Eastern Europe. Though I think that USSR would have had good opportunities to hold such positions...... It was still quite formidable and experienced force to hold

[Trajan]

You mean to continue to lose millions of lives, burn cities to the ground, lose another generation of young people, orphans without homes living like dogs, while wives, mothers, sisters work 24/7 with below proverty pay churning out things that may get their husbands/sons/brothers killed while trying not to think about the letters from the War Dept that come almost everyday to someone you know and you hope it wouldn't be you?

Gee, how did we ever miss a chance to do that?

Sorry in advance Officer of Engineers, in bringing up such an old quote; however I was browsing the forums and saw this and thought to comment.


A continued war between the Western Allies and Russia would have been quite easy to imagine. For some time there was of course an uneasy peace (which then turned into the Cold War and Arms Race) which pervaided like a deep fog over Europe.

However when you consider with hindsight the current day situation and the different ideologies being used by important countries in the world today, the thought a post-world war II world without the Soviet Union looks like it could have been well spent in blood and iron for such an effort.

This based upon how Stalin used the Soviet Republics: very basically taking advantage of every reasource and public domains. An example being Armenia: the USSR gave an entire section of land containing ethnic Armenians over to Azerbaijan, the Armenian holy mountain of Mount Ararat over to their generation long enemies the Turks who only a few decades before had tried eradicating the Armenians.

The list of Soviet sins after 1945 is long and many. If I was a leader of a nation at this time, with this hindsight, and even the knowledge that it would cost millions of lives, I would still fight against Russia. The impact of this Evil Empire was, is, and will continue to be felt as the new century we are in goes on. We have not even begun to see the true impact that the Soviet Union has or had on the world.

[SimMur]

Well, I do believe most of the thread members think of USA & NATO as GOOD GUYS.

The reality was very simple - USA always wanted to crush Russia (even non-communist one). Truman said that the best result of war would be if last German killed last Russian.

But it was decided that due to the severe casualties of the USSR it would be enough to destroy it economically and politically (i.e. to forbid reparations, even already promised; to provocate Russia everywhere in Europe etc.).

The AngloSaxon itself started Cold War, not Stalin. That was the kind of war, the AngloSaxons decided to fight in.

The main diplomatic idea of Stalin was to create a set of buffer countries in Europe - to not allow any enemy to start war directly on Russia soil). Stalin did not want to create communist dictatorships in these countries at first at all.

For example, he supported Finland and Austria as neutral countries. Moreover, he proposed Adenauer to unite Germany as strictly neutral country (i.e. no West Germany in NATO etc.).

The USA "helped" to destabilized situation in Eastern Europe (as a part of their working doctrine to fight the USSR) that requiered Stalin to increase Russia's power in these countries - i.e. to make them strict and direct Russia's satellites.

Most of these countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Bohemia) were Hitler's allies and invaded Russia as well. So, I don't see any reason why their occupation was immoral.

Japan, Italy and West Germany were occupied by the USA as well, even France got his own administration due to Stalin's help (at first it was decieded by the AngloSaxons, that France would get a status of occupied country).

[TopHatter]

Well, I do believe most of the thread members think of USA & NATO as GOOD GUYS.

Well, the USA and the Western Allies didn't jump into bed with Hitler to carve up Poland like a roast, so yeah that's a good place to start.

The USA and NATO didn't send troops in other countries to forcibly supress democratic movements, so yeah that's a good place to continue.

Wait, what was all that you were saying about Uncle Joe being Eastern Europe's kindly benefactor?

[lwarmonger]

Well, I do believe most of the thread members think of USA & NATO as GOOD GUYS.

The reality was very simple - USA always wanted to crush Russia (even non-communist one). Truman said that the best result of war would be if last German killed last Russian.

But it was decided that due to the severe casualties of the USSR it would be enough to destroy it economically and politically (i.e. to forbid reparations, even already promised; to provocate Russia everywhere in Europe etc.).

The AngloSaxon itself started Cold War, not Stalin. That was the kind of war, the AngloSaxons decided to fight in.

The main diplomatic idea of Stalin was to create a set of buffer countries in Europe - to not allow any enemy to start war directly on Russia soil). Stalin did not want to create communist dictatorships in these countries at first at all.

For example, he supported Finland and Austria as neutral countries. Moreover, he proposed Adenauer to unite Germany as strictly neutral country (i.e. no West Germany in NATO etc.).

The USA "helped" to destabilized situation in Eastern Europe (as a part of their working doctrine to fight the USSR) that requiered Stalin to increase Russia's power in these countries - i.e. to make them strict and direct Russia's satellites.

Most of these countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Bohemia) were Hitler's allies and invaded Russia as well. So, I don't see any reason why their occupation was immoral.

Japan, Italy and West Germany were occupied by the USA as well, even France got his own administration due to Stalin's help (at first it was decieded by the AngloSaxons, that France would get a status of occupied country).

Of course the Soviet Union was a benevolent socialist workers paradise. Just ask the millions of Ukrainians and other minorities who went over to Hitler the first chance they got. Just ask the millions of kulaks who were killed by famine or labor camps. Just ask the Fins in 1940. Just ask the people in eastern europe who were more than happy to overthrow their Russian installed governments the first chance they got. The Soviet Union has always been the good guy, just misunderstood. That has to be it.

[SimMur]

Well, the USA and the Western Allies didn't jump into bed with Hitler to carve up Poland like a roast, so yeah that's a good place to start.

Of course, they just helped Hitler to get his army to go East and to annex Austria, Bohemia and Slovakia. And in 1939 they did everything possible to break down the Anglo-French-Russian military union.

About Poland - Poland conquered these lands during the Russian Civil War (using Russia's lost of power during this period). Russia returned them back as soon as possible.

A simple diplomacy of strength - you, americans, do know it too well.

The USA and NATO didn't send troops in other countries to forcibly supress democratic movements, so yeah that's a good place to continue.

Egypt (1956), Grenada (1983), Haiti, Dominican Republic, Serbia.

Of course, they are not "democratic" in the American way of things. They did not hear the White House.

As well as Ugo Chavez or Miloshevic, for example. The "dictators" who won free multy-party elections - that's the nice example of the orwellian logic

And americans supported such "democratic" countries as Noriega's Panama, Saddams' Iraq (before 1990), Salvador, Franco's Spain, Taiwan, South Korea, South Vietnam, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Batisto's Cuba, Israel, Pakistan.

Wait, what was all that you were saying about Uncle Joe being Eastern Europe's kindly benefactor?

Uncle Joe wanted the one and only thing - to support Russia's security along its borders after the most terrible war in its history.

He wasn't a fanatic commie as Lenin or Bronshtein/Trozky. His politics was not a revolutionary one, but an imperial one (as well as the American politics after the WWII).

It were the AngloSaxons who provoced the Cold War, as well as a set of bloodless coup-d'etats in the Eastern Europe countries.

As they, AngloSaxons, decided to give nothing to Stalin, even "white peace" within the present spheres of influence. Their economic power gave them an idea of crushing the USSR without the new war.