Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1945,allies/germany unite against ussr

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

  • #16
    The other thing people fail to understand is that the populations of the West viewed the Russian people as our friends and staunch allies in 1945. Read any 1945 western newspaper for confirmation.

    The populace of the Western democracies would not permit their governments to start a war against their allies.

    Comment


    • #17
      fascinating theories .....
      but in the original posting by hatebreed, he did state ,
      this is just a military question, leaving out all possibilities of political interference.
      with this in mind the question would be could the allies have put up a fight with military and logistical support from ALL the allied nations as a whole excluding of course the USSR . plus the support of the rearmed German forces that were left

      there are so many things that could happen if political assumptions of all parties concerned were not a factor thus all nations involved were like the USSR and controlled more or less by all powerful dictators like Stalin who more or less got their own way regardless .

      to which i would say in a world like that the only result would be a European continent so totally devastated and empty of all resources , animal , mineral , and vegetable that who ever won the conflict would have the legacy of ownership over a toxic wasteland .

      but in the spirit of the debate i think the allies would have prevailed , the industrial might of the USA could have supplied the arms needed with out question , the Soviet,s were all ready 20 million persons down and exhausted with out the support of the US their capabilities would have been further hindered , the by then dominance of the US in the pacific the imminent defeat of japan and the possibility of the opening of further fronts by the US and allies from the pacific and Asia would have slowly driven the USSR into the ground . the wild card though would have been the Chinese what would they have done which way would they turn ???????

      would the whole "what if " come down to manpower alone ????????
      my assumptions i have to admit are based on industrial capabilities , the supply of weapons of war and the assumptions that the captured German boffins with support from there new allied masters would have rapidly developed and perfected the wounder weapons that were all ready in existence or on the drawing boards and of course the construction of more ATOMIC weapons for it is plausible they could have combined the V weapon program of the Germans with the A bomb program , which did eventually happen any way but on a much truncated time table ...

      its a hard one and i,m still thinking ,
      did your parents have any children that lived numb nuts??

      Comment


      • #18
        IIRC didn't the Soviet army fight against each other as well as the germans to be the first to take Berlin. If Stalin said that the first front to get to the channel first wouldn't they be doing the same as when they were trying to take Berlin.
        "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful." -explaining why Reagan liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand for important meetings

        CO for 1st S.INC Shock Security Troop

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by panzer ratten View Post
          fascinating theories .....
          but in the original posting by hatebreed, he did state ,
          this is just a military question, leaving out all possibilities of political interference.
          with this in mind the question would be could the allies have put up a fight with military and logistical support from ALL the allied nations as a whole excluding of course the USSR . plus the support of the rearmed German forces that were left

          there are so many things that could happen if political assumptions of all parties concerned were not a factor thus all nations involved were like the USSR and controlled more or less by all powerful dictators like Stalin who more or less got their own way regardless .

          to which i would say in a world like that the only result would be a European continent so totally devastated and empty of all resources , animal , mineral , and vegetable that who ever won the conflict would have the legacy of ownership over a toxic wasteland .

          but in the spirit of the debate i think the allies would have prevailed , the industrial might of the USA could have supplied the arms needed with out question , the Soviet,s were all ready 20 million persons down and exhausted with out the support of the US their capabilities would have been further hindered , the by then dominance of the US in the pacific the imminent defeat of japan and the possibility of the opening of further fronts by the US and allies from the pacific and Asia would have slowly driven the USSR into the ground . the wild card though would have been the Chinese what would they have done which way would they turn ???????

          would the whole "what if " come down to manpower alone ????????
          my assumptions i have to admit are based on industrial capabilities , the supply of weapons of war and the assumptions that the captured German boffins with support from there new allied masters would have rapidly developed and perfected the wounder weapons that were all ready in existence or on the drawing boards and of course the construction of more ATOMIC weapons for it is plausible they could have combined the V weapon program of the Germans with the A bomb program , which did eventually happen any way but on a much truncated time table ...

          its a hard one and i,m still thinking ,
          I understand what you're saying about the manpower but do you think the Allied populations would have accepted the casulties that are certain to occur in a war with USSR. The Russians had repeatadly shown they were willing to pay any cost to get the job done so it mights have come down to some sort of land agreement. Secondly although I realize the Soviets had high casulties but I was wondering if anyone could get me stats on their total ammount of population fit for the armed forces at wars end. Lastly you speak of German industrial capabilities but would those factories still be in Allied hands long enough to start producing again?
          Funny, a few paragraphs down I found myself on the other side of this arguement! Oh well I'm very flexible in these matters!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Wolery View Post
            Sorry guys, but this thread reeks of Cold War paranoia and disinformation.
            Does it ? I think the idea that the battered 1945 Wehrmacht was ready to march into Moscow in a matter of 18 months a bit bold, to say the least. Germany had one golden opportunity to do just that in 1941, against a weakened and demoralized Red Army, and was even greatly helped by Stalin's foolishness, and yet they failed.

            In 1945, certainly the Soviet Union was war-weary, but so was the Third Reich, with many of its cities and industrial centers in ruins, no more access to large supplies of oil.

            Anyway, I think the idea of the Western Allies suddenly overlooking little things such as the Holocaust and 20+ million dead, and deciding Hitler is a swell guy who deserves to be given Pershings and Centurions a tad bizarre, too. Why on Earth would the Western democracies have decided it was in their best interest to STRENGTHEN the country that had declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbour and to let it reconstitute a greater German Reich at POland's and Czechoslowakia's and Russia's expense ?

            Oh, and I think the "cockroach" metaphor is precisely what reeks of disinformation. The "cockroach" Soviet soldiers seemed to have proven their worth and manly status in 1941, 1942, 1942, 1943 and oh, well, 1944 too.

            Comment


            • #21
              Well Said!!

              Originally posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
              Does it ? I think the idea that the battered 1945 Wehrmacht was ready to march into Moscow in a matter of 18 months a bit bold, to say the least. Germany had one golden opportunity to do just that in 1941, against a weakened and demoralized Red Army, and was even greatly helped by Stalin's foolishness, and yet they failed.

              In 1945, certainly the Soviet Union was war-weary, but so was the Third Reich, with many of its cities and industrial centers in ruins, no more access to large supplies of oil.

              Anyway, I think the idea of the Western Allies suddenly overlooking little things such as the Holocaust and 20+ million dead, and deciding Hitler is a swell guy who deserves to be given Pershings and Centurions a tad bizarre, too. Why on Earth would the Western democracies have decided it was in their best interest to STRENGTHEN the country that had declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbour and to let it reconstitute a greater German Reich at POland's and Czechoslowakia's and Russia's expense ?

              Oh, and I think the "cockroach" metaphor is precisely what reeks of disinformation. The "cockroach" Soviet soldiers seemed to have proven their worth and manly status in 1941, 1942, 1942, 1943 and oh, well, 1944 too.
              Couldn't have said it better myself!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by No_Nickname View Post
                IIRC didn't the Soviet army fight against each other as well as the germans to be the first to take Berlin..
                While the Soviet commanders were ruthless in their quest for the glory of capturing Berlin, fighting each other was a little too much even for them, they merely raced each other to Berlin.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Quite a rousing discussion folks..
                  However lets keep this to a strick military level.
                  In the supply arena :
                  The West, well with absolute command of the sea, and a supply system who's efficiency was unmatched; would have had no problem suppling both the Western armies and Germany (giving Germany all of the lend-lease supplies that would have gone to the Soviets). Net result, no significant supply issues.
                  The Soviets, received half of their aviation fuel stocks from the West. They received a large portion of their rolling stock, (locomotives, boxcars, etc.) from the West. They received thousands of tanks, aircraft, rifles, machinguns, a-t weapons, etc., as well as millions of rounds of ammo, and food. all this would be gone. As the Soviets had just completed an all out offensive from the baltic to the med. they would be low on supplies, and therefore vulnerable to supply interdiction which I might add the western Air forces were good at. Keep in mind that the way that the "liberating" Red army's behavior was just as brutal as the SS had been, there would be a significant amount of German partisan activity behind Soviet lines, hindering Soviet resupply activities. Net result, the Red air force would be out of fuel in less than a month of operations. The army would be out of supplies in less than 45 days.

                  In the Combat forces arena:
                  Sure the Soviets had 300+ divisions on paper. But then so did the Germans in 1945.. It comes down to how well constituted the divisions are. The Soviets had taken over 500,000 casualties just taking Berlin alone, that is the equivalent of erasing 100 divisions front-line combat capable soldiers (not rear echelon). It can be assumed that every Soviet division was understaffed, especially in combat troops. Now, the West had a hugh advantage that the Soviets would have to contend with. The Soviets never had control of the Baltic, even against the German navy, the Wests navy would have had free reign in this area. Given this is so, the Soviets would then have been forced to pull back hundreds of divisions to cover the large area that Western forces could land amphibious forces at (tieing up much of her rolling stock, and using up precious supplies moving units). Most of the prospective landing areas were either the Baltic states, or the Prussian states (neither were friend's of Stalin) The Western navies would have been able to tie down thousands of Red air force air craft to prevent Western naval air strikes against all targets up to and including Leningrad. The West would also have been able to strike all along the Kola peninsula, and Murmansk. Seeing as the West had been shipping supplies to Murmansk for years they would have excellent information on Soviet naval squadron dispositions in July 45. Oh yeah, by july 45 Hitler is dead..no problem for Germany there, the German army troops captured by the West would have had no problem reconstituing in the 2 months available (may-july) because lets face it, if they could conduct military operations in the face of overwhelming Allied air superiority, they could do it quite easily if left unmolested, or even assisted by the West. And German industry was pumping out tanks and planes up to the last days of the war. In the only 5 months of 1945 German industry almost met all of the air craft and tank production figures for the whole of 1942. Now give the Luftwaffe the high octane fuel which they did not have in any great supply, at any time; this would added several thousand excellent frontline air craft. Give the Panzers fuel and lubricants, and you would have almost 100 divisions of combat ready, and highly motivated troops to add also. Yes the Soviets tanks were for the most part superior to the Wests Shermans. They were not however superior the the Wehrmachts, and the West had just as many, if not more tanks to add to the fight as the Soviets.

                  Much will I am sure be said about Japan joining forces with the Soviet Union, if this happened it would alienate, and unite every Chinese person, communist and nationalist (baaaad, very baaaaaad), a militarily important mistake that Hitler might make, but, I don't think Stalin would make. And even if they did what would Japan be able to do then? She was limited to only the main islands and part of China. We were bombing Japans cities at will, interdicting all supply transport into or out of Japan. She would have starved to death during and or just after the winter of 45/46. Massive Soviet troop movements away from the far eastern theatre? The Soviets did not have any significant troops stationed in the far east until after Germany was defeated and we were able to convince Stalin to join the war against Japan.

                  Net result of such an undertaking would be to push the Soviets back to the original Soviet borders before the winter of 45/46. What would happen after that......well that is for another thread.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    It could be that this is the poorest analysis of the situation I have ever seen. The starting statement "However lets keep this to a strick military level" is damning enough. You can't separate the politics from the military situation. The propositions is that the USA ally itself with the regime that perpetrated the Holocaust and go to war against a well loved ally. Anyone who think that politics is irrelevant in this situation is very very naive.

                    Then all this stuff about supplies! They have to cross the Atlantic and the NUS was one of the more left wing unions you do realise this? How do you propose that the British stop the Soviets taking the oil fields in what is now Iran and Iraq? As for the Baltic. Even the British would think twice about putting significant naval forces on a lake that size and an amphibous force!!!

                    Nggggggh! Nuf!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Tielhard
                      The starting statement "However lets keep this to a strick military level" is damning enough.
                      I might be kind of silly, but was the original question not phrased, and I quote exactly :" and this is just a military question, leaving out all possibilities of political interference. just assuming that it was decided at the highest level of allied command." So the question is purely military power, and only military power. So that pretty much makes the rest of your post:
                      irrelevant in this situation. (I hate it when that happens)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Now Tielhard, I will disect the rest of your post.
                        The propositions is that the USA ally itself with the regime that perpetrated the Holocaust and go to war against a well loved ally.
                        Would this be the same well loved ally that invaded 2 soviergn countries in 1939? And who exactly beloved the Soviets? Certainly not Churchill, or Truman who was quoted as saying: Senator Truman declared: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word." This statement was made in 1941. Before the world know of the Katyn forest massacre.

                        Then all this stuff about supplies! They have to cross the Atlantic and the NUS was one of the more left wing unions you do realise this?
                        Um?? Were we not sending thousands of tons of supplies across the ocean daily already? And were not thousands of tons going to the "beloved" Soviets?
                        I am not aware of who the NUS is so on that score I can not answer. However, do you think that the military would stand for any group, or union disrupting the war effort?? That would be treason and sedition, so I think not.

                        How do you propose that the British stop the Soviets taking the oil fields in what is now Iran and Iraq?
                        Troops can and would be repositioned from Africa first, and then Italy.. Not all that far away in the grand scheme of things. Given the Western Allies vast, and well experienced sea transport system.

                        Even the British would think twice about putting significant naval forces on a lake that size and an amphibous force!!!
                        No of course not, they only braved the Med. for 3 years while it was almost exclusively controlled by the Luftwaffe, and Reggia Aeronautica(sp?). By the way you forgot to mention the U.S. Navy, which was quite adept at fighting land based aircraft, in hostile seas, while landing troops under fire.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Hatebreed View Post
                          this is a big what if, and it probably never would have happened, but

                          time period: early 1945

                          what if, the allies, realizing the threat the soviet union posed, had decided to go ahead and accept a separate peace with germany and consolidated and reorganized and rearmed what was left of the german military. then preceded to go to war with the soviet union.

                          i ask this because i know that it was one of stalin and beria's fears, that the allies would accept surrender and unite against the soviet union. imo, i think it would have been very bad for the allies, seeing that the soviets had such massive forces already in europe.

                          and this is just a military question, leaving out all possibilities of political interference. just assuming that it was decided at the highest level of allied command.

                          what would this be like? who would win?
                          I think you can look at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. It's fortunate that President Truman faced Stalin and not FDR. Some would describe FDR as being politically naive, but he had much sympathy for Stalin. At Potsdam, none of "The Big Three" could effectively agree what should be done about Nazi Germany. Stalin wanted Germany to pay war reparations and totally cripple Germany to "protect the USSR against future threats."

                          Sounds familiar? It did to Truman. He didn't want to repeat the same mistakes that occured after WW1, in particular have another Versailles Treaty. FDR may well have given in to Stalin but Truman adopted a "get tough" policy against the Soviets. Truman was the right man in the right place at the right time.

                          If FDR had given in to Stalin, Germany would've been left battered and broken and pushed back to the days after WW1. At Yalta, Stalin had won half of Europe. Would the allies in Western Europe band together to protect Germany and possibly allow the remnants of the Nazi regime to band together to stand against the Soviet Union?
                          Last edited by Sign&Print Name; 14 Aug 07, 16:07.
                          Hitler played Golf. His bunker shot was a hole in one.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Deterrumeversor,

                            Thank you for your kind replies to my post. Given that your intention was that your intention was to:

                            I will disect the rest of your post.
                            Don’t you think that perhaps you should have another go? I have not responded to your post before as I had better things to do in the real world but even now when I am at a loose end I hesitate as you have so clearly fallen far short of your own ambitions. The distinction between ‘dissecting a post’ and ‘looking foolish in public’ is not a subtle one after all.

                            In your first post, which by the way was full of cool emoticons and pretty changes in text colour which were lovely, I really enjoyed them and I expect they added something to the debate at an emotional level I am not really competent to appreciate, you wrote:

                            The starting statement "However lets keep this to a strick military level" is damning enough.
                            Hatebreed did not make such a starting statement. That poster did however say in the penultimate paragraph of the first post (which to be fair you quoted):

                            and this is just a military question, leaving out all possibilities of political interference. just assuming that it was decided at the highest level of allied command.
                            The above can be interpreted to mean all sorts of different things. I took it to mean that there was no political interference in the ways the military commanders conducted the war. I can support my interpretation over yours by pointing out that in the second post of the thread piero1971 made an analysis of the situation that included political elements, as did the purist in the third, they were thanked for the contributions by Hatebreed in the following post.

                            It would be a very silly and pointless analysis of the situation to assume that the armies of the Western allies and the occupied nations of Europe are just going to sit by whilst the Americans start supplying the Nazis with new weapons and hand in hand march off to fight the Soviets who are regarded as heroes by pretty much the whole of three continents!

                            Politics is the dog that wags the tail of war. Wars are waged to achieve political goals. As von Clausewitz said “war is an extension of politics ..”
                            To try and address the question in the first post without a consideration of politics is an exercise for fools, it is a meaningless charade. I do not think that is what Hatebreed intended, but even if it is, should we who respond to the question do so in a foolish way? Better to ignore it. Better still to include political considerations in the discussion irrespective of the wishes of the thread originator, inform as much as possible and educate by example. I sometimes wonder if this idea, that one may separate the military operation from the political objective is a uniquely American one? It certainly explains her defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese.

                            I might be kind of silly, ...
                            As I think I have demonstrated. One who follows a foolish path through dogma or blind obstinacy can certainly be called ‘silly’.

                            Moving on to the second post, which I note puts you in the position of having addressed the political issues of the question even if badly.

                            I wrote:
                            The propositions is that the USA ally itself with the regime that perpetrated the Holocaust and go to war against a well loved ally.
                            You wrote:

                            Would this be the same well loved ally that invaded 2 soviergn countries in 1939? And who exactly beloved the Soviets? Certainly not Churchill, or Truman ...<irrelevant un-sourced quotation omitted>
                            I see we have a follower of Carlyle in the house. Certainly not Churchill or Truman* try instead the British army, the British people, the French people, the Norwegians and many others. Even the vast majority of the US army regarded them as ‘well loved allies’

                            *In ‘early’ 1945 the US president is FDR.

                            I wrote:
                            Then all this stuff about supplies! They have to cross the Atlantic and the NUS was one of the more left wing unions you do realise this?
                            You replied:

                            Um?? Were we not sending thousands of tons of supplies across the ocean daily already? And were not thousands of tons going to the "beloved" Soviets?
                            The most important question I have for you is; who is ‘we’? The USA, the British, the Norwegians or the Western allies as a whole. Because if you think the British and Norwegians are just going to keep on sailing if the USA decides to ally with Germany you are deluded. At best (from a USA perspective) there would be a significant disruption and major unrest. At best from (A Soviet perspective) they could gain not only the RN but a large merchant fleet as well.

                            Second question. The fleets of the Western allies are large but they still have to do certain things irrespective of the nature of the war. These are feed Britain, supply the armies already in the field and provided food to the starving liberated, the Netherlands for example. What you propose is that huge supplies of troops, tanks, gun and materiel are sent to the European mainland with almost no notice. Which is about the speed they are needed, the whole thing could be over in six to eight weeks if the Americans in the field break hard. Eight weeks is around two return trips for a ship. Look how long it took to build up supplies for D-day. If you send the troops and arms, you skimp on the food for Britain and make revolution even more likely. To get a definitive answer to this question you need to know available ships, troops and materiel you also need to know what you need in terms of food and fuel to keep Britain functioning. I don’t have it all to hand and I would bet an afternoon in bed with Barbara Bush that you don’t either, but at least I would know how to use it if I had it.

                            Lastly, how important were the Arctic convoys to the Soviets by this stage in the war? If I recall correctly, not very.

                            You wrote:

                            I am not aware of who the NUS is so on that score I can not answer.
                            So Google it you lazy beggar, I'll educate you but I am not your teacher. If you are going to pontificate at least have the grace to have the facts at your finger tips.

                            However, do you think that the military would stand for any group, or union disrupting the war effort?? That would be treason and sedition, so I
                            think not.
                            Two points to make here. First, the military is not one group, the officers and the rank and file may not see eye to eye on these matters. Second, treason is only treason if you lose. If the British underclass raise the Red Banner and win it is patriotism. If they lose, then it may be treason but it has still taken lots of troops that should be on the front line to suppress the unrest and has taken lots of time the Western Allies (maybe)/USA (probably) does not have.

                            As an interesting aside you appear to be confusing labour relations in Britain with those in the USA or a tin pot dictatorship. The shipyard workers, miners and (if I recall this one correctly) the dockers all went on strike in WWII, all won, and no one was fool enough to call them traitors to their faces.

                            I wrote:

                            How do you propose that the British stop the Soviets taking the oil fields in what is now Iran and Iraq?
                            You wrote:

                            Troops can and would be repositioned from Africa first, and then Italy.. Not all that far away in the grand scheme of things. Given the Western Allies vast, and well experienced sea transport system.
                            To do the things you suggest takes time. How can you be sure that Western Ally/USA deployments will be faster than those of the Soviets. In all probability this will be decided by forces in theatre in which case the Soviet probably win.

                            One final point on this one. You want to take American troops out of Italy! The whole north of the country will be Red both with politics and American blood. The Partisans will go back to the hills better armed than before and wage war on the USA instead of Germany. What are you thinking!

                            I wrote:

                            Even the British would think twice about putting significant naval forces on a lake [Baltic] that size and an amphibious force!!!
                            You wrote:

                            No of course not, they only braved the Med. for 3 years while it was almost exclusively controlled by the Luftwaffe, and Reggia Aeronautica(sp?). By the way you forgot to mention the U.S. Navy, which was quite adept at fighting land based aircraft, in hostile seas, while landing troops under fire.
                            Mediterranean: surface area 965,000 sq mi, average depth 1500m
                            Baltic: surface area 145,522 sq mi, average depth 55m

                            Cunningham was the best naval commander of the war aggressive, but not an idiot. You would not get him in the Baltic with more than a few small ships and subs.

                            Nuff said.

                            And now the first verse of a short poem entitled Forearm Dissection by Timothy Kelly – just for you Deterrumeversor.
                            The fine, sheathed muscles laid in length-
                            wise, lapped, lank, orderly as slatted blinds
                            or a furrowed field, their far ends tapered
                            to ribbon to glide shiny through the wrist's
                            cinch, then bending from the bottleneck
                            in a well-ordered sort, a fine-gauge,
                            pegged-tight coursing to predetermined
                            anchorage at the phalanx of a finger.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Tielhard, Your right, I lose.

                              Your calling me out on my use of color to highlight statements was magnificent...Good play mate.
                              Your absolute use of derogatory commentary on my "laziness" because I did not check each of the 800,000+ hits NUS got to see what you might have meant...Outstanding..point well made.
                              Your ability to turn small compartmentalized strikes (very few, and of short duration) into a national uprising is awesome...Uniqely done, bravo...
                              Your desire to bring that fact that I stuck to the letter of the first post makes me foolish...well, hell, I ran out of compliments for you since I am but a fool..
                              And it only took you a week to do all that.. Like I said you are too smart for me.

                              By the way given the entirety of your post; and the subscription you have to "Verse Daily" obviously makes you so much more cultured, and enlightened than the rest of us.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I accept your surrender, I shall permit you to live.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X