Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War between UK/US and USSR immediately after WWII?

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

  • War between UK/US and USSR immediately after WWII?

    It's the year 1945. Berlin has just fallen. US and Russian advance parties make first contact in Czechoslovakia and Germany. Peace reigns for a couple months when suddenly Stalin orders and attack. He fears that the Allies are just beginning to gear up for an invasion of Russia. The KGB is telling him that Patton is openly calling for rearming the Wehrmacht, putting them under US officers, and attacking Russia. Churchill is also talking of war. The US has just developed devastating atomic weapons and is clearly willing to use them. Mao Tse Tung is pleading for him to intervene in China and send him help to fight Chiang Kai Shek. He believes his only chance is a preemptive war that inflicts so many casualties on the Allies that they sue for peace before they build up too many forces in Europe.

    Forget the Cold War. It's a race for world domination. Who will win?

  • #2
    The west would have won such a conflict because they were still years ahead of the Soviets in technology (ie, jet propulsion).
    The only way the Soviets approached the west in technology in the Cold War was either by the west stupidly giving the Soviets technology (ie, Rolls-Royce jet engines) or by the Soviets copying the west thru reverse engineering (ie, B-29's that landed in Vladivostock).
    The conquered Germans would have happily fought for the US/UK/French against the Soviets.
    The other reason would be the west would only want to end the conflict, not conquer the people. It would be near impossible to control so large an area long term.
    Lance W.

    Peace through superior firepower.

    Comment


    • #3
      The Russians hadnt even handed off Eastern Europe to native born communists yet,had they? 5th columnists armed by the OSS (or CIA depending on just how soon after WW2 this takes place)
      mostly former freiwillige SS members would play a large part as well. I cant help but wonder if the A bomb would be used in the end,though.
      Delegate, MN GOP.

      PATRIA SI, COMUNISMO NO

      http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/p...?id=1156276727

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SGT Long
        I cant help but wonder if the A bomb would be used in the end,though.
        I don't think there is any doubt that the A-bomb would have been used.
        The Allies spooled down their forces in Europe fairly quickly after the war; partly because of the projected invasion of Japan.
        The Soviet Union by this time had loads of combat experience and some very good equipment. The western Allies would have been hard pressed to even maintain a foothold in Germany.
        Their only saving grace would probably have been their airpower.
        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

        Comment


        • #5
          My gut tells me that the Russians would have been the underdogs, so I'll argue for them.

          In Asia, the Russians had entered the war against Japan and gobbled up all of Manchuria and half of Korea when the US dropped the A bombs and the war had ended. China itself was still divided between Nationalist Chinese under Chiang kai Shek and the Communists under Mao tse Tung. They had only stopped fighting each other because the Japs had invaded. Once they were gone, it was back to "game on". Assuming Stalin decides to make his move against the Allies in Spring/Summer of '46, he would have quickly come to the aid of Mao and crushed Chiang kai Shek driving him off the mainland to Taiwan. The Nationalists still had a large army and this would have taken awhile. I doubt the Allies would have been able to save him and been too busy setting up the defense of India (Britain) and occupying Japan (US).
          With China occupied Asia would have been a real battleground. India would have to be fully mobilized to invade China, and the US would have to prepare to invade Korea (an Asian version of the landings at Normandy).

          In Europe, the Russians would have had the advantage due to the West reducing their troop levels dramatically once Germany fell and quickly overrun Western Europe. Italy and Spain would be difficult owing to having to cross the Pyrennes and the Alps. Neither of these would be an easy task, plus Russian logistical trains would be stretched to their limits giving the Allies time to come to Spain and Italy's defense. It would be in these countries that the Allies would try and grind down the Soviets. I doubt Germany would have lasted more than two weeks.

          The Middle East would be interesting. Whether or not Turkey remains on the sidelines would be the first question. If they don't then they would have to be deal with first and foremost. If they do sit it out, at least initially, then the UK would be hard pressed to stopping a Russian assault through Iran and Iraq. I wonder if going for Arabia would be better or turning east and attacking India. I also wonder if the Soviets would have been capable of overrunning India if they did go east. With India and China under Soviet rule, it would be a long, long war.

          With Stalin's total disregard for casualties atomics would not be decisive intially. There just wasn't that much weapons grade enriched uranium lying around that we could just nuke them back to the stone age. Plus we hadn't developed the H-bomb yet, so these bombs were relatively weak. Stalin would have suppressed the knowledge of these weapons from his people negating most of the psychological impact. A bombs wouldn't have been decisive for awhile and by that time the war would be decided.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: War between UK/US and USSR immediately after WWII?

            Originally posted by Rogue16
            It's the year 1945. Berlin has just fallen. US and Russian advance parties make first contact in Czechoslovakia and Germany. Peace reigns for a couple months when suddenly Stalin orders and attack. He fears that the Allies are just beginning to gear up for an invasion of Russia. The KGB is telling him that Patton is openly calling for rearming the Wehrmacht, putting them under US officers, and attacking Russia. Churchill is also talking of war. The US has just developed devastating atomic weapons and is clearly willing to use them. Mao Tse Tung is pleading for him to intervene in China and send him help to fight Chiang Kai Shek. He believes his only chance is a preemptive war that inflicts so many casualties on the Allies that they sue for peace before they build up too many forces in Europe.

            Forget the Cold War. It's a race for world domination. Who will win?
            So long as US & British do not make the mistake of attacking into Russia they should prevail. Only driving the Russians back behind their borders would be sufficient (no Iron Curtain). They've lost far fewer than the Russians and, while their people ar war-weary, its nothing next to the Russian people. In fact, they may even see mutinies and street demonstrations. Not real likely given Stalin, but still a possibility.
            Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
            (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

            Comment


            • #7
              Somehow I see the Allies back across the Rhine and trying to defend it from the horde from the East. I don't see how they could have held Germany at all. Yes the Germans would side with the Western Allies, but manpower alone wouldn't stop the Red Tide; you'd need tanks (and not standard Shermans but Fireflies and Pershings to stop mass T-34 assaults), you'd need round the clock air strikes into Eastern Europe to stop their supplies... in the end, it'd be a stalemate in Europe with the West holding France and Italy at best. Turkey would be a deciding factor in who controls the Middle East. I can't say much for what would happen in Asia, I don't know if Uncle Joe could afford to expend as much resources there knowing the fight he'll have in Europe, which means maybe the Soviets and Japanese keep the peace treaty and Japan holds onto Manchuria for a bit longer. The USN would still drive Japan's economy and production to nothing, but I doubt Okinawa would be invaded, and quite possibly, Japan would be able to sue for peace since the US now has a much more dangerous foe engaging it.

              Not a world I'd like to have grown up given there would certainly be a much 'colder' war given it had gone hot once. With the Soviets only having to overrun France, they may go for WWIII in the 60's and push the West off the continent. Both sides would be much more militarized and there'd be thoughts that the Soviets might survive a nuclear exchange which might lead either side to drastic first-strike measures... and no internet to theorize about it all.
              If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

              Comment


              • #8
                England was a battered country that would not serve much purpose in a war shortly after WW2. It is obvious that America was the stronger military force and that it had better leadership than Russia, though Patton had just been killed. Had Russia lost such a war, there might not have been conflict in Vietnam, and certainly not in Afghanistan. History would have taken a very interesting turn at that point.
                -C.M. Ansley
                To whispers of Beethoven...

                "Mein Gott! Die Invasion. Sie kommen!"
                -Werner Pluskat

                Comment


                • #9
                  Remnants of the German Army would have pitched itself into the fight. My grandfather who was a P-47 pilot said that a couple days after the war ended a group of German transports flew over their base, landed and put themselves at the Americans disposal to fight the Soviets. They would have been happy to spill more Russian blood.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Supply

                    The proposal ignores the entire issue of supply. The Russians were literally at the end of their tether in the spring of l945. While vast armies had pierced the Reich there was neither the manpower or the resources to push on in the face of even moderate resistance.

                    Take a moment at reflect upon the nature of the infrastructure that brought the Soviet armies to Berlin. Rail gauges that did not match. Bridges and other choke points still needing repair. The distance from the Urals (which was the Soviets main source of supply)to Berlin was greater than the distance from New York to Normandy. Thin supply lines with multiple choke points facing an exceptional air power would not be a wise gamble. The vast materiel pouring forth from undamaged American factories would have simply turned back the Red bear and then overwhelmed it as it had the Nazis( and the Japanese). In retrospect it is quite clear that Stalin and Stavka clearly recognised the limits of their power.

                    Now given additional time, say l950 or a bit later, the equation changes. The tenuous supply lines of 45 are gone and Soviet land forces are in a much better position of exercise political options should the Kremlin choose to do so. But not in 1945! Five bloody years of destruction had left the USSR victorious but deficit in almost every category.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Initial Soviet Victory?

                      At V-E day, the Soviet Union had 1 million plus troops in Europe I believe. The U.S. had succeeded in their quest to end Hitler's domination and liberate West. Europe. I don't think the Americans or the British would have gone for an attack on the Soviets. England had suffered through 5 1/2 years of war and the American public was now bent on pummelling Japan. If we had gone for the Soviets, I think they would have had the initial upper hand. They had the numerical advantage and would once again be defending themselves against a western invader. I'm sure that over time the US/UK alliance would have gained momentum through technological superiority and fighting ability. IF there had been such a conflict, I think that Stalin would have launched the offensive, not Eisenhower.
                      -Bob
                      Pvt. Bob Mana,
                      Co. B, 3rd Maryland Vol. Infantry, 1st Brigade, 1st Division, 12th Corps, Union Army of the Potomac

                      For the Union

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When you argue for the use of the A-Bomb by America, remember that the two dropped on Japan were the test rounds, not production ones. The US had two, and only two. It was making more, but that would have taken time. The German most likely would have fought for the Allies, but the Russians had MANY German prisoners. How many of THEM would have fought for the possability of a chance at freedom and going home?And the US would have had to remove it's men from the Pacific, another time-consuming element.

                        But the Russians were lacking some crucial things that were supplied by the Allies thorugh the Lend-lease Act like insulated wires 'n stuff, plus they were on the drgs of thier reinforcement pool. Lots of veterans in Germany, but many more conscripts.

                        Major disatvantage of the russians: They don't have a serious defence in the Siberian region. All the Pacific divisions could drive up and take Russia's eastern territory relativly easily, THAT would put a lot of pressure on Stalin, because he would have to move a sizeable portion of his army across all the territory it had just conquered.

                        In the end, I think it would be a narrow Allied victory.

                        Now i'll stop talking

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Draw down

                          As I indicated in my previous comment, the Russians were at the end of a very long supply line, almost as long as the American one. Secondly the war is alleged to have happended in 1945, doesn't exactly specify when. Our draw down of forces in Europe after May of 1945 was pretty fast but given tension it would not be unlikely that it could have been slowed. We need to examine the pause between Warsaw and the Oder crossing by the Soviets as that will give some indication of the amount of time it took the main Soviet forces to refit and resupply before mounting the attack on Berlin. It would have taken an even longer period to make those "million men" ready to push on into Germany and the rest of Europe. Eastern Europe and the Ukraine had still not been pacified in 1945 and that would have made a surprise attack even more unlikely. The fact is the Red Army was not ready, was short on both supplies and manpower and in all liklihood would have been sorely tested just to take Austria. Many of you do not remember N. Kruschev's speech before the US Congress when he visited the US in the 60's. I do. He outlined the immense damage suffered by the USSR during 5 years of war, the damaged bridges, railroads, factories, towns and cities. He admitted to massive loses in soldiers and civilians. There is no question that the Red Army learned and mastered combined arms warfare from the Germans. But then so did the Allies. I think part of the problem is that we're used to thinking of the Red Army in massive terms, thousands of tanks, etc. But the fact was those numbers were spead over almost two thousand miles of new frontier and not all could be supplied in the amounts necessary to support a new offensive. The Red Navy possessed no where near the assets to attempt to interdict the movement of supplies back to Europe in fact it woud have been easily bottled up. The Red Air Force is however, a question mark. Did it have enough planes and quality airman to take on the Americans and the other Allies? As far as I can determine that is a big unknown. I suspect that it could not meet them on equal terms, and control of the air was critical to armoured warfare as Rommel knew and Von Rundstedt found out. Then there is the whole question of Siberia, Japan, and the Chinese civil war and how the Russians could have supported their action in Manchuria and also Mao during the period in question. All in all, I think Stalin realized that he had gotten about as much as he could out of the situation and wisely chose not to test Truman's mettle. Further, I think that the American people would have been prepared to pour troops and material back into Europe if it meant pushing the Red Bear back to pre-1940 borders and probably could have counted on support from the eastern european nations once it became known that Europe and America were going to stand up to Stalin. That would have left that Soviet spearhead with a very unsafe backyard! I confess I'm not sure of the British, French, or Italians?????

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It would've been the US/UK that would've won that one. Soviet tactics were massed artillery followed been massive tank assaults. Allied Air power wouldve destroyed these acts before they even saw the entrenched troops.
                            101st Airborne Screaming Eagles Rule

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X