Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cold War Melt Down?

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

  • Cold War Melt Down?

    Simple question...

    In the spring of 1945, given the overall military situation worldwide, did the Western Allies have the overall capability to defeat the USSR in Europe?

    Note that the above presumes hostilities would have commenced soon after the surrenber of Germany (if not immediately), and that they were a consequence of accidental escalation of events as the occupation began. In effect WW2 would have extended beyond the defeat of the Axis.

    Regards

    Gaz

  • #2
    Yes. The Russians were as tired of fighting as were the western allies. But....WE had the bomb.

    Comment


    • #3
      After August 1945, it would have taken several months to produce another atomic bomb. At Yalta, Roosevelt thought he would be around long enough to broker the peace settlement; he wasn't. Suddenly turning on an ally would not have been politically popular at home or internationally. Telling the Allied soldiers (except Patton) to keep fighting would have been disastrous.

      Russia was the country that withstood the battle of Stalingrad and the endless infliction of suffering on their citizenry in the name of Stalin. Nuking a few major Russian cities would have just strengthened their resolve. Their manufacturing base was moved beyond the Urals.
      And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw. . .

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by =^-..-^= View Post
        Nuking a few major Russian cities would have just strengthened their resolve.
        Nuking a few tank armies would have weakened said resolve, don't you think?

        The long toll of the brave
        Is not lost in darkness
        Over the fruitful earth
        And athwart the seas
        Hath passed the light of noble deeds
        Unquenchable forever.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nukes as a field weapon in Europe, 1945? Probably not a good idea, and probably not effective in knocking out enough tanks to justify collateral damage.
          And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw. . .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by =^-..-^= View Post
            collateral damage.

            Ha! Ha! Love it... there was bugger all left of central Europe to damage!
            The long toll of the brave
            Is not lost in darkness
            Over the fruitful earth
            And athwart the seas
            Hath passed the light of noble deeds
            Unquenchable forever.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Von Richter View Post


              Nuking a few tank armies would have weakened said resolve, don't you think?

              If you could manufacture bombs that quickly. You will also make the terrain uninhabitable for both sides.

              In spring of 45', Russia had us way outnumbered, had just defeated the German's (the Russians advanced from Stalingrad to Brest/Litvosk just as fast as the Germans advanced into Russia), and were using a much better doctrine.

              The Allies would have a better strategic bombing force, artillery system, and infantry. We were behind in armor development and ground attack aircraft.

              Targeting the Russian civilian population would have the same effect it did when German civilians were targeted. I would suspect that it would bolster civilian resistance.

              If the Allies advanced, they would be presented by the new problem of a strong partisan movement that would be well equipped and well trained. Logistical superiority means little if the supplies don't get to the front.

              The Soviets had hundreds of divisions to work with, the Allies had under two hundred. If the Allies advanced, they would be swallowed by the vast spaces and expanse of Russia. We simply didn't have the manpower in theater to fight in Russia.
              If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

              Comment


              • #8
                The Allies probally would not ran into partisans till they advanced beyond poland.

                Air power would of been descive in destroying or limiting the effect of the Russian armor advantage.

                Also until the Russians have retreated deep into Russian they will continueally be outlfanked by amphibious operations.

                I am also guessing Patton would of learned alot from the German general on the best way to fight the Russians and the doctrine gap would of closed fairly quickly.

                How much in supplies was Russia recieving from the US and Britain at the end of the war?

                Comment


                • #9
                  How is those amphibius operations going to work if I may ask?
                  “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

                  Max Sterner

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by craven View Post
                    Air power would of been descive in destroying or limiting the effect of the Russian armor advantage.
                    The Russians had a 100% effective airforce at the end of the war, unlike the Luftwaffe from 44'-45'.

                    Originally posted by craven View Post
                    Also until the Russians have retreated deep into Russian they will continueally be outlfanked by amphibious operations.
                    With what units? Don't forget that there is still fighting in the Pacific.

                    Originally posted by craven View Post
                    I am also guessing Patton would of learned alot from the German general on the best way to fight the Russians and the doctrine gap would of closed fairly quickly.
                    Patton would have to fight an enemy that could fight back. This would be change from him. Patton would have his ass handed to him by Russian operational art. Monty, OTOH, wouldn't have done too bad.


                    Originally posted by craven View Post
                    How much in supplies was Russia recieving from the US and Britain at the end of the war?
                    Enough to remove the Germans from the war.

                    Just the size and scope of the fighting on the Russian front makes any operation by the Western Allies look like a back yard maneuver. Compare the Ardennes offensive,the US's largest battle, with Bagration.
                    If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by freightshaker View Post
                      Compare the Ardennes offensive,the US's largest battle, with Bagration.
                      The Soviets took ten-times the casualties the US did ... and?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think that a war of the western allies against the USSR would have been militarily risky and politically unacceptable. In France, the communist party was, in this time, an important political grouping which would have been able to try to destabilize the country.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                          The Soviets took ten-times the casualties the US did ... and?
                          Do you think the two battles are comparable in size?
                          If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by freightshaker View Post
                            Do you think the two battles are comparable in size?
                            You're the one who said compare them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jpg View Post
                              In France, the communist party was, in this time, an important political grouping which would have been able to try to destabilize the country.
                              Yes. Quite probably there were more communist party supporters in France in 1945 than there were in the Soviet Union.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X