Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Allies vs USSR 1945

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

  • Allies vs USSR 1945

    Supposing the Soviets and Allies had a falling-out of epic proportions resulting in some very bad blood between them. If, for instance, Stalin received short-shrift at Yalta and has been stewing over it ever since. Add a few ill-advised comments by Roosavelt and Churchill, leading him to believe there may be skulduggery afoot to double-cross even that much.

    So Stalin decides to do the double-crossing first, and while the fires are still burning in Berlin, launches a huge offensive against the Allies with the purpose of capturing all of western Europe, using fresh-prepositioned troops disguised as reinforcements or some such.

    Question: Could he do it? How long would it take? Could he get away with it?

    Pros - The Allies are already drawing down men and equipment at a prodigious rate.

    - They get surprised.

    - It's an all-land / air affair, so naval power doesn't help.

    - The west is war-weary and just wants it over.

    - Still fighting in Japan


    Cons - Western air superiority

    - Western equipment superiority

    - Still lots of Allied forces in place

    - Hard to hold what he gains unless he replicates the German sweep

    - Long supply lines for Stalin


    I think it would have been nasty, but I think the Allies could have remained on the European continent long enough to stop the advances. Now, a new question arises; do the Allies let Stalin keep what he's won, or do they recommit to the long, hard process of pushing him out of Europe. If the latter, how far do they go?

    The spark for this thread is that the democratic allies make very strange bedfellows with the communists. There was a large contingent on both sides who agreed with Patton's famous sympathies and believed that war between the two was inevitable, so here and now is better than somewhere later. It seems that it would not have taken much for a complete falling-out to occur. To me, it is surprising something along these lines did not happen anyway!

  • #2
    Originally posted by bubblehead View Post

    Pros - The Allies are already drawing down men and equipment at a prodigious rate.


    - Still fighting in Japan
    Was there much demobilization between VE and VJ Days?

    Comment


    • #3
      Cant tell you how much was of a draw down there was but they were shipping Division to the Pacific at that time. The invasion of Japan was gonna make D day look small if i remeber correctly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945]:

        http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/
        Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

        Comment


        • #5
          Carl and I are still working on a Wargame along these lines. My Cav. Regiment is being attacked by a reinforced Division... its going pretty well so far.

          And, I hate to sound trite, but one Atom Bomb can ruin your whole day.
          What is the start-date for the Soviet offensive?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
            Carl and I are still working on a Wargame along these lines. My Cav. Regiment is being attacked by a reinforced Division... its going pretty well so far.

            And, I hate to sound trite, but one Atom Bomb can ruin your whole day.
            What is the start-date for the Soviet offensive?
            Games only half over Bud, & your opponent is 'experienced'.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
              Games only half over Bud, & your opponent is 'experienced'.
              Must be, the properties of those damn trees still give me troubles.

              Comment


              • #8
                Let's pick a start date of July, 1945. The atomic bomb is just about ready for deployment to Japan; there are three available. IIRC, it takes three months to get a fourth.

                Do you re-direct the bomb to Europe? If you use the nukes in Europe, what happens in Japan? Might Japan surrender just from the evidence in Europe, or will she force us to strike her as well?

                For that matter, if you use the nukes in Europe, what happens in Europe? Do you make tactical strikes on the advancing armies, or do you go for the strategic strike on Moscow?

                Was Stalin sane enough that a single tactical strike would cause him to back down?

                I think the west was so weary of war by then that they would have done ANYTHING to avoid another prolonged war in Europe. I think the nukes would have been used on tactical targets to stop the advance (much like cold war scenarios play out). I think there would have been no consequences to the USSR afterward; even as the aggressor, Stalin manages to gain concessions (bribes) to demobilize and withdraw to agreed-upon positions that occupy additional territory over what was previously agreed-upon. Possibly Berlin becomes wholly Soviet territory.

                Additional weapons were going to be available in due course. Japan still gets hit unless the example in Europe is enough, but I doubt it. She was so insulated from the outside and so fanatical even still that it was going to take something quite dramatic to get her to quit.

                It does stir up a fine mess, though! In particular, the cold war gains an entirely different tone, with the Soviets in a much stronger position vis-a-vis Europe. America takes even more grief over using the nukes in Europe as well as Japan. Somehow, I think France, Holland and Belgium would have been MUCH LESS grateful to us for liberating them if we'd nuked one of their countries.

                An interesting thought: Did Stalin already know we only had three nukes to use? If so, he could have absorbed the body -blow and charged ahead anyway, capturing all of western Europe and leaving Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Greece as basically the only free countries left (if Spain even counts). The consequences of the loss of markets for American goods on the American economy would have been davastating! It could have resulted in a return to the prewar depression economy. Opportunities for America to fall into Communism would be greatly increased.

                Comment


                • #9
                  there is a similar thread here:-

                  http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=136

                  Regards
                  "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                  "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bubblehead View Post
                    I think the west was so weary of war by then that they would have done ANYTHING to avoid another prolonged war in Europe.
                    The US was already weary? They had barely reached their peak. On the other hand the Red Army had suffered 1.5 million casualties since January.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was told by a Polish expatriate who who had been German, Russian and British POW or internment camps at the end of the war that there were GIs picketing to go home under the Eiffel Tower when he was finally released and going through Paris. I don't recall whether that was 1945 or 46 but war weariness at home and among the troops was for real.

                      OTOH, had Stalin betrayed the allies, I suspect they would be angry enough to fight.
                      "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                      George Mason
                      Co-author of the Second Amendment
                      during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The Red Army in 1945 is capable of making an advance of about 300 to 400 miles maximum before running out of steam. It is simply a function of their logistics system. So, given their best effort, total surprise, and what have you, they'd end up about on the Rhine and then would be stuck for several months building up for the next advance.

                        Of course, by then they'd also be looking at an Allied bomber campaign they couldn't counter, nuclear weapons being used, naval forces doing nasty things in the Baltic, Artic, Pacific (Sakalin Island falls with 25% of Russian fuel production), and probably the Black Sea as well.
                        China and Korea would present additional problems as the Allies open up a front there.

                        Basically, Stalin wins nothing by going on the offensive against the West in 1945 and he knew it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Basically, Stalin wins nothing by going on the offensive against the West in 1945 and he knew it.
                          I wonder why no one here pondered why the SU was supposed to start another war after losing 27 million people and a half of its prewar industriral capacity? The SU which looked a far more probable target for the West which might've been tempted to finish what it failed to do in 1919.
                          www.histours.ru

                          Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                            I wonder why no one here pondered why the SU was supposed to start another war after losing 27 million people and a half of its prewar industriral capacity? The SU which looked a far more probable target for the West which might've been tempted to finish what it failed to do in 1919.
                            Sweet dreams are made of these, who am I to disagree...
                            How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                            275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The USSR was far more weary than the US, I think that is the major reason why they didn't attack.

                              The Germans, not noted for being ignorant, continued the struggle after Kursk doomed them because they were hoping that the Russians would run out of bodies before the Axis ran out of ammo.

                              Another item that would have discouraged teh Soviets was the carnage that the US/UK bomber fleets were capable of wrecking, and Stalin was well aware of the development of the A-bomb.

                              Altho down-played at every opportunity, events like Dresden sent a definite message to Moscow; "This is what happens to people who make us mad. Don't make us get this mad at you."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X