I forgot to calculate the A-bomb into things. Assuming Truman is willing to use it again (yes), and another can be built in time (they used both the prototypes), then things get antsy. Threatening to bomb Leningrad or Stalingrad is laughable as they already looked like ten A-bombs have been dropped on them - Moscow is the only real target. Would Russia continue even after this? Likely, especially if Stalin avoids sitting at ground zero.
Of course, the Russians will have their own bomb before long, but they can only use it as a tactical weapon. Still, I think that’s enough to scare the U.S. into peace.
I don’t think so. Quite possibly our forces get crushed immediately; otherwise we would have had the military capability to win, but not the political will to prosecute the war to a conclusion. So my answer is no. We lose if Patton gets his way.
The french government included a large number of communists (totally faithful to Moscow). The first elections gave at least 1/3 of the votes to the communist party, and a lot of its members were still armed. Even some units of the regular army were composed of former communist partisans. Not only the government wouldn’t have given its agreement, but I’m 99% positive that the communists would have led a guerilla war against the americans. The country would probably have collapsed in civil war. Really not a convenient basis to unload troops, maintain a supply line, etc…
More or less the same with Italy.
The best bet to unload troops would probably have been Germany…
The U.S. could certainly have won an all-out war against the Soviets if we are just factoring in equipment, manpower, etc. Many people do not realize just what a huge powerhouse the U.S. was at the end of the war. U.S. production of tanks in one year alone was greater than the entire production of tanks in Germany since the tank was invented. And yet, the U.S. economy never saw a single year of recession during the entire war (the only combatant to manage that), and the supply of fighting men was huge. The U.S. had 295,000 total casualties in WWII, compared to about 25 million for the U.S.S.R, despite having something like three times the population. So the reserves that could be called up were immense, and the industrial output was large enough to arm them all.
What’s not clear is what would have really happened given all the extenuating circumstances - political will, logistics, harsh winters, etc. To me, only the first one matters. The U.S. could simply have defeated any nation on earth quite easily had it really wanted to. But the U.S. has always been isolationist, and by the end of WWII there was immense pressure for everyone to just go home and get back to raising families and living.
(This is one reason why the Korea analogy is false - by 1951, the U.S. military had already been largely dismantled, and was but a shadow of what it was only 6 years earlier. Also, Korea was a ‘limited’ war - The U.S. only committed a tiny percentage of its possible fighting power to it, and tied the hands of the commanders with all kinds of rules of engagement to try to prevent the Chinese and Soviets from entering the conflict).
I just got done reading a Post-Soviet russian history of The Great Patriotic War. [sub]WW2, to you Capitolistki Exploiters of the Proletariat.[/sub] Lend Lease was a stopgap measure for the Russians. While Russian factories were being re-located east of the Ural Mountains {& out of Hitler’s aircraft range}, US goods filled the gap. Some things were valuable throughout the war, like our superior quality aircraft & radios, but Russia was catching up fast.
Russia could supply all of it’s artillery, infantry, & armor needs, from fuel to parts to ammo without US aid long before the end of the war.
And, while our aircraft were better, the largest production run of military aircraft in history was Russian-- the Ilyushin IL-2 Attack Aircraft. Called “The Hunchback” or “The Flying Tank” it was a dedicated Tank Buster. The remote ancestor of our A-10 Warthog, of Gulf War fame. There were 36,150 made in all. Source–Aircraft of World War II by Chris Chant 1999 Barnes & Noble Press
The Bomb was a big advantage–but, as stated above, we didn’t have any left. We wouldn’t have been able to build any for months. Far too late.
By the way-- a naval blockade would have been useless. Russia was all but self-contained in regards to natural resources, it’s factories were getting up to par, & as I have stated, Russia could have gotten along without Lend Lease quite well, by 1945.
Patton was nuts. We’d have died on the cold, Russian stepps come winter, just as Napoleon & Hitler’s boys did. Russia grew in strength. It had lost a lot of people,but it had a lot more to lose.
But that winter and the distance wouldn’t help out as much. Assuming the US and Germany are fighting against the USSR they’ve only got one front to worry about. That makes the problem of resupplying the troops a bit less difficult The USSR is going to have to worry about two fronts.
While it’s certainly possible that the US would’ve had enough military might to defeat the Soviet Union, I highly doubt there would have been the political will to fight another huge war, especially when it would have been even more brutal than the German invasion of 41-45 (Soviets feeling betrayed, former allies invading together with the hated Germans, etc.).
So sure, the US could have won, assuming it had been willing to suffer 10 million or even more casualties.
Two fronts? What exactly do you mean? U.S. troops attacking Vlaidivostock? (sp?) British troops invading the Baltics? Please clarify.
A couple of points on earlier ideas. The US did have quite a few reserves, however it would have taken time to ship them from America, and then there is the question of the troops involved with Japan. Would those troops have gone on and invaded Russia’s pacific coast or gone to Europe? Depending on when the US/Soviet conflict started, there is also the issue of the US having to defeat Japan (remember the lapse of time between V-E Day and V-J Day).
As for the USSR reserves, well as I recall, they were pretty bone dry. While the Soviet army was immense and considerably larger than the Allies, the Soviets had thrown together all their troops and equipment for a “final push” on the Germans and it would have taken them time to both recover (their armies were literally exhausted from their breakneck pursuit of Berlin) and reequip. Their supply lines would have been a lot shorter than the US. The US would have had the best German military generals at their disposal (most of whom were happy to surrender to the US, knowing their fate if handed over to the Soviets would have been far worse) and many of the German generals worked hand in hand with the Americans as it was. NATO during the Cold War was full of old German generals.
While it is an interesting subject to think about, there is no way the war would have happened. The US and USSR were both sick of fighting (but certainly not posturing) and I don’t think American citizens would have put up with the astronomically high body counts that would have ensued, especially since Germany was already defeated and fighting someone who had been an ally only months before would have been too much. The war may have saved the US economically and caused relatively few losses, but America (like the rest of the world) was sick of fighting. You just have to see the reels of the victory celebrations nationwide to recognize that. Again, all IMHO.
No, I gotta disagree with you, Bosda. I’ve heard that Soviet forces were getting over a third of their food supplies from America. The kolkhozes and sovkhozes never sufficed to feed the Soviet Union even in peacetime; the country has always been dependent on agricultural imports. The Soviets were only able to produce all of their armor themselves because the Americans were supplying them with virtually all of their truck transport, freeing their factories to produce those T-34s and JS-2’s. With its supplies of rubber and spare parts cut off, the truck transport fleet quickly breaks down. (In fact, we were even supplying some of the Soviet armor, although these were mostly Grants and Shermans far inferior to the Soviet designs).
As for fuel, you may be right about that; since the Soviets had plenty of their own oil and had also occupied the Ploesti fields, I assume they would have been pretty well fixed for fuel. But food and transport will become major problems if they don’t defeat us quickly enough. (That, of course is the problem; they very well could have wiped the American forces off of Europe before the supply problems could have come into play).
The Shturmovik was without a doubt one of the best tank-busters of the war, but it depended on local air superiority, which the Soviets couldn’t have obtained, at least initially. In the air, the Americans would have dominated.
Unfortunately for the Americans, there is a saying that the ultimate air superiority fighter is a tank sitting on the runway.
Well, I’m assuming that this war starts in May 1945, shortly after Germany surrenders. Presumably the atomic bomb hasn’t been used yet. Even so, the Soviets might have wiped out American forces in Europe before we could bring it to bear. We still could have sent B-29’s at them from Africa, to hit Ploesti and other southern targets, but the industrial north would be out of our reach.
So the A-bomb would help, yes, but you’re right that it would not necessarily have decided the war for the Americans, at least not quickly. If there was one thing the Soviets proved during the war, it was that they could take unbelievable casualties and keep coming back for more.
Again I disagree. The Soviet Union was never self-sufficient in food or transport.
I stress again, I do think the Americans would have suffered heavy initial defeats, quite possibly would have been chased off the continent, and in any case would eventually have lost for political reasons. As Clausewitz says, war can never be separated from politics. But from a purely military standpoint, America had the wherewithal to defeat the Red Army in a long, costly war. (I am, of course, delighted that this never happened and that America prevailed through more peaceful means).
Well Sam Stone, the chinese DID enter the Korean conflict, and I was thinking in the proportion of US troops in the field when I thought of my analogy, also add the fact that another hawkish general (MacArthur) was sacked in Korea by toying with the idea of making things worse. I think I was ok in that analogy. (not a great analogy, just ok)
Don’t forget the Chinese. Mao was still not in power and we forget that at the same time we are involved in a hipotetical war with the USSR the red chinese were conquering China coming from Manchuria. As I do not see a quick conquest of the USSR, China would then had helped the USSR in the Eastern front.
Coming back to the OP: It looks that many of the people that believe we could have won are still ignoring the fact that the soviets already had conquered half of Europe. If we had decided to go to war, the soviets would NOT have given us West Berlin. The Russians did not need to fulfill their promises from the treaties, but they did, and we had no reason then to go to war.
We got West Berlin, a foothold inside the russian controled territories. We had an ideological beach head from were to slowly undermine the east european comunist states. Then the wall fell. Those who want to be like the rabbit always forget that it was the tortoise that won.
Bill, have you been living under a rock around here? I am a Russian history major, a Romanov buff, and a total Russophile-one of my favorite professors is from Russia-you know, the one I said would give me a ride to class in bad weather? Sheesh!
Yes, I am fully aware that there were quite a few former White Russians who fought with the Nazis-what’s your point?
The majority of the Russian people did not love Stalin, but they loved Russia-there is a difference there. I’m sure you would fight to keep an enemy out of your homeland, would you not?
Look-I’m not necessarily saying Russia would have WON. Just that perhaps we’d have slaughtered each other. It would have been another Vietnam. We’d have to be awfully careful, there.
Yes, Napoleon got to Moscow-his army was starved and frozen to death-and they didn’t exactly invade Moscow-the troops had burned it and left it almost deserted so that the French troops would have nothing-most of them froze to death.
BUT…however, as much as I love Russian history, I know next to nothing about military history and specifics of war. So, perhaps I am talking out of my ass. If so, please forgive me, tovarish!
Guin - although you replied to Bill, I am assuming this was in reply to my message. What’s my point? Well, my point is that much of the former USSR was NOT Russian. There were so many minorities that were taken over by Russia in the last few hundred years and none of them were particulary taken with Russian rule, especially when it became Soviet rule.
The Ukraine, for example, didn’t want to be ruled by Russia or the Soviets. The Soviets treated the ethnic minorities with extreme disdain. They were so abused they welcomed the “invaders” as liberators. Until the Nazis showed their true colors and their true goal of cleansing the land for German “Lebensraum” or living space. So, no, many “Russians” did not fight to keep enemies out of their homeland, because they already saw themselves as being subjugated and they thought that anybody would be better than the Soviets. The Nazis made them pay for their optimism and the Soviets made them pay for still being alive at the end of the war. It is true that many Russians fought heroically and died to the last man. Although, certainly the NKVD rear guard units with machine guns pointed to prevent “unauthorized withdrawals” might have had some effect on their courage…
Oh, yeah, I forgot to add that this disdain for a central Russian/Soviet authority became abunduntly clear when the USSR collapsed in 1991, and most of the republics tried to go their own way, with varied results. There is also the current Russian/Chechynian war…
Look, I don’t want to completely hijack this thread, so let me just say this point isn’t semantics. If the US and USSR fought in a land war after they had destroyed Germany, the US would probably have had a lot of local support not only in Eastern Europe, but also in many parts of what was then officially Russian/Soviet land. That’s the point I have been trying to make. This is in no way an attack on the character and loyalty of the common Russian, which are beyond doubt. They are a remarkable people, and the world will always be in their debt for the beating they took holding off and eventually defeating the Germans. I believe that even when Germany was fighting two fronts (after D-Day) the Russians were fighting something like 85% of their army while the Allies only got to face about 15%.
Well, sure. WWII was the only thing that got us out of the depression.
Improved technology isn’t much of a basis to defend the slaughter of oh, say 100 million people or so. If you’re asking me anyway.
What would todays world be like? Unknown. We do know how the current world is today, which is pretty fucked up. I guess that’s why “what if” isn’t widely respected among historians, I guess.
I mention that because for some reason you ignore that once you take that into account, the advantage of “local support not only in Eastern Europe but also in many parts of what was then officially Russian/Soviet land” is not a big one.
You are forgetting also that the Soviets on the way to Berlin were ruthless with the people that had helped the Germans. Many were either dead or in the gulags at the moment our hypothetical war starts.
But we are forgetting something else, It was very likely that the captured Nazis would have been freed to help in the great new war. (Patton had a controversy by allowing that, not in the army, but in German government positions.) This would have unleashed tons of hate from our allies that had been just freed from the Nazi boot. Officially the allied governments would had backed the US, in practice the opposition to a new war, that started as a betrayal, would have been unbearable; both in Europe and in America.
[sub]A scene in an american home at the start of that alternate universe:
“How do we tell little bobby that the goose stepping, nazi evil men are now our allies?”
[/sub]
I’ve been thinking about this a bit more. Another factor could be the Germans themselves. The US seemed to get the “creme de la creme” of the German scientists. The Germans were progressing quite well with their rocket and jet programs albiet with extremely limited recources. I could just imagine how progress may have steamed ahead with the seemingly limitless recources at their fingertips compared to what they were used too. I would imagine that the US Convair B-36 and Boeing B-50 would have been produced more sooner than later and would have been able to bomb targets deep, deep in Soviet territory. Something I don’t think the Soviets could even consider doing.
In addition the German Army and Airforce (which to be fair, was a shattered image of it previous might) should not be totally ignored in the equation either.
I do think the US/West would have been victorious.
