Blake:
Does Rasputin’s influence on the Romanovs count?
US forces would be soundly defeated by groups of teenagers shouting “Росомаха!” Google translate says that means “wolverines”.
And I’m not trying to be funny here. Thinking a post-WWII invasion of the Soviet Union is even possible is like thinking Red Dawn is a plausible movie.
Nuclear genocide would be the only option against the Soviets.The US would quickly become a pariah nation. Governments around the world would shut down our bases and eject our ambassadors. We would lose the cold war before it started.
Probably not, since the capital was St. Petersburg back then. 
I think you are at heart correct, but I think you’ve got the mindset of the world wrong.
Assuming that for some reason we ginned up a reason to launch an ill-fated attack against the Soviet Union. After the surprise wears off, things grind to a halt, and then we are slowly pushed back.
Moscow is obliterated with a nuclear strike. Follow up strikes on Leningrad, Kiev, and other targets as weapons come online cause the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The US is viewed by many in the world as a hero, for dealing a decisive and crushing defeat to the evils of Stalinism. In addition, we have broken the back of the only other “Superpower”.
Remember that how the world viewed the US in the late 40’s and early 50’s is NOT how the world views us now. We were largely viewed as spoiled, and kinda self centered, but we had also given blood, sweat, and tears to fight the good fight in Europe and Asia. We had fed the Brits while their boys were fighting, we had knocked Japan flat and then helped them back up.
Our soldiers were uncouth, and undisciplined, and ready with a candy bar for the kids in the streets outside the base. When you said USA to someone, the thoughts were of canned rations, Micky Mouse and GI Joe. It would take 50 years to turn that immediate thought into Iraq, George Bush, and Extraordinary Rendition.
While there would, and always will be, those who hate the US, breaking the Soviet Union in 1947 would not have created the vilification you describe, imo.
Indeed, plus in the late 1940s, nukes were novel and cool. It would be a few years before all the hand-wringing world-ending use-equals-genocide stigma would be attached.
…something…something…land war in Asia…something…something…
The US only had two nukes available at hat time but could have used one nuclear bomb on Japan and the second on the Russians. The Japanese were already preparing to surrender before the second bomb was dropped (and arguably even before the first) so the surrender of Japan would still have been achieved. On the other hand, there’s nothing to say Stalin would have surrendered in that circumstance.
For every country that lost a land war in Asia, there’s another country that won a land war in Asia.
I think we had the capacity to make three Nagasaki type bombs a month and if we used them and word got out, we would face serious worldwide opposition.
And there’s the whole issue of size. Even a post-nuked Soviet Union is too big to occupy, you got way more badass folks facing you than the Wolverines.
Like Red Dawn was implausible in supposing it was even possible to occupy the US, it’s even more implausible that he Soviet Union could be occupied.
Production was about one every 10 days by September '45(warning pdf). But production was supposed to ramp up. It never did because, hey surrender. But the expectation was that they could have added a bomb or two a month. So by January '46 the US could be producing at least six bombs a month. So while not a huge supply, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in charge of air defense.
Eh, lots of conflicts were so destructive I wouldn’t say either side “won.”
And even if you don’t accept that both sides could “lose” a given war, the saying “Never get involved in a land war in Asia” could be solid policy because all too often, even if you win, you win at horrendous cost.
Yes, but if we don’t count Asia v. Asia conflicts, my impression is that it’s usually the home team that repels the invader (at a horrible cost, but they still got to keep their own flags). Germiane to the OP, however, even though defeated the Germans really put the screws to Russia. It’s an interesting thought exercise whether the US could have delivered the knockout punch.
Depends on who pauperizes himself first. But whereas the Soviets had a stronger and more seasoned field force, they had practically nothing of what the Americans had besides: the biggest air force of all time, and a two-ocean navy. So if it’s a long-term slogging match. Count of the US bringing the fight to Soviet soil. Aside from having a ground capability up to perhaps Moscow, the US can bomb most of the industrial centers behind the Urals.
Then again, the Soviets were a few years behind in nuclear weapons development. Things will go faster therefore, so the US had better knock the Soviets out or they’ll get nuked out of Europe.
The Russians are totally badass. They don’t give a shit.
They burned down Moscow and told Napoleon “Occupy this, bitch!”
what could be more badass than using a just-invented weapon to kill more than 100,000 civilians? you know what i mean.
You mean asides from the 2nd biggest air force of all time?
While absolutely vital to winning WW2 by both allowing the Pacific Campaign to happen at all and to defeat the U-boats in the Atlantic as well as allow transport and amphibious landings in France and the Mediterranean, the value of a two-ocean navy depreciates a lot when facing the USSR. As in its massive overkill; there isn’t much it can actually do.
With what? The B-29 is not going to be flying to the Urals unless they are planning on a one way trip.
[ol]
[li]A significant number of those planes were built with US made ball bearings. Or were US made outright.[/li][li]Dominating the Black Sea, virtually overnight, is not nothing.[/li][li]This makes no sense. Once a foothold is made in Soviet-held territory, the B-29 would have no problems.[/li][/ol]
What has history taught us regarding wars between a land power and a sea power? A very hasty (but close to valid) generalization: the sea power usually wins.
Maybe from bases in China or the far east. Also the middle east.
This is the old broken window theory.
If the war helped us out of the depression, we could just build a bunch of planes and tanks and sit em out in the desert, blow em all up and pay off the national debt. Hell, on a personal level, you could do that with your automobiles and your house. Just get everyone out and blow em up, rebuild em, burn em down and you too could be a millionaire. Multi-millionaire even!!!
Yeah, building things and destroying them does not make one wealthy. Even in theory. Sorry.
Uhmm… cite? Because you know what’s close to valid: invalid. The only thing that history has taught us about land vs. sea powers and the winners is that the sea power has an advantage if the use of the seas is vital to the war. Use of the sea wouldn’t be vital to the USSR in this scenario. Even then it’s only an advantage and not necessarily the determining one. Athens, a sea power if there ever was one lost the Peloponnesian War to Sparta, a land power.