Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
WW2 against Russia
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 20th January 2006
I know that Patten was someone who wanted to continue the war after the defeat of Germany but to turn against the Soviets. Were similar opinions voiced by others in power in the West at all? What were Churchill's and Truman's opinions on such a "venture"? And suppose it had happened, could the Western Allies have succeeded where Hitler and Napolean hadn't? Would our air power and imminent A-Bomb have swung it for us? Would Stalin have cared enough to surrender (Γ la Japan) had we dropped the bomb on them?
Your thoughts would be most welcome...
-
Message 2
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Friday, 20th January 2006
churchill was all for rearming the wermacht and waffen SS, to bring the fight back to the russians. Dont know whod have won, but probably us, at a huge expense.
-
Message 3
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 20th January 2006
desertfox,
and your source is?
Cheers AA. -
Message 4
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Mainly the fact that he hated communism, and a book ive read which i cant remember its name. yeah i see your point
-
Message 5
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 20th January 2006
desertfox,
No problem. You are correct in that Churchill was not in favour of communism. However please don't forget that Churchill was voted out of office as Prime Minister on 26th July 1945. His views therefore on the disposition of armed forces in Europe have less weight than you seem to consider. Possibly more worth while considering Attlees thoguhts on this.
Plus during this time (May 1945 onwards) when the western allies could have attacked the Soviets there was still a little matter to be settled further east, in the Pacific theatre. Stalin had promised (and delivered on this promise) to declare war on Japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany.
There are further points to be considered. The American and Commonwealth Armies were conscript armies under a democratic system. Ever since the Soviet entry into the war the propoganda machines of the western allies had been promoting the brave Red Army and portraying the Germans as the hated enemy. Now this may just be me, but I have a real problem in comprehending what would induce the average soldier to accept that he should fight with his (up till now) enemy against his (up till now) friend. What is prevalent amongst (allied) WW2 soldiers testimony is that they wanted to defeat the enemy and go home. What also comes through is that the units that faced the SS did really "hate" them.
Add in that the images from the concentration camps had been broadcast to the troops and civilian population. Well, I really can't see a sensible military man from a democratic system accepting an order to attack the Soviets. (No, I don't think Patton was sensible).
Patton (as well as Churchil), as events have proved were correct in their overall assessment of the situation. Churchill took into account reality, and so although realising that Stalin and the Soviets were a danger to Europe, also realised that direct action was an impossibility.
Patton (and I regard him as a dangerous lunatic), to be fair, made his comment in an off guard moment. (He did have a lot of off guard moments).
Cheers AA. -
Message 6
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Stoggler, hi, reply to #1
See my previous reservations, however in the spirit of What If?....., I'll put these aside. I'll also leave aside political considerations and deal with the military if I may.
First off, lets look at the supply lines. Last time I looked at an Atlas it does seem a long way from the USA to Russia. I'm unconvinced that given the supply difficulties the Western Allies had in defeating Germany they could have stretched these resources further to invade Russia itself.
The Commonwealth had (it's generally regarded)reached the bottom of it's manpower resource by July 1944. Simply put there was no one else to send. It became a pinch point, take one person out of production to the front line and that person requires further personnel to supply them. It's a law of diminishing return. So, you have the combat soldier but can't arm or feed him. Whoops!
The Americans whilst not at the bottom of the barrel were close to it.
The Soviets, under a totalitarian system, were nearing the end of the barrel, yet still had resources to call upon. It's a numbers game, in which the house (Soviets) wins.
The Red Army Air Force was not likely to be rolled over by the USAAF and RAF. The Red Army Air Force had, after all, been up against the majority of the Luftwaffe for four years. In this time they'd learnt a thing or two.
So, in my view, the Red Army wins, unless the A Bomb is used. Then how the Soviets react, together with the obvious Soviet Japanese Alliance, well, anyones guess.
Cheers AA. -
Message 7
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Patton obviously thought that he could succeed in capturing Moscow with a single armored division, provided he moved fast enough and took the soviets by surpirse.
The reality in 1945 was a bit different though, it has to be said that by that time the soviet ground troops were by and large considerable more seasoned battle hardened because they'd been fighting a four year long no compromise war with the principal forces of the Wermacht and Waffen SS. Sure the US had the A-bomb, but think about it at the time the technology was still in infancy, it took quite a while to manufacture a single bomb so obviously they couldn't have been produced en-masse in 1945, plus they had to be delivered to their targets by planes which wasn't exactly the surest delivery. Planes can be shot down even B-29's and this with all of the eastern europe under soviet control, those bombers would have had quite a distance to cover before they ever got to Moscow; an A-bomb dropped on any other major city in European USSR would have gone unnoticed, as it was most of them were already lying in ruins after the German's scorched earth capmaign and all the improtant industries were located beyond the Urals.
On the ground in europe the soviet could have deployed an avalanche of tanks, most of which were superior to any western tanks of the period. In all probability the whole of Europe would have fallen to the soviets within a month or two, sure they'd have suffered losses from arial attacks and all, but that was the major difference between the soviet army and the western armies at the time, the soviets were prepared to take casualties and fight on. Patton would probably have been killed.
All in all the course chosen by the west in the end was probably the wisest, i.e. to bargain with the USSR and divide up Europe into spheres of influence. At the time it was the lesser of two evils. -
Message 8
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
henrylee100: With respect I must disagree with some of your conclusions.
First: About 15% of the Russian supplies were coming from the west. Obviously these would have been cut off.
Second: By the end of WWII all the oceans of the world were an American lake. There would have been no way for Russia to receive supplies from outside here country.
Third: While I agree with your assesment of the
A-Bomb, I don't think that would have made much difference. To the great disgrace of the U.S., we allowed somewhere between 100,000 (the U.S. official figure) and 1,000,000 (the official German figure) German POWs die in our camps from May 1945 until May 1946. At that time we had somewhere around 5,000,000 veteran German prisoners. Had they been reorganized, retrained, refitted, supplied and given proper air cover, I think they could have done a lot of damage.
Fourth: It has always been my opinion that England, France, and Germany with the Ukrainans and Baltic States people could have fought Russia on the European front, while the U.S., using bases in Japan and Korea for support, invade Russia from Asia. This would have forced Russia into a two-front war. Peace could have been made with the disposal of Stalin.
Fifth: The biggest obsticle to this would have been Truman. He wanted peace. He and Atlee wanted the U.N. IMO they were correct in the long run. but we definately had to survive some very rough decades. -
Message 9
Posted by OldKingCole72 (U1815644) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
IMO I suspect the Russians would have steam-rollered their way across the west without too much difficulty and that they would only have to stop for breath once they reached the English Channel. The bombing campaign and build-up would have to start all over again except that we'd have to develop the next generation of bombers to be able to fly to the Urals and back instead of the Ruhr.
-
Message 10
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
IMO, with the huge air advantage, I don't think Russia could have supported supply lines even as long as they were by the time they took Berlin. I don't think Russia could have gone much farther west than they already were.
-
Message 11
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
<quote>
First: About 15% of the Russian supplies were coming from the west. Obviously these would have been cut off.
Second: By the end of WWII all the oceans of the world were an American lake. There would have been no way for Russia to receive supplies from outside here country.
<quote>
the 15% that Russia was getting from the allies during the war was primarily made up of non essentials, like trucks, or canned meat. In other words the bulk of the military equipment in active use at the time was all Russian made.
Yes, the US navy ruled supreme in the oceans by 1945, so what, the USSR is not Japan, it's not an island. The whole thing about Russia is it's got plenty of natural resources of its own so it never really needed any outside supplies, there's lots of iron ore, oil, alumina, you name it they've got it. Japan was always dependent on outside supplies, you cut them Japan goes down. With Russia it's a totally different story, potentially it can survive in total isolation indefinetely. That, btw, was the case in the period following their 1917 revolutions, when for a period of time the country was in effect isolated for several years by all the major powers at the official level (there were idealist socialist volunteers of course and the Germans that perhaps felt indebted to Russia because it had withdrawn from the Great War at a crucial moment)
<quote>
German POWs die in our camps from May 1945 until May 1946. At that time we had somewhere around 5,000,000 veteran German prisoners. Had they been reorganized, retrained, refitted, supplied and given proper air cover, I think they could have done a lot of damage.
</quote>
you see, as someone else pointed out in this thread already, there were a number of moral issues that made such use of German POW's virtually impossible under the circumstances. The western countries were democracies at the time. There was no way you could have explained it to the public who'd been brainwashed into thinking the Germans were their sworn enemies over a period of 4 to 5 years. And this very public were the electorate, I bet anyone who'd have tried to have the German POW's reorganized and sent into battle against the USSR with allied air support in 1945 would have gotten impeached in no time soon as the info became public. You could probably have pulled this stint in 1949 or maybe 1948 but in 1945 - forgedaboudid.
and even if those POW's had been deployed against the soviets, like I said earlier, one streangth the soviets definetely had at the time was their ability to carry on regardless of the losses. And providing air cover for them would have been as easy either, as the USSR at the time had a massive airforce. True they didn't have any strategic bombers but they had plenty of close range fighter that could have gotten in the way of any attempted air support.
<quote>
Fourth: It has always been my opinion that England, France, and Germany with the Ukrainans and Baltic States people could have fought Russia on the European front, while the U.S., using bases in Japan and Korea for support, invade Russia from Asia. This would have forced Russia into a two-front war. Peace could have been made with the disposal of Stalin.
</quote>
you misunderstand the Russian mentality, they would not have disposed of Stalin. The Ukrainians were not all pro westerners and pro independence either, so I wouldn't have counted on them as a serious force. The baltics, with all due respect, all they could have been able to provide would have been a couple of regiments at best, they rest would have been rounded up and either shot or sent to Siberia. Now neither Germany nor France would have been eager to carry on fighting in 1945, especially Germany, don't think they'd have been exactly willing to play along with the Americans and Britons after having a number of their major cities wiped out in war crime air raids. You must realize the situation was not as clear cut in 1945, sure there were a handful of "visionaries" both among the allies and among the Germans but these were a minority.
Again far as I understand in the spring of 1945 the US still had Japan to take care of. Later in the summer of 1945, the soviets moved into China, South Sakhalin, the Kurils and North Korea (that's how this particular country ended up being split in two btw) delivering on their earlier promise to help the allies deal with Japan once the war in Europe was over.
Sure the US could have used a couple of A-bombs against the russians in the far east but all that could have done would have been to further alienate the population and bury any prospects of peace.The Russians once again would have retreated deep into their territory as they had done in 1941. In eurpe, in the meantime, with all due respects, A-bombs or no A-bombs they'd have secured continental europe in a matter of months and once again England would have been left on its own so all and all Russia would have been fighting on one front only and again the US would have had to fight its way thru North Korea and North China while China was at the time split also, one faction would have supported the US (can't spell the name of their leader but I trust you know who I'm talking about, the guy that eventually wound up in Taiwan) but obviously Mao would have sided with the USSR, so there they'd have gotten even more cannon fodder to use in wave attacks against US troops. And think about it, this new war, in all probability, would not have been supported back home, so in all probability it would have ended not with the disposal of Stalin but rather with the disposal of Truman and Churchil, lets face it, in democracies leaders are a lot easier to dispose of than in dictatorships, and the new leaders would have gotten voted in on promises to strike an immediate peace deal with the USSR.
And the last but not least, Truman was not the one who wanted peace, in 1945 all the people in general were tired of war, everyone wanted peace, maybe except for Patton, but he was always a special case. In fact it would probably have been possible that the soldiers would have simply ignored the order to once again go to war, this time against a country that had just been an ally. Patton just was out of sinc with the mood of the majority of the people at the time. People wanted peace.
what rough decades? I assure you had the US chosen to go to an actual, as opposed to cold, war against Russia those decades would have been several magnitudes rougher. -
Message 12
Posted by mercury22 (U2744067) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
On a similar vein, McArthur was for going all out against the Chinese, during Korean War
Mercury
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.