First of all Russia wouldnt go to attack vs USA because they had enough casualties vs the German's and all they wanted to do is take a rest and rebuild itself. And if they did go to Alaska, they could prolly try to sign some pact with Canada vs the USA, i guess something like that, but it prolly wouldt work. So i think unless USA and USSR were on the same continent they wouldnt have went to war. And if they were on the same continent and they went to war, USSR would win it all.

World War 2 hadn't begun so they lost no casulties to the Germans in like 20 years. Also i agree that Canada never would have signed a pact with the USSR. and if they did America would try to get Canada and stop the Russian invasion.

plainly put: yes

Does anyone know how many people may have lived in Alaska in 1939 or if thier were any ajor troops bases thier in 1939?

Originally Posted by Dameon

The UK still owned land around the USSR I believe, some in China and a little in the Middle East with some troops in iraq I believe. They would have been close to the USSR.

No they didn't. Hong Kong was the only portion that the UK really had and that was a timed lease. There were other places where the UK had established itself, but the British Empire didn't border the USSR at all as nearly as I can tell, except one thing I'm not entirely sure of -- Persia/Iran. Was Persia part of the British Empire? I don't know for certain ... Middle Eastern holdings was as close as you're going to get to having a common border though. Iraq was a French colony BTW.

Howevere if the USSR did manage to ge past the Ice that seperates Alaska with the Russia, and did manage to get troops and stuff thier at that point in time it would have taken a while to get enough to invade Canada and then make it to the USA.

Well consider that no military is more accustomed to winter fighting and immense distances than the Russians. On problem is that committing forces to invading Alaska might leave the USSR open to the Japanese from Manchuria and (depending on what year were talking about) the Germans.

Thats very true they were accustomed to fighting in the Winter. One major thing the USSR may have agianst them is the fact they WOULD have Japan around them who would want to attack them. However the UK had Hong Kong and some other nation had a part of China as for Iran....I am not sure I will look that up. Some nation in that area was thrown out a few years ago from the Commenwealth for miscounduct. Not sure if it was them...

Well the Russians would have a really hard time BEFORE WW2 to fight anybody I man they really didnt have a decent army or air force or navy for that matter.

Originally Posted by airmanpatroler

Well the Russians would have a really hard time BEFORE WW2 to fight anybody I man they really didnt have a decent army or air force or navy for that matter.

They had the biggest of all of those except navy. At least double that of anybody else. 3 times as many tanks as anyone else. 3 times as many combat aircraft. They had a terrifying military force actually. Most of the world had no idea how gigantic their military truly was.

It would be great if we could find the actualy numbers from back then....


However the USSR did stand a chance if they made land fall and could continue to supply the troops.

Opperation Barbarossa's official tally is as close as we can know. The German Army accounted for 17,000 (minimum) and 20,000 (maximum) tanks killed; 12,000 (minimum) and 15,000 (maximum) combat aircraft killed; and 9,000,000 Russian POW's. The actual numbers would have HAD to have been larger than that because the Red Army still had tanks remaining, still had some (though not very many) aircraft, and still had a tremendous numbers of men left.

Those numbers are confirmed by Soviet Sources as being pretty close to accurate.

Contrast that to Germany, who invaded with roughly 4,000 Tanks, 4,000 Combat Aircraft and 3.5 million men.