1. beyond the scope of the question (USA has not obtained the nukes until after VD-E(5/8/1945) and those few bombs had another destination. Did you forget that at that time Japan has not surrendered yet and the US needed the Soviet help(to fight in Manchjuria and, possibly, in Japan?)
2. What about the outright treachery - to nuke an ally(even as evil as it was) as soon as the common goal is achieved? And that nation just lost more than 20 million people fighting the common enemy...
3. USA didn't have enough bombs to bring the USSR to it's knees in 1945.
In the same time, Red Army, would wipe the Americans from Continental Europe within a month - so vast the superiority was in their troop strenth, tanks, artillery and front line aviation.

P-51 was better than anything the Russians had, and our bombers could of destroyed the reds within a month.

Then we ignore the stranded japs that have no navy, and invade Russia from the pacific to.

Yes yes i know there are logistics about equipping our troops for Russian fighting but it shouldnt have taken that long.

Originally Posted by Rabs

P-51 was better than anything the Russians had, and our bombers could of destroyed the reds within a month. .

First of all, I am glad, that it has never happened!
P-51 is great, but it couldn't guarantee the Victory against a very tough and very angry adversary. The German tanks were much better than the "Shermans", however, they lost.


I am not sure, what is your knowledge is about the Soviet forces in Europe in '45.
70% of the German Forces in 1941-45 were facing East, not West, so I wouldn't underestimate the Red Army! It was able to survive the losses of the first 2 years of war, recover thousands of miles of lost territories and come to Berlin before the Americans.
Here is a quick quote from wikipedia:
"The three Soviet fronts had altogether 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyushas rockets, (nicknamed "Stalin Organs"); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many manufactured in the USA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern....80.93May_1945

Those were forces that have taken Berlin only.

In the same time, the total strength of the Western Allies in Europe has been 3,021,483 people(including UK). how many of them could actually fight?
I couldn't find the number of planes, tanks, etc.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Then we ignore the stranded japs that have no navy, and invade Russia from the pacific to. .

And then what? Moscow is 11 time zones away with just one railroad and no highways in between... You are kidding me!

Originally Posted by Rabs

Yes yes i know there are logistics about equipping our troops for Russian fighting but it shouldnt have taken that long.

Don't worry about that! The climate in the UK is not that bad. It would be the only place where the Americans could hold out

If I am not mistaken, the NATO Cold War era planners have accepted the thought of inevitability of the Soviet breakthrough to the English Channel if the NATO forces would be fighting with the conventional weapons only. In '45, USA couldn't fight the nuclear war yet, just demonstrate it with a couple of blasts. It has been enough for Hirohito, but Uncle Joe and his regime wouldn't be as easy to subdue...

Attacking Russia would only accomplish one thing: Prevent the 50 year long cold war by replacing it with another decade of fighting. Who would have won? My blind patriotism forces me to say that Russia would have been defeated, obviously I could even cite specific reasons. The US and UK, IMO had a clear advantage on the seas and in the air. The only heavy bombers the USSR had were stolen from the US (B-29's, reverse engineered and renamed the..... TU-4?) and forgive me if I am wrong, but their mediium range bombers were also aquired from the US VIA Lend-Lease. The T-34 is the best tank in the world, at this time, and would have meant that the Russians in Europe would have the advantage, but the US and UK could have launched an attack at many locations while the Russians would have been forced to react, for example the US and UK could launch an assault through Finland (who would IMO be more than happy to help screw Russia) and cut off the Soviet Advance armies from their supplies, some might even run out of fuel before getting back to Russia to fight the American and British forces there.

All this is a mute point though, Patton did not get his wish, thankfully, we are all here today, in one form or another, so IMO it all worked out for the best.

Blixs....You mentioned Market Garden being a bad campaign, and yes it was a failure, but had been two weeks earlier it would have been a great success. The reason it failed was that the Germans moved a SS Armoured Division around Arnhem for rest and re-equipping only a short time before the drop. This was just the fickle finger of fate showing how the best plans of mice and men. Now I am not a great supporter of Monty, but like ever one they have their ups and downs.

Also the people that seem to think we should have turned on Russia at the end of WW2 while we the Atom bomb must have a screw lose. Do you expect that we should kill all Russians because that is what you would have to do. Did you not learn any thing from the way they fought for their country during this period. What do you think the world would have thought of America for turning on an ally like that and do you think any one would ever trust America again after that. Also do you think the American troops would have done this and would have have wanted to carry on fighting for even more years, I don't think so.

Sorry guys, I just have an utter hatred for Russia. (red and current)

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Patton could be daring, but his ego could make him extremely reckless. For example his entire 3rd Army ran out of gas at Meuse because he wouldnt wait for his supply lines to catch up. Had the Germans counterattacked he would have been a sitting duck. He was generally a abhorrant person distrusted by by the enlisted personnel and the senior staff.

Ike was right to put him in a broom closet, personnaly I prefer Omar Bradley.

And Bradley took many of his strategies and plans from Patton,often Bradley conversed with him about the war and what should be done,Patton gave him a couple of good ideas and he made them his own.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Sorry guys, I just have an utter hatred for Russia. (red and current)

What for Rabs? If it is for their political system, why worry? They tried something new and found out it didn't work. The MIC in the US did quite well because of it.... better yet; the whole econmy thrived well on this fact. So why the hatred? (Some say hatred is fed by fear.....)

Second: I think the US would never win when invading the USSR. The Russian fighting machine would have flattened the US in the end, exactly like they did with the Germans. Oh...and think of the bad pr this would do to the US.

здравствулте! Rabs!
Вы не можете быть серьезны. Посмотрите случилось к другим попытались!
The Germans had major problems invading Russia from the west, especially considering the very poor roads in the winter. The Russian winter is an extra weapon. So invading from the east across the largest country in the world would have been madness.
The early weather in the Ardennes provide that in winter the mighty western allies airforce not to be a factor. Dont foget the Russians had an effective airforce.
The Russians had some great heavy tanks to compliment the medium T34. The Shermans wouldnt have stood a chance. Only the Centurion and Pershing would have been able to tackle them, but they were not ready in enough numbers in '45.
I dont mind the Russians. Just wish they wouldnt spend their money on football.
По-русски

Some say hatred is fed by fear.....)

Dam right it is, a nation ran by crazies with lots of nukes.