Churchill's rage over the loss of Singapore - Page 2




 
--
 
November 22nd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.
November 23rd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.
If you believe that, your a bigger idiot then I thought you were.
November 23rd, 2011  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.
What about the Truman Doctrine with its policy of containment to stop communism spreading and the Marshall Plan, massive aid aimed at supporting collapsing economies which were letting communist sympathisers gain power. Military alliances as NATO.

You're a Neanderthal in terms of understanding world history.
--
November 23rd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
What about the Truman Doctrine with its policy of containment to stop communism spreading and the Marshall Plan, massive aid aimed at supporting collapsing economies which were letting communist sympathisers gain power. Military alliances as NATO.

You're a Neanderthal in terms of understanding world history.
He's a legend in his own mind.
November 23rd, 2011  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
He's a legend in his own mind.
All foam, no beer.
November 23rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Without the A bomb, after the Americans pulled out by far most of their forces to fight Japan and to return home in 1945 the Red army would have easily taken over Europe.
The Marshall plan was in 1947, by then, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, India, China, Korea, etc, would be part of the USSR. (Kennedy would not have been able to trigger the Cuban missile crisis by placing Missiles in Turkey).
Britain would not have been able to do anything at all and the American people would have been fed up with intervening in Europe and Asia.
November 23rd, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Without the A bomb, after the Americans pulled out by far most of their forces to fight Japan and to return home in 1945 the Red army would have easily taken over Europe.
The Marshall plan was in 1947, by then, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, India, China, Korea, etc, would be part of the USSR. (Kennedy would not have been able to trigger the Cuban missile crisis by placing Missiles in Turkey).
Britain would not have been able to do anything at all and the American people would have been fed up with intervening in Europe and Asia.
A lot of nonsens.
Better : only nonsens
November 23rd, 2011  
Seehund
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.
The atom bomb is not a war winner in and of itself, but is a game changer.

After the taking of Berlin the Red Army was not in a very good shape logistically speaking, basically at the end of the rope and go further will be difficult. This not counting in the fact that Uncle Joe was a bastard, but a very cautious bastard if he was not certain at 100% to not begin or at least win a war with the rest of the allies after this blatant grab of land he will not even try. His change will be not very good, logistic problem, cut of external aid, facing a serious strategic bombing campaign, allied air superiority and monopoly of the a-bomb will be cause the soviet to retreat.

The Soviet war economy would have collapsed within months. It was basically being kept going only through lend lease. Once that runs out all they have to support their armed forces are whatever left over plus the devastated western portions of the nation, which include the majority of its resources and agriculture.

In any case there are some aspects you need to be mindfull of:

1. manpower: the soviets were scraping the bottom of the barell in terms of reinforcements, while the western allies (especially the USA) still had a huge manpower pool. If WWIII lasts for more than a few months it's the soviets who are going to find themselves with a steadily shrinking army faced with endless wawes of enemies.

2. economy: they need to reorganize the economy, especially by strengthening areas where they are most dependant of lend lease. Since I'm not very knowledgeable about the relative impact (not the absolute numbers) of lend lease on the soviet war-making capability, I don't know how easy this will be. In any case, it is likely to result in an even greater slowing down of soviet offensives.

3. air power: the Soviets were inferior to the westerners in exactly 2 areas: navy and strategic airforces (including high altitude fighters). If the former will probably not be a major problem, the latter will definitely be one. Allied strategic bombers will be able to do great damage even with conventional payloads, and once the atomic bomb comes online they become even more dangerous. Therefore, going to war without a sure way of stopping the bombers would be madness on the part of the soviets. While the soviet airforce of 1945 was very powerfull at low lever its ability to perform interceptions at high altitude was very limited.

4. Allies: The soviets are again at a disadvantage because most of the minor allies are more simpathetic towards the Anglo-Americans, and most of the former axis countries feel the same. In eastern europe in particular, the soviets were hated in many areas so at least initially they will be fighting on hostile ground. They need to strengthen the puppet governments as much as possible, at least in those areas where there is some hope of success. (I rate Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia as the countries most sympathetic towards the soviets, while Romania and Hungary are the most hostile, being essentially lost causes).

A full strength commitment by the US, Britain, Canada, France, supported by Polish and other Allied forces as well as whatever rearmed German units could be put together, stands a decent chance of holding the Rhine-Alps-Piave line provided that they have air superiority and some sense of strategic warning. This buys time for strategic bombing by the USAAF and RAF and eventual deployment of USN carrier fleets to Europe; the former have the ability to hammer railheads and supply lines to the substantial detriment of the Red Army's future offensive capacity.

On the strategic point of view, one of the best targets for Allied bombers in WWIII in the USSR would be the Kaukasus oil fields. Easy to reach from British controlled Iran, not well defended. Shut them down and the Soviets are screwed.
November 23rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
You are assuming that the US would have fought. I think that a few months after Germany fell, and once the Americans have removed 95% of their forces from Europe and Stalin has invaded Mongolia, Korea and Eastern China, Stalin could have taken the rest of Europe, China and India and the US would not have fought another war, against Russia a mega power, with billions of people and most of the world's reources.

The US did not want to fight in WW II, it was dragged into it by Japan. As long as Stalin does not attack the US, Americans would not want to go through an even larger war in late 1945 and with fewer allies.
Just like America reluctantly allowed Germany to take over part of Europe, it would have reluctantly allowed Stalin to take over all of Europe.
There is a big difference between losing 3 to 8 million Americans in a conventional campaign in a USSR that covers most of Eurasia or sending in dozens of bombers with A-bombs to wipe out a few million Soviets in days.
I donīt think Stalin would have hesitated for long before invading Eurasia, expanding his formidable army with billions of Asians, had he not faced the A-bomb.
He was worse than Hitler. He invaded Bessarabia, risking war with Romania and didn't care. He invaded Lithuania, against what he had agreed with Germany before invading Poland. The bastard wanted to expand and didn't worry about war even when his army was weak, much less when it was the strongest in the world.
November 24th, 2011  
Seehund
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Just like America reluctantly allowed Germany to take over part of Europe, it would have reluctantly allowed Stalin to take over all of Europe.





 


Similar Topics
New weight loss program
Singapore bans military blogs
Indian Navy mulls joint patrol with Singapore, Malaysia
Rage Report - 9/11 and al Qiada
EF Typhoon jets to arrive in Singapore for evaluation