Could USA defeat USSR before the WW2 begun?? - Page 6




 
--
 
December 6th, 2004  
Earling
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Well, you're thinking in terms of the Atlantic Ocean, which makes no sense for either side. The Bering Strait into Alaska is simple, quick and easy, the only drawback being its a tad cold up that way.
I am sorry.. but this is about as insane as people argueing over a Japanese invasion of Siberia in ww2 bringing about the downfall of the USSR by military conquest. (The threat of an attack on the other hand might have had an effect.. but thats a different matter)

Do you really think that a force sent by this route could be maintained to ww1 strength and have a chance of defeating the nation you attacked?
In both instances, your attacking what amounts to the "back door" of the nation. Theres nothing that the opponent can take which will prevent the defender mustering overwhelming forces and then driving the invader back. For Russia, the far east was secondary to Moscow and St Petersburg just as to the US the west coast was significantly less important than the east in order to continue a war.

//edit.
I am going for dates wise around 1920-1930's. Technologically nearer what was used in the first than the second world war..
December 7th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Yeah around 1920-1930 it would be odd because no one could build anything, however I think we are refering to like 1937-1939
December 7th, 2004  
Earling
 
I still think most of what i said stands. The strategies would be primarilly ww1 strategies, such as the red army used in finland. The lessons of ww2 with the greater movement provided by tanks and vehicles had yet to be learned and even then it is doubtful such movement could occur if they did fight each other in that part of the world. Logistically it would all break down.

Even today, I doubt the US could defeat Russia by attacking via that route. Your not going to treck all the way across siberia, its logistically impossible. (Or just really, really stupid.. take your pick)
--
December 7th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I think we all agree that war between the USA and USSR pre-1939 was about as likely as a war between Brazil and Poland. That's why its so puzzling that the thread has attracted so much interest -- its such an incredibly unlikely conflict that is barely worth contemplating.

I do think that if the USSR was the agressor, that they'd have easily taken and held most of Alaska ... but if they wanted Alaska so much, why did they sell it to us to begin with??

Bear in mind that the ONLY logical frontline between the two countries is the Bering Strait. Too much trouble getting to one another any other way. That said, its a pretty crappy frontline.
December 7th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Pre-WWII Britian, France and America were preparing for war with Russia, most of these countries thought that Russia would be he enemy, not Germany, but that had changed by 1939 when Hitler made his intentions obvious.

I just wanna put it this way, Pre-WWII USA had a much better chance of defeating Pre-WWII USSR than Pre-WWII USSR had in defeating Pre-WWII United States, main reason, our Navy, we had one that had the newest ships and lots of them, Russia had one of the largest Navy, but it was an old one with morale at an all time low after being crushed by the Imperial Navy.
December 7th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The Pacific Fleet is what we're talking about. Sure it would have beat the crap out of what navy that the USSR could muster, but then you have the very large problem of going against a land army superior to your own in every category but (post Stalin's Purge) leadership. They had better tanks and a ton more of them. They at least equivalent small arms and a ton more manpower to start out with. They had an enormous airforce -- in this department both the USA and USSR were weak in design but would have rapidly improved. WW2 Russian planes were excellent vs ground forces because that's what the USSR needed. They's have been able to alter their R&D to whatever the needs would be.

If you actually managed to get a foothold on the Soviet side of the Bering Straight, you had THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS of miles to go to reach the overwhelming majority USSR's industry and population (thusly their ability to wage war). Irkutsk and Vladvodistok would have been no great loss to the USSR's ability to fight the war. Lets not forget that the Japanese military machine that wrought so much havock and destruction upon China got their butts kicked by the Russians in the 1939 attempted invasion of Siberia. They had some success, but not nearly enough to want to continue to pursue the attack.

In reverse, is the Soviets had a long, long distance to cover going through Alaska and Canada, but not AS FAR.
December 8th, 2004  
Darcia
 
The different between Russia and America in this war would be that if America got a foot hole in Russia they had to travel to get the major part. if Russia got Alaska and by some act managed to keep it they could come down and attack some of our major citeas in the west. However they would of cousre had to make it by our pacific Fleet.
December 8th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Yeah, the "Russian Aggressor" would be based on surprise -- nobody in their right mind suspected that Russia might try invading. They were too busy planning and watching for the Japanese invading Alaska. Whatever the Russians could have snuck across very quickly BEFORE the Pacific Fleet got there would be all they had to work with.
December 8th, 2004  
Darcia
 
yeah if they managed to mass at the straight then come over and do a suprise attack they would have a pretty good chance, also wasn't part of the Atlantic fleet moved to the Pacific Fleet before WW2? or was it after....
December 8th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
All new buildup was focussed almost 100% on the Pacific with very little concern for the Atlantic. I think you're right about a good chunk of the Atlantic Fleet being moved, but I haven't any details.