USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 14




View Poll Results :USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?
USSR 12 46.15%
Western Allies 14 53.85%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
December 15th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

One mazing difference between Britain and the USA during this time frame.

Great Britain would have had zero chance against Nazi Germany had the USSR been liquidated, while the USA certainly could have. It had the population, the largest and most dynamic economy which alone, could have drowned the Soviet command style system in a flood of production.

As for the short war, not really. While it would have been totally unnecessary to re-invade the USSR, the destruction of the Red Army would have only take n months, and that is mostly dealing with remnant forces that have holed up in the bombed out cities.

As for air power not being decisive? Can you imagine the massive "pin pricks" done to Soviet armoured forces caught out in the open by yet another "thousand plane raid"? Something by 1945, the Allies were more than capable of doing.

You dodge the statement of " If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have." , by simply saying that they were too tired to conduct another massive campaign.

By doing so, you have forfeited any credibility to the notion of the Soviets having any chance at all wining against Allied forces existing in this era.

The B-36s and B-29s were more than capable of reaching into the Urals, and when full production of the A-Bombs went into effect, I dont much like that slave empires chances, do you?

So, with a destroyed industrial base, effective transportation network, and probable agricultural collapse combined with defeat of her only means of control of its captive peoples, just how do you expect this criminal dictatorship to prosper?

Remember, earliy in the Barbarossa campaign , the Wehrmacht was often greeted with open arms and flowers. No "rallying around the government" here. It was only went the SS and its "Einsatz Squads" began work that the oppressed peoples of the USSR was forced to confront the Nazis.

I have no doubts at all that in a contest between the USSR and the Allies ( USA and the British Empire) , that the USSR would be as badly defeated by 1948 at the latest, as Nazi Germany was in 1945. It may have taken a different path to defeat, but its destination was assured the moment it chose such an act.
December 15th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Hi. i wanted to comment on your reply to Earling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
Great Britain would have had zero chance against Nazi Germany had the USSR been liquidated, while the USA certainly could have. It had the population, the largest and most dynamic economy which alone, could have drowned the Soviet command style system in a flood of production.
True regarding Great Britain but I think any war between Nazi Germany and the USA would have been another Cold War myself, with neither side being able to dominate the other. In fact, the US would have been at a disadvantage as German Occupied Europe plus German Occupied USSR would more than match any industrial resources and might the US had. Moreover, Germany was the leading chemical and scientific nation in the world and would have had a distinct advantage in jet engine propulsion and rocket technology amongst other things. Both sides would have nuclear weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
As for air power not being decisive? Can you imagine the massive "pin pricks" done to Soviet armoured forces caught out in the open by yet another "thousand plane raid"? Something by 1945, the Allies were more than capable of doing.
Air power in itself is not decisive without other forces to consolidate. 2 Gulf Wars prove that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
You dodge the statement of " If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have." , by simply saying that they were too tired to conduct another massive campaign.
Stalin had achieved (or had set in motion the plans to achieve) all the medium term objectives for the USSR by 1945. Why would he want to conduct another massive campaign? The topic of this thread is a hypothetical question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
Remember, earliy in the Barbarossa campaign , the Wehrmacht was often greeted with open arms and flowers. No "rallying around the government" here. It was only went the SS and its "Einsatz Squads" began work that the oppressed peoples of the USSR was forced to confront the Nazis.
Remember that it was mainly in the Ukraine that the Wehrmacht were greeted as liberators, as that country has long seen itself as independent from Russia. It was Nazi policy to treat all Soviets as 'untermensch' (subhuman) and so regular Heer units were sometimes just as brutal as their SS cousins. You should also make the distinction between the Security SS and the Waffen SS as they were quite different. Most of the 'oppressed peoples' fought incredibly hard against the Germans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
I have no doubts at all that in a contest between the USSR and the Allies ( USA and the British Empire) , that the USSR would be as badly defeated by 1948 at the latest, as Nazi Germany was in 1945. It may have taken a different path to defeat, but its destination was assured the moment it chose such an act.
Once the Soviet Union puts it's hands on nukes it's a whole different ball game. BTW, Lght1 you should really put aside the rhetoric about the USSR and just concentrate on the military matters. I'm sure you're not so naive to believe that the USA is a shining beacon of goodness that can do no wrong. Every country is capable of committing evil in the name of foreign policy and what is perceived to be just.
December 15th, 2004  
lght1
 
Hi

Neither of your examples concerning air power are relevant to the discussion as neither conflicts were of the same nature as this one.

Armed conflict between the USSR and the Allies would have been total war. For the Allies and the USSR, the inevitable conclusions would be as meaningful.

Once the Red Army was trapped, and later consumed in Europe, it would not have been politically possible for the US to simply negotiate an end to conflict just as it was politically undesirable to negotiate with the Axis during WW2.

So, massive air attacks, designed to de-industrialize the empire would have ensued. Again, dent keep mentioning occupation, land invasions, etc, as this war would be very different.

Since the USSR was a slave state and needed all her industrial and military capabilities to not only threaten other states, but to maintain its grip at home, any removal of either one, not to mention both would prompt restive peoples to revolt.

This isn't hard to imagine, as the USSR always relied on force of might to stay in power. Once that was removed either by armed conflict or loss of will as actually did happen in the early '90s , then collapse was inevitable.
Such often is the nature of empires forged against the will of the diverse peoples it wishes to enslave
--
December 16th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Course the USSR could have went the like 10 miles that seperate us at send ships loads of troops over and attack Alaska....
December 16th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

How would occupying parts of Alaska alter anything mentioned above?
December 16th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

How would occupying parts of Alaska alter anything mentioned above?
Simply put, it would divert US forces away from Europe to defend their home turf. It might have served to open things up on the European side.

I got a question -- At this point, I'm assuming that we're ruling out use of the Atomic Bomb entirely, is that correct?
December 16th, 2004  
lght1
 
HI


Only at first, as I really don't believe it would be necessary as long as the conflict is contained in Europe. But once Soviet forces are routed, the war now turns to the USSR itself.

B-29 and B-36 bomber formations would hit Soviet cities, transportation hubs, industrial centers of production, and even agricultural assets such as grain mills and other food processing assets.

A the short time after all this has transpired, increased production of atomic bombs should generate an inventory sufficient to mean 2-5 nuclear sorties a week. All areas of production, including oil and weapons would be hit.

In short, nothing would be spared. Depending on how intense the desire to destroy the USSR was, even population areas such as Leningrad, Moscow, and perhaps Kiev would be target by mushroom clouds.

AS for Alaska, it is so remote from the main US landmass, that one need not be too concerned. It would be treated much like the useless Japanese incursion of 1942 was. Deal with it at your leisure.
December 17th, 2004  
Darcia
 
I havn't ruled out the Atomic bomb, cause it would be used.


Taking Alaska would move units and would make America more parnoid and change how they decided to fight the war.
December 17th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
With Atomic Bombs, its a moot point. The USSR would not be able to offset such and advantage.

Without them we have a somewhat even fight. I think that in the short term, the USSR definitely has the upper hand, but not by a gigantic margin. The longer the conflict continues, the more it favors the Western Allies.

The Atomic Bomb ruins an othewise semi-balanced equation.
December 17th, 2004  
lght1
 
Hi

As long as modern wars are actually contests of economies, then this wouldn't be a fair fight.


Sometime back someone asked how the allied forces took almost a year from June 6th until late spring 1945 to beat the Nazis, and yet I predicted the rout and annihilation of the Red Army in Europe in a much shorter time frame.

The difference is that the Nazis were on defense. The Red Army, since it is the aggressor force, would need to be on the move, and thus , vulnerable to death from the air. Then, there is the very long supply lines, which are even more vulnerable.

Not a fair fight at all.