Could USA defeat USSR before the WW2 begun??
Russia was just coming out of a Revolt and was still having to deal with things like that, Though it depends on which date you are referring to, the years of 1934-6 when the Japs started going hog wild in Asia, our 1939 when Hitler started going hog wild in Europe, The date would help.
It would be interesting America was coming out of a depression but Russia was still rebuilding from a Revolt in the 30's. So to be honest America probably was the weaker of the two. However most likly if it was the 34-6 The Euro Powers would have stayed out, however after 39 and the Russian/German Invasion of Poland Britian and them would have most likly help America fight off the Russians.
It would be interesting America was coming out of a depression but Russia was still rebuilding from a Revolt in the 30's. So to be honest America probably was the weaker of the two. However most likly if it was the 34-6 The Euro Powers would have stayed out, however after 39 and the Russian/German Invasion of Poland Britian and them would have most likly help America fight off the Russians.
Hmmm, if America is going in, no doubt whatsoever Turkey would too, a border in the Caucasas as well as the ability to land in the Pacific and pinpoint expeditions in the north over the artic? I figure if it was early on in the war when the White Russians were still fighting, reinforcement of thier positions would of been near catatrophic for Marxist-Leninism. Trotsky wrote that the Soviets took the path of the least resistance in their revolution.... we could easily of done the same with the population of repressed minorities ready to support us. A temperary sack of Moscow and spliting the effectiveness of thier economy and communications would of been quite depressing, especially in the steppe where the Soviets lacked mobility.
redcoat
Active member
Once you remember the pitifully small size of the US Army in 1939, the answer is easy.Kirill K said:
Not a snowballs chance in hell !!!!!
If somehow, by magic :roll: the Soviet army landed in force in the USA the US Army would have difficulty in slowing them down, let alone stopping them.
Doppleganger
Active member
Kirill K said:
No chance whatsoever if they had ever met at that time. Warfare would have been very similiar to WW1 tactics as Blitzkrieg and combined arms theory hadn't been introduced to the world yet. And with the Red Army being the largest standing army in the world (nearly 5 million men) it would have been a massacre.
godofthunder9010
Active member
No, not the remotest chance in hell. Additionally, the USSR didn't have the remotest chance in hell of endangering the USA with their gigantic Army. The US Navy was monstrous on the Pacific side and certainly not insubstantial in the Atlantic. The Russian Navy ... well it did exist I guess. Tiny thing.Kirill K said:
Underlying thing is that pre-World War II, the United States was not too big on keeping a standing Army. They didn't perceive any need for one. The US Army was smaller than Portugul's as of 1939.
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
Kirill K said:
Gotta have weapons to fight a war, people have to make those weapons, lots of people get paid, companies expand... make lots of money, they can invest in stuff... USA had lots of resources.....
ya know, you get the drift.
godofthunder9010
Active member
The transition of the US Army from tiny to huge: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWusaA.htm
Now we know that the USSR had a minimum of 10,000,000 men in the Red Army as of 1939, more than 10,000 tanks and more than 10,000 combat aircraft. They had a much more developed concept of Mechanized and Tank Warfare.
So ... I think the winner of a battle on land is ridiculously obvious -- the USSR would win easily. The winner on the Seas would have been the USA though because of the substatial buildup -- mostly in the Pacific, thus thwarting the best entry point into the United States -- Alaska.
That force included barely any tanks or and a relatively small number of combat aircraft. Though people like General Patton were around, they're ideas were ignored in favor of "traditional" ideas. The concept of Mechanized Warfare was extremely poorly understood by the US Army.
Now we know that the USSR had a minimum of 10,000,000 men in the Red Army as of 1939, more than 10,000 tanks and more than 10,000 combat aircraft. They had a much more developed concept of Mechanized and Tank Warfare.
So ... I think the winner of a battle on land is ridiculously obvious -- the USSR would win easily. The winner on the Seas would have been the USA though because of the substatial buildup -- mostly in the Pacific, thus thwarting the best entry point into the United States -- Alaska.
godofthunder9010
Active member
So you're saying that the USA could have taken the USSR in 1939? 1930 too? I'd love to hear how we'd have pulled that off. Please do share.
godofthunder9010
Active member
You said "YES" three times, so you should be able to see why I was confused, right?
I don't know about the early 20's, but for the rest of the period between world wars, the United States would have only been able to check any invasion forces with the US Navy. On the ground, its an easy question. USSR would beat the crap out of the USA because we did not have a built up Army.
Interesting thought. The fact that the Soviets couldn't likely successfully invade for a substantial time period (if ever), what happens when the USA starts up a wartime production economy? That's as close as you can come to making the contest all that interesting.