NationStates Jolt Archive

...do you agree with him?

Basically, what I'm asking here, is do you agree with the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' ideology, not necessarily whether or not you like the US or USSR better (I used it as a handy example).

The reason I ask this is because of all the trouble this seems to have caused in the modern world. The US followed that as basically the Gospel as far as foriegn policy went during the Cold War. We supported so many oppressive dictatorships just because they were not friendly with Russia it isn't funny.

This is also kind of a bigger survey into whether or not you support the 'black and white' ideology or the 'shades of grey' one.

...do you agree with him?

Basically, what I'm asking here, is do you agree with the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' ideology, not necessarily whether or not you like the US or USSR better (I used it as a handy example).

The reason I ask this is because of all the trouble this seems to have caused in the modern world. The US followed that as basically the Gospel as far as foriegn policy went during the Cold War. We supported so many oppressive dictatorships just because they were not friendly with Russia it isn't funny.

This is also kind of a bigger survey into whether or not you support the 'black and white' ideology or the 'shades of grey' one.

I agree, the enemy of my enemy is not my freind, but another possible enemy.
And yea, all out nuclear war = destruction of species = me happy. So I agree there, lol.

Germany proved that engaging the USSR in a war was foolish, and they were much better prepared for such an endeavor than the USA would have been.

Germany proved that engaging the USSR in a war was foolish, and they were much better prepared for such an endeavor than the USA would have been.

Actually, Germany proved that having an insane dictator who won't listen to his generals in charge during an invasion that lasts out to winter is not a good thing. There's a tad bit of a difference.

Actually, Germany proved that having an insane dictator who won't listen to his generals in charge during an invasion that lasts out to winter is not a good thing. There's a tad bit of a difference.

How about Napoleon then?

I hate cheesecake. I want strawberry pie.

How about Napoleon then?

He wasn't really technologically well equipped to run a winter war with supply lines as long as they would have stretched.

Plus, Czarist Russia =/= USSR after amazingly damaging war that cost than more than 10 million soldiers.

How about Napoleon then?
He was an Emperor, not a dictator, by the time he invaded Russia.

Actually, Germany proved that having an insane dictator who won't listen to his generals in charge during an invasion that lasts out to winter is not a good thing. There's a tad bit of a difference.

Plus he was in the middle of a war with the whole of Europe and America at the time.

That too.

Plus he was in the middle of a war with the whole of Europe and America at the time.
Uum whole of Europe? Just Britain. The rest was either defeated or neutral. Or allied with him.

"enemy of my enemy is my friend"

America's enemy = Iraq
Iraq's enemy = Iran

No, I don't think we're very good friends with Iran . . .

and MacArther wanted to Nuke china during the korean war. I hope nobody gets a impression that this kind've thinking was generally accepted in american society. MacArther was later fired by truman for being so radical. I think some people at the time didn't fully grasp the repurcussions of dropping the bomb. The only reason why we dropped the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was:

*to finally end the war (and save an estimated 500,000 american lives)
*to occupy Japan before the red army got there first

oh and the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" only works if you know that your newfound friend will not turn on you as soon as the war is over.
therefore I said no. The Nazi's and soviets still would've duked it out in WW II we didn't have to befriend them.

Issues to consider...

Issue #1: Much of the surviving Red Army was in Western Europe at the time, not the USSR. It MIGHT have been easier to confront them there, although it would have made things much worse if they had tried to "nuke" the enemy.

Issue #2: If Crazy Adolf had postponed Barbarossa, instead driving through the Balkans and attacking the Middle East for its oil, (an actual alternate plan which Hitler considered and rejected), he would have been in a muchg better position to fight the USSR through a poincer movement. (Patton may or may not have known this, he may or may not have been willing to act upon it - or use the Allies' forces already in the region after the war in North Africa.)

Issue #3: In WWII, some 250,000 Soviet citizens fought on the side of the Germans, seeing them as liberators rather than conquerors, DESPITE all of Hitler's anti-slavic rhetoric. They hated Stalin THAT much. How many more would have sided with the Nazis if they'd actually propagandized themselves as liberators? How many would have joined this mythical US push, if the Allies had?

Issue #4: It still might have been as grinding a conflict as the forseen invasion of the Japanese home islands might have been. The Russians never gave ground easily, even when they were woefully outgunned.

The US could defeat the Soviets in a few weeks in 1945. Even without nukes. American airpower was incomparable with the German one, and the US had better bases as well. Throughout the war the Soviet Union struggled to produce enough electricity for its industry, and American strategic bombers could completely shut down Soviet industrial production in one night (by hitting power plants and other facilities). Then, Soviet Union had really lousy infrastructure, and thorough bombing of just four big railway stations along the Soviet western border could completely cut off Soviet troops in Europe. Furthermore, the Soviet troops in Germany could be cut off by bombing bridge over the Oder (something that tactical rather than strategic aviation could do). In short, whatever supplies and fuel Soviet troops had on hand in Germany, that would have been it and they would have had to fight with it without any hope of resupply. Logistics would have killed them within a few weeks. And if you look at actual Soviet performance (like the Germans advancing against numerically superior Soviet forces in heavily fortified positions when a 3:1 superiority is supposed to be necessary for such an offense, not to mention Soviet performance in Finland), you have to discount the Soviet forces heavily (at least 5:1) to get a rough idea of their actual strength. Not to mention that a lot of folks in the USSR were bitterly disappointed that after all their sacrifices in saving Stalin's ass he did not show any appreciation whatsoever, did not loosen his tyranny and to add insult to injury, sent a million POWs who survived German camps to Siberian camps for 25 years (for treason) while simultaneously issuing a blanket amnesty to deserters (a nice message to Soviet men: when a war comes next time you can choose to go and take an overwhelming risk of being killed or maimed or captured, abused and starved by the enemy and then punished severely by your own government - or you can just hide for a while and then come out safely when it's all over :-). So if the US had issued a clear message about liberating the Soviet Union and bringing freedom and private property (peasants had been stripped of their land and forced into collective farms just 15 years earlier and were really pissed off, besides being starved), it is highly questionable whether many people would have even bothered to fight for Stalin yet again. I don't even mention endless possibilities for wreaking havoc inside the Soviet Union by paradropping arms and ammo all over Gulag etc.

I suspect if the US and UK (and other assorted allies) had sprung across the Oder river and knocked the hell out of the USSR, the western allies would have won in a matter of months. After all, the USSR was dependant on American Fuel and raw materials for the vast majority of their equipment.

in retrospect yes it would have been the best time to do so(except maybe the 80s) because they were weak from the aftermath of the war and had no WMDs

patton was one clever SOB though. if there were three people; you, him, and your neighbor;in a plane and one parachute, he was so clever he would be the one hopping out safely

I have heard of this, USA/UK vs. USSR in July/August 1945, was the plan suggested. Basically, everyone serious, including Churchill, deemed the plan plain nuts. Europe would have been turned to ash.

That would just be stupid. Patton is just another one of those redneck hillbilly armymen that want to throw a bomb on every living thing outside of the American Boarder.

I think Patton was right.

Actually, does anyone know whether Patton had a racial thing about jews and slavs? Because now that I think about it, that would explain it...

Actually, does anyone know whether Patton had a racial thing about jews and slavs? Because now that I think about it, that would explain it...

Yes. He was a viscious anti-semite, and as much as admits in it some parts of War as I Knew it (never finished).

He also believed that southern Italians, Greeks and Arabes were not white and hence "racially inferior" to northern europeans.

Don't even get him started on Africans.

On the other hand, after liberating a concentration camp, he took the entire population of a nearby village and marched them through it so they could see first hand what Nazi ideology had wrought.

Hard man to figure really.

BTW he was from california, and his grandfather fought for the north in the civil war, so he was hardly a hillbilly redneck, in fact he was one of the richest officers in the US army and came from an extremely distinguished family.

I love cheese cake *yum* ^.^

Interesting question. Very debatable how the world would have turned out if US did follow Patton's advice to continue pushing into Communist Russia.

US could and might have won the war, maybe not either. Could go both ways...

If US won, or at least hold off the communist for years till they mutually have a peace treaty.

The world definitely would have turned out very different by today's standards.

But at least Chiang Kai Shek and the Chinese Nationalist would have probably gotten China back under nationalist ruling and wiped out the communist. Probably no Vietnam war, no Korean war.

You actually have to like the chances of the US/UK in such a conflict.

They would have had air superiority. Better tanks (pershing by then). Strategic bombers and Jet fighters. Also the weat had superior artillery by that point.

Coupled to that is the fact that soviets were dependant upon US and, to a lesser extent, UK imports to maintian their war machine at full operating pitch.

Also the soviets had taken a hell of a beating to get to where they were. 1,000,000 casualities taking berlin alone.

The main problem with all this was they were still allies at this point, and Stalin showed every indication of abiding by the "naughty" document and the planned division of Germany. What's more, the allies were keen to turn their whole attention upon Japan, and they wanted the USSRs help in the event that the A bomb was a dud.

Still, a 1946 invasion might not have been a bad idea. Especiall if they could have dropped a few nukes on moscow. That would have ended the party real quick. (And stalin did steal three of our B-29s, so we would have been justified.)

What was so bad about the Cold War?

Assume the US goes to war with Russia in 1945, what would have accomplished. Sure the US could have won, would it have driven the communists from power - probaly not. So both sides further blast Europe backwards into the stone age and hundreds of thousands of soldiers plus an equal number of civilians die.

Or you can take what happened, a fairly stable balance of power. There hasnt been a major war since 1945 and the Cold War system is the reason why.

I would gladly take those 50+ years of peace over the alternative.

What was so bad about the Cold War?

- snip -

I would gladly take those 50+ years of peace over the alternative.

Well, the world is still suffering from the cold war today. It's wasn't bad if you lived in the US, but it sure sucked if you were in a third world country.

Further, I think the idea would have been to totally smash the USSR and rebuild it like france and germany were, into a stable democratic nation. And therefore one that would never go to war with it's neighbors. That probably would have been even more stable. (not to mention cheaper, there not being an arms race).

Really it all goes back to WWI, which was never properly finished in the first place.

Stalin was as brutal a dictator as they came and completely took advantage of the allies after WWII. Patton was probably one of the smartest Generals in WWII (Bradley was probably a little smarter though). Patton saw the Cold War writing on the wall and felt that if they acted now when they were in full mobilization and the bulk of the Russian army was at extended supply lines in Germany, they would have their best chance. Of course unlike Eisenhower, Patton was soldier and not in any way a politician. Another General Macarthur, Dougout Doug was probably the dumbest military leader in WWII, played the same game with the Chinese in Korea but a little more overtly (crossing the forbidden river and going public about nuking China). Now that was stupid (I’ve never figured out how the Americans have somehow attributed the Atoll Hopping strategy in the Pacific when at the meeting it was proposed he not only didn’t come up with it but adamantly voted against it).

As far as Barbarossa goes, it was the delay in the Balkans and Hitler micromanaging the campaign to seize the oilfields in the Caucasus that truly ensured failure. The German army only entered Stalingrad because it was named after Stalin. There really was no strategic need for them to go into the city, but Hitler ordered the Generals against their advice. Let’s remember that the Soviets were ahead of everyone in their Atomic weapons program and it was Operation Barbarossa that set them back so far: forced destruction of materials and relocation of staff, with resources reallocated to immediate defence. Otherwise Germany would have been nuked by the Soviets before the end of the war.

The Grendels

Well, the world is still suffering from the cold war today. It's wasn't bad if you lived in the US, but it sure sucked if you were in a third world country.

Further, I think the idea would have been to totally smash the USSR and rebuild it like france and germany were, into a stable democratic nation. And therefore one that would never go to war with it's neighbors. That probably would have been even more stable. (not to mention cheaper, there not being an arms race).

Really it all goes back to WWI, which was never properly finished in the first place.
i highly doubt any nation on earth possessed the forces needed to smash the USSR in 1945, or anytime before or since. The Soviet Union was just too big geographically. By the time any such war could have reached its conclusion it would have cost money that could not have been used to reconstruct Central/Western Europe. Yeah the third world got screwed, but i would say it is a still a little better than existing as a series of colonies. At least they started to attain independence after 1945, a continuing war in Europe probaly would not have allowed that.

I do agree WW2, and the rest of modern history is no more than a trap laid by World War One from which there was no escape. If only Joffre hadnt ordered that suicidal counterattack at the Marne there might have been some sensible order to the 20th century.

Stalin was as brutal a dictator as they came and completely took advantage of the allies after WWII. Patton was probably one of the smartest Generals in WWII (Bradley was probably a little smarter though). Patton saw the Cold War writing on the wall and felt that if they acted now when they were in full mobilization and the bulk of the Russian army was at extended supply lines in Germany, they would have their best chance. Of course unlike Eisenhower, Patton was soldier and not in any way a politician. Another General Macarthur, Dougout Doug was probably the dumbest military leader in WWII, played the same game with the Chinese in Korea but a little more overtly (crossing the forbidden river and going public about nuking China). Now that was stupid (I’ve never figured out how the Americans have somehow attributed the Atoll Hopping strategy in the Pacific when at the meeting it was proposed he not only didn’t come up with it but adamantly voted against it).



Macarthur was masterful in the Pacific in WWII, apart from the phillipines.

Also you have to give hime credit for the general conduct of the Korean war, (he lost less men than the subsequent commander Ridgeway).

Dugouts problem was that as good as he was at strategy (and there is probably no-one better from that period, look at the hollandia landings and his use of "triphibious" warfare) he was also a terrible politician and completely mad. This caused him to fuck a lot of shit up unessecarily.

He also vastly overestimated his own importance and though he could bend truman to his will. But truman hated him, so no dice there.

The chinese were going to enter the korean war anyway.

i highly doubt any nation on earth possessed the forces needed to smash the USSR in 1945, or anytime before or since. The Soviet Union was just too big geographically. By the time any such war could have reached its conclusion it would have cost money that could not have been used to reconstruct Central/Western Europe. Yeah the third world got screwed, but i would say it is a still a little better than existing as a series of colonies. At least they started to attain independence after 1945, a continuing war in Europe probaly would not have allowed that.

I do agree WW2, and the rest of modern history is no more than a trap laid by World War One from which there was no escape. If only Joffre hadnt ordered that suicidal counterattack at the Marne there might have been some sensible order to the 20th century.


The US/UK could have done it. And more easily than a lot of people think. The USSR had no modern aircraft or strategic bombers. Plus by 45 the T-34 tank was showing its age.

Also the USSR was heavily dependant on the west for war material, so any collapse once begun would go on quickly.

Both Montgomery and Patton thought is was possible.

The real reasons for not doing it are:

1. Total lack of public support.

2. Stalin was sticking to the deal when the western armies were in Europe.

3. Desire to bring USSR into eastern theater.

4. Allies, and public wish, to throw the full weight of the US/UK against japan.

I think US could have won, although Russia had unstoppable throngs of soldiers. The final key is to use nukes though. Probably a nuclear fallout in Russia?

I have heard of this, USA/UK vs. USSR in July/August 1945, was the plan suggested. Basically, everyone serious, including Churchill, deemed the plan plain nuts. Europe would have been turned to ash.

Actually Churchill had his own despiration plan's for a UK/USA vs USSR war, using Polish and German troops. Check out "Operation Unthinkable" (http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm).
The British press revealed in early October, the contours of a plan conceived by Winston Churchill, to launch an Anglo-American war against the Soviet Union, after the war in Europe had been effectively ended. Churchill's Chiefs of Staff committee turned down the plan, on military grounds. Excerpts of the plan were published by the Daily Telegraph on Oct. 1, 1998.

BTW, that site states the Russians had a numerical superiority of 264 103 divisions at the time the plans were being made..

Found this original elsewhere: http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/coldwar/G2/images/c3_s6.jpg

Actually Churchill had his own despiration plan's for a UK/USA vs USSR war, using Polish and German troops. Check out "Operation Unthinkable" (http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm).


BTW, that site states the Russians had a numerical superiority of 264 103 divisions at the time the plans were being made..

Found this original elsewhere: http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/coldwar/G2/images/c3_s6.jpg


Interesting.

Except an UK/US division was three times the size of a Russian one. So I'm not sure the figures are right there. Also, I thought Russia had 400 divisions in Europe at the close of the war.

It also seems to discount Russia's lack of mobility for it's forces, and dependence of the allies for logisitcal support.

My view has always been it never happened because, at the time, there was no real need for it, (Other than the polish question, which setllement was ambiguous anyway), there was no general support for it in the US/UK, and that Truman didn't understand Stalin.

In any event. Stalin did abide by the naughty document, so I find it odd that churchill would press so hard. (Especially as Stalin supported UK intervention in Greece against communism in 1944).

Edit: It is possible that Churchill had this planned out anyway, because he was notorious for getting staff to check up on all his crazy ideas. He also had a study prepared examining the feasability of launching an assualt into France throught the Pyranees from Spain. (Go figure).

The casualties resulting from this war would have been immense. Russia would have had to have been completely destroyed to have been subjected with the amount it had been mobilized by that point. I'm talking three major nukings and a complete occupation of every major city.

I think US/UK could have pulled it off, but the casualties and residual effects would have made it entirely non-cost effective.

The casualties resulting from this war would have been immense. Russia would have had to have been completely destroyed to have been subjected with the amount it had been mobilized by that point. I'm talking three major nukings and a complete occupation of every major city.

I think US/UK could have pulled it off, but the casualties and residual effects would have made it entirely non-cost effective.


Maybe, but you have to remember that by then the US/UK had the armor artillery advantage. Far superior air and naval power. Jet fighters and strategic bombers with long range escorts.

The USSR was also pretty badly mauled at this point to. Some believed, not with justification, that they would have collapsed pretty quickly.

(Although I concede that even the optomists were looking at large casuality figure for the western allies.)

Plus there was Japan still to fight.

we must remember that the Russian strategy at the time was to have more troops than the enemy has ammunition, although this worked against Germany, a nuclear weapon may prove to be more of a challenge, so the US would probably have managed to invade.

I am against the idea though, as you cannot justify invading a country by saying they are a potential problem. I hope you're reading this Mr Bush.

we must remember that the Russian strategy at the time was to have more troops than the enemy has ammunition, although this worked against Germany, a nuclear weapon may prove to be more of a challenge, so the US would probably have managed to invade.

I am against the idea though, as you cannot justify invading a country by saying they are a potential problem. I hope you're reading this Mr Bush.

Isn't that how WWII started though?

Isn't that how WWII started though?

yes...and World War II was hardly justifiable either

yes...and World War II was hardly justifiable either


True, people should have pulled their fingers out and finished World War I properly.

I guess the fact that all the men were dead stopped that though. (Stupid Haig). :mad:

Isn't that how WWII started though?

WW2 started because both Germany and Japan had already become problems. The western world didn't bother when Italy was blowing up Algerians and Ethiopians, and when Japan was marching through Korea and China.

WW2 started because both Germany and Japan had already become problems. The western world didn't bother when Italy was blowing up Algerians and Ethiopians, and when Japan was marching through Korea and China.

Well japan had been doing that since 1931, no-one thought it was a problem for at least ten years.

Germany never threatened England. Nor could it. The british government quickly ginned up a traty with Poland so they would have a pretext to declare was on Germany in the event of another Czechoslovakia. Oddly enough though, they didn't give a fuck that the USSR took half of it, so the whole declaration of war was a bit lopsided.

I don't see how taking Poland effected the UK or France at all. Hitler was always clear that his ambitions were in the East. He even wrote about it years before he came to power. True, Nazi germany had the "potential" to threaten france and the UK eventually. (But not for another few years). Around 1944 in the UKs case.

Patton would never have used nuclear weaponry because he did like the so called "wonder-weapons". He believed in honorable, conventional war. Trouble was he was an ancient warrior in a 20th century body. Such a man should be in every era of history, military wise.

Slightly off-topic here, so don't take too much notice of it. In regard to the T-34 being out of date True, the T-34 was showing its age, but it was still a fine tank, and very much superior to the American Sherman, which was obsolete years before they reclassified it a tank. (it was originally an IFV, explaining its minute turret and inability to actually get through German armour without luck or repetition) However, the Russians were already producing the IS-2 and IS-3m tanks, the IS-3 being widely agreed as one of the best tanks in the world up until the 1960s. Not to mention superior Russian rocket artillery, which was far more mobile, and could be argued, effective than US/UK shell based artillery. Soviet aircraft were behind the times, but they were used well against the superior Luftwaffe aircraft, which were equal to the British Hurricane and Spitfire, excepting the Ju-87 (Stuka) which was inferior in most ways. Russian industry was also shifted East, and continued to be moved East right the way through the war, and it was likely beyond the range of American and British bombers. I believe it was outwith the range of German bombers who were already on the front lines, so a belief that bombing raids could be launched from France or Britain is flawed.

I am taking this solely on a battle basis. People seem to believe that the Russians had an inferior fighting force, whilst I believe, once it was up to speed, that the steamroller couldn't be stopped by any nation, least of all the western allies who did not even have the benefit of superior armour or firearms (excepting the British Lee-Enfield because it's the best.) Russian Mosins and PPsH rifles worked, and if we consider that the war would last a while, then you'd have the AK-47 to contend with... Just remember Kursk. If there was a Western Front Kursk, the allies would have been embarassed at it.



Ok, finally on-topic. (feel free to question/accuse/call me wrong on the above, but just remember the topic...)

I don't think Patton should have been listened to. Regardless of what hindsight tells us, invading a country to turn them into a western democracy is wrong. Removing a corrupt and dangerous regime is right, but to then force your own upon it is not. In the case of a Russian "liberation" turning them into a democracy should be left up to the people. Setting them up as an American democracy would be a failure. (I doubt the people would be wanting a right-wing agenda after Stalin, somehow.)

Besides, as everyone else says. Japan.

Slightly off-topic here, so don't take too much notice of it. In regard to the T-34 being out of date True, the T-34 was showing its age, but it was still a fine tank, and very much superior to the American Sherman, which was obsolete years before they reclassified it a tank. (it was originally an IFV, explaining its minute turret and inability to actually get through German armour without luck or repetition) However, the Russians were already producing the IS-2 and IS-3m tanks, the IS-3 being widely agreed as one of the best tanks in the world up until the 1960s. Not to mention superior Russian rocket artillery, which was far more mobile, and could be argued, effective than US/UK shell based artillery. Soviet aircraft were behind the times, but they were used well against the superior Luftwaffe aircraft, which were equal to the British Hurricane and Spitfire, excepting the Ju-87 (Stuka) which was inferior in most ways. Russian industry was also shifted East, and continued to be moved East right the way through the war, and it was likely beyond the range of American and British bombers. I believe it was outwith the range of German bombers who were already on the front lines, so a belief that bombing raids could be launched from France or Britain is flawed.

I am taking this solely on a battle basis. People seem to believe that the Russians had an inferior fighting force, whilst I believe, once it was up to speed, that the steamroller couldn't be stopped by any nation, least of all the western allies who did not even have the benefit of superior armour or firearms (excepting the British Lee-Enfield because it's the best.) Russian Mosins and PPsH rifles worked, and if we consider that the war would last a while, then you'd have the AK-47 to contend with... Just remember Kursk. If there was a Western Front Kursk, the allies would have been embarassed at it.


Well the pershing was in service by then, and given the incredible rate that the US knocked out tanks (at peak 15,000 p.a. compared to around 7,000 in the USSR for the whole war) I think the armor advantage goes to the West.

B-29s, of which the US was also knocking out like no-ones business, had a range of 3,700 miles loaded. So it certainly had striking legs, especially as it would be striking from further east than france. Also by then the allies had long range fighter escorts superior to anything the USSR could field.
Plus given the huge numbers of allied bombers they could cause hell on any mass of russian troops massed in preparation for counter attack or assualt.
The germans never really had a long range bomber. (Or a heavy one for that matter).

As for the artillery question, the rocket based method is devastating, but given the increase in caliber and the adoption of mobile artillery by US/Uk towards the end, I still give them a throw weight advantage.

Also telling is the amount the USSR depended upon UK/US war material to plug holes in their own supplies. Cut off from these, I suspect the Red armies fighting quality would have degraded rather rapidly, due to lack of trucks, aircraft, munitions etc.

I'm not saying the west wouldn't have had to take a lot of casualities, I just think they could have won it rather decisively if they had done it. (Don't forget that weapons RD in the west was outpacing the USSRs greatly at this point too, so given that the conflict would probably take at least 18 months, the realtive strenght of the weat would have continued to grow while the USSR weakened.)

But like you said, Japan.

I submit to your greater knowledge, for now...
When your area of specialty (it's still only a hobby for me, I haven't taken a course, as you may suspect) is the Eastern front, you know only the bare essentials of Western Front combat. I was aware of a lack of true German heavy bombers, but I thought that the largely increased bomb-capacity and weight of American bombers would restrict their range. The Pershing I know about as well, but I certainly hold the high end Russian armour against it favourably. As I said, the IS-3m was in my mind, the best tank of the war (although it may have seen no action, evidence says that it seen light in pushing the Japanese off of mainland Asia. (can't remember the battle.) But given that the allies would have been able to mount a superior steamroller after all.

(of course, we don't forget the Maus superheavy tank. Incredibly powerful, but with only two ever built, and having an obscene build time and fuel consumption rate, it's more a novelty tank. Of course, I'm sure the allies would have had a tougher time if the Germans didn't waste huge amounts of fuel on V1 and V2 weapons, since they didn't have any real effect. After the blitz, sporadic and random explosions probably had a considerably lesser effect than Hitler had hoped. The fuel would have been better spent in his tanks. )

Interestingly enough, the Russians were actually making a surplus of T-34s, and attempted to sell them to the western allies. Of course, the surplus could be for any number of reasons. They could have had no fuel to drive them, or not needed so many by that stage of the war compared to the supplies that would have secured, or anything. Regardless, the offer was refused, as T-34s lacked the "build quality" of allied tanks. To the doubtless applause of poor Sherman drivers, who would hate to have a Russian tank when they could be part of a 7-1 team required to take a tiger. [/sarcasm] (I actually like the Sherman, I just think it was criminal to use it as an anti-armour device, given that it was not its job, and the crew had a low survival chance as a result.)

But yes. Excluding Japan, it would seem the allies could have a decisive victory over the Russians, as long as they were prepared to accept the casualties.

I submit to your greater knowledge, for now...
When your area of specialty (it's still only a hobby for me, I haven't taken a course, as you may suspect) is the Eastern front, you know only the bare essentials of Western Front combat. I was aware of a lack of true German heavy bombers, but I thought that the largely increased bomb-capacity and weight of American bombers would restrict their range. The Pershing I know about as well, but I certainly hold the high end Russian armour against it favourably. As I said, the IS-3m was in my mind, the best tank of the war (although it may have seen no action, evidence says that it seen light in pushing the Japanese off of mainland Asia. (can't remember the battle.) But given that the allies would have been able to mount a superior steamroller after all.

(of course, we don't forget the Maus superheavy tank. Incredibly powerful, but with only two ever built, and having an obscene build time and fuel consumption rate, it's more a novelty tank. Of course, I'm sure the allies would have had a tougher time if the Germans didn't waste huge amounts of fuel on V1 and V2 weapons, since they didn't have any real effect. After the blitz, sporadic and random explosions probably had a considerably lesser effect than Hitler had hoped. The fuel would have been better spent in his tanks. )

Interestingly enough, the Russians were actually making a surplus of T-34s, and attempted to sell them to the western allies. Of course, the surplus could be for any number of reasons. They could have had no fuel to drive them, or not needed so many by that stage of the war compared to the supplies that would have secured, or anything. Regardless, the offer was refused, as T-34s lacked the "build quality" of allied tanks. To the doubtless applause of poor Sherman drivers, who would hate to have a Russian tank when they could be part of a 7-1 team required to take a tiger. [/sarcasm] (I actually like the Sherman, I just think it was criminal to use it as an anti-armour device, given that it was not its job, and the crew had a low survival chance as a result.)

But yes. Excluding Japan, it would seem the allies could have a decisive victory over the Russians, as long as they were prepared to accept the casualties.


Yeah the Maus was cool. 128mm gun. What they thought they'd do with it though, given its immobility.

And you are right. The whole V2 program was a mistake for germany. Each V2 built represented six fighter planes. In terms of effective use of reasources it was a complete waste. (Especially as the V2s themselves had no other application that terror bombing and so did nothing to hinder the allied war effort.)

I'm not sure why the USSR claimed to have surpluss T-34s. Probably they were full of shit about it - as they were about most things.

Either that or they had a couple of hundered old ones cylcled out of the lines near wars end. They liked to pretend they were stronger than they were, they hid their real casualty figures for decades.

Yes, we should have rolled in with our tanks, and took out the Soviet union before they became a threat. Saddly, our Crack-pot congress back then didnt let us.

Boy, what an interesting topic. Before I get into it, Grendels was wrong about one thing. It was Germany who was far ahead in its nuclear program, not Russia. The development of a nuclear weapon at the time required enormous industrial commitment, especially the extraction of enough U-235 from U-238 required, and it was the Germans who had to divert the necessary resources. The Russians had nothing going until Greenglass and the Rosenbergs.

Patton, what a figure. Gotta love the film, gotta love George C. Scott. "I will fulfill my DESTINY!", "God help me, I do love it so...". What great lines. Parts of it, like the band ceremony in Sicily, were somewhat farcical, but otherwise a great film. I love the scene where Patton's sitting in some theater watching a performance on his side, with the Russians on the other. One of the Russian general's assistants says so and so General Dostoevsky would like to have a drink with the great General Patton. Patton high-handedly tells him, "Tell him I'll have no drink with a Russian son of a bitch like him." The assistant counfoundedly tells the Russian General this, who grimaces and replies, "tell him I think he's a son of a bitch as well." To this, Patton smiles and says, "Well then, from one son of a bitch to another, let's have a drink!" Classic :P How ironic that Patton died so ignominiously in the jeep accident shortly after the war, but only fitting, really. He was a man of war, he had no place in the political, post-war, Marshall plan aftermath.

As for the USSR debate, I think people are vastly underestimating the Russian army's capabilities by 45. Russia in 1945 was vastly different from Russia in 1940; far, far stronger, actually. The initial overwhelming success of Barbarossa was attributable more to Stalin's incompetence and misjudgment of Hitler's intentions than military incompetence. By 1945, they had become far more professionalized in their approach. What was at first close to the "overwhelm them with numbers" stereotype generally given to Russian forces in the beginning had drastically changed as they became more experienced throughout the war. Marshal Zhukov's brilliance would have largely equalled that of Patton and Bradley. The overwhelming success of the Bagration offensive alone lends credence to Russia's improvement on establishing superior axes of advance and coordination of forces. While it is true that Russian logistics relied somewhat on lend-lease early on, and other measures later in the war, much of the "damage" had been done by that point. All the trucks and resources we had sent by that point were in their hands, and we could not take them back. We obviously would send no more were we to engage them in war, but they still controlled the Caucasus oil fields and other important supply sectors crucial to carrying out the war. Russian patriotism and willpower were higher than ever, as was their general furor as witnessed by the somewhat deserved brutality they engaged in while sweeping across Germany, especially on German women. Russian troops were extremely hardened by that point, having seen by far the brunt of the military action vs. Germany. It sucks to admit it, but the western Allies had a bit of a cake walk next to Russia, considering most of the crack Waffen SS and other divisions were stationed in the east, and there was much more willingness to later negotiate surrender to the "sensible" western countries than bear the atrocities of a vengeful Russia. The harsher fighting may have drained Russian resources more than the US, but it also hardened their will and improved their capabilities that much more.

Russian industrial capacity was enormous; not quite that of the US, but close. The vastness and resolution of their country would have made a strategic bombing offensive very difficult, though our long-range heavy bombing capabilities, while inaccurate as any other high altitude bombing of the day, were far superior to Germany's (the Luftwaffe was designed almost solely for close-air support to work in tandem with ground forces, their failure to produce a heavy bomber being a huge detriment in the Battle of Britain and the Eastern campaign).

As for the fighting itself, I think we would have eventually taken them, but god DAMN it would have been some hard fighting. Russian armor was always numerous and tough (look at the Kursk Smolensk and Dnepr fighting), the conditions which bitch-slapped Hitler and Napoleon about would have been equally tough on us, the sheer vastness of the country and "scorched earth" tactics of demoralization it allowed would have really stretched our supplies. The US by that point was an absolute supply monster, but even we would have been hard pressed to keep our guys supplied deep into Russia. We would have to have Germany on our side if not at least obediently neutral, as well as the rest of Europe, or our lines would be under constant ambush hundreds or thousands of miles behind the front. It wouldn't hurt to have Guderien, von Manstein, von Leeb, von Bach, or even von Rundstedt adding a few pointers, it wouldn't hurt to have a few Konigstigers, Jagdtigers, Panthers, Mark VIII's, .88 guns, or V-2's on our side, either (though throwing a V-2 at Russia is like throwing salt in the ocean to dry it up). There was no way we were teaming up with "Gerry" at that point, though. Even without the British, even with the sad state of our armor, I think we could have taken Russia eventually, but it would take years. This was not the imploding revolutionary Russia of 1917, or the unexpecting officer corps-purged, somewhat amateurish army of 1940 (though the purge still had effects as late as 45). Russian troops were probably a little bit harder at that point, certainly more experienced, but you have to believe at some point that even the great Russian bear would feel the effects of "The Great Patriotic War" (their name for WWII), despite the entire economy's mobilization toward war production. The US's production was just too strong, and we could have soon hit them from the east, perhaps even from Manchuria as Japan had Hitler believing they would do several times. Russia recalled many of their Siberian troops for Stalingrad; they still had a good bit there, but it would have been a relative weak point. How well US forces used to fighting on warm tropical islands would do in Siberia would be a different matter. As for the US taking Moscow, I don't even want to think about it. If you want to talk about a defense, good lord they had defense around Moscow. The minefields alone would have been an enormous problem.

In retrospect, of course, it was a good thing we didn't, though you would have never known it from 46-89. Beginning with Yalta and Teheran, and epitomized by Potsdam, I think we were way soft on Stalin, sort of a benign Munich Conference part II. The soviet bloc just had its way with eastern Europe afterward and we did about nothing at all to stop or dissuade them, which, regardless of the relatively peaceful outcome of the Cold War, was a huge mistake. Regardless, total annihilation of the Russian state would have been impossible outside of nuclear war; not militarily, but politically, because the American people simply wouldn't stand for it after 4 hard years, we had had enough and probably had no conception of the Cold War to come. The Russians may have been tired of war, too, but there's no such thing when they're defending their homeland, except when Czar Nicholas is ruling :P In the end, yea, we probably could've technically taken them down, but the risk we felt we had to take turned out to be alright. The Cold War had many detriments, but none so vast as what would have ensued had we attacked Russia. It's like Japan and Little Boy/Fat man. Yea, it sucks to have to nuke people, but we actually SAVED millions of Japanese lives in the process, not to mention our own. They were training civilians to fight us, with sticks and stones if necessary. I'm talking 7 year old japanese girls rushing heavy fifties. The Japanese didn't know the meaning of surrender, which is one of the reasons they refused to do so even after Hiroshima. We killed more people in one night fire-bombing Tokyo, one fact many anti-nuke-Japanists often overlook. Sometimes you have to do a necessary evil to avoid the larger evil. Such was the case with letting Russia have its way post-Potsdam. The German-Russian fighting in World War II was the toughest, deadliest, most brutal action the world has ever seen, but would probably pale in comparison to us enacting Barbarossa part II, and that's a scary thought. I wonder if the Stalinist/Hitlerian opinion of the US as a fat, weak, satisfied, materialistic country would have shone through more once we bogged down along the Don against a country of more absolutist mindset living under immeasurably harsher conditions, defending their own turf. We may have eventually wilted enough to seek peace terms, even if we had a strategic advantage. Then again, the US back then was a country more willing to accept losses for a greater good, unlike the current hands-across-America because of a total death count in Iraq similar to one you'd find in a bi-hourly update on the Eastern front :P We in our modern world continue to have no conception of how absolutely terrible that theater was. Take all the fighting of the Iraq war, put it into one day, and it's one of 10 minor skirmishes in one day of the Barbarossa campaign, if that.