Was he assassinated because he saw that the Soviets were clearly the bad guys all along and wanted to put an immediate stop to them?
He could have stopped the Cold War in the 40's.
Was he assassinated because he saw that the Soviets were clearly the bad guys all along and wanted to put an immediate...
Jonathan White
Other urls found in this thread:
comw.org
twitter.com
Robert White
>attack a highly motivated and well supplied army with veteran units at the border.
>what could possibly go wrong.
Cameron Perry
>when you're the only country in the world with nuclear weapons and possess a FAR superior air force
Oliver Morgan
>when you have less nuclear weapons than you can count on your finger and the plans of the US itself envisioned them losing Eurasia
Jason Jones
Not OP and his retardation, but if you're referring to the Unthinkable planning
A) They didn't envision losing "Eurasia", they didn't project any immediate gains and then scrapped the idea.
B) It was a British plan, not a U.S. one. I'm not even sure they knew there were nukes in the equation when they made it.
Noah Walker
>when your opponent is fighting on a single front and their industrial heartland is far far away.
Alexander Green
I refer to Operation Pincher, which was the actual US planning in the case of war with the USSR, instead of Churchill's pipe dreams. In Operation Pincher, the US envisioned losing Eurasia - ie. Europe - and fighting their way back onto the continent under the nuclear sword.
If you want to read some basic info on it;
comw.org
Tyler Taylor
>comw.org
I would point out that Pincher was drafted in 1946, after a large demobilization not only of U.S. forces, but of other Western Allied forces. The Soviet conventional advantage was no longer somewhere between 2.5-4.5:1, but closer to 12:1 for forces on the ground.
If you have what Patton seemed to envision, a war right on the heels of the war against Germany, a complete rollback of Allied (defining as America and her allies) is certainly slower and less certain. Even against a largely collapsed Wehrmacht of 1945, the Soviets were only capable of advancing about 150ish km a month. While still retaining advantage against Allied forces, advances would be enormously slower, owing to superior Allied ground formations and having air inferiority instead of supremacy; furthermore, as things pushed back towards the Rhine, it would become more and more difficult for the Soviets to actually employ their numerical advantage.
Samuel Hill
>implying Americans wouldn't have invaded through Siberia to start a two front war
Jordan Parker
Patton sympathized with the Germans was resisting orders to punish them.
Benjamin Bennett
>invaded through Siberia
Grayson Barnes
Why do you think that would have been some impossible feat for the most industrialized country at the time?
Camden Gray
Between May 1945 and May 1946 the US created 4 nuclear weapons.
After the tests and the bombings or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US had no nuclear weapons left over.
The fastest they (nuclear laboratory) could have made "the third bomb" was in 2 months.
Finally, nuclear weapons were considered quite irrelevant to the strategic situation in Western Europe until the late 1960's. Remember that ICBM's did not appear in meaningful numbers until the mid-1970's.
Logan Mitchell
I can only imagine the fuckery that would be the supply lines.
William Butler
>Between May 1945 and May 1946 the US created 4 nuclear weapons.
Not him, but source? I remember reading something somewhere claiming they had the capacity to build 3 bombs a month come October or November 1945.
Jason Foster
They wouldn't need to. The Soviets couldn't fuel or provide their troops with ammo without American support.
Christopher Gomez
user, sum total of Lend Lease to the Soviets was a bit less than a third of what was given to the British. The Soviets had a larger war economy overall than the Brits; who themselves managed to mostly fuel and supply their troops with ammo.
Nicholas Morales
A little over 50% of all Soviet fuel and ordnance came from the United States. Eat crow.
Daniel Wilson
>Military production is completely non-fungible.
Were you born this stupid, or did you work hard to get there?
Robert Diaz
It's pretty close to non-fungible when you have neither the industrial means, the logistics, or the resources to produce in such a manner to supplement what you lost. Yes. Why should I have to teach you what Germany learned the hard way?
Gabriel Richardson
Except that the Soviets did indeed have the industrial means, raw resources, and the logistics to produce their own munitions and fuel, did so before the war, and actually slackened their production when they started receiving lend-lease, and would build it up again historically when the cold war started.
What on earth makes you think they'd be incapable of doing it in 1945 when they in fact would be doing it in 1946?
Blake Bennett
I don't think you have any idea how much shit an army needs or how big siberia is. It would be the greatest feat of the century, easily.
Daniel Reyes
Don't forget how poor the infrastructure is in that part of the world. For most of Siberia in the 40s, there is literally one railroad, and the Soviets can tear it up behind them as you start advancing into Siberia, at which point you've got trucks, assuming they don't freeze solid.
Nathaniel Morgan
The Soviets lacked saltpeter and raw steel. They lacked rubber and even their domestic rubber plants, which were provided by the United States, could not keep up with demand. You're going off of vatnik history which has continually been debunked, even by former Soviets including Zhukov and Khrushchev. A war in which the Soviets do not have US support, in the immediate wake of WWII, is one in which the Soviets lose.
Jose Jackson
>The Soviets lacked saltpeter and raw steel.
[citation needed]
>They lacked rubber and even their domestic rubber plants, which were provided by the United States
Which is of course why they were rubber exporters, in fact, almost 15% of Nazi Germany's rubber came from the USSR during the trade relations of the two countries.
>A war in which the Soviets do not have US support, in the immediate wake of WWII, is one in which the Soviets lose.
Funny then, how the planners in Unthinkable, as well as U.S. planning in the late 40s-60s, came to very different conclusions.
Which is, of course, not to say that such a war is unwinnable. Raw population and industrial capacity of the U.S. alone outweighs the USSR, nevermind that the u.S. has access to better allies in the form of places like the British Commonwealth, France, and Italy, than anything the Soviets can enlist to their side. But it would be a long, bloody, protracted mess, with tens of millions dead and a loss by break in support of the war very, very possible. To assume that the Soviets would crumble at a touch is just stupid.
Hunter Richardson
The US built the Alaskan highway in less than a year, it's within their capabilities to do the same in Siberia.
Thomas Fisher
No. Someone was just an idiot behind a wheel.