If nuclear weapons for whatever reason were never developed and the US and USSR ended up in a conventional war what would happen? What if war started immediately after Japan either got either conquered, or surrendered to the US roughly around the same time it did in our timeline, so it wouldn't have its genes impurified by slavic pig blood? What if the war started a decade or two later?
Or give your own scenarios idc.
Also any decent alt history stories or articles on this?
We most likely wouldn't be having this talk online.
if the battle took place immediately after Japan surrendered, then I could see Japan allying with the US and German POW being released and allying with the US. Soviets were in bad shape after the war ended, resulting in over 22 million casualties. US wins.
If the war broke out two decades after WW2, then it could go either way.
>it's 1950
>Japan had surrendered to the Soviet Union after their bumrape of Manchuria and surrounding areas, as the US never dropped the bombs and didn't launch their invasion if mainland Japan on time
>Japan is Communist
>Soviets find and kill the Emperor of Japan because damn dirty imperialist
>sparks anti-communist movement
>eventually Civil War
>America wants revenge for not getting a piece of that sweet Nip puss
>Support Japanese resistance with arms and resources
>Soviets tell them to fuck off, Yanks tell Them to fuck off
>come to blows in a naval confrontation
>war is declared
>Europe's armies are still fucked post-war
>Soviets are itching to kill some capitalists
>America in a Macarthy mood
>lots of people fucking die
>commies lose after years of war
>new world order of capitalism
>korea never happens
>vietnam never happens
>counterculture never takes off
feels good man
bump
What? No. The Soviets would've smashed the American armies deployed in Europe, seized as much of the rest of Europe as they could hold onto (the rest of Germany at the very least), fortified their borders, and then the two sides would've glared at each other and flexed their muscles from across the Atlantic (and the English Channel), both lacking the capability to invade the other.
The Soviets outnumbered the western allies FIVE TO ONE in Europe, they had a huge production base, and it was right there, not across a fucking ocean. There's a reason why, when a handful of hawks drew up invasion plans in the last stages of WWII, everybody else was in such a hurry to throw them in the garbage.
This T B H. The Soviets would have never been able to invade America proper but post WWII there wasn't really any way we could have realistically conquered them, either. It may have been remotely possible but it would have required a manpower and resource commitment that a Democratic nation just couldn't summon.
>operation Unthinkable happens
>Americans, French, British, other anti-communist nations attack Soviets
>5 or So milion German POWs gets released, used to fight Soviets for Vaterland
>Soviets are already exhausted by war effort and now even their allies attack them
>Their infrastructure is shit, their cities already leveled to dust by Germany
>Blitzkrieg 2.0 happens
>Soviets get fucked
>No communism
Despite the country having incurred tens of millions of casualties over the course of the war, the Red Army at the end of WWII was at the PEAK of its power. It was not exhausted. They were more numerous, far better-positioned, better-equipped in everything but their air force (which although inferior was still no joke). They had received their last Lend-Lease shipments, they were no longer reliant on it. Germany was utterly exhausted, Britain was nearly bankrupt and out of manpower and dealing with an empire teetering on the brink of collapse, America was (is) ACROSS A FUCKING OCEAN. Not to mention the fact that morale would've absolutely collapsed under a war with the USSR; public sentiment in America was mildly pro-Soviet thanks to "Uncle Joe" propaganda, and it was even moreso in Britain, the intelligentsia of the country were unabashed Russian fanboys. Try telling the soldiers on the ground, "Yes, you just fought a long and bitter war, but now we need to invade the guys we've spent the past couple years telling you were your buddies."
No argument, the Soviet economy and military couldn't hold a candle to America's in the long-term, but as things stood in ~1945, the western allies lacked the men, the equipment, the money, and the will to fight the Soviets.
The thing is, you can masturbate to this fantasy and to your hatred of Slavic whites as much as you want, but the actual history doesn't chime that way at all
> Churchwill was first laughed and then balked at by every general with a brain when asked to draw up Unthinkable
> Reich forces were utterly demoralized and destroyed, their entire ideology flipped upside down.
> USSR held far more POWs who would be executed if they refuse to be cannon fodder
> Soviet infrastructure was the strongest infrastructure in European history in 1945, lol
> The factories shipped over the Urals were never part of the front
> Even with your miserable POW army, the Red Army still absolutely dwarfed the Allies in trained bodies
> Also in planes and tanks by the thousands
> An army led by unparalleled masters of war, generals who knew every inch of the theater you would rekindle war in
Look up the actual materiel totals by Victory Day and then you'll begin to understand why even in the late Cold War NATO doctrine actually called for use of small scale nuclear weapons like the Crockett.
You have to know that the Allies did actually invade the USSR and failed horribly decades earlier, right..?
do americans actually believe this?
ITT: commie delusions.
Soviet union without allies resources=zergs
>You have to know that the Allies did actually invade the USSR and failed horribly decades earlier, right..?
You have to know total war commitment is a different thing, right?
It's like none of Americans here read about German impression of American fighting capabilities.
Pro-tip: they weren't impressed.
See Hürtgen Forest and how American forces did when lacking overwhelming artillery and air support.
>not believing Americans are superhumans=commie
How are you doin' Mr. McCarthy?
I wish I actually got the right commies in academia instead of some idiots
bump
That's not even a little bit true. The Soviet Union had lost more than 10% of their entire population, and was still heavily dependant upon American industrial support.
The day after WW2 ended the Soviet Union might have had a stronger military on paper, but they would have had basically zero staying power. And the further in time you go past the end of World War 2, the further the Americans start to pull ahead with conventional forces.
Stalin drove the Russian Army into the dirt prior and during WWII. Not only did he nearly exhaust his available manpower but he also purged his officer and general corps to practically nothing. It took nearly everything Russia had to defeat Germany, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they would survive against a fairly solid US who took only a slight beating in comparison.
The US alone had a x3 times larger air force and a ludicrously bigger Navy. Additionally, the industrial output of the US was much larger and the US had an almost as large population that was significantly less injured during the war. The Soviets did have some good tanks and other equipment. But, the US would absolutely dominate the air and sea. The Soviets large army wouldn't matter when the US could bomb them with impunity. And Soviet industry and supply lines would be devastated by strategic bombing. And this isn't taking into account that Britain and the other Western Allies would be helping the US. It would be a bloody war and possibly more destructive than WWII but the Soviets would almost certainly lose.
The Soviet Union's aerial capabilities were still not fully developed in 1945. While tremendous numbers of tactical fighters and fighter-bombers had been produced - the IL-2 and Yak-1 to -9 series aircraft alone outnumbered the entire USAAF inventory - they lacked suitable pilots in large numbers.
cont 1/2
cont 2/2
More importantly they had no strategic transport aircraft, no heavy bombers, few long-range maritime patrol aircraft, and anti-air defenses (particularly mobile ones) were still lacking. The Soviet navy in 1945 was a joke. Many ships had been crippled on the docks and no large offensive operations had been undertaken. While their submarine fleets were active during the war, the US had fierce experience in hunting far more potent submarines. Perhaps most importantly, a huge fraction of the Soviet war machine was dependent on US Lend-Lease exports. 1/3 of the Soviet Army's trucks in 1945, for example, had been supplied under the program. Stalin and Khrushchev both admitted Lend-Lease played a monumental part in aiding the war; with that now cut off, the Soviets would soon begin to face shortages. Lastly, the Soviet home front was exhausted. Huge portions of the population were dead; although pride was strong and morale high, a war with another superpower would have been a painful proposition - especially as Lend-Lease supplies were cut off. Compared to the US industry - largely untouched at that point - the differences were stark.
End result: The Soviet advance eventually slows and stalls. From there they suffer a slow bleeding death as USAAF heavy bombers cripple what industry remains and the loss of Lend-Lease strangles both the Soviet homefront and war machine.
So go suck a dick slavic subhuman commies
DELETE THIS NOW
So if the US would kick their ass so much, why didn't the US follow through with Unthinkable?
Not him, but he's leaving out the human element. Yes, if "Western" (or really, just U.S.) commitment to destroying the Soviet Union was unlimited and unwavering, they almost certainly could have done so. It was not. Even a relatively certain war is going to see tens of millions dead, mostly civilians that you're ostensibly liberating in places like Germany, Poland, and Yugoslavia.
And commitment to war was not unlimited. It's entirely possible that the will to fight would give out before the Soviet material does., especially on behalf of the European powers allied to the U.S., who have taken far more of a beating than the Americans have; and while again materially the contributions of places like Belgium are almost irrelevant, and France nice but hardly necessary, if they start balking, you're going to see a lot of questions back home about why America is fighting to save a bunch of countries who aren't all that interested in the Soviet behemoth in their backyard.
Unthinkable was dropped as soon as it was calculated that the Soviets wouldn't break after one sharp surprise shove. There just wasn't much energy to fight WW3 right after WW2.
Yeah, I agree
That said, these sorts of things are impossible to predict
Morale in Britain for example was terrible through 1941, but through stubbornness they sticked through it.
I know it's personal experience and semi relevant, but my grandfather was in North africa and Europe and he was 100% in support of continuing the fight against soviets, and through the talks he had with other soldiers after the war, there was a certain feeling of 'let's finish the job' and I don't think we'd see mutiny's or utter fury in the army if the fight continued against the soviets, at least, not on the american side.
Plus, major allies had just joined and they could definitely help win the war. Brazillian, Indian and Turkish manpower dwarfed soviet manpower.
Not to mention the fury among the soviets if they were forced to keep this push up.
Guys, there is no way to anyone to win against russians in war. Few countries tried and failed. Few armies killed shitload of russian people, but still failed to conquer land. Russians will fight to the last man standing. You'll need to slaughter them all to win, but it's literally impossible. Who want to waste man and resources to conquer this lifeless shithole land? Only russians can live here and survive. There is no reason and way to defeat russians. Only by cost of all power and wealth of your countries. And even that is not enough.
Pyrrhic victory is not victory tho.
p.s. USSR would send as many people to death as possible until enemies are too tired of this meaningless war.
>there is no way to win against russians in war
Unless you're Finland, Poland, The ottoman empire, Britain, France, Sardinia or sweden
War against Finland - won, got land needed, casualities doesn't matter. It helped to won WWII after.
War against Poland - won, got capital back, kicked out filthy scum. Easy raped before WWII.
The ottoman empire - won literally every war against these kebabs.
Brits? Couldn't do shit during Crimean War despite fact that they were allied with froggers and kebabs. Pathetic.
France. Napoleon got rekt hard.
Sardinia? Ever attacked russians?
Sweden - easy rekt during almost every war.
>Perhaps most importantly, a huge fraction of the Soviet war machine was dependent on US Lend-Lease exports. 1/3 of the Soviet Army's trucks in 1945, for example, had been supplied under the program. Stalin and Khrushchev both admitted Lend-Lease played a monumental part in aiding the war; with that now cut off, the Soviets would soon begin to face shortages.
>American education
>The day after WW2 ended the Soviet Union might have had a stronger military on paper, but they would have had basically zero staying power. And the further in time you go past the end of World War 2, the further the Americans start to pull ahead with conventional forces.
this reeks of ruskie revisionism
>the Soviet advance slows and stalls
Excuse me, what?
I don't have time to write a substantive post right now, I'll duck back into this thread later, but let me be clear -- I'm talking about the feasibility of the original Operation Unthinkable, the *offensive* plan to invade the USSR at the close of WWII. I agree that the USSR would have been even less able to pose a threat to the western allies, but that's a quibble -- they didn't WANT to invade the western allies.
Look, fiscally, Britain was tapped out, their empire was dying, their economy in shambles. America had a much larger economy and production base than the USSR and a mostly undamaged populace with which to replace casualties, but they were *across the Atlantic.* You are underestimating how much of a disadvantage that is. Could they have outproduced the Soviets in the long term? Of course. Were they in a better position to replenish their military? Of course. Was their navy and air force superior? Of course.
All those would've been great advantages in a protracted war, but there wouldn't have *been* a protracted war, the Soviets would've checked their advance and smashed their armies with their ground superiority in a matter of months. The Soviets wouldn't have had time to burn through their last Lend-Lease supplies, the western allies wouldn't have had time to achieve air superiority in order to hammer the Soviet supply lines with impunity; in the long term obviously both of those would've happened, but only after months. By that time their military in Europe would've been broken and the Soviets would be fortifying the Rhine. At that point neither side would have been in any position to pose a threat to the other.
cont'd
I fail to see what point that proves
>I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.
t. Khrushchev
>On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.
>listening Khrushchev
Lend-Lease was really useful, but USSR would won even without it anyway. Ofc, few more millions would be dead, but still.
cont'd
You're also overestimating the effect the purges had on the Red Army at the end of WWII. They were crippling in the early days of the war but by the end the Red Army was experienced and understood the way their allies operated significantly better than their allies understood them.
And there's other things I could mention -- the fact that Japan was still undefeated and in the event of a western invasion the Soviets would almost certainly seek an alliance with them, freeing up their troops in the far east (and let's not forget that your average American soldier in Europe was absolutely petrified he'd be sent to the Pacific). The fact that in France, one of the nations they (America) would have been relying on for support, something like 2/5ths of the country had communist sympathies. The fact that the Soviets had far more highly-placed agents in the western command than vice versa. The fact that the Soviets had years of practice at concealing their rail lines and other infrastructure from bombers, that many members of the American military command were soured on the use of bombers as direct support in combat because they tended to do so much damage to their own troops.
I'm not a Soviet apologist. The USSR was a ridiculous failure of a state. But they could not have been successfully invaded by the western allies circa 1945, not even to the extent of being forced the fuck out of Poland. If we're talking about a protracted war wherein both countries just continually throw themselves at each other until one is exhausted for years and years and there's no chance of the gov't responsible being thrown out of office, then yeah, the US probably wins. In the real world, such a war would have been a disaster in the short term, and there would have *been* no long term, whatever the theoretical possibilities.
>Look, fiscally, Britain was tapped out, their empire was dying, their economy in shambles. America had a much larger economy and production base than the USSR and a mostly undamaged populace with which to replace casualties, but they were *across the Atlantic.* You are underestimating how much of a disadvantage that is. Could they have outproduced the Soviets in the long term? Of course. Were they in a better position to replenish their military? Of course. Was their navy and air force superior? Of course.
Not him, but it's only really a disadvantage if they don't have friendly harbors to unload in. It takes about a week for a contemporary freighter to make the trip from the East Coast to the French coast, which is a shorter transit time than it would take for the Soviets to bring stuff across the Urals to Poland or Germany.
Now, if the Soviets are so successful that they throw the Allies off the European continent and you have to do D-Day Mk2, then it's a big deal, but otherwise? Nah, not really.
>All those would've been great advantages in a protracted war, but there wouldn't have *been* a protracted war, the Soviets would've checked their advance and smashed their armies with their ground superiority in a matter of months.
What makes you think that? I doubt the Soviets would advance as quickly or devastatingly as they would have against the already crushed Wehrmacht of 1945, and that rate of advance, and start and stop offensives, doesn't point to being able to roll the Allies into the Atlantic in a few months.
How do you fail to see what point that proves?
If the Soviets almost lost WW2 without lend-lease, to the point where EVEN STALIN admitted to that fact, then how the fuck could the Soviets hope to beat the United States with a crushed economic base, devastated civilian population, and mass famine. Gotta remember that the United States was the only Allied country that didn't get bombed to shit during the war, not to mention that our manufacturing base was ALREADY geared towards war. That's like quitting a multi billion dollar company with 50$ in the pocket, and telling the CEO that your going to be his competition and crush him.
nice copy pasta vlad
lol I seem to remember a certain Ludendorff and Hindenburg fucking you in the ass with 3x less men.
>nice copy pasta vlad
>repeating things over and over is bad
>posts fucking drake pepe
I don't care about this discussion but fuck you dude.
Soviets win any conventional conflict in Europe until atleast 1985 - 1989
A soviet army is more equivalent to a western corps than an army. The equivalent of a western army would be a soviet front.
>A soviet army is more equivalent to a western corps than an army. The equivalent of a western army would be a soviet front.
Yeah, man. They only have a 4 to 1 advantage over us.
Lets roll them bones.
Erwin Rommel's assessment of WWIII.
just a reminder, in the back rooms. america want russia out of the picture and vise versa. once nuclear impunity is achieved who knows what could happen.
1945
Population: Allies
Air force: Allies
Navy: Allies
Logistics: Allies
Land army: Soviets
Tanks, guns and artillery: Soviets
What could the Soviets do besides turtle? Whatever is left of their industry would be bombed out of existence in months. The Allies can create more fronts against the Soviets (who would be marching west); UK, France, Italy, North Africa, Greece. Only problem for the allies is actually advancing. By '45 the Red Army is so massive it's literally the size of Benelux combined. As an occupying force it could destroy any land army in its way by pure attrition
I mean if there are 10x as many soviet armies as there are western armies and they only have 4x as many men I'd say that his statement was accurate.