Allies vs Comintern

>1 soviet soldier is worth 1 western european soldier
>this is what he actually believes

Sheeeeeet

>better combined arms doctrine
t. burger

Burger cold war AirLand Battle doctrine was based on the Soviet Deep Battle doctrine.

JUST END IT

that japanese have much to answer for

The Allies may have had a stronger force than the Soviets, but would their populations have accepted a turn against their ally? The US and UK were democracies, after all.

This. People were worn out from war and would not have accepted an extension to attack a power that had been propagandized as an ally. Churchill lost the first election after the war, most people wanted peace after victory and weren't pathetic keyboard fantasists who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag let alone Omaha beach.

>liberation of Warsaw
Nothing to liberate m8

Patton was a fucking meme general who couldn't drive straight.

1 Soviet soldier is worth 2-3 French, Dutch, Italians, etc. American>Soviet>Nazi>Anglo>>>>>>French>Dutch>Italian desu.
When every Bhakti, Ravi, Hariraj, Bao, Zhong, Fang, Olumide, Negasi, Muteba, Nguyen, Phireak, and Sukarno is fighting against you, and you're outnumbered 50 to 1 without any territory, factories or plantations in mainland Asia and Africa, picture changes real quick.

A well armed European soldier beats any soviet armed one.

Is that how the Soviet Union defeated the only competent Europeans who easily conquered the rest of Europe? Is that also why the Soviets controlled half of Europe?

That's because of armament. Germans considered Soviets to be much better and more experienced soldiers, it's just that Soviet leadership and adhoc training was keeping them down.

nazis weren't all that competent. it was just convenient to think of them that way.

If the Allies win initially in Europe, they can recruit many more soldiers from the territories they conquer. They can recruit millions of Germans, Poles, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Hungarians if they can get to them in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia, unlike the Soviet Union, there wouldn't be problems equipping and training these people. This would actually give the Allies a massive numerical advantage and Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad will fall within months of fighting. For the Allies, there will be an uncontested Anglo hegemony and colonialism will not end for the next hundred years.

If Soviet win initially in Europe, they don't even need to recruit soldiers locally. If they can invade through the Caucasus and Central Asia into the Middle East and from there into Africa and South/east Asia, then there will be a massive amount of anti-colonialist volunteers. With tens of millions of soldiers volunteering in the British Raj, French West Africa, British East Africa, and Dutch Indonesia, the numerical advantage would be unimaginable. Though a big problem would be supplying the vast number of volunteers with ammunition and even training them, but if it could be done, the Soviet Union would control the majority of mainland Africa, Asia, and Europe uncontested.

tl;dr Which ever side wins the early European engagement and can expand into the areas where they can receive large amounts of volunteers would win this phase.

how will soviet organize any of this

>india is on the cusp of anti-colonial independence
>india is the easiest place on the planet to sell class struggle
>now britain is a navy and some important canals

Europe was shattered. We at least couldn't fight yet another major war. Perhaps the US could have defeated the USSR directly after, because they became stronger if anything.

>Could the Allies have decisively beat the Communists in the closing days and aftermath of Nazi-occupied Europe?
In the real world, no. Absolutely not.

In a magical world where people don't act like people, armies don't ever suffer morale problems and unpopular leaders are immune to being kicked out of office, maybe this guy is right.

Both the Soviets and western allies had significant advantages and disadvantages. There's really no telling how the war would've turned out--anyone who tells you "[my preferred side] definitely would have won" is talking out of their asshole.

But the fact is, Britain's colonial empire was on the verge of collapsing, the country itself was nearly bankrupt, and the American military was already contending with morale problems. Its victorious troops, having escaped death in Europe, were facing the uninviting prospect of being shipped to the Pacific to get tossed into the Japanese meat grinder. Most people still regarded the USSR as a friendly ally and a sudden (and bloody) betrayal of them would have been IMMENSELY unpopular.

Any leader who made such a decision would have been out on their ass on the street before the war had a chance to even get going.

Because there were Germans everywhere. He was just picking his enemy

We're not arguing that the President that ordered this would have been fucked, just more of the fact that there were a lot of Americans that hated the Russians almost, if not more, than the Germans.

The allies had nukes.
The allies win.

>Most people still regarded the
The Soviet Union had already been heavily vilified in the 1920's and 1930's, most Americans still regarded the Soviets unkindly. American public opinion was against the Soviet Union the second the war in Europe ended. The Red Scare in the 1940's was the second, not the first and a war against Soviet Union in Europe would not have been the first time American and Bolshevik troops fought each other.
>any leader
Truman or even surviving Roosevelt still has until 1948 to deal with reelection.

There weren't, though. The Germans weren't despised like the Japanese but IN GENERAL, and yes there were exceptions, but in general, the Soviets were viewed fairly positively. As was Stalin himself. Much more positively than the Germans. Propaganda about them tended to be pretty benevolent too.

Then why were the Soviets immediately locked in a cold war with the west immediately after WW2? The air was nippy, relations wise, and all it took was a push, maybe showing some of the tens of thousands of women raped by the Russian "liberators"

>immediately
It took a few years and was the result of Stalin not upholding agreements (who would have guessed) made during the war.

>1024px-Allied_army_positi(...).png

Just a reminder that the map is bullshit and the Soviet “Armies” listed are actually Corps sized units, (or smaller) while the Western Armies shown are actual Armies (i.e. multiple Corps).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_organization

This is the stupidest image I've seen in a long time. Kill yourself.

The United States just showed what nuclear weapons could and the Soviets knew we didn't have a lot of them, but they didn't know quite how many. They would have submitted out of fear of nuclear bombings.

Why are you angry

No, it was pretty immediate. With Patton wanting to fight the Soviets, the Long Telegram, Potsdam Conference tensions, and the Iron Curtain speech; it's safe to say they turned on each other instantly. The Allies and Communists were never more than convenient enemy of my enemy allies see Stalin already knows the full extent thanks to Soviet spy networks in the Manhattan Project. And which enemy nation to use it on, Japan or Soviet Union? Major cities of Japan can be wiped off the map because of the coastal nature of Japan as well as the numerous islands around it which can be used as bases. This isn't the case for the Soviet Union, no major Soviet city can be nuked and if it's used against Soviet forces on the frontline, then that will endanger Allied troops and civilians.

And besides, most of their cities were already rubble anyway. We would have just used the nukes to take out important passes and any large concentrations of troops

give me a source or give me death Ivan

You realize that the Iron Curtain speech and Long Telegram happened almost a year after the war ended. You know, after Stalin started reneging on agreements. Seriously, fuck off.

>5 months = 1 year
Much less than the "few years" you ignorantly claimed anyway.

>War ends in May of 45'
>Long telegram in January '46
>Iron Curtain Speech in late '46
>8 months to over 1 year
>Parties still work together rather amicably after this
>Cold War doesn't actually ramp up until the Berlin blockade of '48
You are retarded.

You are also completely glossing over the fact that the Iron Curtain speech was considered SHOCKING at the time.

Seriously, the top leadership of both countries always knew to be wary of Stalin, but you need to stop confusing the leadership with the general sentiment of the populace.

>>War ends in May of 45'
>>Iron Curtain Speech in late '46
months to over 1 year
Are you clinically retarded or just baiting

>The Russian doctrine predates the American one so it's better

Underrated post

Wonder what a nuclear bomb would do to those numerical advantages.
Or let's not forget the Soviet Union could not move feed and supply their forces without lend lease.
The allies had the proper equipment to bomb Soviet infrastructure.
The reason the allies could not have done it would have most likely been the backlash in the US after all the propaganda for uncle Joe and basically ignoring the japs even longer.
The Soviet Union could not beat the allies in 45 they need more time to recover and rebuild, also they would not have answers to the American atomic program.

>be amerifat
>shoot your garand maybe once at a stray german kid with a stalhelm
>have butt so tight you drop not 1 but both of your nukes to show soviets you so stronk
>silently agree to the spread of communism to half of europe years before the war even ends

yea im sure amerifats could beat the soviets, they just didnt want to!

They didnt actually, theyd dropped both of them on japan and didnt have any more yet

Nukes were too weak, too vulnerable in transportation, too expensive and took too long to make to be a decisive factor

And they didn't even detonate Trinity until two months after VE day.

There are a ton of Eastern European forces who would willingly fight for the Allies : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies
And then you have the Russian Liberation Army, White Russia émigré, Turkestanis, Armia Krajowa/Cursed Soldiers, Romanian loyalists, and Ustaše.

I wonder what a nuclear bomb would do to Soviet oil refineries.

delete this fucking image

Which is why the Germans lost, right?

Well by the time the Soviets started winning Germany was running out of well equipped soldiers.
But correlation does not mean causation.

Not him, but I don't think the Germans were running out of well equipped soldiers in 1943. In fact, that's when some of their best kit was becoming available.

Yes but how much of it was actually reaching the front with their stressed supply lines and other logistics issues?

>Yes but how much of it was actually reaching the front with their stressed supply lines and other logistics issues?

Quite a lot. The stress on supply lines wasn't substantively worse than in earlier years (In Russia, it was primarily a function of distance, little more; and of course the railraoads were gradually replaced with more European standard gauge stuff), and the strategic bombing campaign had yet to pick up the intensity it would receive in 1944 when the Luftwaffe more or less crumbled.

Materially, the Wehrmacht was in a much better position in July 1st 1943 than it was on July 1st 1942; it's just that the Allies had built to a far more massive extent and the advantage had slipped to the other side. We're talking relatives here, not absolutes.

>Could the Allies have decisively beat the Communists in the closing days and aftermath of Nazi-occupied Europe?

would have been long and drawn out and the masses would have got bored of it and it would of turned into a shit fest within 10 years

hence see korea vietnam etc every other proxy war

A 1945 Russia would not have time to fix it's industry and rebuild, the US would still be untouched and going full war time economy.
Without time to recover the USSR has no chance.