Say in 1945 it was approved, and on May 8th the western allies launched a massive surprise attack against the Soviet Union.
Would it have succeeded? Were the combined powers of the USA, Britain, France, Commonwealth strong enough to take Moscow?
How would history be changed if it did? No cold war: what would today look like?
Other urls found in this thread:
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
fat-yankey.livejournal.com
history.army.mil
washingtonpost.com
nytimes.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
With Nuclear Weapons? Yes
W-What? /pol/ told me le evil Winston Churchill loved communism and was a Bolshevik Jewish puppet. He’d never harm his best friend Stalin!
no, you can't beat the russians, there's too damn many and they're too stupid to know when to quit
he was no commie. capitalists are still jews
Unthinkable he'd do such a thing
Unthinkable was tossed out as an idea once it became clear that the Soviets weren't going to withdraw from eastern europe after the defeat of Germany, which is something that they had promised to do. Since the war had begun of the issue of Polish independence, it didn't feel right to have the war end with Poland still under foreign occupation, and Churchill asked his people to evaluate the feasibility of using force to remove the Soviets from Poland if they still refused to withdraw.
I think they could have done it, militarily but it would have extended the length of the war by 3 years, at minimum. The civilian morale aspect of this would likely make it impossible. I think it would be very difficult to convince people at home that it was necessary to continue the war after the defeat of Germany. I think you'd have riots, both among civilians and worse, you could have instances of large army units mutinying, such as like what Russia experienced in 1917. If the Soviets succeeded in propagandizing those disaffected units, the results could be catastrophic.
The soviets stand no chance against the rest of the allies in 1945 just look at how devastated and dependent of american shipment the URSS was and then look America, the yankees barely mobilized for WW2
>the yankees barely mobilized for WW2
Wut.
America wasnt even trying, britain had 1/4 of his male population in the army meanwhile america just use a few women in factories
>Would it have succeeded? Were the combined powers of the USA, Britain, France, Commonwealth strong enough to take Moscow?
Assuming commitment to a war economy lasts indefinitely, then yes. Eventually. It would take a long time, be horrifically bloody, and start off with a lot of reverses, but they could batter their way through if they hold to it. At the end of the day, the western allies have a much larger economy and manpower pool, so they will win if they stick to it.
It wouldn't have been easy but it probably would have been the best time to do it.
Probably would have been better to start planning it even before 45. Like slow down or stop supplying the Soviets in 44 so they would be in an even weaker place by the end of the war.
Wouldn't this been basically admitting the Germans were right all along?
No such thing as a surprise attack against the Soviet Union. The KGB had human intelligence beyond the comprehension of the allies. They would find out somehow. But even if the SU knew of an invasion, they had not broken the nuclear monopoly in 1945 and wouldn't until 1947 (or 49 I forget). So I doubt there would be anything the SU could do to resist invasion.
half right :)
Britain couldn't keep up, their economy was about to break. You are thinking about the wrong pieces. You need to add Finland, Germany, Poland, and the Japanese to the "allied" side as well, as they all hated Russia far more than anything else.
>Churchill has his boys draw up Operation Unthinkable
>the conclusion of the Operational plan is that it can't be done and there's literally nothing the west can really do to stop communism
That's more evidence he was a stooge
>America wasnt even trying
>b-buy war bonds
>stop driving alone p-please
Well, right in the sense that communism needed to be destroyed, and that aiding Stalin in his conquest of Eastern-Europe was a bit silly.
>implying they weren't
>b-buy war bonds
yeah why not? it's a good excuse to coerce people to invest, but it wasn't even remotely needed, America by 1945 was richer than the rest of the world together
>stop driving alone p-please
you are mixing up WWII with the 73'
...
Being rich doesn't mean "unlimited money." The US government very nearly bankrupted itself paying for WW2.
i'm not
The Soviets had a vast superiority on land so unless they allies started to throw nuclear bombs at them they would have driven out the allies all the way to Paris.At the end of the war the USSR had a higher population than the US and was an industrial powerhouse.The US and Brittish army were trash they just had a really strong economy backing them up.Soviet tanks would pierce through the Sherman's and Cromwell's like hot knives through butter
> I think they could have done it, militarily but it would have extended the length of the war by 3 years, at minimum.
No, the Soviets were critically dependent on U.S. Lend-Lease aid and that would be cut-off the moment Operation Unthinkable kicked off, not to mention the overwhelming Western air superiority.
The Soviets could have fought for several months but would have been steadily pushed back and would have signed a cease-fire along the pre-war Polish-Soviet border by the end of 1945.
the same as the bonds, good excuse to coerce people to dont waste oil
can you give source of that? because the last time i check the US was mantaining the Soviet, British, Chinese, French, Canadia, Australian, etc, etc, economies with cheap loans and exactly after the war America start the whole "let's give them free money" aka Marshall Plan
>on U.S. Lend-Lease
The Soviets had build up their industry through WW2 and was a totally different animal in 1945 than it was in 1940
America has nukes and strategic bombers from which to deliver them. They can literally do whatever they want.
It would get messy until the US nukes the fuck out of Russia then it would be all over
>The Soviets had a vast superiority on land
They really didn't. They had slight numerical superiority but overall were extremely inferior on a quality basis and had an enormous disadvantage on sea and in the air. Not to mention in industry.
>what is a nuclear bomb
Man you’re such a fuckig moron it’s almost impressive
Truman turns Europe east of the Vistula into an irradiated hellscape.
Russia would get nuked
because you know, nuclear bombs are created like in my favorite game :)) just press the button and wait couple minutes and it's done
I am not even an american but they were really the rulers of the world back then, and since you can't refute it you call me a moron
The soviet army was superior to the allied army in terms of quality.The allies did have a superior airforce but the navy would be practically useless against a country like the USSR
america had dozens of nukes by 1946 so yes, Moscow would probably get nuked into the oblivion
The plan literally two years later was, if war happened, to nuke 200 cities in Eastern Europe.
>The soviet army was superior to the allied army in terms of quality
Bull fucking shit. Up to the end of the war the Germans were inflicting losses of 4-1 on the Soviets in armor and roughly equal in terms of men, while getting utterly obliterated against the Western Allies.
The USA was capable of producing 3 nukes every month
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
>they come out approximately at the rate of three a month
The allies fought less than 15% of the German army and for the most part the worst armies.The soviets had better tanks and rifles than the allies.
They only had enough material at the time for the 2 bombs and that was a very carefully guarded secret at the time.
Every ten days the Soviets are guaranteed to lose a major battle or small city. Damn.
>The Soviets had a vast superiority on land so unless they allies started to throw nuclear bombs at them they would have driven out the allies all the way to Paris
Unlikely. While the Soviets had more ground forces within Germany, their rate of advance was about 175 km a month against the shattered remains of the Wehrmacht in 1945. It would take them 5.2 months to get to Paris from their positions at that rate. They would advance far more slowly against the Western Allies, who after all, have little things like air and armor support, a functioning supply chain, and aren't in the process of political disintegration. In that time period, they are capable of raising far more fresh forces and bringing them to theater than the Soviets are.
By Berlin it was about 1 to 1. Granted the Soviets were fighting schoolboys and grandpa's then so it's not much of an achievement
>The soviets had better tanks and rifles than the allies.
>This is your brain on tankie
...
lmao no kidding
>The allies fought less than 15% of the German army
Again, bull fucking shit. Alfred Jodl's "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944" cites 3,878,000 men deployed in eastern Europe (of which several hundred thousand would be tied down fighting partisans in Poland), vs 1,873,000 in western Europe, 961,000 in Italy, and 662,200 on Reich defense. About even. And yet despite facing these odds plus the bulk of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine the WAllies still blitz their way through the Germans while the Soviet struggled.
>and for the most part the worst armies
You've got it completely backwards, unless you're just focusing on the static divisions manning beach defenses which were annihilated a couple weeks in. The forces in the west were usually the most well-equipped and mobile divisions. The chaff was sent to the east because horse or foot mobile infantry divisions had literally no value against a fully mechanized army in the west and would just inflate US/British prisoner counts. Whereas in the east they could at least qualify for garrison or anti-partisan work.
>The soviets had better tanks and rifles than the allies
When the T-34-85 was put up against the Sherman in Korea the Sherman inflicted casualties at a more than 3-1 ratio despite the US Army's training being shit at the time. There's a reason the Soviets equipped their Guards divisions with Shermans.
US artillery was also so much better than Russian artillery that they're not really even worth comparing.
>The allies fought less than 15%
You are aware that Italy occupied more than 15% of the Heer forces come 1943, right? Nevermind the forces they have fighting in France come 1944.
>and for the most part the worst armies
Peoeple keep saying this, and never substantiate it beyond anecdotes about poorly trained conscript troops manning the Atlantic wall, which should come as no surprise, as that's what static troops are supposed to do, man fortifications. Formations like Panzer Lehr, or the 10th or 15th armies are in no way sub-par.
He's not wrong exactly. The U.S. never moved toward total economic mobilization and the goal was 100 total divisions (a fairly small number given population) a goal which was never met. They created 98 iirc, of which something like 80 left the US and 70 something saw combat. The U.S. never fully mobilized in any sense.
>It would take them 5.2 months to get to Paris from their positions at that rate. They would advance far more slowly against the Western Allies, who after all, have little things like air and armor support
That sounds realistic actually, even regardin the Soviet week to the Rhine plan.
>en.wikipedia.org
But that's for the late 70's early 80's. Still too hopeful I think.
One tiger I could fuck up 10 shermans.The allies had nothing over the IS-2s/3s or T-34s in 1945 and anyone with any military knowledge knows this.Unless the US went on a nuking spread they had 0 chance of invading the USSR
Well, during 1945 it was actually pretty lop-sided in the Soviets' favor. But by then the Germans were a whipped army. 1943-1944 is when they're worth comparing. And in those years the WAllies clearly outperformed the Soviets.
Trevor Dupuy did an autistic combat analysis about this and generally found that it would take 120 Americans to match the performance of 100 Germans at equal odds in 1943 (down to 105 by late 1944/early 1945), and 200 Soviets to do the same.
>Again, bull fucking shit. Alfred Jodl's "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944" cites 3,878,000 men deployed in eastern Europe (of which several hundred thousand would be tied down fighting partisans in Poland), vs 1,873,000 in western Europe, 961,000 in Italy, and 662,200 on Reich defense. About even. And yet despite facing these odds plus the bulk of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine the WAllies still blitz their way through the Germans while the Soviet struggled.
Whoa great contribution bro, legit what this board needs.
>US artillery was also so much better than Russian artillery that they're not really even worth comparing.
Yeah it seems like the tendency in the west was to get force by increasing speed, whereas the Soviets simply increased mass.
@4180004
No one take the bait or give any (you)s
>anyone with any military knowledge knows this
Anyone who wasn't purged in 1938 would know that of course, Comrade Stalin.
The US had 11.4 million men under arms in 1944, which was 18% of the working population. The Soviet Union had the exact same percentage, and Britain was only slightly higher at 23%.
I wonder what total mobilization would have been like then. The US army at the end of WW2 was already the largest ever amassed at any time in history with around 12,000,000 men.
No? Where the hell did you get that idea? Germany is expanding too greatly, so it's okay to let another power expand even further? No one thought this at any point in time
It sounds silly when you look at aircraft,naval, and tank production numbers though.
>The allies had nothing over the IS-2s/3s or T-34s in 1945
idk mate, the T34 had an average lifespan of about 3 weeks toward the mid war. The T44 would've been the Operation Unthinkable threat though.
en.wikipedia.org
Almost three times as much armor from the basic T34 model, but uses a longer barrel 85 so nothing crazy for firepower. The wiki article claims better cross country performance, but that sounds like bullshit soft metrics made up for the sake of the article.
>One tiger I could fuck up 10 shermans
If it struck from ambush. So could any dug in anti-tank gun, but somehow you don't see those stories being bandied about as often. And advancing Soviets aren't really going to be in ambush positions very often. And when you have American tanks fucking up German ones, for some reason those stories never quite make the rounds.
>.The allies had nothing over the IS-2s/3s or T-34s in 1945 and anyone with any military knowledge knows this.
People with actual military knowledge know that WW2 warfare is more than just comparing tank stats. Which, by the way, were equally disadvantagefor the Sherman relative to "lighter German tanks like the Panther or even later war PZ4s, but the Americans managed to fuck them up in tank combat quite frequently anyway. And that's ignoring the possibility of things like aerial attack preventing Soveit tanks from massing, or just fucking them up with anti-tank weapons.
>Unless the US went on a nuking spread they had 0 chance of invading the USSR
The war is unlikely to end in 1945. (nukes or no nukes). What do the Soviets do when the Americans raise another hundred divisions? Or if they start arming the other European polities in a big way? As long as a willingness to fight exists, the Western Allies have much more untapped military economic potential.
Oh fuck I goofed up
>One tiger I could fuck up 10 shermans
This never happened.
>This never happened.
Plenty of examples of Germans in various tanks fucking up to a dozen and well beyond Soviet armors though. It's not out of reason to think it could happen.
I mean really the USSR couldn't invade UK or USA because we'd have naval and air power, we could just roll carriers up to close and bomb any part of the USSR. Not to mention bases from India or elsewhere. USSR just doesn't stand a chance.
this
1 day after the end of ww2 America was stronger than any empire had ever been and ever has been
Soviet tanks had really thick armour and were way more numerous than German tanks.Obviously tanks were important in WW2,and probably the most important element in land warfare throughout all the comflict
It's a desirable outcome, defeat the Soviets, ensure Allied supremacy for over a century, and stop the Cold War in the womb. It can't work is why the Allies did not try to do this.
In the event of war, the Soviets and communist Chinese will have a ceasefire with Japan, thus prolonging the war in Europe for many years by tying up a significant portion of Allied forces in East Asia. Then there is the communist advantage in numbers in post-war Europe. The Soviets alone had over 6 million troops in Europe, the Allies had 4 million and decreasing rapidly because of American relocation of most troops, leaving mainly France, Italy, and England to defend the Western Front. The Soviets in Germany alone have a huge advantage over the Allies immediately post-war. Looking at 3 million vs 1 million troops allowing for a huge push immediately to kick the Allies off Europe again. The Soviet Union will eventually dominate all of mainland Europe.
More important than Europe is the Middle East. The Soviets still have many troops in Iran and can easily reach Iraq, Arabia, and Egypt in a matter of days. They will liberate the Middle East and seize the oil supply. At this point, the Soviet Union would march troops into any colonized regions they could like Asia and Africa, overrun local colonial governments, utilize popular resentment towards the French, Dutch, Belgian, and British colonialists, and arm millions of soldiers. The result is pic related.
It's not even that. The Soviet conquest of France in an Unthinkable situation is also very unlikely. While they do have an advantage in the starting troop ratios, it's not going to last all that long, especially if Western Allied interdiction bombing starts chewing up their lines of communication. What's really going to save the Allies isn't hiding over the water, it's the fact that they can build troops about 3 and a half times as fast as the Soviets can, and will at least reach a point where they can have a stable defensive perimeter long before the Soviets roll them into the Atlantic.
>.Obviously tanks were important in WW2,and probably the most important element in land warfare throughout all the comflict
You would be hard put to find contemporary or modern military figures who would agree with that. Artillery did a hell of a lot more than armor.
Here's the simple version.
According to the US Army official history of the war (Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume II), Allied strength in Western Europe on VE day consisted of 4,500,000 men in 91 divisions (61 American), 28,000 combat aircraft (14,845 American), and 970,000 vehicles. At the same time there were also 18 Allied divisions in Italy (7 American), constituting ~1 million men (excluding the Italians).
Meanwhile Soviet strength on the Eastern Front, according to Glantz, amounted to 6,410,000 (including 450,000 assorted other allies) in however many divisions with 342,000 vehicles and however many aircraft. The Allied forces were numerically 85% the size of the Soviets. They were also far better equipped with far deeper reserves of fuel and ammunition. Shell usage per capita in the US Army was three times greater than that of the Red Army (fat-yankey.livejournal.com
So the question is, could the Soviets win quickly enough for nukes to even be a factor?
I say no. The superior mobility of the Allied forces meant they could plug any Soviet thrusts before they could go very far. And the Red Army couldn't advance forever. Every couple of hundred kilometers they needed to pause and reorganize themselves. The distance from Berlin to the Rhine is over 450 km. Even if, by some miracle, the Red Army was able to achieve such a thing their logistics would be screwed. Look at the casualties the RKKA sustained in the execution of Bagration. Those 40 odd-German divisions in Army Group Center were able to inflict around 800,000 casualties on the attacking Soviets. The Western Allies had 109 divisions, each with a personnel strength approximately double many of the aforementioned German units and a level of firepower roughly 4 to 5 times as high, plus the support of the world's largest air force. To suggest that the Soviets could destroy such a huge force in mere months (or even at all) beggars belief.
Without tanks, WW2 would have been a lot more like WW1 in terms of people spending months fighting over a few feet of dirt.
>The Chinese
>Doing anything
Haha, nice one.
Iirc, the goal was to just maintain the divisional strength and never fully mobilize as they were afraid of unrest at home and how economic production may be affected. Found the original article I read finally so you jerks can read about it.
Yes, tanks provide an incredible exploitation ability. But you need to be able to breach the opposing line before you can exploit. And quite frankly, tanks have less surviveability than their cost in dispersed guns, and a hell of a lot less firepower. Go check out battles like Battleaxe or 2nd El Alamein to what happens to tanks that run headlong into emplaced guns pointing their way.
>In the event of war, the Soviets and communist Chinese will have a ceasefire with Japan
Wrong. Japan proper was stationed by the American forces, and since China and the Soviets lack the resources, they won't be able to invade the isles. They might get away with Korea. For awhile. Until the US decides to bomb China's entire coast.
washingtonpost.com
nytimes.com
I apologize for sullying thine eyes with the juden york times.
>Then there is the communist advantage in numbers in post-war Europe
Literally the only advantage, until you consider that more Canadians and Americans can be brought over in the millions. By this point the USSR already lost at least 8 million military and 20 million civilians.
>The Soviets in Germany alone have a huge advantage over the Allies immediately post-war. Looking at 3 million vs 1 million troops allowing for a huge push immediately to kick the Allies off Europe again.
Possibly more of Germany, but not into France or Italy.
>The Soviet Union will eventually dominate all of mainland Europe.
Not without food.
en.wikipedia.org
>More important than Europe is the Middle East
The middle east is already controlled by the French and British except for Iran. India is staunchly in the British camp at this point, whether it wants it or not, and that's another front the Chinese are going to have to fight on. Not to mention ANZAC reinforcements that could be brought in to assist.
>IS-3
>workable tank
They weren't even able to train enough manlets to operate them all, many went straight to storage.
It was considered very cramped even for the average soviet tanker.
Oh and don't forget the near-Panther tier transmission breakdowns.
They would have been stomped, there was no one that could stand up to US industry. The political will was no there though.
How many nukes would it have taken to capitulate the Soviets?
A lot, most likely. Japan's the only case study, but they were absolutely shattered in every conventional sense even before the a-bombs started dropping. The Soviets would be in a much different position, the the ground war is likely to be slow Soviet advances, at least for the first few months. Shock and awe is difficult to achieve in that kind of strategic position, when the vital threat is years, not weeks away. Plus, you're likely to see the economic bombing vs terror bombing debate all over again.
>Wrong.
What. Can you even read? You're talking about Soviets lacking resources to invade Japan, while I'm pointing out the obvious fact the Soviets would cease hostilities with Japan in Manchuria, and both would be fighting against the Allies.
>Literally the only advantage
An important one mind you. More Americans and Canadians being brought in will take time, and with Japan still fighting the Allies, not all troops will be sent into Europe.
>Possibly more of Germany, but not into France or Italy.
Germany is exceedingly important. Denying the Allies the capacity to recruit potentially millions of Germans would help the Soviets and France is vulnerable if Germany is fully controlled by Soviets.
>Not without food.
There was over a year between VE and this famine. As the Soviets occupy more land, there is more availability of food as well.
>The middle east is already controlled by the French and British except for Iran
Soviet troops in Iran would immediately march into Iraq, defeat the colonial government there, and move into Arabia and Syria shortly after. Not to mention the fact that the Middle East will be liberated and many people will fight against the Allies for independence. The same story of any colonized area the Soviets reach.
>India is staunchly in the British camp at this point, whether it wants it or not
India will immediately side with the Soviets if they march into British Raj.
How could one person be so fucking deluded to think the combined arms of a nuclear America and the rest of western Europe couldn't completely wipe the floor with Russia.
>Japan still fighting the Allies
Not during Unthinkable, and they can still bomb Japan.
>There was over a year between VE and this famine. As the Soviets occupy more land, there is more availability of food as well.
It would be accelerated by the war, and war-torn Western Germany would not be a breadbasket in the slightest.
>The Soviets as colonial liberators
>Under Stalin
Jesus Christ you're dumb.
>India will immediately side with the Soviets if they march into British Raj.
First off, no. Second off, how the fuck are the Soviets going to get into the Raj?
The Allies can pretty easily strategically bomb major economic and political centers, the Soviet Air Force and their anti-air defenses are poor, even compared to the end-of-war Japanese.
>The Allies can pretty easily strategically bomb major economic and political centers, the Soviet Air Force and their anti-air defenses are poor, even compared to the end-of-war Japanese.
Oh, I'm not denying that most if not all of the a-bomb strikes will go through. But 1st generation nuclear wars aren't devastating to the same extent as a hydrogen bomb is. They were "only" as about as effective as those huge 1,000 bomber conventional raids. (More explosive power, but the square-cube law means that most of it is wasted). Germany endured that kind of thing for years without breaking, and there's little reason to assume the Soviets are less determined.
>the Soviet Air Force and their anti-air defenses are poor, even compared to the end-of-war Japanese.
I haven't done a a real comparison or even much study of late-war Soviet air defenses, but that seems extremely dubious. The Japanese aerial defenses by the summer of 1945 were essentially nonexistent.
1st generation nuclear bombs*
>They were "only" as about as effective as those huge 1,000 bomber conventional raids
But they also sterilized the area and caused more lingering deaths.
>Not during Unthinkable
Are you retarded? Why wouldn't Japan and the Soviet Union ceasefire?
>It would be accelerated by the war
Not really. Occupying France and the Low Countries will give them additional food reserves.
>The Soviets as colonial liberators
Are you actually this dumb? The Soviets don't need to do anything special but portray themselves that way and fight the colonizers.
>First off, no. Second off, how the fuck are the Soviets going to get into the Raj?
Nice non-argument on the first statement. There is a border between Iran and British Raj, but you're so stupid, you thought British Raj = modern India.
The advantages in material, industry, and manpower the Western Allies had over the Soviets is established, but something that's harder to quantify is the resolve of the Soviets, ranging from the average soldier/citizen to the political establishment. The Red Army regularly withstood casualties that Western armies would consider completely unacceptable and Soviet workers subsisted on a diet that Americans/Brits would find barely better than starvation. The USSR weathered through these conditions for multiple years and could do it again, would the West be able to find the willpower to carry out another massive war at the tail end of the largest one in history, and against a former ally at that?
The sounds would have steam rolled the allied into the channel. 1) soviet army was triple the size of the allies by 1945. 2) Soviet production had tripped since the start of the war, and all factories are far out of allied reach. 3). you have a 8+ million fighting force that had just fought its way across Europe, and knows how to fight. 4) They actually thought about attack the soviets, and was rejected as they knew they would crush the allies in western Europe. 5) finally, the soviet union has unlimited resources, and a fresh work force of german prisoners. Not to mention the United States only had two nuclear devices, and not enough supplies to make more till after the war. Allies btfo
They did not sterilize the area, and lingering deaths are something that's a concern a decade from now, not in the lifetime of a hypothetical Unthinkable war.
>The same story of any colonized area the Soviets reach.
Can you give an example of this? Genuinely curious as I can't think of any examples of them directly militarily overthrowing colonial rule. Supplying arms to a side in a conflict doesn't count either so Korea and Vietnam are out.
It's mind boggling just looking at a city like Moscow and how spread out it is. It's like 40 miles across. You could've dropped 10 nukes on it and it still wouldn't have destroyed all of it.
>You're talking about Soviets lacking resources to invade Japan, while I'm pointing out the obvious fact the Soviets would cease hostilities with Japan in Manchuria, and both would be fighting against the Allies
Japan would not be in a position to resist American war demands. They were governed by American military authorities for a few years.
en.wikipedia.org
>"Unlike in the occupation of Germany, the Soviet Union was allowed little to no influence over Japan"
It's a major launching point for American bombers,which would hurt the Chinese terribly.
>An important one mind you. More Americans and Canadians being brought in will take time, and with Japan still fighting the Allies, not all troops will be sent into Europe.
Why would Japan still be fighting the allies? Operation Unthinkable was drawn up in 45 for a post war environment. Japan is already in the allied camp. The US could should corps over within days.
>Germany is exceedingly important. Denying the Allies the capacity to recruit potentially millions of Germans would help the Soviets and France is vulnerable if Germany is fully controlled by Soviets.
You'd be mad if you think the Germans still have a supply of quality and determined manpower to fight for the Soviets.Not that the Soviets didn't use penal units, but they always performed poorly. Compare eastern German population to the rest of Europe.
>There was over a year between VE and this famine. As the Soviets occupy more land, there is more availability of food as well.
Soviet famines were a result of communist failings. The harder they tried to reach communism, the harder they failed. Chinese agriculture actually improved when they allowed private incentives. That didn't happen before Deng Xiaoping. Stealing other peoples food, while very communist, will only supply them for a limited time. Considering that USAF and RAF deployments would be bombing the COMINTERN the entire time, they wouldn't stand a chance at keeping production within reason. The famine probably would lasted much longer.
>Soviet troops in Iran would immediately march into Iraq, defeat the colonial government there, and move into Arabia and Syria shortly after.
The Soviets couldn't capture Afghanistan with significantly better equipment. No way they could capture the middle east in the mid 40's with worse equipment, no morale, and against both colonial and neutral governments.
>Not to mention the fact that the Middle East will be liberated and many people will fight against the Allies for independence.
How many governments in the middle east converted to communism? Exactly. Like Afghanistan, they're more likely to see the communists as oppressors. Not to mention the communist habit of being anti-religious and anti-property is against everything middle easterners stand for.
>The same story of any colonized area the Soviets reach.
I don't know what's with communist delusions about this. They thought this would happen in Finland, and the Finns fought harder than maybe anyone's ever fought in the history of man. Communist invasions don't turn people into communists. In Hungary and Czech, they had to invade lands they already controlled because people were trying to break out of it!
>Occupying France and the Low Countries will give them additional food reserves
They're not going to get to France or the Low Countries.
>There is a border between Iran and British Raj
So they're just going to cross the border unopposed after trekking through Iran and the Indian soldiers will throw down their arms and embrace the Soviets, who won't have to fight through jungles and even more deserts which they have no experience fighting in?
Okay, I believe you now.
>The Soviets don't need to do anything special but portray themselves that way and fight the colonizers
They still have to occupy the land, kind of like a colonizer, innit?
>Why wouldn't Japan and the Soviet Union ceasefire?
The Japanese are already capitulated.
>would the West be able to find the willpower to carry out another massive war at the tail end of the largest one in history, and against a former ally at that
Yes, especially America and Canada, and especially after Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiev, and Novgorod are bathed in nuclear fire.
usa nukes moscow, bombs production centers while the head of the hydra is lopped off, then proceed to roll up the disorganized soviet armies. nuke a couple more major soviet cities for good measure. it would be laughably
>Can you give an example of this?
I'm specifically talking about the context of the Soviet Union invading territory held by a colonial government. You should be able to definitely infer that if in the Cold War they supplied weapons to African, Asian, and Latin American rebel groups, sent troops to said places, and joined the fighting in Korea and Vietnam; well, why wouldn't they attempt something more in a real war? Are you implying they would overlook the obvious opportunity to arm and recruit local people and soldiers in the promise of their freedom? That's like rule 1, even the Nazi's did that.
>India will immediately side with the Soviets if they march into British Raj.
Based on? Because the Indians fought a war with China:
en.wikipedia.org
>1) soviet army was triple the size of the allies by 1945
In totals active. Not counting reserves. The Soviet reserves were horribly depleted. Also the Soviets use an organization of putting as much firepower in an area to concentrate, which they learned from the Germans, but it's the kind of formation susceptible to 10-20kt nukes.
> 2) Soviet production had tripped since the start of the war, and all factories are far out of allied reach.
The US / UK have long range strategic bombers, the best in the world, airfields across the middle east and far east, and carriers which can be lead by and icebreaker over the Soviet northern coast if they need to. They could bomb the Urals from three different
cardinal directions.
>3). you have a 8+ million fighting force that had just fought its way across Europe, and knows how to fight.
Except they got there in the most inefficient way possible, and now have to fight an even better equipped allied military. The USSR will taken tactical friction the entire time, will be bombed/nuked at home, and has no way to hit back against the UK / USA at all.
>4) They actually thought about attack the soviets, and was rejected as they knew they would crush the allies in western Europe.
That's not what the document said. It said the cost wasn't worth it,since they just fought a war. Since the west won by sitting on their asses, yeah, it looks like we were right all along.
>5) finally, the soviet union has unlimited resources, and a fresh work force of german prisoners. Not to mention the United States only had two nuclear devices, and not enough supplies to make more till after the war. Allies btfo
user said above: the US at the end of the war could make 3 per month. That's a guaranteed destruction of a town, or significant battle lost for the Soviets. Whatever the USSR has, the UK + Britain has more of.