1945

I genuinely think there would have been riots amongst the soldiers, they were comrades with the soviets and had just beaten the big bat evil enemy of nazi germany, to turn around and suddenly attack the soviet union for no obvious reason other than "they are commies and a potential threat" would appear crazy

Lmao you can't be serious. I'm not denying there wasn't support for the Soviets but look at prior to 1941. FDR made it clear that both Hitler and Stalin were tyrants to be confronted. Look at the red scare during the interwar period. We sent troops to fight the Communist revolution in Russia. It's not like Americans suddenly became anti communist after wwii.

I will give you that Americans were war weary but so were the Soviets. FAR far more war weary considering they lost tens of millions and US causalities was less than half a million if I recall.

That would have been a grueling ground war after everyone just got out of a grueling ground war. Nukes in their form at the time would not have won that war. And we had dropped both the Nukes we had on Japan.

Google “Operation Unthinkable”

And... Winter Was Coming!

Wrong we actually had plans to drop one on Tokyo if the nips didn't surrender.

war wearyness matters more if you are the agressor of a seemlinly pointless war rather than being invaded

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Totality

Plan Totality was a nuclear plan established by U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower in August 1945 on the direction of President Harry S. Truman, after the end of the Potsdam Conference.

The plan envisioned a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union with 20 to 30 atomic bombs. It earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorky, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Bullshit read a book, they were making more or preparing to make more but they didnt have anymore...

>You means the ones who surrendered?

>defeat of germany is imminient

the new regime could help them anyway

In warfare, it is very important to not be seen as the aggressor. Even the Romans, as imperialistic as they were, were always very careful to frame their conquests as being self-defense, at least in their own minds. Naked aggression makes other country's resent you, and causes public unrest at home.

.....................

he said plans, he didn't say if it would be right away or months later

>Let's kill millions of civilians in nuclear fire in the name of our political interests and ideology
>We are the good guys by the way

Attached: 9878749195819.jpg (253x297, 25K)

>not wanting to avoid the cold war
>not wanting to avoid modern Russia
>implying we would not have saved billions of Russians by killing millions of Russians

which goes back to my point, they could not get plutonium fast enough to win a war with russia with nukes... How many nukes would it have taken to beat Russia that way? More than we could have made fast enough. And then they all would have had to work, and we would have had to have major air superiority so the bombers didnt get shot down... Even then they still could have been shot down.

We would have 4 years to make enough nuclear weapons and bombers before the soviets could even test a nuke.

According to Operation Totality there were 20-30 nuclear weapons required to bring all of Russia down . By 1946 we had 9 nukes and 27 b-29 bombers. So we were already almost half way there by 1946. Easily before 1949 we would have had more than 20 nukes and enough bombers to deliver them

>they were comrades with the soviets and had just beaten the big bat evil enemy of nazi germany,
kek both armies raced to take land from each other just hours after Berlin's fall.

In the meantime fighting a ground war against greater numbers? Unless you are saying come back in four years and not attack in 45 like OP suggested. Well that is a different question

>avoid the cold war

how many people died in the cold "war" again?

there were proxy wars, and our spies and their spies killed some innocent people but I am just being a dick I actually get your point

thanks, sure there were proxy wars but Vietnam would have happened anyway most likely, I'm assuming the soviet union makes a peace treaty or are you going to genocide them all? Even if you do the ideology of communism would live on.

Soviet imperialism alone killed millions. Plus the tens of millions who died in China.

Well not 4 years. I'd think easily by 47' we would have had the appropriate number of nuclear weapons to if not destroy the Soviet Union completely - capitulate the Soviet government.

in 1945 we had 2 nukes.
In 1950 we had 299 nukes.

I think we definitely would have the material means to drop nuclear bombs on a number of Soviet cities. The problem in that situation would be a ground war. I said at the beginning there were like 10 million Soviet troops in Eastern Europe and they would likely invade Western Europe but we had large amounts of troops in Western Europe too.

No we replace the Soviet government with a western democracy like was done in Japan.

when did mao take power again?

Because USSR will btfo all the western pigdogs and there will be world communism

USA could shit out roughly 3 nukes a month, so you could produce that many in less than a year.
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

I guess the question really is would this have made the world a better place... I am sitting here saying the US could not have beaten Russia in 45 but there was a period in the very late 40's early 50's where we could have. But it is probably better that these two ideologies and super powers were there to keep eachother in check

They were fine with Japan being nuked though.

yes and their troops outnumbered us like 3-1 if I am remembering correctly. Plus WINTER

because the war was still ongoing and japan started it?????

WINNER

invading the USSR was originally a british idea though.......

All they had were bodies. We supplied most of their vehicles and equipment.

Yes a deemed not likely to succeed

It would have succeeded though. there's no way the USSR could defend themselves against the allies. The countries they occupied would even rise up against them.

implying clement fucking atlee would support an invasion of the SU

Lets not all kid ourselves, we all know now, that even into the 70's and 80's a lot of the soviet nukes wouldnt have worked, and they knew when our satelites were overhead so they used to tow their broken down tanks around the map so that we thought they were funtional. The U.S. government probably knew this, but a lot of people were making a lot of money on the cold war

The USSR military was a joke compared to the US it's entire history. It was the "putin stronk" of it's day.

kill yourself they had like 2000 nukes even if 100 of them worked america would have got seriously fucked up

Shut the fuck up vatnik. USSR wasn't even a 1st world country.

not that many ICBMS and most of them would have blown on the launch pad. My point is the USSR was not the scarry adversary it was made out to be. Would we have lost some cities? Sure was anyone willing to do that? No. But had it come to war with the Soviets we would have wiped the floor with them

thats a pretty funny statment because 1st and 2nd world just meant 1st= NATO and NATO aligned, 2nd Soviet and Soviet aligned. So yes USSR was a 2nd world country

What are Vietnam and Korea

wars not caused by the USSR

Arguably false

Korea was more the fault of the USSR than the US. Not true for Vietnam though.

>"soviet"
>"""raping"""
>""""""of Berlin""""""

Attached: 1498565519367.jpg (1600x1260, 815K)

>Granted there were like 10 million Soviet troops in Eastern Europe

That's the thing, OP. Soviets weren't afraid of a few thousand more troops dying, they had thousands more to replace them. The T-34 tank is a great representation of this: it's damn uncomfortable, no radio, no emergency escapes, not many shells, etc. When people say they were high quality, they couldn't be any less true. Quantity over quality is my motto for the Red Army. The atomic bomb probably would have done the USSR in, though.

because Russia was our ally and it goes against Western ideals to commit nuclear holocaust, and after 6 long years of war and total death and destruction people just wanted peace.

Attached: fc9740ad1edb0a26066bb833887bb4d4.jpg (700x933, 169K)

the USA had nukes, not England or France.

The USA did not want war, they only joined the war when they where attacked.

Since the USSR did not attack the USA, there was no need to attack them first.

First Strikes are for totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, not democratic countries.

Attached: image-20170316-10890-3xima9.jpg (1356x668, 183K)

60+ million Russians to an autocratic regime that was willing the genocide its own populous in order to keep its oligarchy in power

I just want to know why Veeky Forums has a purely Allied perspective of 20th century war history. There are more ways of seeing this period of history aside from the Axis and Allied points of view.

That's why I always say the Russians were cheated in the revolution. Even the Tsar wasn't so brutal.

>The USA did not want war, they only joined the war when they where attacked.

Actually, the USA was attacked after their aggression to Japan. They blockaded Japan long before they attacked. Being a massively industrial society, they were in great trouble without crude oil, just for starters.

Because neither America, nor the Soviets were crazy and delusional Nazis.

Neither stood to gain anything from war. Internal situation everywhere did not permit it. Not to mention war weariness, justifying an aggressive total war for some strange reason would be quite impossible.

You could not drop a nuke on Moscow (or any important Russian city), as you needed to traverse many hundreds of kilometres of Soviet airspace, mobilized and armed with ground anti-air and fighters alike.

Anyone willing to bring a nuanced Soviet perspective would be more than welcome.

I'm sure most of the Western World has been waiting 70 years to hear a good explanation of why they chose to basically enslave half of Europe for 45 years.

>America was war-weary
>After only 3 fucking years of conflict

No. Britain, France, and Italy were war weary. Germany was fucking war weary. Russia was war weary. The Japanese were war-weary, but still willing to continue a defensive campaign to assert dominance over what they had taken. The USA was far from war weary- it was war drunk and raking in massive profits. It's actually a miracle that the United States did NOT decide to continue the conflict.

>the 60 gorrilion

real number is far lower

No, the Russian government at the time killed far more than the Nazis did, if not a similar amount.

Very true, user.

they were mentally war weary, americans were anti war from ww1 to ww2, you can read about prominent womens movements like "save our sons" (might be australian but america had the same shit) remember how america did fuck all until the japs attacked, the president couldn't even convince them to fight the fucking NAZI.

civil war to 1945 was like maybe 5 million killings? , unless you count famines and the holdomor and all the deaths in world war two or something I have no idea how you would reach 60 million

Yeah, I would have expected the US to do something in Germany.

I'm talking about the time Stalin was in power.

The nukes only made Japan surrender because they were already nearly defeated anyways. Russia was in perfectly adequate health.

In 1945 the US only had 2 nukes ready to drop. Lets say your nukes somehow manage to cross the ~1000km of Soviet airspace, guarded by a well-equipped and experienced airforce, and you successfully nuke Moscow and Leningrad. How does this stop the Soviets from waging war? All their industry is east of the Urals at this point. Their command staff would have had several hours of warning and would be in bunkers or would have left Moscow entirely.

Would the Soviets eventually have lost? Absolutely, they could barely feed their men and keep their vehicles fueled even with Lend-Lease. Once that ends their days are numbered. But it would not have been as simple as just dropping two nukes and accepting their surrender. It would've been years more of war.

A democratic nation is always the hardest one to rouse into conflict. It's why the USA had to allow attacks/set up false flags/intentionally not defend themselves before the citizenry would agree to fight. That said, a civilian populace that hasn't experienced any form of invasion or domestic conflict can hardly be called 'war weary' when we are also discussing in the same breath European powers which had been fighting for their survival several years before the USA bothered to show up.

Let's not forget the USA had plenty of time to psychologically pump up their populace through selling Oil to the Japanese and Germans, IBM Computer Punch-Cards to the Nazi's, Tanks to both Russia and Britain, and Naval transportation assistance to commonwealth powers.

>russia
>Adequate health

oh you

nazi germany was 1933-1945
Stalin was 1936 or so to 1950-55?

where are you getting the 60 million from

10 million killed is a highball, say 20 million starved, some more were put in gulags but most didn't die, maybe a million or two republic rebellion deaths.

that's like 40 million max? I doubt you could find anyone credible post the archives opening who thinks stalin killed 60 million people without doing some very dodgy accounting and blaming all USSR deaths during ww2 on him because of the ribbentrop pact or something

It absolutely was compared to Japan. Japan was so desperate they couldn't even send up any fighters or even any flak when the B29 approached Hiroshima. They just watched it fly in, nuke them, and fly away.

They didn't even try to stop the one that bombed Nagasaki either.

>Japan was so desperate they couldn't even send up any fighters or even any flak when the B29 approached Hiroshima. They just watched it fly in, nuke them, and fly away.

They must have figured that a single bomber wasn't something to worry about.

Russia was on a roll by the end of the war, yes they were sort of running out of steam but the factories were going fullpower and they had a huge veteran force with high morale, a big difference from the early army with shitty conscripts getting btfo left and right.

anyone who saw regular action on the eastern front (not even including the us late entry to the war ) has vastly more experience than nearly all american soldiers, russia was fighting tooth and nail, there were no week long breaks in stalingrad while planning for the next offenisve

>Russia was our ally

Attached: 1510623994611.png (645x729, 70K)

They were?

Attached: cyber.gif (640x360, 1.45M)

Even at Nagasaki?

>They were?

Attached: 1519623071508.jpg (750x1000, 58K)

eh they could, but they literally had fuel for like 100 planes for a week or something and were saving it, all the planes were grounded in warehouses waiting for the invasion, they couldn't have stomped the second bomb anyway, jap planes couldn't fly high anyway and theres no way to tell from the ground if that one plane is a scout or bomber

Indeed.

Because in reality most people aren't murderhobos who will slaughter millions just because they can.

They could barely believe it the first time it happened. Think about it: if you've never seen a city wiped away by a single bomb, would you believe it at first?

Stalin was

The Japanese command had 3 days to wrap their heads around it. They also had received those propaganda leaflets stating we had invented a new bomb and were going to use it, and keep using it until they surrendered.

back to pol

tbf that's the type of thing you WOULD lie about

/pol/ worships mass murderers like stalin you need to go back to /pol/

>tbf that's the type of thing you WOULD lie about
You might think they're bluffing at first. But after Hiroshima, would you really be so sure?

I don't worship him, but only /pol/ people say stuff like that unprovoked

>Because in reality most people aren't murderhobos who will slaughter millions just because they can.
>in reference to post-ww2
>when stalin did that just 5 years earlier

Only a vatnik would defend stalin unprovoked.