Posted on 01/26/2017 1:06:09 PM PST by Rebelbase
We would have.
They were very weakened from the losses of the prior two years, their manufacturing base was not good. And we had the bomb and we’d have used it.
Shoulda kept going. Patton was right.
We had, and had used nuclear weapons.....WE WIN !!!!
Attack what from Alaska? In 1945 western Siberia was one of the most remote places on earth. There was nothing there and no way to get anywhere.
I did not know that there was an alt.history ping list here on FR.
Please add me to it.
Thank you.
That was fun.
We would have won especially if we fought defensively and bled the Soviets. The idea that they would be able to move over 100 km per day is a bit unbelievable, not because of terrain but because their supply lines would have been under constant air assault. The US could have brought carriers into the Black Sea to attack the southern Soviet Union where they had their oil fields and cut them off from the Ploesti fields in Romania. Also the Ukranian wheat fields could also have been attacked and the Soviets would have lost their breadbasket along with their US food source. Starved of fuel and food the Soviets would not be able to sustain their forces in the field. Under the scenario, after the Soviets retreated to try to defend the Rodina, they would have been within reach of heavy bombers as Allied forces put pressure on the front and the Soviets are starved of food and supplies. Then Leningrad and Moscow both would have been within range for atomic bombs.
The video, which was entertaining concentrates on war materials logistics but forgets an army travels on its stomach and the Soviets would not have been able to feed themselves especially if the US decided to firebomb the wheat fields as well as the oil fields.
Somewhat agree with that but in the vast area you are talking about firebombing wheat fields is not going to make an impact.
My dad was with the 1st hq g-2. They engaged the Russians in CZ. He said they had no fight left in them and they were done. We could have rolled into st Pete without breaking a sweat.
I’ve read similar accounts from Americans that encountered Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia; they described women leading Far Eastern minority troops (who barely spoke Russian). The Soviets had lost too many men to continue fighting; even their famed drive on berlin was basically slowly advancing depleted infantry units behind a rolling artillery barrage that destroyed everything in its path.
The wholesale looting of eastern Europe at the end of the war, where Soviets basically shipped anything that couldn’t be nailed down back to the USSR, gives an idea as to what they were facing at home; they stripped factories bare because their economy was so fouled up.
Just asking, would that include invading Poland from the East in Sept 1939? I'm trying to think.....something like initiating a "War of Aggression." Yea, that's it!
The Soviet truce with Finland gives an idea as to their situation in 1944-45; they could have taken the country (”taken back”, in their minds - it was part of Russia in WWI), but would have lost too much doing so. Instead they took some territory and Finland remained the only Axis ally who fought against the USSR to remain free at the end of the war.
They were truly worn down; besides those lost fighting the Axis, they had also killed so many of their own (in Ukraine, for example).
>Just asking, would that include invading Poland from the East in Sept 1939? I’m trying to think.....something like initiating a “War of Aggression.” Yea, that’s it!
At the Nuremberg trials we allowed the soviets to accuse the German defendants of the Katlan(spelling?) Forest massacre of Polish officers. We knew at the time that the Russians where responsible for the murders. That’s the most public of the many Soviet crimes we hid for them.
“We could have easily - with total air and naval superiority - landed a million guys in the Soviet Far East and taken over all of Siberia”
The reality of that single sentence, which so easily and thoughtlessly written, staggers the mind. We could have easily taken over all of Siberia.
Utterly insane.
“If the Reuther brothers had kept their commie noses out of Europe following the days after the end of hostilities against Germany”
After what the Nazi armies did in Russia... honestly, I think if I was in their position, I would hold every square inch I took, create a buffer from European invasions, and rule with an iron fist for a few decades. I’d be a dick.
“Shoulda kept going. Patton was right.”
You’d be hard pressed to find 5% of the US Army in 1945 that would agree that bright idea. They were already working hard to prevent mutiny over the soldiers being told they were going to the pacific to fight the Japanese.
Hitler was a disaster there’s no question about that. Had the man been sane and had a good heart Europe might be much better off today. Hitler ended up fighting everyone on multiple fronts.
As far as the evil USSR is concerned he should have concentrated on that front alone, but then the bleeding liberal hearts in Washington and London would have jumped in anyway.
Japan was another matter entirely.
I too didn’t know there is an alt.history ping list here on FR.
Please add me to it.
Thank You
Correct, and must say, this is total Nazi wet-dream propaganda.
It's what Goebbels, Himmler, Goering & company wished would happen at the end of WWII.
It's what people like Himmler tried to negotiate at the end -- "let's Allies and Ruskies fight another war, so German Nazism can be preserved!"
The fact is that in 1945 no American or British soldier wanted to fight yet another war, and no US politician was willing to order them into one.
Rooskies were totally exhausted, and besides, Soviet control of Eastern Europe had already been agreed to by Roosevelt and Churchill.
Truman was not going to reverse that.
And suggesting Stalin would have broken his agreements in the face of US nuclear power is to imply that Stalin was just as insane as Hitler -- which he certainly was not.
Years ago I stood in the Fulda Gap, training for a Soviet tank invasion which, thankfully, never came.
My opinion of the old Soviets is that while, bullies and aggressive, they were a far cry from today's lunatic jihadis.
So the US would be vastly better off teaming up with Ruskies again, against jihadis, than in fantasizing Nazi wet-dream end-of-war propaganda about fighting a Hot War III against Stalin!
Any student of history knows that today's Jihadis are the children of Hitler's Nazis married to radical Islam.
They are modern-day Nazis, and this propaganda work is a product of Nazi fantasies, intended to keep Russian & western allies from uniting against them.
Listen carefully: when our new President says, "wouldn't it be nice?" if we could team up with Russians, he's talking about WWII all over again -- that's how we defeated Nazism back then, and it's how we can defeat the sons-of-Nazism (jihadis) today.
So don't be eager, or quick, to fantasize major war against Russians.
We may well need those people, yet again, to help us with a much more insane enemy.
“Blood and Guts is Going Nuts,” by Christopher Leopold, 1978. Patton invades Russia after World War II. Used on Amazon.
I read this book years ago. If I’m remembering the correct book, he had imaginary conversations with Guderian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.