quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid ...lets go back into history and consider this a scenario: When the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Germany and they signed the peace agreement and such. What would have happened if USSR rather than stopping invaded the rest of Europe. Would the Americans be able to stop them? And if Europe did come under Soviet control what would Europe be like now? You don't have to participate in this if you want to, and I don't want a history lesson. We are predicting what would have happened had Stalin gone to invade the rest of Germany rather than just stay in Eastern Europe right after the battle of berlin.

The Western Allies would have defeated the Soviets. The Americans had the only atomic bomb in the world.

___________________

I'm not sure we would have been able to successfully use atomic bombs to repel a Russian invasion. In 1945 we could produce at most 3 a month. Immediately after dropping the two on Japan we had no bombs left, by the end of August 1945 we had 1. If the Russians had decided to invade in September we would have had somewhere between 1 and 4 bombs available. Even if all the bombs worked and all bombers were able to deliver their bombs on target we had nowhere near enough to "destroy" Russia. And if you did use them would you drop them on Russian cities or would you use them against large formations of advancing Russian troops.

Fortunately for us everyone involved was worn down from years of a difficult war and the Russians had no desire to find out just how many bombs we had the hard way.

Use of nuclear weapons against the Soviets was out of the question. Why? Soviets had a massive aircraft capacity by the ending days of the war. United States would have not been able to penetrate deep into Soviet territory to nuke where it hurts, and it would have not nuked the satellite states, they would have needed many weapons for that to disable all Soviet armies and then themselves they would have had to enter the polluted areas, not even talking about how many civilians would have died, the environmental damage, etc.

Development of nuclear weapons on the first place was the dumbest thing in the history of humankind. We are actually at a bigger threat to our security and survival because of them today than before they were developed.

U2 planes were only developed much later in early 1960s, and long-range nuclear missile technology was not avaiable until the 1950s (by then Soviets had their own nukes)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Use of nuclear weapons against the Soviets was out of the question. Why? Soviets had a massive aircraft capacity by the ending days of the war. United States would have not been able to penetrate deep into Soviet territory to nuke where it hurts,

This is not exactly correct. The only Soviet figher aircraft that could remotely approach the B-29's operational altitude of near 40,000ft was the MIG-3, and the MIG could not have matched its speed at that altitude. The US could have nuked any city in Russia at the time, the problem was a lack of weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX This is not exactly correct. The only Soviet figher aircraft that could remotely approach the B-29's operational altitude of near 40,000ft was the MIG-3, and the MIG could not have matched its speed at that altitude. The US could have nuked any city in Russia at the time, the problem was a lack of weapons.

I disagree. Surely they might've nuked a city or two, but nuking all important Soviet Union areas was impossible. And by 1950 it was out of the question when Mig-15's came around. Also, nuclear weapons of those days were relatively weak, one tenth (I think) of the strength of today's nuclear weapons.


B-29's bombers also didnt have a very long range - required refueling. During World War II, the Soviet industry was moved to Western Siberia, which is 10,000 km away from West Germany. Plus you'd need a heck a lot of nukes for Soviet Union - at that time two thirds rural population.

No way man!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I disagree. Surely they might've nuked a city or two, but nuking all important Soviet Union areas was impossible. And by 1950 it was out of the question when Mig-15's came around. Also, nuclear weapons of those days were relatively weak, one tenth (I think) of the strength of today's nuclear weapons. B-29's bombers also didnt have a very long range - required refueling. During World War II, the Soviet industry was moved to Western Siberia, which is 10,000 km away from West Germany. Plus you'd need a heck a lot of nukes for Soviet Union - at that time two thirds rural population. No way man!

Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR.

An interesting point to debate might be what the effects of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Moscow without warning would have been. The vast majority of the Soviet leadership would have been wiped out, since there were no nuclear proof bunkers then. With its capital destroyed, its leadership wiped out, and command and control in shambles, whoever ended up in charge of the country might have been quite willing to surrender rather that chance the systematic nuclear distruction of all of Russia's major cities.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR. An interesting point to debate might be what the effects of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Moscow without warning would have been. The vast majority of the Soviet leadership would have been wiped out, since there were no nuclear proof bunkers then. With its capital destroyed, its leadership wiped out, and command and control in shambles, whoever ended up in charge of the country might have been quite willing to surrender rather that chance the systematic nuclear distruction of all of Russia's major cities.

Yeah, plus destruction of Moscow would have destroyed have of Russia's history, important monuments. Kremlin library, which is huge, holds hundreds of thousands of historic documents, some of which are priceless and historically marvelous. Not worth it.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Western Allies would have defeated the Soviets. The Americans had the only atomic bomb in the world.

They had two that we all know of. There's no telling if there were more since that would have been classified information back then.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium If he managed to attack first, today Europe would be Soviet Union from France in the west, Italy, Serbia in the south.

+1
look below

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I'd post some actual historical information on this discussion, but I dont think anyone on this thread is going to appreciate it.

I would just tell them that at Yalta everything was divvied up. World War Two was just a step closer for communism to enter into Europe.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Feb-02-2007 at 21:27

quote:

it was about 2-4 million Soviet troops versus 5-6 million Allied forces.

In 1945, the Red Army had over 11 million troops. On top of that, it had more tanks or artillery than all other nations combined and had generals that have profoundly honed their abilities for 4 years to fight a new type of mobile warfare that was required. The air force was largely on par with that of the allies, where they lacked in quality - they certainly exceeded in numbers. Finally, on top of that, the Soviet T-34/85 and the IS-2 were certainly better than anything that allies could field by multiple orders of magnitude.

quote:

Allies, however, only destroyed 106 Nazi divisions (as compared to 600+ by Soviets), so they held advantage at that point, in manpower, supplies, arms and support from other countries.

How is that holding an advantage? If anything, it is an advantage to the Soviets, not the Allies since the Soviet troops became vastly more experienced because of that. If you are talking about manpower depletion, that in no way relates to how many Nazi divisions were destroyed. Finally, the divisions that the Americans and British faced were much more inexperienced, green and underequipped due to the massive losses that Germany incurred on the Eastern front.

quote:

When Allies landed in France and Italy, Stalin already called it publicly that he lost the war.

Source it. That sounds highly improbable.

quote:

Turns out, in 1939, Soviet Union started a slow military buildup and massive mobilization campaign, after treaty with Hitler was signed. He knew of Hitler's plans to attack UK, USA. He was preparing a massive army to "liberate" Europe under communism. He was going to do that when German armies landed in UK, and slanted the attack on Nazi Germany for July 1941.

Somebody been reading Suvorov's "Icebreaker" too much. I wouldn't put too much stock into that.

quote:

No wonder why when Germany attacked, Soviets were caught by surprise. 5 million troops became prisoners. 5000 planes destroyed. 1000 tanks captured.

It's fun pulling numbers out of thin air. I was waiting for you to bring in the Wizard of Oz too. Actually, the Red Army throughout the entire war (1941-1945) had about 4.5 million MIA's (most of whom were POW's). You indicated 5 million were captured in just the beginning of the war.

quote:

Heavy artillery, howitzers, TRAINS filled with ammuinition, TANKS ON TRAINS ready to roll into Germany - clear indication that Stalin prepared an invasion. A great book proving this, with pictures is written by a former Soviet high intelligence GRU agent Suvorov, in his book "Ledokol" or "Icebreaker". When you see Soviet photos of hundreds of tanks waiting on train tracks, howitzer units (meant for attacks, not defense), thousands of long-range aircraft, paratrooper units for behind enemy lines campaign - you know the real intentions.

Oh, looks like you admitted to reading that book after all. Never mind.


Let me guess: Magnetonium - a former Soviet citizen, now Jewish emigre residing in Canada due to political asylum.

----------------

Actually, in 1945 - they had a great shot of running roughshod over anything in Western Europe. I believe it was Eisenhower who referred to the US/UK forces as a "speedbump" should the partioning of Berlin fail. The only possibly way to dislodge the Soviets would have been through nuclear weapons, seeing how another D-Day invasion to dislodge the Soviets would not have been duplicated.

The question then remains whether nuclear weapons would have been enough to dislodge the Soviets. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne In 1945, the Red Army had over 11 million troops. On top of that, it had more tanks or artillery than all other nations combined and had generals that have profoundly honed their abilities for 4 years to fight a new type of mobile warfare that was required. The air force was largely on par with that of the allies, where they lacked in quality - they certainly exceeded in numbers. Finally, on top of that, the Soviet T-34/85 and the IS-2 were certainly better than anything that allies could field by multiple orders of magnitude. How is that holding an advantage? If anything, it is an advantage to the Soviets, not the Allies since the Soviet troops became vastly more experienced because of that. If you are talking about manpower depletion, that in no way relates to how many Nazi divisions were destroyed. Finally, the divisions that the Americans and British faced were much more inexperienced, green and underequipped due to the massive losses that Germany incurred on the Eastern front. Source it. That sounds highly improbable. Somebody been reading Suvorov's "Icebreaker" too much. I wouldn't put too much stock into that. It's fun pulling numbers out of thin air. I was waiting for you to bring in the Wizard of Oz too. Actually, the Red Army throughout the entire war (1941-1945) had about 4.5 million MIA's (most of whom were POW's). You indicated 5 million were captured in just the beginning of the war. Oh, looks like you admitted to reading that book after all. Never mind. Let me guess: Magnetonium - a former Soviet citizen, now Jewish emigre residing in Canada due to political asylum. ---------------- Actually, in 1945 - they had a great shot of running roughshod over anything in Western Europe. I believe it was Eisenhower who referred to the US/UK forces as a "speedbump" should the partioning of Berlin fail. The only possibly way to dislodge the Soviets would have been through nuclear weapons, seeing how another D-Day invasion to dislodge the Soviets would not have been duplicated. The question then remains whether nuclear weapons would have been enough to dislodge the Soviets. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Sorry, it was 500,000 Soviet POWs in the early months of the war, not 5 million, I misplaced a 0 in my memory ;-) Yes, the Soviets had a very powerful military machine - but it was so effective and smooth that nearly 11 million Soviets troops died, and Stalin's idiotic commands led to many stupid deaths. Allies on the Western front and Pacific fronts have lost significantly less troops ;-)

LOL, you are wrong about Allies on Western front facing "inexperienced" Nazi generals. Here's one of the famous Nazi generals who defeated Allied forces ten times his numerical size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

"Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel (listen (help·info)) (15 November 1891 – 14 October 1944) was one of the most distinguished German field marshals of World War II. He was the commander of the Deutsches Afrika Korps and also became known by the nickname The Desert Fox (Wüstenfuchs, listen (help·info)) for the skillful military campaigns he waged on behalf of the German Army in North Africa. "

As for Suvorov, he is a former GRU agent, and fled to West in 1980s. He does does have strong credibility, and unline Litvinenko who was a fool who became famous, Suvorov he was never assassinated by the Soviets though he did possess bigger secrets, publishing in his book ;-)

I find it offensive that you are labeling me as a Jew or an asylum seeker. First of all, I am Eastern Orthodox and I came to Canada with my parents when I was 13.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I find it offensive that you are labeling me as a Jew or an asylum seeker. First of all, I am Eastern Orthodox and I came to Canada with my parents when I was 13.

Were your parents Jews, would that be why they kicked you out of the house?