What would happen if Western Allies and Soviet Union clashed in 1945? Who would come out victorious? No nukes.
>>289242
You can't say No Nukes because the USA had nukes and probably would have used one to put the USSR in her place. That's effectively what the nukes on Japan did anyway. Except if they were used on the USSR she may have retaliated once she developed them, as a revenge act, leading to MAD.
Soviets had more manpower, vehicles, etc. in the region than all the other allied armies combined. They would have steamrolled the continent only stopping at the Alps and Pyrenees respectively.
>>289242
Britain.
>>289242
> No nukes
Yes nukes. Soviets would steamroll allies to Atlantic, but then got nuked. And nuked again. And again. They wont be able to occupy UK ofc, and eventually they would have to make peace just to stop nukes. In the long term Soviets would loose, with their weak economy, manpower shortages and war weariness. Also it would be hard to them to keep popular resentments in check.
>>289242
>Who would come out victorious?
nobody, the general populace would completely revolt
>>289291
Would America really turn 1/4 of the Earth continent into a radioactive wasteland? Territorialy Russia is no island like Japan.
>>289314
They wouldn't need to. Once a couple of Russian cities had their hearts torn out the Soviets would have quit.
>>289314
They wouldn't had so much nukes at the time. And they there would be no need to do so - just bomb Moscow, Kiev and Leningrad and soviets would be asking for peace.
>>289330
why kiev
>>289335
Because it was a major city in the USSR.
>>289335
3rd major city in the USSR. I don't know if it was at the time, with occupation and liberation stuff, but it had some political significance for sure.
>>289330
You're forgetting that flying a nuke all over that way would not be possible due to the air superiority situation. There were no ICBMs back then. You guys really think the Allies could fly bomber missions all the way to Moscow without being intercepted at least a hundred times by waves of sovier fighters?
They would nuke army concentrations close to the front lines, and maybe not even that. We're looking at very low success rates when you consider you're going to fly a bomber with a nuclear weapon into contested air space and try to hit something that is not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
No way, man. It would be a conventional war until one side achieves air superiority, which I believe would be the Allies. But it doesn't matter how it goes, no country in the fight would come out of it without major social, political and economical crashes.
>>289345
Nah they could do it, of course they could, germany still managed to bomb the allies despite having complete air inferiority.
You only have to get one nuke through. Oh and if you shoot down a nuke plane in Russia, you've still shot down a fucking nuke that explodes so they could just take a route over a populated area.
>>289345
I don't know if Soviets could intercept B-29 at the time, and with its distance up to 3000km, they could bomb Moscow from London.
>>289363
actually, the russians had these beauties, which had a service ceiling higher than that of the B29
In fact, even the 1942 La-5 and the 1946 La-9 had a high enough service ceiling.
And by 1945 there were literally thousands of La-5s.
Contrary to popular belief, late war russian planes were pretty advanced.
>>289352
That's true, you could go for a "fuck it, fly 10 and see if at least 1 makes it back" strategy, but after 1943 the AAF decided to stop with that, and that's against the weakened Luftwaffe of late-Barbarossa. Imagine what they would think about flying against the Soviet Air Force. You're right, they could get through, but I don't see they doing that kamizake-like strategy unless they're really out of options.
Not to mention other details, such as the effectiveness of the early atom bombs. The fire raids in Tokyo were the most destructive bombing in aviation history, causing loss of life and destruction at a scale much larger than the Bombs (100k dead and 1.5m homeless according to wiki). I really believe nukes would be a last resort. The soviets could never (due to overwhelming allied naval supremacy) invade UK or US, so I don't really see "last resort" as an outcome of a third world war in Europe. Worst case scenario Europe fall to the soviets and they fucking implode out of the sheer economical struggle they would be going through.
>>289417
Interesting. So, was it possible for Soviets to detect and intercept lone B-29 at maximum ceiling?
>>289352
First of all, early nuke production was very slow, "just getting one through" is hard when you only have a handful of them.
Secondly, a nuke has to be specifically detonated in a very precise implosion, it doesn't "just explode"
Thirdly, there were huge (huge as in, literally the size of france) areas that were not populated, with small densely populated areas before getting to Moscow itself, "just taking a route over populated areas" isn't really a thing.
>>289436
I don't know much about Soviet radar technology in 1945, it certainly wouldn't be easy, that's true....
on the other hand, you have to keep in mind how tenacious the soviets were at that point, they literally lost tens of millions of people already, a lot even by their own hands.
The japanese may be presented as fanatical, but really, it's nothing compared to the soviets.
And in 1945, there was no red scare, the soviets were percieved as allies by the general population, just nuking a crapton of allied civilians would spark massive demonstrations in western countries.
>>289242
First of all, no need to take nuclear weapons out of it. They're not likely to be decisive in the short term. First generation nukes aren't the thermonuclear weapons we have today, a simple "push button and win" weapon. They were "only" about as powerful as a major raid with hundreds of heavy bombers: Powerful and destructive, yes, but not even city obliterators, let alone nation obliterators.
As for the war in general.
>Short term
Soviets have roughly a 4:1 advantage, even with the average Soviet division being significantly weaker than the average western division, at least according to the projections that Unthinkable's planners used. They will quickly evict the WAllies from Germany, and quite possibly roll over France before the momentum plays out and the Allied air advantage (which is significant) wears down the Soviets.
>long term
Western Allies have significantly more industry and manpower still up for mobilization. Furthermore, the Soviets have the same problem Germany had: no feasible way of striking at the UK decisively, let alone the U.S. In a long, total war, they will win, eventually. The only way they can really win is if the WAllies will to fight gives out before the Soviet material does.
Which, to my mind, is pretty likely, given how everyone wanted the war to be over. But, as often in these hypothetical scenarios, if you assume it's a total war and no civilian outcries? The West wins, at the cost of tens of millions more dead.
>>289345
>You're forgetting that flying a nuke all over that way would not be possible due to the air superiority situation. There were no ICBMs back then. You guys really think the Allies could fly bomber missions all the way to Moscow without being intercepted at least a hundred times by waves of sovier fighters?
Not him, and I don't think nuking would be enough to put the Soviets down (it's way different for an already crushed Japan as opposed to a USSR that's likely conventionally winning the war), but yes, they could do it if they were willing to take some lumps. You throw 200 bombers in a formation, and chances are one of them in the center, the one with the nuke, will make it over target.
>They would nuke army concentrations close to the front lines, and maybe not even that.
Completely useless.
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
If you bomb a division in an open field, you're talking an air blast radius of only about 2,500 feet in a circle. They'll be way too spread out to even significantly damage a division, let alone a larger formation.
>>289352
From 1942 onwards, the Allies had considerable air advantage vis a vis Germany, and Germany did go for high altitude interceptors.
>>289426
The Luftwaffe was not significantly weakened due to air combat in Russia.
http://www.don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Most of their losses were sustained against the WAllies.
>>289453
They were capable of 3 a month starting october, and that expected to increase.
nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf
>>289482
It would have been and amazing piece of history. Communism falling before ever having a real chance. China would be a democracy by now, Cuba would be a close ally to the US. No Vietnam, no North Korea, no divided Germany. Middle-East would have had an actual chance of not being just a huge battleground for bigger nations.
Millions dead in a terrible war, but many more spared in the long run.
>>289548
>many more spared in the long run
Are you sure? Because taking down the actual governments would mean having to physically occupty both Russia and China. Causing, most likely, even more deaths than ww2.
>>289548
And if the peace movements win and the Soviets aren't crushed? If the use of nuclear weapons in war doesn't become Taboo? If the KMT shows the same level of repression and stupidity it did before the Japanese came knocking and keeps China backwards, fractured, constantly fighting, and poor?
I am far from convinced this is a positive alternate history.
Did the guy who popularized the concept of MAD save the world for more than 3 decades?
>>289584
Don't think there's a way of putting that in numbers, so no, I'm not sure. I have a hint, though. Occupying would not always cause massive death tolls. Post-war Germany would be a perfect example. A great deal of political struggle the world is going through right now is reminiscent of the Cold War. We're talking what, ten major conflicts? Chinese civil war, Israeli-Arab war, Indochinese war, Korean war, cuban revolution, Vietnam war, you name it
>>289630
I don't think not having USSR around would really have stopped nuclear weapons from becoming a huge international issue and, consequently, taboo. The Kuomintang was showing no signs of becoming mass murderers in the early 30's, and even if they did they would have to work really hard to beat Mao's killing score. They would bacome, after all, US allies and mass murder is not in the best interest of a western ally.
>>289681
Stilwell almost got recalled by FDR because he stated that Chiangmai and the KMT weren't that different from the nazis they were fighting in Europe except in the area of competence.
And a divided China is always a bloody China.
>>289681
>Occupying would not always cause massive death tolls
except, you know, germany's attempt to occupy russia resulted in tens of millions of deaths.
I'm not talking about a death toll of actual occupation, the war would be incredibly costly.
>>289242
The invincible Soviet Union maymay needs to end. The USSR only beat the Jerries because of massive American aid.
>>289742
the american aid meme needs to stop to be honest
>>289742
The invincible USSSR maymay continues to live on precisely because it's just that - a maymay.
Every russian that knows his shit is aware that things were more disastrous for them than they were for the Germans. Those who claim the opposite are either being ironic, or are batshit retards with no grasp of actual history. The latter is quite sadly the majority in Russia.
>>289742
They started receiving the aid at full strength shortly after the Kursk battle when war was already pretty much decided. There would be more dead Russkies if they didn't get it but they'd still win the war, and I'm certainly no commie fanboy.
>>289729
I don't think the allies would roll up lines of civilians and shoot them to clean land for lebensraum, causing massive discontent, if you catch my drift. They did, after all, invade and occupy both Japan and Germany without major damage post-war. The war would be a bitch, yes. But, as I said before, once over, it would bring forth a much better world than the Cold War we had. The social improvement that capitalism and democracy would bring to China and Russia would quiet social unrest very quickly, I believe. Just like it happened in Japan and Germany.
>>289711
About the KMT, they could be as bad as you want to believe they were, they would do as told if they ever became allies with the West. The whole idea of the KMT was getting western aid by accepting their command. Weight that against Mao's teenage rebel mindset and it's not really a choice if you asked me who would be better. We're talking 18 to 45 million dead just in the Great Leap Foward. It is estimated that the japanese killed as many as 10 million in China. We always talk about how bad the japanese were, but we forget shit that Mao did because aparently China is alright now. I can't think of an alternate reality where the KMT killed 45 million (many more, if you count all the years of communist rule).
None of you were lying about anything and you made great points, but this is not about how perfect the world would be, it's about how less bad it would be.
>>289742
>maymay
>>289848
who is this a poll of?
>>289742
>>289781
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtU3vUOa2sw
>>289872
French people?
>>289883
seems unlikely, they'd be answering France if it was.
>>289892
This is why they weren't given this option.
>>289843
>About the KMT, they could be as bad as you want to believe they were, they would do as told if they ever became allies with the West.
They were allies of the West during the war, and didn't do as they were told. And the West backed lots of convienent dictators who purged their countries quite ruthlessly, the Shah of Iran or the South Koreans in the 50s springing rather readily to mind.
> The whole idea of the KMT was getting western aid by accepting their command.
Ha! If that was the case, then how come Chiang fought the Japanese so half-heartedly?
>We always talk about how bad the japanese were, but we forget shit that Mao did because aparently China is alright now. I can't think of an alternate reality where the KMT killed 45 million (many more, if you count all the years of communist rule).
I can do so, and quite easily. Despite the KMT "ruling" China, they were doing so on an almost semi-feudal basis: the only provinces in China they really controlled with their own people were Sichuan,Shaanxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang (think of a corridor across the center of China, running from Shanghai to Chengdu). The rest was in the hold of various warlords who pledged men and support to the KMT, and didn't give it if they thought they could get away with it.
The system already had considerable repression and open conflict bloodshed in the late 20s and early 30s, with the numerous 'Bandit pacification' campaigns that saw a lot of people dead and very little extension of the KMT rule.
Put simply, I don't see the KMT having the political acumen to win the Chinese civil war even if they win on the battlefield, and a constant, endemic, low level civil war will yes, be worse than what the Chi-coms did.
>>289872
IIRC, it's a French poll of who contributed most to winning WW2.
>>289902
>IIRC, it's a French poll of who contributed most to winning WW2.
I gathered that, but itseems bizarrely pro-American though if it's a poll of ordinary French people
>>289345
>They would nuke army concentrations close to the front lines, and maybe not even that.
No, that was doctrine up until the 60's.
If war broke out with the Soviets in 1945 or 46, we would have dropped our A-bombs on their armor divisions, not their cities.
>>289742
>The USSR only beat the Jerries because of massive American aid.
Most of American aid went to the UK.
>>289548
Sure it'd be nice to have no communist dictatorships around the world but ALL of europe would probably be a backwards continent forever torn by war, an alternate middle east. Could the Marshall plan be put in use if US used its resources for war for the drawn out war?
