Could the western powers have fended off a Soviet invasion in 1945?
Nope
>>508470
Sure, drop a plutonium bomb on Leningrad and watch how quick Stalin changes his tune
Not by using traditional military forces, no. Even in '45, the States had too few nuclear bombs to just eliminate the Soviet war machine through bombings alone.
>>508470
Yes. Above map is misleading, because an "army" isn't a fixed number of soldiers, it's an organizational unit. For whatever reason, the Soviets loved having a confusing fucknumber of them.
Plus, the Soviets were at the absolute limit of their supply chain. Pushing back would be a lot harder for the allies, but halting an offensive would be little trouble.
>>508505
You really think that would work? He wouldn't evacuate Leningrad during the 2 year siege so the people would fight harder, 1 million died.
>>508534
On V-E day, there were 3,077,000 American soldiers in Europe compared to 8,170,000 Red Army soldiers in Europe.
Not as large a difference as the map implies, but still considerable.
>>508470
Yes, by dropping the atom bomb on Moscow instead of Japan
>>508577
Oh yeah. Still would be a factor, but that map is totally useless for pointing out the relative strengths.
Since you have those numbers on hand, any info on the number of Commonwealth/French troops involved.
The other problems a Soviet Offensive would have to face is, on top of the logistical nightmare of launching an offensive against the Americans, it's going to be made worse by facing strategic bombing for the first time ever.
The already chaotic system of railways and roads will be absolutely fucked. Trains and trucks will only be able to move at night.
>>508584
Are you American?
Americans are prone to a kind of magical thinking that comic book style superweapons will somehow save the day
>>508604
>any info on the number of Commonwealth/French troops involved.
Surely inconsequential compared to the scale of the US and Soviet armies
>>508614
I wouldn't be so sure. In 1945, the Commonwealth forces had 7,879,000 troops under arms. With Japan wrapped up, that's all available except for Garrison units.
Even if they only deploy 2 million, that's hardly 'inconsequential.'
>>508656
Vast majority were Indians and other colonials who would have mutinied rather than fight another war for Britain.
You think some Deepak gives a flying fuck about the security of Britain, the oppressor?
>>508669
If the Indian Army ever felt like revolting, they would have already. They did not.
>>508669
They stayed loyal fighting in places like Egypr, Ethiopia, and Italy. Why mutiny now?
>>508605
Cause it worked on Japan commie
>>508470
Probably. It would have been brutal though.
Like the Eastern front only rolling back and forth over Western Europe instead of Eastern Europe. All the great art and architecture in the region would have been obliterated and millions would starve to death because of Soviet slash and burn tactics. Ultimately the Soviet Soldiers would have starved to death too because their supply chains were incredibly reliant on Lend Lease. No boots, no tools, no food. Manpower can only get you so far. The German remnant forces and scientific brain banks would have jumped on the American band wagon in an instant.
Also, nukes. They probably would have been used tactically, to stop army movements and so forth because knowledge of radiation contamination in the era was laughable. So odds are most of Eastern Europe and parts of Germany would become irradiated hellscapes.
>>508710
>tactically using nukes
pleb tier air power strategy
>>508470
>Could the western powers have fended off a Soviet invasion in 1945?
Yes. The Soviet armies had piss-poor logistics. There is no way that the Soviets would have had the logistical capacity to fight so far from Russian territory. They'd already stripped eastern Europe bare in order to advance as far as they had; there was simply nowhere else to loot in order to sustain their advance. Even if we restrict the discussion to conventional forces there is no question that the Western Allies would have been able to repel a soviet attack. America was still supplying the USSR with a large amount of high-end military equipment - high-grade aviation fuel for example came almost exclusively from America. The gaps in the soviet economy that were filled by American and British supplies were simply too numerous for them to continue fighting effectively without them.
And when it came down to actual military forces, the raw difference in manpower in the Soviets' favour was hardly so great as to offset that western allies technological advantage. Although the USSR had, by some measures, better tanks, in almost every other area the USA and Britain were technologically superior. Especially when it came to aircraft - the USSR had inferior fighters and bombers. The western allies would probably have had complete air superiority. And as the battle between the Germans and the allies in France in 1944 showed, fighter-bombers > tanks.
In any case, there is no reason that Truman wouldn't have nuked every city within bomber range if the Soviets had attacked. The US might not have had enough bombs at that point to unload a full apocalypse , but there is no way the USSR would have been able to continue fighting if a dozen of its major cities and a couple of its armies went up in radioactive smoke.
>>508875
Yes but the Soviet Union was also much closer to India than Germany was, it was like a sliver of Afghanistan away. It might've be easier to convince them to fight given the proximity and threat of a soviet attack.
>>508710
>They probably would have been used tactically
The Soviet industry in Siberia is in reach of B-29 from India, although they would not have fighter cover and Soviet fighters were capable of reaching their altitude.
Also, the US produced 3-7 nukes a month in 1945. Around the January 1946 they would have two a week or more. That's not something to be ignored.
>>509022
A fair point.
And if OP meant 1945 after Japanese surrender then US Pacific forces could have been re-positioned to assault Soviet forces in the East. Meaning the Russians would have been fighting a two front war for the first time I can think of.
They would also be outflanked by Allied naval power in the Atlantic. The US or the British could have bombarded the Soviet forces from the Baltic sea and the Russians couldn't have done shit to stop it.
>>509059
Naval bombardment was pretty shit in Ww2. A battleship was usually considered on par with a company's wirth of artillery. It'll annoy, not destroy.
>>509022
Even though nuclear theory was still being developed in during WWII the scarcity of nuclear weapons forced us, and if we fought the Soviets would've forced us, to use it strategically. In all likelihood if the Soviets kept advancing after Berlin I could see the Allies nuking Moscow
>>508505
Strategic bombing, which nuclear weapons are, did not decide any front of WW2. Dropping a nuke on a depopulated city would achieve nothing.
>>508656
Russians could have closed the baltic just by invading Denmark and Gotland, both less than 100km from 1945 borders
>>508687
Japan surrendered because they were facing an all out rapeinvasion by the soviet union, and they logically chose to surrender to America instead.
Sorry, your magic deus ex machina narrative is total bullshit, like all American beliefs
>>509516
How exactly were the Russians planning on sustaining an invasion of Japan without a navy?
>>508875
This is exactly how Ireland was lost.
They were promised independence in exchange for fighting in WW1, and then afterwards were basically told "lol jk"
Britain then ended up having to deal with a very bloody and protracted insurrection with tremendous popular support, which they ultimately lost.
>>509521
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/122335
>That was the rough battle plan drawn up by the commander of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, Adm. Ivan Yumashev, at the end of World War II for occupying Hokkaido. Troops were on standby.
>The Soviets had by then occupied southern Sakhalin and were mopping up the remnants of the Japanese along the Kuril island chain that stretched from Hokkaido to the Kamchatka Peninsula, in Russia’s far northeast.
>Although the Red Army was not as experienced as the Americans with landing operations, this Soviet “D-Day” in Hokkaido would’ve been a walkover — the Japanese army was in shambles, and Emperor Hirohito had recently proclaimed defeat.
>Japan’s second-largest island, roughly the size of Maine, Hokkaido was of huge strategic significance. Joseph Stalin’s possession of the island would turn the vast Sea of Okhotsk into a Soviet lake, and ease the projection of Soviet naval power into the Pacific.
>Stalin had his eyes on a big prize. The detailed Soviet operational plans, published Wednesday by the Wilson Center in the full English translation for the first time, show that all the pieces had been put in place for a swift Soviet occupation.
>>509574
>http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/122335
As smashed up as the Japanese are, Hokkaido could have swiftly crushed a single Soviet rifle division trying to make a landing. This is literally smaller than Husky, invading with no experience, across a far larger distance, with mostly borrowed (and thus irreplaceable) landing craft, with no provisions I can see for resupply.
This is insanity, not a battle plan.
>>509516
>and they logically chose to surrender to America instead.
And suffered 10 years of mass rape by Yanks.
>>509593
Americans have smaller cocks and less potent seed, though.
I'm sure they selected the better of two bad options
>>508470
Yes. The Allied air forces (USAAF & RAF) would've totally outclassed the Red Air Force. That would've bought time for the Western powers to bring up reinforcements to halt the Red Army offensive, & eventually build up enough strength to punch back. The USSR would've then crumbled if the war went the distance similar to how Russia got smoked by Germany in WWI. She would've been starved of supplies
>>508470
Yes. Allies would just rearm Germany and Japan and then double penetrate Stalin from the east and west.
>>509100
The war in the Pacific was far from just "naval bombardment." US troops stormed beach after beach in bloody warfare. The US would have been able to land enough troops to occupy a significant portion of eastern Russia. With Russian troops so far out of the way the US would have been able to construct massive airfields and bombed Russian industry.
>>510068
>Yes. Allies would just rearm Germany and Japan and then double penetrate Stalin from the east and west.
Who would they rearm, and how would they rearm them? Germany and Japan were reduced to fielding women and children by the end of the war while their cities had been reduced to cinders by the Allied bombings.
>Reds push to the channel
>oh wait
>that isn't where the nukes are
>B-29s continue to rain down death at an increasing pace
>>510051
>The USSR would've then crumbled if the war went the distance similar to how Russia got smoked by Germany in WWI. She would've been starved of supplies
Except the USSR had just finished crushing Germany.
>>509535
>hey were promised independence in exchange for fighting in WW1, and then afterwards were basically told "lol jk"
That's not what happened at all.
They promised home rule, before the war, suspended it because of the outbreak of war (which may have been fought to suspend home rule), and then had a lone, unpopular, insurrection.
They then went full retard in dealing with it and created a new, protracted insurrection.
>>509521
It's less the Invasion of Japan then the Invasion of Manchuria and China. Every declaration of war since the 1930s by Japan was to secure those two thing. It was what they were fighting for from the outset.
Before the Soviet Invasion, the overwhelming bulk of the Japanese Army was undefeated in the field, and had (misguided) hopes of a successful land war. The Soviets stomped in days what the Japanese spent 15 years to achieve, and made all further resistance pointless.
I think the Soviet vs. Atomic Bomb debate is a false dillema. But the Japanese did not surrender to the bomb in isolation. As has been pointed out many times, the firebombing of Tokyo was worse. The Strategic Bombing campaign over Germany was worse. The Strategic Bombing campaigns over Korea and Vietnam were worse.
The atomic bomb was one last fuck you on top of their navy being sunk, their islands being blockade, their cities bombed round the clock, their armies destroyed, and and total destruction of all tactical, operational, and strategic capabilities.
Japan was utterly fucked in 1945, bomb or no bomb. But if say, Doolittle had the bomb, there's no doubt the Japanese would not have surrendered.
Nukes are not an instawin button. They don't achieve anything impossible to conventional arms, and they don't negate conventional arms, especially in 1945.
>>509535
But that's bullshit, the second part at least.
The home rule bill had been agreed on, but for obvious reasons had been agreed to be postponed when war broke out in Europe, with no major objections on either side.
However with the war going on longer than intended certain dissident Republican groups began to plan an armed uprising during the war to establish an Irish Republican, this leading to the Easter rising where dissidents led an armed uprising which was eventually quelled, the issue however was the UK executing the majority of the rebel leadership, who Republicans were then able to paint as martyrs, furthering the cause of militant Republicanism
The major issue here is, the eventual Irish war of independence broke out after the war, due to impatience with the government over the home rule bill, and heightening support for militant Republicanism.
While in India unlike in Ireland the independence movement(s) lacked the same unity there was in Ireland, there were movements backing a Hindu state, a Muslim state, a unified state, independence of certain states within India, rather than in Ireland where the sides were drawn simply between Unionist and Republican. The main Indian National Congress and the idea of armed resistance suffered a serious blow during the war when former President Subhas Chandra Bose chose to ally himself with the Axis powers and establish a free India with him and his supporters fighting with Japanese forces in Asia, let us not forger too that the most unifying figure in the indepdence movement and leader of the Indian national congress at the time, Gandhi was a man preaching for non-violent resistance, a doctrine largely accepted in India. But perhaps most importantly a war with the Soviets would mean the UK would continue to receive its lend lease from the United states, the UK would be able to maintain its presence in India as it would be affordable, the reason India historically won her independence was due to...
Anyone posting in this thread who is unaware of Western mutinies in 1945/1946 needs to shut their fucking mouth and go back to the sources.
>>510148
...the British simply being unable to afford a continued presence following the war, leaving the country bankrupt and in serious debt. Non-violent resistance worked here as it made ruling the continent so ineffective and expensive for the British, and sending in more troops to try and restore 'order' was simply not affordable.
While in Ireland, largely due to the Easter rising, militancy was largely accepted by the majority was a measure to gain indepdence, the main Irish Republican party declaring indepdence after an electoral victory in 1918 despite the home rule being on the table still, was escalated even further by IRA members shooting dead 2 members of the British police force of their own volition, leading to the Irish war of indepdence, eventually lost by a Britain bankrupted by the first world war
The main issue is, Ireland and India are too totally different countries, and mutinies and indepdence movements in the two could not be compared especially in this scenario
>>508687
fellow American here. I'm sorry our high school history courses are so shit.
Japan was more or less controlled by gaggle of military leaders for several decades. Any political leaders who stepped out of line had an awful tendency to be assassinated until the military more or less seized control of the government.
These leaders were less than enthralled about the concept of an unconditional surrender, since they feared for the future of both themselves and their emperor, whom they viewed as a godlike figure. Surrender was on the table, but this leading minority in Japan refused to squad down and spread their cheeks for America. This ended up being slightly problematic since an invasion of mainland Japan would have been a meatgrinder the likes of which were only seen on the Eastern front.
The Japanese held out on the hope that Stalin would act as a mediator in a peace settlement between the U.S. and Japan. After all, the rift between the U.S. and USSR was already opening, and it was well within the interests of Stalin to check American expansion into Asia.
The Japanese military held on to this hope right until the Soviet Union decided that they weren't going to wait around to take a delicious slice of Asia, and paraded into Manchuria. Not only had Japan lost a possible advocate, they were now facing down the military force which defined itself through a series of horrific battles in urban settings. The Americans blinked when it came to a mainland invasion. Stalin didn't give a shit.
As all of this was happening, America was now dropping the first and second atomic bombs on the Japanese mainland. It definitely played a role in Japanese surrender, but it's much more likely that the USSR's war footing against Japan played a much larger role in the decision to surrender.
>>508470
no
>>510214
mostly not true. Granted, the USSR declaring war on them was a factor, but it certainly wasn't a more important reason for Japan's surrender than the nukes. It's not as if we don't have the memoirs of a bunch of people who were in the Japanese government at the time. They were debating surrender, but it was the nukes that really nailed it home that it had to be done, and done quickly. It was also the nukes that made it easier to sell surrender to the Japanese people.
>>508844
This, especially the part about the nukes. I really can't believe anyone could be dumb enough to think that 1) nukes wouldn't be used or 2) they wouldn't be decisive, but this is /his/ so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
>>510402
The counterargument is that the USSR's decision to get involve had that effect instead of the nukes.
The two events happened so closely together that you cannot say one or the other is solely responsible for Japan's surrender. My post may read like that, and I am sorry for that.
That being said, some of the more "out there" claims say that the Japanese simply used the nukes as an excuse to both alienate the Soviets and appease the U.S.A's murderboner. It sounds plausible, but there is absolutely no evidence outright proving or disproving it.
>>509603
I am sure you know all about russian and american seed
>>510148
>that part about india
>gandhi was the most unifying force in India
>not SC bose and the INA
do you even INA trials faggot?
they brought the muslim league and the INC together in terms of protests, people who would be rioting weeks down the line in calcutta were waving flags together for freeing the generals under trial.
>UK would be able
not necessarily.
The RIN mutiny was unexpected in many more ways because of the severity of the british reaction to it.
Something like that happening during a war with the SU would bring the UK to the bargaining table fast.
>>510416
The nukes would definitely be used, but if you look at blast crater radii from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you come to the conclusion that a 1st gen nuke was "only" about as devastating as 1,000 or so B-17s and 29s hitting a spot.
That won't destroy a spread out target like an infantry division. It certainly won't be decisive if used on a tactical basis. Used on a strategic basis I'm less sure of, given the large number of variables like the centralization of soviet industry once railed to Siberia, and how well the Soviets can protect it in a region that will be much easier for them to provide fighter cover than the Western Allies can provide escorts.
>>508470
I don't believe either side would gain that much of an upper hand, The Soviets had the manpower to probably drive to Rhine River, but probably not enough to completely capture Europe.
By the time Germany surrendered though, all sides in the war were absolutely sick and tired of all the fighting and killing, and no sensible leader was about to re-start the world's deadliest war, as most people at the time saw it fit that the Soviets earned a spot at the victor's table, instead of seeing them as the instant enemy of the world, that mentality developed over the course of 20 or so years.
The Post-World War II map wasn't going to perfectly meet anyone's goals because Allied troops would not dare turn their guns on the soviets, or the soviets attack the west allies just after 6 full years of killing and destruction. And lets not forget that during that time, the West and the Soviets were allies, and mostly saw eye to eye when it came to defeating Germany, and the mentality each had towards each other reflected that when the two armies did meet at the end of the war.
>>510427
The USSR didn't have the capability to launch a full-scale invasion of Japan. At most they would capture a few ports if they used their few transports when the US would invade mainland Japan, because the Japanese would be distracted.
>>510100
That victory was made possible by the millions of tons of supplies received from the Allies. My point was that without that aid Russia would've collapsed, just as she did in the previous war when primitive logistics precluded Anglo-French aid from coming in
>>509574
So you're telling me poorly armed, uneducated drunks on a fleet of rafts made out of vodka bottles and steam ships from the 1890s were going to take Japan, who had began to train old men, women, and children to defend the island to the death?
Also you have a lot of faith in soviet operational plans, moreso than most Soviet soldiers. Also a fuckton of Soviet soldiers couldn't swim let alone successfully launch an amphibian invasion.
>>510460
While there was some debate early on about the practicality of tactical nukes, many just wanted to use them strategically. Also it's easy now to sit back and say nukes didn't have an effect but if you here that a major city, say Moscow, was obliterated and you had to go fight an army with the power of God at their disposal, you might think twice.
>>509593
considering how all states under soviet control became colonies of russia controlled by murderous gangsters I'd say they did fine
>>510624
As opposed to say, when the U.S. leveled cities with conventional bombs over Germany, but that didn't cause them to break?
Or when the Germans invaded and occupied something like 20% of the population of the country, and the Soviets didn't give up?
I think you're vastly overestimating terror value.
Plus, a single nuke wouldn't obliterate Moscow. You'd probably need dozens if you wanted to flatten the city. Even for the U.S. industrial output of 1946, that's a pretty hefty call.
>>510148
>However with the war going on longer than intended certain dissident Republican groups began to plan an armed uprising during the war to establish an Irish Republican, this leading to the Easter rising where dissidents led an armed uprising which was eventually quelled, the issue however was the UK executing the majority of the rebel leadership, who Republicans were then able to paint as martyrs, furthering the cause of militant Republicanism
Even that didn't stir most Irish Nationalists into Republicanism. If that had been the end of it, that would have been the end of it. The Easter Rising was widely viewed at the time as a German Plot.
The British Government however then went around arresting anyone associated with Irish Nationalism in even the most vaguely threatening sort, and then threw them in concentration camps in Wales, retroactively vindicating the Easter Rising.
>rather than in Ireland where the sides were drawn simply between Unionist and Republican.
NOPE. Republicans were a tiny minority in 1914.
>>510171
>The main issue is, Ireland and India are too totally different countries, and mutinies and indepdence movements in the two could not be compared especially in this scenario
Totally agree on this point.
>The main Indian National Congress and the idea of armed resistance suffered a serious blow during the war when former President Subhas Chandra Bose chose to ally himself with the Axis powers and establish a free India with him and his supporters fighting with Japanese forces in Asia, let us not forger too that the most unifying figure in the indepdence movement and leader of the Indian national congress at the time, Gandhi was a man preaching for non-violent resistance, a doctrine largely accepted in India.
Let us also not forget that the Indian State was able to raise over 2 million VOLUNTEERS for the war. If they were interested in cutting ties immediately, they could have done so.
Who would argue with 2 million armed Indian soldiers? And unlike the Irish in WWI, this was a genuinely independent army, with it's own supply and command structure.
>>510761
the brits were able to get so many indians because they promised an independent pakistan to the muslim league.
the BIA was led by englishmen for the most part.
>>510093
The millions of POWs would have been a good start
If you say that Russians would have a hard time fighting Allies so far from homebases, please consider that Americans would need to transport their resources either from English Channel or through the Atlantic. Nuclear weapons were still scarce back then, so their impact would be limited at best. Now Russians could mobilize additional manpower from recently conquered countries.
>>511025
>If you say that Russians would have a hard time fighting Allies so far from homebases, please consider that Americans would need to transport their resources either from English Channel or through the Atlantic.
And they'd spent 5 years building up the capacity to do exactly that.
The soviets on the other hand, had spent the last 2 years racing ahead of their own supply trains.
>>508470
>may may may as usual
how typical
>>508470
Sure, cut them off from Lend-lease rations, and the 250 divisions or whatever they have mobilized will have nothing to eat, so either you demobilize them right away and send them in to the fields to plant crops before the fall harvest or you start getting mass surrenders come winter time
>>508470
Yes. Because the Russian supply lines were an absolute mess, and the western Allies would've definitely exploited this. That, and they would rearm the German population.
>>511046
you should not be taking the oneliners "lend lease provided enough supplies for XYZ divisions" absolutely literally
LL was very important but it was not as literal
>>510159
Elinghten us then, instead of shitposting...
>>511433
>Elinghten
>>508605
By flattening Moscow in such a scenario you'd have shown the USSR your own capability of producing nukes and the capability producing more of them meaning there is a chance that the USSR surrenders or signs a treaty to avoid more of your strategically cities nuked
Assuming slavs run of common sense of course
>>512336
It's weird that nobody else seems to run on this 'common sense'.
I'm sure the Soviets will be the exception. Surely, THIS time, strategic bombing will produce victory.
>>512490
>Surely, THIS time, strategic bombing will produce victor
Mate, there's only one instance of nuclear strategic bombing and that's Japan where they surrendered
People in this thread are forgetting 3 things
>1) muh lend lease
It was significant and helped but shouldn't be seen as solely responsible for the Soviet ability to resupply. Indeed if anything one of the things fucking them would have been repairing roads.
This is also assuming the Soviets move in 45 rather than wait to early 46 and repair for a few months
>2) muh nukes
Litvinov the Soviet ambassador in Washington openly heckled this and said "pls try faggots our industrial base is behind 7 dispersions"
Basically the Soviets weren't particularly cowed by the possibility
>3) damn commies is shit
Except at the end of the war tje only country In western Europe where the Communist resistance was smaller than the non Communist was Belgium. In every other country especially Italy and France, and especially Greece, the communists were extremely pro Soviet and had hundreds of thousands of men either under arms or willing to fight. These people were also often used to working under persecution as during the pre war and then war days. The Allies would have to fight an insurgency in their occupied territories against versatile and experienced partisans listening directly to their NKVD handlers in Moscow
And don't forget, using the bomb on a former ally would have hugely negative propaganda effects fornpeople who had just heard for 4 years about how much they love Uncle Joe
>>512694
I don't think waiting until 1946 is a good idea. The Western Allies have much bigger industrial economies than the USSR does, and especially if there's a Soviet presence in Eastern Europe that seems to be increasing, and the paranoia triggers are raised, you'll probably provoke a counter-buildup, which favors the West, not the USSR.
>>512704
Well if Patton gets his way and they attack rhe West loses the propaganda war instantly and is faced with massive internal dissent
Plus the Soviets can then fight defensively with communists tsupport in Western.Europe
>>512775
I meant in response to the immediately above anon who, (as I read it, I might have misunderstood) was talking about a situation in which the Soviets built up until early 1946 before attacking the west.
>>509516
>they logically chose to surrender to America instead.
They chose to surrender to America because America was the one they'd been fighting for 4 years. They'd only been fighting the Soviet Union for 2-3 days. Also Japan felt betrayed by the Soviets as they viewed them as Asiatics and "on the same team" as the Japanese.
Also, an American invasion of Japan would've landed before a Soviet one. The Soviet fleet in the Pacific at the time was just nothing of worth.
>>509516
>and they logically chose to surrender to America instead.
except that the allies had publicly agreed not to seek a separate peace with Japan; when when the Japanese surrendered they surrendered to all the allies.
>halt lend lease program
>divert resources to Pacific and European theaters
>put European troops on a defensive strategy
>prep amphibious assault in Manchuria
>move b-29 bombers to India
>build nukes
>fend off Soviet assault in Europe after USSR runs out of supplies
>launch simultaneous offensives in Europe and Manchuria
>fire bomb Soviet farms in central Asia
>nuke Siberian factory cities
>sever trans Siberian railroad
>advance steadily as Soviet forces starve and run out of munitions
That's how it would have been won.
At the very least they themselves thought so, since they gave so much power to Stalin after the war.
>>512852
It was less out of any Asiatic friendliness as the Soviets were a key source of the Japs pinning their delusions on during the last days of the war.
Japan thought the Soviets would honor their non-aggression pact. They then thought they could hold out, and the emergent cold war would cause the Soviets to mediate on behalf of Japan.
>>508470
yes
even if the soviet manage to overrun western europe, their shit navy can't do shit about the UK
and while the soviets have no way to hit the US at home, the US could just rush to produce more nukes, hitting major cities like Moscow and Leningrad, nuking the USSR into submission
>>513638
If, and it's a "if" the soviets throw the Allies into the Atlantic, win the conventional war in Europe, you'll never get bombers with nukes through to the major Russian cities so far outside of your own fighters escort ranges.
>>513649
that's a very big If, considering that they have to get through the Royal Navy and the US Navy to truly kick the Allies out of Europe
if they can't take out the UK the US is just going to use it as a Unsinkable aircraft carrier and use it to launch nuclear attack against the Soviets
>>508470
Yes. Their supply lines were stretched to the absolute maximum, and their forward groups were literally scrounging for food in the countryside.
Hell, if they concentrated their forces they could probably have busted through, cut the artery and let the massive Soviet blob starve to death. Especially with the aid of atomic weapons and superior air power.
The Allies could have stopped the Cold War from being a thing if they had just one ball between them.
>>508710
this guy gets it.
>>513692
How would you have to go through anyone's navy to push westwards into West Germany, the Low Countries, and France, and southwards into Italy?
>if they can't take out the UK the US is just going to use it as a Unsinkable aircraft carrier and use it to launch nuclear attack against the Soviets
And it's 1,300 miles, give or take, from London to Leningrad. Through areas that the Soviets can stack enormous air defenses, waves after waves of Laggs, that you'll have to dodge or fight your way through. The odds of being spotted and shot down are almost certain.
Now, yes, the Soviets have no plausible way of taking out the UK, let alone the U.S., and if the Western Powers remain absolutely committed to the war, they will win eventually. But their appetite for conflict isn't endless, and the Western will to fight giving out before Soviet material resources do is reasonable, especially if they've been thrown out of Continental Europe a second time.
And my apologies over the last post, I really did mean "Continental Europe" when I said "Europe" before.
>>508470
Why would they?
As an enemy of convenience, the Soviet Union was profitable as an entity.
>>512336
How the fuck would you get a bomber to reach Moscow, thousands of miles deep inside a country whos skies you don't control?
It's impossible.
You might hit Leningrad, but Leningrad is already in ruins, you'll only make the rubble bounce.
You might be able to hit Vladivostok from Japan, but nobody gives a fuck about Vladivostok.
Nukes are worthless without a realistic means of delivering them.
>>513638
How would you penetrate Soviet defences to the point of reaching Moscow, Kiev, Lenningrad with one of the nine nukes USA had in stock by 1946? Also, as I said earlier, Allied supply lines were much more vunerable, while Red Army could, simply, steal food from local population. Also remember that 2:1 manpower ratio, Soviet superior tanks and their new puppet states, I can see them pushing Yanks and Anglos to the Atlantic.
>>513758
It was plenty enough to shoot down one shitty bomber at the limit of it's range and pilot fatigue
>>513765
Not him, but the B-29 is damn tough, and flies at too high of an altitude for most Soviet fighters to even attempt to intercept. It's pretty much Lagg 9s or go home.
And if I was trying to deliver an a-bomb to Moscow, and I knew it would be difficult, if not impossible to go with fighter cover, I would send 500+ bombers together, one of which has the nuke, and try to cover as much distance outside of escort range at night as possible.
