Should the allies have steamrolled through the soviets at the end of WWII and killed two birds with one war?
>>60156474
t.Churchill
>>60156474
Well, it would have been way better for the continent, maybe even Russia itself.
So: yes.
>>60158731
t. proxyfag
>fight one of the bloodiest wars in American and British history
>suddenly once victory and peace are at hand, declare war on one of your most important allies
Yeah I'm sure that would have gone over great in the Allied countries. People would have been furious, and if there wasn't a straight up coup or revolution then Churchill and Truman would certainly have lost to an anti-war candidate when they came up for reelection.
>Europe just went trough a war costing tens of millions of lives, barely enough food to go around, industries ruined, entire cities razed, everyone's sick of war, countries scrapping the bottom of the barrel for manpower
>"let's start another war, what could possibly go wrong"
>>60158898
>important allies
they were never an ally, just an enemy of my enemy. USA had nuke superiority and could have decapitated the USSR preventing the cold war
>>60159109
But at what cost?
>>60159109
The US could produce less than one nuke per month. So one in septemper for the direct center of moscow, one for central leningrad in october and from the on, the soviets would have spread out enough, that these small 20k nukes would only be used tactically. So they would have to spread their armoured spearhead formation over 10 km compared to 3. Not really a game changer.
>>60159109
Except the USA and UK had been spewing out pro-Soviet propaganda for the whole war, people would be pretty pissed if they had just attacked them. Not to mention, that ally or not, people were tired of war. When peace is finally achievable immediately starting another similarly destructive war would be intensely unpopular.
Political willpower is an essential military resource anon, and it's one that the Western Allies were fresh out of in 1945.
>>60159202
cost of Ruskie life (which was treated as completely disposable by Ruskies themselves)?
>>60159109
Nukes at the time were shit, good for razing cities but not much else and most of the Soviet shit was out of reach of fighter escorts anyway.
The problem is how the fuck do you convince your population to go to war against a former ally that also has numerical superiority on the field at the time.
I mean the Russians could quite realistically steam role the shit out of central Europe possibly killing or capturing hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen that just weeks before though the war is ending and they might finally go home.
>>60159270
Not to mention that they could only have been delivered by bombers which would be extremely vulnerable. So the U.S. would get one nuke per month and not even have a guarantee of it actually getting to its target.
>>60159270
>The US could produce less than one nuke per month.
you sure convinced me with those hot opinions
>>60159324
>Millions of Russian soliders in Germany in 1945, compared to less than a million allied soldiers spread across Western Europe.
>Nukes at the time were VERY slow to make, deliver, and they weren't even that powerful.
The war would go on for years. So I ask again, at what cost?
