T O P
toosmallfortheworld

hmmm i dont know man would not usa just use a bombs then. Other wise I dont think there was an appetite for the loss they would take invading. If they did invade then unless there was a knockout blow we are talking about another long slugfest as by then Soviet union was churning out shit loads of tanks etc and since they are being invaded they would be able to field them quickly while USA I presume would need weeks of sea travel + overland journey before getting to the war front. Also Soviet union would be willing to take a lot more losses. Also if this took long enough then I wonder if China would get involved from 1949 onwards.


baubaugo

This is the right answer though, there just wasn't the appetite for more war. Had there been more of an appetite for it, the Korean war would have expanded into a real world war, at least with the Soviets and US involved. It was limited because neither government would have been able to sell the idea of expanding it that far.


PebblyJackGlasscock

Churchill wanted to do exactly this, so there’s actual History What If already written in the subject.


SonofSonofSpock

I think people in this thread are underestimating how utterly exhausted the Soviets were in the immediate aftermath of WW2. I read a book a while ago by a US diplomat who traveled within the USSR in 1947 and he described how devastated much of the country was at that point. The nazi's were very effective at destroyed infrastructure as they retreated, and a huge portion of the Soviet wartime economy was due to Lend-Lease and aid from the US specifically. The Soviet army at that point was an incredibly well honed fighting force, their troops were hard dudes, they had through attrition gained a very strong general staff, and they had good equipment and people who knew how to use it effectively. That said, they would be hard pressed to replace losses without foreign aid, and the big thing here is that they had no way to strike at the united states which was much much stronger in 1946 than it was in 1941. They had no Navy, nor any ability to effectively defend the far East from the USN (or Leningrad for that matter). Their airforce was very good by the end of the war, but the USN and the Army Air Corp were much stronger. The US Army was essentially still in pristine condition, and also battle hardened. I think the main issue is that the Soviets even with these disadvantages would not fold quickly and the United States public did not have an appetite for this war so anything that turns this into a slog would be unpopular back home. I am also not sure how dropping an atomic weapon on Moscow would go over back home.


JoukovDefiant

Including it would be hard to drop a nuke on Moscow with just some B-29 and a massive anti-aircraft artillery concentration.


Commissar_David

In 1946 nobody wanted to fight, except for a few. Even if they did fight, it would ultimately be a loss for the Soviets, because they already lost a good portion of their population fending off the Germans, to the point that their population hasn't fully recovered. That being said, it would likely take a few years for that to happen, but happen it would.


HobbitFoot

The USA could possibly win if politics weren't an issue, but the USA had just won a very big war and it wasn't looking for new ones. Moreso, the invasion of the USSR would likely lead to at least an order of magnitude more casualties.


wessneijder

There is a romanticization of the Red Army and Soviet Union that I find strange and also fascinating. This isn't meant as a dig at you or anything, I have been studying WWII for 30 years, heck at one point I started for a masters in military history (which I didn't come close to finishing before switching majors) and to me it's amazing how the attitudes have changed over the years in regards to the Eastern Front and mid-1942 in general. In the early 90s, Stalingrad was presented as the turning point on the eastern front, but the war was never presented as a foregone conclusion after that battle like it is now. The narrative has changed, especially on reddit. It's almost like amateur historians nowadays are going through the motions and the Wehrmacht was doomed from the start. This viewpoint is a recent phenomenon. I seldom saw it presented on pre-reddit days when history buffs frequented forums like History Channel (back when history channel was about history), historynet, CombinedFleet, Axishistory forums (be careful with the last one they glorified the Wehrmacht in a weird way) and other history forums. Is this recent phenomenon revisionist history? Why is the red army seen as invincible?


JoukovDefiant

Thanks for your insight, I get the exact thinking recently. ​ I suppose that it's not a point of view regarding how much red army was invincible (far from that considerring their failures in 1941 and 1942) but how much germans were doomed to lost considerring their faulty strategic approach, that they were unable to change or understand.


wessneijder

Agree 100%


JoukovDefiant

Don't know if it was translated into english or not, but french historian Jean Lopez explain that very well into his book: "Barbarossa 1941, the Total War"


wessneijder

Do you have an excerpt?


JoukovDefiant

>"Barbarossa 1941, the Total War" That would be hard to find you some excerpt...sadly can't find some proper source in english:https://historum.com/threads/barbarossa-the-absolute-war-by-jean-lopez.180392/


toosmallfortheworld

I would not say they were invincible, It was just the amount of pounding they were willing to take. I guess it helps to have a leader who is not worried about casualties etc. Though IMO I think the red army just took so much of Germany effort that if they had not attacked ussr and instead just focused on the other front they could have possibly won the war.


TrotskYx3

I don't think the nuke would have that big of an effect (considering the nuclear arsenal the US had at the time). Look at Stalingrad or Berlin, both cities were obliterated, having a few more be destroyed doesn't change the picture much. In the field, the situation would be very bad for the Allies. The Soviets had 1 : 2.85 superiority in infantry divisions, 1 : 1.57 in armored, 1 : 1.95 in tactical aircraft (July 1945 data). The US would be superior in fighter aircraft and strategic aviation. The navy wouldn't play a role on the European battlefield. I am confident of a soviet victory on the ground. Let's analyze "Operation Wacht am Rhein" (Battle of the Bulge). The Germans did pretty good until they ran out of oil. The Soviets don't have that problem. And plus they are more superior than anything the Germans ever had on the western front. The Soviets would also be able to conscript most of eastern europe, which they did, for example in Yugoslavia. Also an important topic for discussion would be: What effect would the various communist organizations in the western countries have on the war effort? The French communists, British and American communists. There were a lot of "Reds" in Allied countries at the time.


Dyolf_Knip

Yeah, but meanwhile the US is producing 1-2 nuclear bombs per month and reducing surviving Soviet cities to just so much scrap. What happens when they take out Moscow, at a stroke eradicating the entire leadership cadre, the rail hub, and much of the population and industrial infrastructure? *Multiple* air forces are simply pounding away at their supply lines with total impunity, they are obviously getting no more Lend Lease aid, Allied navies are steaming right into the Baltic and Black seas, conducting air raids and threatening landings there, and they are facing a genuine demographic collapse back home. Yeah, the Red Army was an *awesome* fighting force, but only as long as it could be fed, transported, supplied, and defended from the air, none of which they'd be able to do effectively for very long. Absolute best case scenario, they make it as far as the western German border before being turned back. Stalin is deposed (assuming he wasn't already killed in the destruction of Moscow) and his successors sue for peace. What they get really depends on the particulars of how it started and the Allies' mood. Could be anything from 1939 borders, to disarmament, to outright dismemberment of the USSR. Cruelly, I think that despite the extra couple *million* casualties all this would entail, it would actually result in a much, much better post-war timeline overall than IRL. No Iron Curtain, no Cold War, no Korean partition nor Vietnam War, no communist takeover in China or Great Leap Forward, no CIA constantly overthrowing governments in favor of dictators willing to say they'll oppose the USSR.


SonofSonofSpock

The battle of the bulge is not a great example, the Germans were mostly effective due to cloud cover and surprise at the audacity of the plan. Once the Army Air Corps could get involved it was pretty much over.


TheUnrepententLurker

The Soviets would have crushed the US in the field, and lost the war. Economics and nukes win the war.