Should the Allies have handled Post-WW2 differently?

[The diplomat]

Right after the end of WW2, the Allies were in a position of strength compared to the Soviet Union. The US' economy and military were booming and had a nuclear monopoly while the Soviet Union was recovering from a devastating land campaign. Churchill argued that the Allies should have used that position of strength to pressure Stalin to negotiate a settlement, rather than wait until the Soviet Union assimilated Eastern Europe.

Should the Allies have done things differently with the Soviet Union in the years immediately following the end of WW2?

[Sava]

Considering we didn't have a ww3... I'd say we did okay.

[Jamski]

Yeah, but we had the Cold War, Veitnam, Korea, Afganistan etc...

The allies should really have *forced* Stalin to allow free elections in eastern Europe, instead of 40-50 years later. But they didn't, and that's history for you.

-Jam

[Shogun Gunner]

The Soviet Union was no pushover in the conventional military. That would have been one nasty fight in Europe, a Europe which was tired of war.

Nukes? We had 'em, the Soviets didn't. Right, that's always a winning strategy - in real life or civ!!!

[axi]

The Americans did not have nukes until 15 months after the end of the war in Europe. If they confronted the Soviet Union, they would have to fight a conventional war. That was impossible while fighting against Japan as well.

[David Floyd]

Actually, in a conventional war in Europe in May of 1945, the Western Allies would have absolutely destroyed the Red Army. No question. Further, US strategic bombers would have devastated the Soviet Union itself.

In any case, while I don't believe we should have fought WW2 to begin with, we certainly should not have allowed Stalin to set up puppet communist nations in Eastern Europe.

[Immortal Wombat]

Er yeah. And we'd have justified a war how? The Soviets just kicked the Nazis back to Berlin.

[David Floyd]

I'm just saying, we woulda stomped them

[Dauphin]

What we shoulda done is stop the aid to Russia once victory was almost inevitable. Russia would not have given up fighting, I think Stalin was too stupid and obstinant to negotiate a seperate peace, but it wouldn't make that much difference to the outcome if they did. The Allies could then have liberated Eastern Europe itself while Russia stood around as an impotent bystander.
From our post Cold-War viewpoint it would have been a grand plan. From the viewpoint of Roosevelt and maybe Churchill it would have unnecessarily cost more lives and time. The route they chose was the most expedient road to peace, so I have no qualms when all is said and done.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think it would have been a crime against humanity to continue world war 2 a day longer than necessary or to risk a new war with Russia.

One fact people forget is the allies won the war but the allied armies were exhausted. The British army in particular just staggered over the line after 6 years of war. If the war had been prolonged or restarted there was a strong chance of a mutiny by the troops.

Similarly the Russian people longed for peace having suffered unimaginably during the war. There was enormous popular respect for their achievements at the time and a feeling the Red Army was invincible.

[yaroslav]

Plus, Harry S. Truman told in his memories that the reason for not discuss with Stalin and give him so much control of Easter Europe was that the US govt. believed that they will need the help of the USSR to attack Japan, in order to minimize losses.

Please remember who bad were the estimation of losses if an attack over the main islands of Japan should have been done.

[axi]

You should also consider that declaring war on the Soviet Union would have meant immediate war with almost all partizan forces in formerly occupied countries.

The problem would be the worst in Asia, where Malaysians, Vietnamese, Philippinos and Chinese had each considerable communist partizan forces, who had fought against the Japanese. With it's nationalist movement at full steam, India would be easy pickings for the Communists too. Also in Europe, British positions in Greece would be untenable if the partizan army were to have the support of the neighbouring countries. Not to mention that the Allies would have trouble holding France and Italy proper, where the communist parties were extremely powerful, so powerful that only marginally did they miss getting into power in the first post-war elections.

All you military experts forget that it's not just how many divisions you have on the border that judges the outcome of a war. The communist movement was so strong that taking action against the Soviet Union at that time would make any capitalist state unsafe, even the British Empire and the United States.

[Alexander's Horse]

hmmm, I think that overstates it - partisans never had much more than a nuisance value - but you are right in the sense that such a war would not have had wide popular support.

[Nubclear]

However had that happend, Russia may today have been a prospering democracy

[Alexander's Horse]

more likely a smoking ruin

The idea of allied troops fighting over the same devastated ground the Germans invaded is quite obscene when you think about it.