War between the western allies and the Sovs in '45. Who wins?

[Qilue]

Had the allies started a war with the USSR in May 1945, it's highly likely the Japanese would have imediately sued for a ceasefire.

[JohnT]

Why, Qilue?

[Qilue]

Imperialist Japan would have been unlikely to sign up to any kind of relationship with Stalinist USSR and the feeling would have likely been mutual. Especially given their disputes over territorial claims in Manchuria, Sakhalin and other areas.

[Lancer]

Vesayen, yes I'm aware of that. My point is that is you factor in the nukes the Sovs have no chance to win. It makes the thread pointless.

JohnT, that's true but by '45 the Sovs already had all that stuff. It would take a while for the allies to bomb it into oblivion.

If the Sovs can push the allies off the continent they have to do it very fast before allied airpower wipes them out. I don't think they could do it. They would have to absolutely crush the allied armies right off so there would be not enough tp stop them driving east through Germany and France.

I don't see the Sovs crushing allied armies so quickly. Supply would be very difficult also.

[JohnT]

Ahh. You're saying they would've quit the fight against the US and joined in the attack on Russia?

Possibly. I don't think Japan really had the military strength left to go on such an offensive (and I'm not sure that the US would've just let that happen, either.)

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Lancer
Vesayen, yes I'm aware of that. My point is that is you factor in the nukes the Sovs have no chance to win. It makes the thread pointless.

JohnT, that's true but by '45 the Sovs already had all that stuff. It would take a while for the allies to bomb it into oblivion.

If the Sovs can push the allies off the continent they have to do it very fast before allied airpower wipes them out. I don't think they could do it. They would have to absolutely crush the allied armies right off so there would be not enough tp stop them driving east through Germany and France.

I don't see the Sovs crushing allied armies so quickly. Supply would be very difficult also.

The thread is pointless as is The ruskies had no chance because we would nuke them into submission.

[Qilue]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ahh. You're saying they would've quit the fight against the US and joined in the attack on Russia?

Possibly. I don't think Japan really had the military strength left to go on such an offensive (and I'm not sure that the US would've just let that happen, either.)

Not so much join the attack. Rather go neutral and get out of the way. By May 1945, the writing was on the wall for Japan with defeat being almost a foregone conclusion and surrender not being an option. So a non-defeat option would have been extremely appealing to the EMperor and Japanese high command.

[techumseh]

Reality Check:

1. The US wouldn't use the A-bomb: false. It was available in small numbers, but the Soviets were 3 years away, assuming their espionage network performed as well as it did historically. If the Soviets couldn't retaliate, the US would certainly have used it again.

2. The allies would have had automatic air superiority: questionable. The Soviets had a large airforce, with some high quality fighters. The airforce was overwhelmingly tactical, with few heavy bombers of any quality. Soviet production was good, but keeping pace with the allies in technolgy would be tough.

3. The allies "let" the Soviets take Berlin, who were overextended: false. The Red Army was larger, better equiped and more effective than the combined allied armies. The logistics of both armies was a limiting factor, however.

4. The allies could have attacked the Soviets immediately after the defeat of Germany: false. Sympathy for the Soviets and the communists who led the resistance in France, Italy and eastern Europe was very high in allied nations and armies in 1945. The effect on morale of turning on your esteemed ally at the moment of victory cannot be overestimated. Governments would have fallen over this.

5. Patton was a significant factor: silly. Patton was a good general, but no better than a dozen Soviet marshals. Zuhkov in particular was a better strategic general overall.

In the end, I think it would come down to whether the long term Allied economic and technological advantage would have overcome the short term Soviet political advantage. Probably, but it would have been closer than some seem to think.

[Lancer]

Ves, some years ago we Poly OT people built a house for some poor people. Since then there hasn't been a single thread that wasn't pointless that I'm aware of. It's all BS or info or chat, and none of it will make a bit of difference.

[JohnT]

I think it would come down to whether the long term Allied economic and technological advantage would have overcome the short term Soviet political advantage.

Which is what actually happened, just without the direct warring.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vesayen
WE HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Hm, no.

I don't think the US had any ready on VE Day.

[JohnT]

Well, there have been a few condolence threads, Lancer. Those weren't "worthless" either.

[Frozzy]

The soviets were scared ****less after we nuked the Japanese

No they weren't. Stalin most certainly wasn't. He knew all about the bomb, and when the US tried to intimidate him with it it didn't work.

[Lancer]

"Well, there have been a few condolence threads, Lancer. Those weren't "worthless" either."

I stand corrected.

Also, we meet people and hopefully make friends and certainly enjoy the passtime and that's not worthless.

[muxec]

Q: Why didn't America conquer USSR in 1945?
A: USA did not need this piece of sh*t.