What If: the US and British had engaged the Soviets in 1945?

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
55,053
Location
Albuquerque, NM
If Patton had been successful in convincing Eisenhauer to attack the Soviets in 1945, would it have been successful?
Would they have had to use nukes?
What might have been the outcome upon winning? Losing?
How might the map of Europe changed?
 
careful about bragging on how mighty America would have driven Russians back to the steppes whence they came .
 
First question would be: when in 1945? Between May and August the Western allies were still at war with Japan, so if hostilities broke out during that time I wonder what the position would be on a conditional surrender.

After September, I think the Germans and Japanese would be under much less pressure to demilitarize as they had done between 1945-50; the Germans in particular not being terribly fond of the Russians at this point and had made some attempts to make peace on the Western side.

As for the map, politically, I find it hard to think that Poland and Romania would accept any loss of territory as they had in 1939-40. Furthermore, the annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized as legitimate by the USA during the entire 1940-91 period. Whether there would be a Ukraine, Belarus, or breakup of Central Asia, I don’t know.

There would also be, I suspect, the defeat of the Chinese communists since their main benefactor would be much busier and the pro-Chiang lobby in the USA would have more sway in Washington.

The European empires, already a spent force fighting the Axis alone, might have even more trouble trying to re-establish control over India, Indochina, and the Dutch East Indies—depending on how the Pacific war situation is, these could be left to Chinese or Japanese spheres of influence under some kind of quasi-de facto independence.

Beyond 1946, I don’t know what changed there would be in the American economy without the return of American soldiers and the subsequent Baby Boom and economic prosperity that came in the 1950’s. Would this be delayed, strengthened, or weakened by an extended war? I say 1946 because it was certainly forecast that an invasion of mainland Japan (which I don’t think would have been necessary—see “Bombs Away” LeMay’s plan to fly 12,000 bombers over Japan after losing more than 90% of its merchant marine) would not conclude in 1945.

With regards to the actual military stuff, tanks and guns and men on the ground, :dunno:
 
Doesn't this belong in the history forum? :confused:

Anyway,
Churchill had such a plan called Operation Unthinkable, with a start date of July 1 and it looked sketchy, even on paper. The US and UK would be at a horrific numerical disadvantage in everything except strategic bombers, and Truman wasn't going to go along with such a thing with Japan still at large.
 
France gets a shiny new red flag
 
Goodbye, Kyiv. Goodbye, Leningrad. Goodbye, Moscow. Goodbye, Soviets.
 
Soviets were kinda spent bit outnumbered the west.

However thevwest coukd pretty much bomb them with impunity. Soviets struggled at higher altitudes.

But the jokeoibt is Baku which supplied a huge % of the Soviet fuel. And it was in rage if bombers from Persia.

Soviet logistics were really bad so all those tanks xan probably kiss goodbye to their fuel.

And nukes. Don't really need to capture SPB or Moscow.

Even on the way out the Germans were still inflicting crazy kill ratios.
 
If Patton had been successful in convincing Eisenhauer to attack the Soviets in 1945, would it have been successful?
Would they have had to use nukes?
What might have been the outcome upon winning? Losing?
How might the map of Europe changed?

The Soviets would have pushed the allies back to France in bloody battle or perhaps even all the way down into Italy.

A couple of major Soviet cities or army concentrations would have gotten nuked in the fall instead of 2 Japanese cities. (Trinity test was successful in July 1945)

With enough American support and arms the Soviets would gradually get pushed back, but the war weariness and outrage of attacking an ally and continuing World War 2 would have been severe.

Also, Japan does not surrender if the Soviets join them in the middle of 1945.
The war probably drags on with millions more dead.


With enough air power, nukes, and little ability to be invaded, the allies backstabbing the Soviet Union probably win in the end with horrific cost.

I'd have to imagine the world ending up a darker place.

Russian paranoia in the decades after the war would have been off the charts with first the planned genocide by Germany and then the cruel attack from the allies.


Eastern Europe saved from Communism?
It would be the one bright spot from continuing the war I'd imagine.
I'm not sure all the extra millions dead from 2 or 3 more years of world war are better than the bleakness of 44 years of communism and being bossed around by the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
After WW1 the West intervened in the Russian Civil War with a spectacular lack of success.
I can't imagine ordinary Americans and Brits being any keener on more war in '45 than ordinary French people and Brits were in '18.
 
After years of fighting Germany and having USSR as ally, it simply wouldn't be accepted by the populations of the respective countries. War weariness, feeling of betrayal and so on. See WW1 intervention in Russia, but worse.

If we imagine some "what if ?" scenario where the Western populations are actually convinced that USSR will be just as dangerous as the Axis ? Probably a hard fight, but people thinking that the Russians would have conquered Europe easily should just... dunno, get out of revisionism and get some basic facts straight. USSR industrial output was barely on par with Germany, it had lost a colossal amount of people and had shortage of manpower, and allies already had rougly the same amount of soldiers on the ground with better hardware and much higher reserves.
 
The communists were actually popular after war, having fought in the resistance against the Germans, even joining the government in '44.

Those inclined to go fight against the "bolsheviks" in Russia of course had already the chance to join the German offensive in '41.

I cannot see much support for such an offensive plan in 1945...not here at any rate, the US came late to the war, if they wanted to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe they should have joined in '39-40.
 
Last edited:
Leaving aside the implausibility of such scenery, maybe Soviets had got some terrain at first due to surprise and the huge size of the Red army but that had been it. Soviets had faced not a destroyed resourceless Germany attacked from every corner, but a plethoric USA (plus allies) with virtually infinite resources which was at its industrial and manpower peaks that already had a huge and relatively unscathed army in Europe. Meanwhile SU was utterly devastated in every sense and scraping the barrel in search for manpower. Add the Project Manhattan had continued producing nukes instead of being dismantled and the fact B-29s were unreachable for Soviet fighters and i would say Soviet Union (or whatever remainings of it) had capitulated unconditionally in a matter of months.
 
There would also be, I suspect, the defeat of the Chinese communists since their main benefactor would be much busier and the pro-Chiang lobby in the USA would have more sway in Washington.
At that time in China, communism was mainly an anti-imperialist/anti-colonial ideology. The idea was that China would never recover full sovereignty without Mao. That anti-colonial aspect of communism is way too often overlooked.

I'm skeptical that stronger US support for Chiang Kai-shek would have been enough to ensure a victory for the Nationalists on this ground. After all, Vietnam is much smaller than China and look what happened there. If Vietnamese fought during 30 years against colonial powers (and yes the US was interpreted as such), it's not because they loved Marx's beard, it was to achieve self-determination. Situation in China was exactly the same. And still is to a certain extent, as even today the Chinese Communist Party bases its legitimacy on that anti-imperialist discourse.
 
If I were to craft an alternate history scenario with the aim of having a shooting war between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union shortly after WWII...

1. Let's first suppose that George Patton wasn't killed in August December 1945 and was able to continue to press for direct action to liberate Eastern Europe.
2. Harry Truman was President, and the Truman Doctrine was the early U.S. version of 'containment' of the Soviet sphere of influence that more or less started the Cold War and led to stuff like 'Domino Theory' (which in turn contributed to the U.S. getting involved in Vietnam years later, among other things). Perhaps Truman could be pushed into a more aggressive posture, somehow.
3. The Turkish Straits Crisis of 1946 was the first direct, post-WWII confrontation between the Soviet Union and the countries that would become NATO. Historically, a lot of U.S. wars have begun with some kind of naval action, an attack on an American ship or something along those lines. The actual Turkish Straits Crisis involved Turkish and Russian ships, but perhaps in our alternate history, we can postulate that a U.S. Navy ship gets directly involved, and damaged or sunk. Also, I don't know if the Turkish Straits Crisis is what prompted the US to post missiles and bombers in Turkey, which is what led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, or if Turkey was just a big, potential flashpoint during the Cold War and this was just another moment that it could have boiled over. Either way, maybe there's a thread we could pull on there.
4. I think the Poles in exile in the UK were agitating for the Western Allies to push the Soviets back to pre-war borders. I don't think they were ever close to getting what they wanted, but perhaps they could be part of a confluence of factors that pushes the US and UK back into war.
5. I believe there were also Germans - Wehrmacht - who were ready to join the Western Allies to liberate Berlin from the Soviets. I don't know how many there were, how serious they were, how well-armed they were, or who would have led them. But there was one moment, at the end of the war, when some Wehrmacht soldiers actually did join forces with a US Army unit, at the Battle for Castle Itter. It was a small action that didn't play a big role subsequently, but perhaps that could be another log we can throw onto the alternate-history fire.
6. There were also something like 400,000 German POWs held in the United States by the end of the war (Wikipedia says 425,000). I think a lot of them liked the U.S. and generally got along with Americans pretty well. While they were in the POW camps, the German officers and NCOs maintained their military hierarchy and kept discipline. In some places, German POWs were allowed off the grounds of the prison-camps and interacted with civilians. Even if only half of them would have been fit enough to put their uniforms back on, that's, like, 15 or 20 divisions, well-rested and with some training and organization.

All in all, I think 1945 might be too soon. But with all of the above, I think you could get a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviets in '46 or '47. This would be before the Soviets conducted their first successful atomic test. This would also be before The Marshall Plan was begun, if that matters, and before the Blockade of Berlin.
 
Last edited:
Great scenario! ^^^

I think that such a war would have to begin (and end) before the Soviets get any nukes. In 1945 much of western Russia was in ruins. Once Japan surrendered (after Hiroshima and Nagasaki) the door to forcing the Soviets out of Eastern Europe would be open. "Restore the 1939 borders or we take out Moscow!"
 
The battleground would primarily be Eastern Europe. The US and its allies would absolutely be able to cream the Soviets in Europe with airpower and nuclear weapons. Also remember that the Soviets were quite dependent on help and aid from primarily the US while they fought Hitler.

I reckon Stalin would withdraw his forces to the USSR proper to preserve his regime intact and make peace, because everyone were fed up with the war anyway in 1945. I don't really see any scenario where the Americans would invade or occupy Soviet territory, perhaps with the exception of pockets of territory closest to Japan. Recall that the Americans had built up a quite formidable Pacific fighting force in 1945 and after Japan is defeated, it would be free to engage the Eastern part of the USSR.
 
A lot of people would die in addition to already immense WW2 casualties.
The Soviets would reach the Atlantic coast, after which the war would become a stalemate.
British and US politicians would have hard time explaining to their people why they are still good guys despite being clear aggressors and backstabbing their ally. But they'd manage.
 
I don't see any conflict as being more than localized skirmishes. In 1945 it was still an open question as to what the post-war environment would look like. Even in 1946 there was the serious American proposal to put nuclear energy, including nuclear weapons, under the control of the United Nations.

There might be localized skirmishes in the Turkish Straights Crisis, or over the soviet withdrawal from Iran/Caucuses, but nobody had interest or resources for a big war. The UK was broke and had to implement even tougher rationing than during wartime. The Soviet Union was exhausted, with even the apparently limitless pool of manpower for the Red Army running dry. America was demobilizing with all speed possible and rapidly downsizing forces.

Plus, what Patton wanted didn't really matter. He didn't control the US military, Truman did. In 1949 during the 'revolt of the Admirals' Truman was confident enough to tell the military brass to get stuffed.
 
Top Bottom