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

[EgonSpengler]

Bombs were few and far between in 1945. I would guess 3-4 might be available in the months after Nagasaki.

It depends precisely when in 1945. IIRC the US had used up all its fissile material for the 2 bombs dropped on Japan, so if we assume this war breaks out after August 45 the US probably can't build another bomb until the beginning of 46. If we're assuming the war breaks out before Japan's surrender then the US can use those 2 bombs on the Soviets instead but Japan still being in the war makes for much more of a wildcard scenario; Japan's ability to project power is essentially non-existent by the beginning of 1945 but still.

Yeah, when they bombed Japan, they had just the 2 bombs. I've no idea when they could have had a couple more, though, if we're supposing a conflict in '46 or '47.

I don't think they would go after Stalin personally, just like they didn't go after the Japanese Government and Royal family. You need there to be someone in charge that the Soviet armed forces would obey. Someone in control of the generals. Stalin had that control. Pure guesswork, but perhaps 5-10 additional nuclear bombs in the second half of 1945? Depends on how much enriched Uranium/Plutonium they could produce. Note that the first bomb (Little Boy) required +60kg of enriched Uranium, because it was a 'simple' pistol design. The following bomb (Fat Man) was a much more advanced implosion device, requiring only something like 8kg of Plutonium. So, once they cracked the formula for making these things more effectively - you need considerably less of the critical enriched fissile material.

I agree, I don't know if they would have used an atomic bomb on Moscow.

My view is that the Allied emphasis on strategic aircraft wouldn't have been much help; there are a total of zero (0) successful uses of strategic airpower to win a war.

I disagree, I think the strategic bombing against Germany was very effective.


Also, I had been thinking that American strategic air power wouldn't be able to reach Soviet factories from England, but Wikipedia says the B-29 had a range of 3,250 mi (5,230 km), so maybe they could've. Or at least, just the distances alone wouldn't have been the limiting factor.

 

[EvaDK]

Incidentally the British estimate of the balance of forces from the wiki article on Unthinkable:

View attachment 661046

My view is that the Allied emphasis on strategic aircraft wouldn't have been much help; there are a total of zero (0) successful uses of strategic airpower to win a war.

No idea where they get those numbers from.

The industrial might of the US alone, produced +200,000 warplanes from 1940-45.
The US output was ~200 new warplanes per day in 1944/45.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II

Isn't using a bomber to drop a nuclear weapon on an enemy city, by definition using strategic airpower?

To add, Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe to bomb English cities instead of English airfields, ended up losing him the Battle of Britain, abandoning proposed plans of an invasion of England. I'd say that's an example of strategic airpower used poorly, changing the course of the war.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Just quickly rifling through Wikipedia pages, it seems like the strategic bombing of German transport network targets was the most effective. Bombing of German oil production targets was more mixed (although part of the impact of bombing the transport network was surely cutting off German army units from their fuel).

Of itself, German industry was not significantly affected by attacks on oil targets as coal was its primary source of energy. And in its analysis of strategic bombing as a whole the USSBS identified the consequences of the breakdown of transportation resulting from attacks against transportation targets as "probably greater than any other single factor" in the final collapse of the German economy.

Several prominent Germans, however, described the oil campaign as critical to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Adolf Galland, Inspector of Fighters of the Luftwaffe until relieved of command in January 1945, wrote in his book "the most important of the combined factors which brought about the collapse of Germany",[30] and the Luftwaffe's wartime leader, Hermann Göring, described it as "the utmost in deadliness".[16]: 287  Albert Speer, writing in his memoir, said that "It meant the end of German armaments production."

The effectiveness of the Transport [Bombing] Plan was evident in German reports at the time. A German Air Ministry (RLM) report of 13 June 1944 stated: "The raids...have caused the breakdown of all main lines; the coast defences have been cut off from the supply bases in the interior...producing a situation which threatens to have serious consequences" and that although "transportation of essential supplies for the civilian population have been completely...large scale strategic movement of German troops by rail is practically impossible at the present time and must remain so while attacks are maintained at their present intensity".

On the topic of using the same air power against the Soviets, I have no idea how effective it would be. But it seems to have had an impact on Germany.

 

[Akka]

False

Also false insofar as the Allied "tails" were much larger than the Soviet "tails". Soviet combat forces outnumbered the Allied combat forces significantly.

Also false

Not true, the decisive phase of the Eastern Front was over far before Lend-Lease began arriving in the Soviet Union in amounts sufficient to affect military operations. Lend-lease shortened the war but did not decide it.

If you say so.
Meanwhile, I'm going to stick to the real world.

On a side note it sure is interesting that the most anti-Russia posters are also the ones who think the USSR would have just fallen over if the allies attacked it. As often happens in this sort of context I feel compelled to remind everyone that Hitler lost the war.

Who said that USSR would have fallen over ? Are you arguing with imaginary answers just to fit the usual boxes you want to put people in ?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just to be clear, I'm glad this scenario didn't play out. I'm glad that the war ended in the Summer of 1945. I don't think it would have changed much in the Cold War politics that ensued. The people in Poland, Czechoslovakia and others might have enjoyed freedom much earlier, but at what cost? They would have taken the brunt of civilian deaths in a continuation of the war in 1945. Millions of additional deaths.

By the way, there's a very interesting documentary on YouTube concerning the British nuclear program for those interested. Especially the attempt to construct a fusion bomb design, in order to convince mostly the Americans that the UK was a serious player in the nuclear race.

ussr regime can be attributed to causing millions of deaths too through combination of policy and good old fashioned violence, so it might be worth pointing out that when we say "millions" in both cases, we're probably talking about an order of magnitude difference if not more despite both being in the "millions". continuation war would match that in just the direct war casualties. but under this hypothetical we probably wouldn't expect *fewer* civilian casualties stemming from it...

 

[Farm Boy]

Reading this thread makes me glad USSR rushed to get own nukes and got them fast.

Yeah, thread only happened because that route was not taken, and history has posed the wondering of if that was Satan's bargain, in hindsight, to come due him.

 

[danjuno]

Also, I had been thinking that American strategic air power wouldn't be able to reach Soviet factories from England, but Wikipedia says the B-29 had a range of 3,250 mi (5,230 km), so maybe they could've. Or at least, just the distances alone wouldn't have been the limiting factor.

London-Moscow is at the extreme range of D-model P-51s, so fighter escort wouldn't be something to count on. Not to mention surviving factories had been moved out to the Urals.

Again, with Unthinkable's projected start, it's just a mess because you don't have A-Bombs yet (and where would you use them anyway if you don't want to risk having nobody to negotiate with by nuking Moscow?) and the effects of cutting off lend-lease wouldn't have time to take effect yet, so you're relying on surprise on an enemy that has a numbers advantage in most areas. The Germans generally had local numerical superiority in each sector at the beginning of Barbarossa thanks to surprise, but the Soviets aren't not going to fall for that again, would they?

 

[Remorseless1]

The US had thousands and thousands of very competent engineers (Pieper's task force was foiled due to engineers). Allied aircraft would be taking off from new airfields as far east in Germany as possible. The Soviets were outclassed in every aircraft category, and unlike the fight with Hitler's Germany, there were no wolf packs of U-boats to harass supply ships sailing from the US and Canada. And while Lex is correct that Lend Lease didn't start until the divisive battle in front of Moscow, it certainly impacted the twin defeats at Kursk and Stalingrad. The allies shipped thousands of heavy duty trucks that eased the Soviets logistical problems, and after Lend Lease started, the Soviets never had to worry about ammunition through the end of the war.

Still, it would been stupid for either of the parties to pick a fight with the other.

 

[Lexicus]

I disagree, I think the strategic bombing against Germany was very effective.

Postwar studies indicated that the bombing's main effect was increasing the German public's support for the war. German industrial production increased every year until 1945 in spite of the bombing.

The resources the US put into strategic bombing could have been better used elsewhere.

More on this from a military historian here:

Collections: Strategic Airpower 101

This week, I’m going to offer a fairly basic overview of the concept of strategic airpower, akin to our discussions of protracted war and nuclear deterrence. While the immediate impetus for t…

acoup.blog

Tl;dr on this is that despite many attempts, strategic bombing has never fulfilled its pre-WW2 promise and there are no examples of an enemy being forced to capitulate by strategic bombing. This is not to say strategic bombing is useless but that it is not, by itself, a war-winning action. The idea of strategic air power is best understood as an argument for the air force being an independent branch rather than subject to the Army and Navy.

No idea where they get those numbers from.

As you've noted in the Ukraine war thread, simply producing or stockpiling military equipment doesn't mean much. The Russians may have tens of thousands of tanks warehoused but they can only operate a much smaller number at once.
I'd bet a similar issue is behind this discrepancy. The US never operated 200,000 aircraft at any one time during WW2; not even close.

Meanwhile, I'm going to stick to the real world.

In the real world, lend-lease aid to the USSR in quantities sufficient to substantially affect the course of military operations did not begin arriving until mid to late 1942 at the very earliest. In 1941 only token amounts of lend-lease aid reached the USSR. 1941 was when German defeat became a matter of time.

Who said that USSR would have fallen over ?

i would say Soviet Union (or whatever remainings of it) had capitulated unconditionally in a matter of months.

I guess I am also curious about this sentence from your post if it is not meant to imply a relatively easy Allied victory:

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.

 

[amadeus]

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 think one factor that is more overlooked here is the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and captured weapons, and to some extent territory, that were handed over to Mao. In this scenario, the invasion may never happen and/or the Soviets are preoccupied with the continuing war in Europe.

The Soviet Union agreed at Potsdam to declare war against Japan 90 days after victory in Europe; if there is a war between the Western allies and Soviets, what becomes of Manchuria and the Soviet support for Mao is an open question.

Based on how things looked in late 1945 to early 1946, the KMT still retained an advantageous position in men, guns, and land.

 

[Zelig]

i would say Soviet Union (or whatever remainings of it) had capitulated unconditionally in a matter of months.

The Soviets would reach the Atlantic coast, after which the war would become a stalemate.

Well I guess we’ve got the extreme takes on either side.

 

[Akka]

In the real world, lend-lease aid to the USSR in quantities sufficient to substantially affect the course of military operations did not begin arriving until mid to late 1942 at the very earliest. In 1941 only token amounts of lend-lease aid reached the USSR. 1941 was when German defeat became a matter of time.

The battle of Moscow has been a decisive point in the war, but it didn't yet spell doom for Germany. It just meant that USSR wasn't defeated, not that it had won. Lend-lease provided help that amounted in many critical aspects to one third or half the total production USSR was able to make during the entire war. The point is that not only USSR needed badly this help to fight Germany, but also that in the hypothetical case this thread discuss, this production capacity would be turned against it.

Also in the real world :
- Allied forces during the invasion of Germany :
4,500,000 men, 17,000 tanks, 28,000 combat aircraft, 63,000 artillery pieces, 970,000 vehicles
-Soviet forces on the whole Eastern Front :
6,410,000 (450,000 Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Czechs)
Seems to me that both sides had comparable numbers.

Also from the same page, industrial output of Germany vs USSR in 1944 :
Coal : Germany: 510 million tons , USSR : 122 MT
Steel : Germany: 29 MT , USSR : 11 MT
Aluminium : Germany: 245 thousand tons , USSR : 83 tT
Oil : Germany: 5,5 million tons , USSR : 18 MT
Tanks & self-propelled guns : Germany : 27000 ; USSR : 29000
Aircraft : Germany : 40 000, USSR : 40 000

So yeah, USSR industrial output was just barely able to reach the Germany one, just as I said (and in fact was significantly lower in most areas).

I guess I am also curious about this sentence from your post if it is not meant to imply a relatively easy Allied victory:

I dunno. You might use the magic trick of, you know, actually read the post, which spells it out for you if you bother to not skip one thirds of the content (hint : it's bolded) :

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

Postwar studies indicated that the bombing's main effect was increasing the German public's support for the war. German industrial production increased every year until 1945 in spite of the bombing.

The resources the US put into strategic bombing could have been better used elsewhere.

More on this from a military historian here:

Collections: Strategic Airpower 101

This week, I’m going to offer a fairly basic overview of the concept of strategic airpower, akin to our discussions of protracted war and nuclear deterrence. While the immediate impetus for t…

acoup.blog

Tl;dr on this is that despite many attempts, strategic bombing has never fulfilled its pre-WW2 promise and there are no examples of an enemy being forced to capitulate by strategic bombing. This is not to say strategic bombing is useless but that it is not, by itself, a war-winning action. The idea of strategic air power is best understood as an argument for the air force being an independent branch rather than subject to the Army and Navy.



As you've noted in the Ukraine war thread, simply producing or stockpiling military equipment doesn't mean much. The Russians may have tens of thousands of tanks warehoused but they can only operate a much smaller number at once.
I'd bet a similar issue is behind this discrepancy. The US never operated 200,000 aircraft at any one time during WW2; not even close.



In the real world, lend-lease aid to the USSR in quantities sufficient to substantially affect the course of military operations did not begin arriving until mid to late 1942 at the very earliest. In 1941 only token amounts of lend-lease aid reached the USSR. 1941 was when German defeat became a matter of time.




I guess I am also curious about this sentence from your post if it is not meant to imply a relatively easy Allied victory:

I basically agree with your take that lend lease didn't win the war as such. Germany had already lost by the time lend lease natured.

It did speed up the counter attack. Soviets advanced west at roughly the same rate as the blitzkrieg.

Amy plausible scenario of Germany winning the war it has to be done before December 1941.

I think the west would have won downdall if they kicked it off in say 46 and didn't send the men home. Kinda stupid idea but USSR was essentially done in 45.

 

[EvaDK]

The US never operated 200,000 aircraft at any one time during WW2; not even close.

I never wrote that they did; I wrote that the US produced +200,000 warplanes from 1940-45 (~300,000 if you include non-combat warplanes) and I supplied a source for that info.

@Akka did an excellent overview of the Allied strength used to invade Germany in 1945; if anyone wants to believe the Soviets could somehow push these forces into the Atlantic Ocean, be my guest.

The Western main powers (US+B.E.+France) outproduced the USSR by a factor of 8:1 in 1945, measured in GDP. That's excluding everyone else in Western liberated Europe including Germany, Italy and Japan. Soviet output didn't improve much during the war, because they lost Millions of workers and thousands of factories after 1941. Increased output in the East, was catching up for the production capacity that was lost in the West, after the Germans invaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II