How far west could the Soviets have invaded...

[Incodcito]

... in WW2 if Stalin decided to take on the Western Allies after the Fall of Berlin?

The Rhine?

Antwerp?

Paris?

 

[Agent Cooper]

Pretty much nowhere. The Soviet troops and officers had very little incentive to take on US/UK/France/etc. after Germany was defeated.

Besides, the US had the capabilty to build nuclear weapons and had emerged as an industrial and economic giant post-WW2, so, you know...

 

[Ajidica]

If the Soviets had thrown caution completely to the wind, they could probably have forced some advanced parties to the Rhine before the Allies beat them back to Vladivostok.

 

[Phrossack]

If the Soviets had thrown caution completely to the wind, they could probably have forced some advanced parties to the Rhine before the Allies beat them back to Vladivostok.

Really? By 1945, the Red Army was the largest in human history. That high water mark still holds the record. They also had a large air force, vast amounts of artillery, very strong armored vehicles, and extensive combat experience that only comes from winning the largest conflict in human history. Vladivostok would undoubtedly fall, but that would be due to the US Pacific fleets, not an overland invasion. I wouldn't take the USSR so lightly.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't know. Although the Soviets had a truely massive army, the Americans and Brits had some very nice natural lines of defense. Almost the entire Warsaw Pact planning was on how to negate the importance of these lines of defense. Despite the numerical superiority, I don't see how they could have defeated the industrial capacity of America. Japan was effectively dead by the time of the fall of Berlin, so troops could have been withdrawn from the Japanese front and sent off to Vladivostok.
The Soviets could do very well initialy, and put up a very good fight, but I don't see them holding out for long.

 

[Racsoviale]

Regarding the nuclear bombs, I seem to remember that the americans only had the two they dropped and that it took a lot of time to build more. Whether Stalin knew that or not I dont know.

 

[MilesGregarius]

...the Americans and Brits had some very nice natural lines of defense. Almost the entire Warsaw Pact planning was on how to negate the importance of these lines of defense...

How does this help the US/UK drive into Siberia?

Immediately following WWII, both sides would probably have been far too war-weary, both militarily and domestically, to sustain a prolonged offensive. The Red Army certainly had the theoretical capacity to drive on to the Rhine, but it's doubtful whether your average Ivan would have been anywhere near as willing to make the kind of sacrifices fighting Yanks or Brits that he made destroying the Fascist invader. Defensively, however, the Russians would have remained quite formidable, especially if they were driven back to Soviet soil.

Similarly, on the defensive, the Western allies would have been duly motivated, but, with the exception of the Poles hoping to recover their homeland, it's unlikely there would have been much motivation amongst the men doing the fighting. How much enthusiasm could your average American fighting man have generated for fighting an erstwhile ally? There was almost no chance of major offensive operations by the Brits; by the summer of 1944, let alone 1945, the UK was having trouble keeping infantry formations up to strength, and even veteran Tommies were developing a tendency to keep their heads down, call in the artillery, and hope not to be the last casualty of the war.

Barring some major act of treachery and/or a propoganda coup to rally around, I don't see either side possessing the same elan they had fighting the Third Reich. Depending on who shot first, I'd expect a stalemate somewhere between the Rhine and the pre-war Polish-Soviet frontier.

 

[Dachs]

I can't see the Red Army having the logistical capability to wage an offensive war against the Western Allies, especially without air superiority and with the threat of nuclear weapons. Nothing like "drive them back to Vladivostok", but I think that the Rhine was probably the furthest the Soviet armies could go. (And that might be charitable. I don't know nearly so much about the Second World War as I do about the first, but I do know that in most areas except for the actual fighting, the Americans and Brits basically underwrote the Soviet war effort, more specifically, the Soviet ability to launch attacks from late 1942.)

I predict this degenerates into what happens in more or less every thread on this subject in World History, namely xchen throwing statistics at people who promptly misinterpret them.

 

[Quackers]

I don't know. Although the Soviets had a truely massive army, the Americans and Brits had some very nice natural lines of defense. Almost the entire Warsaw Pact planning was on how to negate the importance of these lines of defense. Despite the numerical superiority, I don't see how they could have defeated the industrial capacity of America. Japan was effectively dead by the time of the fall of Berlin, so troops could have been withdrawn from the Japanese front and sent off to Vladivostok.
The Soviets could do very well initialy, and put up a very good fight, but I don't see them holding out for long.

Alright you capture Vladivostock. So what? All you gain is a port city on the Pacific, what ya gonna do? Sent American troops all the way through Siberia into the more populated parts of Russia - areas which if captured are actually crucial to the war?

 

[Truthy]

Alright you capture Vladivostock. So what? All you gain is a port city on the Pacific, what ya gonna do? Sent American troops all the way through Siberia into the more populated parts of Russia - areas which if captured are actually crucial to the war?

I don't think the point was Vladivostok. Ajidica was just saying they would have got their butts kicked.

 

[Cutlass]

Had the Soviets decided to keep going, I don't think they could have gotten too far past the Rhine. But they were very powerful at the time, so I wouldn't discount it either. But they could not have held the territory. The US could simply add more to the war in 1945-6 then the USSR could. But by the same token, I really can't picture the US being willing to push east past Germany, Poland at the most. The price for that would have been too high. So Vladivostok was safe.

 

[Truthy]

Really? By 1945, the Red Army was the largest in human history. That high water mark still holds the record. They also had a large air force, vast amounts of artillery, very strong armored vehicles, and extensive combat experience that only comes from winning the largest conflict in human history. Vladivostok would undoubtedly fall, but that would be due to the US Pacific fleets, not an overland invasion. I wouldn't take the USSR so lightly.

Head count isn't the only thing that matters.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Japan was effectively dead by the time of the fall of Berlin, so troops could have been withdrawn from the Japanese front and sent off to Vladivostok.

Actually, the Japanese were very much hoping for a scenario like this. So it's far more likely that troops might be sent to Vladivostok via Tokyo.

 

[reddishrecue]

They were just coming back from the second world war and the push the germans had. They had to push back it seems and that happened.

 

[Phrossack]

Head count isn't the only thing that matters.

Nor was it their only strength, as you would have noted had you read my post longer than three seconds.

 

[.Nightingale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

The Red Army was extremely powerful at this point, but the allies would have certainly had better logistics.

I think the issue would have been moral among troops and population, which side would have been more willing to withstand another costly war.

 

[Lord Baal]

As has already been stated, this would likely result in a quagmire somewhere between the Rhine and the Polish-Soviet frontier, followed by some sort of negotiated peace, and a very militarised border. That said, however, if this became a war of attrition rather than simply one of conquest/ defence, the USSR wouldn't stand a chance. It simply couldn't keep up with the US. While others would point out the vastly greater US industrial power, you must also take into account the fact that by this time, the US possessed much greater - and fresher - manpower reserves.

If this went for very long, you'd get a nuclear America with a huge industrial, economic and numerical advantage fighting against demoralised, starving - there was a famine in the USSR during 1946 in OTL, imagine how much worse it gets without lend-lease grain or the trucks to carry it in, combined with a fluid battlefield situation which always makes supply difficult - and ill-equipped Red Army. On the other hand, the USSR is impossible to occupy in the way that Germany was; too large, the population too dispersed, industry in a very inaccessible area (Siberia). So again, you'd likely end up with some sort of negotiated peace, only with whoever replaced Stalin after Moscow got nuked taking over.

@Racsoviale: This is actually a myth. While the US did only have two nukes when they went after Japan, people confuse correlation with causation in this one. They only built two nukes because they didn't need to build any more. Original plans were to construct something like ten a year or more. These plans were abandoned after Japan surrendered, with the US siphoning those resources into occupying Japan and Germany, rather than bombing either to the stone age. A continuation of the war in Europe, with the Soviets as the new enemy, would have resulted in those original plans being followed, likely with the bombs being used in Europe rather than the Pacific, seeing as how Japan was already beaten, whereas the Soviets would have enjoyed considerable initial success.

 

[xchen08]

@Racsoviale: This is actually a myth. While the US did only have two nukes when they went after Japan, people confuse correlation with causation in this one. They only built two nukes because they didn't need to build any more. Original plans were to construct something like ten a year or more.

3 per month in August/September actually, and likely to be scaled up as more reactors come online. I cited the report from General Groves in one of the threads in this forum. Moscow wouldn't be a very good target though, if it comes to victory through atomic power, too big and spread out. It's those gigantic factory complexes in the Urals and the Baku oil refineries that are pretty much optimal targets for nukes.

 

[Lord Baal]

3 per month in August/September actually, and likely to be scaled up as more reactors come online. I cited the report from General Groves in one of the threads in this forum. Moscow wouldn't be a very good target though, if it comes to victory through atomic power, too big and spread out. It's those gigantic factory complexes in the Urals and the Baku oil refineries that are pretty much optimal targets for nukes.

I figure'd it'd be something you'd posted. I knew I'd read it here. I must have conflated "about ten by the end of 1945" with "ten a year."

Those complexes in the Urals would be pretty difficult to hit though. I'm not sure if any Allied bombers could make that flight. Well, they likely could, but I doubt they could return, so it would be a suicide mission. I was thinkiing Moscow might be hit after a while simply because all the better targets were already taken. Honestly, how many times do you have to nuke something before it stays dead? Civ II, I'm looking in your direction.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, it's something like 1500 miles from London (as a proxy for UK airfields) to Moscow. So that means that the B-17 and B-24 are out until more forward airbases can be built. And they wouldn't be secure in France until full air superiority would be achieved over Germany. The B-29 could make that trip, but not necessarily the targets further away, again until secure air bases closer could be built.