How far west could the Soviets have invaded...

[Winner]

From the 1960s, American commanders themselves didn't think they could defend West Germany against a full-scale conventional invasion. The necessary men and arms weren't in Europe, and the guys there were just cannon fodder. A lot would have depended on how the French mobilized in the interval, but a conquest of these territories would have been too costly for the Soviets while the strategic priorities of both parties were moving in any case to fighting through others in the Third World and outwitting each other in the nuclear race.

This is about how the war would have looked like if it had started immediately after the end of WW2 in Europe. Cold War realities don't really apply, because at this point the US haven't yet demobilized its forces in Europe.

In May 1945, the US had more than 3 million men in Europe. Britain/Canada had another 1 million or so.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes indeed, that would have been different.

Bloodbath horror for both sides. It's hard to see how the Soviets could win if only the US had nukes and was prepared to use them

 

[RedRalph]

This is about how the war would have looked like if it had started immediately after the end of WW2 in Europe. Cold War realities don't really apply, because at this point the US haven't yet demobilized its forces in Europe.

In May 1945, the US had more than 3 million men in Europe. Britain/Canada had another 1 million or so.

AFAIK the USSR had 13,000,000 at that point. The Brits' own studies concluded the west would lose and lose badly. I'm sure you've read the paper.

 

[Lord Baal]

AFAIK the USSR had 13,000,000 at that point. The Brits' own studies concluded the west would lose and lose badly. I'm sure you've read the paper.

The Brits' own studies were wrong on that count, as subsequent information proved. One thing the Russians were very good at was disinformation. Operation: Unthinkable could have worked, though it would have been pretty bloody and brutal.

 

[RedRalph]

The Brits' own studies were wrong on that count, as subsequent information proved. One thing the Russians were very good at was disinformation. Operation: Unthinkable could have worked, though it would have been pretty bloody and brutal.

What's your basis for thinking this?

 

[Lord Baal]

What's your basis for thinking this?

The repeated Soviet backdowns when they were actually confronted by the Western Allies - most notably in Iran - and the benefit of hindsight. The Soviets were far weaker than anyone - except maybe Patton - realised at the time, especially when you take into account the fact that Russia's industry and economy was all-but non-existent by this point. The West over-estimated Russia in 1945 in the same way that Russia over-estimated Germany in 1939, when they should have curb-stomped her and urinated on the ashes.

 

[RedRalph]

The repeated Soviet backdowns when they were actually confronted by the Western Allies - most notably in Iran - and the benefit of hindsight. The Soviets were far weaker than anyone - except maybe Patton - realised at the time, especially when you take into account the fact that Russia's industry and economy was all-but non-existent by this point. The West over-estimated Russia in 1945 in the same way that Russia over-estimated Germany in 1939, when they should have curb-stomped her and urinated on the ashes.

Ehh... and then there are the many times they point-blank refused to back down and the west just sat there and liked it. I'd sort of need to hear something a little bit more substantive than this to change my mind, particularly when it is contradicted by something far more authoritative.

I think their assessment of the USSR's military capabilities was reasonably accurate in 1945.

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not saying you are definitely wrong, I'm just saying to 'disprove' the Unthinkable papers you need to have some pretty definitive proof.

 

[Winner]

AFAIK the USSR had 13,000,000 at that point. The Brits' own studies concluded the west would lose and lose badly. I'm sure you've read the paper.

I actually tried to find a reliable figure as to how many men did the USSR have in the West in May 1945, and found nothing.

Anyway, sheer numbers of men and equipment doesn't guarantee victory. The Red Army had always had numerical superiority over the Germans (with the exception of the early phases of Barbarossa), but it still took it a long time to push the Wehrmacht back to Germany. Here, the Red Army would have faced a similarly capable land forces backed by superior airforcem, full control of the seas, and overwhelming industrial advantage. I struggle to see how could have a Russian attack in summer 1945 end up in anything but a very bloody defeat.

As for the Operation Unthinkable, it was based on what the Allies thought they knew about the Soviet capabilities and potential. Much of it was wrong. The key problem for the Allies was morale - had they attacked first, they'd never have been able to justify it to their people, who were tired and sick of war. There is no telling how they'd have reacted if they had been asked to support another massive war with no end in sight.

 

[Lord Baal]

Which occasions are you referring to, in which the Soviets refused to back down to the West? Because I can't think of a single case where military intervention was threatened by the West in which the USSR did anything but back down. Even in Finland, the mere thought of Western intervention forced a Soviet backdown, and the West didn't really have any intentions of intervening there. The Soviets just knew they couldn't afford the provocation that Soviet troops on the Swedish border would entail.

I'd need to actually take a look at the Unthinkable papers again (haven't done so since I was at uni two years ago, and I don't think I looked at them after my first year there either) before I could refute them in detail, but I can tell you now that every single time the Soviets were actually confronted with the threat of military force by the US, such as in Finland, the Berlin Airlift, the Dardanelles crisis and - as previously mentioned - Iran, they backed down. The Soviets in 1945-49 acted like high school bullies; they were big and tough until someone actually took a swing at them, at which point they backpedalled so quickly that they needed to attach motors to their bicycles. If the US had actually pushed the issue of Poland or Czechoslovakia with the threat of arms, it is highly likely that Stalin would have backed down. If not, he'd have lost a war against the West, and likely his position - to someone like Molotov or Beria - and life .

It was only when they developed their first nukes in 1949 that they began to confront the West on anything approaching equal footing, and even then they used proxies in North Korea and China. Their newfound belligerence also had far more to do with the perceived success of communist revolutions beyond Russia - China being the obvious one - and the potential of Stalin's beloved "popular fronts" (these were political parties formed when the Comintern ordered Communist parties to merge with Socialist parties in the hope that when the Socialists won elections [which happened occasionally] his communists could seize power) than their new military potential.

 

[Winner]

Hm, the Russians only backed down in situations where they were the aggressors. In Poland and much of the Soviet-controlled Europe, the West would have to be the "aggressor", and Stalin was I think a bit better at bluffing than any Western leader. His most likely answer would be "if you want Poland, come and take it from me. Otherwise STFU."

How do you propose the West should have pressured the Soviets? Poland was deep in their sphere of influence, and the Czechoslovaks were actually idiotic enough to elect the commies in fairly free and fair elections and then let them stage a relatively bloodless coup with little to none Soviet assistance. Hungary was a defeated power, ditto Romania and Bulgaria, and Yugoslavian Communists were not really under Soviet control anyway.

So really, what the West could have done without actually attacking the Soviets? (Genuine question here. They could bluff about the use of military force, they could try to damage the USSR economically, but other than that?)

 

[Pangur Bán]

The US backed down loads of times, they were just better at keeping it a secret: Turkey nukes, Israel-Palestine, Korea , Suez, and so on. Americans and Westerners in general have often become victims of their own propaganda on this topic. As another example, we believe the Americans were stronger than they were. If you rule out nukes (which obviously you can't pre-49), I think Korea tells us how it would have went post-war.

I think it's true though that the Soviets, like the Americans, generally believed they were weaker than they were. Most successful powers have that belief, but that doesn't say anything in itself. Arguably the Soviets probably backed down in the face of US aggression too much, but who are we to say.

@Winner, the Soviets backed down over Berlin, which was seen as duplicitous US aggression in the Soviet Union (and would be seen as such by any genuinely neutral party I think.)

 

[RedRalph]

Which occasions are you referring to, in which the Soviets refused to back down to the West? Because I can't think of a single case where military intervention was threatened by the West in which the USSR did anything but back down. Even in Finland, the mere thought of Western intervention forced a Soviet backdown, and the West didn't really have any intentions of intervening there. The Soviets just knew they couldn't afford the provocation that Soviet troops on the Swedish border would entail.

Poland, Hungary, blockading Berlin (even if they eventually lifted it, blockading it at all hardly shows how terrified they were of the west as you allege), this also shows that the Soviets were not in any way petrified of the west. Also, you may not be aware of this but Finland was very much in the Soviet orbit during the cold war, it a mutual defence treaty with them, so citing Finland actually works against your point. I could just as easily say the west were terrified of the Red army because they allowed the uSSR to control half of Europe.

I'd need to actually take a look at the Unthinkable papers again (haven't done so since I was at uni two years ago, and I don't think I looked at them after my first year there either) before I could refute them in detail, but I can tell you now that every single time the Soviets were actually confronted with the threat of military force by the US, such as in Finland, the Berlin Airlift, the Dardanelles crisis and - as previously mentioned - Iran, they backed down. The Soviets in 1945-49 acted like high school bullies; they were big and tough until someone actually took a swing at them, at which point they backpedalled so quickly that they needed to attach motors to their bicycles. If the US had actually pushed the issue of Poland or Czechoslovakia with the threat of arms, it is highly likely that Stalin would have backed down. If not, he'd have lost a war against the West, and likely his position - to someone like Molotov or Beria - and life .

Again my friend, no offence, but there is nothing at all here that would make me believe you over the exterts who studied this. you are merely stating your opinion. Also, you are extrapolating from several false instances of the 'soviets being afraid of the west' that Unthinkable was doable. One does not follow from the other.

The fact that they did not want to fight another world war a few years after fighting another in which they lost 27m people does not mean they thought they were hopelessly inferior. Hard as it might be to imagine, maybe they just didn't want to fight another world war.

 

[Luckymoose]

You all forget the most important advantage America had. Nuclear weapons, by 4 years no less, which pretty much screws the pooch for Stalin.

 

[RedRalph]

You all forget the most important advantage America had. Nuclear weapons, by 4 years no less, which pretty much screws the pooch for Stalin.

In 1945? Not at all.

 

[Winner]

You all forget the most important advantage America had. Nuclear weapons, by 4 years no less, which pretty much screws the pooch for Stalin.

Actually, Stalin considered nukes vastly overrated - he didn't believe they changed the fundamentals of warfare (permanently operating factors and all that). He was more afraid of the fact that the US had strategic bombers capable of reaching the Soviet industrial heartland in the Urals region, which the Germans had never been able to touch.

 

[Flying Pig]

You all forget the most important advantage America had. Nuclear weapons, by 4 years no less, which pretty much screws the pooch for Stalin.

If I remember correctly they had a grand total of two of those, both of which were dropped on Japan, but they used them in quick succession to make it look as if they had large numbers of them.

 

[Theige]

Actually, Stalin considered nukes vastly overrated - he didn't believe they changed the fundamentals of warfare (permanently operating factors and all that). He was more afraid of the fact that the US had strategic bombers capable of reaching the Soviet industrial heartland in the Urals region, which the Germans had never been able to touch.

Well his opinion certainly would have changed if we had waged a nuclear bombing campaign against the USSR

If I remember correctly they had a grand total of two of those, both of which were dropped on Japan, but they used them in quick succession to make it look as if they had large numbers of them.

They could produce a good amount. Demobilization hit production hard though. In the event of war we could have ramped up production.

 

[say1988]

Well his opinion certainly would have changed if we had waged a nuclear bombing campaign against the USSR

In the context of the war, would it really have made that much of a difference, though? The West would easily secure air supremacy and would promptly launch mass firebombings and plenty of the infamous thousand-bomber raids over Russian cities.
At the time nukes would be in small enough numbers that it would just be quivalent of adding a couple bomber wings. and by the time numbers start to ramp up most targets will have been plastered day and night with conventional bombs. In the long run, you consider the radiation, but that is unlikely to be important in this context.

Later into the Cold War you get to mass formations of bombers armed with nukes meaning that even facing sstronger opposition, if just one makes it through it will cause major damage. Later missiles, of course, changed everything.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hm, the Russians only backed down in situations where they were the aggressors. In Poland and much of the Soviet-controlled Europe, the West would have to be the "aggressor", and Stalin was I think a bit better at bluffing than any Western leader. His most likely answer would be "if you want Poland, come and take it from me. Otherwise STFU."

How do you propose the West should have pressured the Soviets? Poland was deep in their sphere of influence, and the Czechoslovaks were actually idiotic enough to elect the commies in fairly free and fair elections and then let them stage a relatively bloodless coup with little to none Soviet assistance. Hungary was a defeated power, ditto Romania and Bulgaria, and Yugoslavian Communists were not really under Soviet control anyway.

So really, what the West could have done without actually attacking the Soviets? (Genuine question here. They could bluff about the use of military force, they could try to damage the USSR economically, but other than that?)

That's actually a very good point. The USSR backed down in cases where it was clearly the aggressor. They even chucked a hissy-fit over Tito's support for Greek communists when they were trying to convince Britain that they weren't involved. I don't know how they would have reacted if they were pushed in a situation where the West was behaving aggressively. Especially in Poland, which the USSR always saw as vital to its interests.

The US backed down loads of times, they were just better at keeping it a secret: Turkey nukes, Israel-Palestine, Korea , Suez, and so on. Americans and Westerners in general have often become victims of their own propaganda on this topic. As another example, we believe the Americans were stronger than they were. If you rule out nukes (which obviously you can't pre-49), I think Korea tells us how it would have went post-war.

Could you please show me a single case of the US backing down to the Soviets in the post-war period due to the threat of military force? Because absolutely none of the examples you've provided are a case of that happening. And pulling nukes out of Turkey - which was a compromise in America's favour, not a back-down - happened almost two decades after WWII. The USSR fully supported Israel for years after WWII - most of the equipment used by Israel in the first Arab-Israeli War came from the Soviet-satellite Czechoslovakia - and Korea was only a failure because of MacArthur's legendary stupidity in addition to not being a backdown and resulting from Chinese pressure anyway. And how in the name of all that's holy do you consider the Suez Crisis, in which the US notably threatened economic disaster on their own allies - France, Britain and Israel - and did their best to organise peace talks and chastise Israel for its refusal to relinquish the Sinai, a US backdown?

Also, the military situation in Korea was vastly different to that in Europe. Korea, as a peninsular, is far easier to clog with troops and stop an advance in, the primary threat there was China, not the USSR, and the US balked at using nuclear weapons there because the Soviets had just developed them. How that compares to Europe in 1945 I don't know.

Poland, Hungary, blockading Berlin (even if they eventually lifted it, blockading it at all hardly shows how terrified they were of the west as you allege),

A bit of a strawman here RRW, since I never stated the Soviets were "terrified." I stated that they backed down in the face of US military pressure, with several examples.

As to the above examples you've provided, the US never once threatened military intervention in Poland or Hungary, and really couldn't have anyway without being seen as the aggressor - something which I didn't consider until Winner mentioned it - and also never apparently considered it, which is more than can be said about the Berlin Airlift - which was deep in Soviet territory, so hardly a big risk for them - where military intervention was definitely considered.

this also shows that the Soviets were not in any way petrified of the west.

That's considerably later than the period under discussion RRW. Obviously the Soviets felt far stronger by the 1960s. Even by 1949 they were becoming more brazen. But in 1945-46, the period we're discussing, the Soviets were definitely on the back-foot, and they knew it.

Also, you may not be aware of this but Finland was very much in the Soviet orbit during the cold war, it a mutual defence treaty with them, so citing Finland actually works against your point.

Finland was marginalised even further than Austria after WWII, but it was never really in the Soviet orbit. It still has military conscription in place to this day, a legacy of the Cold War period in which Finland was constantly aiming at protecting itself from the USSR. Considering that the original Soviet goal - in both 1939 and 1944 - was to incorporate the whole country as a Soviet republic, I don't think being defeated and signing over small amounts of territory and signing a defence treaty that they didn't take seriously amounts to much.

I could just as easily say the west were terrified of the Red army because they allowed the uSSR to control half of Europe.

And you'd be right. I don't know why you bring it up. The West was terrified of the Soviets, which is why they didn't push them further. Note that the cases in which the West actively confronted the Soviets, such as Iran and Turkey, tended to be peripheral to the main area of contention; Central Europe. Berlin is a minor exception, but its situation was unique and the area remained solidly in the Soviet sphere in any case.

Again my friend, no offence, but there is nothing at all here that would make me believe you over the exterts who studied this.

Which experts? Because I don't know of any since the Soviet archives were opened who've claimed the sort of numbers that the British did in the Unthinkable papers, which are known to be wildly inaccurate. I don't know of any expert extrapolating a Soviet victory - or even stalemate - in the case of Unthinkable coming true.

you are merely stating your opinion. Also, you are extrapolating from several false instances of the 'soviets being afraid of the west' that Unthinkable was doable. One does not follow from the other.

The fact that they did not want to fight another world war a few years after fighting another in which they lost 27m people does not mean they thought they were hopelessly inferior. Hard as it might be to imagine, maybe they just didn't want to fight another world war.

You're starting to piss me off with this strawman that just because I state the Soviets backed down that I'm insinuating they were "terrified." Stop it. Backing down was the only logical decision when confronted by a vastly superior military force. That's not fear, it's pragmatism. And your last line is pretty damn annoying too. If the West didn't want to fight another war after WWII, of course the Soviets didn't. I'm not saying they did (if that was the case, I think Stalin would have had a crack at it, don't you?).

You do have some actual points buried in there, namely regarding whether Unthinkable was actually doable - which few people in this thread are arguing against, considering the huge preponderance of military might arrayed against the Soviets - and whether the Soviets thought they were hopelessly inferior.

Unthinkable was certainly doable, though not in the sense that the British had assumed in 1944. The situation was pretty different by 1945, especially once the Americans developed the bomb. While a Soviet advance would have been inevitable in the short-term, it's pretty obvious that any Soviet aggression could easily be countered in the long-term by the vastly superior forces of the US. If the West had started the war, most likely by attempting to free Poland or Czechoslovakia by force, the Soviets would either pull back immediately or counterattack.

Pulling back to Soviet territory would be unlikely to result in a continuation of the conflict by the West, but if it did I don't think anyone would argue that the Soviet Union would actually fall. Even though the West was capable of defeating and invading the USSR (occupation is another story) I don't see public opinion in the West going for it, for the same reasons already mentioned throughout the thread; continued warfare straining the economy, low morale, the Soviets being an ally until recently, etc..

An immediate counterattack could result in either a swifter Soviet defeat or a situation similar to that of an act of Soviet aggression. Too much is dependent on where the counterattack takes place, forces commited, etc..

And the Soviets outright knew they were militarily inferior. Their economy was shattered worse than France's, and they stripped the industry of their conquered territories because their own was in dire straits.

If I remember correctly they had a grand total of two of those, both of which were dropped on Japan, but they used them in quick succession to make it look as if they had large numbers of them.

If xchen takes a look in here he can tell you the actual production details, but the US had the capacity to build something like two nukes a month in 1945. They simply slowed production after Japan was defeated. Nukes were expensive.

 

[xchen08]

3 nukes per month, with 2 caveats: 1) the reactors were running full bore, and bad luck might mean temporary shutdowns, and 2) a 4th reactor had been under construction, and judging from the history of the other reactors of similar design, it could potentially come on line within weeks...or stay offline for years.

In the context of the war, would it really have made that much of a difference, though? The West would easily secure air supremacy and would promptly launch mass firebombings and plenty of the infamous thousand-bomber raids over Russian cities.
At the time nukes would be in small enough numbers that it would just be quivalent of adding a couple bomber wings. and by the time numbers start to ramp up most targets will have been plastered day and night with conventional bombs. In the long run, you consider the radiation, but that is unlikely to be important in this context.

Quite a bit more than a few more bomber wings. You can equal the effects of a nuke with conventional bombing, but outside of unique circumstances, it would take many thousands of bomber sorties.

The problem there is the WAllies simply don't have the ability to mount strikes of that nature immediately except against transportation hubs in Central Europe and the Balkans. UK bases are too far from the USSR for the older bombers to reach, and there aren't any B-29s in Europe. Building up the ability to launch squadron sized B-29 raids on the USSR can be done quickly, not so much if you want thousand bomber raids. If the Allies want Baku shut down in weeks rather than months, nukes are the only option.

Obviously though, the window during which conventional bombing simply can't match nukes depends on when exactly the war starts. If the war starts in May, that window would have shrunk greatly by the time nukes even become available.