How far west could the Soviets have invaded...

ParkCungHee

Deity
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,921
Even granting that, that would assume that it's military was run in a dictatorial fashion, unless you're talking dictatorship in a psuedo-Marxian meaning.
 

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
Nowhere. The Rhine if they really went for an all-out suicidal attack.

People really don't appreciate that the USSR was exhausted and bled out in 1945. It desperately needed time to recover and consolidate its new holdings in Central and Eastern Europe. The West had the A-bomb, a complete superiority in strategic bombers, Navy, and its industrial might was unparalleled.

If the USSR had went to war with the West in 1945 when both sides were still fully mobilized for war, the USSR would have lost badly.

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

The Rhine?

Antwerp?

Paris?
 

Xineoph

Prince
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
335
Question:

America also heavily supplied China...what's to stop China from helping the Soviet Union or even China attacking to recover rightful territory from Russia?
 

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
Both? :p

(well, I'm guessing the Republic of China since I assume we're talking about 1945)

It's confused.

Why would the Nationalists aid the Soviets is beyond me, and I don't think they'd have been very happy about the prospect of fighting them either, especially so soon after defeating Japan (or even before its final surrender!). And if they had (with massive Allied support), I am profoundly sceptical they'd have made a good impression. The Soviets could have easily established a solid line of defence in Manchuria, Mongolia and Korea. Or in case the war between the Soviets and the Allies had erupted before the Japanese surrender, there'd even have been a possibility of an unholy alliance between the USSR and the Japanese Empire (this sounds so Turtledove-ish :crazyeye: ).
 

Tee Kay

Silly furry
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
22,082
Location
Melbourne
Why would the Nationalists aid the Soviets is beyond me, and I don't think they'd have been very happy about the prospect of fighting them either, especially so soon after defeating Japan (or even before its final surrender!).

I guess it depends on 1) how strong the position of the KMT vs the CCP and the warlords are, 2) how badly the Soviets are losing against the Western Allies and 3) whether the Soviets try to hold on to Manchuria.

Defeating the Gong Fei is priority number one for the KMT, of course. At the time, the Soviets were occupying Manchuria which became a safe haven for the CCP. And if the Soviets are losing badly, I don't think Chiang would simply sit by.

And if they had (with massive Allied support), I am profoundly sceptical they'd have made a good impression. The Soviets could have easily established a solid line of defence in Manchuria, Mongolia and Korea.

Oh, the NRA wouldn't perform well against the Red Army, that's almost a given. Then agian, if the Soviets are busy in the West, they wouldn't be able to make much gains in China. And I guess from the KMT point of view, victory in battle wouldn't be as important as being on the right side.
 

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
Let's agree that Chiang fighting the Soviets is a more likely scenario than Chiang helping the Soviets :D

Anyway, if the Soviets go to war with the West right after the battle of Berlin, which means early May, the Japanese are still very much in the game. I don't think the Soviets would be beyond re-arming the Japanese and aiding them in their resistance against the Allies, if only to make sure the Allies couldn't focus on Europe completely.

The Soviets would still lose, of course.
 

ParkCungHee

Deity
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,921
Anyway, if the Soviets go to war with the West right after the battle of Berlin, which means early May, the Japanese are still very much in the game. I don't think the Soviets would be beyond re-arming the Japanese and aiding them in their resistance against the Allies, if only to make sure the Allies couldn't focus on Europe completely.
But that's entirely backwards.
The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.
 

Masada

Koi-san!
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
12,534
Location
Osaka
ParkCungHee said:
The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.

Japanese army. Certain members of the navy - including ma mang Admiral Maeda - were planning for a Soviet conquest and swift descent on newly-decolonising Southeast Asia. This may be one of the reasons - along with genuine nationalist sympathies - why Maeda, and the navy generally, were so willing to underwrite Indonesian independence. Maeda for one personally interceded with the army to ensure that they wouldn't execute Sukarno and Hatta after they made the proclamation. He also seems to have stopped violence in and around the city a number of times. Similar things happened in Vietnam to my understanding.
 

Tee Kay

Silly furry
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
22,082
Location
Melbourne
Wasn't it the case that by this point in the war the Imperial Japanese Navy was close to being nonexistant?
 

say1988

Deity
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
4,659
The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.
That assumes the Americans are willing to accept a negotiated peace and rearm the Japanese in a significant way. The situation in Europe would have to be quite dire before that is likely to happen.
 

ParkCungHee

Deity
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,921
Wasn't it the case that by this point in the war the Imperial Japanese Navy was close to being nonexistant?
The IJN laughs at pathetic notions that a Navy should stick to being on the water.

That assumes the Americans are willing to accept a negotiated peace and rearm the Japanese in a significant way. The situation in Europe would have to be quite dire before that is likely to happen.
A full scale Soviet Invasion sounds quite dire to me.
 

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
But that's entirely backwards.
The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.

Yeah, right :lol:

"My fellow Americans, due to the recent developments in Europe, we have decided to forgive the Japs for Pearl Harbour and forget that we have just lost thousands of soldiers all over the Pacific. Now we are going to arm them against the Russians with money and equipment that we have produced thanks to the war bonds you have generously bought from the government. We wish our brave new allies luck against the vile Communists, banzai!"

:D
 

ParkCungHee

Deity
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,921
Yeah, right :lol:
Why not? We did it with the Anti-Semitic Vichy French, with the Italian Fascists, with you know, Stalin, who was depicted as in league with Hitler until the Invasion...anyone else of note I'm missing?
 

say1988

Deity
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
4,659
The US never directly faced the Soviets, they didn't launch a surprise attack on US soil. Vichy was more accurately absorbed into the Free French. Even Italy was viewed as secondary to Germany and Japan. Japan particularly launched a surprise attack on American soil and was viewed as a primary enemy.
 

ParkCungHee

Deity
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,921
The US never directly faced the Soviets, they didn't launch a surprise attack on US soil. Vichy was more accurately absorbed into the Free French.
No, Free France was more accurately absorbed in Vichy. In Africa the governor remained the same, the psuedo-fascist rhetoric remained the same, the anti-semitism remained the same, and American troops enforced it.
 

Theige

American Baron
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
3,935
Location
New York
I don't think we'd need to re-arm the japs. We could certainly use some manpower to help out with certain things, but between our own troops already in the Pacific and Nationalist forces, I think we'd do just fine.

Actually, forget any Chinese contribution, we'd be able to steamroll Russia's far east all by ourselves :D
 

ParkCungHee

Deity
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,921
No, Free France was more accurately absorbed in Vichy. In Africa the governor remained the same, the psuedo-fascist rhetoric remained the same, the anti-semitism remained the same, and American troops enforced it.
Oh right I remember! The Japanese. Right, we re-armed the Japanese in 1945 to help us fight wars, and kept doing that until 1947.
 
Top Bottom