How far west could the Soviets have invaded...

[Ajidica]

The Allies might have been able to spin a war against the Soviets, but it would be difficult and there would likely be massive issues with left-leaning labor unions. I remember reading that labor unions in Australia (IIRC) intialy opposed the war and had quite a bit of civil disobediance and only supported the war completely once the USSR joined in. America had a similar situation where Roosevelt was able to gets Debbs' support with the V for Victory campaign. Additionaly, consumer products were wearing out. People had endured the austerity through the Great Depression and the war (some had endured it even in the twenties as farms began to be foreclosed on) and, riding high on victory enthusiasm, they wanted to enjoy their victory, not be thrown back into a new war against a country that for propoganda purposes were our staunch allies.
While it might have been possible, the domestic front would have given so many problems that for the allies to have waged an effective war, it would have been "USSR vs. USSR mk.2".

 

[RedRalph]

Well the allies basically concluded that if they attempted Unthinkable it would be a disaster for them. But that's not what we are discussing.

 

[Traitorfish]

People are, I think, underestimating the fact that the US of A had the largest bomb in the world and was the only country that had it, and had a lot more experience in using it that the other allies. Nonetheless, I doubt the Soviet Union would have made it far before Moscow would be nuked to smithereens.

I think you over-estimate both the atomic strength of the Americans and the infrastructural weakness of the Soviets if you imagine that any sort of decapitating atomic blow would have been possible.

 

[Cutlass]

People are, I think, underestimating the fact that the red army had the most hardened veterans on Earth at that point, and a lot more experience in land war than the allies. Nonetheless, I doubt this would have ended well for them if they had tried it (though I don't think they had any intention of doing so).

I don't think anyone is discounting how powerful the Red Army was at the time. In a head to head fight, I wouldn't have wanted to be in the front lines.

But after the first shock, what really is the match up? The US would have had air superiority within the first couple of months. Perhaps sooner. And with that air superiority, the Red Army's logistics through Germany would have become impossible. After that, the shear mass of men and war materials that the US still had in the pipeline, as well as what we already had in Europe or prepared to send there, and, after the surrender of Japan, all the forces we could have shifted from the Pacific, simply greatly exceeds what the USSR had left to throw into the fight.

Yes, the Red Army was a terribly powerful and hardened force. But in a type of warfare where material was more and more coming to be dominant on the battlefield, the US just had more. In 1945 the US had some 50% of world industrial production. Who was second? Britain?

 

[Theige]

How about: whoever is the aggressor, almost definitely loses.

Can we agree on that?

 

[ParkCungHee]

after the surrender of Japan, all the forces we could have shifted from the Pacific, simply greatly exceeds what the USSR had left to throw into the fight.

As I said before, an American-Soviet conflict would have lead to the immediate surrender on Japan. Unless America wanted to pursue the conflict with Japan, Japan would have eagerly joined the war against the Soviet Union.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't think anyone is discounting how powerful the Red Army was at the time. In a head to head fight, I wouldn't have wanted to be in the front lines.

But after the first shock, what really is the match up? The US would have had air superiority within the first couple of months. Perhaps sooner. And with that air superiority, the Red Army's logistics through Germany would have become impossible. After that, the shear mass of men and war materials that the US still had in the pipeline, as well as what we already had in Europe or prepared to send there, and, after the surrender of Japan, all the forces we could have shifted from the Pacific, simply greatly exceeds what the USSR had left to throw into the fight.

Yes, the Red Army was a terribly powerful and hardened force. But in a type of warfare where material was more and more coming to be dominant on the battlefield, the US just had more. In 1945 the US had some 50% of world industrial production. Who was second? Britain?

Like I said, I think the Red Army would likely have lost in this frankly ludicrous scenario, I just suspect the fight would have made the allies think the Nazis had been as tough as poodles. Experience counts for a lot.

 

[Cutlass]

Like I said, I think the Red Army would likely have lost in this frankly ludicrous scenario, I just suspect the fight would have made the allies think the Nazis had been as tough as poodles. Experience counts for a lot.

So does an exhausted and over stretched logistics chain up against one so flush with materials that transportation is a bigger bottleneck than use.

 

[Theige]

Like I said, I think the Red Army would likely have lost in this frankly ludicrous scenario, I just suspect the fight would have made the allies think the Nazis had been as tough as poodles. Experience counts for a lot.

I don't see why the Russians would be tougher than the Germans.

There are more of them, sure, but they'd be far less motivated to defend Germany than the Germans were, and had far less fighting effectiveness man for man, nor did they have as much experience as the Germans, which is something you seem to be focusing on.

 

[jtb1127]

I think you over-estimate both the atomic strength of the Americans and the infrastructural weakness of the Soviets if you imagine that any sort of decapitating atomic blow would have been possible.

Yes I am exaggerating the effects an atomic bomb would have on a Russian city, but what do you mean the "atomic strength"? Are you saying that the US didn't have any more bombs or was unable to produce more? Or are you suggesting that an atomic bomb of this time period is incapable to level a city, tying back my initial exaggeration?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes I am exaggerating the effects an atomic bomb would have on a Russian city, but what do you mean the "atomic strength"? Are you saying that the US didn't have any more bombs or was unable to produce more? Or are you suggesting that an atomic bomb of this time period is incapable to level a city, tying back my initial exaggeration?

That the US's atomic arsenal was limited, and so that it could not be relied upon to completely topple the Soviet regime in itself, especially given that much of the Soviet industrial base had already been dispersed to the East of the major urban areas as part of the war effort. It only worked in Japan because the regime there was already tottering.

 

[Domen]

Today is the anniversary of the decisive moment (and the beginning of the Polish counteroffensive) in the battle of Warsaw:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)#Second_phase

the struggle at Nasielsk lasted until August 15 and resulted in near complete destruction of the town. However, the Soviet advance toward Warsaw and Modlin was halted at the end of August 15 and on that day Polish forces recaptured Radzymin, which boosted the Polish morale.[18]

This day is celebretaed as the Day of the Polish Army:

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

Situation on the front near Warsaw on 15 August 1920 (before Poles recaptured Radzymin):

d.s. = Soviet rifle divisions (from north to south: 6., 21., 27., 2., 17., 10. and 8.)
d.p. = Polish infantry divisions (from north to south: 10., 8. and 15.)
bryg. rez. Zegrze = Polish reserve brigade Zegrze

Another map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Warsaw_-_Phase_2.png

"Memorial to battle of Radzymin in Bolshevik War":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DuJddexXbw


Link to video.

In this video Alan says that Bolshevik lines were overextended.

Yes - but not near Radzymin. They (Mozyr Group) were overextended in the southern part of the front (see "Another map" link).

Near Warsaw, Soviets had numerical superiority (see the map above: 7 Soviet divisions vs 3 Polish divisions and 1 brigade).

The Soviet advance on Warsaw was halted near Radzymin and successful Polish counterattack took place.

On the next day, the main counterattack of the Polish Central Front was launched in the south.

But "all started near Radzymin" - we can say.

 

[say1988]

This isn't a thread about the Poles barely surviving after starting a war of aggression against the Soviets. You may want to make a different thread or find one on topic.

 

[Domen]

This isn't a thread about the Poles barely surviving after starting a war of aggression against the Soviets.

You confused chronology mate. Poles didn't start that war.

Soviets started that war by starting their westward offensive in 1918.

Soviet invasion of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland in November 1918 - March 1919:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–1919

Then in April of 1919 Poles and their allies finally repulsed the Soviet offensive and counterattacked. Both sides continued their attempts to be on the offensive but Poles and their allies were more successful. In May of 1920 they approached Kiev. Soviet forces were also repulsed from Baltic states by Polish forces supporting local Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian forces in their struggle for independence against the Soviet invaders.

But in early June Soviets counterattacked, and approached Warsaw in early August.

Then in mid-August Poles counterattacked again, repulsed and defeated the Soviet army.

The final blow to the Red Army was in the end inflicted in the battle of Niemen in September of 1920:

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

And the treaty of Riga formally ending that war was signed in March of 1921:

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

Several pages long discussion of me and red elk about that:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=419541

Not sure on which page of this thread it started and on which it ended so I give you link to page 1.

You may want to make a different thread or find one on topic.

Nope, creating a new thread is not necessary.

This one was the most on topic (when judging by thread's title) that I managed to find using "Advanced search" tools.

 

[LightSpectra]

This isn't a thread about the Poles barely surviving after starting a war of aggression against the Soviets.

The Poles started that war in the same way the Americans started World War II, i.e. being attacked on account of not caving into ludicrous demands and belligerent policies of a cruel dictatorship.

 

[red_elk]

The Poles started that war in the same way the Americans started World War II, i.e. being attacked on account of not caving into ludicrous demands and belligerent policies of a cruel dictatorship.

If you like analogies, Poles were being attacked in that war in the same way as Germans in 1941 were being attacked by the Soviets under Minsk and Wilnius.

 

[aelf]

As far as I'm concerned, the Poles started the war and butchered innocent children because the Polish-Soviet War has nothing to do with this thread and a Polish nationalist brought it up in order to glorify Poland or something. It's a crime against humanity.

 

[Lord Baal]

The Poles started that war in the same way the Americans started World War II, i.e. being attacked on account of not caving into ludicrous demands and belligerent policies of a cruel dictatorship.

At least yoy finally agree that WWII was America's fault.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Poles started that war in the same way the Americans started World War II, i.e. being attacked on account of not caving into ludicrous demands and belligerent policies of a cruel dictatorship.

What's this about Tojo being a dictator?

 

[LightSpectra]

Japan's government was only theoretically distinct from the military, which makes it a dictatorship by definition.