What if Patton's Plan.........

[Winner]

By 1945 and until 1948 famine was a reality all over Eurasia. Even the UK, which was barely touched by war, went into rationing, and things got especially bad in 1945-48. Rationing didn't end there until 1953.

The reality, which you refuse to see, was that the UK was even more exhausted that the USSR by 1945. You think they'd have left India go if they weren't? Or lost their grip on the Middle East? France was KO also until the 1950s, and so was occupied Germany. The USA did had more resources and manpower, but it was also politically impossible that they'd mobilize those.

In 1945, it was perfectly possible since the US army wasn't demobilized yet. Only after that had sending troops overseas become a problem. The situation of the UK and France is pretty irrelevant, since most of the fighting would have to be done by the US anyway and they could keep Britain afloat indefinitely.

You also keep discounting the fact that fighting a war overseas is more difficult, both militarily and politically. Hell, they failed to win the Korean War in 1950-53 - which had political support - and you're raving about how they, by themselves, would win a Third World War 3 in 1945?!

Calm down, buddy

Korean war was entirely different type of conflict than this hypothetical war with the Soviets. Moreover, it was fought in the Cold War environment, which simply dictated how far both sides could go, due to emerging nuclear capabilities of the USSR. It was a limited war, not an all out struggle.

In 1945, US was fully mobilized for war. After it demobilized and switched back to peacetime economy and mentality, it was indeed difficult to think about conventional war with the Soviets, but this is not what this scenario is about.

 

[red_elk]

And the reality that you refuse to see is that the Atomic Bomb is a decisive paradigm shift in battle when one side has it and nobody else is even close.

At the moment of supposed execution of Patton plan, the US didn't have atomic bomb. They had Japanese front instead of it
In 1950 USSR had only a few bombs and didn't have ability to deliver them to US territory.
If USA didn't started war with USSR over Korea, why would they start it over Poland?

 

[xchen08]

At the moment of supposed execution of Patton plan, the US didn't have atomic bomb. They had Japanese front instead of it
In 1950 USSR had only a few bombs and didn't have ability to deliver them to US territory.
If USA didn't started war with USSR over Korea, why would they start it over Poland?

The Japanese front is not really an issue, since by VE day, the battle of Okinawa had already been decided, and there's nothing left except Japan itself. Assuming a more critical war occurs, the U.S. can easily transfer the bulk of its forces to deal with that while its fleet finishes strangling Japan. In 1950, the problem wasn't Soviet ability to hit the U.S., which was nil, but rather Soviet ability to hit U.S. allies in Europe, which was considerable, not to mention the U.S. had no real idea as to how many weapons the Sovs had or what delivery mechanisms they possessed.

As for why the USA would start a war over Poland, the easiest way is for all sides to think the other started it. Say the Western Allies take a hard stance with Stalin over his obvious abuses in Eastern Europe, up to moving up troops into ready positions. Stalin's paranoia gets the better of him, and he orders a preemptive strike before the WAllies can "stab him in the back." You can even pull Patton into this by having him launch an immediate counterattack, making a ceasefire less likely as all sides realize just what they had gotten themselves into.

 

[red_elk]

As for why the USA would start a war over Poland, the easiest way is for all sides to think the other started it.

What's the difference who technically starts war? I said USA were unlikely going to start world war over Poland - especially having 4 times less forces in Europe than Stalin had and having Japan unfinished.

I wonder, why they didn't do that? It was so easy to push evil commies back...

 

[xchen08]

What's the difference who technically starts war? I said USA were unlikely going to start world war over Poland - especially having 4 times less forces in Europe than Stalin had and having Japan unfinished.

It matters because there's no need for the U.S. to actually set out willing to start a war to save Poland. All it needs to do is be a little more assertive about enforcing the agreements made at Yalta and let Stalin's paranoia do the rest.

I wonder, why they didn't do that? It was so easy to push evil commies back...

Several reasons. First and most important, the vast majority of Americans did not see Stalin as an enemy but rather an ally they had fought alongside for years against Nazi evil. This applied particularly to Roosevelt who saw Stalin as a friend, not just an ally. Stalin's various atrocities before and during WWII were not well known, and the knowledge was actively suppressed by wartime Allied propaganda. (eg, Uncle Joe) Further, Stalin was very careful to hide his weaknesses from the Western Allies, so no one in the West knew just how close the USSR was to starvation or how stretched the Red Army was. This is not helped by the lack of Western intelligence sources in the Soviet Union or the fact that communist sympathisers or outright Soviet agents filled U.S. government, especially the State Department and even the Manhattan Project. Finally, until the Trinity test, no one was sure the Manhattan project would work or how powerful it would be. Therefore, few in the West thought the Soviets should be pushed back, or that they could be pushed back. This would of course change with any outbreak of war.

 

[red_elk]

It matters because there's no need for the U.S. to actually set out willing to start a war to save Poland. All it needs to do is be a little more assertive about enforcing the agreements made at Yalta and let Stalin's paranoia do the rest.

Stalin didn't order to pre-emptively strike Germany, even when it was really necessary. Strange paranoia... And you think he will strike against Allies when his forces are overstretched and exhausted? Don't think so
BTW, how it's related to the possibility of Patton plan success?

Several reasons. First and most important, the vast majority of Americans did not see Stalin as an enemy but rather an ally they had fought alongside for years against Nazi evil. This applied particularly to Roosevelt who saw Stalin as a friend, not just an ally. Stalin's various atrocities before and during WWII were not well known, and the knowledge was actively suppressed by wartime Allied propaganda. (eg, Uncle Joe) Further, Stalin was very careful to hide his weaknesses from the Western Allies, so no one in the West knew just how close the USSR was to starvation or how stretched the Red Army was. This is not helped by the lack of Western intelligence sources in the Soviet Union or the fact that communist sympathisers or outright Soviet agents filled U.S. government, especially the State Department and even the Manhattan Project. Finally, until the Trinity test, no one was sure the Manhattan project would work or how powerful it would be. Therefore, few in the West thought the Soviets should be pushed back, or that they could be pushed back. This would of course change with any outbreak of war.

I can only advise you to re-read our discussion on the previous page.
A-Bomb was not ready.
64 American divisions had to quickly push 264 Soviet ones back to the USSR.
Japanese front.
etc.

 

[xchen08]

Stalin didn't order to pre-emptively strike Germany, even when it was really necessary. Strange paranoia... And you think he will strike against Allies when his forces are overstretched and exhausted? Don't think so
BTW, how it's related to the possibility of Patton plan success?

And you don't think getting backstabbed by Hitler made him just a touch more paranoid? In any case, his paranoia is well documented, like the crazy timetables he gave to his generals to capture Berlin because he was afraid the WAllies would violate Yalta despite Eisenhower giving him the Western objectives and plans. Further, his spies in the Manhattan project have been telling him about a great and powerful new weapon that the Americans will have in a few months. If he came to believe the Westerners would attack him, it makes perfect sense for him to launch an attack before that weapon would be ready, since even a poor chance of victory is better than no chance if the war is inevitable. Regarding Patton, I've been ignoring it because it had no chance of being adopted. Utterly impossible. The most you could possibly have is him convincing others in the Allies that Stalin is untrustworthy, leading to confrontational actions that lead to war.

I can only advise you to re-read our discussion on the previous page.
A-Bomb was not ready.
64 American divisions had to quickly push 264 Soviet ones back to the USSR.
Japanese front.

I've already covered the Japanese Front. The A-bomb will be ready in 2 months. And you've already admitted that the Soviet military was exhausted and overstretched. Why exactly will the American divisions need to quickly launch an offensive when the President thinks that in 2 months, he would have a weapon that could win the war without a bloody slugging match?

 

[red_elk]

Why exactly will the American divisions need to quickly launch an offensive when the President thinks that in 2 months, he would have a weapon that could win the war without a bloody slugging match?

Because it could not. If it could win a war shortly, without losing Europe, Truman would definitely start such a war.

 

[xchen08]

Because it could not. If it could win a war shortly, without losing Europe, Truman would definitely start such a war.

Wait, where did you get the idea that Truman was some warmonger slavering at the bit to tear down the Soviet Union? He's the same man that completely demolished the U.S. military in a few years in order to bring the "peace dividend" to the American people. Further, even if he was a warmonger, it doesn't matter if the A-bomb actually could win a war shortly if Truman didn't think it could. I've already mentioned the severe overestimation of Soviet strength that Stalin was careful to cultivate, and people didn't figure out just how powerful the A-bomb was even years after Hiroshima.

 

[say1988]

Stalin didn't order to pre-emptively strike Germany, even when it was really necessary.

He planned on it, but was surprised by the German timing. Both sides knew war was coming, both wanted the upper hand. The Soviets were already building factories in the east (don't think all those tanks were produced with equipment evacuated westward, many factories were already being prepared). The Soviet military had just got beaten up fighting the Finns, so I doubt Stalin was in a hurry for a war.

These are two very different scenarios, but I still doubt Stalin would have matched aggressive posturing with anything more than the same, let alone open war and I don't see the West supporting any war on the Soviets unless it was clearly their aggression, after those years of propaganda and them having the army that demolished Germany. The Soviets knew what condition they were in and that they had no match to the American economy and threat the Red Army was too exhausted for a long war, short term successes were quite likely baring a surprise attack, but long term goes to the US.

 

[classical_hero]

Why not?

The humiliation of the defeat might have meant that the Russian people would have been so distraught at such a defeat that they might have caused an uprising against the Communist party.

 

[Quackers]

Forgive me for my blundering post here but USA had nukes Russian didn't. That is practically victory for the allies right their? Combined with USAAF superiority of the skies nuclear delivery would have a good chance of succeeding. I've read that in the last 16 months of WW2 USA built 50,000 bombers, unbelievable. Although I don't think this was on anybody's agenda at the end of the war apart from Churchill and Patton aside. And anyway as people have pointed out Britain wouldn't have the will to or the finance to start a war and it'd be certain that the Democrats would've been out of office for years.

And in regards to a land war in central Europe US forces combined with the most capable soldiers in the world at the time, German veterans, although understandably weary I believe could win against the Red Army. But it'd last 2-3 years and would be bigger than anything seen on the Eastern front.

Just my 2 pence...

 

[Racsoviale]

The USA did not have any usefull amount of nukes after Hiroshima and Nagasaki(one nuke left I believe) and it was not something they could mass produce at that time. Furthermore the nucklear weapons of that time were not anything like those being built in the 70's and 80's.
Further furthermore, the american public would not allow for such a continuation of the war, since up until that point the russians were their friends. And adding more reasons for not going to war with russia, one cound say that this would be a war with no strong allies(Britain was broken, France was broken and Germany was broken) Russia, at the time, seemed strong and ready for more if the need should arise.
In reality Russia was broken too, but due to good propaganda, and maintaining the resemblance of a huge affective army, the allies thought Russia was much stronger that it really was.

 

[Winner]

The USA did not have any usefull amount of nukes after Hiroshima and Nagasaki(one nuke left I believe) and it was not something they could mass produce at that time. Furthermore the nucklear weapons of that time were not anything like those being built in the 70's and 80's.

It doesn't matter for several reasons - first, nuke production would continue. Even if slow, it would produce number of nuclear weapons which could be used against Russian industrial cities in Siberia/Urals regions.

Second, conventional strategic bombing could be just as devastating. With the already fragile transportation system in European Russia, this would doom the Soviet armies fighting in Central Europe.

Further furthermore, the american public would not allow for such a continuation of the war, since up until that point the russians were their friends.

Not really. Allies of convenience at best. The American public had no problems seeing them as enemies merely 2-3 years after the war. If the war between Allies and Soviets erupted in 1945, I don't think it would be that hard to convince the American people that now when fascism was crushed, it's also necessary to deal with the Communist aggressors.

And adding more reasons for not going to war with russia, one cound say that this would be a war with no strong allies(Britain was broken, France was broken and Germany was broken) Russia, at the time, seemed strong and ready for more if the need should arise.

Nonsense, sorry. Britain was by no means broken. Exhausted, yes, but with the US help it was still a power to be reckoned with.

Soviet Union was - [rant] AS WAS MENTIONED AND EXPLAINED IN THIS THREAD ABOUT 10x ALREADY! [/rant] - in a very bad shape by the end of the war. It suffered horrible casualties (at least 20 million people, but knowing how the Soviets used statistics, I'd say the real number can be even 2x bigger), it's supply lines were stretched, it relied too much on Western help too keep the industry operating at the necessary capacity to keep the armies supplied.

Compared to them you have the US with 10 million men in arms, massive industrial output, technological edge, air superiority, secure and short supply lines (yes, the Atlantic doesn't count as overland supply line ), huge navy and more or less unexhausted manpower reserves. Oh, and the capacity to produce nukes...

It is not rocket science to guess who would win in this war, folks...

In reality Russia was broken too, but due to good propaganda, and maintaining the resemblance of a huge affective army, the allies thought Russia was much stronger that it really was.

True, but there were exceptions. Many people knew the image of Russian power was just a facade.

 

[RedRalph]

Hangonhangonhang on - you think 40m Soviet citizens actually died in WW2?

 

[red_elk]

Winner already convinced himself about 10 times in this thread.
Korean stalemate, where USSR even did not participate directly, is not good enough illustration.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Hangonhangonhang on - you think 40m Soviet citizens actually died in WW2?

Some people think that Stalin killed 100 million people. Some people are fools with no interest in the truth. Some of them post on this board.

 

[Patroklos]

Russia was in a democraphic catastrophy in 1945, they were literally at the end of their human resources. Conversly, America had barely tapped them. It would have been a bloody war of attrition where the Russians would be wasteing more men than the west due to their tactics and they would have no way to replace them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Russia was in a democraphic catastrophy in 1945, they were literally at the end of their human resources. Conversly, America had barely tapped them. It would have been a bloody war of attrition where the Russians would be wasteing more men than the west due to their tactics and they would have no way to replace them.

I don't know, American field tactics were pretty undeveloped compared to the years of experience the Soviet staff had with Deep Battle. Maybe the Americans could handle it if they fought in France or Germany, but anywhere east of Berlin and you're really stepping in the Russians' own.

What's most important is to remember that we're talking about the US being on the offensive in this scenario (Patton's plan), not merely an immediate postwar engagement between the US and USSR.

And I'll assume you meant "demographic." Though it reads funny otherwise.

 

[say1988]

Not really. Allies of convenience at best. The American public had no problems seeing them as enemies merely 2-3 years after the war. If the war between Allies and Soviets erupted in 1945, I don't think it would be that hard to convince the American people that now when fascism was crushed, it's also necessary to deal with the Communist aggressors.

That is if you can convince the Soviets to attack. And I seriously doubt that not withdrawing would cut it. And most people were convinced that the Soviets were friendly in '45, just look at the initial response to Churchill's iron curtain speech. There was much propaganda (and a removal of the friendly propaganda) as well as the actions (or in many cases a lack of them) by the Soviet Union that turned the people against the Soviets, yes it happened quickly, but it wasn't until the blockade of Berlin that it became ingrained.
Sure, the governments never trusted each other, and Churchill and Truman were completely opposed the the USSR, but the average person had a different view.