What If: the US and British had engaged the Soviets in 1945?

[Remorseless1]

Remember that line from an old Doors song, "they've got the guns, we've got the numbers,nobody gets out alive"? That's what would happened -- years of pointless slaughter that produces a stalemate. Besides,nobody wanted to continue the war, not even Stalin.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I find "what if" topics in history to be nothing more than a lot of intellectual preening, tbqh

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think that such a war would have to begin (and end) before the Soviets get any nukes.

I think so, too. At the least, a Russian atomic bomb would probably lead to some kind of peace deal. A worst-case scenario might have the Russians actually using an atomic bomb, on the battlefield or on a German or Polish city.

The battleground would primarily be Eastern Europe.

I agree. I think the goal for the Western Allies would be to restore the 1939 borders. If there were any fighting in the Pacific, it would be without consequence, and everybody involved would know it. I could imagine Russian and American troops facing each other in Hokkaido or Manchuria, hardly interested in doing much.

The US and its allies would absolutely be able to cream the Soviets in Europe with airpower and nuclear weapons. Also remember that the Soviets were quite dependent on help and aid from primarily the US while they fought Hitler.

I don't know how far east Allied airpower could reach. I don't know how intact Germany's airfields were in 1946-7, for instance. Could the 8th Air Force have moved its entire infrastructure to Cologne, Frankfurt and Hamburg? Or would they still be flying from the same bases in England? I really don't know. I imagine they'd be reluctant to use atomic bombs in Germany or Poland, but maybe they would use one on a battlefield, away from cities, or against Russian ships in the Baltic or Black Sea. Maybe even just a single American bomber could fly from England, refuel in Denmark or Sweden, and drop an atomic bomb on a Soviet naval base in one of the small Baltic countries.

I reckon Stalin would withdraw his forces to the USSR proper to preserve his regime intact and make peace, because everyone were fed up with the war anyway in 1945. I don't really see any scenario where the Americans would invade or occupy Soviet territory, perhaps with the exception of pockets of territory closest to Japan. Recall that the Americans had built up a quite formidable Pacific fighting force in 1945 and after Japan is defeated, it would be free to engage the Eastern part of the USSR.

I could imagine a fight for Berlin. Then if the road to Warsaw was open, then okay. But how much did the Western Allies care about Prague or Budapest or Zagreb?

I can imagine, at the end of this scenario, an alternate Earth where Poland is the country that got split in half instead of Germany.

British and US politicians would have hard time explaining to their people why they are still good guys despite being clear aggressors and backstabbing their ally. But they'd manage.

Your other points could be argued, but this one is easy: US politicians have never had any trouble with that. They've gotten the US into a war nearly every time they've wanted one. That's partly why I cited the instigating naval incidents that have played a part in drawing the US into almost every war we've ever fought.

I don't see any conflict as being more than localized skirmishes. In 1945 it was still an open question as to what the post-war environment would look like. Even in 1946 there was the serious American proposal to put nuclear energy, including nuclear weapons, under the control of the United Nations.

There might be localized skirmishes in the Turkish Straights Crisis, or over the soviet withdrawal from Iran/Caucuses, but nobody had interest or resources for a big war. The UK was broke and had to implement even tougher rationing than during wartime. The Soviet Union was exhausted, with even the apparently limitless pool of manpower for the Red Army running dry. America was demobilizing with all speed possible and rapidly downsizing forces.

Plus, what Patton wanted didn't really matter. He didn't control the US military, Truman did. In 1949 during the 'revolt of the Admirals' Truman was confident enough to tell the military brass to get stuffed.

Well, if we're trying to craft a scenario in which it could happen, we have to be willing to suspend disbelief and bend history to our whim.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I find "what if" topics in history to be nothing more than a lot of intellectual preening, tbqh

Good contribution. Since we're being frank.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

you'd have to wave a magic wand of political will, but if you could, allies win on back of more population, industry, and tech, all of which were more intact.

that would be some serious magic, though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Situation in China was exactly the same. And still is to a certain extent, as even today the Chinese Communist Party bases its legitimacy on that anti-imperialist discourse.

Gets funnier every year.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Would one bomb (nuking Moscow) that took out Stalin, have ended such a war quickly? I would think so whatever the pretext for starting was. With Stalin dead, the Soviets would likely reset their leadership.

 

[Lexicus]

USSR industrial output was barely on par with Germany

False

allies already had rougly the same amount of soldiers on the ground

Also false insofar as the Allied "tails" were much larger than the Soviet "tails". Soviet combat forces outnumbered the Allied combat forces significantly.

plethoric USA (plus allies) with virtually infinite resources which was at its industrial and mmanpower peaks

Also false

i would say Soviet Union (or whatever remainings of it) had capitulated unconditionally in a matter of months.

"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"

Even if only half of them would have been fit enough to put their uniforms back on, that's, like, 15 or 20 divisions, well-rested and with some training and organization.

Western divisions in this period were 30-40,000 men, not 10,000

Also remember that the Soviets were quite dependent on help and aid from primarily the US while they fought Hitler.

Not true, the decisive phase of the Eastern Front was over far before Lend-Lease began arriving in the Soviet Union in amounts sufficient to affect military operations. Lend-lease shortened the war but did not decide it.

On a side note it sure is interesting that the most anti-Russia posters are also the ones who think the USSR would have just fallen over if the allies attacked it. As often happens in this sort of context I feel compelled to remind everyone that Hitler lost the war.

My take on this is that the Red Army likely would have been able to make major advances at the start but the longer the war goes on the worse things become for them. The US had a superior industrial base and of course as time goes on the US can produce more and more atom bombs. The Allies probably do pretty well as long as they avoid invading Russia itself.

 

[EvaDK]

I don't know how far east Allied airpower could reach. I don't know how intact Germany's airfields were in 1946-7, for instance. Could the 8th Air Force have moved its entire infrastructure to Cologne, Frankfurt and Hamburg? Or would they still be flying from the same bases in England? I really don't know. I imagine they'd be reluctant to use atomic bombs in Germany or Poland, but maybe they would use one on a battlefield, away from cities, or against Russian ships in the Baltic or Black Sea. Maybe even just a single American bomber could fly from England, refuel in Denmark or Sweden, and drop an atomic bomb on a Soviet naval base in one of the small Baltic countries.

I can imagine, at the end of this scenario, an alternate Earth where Poland is the country that got split in half instead of Germany.

The US had built up a +1,000 warships strong blue water navy by 1945, including ~90 aircraft carriers of various displacement. The Soviet Union had no carriers, weak navy by 1945. Most of its sailors had also been added to the Soviet army and participated in the land attacks on German forces in Europe. What the Soviets had in abundance, was manpower, tanks and artillery. But with terrible logistics as soon as the Americans would blow up the train lines behind the Soviet forces. The US, UK etc. would have something like a 4:1 ratio of warplanes advantage, especially bombers. As for nuclear weapons -

Would one bomb (nuking Moscow) that took out Stalin, have ended such a war quickly? I would think so whatever the pretext for starting was. With Stalin dead, the Soviets would likely reset their leadership.

- pure guessing game here, but I can imagine that the US would indeed strike at military targets in Soviet occupied Eastern Europe. If that didn't convince Stalin to pull out, medium sized cities in Russia proper would be next. Why? Because it worked against Japan. Truman and his generals would just pursue the same strategy, until Stalin caved in.

The idea of a new border between liberated Europe and the USSR going through Eastern Europe, seems realistic. But I don't think Poland would be one of the split nations between West and East, because the full liberation of Poland would serve as the primary pretext of the continued war in the first place. Remember that it was Hitler attacking Poland that triggered WW2. Finland, Sweden and Turkey would join the war on the American side; China would stay out altogether.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@EvaDK Were there any significantly sized, soviet cities still intact in 1945? Leningrad had been destroyed; Moscow was intact; Stalingrad destroyed. What cities west of that line were not heavily impacted by the German invasion and the then the soviet counter offensive? Certainly a military concentration of some size would be an appealing target. Once you move east of the Volga River, what was there in 1945? How big were the major cities? Novgorod? Kazan?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Would one bomb (nuking Moscow) that took out Stalin, have ended such a war quickly? I would think so whatever the pretext for starting was. With Stalin dead, the Soviets would likely reset their leadership.

But what if its one bomb nuking Moscow that doesn't take Stalin out and he refuses to surrender?
How many cities would the Allies be prepared to nuke? How many could they nuke in '45?

 

[Birdjaguar]

But what if its one bomb nuking Moscow that doesn't take Stalin out and he refuses to surrender?
How many cities would the Allies be prepared to nuke? How many could they nuke in '45?

Bombs were few and far between in 1945. I would guess 3-4 might be available in the months after Nagasaki.

 

[Lexicus]

It depends precisely when in 1945. IIRC the US had used up all its fissile material for the 2 bombs dropped on Japan, so if we assume this war breaks out after August 45 the US probably can't build another bomb until the beginning of 46. If we're assuming the war breaks out before Japan's surrender then the US can use those 2 bombs on the Soviets instead but Japan still being in the war makes for much more of a wildcard scenario; Japan's ability to project power is essentially non-existent by the beginning of 1945 but still.

 

[EvaDK]

@EvaDK Were there any significantly sized, soviet cities still intact in 1945? Leningrad had been destroyed; Moscow was intact; Stalingrad destroyed. What cities west of that line were not heavily impacted by the German invasion and the then the soviet counter offensive? Certainly a military concentration of some size would be an appealing target. Once you move east of the Volga River, what was there in 1945? How big were the major cities? Novgorod? Kazan?

That's a good point; I admit that I didn't consider exactly which cities would be the most obvious targets. I don't know enough about it
.

But what if its one bomb nuking Moscow that doesn't take Stalin out and he refuses to surrender?
How many cities would the Allies be prepared to nuke? How many could they nuke in '45?

I don't think they would go after Stalin personally, just like they didn't go after the Japanese Government and Royal family. You need there to be someone in charge that the Soviet armed forces would obey. Someone in control of the generals. Stalin had that control. Pure guesswork, but perhaps 5-10 additional nuclear bombs in the second half of 1945? Depends on how much enriched Uranium/Plutonium they could produce. Note that the first bomb (Little Boy) required +60kg of enriched Uranium, because it was a 'simple' pistol design. The following bomb (Fat Man) was a much more advanced implosion device, requiring only something like 8kg of Plutonium. So, once they cracked the formula for making these things more effectively - you need considerably less of the critical enriched fissile material.

 

[red_elk]

Reading this thread makes me glad USSR rushed to get own nukes and got them fast.

 

[Birdjaguar]

More war is never a good thing.

 

[EvaDK]

Just to be clear, I'm glad this scenario didn't play out. I'm glad that the war ended in the Summer of 1945. I don't think it would have changed much in the Cold War politics that ensued. The people in Poland, Czechoslovakia and others might have enjoyed freedom much earlier, but at what cost? They would have taken the brunt of civilian deaths in a continuation of the war in 1945. Millions of additional deaths.

By the way, there's a very interesting documentary on YouTube concerning the British nuclear program for those interested. Especially the attempt to construct a fusion bomb design, in order to convince mostly the Americans that the UK was a serious player in the nuclear race.

 

[Lexicus]

Incidentally the British estimate of the balance of forces from the wiki article on Unthinkable:



My view is that the Allied emphasis on strategic aircraft wouldn't have been much help; there are a total of zero (0) successful uses of strategic airpower to win a war.

 

[Zardnaar]

False



Also false insofar as the Allied "tails" were much larger than the Soviet "tails". Soviet combat forces outnumbered the Allied combat forces significantly.



Also false




"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"



Western divisions in this period were 30-40,000 men, not 10,000




Not true, the decisive phase of the Eastern Front was over far before Lend-Lease began arriving in the Soviet Union in amounts sufficient to affect military operations. Lend-lease shortened the war but did not decide it.

On a side note it sure is interesting that the most anti-Russia posters are also the ones who think the USSR would have just fallen over if the allies attacked it. As often happens in this sort of context I feel compelled to remind everyone that Hitler lost the war.

My take on this is that the Red Army likely would have been able to make major advances at the start but the longer the war goes on the worse things become for them. The US had a superior industrial base and of course as time goes on the US can produce more and more atom bombs. The Allies probably do pretty well as long as they avoid invading Russia itself.

Nuking Baku is my war winning idea. No fuel doesn't matter how many tanks USSR has. The more they have the worse it is.

Probably don't have to nuke it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Incidentally the British estimate of the balance of forces from the wiki article on Unthinkable:

View attachment 661046

My view is that the Allied emphasis on strategic aircraft wouldn't have been much help; there are a total of zero (0) successful uses of strategic airpower to win a war.

German fuel situation was critical due to bombing. They studied the effects of strategic bombing after the ear and knew about hitting fuel production.

They also knew about Baku and how critical it was and had the range to get there.