If Patton had been allowed to attack the Soviet Union who would have won?
 

would of won? The Soviet army at the end of WW2 was at least 1/3rd bigger then the US army. They had 1/3rd more hardware too. Of course a bunch of that was lend lease stuff but they did have the IS1 & IS2 heavy tanks. I'd like to say that Patton would be able to kick the Soviets butts... then again Zukov was no slouch either...

I'm fairly certain we would have got them. We did have the atomic bomb, after all, and weren't afraid to use it...

But even aside from that, the Soviets were exhausted by the end of WWII. 100 Russians died as a result of the war for every 1 American that did the same. They were pretty thoroughly destroyed, and who knows what would have happened if we'd have cut off their lend lease supplies....

If the Soviets thought we would use the bomb, then no question.

Otherwise, it would have been a tough fight and I'm not sure which side would have prevailed, since we would have faced the same problems the Germans faced, maybe more so since our supply line would have been even longer.

The Soviets toward the end of WW2 were actually very close to developing their own atomic bomb. Actually a lot closer to making their own atomic arsenal than we were to replacing the whole two in our stock. The prouction of the atomic bomb in the United States was not yet an exact science, and the ones that we had dropped on Japan we weren't even sure would work. Another problem with using the bomb on the Soviet Union is delivery, remember there were no rockets or missles capable of delivering an atomic payload to the Soviet Union. True, the German's had become close to perfecting rocket technology but it had a limited range and was not accurate enough to be dependable. The risk would be far too great flying a bomb into Soviet territory, the bomb could be lost to soviet AAA. When the bomb was used on Japan the Japanese military was pretty much destroyed. By the end of the war the Soviet army was almost fully recovered from the German Blitz. All these factors pretty much rule out the use of the atomic bomb for at least several years of a war between the US and the Soviets. That said, a war between the United States and the Soviet union would have been very close. The US military was better trained and better armed while the USSR had a larger army mostly made up of consripts. Also the Soviet comand were no slouches when it came to strategy, I would say that the minds working for Stalin were at least as good as the ones behind the US military. The biggest challenge for a US invasion of the Soviet Union would be the sheer size and climate of the USSR; it was, and still is, the largest nation in the world.

If it had come down to war between the two, I feel it would most likely be reduced to a war of attrition. And would have probably ended in a draw.

"Never get into a land war in Asia."

Patton was a heckuva General, but I still think Russia would have eaten whatever he could throw at it. Note: I am not saying the Soviets, I'm saying Russia, different story. You don't beat Russia and you won't beat the Russian winter.

If you take out the bomb and just use conventional weapons then Russia I think would have won. At the very least they would have conquered Europe. The leaders of Russia didn't give a damn that 100 of their soldiers had to die for every German. It is hard to fight an enemy who does not care about their own casualties.

I don't know i think America would have won just from the complete air superiority it would enjoy. The Russian Fighters were outdated and were outclassed by more modern American Fighters, and America had another thing that Germany didnt; Long range bombers! Germany was never able to bomb Russia's factories, and America would be able to do that, slowing down their supply even more. Without air superiority i doubt the Americans would be able to win

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union would have won this war. It would be have been impossible for US forces to proceed all the way into Russia.

France failed. Germany failed and the US would have failed.

The US would also have been crippled by the fact that they would have had to transport their entire manpower and supplies across the Atlantic.

Get real people! No one could have ever defeated the Russians in an invasion.

Just imagine some ideologically opposite power invading America. Say Iran... Don't you think that every single man, woman and child would be up in arms fight for their very existence? That's what happened, and would have continued to happen, in the Soviet Union.

They had just lost 30 million in their war with Germany. THIRTY MILLION... Do you think the US public could stomach even 1/100th of that in an unpopular war? Remember "Uncle Joe" was still very popular with the US public at the end of WWII.

Mr Mephisto

^^ Very true, i'd have to agree that it would have been a very unpopular war, and w/o atomic weapons, we would loose.

I neglected to address atomic weapons.

For those interested in this topic I highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. This is a truly breathtaking, fascinating and emminently readable account of this momentous achievement. It combines science, military history, political history, espionage, biography and journalistic investigation in one (quite lengthy) but superb book. It's really amazing to learn about how the secret US labs worked on the bomb, how famous names like Oppenheimer, Feynmann, Fuchs, Fermi et al were all involved. The book was a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize.

Rhodes wrote a "sequel" called Dark Sun that examines the beginning of the Atomic Arms Race and the development of the Soviet atomic and hydrogen bomb programs.

The Soviets detonated their first atomic device on August 29, 1949 and it was an almost carbon copy of the US bomb "Fat Boy" (thanks for the Los Alamos scientist Fuchs who was a Soviet spy).

So, whilst the US had a couple of years head-start, if you wanted to use atomic bombs on Russia you would have had to desperately ramp up production after August 1945.

As UnlikedOne says, without the A-bomb the US would undoubtedly have lost this hypothetical war. Even with it, I'm not convinced it would make any difference. Dropping a bomb on Japan to "help save" American GI lives is one thing. Using it to invade a popular and immense prior ally is another. No US President would have done this, least of all Truman.

The two above books are highly recommended. This is a very intersesting subject.


Oisin

Mongols did way back when....

I still think that America would be able to succesfully invade Russia JUST because of air power. America's Army Aircorps was such a power at the end of WW2 i doubt anything could stop them

a friend of mine was in germany a couple years ago interviewing people for a (another) book about WWII.

interestingly enough he met a guy who's father was one of the head honcho's of the SS.

He told him that when america finnally cornered the SS near the Eagles Nest they told the SS CO's that they would give them food and excercise equipment (by now they were nearly starving to death) and they (Patton and crew) were going to use the SS as a spearhead army into the USSR.

but Patton mysteriously died (the son of the SS leader also mentioned that no one knew who pattons driver was that morning) so the attack never happened.

That's of no relevance to the period around WWII, or even the Napoleonic period. There was no unified Russian state, let alone a Soviet Union at that time.

Mr Mephisto

I think most points are covered other than arguing the points. But one is oddly skimmed. To say that a bomb could not be dropped into Russia is a bit silly I think. I hope everyone realises we didn't drop our big bombs two miles away. It was a very lengthy task with huge obstacles all along the way. The bombs cannot be counted out in this respect.

Jdoe

ok- yes, the russian winter is a hell of a foe, but I belive that we were in a good enough position to pull it off- not easily and not without cost, but russia relied heavily on our aid, and the air power difference is hard to beat....

About air power. Even today air power cant win a war all on its own, troops would have to be on the ground doing the fighting that planes couldn't do. This is even more so back in the late 40's. And where are the supplies used to maintain the planes gonna come from, pretty much all of Europe was reduced to rubble. Supply lines running from US shores would have been monumentally hard to maintain.

Patton was the man. With his percerverance (sp?), the US definitely would have won. There's a reason he was one of the great military leaders of America.

I think the sovjets would have won. The eastern-front was extreamly cold and the Russion already had a lot of fortifications around cities they had to defend from the Germans.

No doubt the Red army would have won if you discount the A-bomb. I think it's delusional to think the US could have pulled it off.

Patton was a tactician, not a strategist. Without his planners' aid, Patton probably would have starved his own troops to death on the way.

He didn't plan for food, just for combat.
And I would say firing on British positions during WWII could be considered objectionable.

Some of you don't understand that with America's HUGE Superiority in Aircraft overwhelm the Russians! There would be constant day/night air raids of the Russian factories (The germans were never able to do such a thing) which would completlely shout down the Russians ability to make their weapons of war. America was by far the best industrial nation at the time and could out-produce every other country. America would win by the fact of complete equipment superiority in quality as well as numbers!

... this is my pure opinion... but i think patton would have lost. Im not much of a history buff, and im not in the army... but what i remember from my history classes is that the russian/soviet army was huge at that time.

Who knows?

Russia would have won hands down. Even including the A-bomb.

I'm shocked that such a collection of intelligence overlooked the most important fact. The biggest advantage Russia has over every other nation is land. Like the capmaign against the germans, the russians would not have hesitated to trade land for time and used scorched earth tactics.

Combine that with the russians love for sniping and long range battle, and the US would have been beaten like the proverbial red-headed step-child.

During the height of the Battle for Stalingrad, the germans were losing about two soldiers every half hour to enemy sniper fire.

Air superiority does not mean a thing if you have no soldiers to hold the rubble left by the bombers.

Well said SuperMidget.

The Soviet Union was HUGE. Constantly retreating until your enemy over-extends itself and then biting back like a cornered bear...

Sound familiar?

Le Grande Armee anyone? The Wehrmacht? You think Patton could have done any better? Give me a break.

Mr Mephisto

PS - a realisitc appraisal of Patton's unlikely success in this hypothetical war does not equate to anti-Americanism before anyone accuses me of some such nonesense. Stop the flag waving for a minute and think it through.

Horace Woodring

http://www.skylighters.org/patton/index8.html

Personally, I think the Russians would have "Won", due to the fact that their army was much larger and closer to home. Just the logistics would have hampered the US. We only had enough fusioable material for a few "Nuc's" so I don't think they would be a factor. Also, the American public would have put up a fit at the casualties from that foray.

i don't think that the american public would have turned against a war against russia at any point. there was a huge red scare, and i think that could have easily been used to keep the people pro-war. also, i think it may have been possible for the US to win, although it really would be an unwinnable war. best we could really hope for is to actually beat their army. i think there's no way we could have really beaten them and held the territory.

I don't believe that the U.S., particularly under Truman, would have actually attacked the U.S.S.R. However, if we throw out logic and say that the U.S. did attack, I believe that it would be a war that no one would win. It would be bloody and long and would end up in a negotiated "peace". Most of the factors have already been discussed - U.S. air superiority and better trained forces v.s. the larger Soviet army. Brutal Russian weather, the vast size of the U.S.S.R. and their willingness to sacrifice people and land in order to win would seemingly make it impossible to truly defeat the Soviets. The U.S. would have its successes, but eventually their losses would begin to outweigh the value of those successes.

Interestingly though, such a war would most likely have pushed the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and possiblely weakened their military enough to prevent their future domination of Eastern Europe and ability to assist Communist insurgencies around the globe. No matter the outcome, we would be living in a different world today.

I don't think there would be a winner. It's true the US would carpet bomb mercilessly, but in the end US troops would not have fared to well engaging the Russians in Russia.

I also must admit that if a war broke out between the Russians and the US, it would be a war of supply lines for the Americans, and that being said, Patton would NOT be the best general for the Americans to use. Old Ike was an exponentialy better organizer that Patton and would be better suited for the task.

Just out of curiosity...do you think that the US would attack East to West or West to East?

The question of who would win is largely dependent on the definition of victory. What is the objective.
Could we capture and hold large parts of the Soviet Union for a long period? No. Does that mean we lose? Perhaps not. If we affect change to the outlook of the Soviets, help the remnants of opposition to Stalin and cause insurrection in the smaller republics, liberate central Europe, then we are in a better position and it moves history up several decades. Remember, we were at war for the ensuing 45 yrs with the Soviets(and we won).
If you define Soviet victory as repelling a US invasion, then yes, they would win most likely. If their victory meant they affected constitutional change in the US or laid a glove on North America, no way, they had no military capability to do so and would not for years.

I don't think the US's air superiority would have made all the difference. You can't do much from the air when your planes can't even fly during a Siberian blizzard. Napolean couldn't, Hitler couldn't...and I have doubts the US could have either. Russia was crippled sure, but so were we, even if not to the extent that the Russians were. It would have ended up being the Russians pulling back and turning it into a wasteland just like with Germany and France and the US eventually pulling out.

There's a difference in what people are talking about.

If the war would have commenced there would have been one EASY way for America to win. To attack, then feign a retreat. While Russia amasses an enormous counterattack you get the B-29s up and you nuke their spearhead. After this the road would be cleared until the next counter-attack by the Russians, you forget that they were tactitians who believed in numbers not strategy.

Air Superiority could be won easily with bases in Germany (secured by the tactical nuclear attacks), and after this is ensured daylight and night time bombing of Moscow and Leningrad could commence.

We wouldnt make the mistake Germany made, Americans like to destroy infrastructure BEFORE invading, Germans did it the opposite. Russian tanks would whoop up on the Shermans, true, but a good General would never let this happen without massive Sherman numerical advantages.

Added to this we knew where EVERY Russian factory was, hell we gave them the equipment to build them. Just give these coordinates to the B-29s and whipe them out. The B-29s could fly higher than any Russian plane, even the Yaks.

And if they try to move it outside the range of bases in Germany we still have Japan and China (both our allies at the time). That leaves just a sliver of perma-frozen Siberia.... nothing much you can do there.

The war would have been horrendous on both sides, but America would have won.

And don't forget, the remnants of the Wehrmacht could have been rearmed.

Seaver, have you ever read about how good the Russians were at moving factories? They had a lot of practice doing it during the German offensive, and they wouldn't have had too hard a time doing it if the Americans attacked.

Good point - you have to look at objectives. A weakened Soviet Union and a free Eastern Europe would have drastically changed history. The question is not absolute victory by either side but some other measure of victory.

Somebody has to have written some alternative history on this subject.

Air power didn't mean shit in WW II except for sea battles, where it rendered battleships obsolete.

German factory output actually rose over the time that the British and Americans were performing round the clock bombing - and they were in easy reach of UK airfields, unlike the Russian factories, which had been relocated beyond the Urals.

If Patton had attacked the Soviets, Brittan would have come along for the ride and possibly the newly mangaged Japanese army under McCarther as well. The Soviets also didn't know how many nukes we had left so we might have forced tham to make a lot of conssesions.

It's true that Churchill didn't like Communism, but I don't think he would have been able to convince Britain to jump back into a massive conflict so soon after beating the Germans- besides which, I think he was replaced as PM not long after the cessation of hostilities (can't remember for sure, though I know he was re-elected for a while as well).
As for a Japanese army, I don't really think so. Although there's no love lost between Japan and Russia, the Japanese were under strict limitations on their military development after the Second World War, and I don't think anybody would have been willing to allow them to re-arm- even for use as a proxy army.

air power no question played a huge roll in the win for the allies


this fact is well documented

I have to agree with this statement.

For example, it was a key issue in the Battle of the Bulge and one of the main reasons this offensive (Macht am Rhein) was so successful during its initial stages.

Air power played a huge factor in the Allied victory.

However, I maintain that Patton would not have "won" such a war. It would have simply degenerated into battle of attrition; one which the Soviets would have had many millions more men to sacrifice.

And to what end would the Allied effort be aimed? Do you really think that after the losses of WWII the British and American public would have accepted millions more casualties in an unpopular war against a former ally?

I think not.

Mr Mephisto

I totaly agree with you

Yeah. Ignoring the atomic bomb, I dont think we could have won a war with Russia. Dont forget that we were still fighting a war on two fronts, and that unlike the American public (and Army), the Russians were willing to accept stupendous losses. They were also our equal in manufacturing (THAT is what won that war, we outproduced everyone else), and would have been able to match us tank-for-tank, gun-for-gun, plane-for-plane. It would have degenerated into a static war of attrition that the American (and British) public would not accept.

Not to mention that the Russian T-34 tank was far superior to anything we had, but thats another story.

One also has to keep in mind that while Patton was pretty damn good, he could never run the show on his own. He was too brash, too aggressive, and the brass knew this. He would have needed to serve under someone--be it Eisenhower, Bradley, or someone else.

I give it to the Russians..

The Red Army wasn't beaten, and by the end of the war they were racing towards Berlin just as fast as Patton's armor...

Forget air power.. Any planes would be shredded by Red Army AA guns.. Forget Patton's tanks, they would be stuck defending itself from the Red Army, the conscripts Russia picked up liberating Eastern Europe (Eastern Europe at that time had about as much trust for North Americans then they did for Germans.. Russia was still the liberator at that point) and from pockets of Waffen and regular German units..

the soviets were very close to the atomic bomb at the end, we had exosted our suply of nuclear material, by the time we had our next round of nukes, they would have theirs as well.

one point made early on in this decusion was that the US had run out of it's 2 atomic weapons already, and making more wasnt easy for us. this is a good point. another good point is, japan gave up after 2 hits, and we didnt have to prove would could hit them some more if we wanted, it was implied to the whole world that we had as many of these things as we needed and we were showing restraint by now using more then 2.

with atomic weapons, you can bluff pretty hard. also, you wouldnt be bluffing forever, it wasnt yet an exact science (making atomic fuel) but we could do it, given a little time, and it'd take a little time to get ready for the invasion.

on the other hand, i think it's never a good idea to invade russia, it's never worked before.

You know what? It wasn't the atomic bombs that made the Japanese surrender- it was the conventional bombing of Tokyo that did it. Hiroshima was a small city of no particular significance and Nagasaki was one of many ports. Granted, the use of atomic weapons was intended to shock the Japanese into surrendering rather than destroy vital infrastructure, but it was regular air power that forced the Japanese to surrender.

I absolutely, postively agree.

The Russian people are some of the toughest SOB's in history. Let's say for a moment that we won a war, there is no way in hell we'd of been able to occupy and keep such a large country, with all her proud citizens, under control for any period of time. There's just no way.

The only way to defeat a country like Russia would be complete annihilitation of it's citizenry. I think the same goes for countries like China and the US itself.

From a friend of mine...

This was actually war-gamed out by some institute in the 80's. Sorry that I can't find a link for it, but I read the results in a book on strategy back then, and the end result was Allied (U.S.,U.K.,China and Eastern European) victory, mostly due to:

1) Atomic weapons and the B-29 delivery system. Stalin possessed very few aircraft that could have successfully intercepted an inbound B-29 strike, especially one supported by our long-range fighters. The Soviet aircraft were mostly designed to destroy the German medium bombers, and for tactical work in support of their troops.

2) Without lend-lease, the Red army would have withered away for lack of supplies. Even the meager rations of the average soldier would have been reduced by more than half when the allied aid was cut off.

3) Superior equipment- The Soviet T-34 was the best mass produced medium tank of the war. Having said that, the Allies would have access to captured German equipment, factories, personnel, and technology, and were in much better shape to begin production of advanced equipment such as the Panther, Panther II, Go229, Me262, Sturmgewher 44, Type XXI and XXIII U-boats, and the V-1 & V-2 programs.

4) Manpower- The Chinese were still imperial at the time, and with US/UK support, the premise was that Mao failed in his bid for power since the aid from the USSR was curtailed, therefore putting the Chinese troops into the equation. Stalin would have been put into a two-front war, with all his manufacturing facilities within bombing range, whereas the Germans were never able to get bombers into the Urals.

5) Stalin Himself-- The man was a Communist version of Hitler, and goes down in history as the most prolific mass-murder of all times. His populace, including his General, feared him, and his oppression of the people showed when the first villages that the Germans overran welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators, and happily took up arms against Communist party officials.

Something else that has not been mentioned is that Russia was running out of military manpower. Yes, the Russian Army was huge. However, their losses had been so enormous that they were starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel for new recruits - prisons etc. They would have had a hard time maintaining their armed forces at their May, 1945 levels. I've heard reports that of males born in the USSR in 1922 or 1923, NOT ONE survived the war. Also that the Russian death toll, long believed to have been a bit over twenty million, was more like forty million, including civilians. Stalingrad alone cost them a full million dead.

Also, at the end of the war, the US was the only major power whose economy was not on the brink of collapse.

If you're just talking about Patton - and Patton only - vs the USSR though, I think I'd put my money on the USSR. ;)

I think your friend forgot that half of Germany, including Berlin, was in Russian hands at the conclusion of the Second World War. It wouldn't have been the Western partners of the Allies who had access to German technology. The Go229, Me262 and V-1/V-2 were experimental weapons at the time- I can't argue that they were templates for the weapons to come, but their practical uses were limited in 1945.

By the end of the war the U.S had a tank destroyer that could fight the german tanks and this to the fact that German tankers alwas out shot the russians even thought the russians had more tanks with better amour i think they would have been destroyed by U.S tankes. Also the Amercians would ahve been able to to control the skys. Alllie planes could fly circle around the russians. They then would ahve been able cut off suplies to the russians. On the ground a amercian solder was better fed, better trained, and better supllied then there russian counter parts. Even in the last month of the war russians would destert to the german side just to get fed. Also at the time the U.S armed force had 7 million men while the russians had 9 million so not that out numbered. Russian commanders launched attacks that could be compared to the jap bannzi attacks which would have lead to the death of millions of men. Also most german tech was in the west not the east. The amercians were able to devlope a missle before the russians. American bombers could have hit russian factorys behind hind ural MTs. The russians were able to make a A-bomb till 1949 which during war would have been impossible also with the amercian people on watch russian spys would have been found. The russian people were tired of war they had fought so hard against the nazis becasue they would have wiped out the russian people. The U.S would have installed a decmorcy in russian which i bet the people wanted. Almost all russian trucks came from the U.S. Last if these two country would have gone to war russia would have stared it and the americna people would have fought. In the the end tho millions wold die on both sides and would have been a sad part of world histroy.

Why is this thread in Tilted Knowledge and How-To???:confused:

Or, maybe this is the right place for Alt History conjectures. I don't know. It just doesn't seem to fit in very well with snooze buttons, installing mirrors, and leaking water heaters.:no:

Lindy

I'm not sure, but geez, Jake - that was one helluva 6-1/2 year bump! I was going to reply to some of the comments, then caught myself, thinking "You really want to argue with something written in 2003?"

incorrect.
the T34 was roughly on par with the M4.
The russians won the "tank" game with numbers.
Both sides employed a similar tank doctrine (masses of tanks to punch through, supported by tank destroyers)

Anti Tank ability goes to the Sherman, often because of ammunition type and doctrine, but it slightly edges out the t34 as far as penetration goes. With the upgunned 76mm, shermans definitely beat the late war T34s.

The British Sherman firefly was superior to both of these in terms of penetration.

Similarly, while American tanks were build just as simply and easily maintained as Soviet tanks, they benefitted from generally superior weapons firing and optical technology. (Firing on the move)

When these two fought each other in the Korean War, Shermans took the majority of kills.

The Sherman was also considerably more versatile than the T34 with numerous readily adaptable variants including up-gunning, support fire, anti personnel roles, hedge clearing etc. Trumps the T34 in this category.

AND, the fact that the west was boasted successful tanks such as The M10, and the Perhsing who could punch holes through anything, fielded by any side.
Even the British Comet was scoring Panther and Tiger kills with ease, and it was low-slung and quick.

So, stop watching the History Channel with its constant bemoaning of the Sherman.
Western Air Power comprised 2 prongs: strategic and tactical while russian air power was mostly tactical.

While russia boasted an awful lot of AA defenses, they would be unable to deal with the two-pronged attack of Night Time bombing, 4-engine hight altitude bombing, combined with Night Time ground attack and regular ground attack.


i like to keep nukes out of this argument. it's less fun.
but point 2 is huge.


But, as for #3, look at my earlier post.
Late war T34s would fall to late war Shermans, and the allies produced much better supporting vehicles.

The western allies trumped the russians in air power, naval power and tank power.

Russian infantry units were a prime example of combined arms and were better armed at the end of the war than your standard American infantry unit. I believe heavy weapons were available more readily as well. (Americans liked to deploy machine guns on a platoon level as well i believe) But the russians had whole units of sub-machine gun units. That's alot of fire.

Russians also had an incredible amount of artillery.

---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 AM ----------

i would say that russian infantry was the superior attacking force, this combined with their artillery power would mean a very fast and crushing advance.

But, the western allies had an awful lot of supply in reserve and i think could exploit russian attacks by falling back, digging in and pinching them at their nerves.
No way they'd advance right into moscow, but they'd hold off any russian assault for some time.

Who would have won? King Death.

I had never thought about this. It is kind of interesting.

Would China of been on the US side? Would we have been able to bomb St. Petersburg from Finland or Northern Germany? What would the US have done had we taken over the country?

There seems to be an assumption that any of the USA's allies would have taken part in an attack on Russia in some of the above.

I couldnt have imagined that the US could have carried anyone but maybe some forces pulled out of the former allies of Germany (Romania, Hungary, etc)...

Would the US have used atomic bombs against Russia (a former ally who had taken far more of the pain of defeating Germany than anyone else?)

If they did, what would be the reaction of the rest of the world, and the American people itself? At best complete isolation of America... at worst an almost universal declaration of war against it/revolution?

_

America did not have the manpower to conquer Russia in any conventional sense. But its own geography protects it from couterattack.

I think the whole scenario is simply unthinkable in any case. There is nothing to suggest that anyone in power in America in 1945 had any leanings towards such an act of treachery. After the US had provided so much aid at such a cost to itself to France and UK, how could it be possible to then committ actions that would place France and UK in war with America? Its just unthinkable.

The latter part of WWII marked America's emergence as a superpower, and also a real and material sacrifice in a war that was fundamentally not theirs.

To propose that a nation who had thought so strongly against the evil's of Nazism would be capable of committing an act of treachory on a level with anything the Nazi's did (short of the camps and murder squads)... such a thing is simply beyond belief.

_

On the level of "who would win if vikings though Mongols"... there could be a purely tactical discussion

Politically though this is an impossible situation and although I am not some kind of blind admirer of America and its foriegn policy, it simply without basis to accuse them of being capable or prepared to launch an attack against a battered and tortured alley who had lost 20 million men to defeat a common enemy.

Whatever the foibles of some general might be, it isnt something that would happen.

There is also a difference between the American troops and the German ones - there is not the same culture of authoritarianism. I would have seriously expected huge scale desertions if American soldiers were sent into battle against a friend.

I thought on invading Russia, the winter wins. The Russian peoples know how to endure it. Supply lines in a russian winter - Napolean couldnt beat the winter. Guess its like taking on a tsunami - mother nature - eventualy she recovers from and obliterates the attrocities committed by man. Roots entwine the bones of the fallen, and the land recovers - look at Chernobyl - there is life there. Look at the beaches of Dunkirk, look at any old battle field. Nature would win, its down to who would survive her.
If Russia stopped paying their arms loans, how would America have managed financialy?

Chernobyl's not in Russia, it's in the Ukraine. The Mongols, the Swedes and the Poles all successfully invaded Russia. Modern Russia is an arms manufacturer, not a purchaser.

I think you have some facts wrong, CC.

Ukraine is still a part of the Russian sphere of influence.

It is independent in the same way Hawaii is independent of America

__

The answer to the original question is (imo) the US could not have won a conventional victory over Russia in terms of an invasion. The rest of the world would have declared war on the US if they had done it. The US would never have done such a thing. There is a lot of anti American feeling these days, but America's conduct in WWII was honourable. It is very disrespectul to those Americans who died in a European war they could have easily stood back from to start talking abiut stupid scernarios like this.

Yes, there was tension in the Cold War and a lot of rubbish spoken on both sides, but to compare this economic and political competotion to the Nazi philosphy in unbelieavbaly offensive to me..

Uh, SF, Hawaii is a State. Like California or New York. Maybe Ukraine is like Canada, but the Ukraine is not to Russia as Wales is to the UK. The Ukrainians are definitely dependent on Russia and take Russian concerns very seriously, but until 2008, Russia wasn't going to even contribute to the Chernobyl clean-up effort. You've made glaringly inaccurate analogy there.

As for the OP, the UK suggested fighting the Soviets several times. Churchill is on record as having discussed it personally with Roosevelt. The French might or might not have gone along, but there was no one else in the world to declare war on the US if they'd gone to war against the Soviets. The Spanish were still recovering from their civil war (and wouldn't have been a big factor regardless), the Italians were out, the Turks had no interest, the Chinese were busy throwing the Japanese out and fighting amongst themselves, the Indians were part of the UK, and the South American countries couldn't have fielded a fighting force, let alone a navy to get them there. So who, exactly, was left to declare war against the US?

Pretty much what I was going to say. In 1945 there was neither the external hostility nor the internal self-loathing of the USA that is prevalent today.

The USA was the fair haired boy/God's gift to the world that had saved it from Hitler. In 1945 the US had its shit together better than any time before or since, and was at the height of its strength militarily, economically and spiritually. The USSR had a very strong army, good tactical air arm, but no strategic air force, no navy to speak of, and was a disaster economically.
The USA had the atomic bomb, which at that time was considered just another weapon with a bigger bang. No one can know if the USA would have won, but if Truman had the moral will to prosecute the war with the Soviets vigorously, the USA certainly could have won it.

Lindy

And again I ask: