Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

They could try to refocus part of their army into anti-air profile from the anti-ground one, because of 2-1 advantage on land...
Also, Allied forces attacking USSR would cause most of Europe to join USSR in a wave of communist revolutions.

Where exactly do you think there would be communist revolutions?  Greece maybe?

[Phmcw]

France, Belgium and Italy would certainly have revolted. Comunism declined later when word of Stalin exess came in the west, but aat the time comunism was big.

Also, the soiviet factories where out of range of bombers, as were most cities.


But did someone here study Patton's plan for invading the USSR? I'm sure it was interesting.

[mainiac]

France, Belgium and Italy would certainly have revolted. Comunism declined later when word of Stalin exess came in the west, but aat the time comunism was big.

There were large socialist movements but you could hardly say the general population wanted to be allies with the Soviet Union.  The military even less so.  The French communist party only took about 1/4th the votes in 1946.  That's significant but hardly a country on the verge of a pro-Stalinist revolution.  Compare that to say... east germany or hungry.

[Sergarr]

France, Belgium and Italy would certainly have revolted. Comunism declined later when word of Stalin exess came in the west, but aat the time comunism was big.

There were large socialist movements but you could hardly say the general population wanted to be allies with the Soviet Union.  The military even less so.  The French communist party only took about 1/4th the votes in 1946.  That's significant but hardly a country on the verge of a pro-Stalinist revolution.

If the war against USSR has erupted, then populace, who were propaganda'd for at least three years to cheer for Russian soldiers, would not understand the Allies literally backstabbing their ally-in-war against Hitler. And after that comes the revolution.

[mainiac]

If the war against USSR has erupted, then populace, who were propaganda'd for at least three years to cheer for Russian soldiers, would not understand the Allies literally backstabbing their ally-in-war against Hitler. And after that comes the revolution.

 

Okay, why are we assuming this is a backstab?  Also where did you learn French history?

[Culise]

I wouldn't expect a Communist revolution in these powers, but I would expect them to simply refuse to join the war, citing the very simple fact that their alliance was directed against Germany.  DeGaulle, that ardent anti-Communist, was still focused on rebuilding from the rubble left to him, and when your potential fifth column is a quarter of the country (albeit, a quarter that doesn't have the army, but does have significant partisan groups), that's not quite revolution-worthy, but it is definitely critical to take into account.  Belgium and the Netherlands were not much better off.  Churchill would probably be willing, though Britain's ability to actually sustain a war would be definitely questionable. 

Okay, why are we assuming this is a backstab?  Also where did you learn French history?

Because it's a fundamental assumption to any Allied invasion of the USSR to roll back the borders.  Operation Unthinkable requires absolutely no warning to be given to the Soviet Union.  It's also a fundamental violation of agreements made at Yalta.  What do you usually call a sudden sneak-attack made against an allied power? ^_^

[Zangi]

If the war against USSR has erupted, then populace, who were propaganda'd for at least three years to cheer for Russian soldiers, would not understand the Allies literally backstabbing their ally-in-war against Hitler. And after that comes the revolution.

 

Okay, why are we assuming this is a backstab?  Also where did you learn French history?

It is hot off WWII.  Russia was an ally.  The propaganda machine demonizing communism probably has not gone into full swing... yet.
First strike goes to the Allies?  Assuming they go along with Operation Unthinkable.

[mainiac]

Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable?  It's strategically idiotic.  The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign.  Why would they attack before increasing their strength?

25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.

The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe.  It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.

[Zangi]

Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable?  It's strategically idiotic.  The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign.  Why would they attack before increasing their strength?

25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.

The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe.  It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.

So, the scenario is going to start with the cold war going normally, except, the Allies build up forces across the border... then attacking when they are good and ready?  After the propaganda demonizing Communism sets in.

Alright, so not a backstab.  No surprise element either.

[mainiac]

The scenario as I understand it is that the cold war goes hot over Berlin in 1946.  I'm saying that the west would be delighted if the soviets let them just sit around in Germany building up their forces and bombing the east german infrastructure for six months.  In six months the west can muster maybe 90 American divisions and 50 British and 30 French divisions.  That's a huge improvement from just a little patience.

[Culise]

Air power will indeed prove critical in blunting the 3:1 advantage of Soviet ground forces over Allied power

The Soviets simply did not have 3:1 superiority in ground forces in 1946.  They had that advantage in number of divisions but Soviet divisions were massively depleted while western divisions were at full strength.

Also, here's a fun fact: while the Allied powers had a 3:1 superiority in heavy bombers, it's actually the Soviets who have numerical air superiority in fighters and fighter-bombers, apparently by around 11k planes.  Certainly, the Allied fighters may be superior in quality (though this itself is a questionable assertion, as the Yak-3 was arguably close to, if not the equal of the P-51), but in the near term, it's actually the Soviets who would be able to seize air superiority

Nope, look at the Germans.  They sent 80% of their fighters west and the allies achieved complete air superiority while they sent 20% of them east and the Germans dive bombers were able to operate much more aggressively and take fewer losses.

The Soviets had some decent late war designs but the allies had better planes and most crucially, better pilots.

The real issue with air superiority isn't close air support (which sure is handy though) but the fact that Soviet logistics are gonna get bombed to hell.  The Germans had a million men on air defense and another million on rebuilding duties.  Where are the Soviets going to find that manpower to spare in their six million man army?

Sorry, I didn't mean that air superiority by the Soviets was predicated on CAS alone; that whole paragraph was meant for the person saying that heavy tanks were more important than air superiority, which can be disproved by how quickly German offensives unraveled in the late war under Allied bombing campaigns.  I meant that those fighters are going to be tasked with hitting the Allied heavy bombers before they can reach Soviet logistics.  They won't necessarily succeed perfectly on that, and they'll likely burn through their fuel at a significant rate (the Lend-Lease program is presently supplying over 80% of the Soviet's aviation fuel needs; its cessation will require raw petrol and refineries to be retasked to making up the gap), but it will be very important to the near-term successes or failures of Operation Unthinkable. 

Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable?  It's strategically idiotic.  The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign.  Why would they attack before increasing their strength?

25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.

The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe.  It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.

So, the scenario is going to start with the cold war going normally, except, the Allies build up forces across the border... then attacking when they are good and ready?  After the propaganda demonizing Communism sets in.

Alright, so not a backstab.  No surprise element either.

So, just out of curiosity as well, how are they going to explain this to their soldiers and, more importantly, their constituents?  The Allies have already been drawing down their forces in 1945, serving discharge papers and the like.  Churchill is out of office, and to the home front, the war is over.  Politically, the only real window for an invasion is during or immediately after the fall of Germany.  If you suddenly start mobilizing your forces again, Truman's going to have to go before Congress, and Churchill's going to have to explain to Parliament why he, a caretaker leader of the opposition, has started another war - really, Churchill will have to do that anyways.  Any theoretical war will have to bear that in mind.

EDIT:

The scenario as I understand it is that the cold war goes hot over Berlin in 1946.  I'm saying that the west would be delighted if the soviets let them just sit around in Germany building up their forces and bombing the east german infrastructure for six months.

Ah, and my assumption was completely different.  Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946?  Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.

[Sergarr]

Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable?  It's strategically idiotic.  The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign.  Why would they attack before increasing their strength?

25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.

The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe.  It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.

If it was THAT EASY to defeat USSR, then we must assume that all western commanders were idiots for not seeing the superiority of pure air bombing doctrine and not attacking USSR.

If we assume that western commanders are not stupid, then you must also admit that you underestimate the soviet fighting power. (EDIT: or overestimate western superiority...)

You're in a fork now. Choose one.

[Elfeater]

I think the point of what many people are saying, is while not easy, a war against the USSR *could* be won through logistics and bombing.
Also, the lend lease program gave the Russians many, many trucks. Without that many of their factories would turn from tank production into truck production, or else they would face many logistical problems.

[mainiac]

If it was THAT EASY to defeat USSR, then we must assume that all western commanders were idiots for not seeing the superiority of pure air bombing doctrine and not attacking USSR.

If we assume that western commanders are not stupid, then you must also admit that you underestimate the soviet fighting power. (EDIT: or overestimate western superiority...)

You're in a fork now. Choose one.

Loaded question is loaded.  Maybe they didn't want to kill ten million people in a war of aggression that would have created an unpalatable new world order.

Frankly I consider it somewhat disturbing that you consider "because we can" sufficient reason for war.

Ah, and my assumption was completely different.  Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946?  Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.

Whoops, mixed up the years I guess.  I have no clue what the politics are, just looking at the military side of things.  But I imagine the politics would work themselves out pretty quickly because the Soviets are probably going to start pushing into West Germany, trying to grab territory before NATO brings it's troops in.

[Sergarr]

If it was THAT EASY to defeat USSR, then we must assume that all western commanders were idiots for not seeing the superiority of pure air bombing doctrine and not attacking USSR.

If we assume that western commanders are not stupid, then you must also admit that you underestimate the soviet fighting power. (EDIT: or overestimate western superiority...)

You're in a fork now. Choose one.

Loaded question is loaded.  Maybe they didn't want to kill ten million people in a war of aggression that would have created an unpalatable new world order.

Frankly I consider it somewhat disturbing that you consider "because we can" sufficient reason for war.

Ah, and my assumption was completely different.  Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946?  Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.

Whoops, mixed up the years I guess.  I have no clue what the politics are, just looking at the military side of things.  But I imagine the politics would work themselves out pretty quickly because the Soviets are probably going to start pushing into West Germany, trying to grab territory before NATO brings it's troops in.

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

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949"

And here's the proof that you live in an alternate history Well.