Print

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

[Culise]

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.

Yep, almost two-thirds of their truck fleet is Allied-made.  86% of their aviation fuel is Allied.  Soviet production of locomotives and rolling stock for repairing existing and constructing new rail lines effectively ceased, replaced entirely by Lend-Lease.  The critical component, though, is food - the total food shipments was well over 1 million tons.  Much of the Soviet breadbasket, the Ukraine and the black earth belt, was ravaged in the war, and won't recover for a couple years. 

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.

An understandable mistake, and one I'v emade before.  Unfortunately, the two-year difference is critical to this argument.  The Soviets no longer need to hold off for four years, but less than one - RDS-1 will be detonated in August of 1949.  A war over the Berlin Blockade (say, an accident during the airlift), is at a critical stage in global politics and a tenuous military situation.  On the Soviet side, they've started to recover from the war; Lend-Lease becomes less relevant, as the Soviets have rebuilt at home and added on the industrial spoils of war from a denuded Germany.  The army numbers are absolutely terrible for the Allies - the entire US Army of half a million men, worldwide, is outnumbered thrice-over by the Soviet forces surrounding Berlin alone, and we're no longer looking at tattered divisions fresh from the Battle of Berlin that you mentioned, but a fully-prepared force that is taking part in a carefully-staged provocation that has just gone off the rails (Stalin didn't want war, either; he wanted to use it to secure concessions).  The Soviet Air Force has just been thoroughly reorganized; the VVS is getting a lot of love, and is on the verge of following the American lead as a separate branch of the armed forces (1949).  On the Allied side, though official doctrine calls for nuclear carpet-bombing in order to stem this tide, they have no nuclear-capable aircraft available at the commencement of hostilities - less than three dozen atomic-capable B-29s exist, and the first of them won't arrive in Europe until April of next year, though that's likely to be expedited under the circumstances.  Still worse, that means that each of those aircraft will get less than two bombs to drop: in mid-1948, the American nuclear arsenal hasn't yet breached the hundred-count.  On the bright side, the Mark 4 about to enter full production, and the first cruise missile, the Matador, will be tested in 1949 (for general production by 1953 and deployment by 1954, though I'd expect it to be rushed due to the war - expect it a couple years after the war begins).  The mention of Pershings and Centurions earlier is also changed by the two year separation - they've gone from blueprint to reality, and are now the main battle tank of the American and British forces, with the imminent arrival of the Pattons also to be eagerly anticipated.  By contrast, the T-44 is going through serious teething issues, but the T-54 is also entering mass production as well.  France is also going to be in much better shape for such a war; they'll be organized and ready to fight.

On an ancillary theatre, the Sino-Soviet split is still far away, and the Soviet occupation of Manchuria has ended two years before, freeing up Malinovsky's Far East forces and giving Mao a stable base of power from which he will be able to launch his pivotal campaigns to crush the KMT - by the end of next year, Sichuan will have fallen and Chiang and his entourage will have fled the mainland.  In Korea, Syngman Rhee has not stabilized South Korea yet; he was only just elected in 1948, though he'll waste no time getting his army to work shooting civilians.  The occupation of Japan is still in full swing, which is a mixed blessing: the Eighth Army is slowly decaying away under the ravages of peace and Walker either hasn't yet or has only just arrived, with inadequate time to whip them back into shape, but they are a significant source of manpower already on the scene. 

[Loud Whispers]

Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?

[Sergarr]

Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?

They knew how to conduct a naval invasion, it's just that they were really unlucky with weather. Like the Spain with their Grandee Armada.

The storm that destroyed the Mongol Invasion fleet was named Divine Wind - Kamikaze - by Japanese.

[mainiac]

"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"

Nice nitpick bro.

An understandable mistake, and one I'v emade before.  Unfortunately, the two-year difference is critical to this argument.

Actually turns out the question was for 45, so I was actually slightly late:

Now, another question: What would the outcome have been if the Cold War had never existed, because the East-West conflict went hot as soon as Berlin fell?

Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?

Um, none?  His successors were hardly incompetent and he couldn't rely on people being surprised by the reintroduction of horse archers forever.

[Loud Whispers]

They knew how to conduct a naval invasion, it's just that they were really unlucky with weather. Like the Spain with their Grandee Armada.
The storm that destroyed the Mongol Invasion fleet was named Divine Wind - Kamikaze - by Japanese.

The Spanish were defeated at the battle of Gravelines before the storm wrecked the survivors and the Mongolians did not know how to conduct a naval invasion. When they saw the storm coming they reembarked on their naval vessels to sail away, right into the storm and Japanese fleet. In the second they used boats like these:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Riverboats which were a poor substitute for a serious navy, and considering that at this time Chinese naval technology was superior to European naval technology how many times would poor Mongolian planning have to result in destruction before they realized many small flat hulled ships = so much drowning?

Um, none?  His successors were hardly incompetent and he couldn't rely on people being surprised by the reintroduction of horse archers forever.

When Genghis died the Mongols all went back to Mongolia, when Ogedei died they all went back to Mongolia. Him staying alive that much longer would mean Xi-Xia and the Jin dynasty are conquered and Subatai and Ogedei can both invade the hell out of Eastern Europe much sooner and fresh from the momentum of their victories, as long as Genghis dies after the initial Mongolian victories over Austria then in the following campaign Subatai could also be able to successfully invade the Holy Roman Empire before the death of Ogedei pressures him to withdraw.
Then everything falls apart. But for a brief moment the Mongolian Empire could be that much bigger.

[mainiac]

You can't assume that just because the Mongols have a decent streak of victories going they are unbeatable.  They luck did run out y'know.  They push a little sooner, they get bogged down a little sooner I say.

[Elfeater]

http://i.imgur.com/5XwtPFe.png
"Mongol Mongol"

[Loud Whispers]

You can't assume that just because the Mongols have a decent streak of victories going they are unbeatable.  They luck did run out y'know.  They push a little sooner, they get bogged down a little sooner I say.

During the rainy years of Mongolia and with their best generals still alive and with European tactics still being almost as backwards as Japanese tactics the Mongolians have a window of opportunity to take it over. I wonder if the Mongolians would crack the shells of European fortresses and corner the Egyptian cavalry.

Also a hilarious alternate history where the Mongolian Empire founds a world Empire and conquers the Americas instead of the Spanish.

[Sergarr]

I highly doubt any possibility of Mongols forming a world empire, judging by the performance of various Hordes...

[mainiac]

During the rainy years of Mongolia and with their best generals still alive and with European tactics still being almost as backwards as Japanese tactics the Mongolians have a window of opportunity to take it over.
[/quote]

You mean the same outdated European tactics that had worked against Attila the Hun 800 years previously?

Eurasian history is chock full of hordes or nomads sweeping in from the wilderness.  The Mongolians happened to be the most successful of these.  While it's possible that there was something inherently different about them it's also just possible that they happened to be the luckiest.  Considering that Mongolians went on to lose some battles pretty badly later and there was no major difference in their tactics compared to what had been around for more then 1000 years, I'm gonna say that it's just an example of every probability curve having a tail end.

[Digital Hellhound]

The Mongols won every battle - at least came back and won every battle - until Ain Jalut. Wasn't European tactics that beat them then, either, but mobile Mamluk cavalry forces. Attributing all the Mongols' successes to just luck is... eesh. Also, a Mongol world empire, while unlikely, is hardly impossible. These weren't mindless barbarians. The Pax Mongolica was pretty successful, and Mongol khanates ruled their corners of the world for a long time after the Empire had fallen (which I wouldn't say was Genghis' death - Ogedei, Mongke and Kublai still held the allegiance of the lesser Khanates and could dictate orders to them, though their control was not nearly as absolute).

EDIT: Though, I think we should think on a mix of this and the original scenario: Neo-Mongol techno-barbarian invasion versus the EU, go go go.

[Elfeater]

Okay, another interesting possible topic is, what would have happened if the Normans were defeated at Hasting.

[Loud Whispers]

You mean the same outdated European tactics that had worked against Attila the Hun 800 years previously?
Eurasian history is chock full of hordes or nomads sweeping in from the wilderness.  The Mongolians happened to be the most successful of these.  While it's possible that there was something inherently different about them it's also just possible that they happened to be the luckiest.  Considering that Mongolians went on to lose some battles pretty badly later and there was no major difference in their tactics compared to what had been around for more then 1000 years, I'm gonna say that it's just an example of every probability curve having a tail end.

You compare the defeat of Attila at the battle of the Catalaunian plains and the Mongol victories at the battle of Mohi or the battle of Legnica. Attila charges into the Romans and dies at the battle of the Catalaunian plains. The Mongols in the battle of Mohi adapt around setbacks like losing the bridge by building their own, counter their crossbowmen with catapults and ultimately outflank the enemy and drive them to destruction into the marshes (always stopping short of encircling them so they never fought to the death) or in Legnica where they just kept retreating and firing arrows into the European forces as they tended to do on a standard basis.
The most disciplined and well trained horsemen in all of human history didn't exactly win on a luck basis. They had perfected their tactics down to a hair and it would take Baibars to out-Mongol the Mongols before they got wrecked. And at Ain Jalut the Mongolians weren't even using their hallmark tactics any more, they were using strategy that was distinctly European in simplicity

[mainiac]

Or y'know, Russia knights backed up by peasant levies.

The tactics only worked until they didn't.  History is undoubtedly full of barbarian leaders who lost and no one remembered a century later.  The romans had been practicing that supposedly unbeatable tactic for over 1000 years continuously at this point.

[Loud Whispers]

Or y'know, Russia knights backed up by peasant levies.
The tactics only worked until they didn't.  History is undoubtedly full of barbarian leaders who lost and no one remembered a century later.

The Mongolians wiped Eastern European Knights with peasant levies into the floor though, what are you trying to say? You do realize you're comparing Genghis Khan to nameless barbarian leaders?