What if? East Vs West 1945

[RCAFson]

The Soviet pact with Hitler was hardly benign. German aircrews trained in the Soviet Union to avoid the rearmament restrictions. Stalin provided critical materials to Germany that also aided in the rearmament. And while the Nazis were rounding up the Jews, the Russians marched the Polish elite into Katy forest to be massacred.

An ironic aspect of Stalin's actions was to pull the Soviet defenses out of their established bog land positions which mad them even more venerable during Barbarossa.

The USSR aided the Weimar Republic not Nazi Germany.

Right away we get into Katyn and the typical knee-jerk equalization of Hitler's death camps with Stalin's crimes, which is another way of stating the extreme right's wish for an alliance with Nazi Germany instead of the Stalin's USSR.

If the West hadn't caved in to Hitler at Munich, and if Poland would have formed an alliance with the USSR instead of helping itself to parts of Czechoslovakia...if, if , if...but the end result is that Stalin gave up on the Alliance which was to have prevented Munich and the destruction of Czechoslovakia by the Nazis, and became neutral and helped himself to parts of Poland...what goes around comes around.

 

[Jenisch]

The USSR was never in an alliance with Nazi Germany any more than Sweden or Switzerland was, both of which traded heavily with Nazi Germany, and the Swedes even allowed German troops to pass through Sweden.

Well, the Allied defeat in 1940 was entirely their fault. BTW, they even planned even to attack the Soviet Union do deny supplies to Hitler. However, the Soviet Union was also enterily blammed for what happaned in it's domains.

 

[GrauGeist]

It just this kind of cold war distortion of history that makes any discussion of the war in the east and the USSR so hard to have and why I try to avoid these discussions, since it inevitably involves explaining Soviet and Western diplomatic relations, and this is often seen as a defence of Stalin.

The USSR didn't invade Poland at the same time as Germany. They waited for 17 days after the German invasion; basically until the Polish military and government had both collapsed:

But they DID invade Poland...doesn't matter if it was 17 days after the Germans or if it was on Groundhog Day, they invaded Poland...period. No matter how hard revisionism spins it, the nation was invaded regardless of when or for whatever reason.

The USSR's occupation of these territories in no way hastened Poland's demise...

You can't be serious....

And The Soviet Union was interring American crews and thier aircraft in both the PTO and the ETO. The crews may have been released, but the American aircraft were kept. And last time I checked, both sides of the Soviet Union were an Ally of the United States. This alliance (I am assuming) would cover the entire country of the U.S.S.R. And if I remember correctly, the eastern half of the U.S.S.R. was more than happy to recieve thier supplies and equipment from the United States, so I am pretty sure that the eastern half of the Soviet Union was attached to the western half...

 

[Jenisch]

I don't know how such war could have developed, but what I have sure is that the political war is already happening here, and is being fierce. LOL

 

[Balljoint]

If the West hadn't caved in to Hitler at Munich, and if Poland would have formed an alliance with the USSR instead of helping itself to parts of Czechoslovakia...if, if , if...but the end result is that Stalin gave up on the Alliance which was to have prevented Munich and the destruction of Czechoslovakia by the Nazis, and became neutral and helped himself to parts of Poland...what goes around comes around.

And if Hitler had been granted his Art Institute scholarship in Vienna the whole mess would have been avoided.

 

[Jenisch]

I don't want to discuss moral here RCAFson, but the Soviet agressions in Poland, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are hardly what one can expect from a "neutral".

 

[drgondog]

That's a bit of an understatement when describing the army that defeated the cream of the Wehrmacht, while the Wallies were pushing east against (for the most part) less well trained and more willing to surrender German forces in 1944-45. The Red Army, together with its huge superiority in frontal (ie low altitude close support) aviation could have easily defeated the US and British and driven them to the sea before an effective strategic bombing campaign of the USSR using B-29s could have been mounted.

Idle speculation. There were 70+ Heavy bomb groups of B-17s and B-24s, not to mention Bomber Command or 9th or TAC or 12th AF assets in striking range of all of USSR rear lines and logistics. The Soviets NEVER saw that kind of airpower from the LW and the LW in the East was a shell of the assets they deployed to the west. 'Swept aside' is a bold but baseless assumption. The USSR never confronted artilliary resources like the combined Allies in the west (nor had Allies contended withh Soviet artilliary. The West was 100% mechanized in contrast to Wermacht on eastern front. The USSR was not in great shape for food and most of their refinining assets were within Allied bomber radius without B-29s -

IMO the Soviets had an advantage in Infantry and Armor but Not 3:1 and certainly not when considering West attack aircraft numbers as well as skilled pilots. The available production capacity of the US was enormous, nuclear weapons coming and the ability to deliver at night by B-29s with relative impunity was there from from India, China and quickly UK, even Russia made good initial progress..

Only 2 things could have "saved" the Wallie position: (1) use of the few nukes available against the USSR rather than Japan, or (2) the rather unlikely possibility that Soviet troops would be less than motivated to extend their war of liberation and revenge against Germany into France. Use of nukes in Europe rather than agansit Japan, would also have created a very unpredictable situation in the Far East, especially if - at the same time as they were defending western europe - the US and it's allies went ahead with the Invasions of the Japanese home islands.

Also Do not discount the zeal that former Wermacht and LW veterans may have joined the West.

 

[Jenisch]

Something about Dresden:

An RAF memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack said:

"Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance.... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front... and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jenisch]

A Fatal Guarantee: Poland, 1939 | History Today

This article provides a balanced view of the Soviet and Anglo-French negociations to avoid the war. Not surprinsingly, things were not only fault of the West like RCAFson claimed.

 

[bobbysocks]

It just this kind of cold war distortion of history that makes any discussion of the war in the east and the USSR so hard to have and why I try to avoid these discussions, since it inevitably involves explaining Soviet and Western diplomatic relations, and this is often seen as a defence of Stalin.

i will say if you have difficulty here discussing any issue then either your presentation of that issue is coming across as vexing to others and thus you may reap a backlash due to that, or you are not keeping an open mind. there are some very knowledgeable scholars, authors, and amateur historians who post here. if you present a topic with solid evidence and in an air of open discussion you may change minds or have yours changed. that is the whole point of a forum. but if someone holds on to their ideal and disregards any argument contrary to that then any forum that does not share the same view as they is going make them feel alienated and frustrate them. you can call my perception of the ussr as "typical cold war distortion" and i can counter with yours as "typical revisionist whitewash". but when i have found that when my idea is in the minority in a forum of educated people with open minds...my idea is worth me questioning.

The USSR didn't invade Poland at the same time as Germany. They waited for 17 days after the German invasion; basically until the Polish military and government had both collapsed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Poland2.jpg
and then occupied eastern Poland, basically up to the Curzon line (the ethnic dividing line between Poland and Russia/Ukraine). The USSR's occupation of these territories in no way hastened Poland's demise and in no way, shape or form, formed a military alliance with Nazi Germany. The Nazi-Soviet pact is quite specific in stating that the USSR would only occupy eastern Poland if the Polish state collapsed, which it did. If the western Allies and/or the Polish armed forces had been successful in stopping the German invasion, then the USSR was not obligated to invade Poland to aid Germany. The USSR was never in an alliance with Nazi Germany any more than Sweden or Switzerland was, both of which traded heavily with Nazi Germany, and the Swedes even allowed German troops to pass through Sweden.

as stated before...they still invaded. hitler and stalin carved up poland. so they waited 17 days until the polish government collapsed you say. what you are saying is that stalin let germany do all the heavy fighting to and reaped the reward of being able to advance easier with lesser causalities to his troops because of less opposition. this shows you one of the main soviet tactics. they also abandoned the ( non communist) polish resistance in their fighting of the german troops as they( the superior russian army) advanced and did not provide aid, supplies, or support to them. they let them take as much of a toll on the german army as possible. but after the resistance was crushed they advanced. it is plain and simple they did not want to have to face armed and organized non communist forces anywhere in eastern europe because they had an agenda. patriots in other eastern countries who fled and fought for the western allies were imprisoned upon returning to their homelands after the war. and how long did the russians keep german POWs?? hartmann was in a soviet prison camp how many years after the war?

The USSR declared War on Japan as it agreed to do at Truman's and Churchill's request, 90 days after the end of the war in Europe:

yes, according to the accord they did keep to their word and declare war on japan and attack within 90 days after the surrender of germany. but why did they keep on fighting 2 or 3 weeks after japan surrendered? there was no aggression there was absolutely no need to continue other than to seize territory. if you have another explanation i would like to hear it.

The USSR lost 25 million dead in the war, or about 15% of the population. I suspect that the USA would have also had a very hard balled negotiating stance if it were invaded and forced to endure the same casualties.

this has been my contention all along and why i say it would have been easier for stalin to talk the russian people into a continued war than it would have been for FDR and churchill. although i doubt the average russian knew the cost they paid in lives until well after the war. i could be wrong. but since the state controlled the media anything that could cast a bad light on the government was either not reported or spun in another direction. i agree! the western allies would no way have endured that degree of casualties in europe. when the lw pounded the bombers in 43 and inflicted heavy casualties the bomber stopped flying. the us would have run out of bombers and crews before too long at that rate but i think after several more missions like that the aircrews would have refused to fly. this is unlike stalingrad and other battles where the ussr sent unarmed soldiers into the battle. like i said i dont think the soviet citizens were mindless but i do believe the true nature and costs of the war were not made known to them. the ussr NEVER asked for western troops to be deployed in their country. knowing how we gave stalin everything he asked for i highly doubt had he asked we would have denied him troops. it was his decision to keep westerners out of the ussr. it took years of talks and the us fighting a lot of stone walling to get a couple airbases in western russia...and when it happened it was very restrictive.... why?

the long and the short is...i have never seen someone with an open mind and who is willing to explore all options and proposals have a problem discussing any issue.

 

[Jenisch]

It should also be remembered that as early as 1942, when the war was still undecided [personal note: for me, it was already decided], Stalin was offered an Anglo-American bomber force that would operate from the Caucasus beginning in 1943, but for political reasons he rejected the proposal, desiring only the aircraft.

Soviet Air Power and Victory in World War II

 

[drgondog]

Allied aircrews who were carrying out operations against Japan were interred if they landed in the USSR since the USSR was neutral in that war until August 9 1945, but they were quietly released prior to the Soviet entry into the war against Japan.

The aircraft - particularly the B-29 - were not released, and became the USSR first strategic bomber as an almost perfect copy, bolt for bolt.

 

[drgondog]

Perhaphs it was not in 1940, but in 1945 with the 625 heavies in Italy the picture would be another.

The 15th alone had 21 B-24/B-17 Bomb Groups with ~ 72 bombers per group. RAF not included in the count.

 

[Shortround6]

The Allied air forces don't need to bomb the Soviet factories IF they can keep the Soviet supplies from reaching their armies.

A division can use over 100 tons of supplies per day when not engaged in heavy combat or long distance moves.

How many thousands of tons per day do the Soviets need to move into Eastern Europe to keep their Forces supplied?

How much chance do they have of blocking the Western Allies supply lines?

 

[Jenisch]

And let's not forgot of something: Japan was demolished by mid-1945. The Allies could have bring relevant reinforcements from the Pacific to be based in the UK. Due to the UK's infraestructure, not to mention the aircraft carriers, the Allies would be able to employ better their forces from Asia in Europe than the Soviets and the logistical problems they would have to support theirs if they bring them.

Ah, and what aircraft contingent the Allies had in Africa by 1945? I'm still thinking the Caucasus oil fields could have been targeted...

 

[DonL]

After the surrender of Japan the Ostsee (East Sea) could function as one very large aircraft carrier directly at/in the flank of the Red Army.

The KM of 1944/45 could hold the East Sea as their very own Sea because they could supply the Heeresgruppe Nord (Kurlandarmee) till 08.05.1945, they could evacuate thousands of civilian and Prinz Eugen, Admiral Scheer and Lützow could operate with their destroyers totaly undamaged the whole years 1944 and 1945 as heavy Artillerie support for the Wehrmacht.

The VVS was so frustrated of this three ships at the East Sea (1944/45) that they were crying for help from the RAF and the USAF, because no single attack of the VVS achieved any damage or could retreat this Ships from their heavy Artillerie support.
Quite the contrary all three Ships could achieve heavy damage with their improved AA over the VVS and shot down numerous a/c's.

As we all know the german AA was not the best, at 1944/45 the improved german AA was much better then bevor but personaly I would rate it second (equal to the RN) but not as good as US Navy AA.

So to my opinion such a attack through the East Sea at the flank of the Red Army would take the VVS under enormous pressure, because the VVS has no or very little experience in fighting ships and the VVS couldn't do anything against the three german ships, what will happen if 100 RN and USN aircraft carrier, battleships, cruisers and destroyer will enter the East Sea?

 

[Jenisch]

Perhaps the Japanese surrender would be a problem in this scenario. Despite the nukes, they were prepared to resist an invasion, and the Allies obviously would be unable to launch an invasion of Japan in this scenario. The Soviet entering in the war against Japan was a profound shock to the Japanese. The planners of Unthinkable considerated the possibility that the Japanese might become allies of the Soviets. The Japanese probably would have accepted some conditional surrender from the Allies, since it preserved the power of the Emperor. However, had the Allies insisted in unconditional surrender, the Japanese would try to save their skin, and that could have lead to an alliance with the Russians.

Had the Russians were the agressors, I think that launching nuclear attacks in Japan, to "punish" it, and giving a conditional surrender proposal to the Japanese, would be better for the Allies, specially if the transfer of forces from Asia indicated that it would be realistic to push the Russians back to their frontiers. Imperial Japan would still exists, but had it agree to leave China and reduce it's arsenal, for America and Britain it would be better than have Stalin ruling Eastern Europe (Japan also would be a problem for Stalin).

 

[drgondog]

The Allied air forces don't need to bomb the Soviet factories IF they can keep the Soviet supplies from reaching their armies.

A division can use over 100 tons of supplies per day when not engaged in heavy combat or long distance moves.

How many thousands of tons per day do the Soviets need to move into Eastern Europe to keep their Forces supplied?

How much chance do they have of blocking the Western Allies supply lines?

This, IMO is The key battlefront issue - not to metion that there is a lot of rugged terrain in Czechoslovakia, Southern Germany and Austria featuring natural choke points. All rail facilities and marshalling yards, bridges and canals subject to day/night intrusion. Naval Forces in the Baltic and the Eastern Med should provide air cover on the flanks... etc, etc. Oil in the Ukraine should be the primary strategic target.

The wild card is that the average grunt on Both sides will be very disheartened at the thought of another war.

 

[GrauGeist]

Another consideration is the fact that the U.S. was still on a wartime footing, still producing equipment and training soldiers, sailors and pilots since the war was far from over in the PTO and they were estimating that they would be on Japan soil "hopefully" by early 1946. Remember, no one at that time (except for a very few people) knew about the A-bomb so the plans were "game-on" for a serious slugfest.

So in the closing months of the war in the ETO, U.S. capacity was still at an all-time high. With an outbreak of hostilities with the U.S.S.R., American supplies, equipment and manpower just keeps flowing into Western Europe fresh from the U.S. and with the threat of German warships removed from the convoy lanes, I'm sure the flow would increase, too.

 

[Jabberwocky]

US war production actually peaked in either very late 1943 or mid-1944 - depending on how you measure it - and declined slowly until about January 1945, after which the production decline accelerated rapidly.

There were about 2 million less workers involved in direct contribution to the war effort at the by about March 1945 than there were at the beginning of 1944.