I read the one-year-thread “what if allies keep moving EAST??” and I like it. Even if most interesting “what if” dicution take place when the participants keep their emotion at bay. I don’t have too many technical knowledge, so my approach to history is more at a strategic level. For the start, this kind of war it would be a very though one.
Let see a “what if “ scenario “Western allies vs. Soviet Union in august 1945”
First at all there is the problem of moral/population support. Of course that for the attacked part there will be full support. SU will just continue their GPW against imperialism and US will fight against another Pearl Harbour. The problem is to have support if you want to attack. SU have the advantage here because its population had less freedom of exprimation and they were more vulnerable to propaganda. It wouldn’t be too easy because russian fought not for the ideas of communism, but for “Mother Russia” – that’s why they call it Great Patriotic War – yet maybe they could be tricked that the w. allies attacked first and they are in defensive. For w. allies this task was a very hard one. The Red Threat was a few years later, when they were demobilised. In august 1945 the solders of w. allies were tired of war and they just wanted peace. They were happy that they were still alive after the biggest and worse war and they were not willing to start another. As an example (my source is just a Discovery Channel documentary) demobilisation in RAF after war was much slower because the british government considered that air power was a easiest and cheaper way to maintain control of colonial empire. In India and Middle East RAF servicemen started a (pasive) revolt and the result was their demobilisation as well (there were some court marshall harsh punishment and IIRC some execution). If british solders were willing to fight for their own colonial empire, I really doubt that they would fight for eliberation of some small east countries. Not to mention that in august 1945 SU wasn’t “the bad guy”. The atrocities (Gulag) were less known, communist weren’t imposed in east countries governments yet and there were many western intelectuals who support SU because of ideology.
Because they were democracies, w. allies couldn’t attack SU without a major (if not full) support of the public opinion.
But this is a “what if” scenario, so let’s presume that the attacker has its population support (in full or almost).
Variant 1 – SU attacks
Most probale scenario is an attack thru (west) Germany to take Low Countries and France (this was the favorite scenario for Red army during Cold war). Most quoted example for a soviet offensive was Bagration (I told you that I am not good at details). In case of a Bagration 2, the defender is a much stronger one (without a second front in the opposite direction), therefore the advance will be slower. Also the supply lines and sources for the Red army would be vulnerable to strategic bombers. The best SU can achive was the complete conquest of Danemark, rest of Germany, Low Countries and France. Maybe Greece also (there were storng communist partisans in north). Because of the easy defendable Alps I don’t think SU can enter into Italy. At this point SU stops because they cannot take more. They don’t have any material (to avoid furibund attacks from technical funs please take “none” as “too litlle to matter”) for amphibious landing therefore Britain is safe. Also Norway – a land invasion would be thru Finland and Sweden – easy to defend with little reinforcement.
W. allies response.
You can calculate how much time it would take to Red Army to acomplish this task (again a slower Bagration) with a error margin. In case of attack, SU it would be in Germany shoes – it needed a fast victory because the enemy is much stronger at long run (population and industry). If the advance is too slow, USA have time to redeploy troops from PTO and mobilise new ones, thus having a chance to keep France and later start a conter offensive. In the best case for SU there will be a temporary stelmate. W. allies have the advantage of strategic high altitude bombers and the force and experience of amphibious invasion. Japan had no (in this case really read “none”) offensive capabilities therefore is could be just put in “carantine” – maritime blocade. Even if Japan attacked at Pearl Harbour, bringing USA in the war, the military strategy was “Germany first” because Nazi Germany was considerd a bigger threat. An almost destroyed Japan was also a much less threat that a SU in offensive. Also Japan was ready to surrender if emperor was granted impunity and remains head of the state. That means that USA could launch an amphibious attack Europe (almost anywhere) or in Far East. More troops in Far East to prevent/repel an american invasion, means less troops in Europe. In Europe itself there is the same situation : reserve force to protect Baltic shore = less force for Bagration 2. I asume that if SU is on offensive, they will take care to close Bosfor or Dardanelle (the effect is the same). Tito would try to remain netral and will side agains the one who attack him. China was still a battle field between chinese communist, chinese nationalist and japanese (Kunatung army). Mao took control of all continental China after 4 years (in 1949) with massive material support from SU – in this scenario this support isn’t avaible. Anyway, China is simply too big for a substancial change in a short time.
After the first few months, there will be a “moral check”. W. allies had learn their lesson : don’t give up to a tyran. Giving up Cehoslovakia didn’t stop Hitler and staying idle while Poland was crushed, didn’t saved France. It would take a real idiot to make peace with a SU in control of most of continental Europe. SU had take heavy/huge casualities and it would be subject of strategic bombardament. SU can’t attack anymore (no more enemies on the continent except Italy witch would mean more casualities to obtain a vulnerable teritory) and w. allies can wait while keeping SU under presure with air attacks. Industry in whole Europe is in a bad shape, there is a food crisis and … of course… no imports of any kind. At this moment there are no major partisan actions, but if soviets try to take everything from the conquered contries, unrest will grow. It will be 1917 again : huge casualities for the army, bad condition for civilians and a war for what? Russian were humans too and they also have a limit of what they could take.
Variant 2 – W. allies attacks
Being democracies meant that they couldn’t have the advantage of a surprise attack. In order to attack they had to mount first a propaganda to rally public opinion against their yestersday allie. That would take a few months and give SU time to prepare defence position. If SU choose to make a move first we have Variant 1and => American propaganda : ”See, you told you that communists are a danger!”. With an attack on SU, there is no reason to prelong war with Japan => they can keep the emperor if they surrender and offer the support of Kuomitang army against SU. Also Vlasov army is reorganised and rearmed. German surviving forces most probably are given support tasks (I think also that the moral question of fighting along nazis would cause more problems that it would worth).
W. allies attack. There will be an attack on multiple fronts : Baltic coast amphibious landing/threat (into Baltic countries who have no reason to like soviets and Leningrad), Germany (the main thrust), Balkans (from Greece AND Turkey – their startegic position was too important to allow them to stay out of this mess and I think they would prefer w. allies over SU), amphibious landing/threat in Black Sea (Romania – our grand-parents were waiting for the americans for many years after WWII and Russia itself – industrial cities in south, oil pipes from Caucasus), bombing of Baku and oil fields from Iran (USA had a few months to presure Iran, build airstrips and deploy bombers), small forces infiltrate/raid into central Asia (those non-russian muslims conquered just a century ago have little reason to be loyal to SU), air raids from airstrips in China against industry east of Urals, Kuantung attack from Maciuria to cut Transsiberian railroad (they could take heavy casulities – w. allies wouldn’t care), amphibious landing/threat in Far East. With so much material and experience of amphibious landing, w. allies don’t have to acctually try all the posibilities, they could just keep SU in suspans and attack when the conditon are most favorable. Success depend on soviet strategy.
SU response; strategy
Whatever strategy SU adopt, they will have shortage of everything w. allies send them during WWII (you don’t keep suppling the one you plan to attack if you can’t count on a surprise attack). Also because of strategic bombings redeployment of massive forces is slow and/or costly. This time there are no nazi crimes, wiser use of soviet puzzle of ethinc groups => SU is no longer a monolit. As a general view, in combat soviet spend solders (a limited resourse, less veterans) while w. allies spend material (american industry could produce huge amount of material while more veterans survive to fight or instruct new green troops). Some examples from PTO : americans planes return to carriers at night and carrier turn on all light to allow planes to land safetly even if by that turning itself in a perfert target for an eventual enemy sub; instead of entering tunels marines pour large quantities of gasoline and light it). That quote of Patton concentrate in the best way the american way of fighting.
A) Strategy – Central Europe above all.
Concentrate most of the forces (troops, artillery, tanks, planes) in Central Europe in order to cause heavy casualities to w. allies and brake their morale and willingess to fight (the teory of “they cannot take/accept the casualities rate that we can take/accept”). W. allies indeed cannot afford high casualities rate and the offensive in Central Europe stall, but still keep tied the main part of SU forces – if soviet divert too many forces elsewhere, the offensive will start again. W. allies advance on all other fronts, giving blow after blow to soviet morale.
B) Strategy – hold on all fronts.
Because of threat of amphibious landings, SU must keep important forces along coast of Baltic and Black Sea, in Far East, some in the south of Central Asia, many fighers to protect Baku. Overall w. allies have more forces (troops and material) so soviets will be in dezavantage everywhere. Soviet movement restricted by strategic bombers, the fresh forces from USA could be deployed anywhere in order to achive enough superiority to make a breakthru.
Strategic bombing doctrine was a failure because you cannot win a war just with air attacks (maybe just with a massive nuclear attack). That doesn’t mean that strategic bombing cannot greatly help the ground forces. SU would lose just because they were inferior in manpower and material.
Western allies vs. Soviet Union in august 1945
Biggest Question:
What about the atom bomb in this scenario? Does the US still have it, and will it deter a Soviet attack?
P.S. The Western Allies would NEVER attack the Soviets without being attacked themselves first, no matter how anti-communist they were. That variation would not happen. Even if they demanded a Soviet withdrawal back to their 1941 border, they wouldn't enforce it. The USSR would have to attack a neutral country like Sweden or Turkey, or attack an Allied-liberated territory like Greece or Allied-held Germany.
What about the atom bomb in this scenario? Does the US still have it, and will it deter a Soviet attack?
P.S. The Western Allies would NEVER attack the Soviets without being attacked themselves first, no matter how anti-communist they were. That variation would not happen. Even if they demanded a Soviet withdrawal back to their 1941 border, they wouldn't enforce it. The USSR would have to attack a neutral country like Sweden or Turkey, or attack an Allied-liberated territory like Greece or Allied-held Germany.
There were incidents on the approach to Berlin where Russian Aircraft fought American Aircraft who they thought were trying to beat them to Berlin. Stalin had a pathological suspicion that he would be denied the ultimate goal of Berlin. So we already have this precedent sorted. Strong objections were made by Stalin and the Americans backed off. Churchill was appalled as he did not want Soviet Russia in Europe.
Truman was hoodwinked by Stalin in to believing that the Russians were not interested in Berlin, but were aiming South for Prague. The encirclement and therefore the exclusion of the Western allies from Berlin was in full swing.
As an additional swipe at the Allies Stalin let it be known that he was considering sending a force toward Denmark and the low countries to 'assist'. Churchill, who was horrified at the idea of this encroachment, and well knew that Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler, immediately sent reinforcements to that sector to ensure Western Allied victory in that sector. Whether Stalin was serious or not. It allowed him more time to encircle Berlin.
[The American Leaders still failed to grasp that the German Army was desperate to surrender to them whilst resisting the Red Army at all costs.]ANTONY BEEVOR (BERLIN THE DOWNFALL 1945)
If Churchill was in a stronger position, which he was not after 6 years of war, he may have been able to engineer the surrender of the whole Western Front to the allies (Himmler made representations through the Swiss as did other generals). This would have freed up German troops to fight the Red Army. This does presuppose that Hitler was taken out of the picture because we all know his reaction to the S word.
This would obviously have enraged Stalin who was already suspicious that the allies were about to do just that and leave Russia in the lurch. This would have lead to attacks on the nearby Americans precipitating a US and British reaction. Thus bringing the Germans Americans and British in line against the Russian Invader. The Americans were winning against Japan so that side of things was covered. The Russians were not a great help in this sphere anyhow.
The Americans would then have carried out their Atomic detonations on Japan. Stalin, who still did not have any nuclear material let alone a bomb at that time, would probably have halted and a peace accord would have been signed. There would still have been the Cold War, but the whole of European history would have been changed. Would Himmler have retained power? The Americans then as now were keen on regime change and I doubt the British would have allowed the Nazi government to continue. Interesting though.
Truman was hoodwinked by Stalin in to believing that the Russians were not interested in Berlin, but were aiming South for Prague. The encirclement and therefore the exclusion of the Western allies from Berlin was in full swing.
As an additional swipe at the Allies Stalin let it be known that he was considering sending a force toward Denmark and the low countries to 'assist'. Churchill, who was horrified at the idea of this encroachment, and well knew that Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler, immediately sent reinforcements to that sector to ensure Western Allied victory in that sector. Whether Stalin was serious or not. It allowed him more time to encircle Berlin.
[The American Leaders still failed to grasp that the German Army was desperate to surrender to them whilst resisting the Red Army at all costs.]ANTONY BEEVOR (BERLIN THE DOWNFALL 1945)
If Churchill was in a stronger position, which he was not after 6 years of war, he may have been able to engineer the surrender of the whole Western Front to the allies (Himmler made representations through the Swiss as did other generals). This would have freed up German troops to fight the Red Army. This does presuppose that Hitler was taken out of the picture because we all know his reaction to the S word.
This would obviously have enraged Stalin who was already suspicious that the allies were about to do just that and leave Russia in the lurch. This would have lead to attacks on the nearby Americans precipitating a US and British reaction. Thus bringing the Germans Americans and British in line against the Russian Invader. The Americans were winning against Japan so that side of things was covered. The Russians were not a great help in this sphere anyhow.
The Americans would then have carried out their Atomic detonations on Japan. Stalin, who still did not have any nuclear material let alone a bomb at that time, would probably have halted and a peace accord would have been signed. There would still have been the Cold War, but the whole of European history would have been changed. Would Himmler have retained power? The Americans then as now were keen on regime change and I doubt the British would have allowed the Nazi government to continue. Interesting though.
Tim Smith
I know that in real life w. allies weren't willing to start a war with SU, but this is a "what if" scenario. In case that US has the bomb when the war with SU start, IMO the target will be Baku (oil) and Moscow (for obvious reason). It doesn't make sense to use an atomic bomb against troops (how many troops you can kill to make a difference, they could move before you cancel the attack) or against an already distroyed city (the case for most of european cities). The japanese cities selected as posible target were spared from conventional bombardaments.
Sam H.
I don't see how Japan could help SU - they don't have anymore an air force or a navy. All japanese could do was to wait for the american invasion.
Paul_RN
When w. allies and soviet troops came close in Germany in may 1945, they were both at the end of offensives. Even there would have been skirmises, none of them was ready for a major offensive against the other. After Hiroshima, americans told Stalin that they have a superbomb, but he seems little impresionated. Maybe he was just acting, maybe he didn't care (after all, in terms of deads, Dresda was worse than Hiroshima), or he already knew about it.
If Hiter would died earlier I can imagine a secret arangement between germans and w. allies : w. allies stop the offensive and mass lots of motorised troops and right when a soviet offensive lose its steam Germany surrender, w. allies rush at full speed unopposed (large paradrops) while most of germans troops continue to fight to stop/slow soviet advance (w. allies blame "last nazi fanatics").
I don't remember right now, but just in order to avoid clashes between soviet and w. allies, wasn't at Teheran established the line were the allied troops will meet ?
I know that in real life w. allies weren't willing to start a war with SU, but this is a "what if" scenario. In case that US has the bomb when the war with SU start, IMO the target will be Baku (oil) and Moscow (for obvious reason). It doesn't make sense to use an atomic bomb against troops (how many troops you can kill to make a difference, they could move before you cancel the attack) or against an already distroyed city (the case for most of european cities). The japanese cities selected as posible target were spared from conventional bombardaments.
Sam H.
I don't see how Japan could help SU - they don't have anymore an air force or a navy. All japanese could do was to wait for the american invasion.
Paul_RN
When w. allies and soviet troops came close in Germany in may 1945, they were both at the end of offensives. Even there would have been skirmises, none of them was ready for a major offensive against the other. After Hiroshima, americans told Stalin that they have a superbomb, but he seems little impresionated. Maybe he was just acting, maybe he didn't care (after all, in terms of deads, Dresda was worse than Hiroshima), or he already knew about it.
If Hiter would died earlier I can imagine a secret arangement between germans and w. allies : w. allies stop the offensive and mass lots of motorised troops and right when a soviet offensive lose its steam Germany surrender, w. allies rush at full speed unopposed (large paradrops) while most of germans troops continue to fight to stop/slow soviet advance (w. allies blame "last nazi fanatics").
I don't remember right now, but just in order to avoid clashes between soviet and w. allies, wasn't at Teheran established the line were the allied troops will meet ?
Japan helps Russia by simply existing and continuing the war. US forces are now the ones fighting on two fronts. The bulk of the US Navy and large numbers of Army and Marine divisions, not to mention all the B-29's are committed to the defeat of Japan.MihaiC wrote: Sam H.
I don't see how Japan could help SU - they don't have anymore an air force or a navy. All japanese could do was to wait for the american invasion.
With Japan out of the war, the US is in a position to threaten the Russians in Siberia. Russian forces and resources would have to be diverted to Siberia to protect their interests. And US B-29's based in Japan are in a position to bomb those precious Ural facturies that were unreachable by the Germans.
The US would be hard pressed to compromise with Japan on a peace treaty. And if the treaty did not include US occupation, the opening of a second front against the Soviets just got a whole lot harder.
For the record, Japan still had a significant army in the field (China, the Dutch East Indies, home islands, etc.), the navy was defeated but not destroyed, and the air force had a significant number of kamikazies left (though training was relatively poor).
For the record, Japan still had a significant army in the field (China, the Dutch East Indies, home islands, etc.), the navy was defeated but not destroyed, and the air force had a significant number of kamikazies left (though training was relatively poor).
But Japanese army wasn't able to move large troops unless they planned to give ground to others. They required large army just to keep China occupied and peaceful. If they started moving troops around, specially since all troops movements would have to happen using landroutes due to destruction of navy, Japan would be seriously crippled.
If Japan surrenders to the US and their Kaiser would stay in charge, they would be free to use their remaining ships to transport their troops to the Chinese area, threnghen their lines and make a run for Mongolia and the Ural. The US should have plenty of supplies to give them, since they weren't a threat any longer and the allies had to fight a bigger enemy.