Print

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

[DavidHayabusa]

Hey guys I know this is not a historical topic but this matter was on my mind for some weeks now and I wish to discuss it.

Let's say that USA, GB and France went to war with USSR in 1946 to liberate Eastern Europe from Communism, who would win?

My guess goes the Western allies for the reason that they had better technological abilities than the USSR despite the latter may have greater numbers.

What would you say?

[EHood]

Good question. It sort of depends upon exactly when in 1946 the Red Army attacked western Europe, and how long it would have taken to prepare and carry out a nuclear attack, or attacks, on Russian urban and military centers. According to The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the US had just one a-bomb at the end of August 1945, and eight more were completed by June 1946:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-atomic-bombs-were-built-by-the-US-between-1945-and-1949

One suspects that by the time the USAAF was ready to nuke, say, Moscow, Soviet troops would already have invested most or all of the European continent. Exactly how the Red Army would have behaved after targets in Russia had been nuked is open to speculation. One doubts that they would have simply upped stakes and gone to what was left of home.

[Koty]

>Liberate from communism
Considering that half of the eastern Europe was not communist at the time... that does not really work. The same countries however were grateful to USSR for helping them in war and would put up considerable resistance.

@EHood, <<when in 1946 the Red Army attacked western Europe>> - the scenario here however, as I understood, is the West carrying out the intial strike.

Considering that west wants to "liberate" these areas, nukes won't be used there, unless USAF deploys tactical nukes which I kind of doubt they had at the time. Bombing Moscow or any important targets in USSR would require B-29's starting from Turkey/Norway.

Also important to note is that most deaths in such bombing would not come immediately, but as a result of residual radioactivity, so not much of a psychological effect would be inflicted. (Remember, concrete buildings are not bamboo huts.)

[SAS~GJE52]

That's easy ... it's obvious ....


China wins.... 


G;

[SpongeBob]

Hi guys, I've recently read a book on the matter. It is called 'Operation Unthinkable', by Jonathan Walker, and it deals with real plans made by Churchill just before the fall of Germany in 1945. It seems Churchill was really worried about the expansion of the USSR, and even though they were still allies, he ordered his staff to study the possibilities of a successful invasion of the USSR.

Churchill needed the USA to support the attack, but Americans were still engaged with Japan, and nuclear bombs were under secret development. In fact, Americans were looking forward to the end of the war with Germany to focus on the Pacific, so they were reluctant to start another war in Europe. In those days, Truman was trying to please Stalin, something that put Churchill on nerves.

British analysts finally concluded that if allied finally attacked Russia, they could get quite a success while marching through Germany and Poland. But presumably things would get worser and worser when they went inside Russian territory. The lack of roads and railways in the USSR would make difficult to make a quick advance, and probably, Russian would do the same as in the German attack in 1941: the army and factories would retire to distant places well inside Russia, so British and allies logistic would be strecthed beyond possible. Moreover, British analysts reckoned that the Red Army was much more organised, efficient and motivated than in 1941. Finally, the British public opinion probably won't be prepared to support another war that didn't understand, since the USSR had been an ally against nazis. Churchill was counting with former German forces to support the attack, but this would need a good explanation for the public opinion.
All these consideration made British analysts to reject Churchill's plans.
I'm also conviced that a conventional attack to the USSR would be a complete failure similar to those made by Napoleon or Hitler: distances in the USSR make that they always had a place to retire and reorganize, while attackers are too far away from their supply centers.

Something different is the possibility of a nuclear war in 1946. However, I think it would be very difficult for the British and American public opinion to support a nuclear attack against a non-beligerant country. Some years later, a nuclear war would become a chain of retaliations and winners would be cockroaches.