Could America have successfully invaded Russia in 1945?

>>31933617
define success

>>31933617
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpaQpyU_QiM

File: Strongly advocating nuclear holocaust.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

No. But if we had a few dozen more A-bombs we could have fucked them up properly anyway.

>>31933617
>Could the US have beaten the Soviet military on paper
Yes, resoundingly
>Could the US have occupied significant portions of Soviet territory effectively
Probably not. The Soviets were really good at producing effective propaganda. Outside of Ukraine, the US would be fighting partisans nonstop as well as the regular military. So then the question is...
>Could the US hypothetically storm in, crush the Soviets, and then leave being satisfied that they killed the Soviet leadership and occupied the capital for a period?
Yes. Probably.
>Could the US have beaten the Soviet military in reality
No. There would have been no public support for the war at all. It would grind to a halt in weeks, if it even made it that far.

>>31933617
You mean if we didnt attack during winter/didnt issue our troops appropriate uniforms for the weather like fucking morons?

Shit, I dunno. The Reds were pretty well fucked up by then.

>>31933712
*didnt issue incorrect uniforms

>>31933691
>Probably not. The Soviets were really good at producing effective propaganda. Outside of Ukraine, the US would be fighting partisans nonstop as well as the regular military. So then the question is...
Why not just exterminate the vatniks? The Germans did that, and they almost won the war.
>No. There would have been no public support for the war at all. It would grind to a halt in weeks, if it even made it that far.
I didn't ask if they had the will to do it. Only I they had the means to do it.

>>31933617
I think they might have to refit its obsolete tanks
>shermans/jacksons going remotely toe to toe with IS-2's

Correct me if I'm wrong but, the Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger tanks were made to deal with fucking T-34's, KV's, and IS-2's in that order

The american armor would certainly be lacking, but considering the pressurized cabins of the B-29's (and thus the arguably un-counterable operational ceiling of the B-29) vs the human wave tactics of Russia, plus the Soviet Navy Vs. the US Navy and its fleet of relatively unmolested battleships/ carriers

I daresay the US would only need only worry about staving off the soviets while the Air Service dealt with the soviets, at least until a localized manufacturing system could be established to deal with the sheer industrial power of the Soviets in Europe/Asia.

File: 1467510578406.jpg (149KB, 900x636px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x636px

>>31933617
Considering the death toll on their side after WWII, I would say yes. But with the population being so fucking brainwashed occupation would be next to impossible without genocide through a pointless war with every fucking Soviet there was. Fucking every man woman and child would take up at least pitchforks and try to fuck shit up in the name of Stalin. It would require us to make it a fucking wasteland to come close to taking it.

>>31933862
what if we consider the fact that the finns might be on the US side

>1945

The Russians lost 25% of their population in 6 years, had no factories or cities that weren't rubble, and they had no crops planted because almost all of their farmland was taken by Germany.

They were entirely reliant on outside support and suicide charges.

Their political establishment killed almost all experienced military and civilian leaders for safety.

They had no infrastructure, no nukes, and almost no manufacturing ability.
Yes.

America could have killed the last few million able bodied men very easily.

It wouldn't have been a contest.

>>31933617
>German designs with American industry and supply lines
Yes fucks yes

>>31933738
Germans got stomped by an army that couldn't afford to give each of its soilders a gun, but please tell me how the germans almost won.

>>31933921
They most likely wouldnt be, they told hitler to fuck off when he asked them for help attacking russia.

>>31933973
Kek, tell me how you plan on occupying soviet russia, where even little ivan would chuck rocks at your heads.

>>31934117
Germans had an army smaller than the French.

They were at a bit of a numbers disadvantage to say the least.

>>31934160
True but compared to the soviets everyone had a small army

>>31934117
>stomped
If you call 25 million dead and depopulating the country to the point where it took the annexation of the Baltics and fifteen years of growth to reach prewar population, then sure, they got stomped bad. In terms of military casualties, the Soviets lost two to three men for every one the Germans did. Proportions of total available manpower notwithstanding, the Germans were absolutely not "stopmped" on the Eastern Front.

File: Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png (481KB, 1216x769px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1216x769px

>>31933617
Most likely not.

File: B-29s attack tokyo.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>31933617
Wouldn't need to. We could just bomb them into submission.

>>31933617
By the end of 1945? No. But if you make America not care about having just finished WWII, not care about the gigantic human losses, and not care about the gigantic sacrifices in rationing and industry for the American Public, then I think eventually, yes.

The biggest reason why would be starvation of Europe. There simply would not be enough food for mainland Europe. If America cut off supply to the USSR, as well as stopped supplying them with everything else they were giving them in the lend lease program, the USSR would find itself starving and without much needed vehicles, ammo, and basic utilities like boots.

The US would still be the sole nuclear power and with the sudeen need to focus on war again, Imagine the demoralization of the nuking of cities named Stalingerad and Leningrad, let alone Moscow.

Millions more would die. Untold Civilian Casulaties. America would definetly grow weary of war after the subsequent years of fighting. An occupation of the USSR would most likely see a lot of insurgency, and they would never be able to hold the rural parts, especially the East.

>>31933691
>Could the US hypothetically storm in, crush the Soviets, and then leave being satisfied that they killed the Soviet leadership and occupied the capital for a period?
Would have totally prevented the Cold War, or at least shifted the focus of it from Russia to China. Beat the USSR into submission, execute Stalin, pull back, Marshal Plan style aid to would-be Warsaw Pact states into pro-Western, Russo-containment buffer states... Russia would be on its ass for decades.

File: WWII casualties by country.png (39KB, 795x549px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 795x549px

>>31934884
>gigantic human losses
>America
Kek

>>31934701
super depopulated is one thing, but the russians were arguably their strongest near the end of the war; manpower shortages were supplemented by the sheer capacity to pump out mass-producible, rugged, and well armed/armored tanks that put sherman production to shame

most people forget that the soldiers on the ground have an immense amount of good will and trust for their fellow brother in arms,the western allied recognize the immense bloodshed that the soviet endured and the soviets were grateful for the non stop flow of material coming in,it would be unthinkable for them to be ordered to shoot each other,stalin forbid his generals to even talk about a war with western allied and churchill got kicked for suggesting such a thing

File: 3 WHAT.jpg (46KB, 299x382px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 299x382px

>>31935003
i think this thread is about military power as of mid-1945, not political climate

Absolutely.
The Germans fucked their shit up pretty well.
USSR was running out of manpower and was on the edge of famine.

Take away lend lease
Begin strategic bombing campaign
Arm Polish/Ukrainian/etc partisans
Rearm German Wehrmacht

USSR has no chance, not even going to bring up nukes.

>>31934952
>within '46-91 borders
>Yeah sure just claim all these casualties that were their own sovereign states
Soviets make me sick.

>>31934960
>muh t-34
Holy shit nigga you stupid as hell. Soviet logistics and infrastructure were on their last legs by '45. Add nukes, strategic bombing, and no more lend lease and the Russians would be out of all supplies within months.

>>31933617
Yes. It would have been hard but it we could have done it, especially if we enlisted the German troops who, at the time, were willing to take orders from American leaders as long as they were protecting their homes and women from being razed and raped by the Russians. There are accounts of German soldiers who were captured and then given their weapons back (for 3 days) because of the upcoming fight with Russia. It was a natural, logical course of action that many generals were preparing for.

But it would have never happened, because Churchill and Roosevelt were tyrants and fools of the highest magnitude, and the deals they made with Stalin for the Lend-Lease program and in Yalta made it so there would never be a war with Russia post-German surrender.

>>31933617
Believe it or not, Russia was actually a pretty easy target to invade in WWII, mainly because Stalin had nearly all of his generals shot. It's pretty much why the Germans gave them hell for as long as they did. But it's only so long until the true extent Slav rage finally kicks in.

>>31935420
Churchill was all for stopping the Soviets. It was one of the reasons he was voted out.

>>31935179
>muh lend lease
Look Ill admit the US air service would probably pound the soviets into the stone age, as well as CAS vs human waves and the (by now this point) exceptionally experienced USMC, but if you think the russians needed to rely on a few thousand (less than 10k) shermans to tip the scales of the war by May of 1945, you're ignoring the fact that they made more T-34'd in the entire war than the Shermans, and that's not even taking into account their SPGs, Assault Guns, and Light Armored vehicles

An immediate ground war would be stupid, but that's only because they'd be first getting the navy and the air service to put the boot down first, then mop up with infantry/armor

No.

we could have rolled them up and back into poland.

then we get to this point where the soviet rail logistics meet equilibrium with american truck logisitics.

then we stalemate until we can get some atomic bombs and superfortresses to the front. which we'll need because there are millions of soviet troops coming from the east.

>>31933636
Break the Soviet Union and liberate Eastern Europe.

>>31933691
>Weeks

The USSR would surrender hours after the Moscow railhead was nuked, so it's not like the war would have lasted weeks.

>>31935712
unless we decapitate the Soviets, leaving Zhukov the most powerful man in the soviet union. they will just keep fighting until Stalin is in Vladivostok. reloading nuggets him self to continue the fight.

>>31933973
I'm sure that's why the Germans were more scared of them then the United States. There was a reason their front front had the highest death role of both sides that shit was apocalyptic in scale. America, England, and France had a small bit compared to the hell that was the Eastern front.

File: 1436391943777.jpg (86KB, 1285x909px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1285x909px

>>31933973

Nazi Germany had barely even set foot on Russia proper, most of the fighting was conducted in Ukraine and Belarus to a lesser extent.

Industry was well evacuated in 1942 and outproducing the Germans at everything..

>Their political establishment killed almost all experienced military and civilian leaders for safety.

In 1936-1938. By 1943, the Russians re-learned how to fight war and by 1945, the Red Army was a lean, mean, mass maneuvering machine that could move men and concentrate artillery on a scale that would make Eisenhower's asshole bleed.

>>31935793
Germans were 12 miles from downtown Moscow. they could see the onion domes of the kremlin(i know not really the kremlin).

Germany could have won if Hitler was left as a figurehead with minimal civilian power. Leaving the war to competent people.

File: 1372917643754.gif (2MB, 322x198px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 322x198px

>>31933617

easy.
easy...

we woulda had Moscow, but we'd probably nuke Stalingrad , another Fat Man. It would have to be clear that the USSR is over. They would hate us, and a rebellion spanning the entirty of the contents Asia and Europe would be the most ghastly and awful....God, its a miracle we haven't had a nuke war yet

>>31935179
>Soviet logistics and infrastructure were on their last legs by '45.

t. Specialist on Soviet logistics and infrastructure in 1945

Which documents have you analyzed to come to this stunning conclusion?

>>31933617
no, look what happen with Japan.

>>31934841

Oh yeah, worked real well on Mr. Charles in 'nam

>>31933617
Possibly. We'd have to make it to Moscow fast while avoiding the mistakes of the Germans.

But realistically, we couldn't have done it because the public would not have supported it unless the Russians fucked us first, and even then, people were tired of the war. One of justifications of dropping the bomb on Japan was that we wanted to end the war before we lost support for it. We wanted to have control of Japan by the end.

>>31935806
>Germany could have won if Hitler was left as a figurehead with minimal civilian power. Leaving the war to competent people.

This is a cliche often repeated by morons who listen to other morons on forums and chans, instead of reading literature.

Hitler had nothing to do with the ferocious counter-offensive launched around Moscow and in fact refused to accept orders for an orderly retreat, which resulted in a chaotic route.

By the end of the war the soviets were out of gas and we were on our strongest footing. The soviets didn't even produce their own trucks, almost literally every truck in the soviet union at that time was a ford. They also had no food and tanks that were only "superior" due to sheer numbers fighting an over extended enemy. The Germans never had bombers or artillery in the numbers or usefulness that came anywhere close to the Anglo-American position at the end of 1945.

We probably couldn't have taken over all of Russia but that would be a fools errand, we absolutely could have pushed them back to pre-war borders and burned their industrial base to the ground.

Fighting the Russians was the right thing to do and we should have done it. When you're the sole super power (as the US is now and was after the end of the war in 45) your number one concern is to make the uni-polar moment last as long as possible. We could have done it and England (who was the only ally that mattered) would have went along with it because even back then the "special relationship" was known and agreed to. The magnetosphere is a real thing now and it was in 45.

>>31935959
Soviet trucks were packards.

>>31935777
Protip: it wasn't because of perceived differences in fighting ability, but in fear for how the soviets would treat them after the war.

File: Russian Woman fires Nuke at Zombie Manju.jpg (185KB, 850x601px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 850x601px

>>31935098
Stalin was the only one who won the Second world War.

>>31936575
This. WW2 was a clash of 2 evils and one of them won

>>31935843
Given the fact that a quarter of the country had died, all the cities were burned down, and there was a famine in 1946, it's safe to the Soviets had gotten pretty battered.

>>31934841
>>31935067
>>31935179

Bombing Japan or Germany is easy. How are you going to cross 3000 miles of not ocean, not friendly, but enemy territory and come back? The losses will be tremendous. If there's a plane which can go this far... and that's just to Moscow, most of the Soviet industry - cranking thousnds of tanks, guns, planes a WEEK - was behind the Urals, even further. So far tat it could have been easier to have the bombers take off from fucking India.

It wouldn't have been possible. More Soviet soldiers, with equivalent or better equipment (stellar artillery, thousands of IS-2s and hundreds of T-44s vs. 20 Pershings and a couple Centurions, modern La-7 and Yak-3 fighters, SKS and RPD bginning to be issued, etc), and the Soviet strategies and tactics of 1945 were actually good ; August Storm operation in 1945 was used as one of the theoretical bases for Operation Desert Storm.

>>31937558
quarter dead, all cities burned
Moscow was standing, so was averything east of Stalingrad. And that means, a fucking lot of cities. Plus the industry relocated behind the Urals.
And even with their 25 to 27 million losses (20-21 million of them being slaughtered civilians), they still had serious strength. Enough to push the Western Allies back to the Atlantic - especially with the amount of Communists in French and Italian forces that could have fucked the Allied supply lines big time - and then it would have turned into a bullshit contest, with the Soviets unable to cross the Channel because of their tiny feeble navy, and the Allies unable to conduct successful landing operations because, well, the biggest part of the Soviet army would be facing the Allies, unlike the German army. And even if an attack from Asia could be imagined, it would have to deal, first, with the million-and-a-half experienced Soviet troops brought to Manchuria, and the growing Chinese Communists.

>>31933862
this is a ludicrous and uninformed description of the Soviet socio-political reality

>>31934117
this is a myth you got from a movie

>>31935003
this is childish, naive, and factually wrong

>>31933617
Steam rolled through Russia.
Take the Capital and European population.
After that the Siberian forces/pop would just not fight, why die for something that doesn't exist.

>>31933617
>Could America have successfully invaded Russia in 1945?
Nope. If it was possible, they would to it.

>>31935420
But Churchill wanted to nuke the vatniks

File: IMG_0026.png (118KB, 500x641px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x641px

Really makes you think about what it must have been like to be Eisenhower at the end of the war--a nation in its prime, with millions of fighting men ready to serve, and the only power on earth with the capability to flatten any capital on the planet instantly. If it was actually advantageous, I wonder how many nations US could have taken if they started generously distributing fat men to each European capital...

Yes, but it would've been supremely stupid to do so as we couldn't colonize them. Best we could do is repair them like Japan or Germany, but we couldn't even be bothered to bring back Poland.

File: tmp_11540-fbfcf2ff15b796e259cfbb04e9046d10a9becb9c4c7327ec95c1a7313d48b0b6_1-2021342516.jpg (69KB, 607x820px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 607x820px

>>31935866
We didn't nuke charles

>>31933973
>The Russians lost 25% of their population in 6 years,

Wrong. 25% of their military service.

>had no factories or cities that weren't rubble,
Idiotically wrong.

>and they had no crops planted because almost all of their farmland was taken by Germany.
Stupidly wrong.

>They were entirely reliant on outside support and suicide charges.
Wrong.

>Their political establishment killed almost all experienced military and civilian leaders for safety.
Wrong. Purges largely stopped after Barbarossa, by 1945 there were plenty of experienced military leaders.

>They had no infrastructure, no nukes, and almost no manufacturing ability.

Wrong, right, wrong.
Congratulations, it's like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Good job getting that right that they had no nukes, though. That should earn you a gold star in whatever retard academy you attend.

>>31935959
>We

kek

>>31934768
>this image again

Amuses me every time it's posted as it's always posted by those who don't understand it.

>hey lads :DDDD
>we just ended what is possibly the most destructive war in history :DDDDDDDDDDD
>let's attack the people who you have been told are our allies :DDDDDD
>lmao don't worry, several dozen more million dead won't matter :DDDDDD
Delusion.

>>31939939
>comparing the outcome of a hypothetical conflict with historical political environments
almost got it

>>31939993
Well, if the conflict did start, it's certain that the US would eventually win.
Their nukes, navy and manpower would eventually win this new war of attrition.
Still, no one is going to be delusional enough to say that it would be over soon.
Even if Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and the others were nuked, it's fairly certain that the Soviets wouldn't surrender.

>>31939674

>Wrong. 25% of their military service.

Look at their 1939 population and then look at the total deaths they sustained by wars end. They lost 25% of their population.

You can't trust their 1945 population census because they were annexing territories left and right once the allies gained momentum.

The Russians were desperately low on able bodied men in 1945.

>Idiotically wrong.
What few factories they had had to be transportable by railway.

America had a huge force of long range bombers and could destroy those easily and destroy their railways as well.

>Stupidly wrong.

Most of their best farmland was totally overrun by Germans. Their agricultural production was severely disrupted.

>Wrong. Purges largely stopped after Barbarossa, by 1945 there were plenty of experienced military leaders.

Experienced at shooting deserters and ordering suicide charges.

>Wrong, right, wrong.

You're wrong. You can look the numbers up yourself. You can look at maps and see the Russian territory occupied by Nazi Germany. You can look at the total death toll from war, starvation, Gulags, disease, etc. You can look at the obscene amount of foreign aid they received during the war and figure out if they didn't get outside assistance Germany would have pushed Russia back into the tundra wastelands and barren steppes. You can look at pictures of all their major cities and factory centers after Nazis destroyed them. You can see the genocide count of people Stalin didn't like.


I really respect Russia because after all that, its amazing what they achieved during the cold war. Public schools were teaching children rocket science. They beat America to space and put landers on the moon before we did.

Russia has always historically been BTFO by everyone and only survived by hiding behind their ridiculous winter and retreating across their ridiculously huge territory.

>>31940226
>Experienced at shooting deserters and ordering suicide charges.
Suicide charges were ordered but to the end of the war most of the soviet shit was sort out. Le quintillion dead russian meme is a bit over hyped. Soviets got 1:10 kill rate fighting japan. You cant pyrros your way through half of europe and back

>Most of their best farmland was totally overrun by Germans. Their agricultural production was severely disrupted.
no because germans thought that they are winning the war and didnt burn stuff down retreating and crops of 1944 1945 were quite good
>The Russians were desperately low on able bodied men in 1945.
6 000 000 isnt really low. Already in 1944 they had more troops than they needed
>America had a huge force of long range bombers and could destroy those easily and destroy their railways as well.
Not behind Urals
Also you are overlooking giant russian tank armys. Us had only stepped up to tiger while russians started to wield is 3, t44 and others.
Im not saying us would not win the conflict but getting to russia is statisticaly impossible.

t.not the guy who you replied to