Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who would win depends greatly on who starts the war, for what goals, and how it is fought. Lets remove nukes from the equation for a moment. Had the U.S. and Britain invaded Eastern Europe/Russia to try and take over the Soviet Union, the results would have been disaster. The U.S. and Britain were beat up and were at a tremendous numerical disadvantage. Our Air Force and Navy were vastly superior, but that would do little to help us invade land. It is simply inconceivable that we would have taken over the Soviet Union like we did in Iraq.
Now, if the Soviets initiated aggression, and the U.S. and Britain were merely fighting a defensive war to preserve control of Western Europe and prevent the Soviets from taking over the continent, then the Western powers stand a much better chance. In fact, I think the Western powers would win in that scenario.
Ron, you are very correct. What that all ultimately boils down to though is that the Soviets had a 4:1 advantage in combat troops versus the Western Allies in Continental Europe. For every Allied combat soldier staring across the Elbe, there were four Soviets staring back. That ratio comes from the British themselves as the war was drawing to a close when they were preparing for a possible conflict with the Soviet Union.
I wasn't counting just the Red Army, but reserves. militas, and partison forces all of whom an invading force would have to contend with.
The USSR did not have anywhere near 34 million soldiers in 1945.
Never said they did.
Quote:
Most agree the total USSR armed forces was about 13 million in 1945.
Which doesn't count reserves/home guards, or militas/para military forces, all of whom an invading force would have to contend with just as the Germans had.
Quote:
The USA had 12.3 million under arms in 1945. The biggest difference is the USSR had most of its troops in the army and the US only had about half its troops in the army as they had the largest Navy and Air forces in the world in 1945.
Interesting how you seem to think that the "Air Force" existed in 1945. The largest Navy would be of little consequence in a land war against a nation that spanned two continents.
The British worked up a plan to force the Soviets out of Poland. It was called "Operation Unthinkable" and was going to use about 40 divisions in the initial attack. They decided it was not worth it as it would not have been a garunteed win. And they needed alot of US divisions to do it since the British only had 12 divisions in Europe. But all the US wanted was to send their troops home and the public was demanding it. The US had 61 divisions in Europe at the end of the war and 7 in Italy. In the Pacific was 21 army divisions and 6 marine divisions. The US total forces in Europe at the wars end was just over 3 million troops. Just over 400,000 were air force troops. About 2.6 million were ground troops with about 1.7 million of them front line combat troops. They also had just about 500,000 troops in Italy with about 153,000 of them air force troops. And in the Pacific was about 1.5 million army troops. Thats just over 5 million army troops over seas with over 2 million front line combat troops. If you count the navy and marines the US had over 7 million troops over seas but as was stated only 3 million in Europe at that time. The US had the second largest armed forces in the world at 12.3 million to the Soviets 13 million. But the Soviets only had one front they were fighting on and they had about 7 million troops on the front with about 2.5 million of them in Germany. Total allied forces in Europe was about 4.5 million at wars end with:
USA just over 3 million
British and Canada about 1 million
France about 500,000
It would have been a hard fougt battle for sure as you also have to remeber the USA's had to ship and supply all their troops from the US which was at least an ocean away. Thats why we had to have so many service troops and such a large navy to get the combat troops to the battle and keep them supplied. Which the US had the best supplied army in the world. And they said the worst army at that time to stand a chance of dieing in was the Soviet army and the least chance was the US army. The US could have bought all of its powerful air force into play which could reach and drop an atomic bomb on Moscow but lets thank god they never had that war. I do feel real sorry for the people of Poland though as they finally get free from the Nazi's and then they are imprisioned buy the Soviets. Ron
Never said they did.
Yes you did but its no big deal.
Which doesn't count reserves/home guards, or militas/para military forces, all of whom an invading force would have to contend with just as the Germans had.
They did not have what you say as most all the men were in the armed forces allready. You have to remeber also they lost like 15 million troops.
Interesting how you seem to think that the "Air Force" existed in 1945. The largest Navy would be of little consequence in a land war against a nation that spanned two continents.
The air force was technically part of the army in 1945 but even historians count the army air force seperate many times at 2.3 million. Its just how I word the air force part of the army as it was called the army air force so yes you are right.
Not trying to be smart or offend you just stating facts as I have read them. Ron
Strength in terms of potential manpower and untapped resources unfettered by colonial exploitation, it would have to be China. Which even Napoleon had recognized as a sleeping giant.
Hmmm...except for Hong Kong (Brits), Taipei (via USA) and a host of islands taken over hundreds of years prior to by the Japanese......
However it is fair to say that China had the most profound 'latent capacity' (their primary resource being human capital), but nevertheless, by essentially any metric the US of A would have emerged as the dominant global force at the end of world war two.
Perhaps an insightful approach may be to consider 'who suffered least harm as a result of WW2' - and by that measure US of A is a long way from consideration. Ironically, given that Europe was the predominant theatre of war for most of the duration of WW2, some countries (Switzerland, Norway, etc) survived largely intact - culturally, architecturally, in terms of population and economy, etc
Of course, I offer no proofs for my rantings....I am just ridiculously opinionated
Of course, we are dealing with hypotheticals here, but it always amazes that the strength of the Soviet Union at the end of WWII is often casually dismissed. With Barbarossa, Hitler unleashed perhaps the best trained and equipped army ever fielded up to that time. The shock of an army of 3-1/2 million invaders, even in a country as vast as the Soviet Union, must have been enormous. The Red army was sent reeling and it looked for several months that Hitler's words, "Smash in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down!" were to be prophetic.
Despite victory after victory in the summer and fall of 1941, the reality of what they had undertaken began to dawn on the German High Command. In a letter to his wife, Field Marshall Von Runstedt wrote to his wife, "The vastness of Russia devours us." The problems of logistics in a country of the most primitive road system in Europe must have been daunting. The retrofitting required to allow German locomotives and railway cars to make use of the Soviet's wide gauge railways was most certainly a nightmare. The difficulties and enormity of the overall task began to erode German confidence.
Then, too, the Soviet dispersal of heavy industry to the Urals must rank as one of the Herculean industrial moving tasks in history. Some fifteen hundred industries and 10 million people were moved in a massive transfer that began in 1938. Even though the Germans overran many of the towns and cities where industries hadn't been moved in time, Soviet production later far outstripped German production. Even Hitler said that had he known the Soviets had so many tanks he wouldn't have invaded. Much of this was due in no small part to the mass mobilization of women, something that Hitler wouldn't countenance for German women. An example of Soviet determination was that the former tractor plant in Stalingrad was still producing tanks as the battle raged on around them. Tanks were rolled off the line and sent directly into battle without paint.
The buildup of Soviet power climaxed at Berlin, when the city was subjected to an unprecedented 42,000 artillery-piece barrage, never before or since equaled. That kind of power must not have been lost, even on a temperamental General Patton, who reputedly called for a drive to Moscow.
No serious person who was alive in 1945 would have considered a war with the Soviet Union, other than a move by them to overrun Europe. Certainly none but the most reckless would have seriously thought of invading the Soviet Union. Speaking blithely of using atomic weapons with the specter of blow back on most of Europe is equally invalid. As we found out in Vietnam and the Soviets found out in Afghanistan, the invader is almost always at a disadvantage against a determined defender of their homeland.
We cannot have a conversation, but for other readers sakes, I'll post this:
27 Aug 1939
German leader Adolf Hitler responded to the message from French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier from the previous day, noting that Germany had no intention of fighting France, so if France was to attack Germany due to the German-Poland situation, it would be a war initiated by France, and Germany could not be faulted for such a conflict; additionally, Hitler stressed that Germany had no territorial demands on the German-French border. Meanwhile, Hermann Göring's friend Birger Dahlerus, a Swedish national, attempted a parallel route to negotiate for peace.
29 Aug 1939
Through the Swedish businessman Birger Dahlerus, Germany expressed that Germany only desired Danzig and a small section of the Polish Corridor, while a plebiscite should be held in the near future to determine the fate of the remainder of the Polish Corridor.
30 Aug 1939
Poland refused to dispatch a delegation to Germany to negotiate over the topics of Danzig and the Polish Corridor.
31 Aug 1939
Adolf Hitler offered the United Kingdom that Germany would not risk war if Poland was willing to turn over Danzig and a small section of the Polish Corridor, and that Poland was to allow a plebiscite for the remainder of the Polish Corridor in the near future; British Ambassador in Germany Nevile Henderson expressed that the United Kingdom, while desiring peace, could not sacrifice Poland to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, Henderson continued to press Poland to send a delegation to Germany in a last attempt to negotiate peace over Danzig and the Polish Corridor. When Polish Ambassador in Germany Józef Lipski attempted to send Henderson's message to Poland later in the evening, he found that Germany had cut telephone and telegraph communications to Poland.
2 Sep 1939
Germany annexed the Free City of Danzig. Adolf Hitler advised the United Kingdom and France that he would withdraw from Poland if allowed to keep Danzig and the Polish corridor. The Danzig Crisis | World War II Database
I fail to see what you are attempting to prove with this. France and Britain guaranteed Poland their backing. This information was known to Hitler. Hitler didn't want war with the west, but he was also fully aware that war is what was going to happen if he invaded. A "counter" from this forums foremost historian on WW2 topics, particularly the "behind the scenes" information, TonyT:
At the end of January 1939, a series of meetings took place in Warsaw between German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck. The discussions were aimed at reaching a diplomatic solution to the outstanding issues between the two countries; namely the port city of Danzig and the isolation of East Prussia from Germany proper. Beck was told that Germany wished the return of Danzig as well as rights to build a highway (which would be owned and controlled by Germany) across the Polish Corridor to link East Prussia with the Reich. In exchange, Poland would be invited to join the Axis and participate in a joint German-Polish invasion of Russia. Additionally, Poland would be awarded territory in the Ukraine as well as Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Beck refused to consider the return of Danzig until such time as Germany could actually do more than "promise" to give Poland the aforementioned territories. But the door was left open for future talks.
On March 21st, six days after Germany marched into what remained of Czechoslovakia, Ribbentrop contacted Beck via the Polish Ambassador in Berlin. Ribbentrop stated that the only way Poland could possibly remain a sovereign state was if she joined the Axis and conceded to Germany's territorial demands. Beck began to panic and put out feelers to the British and French in hopes they would offer some kind of assistance to Poland. Despite this, Hitler instructed Ribbentrop to keep negotiations going stating "for the present, the Fuhrer does not intend to solve the Polish question. However it must be worked on". Hitler's end goal was the restoration of the border as it existed in 1914 and the resettlement of the Polish population of this region into ethnic Polish areas.
During a speech he gave on March 31, 1939, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain issued a "guarantee" to the Poland that should she be attacked by Germany, Britain would do all in its' power to assist her in resisting and added that the French would do the same. What the Poles were unaware of was the fact that neither the British or the French believed that Poland would realistically be able to retain Danzig and fully expected a negotiated return of the city to German control. On April 2nd, Foreign Minister Beck visited London and was asked about the situation in Danzig. Concerned that the British might withdraw their guarantee, Beck purposely withheld the fact that negotiations between Germany and Poland were at a standstill. Instead, he told the British that Danzig had become a powerful symbol of freedom to Poland. The only acceptable solution to the issue would be if Germany agreed to both free government in Danzig and the safeguarding of Polish rights within the city. Beck added that if the British were willing to agree in principle on this point, then Poland would enter into discussions with Romania to form an anti-German military alliance. Beck also offered to assist Britain in the event Germany attacked, Belgium, Holland or Switzerland. This was music to Chamberlain's ears. He fully expected that this would be enough to hold Germany in check and forestall the commitment of British military power in defense of Poland. This was of critical importance to Chamberlain because he had been advised when he issued his guarantee that it was the opinion of both the British and French Chiefs of Staff that "there was nothing either of us could do to save Poland".
Completely unaware of this assessment, Beck left for Warsaw fully believing that the British and French would come to Poland's rescue militarily should Germany either move against Danzig or Poland itself. This false and one can even say, deceitful bit of hope the British government had given to Beck, only strengthened their resolve to abandon any further negotiations with Germany and resist at all costs. Polish newspapers began to fill with anti-German propaganda and statements about how the Polish Army would crush the Germans as easily and quickly as they had the Red Army back in 1920, especially now that they had the backing of the British and French. The fact that the Poles were living in a dream world was only reinforced by statements made by a French military attache visiting Poland who said "I hope that Beck will be left under no delusion as to the value of the assistance that could be afforded by Britain and France. The Poles would have to rely entirely on their own resources to defend their own territory". Though this was and had always been the position of both the British and French governments the moment Chamberlain announced his guarantee, this was never clarified for the Poles even as tensions mounted between Germany and Poland. Clueless, the Poles simply dug their heels in deeper and deeper until war between Poland and Germany became inevitable.
The Poles knew all along, as did the west, that Danzig was just the first in a series of concessions that Poland would be asked to make. If Poland caved on this, they were surrendering their sovereignty to Germany and Hitler. The Poles did not want this and a "freshly awake from thinking appeasement works" France and Britain saw it as a non-starter as well. France and Britain drew the "line in the sand" over Poland and Hitler chose to step over it.
It is true that Hitler did not want war with the west. He would have much preferred France and Britain to sit idle while he took what he wanted in the east and then became too powerful for them to resist. None of these facts prove the thesis you and Pat Buchanan were trying to make.
Edit to add:
This exact topic (Pat Buchanan's book) was discussed in another thread. Buchanan published an essay based on what he wrote in the book. It was posted and I responded to the essay point for point:
Post #13 is from me and contains a line-by-line analysis and counter to the essay.
Last edited by NJGOAT; 01-11-2013 at 12:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
