Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2014, 09:21 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,439,851 times
Reputation: 1954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383man View Post
If this had happened in 1949 and the US had not demobilized then as the OP was stating the US to drop some A-bombs on Moscow to try and kill Stalin. If the US had not demobilized then yes they could have done it. Even if the USSR had 20,000 aircraft the US had over 100,000 military aircract at the end of WWII between the US army air force and the US Navy and over 65,000 of them were combat aircraft as the rest were recon , trnsport and trainers. So I dont think it would have been a big problem to have sent bombers with fighter protection into the USSR if the US had kept the largest air force of all time at that size but we know they did not. And the US army was alot larger then under 2 million at the end of WWII. Just the army was 8.3 million with 6 million ground troops and about 3 million were combat troops with just over 2 million combat troops overseas at WWII's end. The OP said this senerio in that they did not use ground forces as this is just a ...what if by him. At the wars end of course the USSR had the largest land army in the world and thats why they were such a threat to western and eastern Europe. I dont think either the US or USSR would have really wanted to attack each other after the war in the few years that followed. I mean the US had the navy to land many troops in the USSR but then you would be looking at fighting the largest land force in the world and even with the largest Navy and air force for the US the USSR still had a large air force but not much of a navy so it would make no sense for the US to attack the USSR. Then if the USSR wanted to attack the US they did not have a Navy to ship enough troops to the US and land them as the largest land force in the world wont do much good if you cant get them to the fight. So both would have been dumb for either country. But I think Stalin knew if he kept his large army he had the advantage in Europe sine the allies were demobilizing at wars end. Ron
When I said "under 2 million", I was referring to the period after demobilization. By 1949, our army was fully demobilized from WW2 and was under 2 million. Your 8.3 million figure is skewed because many of those troops were stationed in the Pacific. On V-E Day, the U.S. only had about 2-3 million troops in Continental Europe. The Soviet Union had 12 million troops in Eastern Europe. They outnumbered us almost 6-1 in troops, and even more so in tanks. The U.S. ground forces were much weaker than the German forces that invaded in 1941, and the Soviet forces were much stronger than what the Germans faced in 1941. The idea of invading the USSR from Europe with ground troops would be a disaster. Even if the U.S. somehow expanded their troops to equal the size of the Soviets, the Soviets would likely expand further, creating a 20 million man army.

Each of the scenarios you presented are far-fetched. Please explain why the U.S. would remain mobilized into 1949? This is simply fantasy. If the U.S.S.R. invasion was such a priority, we would have invaded in late 1945, or 1946 at the latest. It would not make sense to sit on our thumbs until 1949 and maintain a large standing army in Europe.

An amphibious invasion- look at how much trouble the Allies had landing 150,000 troops in D-Day. This was going against Germany's weakest reserve forces. We would need to literally launch a multi-million man invasion just to get a beachhead. Then we'd have to fight our way from Siberia into western Russia. It just wasn't feasible.

Your assumption is that we could fly into Moscow with little resistance and bomb the Soviet Union into submission via the a-bomb without ever sending a single troop into the country, and the Soviets would just give up without a fight. First, we had a limited number of a-bombs in the 40's. Second, the Germans had already destroyed much of the Soviet Union years before. What good would dropping a-bombs on a bunch of rubble do? The Soviets proved during WW2 they would not just roll over and give up. They practically burned down the western third of their country to deprive the Germans of resources. What makes you think a few a-bombs would result in a different outcome?

The only thing you said that made sense was that the USSR did not have the capability to launch an invasion of the U.S. They did not have the Navy. This was the same problem the Germans had and why they could never hope to defeat the U.S. A potential U.S. versus USSR war in the late 40's could only happen in Europe.

Last edited by Nolefan34; 06-09-2014 at 09:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2014, 05:14 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,747 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
When I said "under 2 million", I was referring to the period after demobilization. By 1949, our army was fully demobilized from WW2 and was under 2 million. Your 8.3 million figure is skewed because many of those troops were stationed in the Pacific. On V-E Day, the U.S. only had about 2-3 million troops in Continental Europe. The Soviet Union had 12 million troops in Eastern Europe. They outnumbered us almost 6-1 in troops, and even more so in tanks. The U.S. ground forces were much weaker than the German forces that invaded in 1941, and the Soviet forces were much stronger than what the Germans faced in 1941. The idea of invading the USSR from Europe with ground troops would be a disaster. Even if the U.S. somehow expanded their troops to equal the size of the Soviets, the Soviets would likely expand further, creating a 20 million man army.

Each of the scenarios you presented are far-fetched. Please explain why the U.S. would remain mobilized into 1949? This is simply fantasy. If the U.S.S.R. invasion was such a priority, we would have invaded in late 1945, or 1946 at the latest. It would not make sense to sit on our thumbs until 1949 and maintain a large standing army in Europe.

An amphibious invasion- look at how much trouble the Allies had landing 150,000 troops in D-Day. This was going against Germany's weakest reserve forces. We would need to literally launch a multi-million man invasion just to get a beachhead. Then we'd have to fight our way from Siberia into western Russia. It just wasn't feasible.

Your assumption is that we could fly into Moscow with little resistance and bomb the Soviet Union into submission via the a-bomb without ever sending a single troop into the country, and the Soviets would just give up without a fight. First, we had a limited number of a-bombs in the 40's. Second, the Germans had already destroyed much of the Soviet Union years before. What good would dropping a-bombs on a bunch of rubble do? The Soviets proved during WW2 they would not just roll over and give up. They practically burned down the western third of their country to deprive the Germans of resources. What makes you think a few a-bombs would result in a different outcome?

The only thing you said that made sense was that the USSR did not have the capability to launch an invasion of the U.S. They did not have the Navy. This was the same problem the Germans had and why they could never hope to defeat the U.S. A potential U.S. versus USSR war in the late 40's could only happen in Europe.


I did not realize you meant the army in 1949 and I appoligize for that. As for the rest about flying into Moscow and dropping the A-bomb I was only saying thats what the OP was saying I was not actually coming up with that just refering to what the OP said. And I agree the US would not have kept a 12 million standing armed force as thats why I was saying they would have had to in order to try that in 1949. I honestly wish the US could keep and would have kept a much larger peace time force as I am a believer in a large armed forces helps keep peace as it will make the enemy think twice if he wants to attack you. If a country has a very weak armed forces the enemy may think he can easily win a fight with you. I mean I favor a large armed forces so it will help keep peace.
I also dont think the Soviets had 12 million troops in eastern europe at the wars end as I think many were not in the eastern europe. I have read about 6 million Soviets in eastern Europe at wars end but maybe thats combat troops only as I know they had 12 million troops and most were ground troops so you may be right on that. I know the US had about 3.5 million troops in Europe and Italy at the wars end which was more then any other allied nation other then the Soviets. And the US had 4.1 million troops in the Pacific including naval troops and the marines which when Japan had been defeated I would think if they had to fight the Soviets they would have brought all the overseas troops to that fight as they would have needed to and maybe even turned many naval troops to ground troops. Now remeber this is just a fantasy idea from what the OP said. Of course it is all make believe but it can be interesting to hear some of the ideas and theories. Thats why I said the US would have to have stayed as strong as they were at the end of the war in 1949 to do it as thats why I figured if they brought most of their air force to Europe to attack the Soviets they would have had all the B-29's in Europe which I believe there was about 1000 in the Pacific at the end of the war. Plus the 5000 B-17's and B-24's but of course they could not carry the A-bomb but they could send a huge bomber force in to drop an A-bomb on Moscow if they had kept the large forces. Hey its just a goffy theory as I can say as an American it made me sick to see how low our armed forces had dropped when the Korean war started. I mean sure the USSR and the US could mobilize 30 million troops if their countries went to total war and fought for their lives and they could afford to do it as both have the population to do that but I hope and pray nothing like that ever happens in the world again. I guess thats why we have fun doing these sinarios as none of us ever want anything real or even close to WWII or this that we talk about to ever happen agiain. I hope I did not offend anyone as thats not what I mean to do. I just enjoy talking about this. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:26 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top