@Imperious:
Great maps!!!
What if U.S. invaded Soviet Union?
-
50 is a nice round number, i agree. If they had failed to add Alaska then would have had to find another. Mexico again?
-
If the Allies attacked on VE day they would of likely had a very bad time of it being outnumbered quite badly and outgunned at least on the ground. However if the Allies waited until they could pull the majority of their forces out of the Pacific (3-4 months after VJ Day) then that is a whole nother kettle of fish.
With the number of Allied aircraft committed in the Pacific recomitted to the skies of Europe the Soviets would of been badly out numbered in the air. Add to that the likely air raids on the Soviet oil fields all of sudden its not such a pretty picture. I have no illusions that it wouldnt of been a hard slog to Moscow but it would of been possible with enough preparation. You add to Allied Forces the millions of German soldiers who wanted revenge for the notorius acts committed by Soviet forces and it begins to look a whole lot brighter for the Allies. With the likes of Von Manstein and Guederian working with Patton and Eisenhower with all the resources the free world had to offer it would likely turn out in the allies favour.
In my opinion it wouldnt of been long until E-Series German tanks were advancing on the great plains of the USSR backed up by Mustangs and Spitfire’s keeping the skies clear over head. Its hard to think of the Soviets beating that back. Also throw into the mix the oncoming jet age, German designed tanks being built in U.S factories and the atomic bomb the Soviets would of had their hands full.
-
With the likes of Von Manstein and Guederian working with Patton and Eisenhower with all the resources the free world had to offer it would likely turn out in the allies favour.
Not something that would have happened. When the Germans signed their first surrender under the supervision of the western Allies (they signed a second one a day later under Soviet supervision), Eisenhower didn’t even enter the room until the German officers had signed the document – and even then, it was only to ask in a cold tone of voice for confirmation that they had done so. Eisenhower had no sympathies for the Wehrmacht whatsoever (particularly after he had visited one of the liberated Nazi death camps), and he would have been appalled at the idea of teaming up with the army that had fought for Nazi Germany and launching a Germano-American campaign against the Allied country which had defeated Hitler on the Eastern Front. The idea that he would have participated in such a venture is as much of a fantasy as Himmler’s line in the movie “Downfall” in which has asks an aide, in complete seriousness, “When I meet Eisenhower, should I shake his hand or give the Nazi salute?” If Himmler had actually tried to see Eisenhower, Ike would have had him arrested on the spot by some MPs without letting him get within half a mile of his office.
-
I did not know Ike felt like that.
Do you know if MacArthur already hated communists or if that came later? -
@CWO:
With the likes of Von Manstein and Guederian working with Patton and Eisenhower with all the resources the free world had to offer it would likely turn out in the allies favour.
Not something that would have happened. When the Germans signed their first surrender under the supervision of the western Allies (they signed a second one a day later under Soviet supervision), Eisenhower didn’t even enter the room until the German officers had signed the document – and even then, it was only to ask in a cold tone of voice for confirmation that they had done so. Eisenhower had no sympathies for the Wehrmacht whatsoever (particularly after he had visited one of the liberated Nazi death camps), and he would have been appalled at the idea of teaming up with the army that had fought for Nazi Germany and launching a Germano-American campaign against the Allied country which had defeated Hitler on the Eastern Front. The idea that he would have participated in such a venture is as much of a fantasy as Himmler’s line in the movie “Downfall” in which has asks an aide, in complete seriousness, “When I meet Eisenhower, should I shake his hand or give the Nazi salute?” If Himmler had actually tried to see Eisenhower, Ike would have had him arrested on the spot by some MPs without letting him get within half a mile of his office.
Nice Post CWO Marc, the only thing I want to add on, to be a little more specific, is that only the German Wehrmacht surrenderd unconditionally.
-
@CWO:
With the likes of Von Manstein and Guederian working with Patton and Eisenhower with all the resources the free world had to offer it would likely turn out in the allies favour.
Not something that would have happened. When the Germans signed their first surrender under the supervision of the western Allies (they signed a second one a day later under Soviet supervision), Eisenhower didn’t even enter the room until the German officers had signed the document – and even then, it was only to ask in a cold tone of voice for confirmation that they had done so. Eisenhower had no sympathies for the Wehrmacht whatsoever (particularly after he had visited one of the liberated Nazi death camps), and he would have been appalled at the idea of teaming up with the army that had fought for Nazi Germany and launching a Germano-American campaign against the Allied country which had defeated Hitler on the Eastern Front. The idea that he would have participated in such a venture is as much of a fantasy as Himmler’s line in the movie “Downfall” in which has asks an aide, in complete seriousness, "When I meet Eisenhower, should I shake his hand or give the Nazi salute?" If Himmler had actually tried to see Eisenhower, Ike would have had him arrested on the spot by some MPs without letting him get within half a mile of his office.
How does that play out with Operation Paperclip>?
-
Do not know that one Garg. Is that when you mess up and only order one lorry load when you needed two, or when you accidentally hurt yourself with one?
-
@wittman:
Do you know if MacArthur already hated communists or if that came later?
I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s interesting that you mention MacArthur because there’s a certain resemblance between him and some of the things related to Patton that mattbiernat mentions in his reply #16 above. Patton and MacArthur could both be brilliant when the were at their best (which they weren’t always, an example of which being MacArthur’s botched defense of the Philippines in the hours immediately following Pearl Harbor), but they were also towering egotists with a love of publicity and a very high opinion of their own abilities. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since it’s important for a general to have self-confidence, but in their case it sometimes affected their judgment – for instance in the area of national policy, which in the United States is supposed to be set by the civil government rather than by the military. I hadn’t previously heard about Patton’s reported wish to “re-arm the German army and sent them against the Russians along with the U.S. troops” but his advocacy of such an idea would fall roughly into the same category as MacArthur’s hardline attitude towards China during the Korean War, which brought him into conflict with his civilian and military superiors and eventually led to his dismissal from command.
-
How does that play out with Operation Paperclip>?
The purpose of Operation Paperclip was to locate German scientists and bring them over to the West, not to team up with the remainder of the Wehrmacht to invade the Soviet Union.
-
I think Garg’s point was the US could turn a blind eye if it needed to.
If they wanted to attack Russia they probably would have used those with the knowledge of the difficulties involved: the German commanders, Nazis or not.
Obviously not Himmler(who is dead and a party official). -
@wittman:
I think Garg’s point was the US could turn a blind eye if it needed to.
Certainly. For instance I just recently read (in John Dower’s book Embracing Defeat) that US occupation authorities in Japan granted immunity from war crimes prosecution to members of Japan’s notorious Unit 731 in exchange for the data they had collected during their human experiments on chemical and bacteriological warfare. And it’s quite true – as Operation Paperclip illustrates – that in 1945 the US was already looking beyond its wartime alliance with the USSR towards a postwar world in which the United States and the Soviet Union were the most powerful pieces left on the international chessboard, and thus potentially each other’s most dangerous enemies. My point is simply that it’s highly improbable that the US would have launched an invasion of the USSR in (or soon after 1945), and even more improbable that they would have done so by teaming up with the former army of the former Nazi regime which the Allies had been demonizing for years and which had been responsible for the combat deaths of thousands upon thousands of American boys since late 1941.
-
I agree. Politically would have been a disaster. Families wanted their boys home too.
-
CWO,
I agreed with you. Hence why I said
The only way it would have been possible, is if the Allies bailed the Germans out in 43, got into the act, and gave Japan a free hand at Vladisivostok whilst maintaining a cease-fire.
MAYBE, just MAYBE it could have been pulled off… but that NEVER would have happend.
It’s your comments regarding Eisenhower, that I questioned. “How does that play into operation paperclip.”
The premise being to secure Nazi/Japanese scientists BEFORE the communists could. In essensce, teaming up with thier “science divisions” in preparation for a future coming conflict.
he would have been appalled at the idea of teaming up with the army that had fought for Nazi Germany
Probably just as appalled as he and Patton were at the idea of teaming up with the French, or turncoat Italians.
With that thought in mind… suppose say, in the final days of the third riech - post hitler, the Russians decided to continue their assault to -liberate- europe from democracy, and turned on the allies over several territorial disagreements. Albiet this scenario is as unlikely as any other… but suppose it occurs.
I’m certain then Eisenhower, appalled as ever, still would have considered, and would decidely equipe, remnant German units in the battle to liberate Europe from a communist sweep. Without hesitation.
And he certainly would have tried to do it, before the Russians tried to recruit the same grunts - with a different promise of gain.
-
A lot easier for the Soviets to come through Alaska and into Canada as they were headed to Japan after all. In the end the USA would have had only 49 stars on the flag today and Ambassador Sarah Palinskaya would be sitting in the USSR’s embassy to this day.
Thank goodness we have 57 states…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58
-
With that thought in mind… suppose say, in the final days of the third riech - post hitler, the Russians decided to continue their assault to -liberate- europe from democracy, and turned on the allies over several territorial disagreements. Albiet this scenario is as unlikely as any other… but suppose it occurs.
I’m certain then Eisenhower, appalled as ever, still would have considered, and would decidely equipe, remnant German units in the battle to liberate Europe from a communist sweep. Without hesitation.
And he certainly would have tried to do it, before the Russians tried to recruit the same grunts - with a different promise of gain.First of all: as you say, the scenario of the Russians deciding to turn against the Anglo-Americans and invade Western Europe is a highly unlikely one. Stalin was a ruthless tyrant in his own country, and an extremely tough negotiator at the various “Big Three” conferences with the US and the UK, but he did honour the agreements he reached with Roosevelt and Truman and Churchill and Attlee. To give just two examples, the Russian troops did stop their advance at the Elbe in 1945 (as agreed), and did go to war against Japan exactly three months after the war had ended in Europe (as agreed).
For the sake of debate, however, let’s assume that Stalin had suddenly decided in May 1945 to add Western Europe to the Eastern Europe territories he had already acquired for himself, and that he had declared war on the Anglo-American alliance. The thing to keep in mind at this point is that the decision on how to deal with this situation wouldn’t have rested with Eisenhower, or even with his boss George Marshall. It would have rested with the American President and the British Prime Minister. A Soviet invasion of Western Europe would have been an entirely new war, thus requiring a political decision at the top level of the American and British governments on whether and how to fight it. Truman would of course have needed and wanted advice from Marshall and the Chiefs of Staff on the military options available to him, but ultimately it would have been Truman’s job to make those policy decisions and Marshall’s and Eisenhower’s job to implement them.
So the question then becomes: would Truman have agreed to the idea (had anyone seriously proposed it) of having U.S. troops fight alongside the former Wehrmacht to repel a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in mid-1945? The question is so hypothetical that I can’t grapple with it seriously enough to make up my mind, but at least it seems clear that this idea would have had extremely uncomfortable implications that would have made it a tough sell to the American public. Richard Overy devotes an entire chapter in his book “Why the Allies Won” to the moral aspects of the war, and his argument is that one the great sources of strength for the entire Allied war effort was that it was aimed at defeating the Nazi tyranny. Although US propaganda films never said it explicitly, their implied rationale was that the Nazi regime was so evil that it justified the US becoming an ally of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Russia because, even though the USSR was a totalitarian state too, Nazi Germany was the greater and more dangerous of the two evils. If the US had suddenly turned the tables and allied itself with the defeated Nazi army to fight the Russians, this in effect would have stated that the entire moral thesis used by the US government to justify the US-USSR alliance against Nazi Germany had been a lie. I find it hard to imagine Truman standing before the American public to make such an argument.
-
The sell is that the Nazi regime is over…
but the war against ‘Tyranny’ is not.
If the conflict was brought upon the Americans… they don’t have much choice but to fight… or they simply surrender all of Europe.
-
Now you raised another question CWO marc, of how got America the clue that the Nazi Regime was the greater Danger and tyranny?
What was Americas aspect of it?….@CWO:
So the question then becomes: would Truman have agreed to the idea (had anyone seriously proposed it) of having U.S. troops fight alongside the former Wehrmacht to repel a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in mid-1945? Â The question is so hypothetical that I can’t grapple with it seriously enough to make up my mind, but at least it seems clear that this idea would have had extremely uncomfortable implications that would have made it a tough sell to the American public. Â Richard Overy devotes an entire chapter in his book “Why the Allies Won” to the moral aspects of the war, and his argument is that one the great sources of strength for the entire Allied war effort was that it was aimed at defeating the Nazi tyranny. Â Although US propaganda films never said it explicitly, their implied rationale was that the Nazi regime was so evil that it justified the US becoming an ally of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Russia because, even though the USSR was a totalitarian state too, Nazi Germany was the greater and more dangerous of the two evils. Â If the US had suddenly turned the tables and allied itself with the defeated Nazi army to fight the Russians, this in effect would have stated that the entire moral thesis used by the US government to justify the US-USSR alliance against Nazi Germany had been a lie. Â I find it hard to imagine Truman standing before the American public to make such an argument.
-
@aequitas:
Now you raised another question CWO marc, of how got America the clue that the Nazi Regime was the greater Danger and tyranny?
What was Americas aspect of it?….I’m not sure I fully understand the question. Could you clarify or expand it a bit?
-
Just to follow up on my last post, I’ve drafted an answer to what I think the question means. If I misunderstood, I’ll try to provide a supplementary response later on.
I’d say the answer doesn’t depend so much on ideology as on the concept of a direct military threat. In the years leading up to America’s entry into WWII, the US was no ideological fan of the USSR. The US operated on the principles of representative government and free-market capitalism, and it valued freedom of worship; the USSR was a one-party state with a directed economy built on socialist / communist principles, and its government had a repressive attitude towards the churches. So there was no natural inclination in much of the US to leap to Russia’s aid when it was invaded in 1941. There wasn’t even much inclination to help Britain in the early years of the war, even though Britain was much closer to the US than Russia in its political and economic philosophies. The American public by and large felt that the US should stay out of the war unless the US came under direct attack – which in fact is what happened on December 7, 1941.
I don’t know what the public’s opinion would have been if a Gallup poll had asked Americans in mid-1941 whether they considered fascist Germany or communist Russia to be the more abhorent regime, or if they had been asked whether Hitler or Stalin was the worst tyrant. In terms of pure and direct military threats, however, as expressed by the size and number of territorial acquisitions conducted via the threat or use of armed force, Germany and Japan were way ahead of Russia. The period running from 1931 to mid-1941 saw Japan take over Manchuria, Jehol, and large parts of China, and Germany take over Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, with a year-long Blitz and an eighteen-month-long U-boat campaign against Britain thrown in for good measure and a see-saw battle in North Africa as icing on the cake. In the same period, Russia took over Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bessarabia, eastern Poland and parts of Finland – utterly despicable, yes, but small change compared to what Germany and Japan had been up to. And this was before Germany launched its invasion of the USSR and before Japan overran large parts of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific.
I haven’t calculated the square footage involved, but at a rough guess I’d estimate that the USSR’s territorial grabs prior to mid-1941 were a lot closer in size to those made by Italy in the same period (when it conquered Ethiopia and a few other places like British Somaliland) than to those of Germany and Japan. Germany’s war against Britain was particularly dangerous to the US because if the Royal Navy had been eliminated (and with the French already eliminated) the US Navy would have been left on its own in the Atlantic (on top of having to control the Pacific more or less on its own).
-
" Richard Overy devotes an entire chapter in his book “Why the Allies Won” to the moral aspects of the war, and his argument is that one the great sources of strength for the entire Allied war effort was that it was aimed at defeating the Nazi tyranny. "
First things first, Sorry for my lazy question.
This is my Question!…
How did America define that Nazi Germany was the Greater Evil?Posted almost at the same time like you, Â 8-)…
you answered my question! in one way… :-D
Thank you
Suggested Topics
