What if U.S. invaded Soviet Union?


  • @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.


  • @Gargantua:

    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.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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


  • @Gargantua:

    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.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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?  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.


  • @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,  8-)…
    you answered my question! in one way… :-D
    Thank you

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Ever heard Hitlers explanation as to why he declared war on America?

    It might answer your question Aequitas…


  • I haven’t Garg. Was it the vegetarian diet?
    Nice writing Marc.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Take this with a grain of salt…

    It’s a you tube translation, and even if it’s accurate, it’s Hitler speaking, so lol…  That said though, the events discussed are accurate, like America offering to double foreign aid to France, if they continued to fight etc.  Interference in Poland etc…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzgQXRdXr2Q

    Basically, Germany was a threat to the economic/power-threshold of the status quo, and that construed a threat to the power class in America (who in all likelyhood WERE looking out for American interests)

    The best part of the speech is when hitler quotes Roosevelt and mentions that his comments can only be said “With the arrogance of the millionaire class” lol…


  • Where do you find time to dredge up these videos? I love the idiots who comment and always end up name calling.


  • can´t watch it Garg, need ´n american PC :-D…thinking bout watching it in a other language. Will not be a very good idea since it might differ from yours hahahahaha :lol:


  • @CWO:

    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.

    Had Eisehower been informed that Stalin actually killed more people during World War 2 than Hitler, he might have had looked differently.

    I like the point the other members have made, particularly about Japan.
    USA had a lot of troops, equipment, airplanes and naval forces committed to Japan. U.S. could simply use the same strategy against Russia that they did against Japan. 1) capture key port cities using heavy bombardment from battleships 2) land large amount of diehard marines :) 3) use long range bombers to devastate enemy factories. This was the technique that worked against Japan, it worked against “fortress Europe” and it would have worked against Russian industry. Once a country is back in stone age, everything else is a matter of time.

    Another member complained about American public being not very sympathetic. Well, easy solution. Remember Vietnam? Draft everyone ages 18-56 and tell them you are going to free the world of communism. Or…. U.S. could repeat Pearl Harbor but this time with Russians as offenders and wait for 10 million volunteers to show up.

    Also people forget to mention that the Chinese were friendly with USA during WWII. Those guys could have been used as well to hit the Russia from both sides.


  • @mattbiernat:

    USA had a lot of troops, equipment, airplanes and naval forces committed to Japan. U.S. could simply use the same strategy against Russia that they did against Japan. 1) capture key port cities using heavy bombardment from battleships 2) land large amount of diehard marines :) 3) use long range bombers to devastate enemy factories. This was the technique that worked against Japan, it worked against “fortress Europe” and it would have worked against Russian industry. […] U.S. could repeat Pearl Harbor but this time with Russians as offenders and wait for 10 million volunteers to show up. Also people forget to mention that the Chinese were friendly with USA during WWII. Those guys could have been used as well to hit the Russia from both sides.

    A few comments:

    On the part about the US using on Russia the same techniques it used on Japan, note that Japan is a tiny in size, and is an island nation that sits in the Pacific Ocean, a body of water which the US Navy was able to dominate during the last two or three years of the war.  The Russia is the largest country in the world, and has a very small amount of ice-free coastlines compared to its enormous interior size.  The overwhelming proportion of its industry is far inland, completely out of range of any coastal bombardment.  Russia’s geography means it can’t be defeated by sea power, and its sheer size and harsh climate and large population make it a very difficult country to fight even with strong land forces and air power.  As for the suggestion to “land large amount of diehard marines” – well, as much as I admire the USMC’s formidable fighting abilities, note that it took the Marines almost two months to secure Iwo Jima, an island with an area of only 8 square miles and which was defended by only 21,000 Japanese troops.  The old USSR had an area of about 9 million square miles, and in 1941 it survived an invasion by millions of Axis troops.

    On the part about “U.S. could repeat Pearl Harbor but this time with Russians as offenders”, this seems to imply that it was the US rather than Japan which arranged the attack on Pearl Harbor.  I assume this is a reference to the old Roosevelt-wanted-the-Japanese-to-attack conspiracy theory which has been floating around for decades.

    As for the part about enlisting the Chinese, I would simply point out that the Chinese spent most of the period from 1937 to 1945 on the losing end of a war with Japan…a country which, when it took on the Russians in the border incident wars of 1938 and 1939 achieved stalemates at best and got trounced at worst.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 8
  • 17
  • 3
  • 1
  • 6
  • 44
  • 34
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

77

Online

17.5k

Users

40.1k

Topics

1.7m

Posts