Armchair Generals : How would America invade the Soviets ?

Sep 2010
9,988
Bahrain
#1
End of WWII. Germany is gone and the Allied & Soviet frontiers meet....


Then... suppose Patton's idea of hitting the Soviets was accepted at Washington, and is underway. How would the Americans have invaded ?

A campaign across central Europe ?
What about a trek through the Baltic ocean and invasion of Finland ?
Or maybe, the US Navy could block off Vladivostok ?

I'm not sure if America would have allies in this one..

What do you think is most likely to happen in this scenario ?
 

Zarin

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,465
#2
End of WWII. Germany is gone and the Allied & Soviet frontiers meet....


Then... suppose Patton's idea of hitting the Soviets was accepted at Washington, and is underway. How would the Americans have invaded ?

A campaign across central Europe ?
What about a trek through the Baltic ocean and invasion of Finland ?
Or maybe, the US Navy could block off Vladivostok ?

I'm not sure if America would have allies in this one..

What do you think is most likely to happen in this scenario ?
Patton wanted to use the Germans as allies and strike into the Russian heartland. But the American people and soldiers were exhausted by the 5 year length of this war. Americans do not handle extended wars well. Moreover, there was intense political pressure to de-nazify Germany ASAP. So any alliance with the Nazis was out of the question.
Plus, the transfer of many European troops was needed for the invasion of Japan. Something which was greatly feared for the potentially horrendous mortality rate expected for both sides.
This scenario did not occur because it would have extended the war far beyond the expectations for American involvement and really wouldn't have had either a predictable outcome or a viable reality. Unless the US planned to use its' Atomic bomb; which, at the immediate end of World War 2 in Europe, was not yet successfully exploded.
 
Mar 2011
898
Over The Hills And Far Away
#3
The Japanese were pretty much finished off at this point, so perhaps with much resistance from many in Washington as well as in the military, the US could divert all of its attention to the Soviets, and possibly use the bomb in Europe rather than in Japan.
 

Zarin

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,465
#4
The Japanese were pretty much finished off at this point, so perhaps with much resistance from many in Washington as well as in the military, the US could divert all of its attention to the Soviets, and possibly use the bomb in Europe rather than in Japan.
Not true. The Japanese would have defended their home islands with a deadly tenacity as was discovered on Iwo Jima. They were not finished in any way. Their productivity was near zero, but they had cleverly stored planes and ammunition in caves on the main islands and were training the home populace to defend Japan to the last man.
Millions of post European theater troops were being transferred to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. And no one was looking forward to this either. It was estimated up to one million American casualties would have happened if the invasion of Japan had taken place.
The A-bomb had not yet been tried and had several months to go before it was successfully exploded.
 
Mar 2011
898
Over The Hills And Far Away
#5
Not true. The Japanese would have defended their home islands with a deadly tenacity as was discovered on Iwo Jima. They were not finished in any way. Their productivity was near zero, but they had cleverly stored planes and ammunition in caves on the main islands and were training the home populace to defend Japan to the last man.
Millions of post European theater troops were being transferred to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. And no one was looking forward to this either. It was estimated up to one million American casualties would have happened if the invasion of Japan had taken place.
The A-bomb had not yet been tried and had several months to go before it was successfully exploded.
By finished off I mean that the Japanese no longer posed a threat to the Americans or the British in the Pacific outside of Japan, not to mention the Soviets who were getting ready to help out in the East. They could no longer do offensives to retake lost territory, as their military and industrial base had collapsed.
 

Zarin

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,465
#6
By finished off I mean that the Japanese no longer posed a threat to the Americans or the British in the Pacific outside of Japan, not to mention the Soviets who were getting ready to help out in the East. They could no longer do offensives to retake lost territory, as their military and industrial base had collapsed.
Yes, but you couldn't leave Japan unfinished either. The Soviets had several million troops in the far east preparing for an invasion of Japanese held lands in Manchuria, China and Korea. They had not yet declared war against the Japanese and could just as easily formed and alliance with them to counter any American thrust into Soviet Europe. These several million Soviet troops could have been quickly transferred to the European front. This would have changed the dynamics considerably with Soviet planes being delivered to Japan along with Soviet tanks and other weapons. This would not have been an easy victory or an early one. But you may be right, that under such circumstances, the US might have had to use the first A bomb on Moscow rather than Hiroshima. That is depending how close to Moscow Patton could have gotten. And no general in modern history has fared well against the vast distances and terrible weather of Russia. However, we did have a far superior long range bomber in the B-29.
 
Feb 2012
60
#7
Only crazy man imagine invading russian with maybe a very high casualties over millions.The red army had been trained as an elite troop by the war practice in that time,not in the 1941 June.

And Stalin had opened a-bomb plan for a long time at the end the WWII,and the productivity of a-bomb in USA was not high.The only way of A-bomb maybe would be to tear the frontier of Red army,not destroy all the city of USSR.
 
#8
IMO, they would have taken a combined arms approach and punched through central Europe while utilizing naval forces in the north. I believe the allies would have been capable of reaching, and securing, Moscow, and by doing so, would have lead to an internal challenge to communist rule by the Soviet citizens themselves.
 
Dec 2011
1,392
#9
Armchair Generals : How would America invade the Soviets ?
Task one: Make sure any third party threat is settled (Japan, Germany, Axis powers).

Task two: Make sure it looks like they started it (America like to do this according to the conspiracy guys).

Task three: Improve the tank force (not easy).

Task four: Make sure of air superiority.

Task five: Try to rebuild conquered nations armies and armaments (GOLLY YOUR GONNA NEED THEM MR PATTON).

Task six: Remember that the tough Russians and their tough weather have swallowed many before.

Task seven: Try to win the hearts and minds of a few hundred thousand partisans (and remember that you can't treat them as brutally as the Nazis would have).
 

Zarin

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,465
#10
IMO, they would have taken a combined arms approach and punched through central Europe while utilizing naval forces in the north. I believe the allies would have been capable of reaching, and securing, Moscow, and by doing so, would have lead to an internal challenge to communist rule by the Soviet citizens themselves.
The Nazis believed the same thing...that the Soviet people would rise up against their communist masters. But as Ghandi said: "People prefer the bad government of their own people over the good government of a foriegn power." So I highly doubt this contention.
Moreover, in the initial phases of such a campaign, the US forces might have had considerable logistical difficulty in providing for its' troops...just as Hitler did. Russia is three times the width of the US and does have terrible winters. If England refused to remain allied with us in this, any advances on the US' part, most likely would have failed primarily due to the logistics involved. England was the principal base for our logistical approach to Europe during World War 2.
England was completely exhausted by the time World War 2 ended. So English support was not a reliable possibility. Churchill (who probably would have supported such a war) was immediately deposed by the British electorate after the war ended.
If the Americans could hold on to what they already occupied in Europe, once the A-bomb came on line, such a war would have abruptly ended. Just as it did with the Japanese.
 

Similar History Discussions