[Douglas]

Patton had held the view that after the Second World War the greatest threat came from the East in Soviet Russia. He argued that the German troops should be re-armed and sent East to Moscow.

I would like to argue he was probably right. It was acheivable. With the atomic bomb which Russia would not produce for another 5 years, being on a war footing with a war economy and enough man power it would have been a short though probably very messy atomic war.

So what would it acheive? Well the end of Communism for a start, the occupation of Russia would put us on the door-step of China with the possibility of preventing that revolution. Without Russian and Chinese support Korea and Vietnam would have been sorted alot easier as would Cuba if ever happening at all. The various revolutions in Africa would similarly not have happened.

On a bigger note what of the proxy wars? No Soviet backing for Middle Eastern forces, no war in Afghanistan, no Bin Laden, no Al Qaeda.

Of course it would essentially put America as the conquerer of the world but for what it would have prevented would it be so awful?

Discuss.

[R_G]

Yup, that's what Truman SHOULD have done.

Moron.

I'd rather have Americans ruling Russia than the commie dicks that did.

[Smilin' Dave]

Look up Operation Unthinkable. It's a study of a potential allied attack against the Soviet Union, including the possibility of re-arming Germans to aid in the effort. My reading of the documents suggest that the Allies were less than confident of their prospects at the time. This is not to suggest the scenario for Operation Unthinkable should be taken at face value (the same document thought the Japanese would ally with the Soviets), but Allied attitudes and calculations of the time should be considered.

Link:
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

With the atomic bomb which Russia would not produce for another 5 years

The Soviets might very well have developed an atomic weapon sooner had it been forced. The Soviet atomic program was slowed by Beria's refusal to share the materials he had received via espionage, while at the same time insisting that the scientists replicate the process exactly.

The Soviets might also have netted a larger catch of espionage if the Allies were to attack the Soviets, given that Manhattan Progject scientists were not unfriendly to the Soviets.

[Igor Antunov]

Would have been a disaster. This is why it didn't occur. The soviets had a more powerful land force in europe after germany's capitulation.

Attacking them at that time would have been proposterous, and later on, the option was completely off the table, considering NATO was a defensive alliance that didn't expect to be able to hold back Russia conventionally, thus the first use nuclear policy of NATO in case of a soviet invasion of western europe.

The western allies did not have the level of mobilization needed and numbers of conventional weaponry to invade the soviet union.

If nukes were used,(at that time large, difficult to transport and inefficient) the soviet nuclear program would have been accelerated and reciprocal nuclear action would have been taken in response a few months later.

[R_G]

Would have been a disaster. This is why it didn't occur. The soviets had a more powerful land force in europe after germany's capitulation.

Attacking them at that time would have been proposterous, and later on, the option was completely off the table, considering NATO was a defensive alliance that didn't expect to be able to hold back Russia conventionally, thus the first use nuclear policy of NATO in case of a soviet invasion of western europe.

The western allies did not have the level of mobilization needed and numbers of conventional weaponry to invade the soviet union.

If nukes were used,(at that time large, difficult to transport and inefficient) the soviet nuclear program would have been accelerated and reciprocal nuclear action would have been taken in response a few months later.

That's baloney.

I do not understand how the Soviets would have amassed nuclear arms so quickly.

[Thunderhawk]

The soviets had a more powerful land force in europe after germany's capitulation.

One that was exhausted, barely able to keep their occupied lands in line and was partly reliant on American food. I believe the Soviets would have had great initial success but they would have stalled over a short period of time.

The Allies, had they managed to push into Eastern Europe, would have found themselves in the same military and political quagmire the Nazis did, but with better armed and stronger partisan groups.

The western allies did not have the level of mobilization needed and numbers of conventional weaponry to invade the soviet union.

This, I believe, is the issue. The allies might have been able to push the Soviets out of Central Europe, but their army would soon stall while the Soviets would pour more soldiers forward with a specific disregard for their losses - its not like they could feed them, nor take care for many of them.

[Nattering Nabob]

There remains the political sale of what would be another war.

The American people wouldn't have been too eager to continue the war just when they were told it was over.

And the Brits were down to their last brussel sprout. They too were tired of war and it's privations.

[Douglas]

This, I believe, is the issue. The allies might have been able to push the Soviets out of Central Europe, but their army would soon stall while the Soviets would pour more soldiers forward with a specific disregard for their losses - its not like they could feed them, nor take care for many of them.

Best to remember that we would have the nuclear advantage. We could have done what we had started to think of doing to Japan, just take out a city every week.

[Thunderhawk]

We could have done what we had started to think of doing to Japan, just take out a city every week.

Which cities?
From which airbases?

[Red Star]

And more importantly, with which bombs?

By the end of 1945, the USA had around 6 nuclear weapons as far as I am aware. If you wanted to drop bombs on the USSR proper, you would also surely have to fly over thousands of kilometres of Soviet territory and thus Soviet fighters. Nuking Berlin or Budapest would have, after all, just turned the people you need on your side against you.

[Douglas]

By the end of 1945, the USA had around 6 nuclear weapons as far as I am aware.

And how many woukd you need to make a country submit? Remember Japan didn't surrender because of the direct loses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was because they thought we could do it 100 times over. St Petersburg, Moscow and Volgograd were reachable.

[The Antiist]

This idea is interesting, but could've only happened with the benefit of hindsight. Back then, it couldn't have happened because there wouldn't be enough support for such an idea. The Cold War started only in 1947 and nobody could've foreseen how long it would take before it would end. Matter of fact, perhaps it can be seen as a bit of a mystery why it didn't end in 1953 for instance. This was the insecurity of the Cold War.

There were a few people who foresaw the dangers of the power of the Soviet Union, among which Churchill is the most important one in my book. He wanted to convince the Americans in 1943, for instance, to invade in the Balkans, in order to stop what he later called 'The Iron Curtain' from coming over Europe. However, Roosevelt was much more positive regarding the Soviet Union and put more trust in them apparently.

Interestingly and possibly a vital point is the 'generosity' he showed towards the Soviet Union, partly because of the enormous casualties and damage it suffered--more than any country as I recall--and partly as a way to make up for the fact the Allies were in no state to help Russia during Germany's campaign and invasion of Russia. So what Roosevelt did was to convince Churchill to invade in Normandy and put his trust in Russia by asking them to increase the pressure on Germany at the moment of the Allied invasion in Normandy.

When Germany was about to collapse, Russia made considerable progress, however the U.S. was advancing enormously quick as well through Germany itself. As a matter of fact, the U.S. army had to stop halfway because of overstretched supply lines. More significantly, Roosevelt decided to compensate for Russia's losses by letting them take very important cities in the East including Berlin.

In other words, the Soviet Union may have been perceived as a threat, but it wasn't until a few years later this had become a widespread believe. Besides, there was a craving towards peace. The only reason I can think of to start another war is indeed to stop the nuclear arms race from going off. However, this wasn't anticipated neither for the U.S. even offered Stalin after WWII to demolish its own nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear proliferation.

What this says is that not only didn't the U.S. perceive the Soviet Union as an enemy, it wasn't quite ready to start its next conflict and was still stuck in the illusion that the Soviet Union wanted to have anything to do with the West.

[Thoss]

I think Naboob hit it. The biggest obstacle to continued war after 1945 would have been the American public opinion, who, after years of spoon-fed propaganda, had been told hitherto that the Soviet Union was a industrious, stalwart and innocent ally of the west. A reversal of this and a continuation of the war against the Soviets would require nothing short of an unprovoked Soviet attack, I believe.

[Douglas]

Okay moving on slightly, so lets just imagine if the plan had happened, Russia had been invaded and defeated what then?

[Thunderhawk]

so lets just imagine if the plan had happened, Russia had been invaded and defeated what then?

Defeated how?
Bombed and a peace established like that with WW1 Germany?
Like that of WW2 Japan?
Invasion and occupation like that of WW2 Germany?

Pushing the Soviets out of Central Europe with the communist agitators left behind and then suing for peace is quite a bit different from occupying a nuclear striked Soviet union.

[Douglas]

Invasion and occupation.

[Thunderhawk]

Invasion and occupation.

With what units?
Composition?
Allies?

Would the Germans be rearmed and used to fight the Soviets?
If so, would they then be allowed to part of the occupation government?
To what degree would Germany be occupied during the invasion of the USSR?
What of the Balkans? Romania (oil)?

Is all of Soviet Sibera also occupied?
Was Taskent bombed, occupied, regional provisional government/resistances?

Would the Trans Siberean railway be held or would it have been devestated?

[Oxymoron]

Better question would be would the Americans and her allies be able to stop a 140 infantry battle hardend divisions supported by division upon division of tank and anti tanks, and a huge Air Force?

[guzzipat]

I could well be the only one on this board who was alive and can (vaguely) remember the end of WW2.

I know exactly what would have happened if the British Government had tried to participate in a war against the Soviet Union. Mutiny in the armed forces and revolution at home.
Look at the Government elected by a landslide in 1945 and it's programme, by far the most left wing in British history. The people were sick of war and would never have tollerated another so soon.
All the members of the armed forces wanted, apart from a small number of profesionals, was "demob", home and family. If their officers had tried to get them to fight the Soviet Union they would have shot them.

[Red Star]

Guzzipat and Nabob have indeed hit the thing on the head, even discounting the purely military/nuclear background. Your hypothetical question doesn't make sense at all given these circumstances because a demoralized army with no willingness to fight can not be presented as this hypothetical "occupation force" - because this demoralisation wouldn't occur once in Moscow, but already was (as already said).

It is just one of those alternative history questions that are unanswerable simply because the "what if" is too big. It is easier to do this with much smaller questions such as the consequence of a single victory in battle, not a war.