[Far-Right Sage]

If the French and English had entered into a pact with the Soviet Union in the late 1930s, this also would have likely averted disaster.

What reason would they have to do that? The Soviet Union didn't have territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe? The Red Army wasn't a threat to British interests? The only reason the United Kingdom and France didn't declare war on the Soviet Union upon the Soviet invasion of Poland is because it would have been physically impossible to fend off two European juggernauts(who at the time, were binded in an alliance) simultaneously.

[Oxymoron]

Far-right the Communist manifesto says the whole world needs to become communist through military power if need be. The Soviet Union had the biggest and best equiped military in the world, they had more tanks better tanks, they had more troops, they had more air force, they had more industrial might, more resources then any one they humbled the Japanese embitions in Mongolia. If the Soviets attacked no power or combination of powers would be able to stop them. in some crazy way the world was lucky that Germany was able to put down the allies so fast and give enough time for the AMericans to make the A-Bomb and stop Soviet Expansion.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Far-right the Communist manifesto says the whole world needs to become communist through military power if need be. The Soviet Union had the biggest and best equiped military in the world, they had more tanks better tanks, they had more troops, they had more air force, they had more industrial might, more resources then any one they humbled the Japanese embitions in Mongolia. If the Soviets attacked no power or combination of powers would be able to stop them. in some crazy way the world was lucky that Germany was able to put down the allies so fast and give enough time for the AMericans to make the A-Bomb and stop Soviet Expansion.

Oh dear

Someone needs to read up on Stalins decimation of the Red Army via purges in 1938 and see the effect it had on the organisation. They were not the 'best equipped military in the world' either, quite often soldiers were issued with pitchforks and WW1 rifles for exercises a situation that did not improve by the time Barbarossa started.

After the Germans invaded in 1941 Stalin had several of his senior officers shot because they had allowed the Germans to break through, while at the same time they had been under orders not to return any fire without Moscow's prior approval. One German army unit intercepted Soviet field messages saying "We are being fired on. What shall we do?" Headquarters replied: "You must be crazy. Why is your signal not in code?"

[Oxymoron]

Arthur at the time of operation barbarossa yes the Soviets were not ready to fight, but with in a year they would have been ready, supplied and would have invaded Europe. This year would have been supplied if the Allies attacked Germany and got bogged down.

[Far-Right Sage]

Far-right the Communist manifesto says the whole world needs to become communist through military power if need be. The Soviet Union had the biggest and best equiped military in the world, they had more tanks better tanks, they had more troops, they had more air force, they had more industrial might, more resources then any one they humbled the Japanese embitions in Mongolia. If the Soviets attacked no power or combination of powers would be able to stop them. in some crazy way the world was lucky that Germany was able to put down the allies so fast and give enough time for the AMericans to make the A-Bomb and stop Soviet Expansion.

Who are you trying to convince? That was precisely my point.

Apparently, you failed to detect the sarcasm...

[Oxymoron]

Ohh I guess it was very well hidden or I am just dumb.

[Thompson_NCL]

The USSR could never have successfully invaded Europe, it has always lacked the infrastructure to compete with the West. War is as much about economics as it is about tactics, and the USSR just couldn't match the Allies.

During WWII the Americans sent the USSR over 175,000,000 tons of supplies to the USSR, do you not think that had that aid been going to Germany the war would have gone the complete other way?

Even post WWII I seriously doubt the USSR would have beaten the west in a conventional war. Eventually the Russians would have ran out of steam and been pushed back.

[Oxymoron]

Thomson the Soviets could match the US in War production because the US had to actually deliver them 3000 miles, the Soveits could role out a tank into battle. The war would have been quiet short since the Soviets combined arms tactics(designed with joint German war games in early 30's) and manpower they would have swept the GErmans since they would have to divert forces from their fighting with the Allies on the Western front, and after the Germans the Allies would be easy prey. The Americans wouldnt even have a chance to intervene. By 1942 the Red Flag would be hanging on the Eiffel tower, and the British would sign a peace pact their after.

[Potemkin]

The USSR could never have successfully invaded Europe, it has always lacked the infrastructure to compete with the West. War is as much about economics as it is about tactics, and the USSR just couldn't match the Allies.

During WWII the Americans sent the USSR over 175,000,000 tons of supplies to the USSR, do you not think that had that aid been going to Germany the war would have gone the complete other way?

Even post WWII I seriously doubt the USSR would have beaten the west in a conventional war. Eventually the Russians would have ran out of steam and been pushed back.

Precisely right. This is why Stalin did not attack the West, and developed the doctrine of "socialism in one country" in the 1920s. He occupied foreign countries only when the opportunity presented itself. Military adventurism was not his style; he was above all else a cautious pragmatist who knew the limitations of the Soviet economy and military. This is basically why I do not take seriously those 'historians' who claim that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 1941, or was planning to start WWIII in the 1950s. It just doesn't fit Stalin's personality or policies.

[Oxymoron]

I think you are mistaken Mr.Potemkin, the Soviets had 243 Divisions at the end of WW2 the Soviets had enough resources to wipe the Floor with Europe and the US except the US had a Nuclear deterent. The Soviets had more tanks, airplanes, soldiers, what kind of resources did they lack they had oil, they had gas, they had huge factories, They had good leadership Zhukov, Konev. And their are records that prove that preparations of attack against the Germans was planned.

[PBVBROOK]

I think you are mistaken Mr.Potemkin, the Soviets had 243 Divisions at the end of WW2 the Soviets had enough resources to wipe the Floor with Europe and the US except the US had a Nuclear deterent. The Soviets had more tanks, airplanes, soldiers, what kind of resources did they lack they had oil, they had gas, they had huge factories, They had good leadership Zhukov, Konev. And their are records that prove that preparations of attack against the Germans was planned.

I think you had better read your history better. The USSR at the end of WWII did not have the strength to 'keep going' and occupy Europe. It could not have opposed the US Army in Europe. You should consider reading US military doctrine and strategy from 1950 to the end of the USSR. Just a rule of thumb. The odds in battle are weighted 3 to 1 in favor of the defender. Russian equipment wasn't even close to the US equipment in quality or leatheality even as late as in the 80's. It still isn't.

At the end of WWII Russia had virtually no Navy. Their entire coastline and was vulnerable to invasion and the US had an enormous amphibious capability. They had to deploy a significant force in the East to deter China or an attack from the south. Russia had long and significant borders. Any substantial force placed near their borders would tie up a huge portion of their army. Their Air Forces at the end of WWII were substandard.

The Soviet military has always been a blunt insturment. Under trained and equiped. Stalin was far to smart to challenge a country that hat hundreds of times his manufacturing capability, 95% of the worlds money and the most sophisticated and mobile military in history. And, as you grant, we had the trump card.

When I participated in the defense of Europe in the 1970's we were opposed by an enormous Russian Army. Far larger than ours. We had no intention of loosing. We were sure we would not. Even without tactical nukes.

Your assertion that the Russians could "wipe the floor with Euope and the US" is utter nonsense. Not one serious historian would give this notion a second thought. Your homework assignment is to study the size and composition of Soviet divisions in WWII. Then study a map of the Soviet Union. Deploy those division in a manner that protects the entire area from both external and internal threat. Remember Stalin was not a popular man. Then see what is left of your Army to try and fight in Europe. In fact. Just try and defend your industrial areas from attack.

You have developed a fanciful idea but I fear is is not grounded in sound military judgment. Stalin was a despot but he was no fool. He and all of his successors knew that a ground war in Europe would lead to the end of the Soviet Union. It never had the ability to seriously threaten Europe in general. The situation you propose never existed. The USSR industrial power was miserable. I think many in the US would have reckened a foolish move such as a Soviet invasion of Europe by the USSR a blessing. It would have given us the excuse to rid the world from this nuisance 50 years earlier than we finally did.

[Ombrageux]

BROOK - I think you paint an unrealistic picture. The Soviets hardly needed to defend every last square inch of their soil. You say they have a huge coastline... this is true. And how were the allies supposed to exploit this fact? Go down the Black Sea and fight another Crimean War? Fight in the Far East as it was so costly to the Japanese in 1938? Soviet industry was placed in the heart of the Soviet Union, the Urals, I don't see how the allies could reach them by invasion (although they could perhaps bomb them if they found some airfields nearby).

I think you are correct in saying the Soviet military was a blunt instrument. That could mean they were up to the task of making that little extra push along the north European plain to kick the allies out of Germany, Benelux and France.

[Thompson_NCL]

The myth that the Soviet military was something special is exactly that, a myth. Their victory over both the Nazi's and the Japanese was so complete because by the time the Soviet was on the attack, the Axis had already crumbled.

I am not saying the Soviet contribution was irrelevant since clearly it wasn't, the fact they resisted the Nazi's in particular for so long was key to the overall victory. But the USSR did not have an economy to fight a World War, and it never has.

Anyway, as others have rightly pointed out; Stalin had no interest in conquering Europe. He was far more concerned with subduing his own people.

[Torwan]

@BROOK/Potemkin:

The USSR was much stronger than suspected. Their poor performance in the winter-war against Finland (1940) and in 1941 makes you believe that the Red Army was weak and easy to beat.

But the Germans had to learn that this was wrong. Even in 1941, the Soviets fought fiercely and defended themselves with everything they had.

In a possible scenario where Germany and the Western Allies would have clashed in 1938 and onwards, it would have been them who would have sneak-attacked someone.

Russian military doctrine was attack-orientated. They never planned a defense, they always attacked and wanted to decide the war on enemy's ground. While this is generally a good strategy (it contains the destruction on enemy soil), it is hazardous to lack a defensive strategy. And it was exactly that what caused such trouble in 1941. The soviets were unprepared for defense, because they didn't expect that anyone could break through their lines. They had to learn defensive warfare first.

Now, an attacking soviet Army wouldn't have had that problem. Therefore, and considering the engagement of the major powers in the west, they wouldn't have had much problem occupying most of Eastern Europe, meeting resistance first on the major river-lines in Europe.

[PredatorOC]

The soviets were unprepared for defense, because they didn't expect that anyone could break through their lines. They had to learn defensive warfare first.

I think this was largely Stalin's fault. Pretty much all of the Soviet division in the west were in newly occupied territories (Poland, Lithuania, etc) and things weren't really set up for defense yet. There also was no overall plan for a defense. So this combined with the fact that Soviet lines were quite shallow, even if well manned, enabled the Wehrmacht to have free reign after the initial breakthrough.

The Soviet army did offer more significant resistance in the south, which does hint that the Soviet army was capable of conducting defensive operations even in 1941. Stalin has just neglected the whole issue, while relying on the assumption that Hitler wouldn't be foolish enough to start a war in the east.

[Oxymoron]

brook The Soveits had better tanks then the Americans, they had more and better tactical bombers, they had crack Red Guard Infantry by 1945 armed to the teeth, the Soviets had more artillery, more anti tank, great leadership under zhukov and Konev,the American advantage was Navy which is useless against Russia, and Strategic bombers the war would not last long enough for them to be effective at stopping soviet industrial might. The Soviets beat the best the Germans had to offer, even though most of the Army was decimated in begining of Barbarossa. Your points:

Russian Air force substandard: I beg to differ LA-7 was one of the best planes in WW2. And they had a whole lot of them.

Stormavich tactical bomber best tank buster in WW2.

Blunt instrument tell that to the German army in Stalingrad they got out manuvered and encircled. Kursk Bigget tank battle in history against the Germans best tanks Soviets won. On the other hand if the Germans had enough gas at the battle of the bulge they would have run the Allies into the sea.

Soviets not only had 243 divisions in Europe they also had a large army in Asia battleing and crushing the Japansese, the Japanese surrendered as much due to the A Bomb as they fearing a Russian Invasion. Also in the early stages of Japansese expansions the Japansese got creamed in Mongolia by Zhukov, and ended any ideas the Japanese had of opening second front against Russia. While We got our ass handed to us in the Phillipenes.

[PBVBROOK]

I am tired of this arm chair general stuff. Oxy you are just wrong. Your tactics are wrong. You assessment of the equipement is simply hyperbole. On just about every point you have been sold a bill of goods. Rewriting history to fit some agenda is pointless.

The US had nukes. The Russians at the end of WWII were totally powerless to resist the US. That is the history. No amount of wishfull thinking on your part will change that. They are simply fortunate we were not an overtly imperialist country. Or Russia would be a US client state right now. And probably far better off.

[Oxymoron]

I dont know what you think my agenda is, I am a patriotic American but facts are facts. What makes your argument fact and mine opinion did you produce some support? You have a right to your interpitation I have a right to mine, unless you have statistics or reports that prove other wise. I agree the A bomb stopped the Soviets and thats the only thing that stopped them.The Us is Imperialistic our south west was gained through war, so was Cuba,Puerto Rico, Phillipenes.

[Truth?]

Oxy its a waste of breath on Brook he was in the 1st Armored so he knows God all about WWII...except he wasn't involved in it.

[Oxymoron]

Brook thank you for your service to our country.