Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

What evidence is there that the Soviets were able to keep going May 1945? Or were their units worn out and understrength like (it seems) everyone's Armies except the USA which was still fielding new divisions in Europe. The Soviet "style" seems to have been long build up of resources - massive onslaught and dramatic advance - halt for x months to resupply and regroup - massive onslaught etc. They couldn't have paused for too long...

By August the USA had operational nukes and did the Soviet AF have any reliable means of tackling the B-29 at high altitude (especially if it came at night?).

P.S. at the end of the war, the Allies were getting better tanks at last (Pershing, Centurion), they had a technological lead over the Soviets (radar etc.) and above all the massive industrial power of the USA (on which the Soviets too had been highly dependent).

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

You may have a point Franek, but would the political climate (or perhaps more exactly the civilian morale in the US and British Commonwealth) in the Western democracies have been able to support another war, one against a former Allied power, after five years of struggle?

An Eastern Front - massive frontal engagement between two fully developed forces and its mass casualties that had been more or less avoided - in the West - to this stage?

A war which probably have needed support of the just defeated axis powers?

Could John Doe have supported that war in 1945?

EDIT:

There may have been Anti-Communist movements in the East, but there were also plenty of Communist militants in the West, now much of it in arms as former Anti-German resistance fighters. These men (and women) would certainly have presented a problem in France, Italy, Greece and even countries like the Netherlands.

Counter resistance operations, both in the East and the West, probably a civil war like situation in many areas of Europe.

There may have been new toys for the Western Allies, but the Soviets had a lot of practical material already in the field, and new material being introduced, and a mentality more capable of sustaining heavy loss, of continued hardship.

For some it may not have been a perfect peace, but would the alternative have been so much better (for Europe)?


Moderator note:
Like you I enjoy these discussions, but let me make it clear in advance that this discussion must stay civil. I will not allow it to become another politically motivated argument.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Oh, it is a job for propaganda and perhaps a 'Pearl Harbor' would have been needed but nothing unachieveable. There were strong anti-Soviet sentiments and the only problem could have been commie dominated press and film industry. Nothing that you canot cope with, sending McCarthy a little bit earlier.

Well, it was more a problem for Soviets rather than to Westerners. The USA alone could have form an army able to beat Soviets. The latter were going short of human resources and there was a lot of people the Red Army, who went there unwillingly and would change the sides on the first opportunity. Otherwise, there is a valid question if the losses would be so high?

Italy already changed sides, minor countries like Balkan ones doubtless would support the effort, especially gaining industrial help (Lend-Lease), that they did not receive from Germany. The latter, IIRC there were plans to use their forces, but how and when - I have no idea, several scenarios are possible. Japan - perhaps most likely to twist the sides - just a matter of politics.
Please remember about China and Turkey, however.

Yes, and that is why I have mentioned them. But I would expect more problems in sabotage rather than actual combat - those partisans were not strong enough. For a comparison, IIRC, Polish underground alone had some 1,5 million soldiers against the Soviets and they were fought by about 30 Soviet divisions (writing from memory). Add Ukrainians and other nations and this way you will receive quite an army behind the lines.

This was an industrial war and I do not think SU was able to do anything without supplies of raw materials (including Alclad and 100 grade fuel). Cutting the deliveries could hit them very hard if war was to last any longer.

Count the people conquered by the SU and even add a lot of the latter. The peace was far from perfect and it resulted in several wars outside of Europe. Count the victims of Korea (still counting) and Vietnam and all the other wars like Afghanistan. There was no paradise here (as claimed by that bastard Chomsky) and you cannot make conclusions based on your personal experiences only.

Well, it is politics! ;)

PS I am still experiencing trouble configuring mail software, so I cannot reply messages.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I thought of many reactions, but all I can really add to that Franek, without starting an argument, which is a stupid thing to do as a forum host (!), is that I disagree on most points, but that's the way it goes, does it not.

:o

Actually the only point I might agree upon is American military strength in 1945.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

What about 1.5m Polish forces? They were fought by 30 soviet division (180k soldiers), you say?

If soviets could defeat them being in ratio 1:8, it's come as no suprise that Western world could not rely on IIRC and could not consider polish forses as something which could be a serious ally against commies.

Anyway, never heard about any serious fighting with anti-soviet polish forces... Are you dreaming?

the scale of possible Ukranian opposition and other nationalists movements is grossly overestimated (as always).

And who is bastard Chomsky?

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Noam Chomsky is an american intellectual who has opinions that Franek (strongly) disagrees with. Of course you can find Chomsky on the left side of the political spectrum.

:o

Just do a Google and you'll find out more than enough.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I have written from memory and additionally did a typo - 0,5m. I cannot find exact numbers at the moment but remember the number does include all the people involved, not only armed soldiers (at least 80k). There was just not enough weapons available, while Soviets had aviation and tanks. Also, to the Soviet units, a number 'Polish' ones must be added, the latter consisting of Polish soldiers and Soviet officers.

Oh, that is not my problem. You apparently have not heard about German-Soviet cooperation that started WWII, as well.
There were several large (as for partisans) clashes like attack on Soviet concentration camp at Rembertów.

Or underestimated. Considering number of ex-Soviet volunteers in the German army and the fact the last partisan units survived well into 1950s (without external support), a massive support in Baltic states and Western Ukraine was to be much expected.

Noam Chomsky, never heard of him?

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Noam Chomsky did some brilliant work in linguistics many years ago (defining grammars corresponding to the four types of mathematical automata). Apparently he thinks this makes his opinions on politics and economics equally important.

Frank.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

So as it presumed - no facts of considerable polish resistance.

FYI Poland got some territories from Czechoslovakia in 1938 using the same scheme as USSR in 1939.

About WWII start :

It was nothing more than real politics

First you should agree that Poland was USSR enemy number 3 that times.

Second, Western countries didn't show any serious intentions to deal with USSR against Germany in 1939. Nobody in Kremlin wanted to fight Germans alone, especially for adverse poles.

Even Polish allies,UK and France were not eager to help Poland in September 39 because of different reasons.

So it was no other way for Soviets but signing the treaty and getting the territories.
It makes Germans to waste some valuable time in 1941 and saved Russia and eventually the whole european continent, putting it lightly.

The price was high for small eastern european countries. It meant occupation for 40 years

But what's better - be alive under commies or dead under nazis?