British / American against Russia in 1945

[ArtieBob]

Being old enough to have been around at the end of WWII and with Father, Uncle, cousins, etc., in the military, I do not think that we in the USA feared USSR in 1945. In fact, the popular opinion in the USA was probably that we could have beaten anybody at that point (not that this was correct, but that is how we felt). As for the bombing of Dresden, based on how we felt about Germany and the Germans, the only reason not to bomb any German targets was to put our aircrews at any unnecessary risk at that late point of the war. Looking back with over 60 years of hindsight, things look somewhat different now. But when by 1945, we heard of millions and millions of non-combatant civilian casulties in the European war caused by Nazi germany (which all through the war appeared to have the support of the German civilian population), torture, slavery, looting, etc., there was not a great deal of sympathy for any Germans and the thousands of civilian bombing casulties were only payback for what the Nazi bombers had inflicted on civilianpopulations in other nations. As I say, this may not have been the proper attitude, but that is how I felt as a boy growing up in the USA during WWII.

[edwest]

The Russians were considered the new enemy even before the last shots of World War II were fired. U.S. intelligence teams and British were right behind the troops after the landing in Normandy. B.I.O.S. and C.I.O.S. teams often competed for the same "targets." Scientists, engineers, documents, patents, aircraft, other military equipment, and entire factories were carted off. One of the main reasons being to deny them to the Russians. The Russians were the only military threat to be taken seriously at the time. And there was a concern that they would continue to advance into western Europe in spite of any agreements.

See here for a description of a British plan called Operation Unthinkable. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm



Ed

[Jon]

Thanks for the Link Ed.

I am sure that the Russians would have swept Britain and America from Europe with ease. Just look at the number of tanks they had by 1945, all superb and very capable of defeating the poor Shermans used as the main allied battle tank. And as for numbers of men....well Russia i am afraid would have won that battle too. I think our only strong area would have been in the air where we would perhaps have been the strongest. It certainly was a good job they stopped in Berlin !!!! Again the RAF bombing of Dresden to me, was aimed more at Russia to view as what could happen to her rather than a major war winning raid....More of a stop the war carrying on with a new enemy raid. Lets face it the Lancaster by 1945 in Europe was the only bomber able to end a city in one night, with a bomb load more than twice that of the B17. Great aircraft unless you were on the receiving end !!

[Ruy Horta]

I thought the raid on Dresden and the strategic planning behind it were well documented. It was the simple culmination of a strategy and also the basic running out of other worthwhile targets that lead to its destruction, not a warning to the Soviets.

Churchill, Harris and the main RAF histories all give the same explanation.

Isn't this a little speculative without any hard evidence?

[Jon]

Yes i agree it is a little speculative. I have now read this in several publications and whilst Dresden certainly was full of worthy targets, maybe they would have been more worthy in 1943 or 44 ? remember Dresden had not had any major raids for the whole war, that was why it was full with civilians to escape the bombing of other German cities, some German soldiers even told their families to flee to Dresden as they felt the Allies were saving it to be the new Capital after the war. Don't get me wrong sat in my comfortable armchair 60 years after the event i am 100% in favour of bomber command and the raids they did but i still think their was more to this raid than "simply" another city to destroy and bring the end of the war a few days closer. Sadly we shall perhaps never know.

[Franek Grabowski]

I am not awared of any deliberate Allied attacks on Soviets but certainly the war was very close. It is hard to say who could win it but I have no doubt that Red Army was not as strong as it is tended to believe and Western Allies not as weak as it is claimed. Judging the result it must be remembered availability of human resources, industry as well as both communists in the West and anti-Soviet underground in the East. Having in mind that major Polish forces were destroyed in about 1947 - after 3 years of combats - I believe it could have been a major threat if properly supported from the free world.

[Ruy Horta]

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.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jon

Thanks for the Link Ed.

I am sure that the Russians would have swept Britain and America from Europe with ease. Just look at the number of tanks they had by 1945, all superb and very capable of defeating the poor Shermans used as the main allied battle tank. And as for numbers of men....well Russia i am afraid would have won that battle too. I think our only strong area would have been in the air where we would perhaps have been the strongest.

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).