British / American against Russia in 1945

[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.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Well, it is politics!

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

[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).