Sorry, snipe. I'm on the "other team" (not that there's anything wrong with it!) Politically I mean. I firmly disagree that ANY President could have mobilized the national will, made the decisions that put the right people and programs in place that ultimately led to our victory. And as for W. in charge then, eek! that makes me cringe. Read a bit about John Nance Garner who may very well have been the President if he hadn't been dumped in favor of Truman and you'll know the post WWII world wuld have been an entirely different one. And I'm a Democrat and I cringe at the thought.

I think we all are guilty of severe Monday morning quaterbacking. Sixty years after the fact we can no more understand all the nuances that went into decisions that were made than we can fly. We cannot relate to the tone of the country. How else do you explain things like the Japanese interment or the strict segregation of the armed forces? Those are not understandable in relation to the U.S. of today. We do not have the ability to entirely understand the way this country was then. We were largely isolationist prior to WWII. That definitely factored into FDR's thinking and decisions of those days.

So you would surrender eastern Europe to decades of hopelessness and despair out of sympathy for the Soviet condition? I can't imagine a poorer platform on which to make world policy.

In 1945, the Soviets were in no condition to insist on ANYTHING. America was fresh, well armed and at full industrial capacity. We could have liberated eastern Europe permanently. Germany would not have been partitioned to communists and we would have seen a social, political and economic revival in all of Europe.

War with the Soviets? Unnecessary. All we needed to do was ignore Stalin at Yalta. FDR's failure at Yalta was colossal.

If you actually consider the fact that our borders and economy were in actuality inviolable, the fact that the Japanese surprise attack completely outraged our nation, and add in the fact that there was national hysteria because our populace expected an invasion of the West coast, it created a perfect storm whereupon anyone of any sense whatsoever could have prevailed.

They're easy to understand. It was a combonation of isolationsim and racism that led to those conditions.

None of this changes the fact that at the end of WWII the US was in a position of unassailable strength, and Roosevelt pissed away said strength in letting the Soviets have all of Eastern Europe and portions of Asia.

A mistake that cost, literally, millions upon millions of lives.

Moses, I don't know where you think I said anything about sympathy.

To think we could have pushed the Russians back off from conquered territory is a fool's dream.

sniper and the rest

To think we could have used nukes to clear the path is ridiculous.

To think we could have shipped little boys over to use against Russia without one of them accidentally detonating along the way is wishful thinking

You absolutely implied it.

nothing of the sort was implied. you read that into it.



and maybe I was not clear enough :)

The Soviet army in Europe was shattered in the push to take Berlin. What was left after they raised the Hammer and Sickle over the Riechstag couldn't have stopped the US, with or without nukes. Not to mention they were fighting with massive US aid in all things from gun powder to steel. Shipments that obviously stop the moment the US and Soviets come to blows.

I've had this discussion in a 60 page long thread on a military forum with West Point graduates, NATO military professionals, and even Russians themselves.

No one would seriously argue that the Soviets could have stopped the US in 1945. It is a ridiculous contention.

Consider:

The USN has by 1945 a fleet of almost 200 aircraft carriers. The soviets have -none-, and almost no navy to speak of whatsoever.

The USMC can land anywhere, at will, threatening the Soviets massive coastal regions (including Europe) with impunity for major invasion.

The US Army is 8,000,000 strong and in it's absolute peak of power- the Soviet Red Army is a shattered, exhausted, over-extended wreck. The Soviets suffered 360,000 casualties in the Battle of Berlin alone. The Soviets entire reserve force (some 40 divisions) was in Asia, poised to strike into Manchuria against the Japanese at the time of VE day. The rails needed to get it to the ETO should hostilites start with the US would have been the first thing the US heavy bomber forces took out. It's a loooooong drive from Siberia to Berlin, even in peace time.

The US Army is fielding the P-80 Shooting star jet fighter in huge numbers. 1,800+ P-80s were scheduled for delievery by the end of 1945 had the war not ended. The Soviets had- none. What's more, the Soviets couldn't even match the performance of already existing US fighters like the P-51D, P-38J, F6F Hellcat, or F4U Corsair. Those fighters were all available in MASSIVE numbers, with experienced combat pilots to fly them all.

The US Army Heavy bomber force is truly massive, and the Soviets have absolutely nothing to match it, or no means whatsoever to actually stop it.

The US Armor forces by 1945 field the excellent M4A3/76 in large numbers, and the Mighty M26 pershing is being fielded in Europe. Conversely, the Soviet Armored corps was eviscerated in the Battle of Berlin, with 2,000 tanks lost in that battle alone. The US didn't lose 2,000 tanks in the entire war.

By the beginning of 1946, the US would have 8 nuclear weapons at it's disposal, the Soviets none. (Not that the US would even need them.)

There is NO WAY the Soviets could have hoped to stop the US in a conventional war in 1945, none.

There would be no more little boys, it was a developmental one off. The US however was capable of producing 8 improved "Fat man" style devices by the start of 1946.

The US could have easily delivered Mk II devices deep into the Soviet Union using B-29s. As far as 'clearing the path' with Nukes, no one planned on using them that way back then, they were purely strategic weapons. They would've been used against major LOCs or Industrial sites.

There is a small footnote in history when we did land forces in Russia:

1918-1920 Russia: US sent 15,000 troops to Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok as part of an Allied force in opposition to the Bolsheviks.

Dan,

History is the study of nuance, by definition Monday morning quarterbacking. How could it be any other way?

31st Infantry Regiment....GO POLAR BEARS!!!

Which nukes would we have used against the Soviets? The test one expoded in the desert? Or the two we dropped on Japan? By my count, that's all three we had produced by the war's end.

Should we have used our monopoly on technology to manufacture more and bomb the Soviets into the radiation age before they got the bomb? Considering they had a spy in Los Alamos giving them everything we had, including a report that the test was a success before FDR told Stalin, I don't think it would have been a good idea to get into a nuke manufacturing and dropping contest with the Soviets. Besides, who wants an irradiated Eastern Europe?

m21sniper...


the soviets had one major advantage. spies.


roosevelt's administration was thoroughly infiltrated in both information gathering and even policy making areas.


Originally Posted by stevepaa
To think we could have shipped little boys over to use against Russia without one of them accidentally detonating along the way is wishful thinking

seriously, you believe this?

sorry but NO
the reds had a bigger army in place in all of eastern europe
about 3 times the size of the combined USA UK + CW armys
their tanks were better then the germans and way better then the sherman aka the ronson
we had about 20 M26 tanks in europe
the people of the USA were in no mood for an other war nor was the UK
aircraft we had and that was about all we had that were alot better then the reds
aircraft carriers are about useless againts russia
we might could have won a long war but the costs were much too high

in the book "downfall" we were gearing up two produce a fatman style nuke every two weeks. initially intended for use in the invasion of japan. the soviets would have access to all the plans, but it still took the years to enrich the uranium. it would have been 48-49 before they could have responded.

The US had the materials in place to assemble 8 Mk II devices by the start of 1946.

The soviets did not detonate their first device until 1947.

You do the math.

Are you implying that we were obliged to negotiate because of the Soviets "greater sacrifice"?

Steve, we didn't have to invade Russia. All we had to do at Yalta was promise NOT to invade Russia. The Soviets were militarily, economically and physically powerless at the end of the war. The U.S. was just reaching it's stride and hadn't broken a sweat.

In 1945, the Soviets could have been rudely dismissed from eastern Europe without repercussion.

Again, Yalta was a political, military, economic and moral defeat that was (and is) utterly incomprehensible.

gee someone's math is bad.

we did not know at Yalta anything of what you posted , sniper. We did not know we had a bomb.

you are a prime example of a monday morning quarterback


varmint, we did not make more than one "little boy" because of the danger of accidental detonation.


moses, no. The greater sacrifice meant they would not give up what they had so bravely fought for and died for. Why we think we could push them back off conquered lands is beyond me.

Sigh...

The Soviets attacked berlin with 1,500,000 men. 360,000 were killed or wounded in that battle, along with 2,000 tanks. The Soviet army was shattered in that battle.

Facing them was the entire intact, combat experienced US Army and US Army Air force. Even without the Allied Euros.

[QUOTE=nota;3953897]their tanks were better then the germans and way better then the sherman aka the ronson[QUOTE=nota;3953897]
The M4A3/76 was an excellent tank, and it's gun had better range and penetration than the 85mm gun of the T34/85...of which the Soviets lost huge numbers in the Battle for Berlin. So in a fight with the US in this time frame, the Soviet Armored Corps is a mere shadow of what it went into Berlin with.

[QUOTE=nota;3953897]we had about 20 M26 tanks in europe[QUOTE=nota;3953897]
I think it was actually 200. Regardless, the US' fast transport capability can make it 1,000 in a week, if the tanks are ready to be shipped. The US sea lift capability in 1945 is absolutely without peer in the history of mankind.

This is a legitimate point, that i already stated myself. Of course, the Russians, suffering 26 million dead by 1945, were in no mood for more war either.

The P-80 was an entire generation ahead of the Russians best fighters, and was in production and scheduled to be delivered in massive numbers by the start of 1946.

Really? Is that why the US made sure it maintained a huge fleet of them all during the Cold War? I'm sorry, but this is an ignorant statement. The US Navy could've blockaded the Soviets and the USMC and US Army could have landed massive field armies BEHIND the Soviets forward positions in Europe.

The costs would have been immense. No doubting that. As for the length, who knows, maybe a year, maybe less, maybe a little longer. Depends if the US wants to play the nuking game, in which case the war is probably over in a month, or less.

and you seriously don't think the Russian agents would not have stopped it


or that some of our own scientists would not have balked at the prospect of bombong Europe. get real.

What are you talking about? The US MK II was in regular serial production by 1946.

You thought our bomb development ended just because WWII did? The US had the materials to produce 8 Mk II devices by the start of 1946.


Correct. The Mk II little boy was produced in large numbers. BTW, nuclear weapons do not detonate. They initiate. :)

Because they were a broken shell of a military (and a nation) with no money, no materials without massive external US Aid, few men, and they were by 1945 on the verge of block obsolescence as the US fielded an entirely new generation of weapons systems. The US on the other hand, was finally just starting to hit full stride in 1945.

Seriously, this one has all the ingredients of a massive rout. Even without nukes.

The repercussions of Yalta went beyond the boundaries of Europe. Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, under control of the Japanese after the the Russo-Japanese War, were allowed to be seized by the Soviets...still in dispute.

Countries were sacrificed at Yalta meaning that the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would continue to be occupied by USSR for no rational reason.