USSR Declares war on allies after berlin?

From September 1940 to December 1946 the United States mobilize 16.1 million men, and our total casualties were around 400,000. Russia mobilized around 34 million total including what the US considered too old and too young or unfit for service, etc., and they were down to their last reserves towards the end from what I've read. From a WW2 fact s and stats sheet I have bookmarked, by the Winter/early Spring of 1945 from what the US had in Europe/England was over 3 million men (including the injured, inactive, support etc.). We also didn't fully mobilize nor take advantage of African-American manpower due to the Fascist views the United States used to have. Russian divisions were also much smaller than a US or "Western" division and towards the end they ran understrength due to losses and logistics, so 300 Russian divisions some not at full-strength (10,000 was full, they varied at how under they ran) was about the equivalent of over 100 US-West divisions.

If the US cut off lend-lease with all the logistical and support equipment, it would have been trouble as all the non-combat products were coming from us. In regards to the tanks, the M26 Pershing was taking out Tigers at the end of the war, so if the US started pumping out more Pershing tanks, the various upgraded Shermans, M24 for recon roles, the M18 which had a good gun and could go up to 60 mph, and M36 with the 90mm in the numbers it would be a fair fight. The West had better bombers from both the US and England, and the P51, P47, the Tempest, Typhoon, and Spitfire were more than formidable the West would have complete domination the US and England would have had at sea with the carriers and excellent US naval fighters. Patton was ready to head East and he felt combined Western allied tactics would overcome Russia from his various diaries, whether he wanted to re-activate German divisions to side with the West or not.

Every nation was war-weary and tired, including Russia. We were still fairly fresh at the end while Russia could have considered itself the most worn-out of the Allies, especially with losses to civilian population and infrastructure in European Russia.

 

Boots, trucks, food, communications devices, even rail cars came from the US. If all that aid with the arms materiel we and England sent Russia are cut off, and then supplied to the West while mobilizing more men from the African-American man-pool for combat roles plus anti-communists from Eastern Europe I believe the West had the edge.

 

When I looked it up some time ago I didn't see that "nukes" were specifically metioned. The quote was something more like a "powerful new weapon". Of course Stalin's spys had already informed him not only of the existance of the bomb but delivered at least some of the plans.

 

In France and Italy there were large numbers of armed Communist led guerrilla forces in the field and they would likely create problems for the allied forces, "anti communists" from Eastern Europe are likely to be a very mixed bag, including a lot of nazi sympathisers and some ethnic groups like the Cossacks that were not likely to be enthusiastic of fighting on the western allied side after the 1945 betrayals. Overall I think the Soviets have the edge were gathering local support is concerned, attempts to recruit German forces when the world is still under shock at the revelations of the holocaust is likely to do more harm than good to the west's cause, the "good German soldier" as opposed to the "bad Nazi/SS" myth is not yet there .

Where the west has a huge advantage is in having an intact rear area infrastructure in the US and nearly so in the UK while most of the Europe an the USSR is in shambles, but that will come into play only after the front stabilizes and not going to do anything to the initial lack of infantry in the front lines. IMO the late war Red Army was better at an operational level than either the Germans or the Western allies, though tactically the rigid doctrine made for high losses, whether they can pull off a Bagration in the face of allied logistical superiority is not sure, over the battlefield the Red air force is a force to recon with, so the sort of air interdiction capability that greatly contributed to the failure of late war German offensives is not going to be there and a lot will depend on the ability of the allied leadership to organize a defence after the initial shock, IMO it could go either way.

Possibly that war is going to be won or lost based on propaganda, both sides are extremely war weary and it's quite possible that continued hostilities against a former ally will fail to gather sufficient support leading to collapse in morale.

 

Probably missed something here, but wouldn't the Soviets need a proper RADAR in order to detect high flying bombers (or any) in order to intercept?...Otherwise it would be plain luck that an interceptor might find a bomber at 36,000, or even at 20,000.
Did the Soviets have capable RADAR then?

 

From what I've read the Soviets would have faced a severe famine in 45 and 46 if they hadn't been able to redirect troops and logistical resources towards harvesting and transporting the crops in those two years. If there is still a war on I don't see that in the cards. The additional problems caused by allied bombers hitting log centers fairly deep in the USSR is going to excerbate the problem. Don't forget that the West will be able to base bombers in Iran to hit targets in the USSR from that area as well.