What if the US had fought Soviet Russia after Germany was defeated, as Patton wanted?

I think the Russians would have slaughtered the western allies, their armies were bigger, more experiences with breakthrough warfare, (aka blitzkrieg), and had a massive air force, almost equivalent to the allied air forces. Th only disadvantage the USSR would have had is that hey has no equivalent to the US and British long range heavy bombers.

Any thoughts?

Patton had it set up so that Waffen SS units the very best ones would be intergrated into his 3rd army to fight the russians. With the germans experience and the Allies never ending manufacturing capabilities it would have given the russians a run for their money. The Allies could have easily rebuilt the german Industrial infastructure manufactering Jagedpanzer and Tiger tanks at a huge rate. The Russian airpower although greatly improved from the begining of the war was still primitive in comparison with that of the allies. They just couldnt mass produce the technology. Its a myth that the russians were capable of out producing the Allies, they never beat the United States in the Arms race in the cold war. They bankrupted themselves trying, but they never could.

------------------
Out side is America!

But I'm thinking 1945 not later. At the height of the war, the Germans had about 60 divisions fighting against the western Allies in Norway, Italy, and France. In the East against the Russians the Germans had some 200 divisions, and many of these were crack SS and Panzer divisions. That alone says that at the time, in Europe, the Russians had a huge superiority in ground forces.

As well, the Russian were willing to accept horrible losses in combat where the US and British forces were both less willing and able to do so. Think about it, there were several battles in the East where the Soviets suffered more casualties in men lost, than than there were participants on both sides of the DDay invasion!

I dont think the allies would do that, the truth is the Allies working with the Germans, because towrds the end of the war the Germans had always wanted to continue to fight for their war in the east and doing it with the allies would be a morale booster. The germans would think themselves unstopable. In Many of the larger battles the Germans just didnt have enough Ammo to kill all the Russians, but the Allies usually didnt have as much as a supply and logistics problem so that would have factored.

I don't think the Soviets would have succeeded even if we're talking immediately after V-E day. Yes, it would have been an absolute blood bath for the western allies on the ground as the Soviet war machine was sweeping though europe. But if the west held on long enough, they certainly would have won. Here's why:

As early as June, B-29 XX and XXI Bombardment Commands were grouped under the newly-formed US Strategic Air Forces, Pacific, under the command of General Carl A. Spaatz. LeMay often boasted that if duty called, he could re-route "sizable" numbers of B-29s to Europe, as Boing had by now solved their earlier production delays and was pumping copies of the heavy bomber out quite healthily.
The Superfortress, augmenting B-17 and B-24 bomb groups (which by now could operate on the European continent) would sway the Soviet advance considerably. And I'm not even mentioning the A-bomb. Remember - it was the fire raids which caused more damage/casualties per city.......

I think in 1945, in the ruins of Europe, civilians do not want any more war, thank you.
So much work, so much to rebuild, so much deads...

With 20,000,000 deads, soviet were not too hot for another war themselves. And i think most of the GIs had enough slaughter for their taste.

Why would anyone in his right mind ask for more disaster in 1945? The nazi war criminals were not even trialed at the time, millions of people had not enough to eat, or a roof to sleep under!

A moderate Nazi government would have most likely remained in power and with a war, there is money to be made and with that industrial products, jobs for all which means food for all.

I think that a war with the allies and russia would have been a blood bath but i think the allies would have won. maybe a pyric victory but won. The Russian airforce was huge but they had some poor designs. The allies airforce was comprable but also more sophisticated covering all fields of an airwar. The allies would have introduced better tanks for i hope they would assume the sherman wouldn't stand a chance. Plus the allies could fight them on 2 fronts. Allied forces could have mad landings on the pacific coast of Russia and also they had airbases in Japan from which to bomb from. Also don't forget we had the bomb and they didn't too!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Ron:

Allied forces could have mad landings on the pacific coast of Russia and also they had airbases in Japan from which to bomb from
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought we’re taking about a conflict immediately after V-E day (May 45), not V-J day (August)?

So no air bases on Japan. And the idea of U.S. landings in West Siberia comes puzzling to me. What the hell would they do AFTER landing there? Fighting off the entire Russian Manchurian Army? With an intact Japan in your flank (Operation DOWNFALL can’t be done while your Marines are somewhere lost in Yakutia!) threatening every U.S. supply ship passing the Kuril Islands. How many man and equipment do you need to provide supply? Strange idea.

The A-bomb was tested on July 16, 1945, until that day the U.S.A. _needed_ the USSR for supporting their (until this time seemingly necessary) invasion of Japan homeland. Maybe the U.S. would have even appeased Stalin with giving away its part of Germany. Not even the mighty U.S.A. wasn’t able to fight off the SU _and_ invade Japan.

Why were leading U.S. Generals (incl. Marshall) and politicians very concerned about a Soviet invasion of Western Germany in the post-war area - even with the A-bomb in their hands?

If the U.S. forces were that superior by May 45, why did they retreated from occupied German territory?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Erich Hartmann:

...But if the west held on long enough, they certainly would have won. Here's why: [snip] The Superfortress, augmenting B-17 and B-24 bomb groups (which by now could operate on the European continent) would sway the Soviet advance considerably. And I'm not even mentioning the A-bomb. Remember - it was the fire raids which caused more damage/casualties per city.......
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This comment caused me to remember a joke which Richard Evans was posting somewhere else long ago:

Two russian tank commanders, old friends, run into each other while on leave in Paris. "By the way," one of them asks the other, "Do you know who won the air war?"


Soviet Air Force (VVS) strength of front-line aircraft in service on Jan. 1, 1945:
Fighters 5184, Attack 3845, Bombers 1857, Misc 644 in European Russia. There were another 3500+ aircraft in the Far East. This adds up to some 15,000 a/c.

Technically (I am no expert in this, thus I have to rely on Vladimir Fadeitsev’s, Y. Michelet’s and espec. Scott Fraser’s knowledge), “the last generation of Soviet fighters (La-7, La-9, Yak-3, Yak-9P) were formidable aircraft”, especially below 15,000 feet. (“Free-French fighter pilots fought alongside the Russians 1943-45 were very satisfied with their Yak-3s”). There were a handful of encounters near the end of the Second World War where Soviet and American pilots mistook each other for the enemy. These engagements were pretty much inconclusive — each side lost aircraft to the other.” Not a sign of better U.S. air quality.

Let’s assume that the US/CW Air forces were about twice as large as the VVS. This is without doubt air supremacy. Air superiority still need to be gained by the U.S. And this wouldn’t be a matter of days, but weeks.

BTW, operational radius of the B-29: 1,800 miles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Yankee:

Patton had it set up so that Waffen SS units the very best ones would be intergrated into his 3rd army to fight the russians. With the germans experience and the Allies never ending manufacturing capabilities it would have given the russians a run for their money. The Allies could have easily rebuilt the german Industrial infastructure manufactering Jagedpanzer and Tiger tanks at a huge rate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manufacturing capabilities? Rebuilt German industry? Jagdpanzer? Tigers? The logistic nightmare of maintaining Tigers and Jagdpanzers within U.S. Services aside, how long would you believe it would take until this bears fruits? How long in comparison would it take for an SU shock army to reach the British channel?

The idea that there is ANY chance that a GI or a French or a Brit would fight as a brother in arm with his new SS-“comrades” is as lurid (Eisenhower discussing troop deployments with Himmler?) as it totally ignores the fact that it was exactly the time where the world learned about what had happed in German KZ’s. A SS-U.S. coalition would have been political suicide and belongs to the category of wishful dreaming of SS veterans.

Personally, I believe that some GI’s would rather have shot at their new SS “comrades” than on their new red enemies. IMHO, the average GI in mid-45 didn’t had a motivation to fight against the SU. For what? Poland? Or for “KZ-Germany”?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Two russian tank commanders, old friends, run into each other while on leave in Paris. "By the way," one of them asks the other, "Do you know who won the air war?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I love that joke.

About the Free French in escadrille Normandie Nyemen, their story is well known in France. They were doing good with "inferior" Russian plane against the Luftwaffe, I doubt P47 or P51 would have swept the sky of Soviets in low altitude dogfights over rushing Red Army T34 brigades.

USSR armaments industry was for away in the East, well beyond Stalingrad. Nobody actually knew where they were, the U2 spy plane wasn't there at the time. You can't A Bomb a military target if you don't know where it is. Sure you can attack civilians, that won't change anything of the combat power of the Red Army. Maybe just enrage them more.

German industry was already destroyed, slaves POW freed. "Secret Weapons" were not operationnal, there was no better tank ready in may (or august) 1945 for the Sherman. Most of the european partisans would have turned against the US in case of a war, because most of the partisans were communists.

BTW Yankee, do you actually believe there is money to be made and prosperity for all in Germany when after 6 years of total war, 4,200,000 killed 5,000,000 wounded 3,500,000 POW or MIA and a ruined country you start another war on your homeland?

I wonder why we bothered with a Marshall Plan then.

Technically (I am no expert in this, thus I have to rely on Vladimir Fadeitsev’s, Y. Michelet’s and espec. Scott Fraser’s knowledge), “the last generation of Soviet fighters (La-7, La-9, Yak-3, Yak-9P) were formidable aircraft”, especially below 15,000 feet. (“Free-French fighter pilots fought alongside the Russians 1943-45 were very satisfied with their Yak-3s”). There were a handful of encounters near the end of the Second World War where Soviet and American pilots mistook each other for the enemy. These engagements were pretty much inconclusive — each side lost aircraft to the other.” Not a sign of better U.S. air quality.

Let’s assume that the US/CW Air forces were about twice as large as the VVS. This is without doubt air supremacy. Air superiority still need to be gained by the U.S. And this wouldn’t be a matter of days, but weeks.


A very interesting and "gray" area you bring up, Andy. But I think you're still being a little conservative in saying that U.S. air superiority would take weeks.
From the looks of it, the struggle would have been considerably longer. Yes, the Yak-3, La-p, and Yak-9Ps were popular with Soviet pilots, but this was when they were pitted against aircraft such as Stukas, ME-109s (even the nimble K model), FW-190s and the like. Now, If it is widely believed that American high-altitude fighters such as the P-51, P-47, and P-38 were BETTER than their Luftwaffe rivals, I'm going to make a logical deduction that the Americans had superior aircraft to anything in the Soviet inventory.

But Herr Hartmann, what about the sheer numbers of aircraft and troops that the Soviets had at the time!?! You forgot about that.....

No, I didn't. American planes would be FAR outnumbered. And yes, in the log run the USAAF would ultimately lose. But as mentioned earlier, it was a matter of simply buying time and holding the red star while getting a foothold of the heavy bombers - most noteably the B-29.
These Superfortresses would not operate from the Pacific, either. Boeing's Renton and Wichita plants did officially stop production until around October, 1945 - and many of these went to England. Well within range to meet the Soviets.

Now that we're thinking about it in depth, it is a good thing that none of this happened

There was an instnace about 15 years ago here in the US were a group of communist labor workers were picketing outside their jobs. A group of Neo-Nazis sees the people (this was all caught in great detial on Camera) and the Neo nazis pull over to the curb casually get out of their cars, open the trunks, get out assault rifles and begin shooting down the communists. They ended up killing like 8 or 10 of these guys. it was all caught on Camera. yet when this went to trail not a SINGLE nazi was convicted they were all aquicted of the crime.

This basicly shows that in America us Americans dont like Nazis but we sure as shit hate communists and would take Nazis over communists anyday.

Ever read Greant Santini? there is this long rant by the main charecter Col. Meecham about communism vs. Nazism and how basicly the nazis werent that bad. kinda funny.

------------------
Out side is America!

Well Yankee, now i understand better why for most people in the 50s Stalin was the Peace Champion and the USA the Bad Guy, Fascist, Greedy and Imperialist.

I don't get the two Russian tank commander joke, the one about the air war.

I hope that comment was sarcastic....I mean man who genocided over 20 million people in Siberia could hardly be called a peace champion.

LOL pep i dont get it either...or at least if i do i dont think its all that funny. I guess its suposed to be saying how it made no difference to the Russians who won the air war.

Stalin was actually not a "Peace Champion", but after the action of the communists partisans during the war, and their sacrifice, Communism had a very high prestige in France (or Italy, not speaking of Eastern Europe).
Now what do you think was people reactions when they heard some crazy US generals were willing to fight with the most hated Waffen SS against Comrade Stalin, who saved them all?
Remember that nobody knew at the time about the Goulag, stories about concentration camps in USSR were just Capitalist Propaganda...

That's why in case of a USA vs USSR war in Europe in 1945, most of the partisans would have fight against USA. (in western europe at least, i'm not speaking for rapped east Germany)

Remember too than even if civilians were (extremely) glad to US and brits for the D Day, the same civilians had tens of thousands of deads because of the Allied bombing in occupied France. That and the Mers El Kebir Treason (Royal Navy sinking neutral Vichy France fleet), excellent for anti-US propaganda ("they'll come and never get away!").

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yankee:
I hope that comment was sarcastic....I mean man who genocided over 20 million people in Siberia could hardly be called a peace champion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you get the 20 M figure from?

Alternatively, I would say 10 M at highest (which of course makes it better by quantity).

[Start Necrophiliation]
2.2 M died in GULag + 0.8 M executed for political reasons + 0.6 M death due to exiling = 3.6 M

Next are the deaths caused by the “artificial” famine: This number goes from 0.7 M (Communist downplaying) up to fantastic 7 M (Urainian nationalists). Let’s take 5.5 M, even though it’s disputable how “artificial” this famine really was.

That ends up at 9.1 M.
[End Necrophiliation]

German Nazism caused 50 M deaths until one beast killed the other beast.

Pop quiz: How many people died because of Capitalism and U.S. Imperialism so far?
How many Native American Indians died because of the invasion of their country and during the Reservation process?

Thanks.

P.S.: No, I’m not a Commie. But I’ve have to admit: I’ve got a slight PC bone in me: I’m against genocide.

From my understanding around 20 million Russians died during the war. The highest, most extreme estimates puts that up to 35 million.

Every mainstream estimate I have seen about the deaths caused by stalin are around 30 million, but I've read as high as 40 million.

Also, many russians died during the war because of Stalin's ridiculous purges of the officer corps in the Red Army. Stalin even condoned anti-Jewish pogroms and all this on his own people!.

Both men were absolute monsters, but at least Hitler was fairly decent to most germans.

Guys let get this back to the mainstream, i dont want to have this Neo-communist anti-American, Anti-capitlist propaganda, basicly that is what is. Stalin is one of the most Evil men in history, he is reposnsilbe for the deaths of Millions! he was a greater mass murderer then Hitler. He was an evil man who created the "evil empire" which is really the best way to put it because the Russians would never cease their agressions. And i see your name tag says your from Germany, and if you are infact from Germany i dont know how you could like a man who split your country into 2 and caused so much suffering and and division.

I dont have any problems with peoples own political beleifs, but i will not tolerate anyone trying to put the United States, Canada, or England on the same scale as the USSR for attrocities.

------------------
Out side is America!

Hear! Hear!

Anyways, back on topic.

I'm pretty sure that at the end of hostilities, the Soviet Army was much bigger than the combined western Armies. Had things turned hostile, the soviet ground forces would have advanced to the French coast in a a matter of weeks. Not enough time for the allies to transfer any b-29s to the theater or begin production of any of the German AFVs. England would have been a different story, with the US and UK aircraft engaged in a life or death struggle with the Red AF. Strategic interdiction of the USSR's industry would not be the problem it was for the Nazis, remember, most Soviet factories were still over the Ural mountains at the time.

Any thoughts?

The russians would have most likely ran right into the Magnot line......

The russian horde probably wasnt capable of advancing through the Ardennes.

------------------
Out side is America!

Sorry Yankee, ur wrong.
The Maginnot line was no more at the time, dismantled to build the Atlantic Wall.
BTW, it didn't cover the Belgium border so they didn't need to cross the Ardennes. And even if they wanted to try, T34 were much better than Panzers on difficult grounds...