USSR VS.USA - Page 4

redcoat · #76 (**permalink**) January 8th, 2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Historian:
When the KGB files were opened a few years ago, it was revealed that the Russians ALWAYS had a plan to invade Western Europe post-war.

The USA had plans to invade Canada in the 20's and 30's, its something a nations military always does even in peacetime, plan for every situation.

Alexanderr · #77 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 12:10 PM

Dear Andy W !

I wrote that US couldn't defeat USSR but I didn't write that USSR could defeat USA.

Yes, US could bomb Soviet cities, but in this case Red Army would quite rapidly smash that unlucky US divisions in Western Europe and capture Germany , France and Italy. Do you really think that Truman would order also to bomb Paris, Rome, Praha, Warsaw etc. and US POWs ( we would capture great numbers of them I suppose - in case of second "Dunkerque" British first would avacuate their own soldiers ).
So, a coulpe of bomb won't bring victory , just a draw; by the way ,we successfully fought against Germany without half of European Russia, so we could do the same with a "couple" of A-bombed cities.
And about what Red Army zenith do you write if during the Cold war our army became stronger than not only US Army , but entire NATO ! (OVD had more than 60.000 tanks)

Best regards.

[ 09. January 2004, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]

The_Historian · #78 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 04:49 PM

Redcoat,
Agreed, but the point I was making was that if the all-conquering Red Army was as invincible as some believe, why didn't they put it into action?
Because they knew the consequences.

Regards,
Gordon

T. A. Gardner · #79 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexanderr:
Let us compare US and USSR armies.
In 1945 totally 85 allied divisions (4.600.000 men )invaded Germany , while USSR had at the same time 12.000.000 men with 5.000 heavy, 12.000 medium ,9.000 light tanks and 10.000 SPG's, was unmatched in firepower ( only in the operation of Berlin we used 20.000 artillery pieces , mortars are not considered).
And what about "quality" ? US Army generally consisted of dogsboys (unlike US Navy and USAF).Only two US division had seen action when allies landed in Normandy. There Americans faced 56 second-quality demoralised German division,short of everything (compare it with 2.500.000 Germans at the East), and could defeat them only because they absolutely overhelmed them in number of men, all kind of weapons and air superiority.Americans are proud of Patton and Cobra, but they forget that it became successful only because in Normandy best Wermacht and SS divisions fought against British and Canadians, who desperately tried to hold the left flank of the invasion and tried to capture Caen(I think British veterans would approve my opinion). But when Americans faced really elite nazi forces in Ardennes, which again were short of fuel and had no air support, it became a complete disaster for yankee. Even in the April of 1945 the weakest German 12 Army could stop US divisions at Elba. So, GI were not very skillful warriors.
At the same time, the backbone of Soviet Army consisted of well-equiped veterans and talanted military leaders, who smashed Wermacht. In 1942 Germans had 6.000.000 excellent soldiers in Russia.In 1944 - only 2.500.000 and German losses by the January of 1944 were 3.000.000 men. I ask you , how many Germans had been killed by Americans by the same time ? In fact, the only help for Russians in the early period of the war was the stubborn resistance of 8'th Army in Africa.
Totally, Soviet Army destroyed 607 German divisions and 75% of thier weapond and equipment. Somebody wrote here about exellent B-17 , B-24 and Pershings. Has he heard something about JS-1 and JS-2 or La-7 and Yak-3? Corean war clearly showed that T34's were much better than Shermans.And indeed yes , P-51 was a splendid high-altitude fighter , but when in Romania two Mustangs attacked our ace Kozhedub ( he flew La-7 ,his score is more 60 German planes )by mistake , he had no options but to shoot one them,while another rapidly retreated.
So, the only advantage of US Army were A-bomb and its ally - British Army. Don't forget that Patton also wanted to throw Tommies back into English Channel. He greatly disliked everybody : Monty ( who , along with several other British generals, such as Dempsey and Horrocks ,in my opinion was the best and most talented Allied military leaders ), British, Russians, but treated Goring , the worst nazi criminal as the dear guest.
So does anybody still beleive that US could defeat USSR in May of 1945 ?

Where do I start with this nonsense?
Ok, starting at the top:
The Soviets produced just over 3300 IS 1 and 2 tanks prior to the end of WW II. Where does the 5000 number come from? A bit over 4000 IS series assault guns were produced in the same time period. The most common assault gun in Soviet service in 1945 was the SU 76 comprising well over 50% of those in service.
The US had in 1945 a total of 4,194,000 men in the ground forces WORLD WIDE. Of those, almost 600,000 were listed as ineffectives due to wounds, medical problems, etc. If one includes the French, British etc in the total invading Europe in 1944 it amounted to far less than the 4.6 million listed.
I also doubt (and this is without looking it up) that the combat strength of the Red Army much exceeded 3 million in 1945.
As to US Army quality: "Only two division (sic) had seen action when the allies (sic)landed in Normandy..."
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 36th, 45th Infantry Divisions, 82nd Airborne, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Armored Divisions had all seen action variously in North Africa, Sicily and or Italy prior to Normandy to name but a few. Most US divisions had been given 1 + years of training prior to going into action. Some, like the 88th to name one, had almost 2 years training. With a few exceptions (usually ones that had heavy draws on their manpower during training for replacements) US divisions performed quite well in combat. How many Red Army divisions got a year of training prior to going into action......Do I hear none?
"There Americans faced 56 second quality demoralized...." What nonsense. The 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th and 12th SS Panzer Divisions were second quality and demoralized?!! Lehr, 2nd, 9th, 11th and 116th Panzer second rate demoralized?!!! The 352nd ID on Omaha Beach second rate? The 3rd and 5th Fallschirmjäger second rate?!!! I could go on and on with this. The US (and other Western Allies) fought some of the cream of the German Army in 1944 and 45. Certainly, the same CANNOT be said for Army Group Center in July 1944 during Bagration where the Red Army with up to a 10 - 1 + advantage took well over 3 days just to break the German front and then still faced stout resistance once they managed to rout the initial defenses.
"At the same time, the backbone of Soviet Army consisted of well-equipped veterans..."
The 1st Guards Tank Corps was equipped entirely with US tanks in 1945. The most widely used "light" tank in Soviet use in 1945 was the British Valentine. The word Studebaker was synomous with "truck" due to the amount of lend-lease vehicles in use in the Red Army at the time. As to those veterans....in many Red Army units in 1945 the rank and file were impressed troops from the far flung reaches and recently liberated Eastern European nations who didn't even speak Russian. They couldn't even communicate with their officers! The Soviets were scrapping the bottom of the barrel for manpower in 1945.
"Totally, Soviet Army destroyed 607 German divisions..." The Germans in total didn't raise 607 divisions. The total was closer to 400 even if you include rebuilt divisions. How many Red Army divisions were destroyed (some as many as 3 or 4 times) during the war? The US had one division destroyed....the 106th Infantry. After France 1940 the British lost one division in Europe: 1st Airborne at Arnheim.
As I have already noted, from 1945 to present Soviet armor and Soviet style armored tactics and training has not won a single major armored action against Western armor using Western tactics. That includes Korea. ("Corean war clearly showed that T34's were much better than Shermans....").
The Red Army fought bravely in a desperate battle against Germany and prevailed in WW II. They took the brunt of the battle on land almost alone for much of the war. I do not wish to take anything from that achievement. But, it was a battle won far more by brute force against an overstretched and economically overmatched enemy than by finesse and superior tactical and operational technique.
The US and Britian, likewise had their flaws and strenghts and they too fought just as hard and successfully against Germany.
But, had the two (East and West) met in 1945 - 46 brute force alone would have given the Russians no advantage aganist the superior economic might and far better population reserves of the West.
So, I still believe the US could have defeated the USSR in May of 1945 even without nuclear weapons.

T. A. Gardner · #80 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexanderr:
Dear Andy W !

I wrote that US couldn't defeat USSR but I didn't write that USSR could defeat USA.

Yes, US could bomb Soviet cities, but in this case Red Army would quite rapidly smash that unlucky US divisions in Western Europe and capture Germany , France and Italy. Do you really think that Truman would order also to bomb Paris, Rome, Praha, Warsaw etc. and US POWs ( we would capture great numbers of them I suppose - in case of second "Dunkerque" British first would avacuate their own soldiers ).
So, a coulpe of bomb won't bring victory , just a draw; by the way ,we successfully fought against Germany without half of European Russia, so we could do the same with a "couple" of A-bombed cities.
And about what Red Army zenith do you write if during the Cold war our army became stronger than not only US Army , but entire NATO ! (OVD had more than 60.000 tanks)

Best regards.

It is unlikely that even given best odds, surprise and, everything going just so for the Red Army that it could have pushed beyond the Rhine even if virtually unopposed. Look at the battles fought in the East in 1944 and 45 by the Red Army. The furthest advances range from 200 - 300 miles in distance at which point the Red Army outruns its supply lines and halts. What always followed was a 6 to 8 month halt while the supply system caught up with the advance. Why should this change if there was an East - West conflict in 1945 - 46?
So, let's say this happens. The Russians reach the Rhine at most. The US, Britain, etc bomb the Soviet economy into the stone age (and, the longer the war goes the bigger the economic and scientific advantage to the West is. Just one example jets...The US and Britain had operational jets in May 1945. The Soviets didn't. Without the Rolls-Royce Nene no Mig 15 either later...Being saddled with nothing better than the Jumo 004 or 011 isn't going to cut the mustard against Western jets by mid 46). The Western nations will build up their forces faster than the Soviets can manage. At best (for the Soviets) a ground stalemate ensues. At worst the Soviets are ripped apart in a counter offensive. The likely outcome even in this scenario is the Soviets end up losing all of Europe and negotiating a peace at their original 1939 borders.

m kenny · #81 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

"Where do I start with this nonsense"

Well how about here:

"The Soviets produced just over 3300 IS 1 and 2 tanks prior to the end of WW II. Where does the 5000 number come from?"

Well the IS tanks built was 3854 in total not 3300 and then you should add in KV1,KV2,KVIs and KV85. That would add a further 4710 to the heavy tanks available (in theory, less losses)

"A bit over 4000 IS series assault guns were produced in the same time period. The most common assault gun in Soviet service in 1945 was the SU 76 comprising well over 50% of those in service".

Hmm.. again SU 76= 12661
SU122= 1148
SU 85= 2050
SU100= 1675
SU152= 704
ISU122/152= 4075

Isn't that 12000 against 9000 (again less losses)

Quote:

"Army Group Center in July 1944 during Bagration where the Red Army with up to a 10 - 1 + advantage took well over 3 days just to break the German front and then still faced stout resistance once they managed to rout the initial defenses"

3 whole days, wow! Compared to the 2 MONTHS it took the Allies to break out of Normandy you
mean?

"The 1st Guards Tank Corps was equipped entirely with US tanks in 1945"

Total Russian AFV production was 113000.

Total US Sherman tanks sent as aid was 4000
Indeed these Shermans were vital to the Russian war effort!

"The most widely used "light" tank in Soviet use in 1945 was the British Valentine"

Russia got 1388 Canadian and 1300-2300 British built Valentines. 2600 to 3600 second rate (and obsolete by even the West's inferior tank standards)vehicles that were not of any real combat use.
The Russians built 15000 of their own light tanks up to 1943.

AndyW · #82 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by T. A. Gardner:
"There Americans faced 56 second quality demoralized...." What nonsense. The 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th and 12th SS Panzer Divisions were second quality and demoralized?!! Lehr, 2nd, 9th, 11th and 116th Panzer second rate demoralized?!!! The 352nd ID on Omaha Beach second rate? The 3rd and 5th Fallschirmjäger second rate?!!! I could go on and on with this. The US (and other Western Allies) fought some of the cream of the German Army in 1944 and 45. Certainly, the same CANNOT be said for Army Group Center in July 1944 during Bagration where the Red Army with up to a 10 - 1 + advantage took well over 3 days just to break the German front and then still faced stout resistance once they managed to rout the initial defenses.

352. ID was a division of the the 21st "wave", raised in Winter 1943/44 with the 1926 born. Not even second rate. The Fallschirmjäger in 1944 were a scheme of the former "elite" troop.

In general, almost EVERY Division the Allies (no matter if West or East) were facing from 1943/44 onwards following were second, if not third rate, relatively compared to what the Russies were facing in summer 1941.

Quote:

The Soviets were scrapping the bottom of the barrel for manpower in 1945.

Very true.

Quote:

How many Red Army divisions were destroyed (some as many as 3 or 4 times) during the war? The US had one division destroyed....the 106th Infantry. After France 1940 the British lost one division in Europe: 1st Airborne at Arnheim.

Nice argumentation, but doesn't mean nothing: A division who isn't engaging the bulk of the enemy forces (like U.S. divisions between mid-1941 til 1943) has only a small chance of getting destroyed.

The Red Army as the sole killer of the German Army between 1941-1944 was the best life insurance for every British or American grunt. Between June 1941 and D-Day, the Russkies killed approx. 2 million Wehrmacht soldiers, including the creme de la creme of what the Reich could put into an uniform.

This are 2 million (plus wounded) less Krauts firing at the boys from Nebraska and Sussex.

To make it short, the Red Army had to fight her way through the German Army between 1941-45 to face a "fresh" U.S. Army who fought either on sideshows or what was left of the German Army between 1943-45.

Cheers,

T. A. Gardner · #83 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by m kenny:
Quote:

"Where do I start with this nonsense"

Well how about here:

"The Soviets produced just over 3300 IS 1 and 2 tanks prior to the end of WW II. Where does the 5000 number come from?"

Well the IS tanks built was 3854 in total not 3300 and then you should add in KV1,KV2,KVIs and KV85. That would add a further 4710 to the heavy tanks available (in theory, less losses)

"A bit over 4000 IS series assault guns were produced in the same time period. The most common assault gun in Soviet service in 1945 was the SU 76 comprising well over 50% of those in service".

Hmm.. again SU 76= 12661
SU122= 1148
SU 85= 2050
SU100= 1675
SU152= 704
ISU122/152= 4075

Isn't that 12000 against 9000 (again less losses)

Quote:

"Army Group Center in July 1944 during Bagration where the Red Army with up to a 10 - 1 + advantage took well over 3 days just to break the German front and then still faced stout resistance once they managed to rout the initial defenses"

3 whole days, wow! Compared to the 2 MONTHS it took the Allies to break out of Normandy you
mean?

"The 1st Guards Tank Corps was equipped entirely with US tanks in 1945"

Total Russian AFV production was 113000.

Total US Sherman tanks sent as aid was 4000
Indeed these Shermans were vital to the Russian war effort!

"The most widely used "light" tank in Soviet use in 1945 was the British Valentine"

Russia got 1388 Canadian and 1300-2300 British built Valentines. 2600 to 3600 second rate (and obsolete by even the West's inferior tank standards)vehicles that were not of any real combat use.
The Russians built 15000 of their own light tanks up to 1943.

Obviously you missed the part where Alexanderr lists those numbers as tanks in service in 1945. Even the numbers you give here show that his estimates are impossibly high. And, yes, in 1944 - 45 those lend-lease tanks were important. In Bagration for example, the 1st Guards was a leading element in the Russian breakthorough and later exploitation. As I stated, most of the SPG's were SU-76s. Where was this incorrect?
If such huge numbers were, in fact, available to the Soviets why were they not employed in their 1944 - 45 offensives where far more modest numbers are generally assigned to AFV available? Could it be that losses were quite heavy and in line with most German armored action accounts of combat on the East Front? I would suggest that that, in fact, is exactly the case. The Germans inflicted many times the AFV losses they themselves suffered on the Red Army. As a result, the Soviets had a mere fraction of the total production available for use in 1944 - 45.

The_Historian · #84 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 08:05 PM

Will someone be honest and admit that this "debate" is more about personal politics than history?

m kenny · #85 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

"Could it be that losses were quite heavy and in line with most German armored action accounts of combat on the East Front"?

I would love a single (verified) account where these 'high'losses can be confirmed.

AndyW · #86 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexanderr:
[QB] Do you really think that Truman would order also to bomb Paris, Rome, Praha, Warsaw etc. and US POWs ( we would capture great numbers of them I suppose - in case of second "Dunkerque" British first would avacuate their own soldiers ).

I don't know...why he should order a-bombs on Paris, Praha etc? Because Red Army Divisions are sitting there? Well, much better to a-bomb (or just threatening to a-bomb) "military targets" in Moscow, Odessa, Kiev, Minsk, Leningrad, Charkov instead. Or maybe Berlin, Chemnitz, Dresden if it needs to be.

Quote:

So, a coulpe of bomb won't bring victory , just a draw; by the way ,we successfully fought against Germany without half of European Russia, so we could do the same with a "couple" of A-bombed cities.

I think you dismiss the strategic effect of nuclear military power a bit too much. The fact that the USSR fought the German Army without Western USSR (but with the "brain" Moscow) doesn't automatically mean that they could do it a second time again against a world power approx. three times bigger than Germany was - with Moscow, Kiev etc. having the exact same town's silhouette like Nagasaki.

If the U.S. was no match for Stalin, why the hell he didn't wiped them out of Europe in spring 1945?

And if a couple destroyed USSR cities doesn't mean anything, why the hell did Uncle Joe didn't bring the worker's paradise to Calais? Don't tell me that he is just such a peace-loving guy.

And, for the U.S. "cakewalk to Moscow"-fraction:

If the USSR was on her knees, why didn't the U.S.A. went to Uncle Joe in Aug. 1945 saying "Listen, we have this nice little new nasty here, so you better let them Poles, Czech, Hungarians do as they want, otherwise we might be forces to see how Moscow looks like after an A-bomb drop.". Instead they even withdraw from captured German territory to stick to the Teheran / Potsdam deals.

Quote:

And about what Red Army zenith do you write if during the Cold war our army became stronger than not only US Army , but entire NATO ! (OVD had more than 60.000 tanks)

How strong teh USSR, the WP or NATO was during the Cold War 1950-1990 is completely irrelevant here, we're talking about 1945 and the Soviets were scrapping from the bottom of their manpower barrel at this time.

Cheers,

[ 09. January 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

T. A. Gardner · #87 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by m kenny:
Quote:

"Could it be that losses were quite heavy and in line with most German armored action accounts of combat on the East Front"?

I would love a single (verified) account where these 'high'losses can be confirmed.

That would be great. I agree completely with you. There are numerous posters here who, no doubt, could supply such accounts without me having to do so (making it more of a collective thing rather than me blathering on alone).

Quote:
Will someone be honest and admit that this "debate" is more about personal politics than history? The Historian[/quote]

I thought (at least) that my assessment given above was a reasonable approximation from historical evidence (ie., That the Red Army might get as far as the Rhine then suffer reverses that end in a Soviet Union back on its own borders having suffered the depredations of strategic bombing and, a negotiated peace). In the end, the historical analysis is that Stalin was smart enough to see that he couldn't win outright a military victory against the West in 1945 - 47 and, the West was unwilling to invest the political and economic capital into a costly war against him at the same time.

cristi · #88 (**permalink**) January 9th, 2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by framert:
Suppose we did what Patton wanted"knock out Russia" at the end of the war.Mass production vs mass production.Shermans vs T34's.For discussion purposes we'll leave "the bomb" out of it but still fighting Japan.In '45 we could'nt bomb Russian cities at will like we did Germany.How good would Patton's "pet" Sherman stand up against T34's.Any opinions? FramerT.

I think at that time Rusia was more powerfull in the continent than the US. Rusian tanks were greater than US tanks, and had more experience in fight. To destroy a tiger you'll need 4 shermans or 2 T34/85.
The winner was without any doubt Russia.

Alexanderr · #89 (**permalink**) January 10th, 2004, 01:27 PM

Fortunely, there is no need to comment Mr. Gardner's "noncence" statements about Soviet tanks and German elite western divisions after M Kenny's and Andy W's relpies.
If anybody wants, I can enlist here numbers of produced , lost and remained Soviet tanks of 1943,44,45 years.
I just want to say that I see difference between "US" and "Allies". Yes, Lehr, 12 SS , Frundsberg,Hohenstaufen, etc were indeed efficient , but they were engaged in combats with British and Canadians ! And I really doubt that "Overlord" would be successful if tommies failed to stop and beat that divisions.
And well trained US divisions were stopped on "Omaha" by just a regiment of 352 division ! I don't mention about other divisions consisted of relatively old men, boys, french tanks, trucks, horses and Ost battalions, who eagerly surrendered using the first chance.
"Juno" was as bloody as "Omaha", but unlike stalled Americans, Canucks rushed through German positions in spite of terrible fire. Also don't forget that all Marx's counter-attacks were directed to British sectors. And the comparison btween well-trained "Screaming Eagles", "ALL American" and "Ox&Bucks" for example is obvious.
By the way, "Frunsberg" saw its final action on the East. And what about "Tottenkopf", "Grossdeutchland", "Das Riech", etc. ?
The statement about Soviet soldires ,who couldn't speak Russian really impressed me. I guess this was taken from Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle".
You should read about Russians from Russian books. I take most of information (figures for example)about Allies from Hustings, Ambrose, Keegan, Eisenhower, Bradley etc.
When I write about 607 divisions I mean that all KIA, MIA, wounded , POWs along with lost weapons and equipment could form 607 divisions.
And from Mr. Gardners words it seems that during 1944-1945 Allies lost just 8.000 men, and all of them were British Red devils !
I don't know about any NATO vs. OVD war conflict.Please don't compare Arabs with Russians and Jews with Americans.

[ 10. January 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]

Alexanderr · #90 (**permalink**) January 10th, 2004, 01:43 PM

A couple of words about Rhine and A-bomb and advancing speed.
Please remember, that Allied communications were as bad as Soviet (and don't forget about seatale ). In 1943 we crossed Dnipper, which is as difficult obstacle as Rhine. Hitler called Dnipper position "unpenetratable". And I imagine how B-17 and B-24 , covered with British Gloster Meteors, throw A-bombs on Soviet,and at the same time US front line .
GI quite rapidly ran from Germans in Ardennes. Germans had no numeric superiority ,fuel,air support, and the terrain was difficult for advance and good for defence.So what about Soviet army ?
But I again want to repeat that the result of the USSR-USA conflict would be bombed USSR and European cities ,the disaster of US Army in West Europe - a terrible draw.

In addition I want you to excuse me for my English.

[ 10. January 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]

Vanguard · #91 (**permalink**) January 10th, 2004, 07:50 PM

To comments about the US Infantry retreating in the Ardennes, well, the Germans weren't exactly attacking experienced divisions there. They were mostly new recruits sitting in freezing weather confident the Germans didn't have the forces to attack them. The utter surprise the Germans had combined with the recruits inexperience, doesn't exactly give a good example of how a US soldier would normally act. However the US did manage to reform their line, and push the Germans back, eventually even further back.

If this is supposed to mean the US soldier could not stand up to an attack, they only retreated several miles into belgium, compare that to the Soviet retreat during Barborossa, where they had numerical superiority, they didn't fall back a few miles, they retreated all the way across European Russia, but I'm not going to say this should be used to show that the Soviet infantry couldn't fight. And the West had far better communications then the Soviets did, saying they were the same is ludicrous.

Now what is true, is that the Soviets by far had the more experienced and larger Army in Europe. But the West had manpower reserves, something the Soviets didn't enjoy, along with that the West had a nice big island the Soviets couldn't hope to touch (The Americas), where they are outproducing the Soviet homeland. The Soviets also have superior armor compared to the west, the T34 is better then the Sherman, however the West can and will produce more, and crew them, and the Sherman is being upgraded (I can't confirm this, but I believe by V-E day most Shermans are the 76mm version)along with newer designs that will reach the battlefield since America will not dismantle it's army or stop spending as it did after V-J day.

Now I have no doubt the Soviets will push the West back in the beginning, perhaps as far as the Alps and the Rhine, but I do not believe they can hope to advance any further then that without some kind of miracle. And they will be eventually pushed back across Europe perhaps into the Soviet Union, at which case I believe a negotiated peace is the most likely outcome, as the Soviets cannot continue the war, and the West does not want to continue it. This is the same reason the West did not tell Stalin to let go of his hold on Eastern Europe, they simply did not have the will to force him to do it, however had he tried to grab more, it's not really a matter of the West's will as they are forced to a confrontation, and they showed several times during the Cold War (The Berlin Airlift comes to mind) that they wouldn't just sit back.

redcoat · #92 (**permalink**) January 10th, 2004, 08:52 PM

I must be honest, I'm not sure who would win in a war between the USA and the Soviet Union, but I am sure that whatever happened it would have been a blood-bath for both sides no matter who won.

KnightMove · #93 (**permalink**) January 10th, 2004, 09:52 PM

Another interesting question about the consequences: What would be the aftermath of this war? Would it be considered as part of WW2, or as a subsequent war?