Oh, I absolutely agree. Stalin was particularly charismatic and I don't think he was necessarily "evil" - maybe a bit of a paranoid schizophrenic. I think he's a larger than life character. But like all great men, he had an agenda, and he certainly had his convictions that he was doing the "right" thing. But Hitler also thought he was doing the "right" thing for Germany. Apropos, Saddam is now harping that the invasion of Kuwait was "for the people." But I don't think morality is always a matter of perspective - and such a discussion is beyond the scope of this thread.

__________________
"I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience." - Admiral Wilhelm Canaris

Thank you, you're very kind. I have to take exception with your second statement. I have to remind you that, opposite to the person you mention, I never lost an election.

__________________

Think some forum member has some identity problem involving his avatar…

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

He had me convinced!

__________________
"I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience." - Admiral Wilhelm Canaris

Had to find about that Sakhalin oil buziness. I think it was not worth it to bomb it for the Japs as they were getting some oil from there as well, though not alot anymore as the 1938-39 aggression had made some damage to both sides.

http://www.oilru.com/or/15/176/


???

__________________

An extremely interesting footnote of history.

I had no idea this was going on in my own backyard*

* note inserted to annoy Friedrich

__________________

I would definately have to agree with those that have stated that in the short term the US army would have been steam rolled by the red army in 1945.

If you look at the number of troops which both armies possessed at the time you'll see that the red army possessed an overwhelming superiority.

According to this website which outlines the number of divisions available to each coutry during the course of the war the numbers are as follows for 1945:

USA: 94 Divisions
USSR: 491 Divisions

http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/

As you can see the disparity in numbers is quite enormous, and put quite simply, 94 US divisions versus 491 soviet divisions simply dont stand a chance.
In my opinion there is no doubt that the Red army would have won in a confrontation with the US in 1945.

[ 19. July 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: The_Man ]

In war, numbers alone confer no advantage...Sun Tzu

In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one…Napoleon

For it is not by the numbers of the combatants but by their orderly array and their bravery that prowess in war is wont to be measured...Procopius

Just a few quotes from history that show that bean counting alone means little. So, on that basis alone, your statement "As you can see the disparity in numbers is quite enormous, and put quite simply 94 US divisions versus 491 soviet (sic) divisions dont stand a cnance." is no measure of success or likely outcome....

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

What about those 400 divisions being all battle-hardened, well-equipped, well-supplied, with good tactics and with some amazing commanders? Does that count?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Maybe, but "Quantity has a quality all its own" - Me

__________________

I'd say that would be absolutely true in the beginning - a morale crushing strike with swarms of soviet troops smashing through Allied lines up and down the front. - almost brings a tear to your eye, eh Koba? Isn't this what we saw in Korea with Chinese forces? Eventually, though, I think that soviet weaknesses would be revealed and exploited. A decisive victory would hinge on the first few weeks of the conflict - Soviets racing through the low lands? - another Allied Dunkirk?

Q: What about a winter offensive? After the rasputitsa - how better prepared were the Soviets for winter fighting in 1945 - 1946 than the Allies, in general?

__________________
"I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience." - Admiral Wilhelm Canaris

Well, I can go over this one more time I suppose.
Let's start with historical Soviet advances of the period. None made more than about 300 miles before they ran out of steam due to, if to nothing else (as in Bagration), the failure of the logistics train to be able to keep up. This means the furthest the Soviets could advance even if virtually unopposed is roughly the Rhine. There they would have to sit for 4 to 6 months before making another lunge forward. Their logistics and engineering systems have not changed in the few months since the end of WW II so, this assumption is quite valid.
Next, of the 400 or so divisions in existance in 1945 the bulk are infantry units of which about half are available in the West for use. Of those, many were below full strength and likely to stay that way most of the time. So, it is more like about 125 division equivalents per side (the British et al included in that count). This, of course, assumes no major draw down by the Western Allies as actually happened.
Of course, in part, how much surprise the Soviets achieve will also play a role in how well they do. Little surprise, small gains. Major surprise they sit on the Rhine and await round two where they get pounded.
Other factors to consider are terrain which for most of Germany is not open steppe or flat plain but rather wooded, hill country and large urban areas many of which already have been seriously damaged by bombing etc. This will complicate and slow their advance along with raising casualities considerably.
The backlash by populations in occupied areas would also have to be considered. Would the Poles and other units among the Soviet forces fight reliably? Would there be a partisan resistance to contend with? What about other fronts? The Pacific and Siberia would have to be heavily garrisoned to prevent a US invasion from that direction as would the Black Sea region and Iranian front both potential zones for operations. After all, the Soviets effectively have no real navy. Their submarines had the worst combat record of any navy in WW II. They acutally lost more submarines than ships sunk by their submarines!
Winter? The US and Allies are not Germany. No frozen truck motors, no complete lack of winter clothing, engineers with equipment to maintain roads and bridges (even build them if necessary) and, a good amount of artic experiance (Alaska remember....). Their weapons work in cold weather so, the Soviets would find no advantage there. On the other hand, bad weather works to the advantage of the Allies in terms of air power as their airforces can effectively bomb through cloud cover, operate at night, etc. The Soviets are still almost entirely a fair weather air force.
Now, this doesn't mean it would have been some Allied cake walk either. But, the initial gains the Soviets might have made would have been ephemiral at best and in the long run would have cost them far more than they had already gained at the conclusion of WW II.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Generally I have to agree with Gardner's objections. If there was an offensive after the Fall of Berlin, it would take a few months for reorganization, replenishment, replacement integration, etc while the sappers would be working like crazy to recondition the very extended supply lines.

The Soviet fronts in Western Europe would be at the end of an extremely long logistical tether, while the 9th Air Force was very much adept at dealing with this sort of things.

Of course we could postulate on a quick demobilization of the Allies, but by then the Soviets also needed to bring hands back to the economy.

So we have a variety of scenarii to start from but this requires some elaboration as we have to start from a few far-fetched suppositions, but that's what What-Ifs are for. However there are some inescapable objections which have to be levelled, such as the fact that all forces were pretty much demoralised by the end, as nobody wanted to day in the last hour of the war. And after this having to start all over again against a different enemy? I guess it wouldn't really work.

[ 19. July 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

__________________

This may be truth, but if I remember correctly: 'Bagration' advanced 600 km and killed, wounded or captured 500.000 Germans.

I never said the Soviets would have reached the Atlantic. But maybe they didn't need to. Advancing 200 km and annihilating half million of your enemies is more than enough.

This is quite right. But I wouldn't underestimate the Soviets on the surprise issue. 'Maskirovka' was one of the most genial surprise systems ever performed in warfare.

But we all agree on something: the USSR would lose all its advantages, tactical and strategical after 6 months of combat with the western allies, even after enormous victories.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Who said the Soviets have to advance anywhere? The original "what-if" was if Patton got his wish...to take out Russia. That means the Allies are on the offensive fighting through those "bombed out"streets,cities etc. And as I said before,the Allies[wondering how much help the U.S. will have on this]still faced an assault on mainland Japan.I'm thinking we'd concede some territory instead of bloodshed.All of Berlin for instance.

__________________

Line up the 490 Soviet Divisions and gimme the US bombers... Or better still save an atomic bomb from dropping on Japan... Send in PAtton and nuke the Soviets first...


Ok maybe a little extreme...

What gonna happen to all the German POWs at this time while the US is sluggin it to the USSR???

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Good question Red,ahhh,digging tank-traps for those Pershings???

__________________

Well why use Allies when you have all those battle hardended Jerries sitting around???

Just tell em to get Ivan and sit back... MAybe lend them a few tanks on hire purchase...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Almost forgot about our POW's....well stick them in Shermans in case "they" double-cross us....won't be too hard to take them out. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________

Well, the US could have. After all, there were just over 1000 75mm Shermans in depots in Europe on VE day awaiting issue to units (no one wanted the 75mm variety thus, they sat in depots).

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

I knew TA was going to hammer me on this.

__________________