Not the case you say???

I always find it funny how the only countries that believe that Russia can loose in 6 months to a year are the ones who have never invaded it.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

This thread is a

__________________

A little spice never hurt anyone!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Does anyone have rocks in their pillows?

lwd, you stated that America could have created fronts in the Mid-East, Sibera, China, and Europe, even as much as harasment actions there. I might be able to buy in on the initial creation of such fronts, but I see this more of a stratigical error than asset.

Assume that these fronts now become active, the Russians retreat (we all know there is plenty of space for this) and if the diversionary fronts are to work they must advance. Supply lines now get longer, and more men are needed to fill the space. At some point (most probably Europe) the destruction of the Russian army needs to happen, for this you want to use every tool available. the diversionary fronts are just that they divert American or British men away from where they are needed.

If you argue that the Russians could have been starved out, the Ukraine would have to be taken, with this in their custody they could produce enough food for the whole nation. While Sloniks story of only bread and water may be a little much, this would not have been the case with the Ukraine producing grain.

To sum up, if you wanted to make the Russians divert men from the main fight you would have to make major fronts, with millions of men and this is out of the supply scope in 45 and probably for years after. Food would not have been and issue at least in the begining.

__________________
The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands..." — Mohamed Akram. http://jihadwatch.org/

The point that I was trying to make was that unlike all of the other armies in WW2, The Russian soldier almost always fought on an empty stomach...

Sorry if I wasnt clear

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Indeed they could give up the Far East with little strategic effect militarily. If the US follows slowly they can build the infrastructure to support a significant force. I don't see how they can advance quickly so that front may stabilize with the forces pretty well divide. China would take a longer period of time due to the infrastructure requirements but in the long run might threaten some of the Soviet industrial areas. IN Europe and the Mid-East there is less room for them to fall back and the consequences are greater (for instance fence sitting nations may join the allies). The other problem is that the Soviets can't win by sitting on the defensive and they will have a hard time launching an offensive after a possible initial one since they will have a hard time protecting their logistics assets and centers. Not really. All that has to happen is convince them that either a they can't win or b they'd be better off without Stalin and Communism.
Again not really. The problem the Soviets had at the end of WWII is that they basically had their choice of doing 2 out of 4 things well or 3 out 4 ok. They could field a large army. They could move things around. They could manufacture things. or they could grow food. That's why they demobilized so quickly. Many of the former soldiers were moved closer to the agricultural centers and were used to harvest and move the crops. The Soviets and Stalin seamed to have a very good understanding of their logistic short comings (unlike the Germans) and were careful not to operate outside what they could support. Indeed the rush to Berlin may have had as much to do with ending the war in time to avert a food crisis as it did with prestige.

The 'elephant in the room' of the Atom bomb's only been mentioned in the first few posts and later in a cold war context.
If this is 1945/46 it exists, then where does it fit in?
All this talk of train tracks, rations, multiple fronts, etc. etc. seems to skirt it as an absolutely central issue.
Rather hard to plan logistics, or make any plan at all, if crucial areas are being turned into sheets of glass.

What of 'The Bomb'?


Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

They demobilized so quickly because there was no longer any reason to field 7 million soldiers. Not any of the other reasons stated ( as some may been a drain on the economy or any economy on that matter ) Look at China today, they can field 50 million men, why dont they, because there is no need for them to do so.

You might want to read all of the posts and not just Tikilal's as most of what you have stated has already been addressed above.

Nothing really, after Japan US only had one, and delivering it might have been a problem...... besides the Soviets had their own a few years later.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I have to say that Za and Sloniksp admiration and devotion to the former Soviet Regime is admirable but their belief that the Soviets pre nuclear capability invincibility against the combined strength of the Western Allies and The Axis is misplaced it is just flawed.

After the first two Atomic bombs used on Japan, it is my understanding that fuel for any additional atomic bombs was a year or two away. Time for lots and lots of 'conventional warfare' in a continuation war with the SU. The odds favored exactly the war of attrition that Stalin would have relished and the Allies would have abhored.

My understanding is somewhat different. The US didn't have any more bombs in August but by December of 45 could have been producing at least 1/month. They didn't set off a bomb until August of 49. Way too late to have much effect on the war.

As for demobilization doing it significantly faster than the West doesn't seam in character for Stalin.

Slon, you can't just shrug off the bomb so easily.
USA had 3 fully prepared bombs ready for operation crossroads in July 1946, any continuation of the immediate conflict in '45 would have accelerated, and increased commitment to, bomb production. Refinements not required, anything nuclear that went 'bang' would be considered acceptable and even one device in the right place could be catastrophic for any target.

The Soviets would not have been exactly sanguine about the possibility of their use either (in a world where 2 major cities had recently been levelled).
It's important to consider they would be unaware of the true status of the US program, and as 40 years of cold war proved the threat of the bomb can be just as powerful as the actuality.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

Your "ad hominem" statements and sniping are becoming boring. Please check the thread and see if I said anything remotely similar to the words you are trying to put in my mouth. I have ceased to contribute to this thread several days ago already, except to try to pacify things.

However, I have to say I find your signature very appropriate.

Thank you.

__________________

I like elephants, so I would prefer to leave him be, there in the corner.

__________________
The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands..." — Mohamed Akram. http://jihadwatch.org/

In 1945 the A-bomb was not yet the be-all, end-all weapon that it eventually became after a decade or so, when there were hundreds or even thousands stockpiled by both the US and USSR. In fact, near the end of WW2 it was the conventional bombing that actually was more devastating to enemy targets (see Tokyo and Dresden firebombings).

It was more so the Soviet Unions declaration or war that precipitated Japans fast surrender than the 2 A-bombs. Additionally, having the A-bomb did not stop Uncle Joe from snatching up everything he could in the West after WW2.

What was the US to do? A-bomb everything in a continuation war with the SU? Unacceptable, immoral...............the world would not have stood for it.

As they would equally not have stood for a continuation war in the first place.

(aware of the contemporary bomb's limitations mate, just feel it remains too large a geopolitical & military factor to have been discarded so easily.)

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

I thought the lesson of WWII armor was that an inferior tank with superior numbers and tactics can defeat a superior tank (T-34 or Sherman versus Tiger)

plb

Those were the ones who were killed in WWI
plb

If you think about it, being the sole possessors of the know-how to produce a nuclear device, the US probably could have done what it damned well please after the war, toward our allies as well as the enemy.