What stopped the Soviet Union?

At the end of world war II both the soviets and americans did not like each other. What stopped the Soviet Union from invading western europe before America built up thier stock pile of nukes? I bet that they probably would have won because at the time the Red Army was the wost powerful military on the earth. Even Stalin told his advisors that it would only be a matter of time before the Soviet Union and America went to war with each other.

 

Welcome SV!

Personally I think that war tiredness was the main thing. After 4 years of war and huge losses you definitely need a rest...And after all Stalin probably got more that he ever hoped for in Europe!

 

The fact that the US did have a very powerful army right at the end of the war. Also, the fact that the US economy was far stronger and that the USAAF possessed aircraft and weapons (the B-29 and nukes) that the Soviets essentially had no defense against.
Given Soviet performance throughout WW II and best outcomes for them, an invasion of Western Europe might have carried them to the Rhine before they were crushed by the ensuing counter offensive. The loss of major industry throughout the Soviet Union to Allied bomber attack (the US using B-29's at high altitude with nukes and the British using night bombing against which the Soviets had no defense either) would have ensured a collapse of the economy in a matter of a few months.
Also, the US would likely have invaded places like Sakalin Island (25% of Soviet oil production) and Vladivostok from the Pacific complicating the Soviet situation.
And, unlike the Germans, the US ended the war with the capacity to build the infrastructre 'real time' necessary to support a full invasion and conquest of the Soviet Union proper. Depth and weather would not have saved the Soviets this time.

 

Seriously though wouldn't the use of so many nukes be considered a breach of international treaties, like the ones about gas weapons after WW1?

 

At the time we are talking about no treaties about nuclear weapons existed. Discussions about that di not come till the late 50's/early 60's.

 

Still it can be argued that they are very similar to weapons of mass destruction like gas and they do inflict horible civilian losses and continuous losses so they should be already covered in some respect. Anyway I'm pretty sure no European country would appreciate being liberated but their countries a wasteland. I remember Chernobyl and how it affected all of Europe.

 

In 1945 atomic weapons were looked at more as just really powerful conventional bombs not as something "special." Radiation effects were poorly understood and largely ignored at the time. It would take another decade or so for radiation to become a major health issue.

 

Not really. The scientists and the smart people knew the truth back then. A lot of scientists had died from radiation effects till then. Hell even Curie died, I think.
It was only the masses that didn't know and the demaguegic leaders that wanted to keep them in the dark for as long as possible. Don't get me wrong. I think nukes worked out great as deterence and stopped a lot of major wars happening after WW2. I'm pretty much certain that if nuclear power didn't exist we would have already fought WW3, probably in Europe just like the previous ones. It was the nukes alone that stopped the USSR(+east, China) and the USA(+west) from having a major war and sticking to small little wars. I don't think politics stood a chance alone at preventing it.

I think very soon after the nuking of Japan it was apparent how horrible the effects were and only a bastard without a consience would continue dropping them (as opposed to using them as threats), especially on civilian targets, which I think were also one of the treaties broken in WW2 by both sides (Germans bombed London and stuff, Allies bombed German cities). In any case the question/matter is purely academic and on that note I think there were(/are) a lot of such bastards in the US so it wouldn't look good. As a result, I'm happy things turned out as they did. Though glowing in the night has its own appeal too

 

The Russians had a very strong army but the Western allies had the strongest air force that could have wrecked havoc on the Russian juggernaut. Safer to keep what he already had, wait until the US and Brits left the continent, which I am willing to bet Stalin thought would have happened, and then move on the rest of Europe. Not thinking that the US would stake its future in occupying Europe.

 

I think that what has been said about the strength of the USAAF and atomic weapons holds a lot of weight. There is also truth to the aspect of war weariness. I think another factor that has to be taken into account is how to motivate the troops. It is easy to motivate the soldiers and people to stop the German invasion of the homeland. It is easy to motivate the soldiers to continue to pursue and punish this invader who so cruely occupied their country. What do you use to motivate them to take on their former ally?

If they had been taking on the Germans by themselves in the war I don't think they would have stopped until they got to the Atlantic shores of Spain and Portugaul. I just don't see taking on a strong and capable ally without a reason that can carry the morale of the fighting force.

 

Also because they (I!) were at war with Germany and pretty much nobody else, and as soon as Germany turned turtle suddenly there was no more shooting this side of the Urals. There remained that matter of a number of Japanese to finish off in the Far East and that was it. After that it was a matter of retreating or advancing to the previously agreed occupation lines and matter closed.

There are things such as treaties, did you know that?

 

Considering the way the USSR invaded the little nations in the 1920´s close to the Black Sea, Poland 1939, the Baltics in 1940 and attacked Finland in 1939 without declaring war , to start with, I wouldn´t be so sure you could trust Papa Stalin really...I suppose the last sentence is meant to be humour, right?

 

It may have also been a factor that Stalin did very well with the division of Berlin and his annexing of what would become the Soviet satellite states at the end of the war. Again, this is an area where I'd need some brush up and review, but from what I recall- Roosevelt had basically given Stalin a lot of what he wanted at the end of the war. And Stalin went a bit further, with the puppet government in Poland.

So maybe at the time, Stalin figured he had gotten a pretty good deal from the results of Germany's defeat, and for the time being Stalin saw no real need to continue his conquest.

Especially in light of the Air Power issues and war-weariness already mentioned.

 

To mix things up here also was the fact that FDR wanted India to have its freedom which naturally was not what Churchill liked to hear. And for some reason FDR thought Stalin was a nice guy(?) and seems to have preferred Stalin to Churchill later on. If FDR and Churchill had been better friends later in war years I´m sure Stalin would not have gotten almost the whole eastern Europe as he now did.

Mistake or not?:

In October 1944, Churchill visited Stalin in Moscow. At their first meeting, on October 9th, he passed to Stalin a piece of paper with the following list of suggested shares of predominance: "Rumania: Russia 90%, The others 10%; Greece: Great Britain (in accord with USA) 90%, Russia 10%; Yugoslavia: 50-50%; Hungary: 50-50%; Bulgaria: Russia 75%, The others 25%." Stalin gave the list a check of approval with his blue pencil and passed it back. When Molotov later began to argue with Eden over the percentages, Eden said that all he wanted was "to be sure that we [the British] had more voice in Bulgaria and Hungary than we had accepted in Romania, and that there should be a joint policy in Yugoslavia."

-------------

BTW, no FDR in Moscow.....

---------------

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=91

 

It depends on whom you sign your treaties with. The circunstances you mention have been justified as "mere" adjustments of borderlines, a bit drastic in method maybe, but adjustments all the same, according to the soviet point of view.

[edit: added]Besides, the thread is called "what stopped Stalin" not "what started him"

[ 13. January 2006, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodinu ]

 

It depends on whom you sign your treaties with. The circunstances you mention have been justified as "mere" adjustments of borderlines, a bit drastic in method maybe, but adjustments all the same, according to the soviet point of view.

[edit: added]Besides, the thread is called "what stopped Stalin" not "what started him" </font>[/QUOTE]Very nicely said. Politican to the core.
I especially like the last part where you changed the topic entirely. Professionally done. :-D

 

I was thinking about this statement.
What is the maximum distance american/british bombers can make (to and fro) ?

I doubt that any american or british bombers have the distance to even reach Russia, even if they have bases in China. even if they did, the russians can simply move those industries deeper into russia. And night bombing by british bombers will be out of question anyway.

But i agree with the rest, the russian army will be annilated in europe by the combined air forces.

 

The shortages in Soviet air power would allow those they were threatening to reach well into Russia, eventually. Europe is small compared to Russia, but even Russia could be penetrated by the long range bombers. As the forces used their air cover to advance they would then have even closer bases, so the penetration would get deeper.

The most vulnerable targets in my opinion would be the massed troop and equipment formations that the Russian army used so well to fight the Germans. It would be an ugly fight none-the-less. The numerical superiority of the Russians and their tenacity in city fighting would make for many full graves and empty beds.

 

Patton always wanted to fight Rommel ( and win ). I think he´d have had his dreams and nightmares fulfilled if he had fought the Red Army offensive even for one day....

 

Poor Patton, so much drive and determination. It really makes you wonder how much he could have accomplished under different circumstances. Sounds like a good "What If" topic.