Jump to content


May 1945: Soviet Union vs Western Allies


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
279 replies to this topic

Poll: May 1945: Soviet Union vs Western Allies (135 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Who Wins?

  1. Soviet Union (40 votes [29.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.63%

  2. Western Allies (95 votes [70.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 70.37%

Vote Hide poll

Matthew J35U5 #1 Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:01 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

Idea for the thread come from a post I read complaining the western allies "abandoned" Poland to Stalin. So, instead the Western allies decide to declare war on the Soviet Union to fulfill their obligations to Poland. The belligerents (I assume) would be France, Britain, the U.S., and Canada against the Soviet Union and (presumably) some combination of Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. I know that Poland has some troops around at this time as well, but I don't know if it was an army belonging to the government in exile, or to a government that supported the Soviet Union. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself shed some light on at?

 

Who wins? What does the immediate post-war environment look like? How does the next half-century unfold?


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


amercenary4life #2 Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:27 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 6960 battles
  • 3,433
  • Member since:
    07-04-2013
...perishing vs IS 2 our best vs thare best we are so unmatched. .
Every anime I have seen so far.

 


NOBLESIXACTUAL #3 Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:47 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 28048 battles
  • 194
  • [WREKT]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

I believe the Germans expected the Allies to move against Stalin and the Russians after there defeat.  If this is a what if I believe left over German soldiers would have joined our side.

 

 

 

 

In all reality the Soviet Union collapsed and we did win.




olemanbyers #4 Posted 29 October 2014 - 05:06 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8225 battles
  • 1,090
  • Member since:
    03-04-2014

the soviets would've have gotten steam rolled.

 

the combination of the allies not being headed up by idiots and the soviets relying on attrition, a problem for the germans but not the allies, and an industry that could crank out german level technology but with america reliability and quantity couldn't be over come.

 

"ooh,it's cold" only gets you so far.



DieHardELOFan86 #5 Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:07 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8973 battles
  • 4,061
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013

If it this would have happen I am curious where Japan (only Axis nation left) would do.

 

My theory is...

 

1. Japan would join the allies but I doubt it because Japan had lot of war crimes. I think first allies would finish Japan off first before fighting Soviet Union because by 1945 Japan was badly beaten her Imperial Navy was almost whipe out.

 

The Korean War would never take place and Communist uprising in China would never take place if allies won the war against Soviet Union.


Signature by METALHELLIONx84, ELO ROCKS !!! thanks METALHELLIONx84 from DieHardELOFan86


STLxSTANG #6 Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:56 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15662 battles
  • 4,305
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostDieHardELOFan86, on 29 October 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

If it this would have happen I am curious where Japan (only Axis nation left) would do.

 

My theory is...

 

1. Japan would join the allies but I doubt it because Japan had lot of war crimes. I think first allies would finish Japan off first before fighting Soviet Union because by 1945 Japan was badly beaten her Imperial Navy was almost whipe out.

 

The Korean War would never take place and Communist uprising in China would never take place if allies won the war against Soviet Union.

Much wow, such wow, very....wow.


 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


Crazedtiger77 #7 Posted 29 October 2014 - 09:06 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 29 October 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

Idea for the thread come from a post I read complaining the western allies "abandoned" Poland to Stalin. So, instead the Western allies decide to declare war on the Soviet Union to fulfill their obligations to Poland. The belligerents (I assume) would be France, Britain, the U.S., and Canada against the Soviet Union and (presumably) some combination of Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. I know that Poland has some troops around at this time as well, but I don't know if it was an army belonging to the government in exile, or to a government that supported the Soviet Union. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself shed some light on at?

 

Who wins? What does the immediate post-war environment look like? How does the next half-century unfold?

 

In terms of equipment both sides were fairly evenly matched, but superior allied commanders would have succeeded, albeit with huge casualties. The deciding factor would be the nuke, which would decisively end an otherwise stalemate much earlier.

Edited by Crazedtiger77, 29 October 2014 - 12:09 PM.


Matthew J35U5 #8 Posted 29 October 2014 - 10:50 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostGRAYGHOST2482, on 29 October 2014 - 12:47 AM, said:

I believe the Germans expected the Allies to move against Stalin and the Russians after there defeat.  If this is a what if I believe left over German soldiers would have joined our side.

 

 

 

 

In all reality the Soviet Union collapsed and we did win.

Part of the plan (Yeah, the British actually planned this, called operation unthinkable) was to re-arm 100,000 members of the Wehrmacht.

View Postolemanbyers, on 29 October 2014 - 01:06 AM, said:

the soviets would've have gotten steam rolled.

 

the combination of the allies not being headed up by idiots and the soviets relying on attrition, a problem for the germans but not the allies, and an industry that could crank out german level technology but with america reliability and quantity couldn't be over come.

 

"ooh,it's cold" only gets you so far.

I don't think you have a good understanding of the eastern front in WWII. 

View PostDieHardELOFan86, on 29 October 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

If it this would have happen I am curious where Japan (only Axis nation left) would do.

 

My theory is...

 

1. Japan would join the allies but I doubt it because Japan had lot of war crimes. I think first allies would finish Japan off first before fighting Soviet Union because by 1945 Japan was badly beaten her Imperial Navy was almost whipe out.

 

The Korean War would never take place and Communist uprising in China would never take place if allies won the war against Soviet Union.

That is just completely impossible. For one thing the allies would not accept Japan as a war partner, for another, Japan was not ready to surrender yet, and lastly, even if magical alien space bats make it happen, the Soviet Union had troops stationed in the Far East for all of WWII, there is a reason why despite Germany and Japan being allies Japan never even tried to invade the Soviet Union.

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 29 October 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

 

In terms of equipment both sides were fairly evenly matched, but superior allied commanders would have succeeded, albeit with huge casualties. The deciding factor would be the nuke, which would decisively end an otherwise statement much earlier.

Evenly matched in terms of quality of equipment maybe, but the Soviet Union had 2-4 (depending on what exactly we're talking about) times as much equipment as the allies did in theatre. 

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Crazedtiger77 #9 Posted 29 October 2014 - 12:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 29 October 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Evenly matched in terms of quality of equipment maybe, but the Soviet Union had 2-4 (depending on what exactly we're talking about) times as much equipment as the allies did in theatre. 

 

Although the Soviets had more t34-85s and planes, we would have had air superiority (jets) and better trained (and equipped) troops who would even out the numbers disadvantage. Also, in this scenario Germany would have joined the allies, giving them use of modern German tanks and planes. Even so, it would have been close until a nuke was used.



Starshoy #10 Posted 29 October 2014 - 01:59 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 13663 battles
  • 3,954
  • [KAMA]
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013
Could not happen, because there is no victory strategy for any side. Soviets could likely win on operational level because by that time they have very experienced and equipped in all areas and numerically superior forces. However, even if they manage to completely draw Western Allies out of continental Europe (which is questionable), they could not seriously harm  UK or USA. In turn,  Allies could not attack USSR proper in any conventional way, losses would be prohibiting - even invasion of comparatively very weak and small Japan was much feared.  There were no nukes yet,  whether they would work as a decisive factor or be used against enemy who could eventually retaliate is not certain. So nobody wanted to make another bet.


IronBallsMatt #11 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:01 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10629 battles
  • 1,415
  • Member since:
    05-06-2014

Russia wins the conventional/tank fight cos 100,000 t34's beats whatever superior tanks the allies could produce from european resources (which were picked clean and smashed by the war in May 1945). Resources are the key here, Europe had none, so it all would have to be shipped from USA. And would the American people want to keep paying for a war they had no real interest in? Hitler defeated, let's go home, and they would be right.

 

But, say the war continues and America is happy to send the food, fuel and materials to sustain it, you'd have to bring these resources thousands of miles in order to fight an enemy more or less on his own turf. And an enemy which will move factories a few hundred miles back if it looks like you are winning

 

BUT..

 

America had nuke capability so would have to use them quickly before Stalin got war production fully in gear or found his own Nazi nuke plans. So the threat of nukes would influence Stalin's resolve so then the tank war described in the OP is a skirmish that happened whilst talks were organised

 

But then again,

 

if talks failed and the Allies somehow nuked Moscow (for example), i still think the Russians would probably win, as they would have a new enemy as terrible as the Nazis (in their eyes), and even if Stalin was killed they would keep going

 

this is my take on it anyway. The side with the resources and people behind them wins and the more time Stalin had, the more tanks he would build to defend the motherland

 

edit: i agree with Starshoy who gets to the point quicker lol


Edited by Mattbot 360, 29 October 2014 - 02:04 PM.


I3iggus Nickus #12 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:03 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34187 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

just wait a month or two and america would have dropped atomic bombs on them and forced them to surrender just like japan

 

I am also pretty sure russian relied on foreign exports for the duration of ww2(not sure though)


Edited by Nicholas Sapien, 29 October 2014 - 02:03 PM.

​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


NimoysHeadinJar #13 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:53 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9475 battles
  • 3,385
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

Sorry, this will be long...

American forces did not push to Berlin for the specific reason that a fight would have broken out with the Russian forces. Allies were already settling in for the inevitable political war of wills but had no desire to fight.  You're looking at 10 years of war to follow at the least, barring use of atomic weapons. This means atomic weapons would have been employed by the Allies. Had open hostilities continued, Russia would have rushed atomic development to around early 1947, as opposed to 1949. They would have immediately deployed them and we would all still be glowing to this day.

 

Germany would have fought against the Russians for shear self-preservation but it's not likely this would have flown well with Allied fighting troops. Thus creating the need for separate command logistics. German forces were in shambles and would not have been effective,  other than as blocking or insurgent forces, for several years.

 

Japan would have drawn back even further to play a war of defensive attrition to take advantage of America fighting on two fronts, knowing once again the US would prioritize Europe. Russia likely would sign another treaty of convenience with Japan, much like the one initially with Germany, to avoid an eastern front. 

 

China is the big question here. The communist forces in China were fighting all through WWII. They were NOT Russian style communists. They were communist out of necessity for a sprawling, rural population across a vast land mass. It was simply the best method to rule while underdeveloped. The US backed the Nationalist forces simply because of the C-word. In fact, as late as the outbreak of the Korean War, Chinese communists desperately wanted the US as allies. They only turned to Russia because the allies refused to help with aid after WWII ended. Russia forced China into the Korean War by offering development and military aid in exchange for helping North Korea. Many, many accounts of Chinese soldiers telling American troops they considered them friends for helping against the Japanese. They were simply forced to fight by political party commissars provided by Russia. Thus China became the kind of communists we despise. We caused that problem. Our backing of Chiang Kai-shek, who was an inept despot, lost us the friendship of China.

 

Back to the European front... it would have gotten ugly if open hostilities continued. Both sides knew what was coming but did not have the stomach for continued war at that time. There would have been little organized resistance in the countries east of Germany that were swallowed into what became the USSR. Years of German occupation made it easy for Russia to continue to hold them down. 

 

Had open warfare continued, I believe our world today would resemble something close to the Mad Max movies. So I say, god bless the cold war.


Buckle up. I'm going to try something. I saw it on a cartoon once... but I'm almost positive it can be done.


DieHardELOFan86 #14 Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:57 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8973 battles
  • 4,061
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 29 October 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Part of the plan (Yeah, the British actually planned this, called operation unthinkable) was to re-arm 100,000 members of the Wehrmacht.

I don't think you have a good understanding of the eastern front in WWII.

That is just completely impossible. For one thing the allies would not accept Japan as a war partner, for another, Japan was not ready to surrender yet, and lastly, even if magical alien space bats make it happen, the Soviet Union had troops stationed in the Far East for all of WWII, there is a reason why despite Germany and Japan being allies Japan never even tried to invade the Soviet Union.

Evenly matched in terms of quality of equipment maybe, but the Soviet Union had 2-4 (depending on what exactly we're talking about) times as much equipment as the allies did in theatre.

 

 

Yes I know that Japan wasn't ready to surrender but that is why I think Allies would finish Japan off first before attacking Soviet Union. But the way I see it.

 

Allies had two choices.

 

1. Have Japan become war partner U.S. will assist Japan in rebuilding up her Military.

 

If this were to happen Japan could attack from the East of Soviet Union and didn't someone say only way defeat Russia is to attack from the East but not West.

 

2. Allies would have to finish off Japan.

 

That means no war partner in the Far East however U.S. and her allies do have advantage here U.S. and Canada can attack from the East by deploying their forces at U.S. state Alaska since Alaska is very close to Russia I see no point for U.S. invade from West. Unless U.S. split her forces in half, half of her force station in Europe will attack from the west while General Douglas MacArthur who was commander commanding U.S. Army Ground Forces will attack from the East with assistance from U.S. Marines.       


Signature by METALHELLIONx84, ELO ROCKS !!! thanks METALHELLIONx84 from DieHardELOFan86


Starshoy #15 Posted 29 October 2014 - 07:23 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 13663 battles
  • 3,954
  • [KAMA]
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013
Japan was in no condition to oppose USSR, which Soviet invasion of Manchuria made very obvious. In fact, it may be questioned what was more decisive factor leading to Japan surrender - this invasion or atomic bombs, because first bomb was not sufficient.


Matthew J35U5 #16 Posted 29 October 2014 - 07:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013


View PostDieHardELOFan86, on 29 October 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

That means no war partner in the Far East however U.S. and her allies do have advantage here U.S. and Canada can attack from the East by deploying their forces at U.S. state Alaska since Alaska is very close to Russia I see no point for U.S. invade from West. Unless U.S. split her forces in half, half of her force station in Europe will attack from the west while General Douglas MacArthur who was commander commanding U.S. Army Ground Forces will attack from the East with assistance from U.S. Marines.       

Uh... Well, the point of this whole operation was to liberate Poland. Attacking from the west has the advantage that:
Poland is close to where the Western armies are located.
Liberating Poland would require defeating Soviet armies located in Germany, then defeating any Soviet Armies located in Poland. 
At that point you can try to make peace with the Soviet Union, which they possibly will accept.

Doing it the way you are suggesting requires:

a) Creating a new army and sending it to Siberia. The armies in western Europe that are outnumbered ~2.5 to one get overrun in the meantime.
b) Removing your army from western europe, shipping it (presumably) to america, ship it across the continental united states, then ship it to Alaska, and then get it to Siberia. Hopefully Vladivostok is useable, otherwise it seems like it will be significantly difficult to actually land all of your equipment, and supplying your forces will be almost impossible. Note that after D-day the supply situation in Europe was tenuous until Antwerp was taken. In the meantime, the Soviet Union has overrun western Europe. Additionally, it is going to be significantly easier for the Soviet Union to send supplies, equipment and troops to Siberia to fight the western allies than it will be for the western allies to ship everything from Alaska. 
c) Doing the above, except splitting your army into 2 halves, sending one half to Siberia and the other half is left to defend western Europe. The same thing happens as in the previous example, except your armies in western Europe get overrun by Soviet armies that out-number them 5:1. 

But, disregarding that, imagining that the Soviet union decides not to overrun western Europe after you helpfully left it undefended, and you do manage to get a sizeable force in Siberia, and you are able to keep that force supplied, what are you going to do now? How do you get from an invasion of Siberia to liberating Poland? The logistics of this invasion seem impossible, and trying to defeat a fully mobilized Soviet Union close to their industrial base while tens of thousands of km from your own industrial base seems similarly impossible. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


DieHardELOFan86 #17 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:09 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8973 battles
  • 4,061
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 29 October 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Uh... Well, the point of this whole operation was to liberate Poland. Attacking from the west has the advantage that:
Poland is close to where the Western armies are located.
Liberating Poland would require defeating Soviet armies located in Germany, then defeating any Soviet Armies located in Poland. 
At that point you can try to make peace with the Soviet Union, which they possibly will accept.

Doing it the way you are suggesting requires:

a) Creating a new army and sending it to Siberia. The armies in western Europe that are outnumbered ~2.5 to one get overrun in the meantime.
b) Removing your army from western europe, shipping it (presumably) to america, ship it across the continental united states, then ship it to Alaska, and then get it to Siberia. Hopefully Vladivostok is useable, otherwise it seems like it will be significantly difficult to actually land all of your equipment, and supplying your forces will be almost impossible. Note that after D-day the supply situation in Europe was tenuous until Antwerp was taken. In the meantime, the Soviet Union has overrun western Europe. Additionally, it is going to be significantly easier for the Soviet Union to send supplies, equipment and troops to Siberia to fight the western allies than it will be for the western allies to ship everything from Alaska. 
c) Doing the above, except splitting your army into 2 halves, sending one half to Siberia and the other half is left to defend western Europe. The same thing happens as in the previous example, except your armies in western Europe get overrun by Soviet armies that out-number them 5:1. 

But, disregarding that, imagining that the Soviet union decides not to overrun western Europe after you helpfully left it undefended, and you do manage to get a sizeable force in Siberia, and you are able to keep that force supplied, what are you going to do now? How do you get from an invasion of Siberia to liberating Poland? The logistics of this invasion seem impossible, and trying to defeat a fully mobilized Soviet Union close to their industrial base while tens of thousands of km from your own industrial base seems similarly impossible.

 

Then....

View PostDieHardELOFan86, on 29 October 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

 

Yes I know that Japan wasn't ready to surrender but that is why I think Allies would finish Japan off first before attacking Soviet Union. But the way I see it.

 

Allies had two choices.

 

1. Have Japan become war partner U.S. will assist Japan in rebuilding up her Military.

 

If this were to happen Japan could attack from the East of Soviet Union and didn't someone say only way defeat Russia is to attack from the East but not West.

 

2. Allies would have to finish off Japan.

 

That means no war partner in the Far East however U.S. and her allies do have advantage here U.S. and Canada can attack from the East by deploying their forces at U.S. state Alaska since Alaska is very close to Russia I see no point for U.S. invade from West. Unless U.S. split her forces in half, half of her force station in Europe will attack from the west while General Douglas MacArthur who was commander commanding U.S. Army Ground Forces will attack from the East with assistance from U.S. Marines.      

 

That is where Japan comes into play if they are willing side with allies because that is only U.S. and allies have left they need a partner in the East attacking from the East.

Signature by METALHELLIONx84, ELO ROCKS !!! thanks METALHELLIONx84 from DieHardELOFan86


dtproof151 #18 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:13 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19149 battles
  • 1,072
  • [TACO]
  • Member since:
    02-05-2014

The decision to drop the bomb on Japan had many facets, one had to be to deter the russians. This scenario is interesting but in the war between superpowers the bomb changed everything.


 Don't worry, dear Pamela, I'll do my scientific best to command your fleet...


Matthew J35U5 #19 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostDieHardELOFan86, on 29 October 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

 

Then....

 

That is where Japan comes into play if they are willing side with allies because that is only U.S. and allies have left they need a partner in the East attacking from the East.

Don't make me laugh, the IJA was good at massacring civilians, but they were no serious threat to the Soviet Union. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Crazedtiger77 #20 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:30 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 29 October 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

Don't make me laugh, the IJA was good at massacring civilians, but they were no serious threat to the Soviet Union. 

Ture, the USSR defeated Japan just before WW2 in border conflicts culminating in the battle of Khalkin Gol so they wouldn't want to risk it again against a much stronger Soviet Union. However, the IJA were a powerful force at the start of the war at least but became less effective as time went on. 

 

 





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users