What if soviets attacked Western Europe right after WWII?

Agreed, there really wasn't any political will to start a new war.
http://ww2history.com/videos/Eastern/Yalta
http://ww2history.com/videos/Eastern/Yalta

So far we're all suggesting a long protracted high intensity conflict. But Maybe due to the lack of political will, it might have resulted in a short war where each side would cut their losses for minimal gains and concessions or even a status quo ante bellum if it started to drag too long.

Even worse such a scenario would plant the seeds for an even stronger resentment and revanchism that would surely resulted in a fully fledged WW3 (and likely nuclear holocaust) by mid the 1960s. Just as if we had learnt nothing from the lessons of WW1 and WW2.

Agreed, I find it frustrating though, because you see it all the time even in modern security debates and military history that the political aspect is neglected or simply forgotten.

Sorry, I think you misinterpreted I meant to add a (i.e. It was a friendly Joke.)

Someone's probably gotta tone down the foreign hate/paranoia and have a few good laughs mate.

Oh, ok, no worries!
Since the last couple of years, well since the conservatives got into power, Brits have been getting quite aggressive with the dead serious French bashing, their media, mayors, ministers and even the PM himself spam it as a way to cover up their inferiority complex which is allready covered up by displaying a superiority complex, so my sarcasm/irony/joke detector is quite scrambled

Oh, ok, no worries!
Since the last couple of years, well since the conservatives got into power, Brits have been getting quite aggressive with the dead serious French bashing, their media, mayors, ministers and even the PM himself spam it as a way to cover up their inferiority complex which is allready covered up by displaying a superiority complex, so my sarcasm/irony/joke detector is quite scrambled

Fair enough, I've hear about stuff like that.

Anyway the US wouldn't need aircraft carriers for B-29's B-29's have 5200km range fully loaded iirc. That's London to Moscow minimum, Germany to Urals maximum.

But yeah, the US navy may help control the Coast and enable landings on said coast. But nothing more.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

What if soviets attacked Western Europe right after WWII:
1) Soviet forces successfully advance to Europe, using the experience of four years war against Nazis.
The Red Army in the battle hardened, lead by experienced commanders and using blitzkrieg tactics (remember at the defeat of the Kwantung Army).

2)Heavy fighting for airsupremacy. Western Air Forces superior the Soviet Union in the number, but dogfight at low altitudes not their specialty.
Start bombing of Soviet cities, the Soviet air defense in general weaker then German. As long as it does not affect the course of the war.

3)American and British bombs kill many Soviet citizens (remember the Dresden).
Soviet propaganda uses it to incite hatred in the Red Army. The main slogans is: "They are not better than the Nazis!," "Prevent a recurrence in 1941!".

4)Without air superiority Western forces are forced to retreat (remember Ardennes).
Prisoners nazi return their weapons (including tanks, planes and etc) and sent to the most dangerous areas Red breakthrough. This slows down Soviet Army advance, but can not stop.

5) Americans throw nuclear bombs on the largest mass of Soviet troops. It destroy big pice of Europe - Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Norway. Remains unaffected Spain and Italy. But it's up to radioactive rain fall.
One of the bombs dropped on Moscow, but Stalin, of course there is not.

6) Start a new Hundred Years' War. Both sides hate each other and seek to destroy at any cost. The Americans and British people see in Communists the new treacherous Byzantines.
The soviet people see in West the inhuman capitalists willing to do anything for the enslavement of the world.
Europe is divided. Some hate English and Yankees for the bombings, other blamed Communists. The Soviet Union and Allies using this to their advantage

7) ???

8) Bad end.

I really dont see how SU would waged another war after such devastaions, even Russian civil war seems more likely scenario after Stalins order to attack west.

Yet when it comes to withstanding long deadly conflicts in our homelands, Russians, French, Germans and Eastern europeans have nothing to prove in that department, Anglo saxons don't know what it is to lose millions and keep fighting against overwhelming odds.

Well. The efficacy of a strategy is justly measured by its conclusion and not its beginning. Military traditions are not measured by how many casualties a nation takes in war. If so the native Americans would have the greatest military tradition of all since they were virtually wiped out.

But to make the point: between 1914-1918 Britain and its Dominions (not including India) put into the field some 7 and a half million men and of those 7 and a half million a shade under a million were killed. two and a quarter million were injured, 64% of whom returned to duty, 24% returned to light duties only, 8% discharged as invalids and 7% killed. This is no meagre quantity.

Examine Australia. From a population of 5 million in 1914 Australia put 420,000 men in uniform between 1914-1918. 60,000 of them were killed. For a country so small this is not an inconsiderable amount. Canada has very similar figures. Of the 4.7 million Scottish people in 1914, 150,000 died in combat in WW1. As a proportion of the population, this is equivalent to France.

Including British India, Britain put more men into the war than did France. And yet suffered 35.8% of its own soldiers were either killed or injured relative to France's 73.1%. Wasteage and slaughter of men a military tradition does not make. From just six divisions in 1914 the BEF grew to some 70 divisions, which in 1918, fought a manoeuvrist-style offensive and collapsed the German Army. Twice in the 20th century against Germany the British Army and its commonwealth allies took to the field in Europe and decisively defeated, in open battle, man to man, the German Army. This is a military tradition. Anglo-saxon intransigence to fight a 'real war' is just a European myth.

Perhaps it's discussion for another day though. Or another thread. Not trying to make a France-bash btw, I am something of a minor Francophile.

anyway I was wrong about the 100 divisions. It was 90. This is known as the 90-division gamble. The main bulk of personnel in the US in WWII were in the Navy. Unfortunately the US Army History page that used to host information about it is now down.

In a war with the USSR these personnel would have to be rapidly switched to the Army, which is feasible, especially with the quantity of materiel being produced already in the US. The US could probably afford to put 200 divisions into the field if it had some time. One problem would be shipping them across, though and building enough supply ships since the US was using a huge amount of its steel for production of other war materiel.

I think the best way to approach counter-factuals is simply to state facts and see if any of them point to any obvious truths. It seems to me that Soviet industry, both war and civilian, was basically dependent on lend-lease.

What if soviets attacked Western Europe right after WWII:
1) Soviet forces successfully advance to Europe, using the experience of four years war against Nazis.
The Red Army in the battle hardened, lead by experienced commanders and using blitzkrieg tactics (remember at the defeat of the Kwantung Army).]

Soviet military doctrine in WWII is not 'blitzkrieg' (there is no such thing as 'blitzkrieg') but concept drawn up by Tukhachevsky Triandafillov in the 30s. The Soviet way of fighting was completely different to the Germans, principally in its method of command and control (which is known as befehlstaktik as opposed to principle which dominated in German army called aufstragstaktik).

Allies were also capable of manoeuvre warfare, as was aptly shown in Northwest Europe 44-45 and Italy in early 1945.

8) Bad end.

agree with this though, lol

Soo, can anyone of you counter-factual thinkers come up with a feasible Causus-Belli, that would make the Soviet people willing to fight a war of aggression against the west in 1945?

Otherwise the entire premise kinda falls on its head, and all talk of carriers, B-29s, tactics, industrial output, logistics would be moot no?

Just play Hearts of Iron and see the results.

Soo, can anyone of you counter-factual thinkers come up with a feasible Causus-Belli, that would make the Soviet people willing to fight a war of aggression against the west in 1945?

Otherwise the entire premise kinda falls on its head, and all talk of carriers, B-29s, tactics, industrial output, logistics would be moot no?

If i remenber well, there was at a moment an idea of continuing the war, it's was first on the allies side (officialy) i don't remenber quite well, i go search for the name of the operation, i will edit if i find it


EDIT: I find it, it was "Opération Unthinkable"

If i remenber well, there was at a moment an idea of continuing the war, it's was first on the allies side (officialy) i don't remenber quite well, i go search for the name of the operation, i will edit if i find it


EDIT: I find it, it was "Opération Unthinkable"

Yes and so called because, well it was Unthinkable

Soo, can anyone of you counter-factual thinkers come up with a feasible Causus-Belli, that would make the Soviet people willing to fight a war of aggression against the west in 1945?

Otherwise the entire premise kinda falls on its head, and all talk of carriers, B-29s, tactics, industrial output, logistics would be moot no?

Aren't we talking counterfactuals here?
In any case, the "Soviet people" frankly don't matter or are quantité négligeable in this equation.

The German people for one were strongly opposed to and highly anxious about any military action prior to WW2 yet were manipulated/cajoled into accepting the seemingly inevitable easily enough and would in the majority still fight on to the very destruction of their homeland despite obviously hopeless odds.
There are perks to living in a totalitarian dictatorship after all. Not to mention that in 1945 after the victory over Nazi Germany, internal control and legitimacy of the Soviet regime were far better consolidated than they had been in 1941.
I might add that the Soviet Union immediately prior to Barbarossa engaged in no less than three wars of an undoubtedly aggressive nature (Finland, the Baltics, Poland), which granted were far less traumatic but still.

Yes and so called because, well it was Unthinkable

Yea indeed, i found this image on the wiki on this operation, it's quite interesting, it's a closer look of the armies that allies got at the end of the war

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Unthinkable#/media/File:Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png

What if soviets attacked Western Europe right after WWII:
1) Soviet forces successfully advance to Europe, using the experience of four years war against Nazis.
The Red Army in the battle hardened, lead by experienced commanders and using blitzkrieg tactics (remember at the defeat of the Kwantung Army).

Experience is important but remember that the US and British beat the "battle hardened" Germans as well. The US battle doctrine was designed to smash up a Blitzkrieg assault by flexing like and elastic band then delivering it's reserve forces to the decisive point. Not only that, but the United States employed it's substantial artillery assets in a more efficient way than the Soviets, who suffered from poor communications until the end of the war.

2)Heavy fighting for airsupremacy. Western Air Forces superior the Soviet Union in the number, but dogfight at low altitudes not their specialty.

That is not relevant since German planes - all designed for low-mid range altitude got absolutely wrecked from above by USAAF planes. The key problem with making a low altitude fighter is that high altitude fighters can dive on them and climb again. - By the end of the war the Allies had developed a robust mobile RADAR system that allowed their high altitude fighters to climb long before enemy planes were anywhere near the front.Add to this the fact they have all of France to climb mean most of the time the soviets would be scrambling to catch up. It's one of the main reasons why the Soviets made a lot of their Jets high altitude interceptors with a fast climb rate.

Not that any of that mattered, when we look at statistics in the Korean war it becomes clear that the battle hardened sovi.. I mean "North Korean" pilots were not of the same calibre as USAF pilots and were shot down 2 to 1 conservatively or 10 to one based on pilot reports.

Start bombing of Soviet cities, the Soviet air defense in general weaker then German. As long as it does not affect the course of the war.

What was left to bomb? In 1945 most of Russia was rubble, the only things the west could of bombed were the industrial sites in the Ural Mountaians

3)American and British bombs kill many Soviet citizens (remember the Dresden).
Soviet propaganda uses it to incite hatred in the Red Army. The main slogans is: "They are not better than the Nazis!," "Prevent a recurrence in 1941!"

The Germans used that sort of propaganda to try to keep going. It worked about as well as pinning medals to 12 year old "Storm Troopers" in Berlin '45.

4)Without air superiority Western forces are forced to retreat (remember Ardennes).
Prisoners nazi return their weapons (including tanks, planes and etc) and sent to the most dangerous areas Red breakthrough. This slows down Soviet Army advance, but can not stop.

The Allies didn't have Air superiority in 1945 they had Air Supremacy. They held this Air supremecy until the 60's when Soviet Air defence got modernised into one of the best in the world. In 1945 the Red Air Force didn't have the fangs it would later develop. Suffice it to say that they wouldn't of had any problems dealing with the Soviet Airforce and would of gained Air Superiority, but not supremacy.

5) Americans throw nuclear bombs on the largest mass of Soviet troops. It destroy big pice of Europe - Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Norway. Remains unaffected Spain and Italy. But it's up to radioactive rain fall.
One of the bombs dropped on Moscow, but Stalin, of course there is not.

Based on USAAF target priorities and Operation Unthinkable we know which cities the US would of bombed if Stalin got uppity. We know that in June 45 they could only hit 9 of these targets due to limited ready stocks. The plan was to devastate Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Leningrad and either Saratov or Stalingrad depending on the reconstruction of the latter.

6) Start a new Hundred Years' War. Both sides hate each other and seek to destroy at any cost. The Americans and British people see in Communists the new treacherous Byzantines.
The soviet people see in West the inhuman capitalists willing to do anything for the enslavement of the world.
Europe is divided. Some hate English and Yankees for the bombings, other blamed Communists. The Soviet Union and Allies using this to their advantage

The United States had no intention to bomb France, the low countries or Germany as they were perceived as allies. The US unlike the Soviet Union maintained it's alliances through trust unlike the Soviets who ruled through invasion. See France withdrawing from NATO vs Hungarian Revolution.

From a strategic standpoint it was impossible for the Soviets to push further than the Rhine with their 1945 Army, they lacked the logistics, the communications support and in the case of the USAF bombing their major transport junctions with atomic weapons, the strategic mobility to move as rapidly as required.

The US was by 1945 freshly resupplied and was very lightly resisted in Western Germany compared to the Soviets. Add to this fresh technology finally coming to Europe from the US the US was at a technological advantage, remember it took both sides until the 1950's to really reverse engineer all their captured German tech.

However the war would cost billions of dollars and like Frencho said, Anglo people don't like fighting long wars. Not because of the casualties per-say, but about the money we loose. WW2 cost Britain and the US so much they've still got some of that debt today, continuing to fight was unappealing because of the cost of fighting. The US industrially could produce quadruple the amount of tanks the soviets could if it didn't need to make new aircraft carriers. Problem is that's another year that people at home can't get a new car. By '45 most Americans were driving 1939/40 models. If they had the ration tickets to drive them at all! So truth is it was unthinkable for two reasons;

1) most of the US allies were exhausted and besides Britain didn't really view Communism/Socialism as a threat.

2) It'd be too damn expensive for said Anglo sphere people to endure.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

Soo, can anyone of you counter-factual thinkers come up with a feasible Causus-Belli, that would make the Soviet people willing to fight a war of aggression against the west in 1945?

Otherwise the entire premise kinda falls on its head, and all talk of carriers, B-29s, tactics, industrial output, logistics would be moot no?

Prompt re-armament of the Wehrmacht.

" intention,desire or emotion" isn't the focus here, we know that neither side was equipped mentally or arguably logistically to even consider continuing fighting

The main thing is:

How would American planes/ doctrine fare vs soviet equivalents?

How would Pershing, fireflies,M18 hellcat, deal with ISU and IS2 supported by T34 spam etc?Since air cover and simply out producing/out numbering wouldn't be an option like it was Vs Germans.

Assuming they had the mental/logistical capacity to do so, if the soviets attack. how would the western allies stop them?

" intention,desire or emotion" isn't the focus here, we know that neither side was equipped mentally or arguably logistically to even consider continuing fighting

The main thing is:

How would American planes/ doctrine fare vs soviet equivalents?

How would Pershing, fireflies,M18 hellcat, deal with ISU and IS2 supported by T34 spam etc?Since air cover and simply out producing/out numbering wouldn't be an option like it was Vs Germans.

Assuming they had the mental/logistical capacity to do so, if the soviets attack. how would the western allies stop them?

Jesus dude. How one piece of equipment in a clinical setting performed vs another etc is pretty much the fanboy plane of historiography. But enough of my condescension , a couple of salient points:
Soviet tac air and interdiction was outright ineffective compared to the crippling numerical and technological superiority enjoyed by the Western Allies, which alone would have harmstrung any of their offensive efforts and would have necessitated a vastly different operational approach on the part of the Soviets - a fact those Germans with experience on both fronts regularly commented upon. In fact, if the Western campaign in late war demonstrates one thing, it is that no army can conduct modern mechanised operations under conditions of total enemy aerial superiority. The Germans could not, and neither could have the Soviets.

Soviet artillery was geared towards supporting set piece attacks with preplanned fires, lagged behind considerably in technical sophistication (VT-fuses etc), direction, rangefinding and and mechanisation, and had sluggish response times especially in comparison to their Allied counterparts who usually enjoyed realtime aerial guidance and were liberally equipped with wireless sets even at the platoon level - and demonstrated they could use them to great effect.

More fundamentally, allied formations including their infantry formations were fully mechanised (unlike the great majority of Soviet and German divisions) which necessitated a greater logistical effort, but at the same time afforded far greater mobility and organic firepower.

Patton wanted to mop up the Soviets after WWII.

Just sayin'...

" intention,desire or emotion" isn't the focus here, we know that neither side was equipped mentally or arguably logistically to even consider continuing fighting

The main thing is:

How would American planes/ doctrine fare vs soviet equivalents?

How would Pershing, fireflies,M18 hellcat, deal with ISU and IS2 supported by T34 spam etc?Since air cover and simply out producing/out numbering wouldn't be an option like it was Vs Germans.

Assuming they had the mental/logistical capacity to do so, if the soviets attack. how would the western allies stop them?

I won't go too indepth with massive analysis on why the west was geared to "hard counter" the soviets. But I'll try to explain it roughly.

American planes were superior. Their doctrine much more developed. Their planes more intuitive and their experience vastly superior. It's agree'd that while the Soviets broke the Heer the West broke everything else.

T-34's were inferior to the M4 Sherman. This is a fact brought true in Korea. In fact despite it's flawed engine the M26 Pershing was over performing in Korea and given the trouble with logistics was withdrawn.

Suffice it to say, until the Soviets processed their stolen designs their tanks were inferior. The idea of charging T-34's at the US is actually hilarious, the US designed their entire doctrine around countering the Soviet style set piece battles even before WW2. The soviets liked mass battles like Kursk, American doctrine relied on it.

Their doctrine was built around having an elastic defence similar to the soviets but on the attack it was all about statistical warfare and Superior fire power. You don't need to encircle an enemy if you can kill them and make survivors to scared to fight.

If the US wanted to push the Soviets, they had more than enough capability. It wouldn't be easy but their equipment was superior and their industry more robust. Even if the Soviets could gpush them out of mainland Europe, eventually the US industrial weight would crush them.

@GhostTX
Yup, Patton thought tat it was the best chance to avoid a long drawn out struggle with them. He was pretty spot on. But it's understandable as to why they didn't (they still had to deal with Japan!)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ