Question by USS Kentucky SSBN-737: Should we have gone to the war with the USSR in 1946 and save the world a LOT of trouble? No Cold War?
We would win and here is why.
1. B-29’s would have destroyed the production capability of the Russians. The bombers could be launched from Europe or Iran and still be able to reach behind the Urals where Soviet industry was. Thus eliminating the possibility of long term re-supply. The end of lend-lease would doom the Russians beyond any doubt… The U.S. logistical line would be shorter from the U.S. to the Eastern USSR than the Russian lines to the Western Front.
2. Massive numbers of various fighter aircraft to secure air superiority over the Russians. Allied fighters could fly at high altitudes unlike Soviets fighters. Allied pilots were well trained and had combat experience. The Russians would not be able to replace destroyed aircraft due to no factories left to build them. The RAF and USAAF destroyed about 70-80% of the Luftwaffe in WW2. They would have no problem with the Red Air Force.
3. Attacks coming from multiple fronts. The U.S. would be able to land troops just about anywhere they wanted due to landing craft, Battleships, and Carriers. With the “On hand” capabilities, they could very well have landed troops in two or three places at the same time.
4. Lack of Russian Navy. The Russians had nothing for a surface or subsurface navy to slow the Allies down in the slightest.
5. The USA had well over half of the worlds manufacturing capability in 1946.
6. The Soviet Union had lost 27 million people in WW2. 14% of their pre-war population was dead. They would not be able to replace their casualties very easy.
7. The United States has nuclear weapons in 1946. The Soviets did not until 1949. Atom bombs could be dropped on Moscow, Leningrad and Vladivostok as well as other cities.
8. The Soviets were surrounded. The Allies had troops in Europe, Iran, Japan, and Alaska.
9. The Soviets would only have an advantage in numbers of about 1:2 or 1:3. It would be no where near the advantage they had against Germany.
Answers and Views:
Answer by Nancy Pelosi 2016
Yeah, because the American people were totally eager to start a war against a country that didn’t pick a fight with then in 1946.
We could all see their appetite for a continued war by 1953 in Korea, didn’t we?
Now take Korea’s population back then and multiply it by about 10. That’s how many Soviets we would’ve been up against.
Read all the answers in the comments.
Add your own answer!
Comments ( 14 )
Yes. However, the USA still have the chance to save and politically Americanize the whole world because it keeps succeeding almost everywhere in the world,such as Libya and Afghanistan. The USA should continue to threaten dictators with force till they change the way they treat their people.
"B-29's would have destroyed the production capability of the Russians"
Let's start with the fact there were no B29s in the ETO. Yes they could've been flown in but we all know what happens when you give the enemy a chance to prepare defences, and I'm sure the Soviets wouldn't just moved alot of manufacturing underground. You're also underestimating the size of the Soviet air force and discounting their [antiaircraft] artillery which they also had much of, and that is a very long flight over enemy held territory to get past the Urals.
I don't see an airwar against Rusia being a for-sure thing and inre lend-lease I'm not sold on them missing the Shermans we sent them [considering they were mass-producting T-34s, a much better tank] and compared to what we were sending by wars end the Russian had quite the production base of their own. The drying up of Lend-Lease might have been an inconvenience but not a make or break.
"Massive numbers of various fighter aircraft to secure air superiority over the Russians. Allied fighters could fly at high altitudes unlike Soviets fighters."
If the Allied fighters fly higher than Russian fighters, nothing happens (the Allied fighters aren't engaging the enemy nor are giving air cover to their ground forces. The Allies have an altitude advantage, and that's all… the battle still needs to be fought and decided. Again don't brush off the Russian fighters as an advesary, they went up against the best the Luftwaffe had ie Rudel etal – and won.
"Attacks coming from multiple fronts. The U.S. would be able to land troops just about anywhere they wanted due to landing craft, Battleships, and Carriers"
The Russians fought over a very wide front of thousands of miles, they're used to multiple fronts and seemed to have the numbers to do so quite successfully… from the bering sea to manchuria.
"The Soviet Union had lost 27 million people in WW2. 14% of their pre-war population was dead. They would not be able to replace their casualties very easy. "
Name on occasion when the Russians didn't have enough troops to carry out several offensives at the same time and still didn't have vast reserves of troops and equipment… they had so much they supplied the military of dozens of countries… right up to the Battle for Berlin.
"The United States has nuclear weapons in 1946. The Soviets did not until 1949. Atom bombs could be dropped on Moscow, Leningrad and Vladivostok as well as other cities"
The making of both Uranium and Atomic bombs was a very very slow, labourious, time comsumping process. America in 1945 only had enough material and time to create the two atomic bombs which they dropped on Japan. They were creating more, but that takes time. America did not possess a nuclear arsenal until several years after the war… it was fortunate Japan surrendered when it did as there was no third atomic bomb to drop.
It was estimated the invasion of Japan would've cost the Allies (Americans) at minimum a million casualties… this after taking 108,504 casualties the the Pacific thus far.
And thats just against a little island named Japan.
Imagine what it would take to conquer the worlds largest country as many people as Russia has, all battle hardened.
No, we shouldn't have.
Fact is the west in the long run won the Cold War anyways.
David S says
i've stuudied ww2 all my life and what i'll do is try to answer each of your points 1 at a time because some of them brought conflicting thoughts to me and some will be answered mixed with others.
1) b-29's were available but you have to remember there were few available compared to 17's or 24's. we had the b-32 dominator also available in small numbers. the problem is the vlr bombers (29's & 32's) were problimatic in frontline service. they required extremely high maintnence and avaialability was a problem. on top of everything else high altitude bombing was notoriously unreliable without large numbers in the attack force.
2)we would have had high altitude superiority but the tactical aircraft would have had a run for their money. the soviets had large numbers of aircraft and expirienced pilots who had specialized in tactical warfare against the germans. their low altitude ability was an even match for the americans and they had a larger number of tactical planes. low altitude would be a slight advantage to the soviets. the only reason i don't award it to them completely is because american p-47' and p-51's performed excellent at high or low altitude and gave them a dual function.
3)the american navy outclassed any 10 navies put together. i would award control of the oceans to the allies. apart from landings on kamchatka to control the pacific i don't see extensive landings beyond that. there would be losses on both sides but it's a given that the soviets didn't have to control the seas. for the americans and their allies it would be manditory and i don't think the soviet navy would seriously have contested control.
4)covered in 3.
5)the soviet productivity had recovered by 1946 to the point material losses would not have effected them as much as having to ship all the needed equipment thousands of miles to get it to the troops.
6) the soviets would once again be defending home ground and that is ALWAYS a tremendous plus to fighting power. the best hope in the pacific would be to control the coastline and hold. in europe adding the germans, poles, czechs, ukrainians and other eastern euopean troops would have given the allies a huge fighting force that the outnumbered soviets would have been hard-pressed to stop. it would have been a total bloodbath either way it ended.
7)the americans only had a limited number of weapons and a severely small production capability plus they were nowhere near as powerful as today. they would have made a big show but i don't think would have made a war ending contribution. all they would have done is dirty up the atmosphere.
8)being surrounded with all the raw materials you need is technically not being surrounded.
9)with eastern euopean troops plus bringing other ww2 allies (many nations around the world you aren't thinking of would have sent troops also) would have evened out the numbers. you also forget that the american armed forces alone at the end of ww2 numbered over 16 million. the soviets would not have had an advantage in numbers.
these are only short thoughts. i don't know who would have won with all the variables but either way entire areas of the world would have been a wreck. i could write a book on each of your points, and i hope i addressed what you wanted to know.
p.s. sorry in advance for spelling i was crammed for time
Wipe Out Santorum says
That’s what Hitler thought in 1941.
How did that turn out?
Don't call me d says
Ever hear about the ARMED demonstrations by U.S. soldiers in the Philippines in 1946, DEMANDING to be sent home?
Multiply that by ten thousand, a hundred thousand. And all OVER Europe and Asia.
There would have been a communist revolution in the _U.S._ if Patton's insane idea had been pursued. And Wall Street's then-ruling Democratic Party knew it.
Hell, even the (benched) Republican team of that time knew it.
It's just today's cons who aren't sharp enough to know it.
EDIT: Could THIS be what's wrong with cons? For all their talk of "practicality" and "profit is what motivates people," is it that they get bogged down in the technical details and ignore the HUMAN ELEMENT?
You dream of a planetary empire even worse than the nightmare that the U.S. actually DID build. You fantasize about a united post-WW2 U.S., marching in lockstep, and ignore the FACTS about that period — for instance, that 1948 was the biggest strike year in American history.
the war pigs loved the cold war and the military industrial complex made them all very rich; hell, most of their best toys were borne of the cold war…you think star wars never happened? what do you think all of those $ 1000 hammers and toilets seat really were?
Sam Sattrams says
No, Swish Boy, your blood thirstiness is admirable, but wars cost money.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Attacking your allies is bad form, makes other countries distrust you.
Alex G says
YES!!! Exactly – this is what I've been asking for some time now… did you see my question a few weeks ago?
I don't get it. Why didn't we do it? Biggest mistake America EVER made. I don't think any other country would've made such a mistake.
We could've united the world once and for all, and ended war forever.
Just think what we could've done with all the money and mind-power so many countries spent fighting the Cold War and all the hot wars that were part of it – by now we would probably know how to prevent cancer, prevent heart disease, even prevent aging. We could all be "forever 21" or "forever 18" or whatever age we want to be until we die by accident or something.
Isn't a cold war better than a real war? It is all about money, and your logic is very flaawed. You should watch the movie "Dr. Stragelove.
Are you insane!? First of all, no army has ever successfully take over Russia. And second the world would be a lot worse if we had that war. A lot worse. 1989 proved that a country run on socialism/communism didn't need any foreign invasion to bring it down.
Too Frat To Care says
I have thought about this and the answer is no.
Honestly, it comes down to two things: first, the American people would have never stood for it. They were war-weary, glad to have family members coming home, and just wanted to go on with their lives. Second, the Soviets were becoming fairly powerful in their own right.
John W says
No But we should have stopped Truman from giving them the nuclear secrets
Zachery G says
Yep. Patton predicted that Russia would be our next enemy and next the greatest threat to the world and sure enough he was right.
And MacArthur did the same thing with China.
Going to war with them would have probably prevented the 100+ million deaths that occurred at the hands of these horrific regimes.
So…were they really naive?