Should the Allies have handled Post-WW2 differently?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
or maybe the western and southern front were tying up German forces to take the load off the eastern front. that's why it's a 2 (3) front war duh

I won't deny that other fronts tied up some German forces. But it is a historic fact that the main part of them were fighting in the East. The scales of fighting were absolutely uncomparable. Don't deny that.

stalin had been screaming for a second front to open up

Yeah right. But you opened it only when Soviet overrunning of Europe was imminent. This supports my point 2.

[Ned]

We all know that there was no way in hell that Truman could have pursuaded Congress to declare war on the USSR, so the issue is somewhat academic. The real question is whether Potsdam would have turned out any differently had we not needed the USSR against Japan.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
However had that happend, Russia may today have been a prospering democracy

Yeah, a couple of A-bombs on Moscow in 1945, and Russia could have become a prospering democracy ala Germany and Japan.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ned
We all know that there was no way in hell that Truman could have pursuaded Congress to declare war on the USSR, so the issue is somewhat academic. The real question is whether Potsdam would have turned out any differently had we not needed the USSR against Japan.

But what could you do in that case? The Soviet Union wouldn't have settled for anything less. As see it, if no agreement on the occupation zones were reached, it would have been a free race to grab as much land as you can. Apparently, in this case, the Western allies would have occupied more land, since they wouldn't have stopped at the Elba.

[Ned]

I don't know. If we had insisted that the USSR withdraw from the Baltic states, from Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, anything could have happened. The Soviets may have had to fight indigenous revolutions supported by the US if they did not have a legal agreement from the US to stay.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think it would have been a crime against humanity to continue world war 2 a day longer than necessary or to risk a new war with Russia.

One fact people forget is the allies won the war but the allied armies were exhausted. The British army in particular just staggered over the line after 6 years of war. If the war had been prolonged or restarted there was a strong chance of a mutiny by the troops.

Similarly the Russian people longed for peace having suffered unimaginably during the war. There was enormous popular respect for their achievements at the time and a feeling the Red Army was invincible.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
more likely a smoking ruin

The idea of allied troops fighting over the same devastated ground the Germans invaded is quite obscene when you think about it.

I have to agree with you, for once.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know. If we had insisted that the USSR withdraw from the Baltic states, from Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, anything could have happened. The Soviets may have had to fight indigenous revolutions supported by the US if they did not have a legal agreement from the US to stay.

Are you trolling?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither




Are you trolling?

No. The whole idea of US support of anti-communist revolutions was still an open question until 1956.

[notyoueither]

First, how exactly would the US have backed up an insistence that the Red Army withdraw from Eastern and Central Europe?

Second, the Western Allies were not the ones who proved successful in orchestrating widespread, popular uprisings. The Communists were.

The fact is that the US never really got the hang of popular revolution, until it backed the Jihad in Afganistan. And then, it seems to have not been managed well.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by axi
The Americans did not have nukes until 15 months after the end of the war in Europe. If they confronted the Soviet Union, they would have to fight a conventional war. That was impossible while fighting against Japan as well.

Germany surrendered in May 1945, and the atomic bomb was used twice in August 1945. That's only three months difference.

[axi]

Oops! Make that 3 months!

I guess I made a big mistake here...

[Urban Ranger]

Yes.

Hirohito should have been tried as a class A war criminal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
First, how exactly would the US have backed up an insistence that the Red Army withdraw from Eastern and Central Europe?

Second, the Western Allies were not the ones who proved successful in orchestrating widespread, popular uprisings. The Communists were.

The fact is that the US never really got the hang of popular revolution, until it backed the Jihad in Afganistan. And then, it seems to have not been managed well.

You are absolutely right here. We had the OSS, but it was in its infancy. Obviously, we would have had to rely on the Brits who had a lot of experience.

Also, think of how Clinton handled Bosnia.

[Cookie Monster]

Stalin played Roosevelt like a violin. Only Churchill was shrewd enough to see through Stalins games. But he couldn't get the American to see the truth.

[Arrian]

Lots of things should probably have been done differently, now that we look back on the Cold War from our 21st century vantage point.

But changing one thing would inevitably lead to new unexpected consequences. Perhaps if we had "stood up to" Stalin, this would have pushed the Soviets into a corner, and resulted eventually in the WWIII we thankfully managed to avoid.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Cookie, I have no doubt that you are right. However, Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to get Stalin to attack the Japanese in the East. Thus he conceded all points.

In retrospect, this was a mistake and Churchill was right.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, in a conventional war in Europe in May of 1945, the Western Allies would have absolutely destroyed the Red Army. No question. Further, US strategic bombers would have devastated the Soviet Union itself.

Well, it's sometimes hard to get the Europeans to agree to fight.

[Myrddin]

Unlike Americans who have a habit of turning up late for Wiorld Wars

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Lots of things should probably have been done differently, now that we look back on the Cold War from our 21st century vantage point.

But changing one thing would inevitably lead to new unexpected consequences. Perhaps if we had "stood up to" Stalin, this would have pushed the Soviets into a corner, and resulted eventually in the WWIII we thankfully managed to avoid.

-Arrian

Well, Eisenhower's policy clearly was to abide by agreements with the USSR and to not help revolts within the USSR sphere (Hungary) even while challenging them in areas where they had no agreement with the US (Lebanon).

If Roosevelt and Truman, though, had made different agreements, the USSR may have been pushed out of Eastern Europe much sooner.

I don't think this would have lead to WWIII because neither side wanted to directly challenge the other.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, in a conventional war in Europe in May of 1945, the Western Allies would have absolutely destroyed the Red Army. No question. Further, US strategic bombers would have devastated the Soviet Union itself.

In any case, while I don't believe we should have fought WW2 to begin with, we certainly should not have allowed Stalin to set up puppet communist nations in Eastern Europe.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, in a conventional war in Europe in May of 1945, the Western Allies would have absolutely destroyed the Red Army. No question. Further, US strategic bombers would have devastated the Soviet Union itself.

In any case, while I don't believe we should have fought WW2 to begin with, we certainly should not have allowed Stalin to set up puppet communist nations in Eastern Europe.

In Europe in May of 1945 Red Army would have absolutely f*cked pathetic, less numbered, shitty equiped, unexperienced Western Allies.
And your leaders perfectly knew this and didn't dare to attack.

Should you have handled post war Europe differently?
Actually the question is COULD you? You couldn't.

[David Floyd]

Oh good, Serb is back

[Serb]

Yeah...I'm back.

[Alexander's Horse]

one small problem with your analysis is for 4 years the Western allies had nukes and Sovs didn't.

[Saras]

I get my arse handed to my the russkies every time I play US in SP:WAW "The Victors" campaign. The best I manage are draws and minor victories.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Just imagine D Day with a panzer army up your clacker and you'll get the idea Ted.

Imagine a nonstop rain of fire coming down on your heads and that's what happens when the US/UK doesn't tie down the west and the south.

Wouldn't have mattered how big and bad the red army was. No sky control would have just meant bigger death counts.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
one small problem with your analysis is for 4 years the Western allies had nukes and Sovs didn't.

Oh sure

1) How much nukes they had in 1945, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
A single? A couple?
2) Had they capability to bomb the territory of Soviet Union?
3) Were they ready to use nukes in Europe and how it would affect relations between European countries and USA?
4) In case of nuclear attack, SU would used its bio&chem arsenals vs. Allied forces in Europe and vs. GB.
5) In this sceanrio Soviets would get nukes, much earlier... from ruins of Washington D.C. actually.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know. If we had insisted that the USSR withdraw from the Baltic states, from Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, anything could have happened. The Soviets may have had to fight indigenous revolutions supported by the US if they did not have a legal agreement from the US to stay.

[Serb]

[Saras]

Oh serb, you're such a nostalgic crybaby

Btw, did you know that a recent survey said 42% of Russian people would support a bolshevik revolution now, and only 10% would actively resist it?