Soviet Union vs the Allies in 1945

Allies without a doubt lol

Kirjutas Red.Army, 16.03.2019 at 23:23

Kirjutas boywind2, 16.03.2019 at 23:04

Allies without a doubt lol

I would say the same but just narrowly. We must remember that the Soviet Union had over 11 million active troops right at the end of WW2 so i think short term the Soviets would have won as they would have stormed all of Europe but long term Allies due to better economy and navy.

what if usa nukes ussr

Kirjutas Red.Army, 16.03.2019 at 23:37

Kirjutas boywind2, 16.03.2019 at 23:35

Kirjutas Red.Army, 16.03.2019 at 23:23

Kirjutas boywind2, 16.03.2019 at 23:04

Allies without a doubt lol

I would say the same but just narrowly. We must remember that the Soviet Union had over 11 million active troops right at the end of WW2 so i think short term the Soviets would have won as they would have stormed all of Europe but long term Allies due to better economy and navy.

what if usa nukes ussr

Nuke them? Hmm they would probably have nuked their large armies but Moscow was out of Range. Also the USA did not have many Nukes back then.

russia doesnt have any supplies without the allies though

Kirjutas Red.Army, 16.03.2019 at 23:23

Kirjutas boywind2, 16.03.2019 at 23:04

Allies without a doubt lol

I would say the same but just narrowly. We must remember that the Soviet Union had over 11 million active troops right at the end of WW2 so i think short term the Soviets would have won as they would have stormed all of Europe but long term Allies due to better economy and navy.

The US alone had 12,209,238 troops + The USSR was being funded by the US throughout the war.

Ussr could have crushed all europe (except uk this shitty broken isle) but would lose later agaisnt usa

Kirjutas Alois, 17.03.2019 at 01:41

Kirjutas Red.Army, 16.03.2019 at 23:23

Kirjutas boywind2, 16.03.2019 at 23:04

Allies without a doubt lol

I would say the same but just narrowly. We must remember that the Soviet Union had over 11 million active troops right at the end of WW2 so i think short term the Soviets would have won as they would have stormed all of Europe but long term Allies due to better economy and navy.

The US alone had 12,209,238 troops + The USSR was being funded by the US throughout the war.

US aid accounted for only 5% of the total soviet industry during ww2 though.

Soviets eeeaassyy

Soviet Union

Right after 1945, Ussr would have won by a big margin due to their huge amount of troops. Even top US officials at the time admitted it. US didn't have many nukes back then and for every nuke they dropped, tens of thousands of US soldiers/European civilians would have been massacred. Germany's very lucky Ussr did not give it the same treatment Ussr received from 1941 to 1945

Soviets vs Americans colorized

(Tank being the Soviets)

Murikans think they won ww2 single handedly cuz they send some supplies to ussr. lol yeah dude you guys also won in vietnam

Kirjutas Mussolini1812, 17.03.2019 at 16:55

Murikans think they won ww2 single handedly cuz they send some supplies to ussr. lol yeah dude you guys also won in vietnam

okay lets go into a scenario where USA doesn't get involved in WW2. First of all Japan would had invaded USSR instead of USA since USA isn't involved. plus the US supplied the allies too keep them standing and since USA wasnt involved in WW2 tats means weaker UK and France plus no D-Day so Germany only has one front to fight on. and since USSR has now Japan and Germany fighting them its a two front war so USSR would had fell to the Axis. So if USA didnt join WW2, The Axis would had won.
And now Vietnam, If we would had led a ground invasion of the North, China would had counter invade trying to kick us out risking thousands more of US lives, so Vietnam was impossible to win unless we would had intervened when it was still a French Colony

Kirjutas TimTheNoob, 17.03.2019 at 21:21

Kirjutas Mussolini1812, 17.03.2019 at 16:55

Murikans think they won ww2 single handedly cuz they send some supplies to ussr. lol yeah dude you guys also won in vietnam

okay lets go into a scenario where USA doesn't get involved in WW2. First of all Japan would had invaded USSR instead of USA since USA isn't involved. plus the US supplied the allies too keep them standing and since USA wasnt involved in WW2 tats means weaker UK and France plus no D-Day so Germany only has one front to fight on. and since USSR has now Japan and Germany fighting them its a two front war so USSR would had fell to the Axis. So if USA didnt join WW2, The Axis would had won.
And now Vietnam, If we would had led a ground invasion of the North, China would had counter invade trying to kick us out risking thousands more of US lives, so Vietnam was impossible to win unless we would had intervened when it was still a French Colony

Japan declaring war on USSR wouldn't make a difference, there's a cold mountain range protecting Soviet Union, which would slow down and break the japs, Vladivostok and surrounding cities would fall, but that's it, USSR would lose 250,000km^2, maybe 500,000, but that's it. Even if japs overcome the cold and mountains, they will bump on lake Baikal and even colder areas, thousands of kilometers far from their supply centers, simply impossible to fight and conquer. Japs would only hold the coastline until USSR kills Germany and turns around to occupy Japan (which would be more bloody than Germany).

Oh and Germany was 1v1 wtih the Soviet Union from 1941 to mid 1944, no Western pressure on Germany so your scenario is wrong. Western pressure came late and unecessary as by 1944, USSR was winning and already rushing to Berlin. Western Europe would either restore itself alone if USA didn't interfere, or would install communist governments due to Red Army proximity, which now in hindsight goes into US favor but that's another story.

Both US and USSR had veteran armies at this point (1945 Allies vs Soviets): problem is Allies were naval based armies, Soviets ground based. Next pro for Soviets is that they would bring their armies via ground to fight in Europe (main theater), Allies would have to use sea, which is then very hard to land if the enemy controls the coast.

No european nation had the strength to aid the Allies (or Soviets) so the war would be USA vs USSR with UK trolling. USA would try to land and fight, USSR tries to defend Europe from incoming Americans.

Despite US having nukes at this point, it would not make military difference, as veteran soviet army would be fast to hide, break, regroup and fight, no clear target to use such powerful weapon, US option would be only to use it on big Russian cities, which we know they didn't had problem with using (Nagasaki, Hiroshima), Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev would probably be nuked, but since USSR already moved war industry to Urals during WW2, it won't affect fighting strength, it will only piss slavs off even more.

War would last until 1949 when Soviets would research their own nuke, peace treaty would be signed with Europe belonging to USSR (like Warsaw Pact expansion pack), or Europe splitted between USA and USSR on the same line like real timeline. In any case, pointless war, only more lives lost, among them brains who could discover or develop something meaningful to help our living standard.

Talking about as soon as Nazi Germany fell, we still have to take into account Japan, that was still at war with the allies. The Soviets had by this point not yet declared war on the Japanese, so the two might've come to an agreement and allied together against the Americans. Though by this point Japan had been ruined so it's questionable of how much use they'd be.

The allies and Soviets both had massive formations spread from the Baltic to the mediterranean at the time. However, the Soviet army was much larger, three times larger from what I recall, and despite what the stereotypes might want you to believe, of better quality than the American one. In the case where the western allies had been the aggressors (again, despite what the stereotypes might want you to believe, that was the more likely possibility), they'd suffer from no small amounts of unrest and protest to the war, atleast in Europe, since the people wanted peace to finally return after half a decade of conflict. The remaining German troops would most likely be willing to cooperate with the allies against the Soviets, but they were far too few and underarmed to make a real difference. The result would be that the massive allied formation in Germany in 1945 would be annihilated, and most of Germany would fall under Soviet control quite fast.

Now in the matter of nukes, one has to understand that in this period of time nukes had to be airdropped. The only reason it was as easy as it was in Japan was because the Japanese airforce was, by this point, non-existent. In the case of the Soviets, they had a large, functioning airforce that would be able to intercept any nuking attempt in Moscow or Leningard or any other major city, and it's doubtful the allies would risk such an operation. In the long term I honestly am not sure what would've ended up happening, perhaps Soviets would develop their own nukes and the war would become a nuclear conflict, whereupon the nuclear weaponry would be combined with the V2 rocket technology, but if not, I'd say the war would drag on and on until one side got bored, without either really seizing the upper hand in the conflict. Chances are aggressor in the conflict would buckle first as the people would see the war of aggression as pointless and idiotic.

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 26.03.2019 at 14:01

Kirjutas TimTheNoob, 17.03.2019 at 21:21

Kirjutas Mussolini1812, 17.03.2019 at 16:55

Murikans think they won ww2 single handedly cuz they send some supplies to ussr. lol yeah dude you guys also won in vietnam

okay lets go into a scenario where USA doesn't get involved in WW2. First of all Japan would had invaded USSR instead of USA since USA isn't involved. plus the US supplied the allies too keep them standing and since USA wasnt involved in WW2 tats means weaker UK and France plus no D-Day so Germany only has one front to fight on. and since USSR has now Japan and Germany fighting them its a two front war so USSR would had fell to the Axis. So if USA didnt join WW2, The Axis would had won.
And now Vietnam, If we would had led a ground invasion of the North, China would had counter invade trying to kick us out risking thousands more of US lives, so Vietnam was impossible to win unless we would had intervened when it was still a French Colony

Japan declaring war on USSR wouldn't make a difference, there's a cold mountain range protecting Soviet Union, which would slow down and break the japs, Vladivostok and surrounding cities would fall, but that's it, USSR would lose 250,000km^2, maybe 500,000, but that's it. Even if japs overcome the cold and mountains, they will bump on lake Baikal and even colder areas, thousands of kilometers far from their supply centers, simply impossible to fight and conquer. Japs would only hold the coastline until USSR kills Germany and turns around to occupy Japan (which would be more bloody than Germany).

Oh and Germany was 1v1 wtih the Soviet Union from 1941 to mid 1944, no Western pressure on Germany so your scenario is wrong. Western pressure came late and unecessary as by 1944, USSR was winning and already rushing to Berlin. Western Europe would either restore itself alone if USA didn't interfere, or would install communist governments due to Red Army proximity, which now in hindsight goes into US favor but that's another story.

Ok I understand that this but what about my vietnam

That moment when you spend half an hour to give an elaborate answer and you get: Error. This forum doesen't exist.

:-[:-X:-[:-|:-[:-X:-[

edit: With this new DDoS protection make sure to copy a lengthier message before posting it or to simply press back after u receive the above mentioned error. You are welcome!

Kirjutas TimTheNoob, 26.03.2019 at 17:26

Ok I understand that this but what about my vietnam

As you said, if US invaded North Vietnam, China would join, so it was tricky situation. Looking now in hindsight, USA should've just develop South Vietnam's economy and situation would get better, people would not join Viet Cong. And if North invades, South would be able to defend naturally.