Could the Western Allies have taken Eastern Europe?

I think so. They would have air superiority.

It certainly would have been possible, but really, really difficult. I'm leaning towards the Allies though.

The US Army would have mutinied. There was nearly a mutiny over the plan to send them to the Pacific en masse. Thus, a point system was developed that allowed men to go home based on length of service and combat decorations.

Not to mention the reaction of the home folks to their boys being thrown into a war vs what had ostensibly been our allies.

In other words, logistics and tactical considerations aside, it was an impossibility, politically and socially.

Easily, Patton was pushing for this and Churchill saw the threat of Uncle Joe early on.

Logistics favored us since I believe we could resupply our troops better than Russia. Plus we could have used the marines in the pacific to open a second front on their eastern shore. At the min we push them back to Russian borders before they sue for peace.

Patton and his Third Army would've waltzed right to the Kremlin where Patton would've exited his open air jeep to piss on the steps like he stopped to piss into the Rhine en route to Berlin.

quote:

---

Could the Western Allies have taken Eastern Europe?

---

Yes, the Western Allies had the economic and military might to defeat the Soviet Union. However, they lacked the political will to do so, and it wasn't even contemplated as the war with Japan was still in progress.

quote:

---

... in early 1945?

---

No, war with the Soviet Union would not have been resolved in early 1945, and it is doubtful that the Soviet Union would have taken kindly to the Western Allies declaring war even with the limited objectives of kicking the Soviet Union out of areas west of its pre-war borders. Also, the Allies would have had to replace the vast majority of their Sherman tanks, and equivalents, with Pershing tanks, and equivalents, before they would have been successful in set piece type engagements. That would have taken the better part of a year to accomplish.

quote:

---

Would it have led to nuking Moscow, and would we have employed German troops?

---

Yes to both! The bases for launching an aerial campaign against the Soviet Union with proper fighter escorts would have to have been established. There were plenty of possible locations within range of Moscow, and other strategically important targets, but they were not available in early 1945. Once the U.S. had employed nuclear weapons against Japan, assuming finishing that war was given priority, it is likely that countries within range of strategic targets in the Soviet Union would have been receptive to U.S. requests for alliances and establishment of airbases.

Define "Eastern Europe"? There was no reason to go into Russia. Fear was a reason not to. As the USA had little to zero reason. We, the US of A, went from number 15(?) to number one as the economic power in the world. So why frick that up?

quote:

---

... in early 1945? Would it have led to nuking Moscow, and would we have employed German troops?

---

I don't like that "N" word, but that war stuff has just been on semi slomo for 60 years. I'm not a doomsdayer, but we have been Waring since WW2. The plan back then was to stop communism around "that place over there".

To answer your question, I'm sure there would have been nukes.

You know 28 million Russians were killed during WW2, half were civilians?