- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Could the Western Allies have taken Eastern Europe?
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:06 pm
... in early 1945? Would it have led to nuking Moscow, and would we have employed German troops?
14
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:07 pm to pensacola
I think so. They would have air superiority.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:10 pm to pensacola
Would have had to use german troops. The Russians had a ton of troops
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:14 pm to geauxtigers87
That would have been tough. England was on the brink of bankruptcy by the end of the war. Another year of war could have lead to a total collapse of a major ally.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:15 pm to pensacola
It certainly would have been possible, but really, really difficult. I'm leaning towards the Allies though.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:18 pm to pensacola
Maybe after the end of the Pacific war, but it would have cost as many casualties as invading Japan.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:24 pm to pensacola
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.
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.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:26 pm to Jim Rockford
At most we would have been able to kick them out of Poland.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:28 pm to pensacola
Didn't the Russians kill more Germans than the allies combined? Russia lost a lot of people doing so though, so they might have been weak enough for the taking.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:49 pm to HeadChange
Just a black & white military and industrial question: then yes, quite easily.
Factoring in the political and emotional aspects (war fatigue, political opposition): no way.
Factoring in the political and emotional aspects (war fatigue, political opposition): no way.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 4:53 pm to pensacola
Easily, Patton was pushing for this and Churchill saw the threat of Uncle Joe early on.
This post was edited on 1/4/15 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 1/4/15 at 5:32 pm to HeadChange
quote:
Didn't the Russians kill more Germans than the allies combined? Russia lost a lot of people doing so though, so they might have been weak enough for the taking.
Thousands murdered.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 5:34 pm to geauxbrown
Wasnt it just a few more months till we got the atomic bomb? Use it, and yes.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 5:34 pm to geauxbrown
I suppose there may have been fewer overall deaths when one considers what Stalin proceeded to do in eastern europe. No consolation for the American GI's, though.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 6:06 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
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.
Unless you can provide some evidence of which I'm not aware, you need to learn the difference between mutiny, desertion, and strikes. De-mobilization strikes occurred just about everywhere except central Europe and Germany, but those weren't mutinies, and those were because the war was over and repatriation was taking too long.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 6:07 pm to pensacola
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.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 6:19 pm to OilfieldTrash
We were supplying the Russian military with food and equipment as well as most of our other allies through lend-lease during WWII. FDR was sympathetic towards the communist and practically gave them Eastern Europe at Yalta. It didn't help that Stalin had his man, Alger Hiss in the State Department telling Stalin what he would be able to get away with at Yalta.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 6:22 pm to MadDoggyStyle
quote:
It didn't help that Stalin had his man, Alger Hiss in the State Department telling Stalin what he would be able to get away with at Yalta.
For which, among other things, Hiss was decorated by the Soviets.
Posted on 1/4/15 at 6:22 pm to pensacola
Militarily it was possible. Ceteris paribus, the one factor not mentioned yet is do China and its allies get involved to contain
western Democratic expansion?
western Democratic expansion?
Posted on 1/4/15 at 7:18 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
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.
This and the US Army was out of infantry and what we had was not well trained and many had no experience, so I would say no.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News