- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Post WW2 What-if Scenario
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:43 am to VooDude
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:43 am to VooDude
quote:
I have this insatiable thirst for knowledge lately and have come to the right place. What if the allies took out the USSR while they were weak after Berlin fell? Would the world be a more peaceful place?
In short, no. The USSR would have inevitably fallen to the US because we were supplying them with the material required to wage war, but by the end of the war they were well stocked and were arguably the best army in the world at the time. They had more men, more tanks, and more land than anyone else.
Also, I’m not sure how not having nukes makes the world any more peaceful
1
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:54 am to tide06
quote:
In other words it was never really an option because Russia was a monster by the time Berlin fell.
Sadly a monster the Allies helped to create. Same for China.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:57 am to VooDude
quote:
It would have been a quick war winter or not.
It is NEVER a quick war in Russia. The country is simply too vast for anything quick to be completed country wide.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:13 am to HeadSlash
quote:
ext time ask what if the Japanese had invaded Russia, preventing the Russians from saving Stalingrad and the Germans were able to defeat Russia. Or the Germans bypass Stalingrad altogether and concentrated on Moscow.
I kind of like that scenario. What's your take?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:24 am to VooDude
quote:
I’m thinking today’s threats wouldn’t have nukes
Mankind's development of nuclear weapons was inevitable. The fact that we havent had a major war involving their widespread use yet is very fortunate. Any deviation from the current timeline of events could've resulted in worse outcomes.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:34 am to BayouBengalRubicon
quote:I think that you have this a bit twisted. FDR was the commie coddler who jumped up to save Stalin's corrupt war machine.
If Churchill wasn't such a bloodthirsty warmonger and had an ounce of strategy, he would of let Germany invade the Soviet Union full force.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:36 am to Oilfieldbiology
They had more tanks with no ability to supply them any distance from railheads without our trucks. They had tens of thousands of tubes of artillery but almost no Fire Direction control. They depended on just lining up pieces of arty hub to hub to get the same effect as one battery of American guns - and taking 5x-10x the amount of time to execute a fire mission.
Not only were our airplanes superior, so were our radar detection, fighter intercept control systems and strike capabilities. People also overlook how devastating our anti-aircraft fire was by '45 with proximity fused shells. Even when Russian aircraft did make it through our fighter screens, the AA batteries would exact a steep price. It wouldn't be long before we had attrited their experienced pilot corps to unsustainable levels.
Without our oil, food, iron, trucks and the thousands of other items we gave them to sustain their war effort, Russia would have been easy pickings.
And we haven't even mentioned yet the one military service that has won us every war we've been victorious in since the Civil War (as much as it pains me to admit it) - the United States Navy.
People don't realize how strong the United States was in 1945 compared to the rest of the world. Our oil production capacity alone dwarfed every other nation's by a significant margin.
The only thing preventing the US from annihilating the Soviet Union in 1945/1946 if war had broken out was political will.
Not only were our airplanes superior, so were our radar detection, fighter intercept control systems and strike capabilities. People also overlook how devastating our anti-aircraft fire was by '45 with proximity fused shells. Even when Russian aircraft did make it through our fighter screens, the AA batteries would exact a steep price. It wouldn't be long before we had attrited their experienced pilot corps to unsustainable levels.
Without our oil, food, iron, trucks and the thousands of other items we gave them to sustain their war effort, Russia would have been easy pickings.
And we haven't even mentioned yet the one military service that has won us every war we've been victorious in since the Civil War (as much as it pains me to admit it) - the United States Navy.
People don't realize how strong the United States was in 1945 compared to the rest of the world. Our oil production capacity alone dwarfed every other nation's by a significant margin.
The only thing preventing the US from annihilating the Soviet Union in 1945/1946 if war had broken out was political will.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:59 am to sabbertooth
quote:
Sadly a monster the Allies helped to create. Same for China.
True.
But without them do we defeat Hitler?
I'm not at all convinced.
If the soviets fall, Germany takes the oil fields and all those divisions shift west with much of their industry likely in underground factories and they have the time and resources to really start utilizing some of their jet and other advanced technology platforms.
Do we ever get the air superiority needed to launch D-Day? Does it get smashed on the beaches if he has 10-20 additional armored divisions to counterattack with?
Its a bad situation for us if the Russians and Germans aren't bleeding each other out in the east.
WW2 wasnt a scenario where there was a perfect partner available. The Brits were limited and spread thin and at war with Hitler, the Germans were totalitarians set on expansion and the soviets were just as bad with different ideology (just ask the Ukranians).
But assuming we side with the brits, we cant partner with the Germans against the Soviets because they were already at war, so the path and history were already kind of pointing us down a specific road IMO.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:03 am to tide06
quote:
But without them do we defeat Hitler?
Maybe. Maybe not, but would have taken longer.
However, if the soviets fall, communism wouldn't have taken place and we wouldn't see a communist china.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:06 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
However, if the soviets fall, communism wouldn't have taken place and we wouldn't see a communist china.
Do we spend 50 years clearing nazism out of Europe instead though?
I think honestly the Nazis were better organized and with time and resources would've been the bigger strategic threat.
Ultimately communism doesnt work.
The Germans letting the industrialists run production paired with the full support of the nazi party apparatus might've been a totally different beast.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:15 am to VooDude
You are taking heat for this but the Soviets were objectively worse than the Nazis on many fronts.
We obviously should not have sided with the Nazis, but we could have cut off aid to Stalin. It would have hurt the USSR deeply at the end of the war.
Should have let them wipe each other out.
WW2 was a failure from an outcome perspective. The allies were supposedly in it to protect sovereignty of Europeans from totalitarian regimes and simply forced half of Europe into slavery for decades.
It worked well for the US in terms of becoming a wealthy, global superpower but was a complete failure of a war otherwise.
We obviously should not have sided with the Nazis, but we could have cut off aid to Stalin. It would have hurt the USSR deeply at the end of the war.
Should have let them wipe each other out.
WW2 was a failure from an outcome perspective. The allies were supposedly in it to protect sovereignty of Europeans from totalitarian regimes and simply forced half of Europe into slavery for decades.
It worked well for the US in terms of becoming a wealthy, global superpower but was a complete failure of a war otherwise.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:19 am to tide06
quote:
Do we ever get the air superiority needed to launch D-Day? Does it get smashed on the beaches if he has 10-20 additional armored divisions to counterattack with?
That’s always the kicker. I don’t know that we could gain a serious foothold in mainland Europe against the entire might of the German military. If we did it would’ve taken a lot longer and far more casualties.
Would we have tried to invade a weaker Spain at that point? I’d guess there’s a whole new host of issues with that too. Longer logistical lines, neutral but fascist Spain joining the axis, further terrain difficulties etc
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:20 am to tide06
quote:
o we spend 50 years clearing nazism out of Europe instead though?
The Nazis were done by the time we are talking about. However, Germany as a whole was not. And that scenario would have been much more preferable to today. Russia defeated and no communism? Then no Korea or Vietnam, either. At least not for communist takeover attempts that led to our involvement. Nor communist Cuba.
Now we have Russia arming Venenzuala
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 10:22 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:21 am to VooDude
We could have tried but the Red Army would have been able to put up a lot of resistance. We’d have had to fight from Germany through Eastern Europe to Moscow and hoped we could take them out.
As much as Patton wanted to do this, I think it would have been doomed, especially since we weee still fighting the Japanese.
As much as Patton wanted to do this, I think it would have been doomed, especially since we weee still fighting the Japanese.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:24 am to teke184
quote:
We could have tried but the Red Army would have been able to put up a lot of resistance. We’d have had to fight from Germany through Eastern Europe to Moscow and hoped we could take them out.
As much as Patton wanted to do this, I think it would have been doomed, especially since we weee still fighting the Japanese.
By that time, the Japs were done.
Manpower/resources would have taken that. Same mistakes the Germans made on the Eastern Front wouldn't have been made again. And China was on our side then. Envelopment from the East, also.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 10:25 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:29 am to HeadSlash
quote:
Next time ask what if the Japanese had invaded Russia, preventing the Russians from saving Stalingrad and the Germans were able to defeat Russia. Or the Germans bypass Stalingrad altogether and concentrated on Moscow.
Yeah, this is the real question to ask. The Japanese had a "Northern Plan" and a "Southern Plan" that was being hotly debated as late as the end of 1940. The Northern Plan was to attack the USSR for resources. Stalin had NKVD spies inside Japan's diplomatic corp, and knew when they finally committed to the Southern Plan of taking on Britain, the Dutch, and the US. He immediately pulled something like 10 divisions, 5k tanks and 1k aircraft off the front facing Japan and committed them to the West against Germany.
Even if Japan had gotten their arse kicked, which they would have with their incredibly bad armor and crappy land-based planes, it would probably have been enough of a distraction to result in the fall of Moscow and likely ouster of Stalin.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:42 am to HeadSlash
quote:Was never going to happen. Unknown to the West at the time the USSR and Japan had a neutrality pact. While the Nazis were rolling through Europe and France the Soviets were destroying the Japanese in the Far East. Zhukov whipped them so bad they wanted no more part of the Russian blitzkrieg. They were also bogged down with the Sino-Japan war too.
Next time ask what if the Japanese had invaded Russia, preventing the Russians from saving Stalingrad
After Hitler fell there were deep studies on just this in carrying out the war against the USSR. They suggested that the West would have been heavily outnumbered and it would have been a bad idea. I'd say things turned out pretty good historically for the United States.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:50 am to Mstate
quote:
Would we have tried to invade a weaker Spain at that point?
Invading Spain or making Hitler think we might probably just invites Hitler to do so first though right?
And as Wellington found out against the French Spain with its terrain isn’t exactly a fun place to try to push through to get to France. I think it would’ve ended up like the Italian Campaign if we went that way.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:52 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
The Nazis were done by the time we are talking about
Only because we allied with the Russians and bled them out.
Without the Soviets dying by the millions in the east it’s a totally different war.
And if we ally with the Germans early then you have Hitler to deal with.
And if you don’t partner with either you’re talking millions of additional American casualties to get it done.
There was a boogeyman waiting on the other side of any of those doors imo.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:28 pm to tide06
Except, like Patton wanted, carrying the fight to Russia was at the end of the war. While the Nazis were done then as was Hitler, the German people weren't. As much hatred for the Russians as they have, it would have been a lot easier. And I have no doubt the Chinese would have made things interesting in the East. Russia divided makes for an easier time.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 12:29 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News