I'm mildly curious about the answer to this. Imagine you were Truman in 1946, only with the power to do as you pleased. Now, you consider Stalin a threat. You also know that you have an atomic monopoly, but that he will get the bomb at some point in the future. You could probably destroy the USSR, but it would require the death of millions of Soviet citizens. However, not doing so risks Stalin gaining the bomb, and who knows what he would do? Would you risk your family and children, on the hope that two nations so strongly opposed could maintain peace, especially after having witnessed WW2? Or would you strike first?
The war itself is a minor concern. The major thing that I'm unsure about here is how you could even swing things to give you a CB that works internationally and at home.
I don't know about the US but the UK was more than done with fighting by this time.
I would send Patton and his reconstituted Wehrmacht divisions to kick down the door to Russia. No detour to Kiev, just a straight shot to Moscow this time. :rolleyes:
I might have done more to keep the Soviets out of eastern Europe but certainly wouldn't have started off with an offensive war against the USSR.
Quote from: citizen k on August 15, 2009, 03:01:31 PM
I would send Patton and his reconstituted Wehrmacht divisions to kick down the door to Russia. No detour to Kiev, just a straight shot to Moscow this time. :rolleyes:
Cause that worked so well for Napoleon, right?
I don't think I would. I couldn't fabricate a war, be it with a false flag operation or anything. The American, European and Soviet publics were ready for peace and prosperity, and I think Truman probably knew that that was to the West's advantage.
If I could get away with it politically, yes. However this isn't a luxury that Truman had. He wasn't a dictator, he couldn't have started a war against the USSR on a whim. Almost everyone was already tired of war.
Quote from: citizen k on August 15, 2009, 03:01:31 PM
I would send Patton and his reconstituted Wehrmacht divisions to kick down the door to Russia. No detour to Kiev, just a straight shot to Moscow this time. :rolleyes:
Ditto.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 15, 2009, 03:24:01 PM
Cause that worked so well for Napoleon, right?
Napoleon didn't have air supremacy, endless numbers of Sherman tanks, and The Bomb.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 15, 2009, 03:26:02 PM
If I could get away with it politically, yes. However this isn't a luxury that Truman had. He wasn't a dictator, he couldn't have started a war against the USSR on a whim. Almost everyone was already tired of war.
You'd kill millions of innocent people because of the danger that Stalin might use the bomb one day?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 02:50:35 PM
I'm mildly curious about the answer to this. Imagine you were Truman in 1946, only with the power to do as you pleased. Now, you consider Stalin a threat. You also know that you have an atomic monopoly, but that he will get the bomb at some point in the future. You could probably destroy the USSR, but it would require the death of millions of Soviet citizens. However, not doing so risks Stalin gaining the bomb, and who knows what he would do? Would you risk your family and children, on the hope that two nations so strongly opposed could maintain peace, especially after having witnessed WW2? Or would you strike first?
Somehow I feel that risking my family and striking first is the same thing in this case. Funny that.
Of course I wouldn't launch a huge very risky and extremely difficult war in 1946 if I can avoid it.
No. The US didn't have alot of atomic bombs and the ability to drop them on the Soviet Union without fear of being shot down by the Red Airforce didn't exist. It would be really annoying if the Soviets shot down a bomb carrier found the bomb, fixed it up and then nuked London. I'm not sure the US could even win at this point. Rearming the Germans probably would create more problems then in solves.
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.
Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 15, 2009, 03:24:01 PM
Cause that worked so well for Napoleon, right?
Well forming a phalanx worked for Alexander the Great so maybe that is how the US Army should be fighting in Afghanistan....because that is about as relevent as comparing the importance of Moscow, the communications and transportation center of the Soviet Union, to Moscow, the isolated former capital of Tsarist Russia.
I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2009, 05:24:30 PM
I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.
How would you fit them into the factories?
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2009, 05:25:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2009, 05:24:30 PM
I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.
How would you fit them into the factories?
saws.
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 05:11:59 PM
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.
Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.
Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2009, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 05:11:59 PM
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.
Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.
Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.
Likely they'd take the food from eastern Europe and let them do the starving.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2009, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 05:11:59 PM
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.
Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.
Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.
Likely they'd take the food from eastern Europe and let them do the starving.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.
In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.
Rough on Europe, of course.
But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.
Rough on Europe, of course.
But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.
Hair mussed? How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.
In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.
Rough on Europe, of course.
But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.
It would take more than destroying the biggest cities to defeat the SU. And even if that were sufficient 20 kton firecrackers wouldn't get the job done, assuming that you actually manage to land them on target.
What was the realistic reach of the US air force inside Soviet Union? I think that if you could drop a couple of nukes inside strategically important cities, you would set back the Soviet atomic bomb program, which would give US more time to make more nukes and drop more of them.
Of course not. What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.
I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:38:36 PM
Hair mussed? How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?
Not very many, if they had them at all. That was why putting missiles into Cuba was such a big deal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:03:54 PM
Of course not. What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.
I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.
Why do you hate Truman?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.
1945-1949?
I would have tried to leverage the atomic bomb for greater political freedom for occupied Europe, but probably wouldn't have dropped one unless the Soviets struck first.
At first, I thought this thread was about Hitler's decision.
Is nothing sacred? Now he's hating on Hitler.
Absolutely start a war. Reconstituted wehrmacht divisions is a good idea. Try to portray it as soviets initiating it- that shouldn't be hard.
Save millions of lives, crush world communism. GOOD END.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.
Rough on Europe, of course.
But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.
Hair mussed? How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?
I believed they had about 4 ICBMs though they (like the US) relied on heavy bombers. I doubt many of their bombers would have gotten through and like wise few of the US bombers would have.
Could the Soviets reliably shoot down B-52s? LeMay had a ton of them in the early '60's.
Can you fucking 60s guys start your own fucking thread? Pretty please with assjuice on top?
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2009, 07:07:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:03:54 PM
Of course not. What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.
I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.
Why do you hate Truman?
I was molested by a haberdasher once. Wasn't pretty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2009, 07:07:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:03:54 PM
Of course not. What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.
I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.
Why do you hate Truman?
I was molested by a haberdasher once. Wasn't pretty.
Well you are now. :hug:
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2009, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2009, 07:07:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:03:54 PM
Of course not. What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.
I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.
Why do you hate Truman?
I was molested by a haberdasher once. Wasn't pretty.
Well you are now. :hug:
:hug:
If alien lizards and Confederates with AK-47s help in that attack, then yes.
no. people were tired of war. really, really tired of war. because people really die in war. its true, look it up, (maybe not on the internet.)
whatever else happened in the future, 1946 was a time for peace. full stop.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 03:33:18 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 15, 2009, 03:26:02 PM
If I could get away with it politically, yes. However this isn't a luxury that Truman had. He wasn't a dictator, he couldn't have started a war against the USSR on a whim. Almost everyone was already tired of war.
You'd kill millions of innocent people because of the danger that Stalin might use the bomb one day?
Millions of Russians. Not people.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 15, 2009, 10:12:23 PM
whatever else happened in the future, 1946 was a time for peace. full stop.
Unless, of course, you lived in part of the world where it wasn't, like China, South East Asia, Brazil, India, or the Middle East.
Quit being such a Eurocentric pig.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2009, 03:21:45 PM
I might have done more to keep the Soviets out of eastern Europe but certainly wouldn't have started off with an offensive war against the USSR.
It was already too late in 46. It was too late when the US split from the Brits/Canucks in late 44.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2009, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.
1945-1949?
I would have tried to leverage the atomic bomb for greater political freedom for occupied Europe, but probably wouldn't have dropped one unless the Soviets struck first.
Bingo.
Quote from: DGuller
What was the realistic reach of the US air force inside Soviet Union?
In '46, assuming that the British would let us base B-29's in their country, pretty much anywhere. Otherwise, it would have been a bit dicey until the B-36s entered service in '48. I guess if there was an active war going on, the B-36 program could have been accelerated a bit, but I don't think you could have gotten them into squadrons more than a few months earlier.
Undoubtedly.
I would be willing to sacrifice up to 10% of the American population in order to destroy the menace that is the slavic race.
If germans and/or french could be sent in as cannonfodder in the front of this operation, so much the better.
I think the better question is this: Would you continue the drive through Russia and into China or would perhaps the effort be better spent in developing the nuclear capacity to destroy the red chineese?
Quote from: Slargos on August 16, 2009, 04:22:20 AM
Undoubtedly.
I would be willing to sacrifice up to 10% of the American population in order to destroy the menace that is the slavic race.
If germans and/or french could be sent in as cannonfodder in the front of this operation, so much the better.
I think the better question is this: Would you continue the drive through Russia and into China or would perhaps the effort be better spent in developing the nuclear capacity to destroy the red chineese?
I'd be willing to sacrifice 100% of the Swedish immigrant population.
Quote from: Slargos on August 16, 2009, 04:22:20 AM
I think the better question is this: Would you continue the drive through Russia and into China or would perhaps the effort be better spent in developing the nuclear capacity to destroy the red chineese?
I think that the Nationalists would take care of that for you. With continued American support for the Nationalists, and no support for the Commuists, the outcome of the Chinese Civil War would be in doubt.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2009, 06:03:13 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 16, 2009, 04:22:20 AM
Undoubtedly.
I would be willing to sacrifice up to 10% of the American population in order to destroy the menace that is the slavic race.
If germans and/or french could be sent in as cannonfodder in the front of this operation, so much the better.
I think the better question is this: Would you continue the drive through Russia and into China or would perhaps the effort be better spent in developing the nuclear capacity to destroy the red chineese?
I'd be willing to sacrifice 100% of the Swedish immigrant population.
Shit, I'd sacrifice all of Sweden. Nuke Stockholm, just to make sure they they aren't shipping iron ore and ball bearings to Leningrad.
There's nothing to sacrifice. Sweden wouldn't have fought. They would have stuck their heads in the snow, undid their pants and stuck their pale butts in the air waiting patiently for the ass fucking of a life time.
In retrospect, I might have been more aggressive in Eastern Europe and China. They still didn't have nukes, and I think we could have scared the USSR into giving Hungary and Poland a reasonably fair shake, and maybe intervening in China. Though any kind of anti-Communist intervention in China would stand significant changes of becoming Vietnam on crack.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 16, 2009, 10:30:32 AM
and I think we could have scared the USSR into giving Hungary and Poland a reasonably fair shake, and maybe intervening in China.
Wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 10:40:26 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 16, 2009, 10:30:32 AM
and I think we could have scared the USSR into giving Hungary and Poland a reasonably fair shake, and maybe intervening in China.
Wrong.
Maybe, but we played it as though the Soviets had some kind of clear advantage materially and popular support in Eastern Europe. That, in retrospect, was clearly untrue.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 16, 2009, 11:08:41 AM
Maybe, but we played it as though the Soviets had some kind of clear advantage materially and popular support in Eastern Europe. That, in retrospect, was clearly untrue.
Those attributes were offset by Stalin and his clinical psychosis.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 16, 2009, 11:08:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 10:40:26 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 16, 2009, 10:30:32 AM
and I think we could have scared the USSR into giving Hungary and Poland a reasonably fair shake, and maybe intervening in China.
Wrong.
Maybe, but we played it as though the Soviets had some kind of clear advantage materially and popular support in Eastern Europe. That, in retrospect, was clearly untrue.
If we rearmed the Wehrmacht they would.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2009, 05:24:17 PM
If we rearmed the Wehrmacht they would.
I rather doubt that.
The poles would be falling over themselves to collaborate again if the Wehrmacht was rearmed.
I don't think you'll get the Soviets to budge a inch in Poland.
With Hungary there could be a possibility though, its small and away from the Soviet border. Maybe it could be Yugoslaviaised- communist but neutral.
QuoteThe poles would be falling over themselves to collaborate again if the Wehrmacht was rearmed.
I know you're doing the whole 'The Poles are Jew killing nazi lovers' schtick thing but....that is a interesting thing to consider.
Would they be able to support the people who had been mass murdering them a few years earlier to oust the people imposing a totaltarian government on them now?
There would have been zero support for this in US, since wartime propaganda had convinced the American people that the USSR was one of our allies for FREEDOM!
I doubt the Germans had it in them in 1945 to suit up and push back against the Red menace either.
There was no political support. Besides, I have doubts if the US/UK could win a conventional war in Europe against the Soviets, even with atomic weapons. The US had very few atomic bombs, and those weren't very powerful to start with. Re-arming the Germans would not be politically possible, after years of demonization, and the discovery of the camps.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 16, 2009, 11:17:32 PM
There was no political support. Besides, I have doubts if the US/UK could win a conventional war in Europe against the Soviets, even with atomic weapons
I think we could if we were really committed to it. The Soviet Military had lost so many men.
But yeah neither the US nor the UK could fight a war without popular support. Stupid Democracy.
A wehrmacht, subsidised and supported by America's industry, -certaintly- had it in them to suit up and go east again. A sovereign & strong germany along with the destruction of communism are powerful motivators, and there were still able men enough.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 11:50:25 PM
I think we could if we were really committed to it. The Soviet Military had lost so many men.
And the French, Greek, Italian civil wars that would have inevitably followed an invasion of the USSR. Those three are guaranteed, others could have happened.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 11:50:25 PM
I think we could if we were really committed to it. The Soviet Military had lost so many men.
And the French, Greek, Italian civil wars that would have inevitably followed an invasion of the USSR. Those three are guaranteed, others could have happened.
Add a German one to that, in all probability. It would have been a clusterfuck.
and Churchill would lose his election (July 5th, 1945), and the new Labour government would be in an untenable situation.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 17, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
and Churchill would lose his election (July 5th, 1945), and the new Labour government would be in an untenable situation.
Yes this is a hypothetical situation where the US and UK populations would actually be in favor of such a war. Obviously there was just as much support for such a war in the US in 1945 as their was in the UK.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 17, 2009, 10:50:52 AM
Add a German one to that, in all probability. It would have been a clusterfuck.
In 1945? Sure there would have been. A civil war to find food and shelter maybe.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 17, 2009, 05:42:36 AM
A wehrmacht, subsidised and supported by America's industry, -certaintly- had it in them to suit up and go east again.
Yes - all the way from Atlanta to the sea.
Can we establish that Lettow taint (especially in regards to history) is far more potent than Timmy Taint?
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 11:00:37 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 17, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
and Churchill would lose his election (July 5th, 1945), and the new Labour government would be in an untenable situation.
Yes this is a hypothetical situation where the US and UK populations would actually be in favor of such a war. Obviously there was just as much support for such a war in the US in 1945 as their was in the UK.
alt history has too many assumptions? I missed the memo again. damn this new board software.
Lettow taint? That's rich; your a raving russophile, and those barbarians are better dealt with strictly by threats and containment.
you.. like them. As if your opinion is in no way 'tainted' in this matter.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 21, 2009, 06:31:51 PM
Lettow taint? That's rich; your a raving russophile, and those barbarians are better dealt with strictly by threats and containment.
you.. like them. As if your opinion is in no way 'tainted' in this matter.
I thought you hated German as per your Yankee-Germanic Southerner-Celtic model.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 17, 2009, 11:21:25 AM
Can we establish that Lettow taint (especially in regards to history) is far more potent than Timmy Taint?
Don't be silly. You're just as bad as they are.
Raz, germans are germanic, they arent Southern. While the germanic peoples have cast their shadow for good or ill across history for five centuries, I do not really resent that.
Russians understand only threats, they do not value freedom or life as we do. They are a threat to western civilisation, and they should not be mistaken as european. A menace to society, as it were. Germans -are- society, just a part I dont particularly like.
The Russians are very similar to the South. Both are lazy and shiftless and kept slaves.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 21, 2009, 06:56:52 PM
Russians understand only threats, they do not value freedom or life as we do. They are a threat to western civilisation, and they should not be mistaken as european. A menace to society, as it were. Germans -are- society, just a part I dont particularly like.
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saynotocrack.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Ftroll.jpg&hash=20f2b93af457f69b25f7b8879b0ef933239bbd7b)
Oh, no doubt. Because nobody could ever get the impression that russians are fundamentally evil and dont appreciate human rights or liberties- thats stuff you make up to tell the internet.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 22, 2009, 12:23:31 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 21, 2009, 06:56:52 PM
Russians understand only threats, they do not value freedom or life as we do. They are a threat to western civilisation, and they should not be mistaken as european. A menace to society, as it were. Germans -are- society, just a part I dont particularly like.
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saynotocrack.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Ftroll.jpg&hash=20f2b93af457f69b25f7b8879b0ef933239bbd7b)
:huh:
Lettow > Spellus.
Quote from: Neil on August 22, 2009, 06:25:20 AM
Lettow > Spellus.
Oh come on now, there's trolling and there's just being stupid.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2009, 10:46:06 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 22, 2009, 06:25:20 AM
Lettow > Spellus.
Oh come on now, there's trolling and there's just being stupid.
And you're clearly an expert on at least one of those two. :)