8. Stalin's Red Army Continues West After Taking BerlinThe article lists 10 ways things could have been different but number 8 has been the one that's always chilled my bones.
By the time the Battle of Stalingrad had ended, the Soviet Union had transitioned itself from Great Power status to something approximating a Superpower. By early 1943, the war was no longer in doubt, with Stalin's Red Army persistently pushing the Wehrmacht back towards Germany. And as it went, it gobbled up territories that would later form an Iron Curtain separating Eastern Europe from the West. But as historian Anthony Beevor has noted, Stalin —for a brief time — seriously considered taking all of Europe for himself.
And he might have been able to do it, despite the fact that Russia was importing copious amounts of material and equipment from the U.S. (Russian soldiers were eating American canned food and driving in Jeeps and Studebaker trucks). But after the fall of Berlin, the Red Army consisted of 12 million men spread across an astounding 300 divisions. Meanwhile, the Allies had 4 million men spread across 85 divisions. By V-E Day, the Americans were still several months away from developing the bomb — enough time for the Soviets to push the Allies back into the French waters. What would have happened after that, with the advent of the bomb, is anyone's guess.
Stalin stopped even though both sides were tempted to start a new fight between the allies.
The US would have had to basically stop activities in the Pacific...in essence fight a holding action...and then shipped as many forces to Europe as fast as possible to even slow down the Russian horde.
Some have speculated that the combined British and US Army Air Force could have bought time but I seriously doubt that. Armored formations that are skilled, battle hardened and experienced would make the kind of bombing raids that the allies specialized in kinda moot.
Read the article here.
I think what put any idea Stalin had of continuing west after Berlin was the Germany army's fanatical final defense of Berlin. They bled the Red Army to a point that it would have had to reconstitute to take on the western allies. And a few months later we had the atom bomb, to say nothing of using the remnants of the German military against the Soviets.
ReplyDeleteThose Red Army armored units weren't going to move very far without fuel. I don't see where Stalin had the ability to supply his forces for the sustained push especially since his supply lines would have been under heavy attack.
ReplyDeleteThe smoking lamp would have been lit.
they supplied a HUGE army on a push to berlin and their fields were out of reach of allied air power. they would have had fuel and they would have been able to make the push. i believe the overlooked reason is that Stalin needed to consolidate power. pushing further into Europe was possible but he would have been vulnerable to military leaders that he was determined to punish despite their stellar records.
Deletethe Red Army could have taken power but Stalin was more interested in personal power.
The Soviets still had many foes in their rear, many dedicated anti-Russian or anti-Soviet militias and guerrilla forces that the NKVD and Red Army would continue to fight into the late 40's and early 50's. That was just in the Soviet lands they re-occupied. There were still Polish, Czech, Hungary, Romanians, Baltic Republics that needed to be squeezed into submission.
Deletethats solid analysis. always forgotten is the guerrilla war after the war. between dealing with German Wolves (i think that's what they were called), everyone was dealing with insurgents and casualties continued even after peace had been declared.
DeletePoles were at that time broken shell of nation, it's resistance almost annihilated as fighting force. Large group of soviet collaborators in all aspect of life and even in government on exile. True Stalin know how Poles can be troublesome and he made couple of pretty sneaky moves to eliminate them from stage as opposition. With great success.*
DeleteCzechs survive under Nazis occupation almost without harm, they just wait out that part of history. No strong resistance movement, large cooperation... they try to play it neutral and were very successful in that. I doubt they would rise against Soviets in that time.
Hungary, broken from inside and no desire to fight with anyone. They were war tired. Romanians on the same position.
Baltic States, for good couple of years they were under Soviet occupation and reds know how to break people spirit. Again I doubt they would put any type of resistance at that time.
Now, many forget that Red Army in the times of fall of Berlin was not in the peak of power... quite contrary, they were very tired and start to heave problems with manpower. They take a horrible losses, they still take them even with massive outnumbered falling German army. Number's don't lie and to the end of war they take not smaller losses but they sky high with every month. We can say that Red Army was a poor trained and commanded forces and that would be true, also German army was in time maybe not that well trained but still commanded on excellent level. They were just better in war job. The Red Army of 45' was not the Red Army that push Germans from Russia, it was a shadow of itself, the best were dead what was left was numerous but they resemble more a wild horde then disciplined force.
* There is excellent and by many controversial book about destruction of Polish resistance by Soviets, I hope that it will be translated to English some day because it would be a fascinated lecture for you boys.
Russian oil fields may have been out of range, though we had bases in Iran. What wouldn’t be out of range would be the fuel trucks and rail cars. Bridges would not last either, within 200 miles of the front lines.
DeleteAllied forces would have had a greater impact on the Russian logistics tail than the Russian forces would.
I question the historical accuracy of an article that lists Operation Sealion as having a realistic chance of success in 41-42.
ReplyDeleteRemember, everything will change for Soviet around 8/1945. Their spies will keep Stalin informed perhaps, but they won't be able to stop the hell that will be coming. Hmm...I wonder if Europe would have been better off long-term? Image the Soviet formations and later their cities destroyed by atomic weapons. Does the cold war ever happen? I think not. In our timeline, the west was war weary. In this alt-history, the Soviets are destroyed with some states standing up along the lines of the old Russian empire components. Polish boundaries move east for a "buffer zone". China doesn't go red. The Korean peninsula is occupied only by the allies. Japan is probably not atom-bombed, but surrenders anyway in 1946 or 1947. Would the allies have continued air and naval bombardment? I think so somewhat. Atomic weapons would have been reserved though for the Soviets.. A mass starvation (we we now know would have happened) would have done in the Japs. An eventual invasion in 1947 would not have looked liked Okinawa or Iwo Jima causality wise for the US. Maybe we could have saved up a few a-bombs for them (at least for their forces in China) anyways. I think the world over all would have been worse off in alt-1948, but I think it would be much better off alt-2014. Too tired to grammar check. NIghty-night.
ReplyDeletehmmm. very interesting. i'm gonna have to chew on this a bit.
DeleteSo try this for size – The west doesn’t focus primarily on west, but from the east as well (yes its longer, but you’re looking at splitting the soviet force). Reduce Japan to containment only (ie home Islands) which is largely done by 1944 away & land at Vladivostok. Add troops committed to South and South East Asia (Read India, Australia, New Zealand & well as China to the degree it’s not offset by the Red Chinese) as well as cut off all the oil supplies from Iran. Throw in an attack through the Caucasus & try to add Turkey into the mix as well as Spain (Both of which are not too keen on the Soviet Union) . Most of all remember that Germany was in large part out produced, which will not hold as true with the US. Remember the biggest fear that USSR had during WW2 was that Japan was going to have another go at it...having the USSR less focused in this way may well have held the key.
ReplyDeleteOne factor in my mind is Stalin himself. This was a man who shut himself away for days after Germany's "surprise" attack in '41. I can imagine Uncle Joe having personal doubts and nerves about pressing West, no matter how strong the Red Army was or how favorable conditions may have been in '45.
ReplyDeleteRusso thinks in Russian and do not want to know anything beyond the "Mother Russia".
ReplyDeleteSee the Crimea, not applicable to the Russians beyond what is rightfully theirs as citizens and territory.
You do not see Russians bombing other countries with justification for "humanitarian bombing".
The Russians stopped in WW II because they simply are not interested in Europe, in fact, they know very well how Europe explored (and hence came the Revolution in 1917).
Bird eating stone ass know it has.
hehe.
They show that "not interesting in Europe" in pretty weird way, first they try to put the revolution fires from Moscow to Atlantic... then after WWII they capture half of continent and create puppet states there. If this is lack of interest then I will be scare as shit when they start to interest something.
DeleteShas:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, who got the other half in Europe after WW II?
Shas, who is bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and putting irons in Syria?
Probably the Vatican right?
hehe.
To answer your questions..
DeleteThe other half get under control western powers or rather liberate them and reinstate government powers in it. I don't see that Belgium, France, Holland, Norway ect. were puppet states of England or United States.
We "speak" here about possibility of longer WWII when soviets go against Allies not about modern history. This argument about fights in last times are ridiculous and I see it every bloody time Russians try to flame war about everything... We will auction who engage in military activities more ? "Hey this dude kill some dude, so it's ok that I will kill some other dude... you get me dude ?"
I don't know if you are a Russian or Soviet fan boy... but you definitely show a typical for them course of discussion.
-First, it's quite difficult to know the truth about red army power because of propaganda of US / Cold War after the war : but
ReplyDelete-USA could have build 3-4 nukes in 1945, and not that much until USSR had bomb. Using nuke on civilian cities in USSR would be difficult, since B29 were too short legged, and and USSR had fighter ( in contrary of germany where nazi insanity push hem to use fighter as bomber like me 262 )
-Nuke couldn't be used as tactical weapons.
-In th end of the War, the USS was the only one to have fully working heavy tanks like IS2, IS 3, T-10.
-USSR was superior in artillery on all aspects.
-USSR has the best Close air support aircraft of the war, the IL2 and IL 10.
-USSR had quickly the best jet fighter ( see Korea war )
-Red army was combat ready and trained by war, not camp.
In front we have :
-Allies were superior on sea, on All Aspects.
-Allies had Air force power ( quite difficult to compare with USSR, except for strategic bomber that were not develloped by USSR)
-Allies had paratroopers
By the way, I want to correct some thing about guerilla in 50's.
Guerilla was supported by CIA in USSR. They were communist guerilla in western europe, but not supported by USSR. In case of war, We would had so much communist all over europe to hlp USSR, in contrary of nazi..
But the war was long, and everybody wanted peace. Another time I would recommand the documentary of OLIVER STONE : "The Untold History of the United States"
I disagree on a number of points.
Delete1. the CIA did not exist at the end of WW2 so did not aid the guerilla movement in Russia.
2. who says that nuclear weapons could not be used in the tactical role?
3. they Typhoon, the P-47 were every bit as good as the IL2 and 10.
4. the US and UK both were developing heavy tanks and had even more sophisticated tanks that just missed the war. in particular the Centurion would have swept the field of Russian armor.
5. your claims of propaganda and constant America bashing are getting rather old. HAVE A CARE. OR GET SHUT THE FUCK DOWN.
I also want to disagree with some points.
Delete- There is not a problem with getting some facts about state of Red Army before and in times of War, many references and reports can be taken form official Russian archives and put them on cross with archives of Nazi regime. Both systems create very extensive and complex info about everything in that time. You just need some logic and proper math knowledge to see thru them imo.
- The Soviet fighter force was greatly insufficient from start to the end of war, with massive outnumbered the Luftwaffe in almost all aspect of numbers and tech ( in opposite of popular belief that Soviets and post-Soviet pseud historians repeat stubbornly the Soviet planes were not made from paper and they were pretty good machines, the quality of them suffer greatly of course but they were not worst then any fighter of that time ) they were unable to archive air superiority over any theater. To the end of war Luftwaffe attack planes were still in the air, that we can't say about western Europe.
- Nuke is used as tactical weapon... hell it's get even own weapon designation, TNW.
- Yes Soviets produce moderate number of heavy tanks, but Germans also posses them and... well that's don't change a shit heh ?
- Soviets artillery was strong, superior... not really but indeed a very strong factor.
- The "best" close air support of Soviets were also the planes that take the most terrible losses, irony that that losses numbers don't go dawn even at the end of war. If you see that number you start to wonder if they really shoot at enemy or they just try to ram them.
- Red Army was trained by war, but they take so much losses that that train is more a survive not to fight. And western allies also if you remember fight for some time and get pretty good combat experience.
- Sea power would not be a factor in this conflicts, absolutely domination on sea is without question.
- Air power, well that medal go also to Westerns, the soviet air forces were greatly insufficient to fight with single main enemy, the Luftwaffe. Against not only US but also large RAF... well that would be a decisive mater.
Red Army posses at start of war the largest paratrooper forces on the world ( funny, they always said that they need them for defense... who need an paratroopers for defense ?! ) they were put on foot because lack of ability to put an efficient air drop operation on any theater in whole war.
- Soviets support and control all guerrilla actions when they can, communist partisan in Poland was pretty strong force but you need to have control over them and hard to control anyone let's say in France. You can't put there your own "advisers" and drop of ammo, just too long way.
Quote: "If you see that number you start to wonder if they really shoot at enemy or they just try to ram them."
DeleteI don't have much of substance to add, but wanted to acknowledge that's a great line.
Couple of things you forgot General George S Patton he hated the Russians big time and would have been a hard nut to crack. Also the Russians would not have got the Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine from the UK. The West would be dominant in the air and sea and when you have air superiority you make it very hard for an enemy army to achieve their objectives.
ReplyDelete