Should Russia Have Been Taken Down?

There was quite a bit of debate during the latter part of WWII by captured Germans and even some Allied generals as to what should be done about Russia. Should we have moved into Berlin under an agreement of surrender and refit the Germans to conquer Russia? Looking at the spread of communism and the problems and misery it caused over the years, what could have been done better?

[GarandGuy]

I believe the Wehrmacht should have been reorganized and refitted, the elite SS troops divided into Wehrmacht units, then attached to American and British commands and used to drive the Russians back into their borders. It was obvious at the end of WWII that Stalin was intent on spreading communism throughout the world. America also held a trump card at the time that wasn't played. We had the atomic bomb which, if conventional warfare failed, could've been used to crush the Red Army. Also the Russians could have easily been beaten as the Germans could've done it by themselves had they not been fighting a two front war. A reorganized Wehrmacht along with the battle hardened units of the Anglo-American armies could've destroyed the Red Army within little over a year. By the time the world woke up to the threat of communism the Americans no longer had the advantage of the atom bomb as the Soviets were already developing one. The Soviets had no chance as they had already lost millions of men and their logistics and transport basically relied on Lend-Lease. The Soviet MBT was the T34/85 which was a good tank but outclassed by the Sherman M4A3E8 which was a really great tank. The M26 Pershing stacked up well against the IS2 and would've been a match for the IS3. American aircraft outclassed the Russians in every way possible. The P51 Mustang was better than anything the Soviets had and by 1946 the Americans would be fielding the P80 Shooting Star which would've been able to make mincemeat of anything in the skies at that time. With the Germans reorganizing you also have American tanks supplanted by Tigers, Panthers, and PzKpfw IV tanks which were also superior to anything the Russians had. The Luftwaffe could also begin rebuilding and the Me262 also would be able to counter anything the Russians threw at it. Russia also had no navy to really speak of and would've been up against the two most powerful navies in the world, the British and American navies. Strategic airpower also would've made the difference. The Americans would've been flying waves of B29s into Russia, wiping out what remained of its industry. The Americans with their large forces of battle hardened elite Marines would also have been able to open up a second front on Russia's eastern border. American soldiers were much better trained than their Soviet counterparts and with the British, Commonwealth forces, and Germans along with them the Russians wouldn't have had that wonderful numerical superiority. With the skies dominated by the American and German jets and fighter bombers, the Russian tanks would be hard pressed to make it to the front lines before being annihilated. Russian supply trains would have also been wrecked before they made it to the troops. If all else failed, by 1946 more American atomic bombs would've been made and the Soviets would definitely be thinking of surrender after Moscow was wiped of the face of the earth in one giant mushroom cloud.

[angie999]

Can I remind everyone that this is a non-political forum and we need to be careful not to let our understanding of politics in history spill over into whether or not the west should have turned on its ally, the Soviet Union, in 1945, particularly in alliance with its enemy, Germany.

[sapper]

I must say that idea is daft! The presumption that the allies could have beaten the Russians is way off..They would have suffered the same fate as the Germans,The vast expanses of mother Russia would eventually swallow them up, Just look at the size of it for a start.

and even if they beat Russia, who is going to govern this huge continent? Where do you gwt the manpower? Surprisingly, there were a lot of people better off under communism. I know what would have happened, It wouldf be a never ending war that would take millions of lives. millions! Where and who has the manpower to manage this mighty continent? For a start how many time zones?10/11? stretching from Europe to the pacific

Then finally, the sheer arrogance of talking about going to war with a sovereign country, just because you dont like the way it governs itself...I wonder what the reaction would be if it were the other way round?

If it came to a war? Russias resources are far superior to anywhere else on earth. The mere suggestion is similar to that of the Germans many years ago. They got to the gates of Moscow, at a time when Russia was totally unprepared for war. remember what happend when they got going? It is just as well for us that they stopped where they did.... Who would have stopped them? it is so vast that not even an all out nuclear war would work. specially when they retaliated.....Pipe dreams mate... arrogant pipe dreams!
Sapper

(angie999 @ Dec 10 2005, 11:53 AM) [post=42958]Can I remind everyone that this is a non-political forum and we need to be careful not to let our understanding of politics in history spill over into whether or not the west should have turned on its ally, the Soviet Union, in 1945, particularly in alliance with its enemy, Germany.
[/b]

Angie, in regards to Russia, you really need to qualify what you mean by “ally”. Personally I think that term was not only used too loosely but also more of a technicality. Is a nation that continues to "scumbag" (verb) its "allies" throughout a war campaign causing many of their "ally’s" deaths, really considered an ally or just a nation with a common enemy?

That's not a diatribe against Russia, but I just think that Russia "used" the allies to spread communism by leveraging them to survive certain annihilation. Yes, Hitler was a class “A” creep, but that didn’t mean he was wrong about Russia being a plague to mankind or Stalin being an even bigger creep. If Russia could have conquered all of Europe including the Isles, they certainly would have. That’s history not politics, part and parcel of WWII, especially when you can cite many incidents where they performed many “non-ally” acts against their “allies”. Russia never pretended to be a liberator but was not ashamed to be seen as a ruthless conqueror enslaving the nations of east Europe. From their post war attempt to starve the Berliners to death as well as the provocative confrontations of war to building the wall that created a veritable hell for so many, their history speaks volumes. As a nation they have never earned honor as there are no examples of their nobility on a national level. Everything that appeared to be even remotely reasonable dealing with said “allies” we know retrospectively was nothing more than a con and a “means to an end”.

Other than that they were a pretty good ally.

[angie999]

I repeat that I think that this is a political discussion which steps outside of the forum rules. I do not actually moderata this forum, but I have my moderator's hat on here. In fact, I am closing the discussion. If you feel strongly about this, please appeal to Lee.