If the USSR start a war in the 1947-1948 period what happens?

[Malone]

Let's say Stalin sensing how much western Europe is still reeling and trying to recover from WW2, decides to capture more territory in both Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans and perhaps Germany itself. In this brief time period really from 45-49 only the US has the Atomic bomb, however there's no guarantee the US would want to send forces back to Europe so soon.

Can anyone stop the USSR's expansion? Does the US attempt to threaten or outright use nuclear weapons against Russia?

 

[DougM]

The USSR gets a lot of information on how it’s troops and equipment react to being Nuked.

 

[BrockSampson]

There have been a number of threads like this, they have a lot of information to pour through. However, the general conclusion, outside of posts saying NATO/Soviets absolutely curbstomp for one reason or another, is that there are deficiencies on both sides with the short-term (as in a couple months) favors the Soviets but it turns to NATO’s favor as more US troops arrive. Germany very likely gets overrun though.

EDIT: I should clarify the couple months favor to the Soviets to mean their ability to effectively overrun opposition before being stalemated.

 

[David Floyd]

Soviets overrun Germany and Denmark, possibly even Low Countries and much of France.

US ramps up, and after a couple of years, destroys the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons.

Europe is ravaged for the 3rd time in 30 years.

Pax Americana exists, but it isn't a very pretty world.

 

[CalBear]

The Red Army does really well until it doesn't. It finds out just how big a problem a 1,500 mile long logistical tail is and why the WAllied built all the heavy bombers. It also finds out just how much nicer a full out modern war is when you have someone else pouring in equipment along with finished and partly finished materials. rather than having to do it all yourself while your former suppliers blows the pougies out of you logistical tail even as famine returns to the USSR.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Let's say Stalin sensing how much western Europe is still reeling and trying to recover from WW2, decides to capture more territory in both Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans and perhaps Germany itself. In this brief time period really from 45-49 only the US has the Atomic bomb, however there's no guarantee the US would want to send forces back to Europe so soon.

Can anyone stop the USSR's expansion? Does the US attempt to threaten or outright use nuclear weapons against Russia?

The preponderance of evidence indicates that the broad strokes of US emergency warplans in this period are accurate, even if some of the details can be quibbled with. They envisioned such a war proceeding in about four stages:

Stage 1: The Soviets mobilize and explode outward, overrunning Western Europe, large chunks of the MidEast, and those parts of Asia contiguous with the USSR (in concert with Chinese Communist forces). This period lasts about 6-8 months.
Stage 2: A period of stalemate ensues, as Soviet mobilization plateaus and the US continues its own mobilization (which was expected to be much slower paced both because of the demands of transoceanic logistics and the need to rebuild mobilization capacity after it got dismantled during demobilization). The Soviets may continue expeditionary campaigns in the MidEast and Asia, but these are unlikely to have any decisive results and could be blocked by growing Anglo-American military power. This period is expected to last between 6 months to a year.
Stage 3: Bombardment of the Soviet Union and build-up of the United States forces reaches a tipping point that allows the Anglo-Americans to go onto the strategic offensive in Europe and the Mideast, forcing their way back onto the continent through amphibious assaults if need be. The Soviet Union itself was to be ultimately invaded either via a western campaign over the North German Plains, a southern thrust coming up through the Med and the Black Sea, or both. This period of war was expected to last about 1-2 years.
Stage 4: The Soviet Union is pushed to a point of final defeat, US forces move to occupy defeated territory and otherwise impose peace terms. The time period this was expected to last was usually never defined.

 

[Insane Ranter]

Let's say Stalin sensing how much western Europe is still reeling and trying to recover from WW2, decides to capture more territory in both Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans and perhaps Germany itself. In this brief time period really from 45-49 only the US has the Atomic bomb, however there's no guarantee the US would want to send forces back to Europe so soon.

Can anyone stop the USSR's expansion? Does the US attempt to threaten or outright use nuclear weapons against Russia?

What is Stalin taking? He already has everything in Eastern Europe as a puppet state. Yugoslavia maybe? Greece? Turkey? No way. Either this is Stalin isn't Stalin or ASB changes him.

Glowing Soviet Union is what you get. Bunch of craters. Waste of lives and money.

 

[tonycat77]

The preponderance of evidence indicates that the broad strokes of US emergency warplans in this period are accurate, even if some of the details can be quibbled with. They envisioned such a war proceeding in about four stages:

Stage 1: The Soviets mobilize and explode outward, overrunning Western Europe, large chunks of the MidEast, and those parts of Asia contiguous with the USSR (in concert with Chinese Communist forces). This period lasts about 6-8 months.
Stage 2: A period of stalemate ensues, as Soviet mobilization plateaus and the US continues its own mobilization (which was expected to be much slower paced both because of the demands of transoceanic logistics and the need to rebuild mobilization capacity after it got dismantled during demobilization). The Soviets may continue expeditionary campaigns in the MidEast and Asia, but these are unlikely to have any decisive results and could be blocked by growing Anglo-American military power. This period is expected to last between 6 months to a year.
Stage 3: Bombardment of the Soviet Union and build-up of the United States forces reaches a tipping point that allows the Anglo-Americans to go onto the strategic offensive in Europe and the Mideast, forcing their way back onto the continent through amphibious assaults if need be. The Soviet Union itself was to be ultimately invaded either via a western campaign over the North German Plains, a southern thrust coming up through the Med and the Black Sea, or both. This period of war was expected to last about 1-2 years.
Stage 4: The Soviet Union is pushed to a point of final defeat, US forces move to occupy defeated territory and otherwise impose peace terms. The time period this was expected to last was usually never defined.

The Soviet air forces wouldn't be a pushover.
They were heavily biased towards low altitude tactical engagements but they were building top quality aircraft and had scores of battle hardened pilots and ground crew while the west demobilized.
Also they have radars and 130mm AA, combined with the sheer size of their own land.
You'd need to fly sorties from gb, France, go across Germany, Poland, Belarus and then finally hit their strategic targets.
Seeing how the USA was unable to stop the PVA from going through and recapturing almost all of north Korea by 1951, with zero air support from their side.

 

[BrockSampson]

What is Stalin taking? He already has everything in Eastern Europe as a puppet state. Yugoslavia maybe? Greece? Turkey? No way. Either this is Stalin isn't Stalin or ASB changes him.

Or he just has a less severe stroke a few years earlier that messes with his head. No ASB needed, just less luck in the health department.

 

[Mark E.]

Don't forget the American Operation Dropshot, defined in 1947. It was a plan to defeat the USSR, with or without nukes, by elaborately severing their communications network protocol. In other words, commanders would be waiting for orders/strategy that is corrupted and delayed. The US then, marches in. Quite a simplification, but on the books until ICBMs came along.

 

[Gillan1220]

There are many threads regarding a war in this time period. General consensus is that no war would occur because both the Western Allies and the USSR are still recovering from the losses of WWII. The USSR would face this war against nuclear opposition, something it does not have until the following year.

 

[Sam R.]

The USSR gets a lot of information on how it’s troops and equipment react to being Nuked.

Nah. Stalin gets a lot of information on reserves of power inside the Soviet nomenklatura consultation consent structures. My bet is Zhadanov leading.

Both Zhadanovishchina and Rakosi’s method show how weak the Soviet aligned parties and the Soviet party itself were. Purging Leningrad for fear of a “war solidarity” bloc ffs.

So Stalin is informally medically retired. Possibly with induced stroke.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Soviet air forces wouldn't be a pushover.
They were heavily biased towards low altitude tactical engagements but they were building top quality aircraft and had scores of battle hardened pilots and ground crew while the west demobilized.
Also they have radars and 130mm AA, combined with the sheer size of their own land.
You'd need to fly sorties from gb, France, go across Germany, Poland, Belarus and then finally hit their strategic targets.

I've discussed the capabilities of Soviet air defenses and the [in]capabilities of Anglo-American air forces at the start of conflict quite at length in other threads. But the incapacities of Anglo-American air forces won't last and once they are fixed, then the Soviets will be subjected to relentless air and industrial attrition by an extended campaign, just as Germany was. In the long-run, the VVS/PVO will break before the USAF does. The fundamental dynamic here is simply one of armament in breadth vs armament in depth.

For those not familiar with the terminology, it's actually borrowed from a briefing given by German General Georg Thomas in May 1939 in his capacity as head of the Defense Economy and Armament Office of the Wehrmacht and has been used by a number of historians since as the terms are rather useful. He defined "armament in breadth" as "the number and strength of the armed forces in peacetime and the preparation made to increase them [in the short-term, via mobilization] in time of war." On the other hand, "armament in depth" was defined as "all those measures, particularly affecting materials and of an economic nature, which serve to provide supplies during war [over the long run] and therefore strengthen our powers of endurance."

The Soviets would be starting this war with incredible armament in breadth, as far as ground and air forces go. They have an absolutely crushing advantage in this, much more so than Germany did in 1939/40, and this would be the source of much of their early victories. Western armament in breadth, on the other hand, was tiny: most equipment had been junked during demobilization and what was left were hand-me-downs.

The problem was that when it came to armaments-in-depth, the crushing advantage is on the Americans side. That is not to say the Soviets have no armament in depth themselves. Indeed, compared to either themselves during WW2 in 1941-45 or Germany during that same time, they actually have considerably more armament in depth in 1947/8. It's just they are still massively, crushingly outweighed by the US and --- once the Americans are able to fix the deficiencies within SAC --- their armament in depth would be subjected to an ever-growing conventional and nuclear bombardment.

Don't forget the American Operation Dropshot, defined in 1947. It was a plan to defeat the USSR, with or without nukes, by elaborately severing their communications network protocol. In other words, commanders would be waiting for orders/strategy that is corrupted and delayed. The US then, marches in. Quite a simplification, but on the books until ICBMs came along.

Operation Dropshot rather specifically planned to utilize nukes and did not envision some elaborate plan of "severing their communications network protocol". It largely envisioned the war as following the format of the late-1940s plans I described above, despite supposedly being set in 1957.

 

[tonycat77]

I've discussed the capabilities of Soviet air defenses and the [in]capabilities of Anglo-American air forces at the start of conflict quite at length in other threads. But the incapacities of Anglo-American air forces won't last and once they are fixed, then the Soviets will be subjected to relentless air and industrial attrition by an extended campaign, just as Germany was. In the long-run, the VVS/PVO will break before the USAF does. The fundamental dynamic here is simply one of armament in breadth vs armament in depth.

For those not familiar with the terminology, it's actually borrowed from a briefing given by German General Georg Thomas in May 1939 in his capacity as head of the Defense Economy and Armament Office of the Wehrmacht and has been used by a number of historians since as the terms are rather useful. He defined "armament in breadth" as "the number and strength of the armed forces in peacetime and the preparation made to increase them [in the short-term, via mobilization] in time of war." On the other hand, "armament in depth" was defined as "all those measures, particularly affecting materials and of an economic nature, which serve to provide supplies during war [over the long run] and therefore strengthen our powers of endurance."

The Soviets would be starting this war with incredible armament in breadth, as far as ground and air forces go. They have an absolutely crushing advantage in this, much more so than Germany did in 1939/40, and this would be the source of much of their early victories. Western armament in breadth, on the other hand, was tiny: most equipment had been junked during demobilization and what was left were hand-me-downs.

The problem was that when it came to armaments-in-depth, the crushing advantage is on the Americans side. That is not to say the Soviets have no armament in depth themselves. Indeed, compared to either themselves during WW2 in 1941-45 or Germany during that same time, they actually have considerably more armament in depth in 1947/8. It's just they are still massively, crushingly outweighed by the US and --- once the Americans are able to fix the deficiencies within SAC --- their armament in depth would be subjected to an ever-growing conventional and nuclear bombardment.


Operation Dropshot rather specifically planned to utilize nukes and did not envision some elaborate plan of "severing their communications network protocol". It largely envisioned the war as following the format of the late-1940s plans I described above, despite supposedly being set in 1957.

I know they would lose in the long run.
What I assume for the those threads is that the soviets attack with this in mind, probably some standoff goes bad or someone starts shelling someone by accident or a stupid local officer.
Then the soviets would accept that they are de facto in a war and would attack on all fronts.
Kinda like Japan in Manchuria.
In such a short and quick "accidental" conflict, i think the soviets would be in a favorable tactical condition to get most of West Germany and then try to sue for peace or declare a ceasefire.

 

[redjirachi]

What is Stalin taking? He already has everything in Eastern Europe as a puppet state. Yugoslavia maybe? Greece? Turkey? No way. Either this is Stalin isn't Stalin or ASB changes him.

Glowing Soviet Union is what you get. Bunch of craters. Waste of lives and money.

I mean Stalin is one of the worst people to live so I can see him not having any compunctions against this. That said, I agree with you since he's more pragmatic than the failed artist

 

[Cudymcar]

Technically it's not ASB, but only technically. It's possible, but not probable.
The notion that the USSR was a belligerent expansionist state is founded on the picture of it created by the cold war Anticommunist propaganda.

 

[Gillan1220]

Technically it's not ASB, but only technically. It's possible, but not probable.
The notion that the USSR was a belligerent expansionist state is founded on the picture of it created by the cold war Anticommunist propaganda.

It sure looked that way, since there were 2.5 million Red Army soldiers in the Iron Curtain.

 

[Cudymcar]

It sure looked that way, since there were 2.5 million Red Army soldiers in the Iron Curtain.

Red Army was transformed into Soviet Army in February 1946. Anyway, only ground troops were called that.
The whole Soviet armed forces were reduced from 12 mil in 1945 to 3 mil in 1948.

 

[Gillan1220]

Red Army was transformed into Soviet Army in February 1946. Anyway, only ground troops were called that.
The whole Soviet armed forces were reduced from 12 mil in 1945 to 3 mil in 1948.

Nonetheless, that's still millions which alarmed the Western Allies.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Nonetheless, that's still millions which alarmed the Western Allies.

Yes

Which is why the USSR would have enjoyed early gains. But much of the force was on occupation duties in the new satellites. And to provide the Soviets with a defense in depth.

It certainly looked a threat to the West, especially during the Berlin Airlift. Which is a plausible spark for the Cold War to go hot. But it doesn't seem as if the Soviets ever seriously considered an unprovoked attack to absorb Western Europe, Italy, Greece etc.

A pre-emptive strike on a feared US/NATO attack on them is plausible. But, unlike the Able Archer scenario, the Soviets could see no serious conventional military threat in the late 1940s. Subversion within the Ukraine or Eastern Europe, yes, but that could be handled by security forces.