World War III starts in 1945

[AMBOMB]

Wow. You think that the Western allies would be able to hold the Rhine?

I was already sending the ships to Dunkirk.

From a purely research level it would have been interesting to watch. The first (Almost) fully mechanized war between two forces with completely different tactical & strategic doctrines.

The Soviets were nowhere near fully mechanized, which is another thing.

 

[BrianP]

How many atomic bombs did the United States have by the time the Soviets tested theirs in 1948? The Soviets could probably hold out in a fighting retreat long enough for Stalin to really push the Soviet atomic program up a year and have a bomb ready by 1947, with the help of captured German scientists. Once an armistice was signed in late 47/early 48, all of Eastern Europe would be free from the Soviet grip with the Soviet border back to 1938 standards.

A couple of nicley placed atomic bombs over the Soviet Union in 1947 would probably have saved the world decades of Cold War fear, unless China stepped up more. How would a war with the Soviets change China's communist revolution?

 

[Rasputin]

I reiterate my opinion that I think Stalin would agree to an armistice after the Japanese surrender, once news of the bomb's destructive potential reached Moscow. The beginning of the war in this case stemmed from a horrible accident, which both sides promptly tried to take advantage of to push their own spheres of influence. With the bomb in existence, Stalin's position becomes untenable. However, he could still extract a negotiated peace on the basis that while the Soviet's industrial base may be destroyed, it would still be a horrible and costly battle to reclaim territory in the face of in-the-field Soviet soldiers. So that's Stalin's trump-card for a peace deal: if you try to nuke me, I'll take all of Europe with me.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

Allies get shoved back behind the Rhine my ass! Try the Russians getting shoved back behind the Oder. The USAAF had 79,908 planes in July, 1944 and our planes were the best in the world. We had the most effective artillery by far. Not to mention we could've used nukes tactically. Plus, it would've been all the western Allies against Russia. Why do you think Patton wanted to go to war with Russia after Germany was defeated? He knew we could take them.

I agree 100%, not to mention that the Soviets were on very thin ice logistically and morally. A lot of their supplies came form the Allies via Lend/Lease and they were a long way from home in '45. Moral was breaking down in several units, or so I've read - don't really know if its' true, but accounts from the time insinuates serious disciplinary problems within the Red Army. Leadershipwise the Soviets would lack behind as well. While Konev probably could take on a general like Patton, Zhukov would most likely get his men slaughtered against a superior enemy's use of firepower and mobility - as AMBOMB notes US and British Arty was bad news indeed, not to speak of the massed Soviet armoured formation being blasted from the face of the planet by the USAAF and RAF. A war against the Allies would mean the end for the Red Army and, I suspect, the USSR as such too.

Best regards!

- Bluenote.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

The Soviets were nowhere near fully mechanized, which is another thing.

No, far from it! If anything they were motorized... by American trucks!

Regards and all!

- Mr. B.

 

[robertp6165]

Ims ure theRed Army would have some initial sucesses, but in the end the USA would have easily outproduced them. And that doesnt even yet take into account the nukes.

It also doesn't take into account that once war between America and the U.S.S.R. starts, the flow of American Lend Lease supplies supporting the Russian army will suddenly dry up. Russian armies will face crippling shortages of everything from army boots to food to spare parts for their American-made army trucks. They won't be able to operate very long without those supplies.

 

[Johnestauffer]

There is a book "A Damned Fine War" by Bill Yenne that speaks to this issue.
After the conquest of Europe, the allies downsize their forces in preperation for Pacific ops, and the Soviets prepare for a new campaign - the conquest of the rest of Europe.
And guess who stands in the way - Gen. Patton
More background to follow on the story tommorrow...........

 

[CalBear]

The Soviets were nowhere near fully mechanized, which is another thing.

No, they weren't, but neither were the Western Allies. And I misspoke, the first (Almost) fully motorized war was what I should have said. Both sides had LOTS for pure foot infantry, but, unlike the Wermacht, had relatively little animal drawn transport.

 

[Phenabob]

Bombs away

I'm not so sure that we would have used the Atomic Bombs on Japan in this Timeline. The US had used all it's refined Uranium and Plutonium to produce the 3 bombs we had in 1945(The Trinity test bomb, "Fatman" and "Little Boy"). It was going to be early 1946 before we had enough to continue production. (This was , of course, not something we advertised to anyone else at the time). Given that Japan was effectivelly contained and being fire-bombed conventionally, I think that Comrade Stalin may get a closer demonstration than he thought.

 

[AMBOMB]

How many atomic bombs did the United States have by the time the Soviets tested theirs in 1948? The Soviets could probably hold out in a fighting retreat long enough for Stalin to really push the Soviet atomic program up a year and have a bomb ready by 1947, with the help of captured German scientists. Once an armistice was signed in late 47/early 48, all of Eastern Europe would be free from the Soviet grip with the Soviet border back to 1938 standards.

A couple of nicley placed atomic bombs over the Soviet Union in 1947 would probably have saved the world decades of Cold War fear, unless China stepped up more. How would a war with the Soviets change China's communist revolution?

Russia exploded its first A-bomb in 1949, not 1948. At that time we had 235 of our own.

 

[AMBOMB]

No, they weren't, but neither were the Western Allies. And I misspoke, the first (Almost) fully motorized war was what I should have said. Both sides had LOTS for pure foot infantry, but, unlike the Wermacht, had relatively little animal drawn transport.

The Soviets had tons of animal drawn transport. And, as Bluenote pointed out, many of their trucks came from the United States.

 

[AMBOMB]

I reiterate my opinion that I think Stalin would agree to an armistice after the Japanese surrender, once news of the bomb's destructive potential reached Moscow. The beginning of the war in this case stemmed from a horrible accident, which both sides promptly tried to take advantage of to push their own spheres of influence. With the bomb in existence, Stalin's position becomes untenable. However, he could still extract a negotiated peace on the basis that while the Soviet's industrial base may be destroyed, it would still be a horrible and costly battle to reclaim territory in the face of in-the-field Soviet soldiers. So that's Stalin's trump-card for a peace deal: if you try to nuke me, I'll take all of Europe with me.

That assumes the war didn't start after Japan's surrender. The original message doesn't specify when the war starts.

 

[AMBOMB]

Japan will keep fighting independently, but I suspect it would still be the first to suffer the bomb (I think the Americans had decided on this some time before so that it could be 'tested' against the lesser power before using against the greater power. Same principle applies). Would the Soviets head to the peace table soon afterwards or would Stalin's obstinancy (or lack of information...either of the two) keep the Russians fighting?

That assumes the war doesn't start after Japan's surrender. The original message doesn't specify when the war starts. Anyway, the original plan was to drop the A-bomb on Germany.

 

[Max Sinister]

The Soviets had tons of animal drawn transport. And, as Bluenote pointed out, many of their trucks came from the United States.

One detail: Did they have to return them to the US? (I think that Lend-Lease meant exactly that.) If yes, did they?

 

[Kidblast]

Could the Russians have enough men to keep fighting the US? They had already lost 8.7 million soldiers, and I don't know if they could have kept fighting in face of such losses.

 

[Flocculencio]

Also, as has been said before- the partisans in Eastern Europe would be a big factor.

The Poles, for instance would definitely rise against the Red Army that let them be slaughtered in Warsaw when they could have prevented it. I'd think the same would be true for a lot of other Eastern Europeans.

 

[philjd]

How about this as a PoD?

Both US and Soviet armies rush troops towards Peenmunde (spelling?), then argue over the 'spoils' this leads to a small scale fire fight that the Soviets lose, Stalin gets 'really' anoyed and decides that its an attempt by the west to rob the Russians of their just rewards.

Tanks - the Russian tanks are better than the US/Uk's quality wise (and quantity also) until the Pershings and Centurions start coming on stream in numbers.

Infantry and manpower:-
UK - had problems maintaining its army at the close of WW2 due to a manpower shortage, only by releasing the units from the far east/italy can it boost its North European fighting strength. But with the Soviets also being in the far east/India and middle east, I cannot see much improvement/reinforcement.
US - the european units suffered from a shortage of riflemen by the wars end, but don;t know enough about the US oob's to know if this was global or local, or even whether it was significant??

Lend Lease - as a proportion of the Soviets war effort peaked in 1943, by 1945 it did not represent much (away from sources, but less than 10% of effort).

A-bombs - best to finish the japanese than risk the lives of so many in invading 'mainland' japan - my opinion of course - especially as it free's up so many resources. (Interesting 3 way fight if the Russians have already invaded japanese territory!). Perhaps bomb 1 japanese city and vladivostok? (as the bombs are in place there).

The Soviet airforce should not be discounted as it is not only 'large' but very experienced, especially at ground support and at fighting against superior equipment.... (Not saying that either the RAF or USAAF arn't either mind you).

regards
Phil

 

[Rasputin]

That assumes the war doesn't start after Japan's surrender. The original message doesn't specify when the war starts. Anyway, the original plan was to drop the A-bomb on Germany.

I made an initial assumption that the fighting takes place around the fall of Berlin, since that's the moment when both Allied and Soviet forces are in full battle mode and barrel-rolling into each other.

In regards to Japan being bombed first, here are the issues I believe the American leadership would think about:

1. Japan may have been mostly bombed out of existence, but it was still fighting and represented a living, breathing meat-grinder to American troops that were vitally needed elsewhere. With the prospect of the atom bomb it could finish off the last intact Japanese cities and bring the Japanese to surrender, leaving one less front to worry about.

2. In contrast, Russia had undergone relatively little bombardment. While its production in the west had been destroyed, its centres in the Urals were still very intact and producing lots. With only 2 bombs to start with, there wouldn't be much of a dent.

3. Also, Russia was a lot further in its atomic bomb project than Japan was, and better-placed to figure out how the bomb worked if it was dropped on their soil. This was the argument against using it on Germany first.

4. The war started by accident, and there wouldn't be the resolve to 'push for victory' like the fight against Germany. There'd always be the stated assumption that what they were looking for was an armistice, not unconditional surrender. If the Americans merely threatened the use of the bomb, rather than used it directly, it would give the impression that the Americans wanted peace and not the destruction of Russia (the latter would simply make the Russians fight harder) but was capable of it if the Russians pushed.

5. If nothing else, it would provide a second (fifth?) front in the east before pushing inside Russia proper, which would be a tricky proposition in any case, bomb or no bomb.

Also, about the supposed first target of Germany, I managed to google this historical source that suggested Japan was always the first target...

There is evidence that as early as May 1943, high-level planners assumed that Japanese rather than German military forces would be the likely target for first-use of the new weapon. General Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, writes in a memo dated April 23, 19453: "The Target is and was always expected to be Japan". According to Gen. Groves's summary3 of the meeting of the High-level Military Policy Committee on May 5 1943: "The point of use of the first bomb was discussed and the general view appeared to be that its best point of use would be on a Japanese fleet concentration in the Harbour of Truk (in the Pacific north of New Guinea). General Styer suggested Tokyo but it was pointed out that the bomb should be used where, if it failed to go off, it would land in water of sufficient depth to prevent easy salvage. The Japanese were selected as they would not be so apt to secure knowledge from it as would the Germans."4
The discussion on May 1943 was the beginning of a line of thought that would have astonished the Manhattan Project scientists. The line goes on with the choice of the B-29 bomber in the latter half of 1943, the only suitable bomber for use in the Pacific (a great range of 3-4,000 miles). In September 1944, President Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Churchill met. The summary of the meeting makes no mention of the possible use of atomic bombs against Germany, but it says that when the bomb was ready "it might perhaps, after mature consideration be used against Japan, who should be warned that this bombardment will be repeated until they surrender."

[URL="http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/435/4302.html"]http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/435/4302.html[/URL]

So there you have it...

 

[AMBOMB]

I made an initial assumption that the fighting takes place around the fall of Berlin, since that's the moment when both Allied and Soviet forces are in full battle mode and barrel-rolling into each other.

In regards to Japan being bombed first, here are the issues I believe the American leadership would think about:

1. Japan may have been mostly bombed out of existence, but it was still fighting and represented a living, breathing meat-grinder to American troops that were vitally needed elsewhere. With the prospect of the atom bomb it could finish off the last intact Japanese cities and bring the Japanese to surrender, leaving one less front to worry about.

2. In contrast, Russia had undergone relatively little bombardment. While its production in the west had been destroyed, its centres in the Urals were still very intact and producing lots. With only 2 bombs to start with, there wouldn't be much of a dent.

3. Also, Russia was a lot further in its atomic bomb project than Japan was, and better-placed to figure out how the bomb worked if it was dropped on their soil. This was the argument against using it on Germany first.

4. The war started by accident, and there wouldn't be the resolve to 'push for victory' like the fight against Germany. There'd always be the stated assumption that what they were looking for was an armistice, not unconditional surrender. If the Americans merely threatened the use of the bomb, rather than used it directly, it would give the impression that the Americans wanted peace and not the destruction of Russia (the latter would simply make the Russians fight harder) but was capable of it if the Russians pushed.

5. If nothing else, it would provide a second (fifth?) front in the east before pushing inside Russia proper, which would be a tricky proposition in any case, bomb or no bomb.

Also, about the supposed first target of Germany, I managed to google this historical source that suggested Japan was always the first target...



[URL="http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/435/4302.html"]http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/435/4302.html[/URL]

So there you have it...

I read that the first A-bomb was meant to be dropped on Germany.

 

[Floid]

I read that the first A-bomb was meant to be dropped on Germany.

Thank God it wasn't. There'd be no end to bitching from Europe if it was. I could see relationships souring.