Replies

If we would have gone to war with the USSR on mainland Europe in 1946, even with atomic bombs, it would have been an absolute disaster. The U.S. public was already incredibly tired of war---look at Ambrose's "Band of Brothers," to see that for the first time European soldiers set to go to the Pacific were "interested in medals" because medals got you points toward getting out. We had capped our infantry at 89 divisions deliberately so that we would outproduce Germany and Japan---but the Soviets could put close to 200 divisions in the field, not counting their recalcitrant allies.

These were not Iranian type "human waves" as were used in Stalingrad, but crack fighting troops that rolled over the Wehrmacht. And they had top equipment because we gave it to them (except for their tanks and artillery, which often used our designs). It would have been a disaster of the first order to send about 80 divisions (allowing for some to police Japan and the Pacific) against 200+.

We didn't have a bomber capable of flying to Moscow and back with atomic bombs (see "Hollow Threat" by USAF Col. Harry Borowski) and only had 100 bombs period by about 1947. When you account for planes shot down---in a-bomb raids you can bet every single Soviet fighter would be up---a-bombs would not have proven tactically useful in an invasion.

Our strat was the right one, as Reagan ultimately showed: box them in, make Communism fail economically, don't give an inch of new ground. Play defense militarily, offense economically and technologically.

Some of what you say makes sense such as the U.S. being tired of war but some of it is more nonsense than some of the conspiracy stuff.

I just glanced at my world map and the distance from much of Europe to Moscow was quite a bit shorter than from Tinian to Tokyo. B-29’s could easily have made the round trip and escorted at that.

With atomic weapons we could have told Stalin to get out of town before sundown and he would have had no other choice but to do it. That is if he did not have spies in our government who would have assured him we would never do it.

And they had top equipment because we gave it to them (except for their tanks and artillery, which often used our designs).

Most of the vehicles we gave the Soviets were trucks, which they need badly. We gave them relatively M4 Sherman tanks. The didn't need them. They had the T34, the best tank of the war. It was in production into the 1950's and was still in use as late as the 90's.

Tank for tank, a late war T-34 will eat a Sherman for breakfast.

Your point is well taken. My premise of being a different country is intact. Hitler said the world will only survive in ‘Eternal Conflict”. When will the world prove him wrong?The islamofacists are even more ruthless than the Germans or the Russians could ever be. Our grand children’s lives are at stake and it is good to know that WE the people are very aware of our new enemy. The coming war is at hand and pray to God it does not start we us first.