• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Should the US Have Done After Nazi Germany Fell?

So which is it? They have a large population of war-hardened soldiers, or a lot of inexperienced soldiers willing to take their ranks?

Because of their early success, the Germans assumed that their preconceived notions on the inferiority of the Soviets were true. This was, as it would turn out, completely untrue. For starters, Soviet reserves were far larger than what the Germans had expected. Because of their universal service conscription, there were 14,000,000 Soviet males with military training at the onset of the war. The Soviets had enough manpower to fill 800 divisions, not 200. The Germans, by comparison, had just 340,000 men in reserve back in the Third Reich.

Max Hastings, an author of several great works on both world wars, once described the Germans as very effective at fighting battles, but not so effective at waging wars. I find this to be a very apt description. The Germans had very good soldiers and officers but were crippled by various fundamental flaws. German generals prioritized operations over logistics and intelligence; the Abwehr was of questionable capability, the Luftwaffe lacked a strategic bomber that made their bombing campaigns ineffective, their tanks were either too light and weak or too complex and expensive (the Soviets were building more T-34s in a month than the Germans built Tiger tanks during the entire war), their cryptology was cracked and never rectified, and their war economy wasn't marred by corruption and inefficiency. German war production wasn't efficiently managed until 1944, at which point the Western Allies were bombing Germany daily, and the Red Army had routed the Germans in the East.

During 1944-1945 the Soviets had unleashed numerous strategic offensives that had thoroughly routed the Wehrmacht across the entire Eastern Front. The most devastating of these was Operation Bagration, the most successful operation of the war that annihilated German Army Group Center and wiped half a million German soldiers off the map. The Soviets had become extremely productive at their style of war, which emphasized the deep battle, deception, and the operational art.

By the time the Red Army reached Berlin, all of the former USSR was now a single unified state. Soviet war production was through the roof, producing tens of thousands of tanks, aircraft, trucks and artillery pieces. The Soviets had paid a high price for their struggle (27 million dead citizens and soldiers), but Nazi Germany was to suffer one of the worst defeats in all of history.

When the war ended, both the Soviets and Western Allies were in Germany. But the balance of power with regards to military forces was firmly in Soviet hands. They had more troops, tanks and aircraft in place. Had the W. Allies decided to try to push and go to war with the Soviets, it would've ended pretty badly for us. The Soviets could've shifted the 70th, 65th and 2nd Shock Armies to attack the British 2nd Army near Hamburg. Given the performance of the British Army during the war it's highly unlikely the British would've been able to hold back all three Soviet armies, even with the 1st Canadian Army backing them up.

The US 9th Army would've had to fend back attacks from the Soviet 49th, 61st, 47th, 3rd and 69th Armies, most likely reinforced by the 2nd Guards Tank Army and the 3rd Shock Army. The US 1st Army, further to the south, would have a relatively east task at first of stopping the Soviet 33rd Army, but reinforcements of the 8th Guards Army and 1st Guards Tank Army from Berlin, and a southern thrust from the 52nd, 28th and 3rd Guards Tank Army could've easily forced the 1st US Army to fall back.

Patton's Third Army is ****ed. He would have to face the 13th Army, 4th Guards Tank Army, 6th Guards Tank Army, plus 7th and 9th Guards Army. Even with the 7th US Army moving to reinforce, the Soviets could've just brought up the 53rd, 40th, 18th and 1st Guards Army, not to mention the 4th Guards Army would've likely moved to delay the 7th US Army's advance. And the Soviets still have the 52nd, 28th, 31st, 21st, 59th, 60th, and 38th Army in reserve.

On top of all this, the Soviets had repeatedly demonstrated a degree of operational capability that the Western Allies never achieved. Vast, sweeping strategic offensives by the US and British armies were uncommon by comparison to the Eastern Front, despite facing OB West, a German formation composed largely of reservists and undermanned SS forces. Given that strategic bombing would've proven ineffective against the highly mobile Soviet forces, and that atomic weaponry wouldn't be a factor until several months, later, the situation doesn't look good at all.
 
The Soviets were still fighting Japan, and it later decades the Soviets did instigate more wars. So perhaps the Soviets weren't in great shape to deal with more wars. I just wonder how susceptible they would have been to an Allied push eastward.

Wrong- Perhaps you should read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Although their victory and the subsequent negotiation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact secured the Far East for the duration of the Soviet-German War, the Red Army always remained cautious about the possibility of another, larger Japanese incursion as late as early 1944. In December 1943, when the American military mission proposed a logistics base be set up east of Lake Baikal, the Red Army authorities were according to Coox, "shocked by the idea and literally turned white."[74] Due to this caution, the Red Army kept a large force in the Far East even during the bleakest days of the war in Europe. For example, on July 1, 1942, Soviet forces in the Far East consisted of 1,446,012 troops, 11,759 artillery pieces, 2,589 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 3,178 combat aircraft.[75] Despite this, the Soviet operations chief of the Far Eastern Front, General A. K. Kazakovtsev, was not confident in his army group's ability to stop an invasion if the Japanese committed to it (at least in 1941-1942), commenting: “If the Japanese enter the war on Hitler’s side… our cause is hopeless.”[76]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Neutrality_Pact#Declaration_of_War
 
Yes that's true, so I guess we don't really have a test of their strength after WWII. We do know that by the time they had invaded Afghanistan that they were pretty weak.
Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires. Though IIRC Genghis Khan did subjugate it
 
I agree that ultimately it was doomed to fail, but at the time the Soviet Union was a superpower. The US wasn't the lone power that it is today.

The US had bases across the world with the ability to deploy significant naval resources, air and ground troops anywhere. The Soviets did not have that capability.
 
That is true. It has always been an ugly fact of life that those in leadership have to pick and choose their battles on both the home front and in foreign diplomacy and in war. And there will always be those who second guess the choices they make.

Like selling nuclear reactors to N Korea from a company Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of a mere two years before placing them on an "axis of evil" list. Like arming the Wahabist Saudis with the cluster bombs, know to have a 90% collateral dmage rate in the field, that they ran down on Yemen while wondering where terrorosim comes from - and wrapping up another $110B arms deal with these Wahabists. Like engaging in permanent destabilization of the middle east while partnering with folks like Saddam, Osama, ISIS and Al Qaeda and others.
 
Like selling nuclear reactors to N Korea from a company Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of a mere two years before placing them on an "axis of evil" list. Like arming the Wahabist Saudis with the cluster bombs, know to have a 90% collateral dmage rate in the field, that they ran down on Yemen while wondering where terrorosim comes from - and wrapping up another $110B arms deal with these Wahabists. Like engaging in permanent destabilization of the middle east while partnering with folks like Saddam, Osama, ISIS and Al Qaeda and others.

That's a lovely little hysterical rant you've got there buddy, but I don't see what it has to do with 1945. Care to comment?
 
On the graves of 230 million Slavs and Soviet citizens. Some victory.

Factories, farms and death camps. Hitlers plan for the Slavs was the same as he had for the Jews
 
That's a lovely little hysterical rant you've got there buddy, but I don't see what it has to do with 1945. Care to comment?

It's just objective reality at present, nevermind. We can deal with the consequences later.
 
It's just objective reality at present, nevermind. We can deal with the consequences later.

Actually, it's not any sort of reality, since we aren't "teaming up" with ISIS. Unless, of course, you consider bombing them to being a partnership. Same goes for AQ.

So. 1945?
 
By the time Nazi Germany surrendered, it was too late to do anything. The Russian army was in Berlin, occupied all of Eastern Europe and was larger and more battle tested than our own army. Not to mention we were thousands of miles away from our supply with an ocean to traverse whereas the Soviets had far shorter and more direct supply lines if a West v East war had broke out.

The time to do something was during the war. Roosevelt refused to take any post-war political considerations when deciding US-British strategy in the war. Churchill pushed repeatedly for a push from Italy into the Balkans and central Europe because he knew that would deny those regions to the Soviets and he knew Stalin would implement communist puppet regimes in any territory he "liberated" from the Nazis.

Roosevelt greatly misjudged Stalin, refusing to believe reports of massacres and political opportunism and thought he somehow would have a moderating/civilizing affect on him. Stalin often interpreted Roosevelt's lack of criticism as tacit approval or tolerance for his antics. How much of a difference a more challenging stance would've made is probably debatable, but still doesn't excuse Roosevelt's massive misjudgment in my mind.
 
That's not a personal attack, I was just hoping you would provide more substance. Of course another war would have been tough, but it's not as if Soviets owning Eastern Europe for half a century was a neutral option.

Do not forget, at that time we were still involved in WWII. Japan would not fall for several more months yet. And more and more of our forces was already being shipped back to the US for movement to the Pacific.

What was left in Europe was mostly a peacekeeping force. Infantry and Armored units were already standing down, and being prepared to return to the US for replenishment in preparation for shipment to participate in Operation Downfall. This also includes the Army Air Corps, as well as the Navy.

As far as the Soviets taking Eastern Europe, so what? That was the agreement we had made. And it was the same on our side, the US-UK-France occupied Western Germany for 4 years. It was only our merging our 3 occupation zones into the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) that then caused the Soviets to create the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).

So short of starting yet another European War while the Pacific War was still going on, I have no idea what the purpose of this thread is.
 
Back
Top Bottom