What Should the US Have Done After Nazi Germany Fell?

[Jredbaron96]

That Uncle Joe moniker probably irked me more than any other war propaganda.

 

[Jredbaron96]

There was no war fatigue after losing so many young men?

Certainly. But if there was every a society brutal enough, so callous and indifferent to the sanctity of human life that it's leadership would willingly throw millions of young men into the meat grinder if it meant victory, it was the one Stalin had forced on the USSR under his reign.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So you'd rather live in the 1970's USSR than 1930's Germany?

Yeah.

Well, actually, if I had a chance to kill Hitler, I would take Germany. But just to live, than 1970s.

 

[phattonez]

I see that Life was nothing more than state propaganda even in the 40's.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I see that Life was nothing more than state propaganda even in the 40's.

Everything was state propaganda in the 40s.

 

[phattonez]

Yeah.

Well, actually, if I had a chance to kill Hitler, I would take Germany. But just to live, than 1970s.

I find it interesting that there was a pretty widespread coup attempt on Hitler. I wonder how long his government would have lasted even without the war, though the war was a big part of why the coup was initiated.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I find it interesting that there was a pretty widespread coup attempt on Hitler. I wonder how long his government would have lasted even without the war, though the war was a big part of why the coup was initiated.

The Nazis likely would've kept power, eventually losing it when the German economy collapsed under the weight of their military spending.

 

[Red_Dave]

In the aftermath of WWII in Europe, Stalin proceeded install a Communist government in Poland, and East Germany remained Soviet controlled. Should the US have done anything differently to not let Eastern Europe fall into the hands of the Soviets?

Stalin floated the idea of a consitutionally neutral Germany that would act as a buffer between the two blocks, with hindsight that wouldn´t have been a bad idea

 

[jet57]

In the aftermath of WWII in Europe, Stalin proceeded install a Communist government in Poland, and East Germany remained Soviet controlled. Should the US have done anything differently to not let Eastern Europe fall into the hands of the Soviets?

Patton and some others wanted to go to war with Stalin almost immediately after Germany surrendered but there was no way it as going to happen. Short of that, there was really not much that we could have done. I didn't like the idea that Russia got to liberate Berlin: that was our big mistake and why Berlin got divided in my view.

Having said that, I don't think short of all out war there was much we could do.

 

[yankintx]

As the Soviets had bled much blood, to the victor go the spoils. I do find it ironic that FDR and Churchill gave Poland away after going to war for Germanys agression.

 

[Tigerace117]

I've never heard of 20 million casualties making an army stronger.

You've never heard of four years of intense fighting against the strongest army in Europe making an army stronger? Huh.

"Combat experience" ring a bell?

 

[phattonez]

You've never heard of four years of intense fighting against the strongest army in Europe making an army stronger? Huh.

"Combat experience" ring a bell?

Not after 20 million casualties, no.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not after 20 million casualties, no.

Leaving the troops who survived that exceptionally experienced and battle hardened.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Not after 20 million casualties, no.

Leaving the troops who survived that exceptionally experienced and battle hardened.

There's also the fact that the USSR has steady population growth up until 1941, which meant that there were 2,000,000 Soviet men reaching military age each year.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Not after 20 million casualties, no.

The problem with this entire thread is not that you are trying to learn something, but that you are trying to use it to advance your own beliefs.

Here is a rather simple question. Is the US military stronger and more battle capable today, or in 2000, or in 1988?

Well, the question is both obvious, and not very obvious at all. In 1988 we had finished almost a decade of Reagan modernization, but had almost no forces left who actually had combat experience. Sure, we had some senior Enlisted and Officers who served in Vietnam, and a handful of Army and Marines with Lebanon and Grenada experience. But that was about it.

In 2000 we were a bit better, thanks to recent events like the Gulf War, Panama, the fall of Yugoslavia and Somalia, we were a lot better battlefield tested. And today, after closing in on 2 decades of conflict our military is more experienced than ever.

In 1987 I spent a few months training with the Army. And a "Combat Patch" worn on the uniform was a rare thing to see. Only a handful of the 200 or so soldiers I trained with had one. Today, about the only ones that do not have such a patch are generally those in the first couple of years in their enlistment. It is not unusual to meet people who have 4 or 5 different ones that they can swap out as desired.

Yes, combat experience matters a lot. That is why the US Army that actually invaded Germany was much different than the one that landed at Normandy. And the Marines that took Okinawa were different than those that first stepped ashore at Tarawa.

At the time of VE day, the US was in a similar situation to that of say the Gulf War. A few old veterans with WWI experience, the vast majority bloodied by 4 years of warfare. Not much unlike how US forces were by say 2006.

The Soviets on the other hand were much more experienced. They had never really stopped fighting since the start of WWI. The Revolution and multiple conflicts between the various factions as well as the remnants continued for years. And then you had the almost endless revolts, like the Basmachi Movement and those in places like Georgia to keep the army experienced.

Now even assuming the military was the same size and with similar equipment (which it is not), imagine the US Army of 2017 meeting up on the battlefield with the US Army of 1999. Even give the 1999 contingent a 5 to 4 majority (or even a 5 to 3), and I bet the modern contingent wipes the floor with them.

Why? Those still in the 2017 Army are the remainders of almost 2 decades of fighting. Of lessons learned and passed on year after year. The 1999 Army, mostly has the experience of a 1 week war almost a decade prior.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

In the aftermath of WWII in Europe, Stalin proceeded install a Communist government in Poland, and East Germany remained Soviet controlled. Should the US have done anything differently to not let Eastern Europe fall into the hands of the Soviets?

We ended up with proxy wars against the Chinese. You want to add Russia? Granted the war took something out of them, but it cost us dearly as well. Look and the body count and the national debt that resulted.

Crazy.

 

[AlbqOwl]

In the aftermath of WWII in Europe, Stalin proceeded install a Communist government in Poland, and East Germany remained Soviet controlled. Should the US have done anything differently to not let Eastern Europe fall into the hands of the Soviets?

General Patton was adamant that we already had our Army over there and we should have taken out the Russians while we were at it. He was relieved of his command.

So we will never know whether he or Eisenhower/Truman was right about that. I seriously doubt though that war weary American people would have looked kindly on a declaration of war against Russia.

 

[Oozlefinch]

And finally, what should the US have done?

Notice, we were busy ourselves, running around setting up Republics by the score. Why were we not returning the governments to quid pro quo ante bellium? Why not return the monarchies to monarchies? Because we had our own agenda, and that meant removing as many of the monarchies as we could, and making them republics.

The Soviets were no different. And remember, most of Eastern Europe during the war was occupied and ruled by Socialist Governments. So what followed was not that big of a change from what they had experienced from Germany (without the racial genocide of course).

So who is to say that they did not welcome the glories of the Marxist way of life?

What we see today in most of Europe is what I would call "Communism Light". Most of the policies that the Communists claimed to be for, less of the Stalinist influence. So I actually think that if given the chance many of the countries the Soviets occupied would have accepted Marxist-Stalinism entirely on their own. The Soviets were big, victorious, and eliminated the Nazis in those areas of Europe. And they had a large economy and industrial might that had performed miracles during the war.

 

[Oozlefinch]

General Patton was adamant that we already had our Army over there and we should have taken out the Russians while we were at it. He was relieved of his command.

So we will never know whether he or Eisenhower/Truman was right about that. I seriously doubt though that war weary American people would have looked kindly on a declaration of war against Russia.

Not only that, here are a few major things to consider.

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Red Army outnumbered the US Army by almost 2 to 1. And they were fighting on their home ground, where their only enemy had already been defeated (they would not enter the War in Asia for several more months).

The US however was already starting to return huge numbers of soldiers from Asia back to the US to reform units to be used to invade the remainder of the Japanese Empire, specifically Japan. If we had gone after the Soviets, we would have exchanged 1 European war for another, and still had Japan to deal with.

 

[calamity]

Not only that, here are a few major things to consider.

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Red Army outnumbered the US Army by almost 2 to 1. And they were fighting on their home ground, where their only enemy had already been defeated (they would not enter the War in Asia for several more months).

The US however was already starting to return huge numbers of soldiers from Asia back to the US to reform units to be used to invade the remainder of the Japanese Empire, specifically Japan. If we had gone after the Soviets, we would have exchanged 1 European war for another, and still had Japan to deal with.

No one in their right mind at the time wanted to go up against the Soviets. That's why we didn't, and why FDR handed Joe what he asked for at Yalta.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Not only that, here are a few major things to consider.

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Red Army outnumbered the US Army by almost 2 to 1. And they were fighting on their home ground, where their only enemy had already been defeated (they would not enter the War in Asia for several more months).

The US however was already starting to return huge numbers of soldiers from Asia back to the US to reform units to be used to invade the remainder of the Japanese Empire, specifically Japan. If we had gone after the Soviets, we would have exchanged 1 European war for another, and still had Japan to deal with.

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.

 

[phattonez]

There's also the fact that the USSR has steady population growth up until 1941, which meant that there were 2,000,000 Soviet men reaching military age each year.

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

 

[Jredbaron96]

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

By 1945 the Red Army was full of veteran soldiers and experienced leadership, and far more importantly had the ability to replace those soldiers with fresh troops should the need arise.

 

[Jredbaron96]

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

This actually plays into a rather complicated facet of warfare, so I'm going to try to explain it the best I can. I'll break it up because of character limits.

A big factor in war is numbers. This can be confusing because you'll often here "numbers don't win a battle", yet often times read how numerical superiority won an operation or campaign. The fact is both are true.

Numbers themselves don't mean anything. At the tactical level of warfare, numbers can be whittled down or limited by terrain, weather, troop quality, initiative, morale, and a host of other factors. But at the higher levels of warfare, operations and strategy, numbers actually come to matter a lot.

But numbers alone are misleading. The USA could, if it wanted to, draft 5,000,000 people tomorrow and put them in uniform. Of course the results would be disastrous if there was no planning, because suddenly uprooting 5 million people from every sector of American life, the economy and workforce would be insane. The same goes for every nation. You may have the population to put 5 million people in uniform, but if doing so also forces you to cripple your own industry and economy, you've done nothing but throw bodies into the field to provide a sudden surge of manpower. This of course is unsustainable, because you've in the process of fielding so many troops crippled your economy.

But let's say the US was prepared for that. Let's say we realized we needed 5 million more troops and made the proper preparations for it. The Government did a survey, found from which parts of the country we could draft people without disrupting the national economy and infrastructure, and where we did we could find replacements for those we drafted. We pour enough money into defense spending and arms production that we can arm and train 5 million troops, and we help farmers out so they can produce enough food to feed all those troops, while rationing the rest to the civilian population. So now not only do we have 5,000,000 more personnel in uniform, we still have a functioning war economy to produce ammunition, supplies, weapons and equipment. We have a sustainable war effort and a very large military.

Of course, before we got to drafting 5 million civilians, we'd go through our reserves. In the US, there are approximately 811,000 reservists, but we also have hundreds of thousands of inactive reserve, people who have recently completed their terms of service and could in theory be called back up in needed. On top of that we have people who have served before, and while not in the inactive reserve, are still within military age. Those people would be prioritized for drafting, since they've already done their service, know how the military works, and how to operate in the armed forces.

 

[Jredbaron96]

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

So now let's look at the Nazi-Soviet War. At the outset of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis had mobilized roughly 4 million troops for the invasion (~3.5 million Germans and ~500,000 Romanian, Italian, and Finnish troops), versus the Red Army which was around 5 million strong. So while the Soviets had numerical superiority in general (though not at the front), most Germans expected a quick and decisive war, lasting only a few weeks, maybe a few months at the most. It wasn't hard to see why; the Red Army was in a noticeably poor state. The purges of it's officer corps had left it bereft of junior and high level leadership. Most of it's troops were untrained. It's equipment was in various states of readiness. It wasn't hard to see why the Germans expected such an easy victory.

But despite it's initial success, Operation Barbarossa was a catastrophic failure for Nazi Germany, because it forced itself to be committed to a long, drawn of war of attrition it not prepared to fight. The latter half of 1941 doomed Nazi Germany to defeat, either through being conquered by the Red Army or bombed by atomic weapons from the USA.

Prior to the invasion, the Soviet Red Army had fought in three major conflicts directly. Two of these are well known, the invasion of Finland, the invasion of Poland, but the latter is less well known, the Soviet-Japanese Border conflict. The invasion of Finland is well known, because even though they eventually won, the Soviets suffered massive casualties in the process, and the Red Army as a whole was thoroughly thrashed before sheer weight and numbers eventually forced the Finns to surrender. In Poland, the Red Army had performed rather lackluster and didn't impress anyone. Because of these two campaigns, (and Nazi Racial policy which held the Slavs as subhuman), the Germans didn't consider the Red Army a serious threat.

But before either conflict had occurred, the Soviets had clashed with the Japanese in the Far East, in what is known as the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. While casualties were somewhat higher for the Soviets, the end result was indisputable. The Red Army had successfully out maneuvered and smashed the Japanese 23rd Division, and Toyko quickly realized they had no answer for the much more capable logistical and operational ability of the Red Army. Because while the Red Army didn't have great quality of troops or good low level leadership, it did posses a very robust and effective logistical service, and a senior leadership who were very proficient at both deception and large scale maneuvers. The Imperial Japanese Army couldn't match the Soviets in either firepower or logistics. This was where the Soviets shined; at the operational level, aka the "big picture".

Nazi Germany was a lot like Japan in many regards. It had very high quality junior officers and personnel (although German proficiency tended to come from training while the Japanese focused on fanaticism and spirit). But both forces had similar flaws; strategic thinking, intelligence and logistics. When the Germans invaded Barbarossa, they did so under the auspice that the Soviets only had roughly 150-200 divisions total they could call up. This was larger than the roughly 160 divisions the Germans were to conduct the invasion with, but not overwhelmingly so. The Germans were very confident of victory, their racial bias tended to view the Soviets as "Asiatic subhumans" and propagated of "Jewish-Bolshevik" criminal organization that was poisoning the world. Again, based on what they saw in Poland and Finland, it's not surprising that the Germans thought victory was assured.

What was surprising was why the Germans thought that the Red Army hadn't changed. Prior to the war the Soviets had done everything they could to befriend the Germans; sharing intelligence on the British radar network, inviting German officers to view Red Army parades and exercises. The USSR even asked to join the Axis Pact. Of course, this didn't mean the Soviets liked the Nazis. Stalin had recognized that his forces had performed very poorly in both Poland and Finland. While a paranoid monster and mass murderer, Stalin wasn't an idiot. He knew that the Red Army was deficient, and ordered the supreme high command (STAVKA) to conduct a major reorganization and rearmament of the Red Army to prepare it for an eventual war with Germany. By June 22nd, 1941 the Soviets were in full swing of this reorganization, and as a result were ill prepared for the invasion.