What Should the US Have Done After Nazi Germany Fell?

[Tigerace117]

The day the war ended, the Soviet Union was no longer an ally. The day the Soviet Union broke its promise of free elections in the "liberated" countries (Yalta and the Atlantic Charter) they no longer had the right to occupy Eastern Europe. By early spring of 1946 it was clear that the Soviet Union were treating Poles and Baltics as others as vassals states and ruthlessly murdering any democratic opposition.

Use of atomic weaponry is not a war crime. So in, in the spring of 46 the transfer of B-29s and other resources should have been initiated. The bombs (26 it is claimed) should have been readied, and the mobilization of 300 divisions begun. Stalin,a ruthless but cautious opportunist would have backed down and found a way to accommodate Western demands; in fact, he did so in Iran when the western allies forcefully demanded the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

If my stridency is misleading, let me directly state: I am not saying the allies should have started WWIII with the Russians. But I am saying that the Soviets would have deserved it and that they would have backed down. I am also saying that if WWIII happened, a very costly and bloody war would have ensued with the allies as the final victor.

And part of that would have been dropping the A-bomb on Leningrad, Moscow, Smolensk, the Russian Caucuses oil fields, major airbases in Eastern Europe, etc., to be followed up by an invasion of 300 American and (some number) of UK divisions, and further atomic attacks deep behind enemy lines.

We already knew the Soviets considered the Baltic states as vassals. That was a pre-Hitler development.

That's an arguable point. The Soviets did liberate those states from various fascist states. The system they implemented was also quite oppressive, but it's hard to argue we should have gone to war to keep the people who kicked the Nazis out of the area from setting up their own puppet states.

Considering how many people consider the use of atomic weaponry on a nation we were, you know, at war with to be a war crime....it'd be a safe bet that using them on our allies(which the USSR still was---for a couple more years post war, anyway) would be considered despicable.

The public in the West would not have stood for that. You'd have riots in the street. People were sick of fighting. Europe was in ruins. Rebuilding was considered the number one priority. A handful of people suggested what you are proposing and they were overwhelmingly shouted down.

Stalin would not have abandoned what he considered were his---and Russia's---spoils, the payoff after years of brutal fighting. He was not going to back down. Iran is an entirely different story than Eastern Europe; Stalin was always going to prioritize the latter. Iran is a sideshow, and largely irrelevant.

I highly doubt it. It is highly unlikely we could have "won" a conventional war in 1945, and a nuclear conflict would have just lead to more trouble down the line. Remember, the atomic program and sciences were heavily infiltrated by communist sympathizers, as were the intelligence services. Even if by some miracle we did "win" a nuclear WW3, how long until our own cities start getting hit?

Once again, there's no way on earth the public in 1945 would have stood for that. Hell, the feasibility is shaky at best. The idea that the USAAF could launch such strikes at will is a stretch. Russia is not Germany or Japan, where their air forces had largely been annihilated by 1945. The Red Air Force, like the Red Army, was battle hardened against some of the best teachers on earth. Localized air superiority is no biggie, but once you start talking about nuking Leningrad.....that's a whole another ballgame.

 

[maxparrish]

We already knew the Soviets considered the Baltic states as vassals. That was a pre-Hitler development.

That's an arguable point. The Soviets did liberate those states from various fascist states. The system they implemented was also quite oppressive, but it's hard to argue we should have gone to war to keep the people who kicked the Nazis out of the area from setting up their own puppet states.

Considering how many people consider the use of atomic weaponry on a nation we were, you know, at war with to be a war crime....it'd be a safe bet that using them on our allies(which the USSR still was---for a couple more years post war, anyway) would be considered despicable.

The public in the West would not have stood for that. You'd have riots in the street. People were sick of fighting. Europe was in ruins. Rebuilding was considered the number one priority. A handful of people suggested what you are proposing and they were overwhelmingly shouted down.

Stalin would not have abandoned what he considered were his---and Russia's---spoils, the payoff after years of brutal fighting. He was not going to back down. Iran is an entirely different story than Eastern Europe; Stalin was always going to prioritize the latter. Iran is a sideshow, and largely irrelevant.

I highly doubt it. It is highly unlikely we could have "won" a conventional war in 1945, and a nuclear conflict would have just lead to more trouble down the line. Remember, the atomic program and sciences were heavily infiltrated by communist sympathizers, as were the intelligence services. Even if by some miracle we did "win" a nuclear WW3, how long until our own cities start getting hit?

Once again, there's no way on earth the public in 1945 would have stood for that. Hell, the feasibility is shaky at best. The idea that the USAAF could launch such strikes at will is a stretch. Russia is not Germany or Japan, where their air forces had largely been annihilated by 1945. The Red Air Force, like the Red Army, was battle hardened against some of the best teachers on earth. Localized air superiority is no biggie, but once you start talking about nuking Leningrad.....that's a whole another ballgame.

As I said, I am not saying that we should have started WWIII, nor am I even arguing what someone thinks would have been politically acceptable. I am saying that a) the Soviets culpability in starting WII delegitimizes ANY Soviet moral demands for territorial annexation. If you are one of two robbers and after the heist your partner in crime double-crosses you that does not make you a victim needing to compensated - got it?

And it is troubling that anyone is still serving as an apologist for Stalin or the Soviet Union. The history of the Baltic States and Poland and been one of being oppressed by greater powers against their will, traded or lost as tribute in war between Swedes, Russians, Germans, etc. However in the late 19th century nationalism arose and an increasing demand for greater autonomy from Russia. At the conclusion of WWI the Bolsheviks (and other forces) invaded the Baltics to secure their empire but those States (and Poland) eventually secured their nationhood.

Prior to WWII they were recognized as independent states by the League of Nations, and became members. The Hitler-Stalin pact (aka Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) sold out the Baltics to the Russians. Once more the communist armies occupied the Baltics (and part of Poland), then the Germans invaded, then the Soviets invaded again. In any event, nationhood was extinguished and the Soviets annexed the Baltics, and "Russified" them under installed communist officials.

So no, its not "hard to argue" that we should have demanded (at Yalta and Potsdam) that the enabler of the Nazi's (the Soviet Union) and equally criminal Soviets not establish a new totalitarian regime. We should have demanded the enforcement of the free election promises.

Churchill knew the allies sold out Poland and the Baltics, but he had neither the will nor the power to force FDR to strap on a porta spine.

And yes, Stalin would have backed down. NO doubt some compromises would have been struck (e.g. "Finlandization" or "Austrian neutrality" for eastern europe and the baltics...but it would have been far better than what actually happened.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

As I said, I am not saying that we should have started WWIII, nor am I even arguing what someone thinks would have been politically acceptable. I am saying that a) the Soviets culpability in starting WII delegitimizes ANY Soviet moral demands for territorial annexation. If you are one of two robbers and after the heist your partner in crime double-crosses you that does not make you a victim needing to compensated - got it?

And it is troubling that anyone is still serving as an apologist for Stalin or the Soviet Union. The history of the Baltic States and Poland and been one of being oppressed by greater powers against their will, traded or lost as tribute in war between Swedes, Russians, Germans, etc. However in the late 19th century nationalism arose and an increasing demand for greater autonomy from Russia. At the conclusion of WWI the Bolsheviks (and other forces) invaded the Baltics to secure their empire but those States (and Poland) eventually secured their nationhood.

Prior to WWII they were recognized as independent states by the League of Nations, and became members. The Hitler-Stalin pact (aka Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) sold out the Baltics to the Russians. Once more the communist armies occupied the Baltics (and part of Poland), then the Germans invaded, then the Soviets invaded again. In any event, nationhood was extinguished and the Soviets annexed the Baltics, and "Russified" them under installed communist officials.

So no, its not "hard to argue" that we should have demanded (at Yalta and Potsdam) that the enabler of the Nazi's (the Soviet Union) and equally criminal Soviets not establish a new totalitarian regime. We should have demanded the enforcement of the free election promises.

Churchill knew the allies sold out Poland and the Baltics, but he had neither the will nor the power to force FDR to strap on a porta spine.

And yes, Stalin would have backed down. NO doubt some compromises would have been struck (e.g. "Finlandization" or "Austrian neutrality" for eastern europe and the baltics...but it would have been far better than what actually happened.

We were in no position to contest the soviets in Eastern Europe, unless you would have preferred Stalin making a separate peace with Hitler and having to face the full might of the German army once hitter moved all the troops from the east to the west.

 

[Tigerace117]

As I said, I am not saying that we should have started WWIII, nor am I even arguing what someone thinks would have been politically acceptable. I am saying that a) the Soviets culpability in starting WII delegitimizes ANY Soviet moral demands for territorial annexation. If you are one of two robbers and after the heist your partner in crime double-crosses you that does not make you a victim needing to compensated - got it?

And it is troubling that anyone is still serving as an apologist for Stalin or the Soviet Union. The history of the Baltic States and Poland and been one of being oppressed by greater powers against their will, traded or lost as tribute in war between Swedes, Russians, Germans, etc. However in the late 19th century nationalism arose and an increasing demand for greater autonomy from Russia. At the conclusion of WWI the Bolsheviks (and other forces) invaded the Baltics to secure their empire but those States (and Poland) eventually secured their nationhood.

Prior to WWII they were recognized as independent states by the League of Nations, and became members. The Hitler-Stalin pact (aka Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) sold out the Baltics to the Russians. Once more the communist armies occupied the Baltics (and part of Poland), then the Germans invaded, then the Soviets invaded again. In any event, nationhood was extinguished and the Soviets annexed the Baltics, and "Russified" them under installed communist officials.

So no, its not "hard to argue" that we should have demanded (at Yalta and Potsdam) that the enabler of the Nazi's (the Soviet Union) and equally criminal Soviets not establish a new totalitarian regime. We should have demanded the enforcement of the free election promises.

Churchill knew the allies sold out Poland and the Baltics, but he had neither the will nor the power to force FDR to strap on a porta spine.

And yes, Stalin would have backed down. NO doubt some compromises would have been struck (e.g. "Finlandization" or "Austrian neutrality" for eastern europe and the baltics...but it would have been far better than what actually happened.

You kind of are though.....advocating massed nuclear strikes and a 300 division offensive is kinda the exact definition of that.

In that case, there is no western allied case for compensation either since the policy of appeasement enabled the Nazis to ramp up in the first place.

I'm pretty sure if you then help the police bring down the massive heavily armed criminal cartel that your partner lead that the police would take a pretty favorable view of you after that. That's what happens in the real world, after all, though it's via testimony rather than direct action.

Declaring that we shouldn't nuke a half a dozen Russian cities is not "Stalin apologism". I'm disturbed you see it as such.

Yes, the Baltic States and Poland were repeatedly conquered by stronger countries. That's a pitfall of being a small country in Eastern Europe.

There was no logical way, other than via revenge fantasizing(because that's what calling for nuclear strikes on Russian cities amount to) that we could have enforced such a demand. Nor were we in any position to demand anything and try to enforce it by, well, force.

Churchill never met a conflict he didn't like, but his strategic thinking was awfully iffy as seen at Gallipoli. People had enough. He gave a great speech though.

Real classy way to talk about somebody in a wheelchair by the way.

No, he wouldn't have. There is no way on earth Stalin would have been willing to abandon his spoils, despite your wishful thinking.

 

[phattonez]

Politics and war make strange bedfellows.

It's debatable who trusted who too much. But the reality is that we might not have defeated Hitler without the Soviets.

And without Hitler attacking Stalin, the Soviets took over Eastern Europe. It was a terrible outcome.

 

[phattonez]

The population of the USSR was around 190 million in 1941. There were also the Poles, Roma, and Yugoslavs, along with all the other Slavs of Europe that had been designated as subhuman by the Nazis. Once the USSR was out of the picture, the Nazis probably would've gone after the French,and then start whittling down the definition of Aryan.

That's a whole lot of speculation. Possible, but it seems like too much of a reach.

 

[phattonez]

Actually Churchill never trusted Stalin. It was Roosevelt who was incapable of realizing the extent of evil Stalin was capable of.

Oh I know that Roosevelt trusted him far too much too, damn Alger Hiss, etc. But Churchill trusted Stalin too much at Yalta and as much as admitted it later.

 

[phattonez]

Interested in hearing your theory as to how the US would have become an "economic superpower" without participation in the Second World War?

Having 400 to 500 thousand more young men would have left the US in a stronger position. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have gone to war, but losing so much of your "human capital" is a big loss.

 

[phattonez]

As an ethnic German with blonde hair and blue eyes, I would meet all the standards of "Perfect Aryan". Germany certainly had a higher standard of living. I still wouldn't want to be there.

According to Marx the only people that needs to be fought are the bourgeois. Of course thats not true in practice but we're talking about principles here.

I'm not saying that you would want to be there absolutely, but given the choice, which system seems more livable?

 

[phattonez]

Maybe, but it's clear that our relatively light losses (and being on the winning side) greased the skids.

Also, if we hadn't entered WWII, it's unlikely we would have developed the nuclear weapons prior to the end of the war, which contributed to maintaining the stalemate during the Cold War.

It's not as if Soviets would have developed the technology on their own. It was stolen from the US.

 

[phattonez]

The initial success of Barbarossa gives the impression that it was a major success, but in fact the entire operation was poorly planned and a major strategic failure. It success was largely due to the tactical proficiency of the Wehrmacht, the poor state of the Red Army at the time, and the excellent timing of it.

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

 

[phattonez]

The situation in Europe at the time was not at all favorable to the Western Allies, and with the invasion of Japan a looming prospect, it would've been disastrous to pursue a war with the Soviets.

Perhaps. But given how the Soviets pulled out of WWI, I wonder how amenable they would have been to a peace agreement freeing eastern Europe rather than engaging in another war.

 

[phattonez]

Well, considering they lost 20,000,000 people in that fight, defeated the G's on the Eastern Front, and were the first to reach Berlin, you could say they earned it.

I'm sure that the Poles, East Germans, and many others felt far differently about that.

 

[phattonez]

When we return everything West of the Mississippi back to its original inhabitants, I'll consider Russian annexation of Poland and all the other lands they conquered after WW2 as out of line.

I'm sure that this line of reasoning comforted the Poles as they were dominated by Communists for decades.

 

[phattonez]

Of course, above any technical or strategic planning, the biggest obstacle in this all is convincing the American and British people that it's necessary to bomb the Soviets, whom they've spent the last four years humanizing and insisting Uncle Joe is a good guy, all while Japan still remains in the war.

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

 

[Rexedgar]

phattonez, have you been away? Catching up on your messages one by one......

 

[calamity]

I'm sure that this line of reasoning comforted the Poles as they were dominated by Communists for decades.

Do you feel the same about the American Indians?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm not saying that you would want to be there absolutely, but given the choice, which system seems more livable?

Nazi Germany of course, but that's because it was more industrialized and richer. The USSR was bigger and had more resources, but had only through the brutality of Stalin's 5 year plan become an industrialized state.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Perhaps. But given how the Soviets pulled out of WWI, I wonder how amenable they would have been to a peace agreement freeing eastern Europe rather than engaging in another war.

The Soviets pulled out of WWI because they were about to collapse into Civil War. The USSR was arguably more unified after WW2 than it ever had been or would be.

 

[phattonez]

Do you feel the same about the American Indians?

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[phattonez]

Nazi Germany of course, but that's because it was more industrialized and richer. The USSR was bigger and had more resources, but had only through the brutality of Stalin's 5 year plan become an industrialized state.

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

 

[Jredbaron96]

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

The Red Army was precisely strong because of it's massive strategic depth. When Barbarossa kicked off, the Soviets had 14,000,000 men in reserve, compared to just 350,000 for the Germans. Even after suffering nearly 4 million casualties during Barbarossa, the Red Army was larger at the Battle of Moscow than it had been at the start of the invasion. The Red Army had been in the middle of a major reorganization at the time of the invasion (some front line divisions had sent all of their heavy equipment back east and were still awaiting replacements when the Nazis invaded.

The Red Army had over the past two years become the most lethal killing machine in the world at the time. Their operational capability was unmatched even by the Western allies.

 

[phattonez]

The Soviets pulled out of WWI because they were about to collapse into Civil War. The USSR was arguably more unified after WW2 than it ever had been or would be.

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

 

[Jredbaron96]

Oh I know that Roosevelt trusted him far too much too, damn Alger Hiss, etc. But Churchill trusted Stalin too much at Yalta and as much as admitted it later.

To be fair, at this point Churchill had become increasingly marginalized. He was the Prime Minister of a bankrupt Empire that was severely depleted and tired of war.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That's a whole lot of speculation. Possible, but it seems like too much of a reach.

Not really. Hitler himself considered the French the "monkey men of Europe." The Germans were especially scornful of the French for using African colonial troops in their army.

General Plan Ost itself would've slaughtered millions of Slavs, eradicated the Polish people, and once Soviets were no longer a threat, justification for the alliance with Romania, Hungary, and other Slavic states would become irrelevant. The Nazis planned to exterminate, enslave, and expel everyone they found to be inferior.