Would the world been better off if the communists were dealt with during WWII? The politics of a war weary nation aside. Do you think it would have bettered the world?
until we set up B-17 and other bomber bases in Germany we couldn't hit most of Russia's industrial areas.AgBQ-00 said:
I think our air power would have severed the Soviet supply lines pretty easily. At that point their army dies on the vine. It would have been a huge task. But say we push them out of Europe all together and they are contained to their admittedly huge country, would they have had the influence they did? Could we have nuked Moscow and taken out their leadership?
True, but the B-36 Peacemaker was very near to coming on line by 1945. No idea how long it would have taken to get fleets of those big boys into combat status, but with an on-going war, I'd surmise that production would have been sped up to get them where they were needed. The B-36 could have utilized existing air bases in England to hit targets anywhere in the Soviet Union.Quote:
until we set up B-17 and other bomber bases in Germany we couldn't hit most of Russia's industrial areas
BQ_90 said:
that assumes we would have won. I don't think we would have. I don't think we could have conquered Russia or defeated the enough to remove Stalin. Then who takes over?
Unless we had hundreds of nukes laying around.
I guess we could have made peace with Japan and let them keep good chuck of SE Asia. Do we then fight Russia on 2 fronts?
This is the correct answer or at least the most correct answer. It was a different era. Once you get outside of Churchill, the major political players of the time were either sympathetic to the Soviets or outright supporters.BQ_90 said:
I think nobody had the stomach for that fight. There wasn't any support anywhere in the US or Europe for that war.
In '45, the jet age was not really a factor. The US had developed the P-59 Airacomet, and the P-80 Shooting Star (which was actually deployed but never saw combat in WWII); the Brits had the Meteor, which did see action during the war. I don't believe the Soviets had any serious jet development during the war.marcel ledbetter said:
How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
"SIX turning, FOUR burning"Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.marcel ledbetter said:
How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
Cut me a break; I hadn't had my morning caffeine when I wrote that.Rabid Cougar said:"SIX turning, FOUR burning"Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.marcel ledbetter said:
How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
A much more grievous faux paux then.....Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Cut me a break; I hadn't had my morning caffeine when I wrote that.Rabid Cougar said:"SIX turning, FOUR burning"Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.marcel ledbetter said:
How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
Or had not yet been into my garage workshop where I have this hanging:
Thanks. It's a big one, even in 1/72 scale. The B-17, B-24, and B-29s that I built in 1/48 scale are not quite as big as this one.Law-5L said:
Sweet model.
The Russians were supposed to invade Manchuria within 90 days of the end of the war in Europe. That was the agreement with the Western allies made at the Tehran conference in 1943.MGS said:
Even the threat of war would have been helpful. If the Soviets were worried enough about an American attack in Europe in '45, they would have never shifted all of those forces to the Far East. Without that, they don't invade Manchuria and North Korea.
- No partition of Korea and subsequent Korean War
- KMT possibly holds onto power in China.
In May 1945 we had exactly zero operational nukes.Unknown_handle said:
Patton was correct. Truman was a coward. We had nukes and the Soviets did not. We could have at least made Stalin pull back to their pre-war border. However, FDR had already given Stalin all of Eastern Europe at Yalta.
IDAGG said:In May 1945 we had exactly zero operational nukes.Unknown_handle said:
Patton was correct. Truman was a coward. We had nukes and the Soviets did not. We could have at least made Stalin pull back to their pre-war border. However, FDR had already given Stalin all of Eastern Europe at Yalta.
And the Soviet Army of May 1945 should not be confused with the Soviet Army of June 1941.
And yes, we had previously agreed to the partition of Europe. One of FDR's many political blunders.