Matrix Games Forums

The problem for A boms is leave it in the objetive when enemy has fighters with fuel to defend their homeland soviets dont have radar but have hundred of eyes, in other side A bomb againt soviets can made that soviet Europe form a solid block againt West Fascism, one thing is launch A bomb against Japan the enemy of the world with no support and other is do the same against soviets who has great support and B-29 from Alaska is the only way if soviets conquest Europe.

If West allies need to use the A bomb it means that conventional fight is loss for them, and when they launch the A bomb.... what happend after??? A bombs arent like Donuts, they need rare material to build one, how many A bombs can use USA in 2 years??? 4-5... and after... what??? they where the new Reich, soviets ... well, comunist have great support in the world and find supports to destroy the A bomb criminals is easy.

What if are a great way to have a nice break [:D]

EDIT: USA never have a war to the last man, they arent ready for it, if they dont have an "easy" victory internal tensions could be a problem, if in their Civil War have problems in the last days what happend if they fight against a "zombie" enemy???.

I think that US use of the "A" bomb will result in automatic Peace Negociation with a Cease Fire and return to previous status, not USSR surrendering or collapse.
 
Why ?
 
Because, in the event the US were the aggressor ( Patton's Wet Dream ), the use of the "A" bomb will produce an outcry in every european and American countries. The civilian would probably protest against such a thing, especially in countries where socialist party isn't outlawed.
 
Also I still dont see any justification for the Allies to join USA in a crusade against Communism, China being the obvious exception. Churchill position was secured by the war against Germany, as soon as peace is achieved popular support will lessen. France wont attack one of his historical ally, especially if you consider the political weight of the Socialist party at this time.
 
Why would they join the USA crusade ? they have to rebuild, US Liberation nearly leveled french towns and industry. France stayed in the war until the end, but it could have mustered the public support to join another one, neither commonwealth could, not before Japan surrender either BTW.
 
And USSR wont have attacked first... Socialism doctrine use popular revolution to spread the ideology, they would have used it to start uprising and revolution in Western Country, not try a military take over.
 
Also I dont think the USSR aim would have been France... Antwerp would have been a far more important target, France could be negociated to stay out of fight. I easily see De Gaule playing peace negaociator or mediation between West and East. I definitely dont depict it joining on the bandwagon with Churchill and Eisenhower ( Roosevelt should be out of the game by then).

You're missing one important factor. The US Marshall plan hadn't rebuilt Europe yet. If any of the European powers wanted US help in rebuilding their shattered nations and their war debts forgiven, they would need to remain staunch allies of the US.

Just to give some perspective, the top tax rate in the US during the post war years when the Marshall plan went into effect was 95% or so. The US gave up a lot of treasure to bring Europe back out of the dark ages it had just hurdled itself into.

Walking out on the US in the middle of a fight as big or bigger than the one they had just saved Europe from would have spelled doom for Europe's economic future. Not to mention the fact the US would have packed up and gone home leaving Europe to fall into slavery under communism.

No way France, Italy, Germany or England could/would have backed away. They may have wanted to, but it would have been suicide for them to do so.

Jim

Yes, but dont forget that Marshall plan dont have the same bright in the European side, Marshall plan mission was reconstruct Europe to have a initial defensive line againts East in Europe if soviets attack they need eliminated first a hard European defense before jump the Atlantic, is my point of view, nobody do goods things for nothing. After German surrender if West allies attack Soviets sorry but in Europe many people see it as another fascism agression, in Europe Soviets have many support because yes, West allies liberate Europe but Soviets destroy German military power and dont forget that the own USA made the propaganda for it [:D]

I think when we talk about Patton´s dream we refer to a war between West-East before the end of 1945, A bombs are a factor but plans after not, in the end of war Europeans are f****d and the nation who wants to continue de war finds very few support outside their close influence portion.

PD: continue with it, is funny [:'(]

For this conflict to have occurred, the relationship between the Allies & the Soviet Union would need to have proceeded in a slightly different way. Historically, everyone was one big happy family in May 1945 - no one was interested in starting anything new in Europe (at least until Japan was dealt with).

Now, say if Stalin was more belligerent - the Yalta talks go poorly (Roosevelt & Truman demand free elections in all liberated territories, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc), or the Westeran Allies refuse to return all Soviet collaborators or POWs after the war, or maybe Eisenhower pushes hard to get to Berlin first.

Now, if relations were that frosty at the end, it would certainly put a different spin on the immediate post-war situation. The Soviet Union isn't the good guy anymore & people might just take a different stance on things.

And as far as the US willingness to fight - don't underestimate what we would be willing to do. Of course, the whole reason to use the A-Bomb as quickly as possible would be to end the war before things got too bloody. It would be fairly easy to fly B-29's to Finland, for example & get one or two bombs to Moscow. If Stalin & the Politburo was killed in the strike, it would certainly put a different spin on things.

Also remember that the A-Bomb was brand new and didn't have the stigma attached to its use as it would today. And even though some people have said it was easier to drop the bomb on Japan, because it was an Asian country and not a Western one, the originally intent was to get the bomb before the Germans did & I'm sure that we would have struck Berlin as soon as we could, if we thought it woud end the war sooner.

Again, you need to change the political & diplomatic landscape - which means all bets are off as far as how the conflict is viewed by the minor powers. There would be plenty of Germans & Eastern Europeans that would be more than happy to throw their lot into "liberating" their countries from the Soviets. The second line Soviet troops weren't exactly gentle when they rolled through Eastern Europe and Germany - all you have to do it look at what happened Eastern Germany (mass rapes and killings of civilians) & the bad blood in Poland when the Soviets refused to assist the Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising.

Also don't forget that the Soviet rear areas weren't completely secure. They were conducting multi-divisional partisan sweeps in the Ukraine until the early 1960's - imagine what it would be in 1945 if war broke out again & the US promised support for an independent Ukraine?

Ultimately, it would have been a battle of economies - in the long run, the US had the industrial power to bury the Soviet Union - either under mass A-Bombs or in a conventional fight. There was still a huge amount of slack in manpower and industry, while the Soviets were at the end of their tether.

Well, mass of A bombs are impossible, after the 2 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki... how many have USA??? A bomb is an exotic but very few resource to finish a war and use it against a old allied... if USA strikes first they dont look like the good boys and kill Stalin... how exactry know allies where is Stalin if their own men dont know??? and if Stalin is dead how many options have USA to see another Stalin II or worst???.

Talking about good boys, the liberation in west Europe dont be exactly a gentleman job, as in East soldiers in war time became more similiar to criminal standar in peace time, soviets were as Atila with a bad day but ALL armies have their own mini-Atila, in a war are few Saints.

If we talk about material resources we can see what happend in Patton´s dream but the human factor... alliances is more complicated because who strikes first and how is very important.

Oooo you talk about economic power... well, if soviets go to an Armagedon fight they dont need money, comunist doctrine [8|] but USA for example need it as Brits, think that soviets dont have an economic power (wall street version) that can break west allies have it, find people to fight for comunist dream is easy in a devasted country.

Ummm Poland was an ugly job for soviets, but is the same for west allies rear actions could be decisive but soviets have the posibility to use their "system", allies cant use expeditive metods because german ocupation is near.

Many factors for a definitive answer.... stalemate, bloody stalemate is the most posible result but after it soviet victory is for me the second.

EDIT: allies can promise support to partisans but it could be as the same promise made to Poland by french and brits in 1939, with no real support you cant see "partisan armies".

Bombers based in the Middle East would have crippled the oil production. I don't think Soviet fighters would have faired well in high altitude dogfights. Not to mention seeing 1000 bombers with 500 fighters escorting...Without oil, I see the Soviets sue for peace and pull back to their border...

Great point PD - I had completely forgotten how easy it would have been to hit the Caucasus oil fields from the Middle East. You could also probably count on Turkey throwing in their lot with the allies at this point, given their historical grudges against Russia - which would put the entire Black Sea coast in range of Allied amphibious strikes.

Also, the overall goal wouldn't have to be taking Moscow - just push them back to their original 1939 border. You wouldn't violate Soviet territory & make it a war of democratic liberation.

As far as US production of the A-Bomb, we had the two we dropped on Japan, plus another 5 - 6 that could have been completed fairly quickly. In case of a shooting war with the Soviet Union, you can bet that Oak Ridge & Hanford would have ramped up production to produce a steady stream of weapons - and given that the Soviet Union didn't detonate their first bomb until 1948, it would give the US a pretty good edge overall.

Again, depending on whether or not this happens in May 1945 or early 1946 - you'd have a significant US presence in the Far East that could be used as well - I imagine if Stalin was thinking about Western Europe, he wouldn't have moved those 90 odd divisions to take Manchuria, so it would have been a much different fight if the US Marines landed at Vladivostok or in Korea.

Overall, it would be pretty easy to frame this fight as a Democracy vs. Communism - the entire Republican Party would have been behind the fight, plus you had not just Patton, but MacArthur in the East - there was plenty of public and political support, if push came to shove.

Again all countries allied with "good boys" but is difficult see it, Europe isnt a 100% non comunist place, soviets can set out of war secondary armies like french.

You say 500 fighters and 1.000 tactical to the Caucasus ok, they can try to destroy oil facilities (they try to do with Ploesty and needs more that 1 attack) but in these time soviets can break the line and be in Paris taking a pastis  olala thanks to captured allied supplies what can take allies if soviets dont have supplies??? [:D]

You are now including the Pacific variable, well, do you think that all people see west as liberator??? remember Surabaya, brits and other west allies have colonial interest in the zone and 50 decade you can see the funny place do you remember a little country called Vietnam???, if Stalin promised comunist for all they can made Mac loss time in antiguerrilla actions because is better comunist than colonial gobern and japan if not attacked by soviets can join to the soviets they want more Yank blood hehehe.

The problem with west what if is that they only say what they can do but dont say want can do soviets, they arent the germans fighting a defensive delay, they attack as best defense [;)]

"Overall, it would be pretty easy to frame this fight as a Democracy vs. Communism - the entire Republican Party would have been behind the fight, plus you had not just Patton, but MacArthur in the East - there was plenty of public and political support, if push came to shove. "

I thought Republicans tended to be more isolationist back then. After several years of the Russians being our allies, I think it would take a treacherous act to change people's minds so quickly. Economically we were in a better position, but being a democracy, you have to have a very good reason to sacrifice lives. I'm not sure that a war of ideological liberation against an ally would be considered a good reason.