Could the Soviets had taken Europe after the unconditional surrender of Germany?

[DudleySmith]

Could the Soviets had taken Europe after the unconditional surrender of Germany?

So at the end of WWII, the Soviets decide to take their massive war machine that they just defeated the Germans with and unleash it on American and British forces.

Could the Soviets have taken Europe?

Sans Britain, cause Britain is an island.

No way. We had massive amounts of air power, while their Air Force relied almost completely on foreign imports of both engines and aviation fuel boosters. the latter of which most of their aircraft would never have gotten of the ground. They couldn't even arm their own troops adequately. They couldn't even have beaten an exhausted Germany without massive western aid. If Stalin had thought he could have won he would have attacked right away.

 

[DudleySmith]

Were bombers that effective?

I understand that they didn't bother the Germans that much.

That is of course rubbish.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

That is of course rubbish.

Strategic bombing has been criticized on practical grounds because it does not work predictably. The radical changes it forces on a targeted population can backfire, including the counterproductive result of freeing non-essential labourers to fill worker shortages in war industries.[30]

Much of the doubt about the effectiveness of the bomber war comes from the fact that German industrial production increased throughout the war.[31] A combination of factors helped increase German war material output, these included; continuing development from production lines started before the war, limiting competing models of equipment, government enforced sharing of production techniques, a change in how contracts were priced and an aggressive worker suggestion program. At the same time production plants had to deal with a loss of experienced workers to the military, assimilating untrained workers, culling workers incapable of being trained, and utilizing unwilling forced labor. Strategic bombing failed to reduce German war production. There is insufficient information to ascertain how much additional potential industrial growth the bombing campaign may have curtailed.[32] However, attacks on the infrastructure were taking place. The attacks on Germany's canals and railroads made transportation of materiel difficult.[29]

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now instead of you just saying something, like you always do. Post a link to back up what you say.

 

[braalian]

The only way the Soviets would have pushed into Western Europe would’ve been if the US and Britain had never opened the western front and just stayed in Britain, waiting and watching.

The Red Army could’ve just kept going west, through Germany, liberating France and Italy and installing Communist puppet regimes in all of continental Europe.

Then an exhausted, overextended Communist Bloc faces off against a smaller but more prosperous US/British Empire.

 

[DudleySmith]

Strategic bombing has been criticized on practical grounds because it does not work predictably. The radical changes it forces on a targeted population can backfire, including the counterproductive result of freeing non-essential labourers to fill worker shortages in war industries.[30]

Much of the doubt about the effectiveness of the bomber war comes from the fact that German industrial production increased throughout the war.[31] A combination of factors helped increase German war material output, these included; continuing development from production lines started before the war, limiting competing models of equipment, government enforced sharing of production techniques, a change in how contracts were priced and an aggressive worker suggestion program. At the same time production plants had to deal with a loss of experienced workers to the military, assimilating untrained workers, culling workers incapable of being trained, and utilizing unwilling forced labor. Strategic bombing failed to reduce German war production. There is insufficient information to ascertain how much additional potential industrial growth the bombing campaign may have curtailed.[32] However, attacks on the infrastructure were taking place. The attacks on Germany's canals and railroads made transportation of materiel difficult.[29]

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now instead of you just saying something, like you always do. Post a link to back up what you say.

leveling the center of Hamburg and other cities most certainly had an effect; if it didn't Hitler would never have stripped the eastern front of anti-aircraft and fighter planes. Constantly having to rebuild railroad networks, switching yards, bridges, power plants, factories, etc., takes a toll, so does the effort expended on moving everything underground. Bombing Romanian oil fields takes a toll. The claim it doesn't is patently rubbish. Just because some argued it didn't doesn't make them right just because its what some people like to hear. Expending time and resources on repairing damage, having to build engines, box cars, tanks, roads, etc. takes resources away from war materiel production.

And, bombing and air power have only gotten far more effective; just look at Iraq's highways within mere hours after Saddam kicked off the war that activated the U.S.'s mutual defense treaties. We lost how many troops, 60? And those were from accidents for the most part.

 

[DudleySmith]

The only way the Soviets would have pushed into Western Europe would’ve been if the US and Britain had never opened the western front and just stayed in Britain, waiting and watching.

^^^^This.

 

[DudleySmith]

Now instead of you just saying something, like you always do. Post a link to back up what you say.

Now post something that shows common sense.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Now post something that shows common sense.

Now post something that shows common sense.

 

[Mushroom]

After Japanese surrender the US had no more atom bombs.

Wrong. The third to be dropped was already enroute to Tinian, and the fourth was in California awaiting shipment.

This can be seen very clearly, in that the official US stockpile at the end of 1945 was 2. And no, that does not include the ones used, as three of them were detonated in 1945. If not for the end of the war, the military estimated that the continued production would have made at least 7 more by the end of 1945 (the 2 completed plus an additional five). With as many as 20-25 more by the end of 1946.

 

[Mushroom]

Could the Soviets had taken Europe after the unconditional surrender of Germany?

They might have taken a lot of it, but they could never have held it. They had already dangerously stretched their supply lines by the time Germany surrendered, and would have had no chance if they tried to keep going. All Allied air power would have concentrated on destroying all supply to them, and the cut off Red Army would have probably fought on, then largely died in Western Europe.

Not unlike what would have happened if as some try to claim the Allies should have pushed into the Soviet Union. Our supply lines would have only grown longer, while at the same time growing closer to their own lines of defense and supply. And while the Soviets had a massive ground force, their air power was only a fraction of what the US-UK could put in the field.

 

[Mushroom]

Were bombers that effective?

Bombers were far more effective against strategic targets than they were tactical targets.

In other words, cities with factories, large supply sumps, marshaling yards, rail lines, things like that. They were fairly ineffective against actually trying to attack armies themselves.

But in such a theoretical war, such strategic targets would have devastated the Soviet offensive. All rail lines, as well as routes to bring supplies and the dumps to assemble those supplies would have been under almost constant attack. Almost no resupply of critical things like ordinance, fuel, food, and medical supplies would have reached the front once the US-UK started targeting those locations. Largely the Soviets would have been in the same situation that doomed Germany when they finally reached the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad. A large army, and no way to get them the things they needed to fight.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Could the Soviets had taken Europe after the unconditional surrender of Germany?

So at the end of WWII, the Soviets decide to take their massive war machine that they just defeated the Germans with and unleash it on American and British forces.

Could the Soviets have taken Europe?

Sans Britain, cause Britain is an island.

Nope---the US would have used "the bombs" on their asses along with Japan (atleast in the sovients minds).

 

[Mushroom]

Which makes using yet another one impossible at the time.

Nope. The next bomb was already enroute, with an estimated deployment date of 19 August. Even by August 1945, the pace of producing bombs had increased so that 4 plutonium bombs and a single uranium bomb could be built every month. And that would only increase over time. however, once the war was won the production stopped, so time could be spent in research to create the next generation of bombs.

In fact, the two bombs that were either enroute to Tinian or about to be embarked were used less than a year later. Both the Able and Baker detonations of Operation Crossroads were both those very two Fat Man devices that would have been the third and forth bombs to have been delivered against Japan if they had not surrendered. Both of the bombs dropped were unmodified "war shots" the exact same bombs that were used on Nagasaki. This can even be seen as many of the later tests were conducted from towers, the devices detonated were too large to be placed into aircraft (such as the Trinity bomb had been) or were tests with different percentages of uranium and plutonium.

This can be seen in the next series of tests, named Operation Sandstone. X-Ray, Yoke, and Zebra, all detonations with bombs made for the tests, and detonated from towers. Of those three, one was a uranium-plutonium core, the other two were uranium core devices. This is because of the wartime needs, all devices to have been used in the war were either uranium "shotgun" devices, or plutonium implosion devices. Once the final two war shots were used, research then turned to imploding uranium-plutonium devices, then imploding pure uranium ones.

 

[Quasar44]

Otis Mayfield
No !!!
The USA had a huge advantage in the air !
We had millions of fresh troops
They could have taken over all of Europe and UK ( if America was not there )

 

[Quasar44]

Both sides were exhausted
The Soviets had the most intense battles in human history
The Americans had to fight 2 fronts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Were bombers that effective?

I understand that they didn't bother the Germans that much.

No, they were very effective.

Albert Speer said the bombing nearly ground production to a halt for lack of ball bearings

 

[DudleySmith]

Now post something that shows common sense.

Already have. You still haven't.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Already have. You still haven't.

Already have. You still haven't.

 

[DudleySmith]

Already have. You still haven't.

Yes, I have.

 

[Lastamender]

After Japanese surrender the US had no more atom bombs.

Do you think Russia knew that?