"no nukes = 1945 war with USSR?" Topic

Anyone who understands the least bit about American politics (British too) knows that there was zero chance that the US would initiate a war against Stalin after the German surrender. We wanted the Russians in the war against Japan to pin down the Japanese troops in China so we didn't have t fight them in the invasion of the Home Islands, which would have happened absent the Bombs. No American government would initiate a new war in 1945.

But suppose there was no bomb, or suppose they were delayed six months. The US transfers divisions from Europe to the Pacific. The invasion begins, and the US suffers 100,000's of casualties; it's Okinawa x 100. Stalin's agents in the Manhatten Project tell him the new weapons are coming slowly if at all.

One can easily imagine a scenario in this case in which Stalin either deliberately attacks the US and British, or in which tensions escalate into fighting. There was great fear that the Communists Parties in France and Italy might seize power (or win an election); that was the motive for the Marshall Plan. No Bombs = no Marshall Plan. Imagine a Communist government in France (perhaps opposed by US and Brits) that appeals to Stalin for armed support, and Russian tanks roll through west Germany into France.

It seems to me that Patton's notion would have been a real possibility absent Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it might have been difficult to hold back the Red tide under those circumstances.

Why would the US have bothered to invade Japan ? The country was rapidly starving to death and its cities were in ruins. It had no imports of anything significant and had effectively run out of fuel – or it would have done by the time an invasion was imminent.

Far more sensible to isolate the Japanese troops in China and land troops to occupy the coastal areas cutting them off from the homeland.

I cannot see why an assumption of high casualties is justified when the US would have complete air superiority and be able to chose their landing sites. Their massive advantage in armour would significantly reduce the effect of any Japanese attacks and the inability of Japanese industry to re-supply units would tell very quickly, as would transportation problems with a railway system that was in ruins.

"Why would the US have bothered to invade Japan ?"

Um, because we were going to? Because it was planned and it was about to be implemented when the Japanese surrendered? I know my Dad has spoken many times about being shipped over there in '45 in preparation for the invasion and how thankful he was that Truman dropped the bombs.

Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of Japan. They were getting ready to, or already beginning to redeploy troops from the European TO to the Pacific.

Whether or not they should have or not, the US government WAS going to invade Japan.

As to the original question, it is hard to say. The Soviets were frightened by the notion of another invasion, from anyone, and as we know kept the Warsaw Pact countries as a buffer from potential, percieved Western aggression until the collapse almost 50 years later.

I guess it would depend on how weakened the western forces were in Europe by a Pacific redeployment. I doubt highly, though, that anyone in Europe had the stomach to start another war when the worst war Europe has yet to see in all of recorded history had just finished.

Also, as pointed out to me rightfully in another thread by tbeard, Allied air superiority cannot be discounted, and we already had a dramatic level of air superiority in the Pacific. A huge redeployment of air assets may not have been necessary, and we might have well had the air power to keep any Soviet attempt to reach the Channel stymied.

Stalin had a lot of internal problems to deal with first. His army had recaptured large territories that had openly welcomed the Germans (at first) and had rebelled against him.

Many partisans had been absorbed back into the Red Army, but there were still many bands of well-armed and trained men that were a potential threat in the eyes of Stalin, most were hunted down or sent to the gulags. Stalin had relaxed his purge policies, but as soon as the May parades were over, they came back with a vengeance. Many who would be considered heroes, were seen as potentially dangerous and were mercilessly purged.

Stalin was very paranoid in May 1945, he knew the allies hated him thoroughly before 1941 and they might be tempted to attack him, which was why he made it a priority to make a show of strength in the face of the allies. Although behind the wall of IS2 tanks there was very little if any tail. A lot of Stalin's logistics depended greatly on Lend-Lease, without this life-line the USSR's logistics would collapse very quickly. The pragmatic Stalin won against the paranoid Stalin and he had to content himself with a chunk of Eastern Europe as a buffer against another invasion.

Of course the allies were also unsure what Stalin's next move would be. They knew he could demand further reparations for the massive sacrifice the USSR had made in the war and might be tempted to take it by force if necessary.

Being preoccupied by Japan, the allies also had to manage their forces to match Stalin's show of strength in Europe and still send enough troops to complete the invasion of Japan.

The atomic bomb was very useful in that it was a huge force multiplier for the US and the perfect deterrent to Stalin's European ambitions.

Stalin and his successors knew that an attack on the West would be an increasingly costly affair as time passed. They also lived in perpetual fear of a sneak attack from the West.

Um, because we were going to

Never a truer statement. If we didn't have the bomb, we would have taken it to the Japanese on the ground.

I'm not sure Russia would have bothered right off the bat. They might have been a pain in the *you know* by annoying us with moved borders and Berlin Airlift stuff but that happened anyway. it just might have happened sooner instead of later.

No doubt there was a great deal of consolidation to do in eastern Europe, and all the Red governments being established in Poland and Romania and Hungary etc etc. But Patton's rationale -- we';ve already got the army right here -- applies to the Soviets about as strongly.

And as to the invasion -- not only was it a done-deal, but a blockade would have dragged out for YEARS -- the Jap army would have been the LAST to starve -- and the American people were impatient for it to be over.

… but hindsight tells us they were starving….
We had no idea at the time.

Hey Doc, read the Red Gambit series. It's alternate history that has the Russians heading for the Atlantic about the time we would have invaded Japan. Work on the bomb is progressing slowly after the Trinity failure.

It seems to me that in such a scenario the Soviets take every country that T34's can drive into. (HOLDING them would have been a different proposition.) In the short term, I think only logistical difficulties -- no doubt exacerbated by US bombing of rail lines -- would have prevented a Russian sweep.

Unless MAYBE the US Army finds a good river line to defend. Like the Rhine.

Plus maybe US naval strength in the Baltic (and the Black) and also perhaps redoubts such as the Alps, Switzerland, maybe Denmark or Norway.

The Japanese were a textbook example of the madman who repeats the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Fanaticism only goes so far, the Japanese army had managed to stockpile some equipment, fuel and ammo in anticipation of the attack, but given that they really expected to stop tank divisions by arming kids with pole mines or having elderly people sit in a hole in the middle of the road with an IED and a large lumphammer really shows how desperate they were. Even the regular army faced an impossible challenge, the air force would have lasted weeks at most, what few armoured forces they had would have been taken out by airpower and their infantry slowly ground down by the Allied war machine (the worst case scenario being the Soviets coming from the North, the Western allies from the south.

They had squandered their best men and trained troops long ago, even if the hardcore managed to cling to power, defeat after defeat would have made their position all but untenable and the Emperor would have put his foot down, backed by those who thought Japan might still have a future.

We know the Japanese were at least looking into some kind of negotiated peace because they didn't think they had been defeated yet. But the toll of the fire-bombings, the destruction of their army in Manchuria bode little hope in the face of an invasion. The atom bomb pressed home that resistance was futile and that a defeated Japan was still preferable to a destroyed, uninhabited Japan.

If the allies managed to defeat what was left of the Japanese army fast and hard enough it would have a similar impact to the atomic bombs. One can only imagine the disruption the invasion would cause to the population with many fleeing into the mountains or committing suicide on a large scale. It would be likely the military might in such case turn against the population and further precipitate the downfall of the militarists.

I think defense of the Home Islands is AT LEAST as fanatical as Okinawa. I'm sure you are right about us having air supremacy and eliminating any Jap mobile force, but that doesn't produce surrender. I think you get a million dead Americans and 20 million dead Japanese.

I think the USSR would have been in some difficulty after a few weeks or so if they(or us-the Patton scenario) had continued the war. For one, the Russian divisions were bled white with many being down under 3,000 men. Second, they had not faced an opponent with strategic air assets and experience in running massive strategic bombing campaigns. Their rail lines, supply columns, etc., would have taken a beating. Finally, how would they have dealt with an opponent who could land tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men anywhere on their coastline?

I think the Russians will be overstretched. If they try to make a push into France they will no longer be able to rely on Allied logistical and material support, and a massive US aerial bombing campaign would stop them in their tracks, nukes or no nukes.

Further to the above the Allies were totally committed to invading Japan – Operation Downfall, with two parts, the first being the actual invasion (Operation Olympic) and the second the drive inland (Operation Coronet). This would be a mostly US invasion but with substantial contingents of British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand troops

I think it would have been very, very bloody – the Russians may have pitched in eventually, but were busy pounding the snot of the Japanese troops in Mongolia

Stalin might have been tempted to go further, but he did live in mortal dread of the West – had he waited until Downfall started, the only thing that would have stopped the T-34s would have been salt water

a) the invasion of Japan. It was being planned and prepared for, ther eis no reason why it wouldn't have gone ahead.

b) a Soviet invasion of Europe in in 1945. ?? Stalin had quite enough to do occupying the states of his former enemies (including Poland, Bolsheviks had long memories) as well as dealing with all the real or imaginary enemies at home.

The Soviet strategic posture for the whole of the cold war was one of war avoidance, even if their operational posture was one of all out attack. Having been repeatedly invaded for hundreds of years and suffering millions of dead in the process, this is somewhat understandable. The export of world revolution died with the icepick in Trotskys brain. How I wish Allen was still here (yes I know you are…)

US air power would have taken away any Soviet advantages. Allied supplies held the Soviets together at many a critical time. The Soviets would have had no answer to strategic bombing as practiced by the Americans and in the air they would not even come close to the opposition level that the Germans offered. The fight might have been costly, but in the end the Soviets would have had a terrible time resupplying it's troops.

I assume Lend Lease would have been cut off…

Even after two atomic bombs and the Emperor agreeing to surrender there was a coup attempt lead by a Major to capture the Emperor and take over the government to keep the war going. Many Japanese were expecting to die rather than surrender, and many thousands did just that after the war was over to avoid the shame of surrender. Many believed it better to have the nation killed off than surrender.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Why are people only say US Air Force? Surely the was a very large and effective Royal Airforce….and British and Empire army in Europe in 1945!

Initially Japan wanted to fight on after the atomic bombs, they did very little if any strategic damage to the Japanese war effort. More people had died in conventional strategic bombings of other cities.

The finishing factor for the Japanese was that the Soviet forces attacked their Chinese/Mongolian territories which took away their last source of raw material for the war effort…..effectively crippling the Japanese military.

Rather than an all out offensive by the Soviets a more realistic aim for them would have been the conquest of the whole of Germany, against the allies will. This would have enabled them to fully ravage Germany in compensation for their occupation of the Soviet Union.

Operation Olympic was the planned US invasion of the southern Japanese Home Island of Kysushu (plus other outlying islands), slated for November 1945.

Operation Coronet was the planned multi-national invasion of the main Home Island of Honshu, slated for March 1946, which was to be launched on either side of Tokyo Bay, commencing with a couple of nukes to soften up the defences (!).

This was also being discussed elsewhere on TMP.
One bit info I came across (in a historic dicussion group) was that the divisional slice (division strength plus upper level troops) in 1945 was 43,400 for a US division and 12,300 for a Soviet division. This would mean a US divisions man power is 3.5 times a soviet division or the that the Western allies, assuming equal slice sizes, 115 or so division equaled 410 Soviet divisions. Now this is not combat power and doesn't include the effects of air or sea power.
Nor does it consider that the Western allies had lost about 3/4 of 1 percent of their population while the Soviets had lost about 25%.
So I doubt Nukes or not that Stalin would attack and any Western country that even though about it would get dope slapped by the others.