Did the Soviet Union Miss a Chance to Rule All of Europe?

[Purpelia]

What's your source for that? The US didn't have more bombs. Production capacity was at best one a month.

http://guides.wikinut.com/General-MacArthur-and-the-Atomic-Bombing-of-China/_zabfgzs/ ok It was the korean war and only china but still

MacArthur was thrown out of command in 1951. So knowing that and the 38 bombs estimate gives us roughly 6 bombs/year worth of production. This would not have been enough to even make sure Moscow was taken out as the Soviets had a competent and large army to intercept any bombers.

Still, I ask once more. What incentive would Stalin have had to march into Paris?

[The yoshin empire]

http://guides.wikinut.com/General-MacArthur-and-the-Atomic-Bombing-of-China/_zabfgzs/ ok It was the korean war and only china but still

MacArthur was thrown out of command in 1951. So knowing that and the 38 bombs estimate gives us roughly 6 bombs/year worth of production. This would not have been enough to even make sure Moscow was taken out as the Soviets had a competent and large army to intercept any bombers.

Still, I ask once more. What incentive would Stalin have had to march into Paris?

No sice he cared more about maintaining the sovyet borders then expanding them

[Imperializt Russia]

Did the Soviet Union have the will to take over Europe?

I really don't know one way or the other but wars tend not to do very well if the people aren't behind it. Sure the USSR could get away with more given the lack of free press, but pissing off the masses is liable to lead to more resistance.

And by my understanding the point behind MAD is that there is no way to completely neutralize the enemy's nukes. If A were to launch then B would retaliate thus leading to both sides getting nuked.

But the problem with MAD... is that ONCE ''A'' has made the aggressive move, it is up to B to make one of two choices.

1) Start a nuclear war and sacrifice yourself completely

2) Let ''A" make some gains.

I don't think anyone in B's position would choose option 1 because it is irrational.

See MAD assumes that B is going to respond irrationally to an initial move by A (sacrifice themselves completely for some allied nations a continent away).

Yes MAD makes sense if you're only looking at a situation where A initiates a total nuclear threat against B. In that case B has no choice but to fire back and trigger MAD.

But I just don't see how it rationally applies to a situation where A's initial act of aggression is not against B directly but only against B's geographically distant allies...

If A launches a strategic strike against B, a strategic retaliatory strike is not "illogical". It is, essentially, the only option.

It does not result in the total destruction of both states. It results in a crippling of their warfighting capability. Hence the deployed armies in Europe.

Stalin wasn't interested in invading Western Europe. Even if he had the will he did not have the means. Even later on in the Cold War the US had a massive advantage in Nuclear weapons. After the war it was even suggested to Stalin that the Eastern Bloc be annexed to the Soviet Union and that the countries be given the status of SSRs. He rejected that too.

Just having "moar" doesn't make your arsenal strategically more important, valuable or effective.

Wouldn't the US want to send at least some amount of troops over to Europe? They wouldn't simply not respond at all.

But the Russians have got an unbeatable numerical edge on that front right?

Hence theatre and short-range nuclear weapons.
And, in limited amounts, chemical weapons.

[AiliailiA]

What's your source for that? The US didn't have more bombs. Production capacity was at best one a month.

http://guides.wikinut.com/General-MacArthur-and-the-Atomic-Bombing-of-China/_zabfgzs/ ok It was the korean war and only china but still

But still.

The mistakes of history are magnified by time, and this was a serious mistake by General MacArthur: to publicly call for battlefield nuclear weapons. That one little mistake, just one of several insubordinate mistakes of the general which got him sacked from the campaign, struck the North Koreans with the inspiration to pursue nuclear weapons at all costs. A wrong idea which is costing them dearly to this day.

I blame MacArthur.

[The yoshin empire]

http://guides.wikinut.com/General-MacArthur-and-the-Atomic-Bombing-of-China/_zabfgzs/ ok It was the korean war and only china but still

But still.

The mistakes of history are magnified by time, and this was a serious mistake by General MacArthur: to publicly call for battlefield nuclear weapons. That one little mistake, just one of several insubordinate mistakes of the general which got him sacked from the campaign, struck the North Koreans with the inspiration to pursue nuclear weapons at all costs. A wrong idea which is costing them dearly to this day.

I blame MacArthur.

Actually the big mistake was dropping the bombs in the first place , had that not happened then the cold war couldve been avoided.

[Imperializt Russia]

But still.

The mistakes of history are magnified by time, and this was a serious mistake by General MacArthur: to publicly call for battlefield nuclear weapons. That one little mistake, just one of several insubordinate mistakes of the general which got him sacked from the campaign, struck the North Koreans with the inspiration to pursue nuclear weapons at all costs. A wrong idea which is costing them dearly to this day.

I blame MacArthur.

Actually the big mistake was dropping the bombs in the first place , had that not happened then the cold war couldve been avoided.

Unlikely.

In less than a decade, the Soviets had pushed out a small bomber-delivered nuclear arsenal and were already looking into projects like the Tsar Bomb.

They'd have gotten there eventually, since they were aware of the German nuclear programme too. They might have snatched fewer scientists than the west did, but they still got their own.

[Kumrann]

Would it be worth the USSR's time to invade Western Europe? It would take A LOT of time/money/effort and even once you HAVE control over western Europe you have to KEEP control too. It would definitely lead to conflict with the Americans, while no one wants war the chances of an American president sitting by and just watching the Soviet's let rip is unlikely - considering they bothered to fight communism in Vietnam, Korea ETC It would probbaly be more worth while to fight it while also deffending your allies.

[Imperializt Russia]

Would it be worth the USSR's time to invade Western Europe? It would take A LOT of time/money/effort and even once you HAVE control over western Europe you have to KEEP control too. It would definitely lead to conflict with the Americans, while no one wants war the chances of an American president sitting by and just watching the Soviet's let rip is unlikely - considering they bothered to fight communism in Vietnam, Korea ETC It would probbaly be more worth while to fight it while also deffending your allies.

This was the Cold War.

If the Soviets invaded, they would have begun their assault with strategic nuclear exchange with Europe, to soften the NATO frontline in West Germany. There would also have been exchange with the US, to limit their ability to both retaliate with nuclear arsenal, and also send reinforcements as carrier fleets or other shipping. The US would launch a counterstrike against the WarPac frontline in East Germany, and against Soviet strategic targets.

The Soviet Navy would then fight the USN in the Baltic and the Atlantic seas whilst the two sides throw reserves forces at each other across central Germany.

[Tel]

the assumption that the soviet union would ever have wished to rule the whole of europe is a nonsensical absurdity.
it wanted everyone everywhere to be able indipendently to assert non-hierarchal dignity. not "rule" anyone.

its colonization and semi-integration of its eurasian neighbors was not unlike that of other international powers.

the myth of its wanting to take over the world was a western invention for corporate greed's own purposes.

Another brain-washed Stalin-worshipping drone. How depressing, that people can be so willingly ignorant.

[Afalia]

No, it didn't. The Soviet Union could not have invaded in between 1945 and 1952-when Britain got nukes. It just wasn't feasible for them to attempt such a massive campaign after WWII had only just come to an end. By the time the Soviets had the resources, as well as attitude, to invade Western Europe Britain already had nuclear weapons and the US was terrified of communism. Nuclear war would have ensued and the Soviet Union, along with the rest of Europe, would have been completely destroyed.

Besides the Red Army was strong but it wasn't invincible. The combined force of NATO fighting for their sovereignty would have made some serious blows to the Soviet union. Add to that the rebellious populations of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and other Eastern Bloc nations which had been occupied and transformed into soviet satellite states, who would undoubtedly be inspired to start underground armed resistance campaigns again, and the Red army wouldn't have an easy time. If the US joined in on a conventional war I think the two sides would fight each other to a standstill.

But that was never going to happen. Neither side were quite mad enough to start what they knew would end as a nuclear holocaust. Regardless of whether an American president cared about Europe or not, it doesn't matter. The nukes would have flown and the world would have been destroyed. Also your view makes it seem like every American in the post-war era was a typical 'it's not my problem' die hard isolationist. After the war and with the spread of communism most Americans weren't like that. The Soviet Union could never have invaded Europe without a nuclear war beginning.

[Starkiller101]

The soviets could have took europe during world war two. By creating a alliance with germany they would wait in till germany got weaker and then take over europe but of course that plan wasn't successful.

[Tel]

The soviets could have took europe during world war two. By creating a alliance with germany they would wait in till germany got weaker and then take over europe but of course that plan wasn't successful.

They did.

Germany broke it.

[Herskerstad]

In what time-frame are we talking about? Instantly after the war on the western front? The soviets were extremely worried about insurrections in the to-be satellites, as their supplies to that point had been stretched into the extreme. One of their major fears was a Finnish uprising, as they would not be able to mount any kind of significant response beyond the bare garrison within months. let alone take on the might of the US and Western Europe who, despite heavy war exhaustion, stood not near as overextended as the soviets which, despite their gigantic army, were stretched to the thin in every regards besides manpower. Take into account that it would take a minimum of ten years for the soviets to develop any kind of nuclear capabilities, and yes, they were well aware of the Manhattan project at this time, and an airforce in with a primitive air-filter doctrine that could not even get close to withstanding the bombing attacks that the western allies would unleash, then the advances would be bogged down, slow, and inevitably too costly for any major territory sweep, let alone taking all of western Europe who'd quickly make a collaborative government/settlement within Japan, Germany and still-nationalist China. It would be suicidal.

After they just got the nuclear capabilities, while their army stood largely stabilized and prepared for a major push should the order be given, however, with potential missile and aircraft bases in Turkey, Germany other neighboring regions, it would make it the single least oppretune time to strike.

During the MAD-era the soviets were under genuine threat from artic nuclear strike responses, which, while primed over military targets, would quickly change their priorities the second a major european/US city would be even within tracking co-ordinates to a major city. In the distopian aftermath of such an exchange, and the Americans had genuine first-strike superiority on such matters, there would be no stable army to strike with, or a high command, or any communist order for that matter. More importantly, while a couple of the soviet leaders had a very arbitary view on means meeting the end, none of them stood insane enough to push to defcon 1. The person who was closest to actually starting a nuclear retaliation was Nixon within a minutes notice, who choose to wait out what was proved to be a faulty machine error that detected soviet missiles inbound. Keeping cool and understanding that the few missiles that stood detected would be too small to either destroy more than a couple of major targets, and not near great enough to dent the response which would take place, he gave the order for the bombers at the time to stand down.

[Trezchoix]

If the war went nuclear we would probably all be dead if it was without nuclear we would still probably be fighting it. But I still think the cold war never ended....

[Shilya]

The person who was closest to actually starting a nuclear retaliation was Nixon within a minutes notice, who choose to wait out what was proved to be a faulty machine error that detected soviet missiles inbound. Keeping cool and understanding that the few missiles that stood detected would be too small to either destroy more than a couple of major targets, and not near great enough to dent the response which would take place, he gave the order for the bombers at the time to stand down.

That actually happened for the Soviets as well, though there it didn't even make it that far up the command chain. Some surveillance station had dedected what it thought to be three american missiles heading for Russia - a malfunction. The officer in charge simply assumed that no way the americans would attack with only three missiles, and stalled the report until it was cleared up.

[Starkiller101]

The soviets could have took europe during world war two. By creating a alliance with germany they would wait in till germany got weaker and then take over europe but of course that plan wasn't successful.

They did.

Germany broke it.

But the soviet could have beat them.

[Humbleness]

I think it was the other way. USA, UK and France missed a chance to destroy Soviet Union.

Anyways USA would have been able to help UK and France in case war could have started again because they had their soldiers in Europe then.

[Starkiller101]

I think it was the other way. USA, UK and France missed a chance to destroy Soviet Union.

Anyways USA would have been able to help UK and France in case war could have started again because they had their soldiers in Europe then.

Why would the us uk and france destroy the soviet union in the first place that sounds like pointless war.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think it was the other way. USA, UK and France missed a chance to destroy Soviet Union.

Anyways USA would have been able to help UK and France in case war could have started again because they had their soldiers in Europe then.

Why would the us uk and france destroy the soviet union in the first place that sounds like pointless war.

It would have ended the Cold War at the beginning while they had the manpower to do so and still had the technological advantage.

[Souseiseki]

I think it was the other way. USA, UK and France missed a chance to destroy Soviet Union.

Anyways USA would have been able to help UK and France in case war could have started again because they had their soldiers in Europe then.

Why would the us uk and france destroy the soviet union in the first place that sounds like pointless war.

well, you see, from day one the US, UK and france really really didn't like the soviet union for some reason, and...

[Farnhamia]

Why would the us uk and france destroy the soviet union in the first place that sounds like pointless war.

It would have ended the Cold War at the beginning while they had the manpower to do so and still had the technological advantage.

Except, of course, that the governments of the US, the UK and France had been telling their people that the Russians were their friends and allies for the past four years. None of the European countries were in much shape to immediately begin on a war with the Soviets and the war in Asia and the Pacific wasn't over yet. Besides, they had the recent example of what happens when you attack Russia staring them in the face all over Eastern Europe. It might appeal but in reality, it was never going to happen.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Nobody had the money left, the will, or popular support to fight another war in Europe.

[The North Polish Union]

I think it was the other way. USA, UK and France missed a chance to destroy Soviet Union.

Anyways USA would have been able to help UK and France in case war could have started again because they had their soldiers in Europe then.

Why would the us uk and france destroy the soviet union in the first place that sounds like pointless war.

IMO, the US alone had enough of a technological advantage after WWII to liberate Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression, even if the USSR had a manpower advantage. And to be honest, the USSR needed to be destroyed just as bad as Nazi Germany had needed to be destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
http://www.am.gov.lv/data/file/e/HC-Pro ... rt2001.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/cwtable.htm
http://www.communistcrimes.org/en/Datab ... troduction
http://www.communistcrimes.org/en/Datab ... l-Overview
http://www.komisija.lt/Files/www.komisi ... 20_ENG.pdf
http://www.komisija.lt/Files/www.komisi ... %20ENG.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union_(after_1939)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_durin ... oviet_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemmersdorf_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Terrible_Revenge
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/m ... features11
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/past_and_p ... 1mark.html
http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01274/01274.pdf
http://www.prague-life.com/prague/prague-spring
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... camps.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1939174.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_lab ... viet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... ted_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

The USSR needed to be destroyed and the western Allies missed their chance to eliminate it.

[Souseiseki]

Why would the us uk and france destroy the soviet union in the first place that sounds like pointless war.

IMO, the US alone had enough of a technological advantage after WWII to liberate Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression, even if the USSR had a manpower advantage. And to be honest, the USSR needed to be destroyed just as bad as Nazi Germany had needed to be destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
http://www.am.gov.lv/data/file/e/HC-Pro ... rt2001.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/cwtable.htm
http://www.communistcrimes.org/en/Datab ... troduction
http://www.communistcrimes.org/en/Datab ... l-Overview
http://www.komisija.lt/Files/www.komisi ... 20_ENG.pdf
http://www.komisija.lt/Files/www.komisi ... %20ENG.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union_(after_1939)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_durin ... oviet_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemmersdorf_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Terrible_Revenge
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/m ... features11
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/past_and_p ... 1mark.html
http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01274/01274.pdf
http://www.prague-life.com/prague/prague-spring
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... camps.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1939174.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_lab ... viet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... ted_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

The USSR needed to be destroyed and the western Allies missed their chance to eliminate it.

i honestly can't be arsed linking a list of bad shit the rest of the allies did. please just pretend i did.

[God Kefka]

Just want to go over a few thing here:

If the Soviets had invaded Europe, the USA would have talked big but they would have done nothing. They are not stupid. See, once the Soviets played the invasion card, the US has two options since they can't beat the Soviets on the ground in a conventional war (way outnumbered).

Having greater numbers does not automatically ensure victory.

1) Start a nuclear war, destroy the Soviet Union but basically be COMPLETELY DESTROYED in retaliation

Congratulations, you understand the Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine.

2) Suck it up and let some Europeans deal with communism.

and have everything they did in Europe in WW1 and WW2 be for nothing.

What would you choose if you were president?

A

I don't think many rational people would choose option 1). Because let's face it... everyone wants to live. If you go with ''1)''... you will probably die with you know... the rest of the entire nation. So it's a stupid irrational choice.

Probably why the Soviets wouldn't risk invading Europe in the first place.

So I think the Soviets really missed out big.

On starting a nuclear war.

They could have won the Cold War by simply invading the rest of Western Europe.

Costing yet more lives, resources and so on. They didn't emerge unscathed from WW2 you know.

There was a time frame before the French and the English got nukes to do it.

Which measuring from the first Russian bomb detonated to the first UK bomb detonated would be three years, one month and four days if memory serves.

They missed this window.

Or they probably couldn't have done it in this window.

Had they invaded while only they and the USA had nukes the USA wouldn't have done a thing.

Prove it. Remember, if you're wrong the world burns.

They are a democracy after all and democracies don't have the guts to get nuked. Their leaders want to live and be re-elected.

Pretty sure every leader of every country in the world wants to live. Including the USSR.

Had the Soviets absorbed France and the rest of Germany into their empire they may well have had enough resources to beat the USA in the Cold War.

Shame really that their leaders didn't play Chicken and Dare.

I know right? We could all be living in a Fallout universe.

Wait, that would suck.

The USA is led by humans after all.

Are you implying the USSR wasn't?

And humans aren't altruistic enough to get themselves destroyed just to back up some lofty promises to help people a whole continent away.

Explaining to their home populations that their sons and fathers died for nothing might be a hard selling point though.

I don't understand how the whole MAD theory prevented war. If you think about it... it should have promoted war in Europe.

If you attack me or vice versa we both die, nobody wins. Not really sure whats so hard about that.

A and B both have nukes. B invades Europe... what's A going to do? Nuke B just because they promised they would nuke B?

Pretty much.

What would then happen? Well A and B would both be destroyed.

That's the point.

A knows that would happen if it nukes so it won't. A wants to exist.

So does B.

B would have won big. What's the problem with this logic?

That starting a nuclear war is winning big.

Sounds to me like you're saying you find it plausible to believe that the American population and leadership as a whole can adopt a jihadist mindset (completely sacrifice yourself and cease to exist) so that World War II will not have been fought ''for nothing.''

It's a notion that's at the same time both disturbing and romantic.

You seem to find the idea that the Americans would rather be completely destroyed then let some countries in Europe be conquered by the Soviet Union plausible. Seems a bit silly and irrational really...

But easy for you to say right? Since you are not there in America in such a hypothetical situation. I bet if it really happened now, you wouldn't be so keen to press a red button for some foreigners a few continents away... over some abstract ''strategic interests'' in foreign policy. And yes, those things seem abstract when pressing a red button means your homes, families, and lives will be directly nuked in retaliation.

The idea that the USA's population and leadership were the political equivalent of the religious terrorist jihad... willing to completely die if it means destroying the other side... is quite frankly ridiculous. Some people take the RHETORIC of the Cold War too seriously.