World War III starts in 1945

[Hermanubis]

Have talked about this yet?

What if fighting broke out between the Western Allies and Soviets in Germany?

[Peter Cowan]

Moscow gets nuked while Allied ground forces get shoved back behind the Rhine.

[Ruschurch]

The key to this (and I am sure this scenario has been beaten into the ground) is the allied advantage (long term) in industry, coupled with the bomb. I agree that initially allied forces get pushed back, but within a year the advantage of a secure and fully functional american war industry versus what industry Russia moved to the Urals, I can see Allied forces ruling the sky and seas within a year worldwide, winning the war without even having to use the bomb.

[mikegold]

Plus, the Soviets have not had a chance to establish a political infrastructure in Central-Eastern Europe. All the partisans who bedeviled Hitler- even some communists like Tito- will give them severe trouble well beyond the front lines.

Let's presume they strike immediately after the German surrender, and begin to cooperate loosely with Japan. The bomb will likely still force Japan out of the war- at which point allied forces landing in Korea can coordinate with Chiang (and Stilwell) to make East Asia a dangerous second front for Stalin. Iran may be a front too- but he'll run out of steam short of Baghdad and Karachi, and it will become a basic waste of resources for Stalin. The bomb may then be applied to, say, Stalingrad and Magnitogorsk. At which point Stalin and Beria die under mysterious circumstances and Zhukov's regime opens negotiations. Chiang wins the Chinese civil war in the process.

A much happier scenario for the world long-term. That is, if you don't happen to be from Stalingrad or Magnitogorsk.

Patton-Macarthur '48 will be damn near unstoppable.

[Zyzzyva]

A much happeier world with Patton and Mcarthur as POTUS & VPOTUS respectively?
One was a certafiable nut and the other was... less certafiable.

What's next? President McCarthy? "Gotta hunt down those communist remnants!"

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

A much happeier world with Patton and Mcarthur as POTUS & VPOTUS respectively?
One was a certafiable nut and the other was... less certafiable.

What's next? President McCarthy? "Gotta hunt down those communist remnants!"

Sorry friend while Macarthur was a self premoting egotist,Patton was all show with few exceptions every thing he did was to motivate the tpoops.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Peter Cowan

Moscow gets nuked while Allied ground forces get shoved back behind the Rhine.

Wow. You think that the Western allies would be able to hold the Rhine?

I was already sending the ships to Dunkirk.

From a purely research level it would have been interesting to watch. The first (Almost) fully mechanized war between two forces with completely different tactical & strategic doctrines.

[Wendell]

What does the postwar world look like?

[AMBOMB]

Originally Posted by Peter Cowan

Moscow gets nuked while Allied ground forces get shoved back behind the Rhine.

Allies get shoved back behind the Rhine my ass! Try the Russians getting shoved back behind the Oder. The USAAF had 79,908 planes in July, 1944 and our planes were the best in the world. We had the most effective artillery by far. Not to mention we could've used nukes tactically. Plus, it would've been all the western Allies against Russia. Why do you think Patton wanted to go to war with Russia after Germany was defeated? He knew we could take them.

[AMBOMB]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

A much happeier world with Patton and Mcarthur as POTUS & VPOTUS respectively?
One was a certafiable nut and the other was... less certafiable.

What's next? President McCarthy? "Gotta hunt down those communist remnants!"

Patton had no political ambitions. Didn't you see the movie?

[Rasputin]

There was a plan for tackling Russia called "Operation Unthinkable". It was named that for a reason. For there to be an Allied-Soviet war after the fall of Berlin would need some extraordinarily inflammatory behaviour on both sides.

What would the flashpoint be? Eisenhower deciding for a push on Berlin and a couple of divisions 'accidently' annihilating each other? For the sake of argument, I shall grant.

The Soviets were battle-hardened and run by a totalitarian madman. The Allies may have had plenty of war experience but not the kind of genocidal behaviour that the Russians suffered. Air power or no air power, the Allies would definitely be on the losing side in the early days, gaining ground much later, but it would be utterly fascinating to witness. The Allied death count would skyrocket, though.

Japan will keep fighting independently, but I suspect it would still be the first to suffer the bomb (I think the Americans had decided on this some time before so that it could be 'tested' against the lesser power before using against the greater power. Same principle applies). Would the Soviets head to the peace table soon afterwards or would Stalin's obstinancy (or lack of information...either of the two) keep the Russians fighting?

[jolo]

Even in the 50s (Korea) had the US trouble dealing with the t-34. In the 40s, they'd pose a much bigger problem.

But the US could easily force the SU into surrender with the bomb. I suppose the "testing" in Japan would be completely sufficient to push through whatever is wanted.

Just imagine in 1946, when Japan gave up, the President told the SU to give up the (then already) failed experiment of communism, let the people decide in democratic votes which way to go, and to free all the satellites - threatening to declare nuclear war otherwise. I suppose the SU wouldn't have any choice, and they wouldn't even try. Kind of like Cuban missiles, just on a grander scale.

Imo, that would have been possible until the Russians developed the bomb themselves.

[blysas]

Ok this is what I think, if we have Stalin ordering an attack right after Berlin falls to the Russians, then this is what is most likely to happen. The soviet army's intial push will overrun centeral germany. The reason behind this theory is that, the mass of soviet tanks and infantry would outnumber the allied forces in the regoin with odds of about 2:1.

What then happens, is the allies evanually reorganise round about the east of the Rhine, also the soviet offensive would be starting to slow down due to continued attacks. Now the Soviet's objective will be to quickly breach the rhine and then crush ino the neterlands and belgium. However, for the soviets to win, they will need to overrun the allies with spearhead attacks usings tanks and infantry. If they break through the rhine, they might win, even then the allies won't give up as allied aircraft will have a shorter time to intercept their targets.

Also the soviet airforce, will be of limited use, in the intial stages it will overwelm the allied aircraft. Evanually once the allies rebase into the left bank of the rhine, the soviet airforce will be cut to pieces. Then it will turn into a slugfest. The soviet advantage will be speed and surprise. However, once they get bogged down, time will begin to work againist them. Once the allies hold the line then they will evanually begin to push the soviets back through superior technology and manpower.

What I see in this war is, an assualt towards the rhine, from there it could go either way, it will depend on the commanders and the infantry and tanks, if the Soviets win at the rhine, and then sally forth, they might have a chance at hitting the coast. If they fail to breah the rhine then they are in deep trouble, the allies will evanually ppush them back and things start to go downhill for both sides.

What do you think ?

[Max Sinister]

The Soviets had more soldiers and tanks, but about about their quality?

Maybe they should wait a bit, build up Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and wait that the US and Britain retreat some of their troops to improve the ratio.

[Hermanubis]

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

The Soviets had more soldiers and tanks, but about about their quality?

Maybe they should wait a bit, build up Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and wait that the US and Britain retreat some of their troops to improve the ratio.

I was thinking about it happening with all the WWII troops their, and probably an ‘accident’ or something quite against the will of the leadership on both sides (something similar to what Patton was talking about in the movie…)

[BrianP]

If the Soviets attacked after the fall of Berlin, wouldn't it just be considered a continuation of World War II instead of seperating it as World War III?

Patton did want to have a go at the Soviets, but I guess everyone was sick of war by this point.

[blysas]

In tehory, you can make people go to war again, all you need is a motivation to get them going again, like the Soviets overunning germany, that will keep the war going for another 5 years!

[Rasputin]

How about this as a possibility: Patton manages to sweet-talk Eisenhower into allowing his army to push to Berlin. The Americans encounter little resistance all the way until the Berlin suburbs, with much of the German army concentrated against the Russians. In said Berlin suburbs there is a 'division' made up of poorly-equipped teenage boys that is easily dealt with, but the American spearheaded is promptly bombarded mercilessly by Soviet artillery, which was uninformed that Americans were in the area. Many hundreds of American soldiers are killed and, in retaliation, Patton orders his troops to attack and destroy the Soviet artillery division. This provocation incenses Stalin to the extent that he orders Zhukov to encircle the American spearhead and annihilate it. When Patton is killed in the attack, Truman feels obliged to declare war against the Soviet Union. It's a miscommunication from start to finish: Stalin knew that Patton was acting independently, but punishing an individual and punishing entire communities of people associated with the individual was entirely natural to Stalin.

Over the course of the following months, the German leadership surrenders unconditionally to the western allies while Germany is overrun. The front line emerges around about the Rhine, as well as pushing into Italy to the south. After the surrender of Japan following its atomic bombing, Stalin learns of the devastation wrought by America's atomic weaponry and agrees to an armistice on August 17th. Japan's official surrender took place on September 2nd, while the Soviets and the Allies signed the Treaty of Rome (where a part of the Soviet front line was at the time of the armistice) on October 12th, the date considered to be the official end of WWII.

The Treaty of Rome established a boundary between the Allies and the Soviets straight down the middle of Denmark, Germany, Austria and Italy (also separating Norway and Sweden, as the Soviets had established a secondary front in Scandinavia) with a ten-mile-wide 'demilitarised zone' dividing the two sides. The Soviets could do whatever they wanted east of the DMZ, while the Allies could do whatever they wanted west of the DMZ. If either side violated the DMZ, war was automatic. Much like the Versailles Treaty beforehand, the Treaty of Rome established an international organisation, the United Nations, although it would be very different in character to the UN OTL. The bomb would keep a fragile peace between the superpowers for many years to come.

Actually...this would make a cool map. Anyone want to give it a shot? The Iron Curtain would now almost certainly embrace Greece, and possibly even Turkey and northern Iran. The Manchurian border would probably remain unchanged (in Japanese hands at the time of the armistice, and the Soviets would have been too pre-occupied elsewhere to consider seizing it) and the Kurile Islands and Southern Sakhalin may have actually remained Japanese (no two Koreas, though). The Cold War may be more virile considering the two superpowers did in fact get involved in a brief 'hot war' for four months in 1945. Although, considering everything, the sheer intensity of it all may lead to a quicker Soviet collapse over the longer term.

Fascinating stuff, really.

[Susano]

Ims ure theRed Army would have some initial sucesses, but in the end the USA would have easily outproduced them. And that doesnt even yet take into account the nukes.

[ruisramos]

If a war broke out in Europe, right after the German surrender, between the western allies these are the main issues I think hang in the balance:

Pro SU:
- The numbers of men and equipment already on the war theatre;
- The experience and resolve of not only war, but of a genocide and total war;
- The fear and will coming from an mad madman like Stalin;
- The still raging war on the Pacific between Japan and the Western allies;
- The A-Bomb was still unavailable to the Americans (though fir little while longer)

Pro US/UK:
- The size of the American war industry
- The logistical nightmare the Soviets would have to supply their frontline troops in Central/Western Europe (SU and Eastern Europe were virtually destroyed by the end of war in Europe
- Partisans fighting the Soviets behind the front-lines
- Air and naval superiority

The result would be an initial advantage on the ground for the Soviets. They might even drive the British and American forces back as far as Paris or to a small pocket in Western France (maybe around the Atlantic coast). After a few months the massive pouring of men and material by the Americans would change the scales and the Soviets would more or less slowly be driven back east. Eventually, maybe when the western allies ground forces were reaching the SU 1939 boundaries they would use the Bomb on Moscow to avoid a costly invasion of Russia itself.