The Berlin Blockade leads to World War III. Who wins?

Even if the Wallies win mankind does lose. Millions of innocent soviet citizens would be killed by nukes. Are they not part of mankind?
 
How? In 1948 United States was only nuclear power and USSR was just finding out how to build such thing. And USA hadn't yet much of them, IIRC only just few dozens and early nukes weren't so effective as for example in 1980's. And there wasn't yet very advanced nuclear technology so only areas which would suffer about nuclear bombs are in Eastern Europe and even these would recover in couple decades. WW3 in end of 1940's would be mostly conventional and nukes not act big part in the war.

I’m just glad we never found out.
 
Remember it was Stalin who said "the death of a single man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic". While the death of "innocent civilians" in war is tragic, this has been going on for a very long time and is not just a feature of modern/nuclear warfare although starvation, being raped to death, death as a slave, death through epidemics tended to be the mode of death for civilians up until relatively recently. The deaths of the civilians of Dresden and Hiroshima were not on the Allied politicians/military leaders who ordered those strikes. They were on the leaders of Germany and Japan who started the war, and who had no compunction about using these sorts of tactics to begin with. If there is a shootout during a crime and, in the course of this, innocent bystanders are killed, their deaths are charged to the criminals who began the whole episode. No attack on Poland, no Dresden; no Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima. On the "micro" scale international law is clear, if party "A" uses civilians as a shield during an assault, and in resisting said assault party "B" causes civilian casualties, it is "A" who has committed a war crime not "B".

In 1948 the USSR is still in terrible shape. The countries of Eastern/Central Europe are not much better - especially Poland and East Germany which are the corridors through which all Soviet troops and materiel must pass. The ability of the Soviet Navy to interdict the flow of goods and troops to Europe from the Western Hemisphere is close to zero, they have few submarines capable of getting to the shipping lanes, and the Allies can draw upon active and former naval personnel with vast experience in ASW. Certainly the USSR can shoot down B-29s and B-36s, however their air defense system is primitive and they have essential zero experience in dealing with strategic bombing. Sure, SAC needs work but they have the planes, and the bombs to learn. Drop a couple of 40KT bombs on Baku, and Soviet petroleum supplies drop precipitously. Hit some key rail junctions, and likewise for transport to the front, and Leningrad simply cannot avoid getting hit as well as cities in Western Ukraine - giving Moscow a pass for the moment.

In the US and UK there would be no support for UNTHINKABLE in 1948, but in response to the USSR starting the war sure.
 
In 1950 then USA had approximately 299 deliverable nuclear weapons and the USSR 5. In 1948 that number would be zero, and for the USA a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 50 and the US could speed up production. IMHO shortly after a conflict started I expect the USA could be in a position to have at least 15-20 atomic weapons reach their targets, this assumes a loss rate/failure rate/miss rate of 50%. For a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 24 months the USSR will not be able to deliver an atomic weapon anywhere, and the ability to deliver one to the continental USA is minimal. The air mile distance shortest route from Petropavlosk to Seattle is 2900nm and this means even this flight, which would be pretty much the shortest one to the USA is one way given the range of the TU4 and the weight of the first Soviet atomic weapons. The TU4 was not in operational service until 1949 in any case.
 
not even close,even assuming they actually succesfully deliver the vast majority of them (which they wouldn't).
Oh I don't know, if Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastapol and Vladivostok went up, I think that might put a serious crimp in both their leadership and their logistics.
 
however their air defense system is primitive and they have essential zero experience in dealing with strategic bombing. Sure, SAC needs work but they have the planes, and the bombs to learn.

Actual scholarly analysis have found that Soviet air defense capabilities were quite sophisticated by the 1947-48 period and that the Americans do not, in fact, have the planes, bomb, and (just as importantly) trained crews to learn.

IMHO shortly after a conflict started I expect the USA could be in a position to have at least 15-20 atomic weapons reach their targets, this assumes a loss rate/failure rate/miss rate of 50%.

A terrible assumption, given the known capabilities (or lack there-of) which the US possessed. Given the accuracy (or lack there-of) achieved by American SAC crews, the miss rate alone would be 100%.
 

Actual scholarly analysis have found that Soviet air defense capabilities were quite sophisticated by the 1947-48 period and that the Americans do not, in fact, have the planes, bomb, and (just as importantly) trained crews to learn.



A terrible assumption, given the known capabilities (or lack there-of) which the US possessed. Given the accuracy (or lack there-of) achieved by American SAC crews, the miss rate alone would be 100%.
One way or another in the event of WW3 starting in the late 1940's I suspect the USAF would have rapidly achieved the same level of competence the U.S. AAC displayed in ww2.

If the Luftwaffe and their Romanian allies for example couldn't prevent many U.S. bombers from reaching their targets during events such as the Polesti raids I have my doubts that the late 1940's Soviet air defences can prevent at least some nuclear armed USAF bombers reaching their bomb away points during a late 1940's WW3.
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of bombs would get through. If the Soviets start a war in 1948, they're going to get 100 bombs dumped on them. Even if, say, 60 get through--and I think it would be higher than that--60 bombs would be enough to do the job.
 
The vast majority of bombs would get through. If the Soviets start a war in 1948, they're going to get 100 bombs dumped on them. Even if, say, 60 get through--and I think it would be higher than that--60 bombs would be enough to do the job.
I'm not sure I would count on the vast majority of the bombs getting thru but maybe at least half ?

It also occurs to me that at least some of the likely targets might have been considered large enough to require several bombs to destroy them so IMHO it seems reasonable that the USAF might have wanted to send several nuke armed bombers against at least some targets.

Edit to add:

100 deliverable US nuclear bombs seems high to me for this time frame but I will defer to those with more knowledge of this subject.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I would count on the vast majority of the bombs getting thru but maybe at least half ?

It also occurs to me that at least some of the likely targets might have been considered large enough to require several bombs to destroy them so IMHO it seems reasonable that the USAF might have wanted to send several nuke armed bombers against at least some targets.

Even if it's half, that would do the job. 50 atomic bombs would ruin the Soviet warmaking capability.
 
One way or another in the event of WW3 starting in the late 1940's I suspect the USAF would have rapidly achieved the same level of competence the U.S. AAC displayed in ww2.

As it was, with LeMay overhauling maintenance and training in 1949 and then the Korean War prompting vastly increased defense spending and procurement of material and personnel, it took years for the USAF to develop to the point it was able to deliver a nuclear knock-out punch to the Soviet. Official USAF history identified 1952 as the year when all the elements came together. So based on that, it’ll take 2-3 years before SACs. Of course, the Soviets can delay that if they knock out Britain (and, if applicable, Egypt).

Even if it's half, that would do the job. 50 atomic bombs would ruin the Soviet warmaking capability.

Both Soviet and American strategists disagree. Their expectations was that even a 200-bomb strike would not be enough to end Soviet warmaking capacity.
 
Last edited:
Of course, the Soviets can delay that if they knock out Britain (and, if applicable, Egypt).
Um, how do they do that?

Both Soviet and American strategists disagree. Their expectations was that even a 200-bomb strike would not be enough to end Soviet warmaking capacity.
Does it matter? If they drop one over the Kremlin when Stalin is in, that leavers the USSR rudderless.
 
Um, how do they do that?

Well, that’s the rub isn’t it? Hypothetically, maybe dropping their first couple of atom bombs on British cities would compel the British to surrender... certainly this was American warplanners nightmare scenario. But not only is the precedent for such terror tactics having the desired effect poor but one can question whether the barely-existant Soviet atomic forces could successfully deliver the weapons through the ever-strengthening British air defenses. They can make the attempt, people have claimed the Tu-4A wasn’t in service in 1951 but I have found no evidence to substantiate that and no reason why some of the first production run Tu-4s in ‘49 couldn’t have been made into Tu-4As, but success doesn’t seem likely. Beyond that, Soviet options are bad. Conventional air raids would likely work out no better then the German blitz at best. The Soviet submarine arm is better off then it was in 1945 but it still isn’t capable of even achieving what the Germans managed, much less actually succeeding in cutting Britain’s lifelines. And obviously Soviet naval and amphib assets will be able to mount a amphib attack against Britain in the face of combined might of the Royal Navy and USN when hell freezes over. A indirect campaign in the Middle East or Southeast Asia (using Communist China as a conduit) also offers no prospect of actually forcing the British to come to the table, not so long as the Americans are in the war.

This is a major reason why Stalin didn’t kick the war off. He recognized that he’d be stuck in the same strategic dilemma that Hitler was in 1941 and the only way he’d be better off is there isn’t any Russian analogue to suck away most of his ground and tactical air forces.

Does it matter? If they drop one over the Kremlin when Stalin is in, that leavers the USSR rudderless.

Stalin would undoubtedly retreat to the Soviet interior or a bunker complex at the first sign of a American atomic raid on Moscow. American intelligence was simply not good enough to reliably direct the nascent US atomic air arm such leadership targets... hell, it’s still a struggle even today.
 
Does it matter? If they drop one over the Kremlin when Stalin is in, that leavers the USSR rudderless.

The bombers would actually have to reach Moscow, intact, to do that. This also assumes Stalin is stupid enough not to have some sort of bunker.
 
Top