Was the "Liberation" of Russia and China worth the lives of millions Allied troops?

You are an American President in the middle of Cold War. In early 1960s, the Soviet Union launched general attacks in Europe (and thus, started the WWIII), and successfully drove the Western Allies across the Channel. Unexpectedly, the Red Chinese backstabbed their fellow comrades and launched massive invasion of Central Asia and Russian Far East, thinking the West and the USSR were too busy with each other. The years of bloodbaths of an unprecedented scale follow immediately afterward between the Soviets and the Chinese.

Now, with both Communist giants immensely exhausted and unable to harm the West in any meaningful way, you are presented with two options:

1) Invade and liberate Europe, up to the border of USSR, then sign a peace deal with them. And maybe also mediate a peace between it and the PRC.

2) Invade and liberate Europe, and then, by combined manpower and resources of the entire Allied nations, invade Soviet Union to dismantle the Communist regime and liberate its people for their Dictator. Then proceed with the same thing against China. Bingo, two largest Communist states are no more. "Capitalism vs. Communism" Cold War is finally and entirely over.

Which option that you will choose?

Some points that I'd like to bring:

- The first option seems to be safer and easier, also minimalize the casualties while still become the big winner in the War. However, both USSR and PRC will still be around, and in much worse shape than before. God knows what will happen to those poor workers and peasants...

- The second option, of course, requires a lot of casualties from all three sides, and in the case of Russia and China, a lot of civilian casualties too. We're talking about invading two largest countries in the world here. However, the prize is enormous: Russia and China will become democratic and liberal states, and their people won't have to worry about being oppressed by some dictatorships anymore...
 
I'd go for option 1. There is no way in hell I would launch an all out invasion of the USSR and PRC, even if it was possible. It simply isn't worth it. Besides, the PRC/USSR are going to be messed up enough by the war that they aren't going to be posing much of a threat afterwords.
 
As an American president, I'd serve the interests of my nation. The interests of my nation are to expand its sphere of influence, not to transform the world into a happy-go-lucky liberal paradise at all costs (and the idea that Russia and China would automatically convert into liberal capitalist dreamlands following an all-out invasion is laughable, to say the VERY least...). Obviously option 1.
 
My first thought was how long until it goes nuclear. Assuming that it doesn't, and that's a big if, option 1 is the most plausible I'd say.
 

RousseauX

Donor
No, the chances of nuclear war is pretty much 100% if you try this, and frankly better red than dead.
 
You said that China backstabbed the Soviet Union. So, in this 1960s conventional WW3 Red China ends up as a Western ally. much as Stalin's Soviet Union was an ally in World War 2. So what possible reason would the Western Allies in 196x have to go to war with China right after WW3 versus tthe Soviet Union.

Hving liberated Western Europe from the Soviet Union one can imagine this strategic debate going on among the West's pollitical leades.

The current situation on the Eastern Front is that the Chinese armies are on the verge of pushing into the Soviet Union. It would also be possible for the US to mount operations into the Soviet Far East (these can be mounted using Japan as a base. China has been supplie with much lend lease material and training support from the. Western powers. In thhe Western theatre US and British led forces plus the armies of liberated Western Europe have pushed the Soviets back to the old pre war borders between the Warsaw Pact.If a peace offer by either side was made at this point we will assume it has been rebuffed, hence the strtegicdebate.


In the East no land operations will brbe mounted into the Soviet Far East by Western forces though support will continue for China. The Far East ports such as Vladivostok will be blockaded.

In the South operations willcontinue to liberate Turkey and Greece.

The main effort will be made in the West with thwe objective of freing Eastrern Europe where there are already growing murmers of resistance if not yet outright revolt. The updated SOE willuse emigres from Eastern Europe who are familiar with the languages, regional customs etc to prepare the way for Allied ground invasions much as happened in Western Europe during WW2 and probably in this timeline's WW3.

Once Eastern Europe has been freed up to the border of the Soviet Union and assuming they have not collapsed/been overthrown and the regime is not considered as akin to Hiter's Germany (in which case the demand would be for unconditional surrender) another peace offer might be made allowing the Soviet Union continued existance.

By this stage however, given the unparallelled bloodshed and quite probably evidance of war crimes/crimes against humanity coming to light the demand woiuld likely be for unconditional surrender and a reconvening of the Nuremburg Tribunal. this time to put Soviet war criminals, in particular the Soviet leaership on trial for their crimes against humanity and their war of agression. By this time China would have started to invade the Soviet Union itself. In this case a Western ipowers invasion would be required from the West into Ukraine. Objectives Moscow and Leningrad. In the Far East forces built up in Japan would launch an Overlord stle amphibious invasion tolink up with Chinese armies after which they push west. Somewhere in the Soviet Union the Eastern and Western nvasion forces link up and the Soviet Union fially surrenders shortly afterwards much as the Wehrmacht did in 1945.

But, as in 1945 the underlying political differences between the West and China are irreconcilable.But both ides are two exhausted for anothe full scale war.The Soviet Union is divided into occupatioon zones much as Germany was in 1945. This forms the basis for anothe Cold War this time between tjheWest and China. Central Asiafalls witihin the Chinese orbii. Siberia and the Western Soviet Union fall under the West'as influence. After a few years both Chinaa and the West rearm and reform the armies of the old Soviet Union as their allies. This new Cold WarGreat game will be played out in Central Asia, the Far East and the Middle WEast for the next few decades.
 
Neither. In the scenario provided, it would better serve Western interests to have the 2 Communist powers exhaust themselves. There might be a good chance that one or both will implode and Eastern Europe will break away on its own. OK you Dr. Strangeloves, I'll just throw my hat in the ring and say it would be both immoral and politically inexpedient to initiate an invasion of even just the Warsaw Pact countries, knowing that a nuclear war will assuredly happen.
 
Last edited:

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
If these are the only options, then number 0ne.

In reality, wait since each day that the USSR and the PRC fight on saves American lifes.

Eventually number one becomes a cake walk. The troops may liberate the Baltic SSR's and a few others but no farther. The people of Russia (and China) will liberate themselves eventually.
 
Uhm, guys...for the sake of discussion, let's just say that the nukes are out of scenario here.

Also, in the latter phase of WWII it will be considered incredibly evil to NOT decisively defeat, dismantle the government, and occupy Germany, Italy, and Japan. Why the same thing can't be applied to the USSR and PRC in this scenario?
(and the idea that Russia and China would automatically convert into liberal capitalist dreamlands following an all-out invasion is laughable, to say the VERY least...)
Which is why Germany, Italy, and Japan, despite after being occupied by the Allies, are still aggressive military dictatorships bent on conquest and empire-building nowadays...oh, wait...
 
Why make the final decision now? Liberate Europe, and once that is done see what the overall strategic situation is like and decide then whether or not to go further.

It could be that the very act of liberating Europe sets off a chain reaction that severly weakens the USSR to the point where getting rid of them would not require an invasion.

Of course this depends on what Chinas' intentions are. Are they allies of the West? Are they merely defending themselves against future Soviet aggression? Or are they out to create one communist super state of them and the lands previously controlled by the USSR?
If the latter then an invasion becomes essential to Western survival because that kind of super state would be a huge threat that simply could not be ignored at all.
 
The criteria set was that China attacked the Soviet Union after the Soviets committed a large portion of their forces to the attack on NATO which, de facto makes China a Western ally in WW3. Given the conditions of the scenario it would seem that, in the early weeks/months of the war the Warsaw Pact drove through Western Europeoccupiying West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and presumably also Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Norwa Italy, Greece and Turkey were probably also invaded and occupied relatively early on. The turning point probably came when China attacked in the East forcing the Soviets into a two front war much as was the case with Germany in WW2. After two or three more years there will have to be a 1960s version of Operation Overlord based in Britain or in the Middle East (perhaps both) to begin the liberation of Western Europe.

It may well be that evidence of Soviet war crimes will start being discovered at this stage.One can envision a harsh occupation policy by the Soviets under which "bourgoisie" class enemies were herded into concentration camps in occupied Western Europe and further East. As in WW2 there might well have been a policy of deliberate extermination or at least very harsh conditions resulting in millions of deaths. With scenes in the liberated camps resembling thosde in theNazi or Japanese concentration camps of 1945 the resolve to put the Soviet leaders on trial in a reconvened Nuremburg style tribunal an unconditional surrender would likelybecome the policy of the Western alliance.

Since this would be unnlikely to be agreed to by the Soviet leadership who started the war and assuming nobody wants to throw large numbers ofAtom bombs around and bearing in mind the likely risk of China occupying a large chunk of the Asian parts of the Soviet Union at least the military options at this stage would be:

Option 1 Blockade to bring the Soviets to the table. This would probably still include limited land operations in the Far East. But as the Soviets have lots of natural resources this would be ineffective leaving only

Option 2 Following the drive through the old Eastern European Warsaw Pact nations a ground invasion of the Soviet Union with the objectives of Moscow and Leningrad. Possibly military operations would have to continue beyond that assuming noSoviet surrender once these cities have fallen. This willl ikely incur millions more casualties on both sides

Option 3 Demonstration atomic attacks on one ormore Soviet cities excepting Moscow and Leningrad in an attempt to persuade the Soviet goverment to accept Western tems to end the war avoiding the need for the first two options
 
No, the chances of nuclear war is pretty much 100% if you try this, and frankly better red than dead.

I agree and if the US can't use nukes do you think Britain would not use them? "The United Kingdom independently tested its first nuclear weapon 'Hurricane' on 3 October 1952." The Soviets taking control of Europe without the US using nukes is very very small, them taking it without the UK using nukes is ASB.:(
 
Also, in the latter phase of WWII it will be considered incredibly evil to NOT decisively defeat, dismantle the government, and occupy Germany, Italy, and Japan. Why the same thing can't be applied to the USSR and PRC in this scenario?

It sounds like this is a rehetorical question, but I'll bite:

1. The USSR and PRC are fighting each other: to liberate/conquer both of them would be like invading the Axis and the USSR simultaneously in WWII.

2. The Soviet regime by the '60s was not as bad as Hitler's Germany. You can make an argument that Stalin or Mao was on the same level of evil as Hitler, but Kruschchev or Brezhnev? Hardly.

3. Germany+Italy+Japan = about 180 million people, in 1945.

USSR+China = about 1 billion people. Fancy occupation duty?
 
Last edited:
Top