What Comes After A Third World War in 1948?

So what border changes would occur? I think Finland would get Karelia, and China would get eastern Manchuria and the Uli Valley back. And it goes without saying that all the Soviet Republics would be given independence.

Belarus may have remained part of non-Communist Russia because Belarusian nationalism has never been strong.
 
I guess that after WWIII there will allot of changes
first, the political turmoil in East Europe and both Germany goes to unifications and there is that litte issue of former german territory under Polish rule (and issue with former east Poland under ex Soviet rule)

Second are the international conflict that follow WWIII: Korea War & China, Suez crisis and Vietnam

The North Koreans under Kim Il-sung try invasion of south Korea in 1950, will be he crazy enough to pull that true after WWIII ?
i think yes, and here comes big question would USA use of tactical nukes against North Koreans forces and how will China react ?
China under Mao try to remain Neutral, knowing that USA could unleash nuclear armageddon on China, if they aggravate the USA (in that case no need of Tactical nukes ?)
In mean time China push there Nuclear Program (Bomb and carrier systems) to completion.

and there is Suez Crisis were action of a "Prime-Minister on Speed" pulled Britain, France and Israel in conflict they could not win
After that crisis the French realized if they want to be taken political seriously they need the Atomic Bomb
so begin of 1960s USA face two new nuclear power China and France (probably also Israel ?)

Vietnam, if USA get involved in Conflict, would they use of tactical nukes against Vietcong and North Vietnam ???
a yes the Power balance of the conflict would quite different without USSR supplying the Vietcong
Or would they join forces with China ? (very unlikely Scenario)

you notice i use offen here the term use of tactical nukes by USA
i guess that use of Nuclear weapon in WWIII will be seen as "panacea" by Pentagon and by some US Presidents.
 
I think a more interesting question is what happens next once the Soviet Empire is reduced to a heap of radioactive ash?

My emphasis added.

Will need to do a trawl of my books because I can't find the answer online. However I'm not sure SAC has enough nuclear bombs in 1947 to completley destroy the USSR.
 

kernals12

Banned
My emphasis added.

Will need to do a trawl of my books because I can't find the answer online. However I'm not sure SAC has enough nuclear bombs in 1947 to completley destroy the USSR.
They'd certainly have enough to wipe out enough of its means of making war to force it to surrender
 

kernals12

Banned
the political turmoil in East Europe and both Germany goes to unifications and there is that litte issue of former german territory under Polish rule (and issue with former east Poland under ex Soviet rule)
The territory taken from Poland by the Soviet Union was almost entirely ethnic Ukrainian and Belarussian. I see no reason to move Poland's borders back East.

The North Koreans under Kim Il-sung try invasion of south Korea in 1950, will be he crazy enough to pull that true after WWIII ?

China under Mao try to remain Neutral, knowing that USA could unleash nuclear armageddon on China, if they aggravate the USA

Vietnam, if USA get involved in Conflict, would they use of tactical nukes against Vietcong and North Vietnam ???
It'd be called WORLD War 3 for a reason. The communist movements in Asia would most certainly be defeated by the Allies.
And I don't see nukes being used in every single conflict afterwards. They are almost completely useless against highly dispersed enemies (e.g. the Viet Cong). And I don't think they'd be necessary, the British, Israelis, and French would probably have gained nothing from wiping out Cairo.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
What would a "De-Communized" Russia look like? Would it use lots of Tsarist iconography in it's government symbol
I think the allies would have it be a continuation of the Provisional Government that existed between March and November 1917.
 

kernals12

Banned
Here's what I assume the nuclear strikes would look like.
Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 8.40.58 AM.png

The USSR's major industrial areas, population centers, and ports would get hit, including 3 strikes on Moscow and 2 on Leningrad. The most important goal would be disrupting Russian tank production
Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 8.41.18 AM.png

To keep the Russians out of Iran and India, there would be strikes on the major cities in Central Asia
Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 8.45.05 AM.png

Vladivostok certainly would not be spared given its naval importance, and the major cities in the Communist controlled parts of China, plus Pyongyang would get hit.
In total that's 21 Atomic Attacks.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 8.41.30 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-03-29 at 8.41.30 AM.png
    262.6 KB · Views: 55
In 1947 no need to nuke Pyongyang, Kim the first can be taken care of once the big war is over. Similarly since the Chinese Civil War is still ongoing, hitting cities in China probably not a good idea, unless you know where Mao is.
 
The territory taken from Poland by the Soviet Union was almost entirely ethnic Ukrainian and Belarussian. I see no reason to move Poland's borders back East.
That's not issue for Polish nationalist who want there Old border back

It'd be called WORLD War 3 for a reason. The communist movements in Asia would most certainly be defeated by the Allies.

For late 1950s or a early 1960s scenario yes, there would USA also nuke China. but the US stock pile in 1947 was around 30 Atomic bombs, and so many East block and Soviets Targets.
 
I suspect that nuclear weapons wound't be used deep inside the USSR due to a likelihood of them being shot down before they get there. Any B-29 will be a top priority target for anything that can fly. That does leave the option of sending out some B-29's, then slipping massive conventional raids through elsewhere--hard on the bait, though.

I suspect that using one or two nuclear bombs to show the USSR that we WILL use them would be enough to bring things to a close. Either Stalin realizes that he's gone too far, ot someone else decides that trying to kill Stalin isn't as risky as facing nuclear weapons.
 
Let's imagine that the Berlin Blockade escalates into World War 3.

It's a quibble, but that'd mean WW3 in 1948, not 1947.

There's a lot of disagreement on this site about how it would go.

There was? The general consensus I saw was that the Allies would win. The only disagreement was over how fast and costly the war would be for the west, with those arguing for a short and relatively bloodless war being completely incapable of providing answers how that would be when it was pointed out that American nuclear forces were a dysfunctional mess in 1948 or that conventional western forces in Western Europe were so weak they'd be little more then speed bumps for the Red Army. Still, it was acknowledged that the Soviets lack of naval power and the economic imbalance would allow the US to build-up, overcome their problems, and overwhelm the USSR with combined nuclear and conventional forces. It just wouldn't be a quick, easy, or bloodless victory that the wishful thinkers were... well, wishfully thinking.

With all that said, this subjects come up before.

With that said, since the OP specified a total WAllied victory scenario, presumably by driving the USSR to collapse after a protracted and bloody war, I'll focus on that for the rest of this post. The place to look to gain some indication of American peace intentions would be US planning for war in this period.

The first American war plans of this era, the 1946 Pincher-series, didn't contain anything in the way of political objectives in the event of victory as that plan was almost entirely focused on the first 18 months of hostilies, with only vague thoughts given to the later stages of such a war and none at all for the final outcome. The 1947-48 Broiler-series of plans was the first to address any sort of end-state settlement and envisioned that, in the event of total victory, the peace settlement would involve the retention of a unitary Russian state within the 1939 borders and the disarmament of said state, but was a bit vague on further details largely because the planners lacked any political guidance...


-American War Plans 1945-1950, Steven T Ross, Pg 62.

The above political assumptions were largely retained in the subsequent 1948-49 Bushwhacker-Halfmoon series (although Bushwhacker at one point rather bizarrely denied the idea of forcing unconditional surrender, despite the fact that it is difficult to see how else such political objectives could be achieved). It wasn't until the 1949 Offtackle-series of warplans that the planners received any sort of political guidance to alter and refine their thinking for a political settlement in the event of total victory. This plan did call for the break-up of the USSR, but a core Russian state would be allowed to exist so presumably the division would be done along the lines of making the 16 Soviet republics independent. While a communist regime might be permitted to exist within the territory of the RSFSR, it would do so in a disarmed and peaceable state. Plans after the Offtackle-series (such as the famous Dropshot-series) largely stuck to these ideals.


-American War Plans 1945-1950, Steven T Ross, Pg 111-112.

Of course whether that final requirement could be fulfilled during and in the aftermath of a WW3 scenario is... debatable.

Obviously, this is EXTREMELY likely to change during the course of the war.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
I suspect that nuclear weapons wound't be used deep inside the USSR due to a likelihood of them being shot down before they get there. Any B-29 will be a top priority target for anything that can fly. That does leave the option of sending out some B-29's, then slipping massive conventional raids through elsewhere--hard on the bait, though.

I suspect that using one or two nuclear bombs to show the USSR that we WILL use them would be enough to bring things to a close. Either Stalin realizes that he's gone too far, ot someone else decides that trying to kill Stalin isn't as risky as facing nuclear weapons.
The B36 Peacekeeper with its 10000 mile range went into service in 1947
 
The B36 Peacekeeper with its 10000 mile range went into service in 1947

The B-36A didn't go into service until 1948. Even then, it was incapable of being based out of the USA. The B-36B went into service in 1949, but would be available in incredibly limited numbers, had a raft of problems, and would be vulnerable to interception by Soviet MiG-15s... and this is before we get into the problems the crews suffered. What's more, neither had 10,000 mile range, with the B-36B topping out at 8,175 miles. It wasn't until the B-36J in the early-1950s that the '36 had that sort of range. What's more, the combat radius, which is the distance the maximum distance a aircraft can travel away from its base along a given course with normal load and return without refueling allowing for all safety and operating factors, is even less then that: 3,525 miles.
 

Deleted member 94680

With these targeting plans (do the Americans have the nuclear weapons in ‘47/‘48 to achieve this?) I refer you back to my comment of America being a pariah nation that has massacred millions of civilians.
 

kernals12

Banned
With these targeting plans (do the Americans have the nuclear weapons in ‘47/‘48 to achieve this?) I refer you back to my comment of America being a pariah nation that has massacred millions of civilians.
Bombing the hell out of Japanese and German cities didn't make us a pariah state.
 

kernals12

Banned
That's not issue for Polish nationalist who want there Old border back



For late 1950s or a early 1960s scenario yes, there would USA also nuke China. but the US stock pile in 1947 was around 30 Atomic bombs, and so many East block and Soviets Targets.
I've been informed that the Berlin blockade started in 1948 which moves the timeline up a year. In which case the US now has 50 bombs and the ability to produce a lot more.
 

kernals12

Banned
The B-36A didn't go into service until 1948. Even then, it was incapable of being based out of the USA. The B-36B went into service in 1949, but would be available in incredibly limited numbers, had a raft of problems, and would be vulnerable to interception by Soviet MiG-15s... and this is before we get into the problems the crews suffered. What's more, neither had 10,000 mile range, with the B-36B topping out at 8,175 miles. It wasn't until the B-36J in the early-1950s that the '36 had that sort of range. What's more, the combat radius, which is the distance the maximum distance a aircraft can travel away from its base along a given course with normal load and return without refueling allowing for all safety and operating factors, is even less then that: 3,525 miles.
Who said anything about basing in the US? I'm sure the British would be more than pleased to let us use their airfields.
 

Deleted member 94680

Bombing the hell out of Japanese and German cities didn't make us a pariah state.

True, but the Germans bombed us back and it was over the course of a long war. You dropping nuclear fire over tank factories and the border of Iran (?) would, to the people of 1948 knowing the Soviets cannot retaliate in kind, seem excessive. The ends do not always justify the means.

You need to think of the fallout blowing around after this display as well.

You’re depopulating most of Central Europe for what? To prove you can?
 
Top