What if Mac gets the OK?

During the Korean War, Douglas MacArthur wanted the U.S. to counter attack China by bombing the Chinese mainland and blockading its ports. He also wanted the U.S extend aid to Taiwan to enable them to attack China. Truman vetoed the plan fearing it would bring the Soviets in to defend China. What would have happened if President Dewey had approved the plan?
 
Nuclear war depends on whether the USSR was willing to retaliate for China. In this case, USSR is screwed, due to it having only 5 warheads in 1950 compared to about 350 for the US. So its very bad for the world initially, but probably relatively good for democracies in the long run. Of course, no Communist threat might equal no near-miraculous growth of Japan, Germany, and Europe so it might be bad for everyone.
 

Deleted member 1487

Soviets roll across the German border and the Allies are in a fight for their lives. WW3, which is why Truman backed off in the first place. France has a strong communist underground at this point and may actually welcome the Soviets. Note, this is not all the population, but a significant minority that could sabotage the war effort, as this was the group that did the majority of the fighting against the Germans in WW2, which is what got them the support of many non-communists.
Expect the DDR to get better and all the US and Brits in Germany to get KIA, with a French Soviet ruling in Paris by 1952.
 
Soviets roll across the German border and the Allies are in a fight for their lives. WW3, which is why Truman backed off in the first place. France has a strong communist underground at this point and may actually welcome the Soviets. Note, this is not all the population, but a significant minority that could sabotage the war effort, as this was the group that did the majority of the fighting against the Germans in WW2, which is what got them the support of many non-communists.
Expect the DDR to get better and all the US and Brits in Germany to get KIA, with a French Soviet ruling in Paris by 1952.

Wrong.

The USA would probably respond to a Soviet Advance to the Rhine with Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

This is a fight that Soviet Union can not hope to win--the USA can unload its nuclear arsenal in this kind of situation to finish off the Soviets.

That said, how can the world possibly respond to a major power destroyed with tens of megatons of nuclear detonations?

With that consideration in Mind, the Soviets are going to have to concede China to avoid nuclear destruction.
 
Wrong.

The USA would probably respond to a Soviet Advance to the Rhine with Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

This is a fight that Soviet Union can not hope to win--the USA can unload its nuclear arsenal in this kind of situation to finish off the Soviets.

That said, how can the world possibly respond to a major power destroyed with tens of megatons of nuclear detonations?

With that consideration in Mind, the Soviets are going to have to concede China to avoid nuclear destruction.

If that scenario came to be, the Soviets would probably shift their attention towards the Middle East a lot soon than IOTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Tatical nuclear weapons did not exist in 1950. I agree that there would the use of these weapons, but the ability of the US to hit targets deep in the Soviet union would be risky, as they could and would get shot down, giving the Soviets a working copy of the bomb. Revenge could be a bitch, as they would not hesitate employing gas in retaliation and don't think they wouldn't use it against britian.
 
Tatical nuclear weapons did not exist in 1950. I agree that there would the use of these weapons, but the ability of the US to hit targets deep in the Soviet union would be risky, as they could and would get shot down, giving the Soviets a working copy of the bomb. Revenge could be a bitch, as they would not hesitate employing gas in retaliation and don't think they wouldn't use it against britian.

No wiking, you are mistaken again.

If you look at Operation Downfall, you'll understand that a tactical Nuke is as much as matter of usage as of yield. Tactical Nukes are the first kind of nuke--a lowish yield weapon that is effective at killing troop concentrations, and the first nuclear weapons were in this bracket. The USA can drop Nuclear Weapons on Soviet Military targets, and they already have the bomb, as of 1949. It's a matter of production and number. The USA has 300+; the Soviets 5.

The USA doesn't need to target the Soviet Homeland to crush the Red Army. Furthermore, when you drop a nuclear bomb or have one shot down, it's not immediately usable.

The Soviet Union would be destroyed if it attempted to attack in Europe in response for China. Indeed, with this level of a nuclear weapons gap in place, the Soviet Union would be gone. Even if the USA lost 3 bombers for every hit, that's the Soviet's largest production centers gone.

Throw in that Eastern Europe is going to be even more welcoming to the Allies as France is to the Communists and the results of this situation is likely to be and then the Soviets have this decision to make:

China is under attack! Should we:
A. Send small forces and make the US pay dearly for their expansion throughout China?
B. Attack in Europe, lose our sphere of influence in the Eastern Half and have our major cities get wiped out.

Wiking, you are the only advocate of plan B.
 

Typo

Banned
Stalin probably backs down actually

He knows 1950s era USSR couldn't win against US

If a war does come, Western Europe probably gets nuked, Soviet spearheads get stopped at the Rhine by nukes. Ironically, the strategical nuclear strikes on the USSR will probably not do enough to win the war by itself, but at least the 30 most important Soviet cities glows in dark.
 
Top