WW3 in 1948

WI the Soviets fired on allied aircraft during the Berlin Airlift? How would this WW3 play out? Who would win?

To give my own opinions, because of the Allied demobilization, I expect the Russians to overrun Germany and invade Denmark without too many problems. The invasions of Norway, Greece and Italy would be more difficult, considering the terrain, and I would think that by the time the Russians had reached the Rhine, the Allies would have reinforced themselves to a degree that an invasion of France would become unlikely to succeed. I would think that finally Spain and Portugal would enter the war as well, on the Allied side of course.

But of course you can't have a World War just in Europe; the Soviets would also invade Southern Korea and the Middle East, by invading Turkey, Persia and Iraq. I would think they would be stalled in the Turkish mountains and by the banks of the Tigris, but they would overrun Persia. We might possibly even see the Chinese Civil War becoming involved in the war.

To round it all up, the Americans would win in the end. They may be driven from Germany, or even Europe, but their greater industrial might would eventually out produce their Soviet counterparts. Stalin would not be able to use his 'Great Patriotic War' excuse and he would lose support when American tanks drive into Minsk, Kiev, Smolensk and beyond. The Nationalists would win the CCW with plenty of American backing, a united Korea would exist and I can see Moscow and Leningrad as nuclear wastelands. The Post-War world is slightly harder to gauge.
 
Is the Greek civil war still going on ? I don't know much about it (well, I suppose I should say I don't REMEMBER much about it, since I did study it once) but it was all Communist resistance in the North etc... A potential ally here ?

The one small point of course is that the USA has a nuke and IIRC the Russians don't get one till 1949 ? Not sure of the dates either... Makes it hard to come up with sensible answers, sorry

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Is the Greek civil war still going on ? I don't know much about it (well, I suppose I should say I don't REMEMBER much about it, since I did study it once) but it was all Communist resistance in the North etc... A potential ally here ?

The one small point of course is that the USA has a nuke and IIRC the Russians don't get one till 1949 ? Not sure of the dates either... Makes it hard to come up with sensible answers, sorry

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Very well, then I will show some key information:
· The Greek Civil War ended in October 1949, so it is still going on.
· Joe-1 (Russia’s first nuclear weapon) was tested on the 29th August 1949. Most of the information to build the bomb was already in place thanks to espionage carried out on the Manhattan Project.
· Military Helicopters were in use by 1948.

And yes, the Americans did have nukes, but they lacked a failsafe means of delivering them. They might try to drop the bomb by using a B-29, but the Red Air Force is a much stronger foe then the late WW2 Luftwaffe or the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force.
 
Very well, then I will show some key information:
· The Greek Civil War ended in October 1949, so it is still going on.
· Joe-1 (Russia’s first nuclear weapon) was tested on the 29th August 1949. Most of the information to build the bomb was already in place thanks to espionage carried out on the Manhattan Project.
· Military Helicopters were in use by 1948.

And yes, the Americans did have nukes, but they lacked a failsafe means of delivering them. They might try to drop the bomb by using a B-29, but the Red Air Force is a much stronger foe then the late WW2 Luftwaffe or the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force.

Thank you very much. Wow, some of my memory IS intact !

Given this, it could be that the nuke makes an excellent DEFENSIVE weapon (rather like tactical nukes would decades later). Retreat in open land, wait for the Soviet army to advance, and drop it on their heads ? Its much easier to retain control of the skies even when pulling back, than it is to gain it over enemy-held territory.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

hammo1j

Donor
This is one possibility that would result in a better world today at a terrible cost. The Western Allies would have had the upper hand and as they moved into the USSR there would be support from the satellites and potentially places like the Ukraine. This time there would be no nazis to change their mind.

The home of Communism would be eliminated and thus the propagation of a very dangerous idea would be very reduced compared to OTL. Economically the world would have a standard of living about 15 years ahead of now, but the space program would probably have not landed a man on the moon...
 

Nietzsche

Banned
This is one possibility that would result in a better world today at a terrible cost. The Western Allies would have had the upper hand and as they moved into the USSR there would be support from the satellites and potentially places like the Ukraine. This time there would be no nazis to change their mind.

The home of Communism would be eliminated and thus the propagation of a very dangerous idea would be very reduced compared to OTL. Economically the world would have a standard of living about 15 years ahead of now, but the space program would probably have not landed a man on the moon...
<.<; I question "15 years ahead of now" in terms of standard of living. Infact, it'd probably be much worse, since Europe might still be recovering from the "small" scale use of nuclear weapons..
 
Late 1940s were perfect stalemate in Europe. Soviets were unable to conquer W. Europe even if they stretch their resources to maximum and West was unable to take USSR out without stretching whole Western world to a maximum. That's why even Korea did not lead to a WWIII.

And BTW I don't subscribe on vision of today's Europe being nuclear wasteland after several bombings in 1948. After all, Japan don't appear to be severely handicapped by 2 nukes dropped at infinitely smaller country in 1945 OTL.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
We recently kicked this idea around, malthough it was in 1945. The result is the same here.

The USSR has the advantage in ground forces, the West has utter dominance in the air and at sea. In 1949 the Western advantage in air power is, unlike in 1945, not fully deployed, but the Soviet advantage in ground forces is not poised along the stop line either, making it a push.

In this scenario, especially with the nuclear war-fighting beliefs of the day, the USSR gets destroyed. It was accepted that the Atom Bomb would be used, even in tactical enviroments, and by 1949 the U.S. had several hundred weapons available, more than enough to devestate the USSR.
 
We recently kicked this idea around, although it was in 1945.
That might be interesting, could you post the link to that thread.

By 1948 there were several local conflicts going on that could be absorbed into World War 3. They included:
  • The Chinese Civil War
  • The Greek Civil War
  • The 1948 Arab-Israeli War
  • Revolutions in Indonesia, Indochina and Malaysia.
How would these conflicts merge with the greater war? Obviously the Russians would supply the Communists forces in China, Greece and South-East Asia, but the Arab-Israeli War is less predictable. Do the Soviets support the Arabs and the Americans support the Israelis (considering some Arab nations are allies of the other Allied powers) or is the Middle East left alone to fight its own war.

And what about Yugoslavia? Will Stalin invade Yugoslavia as well in revenge for Tito's disloyalty or does he simply bypass it. By August 1948 I would seriously doubt that Tito would ally with Stalin.
 
Didn't the US have most of the industrial capacity in the world at that time?

So the USSR would have the initial advantage but then once everything gets rolling a shit ton of tanks start rolling into Europe.
 
Didn't the US have most of the industrial capacity in the world at that time?

So the USSR would have the initial advantage but then once everything gets rolling a shit ton of tanks start rolling into Europe.

Baradas

The US is often quoted as having about 50% of world GDP in 45. Probably fairly accurate and not a lot changed by 48/49 times. Since much of the US and to a lesser degree the UK war machines had been demolished the question might be how quickly large scale wartime production could be resumed. Would still expect the west to win but think CalBear's estimation for the number of nukes the US had in 48 is rather too large as I think it had less than 100 until the early 50’s.

Steve
 
Top