USSR Declares war on allies after berlin?

Then you would be incorrect. The west has little chance of a surprise attack. Politics and such just won't allow it. On the otherhand if the Soviets also have little chance of making it a surprise it become of minimal relevancy.

But how fluid are the targets they are to be used against? If they are targeting transportaion hubs, logistics centers, airfields, and troop concentration they're not all that "fluid" certainly one has to be careful about using them on the front lines but I'm not sure anyone has proposed that.

What sort of heavy AA did the Soviets have around the targets I've mentioned from Poland west? Sure the Soviets have lots of fighters but most are optomised for low altitudes not the altitudes that US bombers would be operating at. Indeed what do the Soviets have in the way of early warning radar? How good is their high altitude fire control? The Germans on the other hand were used to bomber boxes and US escorts. Furthermore many of their fighters were optimised for bringing down heavy bombers. I simply don't see that the bombers are going to have that tough of time early on. As time goes on the Soviets will learn but the US and British will also be deploying jets and the B-28 by that time.

You said "relentless" that pretty much implies continuous. Further more if you look at how far most of the Soviet advances went it seems unlikly that even if things went well they would make it to the Atlantic in a single surge and it's not clear to me that they would have much of a chance of a second one. Furthermore there's the problem with their food supply to consider and in the near future porblems with explosives as well.

 

You forgot about the anti Communist Soviet Generals.

 

I dont think thier would be any nukes the planes would have easily been shot down and it would be a stalemate at best for the allies because face it: they were out gunned and maybe out manned and the British and Americans were tired off fighting.

 

You brought them up and I don't have any particular information on them so I didn't bother to reply to that effect.

 

What did the Soviets have that would have an easy time even intercepting a B-29 much less shooting one down? As for stalemate it might have been for part of 45 but by 46 the food situation in the USSR would be critical and some other critical resources wouldn't be a whole lot better. True the western allies were tired of fighting but the Soviets were almost fought out. Many (most) of their divisions were only running about 60% of their nominal strength and there weren't a whole lot more to call up. Furthermore some of the minorities that mde up a good chunk of their forces were willing to fight the Nazis but may not have been so willing to fight the West. One only has to look at the number of Ukrainians for instance that were willing to fight for the Nazis against the Soviets to see how well liked they were.

 

How do you figure they'd be easily shot down? By what? Soviet fighters that could not easily perform at 36,000 feet? And if you have squadrons of B-29's heading for targets from different bases and directions, as well as air attacks from the west to tie down the air resources there, you're not going to get the one or two B-29's with the bomb, among the hundreds flying their missions. It's called saturation of defenses, and the US had the planes to spare to do that.

Think of the USAF, the RAF, all sending everything they have into the air.

Moscow = Glass Parking Lot

 

had the russians attacked us,we would have wiped them out,executed stalin,and just maybe,dropped an a bomb on moscow to make them surrender!
personally,in my view that would be the equal of suicide to them!

 

I don't think they would have, but if they did I think we could have one. 1) We had superior air and naval power 2)The allies had pretty much all of the pacific, a lot of africa, allies in south america, and a lot of europe.

 

Instead of repeating my theories on all this I'll simply suggest you look at the similar threads that exist here and in other fourms such as the axis history forum.

 

While trying to stay away from silly threads as these (IMO) I will add the following.

For those arguing that the Red Airforce was incapable of shooting down B-29's, I would advise them to look into the Mig-3 (already carried missiles) and the La-5. Also the reason why the Soviet Airforce did not have vey many high altitude fighters is because the war in the East was fought over low to medium altitude. Simply put, there was no need for them.

All though, looking into the evolution of Soviet military armament progression throughout 41'-45', the question is how long would it take for the Soviet Union to produce a very capable high altitude fighter? IMO not very long.

 

There are really too many variables to argue anything convincingly, US alone or with allies, imeadiately after VE day or later, before or after the use of nukes on Japan and so on.

 

The Germans mounted rockets on Defense of the Reich aircraft, and had very limited success. Most Soviet fighters of the time had very short wingspans, which make high altitude maneuvering very difficult. Could the Sovs developed a better high altitude fighter? Probably. The question is, could they have had it in action before the bombs dropped, and how well could they perform at night? In nuclear arms, close counts.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Not fast enough to prevent USA AIR FORCE to send Western Russia to the Middle Ages.

 

Stalin would have never done such a thing because it did not hold a chance. The intention of the Russian Dictator was the same as in 1939. To wait untill the capitalist states went to war, and then pick up the pieces. That was always his dream. The last time he thought of that was during the Berlin Blockade when he thought that the Allies alliance might crumble and some crisis might come from it. That time the Western powers had good leadership and it did not happen. After that defeat the Soviet Union was doomed.

 

I love these responses; well my daddy can beat up your daddy!

While the awesome power of nuclear bombs can not simply be shrugged off, there are ways to counter them.

First, the United States had only a limited amount of Nuclears bombs. If im not mistaken, only 1 was left after Japan surrendered and you cant simply build a bomb overnight.

We must also consider what is happening on the ground. Had the Soviet Union decided to attack, it would be a big surprise to those on the receiving end as the two sides were allies. Immediate casualties would be staggering as the Soviet surprise attack would be far worse that the Ardennes offensive. IMO, Pow's would be quite numerous..... Would the U.S. drop nuclear bombs on Mosow and St. Petersburg if tens if not hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers were being kept there??

Lets not forget the pesky Red Airforce either. These are not empty skies over Japan

 

A lot depends on how they are used. An early strike on Moscow might politically fracture the USSR. Or not. If they are used vs critical logistics junctures and troop concentrations they will be harder to stop and potentially more devestating.

But others on the way. I've heard 12 by the end of the year and possibly more with production picking up after that.

I would think that the Soviets would likely try for that but it's not at all clear that they would succeed. There was already considerable distrust between the former allies.

At high altitude it could well be emptier per square (or cubic if you prefer) mile. The Soviets and one decent high altitude fighter from what I recall and not many of them while most US fighters were good at high altitude and the Soviets had never had to try and take on aircraft as heavily armed as B-24s, B-17s, and B-29s. While they would learn they would take considerable casualties in the process and probably use up most of their stocks of high octane fuel.

 

If war broke out with Russia just let us Aussies at em, Just promise the boys they will get a cold one and a steak if they get to Moscow and the war will be over in a week =)

 

Production was "shut down" while awaiting the response from the Japanese, Groves had two completed plutonium units "in the wings", both the shells and the cores. There were also the ten completed but un-armed, unused "gun-type" bomb cases which only lacked the reactive cores, and could have been armed with plutonium rather than uranium a more difficult proposition, but doable. The shaped charge bomb cases kept being produced, only the fissionable material production was altered. If the Soviets had declared war upon the defeat of the Nazis, the production of plutonium would NOT have been suspended, the production of weapons grade U-235 could/would have continued, and since the shells of the new "implosion" design had been proven and perfected Groves prediction was thus in July, but this assumed that the Soviets were "still our friends":

Leslie R. Groves' Memo to the
Chief of Staff (George C. Marshall)
30 July 1945
MEMORANDUM TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF

(a few paragraphs after Groves describes the successful Trinity test)…" 3. There is a definite possibility, [sensitive information deleted] as we increase our rate of production at the Hanford Engineer Works, with the type of weapon tested that the blast will be smaller due to detonation in advance of the optimum time. But in any event, the explosion should be on the order of thousands of tons. The difficulty arises from an undesirable isotope which is created in greater quantity as the production rate increases.

4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by air-plane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four [more] bombs. One of these will be made from (U) 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring this up to full power. There should be either four or five bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November there should be at least five bombs [more], and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the (U) 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type.

5. By mid-October we could increase the number of bombs slightly by changing our design now to one using both materials in the same bomb. I have not made this change because of the ever present possibilities of difficulties in new designs. We could, if it were wise, change our plans and develop the combination bomb. But if this is to be done, it would entail an initial ten-day production setback which would be caught up in about a month's time; unless the decision to change were made before August 1st, in which case it would probably not entail any delay. From what I know of the world situation, it would seem wiser not to make this change until the effects of the present bomb are determined.

L. R. GROVES
Major General, U.S.A.
Source: Manhattan Engineer District -- Top Secret (de-classified), Manhattan Project File, Folder 4, Trinity Test, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Fortunately for the USSR (and its people), Stalin and his spy network was more aware of the Manhattan capability than the new President Truman. It is unlikely that with that knowledge in his "back pocket" he would declare war on the western allies after Berlin falls.

 

During the Postdam conference Stalin was told by Truman the US had Nukes. For the sake of argument thought, Yes Russia had a huge land force in eastern Europe and eastern Germany. However in the event that the Russia rolled tanks across the certain demarcation lines one would think that the Germans disarmed by the west would have been given weapons, The French army would have been reinstated and the Spanish, Portugal, Sweden, Norway Denmark, Belgum, Netherlands, Austria, Italians (Basically NATO) would have been in the fight. If it was just the US and UK verses Russia, air supremacy would have been key. If you can dominate the air its way harder for your enemy to travel, resupply and assemble in mass concentration of forces( important in conventional WW2 warfare). The US and UK would probably have destroyed the Russian air force and communication lines and soon after dropping bombs (nukes or not) on Moscow.