Operation Unthinkable...

[RedGuard]

I think the soviets only ever built one aircraft carrier, ever
the soviets golden age of seafaring was in the 1800s not the 1900s

agreed 100% the USA would not have nuked moscow this is an ignorant proposal, think this time the americans would not have gotten the sympathy card and would have been viewed as the agressors. to nuke the peoples republic would have drawn innumerable allies to the soviet cause and basically usa would have shot themselves in the foot. not to mention the soviets could easily have withstood multiple atom bomb strikes

and in my personal opinion, the US never acquired that grit that the soviet populace did. throw a few nukes at the small island of britain or mainland usa and theyd be singing a different tune

[neosdark]

Soviets weren't around in the 1800s

[RedGuard]

you know what i mean good point though
the tsars imperial navy

[tigerclawstyle]

Regardless, if war broke out between the two sides in 1945, central Europe would have been totaled even more then it already was. Countries and it's people would have most likely ceased to exist.

It probably wouldn't take long for it all to look like Belgium and northern France from WW1 and in a hell of alot shorter time period.

Also regarding the dropping of nuclear weapons. Forget ethics and morality, total war is about either annihilating your enemy, and your own survival.

It might not have been a tactical option back then, but many nations today have protocols to use in dire situations. If armies or cities or entire nations are about to be completely overrun and be destroyed using tactical nukes is the last resort to balance the playing field or simply as a last act of retaliation.

Look at the Korean war. When the Chinese cancelled their invasion of Taiwan and became involved in Korea, and turned the tide of the war, General MacArthur immediately wanted to start bombing the Chinese with nukes.

[neosdark]

Yeah and the reason he got a no was cause the Soviets now had a similar capability, to bomb them with nukes.

Total War takes into account not only the Armies, but the civilians as well, there are many definitions of said words. Total War (in the way I'm using it) means the entire Front, not just the Battlefront but the Homefront. Total War is the modern war where not only do the Armies fight, but as do the civilians oft for survival. Anyway...... back to the good stuff.

My decree as an Amateur Historian stands that the Allies wouldn't have used Nuclear weaponry against the Soviets. The fact that the War would mainly be decided on Land is totally not factual, as much would also be decide in the air where, from my opinion the Allies had an advantage. The Pacific front would have been quickly won, within a matter of months at most, by the Allies with superior Morale, weaponry, and better Air and Naval support.

The European front would be a slaughterfest, as most of the Allies would go up against much more experienced and better equipped Soviet forces, however, many Soviets would have been on their way to the Pacific front (which would be why they had low morale, thinking they were going home to instead be thrust into another debacle) because of the preparations to invade Japanese held territory and help the Communists in China, Nam, etc. Thus we would have a sizable portion of their army mid-way between Eastern Europe and the Volga, basically creating another Operation Barbarossa, but this time fighting against a larger number of well armed Allied troops.

This is the point where any theories should end, because we wouldn't know what the Commands would do against these new operations. Would the Americans start Fighting the Communist Chinese, or would they press on to Siberia. Would the Soviets retreat and counter attack or just try to starve out the Allies. Would Allies deploy their new Jets (we know how afraid they were of Meteors falling into German hands) or would they continue to employ Piston powered aircraft? I don't think we can actually tell who could have won so I'm going to leave it at this.

[RedGuard]

^^I agree with a lot of what you theorized neo

but how do you think allies would have won the pacific, I think actually with the support of korea china and vietnam that the sino soviet alliance would have forced the allies back into the water easily. with allied land forces retreating theyd have to fall back on allied naval and air attacks only. and that wont win a war alone, especially in asia. as has been proven

we saw what the big 3 asian irregular armies did to the united states, china being the most developed of the militarys. so with soviet forces theyd be overrun. soviet land power plus all of communist asia would be a steamroller on the ground

[neosdark]

Well not exactly, many of them (Chinese, Vietcong's predecessor was formed by Ho Chi Minh and an American OSS agent, and the Koreans) were in fact fighting the Japs with American support so they knew where to find there main bases and camps. They wouldn't let them know they were coming and just exterminate them. The Soviets didn't have that many troops on the ground there and there could be many more well-trained and equipped Marines there. Plus combined with the lack of ethics against the "gooks" as they were called, they would gladly bomb the crap out of them with no regard, since they weren't there as liberators only to beat the Japs.

[tigerclawstyle]

What do you think the responses to a renewed war would be in the Middle East and Central Asia?

Should try to keep in mind, that a newly formed Israel was created, communist factions in the middle east and the independence of India and Pakistan were new to the global scene shortly after the war with Germany ended.

I know were getting ahead of ourselves trying to assume which countries that weren't entirely involved in WW2 in central Asia and the Middle East, but theorizing it is quite interesting. How would countries like Turkey, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and India or any of them align themselves if hostilities between the formers allies ensued?

[neosdark]

Thats beyond my expertise. I'm much more knowledgable in European history I figure most of the Middle East would ally with the Americans because they helped liberate many of them from Axis control (and since  Israel wouldn't exist yet) be happy with their decision.

[tigerclawstyle]

Oh right. Israel has been in so many wars, it's hard to remember which year their war for independence started

The area would definitely been contested. Oil. Under different circumstances, if Rommel and the Afrika Korps actually got supplied adequately and were able to get into those lands with all the oil the war could have turned out differently (assuming Hitler didn't make all the mistakes he made).

[neosdark]

Well they were formed in 1946 along with a Palestinian state but in 1948 the war for Independence happened. This I know.

Anyway no "What If Hitler didn't bitch about this" discussions, wrong post for that. You wann aread some interesting Alternate History read Harry Turtledove, or Icebreaker and Day M by Victor Suvorov. The last 2 I especially recommend. Very cool and interesting read, almost could have happened too.

EDIT: Wait now that I think about it, The Arab states were mainly BRitish and French Mandates and Egypt, Syria, etc. would be on the British and French side. The American Vets of the Italian campaign would also be down there protecting the Rails and Oil. Those guys were pretty damn skilled at assault and navigating tough terrain, so the Soviets would have tons of problems down south

[GodlikeDennis]

I agree. The majority of South Asia would be thoroughly controlled by the Allies IMO. Soviets' best bets would be mainland Europe and Korea/China.

I think the Allies would've nuked the Soviets if it came to it. When Truman told Stalin about the bombs, it was a veiled threat IMO.

[neosdark]

Perhaps, but don't forget Stalin knew before even Truman came to office what such a weapon was theoretically capable of. He was probably building himself a bunker in the country side just in case.

[RedGuard]

well muslim governments are highly conservative for the most part so they clash naturally wit communism, but at the same time yes its true most of the middle east was at one time either a british french control. so I dont know how they would side thats a little further from my expertise as well. I do know that the baath party was fascist and modelled after hitler and the nazis, thats a fact look it up.

complicated politics in the middle east very unpredictable

[tigerclawstyle]

Yeah that's true Redguard. I was thinking to far into the future when their was that small proxy war in Yemen or Oman. Wherever the SAS fought the Battle of Mirbat with the small communist rebel forces there.

It's also a well known fact that Saddam greatly admired Stalin. I agree with the middle east governments being very conservative, but adding Communism to their structure is doable ie. Afghanistan in the 1980's(not that it was successful). Then again it wasn't until after the war that they firmly realized that the entire region is sitting on a massive ocean of oil, and for some nations reaped the economic benefits of partnerships with western countries (ie. Saudi Arabia/USA).

I was going to bring up India, but the Maoist's their didn't become active until the late 60's. I just brought up the middle eastern/central Asian nations because other then providing some manpower, and small skirmishes in Palestine and Iraq(correct me if I'm wrong on that) the region was relatively untouched by the war. Also pretty much since then, the entire region has been marked by many, many wars that have almost brought the superpowers to the brink of WW3.