Estimates to destroy the USSR could have been as little as one atomic bomb. The Japanese surrendered after two atomic bombs. The Japanese had no idea how many atomic bombs the US had, and it would be a safe bet that the Soviets wouldn’t have either.
Edro
The Japanese war machine was broken, raw materials scarce due to the US Navy’s unrestricted submarine warfare. Even so if Emperor Hirohito had said fight on, Japan most certainly would have fought on Atomic bombs or no Atomic bombs.
In 1945, the Soviet military machine was at the top of its game. There’s no valid comparison between the ability of Japan to wage war successfully & the USSR’s ability in 1945.
Sounds like you’re unware of Klaus Fuchs who was feeding every shred of information possible about the Manhattan Project (US nuclear weapons development) to the USSR.
The Soviets were outstandingly good at intelligence gathering and spycraft.
An intriguing “what if?” scenario…. I doubt that the Western Allies would have have had any hesitation dropping Little Boy onto the Kremlin and Red Square as opposed to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Certain elements of US command knew that the Emperor was the only chance for a surrender and not Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Pelilieu on an unimaginable scale. Stalin on the other hand was known to be an uncompromising ruthless figure and would have likely been a top priority target had it come down to a shooting war between the Reds and Westen Allies.
Yes, the Japanese war machine was for all intents and purposes broken, but it was feared that should the US invade the island of Japan, there was enough fight to cause enormous casualties. The atomic bombs ended WW2.
The Soviets were not exactly capable of absorbing nuclear strikes in 1945. They took tremendous losses against the Germans and were only able to defeat the Germans simply by outnumbering their opponent. Otherwise they were fighting attrition warfare.
And btw, while it could be argued that the Soviets had outstandingly good intelligence gathering capabilities, they simply couldn’t produce atomic weapons in 1945. It took them until 1949 to build their own atomic bomb. Had the Soviet Union tried to take Europe in May of 1945, by July the US would have atomic weapons and likely use them until either the Soviets surrendered or were annihilated, likely well before 1949
Edro
Stalin would have had at least ~3 months, enough time to take Germany and only faced 2 or 3 bombs in August. Well worth the risks in hindsight if one is pro USSR.
Given how fast the USA & UK sold out Poland at Yalta in February of 1945, very unlikely the USA & UK are going to fight a determined USSR…over Germany.
Over France, probably.
Remember how easily, the Germans caught Allied intelligence asleep and achieved surprise for the Battle of the Bulge. The Soviets would probably have been far more successful pulling a surprise attack.
I wonder how much the USSR was still dependent on Allied aid in 1945? Not so much the tanks as the steel to make them, trucks and SPAM/corned beef…
Many in the German military were convinced the Western Allies and the Soviets would be at each other’s throats within months of VE day and were ready to pile in on the side of the West. ISTR Patton was of a similar opinion and eager to get started while the USSR hadn’t had time to recover from it’s exertions. Japan could have been blockaded and left to wither on the vine, or better yet been offered a face-saving deal if they went into Siberia instead of sticking with their deal with the Soviets; given the willingness with which the re-armed surrendered Japanese troops went back into action under minimal British supervision in French Indo-China this is probably not so far-fetched as it sounds.
Cheers,
M
Hindsight is always 20-20. It’s not that the US and UK would fight over Germany, it’s that they would have fought the USSR on German soil to stop the spread of communism as they did to stop the spread of fascism in Europe….
But like I stated, at the time the USSR didn’t know how many atomic bombs the US had and over time could bring to bear. We know that the US was capable of producing several bombs per month, and again, the US has proven that under wartime conditions, the rate of production of all wartime supplies always increased. If the Soviets didn’t surrender by 1946, they would have sustained massive casualties, well beyond what the Germans inflicted. All major Russian cities in the western regions of Russia would be leveled, millions of Russian citizens would be dead. Military targets in the USSR would have been destroyed. In 1945, the Soviets had no way to combat atomic weapons. The US would have launched plane after plane, month after month and all Stalin would be able to do was watch his war machine and millions of Russians vaporize, from his bunker.
In WW2, the Japanese knew the writing on the wall, they could not combat a nuclear armed adversary and chose to surrender. The Soviets were likely to be more stubborn but eventually they would come to the same conclusion. We know that during the cold war, the Soviets chose not to initiate a nuclear war because they were smart enough to understand that it meant annihilation. If they understood this at the height of the cold war, they would have understood it as they witnessed atomic destruction in 1945, except that in 1945 they couldn’t inflict similar destruction on the US
Edro
Partially supported by Lend-Lease …
The main purpose of completely levelling Dresden wasn’t to help the Russians avoid fighting in the streets. The raid showed Stalin and the USSR leadership what the UK & US bombers were capable of.
“We’re going to have to fight them [Russians] someday, let me do it now while I have the men and equipment to do it.” - General George S. Patton
“I’d rather have a German in front of me than a Russian behind me.” - General George S. Patton
May 1945 was likely the best opportunity the USSR had to take Europe. Nothing you’ve mentioned has shown otherwise that there was a better opportunity for the USSR to take Europe than occured in May 1945.
Show me when the USSR was in a better position to take Europe than May - August of 1945. Looking at the Cold War, I don’t see a better opportunity for the USSR moving forward from 1945.
If Stalin had played the Gambit and rolled East in May of 1945, he may have had a ~25% chance of taking control of all of Europe. Probably ~50% to get all of Germany assuming the US & UK fight etc.
Given the historical fact of how quickly an allied power, authoritarian Poland was betrayed at Yalta by the UK & USA, I think it’s questionable the USA or the UK would have been willing to shed a lot blood over fascist Germany. Democratic-Republic France would be different story.
While the fear goes up later, the realitive ability of the USSR to prevail appears to go down each year as the USSR falls farther and farther behind.
**If May of 1945 wasn’t the USSR’s best opportunity, when was it???
Armor_Buff, I’m not making an argument for when in history, the Soviets had the best opportunity to take Europe. My belief is the Soviets never had the capability to take Europe. The possibility of taking Europe in 1945 was as impossible for the Soviets as the possibility of taking Europe in 1980. And as history would ultimately reveal, the Soviets collapsed without firing a shot.
Thats not to say that the Soviet “threat” should have been ignored, but my stance has been the same on this topic since I posted. It’s easy to ponder the “What if’s” in history. Like which WW2 fighter would be superior? The Mustang or the Corsair? Sure we can list the pros and cons of each plane, go thru all the specs determining what would give the edge for one over the other, etc, etc. It’s the same thing when discussing the scenario of who would have won? NATO or the Warsaw Pact? We can discuss, things like troop strength, number of tanks, artillery might, weapons technology, whatever. But there is one aspect of any military power that’s never brought up in such discussions and it makes a huge difference. It would be the economic power of a nation. People discuss militaries as if money was no object. That everything just pops into existence. But in reality, no military can be built without money.
Now despite the size and strength of the Soviet Union’s military, the Soviet Union had a much weaker economy than the combined economies of NATO. And the truth is, the Soviets could never beat the economies of the free world, because its communist ideology was the antithesis to a productive economy. This was evident in the quality of Soviet weapons and equipment. Sure! When it came to tank vs tank, plane vs plane, warship vs warship, the Soviets may have had the greater numbers, in many instances. But the quality and capability of their weapons and equipment wasn’t necessarily superior. Thats because the Soviets couldn’t afford the very best of everything. As such, the Soviets became masters of hype to downplay the reality that everything they had wasn’t as good as NATO’s weapons and equipment.
Going back to 1945; When you consider the importance of economic power, in terms of military might, the U.S alone had it in spades. That economic power would allow the U.S all by itself to eventually outproduce the Soviets, building every manner of weapon, with a high degree of quality in modern factories. The U.S easily had the ability to start off small but rapidly increase production, and this would have included atomic weapons. The U.S could also afford to support its allies. The USSR couldn’t match the U.S in 1945, it would never match it, and eventually it would collapse.
The Soviets might have been able to push the Allies back for a time in 1945, but as they did, their supply lines would become longer and unattainable. The Allies had superior air power and could have pounded the rear areas of the Soviet advance. The Allies also had the opportunity to open a second front in Russia’s far east. The U.S Army and U.S Marines fighting in the Pacific could have been used to threaten the Russian far east, forcing Stalin to send troops to defend Russian territory, relieving the Allied troops in western Europe. If these events took about two to three months, Atomic weapons would become available for use with the U.S having the ability to produce many many more. First in a trickle, but eventually with its superior manufacturing capabilities, modern factories, and seemingly unlimited supply of money and resources, the U.S would build a-bombs as quickly as Ford built Model T’s.
The Soviets would lose. In a sense, they could never have won. Not in 1945 or anytime during its entire existence. If anything they defeated themselves, not in an atomic armageddon, but in a quiet whimper.
Edro
Of course the Soviets had the capacity to take Europe in 1945. It’s total nonsense to believe economic power alone is decisive.
The will to fight, endure and WIN is equally critical to winning in war as logistics, economic factors etc.
It’s easy to prove economic power isn’t decisive by itself. It’s an important factor but far from the only factor.
Heard of the US Revolutionary War? The colonies were outmatched economically by the British Empire.
Ever heard of the US-Vietnam War? Vietnam didn’t hold a candle to the US economically. Did having economic superiority result in a US Victory?
Afghan–Soviet War, the USSR certainly had economic superiority, material superiority, air superiority etc but they sure lost the war.
There’s many occasions when economic power hasn’t decide the outcome of war. The importance of economic power, in terms of military might and U.S alone having it in spades isn’t in question.
What would be in question is the USA’s willingness to fight the USSR in Europe in May of 1945 with conflict in the Pacific on going.
Soviet Communism probably isn’t doomed as quickly if the USSR gets control of Europe in 1945. That would have affected the Bretton Woods system for sure. Hard for the US to bribe up a European alliance to contain the USSR if the USSR controls Europe.
Eventually, the USSR would have failed etc…but all systems seem to fail eventually.
Stalin missed the ONLY opportunity for the USSR to have a shot at being viable. Putin still hasn’t figured that out yet.
Cheers 
I never said economic power alone is decisive. What I was referring to is economic power is often ignored in these conversations. If anything, economic power should be factored into dealing with adversaries and should be considered a target. Anotherwords if you’re going to take on a country that can out produce your war machine you either attack your enemy’s economic power to weaken their capabilities or strengthen your own.
We can go thru each of the three examples you gave but the one you fail to address is why did the Soviet Union collapse at all if economy wasn’t a factor? Perhaps economy is also a weapon?
Thanks
Edro
That’s an irrelevant “what about” because this was the point…
If you’re unwillingly to discuss the theoretical most opportune time for the USSR to take military action in Europe that’s OK.
Your comments focused almost exclusively on the economic factor as the decisive factor in war. It can be decisive in a war of attrition etc but there are many examples of wars where economic wasn’t decisive.
On different note but more economic focused…
If the USA & friends get into a shooting Air-Sea war with China, economic power very well may prove decisive. China’s manufacturing power looks very formidable and fighting with China to help protect Taiwan in basically China’s backyard looks like a daunting task.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on that potential conflict (China vs West) as discussion on the prior topic appears to have reached an impasse.
A war can only be sustained as long as the population agrees to continue AND you have the political will and material ability to continue to the bitter end.
There is one case where military and economic might has won against a guerilla: The Boer War.
How did the British do it? When they realised they would never win by chasing ghosts around the countryside they corralled the population into concentration camps and made sure they could not escape and could not be liberated. The Boer could not continue when food and shelter became unavailable.
If the British had behaved in the same way during the Revolutionary war and the French hadn’t interfered …
The Russian side in Ukraine is effectively fighting a guerilla war but the “guerilla soldiers” they are chasing are called drones. Ukraine does make a stand every now and then but they pull out when the situation becomes too dangerous, bleed the Russians as much as possible and then fall back.
Ukraine is supported to some degree, but way too little, by the western economies. We could and should be giving them more.
That’s an irrelevant “what about” because this was the point…
It’s the point I was making.
The argument you want to make is the Russians had more men, more tanks, more artillery, they were more battle hardened, while making the same argument that the Allies had less of everything and not as battle hardened. And in 1945, no Atomic bomb to level the field. So naturally you want to say that based on numbers, and numbers alone the USSR would win Europe. But even you know that in war, nothing ever goes as planned. Sometimes the superior force loses and for all kinds of reasons.
My argument includes some of the known factors of the opposing sides, which can indeed change the outcome of battle. I believe that while the USSR had numerical advantages in virtually everything, it’s no guarantee of victory. I believe the Soviets were never as well equipped as the Allies (Or NATO afterwards) In many instances, subpar. This certainly will have an effect on the outcome of war. The Soviets were mostly interested in sheer numbers and not so concerned in the quality of their equipment. Tanks, for example, were built as quickly and cheaply as possible. Troops, for example, received very little training and in some instances went to battle without basic weapons or ammunition. The strategy of the time was to overwhelm with sheer numbers (which basically means their strategy was to wage attrition warfare.) That in a nutshell was basically how the USSR defeated Germany. It was sheer numbers and a willingness to accept heavy losses, otherwise the Germans on paper were much better equipped and much better trained.
The Soviets had every opportunity to build high quality and well trained military, but the reality was, they didn’t have the money to do so. So they chose to build their military as cheaply and as large as possible. And that idea started long before Germany ever invaded Russia.
If you’re unwillingly to discuss the theoretical most opportune time for the USSR to take military action in Europe that’s OK.
I was discussing the theoretical, except I come to a different conclusion than yours based on known factors you didn’t consider in your scenario. The only advantage the Soviets had in 1945 was sheer numbers. The economic viewpoint I hold to directly affects military quality, and the Soviets didn’t have it. Not in 1945 and not ever. I’m not saying, that they had junk. It was far from being junk, but compared to what the Allies had in 1945 and later NATO, they never possessed a technological or material advantage. Rather in 1945 the Soviet strategy was based on attrition. They accepted loses in men and material, knowing that they could replace their losses with more of the same. The Germans as history shows, couldn’t match this, but the Allies were a different story. The Allies had more men than Germany, and their equipment was of better quality than Germany’s, and they had the economic might to support it all, which Germany could never match. In a theoretical match between the Soviets and the Allies in 1945, The Soviets would not see the same outcome as they had during their battles with Germany. The Soviets took tremendous losses against Germany. But where Germany became exhausted, the Allies would continue the fight for much longer, in a similar theoretical match. The Germans couldn’t match Soviet war production, but Allies were capable of nearly matching Soviet war production, and their equipment was of higher quality. The American economy could afford it, where the Soviet economy couldn’t. Eventually, the Soviets would run out of money and be forced to compel the masses to build weapons, to continue. Should that have occurred, the quality of Soviet weapons would collapse and that’s it.
Your comments focused almost exclusively on the economic factor as the decisive factor in war. It can be decisive in a war of attrition etc but there are many examples of wars where economic wasn’t decisive.
Of course that’s not exactly what I was saying. Rather, I included it in my argument and vigorously defended my position.
On different note but more economic focused…
If the USA & friends get into a shooting Air-Sea war with China, economic power very well may prove decisive. China’s manufacturing power looks very formidable and fighting with China to help protect Taiwan in basically China’s backyard looks like a daunting task.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on that potential conflict (China vs West) as discussion on the prior topic appears to have reached an impasse.
At the risk of contributing to thread drift, I’ll use this to bolster my point that economics plays a significant role in military power and partly because economy can be used as a weapon.
The Soviet Union could never defeat the U.S-Allies-NATO because they couldn’t match their combined economic might. As mentioned, it takes vast sums of money to build a well trained and well equipped military. The main reason the Soviet Union didn’t have the economic strength was that its Communist ideology contradicted economic growth. The Soviets simply spent themselves into oblivion and never considered ways to grow its economy so as to support its spending. We see other examples of communist regimes which failed economically all around the world for the same reasons. But China seems to have discovered a solution while maintaining communism. The CCP decided to make money by selling the world cheap junk. Most of this junk is produced by essentially low payed workers or via slave labor. It’s actually genius for them, because with the money they make, their enemies are actually financing their military build up. From this point I’ll stop because I don’t want to devolve into a political argument, rather choosing to keep things civil and enjoy the modeling world, but if NATO wants to win this new kind of economic warfare they are going to have to address Chinese imports to cut the money supply which is being used to build China’s military. And with that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, you’ve been a fantastic voice here
Edro
An interesting what if. True that immediate post war Russia had overwhelming numbers. During the war those numbers were sustained by massive quantities of lend lease aid. Everything from railroad rails and rolling stock to uniforms and boots. Russian wartime industry was thus able to concentrate on pumping out essential war material.
When the war ended Russia was a military powerhouse. However, she lacked the economy to sustain it without great cost. Those May Day parades of massive amounts of military equipment were staged with the same aircraft circling around and filmed over and over. Same with much of the ground force. The extent to which the Russian economy was strained to say the least, could be seen in the still war shattered villages, towns, and cities, many still not rebuilt or repaired well into the 1960s.
Could Russia have taken Europe in a blitz post war? Quite possibly, but being able to hold it in the face of any underground resistance might have proven to be problematic. Then again Europeans had just suffered through six years of war and may not have had the will to carry on any kind of serious resistance.
That’s another one of those misconceptions that’s been repeated so many times it’s accepted as truth but it isn’t quite that clear cut.
Enter the T-34 tank, over two years, the unit production cost of the T-34 was reduced from 269,500 rubles in 1941, to 193,000 Rbls, and then to 135,000 rubles. Clearly, the USSR wasn’t cutting all the corners in 1941 with the T-34 and building it as cheaply as possible.
When folks actually open their eyes and look at an earlier T-34 from 1940 or early 1941, it fast becomes clear the T-34 wasn’t designed to be a cheap tank. It was designed to be a world class tank. There was a practically GERMAN level of fat 
that could be and was trimmed out of the vehicle in production. I won’t bore you too much with interlocked armor plates, fancy latches, tow pinnacles etc but it’s there in early T-34’s. Later the USSR didn’t fit all of the vision devices etc to cut costs and save time.
Point being the T-34 wasn’t designed initially to be a cheap tank, it was designed/intended to be an excellent tank. Due to necessity of war production it became a cheaply produced tank.
This is another one of those things that’s been said so often by so many it’s accepted as the truth but it clearly isn’t and it fails to hold up to even rudimentary examination.
China produces the quality of merchandise the customer is willing to purchase.
My other hobby is modified sports cars. Have had four engines built professionally and plus heads & cam packages for otherwise stock V8 engines, headers etc.
One can spend $3,000 on an American made Kook’s exhaust system or buy the Chinese copy of the Kook’s system for $1,000. There’s not 3 hp of difference in the performance. Fitment is basically the same, materials China system is thinner materials cheaper. One of my cars has Kook’s the other a Chi-Com copy.
Crankshafts, more difficult to make and machine. US version of what I wanted $4,000 the US designed Chinese version $1,000. The US designed Chinese made crank was basically the best available quality made in China at that time (2001).
My machinist said the US designed Chinese took an extra $125 worth of labor to bring to the same specification and balance as the US made version does. Twenty+ years later, countless races plus street time and the Chinese made crankshaft has been 100% issue free.
I won’t get started on $165 Snap-On American made ratchet vs a Harbor Freight $25 brand ratchet that’s pretty much a knock off. The Snap-On tool is superior, hands down it’s better…but I can work all day as a hobbyist with the Harbor Freight tool.
My stepson is a young maintenance technician electrical & hvac by profession. He owns almost zero American made tools, it’s all Harbor Freight’s top line copies of Snap-On and similar.
China has only gotten better at makjng stuff over the last 20+ years.
It’s obviously a buyer be ware market place but that line that all Chinese manufactered goods are crap line is pure misinformation.
Potentially bad mistake to assume Chinese quality can’t at least nearly match (95%) the best Western quality manufacturing when it wants to do so.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Edro. What you write is interesting to read and that’s intended as a major compliment.
Have to get back to working on a Cromwell model tank. Look forward to talking again
Not certain about that. Stalin had full knowledge of the Manhattan Project and the Trinity test at the Potsdam conference.