Steady, lad, steady. We don’t wish to know about your sex life.
Would 32Bravo care to look at the last thing I wrote, his reply to that and to his reply of 24feb08 and come back with a more serious reply to the first mentioned.
(Why the western allies would want to go east: To end the war. The Allies did not wait on Germany to collapse by itself…)
Very busy at the moment, dear friend.
Would you mind posting the thread number to which you refer please, and I’ll take a look next time I’m here?
regards
32B.
post 41
The scenario gave the allies force levels as those at the end of hostilities in1945.
Why would anyone want to repeat the mistakes of the Germans and advance on Moscow, against an even more massivley, superior force?
My own comments on a pre-emtpive strike were for tactical gains, with the intention of disabling the Soviets offensive formations.
Patton? …I think that was bluster, but whether it was or not, it didn’t come to anything for one reason or another, and wouldn’t have done had he lived.
They could have, in addition to Okinawa, at Kadina AF Base. One of the best bases for bomber raids. It was perfect for Korea, where they could take off, slowly gain altitude at an ideal rate that conserved fuel. Then use bases in Japan and S. Korea for escorts.
Personally believed we did not start it in the late 40’s Russia would have too big a supply of A-Bombs, and the ability to deliver them. That if we did not have a nuclear war by 1950, did not believe we ever would.
However, when my Uncles tried to talk me out of enlisting at 16, in 1946. They argued we were going to have a nuclear war with Russia. I’d tell them, I do not believe there will be an Atomic War. Even if there is, I’ll be safer in the army. It will be US cities with factories and ports, that would be nuked.
I doubt that they had the ability to reach U.S. cities. Furthermore, I believe ‘Atomic’ weapons would have been used by the allies in a tacticl role only when all else failed.
Given the scenario posted by MOS there was enough time to employ B29’s from European bases. I would also argue that there was enough time to transfer men and materiel from the Pacific theatre to meet the Soviet threat in Europe and leave enough intsitu to pose a threat to the Soviets in the East.
If transfering men was to happen, why not just take all the men in the Pacific and invade the east coast of Russia? Take Vladivostok and ride the rail until you can’t anymore, then set up defenses and all the needed facilities near Vladivostok. It has a port and a rail line. then getting men from The States would be easier: ship them over and roll them out.
But then you would have to face the guard devisions in that area that Russia sent to act as a deterant against Japan.
There are many options, but the idea is to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. So, I would suggest the East is threatened, but the real action has to be in the West.
True.
Even if the US landed significant numbers of troops in the far east, what exactly are they going to do? There’s naff all worth taking until they get halfway to the Urals, and only a single railway track to support their advance towards them. By the time troops landed in the Soviet Far East got anywhere, the Soviet tanks would be parked in Lisbon with their crews drinking Sangria. Not a very good plan!