Why no war against Stalin?

[Perspicuo]

Both the Nazis and the Soviets invaded Poland.

Why only war against the Nazis, if the Soviets were clearly also aggressors?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Both the Nazis and the Soviets invaded Poland.

Why only war against the Nazis, if the Soviets were clearly also aggressors?

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

The Nazis would've been much harder to defeat if they'd prevailed over the SU. Which they could've done IMO except for their ideological stupidity.

Look at ISIS in Syria. Kobani has become a symbol for them, although it has no strategic importance. ISIS has committed resources to that fight that would be put to better use elsewhere. So, from the US' strategic outlook, it makes sense to help Kobani because it's weakening ISIS. Same with the west and the USSR during WWII.

BTW, at the end of the war, Patton said, "let's just fight them now". Turned out to be mistaken, but the point is that many people were asking the same question you did.

 

[Perspicuo]

But how could they justify such a Machiavellian ploy to the public opinion?

 

[Horatio Parker]

But how could they justify such a Machiavellian ploy to the public opinion?

My understanding is that Orwell's 1984 described wartime Britain. Does that help?

 

[bilby]

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House

Bearing in mind that Churchill was vehemently opposed to Soviet Communism, that pretty much sums it up.

In 1939, the ultimatum over Poland was one in a long line of diplomatic efforts to curtail Nazi expansion. After wimping out over the Rhineland, the Anschluss, and the Sudetenland, Hitler probably imagined it to be an empty threat; The British certainly didn't want to go to war, but when Poland was invaded, it was difficult for them to not declare war if they wanted to continue to have any self-respect at all.

Once the war with the Axis was on, the Western Allies simply didn't have the resources to take on the Soviets, even if they had wanted to.

In 1945, with Hitler defeated, there was some talk of going on eastwards and trying to take out Stalin as well; But the Western Allies were sick of war, and they had just seen an in-your-face object lesson that a military power with the ability to conquer all of Western Europe could nevertheless be crushed by the Red Army.

Given that the Red Army in 1945 was fully mobilised, and was on a roll having soundly trounced the Wehrmacht, it would have likely required another war of a similar scale to the one just ended to beat Stalin - The US had a couple of atom bombs which might have made a difference, but getting them to Moscow would have been far from certain. Atom bombs bound for Japan were flown over ocean - few Japanese airbases or anti aircraft emplacements needed to be braved, and in the event of the bombers being shot down, their super-secret payloads would likely have been unrecoverable.

A raid on Moscow would have a much harder time getting through; and a real chance that if the plane carrying the bomb was downed, the enemy would be gifted the materials and design needed for a bomb of their own.

Of course, once the Soviets developed their own atom bomb, the prospect of a war rapidly became unthinkable.




ETA:

Of course, there was a war against Soviet Communism right at the beginning, with British Imperial troops sent to support the Whites against the Reds during the Russian revolution; But as this was during (and immediately after) WWI, the British support had to be kept secret even at home, as the British public certainly had no stomach for more war - and once the truth came out, the British troops had to be brought home.

Neither Britain nor France had any desire for any more European warfare after the gruelling horror of WWI - until it was thrust upon them in the late 1930s.

 

[barbos]

Both the Nazis and the Soviets invaded Poland.

Why only war against the Nazis, if the Soviets were clearly also aggressors?

Actually, it was ukrainians who invaded Poland, according to latest historical research from Ukraine.

 

[Hickdive]

The British and French guarantee to Poland was simply a line in the sand for Hitler to cross and trigger a general war. There was no practical way to reinforce Poland militarily and any financial aid was never going to result in re-armament of Poland in time.

Fortunately, Hitler was too dim to avoid stepping over the line and started the war far too early. Had he waited another two or three years his forces would have been much stronger; particularly in U boats which were the only way to defeat Britain.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the oldest rules of warfare is never engage an enemy that can defeat you by walking backwards.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The British and French guarantee to Poland was simply a line in the sand for Hitler to cross and trigger a general war. There was no practical way to reinforce Poland militarily and any financial aid was never going to result in re-armament of Poland in time.

Fortunately, Hitler was too dim to avoid stepping over the line and started the war far too early. Had he waited another two or three years his forces would have been much stronger; particularly in U boats which were the only way to defeat Britain.

Hitler didn't think the West would go to war without the Soviets, as they were the only ones who could've helped Poland. Hitler thought of the British as logical, and to Hitler it made no sense to go to war when you couldn't affect the outcome.

 

[Kharakov]

"One of the oldest rules of warfare is never engage an enemy that can defeat you by walking backwards while grabbing their crotch and making high pitched squeals. " Neil Armstrong

 

[Shadowy Man]

One of the oldest rules of warfare is never engage an enemy that can defeat you by walking backwards.

"Never get in a land war in Asia."

"But only slightly less well-known..."

 

[Perspicuo]

One of the oldest rules of warfare is never engage an enemy that can defeat you by walking backwards.

I once read, if memory doesn't fail me, that Soviet forces were not very strong at the end of WWII. They barely made it.

Or does my memory fail me?

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the oldest rules of warfare is never engage an enemy that can defeat you by walking backwards.

I once read, if memory doesn't fail me, that Soviet forces were not very strong at the end of WWII. They barely made it.

Or does my memory fail me?

The Soviet Forces were never very strong, there was just a lot of them and every step backward for them was one step more Germany had to take. The Soviet Army was retreating over friendly territory and shortening supply lines. When the Russian winter had pushed the Germans to the limit, a successful Soviet counter offensive was inevitable.

By 1945, the planet was as war weary as it had ever been. An invasion of the Soviet Union was simply not politically feasible. It was one thing fight Japan and Germany, but there was argument which could be made in public which would convince the American people they should send the high school graduates of 1945 to fight the Soviet Union. Besides that, the British and the French could offer no substantial help. Britain was destitute and France was destroyed. The US would have had to reform and rearm the Wehrmacht. How do you think that would have gone over?

The post WW2 invasion of the Soviet Union has never been anything more that an American right wing wet dream.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

BTW, at the end of the war, Patton said, "let's just fight them now". Turned out to be mistaken, but the point is that many people were asking the same question you did.

And considering we just made them into a superpower dominating half of Europe with a many battle hardened armies there was little certainty of success.

 

[Horatio Parker]

BTW, at the end of the war, Patton said, "let's just fight them now". Turned out to be mistaken, but the point is that many people were asking the same question you did.

And considering we just made them into a superpower dominating half of Europe with a many battle hardened armies there was little certainty of success.

My guess is that they would've been more than a match for us on the ground - I don't remember the figures but I think we gave them enough trucks to motorized 300 divisions which is a lot - but our air forces were awesome compared to theirs and would've pulverized them.

IIRC at the time of Arnehm in Sept 1944 there 29 Allied divisions on the continent. Not a horde.

 

[Trodon]

There were a few people, like Gen. George Patton, who wanted to fight the Soviet Union. Even Bertrand Russell thought it best for the United States to maintain a nuclear monopoly.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did not invade Western Europe. Great Britain was bankrupt at the end of World War II. The American people had no enthusiasm for another major war.

 

[Turambar]

One of the oldest rules of warfare is never engage an enemy that can defeat you by walking backwards.

I once read, if memory doesn't fail me, that Soviet forces were not very strong at the end of WWII. They barely made it.

Or does my memory fail me?

Yes, I also read that they barely made it. Also, I read somewhere that the real American secret weapon to win WWII was not the bomb but SPAM, or rather the abundance of easy to carry high protein food, which gave the American and allied soldiers an edge over their enemies.

 

[Bronzeage]

I once read, if memory doesn't fail me, that Soviet forces were not very strong at the end of WWII. They barely made it.

Or does my memory fail me?

Yes, I also read that they barely made it. Also, I read somewhere that the real American secret weapon to win WWII was not the bomb but SPAM, or rather the abundance of easy to carry high protein food, which gave the American and allied soldiers an edge over their enemies.

The United State was an industrial power with a large population. It's homeland was out of reach of enemy aircraft, so wartime production could not be interrupted. Most US equipment was superior to what it faced, and when it wasn't superior, it made up for the difference in numbers. There is a famous quote from a German tank commander, who said, "A Panzer was the match of ten Shermans. Unfortunately, there were always eleven Shermans."

There was no nation on earth that could defeat the US, so long as the US had the political will to to fight. Once Germany and Japan surrendered, there was no more political will to fight.

 

[Togo]

Yes, I also read that they barely made it. Also, I read somewhere that the real American secret weapon to win WWII was not the bomb but SPAM, or rather the abundance of easy to carry high protein food, which gave the American and allied soldiers an edge over their enemies.

The United State was an industrial power with a large population. It's homeland was out of reach of enemy aircraft, so wartime production could not be interrupted.

The reverse was also true, without local allies.

Most US equipment was superior to what it faced, and when it wasn't superior,

Unless you have a source for this, I'm inclined to put it down to US propaganda. There was some ropey equipment pressed into service in various theatres, but the US aircraft carriers, tanks, and fighter craft were not obviously higher quality, and in many cases were of notably poorer quality than what they were facing. What they certainly were was more numerous.

it made up for the difference in numbers. There is a famous quote from a German tank commander, who said, "A Panzer was the match of ten Shermans. Unfortunately, there were always eleven Shermans."

Case in point. The Shermans were the IKEA of the tank world, tanks that could be shipped in peices for easy assembly by relatively unskilled people. As such, they were shipped in vast numbers. But they were light tanks. They were easily out armoured and outgunned by the later Panzers, and by the far heavier British tanks of the same period.

Does the Korean war count as military conflict with Stalin?

 

[Bronzeage]

The United State was an industrial power with a large population. It's homeland was out of reach of enemy aircraft, so wartime production could not be interrupted.

The reverse was also true, without local allies.

Most US equipment was superior to what it faced, and when it wasn't superior,

Unless you have a source for this, I'm inclined to put it down to US propaganda. There was some ropey equipment pressed into service in various theatres, but the US aircraft carriers, tanks, and fighter craft were not obviously higher quality, and in many cases were of notably poorer quality than what they were facing. What they certainly were was more numerous.

it made up for the difference in numbers. There is a famous quote from a German tank commander, who said, "A Panzer was the match of ten Shermans. Unfortunately, there were always eleven Shermans."

Case in point. The Shermans were the IKEA of the tank world, tanks that could be shipped in peices for easy assembly by relatively unskilled people. As such, they were shipped in vast numbers. But they were light tanks. They were easily out armoured and outgunned by the later Panzers, and by the far heavier British tanks of the same period.

Does the Korean war count as military conflict with Stalin?

The reverse of what?

I don't think anyone would dispute the superiority of the P51 Mustang fighter or the F6F Hellcat. These planes were developed during the war, while Germany and Japan slogged on with planes designed in the 1030's.

As for ropey equipment, a win by the second string is still a win.