|
The US Supply lines were at the end of their length by May 1945, if the Germans had been able to put up any type of defense, the war would have lasted till the Fall (This was actually the Chief of Staff Prediction as late as March 1945). The only reason the Western Allies did as while as they did was the Post-WWII devision of Germany had fallen into Nazi hands during the Battle of the Bulge, and Hitler looked over it and called it a design for future war between the US and the USSR. The German staff, on the other hand, believed that the Allies would NOT attack areas reserved for the Russians so pulled back troops from those areas to face the Russians (To a lesser extent the Germans did the same with troops facing the Western Allies, but by 1945 the Germans feared the Russians more then the west, having lost over 2/3 of their casualties on the Russian Front.
As to the Starving US held prisoners, most starved during the winter of 1945-1946 the winter AFTER the end of the war. Why did their stave? No food to feed them, and since their were POWs they could NOT look for food and their were LAST on the US supply line (The Marshall Plan really did not start till 1946). One of my favorite facts of WWII was that the US Army did a study that the US Army could field up to 267 Divisions without affecting the US War production, the only problem was the US Navy did a Study and said they would only support 100 divisions overseas WITHOUT hurting our allies (Mostly Britain but also the Russians who used US made Trucks in their army well into the 1960s).
By 1945/1946 the European ports were a mess, would take them 2-3 years to get them up to level to support our troops, the Russians had over 500 Divisions (Through mostly horse drawn supplied as opposed to the almost 100% trucks supplied US Army, I use the term Almost supplies we used Mules extensively in both Italy and Burma, the last 100 mules in the US Army was NOT replaced till the late 1950s and then by 20 helicopters, while Helicopters did exist in 1945 not the type that could carry the supplies needed in Mountainous terran, Italy has mule based units to this day for this reason).
Thus in 1945 the Russians had over 500 divisions, compared to the 90 US Army Divisions (and 10 Marine Corp Divisions). Now the US Divisions are larger then the Russian divisions, but this is compensated by the larger number of personal kept at Corp Level, thus both Soviet and US Divisions are approximately 30,000 men each IF YOU INCLUDE CORP LEVEL TROOPS, divided among the Divisions in that Corp.
Now another factor comes into play in regards to the US Army. The US Army during WWII adopted a policy of replacement on the line i.e. as people were killed or wounded they were replaced by people who came in right off the troop ships and into the unit. The US army believed everyone was replaceable by a similar trained person. The problem is just look at the Winner of the Super Bowl and the Winner of the Pro-bowl. As individuals the Pro-bowlers are better players, but can they defeat the Super bowl champions? The Answer is NO, for the Super bowl Champions are a TEAM, the team members work together, they know what each can do and what each person has to do for each other. The pro-bowl team is just 11 men on the field together. They do NOT know each others weaknesses or Strengths, thus they play as 11 individuals and would lose if they play against any team (With maybe the exception of a pee wee team, but even they I have my doubts).
The same problem came up for the US Army in 1945, the US divisions were becoming more and more a collection of Individuals and less like a team do to the replacement on the line. The Germans, the Russians and even the British tended to form units from certain areas and withdrew them from combat if and when new "team members" were added to the Unit (The Union Army did the same thing during the US Civil War, leaving units slowly decline in membership and when finally to same to use the survivals were broken up and used to provide the leadership for new Regiments raised during the Civil War). When German troops surrendered to US Units in 1945, they had a habit of saying the unit they had fought BEFORE the unit their surrendered to had fought harder. When I first read this I dismissed it as German Grandstanding, but after further research I believe the German were telling the truth, the problem was ALL US units in Europe were in rapid decline by April 1945 and thus the German were surrendering to inferior units then their had fought before, but that was how bad ALL the Units were in Decline by that date. The US Army of WWII was NEVER intended to fight for more then a Year ONCE Engaged in Northern Europe. The Year was about up by April 1945 and I suspect NONE of the European Units were anywhere near 100% of what they had been the year before. The same can be said of the Soviet forces, they had seen even harsher combat, but the replacement was done when the Unit was pulled out of the Front, so the unit had time to train with the new replacements, as opposed to the US where the fact the Unit was already in Combat made that impossible. The better solution was the solution used by the Germans and Russians (and the Union Army in the US Civil War) no replacement in line, the unit MUST be withdrawn from combat before such replacements are added (One of the reason for the decline of the US Army in Vietnam was again this replacement on the line, and in Vietnam it was even worse, no one stayed more then a year in any one unit, with Officers only staying six months, the other Six months the officer stayed in Vietnam by during staff work).
As to 1945, we have to remember that the US had superior Air Power, but Russian was NOT densely populated Germany AND Russia had one thing Germany did NOT have, Oil. Thus the Russians would have put up a harder fight then the Germans in regards to the Western Allies. The US had a Fleet, which Moscow did not, but that is important in regards to the Atlantic, North Sea and the Mediterranean. The Black Sea can only be entered via Turkey, and Carriers and Battleships can NOT go through Turkey by treaty (Which the Turks did NOT want to Break given Soviet Forces opposite both its European and Asian Borders).
Furthermore, you are forgetting two important problems, first is the Middle East. Iraq was occupied by Britain in 1941, to secure its Oil Supplies. Iran was jointly occupied by the Soviet Union to the North, and American Forces to the South while technically staying Independent. In 1945 the only troops that mattered (Iraqi troops were viewed as Anti-English, if not pro-Nazi and during the war were put on a diet by the British BELOW what was believed needed to survive, this was to keep them busy looking for food rather then training or plotting to kick out the British) were three British Brigades AND three Soviet Divisions (Remember a Division contains three Brigades or Regiments AND Divisional Support personnel, which the three British Brigades DID not have). In simple term, the British and American Fleet could attack on the edges of the Middle East, but the Soviet Union could have everything between Palestine and Pakistan within three months of any war between the US and the Soviet Union.
The Second problem was Japan, remember we were still at war with them in 1945. The Japanese actions AFTER Letye Gulf is quite clear, to keep US troops occupied in the Philippines for as long as Possible, and hope for the US Soviet War and then offer their services to the Soviets in exchange for Air planes, Oil and Pilots. The Soviet Union had plenty of all three, Japan had almost none by 1945 (The Japanese Kamikaze was more a desperate attempt to get some planes up and at the US Fleet with minimum amount of training, if the Kamikaze pilots had more then a few weeks of training they may have avoided the AAA fire shot at them and actually hit the US Ships).
This brings me to why did the Japanese Surrender on August 15, 1945, when the last Atomic Bombing was over a week before? The answer is unsettling, the Soviet Union had fulfilled its obligations agreed to in Yalta and had invaded Manchuria on the 90th day after the Surrender of Germany. The Atomic Bombing seems to have been rushed to try to get them used BEFORE that date. but occurred at the same time. This brings us to the Question, why did Japan Surrender on August 15th? Was in the Atomic Bombing (The Japanese lost more people in the Tokyo Fire Bomb raid in March then in either of the Two Atomic bombings) OR was it the fact the Soviet Army had, for all practical purposes taken over Manchuria by August 15th and unless Japan Surrender THEN, the Red Army would have reached Korea by September 1, and would have ALL of Korea by October 1st? Remember the only living Japanese politician NOT tied in with the Right Wing WWII Japanese Government was living in an apartment in Moscow (He was the head of the Japanese Communist party, the Right wing of Japan had killed off any other internal opposition in the early 1930s, mostly by assassination).
Now I Concentrate on 1945, for that is the only time the US had the forces needed to Drive the Soviet Forces out of Eastern Europe. By June 1945 we had already started to pull forces out of Europe to be retained in the US and then to be shipped to invade Japan on November 1, 1945 (Operation boxcar). On these troop ships you had riots, where the troops were saying they had done they duty when they fought the Germans, it was time for other Americans to fight the Japanese. Little reported but did reach Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Truman even asked Herbert Hoover about this and Hoover said this shows problems, cut a deal with the Japanese and get those troops home). Now Truman remember the post-WWI recession and wanted to avoid it at all cost (OR reduce its affect). Thus Truman wanted to slowly discharge the troops so they would be NO huge influx of men into the job market all at the same time. The Russians had learned of British plans for a War with the Russians buy June 1945 and reduced their army in Eastern Europe to 175 Divisions AND put them into defensive positions. The Russians had taken over most, if not all of the German intelligence service by 1945 (and some people believe well before that date) and these elements offered themselves to the US, which gave the Russians some advantages.
Now Patton was a great tactician, but he had a weak understanding the supply problems (In fact the reason Patton great move across France ended when it did was his oil supply had been planed from 1943 onward to come via Brest, but he had left Germans walked into that City as he made his great encirclement in July 1944, those Germans were NOT removed till January 1945, thus Patton ended up using fuel that had been reserved for the British Army in the Invasion plans from 1942 onward (From what I have heard, the plans kept falling into the same problem, how do you get oil to the Tanks? Brest kept coming back as the Answer, and given the German Troops positions in June 1945, Brest was free of all German Troops TILL Patton made his move. The Germans pushed out of Patton's way then retreated into Brest and ordered to stay in that Port City by Hitler himself, it took the US Six months to remove them, a City that had Patton attacked it first would have been taken in hours do to the lack of German Troops defending the City at that time).
Now the US Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the US would defeat the Soviet Union in any war prior to 1949 (The Soviet exploding an A-Bomb changed the Situation to a no-win war, even through while into the 1950s the Soviet Union did NOT have the Capabilities to hit the US with to many such bombs, the Soviet Union only achieved that capability in the mid 1960s as their expanded their ICBMs). I have always question this, not that the Chief of Staff erred, but what did they mean by "Winning". I believe the US and the Western Allies could have defeated any Soviet attack into Western Europe, do the the ability to use the Fleet to outflank the Soviet Army and the ability to use Britain as a super Aircraft carrier to launch massive Air Attacks over Western Europe. On the other hand BOTH advantages tend to disappear as you cross the Elbe River. While the B-17s and B-24s would reach Berlin (as could British Lancaster) all three bombers were of marginal use against Field Armies (All three had been designed to attack fixed targets, not Mobile targets like tanks). The B-29 had the range to hit Moscow, but the number of B-29s were limited AND any attack on Russia itself from Britain would have been long beyond the range of the P-51 Mustang. Furthermore Russia did NOT have the concentration of Industry that was characteristics of both Germany and Japan, thus conventional bombing was less of a threat (But the A-Bomb was more of a Threat, but the number of A-bombs we had in 1946 was less then five, the threat was real, but of limited affect IF actual combat incurred).
Basically the US and Soviet Union divided Europe about the point where each sides military started to decline. Any Soviet attack on Western Europe could be defeated by the Western Allies, but should could the Soviet Union to any western allies invasion into Eastern Europe. The only exception to this rule was Greece, but even Stalin realized that if you have no fleet you can NOT hold Greece and told his fellow Communists in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to stop suppling the Greek Communists after 1946 (and this Greece Joined NATO not the Warsaw Pact).
My point is simple, given the situation in May 1945 till while into the 1960s, both the US and the Soviet Union was at extent of where their Armies could go without facing Superior forces. Nato dare NOT go into Eastern Europe and lose the advantages of its Fleet and Air Support, but neither could the Soviet Union invade Western Europe do to the existence of that Fleet and Air Power. Could we have gone to War in 1945 or 1946 with the Soviet Union? Yes but the line would have been drawn sooner or later somewhere about the Elbe River. The Soviet could have been forced from Iraq within a year or two but once across the Soviet Border, having a Fleet and Air Superiority ceased to be a serious factor and again stabilization. As to Japan, it would have fallen to the US sooner or later, but sooner or later the US would have wanted to Control Korea to protect Japan and something like the Korean war would have broken out. The Subsequent Division of Korean MAY have occurred or not occurred, but as soon as US Troops crossed into China (Which was doomed to go communists do to the Nationalists failure to address the economic problems of China even BEFORE the Japanese had invaded) or Russia, a similar situation as to Europe and the Mid-east would have developed. Korea may have stayed 100% free of the Communists (Through the fact it would have been first occupied by the Russians and the Koreans did field an Army during WWII, but it became the heart of the North Korean Army NOT South Korea's Army, and how that army would have affected any US occupation of Korea would be a factor).
There was limited things the US could do come 1945, yes WWII started to prevent Poland from falling to the Nazi, but that war was long over and lost after France fell to the Nazis in 1940, thus by 1945 the war was NO longer to keep Poland Free (that war had been lost) but to defeat Germany even if that meant Expansion of Soviet Power into Eastern Europe. That was achieved by May 1945 and the US did NOT have the ability to do any better in 1945 (and less by 1946 as the Last of the US Troops were demobilized and the US Economy shifted to a post-war Civilian production).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
