Why not attack Russia?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't think morale, men, nor material was the deciding factor. The decision not to pursue came from the White House alone.

No, the strategic impossibility of invading Russia was the deciding factor.

 

[dfnj]

Do you have anything nice to say about Hitler?

He was good at giving speeches firing up support for his scapegoating agenda.

 

[Stevicus]

Based on what? Ive always had an interest in military history and WW2 post-ww2 straategic planning in particular. So...convince me. Heck, make any argument from fact at all.

I suppose one possibility (speculative, of course) could have been that the US could have intervened more actively in Eastern Europe to prevent the communist governments from taking over. We did do some of that in Greece and Turkey to prevent them from falling into the Soviet fold.

Unlike places like China and Vietnam (where the West was already severely hated), the US did not yet have such a tarnished reputation in Eastern Europe and could have possibly gained hearts and minds of anti-communist recruits from those countries.

Or, just as we did with Guatemala and Cuba (where the US was also hated), we could have trained and armed groups of exiles to sneak in and rile up the populace against the communist regime. It may not have been successful, but it could have destabilized and weakened the Soviet hold over those countries.

However, I think US priorities had shifted from Europe to other parts of the world, particularly East Asia. We couldn't see any practical way of breaking the stalemate in Europe, so we stood by and let the Soviets have Eastern Europe while banking on the idea of stopping/containing communism on other fronts (i.e. Korea, Vietnam).

 

[BSM1]

No, the strategic impossibility of invading Russia was the deciding factor.

I don't disagree. However (and I am neither endorsing nor condoning this), Russia did not have an atomic weapon at the end the war. This would have given us a huge advantage over an invasion. However, NK was completely doable.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't disagree. However (and I am neither endorsing nor condoning this), Russia did not have an atomic weapon at the end the war. This would have given us a huge advantage over an invasion. However, NK was completely doable.

The Western Allies had 3 atomic weapons just before the end of the war against Imperial Japan. None by VE day. I don't think the Trinity series would have provided the advantage some people think. Sure, they'd be an advantage, but not decisive.

As for North Korea, remember the Korean War was fought under the auspices of the UN, which recognised the North.

 

[ajay0]

Debatable.

Would the Americans have driven the battle-hardened Russians from east Germany back to the U.S.S.R. , and invaded it, which even the Nazis could not do ! The Chinese would also have supported the Russians from such ventures.

The Americans had also great losses in the war. Just Iwo Jima itself took the lives of over 3000 marines.

 

[Sanzbir]

As a matter of fact, that too should be avoided.

Good! Agreed.

 

[Sanzbir]

Germany wasn't invaded because "Freedom".

I'll bite...

Why was it invaded by the US??

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'll bite...

Why was it invaded by the US??

Because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, which caused the US to formally declare war on Imperial Japan, which caused Germany and Italy to declare war on the US. "Freedom" featured nowhere in either the decision chain or justifications.

 

[Spiderman]

The Western Allies had 3 atomic weapons just before the end of the war against Imperial Japan. None by VE day. I don't think the Trinity series would have provided the advantage some people think. Sure, they'd be an advantage, but not decisive.

As for North Korea, remember the Korean War was fought under the auspices of the UN, which recognised the North.

I don't think you are right about that!

 

[Sanzbir]

Because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, which caused the US to formally declare war on Imperial Japan, which caused Germany and Italy to declare war on the US. "Freedom" featured nowhere in either the decision chain or justifications.

I'm questioning whether this attempt will be worth it, because 'Murica historical revisionism is rampant and facts that challenge these narratives are mostly seen as unwelcome and ignored...

But the preparations for the invasion were happening before those events you cited. America was building towards a wartime economy since '39, and Roosevelt made open statements in '40 of his intentions to aid the Allies against the Axis.

A quote by Roosevelt's adviser John Galbraith is instructive: "When Pearl Harbor happened, we were desperate. ... We were all in agony. The mood of the American people was obvious – they were determined that the Japanese had to be punished. We could have been forced to concentrate all our efforts on the Pacific, unable from then on to give more than purely peripheral help to Britain. It was truly astounding when Hitler declared war on us three days later. I cannot tell you our feelings of triumph. It was a totally irrational thing for him to do, and I think it saved Europe."

So here we have an admission that the administration wanted to be involved in the European front before the declaration of war giving America the pretext needed to sell its population on the idea, and moreover was concerned that Japan's attack might force them to focus only on the Pacific.

If there weren't other motives for the US to invade Germany at play, then the administration would not have had "feelings of triumph" upon Germany declaring war on America. That admitted reaction of the administration shows us that the declaration of war was only the pretext that gave the American administration the excuse to do what it already wanted to do in the first place.

So the question is, why did America (by which I mean the American administration of that time) want to invade Germany to begin with?? From their own statements, they didn't want to invade because of the declaration, they wanted American involvement before being given a perfect pretext to do so by Hitler's foolish actions.

Thus your explanation for the motives of attacking Germany is wholly insufficient.

So why did the US want to be involved?? Well in 1940, Roosevelt spoke about how he wanted to help Britain against Germany in order to provide Britain with "arsenal of Democracy", about how aiding Britain was important for the sake of Democracy in the world.

That's right. "Freedom" was the reason.

Although I half expect you prefer the 'Murica revisionist "We only wanted to do it 'cause we got attacked first" version of the tale, and ignore the vast public statements made about how we wanted to protect freedom and Democracy from Germany before the declaration of war, or the attack on Pearl Harbor, were justifications that could be used.

 

[Stevicus]

The main reason Germany was invaded by the US and other powers in WW2 was because Germany was an aggressive power which had invaded numerous other nations and caused a world war of the like never seen before in the annals of history. The Allies agreed that the only way to stop Germany and prevent them from doing it again was to invade and divide the country into occupation zones. That was already decided, and the occupation zones already determined, long before the first US soldiers entered German territory.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't think you are right about that!

Feel free to make an evidence based argument to convince me.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm questioning whether this attempt will be worth it, because 'Murica historical revisionism is rampant and facts that challenge these narratives are mostly seen as unwelcome and ignored...

But the preparations for the invasion were happening before those events you cited. America was building towards a wartime economy since '39, and Roosevelt made open statements in '40 of his intentions to aid the Allies against the Axis.

A quote by Roosevelt's adviser John Galbraith is instructive: "When Pearl Harbor happened, we were desperate. ... We were all in agony. The mood of the American people was obvious – they were determined that the Japanese had to be punished. We could have been forced to concentrate all our efforts on the Pacific, unable from then on to give more than purely peripheral help to Britain. It was truly astounding when Hitler declared war on us three days later. I cannot tell you our feelings of triumph. It was a totally irrational thing for him to do, and I think it saved Europe."

So here we have an admission that the administration wanted to be involved in the European front before the declaration of war giving America the pretext needed to sell its population on the idea, and moreover was concerned that Japan's attack might force them to focus only on the Pacific.

If there weren't other motives for the US to invade Germany at play, then the administration would not have had "feelings of triumph" upon Germany declaring war on America. That admitted reaction of the administration shows us that the declaration of war was only the pretext that gave the American administration the excuse to do what it already wanted to do in the first place.

So the question is, why did America (by which I mean the American administration of that time) want to invade Germany to begin with?? From their own statements, they didn't want to invade because of the declaration, they wanted American involvement before being given a perfect pretext to do so by Hitler's foolish actions.

Thus your explanation for the motives of attacking Germany is wholly insufficient.

So why did the US want to be involved?? Well in 1940, Roosevelt spoke about how he wanted to help Britain against Germany in order to provide Britain with "arsenal of Democracy", about how aiding Britain was important for the sake of Democracy in the world.

That's right. "Freedom" was the reason.

Although I half expect you prefer the 'Murica revisionist "We only wanted to do it 'cause we got attacked first" version of the tale, and ignore the vast public statements made about how we wanted to protect freedom and Democracy from Germany before the declaration of war, or the attack on Pearl Harbor, were justifications that could be used.

"Freedom" had nothing to do with it. Sure, there were other factors involved, like attachment to Britain and other alliances, and even humanitarian concern over treatment of conquered people and supressed groups. But "freedom" was not a factor. I don't know what you think revisionism means, but I'd say reducing multifaceted geopolitical issues to single words of vague meaning is a good start.

 

[KT Shamim]

Absolutely. But Americans are thoroughly enamored with the myth of a strictly dichotomous struggle between Good and Evil, where the All American Boy single handedly saved the world.

Translation: we've got our work cut out for us

 

[Spiderman]

Based on what? Ive always had an interest in military history and WW2 post-ww2 straategic planning in particular. So...convince me. Heck, make any argument from fact at all.

We had the atomic bomb and they had already lost almost 20 million people and suffered much destruction. We would have just needed to drop ten atomic bombs on Russia and eventually they would withdrawal from Eastern Europe, after losing a million more people to some bomb...that would be 1 million dead to save tens of millions!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

We had the atomic bomb and they had already lost almost 20 million people and suffered much destruction. We would have just needed to drop ten atomic bombs on Russia and eventually they would withdrawal from Eastern Europe, after losing a million more people to some bomb...that would be 1 million dead to save tens of millions!

The US didn't have 10 bombs at the end of the war in Europe. This has been explained to you. The Russians withdrawing in the face of an atomic bomb is a very big assumption on your part. This has also been explained to you.

 

[LuisDantas]

We had the atomic bomb and they had already lost almost 20 million people and suffered much destruction. We would have just needed to drop ten atomic bombs on Russia and eventually they would withdrawal from Eastern Europe, after losing a million more people to some bomb...that would be 1 million dead to save tens of millions!

Unthinkable, even if we somehow knew for a fact that it could work.

For one thing, you are talking about massive death and destruction and attempting to see that as somehow saving lives.

Things do not work that way in real life, sorry.

 

[Spiderman]

The US didn't have 10 bombs at the end of the war in Europe. This has been explained to you. The Russians withdrawing in the face of an atomic bomb is a very big assumption on your part. This has also been explained to you.

I explained elsewhere that we didn't have 10 atomic bombs... But that we could have in time.

I admit, it was an assumption, but if Russia simply withdrew from the countries that they conquered, and treated like the Nazis, there would be no need to drop any bombs

 

[Spiderman]

Unthinkable, even if we somehow knew for a fact that it could work.

For one thing, you are talking about massive death and destruction and attempting to see that as somehow saving lives.

Things do not work that way in real life, sorry.

Okay... I'm not sure... But will admit, there are no promises that causing destruction can save lives