Why did Stalin just not wipe western allies off the Europe in 1945...

Why did Stalin just not wipe western allies off the Europe in 1945? Soviets had superiority of 3:1 divisions at the end of the war, not to mention literally thousands of tanks more than western allies.

Have you ever heard the tale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yes, but U.S had only stockpile of 5-9 nukes at this point and only around 20 long-range bombers to operate(this is completely ignoring the fact that most of soviet war industry was moved over to western Siberia).
Even if they had kept the higher end of nuclear weapons replacement ratio it would have taken anywhere form 5-6 months to replace them.

Actually it was the opposite that happened. Churchil had prepared a plan for an invasion of the USSR with the other allies after the end of the war, but it was abandoned.
What he didn't knew was that a soviet spy had already delivered the plans to Stalin ahahah

Probably because the USSR had war exhaustion. The real question is why didn't Stalin join China in pushing the Americans out of Korea.


Yes but it would have been the United States replacing them. The country an ocean away. With the largest Navy in the world. Against the Soviets who had basically no experience mounting large amphibious operations.

If you cannot reach any of the big cities of USSR with those nukes I doubt they would have been much of strategic effect.

They did, in small amounts. Soviet bodies were recovered in the Korean war.

So instead they target major Soviet military installations in eastern Europe behind the front lines or experiment with tactical use of nuclear weapons.

They were bombs, not missiles. Completely different ball game compared to modern nuclear war.

One tactical nuke a month would not have stopped the Soviets. If they had snapped up Korea, Japan and Britain then America would be isolated.

So you`re telling me that we could have turned the entire Eurasia and Africa that was connected via landmass red?

Again, we are talking about the Soviet military which had NEXT TO NO EXPERIENCE with major amphibious operations and had nowhere near the naval capacity to carry out such operations successfully, going against the two largest naval powers on the planet at the time. So forget about Soviet troops marching through London or Tokyo.

I mean, in hindsight it seems a more optimistic plan than how it panned out. Africa would likely become a nuisance though.

They'd also just smashed the axis to bits with next to no experience.

This fails to address the actual point, that amphibious operations present an entirely new set of challenges not faced in a theater where land and air power predominate. And such operations require a large amount of specialized material not to mention naval superiority which the Russians did not have in the slightest. It's also wrong because the Soviets had recent experience in land wars between clashes with the Japanese in Siberia and the Winter War.

So if the only problem is naval, why didn't the Soviets push for more of Eurasia and Africa instead of allowing the obvious stalemate down the line created by nuclear weapons to take hold? The allies wouldn't be able to stage a second Normandy scenario against the Soviets.
Not to mention the strain of maintaining the naval defense of the UK when the USSR controls all the land near you.

Because in order to do so they would have had to pull divisions away from Europe, thus detracting from that very numerical superiority. Not to mention, as some have already pointed out, the Soviets had already suffered millions dead at this point, plunging directly into a new conflict with your former allies would have ensured millions more dead. Not to mention that there is a difference between taking land and holding land, which would also deplete and dilute their manpower advantage even further.

But Europe is a clear curb stomp. It would be a case of steamrolling the allies and holing up in the German's previous defenses.

You gotta watch out for that war exhaustion. It's a real motherfucker. Here you are, your army is stronger now than it was at the beginning of the war, you're ready to go marching across the continent…..and you have to make peace because you're going to be spending the next 10 years putting down rebellions if the war goes on any longer. You'll probably have to spend all your diplo points just to avoid this.

Those defenses which served the Germans so well. Especially when they sent the bulk of their army East to fight in another theater of war.

Just use the liberum veto.

Stalin already had to deal with officers in Leningrad being more popular then him and thousands new Trotskys and Napoleons being born all throughout the USSR all while Stalin had no real military standing. If Stalin continued the war the odds of him being ousted by a military coup would drastically increased as the Soviet Army at that point only tolerated Stalin and many higher ranking officers still blamed Stalin for the initial failures of the war and wanted to replace Stalin with a military junta.

Checked to see how many the Germans had stationed there at the time, and it was around 60 divisions. The Soviets can spare it.

Stop, I can only get so erect.

The Soviets needed help from the Allies to defeat the Nazis and Japan. Their tanks were shit. They won most of their battles through defensive scorched-earth tactics and being able to resupply during winter. They were able to convince kids to wonder off to die but they weren't a technological juggernaut.

You lefties and your Oliver Stone fish tales about the Soviet military …

t. imperialist revisionist American propagandist


Simply the difference in numbers would have lead to allied forces being flanked, this is why the strategic analysis of the possibility of war called to hasty retreat to Benelux countries.

Reminder the Allies were stuck in the cuck corner for four years.


as opposed to the pzii, iii and iv, which were all obsolete well before 1939. the germans had shitty afvs until they developed the panther, which was a ripoff of the t-34, and it came way too late. the tiger was their only truly good tank, and they couldn't build nearly enough of them to make a difference

You lefties and your Oliver Stone fish tales about the Soviet military …

Stalin had no idea how many the US had available in 1945.

don't forget Raseiniai

It was a KV2
The thing actually pretty bad at tank v tank combat but they dug in and the turret on it is fucking impenetrable by anything less than a panther or pz4 g
It's main role is an artillery support vehicle as it's cannon fires artillery shells.

VE day was like 14 weeks before VJ day m8

Because then Germany would of been allowed to rearm, and then there is the fact that Finland who constantly during the war btfod the Soviets with only 4 men was hanging on pretty good

proof that imperialism is stopped with nukes

Stalin was patient and believed in the possibility of developing socialism in one country. He didn't believe it was necessary to force socialism to become global through such aggressive means, which would almost certainly backfire anyways.

Stalin made the mistake of trusting 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anglos🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

1) Czech'ed


sure, they could have wiped out allied troops in europe but do you really think that would have been the end of it?


you underestimate damage taken by soviets
hundreds of factories were destroyed, cities laid in ruins
nazis used scorched earth tactic when retreating, just like soviets did in 41
it was an achivement that soviets recovered quickly, abolishing ration stamp system earlier than brits
also consider the effect of war on the supply of labour

plus war exhaustion was kicking in hard
people wanted revenge for all the shit they suffered, and after they got their revenge, they wanted to go home

also brits were one hell of a nut to crack
at best it would've been a Pyrrhic victory

1)Russia had exhausted its reserves and still had to assert control of the eastern bloc.
2)Stalin had no idea how many nukes America had

Seriously, the losses in the USSR can't be understated. 20 million dead (at a minimum) out of a population of 162 million in 1937.

Without the aid of the allies Russia wouldent even be able to hold off the Nazi blitzkrieg.

They where lucky that all invasion plans where laid to rest. Russia would have lost in houres.

This thread is hillarious


See pictures which may be more to the level of your nation's education system.

but user, the bulk of lend lease arrived after Stalingrad

You underestimate how depleted the manpower reserves were. They could no longer replace losses, unlike the US, which lost not even half a million men. Beyond that, the logistical nightmare of routing an army's worth of supplies through not only the devastated W-Soviet Union, but bombed out and starving Germany.

Massively overextended supply lines.
The fact that they weren't sure if America would be able to nuke them repeatedly.
The fact that America's navy and a large chunk of its army was sitting on the eastern border of Russia.

They theoretically could have done it but it would be a retarded risky move.

Your point? Stalin was made "officially" aware of the existence of the Manhattan Project weeks before VJ Day during the Potsdam Conference and absolutely knew about it years beforehand through Soviet intelligence.

Ironically the very things that made it shitty at actual tank-tank combat- the enormous shells and thick armor weight- made it an amazing emplaced turret. the 152mm shells turned PzIII's and IV's inside out.

Only half true. He considered it, realized how outnumbered the Western Allies were, and Operation Unthinkable turned into a defensive plan. Sauce on the bit about the spy?

This kind of post are always good praxis