Trotsky would have done it

Trotsky would have done it.


Other urls found in this thread:–Israeli_conflict

They really should have started Operation Unthinkable so they could get BTFO by the Soviets.

Nah Soviets should have taken the offensive

Hadn't even read about this before.
Who did Stalin work with who didn't try to backstab him?


It's not exactly backstab when it's understood from day one that you're temporary allies only

How many nuclear bombs could the US produce at this time period per year?

Would it be enough to prevent an amphibious invasion of Britain?

Enough to make the war pretty costly.
Nukes were overrated anyway. The Tokyo firebombings did more damage than both atomic bombs

From one of the related articles, about a different operation:

Besides that they were already in lots of non-Russian territories, and I bet they could take over Europe in a shor time. Would the US jump nuke a bunch of european cities?

Early nukes have one extremely powerful use.

A single nuclear landmine planted at a beachhead will destroy an army. This is what would have happened if America had invaded Cuba. The USSR could maintain complete air superiority and still never land on the British isles.

how ready was the Russian populace for a large scale war against the west? They had just gone through one of the bloodiest invasions of all time and an extremely costly war, I doubt Stalin wanted to ignite more unrest within his country.

I doubt it, a nuke in Cuba would have catastrphic effects on the island

Amphibious landing in Britain would have been impossible anyways: the soviet navy was nowhere near large enough to challenge the UK's European High Sea fleet and the UK was actually pretty bloody militarised for defense: the bunkers and tank traps are still present on the beaches today.

So would American occupation

After WWII the Soviet Union invested heavily in airborne capabilities, their cold war plan for WWIII was to use their air force to gain air superiority so their large airborne force can secure airfields to airlift the army across the English channel.

I wonder what kind of political shitshow would follow if US or UK started WW3 before dust from WW2 even settled.

Jesus, I had no idea there were so few Western Allied armies there. They really were desperate to cordon the Red Army off, weren't they?

Churchill always was a cunt. I think he said as early as 1919, "kill the Bolshie, kiss the Hun", and he cried won't someone think of the those poor Russian dukes?

Also from 1919: "One might as well legalise sodomy as recognise the Bolsheviks." ayy lmao

And how would they have supplied this army? Also by air? How would heavy equipment be transported in? The only way an airborne invasion would have worked would have been in conjunction with an amphibious landing to secure a beachhead at or near an adequate port.

During the Manchuria invasion they spear head was mostly supplies by airlifts and airdrops where the USSR airforce lifted thousands of tonnes each day where planes were run 24/7 with quick turn around times. After the Berlin Airlift the USSR wanted even more airlift capability, as the Americans had even more planes at the time. This resulted in the USSR building more transport planes along with bigger planes thus why in 1988 you had the massive An-225. The USSR figured if the Americans could supply a city by air, then the superior USSR could supply a army group by air.

it is rather surprising that Stalin didn't just walk over the allied armies and stop at the french border

would have solved a lot of problems

There is a major difference between an offensive spearheaded by air an an offensive which ONLY OCCURS BY AIR. We are talking about supply lines, not simply getting troops to their designations. The Germans proved how difficult this is when trying to supply their forces in Stalingrad after they were encircled. This isn't a matter of dropping food to civilians in one city, it's dropping food, medical supplies, ammunition, replacement equipment, and everything else an army needs to operate. And that's just light infantry, god forbid they want to bring armor into play because they simply cannot be brought into play via air.

Right and in Manchuria, Soviet cargo planes landed on seized airfields to shorten the distance trucks had to drive supplies to the front, which the armoured divisions consumed most of the Soviet airlifting capability as they were always the ones the farthest from the rail heads, all the back in the USSR (meaning ground supplies had to drive over mountain passes just to enter the theater). The USSR flew cargo planes day and night, using runway lights and radio navigation.
The technology for airlifting in Stalingrad was primitive even compared to Manchuria let alone the Berlin Airlift.

Looking at all of these secret plans, you start to realize just how badly the West was shitting its pants over Ivan steamrolling everything from Berlin to the Atlantic.

You're missing the point. In the invasion of Manchuria supply by air could work because those armored ground forces could advance and relieve the airborne troops. There would be NO SUCH RELIEF in an airborne invasion of Britain, not without an amphibious landing to secure a port.

Wasn't Trotskys real name David Bronstein? He was a jew living in New York as a tailor? then he moved to Russia to start the Russian revolution?

Wouldn't that make the Russian revolution a Jewish movement

You are forgetting Operation Weserübung where the Nazis airlifted infantry into Norway after seizing airfields.


Even after you have the port you would have to keep supplies coming continuously, which would certainly get BTFO by the British and American navies which were probably about ten times the size of the Soviet navy. Fucking Canada had a bigger navy than the USSR in 1945.

The government’s would have lost all public political support for the war. As much as people in the west may have hated/feared communism, they had just gotten out of 4 years of hearing about Uncle Joe and Good Old Joe and how he was showing the Jerries what’s what by jove. Starting a war after that and after all the destruction of WW2 would have been intensely unpopular. The same would have happened in the USSR if Stalin had attacked.

I don't understand what that means

You're fucking up your argument, a way stronger argument against this would be the near impossibility of obtaining air superiority against the allies.

This is probably bait but I'll bite.
The USSR supports the Arabs over Israel. Thus implying that the USSR isn't a 'Jewish movement'.

Not that guy but the Soviet Union agreed with the 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine, was the first country to officially recognize Israel and supported Israel in the 1948 First Arab-Israeli War.

It would depend on how the USSR could crank out the La-7 in large numbers. The west at the time admitted the La-7 outclassed every western fighter in boom and zoom where it can swoop down and tear most fighters to sheds with its automatic 20mm cannons and down low its speed got up to 660KM/h. Yet in 1945 the USSR had less then 1,000 La-7.

It comes back to Zionism vs Bolshevism: The struggle of the Jewish soul by Winston Churchill.

Wherein he describes a separation between religious jews and communist jews. At that time Israel was for religious jews.

The news paper is worth reading if you can find it.

That’s because early on the Zionist movement had large socialist elements like the Kibbutz movement. Stalin hoped that Israel could be influenced to become a socialist state. However once they started aligning with the West, the Soviets switched sides.–Israeli_conflict

Yes they airlifted INFANTRY into Norway, a nation which was not mobilized nearly to the extent Britain was by the end of the war. And what did the German infantry do once they had landed? They seized Oslo as a port through which they could bring supplies and heavier equipment in.

Precisely, seizing the port is necessary but not enough, you have to also be able to use it as well. Without naval superiority in the channel it would simply not work.

Air superiority would be very difficult to achieve, yes. Even achieving and maintaining local air superiority in the south of Britain would cause serious enough losses to seriously fuck efforts to supply any invading army. The idea of a Soviet invasion of the British isles in the mid to late 40s is just a non-starter from beginning to end.

And by the Berlin Airlift the US Airforce was moving heavy equipment heavier then T-34 by air, they were moved in pieces but there was no reason why the USSR couldn't have done the same, it would have just meant have put more demand on the cargo planes. This is why the USSR focused on airlifting capability during the Cold War and went all the way up to the massive AN-255 that can airlift five battle ready T-72 as the USSR took close notice of the Berlin Airlift.

And how many T-34s would the Soviets be able to transport in per plane? How then how much fuel for those tanks. Then how much ammunition for those tanks. Then how many spare parts for those those tanks. Then how much food for the crews. Then how much medical supplies, tools, blankets, new uniforms, etc etc etc etc and oh by the way our transport planes are getting shot down in droves.

Like the Berlin Airlift the idea is to dived among multiple planes, which is how the Americans got tanks past the block aid. As for getting show down, the La-7 by British reports was a excellent fighter for diving on the enemy and running away. The exception was that it was a glass cannon and burned through its ammo fast. Yet in the hands of experienced pilots, the La-7 was a killing machine against even German aces. Thus it would be a issue of producing enough La-7 with enough pilots skilled enough to use it well.

It was still a colonial racist movement. This is akin to supporting early Nazism because it had large socialist elements.

Zionism had always been allied with the West.

Okay, tell Stalin that. I didn’t say I supported them, I said that he did.

Clearly Stalin thought that there was some possibility of bringing them into the Soviet sphere.

I’m not taking a side here I’m just saying what happened.

I didn't assume you were, I was criticizing the reasoning of Stalin and of anyone that would agree with him.

Basically this
Likely there wouldve been mass mutinies on the allies side especially in any French or British formations

there were zionists actively making terrorist attacks against the british in the mandate of palestine

This, after the war Stalin wasn't willing to support the communists in Greece, this tells you about the risks he was willing to take after winning the war.

pay denbts

Russian armies are assemblies of divisions while Western armies are assemblies of corps which are assemblies of divisions