They might not of when the USSR broke from China over its nuclear program.ZombieVampire! wrote:
If Russia had kept going after WWII they would have overrun Europe. It was only through stategic alliance with Europe that the US was able to compete with the USSR. Keep in mind the USSR had the support of a number of other nations, and in a pinch China and the USSR would have allied despite their mutual dislike.
Two words:pierro wrote:
-At the time the US could have crushed Russia. The reason they initially allied with Germany (non-aggression pact) was because they were so weak that the British didn’t even try getting them as allies. The only reason they beat the Germans was because the US supplied them at Stalingrad etc... The US had a larger, better trained and more technically efficient airforce and navy and the USSR had just lost 20 million due to the German invasion and barely beat Germany even with it fighting on multiple fronts (the German economy, at its peak, was ¼ the size of the American’s). The US could actually afford to help rebuild their wartime allies while Russia was so poor they had to take money from their satellite countries. Oh and did I mention NUKES? Russia’s only allies were a bunch of weak decimated satellite nations the only other nation they were allied with was China and that was years after the second world war, besides it was poor and coming out of a civil war…relations broke down after only a few years. It wasn't because they were pragmatic but because Mao hated Krustchev's guts (he expelled the Russia engineers on loan and destroyed his own economy in doing so)....the only thing that the rhetoric got wrong was painting the USSR and China as serious threatsZombieVampire! wrote:
If Russia had kept going after WWII they would have overrun Europe. It was only through stategic alliance with Europe that the US was able to compete with the USSR. Keep in mind the USSR had the support of a number of other nations, and in a pinch China and the USSR would have allied despite their mutual dislike.
They did that because it suited them. China and the USSR were both a lot more pragmatic that the political rhetoric in the US (and elsewhere) would suggest.
Um...nukes?ZombieVampire wrote:
Human wave.
The Russians took the brunt of the German offensive during WWII. Yes, they had the non-aggression pact because initially they couldn't win. They used the time they bought to shift industry east, and build up their army. They then took on the bulk of the German army and won. They advanced further and faster than the rest of the Allies (and intend, probably they) predicted. It doesn't matter how big your airforce or navy is, ultimately it's they army that holds the ground. The USSR has big oilfields, that the German tried (and failed) to capture, and it's just a short hop for them to the Middle East.
Look at it this way: if they were so weak, why were the Americans so shitscared of them that they spent 50 years avoiding direct conflict (and vice versa)?
I'm not wondering that at allZombieVampire! wrote:
And you wonder why the Russians were paranoid................
Doing so in response to your adversary placing missiles in a nearby country is understandable though.Kmarion wrote:
Shipping missiles 100 miles off your coast will make you "paranoid".
Both nations took steps to escalate tensions. I wasn't making the case of a limited proactive approach by one side like pierro was. I'm well aware of the missiles in Turkey. I've listened to the tapes and saw the papers when they were released. The missiles were coming down anyways.Masques wrote:
Doing so in response to your adversary placing missiles in a nearby country is understandable though.Kmarion wrote:
Shipping missiles 100 miles off your coast will make you "paranoid".
The US deployed IRBMs to Izmir, Turkey in 1961 and aimed them at western Soviet cities, including Moscow (warning time ~15 min.). While Kennedy's conduct during the crisis was commendable the US did bring the situation on itself.
No help expected or given? So the US plan if the Russian invaded Western Europe was to beat them in a land war?pierro wrote:
-At the time the Americans had no idea how weak the Russians were and overreacted to any threat it is true that the Russians were subverting democracies in satelite nations to use them as a buffer, but their secrecy didn’t give the US any reason to believe they weren’t acting aggressively. At the time America was paranoid and all you had to do was mention “communists” and they assumed Russia was backing a coup and sent millions in aid i.e. the Greek civil war. The US could have destroyed Russia if they chose but they had already built them up as wartime allies and the public wouldn’t have bought an aggressive war. Soviet policy was only proactive in assuring the future defence of the Soviet Union i.e. forming satellite nations, Berlin blockade (to make sure Germany didn’t unite) etc... and they didn’t really partake in aggressive policies i.e. Iran at the time. NATO, the Marshall Plan etc... was more for the benefit of Western European nations and part of the American policy of containment. It was merely to prop up western Europe and to assure that they wouldn’t fall to Communism…no help on the European side was expected or seriously given
Historical fear of Communism, mainly. Read about the first Red Scare.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Question:
Why was everyone so paranoid the USSR would invade Western Europe and install communism?
No. The Russians had been invaded a number of times through Europe historically (there were even plans by Europeans to assist the Royalists during the Civil War). The creation of the USSR was to provide buffer states against a future invasion which they assumed was coming.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Question 2:
Was this same paranoia in the USSR where they all thought that NATO would invade the USSR/Eastern Europe and install capitalism?
a) 'b)' partially contradicts that statement. USSR was strong in numbers but weak on equipment. A "C&C: Red Alert" scenario was fairly unlikely. If Russia acted on ambitions to actively pursue military domination of Europe in that time period, they would've been rebuffed by resupplied and rearmed Axis powers under allied command. Picture Patton crawling around with SS Panzer divisions.ZombieVampire! wrote:
a) If Russia had kept going after WWII they would have overrun Europe.
b) It was only through stategic alliance with Europe that the US was able to compete with the USSR.
cKeep in mind the USSR had the support of a number of other nations, and in a pinch China and the USSR would have allied despite their mutual dislike.
The USSR also gained a massive influx of recruits as they stormed across Eastern Europe. Further, most of the German army was dead or in Russian captivity, and resupply takes time.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
a) 'b)' partially contradicts that statement. USSR was strong in numbers but weak on equipment. A "C&C: Red Alert" scenario was fairly unlikely. If Russia acted on ambitions to actively pursue military domination of Europe in that time period, they would've been rebuffed by resupplied and rearmed Axis powers under allied command. Picture Patton crawling around with SS Panzer divisions.
What you believe isn't the issue. The question is whether the Russians believed the Americans had the resources. If they didn't, and they'd kept going, the Americans couldn't have stopped them on their own.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
b) I believe the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation was enough to stem the 'red tide.'
Ignoring the fact that I'd already mentioned they didn't much like each other...............unnamednewbie13 wrote:
c) They weren't exactly the best of friends. Offered a juicy enough deal, China would've turned on their Soviet 'allies.'