Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't

Expand Messages
  • Victorian Cow
    This was not my scenario. All I did was an if then. I frankly think the AngloAmerican armies would have refused to fight. Had nothing to do with Dachau.
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 29, 2001
      This was not my scenario. All I did was an if then. I frankly think the
      AngloAmerican armies would have refused to fight. Had nothing to do with
      Dachau. That's post 60's revisionism. They had been promised that they get
      to Berlin, Hitler dies and the nasty war is over. I have known many vets of
      44-45. More talk about loot and the outrageous beautiful women then about
      war crimes and politics. The AngloSaxons treated beating Hitler as a dirty
      job they had to do. No one especially wanted to stay in uniform and keep
      dieing. See below for more detailed comments.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jim Scribner" <JimScribner@...>
      To: <alternate-history@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 10:53 AM
      Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't


      > --- In alternate-history@y..., rurr2@h... wrote:
      > A conventional war with the Soviets immediately after the defeat of
      Germany would have been difficult, especially if we were seen to be
      remilitarizing Germany.

      the given scenario was an alliance of the post Hitler Nazis and the
      AngloSaxons against Stalin.

      Although large elements of the West essentially saw Communism and National
      Socialism as pretty much the same sort of totalitarian psychopathy, it would
      have been difficult to trust the Wehrmacht as allies after the liberation of
      Dachau. Some Germans might have been accepted into something like the
      Italian Co-Belligerant Forces
      > but it wwould have been a very selective small scale experimental program
      like the Nissei Regiment at best. They would have to be at least led by
      Germans who were clearly anti-Facist as well as anti-Soviet.

      Without the whole German war machinen we do not have the landpower to fight
      Russia.


      >
      > We would have also needed to try to work with more independant Communists
      like Tito, painting Stalin as greedy, treacherous dictator trying to replace
      Hitler. The Hitler-Stalin treaty would certainly be brought up and
      everything else linking Stalinism with the Nazis.

      Tito was forced into the independent Communist role by Russia 1947 and
      later. In 1945 he was their best friend.


      > The West would have been in a much better position to sedduce the Red Army
      away from Stalin than the Nazis. A lot of our political and military
      personnel at the time actually already were non-Stalinist Leftists and we
      had considerably more money and prosperity than the economically exhausted
      USSR to pay for carrots as well as sticks.

      No one was seducing the Red Army away from Stalin. The controls were too
      tight as were the bonds of patriotism.

      >
      > The Greek Partisan Conflict (the closest OTL parallel to this situation),
      bear in mind, was ultimately won by the West rather than the Soviets. The
      political power of the
      > Left quickly diminished in the West after Stalin started the Cold War and
      raised the Iron Curtain. Most Americans and British felt strong attachment
      to their Christian and Democatic traditions, both of which Communism was
      only ever at best a lesser threat to than the Nazis.

      Tito side switch broke the Greek stalemate in 49-50.


      >
      > Unlike the Nazis, we wouldn't have been handicapped by worthless
      ideological concerns over "racial purity" since Americans already accepted
      all European nationalities as components of our own. It was only in Asia
      that Western racists created problems for us against Communism, and even
      there our long multi-national missionary tradition enabled us to rise above
      racism in 1950 to push the North Korean Communist Invaders back to the Yalu
      River and stalemate even the massive Red Hordes of Mao in the Korean War.
      > How the Japanese would have played into a Soviet-American division prior
      to Hiroshima is one of the key questions here. The Russians might have
      possibly made an alliance with them against us.

      The Japanese basically offered to become Russian secondary allies if Russia
      would guarantee the Home Islands against invasion and continuity of the
      regime / military. Russia was actually in no position to do either. They
      could block an invasion by tieing up all available Allied landpower in
      Europe and the Mid East. Under this scenario Philippines and Okinowa are
      followed by Allied mop up in Siam, Malaya, East Indies but no invasion of
      Home Islands, Kuriles, Korea, China, Indochina, Taiwan. Japanese in Home
      Islands starve to death under endless blockade as US fleet has no use in Red
      Star war from Narvik to Tehran. Japanese become a Russian warlord state in
      Manchuria, Korea, North China as industry and key people are evacuated and
      the rest die.

      It was only when the Japanese were being defeated in OTL history and the
      Nazi threat already eliminated that the Soviets declared war on Japan in
      support of Mao's Communists. In this ATL, Stalin might have considered them
      more useful as allies than Mao

      Nope when he can have both. Japan keeps the coastal cities. Mao gets the
      interior. They combine plus a few Russians and take out Chiang.

      , just as he abandoned the Polish Communists in his Pact with Hitler. That
      could have actually been useful to the West in several ways. Perhaps Chiang
      Kai-Shek could have even won China away from the Communists and the
      demonization of the Japanese Imperialists in WW2 would have inevitably
      rubbed off on the Soviets.
      >
      > Of course, by the end of WW2 in Europe, America was already very close to
      building the Atomic Bomb with British help. We didn't let the Soviets in on
      that little Project, Yalta Accord or not. The

      Russians already had plans for the bombs - Klaus Fuchs, Rosenbergs.

      Soviets were only able to steal or nuclear technology just prior to the
      Korean War. Even Stalin was afraid to push us too far after Hiroshima until
      the Rosenbergs gave him one too. Had the West been able to hold out against
      the Red Army for one year, the first use of the Bomb might have been on
      Moscow instead of Hiroshima.

      First three go Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad. Joe isn't home and survives.
      Philpy gives him the mission dates.

      Scott
      >
      > I think there was an Alternate History novel called "Rack and Roll" with a
      similar senario. In it, Rock music is invented by a veteran of Patton's
      drive through the nuclear ruins of the USSR
      > and takes on a darkly violent cultural
      > intensity and power in that ATL beyond
      > even Jagger's "Sympathy for the Devil"
      > or Morrison's "The End" in OTL.
      >
      Who is author?
      s
      >
      > --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow"
      > > <victoriancow2345@h...> wrote:
      > > > OK lets try a less absurd start point. Ike pushes a bit further
      > > East with
      > > > Simpson's 9th Army. Lets Patton go full tilt into Prague. Both
      > > run into
      > > > Russians and Germans manuvering around them...and lets have a few
      > > meeting
      > > > engagements between the US and Russia like between Germany and
      > > Russia in
      > > > Poland in 1939 and things just get out of hand. Stalin thinks the
      > > West is
      > > > trying to ally with Germany against him. His agents get him
      > > Patton's
      > > > proposal to Ike and Joe preempts.
      > > >
      > > > 1. Red Army knocks overextended American spearheads back 50-100
      > > klicks with
      > > > heavy loss of life. We were strung out to hell and gone in a
      > > pursuit mode
      > > > that only made sense if you accept that by April of 1945 the
      > > Germans in the
      > > > main weren't trying very hard against the Amis.
      > > >
      > > > 2. After the initial surge, our Air Forces kick in. The Russians
      > > had not
      > > > been up against solid tac air since 1941. They were used to nose
      > > to tail
      > > > convoys stretching hundreds of miles. We shoot the shit out of the
      > > roads,
      > > > use the heavys to bomb the shit out of the relatively few
      > > relatively large
      > > > supply dumps at the rail heads.
      > > >
      > > > 3. Stage 3 is that Donitz's government accepts Allied protection
      > > and gives
      > > > command of the German Armed Forces to Ike. We release the hordes
      > > of German
      > > > POW's and captured German equipment. We also have to pull large
      > > numbers of
      > > > them and ours back as the Red resitance forces in France, Italy and
      > > Belgium
      > > > turn on our supply lines with a vengence. Will take the rest of 45
      > > to
      > > > reimpose a right wing peace on these nations.
      > >
      > > >>>>> What do you think this does to allied public opinion.
      > > Remembering how Patton caused uproar in Britan, for stating the US
      > > and the UK were destined to rule the world after the end of the ww2.
      > > Because he Ignored the efforts of the Red army. In 1945 the
      > > communists actuallly get 2 seats in the House of Commons.
      > >
      > > Riots and strikes in Britain. Strikes in Glasgow, liverpool and the
      > > east end of london, are all roused by Soviet agents and
      > > sympathiesers. This screws up the transatlantic supply lines. British
      > > army units refuse to fight. British workers refuse to make munitions
      > > for the allies. How many British troops are redeployed to restore
      > > order, as strike breakers. what effect does this have on post war
      > > Britan. Would it be more sympathetic to the left?
      > >
      > > What of France? Can de Gaulle et all really permit German troops
      > > even under US auspices re-enter the country? Does de Gaulle then try
      > > and stand alone? De Gaulle never saw commuism as anethema as Churchil
      > > and the US did. Would de Gaulle try and make a deal with the
      > > communists? A cease fire until the crisis in Europe is over? Marking
      > > de Gaulle as a collborator in the eyes of the more extreme anti
      > > communists.
      > >
      > >
      > > >>>> Would Franco worried, the Allies might move agasint him post 45
      > > enter the war agaisnt the communists?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Tothlord@aol.com
      ... first ... Europe or ... Wars might ... so that ... noticeable ... Strike? Its my understanding that if the US saw a 1st Strike headed our way, we d launch
      Message 2 of 28 , Jul 1, 2001
        --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow"
        <victoriancow2345@h...> wrote:
        > That's because you buy the US lie that we'd be taking out a Russian
        first
        > strike. The actual probability was a Russian invasion of Western
        Europe or
        > the Gulf countered with a US First Strike. In which case, Star
        Wars might
        > be just good enough to blunt just enough of a Russian Second Strike
        so that
        > our Third Strike could finish them off without there being a
        noticeable
        > Fourth Strike.
        >
        > Russian 2nd Strike? How many fewer missiles is that than a 1st
        Strike? Its my understanding that if the US saw a 1st Strike headed
        our way, we'd launch as much as possible so it's not caught on the
        ground. Wouldn't the Russians try to do the same? This isn't their
        2nd Launch they have everything available, they're not short
        missiles.
        Also under this scenario, Russia knows hostilities are breaking
        out. They wouldn't prepare for the US to launch in retaliation? So
        their missile forces are probably prepared either for a 1st or 2nd
        launch.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ************************************
        > > > *bu99mape@s... *
        > > > *icq #11425992 *
        > > > *Have a nice day. *
        > > > ************************************
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
        > >
      • Victorian Cow
        In theory they threatened to launch on warning. the realities were that a counterforce strike by our missle subs could probably have knocked out most of the
        Message 3 of 28 , Jul 1, 2001
          In theory they threatened to launch on warning. the realities were that a
          counterforce strike by our missle subs could probably have knocked out most
          of the Russian land based ICBM force and a good part of their sub force.
          We'd get hit by survivors, mobile missles and some odss and ends bombers...
          Scott
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <Tothlord@...>
          To: <alternate-history@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:27 AM
          Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't


          > --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow"
          > <victoriancow2345@h...> wrote:
          > > That's because you buy the US lie that we'd be taking out a Russian
          > first
          > > strike. The actual probability was a Russian invasion of Western
          > Europe or
          > > the Gulf countered with a US First Strike. In which case, Star
          > Wars might
          > > be just good enough to blunt just enough of a Russian Second Strike
          > so that
          > > our Third Strike could finish them off without there being a
          > noticeable
          > > Fourth Strike.
          > >
          > > Russian 2nd Strike? How many fewer missiles is that than a 1st
          > Strike? Its my understanding that if the US saw a 1st Strike headed
          > our way, we'd launch as much as possible so it's not caught on the
          > ground. Wouldn't the Russians try to do the same? This isn't their
          > 2nd Launch they have everything available, they're not short
          > missiles.
          > Also under this scenario, Russia knows hostilities are breaking
          > out. They wouldn't prepare for the US to launch in retaliation? So
          > their missile forces are probably prepared either for a 1st or 2nd
          > launch.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ************************************
          > > > > *bu99mape@s... *
          > > > > *icq #11425992 *
          > > > > *Have a nice day. *
          > > > > ************************************
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • Victorian Cow
          Russian com net wasn t good enough for instant launch without giving more power than they felt comfy with to the miklitary Scott ... From: Victorian Cow
          Message 4 of 28 , Jul 1, 2001
            Russian com net wasn't good enough for instant launch without giving more
            power than they felt comfy with to the miklitary

            Scott
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Victorian Cow" <victoriancow2345@...>
            To: <alternate-history@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 9:28 AM
            Subject: Re: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't


            > In theory they threatened to launch on warning. the realities were that a
            > counterforce strike by our missle subs could probably have knocked out
            most
            > of the Russian land based ICBM force and a good part of their sub force.
            > We'd get hit by survivors, mobile missles and some odss and ends
            bombers...
            > Scott
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: <Tothlord@...>
            > To: <alternate-history@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:27 AM
            > Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't
            >
            >
            > > --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow"
            > > <victoriancow2345@h...> wrote:
            > > > That's because you buy the US lie that we'd be taking out a Russian
            > > first
            > > > strike. The actual probability was a Russian invasion of Western
            > > Europe or
            > > > the Gulf countered with a US First Strike. In which case, Star
            > > Wars might
            > > > be just good enough to blunt just enough of a Russian Second Strike
            > > so that
            > > > our Third Strike could finish them off without there being a
            > > noticeable
            > > > Fourth Strike.
            > > >
            > > > Russian 2nd Strike? How many fewer missiles is that than a 1st
            > > Strike? Its my understanding that if the US saw a 1st Strike headed
            > > our way, we'd launch as much as possible so it's not caught on the
            > > ground. Wouldn't the Russians try to do the same? This isn't their
            > > 2nd Launch they have everything available, they're not short
            > > missiles.
            > > Also under this scenario, Russia knows hostilities are breaking
            > > out. They wouldn't prepare for the US to launch in retaliation? So
            > > their missile forces are probably prepared either for a 1st or 2nd
            > > launch.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > ************************************
            > > > > > *bu99mape@s... *
            > > > > > *icq #11425992 *
            > > > > > *Have a nice day. *
            > > > > > ************************************
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Jim Scribner
            If you look at who supplied the Partisans in Europe during the War, Tito got most of his supplies from the British and Americans. There were Conflicts among
            Message 5 of 28 , Jul 3, 2001
              If you look at who supplied the Partisans in Europe during the War, Tito got most of his supplies from the British and Americans.

              There were Conflicts among pro-British and pro-Soviet partisans even during the war.

              The Soviets were in no position economically at the end of the War. The United States was basically the only industrial power which hadn't been torn up by massive air raids or German tanks.

              Most GIs were tired and wanted to go
              home. The Red Army wasn't? Maybe according to Soviet propaganda. America spent a longer time getting mauled in Vietnam than the Soviets did in Afghanistan and even in dope smoking, war protesting 1972 people were still volunteering to go back to the jungle.
              Americans refuse to fight back-stabbing Russian SOBs coming over the hill with
              tanks to kill them just when everybody was making plans to be home for Christmas? Nuts to that notion.

              If the Soviets had any possible ability to make the first atomic bomb, they would have and they would have used it on the West right after Berlin.

              If KGB had actually believed they could win a war with the West, and as you noted their espionage agents such as Philby were probably in a much better position to accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of both sides,
              I don't imagine Stalin would have held back out of humanitarian compassion.

              Jim in Texas
            • lord_of_change2001@yahoo.co.uk
              The kill rate for patriot missiles trying to shoot down Scud missiles during the gulf war was less than 5% according to a recent internal US military
              Message 6 of 28 , Jul 4, 2001
                The kill rate for patriot missiles trying to shoot down Scud missiles
                during the gulf war was less than 5% according to a recent internal
                US military intellegence report . The speed of the scuds on the
                downwards part of their trajectory arm is just to fast for the
                relatively slow patriots to effectively intercept . In a very few
                cases the patriots got close enough to knock the scuds off course ,
                but with evry likelyhood of not being close enough to detate the
                warhead ! So all they suceed in doing is dropping a live warhead and
                lots of fuel and frag , proberbly over friendly territory .
                Scuds were largely believed to have been a failure before the gulf
                war , and despite the allied propaganda put out about them during the
                war (largely for israels benefit ! ) , they remain ineffective .
                Shooting down missiles in their terminal velocity with other missiles
                is extremely hard to do given the relative speeds of the two objects .

                To base any SDI project on such technology is simply throwing bad
                money after bad . Maybe the original space based missile system or
                laser would have worked better , but economically that was always
                going to bring even the mighty US economy to its knees and take 10-15
                years to come to fruition .


                Lord of Change

                > That would be more credible had Patriot missiles in fact been
                unable to shoot down Iraqi Scud missiles during the Gulf War or if
                Iraq had been able to blow up larger numbers of Allied personnel in
                Saudi with briefcase bombers than they were with Scuds.
                >
                > The second most common argument agaist SDI always seems to be that
                potential aggressors like the USSR or China might consider it a
                threat to their plans for world domnination and launch a pre-emptive
                strike. That obviously didn't happen with the Kremlin, of course. The
                Soviets had too good an intelligence network in the West for anyone
                in Soviet Union in any informed leadership position to seriously
                believe the decadent life-loving Western leadership would even
                consider cancelling their golf games at the country club to attack
                the Soviets unless the Soviets nuked us first and their Saturday golf
                game was going to be cancelled anyhow. The current Chinese leaders
                are probably a bit smarter than Brezhnev, so I'm sure they can figure
                that out too. The Chinese leaders have golf courts too now.
              • lord_of_change2001@yahoo.co.uk
                Don t know about the US , but the British refused to deal with Tito until very near the end of the war . The Yugoslav government in exile designated the
                Message 7 of 28 , Jul 4, 2001
                  Don't know about the US , but the British refused to deal with Tito
                  until very near the end of the war . The Yugoslav government in exile
                  designated the pro-royalist Chetniks as the official resistance and
                  so pretty much all the weapons and intel SOE suplied went to them .
                  They promptly cut a deal with the Nazi's and spent most of the rest
                  of the war hunting down the Partisans on behalf of the Nazi's .
                  Only when it became clear that the Red army was going to take
                  Yugoslavia did the Yugoslav government in exile try desperately to
                  cut their losses and deal with Tito who effectively took control the
                  country anyway as the Nazi's pulled their troops out . But it was an
                  insincere gesture and didn't work anyway .

                  Your point about the Soviets not starting a nuclear exchange is bang
                  on the money . There was never a time when they could have in any
                  sense "won" a nuclear exhange with NATO . Their conventional
                  superiority was countered by US/NATO nuclear superiority , and
                  remained so throughout the cold war .

                  Lord of Change


                  --- In alternate-history@y..., "Jim Scribner" <JimScribner@w...>
                  wrote:
                  > If you look at who supplied the Partisans in Europe during the War,
                  Tito got most of his supplies from the British and Americans.
                  >
                  > There were Conflicts among pro-British and pro-Soviet partisans
                  even during the war.
                  >
                  > The Soviets were in no position economically at the end of the War.
                  The United States was basically the only industrial power which
                  hadn't been torn up by massive air raids or German tanks.
                  >
                  > > If the Soviets had any possible ability to make the first atomic
                  bomb, they would have and they would have used it on the West right
                  after Berlin.
                  >
                  > If KGB had actually believed they could win a war with the West,
                  and as you noted their espionage agents such as Philby were probably
                  in a much better position to accurately assess the strengths and
                  weaknesses of both sides,
                  > I don't imagine Stalin would have held back out of humanitarian
                  compassion.
                  >
                  > Jim in Texas
                • lord_of_change2001@yahoo.co.uk
                  Its an interesting dillemma . Launch ICBM s and the other side immediately knows what you re doing and has time to retaliate with everything they have . Even
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jul 4, 2001
                    Its an interesting dillemma . Launch ICBM's and the other side
                    immediately knows what you're doing and has time to retaliate with
                    everything they have . Even the older sub-launched missile have quite
                    an arc on them and so you've got to reckon on a large proportion on
                    the others sides fixed missile sites (got to be the primary
                    targets !) getting fired off before being destroyed .
                    Aircraft are to slow and get shot down before reaching their target .
                    Only when you get to cruise and stealth bombers are covert strikes
                    possible . Still , Soviet intel on the US being what it was during
                    the cold war , its likely they knew about both these items long
                    before they became public , and might even have been able to detect
                    them .
                    Read an interesting article a couple of years back , relating to
                    Stealth tech .Its seems a couple of years back at the Farnborough
                    airshow , a couple of jokers manning the BAE stall at the show
                    decided that for a laugh they would try and lock onto a stealth
                    fighter-bomber that was being exhibited there , with the rapier
                    missile system they were exhibiting (old , and fairly primative !) .
                    Much to their own suprise they actually managed to achieve a lock on
                    the passing plane (which pressumably didn't have all is jamming EQ
                    turned on at the time ) , although when the storms of protest from
                    the USAF started arriving I imagine they rather wished they hadn't !

                    Lord of Change


                    --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow"
                    <victoriancow2345@h...> wrote:
                    > In theory they threatened to launch on warning. the realities were
                    that a
                    > counterforce strike by our missle subs could probably have knocked
                    out most
                    > of the Russian land based ICBM force and a good part of their sub
                    force.
                    > We'd get hit by survivors, mobile missles and some odss and ends
                    bombers...
                    > Scott
                  • Victorian Cow
                    Oh the GI would fight in self defense. What I said was that he would mutiny rather than obey orders to launch planned offensives against Russians who were not
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jul 4, 2001
                      Oh the GI would fight in self defense. What I said was that he would mutiny
                      rather than obey orders to launch planned offensives against Russians who
                      were not attacking them.

                      As to Red Army tiredness, they had the KGB to encourage the fainthearted.

                      Scott
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Jim Scribner" <JimScribner@...>
                      To: <alternate-history@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:48 PM
                      Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't


                      > If you look at who supplied the Partisans in Europe during the War, Tito
                      got most of his supplies from the British and Americans.
                      >
                      > There were Conflicts among pro-British and pro-Soviet partisans even
                      during the war.
                      >
                      > The Soviets were in no position economically at the end of the War. The
                      United States was basically the only industrial power which hadn't been torn
                      up by massive air raids or German tanks.
                      >
                      > Most GIs were tired and wanted to go
                      > home. The Red Army wasn't? Maybe according to Soviet propaganda. America
                      spent a longer time getting mauled in Vietnam than the Soviets did in
                      Afghanistan and even in dope smoking, war protesting 1972 people were still
                      volunteering to go back to the jungle.
                      > Americans refuse to fight back-stabbing Russian SOBs coming over the hill
                      with
                      > tanks to kill them just when everybody was making plans to be home for
                      Christmas? Nuts to that notion.
                      >
                      > If the Soviets had any possible ability to make the first atomic bomb,
                      they would have and they would have used it on the West right after Berlin.
                      >
                      > If KGB had actually believed they could win a war with the West, and as
                      you noted their espionage agents such as Philby were probably in a much
                      better position to accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of both
                      sides,
                      > I don't imagine Stalin would have held back out of humanitarian
                      compassion.
                      >
                      > Jim in Texas
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Jim Scribner
                      Ike had the fainthearted Private Slovik to encourage fainthearted American boys, too. Rmember that exchange between Patton and the Russian officer in which
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jul 5, 2001
                        Ike had the fainthearted Private Slovik to encourage fainthearted American boys, too. Rmember that exchange between Patton and the Russian officer in which Patton calls the Russians SOBs and the Russian replies that Americans are SOBs too? Patton laughs and tells the Russian, "I'll drink to that."

                        There is little doubt in my mind, and probably wouldn't have been in the minds of most Americans, that the Russians were the one's who started it.
                        Hitler claimed he learned terror tactics from the Communists and propaganda tecniques from the Western democracies. It may be difficult to believe that democracy is better at propaganda than communism, but its ultimately true. Our Free Press makes it too easy for us to get caught in lies, so we tend to keep our propaganda closer to the facts. Propaganda skils are one the major leadership attributes we test our leaders for in every election. Those who lack talent for it lose the election.

                        The dictatorial nature of Soviet Society prohibitted leaders from getting accurate feedback from their subordinates about problems
                        until they couldn't be hidden. Tat tends to breed leadership that Gen. Colin Powell called "inbred elitists who bleed to death at the first pinprick of reality." American leaders were used to hearing soldiers gripe. Our boys would have griped about the war going on but they would have gone on with it.

                        When my Dad's Marines were ordered out China by the politicians before the Communist takeover, and they saw their mascot dog klled on the docks by the Chicoms, they would have all just loved it if their officers had turned the ship around. A lot of Americans were relatively new replacemens, remember. Unlike the already totally mobilized Russians, we still had plenty of Reserves available to be shipped into the fight. After an initial fallback to a European "Pusan Perimeter" by the Allies, it would have been the Soviet turn to "grease the treads of our tracks with their bloody entrails" as Patton in his colorful way of putting things once described American military offensives.

                        Now off course if there weren't any Soviet attacks on Americans, no Soviet tanks coming over the hill, sure, our boys might have had some reservations about pushing on to Moscow. Of course, without obvious Soviet aggression, they wouldn't have been ordered to push on in the first place and this whole ATL wouldn't exist.

                        Jim n Texas



                        --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow" <victoriancow2345@h...> wrote:
                        > Oh the GI would fight in self defense. What I said was that he would mutiny
                        > rather than obey orders to launch planned offensives against Russians who
                        > were not attacking them.
                        >
                        > As to Red Army tiredness, they had the KGB to encourage the fainthearted.
                        >
                        > Scott
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "Jim Scribner" <JimScribner@w...>
                        > To: <alternate-history@y...>
                        > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:48 PM
                        > Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't
                        >
                        >
                        > > If you look at who supplied the Partisans in Europe during the War, Tito
                        > got most of his supplies from the British and Americans.
                        > >
                        > > There were Conflicts among pro-British and pro-Soviet partisans even
                        > during the war.
                        > >
                        > > The Soviets were in no position economically at the end of the War. The
                        > United States was basically the only industrial power which hadn't been torn
                        > up by massive air raids or German tanks.
                        > >
                        > > Most GIs were tired and wanted to go
                        > > home. The Red Army wasn't? Maybe according to Soviet propaganda. America
                        > spent a longer time getting mauled in Vietnam than the Soviets did in
                        > Afghanistan and even in dope smoking, war protesting 1972 people were still
                        > volunteering to go back to the jungle.
                        > > Americans refuse to fight back-stabbing Russian SOBs coming over the hill
                        > with
                        > > tanks to kill them just when everybody was making plans to be home for
                        > Christmas? Nuts to that notion.
                        > >
                        > > If the Soviets had any possible ability to make the first atomic bomb,
                        > they would have and they would have used it on the West right after Berlin.
                        > >
                        > > If KGB had actually believed they could win a war with the West, and as
                        > you noted their espionage agents such as Philby were probably in a much
                        > better position to accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of both
                        > sides,
                        > > I don't imagine Stalin would have held back out of humanitarian
                        > compassion.
                        > >
                        > > Jim in Texas
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                      • Victorian Cow
                        Between ETO and MTO we had over a million men (and some women) too far forward for media spin to work. Forget provocation. Ivan had to land the first blows.
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jul 5, 2001
                          Between ETO and MTO we had over a million men (and some women) too far
                          forward for media spin to work. Forget provocation. Ivan had to land the
                          first blows.

                          Scott
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Jim Scribner" <JimScribner@...>
                          To: <alternate-history@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:50 AM
                          Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't


                          > Ike had the fainthearted Private Slovik to encourage fainthearted American
                          boys, too. Rmember that exchange between Patton and the Russian officer in
                          which Patton calls the Russians SOBs and the Russian replies that Americans
                          are SOBs too? Patton laughs and tells the Russian, "I'll drink to that."
                          >
                          > There is little doubt in my mind, and probably wouldn't have been in the
                          minds of most Americans, that the Russians were the one's who started it.
                          > Hitler claimed he learned terror tactics from the Communists and
                          propaganda tecniques from the Western democracies. It may be difficult to
                          believe that democracy is better at propaganda than communism, but its
                          ultimately true. Our Free Press makes it too easy for us to get caught in
                          lies, so we tend to keep our propaganda closer to the facts. Propaganda
                          skils are one the major leadership attributes we test our leaders for in
                          every election. Those who lack talent for it lose the election.
                          >
                          > The dictatorial nature of Soviet Society prohibitted leaders from getting
                          accurate feedback from their subordinates about problems
                          > until they couldn't be hidden. Tat tends to breed leadership that Gen.
                          Colin Powell called "inbred elitists who bleed to death at the first
                          pinprick of reality." American leaders were used to hearing soldiers gripe.
                          Our boys would have griped about the war going on but they would have gone
                          on with it.
                          >
                          > When my Dad's Marines were ordered out China by the politicians before the
                          Communist takeover, and they saw their mascot dog klled on the docks by the
                          Chicoms, they would have all just loved it if their officers had turned the
                          ship around. A lot of Americans were relatively new replacemens, remember.
                          Unlike the already totally mobilized Russians, we still had plenty of
                          Reserves available to be shipped into the fight. After an initial fallback
                          to a European "Pusan Perimeter" by the Allies, it would have been the Soviet
                          turn to "grease the treads of our tracks with their bloody entrails" as
                          Patton in his colorful way of putting things once described American
                          military offensives.
                          >
                          > Now off course if there weren't any Soviet attacks on Americans, no Soviet
                          tanks coming over the hill, sure, our boys might have had some reservations
                          about pushing on to Moscow. Of course, without obvious Soviet aggression,
                          they wouldn't have been ordered to push on in the first place and this whole
                          ATL wouldn't exist.
                          >
                          > Jim n Texas
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In alternate-history@y..., "Victorian Cow" <victoriancow2345@h...>
                          wrote:
                          > > Oh the GI would fight in self defense. What I said was that he would
                          mutiny
                          > > rather than obey orders to launch planned offensives against Russians
                          who
                          > > were not attacking them.
                          > >
                          > > As to Red Army tiredness, they had the KGB to encourage the
                          fainthearted.
                          > >
                          > > Scott
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: "Jim Scribner" <JimScribner@w...>
                          > > To: <alternate-history@y...>
                          > > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:48 PM
                          > > Subject: [alternate-history] Re: The Nuclear War that Wasn't
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > If you look at who supplied the Partisans in Europe during the War,
                          Tito
                          > > got most of his supplies from the British and Americans.
                          > > >
                          > > > There were Conflicts among pro-British and pro-Soviet partisans even
                          > > during the war.
                          > > >
                          > > > The Soviets were in no position economically at the end of the War.
                          The
                          > > United States was basically the only industrial power which hadn't been
                          torn
                          > > up by massive air raids or German tanks.
                          > > >
                          > > > Most GIs were tired and wanted to go
                          > > > home. The Red Army wasn't? Maybe according to Soviet propaganda.
                          America
                          > > spent a longer time getting mauled in Vietnam than the Soviets did in
                          > > Afghanistan and even in dope smoking, war protesting 1972 people were
                          still
                          > > volunteering to go back to the jungle.
                          > > > Americans refuse to fight back-stabbing Russian SOBs coming over the
                          hill
                          > > with
                          > > > tanks to kill them just when everybody was making plans to be home for
                          > > Christmas? Nuts to that notion.
                          > > >
                          > > > If the Soviets had any possible ability to make the first atomic bomb,
                          > > they would have and they would have used it on the West right after
                          Berlin.
                          > > >
                          > > > If KGB had actually believed they could win a war with the West, and
                          as
                          > > you noted their espionage agents such as Philby were probably in a much
                          > > better position to accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of
                          both
                          > > sides,
                          > > > I don't imagine Stalin would have held back out of humanitarian
                          > > compassion.
                          > > >
                          > > > Jim in Texas
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.