What if U.S. invaded Soviet Union?

Many Germans would have volunteered to help.
Outcome: not sure.
I know which I would have liked!

http://www.historywiz.com/invasionrussia.htm

It happened.  Nothing became of it, no one even remembers it (except some really old people who lived in Arkhangelsk I am sure.)    Of course, that was May 1919, but I doubt the Brass wanted something so humiliating again - after all, Russia was their allies!

@mattbiernat:

Do you guys think that U.S. was capable of invading and controlling Soviet Union for long enough to impose a Democracy? […] Assuming U.S.A. did not develop atomic bomb.

No, both from a physical and a political viewpoint.

Germany failed to defeat the USSR in 1941, despite the fact that after the partition of Poland was Russia’s next-door neighbor, that Russia’s military preparedness wasn’t what it should have been, and that Germany and her allies invaded with almost 4 million troops.  America is about 3,000 miles across the Atlantic from Europe (to which you have to add the distance to get from France to Russia), so geographically it would have been in a much less advantageous position to attack Russia than Germany was.  Its armies were also comparatively small compared to Russia’s, which by 1945 had (as I recall) some 300 divisions in Europe and had been hardened by four years of war with Nazi Germany.

As for the political angle, I don’t see how Truman could have persuaded the war-weary American public and America’s servicemen – after four years of propaganda films hailing the Soviets as heroic allies in the fight against fascism – to suddenly turn against the Russians right after the Nazis had been beaten.  Just look at the reaction of the victorious American troops in Europe, who were dismayed to learn that they would be transferred to the Pacific to help finish the war against Japan, which was already an enemy country – a war in which, incidentally, Stalin had agreed to join in early August (which he did).

The A-bomb, by the way, isn’t a significant variable in this equation.  The US was only able to develop three bombs in 1945, one of which was expended in the Trinity test.  The two others sufficed to shock Japan – which by mid-1945 was on its last legs – into surrendering, but they would not have allowed the US to conquer Russia.  The USSR absorbed some 20 million dead during the war with Germany without collapsing (in fact, it emerged from the war as a huge military power), so even if America had nuked Moscow and Leningrad and killed some 100,000 Russians, the USSR’s reaction would not have been to surrender.  More probably, its reaction would have been to send its 300 European divisions storming into western Europe in a fit of outrage at having been treacherously attacked by its former Anglo-American allies.

Russia was just too massive with too much distance between cities and fields, all it took to starve the Germans is all it would have taken to stave the Americans - only less so. (America’s invasion of Arkhangelsk was a failure in part because the water up there freezes, Germany, at least, could walk out!)

The American Invasion would have been crushed into Wiener Schnitzel and would have had their biggest set back ever…Pride comes before the Fall!..

Well said Marc.

@aequitas:

Pride comes before the Fall!…

And Winter comes after the Fall, something which has worked to Russia’s advantage against many invaders.

The only chance of this succeeding is if Britain and America stayed out of the war with Germany long enough for Germany and Russia to deplete troops and supplies of their own in their own battle and then for Britain and the US to come in and clean up the mess afterwards.

If they had assassinated Stalin…

The ensuing power vacuum would have made some possibilities more interesting.

As for an offensive… if Europe AND America joined forces, maybe… but Europe - at the end of WWII, had NO interest in a new conflict :S  some germans would have signed up - sure, but the people were war weary.

Just like the Americans - who didnt want to go to the Pacific.

Never march on Moscow.

@frimmel:

Never march on Moscow.

Excellent advice.

"We march along the Moscow road,
Five score adventurous men.
The North Lights glitter in our eyes;
A continent shall be our prize,
Though cold slays five – twice five! – why then,
We march along the Moscow road,
Four score brave men and ten.

We march along the Moscow road,
Four score brave men and ten.
Tobolsk is passed, Yakutsk is near.
Ha! Ice and snow, think ye we fear?
Take twice your toll.  We pay it. Then
We march along the Moscow road,
Four score adventurous men.

We march along the Moscow road,
Four score adventurous men.
Though crows shall flock to those that die,
And we gnaw shoe-straps, you and I,
And famine slays again, again
We march along the Moscow road,
A few adventurous men."

• from “Feodor Vladimir Larrovitch : an appreciation of his life and works”

Had war between the East and West began in 1945 the West, if the Bomb was not used, would have had a difficult time containing the Red Army. Air power may have slowed the Soviets down at the Rhine River. Supplies would slow down the Soviet advance into France. The west would have been driven out of Balkans.

The communist groups in Europe would helped the Red Army in harassing Western Troops. Question is would Paris fall?

If held by the French, yes.

Would have been ironic though: too much for Napoleon, not for Zhukov. (Or Konev). And the French would have known how to cooperate with the victors.
Could not have crossed the Channel though, so who cares?
Rule Britannia!
And the RAF.

Finland would have gotten into ANOTHER winter war. :P

The only way it would have been possible, is if the Allies bailed the Germans out in 43, got into the act, and gave Japan a free hand at Vladisivostok whilst maintaining a cease-fire.

MAYBE, just MAYBE it could have been pulled off… but that NEVER would have happend.

advanced farther, captured more enemy prisoners, and liberated more territory in less time than any other army in history

I think you mean AMERICAN history.

Zhukov basically liberated Moscow to Berlin.  Probably captured, killed, and commanded WAY more troops and was probably over all more succesful.

That said.  the quote is basically entirely WRONG.  If you consider - that it was eisenhower who was in charge, and therefore patton’s success should fall under his umbrella.

The only arguement you have is the “less time” factor.

Even with fresh troops, and SS backups… a Patton blitz from Berlin to moscow, would have taken a VERY long time.  And he is just as susceptible to death as everyone else.  His troops were even weary of him…

You can’t impose democracy onto a people….doesn’t work…it has to be grown by the people themselves…and Russia had spies everywhere, so nuke or no nuke, they had the advantage…And I guarantee that if we had, we all would not be here now…and why invade when we haven’t finished off Japan completely?  Japan and Russian end hostilities and join sides?  No thanks…

That said… American industrial might was at it’s all time high… and the populations were the same - save Russia had just lost 10 or so million men, and was full of warn torn cities.

With absolutely NO ability of the Russians to attack mainland USA… the USA would have kept on keeping on, building bombs, and killing Ruskies.