Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Of course an invasion wouldn't take place unless the situation justified it, which it didn't. We're only speaking hypothetically here.
|
That's my point, a situation justifying or allowing such an invasion from the east is a lot more unlikely than you make it out to be, for reasons I stated earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
The Soviets had that many men in the east because the nazis had already been defeated and they were gearing up to get their slice of the Pacific victory pie. If you'll remember they stripped their eastern defenses to bail out Stalingrad once it became apparent that the Japanese in Monglolia weren't going to attack.
I believe that simultaneous NATO offenses from both east and west would have the best chance of beating them. My confidence in the WW2 western allies success is primarily confidence in our troops and military leaders of the day.
|
The Soviets moved reinforcements to Stalingrad because the Red Army was still weaker than the German army. It was already quite apparent that the Japanese wouldn't attack in 1941 because of their humiliating defeat at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, which is the reason the Soviets famously rushed Siberian troops to participate in the Battle of Moscow after losses in Operation Barbarossa rose to several million. But in 1945 the Red Army was much bigger than it was in 1941/1942, and I doubt very much the Allies could muster enough men to beat the Soviets both in the east and the west (Even after assuming that the geography and weather-related problems would simply disappear).