Is Russia too big to be one Country?

Capt'n Midnight

Mad_maxx wrote: »

could the Soviet Union have taken Western Europe between 1945 and 1991 ?

i mean without the USA getting involved

Possibly. But not before the western armies had demobbed.

Korea showed the difficulties. North Korea was easily overrun but China was a different matter. And the Allies had control of the air most of the time.

The Fulda Gap was a key defensive area for the US in Germany.

Austria and Yugoslavia like Finland stayed independent.

ancapailldorcha

Mad_maxx wrote: »

could the Soviet Union have taken Western Europe between 1945 and 1991 ?

i mean without the USA getting involved

No hope. Russia and the USSR are what a strategy game player might consider "quantity over quality". The place always had a backward economy and was never technology advanced. Their biggest strength is also their Achilles' heel. Even engaging in such a conflict would leave their eastern flank wide open to the Chinese and that's before you consider supply lines, the Royal navy, Anglo-French nuclear weapons, etc...

Mad_maxx

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No hope. Russia and the USSR are what a strategy game player might consider "quantity over quality". The place always had a backward economy and was never technology advanced. Their biggest strength is also their Achilles' heel. Even engaging in such a conflict would leave their eastern flank wide open to the Chinese and that's before you consider supply lines, the Royal navy, Anglo-French nuclear weapons, etc...

i mean a conventional war , the soviets also had nuclear weapons so if the thing went nuclear , it was a different situation altogether

Capt'n Midnight

RandomViewer wrote: »

They lost a lot of people in WW2, another 5 years of war to rule mainland Europe would have had too high a cost, I'm sure Stalin considered it, wouldn't be surprised if they've detailed plans for it

Any decent military will have plans for every possible operation.

We had plans to invade the north even though attacking one NATO country could triggered all sorts of alliances.

And there was no way we could have fed that many prisoners :pac:

RandomViewer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

well of course they had plans for it but would the combined forced of France and the UK have held them off ?

Germany would have rolled over easy enough as they are not militarily that powerful since WW2

im referring to the decades following WW2 , not during stalins time

1970s was probably the best time, every European country was having some sort of political upheaval the loss of life would have been huge, UK would have likely nuked central Europe to keep the Russians back

Mad_maxx

RandomViewer wrote: »

1970s was probably the best time, every European country was having some sort of political upheaval the loss of life would have been huge, UK would have likely nuked central Europe to keep the Russians back

im dealing purely in hypotheticals as the thing would have went nuclear in the event of a soviet invasion anyway which itself provided a deterant to the ruskies

in a fantasy conventional war situation , would they have kept the soviets out ?

im guessing western europe would have done better than one might instinctively think as they would have endless supplies of hardware from the U.S , Italy while not possessing a tremendous military compared to France and the UK , has a significant industrial base so you have the italians , France , the british and whatever defence West Germany had in them

1874

RandomViewer wrote: »

1970s was probably the best time, every European country was having some sort of political upheaval the loss of life would have been huge, UK would have likely nuked central Europe to keep the Russians back

The only thing that would have been achieved would be that Europe and a lot of places in the world would have become a nuclear wasteland.
There is no way that any fullscale attack on Western Europe would have ended in anything other than a nuclear exchange. 1 or 4 nukes into the UK would have a terrible effect (1 into London and 1 into the Liverpool/Manchester area, 1 into Portsmouth and 1 into Falsane) , saw a program somewhere online about Soviet nuclear plans, in the event of a Nuclear exchange, it was to hit the UK and Western Europe with a hell of a lot more than 1-4 Nukes, they had 10k warheads back then, some vehicles had MRVs and maybe MIRVs, could take out all of the UK effectively with 2-3 ICBMs, any regional (european) nuclear exchange would have a high likelihood of going global, it might hasten some countries (even outside NATO) decisions to take on old foes Pak<->India, India<->China, Israel->Iran

Mad_maxx

1874 wrote: »

The only thing that would have been achieved would be that Europe and a lot of places in the world would have become a nuclear wasteland.
There is no way that any fullscale attack on Western Europe would have ended in anything other than a nuclear exchange. 1 or 4 nukes into the UK would have a terrible effect (1 into London and 1 into the Liverpool/Manchester area, 1 into Portsmouth and 1 into Falsane) , saw a program somewhere online about Soviet nuclear plans, in the event of a Nuclear exchange, it was to hit the UK and Western Europe with a hell of a lot more than 1-4 Nukes, they had 10k warheads back then, some vehicles had MRVs and maybe MIRVs, could take out all of the UK effectively with 2-3 ICBMs, any regional (european) nuclear exchange would have a high likelihood of going global, it might hasten some countries (even outside NATO) decisions to take on old foes Pak<->India, India<->China, Israel->Iran

the movie " Threads" illustrates the horror of it better than anything ive ever seen

RandomViewer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

im dealing purely in hypotheticals as the thing would have went nuclear in the event of a soviet invasion anyway which itself provided a deterant to the ruskies

in a fantasy conventional war situation , would they have kept the soviets out ?

im guessing western europe would have done better than one might instinctively think as they would have endless supplies of hardware from the U.S , Italy while not possessing a tremendous military compared to France and the UK , has a significant industrial base so you have the italians , France , the british and whatever defence West Germany had in them

Italy and France would likely have been first to fall, Scandinavia would have held their ground the longest,

Tony EH

titan18 wrote: »

If Germany had concentrated on taking out the British military bases instead of bombing the cities, the RAF wouldn't have had a chance to reorganize after getting pushed off the continent.

Nope. Not even close.

Firstly, the Luftwaffe lacked the ability to carry out a sustained bombing campaign against RAF airfields, which they had been pounding hard in the south. 11 Group suffered numerous attacks and it didn't really have that much of an effect. When Hitler switched to Bombing London in August, it gave the RAF somewhat of a breather. But they wouldn't have collapsed if it hadn't come about. The likes of Manston which got a number of times was back up and running a few days later. This was because they were airfields and pretty basic to repair and maintain. A spitfire or Hurricane could take off and land on any stretch of open level ground, with the smallest effort landscaping required.

The simple fact is that Luftwaffe hadn't the aircraft it needed, either in type or number to defeat the RAF on the ground in its entirety. And once Dowding had organised Fighter Command (especially 11 Group) to respond to Luftwaffe attacks in a logical manner, that is to engage on a limited scope, then there was only one outcome to the war in the air over Britain.

Irrespective of the air war over the country and regardless of how it was prosecuted, the Germans also just didn't have the ability to land an invasion force strong enough to carry out a successful land campaign. That was death knell of Sealion. A death knell that was sounded before the concept was even considered...and Hitler knew it. Thus, his hopes were pinned on somehow trying to get the British to butt out of his plans for Europe. In fact, he even believed that once they had got going in earnest, i.e. his view for Russia, the British would see sense and possibly join in.

Lastly, Hitler's heart just wasn't in it. He was a committed Anglophile and a great admirer of the British, which led to a deep divide in how he dealt with them during the war. It pained him no end, up until his death, that the British couldn't see what he was trying to do in Europe.

titan18 wrote: »

Also if they had finished the British army off at Dunkirk instead of halting, they likely would have seriously dented any British military power. I don't think the Germans could have succeeded in a land invasion but they were very close with some better decisions of ending the British military effort.

It's not like the entirety of the British Army was in Dunkirk in 1940. The British weren't that stupid. If Hitler had pressed and destroyed the BEF, it would have been a severe blow, for sure. But it wouldn't have meant the destruction of Britain's ability to fight on.

Also, the Germans had no way of getting THEIR Army across the Channel. The Rhine barges that were lined up to make it look like they were preparing a crossing would have floundered with the first swell and they would have been all at sea...literally.

You know, Churchill even opined in Parliament, "I am not saying that they won't come. But they won't come by Sealion".

titan18 wrote: »

In regards Russia for a good 4-5 months the Germans absolutely destroyed the Russians in battles. Stalin even sent peace offers to Hitler and was going to give Germany Ukraine and the Baltics. Whilst I think they never could have taken Russia in full and once industry and government went behind the Urals, it was much more difficult, they could definitely have taken Moscow with better decision making and likely taken Leningrad aswell if they had cut off Russian lines towards it from Moscow. With that they'd have taken over vast swathes of the Russian land and population base and likely would have had an excellent peace offer from Stalin.

The Red Army made the Germans pay for every inch of ground they took during Barbarossa. The thing is, while the Russians could absorb the losses, the Germans couldn't. It's a myth that the Gerries had everything their own way.

The successes and tactical victories that the Wehrmacht enjoyed in 1941 look good. But the fact is is that Barbarossa FAILED in every one of its objectives. On paper, it looks great, and the massive encirclements with huge bags of POWs taken, plus the advancements deep into Russian territory seem impressive. But it still does nothing to bring the Germans any closer to the victory that the Fuhrer was banking on. Barbarossa was simply too ambitious and it was an impossible task. That the Germans managed to do what the did, with what they had, is a great testimony to their armed forces. But it never even came near to achieving what it needed to achieve to defeat the Russians.

Then, once the Red Army had stopped them outside Moscow, the dice was cast even more in favour of a German defeat.

The thing is a German defeat was secured at Breast Liovsk, because there is just no victory that is achievable.

titan18 wrote: »

Best chance really would be if they had gotten the people on their side which they failed to do since they started executing loads of them. Ukraine originally championed them as liberators and after the Germans rounded them up for concentration camps, executed them etc they ended forming resistance movements.

It wouldn't have happened. While there are pictures and newsreels of German troops being greeted in the Ukraine with flowers, the real story is that the Soviet Union came together against the German invasion. And it was seen as an invasion by the vast majority of people, regardless of what they thought of Stalin, because they had no desire to replace Stalin with Hitler. From the first days of Barbarossa, partisan groups were being organised to harass German troops and lines of communication. While Red Army troops were being pulled back, guerilla troops were being left behind.

The propaganda news reels of tanks adorned with chrysanthemums belie the fact that down the road, people were getting hidden caches of weapons ready.

Even before the harsh measures were enacted by the Germans against Russians, they were already getting ready for fighting.

Tony EH

Mad_maxx wrote: »

could the Soviet Union have taken Western Europe between 1945 and 1991 ?

i mean without the USA getting involved

They had no interest in doing so. So it's neither here nor there.

BRYAN Is Ainm Dom

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

No, Russia is grand. China on the other hand...

Yeah because Russia and China are totally different!!!

ancapailldorcha

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i mean a conventional war , the soviets also had nuclear weapons so if the thing went nuclear , it was a different situation altogether

A hard no from me still. They couldn't even feed their own population post-1945. I'm struggling to see on what basis they'd have been able to invade, occupy and maintain supply lines. The Red Army was purged of many talented officers before the war and suffered horrific loses during the war.

Capt'n Midnight

RandomViewer wrote: »

1970s was probably the best time, every European country was having some sort of political upheaval the loss of life would have been huge, UK would have likely nuked central Europe to keep the Russians back

Ah yes, the chicken powered nuclear landmine.

RandomViewer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ah yes, the chicken powered nuclear landmine.

Gulp

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A hard no from me still. They couldn't even feed their own population post-1945. I'm struggling to see on what basis they'd have been able to invade, occupy and maintain supply lines. The Red Army was purged of many talented officers before the war and suffered horrific loses during the war.

While areas of Russia were facing great struggles and, indeed, the Russian people had given enormous sacrifices to defeat the Germans, the Red Army in 1945 was an incredibly impressive machine. Certainly one of the greatest limitary forces in the world at the time in conjunction with United States. It had learned very well from the German themselves and the difference between the 1945 era Red Army and the 1941 one was night and day, in terms of equipment, men, leadership and tactical/strategic doctrine.

However, neither Stalin nor any of the Soviet leadership had any interest at all in invading western Europe. It's that fact that scuppers any "what if" scenario involving some sort of silly Cold War fantasy where Stalin leads a war against Europe. They just didn't care for the idea and even if they did, they had just come out of a world war, in which numerous countries, including their own had gone against an aggressor nation to stop it. It was hardly feasible to think that Russia then could just attempt to conquer the Europe continent with any hope of success.

OptimusTractor

If Russia could get its act together I can them being serious challengers to the Dublin footballers. Near 150m people, you should be able to get a decent squad out of that.

Strumms

List of acknowledged countries with nuclear arms..

US

United Kingdom

France

India

Pakistan

———

North Korea

Russia

China

The good guys certainly outnumbering the bad guys...

Strumms

OptimusTractor wrote: »

If Russia could get its act together I can them being serious challengers to the Dublin footballers. Near 150m people, you should be able to get a decent squad out of that.

Moscow vs Monaghan in the first round of the championship.

Stovepipe

neither of which is a hurling stronghold.

RandomViewer

Strumms wrote: »

Moscow vs Monaghan in the first round of the championship.

A few practice games on the pitch in Ardara or Magheragallen will soon soften them up,

TobyHolmes

Russia before Russia was the USSR. Can we at least have a requirement before threads are opened - that there be a basic level of intelligence in the proposition.

wonga77

My girlfriend is Estonian and the connection to Russia has always interested me. Shes told me stories about what life was like before they got their independence in 1991. They used to get tokens for foods like bread, sugar etc, her mother worked at the place where food was distributed so they were lucky in that sense that they were never stuck for anything. She lived on the west coast but towards the east there are plenty of Russian communities that would like to go back to the old days.
She learnt Russian at school but has since blanked it out as she hates everything and anything Russian.
Its a beautiful country and well worth a visit, they have a lot more in common with Finland than any other country, even their languages are very similar.

Tyrone212

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, whilst it's pretty impossible to take the whole country without help from the Japanese in the east and probably the Turkish in the caucuses, they did really well for a time. if the Germans had gone Moscow first and succeeded in taking that and the corridor to St Petersburg, they'd likely have cut most of the Soviet industrial capacity and made it very difficult for the Soviets to rebound if the Japanese cut off the pacific.

That or if they had managed to take Britain, they'd have had full reign to bring their full force to Russi and likely would have overwhelmed them faster.

He probably would have won but his ego got in the way.

Operating barbarossa was supposed to commence on May 15th. However this was delayed by 6 weeks because Hitler diverted his attention to a Yugoslavian uprising and invaded. The crucial blunder.

He came within 30km of Moscow before winter bogged them down. Winter of 1941-42 was the most severe European winter of the 20th century. If he had of ignored Yugoslavia and invaded on May 15th as planned he probably would have made it.

Also the Russians had spies in Japan and learnt that the Japanese weren't going to invade Russia in the East so Stalin could place the vast majority of his troops in the West and not worry about the East being invaded.

Also many first welcomed the nazis when they first invaded as they hated Stalin but this quickly changed due to their scorched earth policy.

Link below explains the Yugoslavia situation

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hitlers-strategic-blunder/

Capt'n Midnight

TobyHolmes wrote: »

Russia before Russia was the USSR. Can we at least have a requirement before threads are opened - that there be a basic level of intelligence in the proposition.

I always wondered what the R in USSR stood for.

And what did they call the place back in the days of Ivan the Terrible ?

Capt'n Midnight

Tyrone212 wrote: »

He probably would have won but his ego got in the way.

Operating barbarossa was supposed to commence on May 15th. However this was delayed by 6 weeks because Hitler diverted his attention to a Yugoslavian uprising and invaded. The crucial blunder.

There was something about waiting for forward airfields to dry out.


‘This war can no longer be won by military means.’”
- Fritz Todt, the minister for armaments and munitions, to Hitler, November 29 1941

After that it was only a matter of time as the Russians had seized the means of production, stuck it on every available eastbound train meaning that they would out produce Germany.

TobyHolmes

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I always wondered what the R in USSR stood for.

And what did they call the place back in the days of Ivan the Terrible ?

*part of the USSR



Russia LOL


i suppose my point was Russia used to be the dominant part of the Soviet Union and the USSR broke up in the 1990s so if Russia needed to break up then it would have.


Its less about size but that there are large amounts of land that have been underdeveloped and those underdeveloped lands hardly want to self govern.



Now if the thread was entitled Discussion on Russian History would have been a better proposition.


anywho the history of Russia is very interesting and I'm far from an expert.

Gatling

Strumms wrote: »

List of acknowledged countries with nuclear arms..

US

United Kingdom

France

India

Pakistan

———

North Korea

Russia

China

The good guys certainly outnumbering the bad guys...

And more have access to nuclear weapons ,I think it's 16 countries in total have access to them

Sheeps

It's not as big as it appears on the map because of how it's projected.

Capt'n Midnight

TobyHolmes wrote: »

anywho the history of Russia is very interesting and I'm far from an expert.

"And then, somehow, it got worse."
— Russians, when asked to sum up their country's history.