Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "If the Soviets and the West went to war in 1945 - who would have won?" video.

  1. And after 1945 and Hiroshima, Soviet Russia would have invested far more heavily in nuclear production. With 1/6th of the worlds surface area they would have found viable sources for fissile materials relatively easily. Given the range of available bombers, neither side could launch a significant blow. America could probably nuke Vladivostok, but not Karkov, Moscow, St Petersberg or anywhere of greater significance without years of advancing the front line to increase the likelihood of a bomber actually getting through. And there wasn't exactly the enthusiasm to use nukes anyway, both from a cost and a human life cost. Macarthur was removed after proposing their use in Korea. On the ground forces front, America was massively behind on rocketry and artillery, and tank design as well. The poor quality rushed out of factory with bad welds and untrained crews tanks seen at Stalingrad were not what the end of the war tanks were like. And the soviet purge of their best generals in 1937 had left them unprepared for war but nearly a decade of war had changed all that. Korea showed exactly how many problems America had with their tank designs. They were forced back to using Sherman E8's and similar to basically hold HALF of Korea, despite their obvious air technology advantages. The reason the world backed away from that precipice was simple. No one had a clue how it would go, and you don't start wars you think you would lose. Even with jets and nukes, America didn't think it had a good enough chance of victory from 1945 right up to the fall of the Berlin wall, and neither did the Soviets.
    2