Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "What If? Operation Unthinkable" video.

Dude the US ALONE outproduced the USSR to the point that they could supply all their armies AROUND THE GLOBE ACROSS OCEANS and still have plenty of supplies to give to all their allies as well. The Soviet armies had to use tens of thousands of US Studebakers to help keep their armies supplied. Without those trucks the Soviet armies would have a much tougher time moving their troops and supplies around the battlefield. The US industrial complex in WWII was so large that it could build hundreds of cargo and warships, countless amounts of trucks, armored vehicles and other vehicles and then build the largest airforce in the war as well. USSR really wouldn't have a chance against the western allies if they fought post-WWII.
4
@tomascernak6112 They had also more than twice as many CIS and tactical aircraft, which are important to battle operations. In fact, Western allies had superiority only in strategic aircraft, so heavy and strategic bombers, which were no use, because mainland of USSR was out of their reach and soviet production facilities were out of reach till mid 50s. The western Allied airforce was VASTLY SUPERIOR to the Soviet airforce. Better high altitude fighters with a massive strategic bomber force that the Soviets never had the technology to develop. Do you remember the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? In 1946 the Americans were putting into production the B-36 Peacemaker which was ALMOST TWICE THE SIZE OF THE B-29 and could carry 4 TIMES the bombload of the B-29 and had a range of 20,000 KM. That's a heck of a bomber range that could reach a ton of places in Russia. If those "softies" would face battle hardened soviets, it will be slaugther, where would be no air superiority or fuel shortage to save them. Battle hardened soldiers means less when you're facing better trained, better organized and better led troops who are also better supplied and have vastly superior technology on their side.
2
It wouldn't have worked mainly because of lack of public and political support and NOT because western allied armies couldn't relatively easily defeat the Soviet army. Western armies were vastly more advanced and better supplied than the Soviet forces and there's no way the USSR could defeat the west on the battlefield when they had such a massive logistical advantage on their side.
2
Allies didn't even need nukes to defeat the Soviets in a conventional war. The allies were vastly more technologically advanced, had way better intelligence services and had bed trained and better led troops. There's no scenario where in a head to head fight the Soviets could ever defeat the allied armies post-WWII.
1
It would've been massively unpopular to continue a war against someone that you fought alongside of a short time ago. However knowing what we know now with the Cold War, perhaps many if not most people would be more inclined to fight that war against the Soviets so that at least Eastern Europe could be liberated from the USSR instead of suffering so much for so many decades under Russian rule.
1
@hashteraksgage3281 Everytime someone tries to minimize lend-lease, they forget that the most important parts of lend lease was the logistics they sent. The Studebaker truck was vastly superior to anything the Soviets could produce and the US sent 150,000 to them that helped massively to motorize their forces so that they could move around the battlefield quickly while keeping them supplied. They also sent 2,000 locomotives and countless box cars to the Soviets as well for them to transport men, equipment and supplies to the front. As well they sent tons of high quality aviation fuel that the Soviets were incapable of producing themselves that kept their airforce fighting and they also sent tons of food and other supplies to keep Soviet armies fed during the war. Imagine if all that lend lease went to the Germans instead? Especially with the fuel, trains and trucks that would massively motorize the German army? There would be no way for the Soviets to defeat the Germans in WWII.
1
@Andrei-zn3sg But here's a question from recent events. Why did the Afghan army surrender the country to the Taliban almost without a fight, even though the United States provided it with excellent weapons? This was not the problem of the US, but the problem of the Afghans being of low IQ and incapable of learning what the Americans were teaching them. Also none of the Afghan army had any loyalty to the government they were suppose to be fighting for and they didn't have any desire to defend their country. And the Red Army defeated the prime forces of the Axis Countries, despite the enormous losses. The Soviets defeated the best German forces by taking huge losses in the majority of battles they fought against them. I bet you a billion dollars that if you put the western Allied armies on the Eastern Front and had them fight against the bulk of the German forces that they wouldn't have taken 9+ million soldiers killed to defeat them. Why? Because the western Allies were far better organized, had far better leadership, was far more technologically advanced, had better intelligence and had the best logistical support in the world that no one else could match. I think you really underestimate just how well organized and advanced the western Allies were when they could supply their armies ACROSS ENTIRE OCEANS both in the Atlantic and Pacific. Their production capacity was far superior to both German and Soviet war production, so the quantity advantage that the Soviets enjoyed against the Germans wouldn't be there against the west. The Germans could produce very good weapons, but never enough of them. The Soviets could produce good enough weapons in large quantities. The western Allies could produce great weapons in huge quantities. That's the difference that would win the war for the western Allies.
1
@hashteraksgage3281 On land the allies have no chance. They relied on numbers to win, but now they are the ones outnumbered. I would disagree on this. The western allies certainly had the numbers against the Germans by the time D-Day rolled around, but a big reason why the allies took far fewer casualties than the Soviets did was because they had better organization, better leadership and better trained troops who all created better fighting units backed up by massively better logistics and firepower. The same would happen against the Soviets if they fought the western allies. They would get defeated by superior firepower and better organized and trained armies. The air war would be a decisive allied win when their aircraft were far better and were being built in huge quantities. The Soviets had decent aircraft, but zero heavy bomber force. The allies could bomb the Soviet logistics into shambles and they wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it. To put things into perspective, the US had the biggest bomber with the B-29 during the war. If 1946 had come around with WWII still going, the Americans could've put into service the Convair B-36 Peacemaker which was a bomber that was NEARLY TWICE THE SIZE of the B-29 and could carry 4 TIMES THE BOMBLOAD. What exactly could the Soviet airforce do against such massive bombers protected by huge amounts of escort fighters? Pretty much nothing the same as the Germans lost the air war the moment allied aircraft could fly all the way to and from the enemy target. Bottom line is the Soviets still had a huge army at the end of WWII, but almost every advantage would be in the allies' favor especially when it came to logistics and airpower.
1
The thing is many Germans probably would've been signing up to fight it if it meant they could push the Communists out of their country.
1
It wouldn't work because of lack of public and political support. It would've worked because of the massive logistical and technological advantages that the western allies had.
1