Great Britain v. Soviet Union all out total war 1946.

[Hangarshuffle]

Interested as I am in the recent report about how we would come off in a non nuclear conflict with Russia today, I want to pose this question.
How would Britain have come out against Stalin's Soviet Forces in 1946 if the new iron curtain was breached with an all out attack from Russia?
Indulge me as I set out my scenario.
1. Attlee Government. No nuclear capability on either side.
2. We haven't de-mobbed, and the 3 forces generally are at May 1945 strength.
3. We are financially broke and America hasn't yet backed us in the actual fighting, they are keeping out (but happy to supply us with military aid-at a price).They offer no such aid to Russia.
4. Soviets have struck first with multiple armoured thrusts across Northern Europe with a apparent push to the ports of N Germany, Holland and Belgium.

Indulge me.What would have happened, who would have "won"?
HS.

[Hangarshuffle]

No American Forces are in situ beyond the 1939 borders of France ( the border is a DMZ 10 miles deep. Britain, militarily is on its own stand fast newly forming armies in the recently liberated European countries. Germany has been entirely disarmed and militarily stood down.

[desk wizard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

[Pontius Navigator]

1. We have secure lines of communication as USSR has no maritime capability.
2. We have jet fighters albeit short range, high performance prop fighters, long range bombers, radio navigation aids, and probably air superiority if not supremacy.
3. The army is numerically inferior and its tanks, whilst numerous are out numbered and outgunned.
4. A scorched earth policy and a devastated 3rd Reich deny the Red Army opportunistic logistic supplies.
5. The Red Army loses manoeuvre ability.
6. Red Army has slow advance and continuous interdiucy and attrition.
But
7. A thrust into Caucasus oil fields and Persia and Iraq secure oily supplies and deny these to British forces.
8. Red Army reaches North Sea but lacks any ability to reach UK.
9. British Army retires in good order to UK.
10. RAF jet bombers continue deep penetration raids into eastern Europe.
11. RN units blockade Dardanelles and Baltic.
End game, Reds hold northern Europe. UK controls all SLOC and Air Supremacy to Russian border.

[Pontius Navigator]

I see my fag packet assessment mirrored the wiki defensive plan mentioned by desk wizard, particularly the navy and air aspects.

[MightyGem]

I see my fag packet assessment mirrored the wiki defensive plan mentioned by desk wizard, particularly the navy and air aspects.
That wouldn't be because you read it before posting? :E

[rolling20]

I note you say no nuclear capability,but one would have assumed that the U.S. would have given us the use of atomic weapons and the aircraft to deliver them fairly quickly. No one has mentioned Japan either. If Japan could have been remilitarized, they could have posed a threat to Russia's far eastern territories.

[dirkdj]

In order to answer this question, you could do worse than to read this book about Stalin, looking into his mind, by a Russian 'defector'.

[Pontius Navigator]

MG, not at all.

[tornadoken]

The imponderable is not kit - theirs broadly quite as good as ours, in overwhelming quantity - but motivation, especially of conscript infantry. They need a good reason to advance into harm's way.

Well, in 3 days, August,1945, Ivan disposed of the Imperial Japanese Army. We read that we faced that in SE.Asia, and that USMC faced it in the Pacific...but no: it sat throughout 1941-8/45 up on the edge of the Arctic. Rolled up in brief hours, by brown jobs whose understanding of their Mission will have been vague.

So, 1946, Ivan would have rolled forward and swamped us, reaching Antwerp briskly, heedless of casualties. So, what then? Well: Q: why would Stalin have done this: West of the Urals Mother Russia was devastated - why add to that? A: to spread the good word in France, Italy, everywhere really.

And, I surmise, to good effect. Chaos, revolution, workers and peasants rising up all over. In the real world:
France's Chief of Staff, early '47 “concurred (USSR) would be in Paris by August(’47)” Bullock,Attlee,P537: Joliot-Curies and other nuclear physicists, and 182 French National Assembly Members (11/46), were Communist; so to 11/3/47 were some Belgian Ministers. Soviet Arctic Fleet route to our Atlantic passed Iceland - ⅓ MPs were his; Occupied Austria seethed with Third Man strife.

Stalin had a one-time chance to create his version of Socialism throughout the European land-mass. Nothing we could have done to stop him. Truman had pledged to bring all the boys home by 8/47.

[Heathrow Harry]

Stalin tho wasn't that interested in exporting Communism IF it was at a serious cost to the USSR - he was very much of the "Socialism in One Country" mind-set

thrashing the Germans and establishing a 2 country buffer zone pretty much gave him all he needed - and the troops were needed to rebuild Western Russia as well.............

[racedo]

1.
7. A thrust into Caucasus oil fields and Persia and Iraq secure oily supplies and deny these to British forces.


I think a thrust such as this would have kept going until it reached the Suez with Egypt then lost.

A WHAT IF scenario written years ago suggested that if Hitler had not invaded Russia but instead thrust from Eastern Europe/Greece etc into Middle East they would have put Egypt in a pincer between Rommel and Army driving through Syria / Palestine.

[Pontius Navigator]

Racedo, indeed, but look at the British logistics train: an air route right across Africa and the sea route around the Horn and still Rommel failed to take Egypt.

[racedo]

Racedo, indeed, but look at the British logistics train: an air route right across Africa and the sea route around the Horn and still Rommel failed to take Egypt.

Oh agree but if you had cut off Middle East then Nazi's would have had pretty much whole Mediterranean to themselves and could have continued towards India joining with with the Japs.

Losing Middle East / India / Ceylon and its a different outcome.

[Pontius Navigator]

racedo, the Germans might have reached into Egypt but the logistics tail was already stretched and approaching India and the Indian Army fighting on home ground would probably have finished that expedition off.

Put simply, while the Germans chose the wrong enemy in the west so did the Japanese in the east. Now that would have been a can of worms.

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius

you assume the Indian Army would continue fighting for the British after the Germans had motored through the Middle East - I think that's a big assumtion TBH. The collapse of British arms in the ME would probably have led to a de facto collapse of the Raj and a takeover by Congress.

Apart from our losses the supply chain would have been unsustainable and, at the end of the day, the UK Govt would want to hold onto the Britsih Isles even if it meant the abandonment of the Empire....

[Pontius Navigator]

HH, I know some Indians sided with the Japanese. I know India wanted indepoindependence and I also know that they have many committed communists.

My assumption was not that they would support the Raj but that they would not welcome either German or Japanese occupation.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yes I think PN's is probably the most realistic outcome, and something we talked about at work in a strictly amateur way....my question triggered by a website I found with hundreds of recon pictures following up RAF bombing raids....I fairly admit I had no idea the actual real physical damage a raid could do to a town or city until I saw this site and made me think about the power the RAF held at this time. Utterly awesome. Think this was a section of Histomil - someone had access to the IWM and uploaded a lot of stuff I had never seen.
I watched a documentary years ago about the a UK Army Officer who happened to come face up to a Russian tank crew in 1945, and he recalled the hostility he received by a thoroughly anti western Russian military. They were motivated to fight onwards as the propaganda they had received seemed to place us very little higher than the actual Nazis. They could have got to the ports Id wager, but it would have been difficult under the sights of a powerful RAF Air Force. And I agree they would never have got across the North Sea.

But very thankfully it never happened, things stand as they did. HS.

[racedo]

the Germans might have reached into Egypt but the logistics tail was already stretched and approaching India and the Indian Army fighting on home ground would probably have finished that expedition off.

Put simply, while the Germans chose the wrong enemy in the west so did the Japanese in the east. Now that would have been a can of worms.

Where was UK Oil supplies coming from in WW2 ?

I assume Iran / Saudi but really don't know......

[Heathrow Harry]

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Britain-get-fuel-from-during-WWII

Mainly from the USA, Venezulela and the Caribbean - I think a lot of the ME oil was diverted to Australia, India & Egypt (to replace Burmese & Indonesian oil)

Saudi wasn't a major producer until the 1950's - most ME oil came from Iran

[Pontius Navigator]

racedo, the logistics tail I was suggesting was more than oil but mechanical spares, ammunition, personnel etc. What you can say it that the LOC through the ME would have been secure, unlike the sea/air dependent route for British forces in Egypt, but once you reached Saudi/Iraq etc the road/rail infrastructure and mapping were virtually nil.

[sandiego89]

I see you have no US forces in-situ in your scenario, so it seems like this is purely a thought exercise as in reality it would be very tough to come up with a realistic scenario that the US would not be involved in. There were US forces all throughout Europe in 1946 and I don't think they would just sit there while hordes of Soviet forces came streaming in...


I agree that the land side would quickly go Soviet, but they would lack the capability to easily reach the UK. The UK would dominate the maritimes.


I do think that the B-29 "Washington" lending would have been expedited, with special cargo....

[Pontius Navigator]

Sandiego, the OP specifically ruled out US involvement.

However he also mentioned how we were broke. This was set out when we told the US SofS that we could not sustain forces in Greece and would pull out. The US would have to step in. We did;they did.

[Lonewolf_50]

Sandiego, the OP specifically ruled out US involvement.

However he also mentioned how we were broke. This was set out when we told the US SofS that we could not sustain forces in Greece and would pull out. The US would have to step in. We did;they did.
This scenario is a dead letter. The American Army of occupation was alive and well in 1946. (My dad was a part of it). As well to put together a scenario where the Germans weaponized bratwurst and potatoes in 1946 and began a rebellion in the Soviet occupied sector.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sorry Cuz, I think the OP used as his premise the prognosis from the recently retired chief of Joint Forces Command that the UK could not defend itself against an all out attack by Russia.

HangarShuffles scenario is probably the more realistic one. Churchill feared a Soviet advance and there was no certainty that the US would not revert to its previous isolationism; Truman was an unknown quantity.

[FakePilot]

Why can't people accept that the US is not part of this discussion, yeah we know what happened but for this discussion the US is not available. Maybe for the same top secret reason the US is not available for Syria.

Yes the Soviets and everybody were tired but without the US (or maybe even with?) they'd just have to walk to the coast of France. Island hopping from there might have been too much trouble initially. However, the Soviets could pick up with bombing where the Germans left off.

[Pontius Navigator]

FP, you forget, we had jet fighters, they didn't. We had long range bombers, they didn't at the outset with a first flight of the Bull not until 2 years after the war.
The precursor of the modern Soviet submarine force was at Belfast so that would not have been an option either.

[ShotOne]

If the premise is UK fighting the Soviets without any US help, it's pretty clear there could only have been one end result and we would have been ground into submission by sheer weight of numbers and resources

[Lonewolf_50]

Pontius: counterfactuals are not all equal in nature. This one's a complete piece of crap. For further reading, our own OP, and the old fart whom he cites as a "source" ought to examine a well constructed example of how countfactuals work, or don't, in a book written by Niall Ferguson called Virtual History.


"Truman as unknown" ignores that Truman didn't act in a vacuum. He also learned on the job. See Berlin Airlift, 1947, in which my father was also present.


As to "isolationism:" the Draft was reinstated in 1940, and our people of political power (the blue bloods on the East Coast, where a lot of political power remained in the post WW II era) were supporting the Brits via lend lease well before Pearl Harbor. "Isolationism" was a sentiment that killed the League of Nations (post WW I) but that isn't all that did it. There was other internal political bickering between the Executive and Legislative branches involved in that showdown over a treaty. "Isolationism" is hardly the force in mid century that people like to pretend it is once we went large. Our commitment in WW II was orders of magnitude larger than our commitment in WW I.


Factor also ignored: the Red Scare was alive and well in the 20's, 30's, and 40's which would inform any American position in mid century. Harry Truman was not tone deaf. The Red Scare had not gone away, see the Alger Hiss case a few years later.


Russia versus UK in 1946 does not just involve those two nations. It becomes the concern of anyone and everyone in the neighborhood. Left unsaid: who does the US supply? The UK? USSR? Both? Neither?

As above stated: the counterfactual offered isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on.

[Hangarshuffle]

I still think the range and power projection of the RAF would have been the decisive factor in 1946 against Russian forces in grinding them.
Russian tank forces would have had little in the way of supporting fighter aircraft cover of a standard to match the RAF Fighter Command either. Perhaps they (the tanks) could have got to the North Sea but once there they would have taken a terrible pounding from the RAF and this would have continued for a considerable period.
The strain of trying to endure that air assault, hold and rebuild Europe, keep an army happy that had endured, what 5 years of hell(?), it would have been too much for them. Perhaps they would even have entirely collapsed.
Harris would then have been seen to be right.
Additionally we would also have recalled a very capable RN and FAA into the North Sea. Their own interdiction against the Russian armoured forces would have been considerable...
We would have just had to keep on fighting and fighting.....
It truly is a most horrible thought mind, how it would have gone.

[Dryce]

I still think the range and power projection of the RAF would have been the decisive factor in 1946 against Russian forces in grinding them.


I believe the Soviet strength in WW2 was overstated. It suited their own propagandists and it suited people in the west to lap it up.

The Soviets received large amounts of aid from the west - and I suspect that the benefits have been airbrushed from their historyl. So in official WW2 footage we tend to see homogeneous groups T34s riding over the countryside and not a lot else.

They never had to tolerate strategic bombing campaign -and AIUI for all the fact I was taught in school that all the industrial production moved east of the Urals from what I have since read there was an awful lot that didn't and the Luftwaffe simply didn't have the resources to attack it.

The Soviet Navy wasn't particularly significant. And the UK had a decent submarine force and aircraft carriers.

And it's not as if after 1945 theat the Soviets weren't likely to be fatigued.

I would guess that after VE day there would have been people in Moscow concerned about an attack from the West.

Moreover given their lack of strategic airpower I sometimes wonder if Bomber Command's role in WW2 and its subsequent treatment was in part influenced by a subtle campaign from the east using sympathisers in the west.

[Pontius Navigator]

LW, OK, if you want to play, do so. Instead of supplying equipment you now bring your armies in to play, and remember we are considering 1945 not 1947.

Allied air is now reinforced with B17, the heavy bombers can mount continuous interdiction denying road and rail movement.

Allied ground is considerably enhanced but enemy armour has a near Tiger capability and greater numbers. Their land logistics lines are stretched and harassed.

Additional allied naval forces are not significant at this stage.

So, balance, where British forces would be pushed back to the North Sea, US forces would enable the Red Army to be checked. Patton would mount an armoured thrust through light Red frontal forces and sweep around taking Berlin from the east much to Montgomery' s annoyance.

OK?

[PersonFromPorlock]

I'm not sure that Bomber Command was a 'strategic' bomber force in this context, since - IIRC - their 'heavy' bombers were optimized for payload rather than range. They could strike targets in Germany, but there weren't any worthwhile strategic targets left in Germany. An infusion of B-29s, of which the US had a considerable supply, or the development and production of a follow-on British bomber, would have been needed to carry the war to the Soviets.

[oldpax]

Our bombers could have been using airfields in Europe if need be.So their range would have increased somewhat.No mention of weather conditions in these scenarios.

[Pontius Navigator]

PFP, OP, who mentioned strategic? During the post-invasion period the heavy bombers were used in an interdiction role against communications. From a Soviet advance perspective they would be advancing though land where the infrastructure was largely destroyed.

The heavy bombers could have been used in the same manner as LineBacker 25 years later.

As far as moving the heavy bombers forward I would suggest the logistics cost would be too high. 10 tons of bombs v 1 or 2. Spares etc. Better continue from main bases and let the tactical aircraft deploy and fall back as required. May be operate carrier groups in the Baltic.

[Hempy]

From a Soviet advance perspective they would be advancing though land where the infrastructure was largely destroyed.

In much the same way as they advanced on Berlin all the way from Stalingrad facing the exact same lack of infrastructure.

To answer the OP's question, taking the Americans out of the equation, if the Sovs had kept marching westwards it would have been dasvidaniya.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hempy, true to a point except for the matter of air supremacy in the west. Of course once they reached the North Sea we get to a further what if.

They would have expedited the Bull programme but would they have got the bomb secrets from the atom spies? How soon could they reverse engineer jet engines. Would they have got their share of German scientists and technology?

Then in 1947 they developed the AK47 while we were stuck with the SMLE and presumably would not have got the Belgian FN.

The Canberra would have outperformed anything but would our aircraft industry have progressed that far in wartime
We would really have been in hock to the US for B50s, P2s, P51s etc.

Hopefully the Mig 15 would have been much later.

[Hempy]

PN, the Sovs had something no one else had. Superior manpower. Thousands of Soviet sappers died just laying down bridges over the half frozen Elbe, yet it didn't even count as a blip on their orbat.

The only question west of Berlin is morale. To the Sovs, WW2 was the 'Great Patriotic War'. The Germans had deceived Stalin by breaching the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Stalin was pissed off completely.

After conquering Germany, morale may have been different if they were ordered to keep marching.

[dirkdj]

"The Germans had deceived Stalin by breaching the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Stalin was pissed off completely. "

After reading "The Chief Culprit" you may want to review that sentence. I am not excusing Hitler at all but according to this source Stalin was about to launch a attack just a few weeks later and Hitler had no choice but to strike first while the Red Army was still building up.

The description of the Finnish-Russian winter war in this book is also very breathtaking, how many Red soldiers were sacrificed to take just one pillbox.

[Hempy]

No, I'm reasonably happy with that sentence.

Perhaps you should have a glance at the first few chapters of Antony Beevors 'Stalingrad'. Drawn primarily from Soviet archives.

Failing that, Mein Kampf gives a reasonable insight into Barbarossa

[A_Van]

Some considerations from another side.

1. It's pity to see such a topic. SU, US and GB were good allies during the WWII, and nobody in the Stalin's mob was really planning to move further westward after Berlin was taken. Yes, in some memoirs of the Stalin's multi-star generals it was mentioned that some commanders were raising such a topic, but these were rather chats over vodka after some unintentional friendly fire took place in the last days of war.

2. Stalin had a clear plan regarding Europe. First, to crack down Hitler completely and denazify Germany. No "side trips" were planned. Second, to extend his influence and control over the territories liberated from the nazis by SU. Note that puppet governments were later put in place only in the countries that were "on the march mainstream". It seemed rather fair at that time: hundreds of thousands lives were left in Eastern Europe. Note also that countries alongside the route, such as e.g. Finland and Norway ( north) and Austria (south), were not included in the pro-Soviet block though many soldier lives were left there as well.

3. "Great three" (US, UK and SU) have just agreed (in Yalta/Crimea in Feb 1945 and later in Potsdam) on the principles of a new world order after WWII. Stalin seemed to be satisfied with the agreements reached. What the hell would he turn the guns towards yesterday's colleagues?

4. OK, forgetting the above 1-3, and taking an abstraction of a military conflict, it's better operate with numbers. First, leaving only UK vs SU (taking US out)makes no sense. SU had three times more troops, planes, tanks and self-propelled artillery, etc. than GB. Soldiers and officers had extremely rich combat experience in air and land ops (Navy is not the case here). Thus, no chances. Let's now "take US in". US had comparable (to SU) armed forces (e.g. both had about 11+ mln army), but only a minor part of them were in the European theatre. Anyway, still a serious threat to SU. In my opinion, SU would anyway reach the Atlantic, but would then have to face regular bomber attacks from many directions and I can hardly predict the result as it would be a very long conflict (like a GB vs Germany over the Channel for some 6 years). Taking a longer period into consideration (when A- and H-stuff appeared), it is well-known that SU could hardly adequately reply to US plans like "dropshot" until late 50's.

[FakePilot]

A Van,

Alliances can shift very quickly. Once again, the discussion starting point was what if not could.

[racedo]

If Stalin's hordes had moved West then UK forces pushed right back would have had to face a second Dunkirk, however Dunkirk was conducted from a rather narrow bridgehead where BEF weren't spread out over hundreds of miles.

A Soviet armoured thrust and a Uk forces retreat would have been intense with the likelihood that couple of hundred thousand personnel are behind enemy lines as prisoner.

In 1940 if Germans had pushed hard onto Dunkirk and not rested then potentially 300,000 plus men would have been prisoners.

[rolling20]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the most heinous crime of all committed around this time by surprise surprise a socialist government and in particular Stafford Cripps. That crime was the gifting to the Soviets of a number of RR Nenes, on the basis of not being used for military purposes, yeah right! The Soviets were having trouble at the time with their own axial flow of German design. A delegation was also allowed to tour RR and wore soft soled shoes to collect alloys samples. Why the entire labour government were never put on trial for high treason, I have never understood.

[Pontius Navigator]

Rolling, I did. Racedo, second time around Britain would enjoy air supremacy, army mobility, and RN heavy units able to secure disembarkation ports. A salvo of 2,000 lb shells would have a salutary affect.
A Van, I agree, it is just an intellectual exercise leaving out political aspects. The most significant 'what if' concerns technology transfer. No jet engines, no electronics, no German U-boats.

[racedo]

second time around Britain would enjoy air supremacy, army mobility, and RN heavy units able to secure disembarkation ports. A salvo of 2,000 lb shells would have a salutary affect.

But even with that how many men had UK in Europe in 1945 ?

Even with best disembarkation you would still leave many behind plus equipment.

Would population want to continue with another war after 6 years ?

[rolling20]

Ah, apologies Pontius.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ricardo, that is my point, we had the capability to disengage which we lacked in 1940. In the west we had created the infrastructure to advance and could use this for a rapid retreat.

Only if someone decided to hold ground in the WW 1 would we have lost many men. Had we used manoeuvre warfare it would be difficult. In this scenario we were not defending Europe but realistically just retiring gracefully against massive Soviet Armies.

[Lonewolf_50]

Pontius: In 1946, Patton is already dead.
The US Navy is still big, having no Japan to deal with as of September 1945.
Demob wasn't done in a day.
Who is at #10: Churchill, or someone else? (IIRC, it did not take long for Winston to no longer be popular ...)
What possible reason does Stalin have for going West of the Rhine? (Hell, does he really want to go west of the Elbe?)

Anyone? Yeah, I thought not.

Dead letter. They (the Sovs) were already using the fifth column in Asia and elsewhere. (See Austria, 1945-1950, among other examples). Fifth column is cheaper by a lot than a column of T-34/85's.

[Pontius Navigator]

LW, Patton was not dead in 1945 nor would he have been relieved of his post or had a car crash.

The initial premise did not have to be wholly credible. The US position was defined once again as benevolent neutrality. There is nothing wrong with either premise and many, many success novels have been written on less credible premise, Clancy, Bond and Brown amongst them.

[Wander00]

Racedo - ref #43


And another 300,000 or so in SW Brittany ISTR

[Pontius Navigator]

Wander, good account here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)

[tornadoken]

#44: r20: red Derwents and Nenes.

No time because it wasn't a crime. Uncle Joe was our valiant Ally...until...well, your own view of when the Cold War began, by whom...why?
UK Cabinet decided that date was 14/8/48, when they Tasked Chiefs to halt USSR before the Rhine. Opposition Leader WSC decided it was 5/3/46, with his Iron Curtain speech. UJ may have wondered why did US not cancel 100xB-36A (even adding 200, 12/45)/60x(B-29D/)B-50A ordered 7/43, all with range US-Berlin (?Moscow).

15/7/46: Congress Approves UK's Loan: we use some of these $ to buy Oregon timber to start repairing bombed homes and workplaces. UK was cold and broke. Congress required £ to become freely convertible by 15/7/47: this we profoundly feared (for good reason: we dammed the outflow 20/8/47). What on earth could UK sell to earn $? Ah: aeroplanes. To whom? ah, folk with $-goods we needed. Ah: Argentina. They were taking lots, bartered for Fray Bentos spam.

As we had no enemy, we did not urgently fund new combat types. Argentina did (FMA Pulqui) and asked for Derwent: might they take Meteors (5/47: yes, 100 please)? Sweden did and asked for Goblin on -21R, Ghost on J-29. Nationalist China wanted Gloster CXP-102, Nene or Ghost. If we were happy to take $ from dictators and neutrals, why then not from our Ally?

We declassified Derwent/Nene (I assume Goblin/Ghost too), mid-1946.

USSR requested quotations for Meteor and Derwent, small batch supply, production licence. President of the Board of Trade R.S.Cripps (wartime Minister of Aircraft Production) did a barter deal (timber+grain) and issued Export Licences 10/46 for 10 each, Derwent/Nene; spring, 1947 for 20 more Derwent/15 Nene.

During 1947 Communist MPs were widely but freely elected, minorities in Iceland, France, Italy...but further East UJ was manipulative (30/12/47 he would hi-jack Romania). We reclassified Nene/Derwent 11/47. UJ by 24/6/48 had taken us on in Berlin and the War warmed. Cripps (by then at Treasury) and Cabinet funded British Bombs and Bombers and the Cold War, atomic standoff was onway.

Whose fault...your judgement. It was not treason for Ministers in 1946 to try for harmony.

[SASless]

In 1940 if Germans had pushed hard onto Dunkirk and not rested then potentially 300,000 plus men would have been prisoners.

Yes....and when Japan entered the War and took over the British turf capturing as many Soldiers as they did the British would have had to fold their Tent and sue for Peace.

Fortunately for the Brits....the Japanese attacked the United States and brought us into the war although we could have ignored the Germans as up to that point they had left us alone.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But had the Japanese not attacked the US, and just confined themselves to attacking British interests such as Singapore (by surprise as well) etc, how long would the US have stood by? Would the invasion of the Philippines have been enough ie no direct attack on the US? Or would US forces there have been withdrawn to avoid the confrontation, and keep the US out of the war?

[Heathrow Harry]

SASless - you DID ignore the Germans -

Germany declared war on the USA - not the other way round (proabbly Hitler's stupidest decision)

[Heathrow Harry]

Traffic - the US were pushing the Japanese hard with all sorts of restrictions to support the KMT in China - a lot of people thought the USN in the Phillipines was likely to be a target and a cause that would allow Roosevelt to break all his promises about keeping the US out of any war.
Unfortunately the Japanese decided to go for broke and took out Pearl Harbour........

[Lonewolf_50]

LW, Patton was not dead in 1945 nor would he have been relieved of his post or had a car crash.

The initial premise did not have to be wholly credible. The US position was defined once again as benevolent neutrality. There is nothing wrong with either premise and many, many success novels have been written on less credible premise, Clancy, Bond and Brown amongst them.
Pontius, since my comment was that in 1946 Patton was already dead, and he died in December of 1945 ... que? Beyond that, I'll retire.

[PAX_Britannica]

SASless - you DID ignore the Germans -

Germany declared war on the USA - not the other way round (proabbly Hitler's stupidest decision)

I think that's kinda moot. The US was effectively at war with Germany from roughly September 1941, when the US Navy was ordered to sink U-Boats on sight.

[PAX_Britannica]

Some considerations from another side.

1. It's pity to see such a topic. SU, US and GB were good allies during the WWII, [...]

No.

At the start (start from a Brit point-of-view, forget about Czechoslovakia and the second Sino-Japanese war) of WW2, the USSR was allied with Germany.

- The USSR invaded Poland jointly with Germany in 1939, and invaded the Baltic states.
- Britain and France had plans to support Finland in the Winter War, but couldn't figure out how to get 135,000 troops there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War). The Winter War lead to the USSR's expulsion from the League of Nations.
- The USSR was negotiating to join the Axis Powers as least as late at November 1940.

[racedo]

And another 300,000 or so in SW Brittany ISTR

Good point

To be fair I had excluded that from my thinking which I shouldn't as I spent couple of weeks in what was St Nazaire pocket in 2015 and visited Lancastria memorial / HMS Cambletown Memorial / U Boat pens and Bunkers on coast.

I didn't know scale of what was in Brittany but do remember at Blockhaus they telling is the Bois de Polonaise was couple of Km further north as there were a sizeable contingent of Poles who were fighting with BEF / French Army who hid they awaiting Embarkation,

[racedo]

- The USSR invaded Poland jointly with Germany in 1939, and invaded the Baltic states.

In August 1939 Stalin offered UK and France the option of putting 1 million men plus artillery on Poland's western border with Germany.
UK and French delegations in Moscow refused as they stated they had no power to negotiate..
If they had agreed then believe start of WW2 would have been postponed...................... maybe not for long but it would have been postponed.

[rolling20]

Tornadoken- and I quote ' The word "Yalta" came to stand for the appeasement of world communism and abandonment of freedom'. Churchill had urged Roosevelt to continue the war in Europe against Stalin, but Roosevelt took Stalin at his word. The world was already a dangerous place in May 45. RR nor anyone else for that matter ever got a bean for selling those Nenes. As for Russia being our gallant ally, they had sold the Germans oil that powered their bombers during the Blitz on London.

[PAX_Britannica]

In August 1939 Stalin offered UK and France the option of putting 1 million men plus artillery on Poland's western border with Germany.
UK and French delegations in Moscow refused as they stated they had no power to negotiate..
If they had agreed then believe start of WW2 would have been postponed...................... maybe not for long but it would have been postponed.
Do you have a source for that ?
You're basically saying that the USSR offered to invade the whole of Poland.

[rolling20]

Racedo, is right. All comes from documents released about 10 yes ago I am with think.

[racedo]

Do you have a source for that ?
You're basically saying that the USSR offered to invade the whole of Poland.

Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html)

USSR wanted UK and France support to pressurise Poland to allow 1 million men on German border, they were not to invade but to "transit" and stay on border.

[Heathrow Harry]

Yeah - Stalin was willing to face up to Hitler IF he was given something in return............ but neither the British nor the French wanted to deal with Stalin and sent a relatively low level delgation to Moscow

[Heathrow Harry]

"The US was effectively at war with Germany from roughly September 1941, when the US Navy was ordered to sink U-Boats on sight."

but only west of Iceland..........................

[Hempy]

and only 2 years too late..

[Wander00]

Racedo after a memrial ceremony for a Lancaster that crashed between Nantes and St Nazaire we went to lay a wreath on the OP CHARIOT memorial - father of a friend in Lymington was Captain of HMS Cambeltown and one of the VC winners that day. I was interrupted as I was saying the "They shall not grow old..."" bit by an immaculately dressed elderly French woman, and she asked what I was doing. I explained the link and she told me that she was 84 and as teenager had watch the fighting in the St Nazaire raid, and 2 years earlier had seen the Lancastria bombed and sunk. It was a quiet drive home.