Yeah, I Am Going There (Cold War Gone Hot)

[Aaron Fox]

Truman was the one that kept it on the table, and had them place Nukes in Guam to be used if needed against China. McArthur just wanted to use them, and also push into China and take them out.

However, Truman was only going to use them as a weapon of last resort and not as an opening salvo of a campaign, something that McArthur wanted to do with said nukes. McArthur was also infamous as a military maverick within the US military and was absolutely hated by the majority of the US military... the only real thing he had going for him was PR and that he didn't botch the Japan Occupation.

 

[Zachowon]

However, Truman was only going to use them as a weapon of last resort and not as an opening salvo of a campaign, something that McArthur wanted to do with said nukes. McArthur was also infamous as a military maverick within the US military and was absolutely hated by the majority of the US military... the only real thing he had going for him was PR and that he didn't botch the Japan Occupation.

He was responsible for us going to the Chinese border. SO proprs there. But yeah!

 

[Aaron Fox]

He was responsible for us going to the Chinese border. SO proprs there. But yeah!

Only because he wasn't using WW2 leftovers, which was what all that was in Korea for a good portion of the conflict. You get further when most of your weapons aren't literally a good decade and change out of date...

 

[Zachowon]

Only because he wasn't using WW2 leftovers, which was what all that was in Korea for a good portion of the conflict. You get further when most of your weapons aren't literally a good decade and change out of date...

I mean we barley had the m46 patton out, the Pershign was still the main tank the US had, 6 years after it came out. The Chaffee and a few pershings is all the US had in Korea at the time. We had no units that were up to date in the country at all during the war. The newest units were all in the US, and Korea was the bare minimum for the US soldiers in the world at that point. M14s were still to fully out, and M1s were still widely used. BARs were also mainly used. It was the transition war that made America...America

 

[Husky_Khan]

Binkov actually did a video on the Cold War never going cold and starting right at the Summer/Fall of 1945 or whatever while everyone still had their forces in Europe (and Japan wouldn't be too much of an issue).

 

[Aaron Fox]

I mean we barley had the m46 patton out, the Pershign was still the main tank the US had, 6 years after it came out. The Chaffee and a few pershings is all the US had in Korea at the time. We had no units that were up to date in the country at all during the war. The newest units were all in the US, and Korea was the bare minimum for the US soldiers in the world at that point. M14s were still to fully out, and M1s were still widely used. BARs were also mainly used. It was the transition war that made America...America

True, because people thought that the US can be isolationist again when in reality, that time was long past...

 

[Zachowon]

True, because people thought that the US can be isolationist again when in reality, that time was long past...

Korea is still the most US defended place outside of the US itself.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Korea is still the most US defended place outside of the US itself.

Yeah and people still think isolationism is still a thing when in reality that has been long obsolete...

 

[Free-Stater 101]

True, because people thought that the US can be isolationist again when in reality, that time was long past...

Stop acting like it was out of stupidity or maliciousness, the fact was that the U.S. had yet to get the next line of military equipment out because it had turned it's attention straight to the Marshall plan and domestic issue's after the war unlike the Soviet Union which instead mostly ignored it's allies to focus mostly on it's military technology at the expense of others.

The fact was by the Korean War the U.S. was no longer isolationist or held much faith in the idea, it had already intervened in Turkey and Greece to stop Soviet influence, founded NATO and had been involved in the Berlin Airlift in 1949 and the fact was that the Military just wasn't expecting the war in Korea or the fact that a Chinese intervention would cause the war to stalemate and the fact is that tech didn't contribute much to the Norks the only thing that won the war was Chinese numbers.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah and people still think isolationism is still a thing when in reality that has been long obsolete...

It would cause a world collpase

Stop acting like it was out of stupidity or maliciousness, the fact was that the U.S. had yet to get the next line of military equipment out because it had turned it's attention straight to the Marshall plan and domestic issue's after the war unlike the Soviet Union which instead mostly ignored it's allies to focus mostly on it's military technology at the expense of others.

The fact was by the Korean War the U.S. was no longer isolationist or held much faith in the idea, it had already intervened in Turkey and Greece to stop Soviet influence, founded NATO and had been involved in the Berlin Airlift in 1949 and the fact was that the Military just wasn't expecting the war in Korea or the fact that a Chinese intervention would cause the war to stalemate and the fact is that tech didn't contribute much to the Norks the only thing that won the war was Chinese numbers.

The US presence at the beginning of the war included M24 Chaffees, a hand full of M26 Pershings. The US also used M36 Jacksons and basically mostly outdated if not completely outdated world war 2 vehicles. The Pattons were the newest tanks involved. The Norskies and the Chinese had T-34-85s, and the Newer IS series that they had bought. Which surpassed the tanks the US had.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

The US presence at the beginning of the war included M24 Chaffees, a hand full of M26 Pershings. The US also used M36 Jacksons and basically mostly outdated if not completely outdated world war 2 vehicles. The Pattons were the newest tanks involved. The Norskies and the Chinese had T-34-85s, and the Newer IS series that they had bought. Which surpassed the tanks the US had.

Yes, but did it cause the north to win? No, the war was won for the Norks when China swept in and won with human wave tactics the Norks tech didn't help the only reason they won initially was due to the small size of U.S. forces and once reinforcement's arrived the U.S. tactically beat the Norks at almost every turn even with outdated equipment.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The US presence at the beginning of the war included M24 Chaffees, a hand full of M26 Pershings. The US also used M36 Jacksons and basically mostly outdated if not completely outdated world war 2 vehicles. The Pattons were the newest tanks involved. The Norskies and the Chinese had T-34-85s, and the Newer IS series that they had bought. Which surpassed the tanks the US had.

First of all IS tanks were not used in Korea, only T-34/85 were, which were roughly equivalent of Easy Eight Sherman, so sending Shermans, Chaffes and Jacksons to counter them makes sense, you can't say that American equipment was outdated compared to what the Norks and Chinese had.

Stop acting like it was out of stupidity or maliciousness, the fact was that the U.S. had yet to get the next line of military equipment out because it had turned it's attention straight to the Marshall plan and domestic issue's after the war

And overreliance on nuke threat.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

First of all IS tanks were not used in Korea, only T-34/85 were, which were roughly equivalent of Easy Eight Sherman, so sending Shermans, Chaffes and Jacksons to counter them makes sense, you can't say that American equipment was outdated compared to what the Norks and Chinese had.


And overreliance on nuke threat.

This too, the U.S. military went through a strange phase before the Korean war were they thought the advent of nukes and modern bombers made every branch of the military but the Airforce obsolete and so they neglected other branches.

 

[Zachowon]

First of all IS tanks were not used in Korea, only T-34/85 were, which were roughly equivalent of Easy Eight Sherman, so sending Shermans, Chaffes and Jacksons to counter them makes sense, you can't say that American equipment was outdated compared to what the Norks and Chinese had.


And overreliance on nuke threat.

Sorry had conflicting sources. They also had the Russian SU-76s with it.
They were killing most of the M25 Chaffees involved in the war, and the Shermans were a decent match. The M26 perhsings involved t the start, the small amount were killed by either the SU's or the T-34s. After the M46's and more M26 arrived it was a different war.
I will find out more while I am here, heading to war museums when I can.

 

[ATP]

Not really, the USSR had a very large amount of manpower the US and NATO could not fight reasonably right after the war. France and UK were nearly baren of troops. The US was still hurting, and would have had to keep sending troops over.

You forget that by 1945, the USSR had a very large stake of puppet states.
Also, by 1945 most equipment the USSR had was their own made, and were not really using US stuff anymore

All soldiers from puppet states would wait to surrender.
About soviet stuff - tanks were very good, but needed fuel.Bomb refinereies, and they would be useless.And all new made would be without american radios.How far they would come,when messages need dude with babber on top of commander tank ?
Guns were good, too - but need american train to deliver ammo,american trucks to change position,and becouse few crews were good trained, must fire keep wheel by wheel.
infrantry need american troops to relocate.

What USA could do ?
1.Bomb Ploesti and Baku - no fuel for soviets.
2.retreat from one german river to another, bombing soviet forces in process.
3.Target especially trains and trucks.
4.Send Marines to Kołyma - soviets had real death camps there, np road to deliver help,and only NKWD thugs to terrorize prisoners.Only by sea you could get there - and soviet navy was always shitty.Show pictures in press,so people would knew who they fight.
When after 6 months soviets finally get to Ren ,and soviets was out of fuel,send fleet to Baltic.During WW2 6 german cruisers bombed soviet forces whenever they wonted- what USA battlewagons could do?
People in Poland and Baltic states waited for help - and would welcome anybody as saviour.
Cut off soviet forces in Germany, built airfields in Poland, and send B.29 over soviet cities.Non soviet fighter could intercept them.
If Stalin do not surrender,send soviet soldiers who surrender against him.If 700.000 soviets fought for German AFTER they murdered 2 millions of soviet prisoners,how many would fight for USA ?

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Not really, the USSR had a very large amount of manpower the US and NATO could not fight reasonably right after the war. France and UK were nearly baren of troops. The US was still hurting, and would have had to keep sending troops over.

You forget that by 1945, the USSR had a very large stake of puppet states.
Also, by 1945 most equipment the USSR had was their own made, and were not really using US stuff anymore

This reply should have been made a while ago but the fact is that your argument is full of holes.

First, it ignores that the soviet puppets in Eastern were far more ravaged than the French or British were.

Second, it ignores the fact that the U.S. was far from exhausted at this point unlike the USSR which was at the end of it's supply lines and relied on three rail hubs to roll their troops to say nothing of the fact that they just lost twenty plus million people a fact that people seem dead set on ignoring whenever this debate is brought up.

 

[Zachowon]

All soldiers from puppet states would wait to surrender.
About soviet stuff - tanks were very good, but needed fuel.Bomb refinereies, and they would be useless.And all new made would be without american radios.How far they would come,when messages need dude with babber on top of commander tank ?
Guns were good, too - but need american train to deliver ammo,american trucks to change position,and becouse few crews were good trained, must fire keep wheel by wheel.
infrantry need american troops to relocate.

What USA could do ?
1.Bomb Ploesti and Baku - no fuel for soviets.
2.retreat from one german river to another, bombing soviet forces in process.
3.Target especially trains and trucks.
4.Send Marines to Kołyma - soviets had real death camps there, np road to deliver help,and only NKWD thugs to terrorize prisoners.Only by sea you could get there - and soviet navy was always shitty.Show pictures in press,so people would knew who they fight.
When after 6 months soviets finally get to Ren ,and soviets was out of fuel,send fleet to Baltic.During WW2 6 german cruisers bombed soviet forces whenever they wonted- what USA battlewagons could do?
People in Poland and Baltic states waited for help - and would welcome anybody as saviour.
Cut off soviet forces in Germany, built airfields in Poland, and send B.29 over soviet cities.Non soviet fighter could intercept them.
If Stalin do not surrender,send soviet soldiers who surrender against him.If 700.000 soviets fought for German AFTER they murdered 2 millions of soviet prisoners,how many would fight for USA ?

It is not that simple, for one, and for two, the US did not know how weak they were!
You also have to account for any AA they USSR would have. War is not as simple as you make it out to be. You have to account for US supply lines, how they get things from one place to another so on and so forth. Trust me, I personally have to look at that!
Also Hindsight is 20/20

This reply should have been made a while ago but the fact is that your argument is full of holes.

First, it ignores that the soviet puppets in Eastern were far more ravaged than the French or British were.

Second, it ignores the fact that the U.S. was far from exhausted at this point unlike the USSR which was at the end of it's supply lines and relied on three rail hubs to roll their troops to say nothing of the fact that they just lost twenty plus million people a fact that people seem dead set on ignoring whenever this debate is brought up.

and Hindsight is 20/20...

 

[Free-Stater 101]

and Hindsight is 20/20...

What do you mean hindsight?

 

[Zachowon]

What do you mean hindsight?

How much of this did we know about at the time?

 

[Free-Stater 101]

How much of this did we know about at the time?

What does that have to do with anything? Your original statement was.

Not really, the USSR had a very large amount of manpower the US and NATO could not fight reasonably right after the war. France and UK were nearly baren of troops. The US was still hurting, and would have had to keep sending troops over.

You forget that by 1945, the USSR had a very large stake of puppet states.
Also, by 1945 most equipment the USSR had was their own made, and were not really using US stuff anymore

The above implies that you think the 1945 USSR would win and you further state that they would win because.

Not really, the USSR had a very large amount of manpower the US and NATO could not fight reasonably right after the war. France and UK were nearly baren of troops. The US was still hurting, and would have had to keep sending troops over.

Which I said was bogus because the USSR.

1. Was more exhausted than the U.S. due to the insane casualties it took.
2. Didn't have the bomb yet and wouldn't for a few years.
3. Had more puppet state's but unlike Britain and France they have no infrastructure and furthermore hated their soviet occupiers.
4. Relied on two or three railhub's to transport all of their equipment to the front.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but none of this changes weather the Allies have hindsight or not so please tell me how this means a Soviet victory in 1945?