Allow me to pose two questions

1. What if Operation: Downfall (the Invasion of Japan) had occured

2. What if World War II never ended (i.e. the Russians never stopped at the Elbe)

Japan would be a U.S. territory just like Puerto Rico, and we probably would have communists in our government. That last one might already have come true though.

2039961 I hear ya, let's hope it doesn't actually come to communism.

2039869 WWII never ending? ... I'm sorry, I can't really swallow that.

2039869
Operation Downfall: The same except a lot more U.S. soldiers would be dead and the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't' be as taboo.

Russians: Please refer to Red Inferno

Only thing that would scare me about that situation is would the Soviets have declared war on the United States and possibly used their nuclear weapons on us, the Tzar Bomba included?

2039961>>2039981

we probably would have communists in our government. That last one might already have come true though.

I'm going ahead and assume that you're talking about the US in particular, in which you couldn't be any further from the truth. Not to get all political here, but the US is far, far away from being communist , or even socialist for that matter, which most of Western Europe and Scandinavia has proven to be a success. If anything, we're slowly becoming more and more fascist, and in many respects already there.

I have seen the first question in Alternate History

There is about 416,800, if an invasion had occurred on Japan.

There would be a total of about 1,000,000 Million American Casualties

5-10 million Japanese Casualties
and about 2-5 million soviet casualties
There would be about 15 million Casualties (at most) as the result in the invasion of japan, possibly excluding civilians.

So unfortunately it is wise to nuke another country to end a war.

So It would devastate the United States and Japan if an invasion had occurred. It is possible that the United States would be able to fall apart sooner.

And Japan would be split into 2 different nations

The Communist North (obviously everything that is northern part of a nation now a days is considered communist) and the Democratic South

2040176
The fascism I could see far more than communism. And just like Nazi Germany we make deals with communist nations. The Third Reich with the Soviet Union and the United States with China.

2039961
I really hate when people categorize socialism and its various forms as just 'communism'; there's more to socialism nowadays than just pure communism. Modern welfare states idea, for example, fares from the idea that everyone has an equal chance to make their own lives by providing same platform regardless of wealth or position on social ladder. Socialism is to be thanked for this. Heck, even pensions can be tied to socialism through labor unions.

Communism... is a tricky subject but if there's one thing I'm sure about then that's that Soviet Union's communism wasn't good communism. In the end it turned into a despotic one-party state. Sure, many of their programs were based upon Karl Marx's and Lenin's ideals but they (USSR leaders) lost touch with logic and pushed forward reforms that in one way or another caused the fall of USSR years later. Even when Gorbachev tried to change the system, it was already time to plug out the wire from the ventilator.

And do I even need to tell about Stalin?

I don't know what you mean specifically by 'communists' but if you do mean the folks from Cold War USSR, then I can safely assure you that's not gonna happen like 2040176 said. I live in Finland, and while the system's going through some bad times due to a weak economical growth we have proven that a sensible socialism works. In fact it baffles me why you people are fighting against ideas that are meant to improve your lives.

After all, USA is the only western country where its claimed (by American Journal of Public Health and also later on Harvard online magazine) that 45 000 people die each year from lack of healthcare. That if anything proves that US of A needs to step up their game and learn to adopt. My guess is that these kinds of reforms will be happening more in future. Not for few years but maybe a decade or two later when the older Cold War -era political class dies out.

2040039

possibly used their nuclear weapons on us, the Tzar Bomba included?

You'd have to also remember that if our alternative war would have broken out right there, USSR would not have had any nuclear devices. It took them up untill 1949 'till they created a first bomb that was similar to 'Fat Man' as plutonium was used, and the Tsar Bomba was created -61 by which point I think more than enough of the lesser bombs would have been blown up to get some kind of ceasefire up.

The real question's whenever a war would have accelerated the research on nuclear bombs? I truly don't know; the effect could have also been negative, since USSR did wield a decent land army (even if it did lack in reserve due to shortage of manpower at homefront) and they'd want to just rely on conventional means of warfare. But really, if there's one mystery this world has had then that's what was going on in Stalin's head.

I have talked too much for now. Sorry if I come out aggressive on the first part. Have a cute Fluttershy,

A very interesting statement, and I can suggest a great book to read with dozens of alternate scenarios of the second world war. Heres the link to the book on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Allies-Had-Fallen-Alternate-Scenarios/dp/1616085460

1) With significantly more damage dealt to Japan, its people, and its infrastructure, the nation may never have become the economic superpower it is today. We would have seen a situation more akin to Germany: a hostile occupation, war crime charges broadly leveled, and many in the US government arguing for keeping them down rather than helping them build up.

Japan ends up weaker, and, as stated earlier, the nuclear genie is still in the bottle. Depending on when they are finally used, nuclear weapons may have become "thinkable."

2) Now this is a wide, wide subject to debate on. I will distill my view as much as I can:

The Soviets were, simply put, better at war than the West. Their armored doctrine had eclipsed the famed Blitzkrieg, and they had figured out how to use tools such as paratroopers and heavy armor to great effect. Their strategy was one of the 'big picture,' resulting in broad campaigns designed to overwhelm their foes everywhere.

By comparison, the Western Allies were amateurish at best. Promising breakthroughs were at times abandoned for fear of being cut off (demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of breakthroughs). The anemic German attack at Ardennes caused significant consternation, even panic in Allied headquarters. One could hardly imagine that their reaction to three Soviet spearheads barreling through their lines would have been stronger.

On the other hoof, the Soviets learned these hard lessons at a cost. The population of the USSR was literally decimated (reduced by 1/10) by the war, creating a critical shortage of manpower. The West would enjoy air and naval supremacy, and soon be able to unleash an atomic bomb as a strategic or tactical weapon. With a long supply line through war-torn Eastern Europe, the Soviets would have a logistical nightmare trying to expand it to include West Germany and France.

These situations would create a very bipolar war, one in which both sides labored under unique disadvantages. The Soviets would *destroy* us on the ground, but there is a big question of how far they would get before their logistical/manpower rope snapped taught.

Best-case (for the Allies) I feel is being able to hang on in the West German area long enough to beat Stalin down with atomic weapons. Worst case, we’re plowed out of France, dig in at the Spanish border mountains, and hold from there.

The war would end with negotiation: A 40’s-era Soviet conquest of Britain is highly unrealistic (to say nothing of America), and so is the vision of crusading US/WE troops marching into Warsaw and Kiev. One side or the other might relinquish their half of Germany, or a status-quo might be settled upon. I don’t see any major shifts other than that…Soviet arms might be able to conquer mainland Europe, but they would have little answer to the atomic threat. By the time they built their first bomb in 1949, the US had…235.

To put it coldly, nuclear war is a lot more palatable when your side is the only one with atomic weapons.

But I doubt it would come to 235 smoking craters. The Soviets could conquer Europe, we could destroy Russia, everyone loses. More likely they would keep it a short, limited war, and the big losers would be…well, the Germans.

Morbid joke that historically ran among Germans on both sides of the wall: ”WWIII will be fought to the last German.”

In the postwar? Nuclear weapons would be a tool of conventional warfare. I think anti-Communist sentiment would be even higher, and its legitimacy in Western politics would be even lower. Because rather than 50 years of being cranky ol’ Uncle Sam’s frenemy, Communism would have been the force that launched a bloodsoaked, media-covered invasion of Western Europe. That’s not really something college students can get behind.

I think from then on we’d settle into a generally nastier Cold War. People might call for a revenge war, but the prospect of M.A.D. would probably nip that in the bud.