I was thinking that at the end of WWII, we had already stopped or slowed down a lot of the war time economy. Many of the US front line soldiers had been in constant combat for some time. Our supply lines were strung out from the Atlantic across Europe. We would have had the same issues trying to beat Soviet Russia that Germany had. Most of Russia's war production was far away from Europe. It would have taken a great deal of effort and time and we would have done it with few if any allies.
Recall that most of the really bad stuff about the Soviet Union didn't come out until after WWII. We have communist sympathizer journalists in Russia and the Ukraine actively covering it up.
The draw-down was a result of the Mission Accomplished! We saved Uncle Joe! No reason it could not have gone on another couple years.
Germany could hit the USSR only from the west and from southwest via land routes. America had many more options: Baltic ports, Mideast (via Iran), as well as the far east from the Pacific. IIRC, most of Russian production would have been within bombing range of our B17/B29 bombers had we decided to base them in Iran.
Also, Russia grinds to a halt without American Lend-Lease material. As in, "Can't get the crops out of the fields or troops to the front" sort of thing. Mass starvation combined with immobile masses of troops does not make for a formidable fighting force.
The Poles, Ukranians, Finns, and many others in central & eastern Europe would be more than willing to kill Russians. And there was a large mass of trained German soldiers to draw from. Also, Churchill was in favor of more energetic opposition to the Russians.
The vile brutality of the communists was known before WWII. Recall the "Red Scare" in the 1920s.
And Patton was outside of Prague with the 3rd Army.
“I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
----George S Patton
"“The American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these.”
----George S Patton
Lol. No. We lacked the ability to project a sufficient amount of force to conquer, pacify, and hold the USSR.
Who would want to
hold the USSR?
Destroying it is the objective. We had what was necessary to conquer and pacify. Both material and position. Look at a map.
Without the centralizing terror of the Russian communist party and Red Army, the USSR splits apart into separate nationalities. Conquer a section, set up locals to run the place and ferret out and kill all the Russians (commie or otherwise). Like many did after the USSR collapsed. Decades earlier and with a bit more forethought to separate Siberia & the other Asian bits from European Russia. After turning European Russia inside out, treat them like we treated Germany after WWII. They still might have ended up surly, but they would have only a fraction of the resources with which to act on it.
