US nuclear threats directed against Russia predate the Cold War. They were first formulated at the height of World War II under the Manhattan Project when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.
The plan to bomb 66 Soviet cities was “officially” formulated in mid-September 1945, two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan.
Other urls found in this thread:
And it should have been done.
This.
irradiated
nuked because Riga
And Russia would be fine because 20 million troops take continental Europe and found EUSSR. Would be a pretty cool timeline
B A S E D
FUCK THE SOVIETS
Imagine if the Allies didn't stop at Berlin but continued all the way to Moscow and removed Communism.
How would Eastern Europe look today?
>Imagine
can't
youtube.com
4 minute mark is 'allies', 6 minute mark is communism circa 1945
soviets stopped because they've had enough war. allies stopped because what else could they do with all that air power but no army to speak of, comparatively
and it would have been worth it
>army that suffered 1 to 1 losses fighting against volkshturm children and gramps
>a serious threat against US and Britain
lmao
Peaceful, Prosperous, Safe.
This. Americans never finish anything.
>didn't do it
pussies
You just know that if stalin had nukes first he would 100% use them asap
Americans are sissies who are afraid of a real war
>How would Eastern Europe look today?
like this of course
Are those 7 days to Rhine plans?
100% this, Americans are being displaced from the 1# place in the world precicely because they are too pussy to do the things that ought to be done.
>Would be carried out in response to a NATO first strike on Poland. Such a strike was estimated to cause 2 million immediate Polish deaths near the Vistula
threat is not how I would put it. again, soviets stopped of their own will. allies clearly wished to fight USSR, but didn't. still
> army that fought and won a war
> vs an army that did a side show to it
eh, you know the drill. bombing cities is the only winning tactic Western allies had going for them, but it's useless against a mobile and well-armed and land army.
true on Americans being pussies too. that's part of the reason they didn't do much in ww2 save for trading and logistics
nah, all Russian leaders including Stalin always treated Europe with a softer hand. Stalin would also have used nukes on Japan sooner than in Europe.
>near the Vistula
cracow and warsaw, so jews only
i think so
>Japan fucks things up by quitting
Sigh.
>NATO nuking Poland instead of Soviet occupation army in Germany
I know that plans have to have some legend, but for what purpose would NATO do that? "lmao lets nuke civilians just because"?
Taking out cities means taking out future conscripts and workers on military factories, also destroying those factories and logistics. Bombs were slow and imprecise, not possible to effectively target huge land forces with nukes
this is all japans fault. If they wouldve just surrendered insterad of needing to get HIROSHIMAd, we wouldve put off this stupid fucking arms war for at least another decade
the cold war predates ww2 retard
america has been weary of the soviets ever since the beginnings of their revolution
>bombing cities is the only winning tactic Western allies had going for them
it's still all they have which is why they keep losing wars. all their tech doesn't win a war, only causes destruction and then they puss out like the faggots they are and run home with their tail between their legs to get shot by jamal hernandez while waiting in line for their big mac.
So all EE would look like Varshava?
yesh
that plan was a theoretical retaliation plan
it's not like the warsaw pact commanders planned to nuke the fuck out out of everything west of the Oder
nuking the vistula valley would mean halting land reinforcement from soviet union so it makes sense
I swear to God, Occidentals are pure evil.