Operation Unthinkable: Who would win?

[Enravota]

I still dont get why you generated a strawman and why you are now discussing semantics of your strawman and what it all has to do with my original point.
To adress a further point of yours and a semi strawman, yes the Soviet army defeated the Wehrmacht and the Wehrmacht wasnt exactly a pushover. Much if not most of this is regared to their brilliant strategic doctrine.

What you call semantics is actually the gist of the matter. War materiel doesn't magically grow on trees, it has to be produced and serviced by a significant industrial effort in constant demand for resources. Resources which the USSR had and Germany didn't have. Conscripts also tend to be of limited supply. That the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht does not prove in and of itself the presence of doctrinal superiority, since no fight is ever even. Whether the Wehrmacht was a pushover or not is beyond irrelevant, since to win it had the gargantuan task of occupying significant chunk of the largest consecutive territory under single administration in the world (on top of its other military commitments and struggle to fuel its military machine with raw materials), whereas the USSR had to simply mobilise its available resources faster than the opposition could knock them off (on top of materiel aid provided from abroad). Field moar everything is not particularly brilliant, it's actually common sense. The Eastern front was not won by fined honed camouflage skills, it was won by the ability to deploy and manage an ever growing ground force. Only the second of those is largely skill dependent and the first was less and less within the means of Nazi Germany to provide. If there's anything surprising in the development of that front, it's the early German successes, and that's not exactly indicative of the presence of superior Soviet doctrine either.

 

[nerd]

well, the statement originally was about invasions of Russia. That got lost in the debate, there is a clear difference between winning a war against Russia and winning an invasion against Russia. The United States also lost the Vietnam war, but well the NVA never invaded the USA.

The US invaded and controlled South Vietnam. They were unable to maintain that occupation for a price {money, human, and diplomatic} they were willing to pay.

Similarly, Imho, the USSR could not have successfully resisted an Allied invasion and takeover of control.

Beyond that the Allies had no history of or stomach for continued occupation of other countries {since the end of colonial empires} against concerted resistance.

So while the Allies could have defeated the USSR, I don't think they could or would want to occupy it.

 

[DoomBunny]

I think you are misunderstanding me - I don't disagree that Russia can be defeated, but it requires limited and defined objectives. 'Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure falls down' was not an objective ... it was a hope based on Germany's experience against France.

Certainly, I'd agree that German hopes in 1941 were too optimistic. They failed on two counts. Firstly by underestimating the political will of another totalitarian government. Secondly by overestimating the capabilities of their own forces, which whilst certainly the finest in the world at this point were still incredibly reliant on luck and a logistical system held together with rubber bands and sticking plaster.

But that doesn't mean that a full blown invasion of Russia by itself is impossible. As I've noted, the German example in the First World War were their armies advanced deep into Russia. At the time of the armistice they showed little sign of stopping, and up until that point the Russians had showed little ability to stop them in the long-term.

As for Germany sending Lenin back ... Lenin would have gone back anyway. My main point is that the Russian army didn't break down because of German action ... it broke down because of internal Russian politics and Germany was only able to advance unopposed because the soldiers chose to stand aside and let them do so, based on promises made by Lenin. I am not arguing that Russia wasn't defeated, I am saying that they were not defeated as a result of some grand German strategic objective, but as a consequence of actions which were completely out of German hands. Therefore, I don't think that WW1 stands as an example for how its possible to defeat Russia.

The Russian army brokedown because of a number of things. Events on the homefront were certainly important, but then so were developments at the front.

There are two points I'd make here.

First, is that the domestic situation of a country is incredibly important in warfare. Therefore ignoring it doesn't seem correct. Particularly when they are not isolated incidents. The USSR could reasonably be expected to suffer from many of the things the Tsar's government did; oppressed people, angry minorities, starvation, massive military defeat. That it didn't cripple the USSR in the Second World War is due to a number of factors; lend-lease, Stalin's use of discipline and propaganda, the brutality of the German invader. But that doesn't mean Russia and the Soviet Union might not have suffered from these again. Certainly, it's a factor to be considered, but the political situation alone cannot prevent the First World War being used as an example of some impossibility of invading Russia in modern times. Particularly once the Western Allies efficient logistics and strategic warfare methods are factored in.

Second, this idea that the Germans could only advance deep into Russia after the Russian army collapsed is rather incorrect. Going through the war; in 1914 we see the Russian army do rather well against the Austro-Hungarians, but against the Germans things are rather the opposite (this by itself is interesting because it rather dispels the common myth that the Russian army was the worst in Europe). By 1915 however, things really start to go down the pan. The Great Retreat really demonstrates how badly the Russians could fare when the Germans wanted to hit them hard. After that there isn't much offensive action (from the Central Powers) due to the pressure being felt on the Western Front. Certainly in this time period we see that the Russians had developed effective offensive art (particularly against the Austro-Hungarians, but the Germans were also successfully attacked) but that there was a failure to develop defensive art. The Germans could gain ground fairly easily from major offensives, when they weren't distracted in the West. This is before the morale collapse has truly happened. The Russian army only truly brokedown beginning in 1917 with the Kerensky Offensive.

As an aside, the Kerensky Offensive is by itself an interesting point. You had a similar situation in France with the mutinies, soldiers refusing to attack the enemy but accepting the need to defend the homeland. Essentially a strike more than a mutiny. The difference was that the French decided to press the "Less offensive, more wine!" button. The Russians meanwhile decided to press the "I'm sure they're just using reverse psychology!" button and ordered another offensive. Consequently French morale improved into 1918 and the army could again go on the offensive. The Russian army meanwhile collapsed.

The US invaded and controlled South Vietnam. They were unable to maintain that occupation for a price {money, human, and diplomatic} they were willing to pay.

Similarly, Imho, the USSR could not have successfully resisted an Allied invasion and takeover of control.

Beyond that the Allies had no history of or stomach for continued occupation of other countries {since the end of colonial empires} against concerted resistance.

So while the Allies could have defeated the USSR, I don't think they could or would want to occupy it.

The US did not invade South Vietnam.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

What you call semantics is actually the gist of the matter. War materiel doesn't magically grow on trees, it has to be produced and serviced by a significant industrial effort in constant demand for resources. Resources which the USSR had and Germany didn't have. Conscripts also tend to be of limited supply. That the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht does not prove in and of itself the presence of doctrinal superiority, since no fight is ever even. Whether the Wehrmacht was a pushover or not is beyond irrelevant, since to win it had the gargantuan task of occupying significant chunk of the largest consecutive territory under single administration in the world (on top of its other military commitments and struggle to fuel its military machine with raw materials), whereas the USSR had to simply mobilise its available resources faster than the opposition could knock them off (on top of materiel aid provided from abroad). Field moar everything is not particularly brilliant, it's actually common sense. The Eastern front was not won by fined honed camouflage skills, it was won by the ability to deploy and manage an ever growing ground force. Only the second of those is largely skill dependent and the first was less and less within the means of Nazi Germany to provide. If there's anything surprising in the development of that front, it's the early German successes, and that's not exactly indicative of the presence of superior Soviet doctrine either.

Its much more complex than that. Anyway,
My point that the Soviet Horde is a myth and that point stands.

 

[CruelDwarf]

What you call semantics is actually the gist of the matter. War materiel doesn't magically grow on trees, it has to be produced and serviced by a significant industrial effort in constant demand for resources. Resources which the USSR had and Germany didn't have.

Indeed you are correct. War material do not grow on trees. And it is the very reason why Wermacht had access to more fuel and more ammunition that the Red Army till 1944. Sometimes they had twice of much of this vital stuff. German economy also had more steel, more coal and more electrical power than USSR.

Even Soviet unquestionable advantage in manpower was not so clear cut as people tend to think. Yes, Soviets had more men, they mobilized ~33 million people throughout the war while Germans about 21 million (a number still comparable by the way). But people aren't equal in their military value. German manpower pool consisted mostly from Germans and this 'pool' had access to the universal school education for almost four decades by the time war started. Soviet Union introduced the universal education in the first half of 1930 and still struggled to provide it to the far reaches of the country.

And yes, educated manpower is vital for the industrial warfare. Far more vital than simple bunch of dudes with rifles. So the statement that USSR had more resources than Nazi Germany is very much incorrect in practical sense.

 

[Easy-Kill]

There are two points I'd make here.

First, is that the domestic situation of a country is incredibly important in warfare. Therefore ignoring it doesn't seem correct. Particularly when they are not isolated incidents. The USSR could reasonably be expected to suffer from many of the things the Tsar's government did; oppressed people, angry minorities, starvation, massive military defeat. That it didn't cripple the USSR in the Second World War is due to a number of factors; lend-lease, Stalin's use of discipline and propaganda, the brutality of the German invader. But that doesn't mean Russia and the Soviet Union might not have suffered from these again. Certainly, it's a factor to be considered, but the political situation alone cannot prevent the First World War being used as an example of some impossibility of invading Russia in modern times. Particularly once the Western Allies efficient logistics and strategic warfare methods are factored in.

Second, this idea that the Germans could only advance deep into Russia after the Russian army collapsed is rather incorrect. Going through the war; in 1914 we see the Russian army do rather well against the Austro-Hungarians, but against the Germans things are rather the opposite (this by itself is interesting because it rather dispels the common myth that the Russian army was the worst in Europe). By 1915 however, things really start to go down the pan. The Great Retreat really demonstrates how badly the Russians could fare when the Germans wanted to hit them hard. After that there isn't much offensive action (from the Central Powers) due to the pressure being felt on the Western Front. Certainly in this time period we see that the Russians had developed effective offensive art (particularly against the Austro-Hungarians, but the Germans were also successfully attacked) but that there was a failure to develop defensive art. The Germans could gain ground fairly easily from major offensives, when they weren't distracted in the West. This is before the morale collapse has truly happened. The Russian army only truly brokedown beginning in 1917 with the Kerensky Offensive.

As an aside, the Kerensky Offensive is by itself an interesting point. You had a similar situation in France with the mutinies, soldiers refusing to attack the enemy but accepting the need to defend the homeland. Essentially a strike more than a mutiny. The difference was that the French decided to press the "Less offensive, more wine!" button. The Russians meanwhile decided to press the "I'm sure they're just using reverse psychology!" button and ordered another offensive. Consequently French morale improved into 1918 and the army could again go on the offensive. The Russian army meanwhile collapsed.

Again, I am not disagreeing with this. However, the German advances into Russia were not that great when you consider that in the Napoleonic wars the French occupied and razed Moscow, while in WW2, the Germans advanced far deeper into Russia than in 1914. In both of those conflicts, the Russian armies had collapsed, but were ultimately replaced. While all three conflicts are vastly different, the difference with WW1 was that the leader at the time was more interested in his own ambitions than that of the country. If Lenin hadn't surrendered, you have a vastly over-stretched and under-supplied German army at the doors of Tsaristyn/Petrograd/Moscow.

We aren't going to agree here, but back to my point of limited objectives, If it hadn't been for Lennin, the German Army of 1914 would have been just another army who thought occupying small parts of Western Russia was sufficient to ensure victory.

 

[DoomBunny]

Again, I am not disagreeing with this. However, the German advances into Russia were not that great when you consider that in the Napoleonic wars the French occupied and razed Moscow, while in WW2, the Germans advanced far deeper into Russia than in 1914. In both of those conflicts, the Russian armies had collapsed, but were ultimately replaced. While all three conflicts are vastly different, the difference with WW1 was that the leader at the time was more interested in his own ambitions than that of the country. If Lenin hadn't surrendered, you have a vastly over-stretched and under-supplied German army at the doors of Tsaristyn/Petrograd/Moscow.

But again, this is part of warfare. How else is one to secure peace if not by bringing about a change in the politics of the opponent? This might be persuading the war faction to adopt peace, or it might be persuading the people to 'elect' a peace faction, but in either case it is bringing about a change in the politics of the opponent.

Yes, one can argue that Russia in 1914 was defeated due to its weak government, but then wouldn't that also be the case for Germany? Or for Austria-Hungary? Or others?

The collapse of the Tsarist regime was not brought about by Lenin. It was brought about by the course of the war which, though initially popular, soon became a massive burden. Again, the collapse of the Kerensky regime and the rise of Lenin was the result of the war. Yes, another regime might have fought on, but how long until this one also fell, again due to the war?

German success made the rise of a peace faction fairly inevitable, because that was the common desire in Russia.

We aren't going to agree here, but back to my point of limited objectives, If it hadn't been for Lennin, the German Army of 1914 would have been just another army who thought occupying small parts of Western Russia was sufficient to ensure victory.

And yet, the Russian war effort was collapsing before Lenin got into power. And the Germans had proved that they could beat back the Russian army. An advance culminating in further hardship and defeat was the only outcome of a continuation of the war, something most Russians seemed to realise. Lenin himself realised it. This was what convinced him to make peace.

 

[gagenater]

They still have more resources than any other country in the world, yet can't manage to get above Italy in GDP. They have more potential farmland than anyone else, yet import food.

Homesteading in siberia would open up the next breadbasket. Never happen with Russia with these leaders.

Potential farmland? Homesteading Siberia? Are you delusional? Just because a space exists on a map doesn't mean it's productive. As a Canadian I would expect you of all people to understand that. Russia and the USSR have tried numerous times and in numerous ways to create productive agriculture in parts of Siberia which are unsuited for it. It doesn't work. Most of Siberia is MUCH worse than most of Canada for agriculture. The combination of long winters, sparse precipitation in the growing season, and occasional late (or early) frosts spells doom.

When you can only get a decent crop on a piece of land once every 2-3 years due to a combination of June or September frosts, and July/August droughts farming is just not productive enough to pursue.

 

[nerd]

Potential farmland? Homesteading Siberia? Are you delusional? Just because a space exists on a map doesn't mean it's productive. As a Canadian I would expect you of all people to understand that. Russia and the USSR have tried numerous times and in numerous ways to create productive agriculture in parts of Siberia which are unsuited for it. It doesn't work. Most of Siberia is MUCH worse than most of Canada for agriculture. The combination of long winters, sparse precipitation in the growing season, and occasional late (or early) frosts spells doom.

When you can only get a decent crop on a piece of land once every 2-3 years due to a combination of June or September frosts, and July/August droughts farming is just not productive enough to pursue.

Non-sense!

Central Siberia is NOT worse than Northern Alberta. The US and Canadian prairies were originally called the "Great American Desert", not Nevada.

Any reasonably flat land that will support Boreal forest can be farmed with proper methods. Forced labour Gulags won't work, of course. Nor will farms run by a manager, with no interest, 2 000 Km away.

 

[CruelDwarf]

Nor will farms run by a manager, with no interest, 2 000 Km away.

You really do not know how soviet collective farming was organized?

 

[Easy-Kill]

The collapse of the Tsarist regime was not brought about by Lenin. It was brought about by the course of the war which, though initially popular, soon became a massive burden. Again, the collapse of the Kerensky regime and the rise of Lenin was the result of the war. Yes, another regime might have fought on, but how long until this one also fell, again due to the war?

The collapse of the Tsarist regime was brought about by the legacy left to the Tsar, the meek leadership the Tsar provided, his poor choice of ministers and the unnatural influence Rasputin had on the royal family. Robert Massie's excellent book on the Nicholas and Alexandra even goes as far as to blame the Tsarevich's Hemophilia. The Tsarist regime had been in a state of perpetual collapse since the mid 19th Century ... Russia could have been advancing on Berlin and the Tsarist regime would likely have collapsed.

And yet, the Russian war effort was collapsing before Lenin got into power. And the Germans had proved that they could beat back the Russian army. An advance culminating in further hardship and defeat was the only outcome of a continuation of the war, something most Russians seemed to realise. Lenin himself realised it. This was what convinced him to make peace.

I am quite sure that if you had asked the soldiers of any side whether they wanted peace, they would have accepted. The difference was that no other national leader offered it.

 

[gagenater]

Non-sense!

Central Siberia is NOT worse than Northern Alberta. The US and Canadian prairies were originally called the "Great American Desert", not Nevada.

Any reasonably flat land that will support Boreal forest can be farmed with proper methods. Forced labour Gulags won't work, of course. Nor will farms run by a manager, with no interest, 2 000 Km away.

Central Siberia is worse than northern Alberta. On average both have about the same growing season, and same average amount of rain during that growing season. The difference is in the statement 'on average'.

Northern Alberta has flat terrain to its south, and the warm Gulf of Mexico south of that. Every spring warm moist air comes sweeping up to the area pushing out the prevailing Arctic jetstream and providing a consistent start to the growing season around the same time every year. Like clockwork, that same warm moist air which guarantees an end to frosts brings with it humidity which develops into rain as it hits the cold air flowing off the eastern slope of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Conveniently in the late summer/ early fall the cold dry arctic air reassertion itself. By this time the crop is ready for harvest and cannot be damaged by cold - instead the consistent dryness ensures that it will remain in good condition for harvesting.

By contrast, the land of central Siberia has dry mountainous land to its south. Cold air which is in the area at the start of spring is NOT cleared away in a consistent manner by large scale consistent seasonal climate changes. Instead the end of the frost free period of the year varies considerably based on local weather. Worse yet, the warmest months of the year in Siberia tend to be fairly dry. What does this all mean?

It's hard to know when it will be safe to plant. One year the last freeze might be a month later than it was the year before due to an unexpected cold snap. On years like that no crop can be grown, because the remaining growing season is to short. Rainfall also tends to be inconsistent. One year there might not be any rain in the growing season at all. Meanwhile a short distance away in the same year double the average rainfall comes down in a 2 week period creating floods and ruining crops. Next year the locations may be reversed. On average both are getting the same rain as Alberta is, but in practice it's falling at the wrong times and places to grow a crop.

Finally - converting boreal forest to crop land? Nobody has done that - especially not Canada. None of the current crop land in Canada was ever boreal forest.

 

[nerd]

Central Siberia is worse than northern Alberta. On average both have about the same growing season, and same average amount of rain during that growing season. The difference is in the statement 'on average'.

Northern Alberta has flat terrain to its south, and the warm Gulf of Mexico south of that. Every spring warm moist air comes sweeping up to the area pushing out the prevailing Arctic jetstream and providing a consistent start to the growing season around the same time every year. Like clockwork, that same warm moist air which guarantees an end to frosts brings with it humidity which develops into rain as it hits the cold air flowing off the eastern slope of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Conveniently in the late summer/ early fall the cold dry arctic air reassertion itself. By this time the crop is ready for harvest and cannot be damaged by cold - instead the consistent dryness ensures that it will remain in good condition for harvesting.

By contrast, the land of central Siberia has dry mountainous land to its south. Cold air which is in the area at the start of spring is NOT cleared away in a consistent manner by large scale consistent seasonal climate changes. Instead the end of the frost free period of the year varies considerably based on local weather. Worse yet, the warmest months of the year in Siberia tend to be fairly dry. What does this all mean?

It's hard to know when it will be safe to plant. One year the last freeze might be a month later than it was the year before due to an unexpected cold snap. On years like that no crop can be grown, because the remaining growing season is to short. Rainfall also tends to be inconsistent. One year there might not be any rain in the growing season at all. Meanwhile a short distance away in the same year double the average rainfall comes down in a 2 week period creating floods and ruining crops. Next year the locations may be reversed. On average both are getting the same rain as Alberta is, but in practice it's falling at the wrong times and places to grow a crop.

Finally - converting boreal forest to crop land? Nobody has done that - especially not Canada. None of the current crop land in Canada was ever boreal forest.

From Wiki:

The climate of Siberia varies dramatically, but all of it basically has short summers and long winters of very cold climate. On the north coast, north of the Arctic Circle, there is a very short (about one-month-long) summer.


Taiga near Lake Baikal
Almost all the population lives in the south, along the Trans-Siberian Railway. The climate in this southernmost part is Humid continental climate (Köppen Dfb) with cold winters but fairly warm summers lasting at least four months. The annual average is about 0.5 °C (32.9 °F). January averages about −20 °C (−4 °F) and July about +19 °C (66 °F) while daytime temperatures in summer typically are above 20 °C.[27][28] With a reliable growing season, an abundance of sunshine and exceedingly fertile chernozem soils, southern Siberia is good enough for profitable agriculture, as was proven in the early 20th century.

"In Edmonton, the frost-free period is 115 days, while Lethbridge has 124 such days and Medicine Hat has 132 frost-free days (Table 5). This allows for a wider window to both grow and harvest crops prior to winter wheat, as well as to plant a winter wheat crop.
http://www.growwinterwheat.ca/documents/winter-wheat-production-manual.pdf



Areas in BC, including all the Lower Mainland areas were Boreal forest similar to Stanley Park, now

Other areas, such as the Creston Valley were Boreal forest.

As you can see below, the Peace River area in far north Alberta still has areas of forest, not cleared for farming.

 

[gagenater]

Wonderful pictures, but that's not boreal forest in any of them. Not are the areas of Siberia which have successfully been made into agricultural land boreal forest. As you have noted they are all in southern Siberia where a 4 month growing season is reliably present. On the other hand the rest of Siberia does NOT have a minimum 4 month growing season on a regular basis. As a result it's not suitable for agriculture on a regular basis.
Creston valley and the peace river are both in the region influenced by the Gulf of Mexico. Just because they are reasonably far north doesn't mean they have the same climate. Louisiana is at the same latitude as Tunisia. However one of these places gets 1.9 meters of rain a year and the other place gets 0.5 meters - as a result they have different climates. Alberta east of the Rockies is distinctly different climatically from the majority of Siberia. The other area from Stanley park is obviously not comparable as it has a pacific maritime climate. It's similar to Vladivostok in climate (which does have productive agriculture nearby) but not inland Siberia.

 

[nerd]

Wonderful pictures, but that's not boreal forest in any of them. Not are the areas of Siberia which have successfully been made into agricultural land boreal forest. As you have noted they are all in southern Siberia where a 4 month growing season is reliably present. On the other hand the rest of Siberia does NOT have a minimum 4 month growing season on a regular basis. As a result it's not suitable for agriculture on a regular basis.
Creston valley and the peace river are both in the region influenced by the Gulf of Mexico. Just because they are reasonably far north doesn't mean they have the same climate. Louisiana is at the same latitude as Tunisia. However one of these places gets 1.9 meters of rain a year and the other place gets 0.5 meters - as a result they have different climates. Alberta east of the Rockies is distinctly different climatically from the majority of Siberia. The other area from Stanley park is obviously not comparable as it has a pacific maritime climate. It's similar to Vladivostok in climate (which does have productive agriculture nearby) but not inland Siberia.

1/ You said Siberia could not be farmed. Clearly Millions of Hectares in the southern parts can be.

2/ You said none of Canada's farmland was previously forest. It was, including some far north areas.

 

[DoomBunny]

The collapse of the Tsarist regime was brought about by the legacy left to the Tsar, the meek leadership the Tsar provided, his poor choice of ministers and the unnatural influence Rasputin had on the royal family. Robert Massie's excellent book on the Nicholas and Alexandra even goes as far as to blame the Tsarevich's Hemophilia. The Tsarist regime had been in a state of perpetual collapse since the mid 19th Century ... Russia could have been advancing on Berlin and the Tsarist regime would likely have collapsed.

And yet at the outbreak of the war, there was widespread support for the Tsarist regime. The reason this support evaporated was because of military defeats. Support for the republican regime evaporated for the same reasons.

It's very easy to look at the Ottomans, Russians, and Austro-Hungarians and blame the inherent weaknesses of the regime for their collapse. Yet that forgets that these regimes stood the test of 3-4 years of the toughest strain ever experienced before collapsing. Yes, all eventually collapsed, but they only did so after great strains were placed upon them for a prolonged period. Strains that other nations also felt (and in Germany/Bulgaria's case, succumbed to).

It's certainly possible, even likely, that these regimes would have eventually collapsed. But it was the First World War that kicked out the supporting wall. Ironically, the fall was all the harder because initially people had rushed to support the regime in the war.

I am quite sure that if you had asked the soldiers of any side whether they wanted peace, they would have accepted. The difference was that no other national leader offered it.

Peace, or peace at any cost? The French mutineers wanted peace, but they certainly weren't prepared to throw in the towel and let the Germans win. The classic idea that the First World War was wildly unpopular amongst the troops is incorrect, certainly most of them weren't enjoying themselves, but there was still a will to win.

As for no other leader offering it, various other nations did surrender.

 

[gagenater]

1/ You said Siberia could not be farmed. Clearly Millions of Hectares in the southern parts can be.

2/ You said none of Canada's farmland was previously forest. It was, including some far north areas.

1. The parts which are not already being farmed are the parts you were pushing to be converted for agriculture. The other parts aren't worth discussing since they were already in production before WWII and thus have no bearing on the ability to alleviate a famine caused by the end of lend lease.

2. No - you and I were discussing boreal forest being converted to farmland - not forests in general. Boreal forest is a specific biome. It occurs in places where climate conditions are right for it. You cannot draw a line at a particular latitude and declare everything north of it boreal and south of it not - particularly since large portions of the worlds boreal forests are at high elevations on rather southerly mountains.

 

[D Inqu]

What you call semantics is actually the gist of the matter. War materiel doesn't magically grow on trees, it has to be produced and serviced by a significant industrial effort in constant demand for resources. Resources which the USSR had and Germany didn't have.

And yet, in reality, the "resource rich" USSR used less oil that Germany throughout the war. They also used less ammunition than Germany until 1944.

 

[Yakman]

1. The parts which are not already being farmed are the parts you were pushing to be converted for agriculture. The other parts aren't worth discussing since they were already in production before WWII and thus have no bearing on the ability to alleviate a famine caused by the end of lend lease.

the Soviet Union was already functionally fighting the war in a famine. Caloric levels for Soviet citizens during the war were atrocious. Cut off the flow of SPAM to Murmansk...

 

[imperium3]

One thing which seems rarely touched on in these discussions is that, in the event of the USSR not getting an early victory, the Red Army could just retreat to the USSR proper. Unlike Hitler, I think Stalin would have been willing to sanction such a move.

A retreat would prevent the Red Army from being slowly bombed away by Allied air attacks, and severely lengthen the Allied supply lines over large areas recently devastated by German-Russian fighting, and likely further devastated by scorched earth tactics on the part of the Soviets. It might also quickly end the war, as the removal of communist control from Eastern Europe is all that Churchill and company could have asked for.

The only major downside of this plan that I can see is that it would have allowed the Allies to base strategic bombers within range of Moscow. Also the retreat could turn into a disaster if the Allies obtained air supremacy, so it would need to be carried out relatively early while the Soviet air force could still put up a fight.