/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>>2692
what do you think happens? they get nuked to shit.

>>2693
yes but does that mean they lose? does america at the time have enough nukes to make that happen?

keep in mind that vietnam was bombed to shit and the communists still won

>>2696
In 1950 absolutely not, the US has 300 A bombs max, and the best way they have to deliver them is by using B-36s which are plagued with issues, have a limited speed and range, and which probably can be shot down by Mig-15s.

I lost the .pdf but there's a US intelligence document from directly after WW2 outright stating the Soviets very well have the capability to overrun Europe to the Atlantic to little or no resistance, but they speculate they're avoiding doing so due to concerns about their capability to hold said territory in the long term.

Remember that most of the anti-axis resistance in Europe at the time were loyal communists. Actually after WW2 the French resistance kept asking the Soviets for permission to revolt. But the Soviets by that point had pretty much abandoned world revolution and were doing what they could to try and maintain peace with the capitalist world.

>>2722
Pretty much this
While, yes, the Soviets very well could have won the Cold War by heating it up early, you have to remember these are pretty much pipe dreams and alt-history scenarios. Stalin's main concerns at the time were to cuck to the Allies at every turn, not world communism. Even in Eastern Europe, what would later become the Warsaw Pact was more of a proxy zone to secure every potential route into the USSR in case of an invasion.
The way the USSR could have won the Cold War would have been to avoid it entirely along with WW2, if things had gone a little bit different in Warsaw, 1920 we'd be living in a completely different timeline.