Could the us of theoritically conquered the world after ww2?

[Daethz]

No one can. It takes to many resources to take and hold the whole world. Only way its being unified is if its done peacefully. Or else you just have endless civil war and unrest.

Don't need to actually conquer, just be the sole nuclear power on the planet.
We could have been that.

[Ave07]

Probably if we went nuking everyone who didn't surrender.

[HumbleDuck]

No, a siege of USSR was actually discussed, but the plan was scrapped due to impracticality.

[Easo]

Could they? Yes.
Would they hold it? No way.

The only real enemy was USSR. And in case of total war, where USA fights to the end no matter what, they had but a single option - use the superior numbers of more experienced troops in Europe to throw USA in ocean. The theorising starts here...

USSR was running on fumes. While they had millions of men at arms, divisions were understrength (I remember quote about attack on Berlin, divisions had 30-60% of men required). IIRC, in 1944 they already started to send men back to rear and have them work to keep the economy up.
While lend-lease got into power only after the decisive battles were already done (shut up conspiracy nuts), it became a very important part of USSR war machine. Soviets had resources, but lacked accessibility to them, they were not discovered yet and the production suffered in quality. If the stats do not lie, up to 75% of the aluminium for the planes came via lend-lease - how long would reserves last trying to stop strategic bombers? Back to wooden crap afterwards? Even more losses. Logistics were quite dependant on what lend-lease delivered.

Troops in Europe were supported by three rail lines - primary target of strategic bombings (again, IIRC). Soviets had very little experience with that, as air battles with Germany were usually fought in low to mid altitudes. They had the craft capable of getting there, in theory, but no experience, while american air convoy system had it all.

Sea? Pointless to discuss, Americans owned it. Plus there is the perfect, untouchable base in Europe, called United Kingdom...

Assuming push succeeds and soviets get the Europe, war turns more cold, as they are boxed in, but americans cant really land.
I guess we have come to nukes - USA production would increase, as it did, rapidly. Soviets were years behind, plus they made their own in peacetime. Any progress they made would be delayed even more. I imagine nuke dropped on Baku would severly cut USSR oil production, for example.
Most likely this would lead to peace accord.

Assuming the push do not succeed, USSR loses without doubt, as superior logistics, available manpower and quite likely victory in the air battle grinds them down. Only possible thing is that they inflict so much casualties on Americans that any world conquest plans are sheltered after Moscow falls.

As for others - brits most likely would fall to surprise attack from bases on the Isles, as the second target. Japan was doomed (if the war starts fall of Japan, which is a good idea, most of the Soviet troops were in Asia by then). China - support Nationalists, then stab them in the back, use nukes. India - good question, but if goverment could be collapsed fast, it would negate manpower advantage they had.

No one else has anything of much power... Systematic conquering, not declaring war on everybody at once possibly could lead to victory, then fall of the ocupational regimes, as nation of 150 million couldnt hold whole world. Guerilla war casualties would be insane.
P.S.
Remember, they produced MORE at the end of war than WHOLE world combined, including Britain and USSR... And, very importantly. their manpower was basically untouched.

[Daws]

The last successful empire was the British. Our empire basically died due to the expense of two world wars but when you look at the tactics to maintain the empire it's really not possible for anyone to pull it off world wide. In simplest terms there is no army large enough to hold the world by force and no weapon that is practical enough to maintain order through fear. The British handled it by breaking apart countries and reforming them under there leadership but ran by specific conflicting factions this ensured that those they ruled where to busy fighting each other to actually unite and focus on the ousting the empire. This worked well in some regions but the three big targets China, Russia and US are simply to massive and far more united to ever pull this off. So even if you could grab the world by force you'd have very little time to enjoy it before you faced massive uprisings, likely led by one of the big three and once they start making a run for it the smaller more controllable nations would all kick off as well. At that point your army collapses from facing wars waged in the majority of nations across the earth.

[Deleted]

I don't understand the question.

[Nathreim]

Bio warfare could do it easy.

Create uber plague spread it in China or Africa. Roll out premade cure in the US to combat new plague. Give rest of the world placebos and wait. By the time anyone catches on it would be too late with all the antivaxxers in the US we would appear to be losing people as well so no one would notice.

- - - Updated - - -

The last successful empire was the British.

America is basically an empire at this point lets be honest.

[Deleted]

Bio warfare could do it easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biolog...ons_Convention

If you think the US could break that and no other country would then follow suit, you're not thinking clearly. If the US would launch a biological attack on other countries, the US could kiss it's own population goodbye, as well.

[Nathreim]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biolog...ons_Convention

If you think the US could break that and no other country would then follow suit, you're not thinking clearly. If the US would launch a biological attack on other countries, the US could kiss it's own population goodbye, as well.

They wouldn't know thats the whole point of bio warfare. You don't drop it with bombs so everyone knows whats going on. You infect one person with an extremely contagious disease in a highly populated area and watch it spread.

If you think that piece of paper means anything you're sadly mistaken. We still research bio weapons just not for "offense" but to create defensive vaccines.

[Collegeguy]

Could of easily conquered Europe. They would have rolled over. Probably would have no choice but to stop once reaching Russia however.

[Lollis]

You know the funniest part about this? Everyone saying 'the US had nukes, they would have won ololol'. They had an extremely small supply and you are completely forgetting that the UK was involved in the Manhatten Project. We shelved our projects to help the Americans, do you honestly think that all that knowledge only went to the US Army?

The UK's program had no real incentive to start back up when WW2 ended, but don't doubt that if they were needed we would certainly have had the capability far before our first seperate test in 1952.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Don't need to actually conquer, just be the sole nuclear power on the planet.
We could have been that.

Could pretty much means didn't in the context. So it's a can't. Sure I will agree we can if suddenly we had a few dozen star destroyers or other fantastic style weapons from our imaginations but then it is just that. Imaginary. Plus would the threat of nuclear attack really be the style of order that would benefit said nation in the event it had to been used? Sounds dumb.

Delivery systems were the main issue. And amount of weapons. Not to mention it went against our doctrine. USA takes over places by doing business with people. Why hold a nation at gun point when you can just sell them big macs, Nike, and Apple bullshit instead. But then we got greedy and out scorced everything to China and now we have an economic rival.

[Sorrior]

Could the US? Yes EASILY remember at the time ONLY the US had nucloear weapons we could have just threatened to drop them maybe dtopped one or two to show a willingness and the rest of the woorld would have gladly surrendered against such overwhelming power

- - - Updated - - -

You know the funniest part about this? Everyone saying 'the US had nukes, they would have won ololol'. They had an extremely small supply and you are completely forgetting that the UK was involved in the Manhatten Project. We shelved our projects to help the Americans, do you honestly think that all that knowledge only went to the US Army?

The UK's program had no real incentive to start back up when WW2 ended, but don't doubt that if they were needed we would certainly have had the capability far before our first seperate test in 1952.

Then likely would have nuked england. Or not given the information(if already talking alternate history why not)

[Sorrior]

No. No one can. Well, anyone could potentially reign any area of land by fear, but no one would ever be able to generate one actual nation around the globe. First, there are interests and needs that differ vastly between areas. Then there are historically grown ideologies you simply can't nuke away. If anything, it would take several generations, maybe centuries of continued effort and probably violence, and even then you'd have huge opposition from within the populations. But most importantly: If you want to gain a territory's support, trust and submission, said territory would need an enemy bigger than what they could handle themselves, that you can promise protection from. But guess what: As soon as world-wide conquest is the goal, YOU are the enemy of EVERYONE. If anything, any nation that comes in second and holds promise of fighting you back would have MASSIVELY better chances of conquering at least the biggest chunk of the world. By the times shortly after WWII, the US would have done the USSR the biggest favour of all times of global conquest had been the agenda. But they, too, would have failed the moment the enemy went away, or inner forces gained enough momentum to revolt against them.

Bring all the nukes you want, all the spirit and determination, and the answer is still a resounding no.

If anything will bring us closer to a world-government, it's the promise of all these things: Full economic equality, full social equality, a peace that doesn't need military enforcement, equal share of all goods and values, equal education, freedom of movement and choice of place to live in. (Oh, and the removal of all religion. And that's probably the biggest issue on the list.)

As i see it they asked if it could be conquered not held for eternity.

[Powerogue]

We struggle enough as is maintaining our little "world police" status stretched thin as we are, I don't think even the strongest military on the planet could conquer and hold the entire world.

[Themius]

I was so confused reading this.. it's not could of or should of or would of it is have. So "could the us have theoretically conquered the world" I spent a good minute wondering what you were trying to say.

on topic.what purpose would it have served?

[Najnaj]

Deposing governments and conquering is not the same thing. To conquer you need to rule and govern, not just nuke the Kremlin.

[ParanoiD84]

Could only work if you do like any great conqueror like alexander, you kill half the population of a conquered town then you sell the rest into slavery, worked pretty good with minimal risk of revolts. And plus you dont need that many troops stationed there after your done.

[Zuben]

I guess? Ravaging the world with A-bombs would've left it in a bad state though, which I think is contrary to the interests of a capitalist nation.

[Danner]

I was thinking about this the other day, right after world war 2, the US was the only nation to possess the atomic bomb, could we of conquered the entire planet putting side any moral or ethical reasons why not to?

After WW2, the US were the only country at war that still had an effective military production line, and troops to spare. In 1945, the US could defeat a combined effort of everyone else, because everyone else were literally exhausted. By going back to 1945 we also ignore pesky issues like nuclear mutually assured destruction.

So could the US have beaten everyone else?
Yes.

But conquering means holding the conquered lands. That requires investment in personnel to police and govern; because you're not gonna get many friends by a hostile takeover. You must invest personnel that can and will be killed by people who aren't pleased that their brother's home got raided by nasty soldiers last night, their chosen leaders being indefinitely jailed and/or executed, or their kids being caught in some crossfire and killed. These people will do anything to get revenge.

The US conquered Iraq in like no time at all.
Iraq turned out impossible to hold. After the awkward "Mission Accomplished" scene, somewhere between 150k and 600k civilians died in the ongoing I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-war for the better part of the next decade. It went badly. So badly that it was impossible for the US to get recruits. I still remember them talking about doing a draft to ensure they had the soldiers they needed. But on the flipside, it was never hard for any opposing group to recruit people to fight the US troops. It was an endless cycle of tragedy that the US simply could not win because they failed to stabilize the country. Mostly due to their presence. The only answer was to pull out. Iraq is anything but stable, and you rarely go more than a month between news of some asshole blowing up a market place - but regardless it is far more stable than it was under US occupation.

The US conquered Afghanistan in like no time at all.
They're still there, dying, 16 years later. Just like the russians before them. Their very presence creates resentment. I don't even have the numbers of how many people have died in that mess. And unlike Iraq, there is no functional government in place to pick up should the US retreat.

The US has pretty much exhausted their ground personnel capabilities holding these two countries. Now stretch thin and hold another 192 countries. Each will have the same cost of holding, or more. The US cannot pay that cost, and you should never even think that you do. And if you think that is wrong, ask yourself how well it worked out holding Vietnam.

Basically - no. No way in hell. And it is a ridiculous idea to think this is even feasible.

Unless you fast-forward to the 1960s, and enjoy the mutually assured destruction that follow this attempt. Everyone will be dead, including in the USA, but at least they will be dead fashion that promotes democracy and freedom. And that's sort of a success? I mean, if we are ignoring ethical concerns and all.