Could the us of theoritically conquered the world after ww2?

[Dreknar20]

Also the Russians were mainly equipped by the Allies during the war.

only mostly in terms of soft skinned vehicles like jeeps and trucks.

The Red Army by the time of 1945 would have had an advantage over the western allies. The fighting on the Western front was pussy shit compared to the east

[KaPe]

I'm not sure why people mention "Allies" here. Do you really think that other countries would support US taking over the world, while possibly killing millions of people with nukes? What? They were "allies", not "vassals" - and their common cause was fighting the Axis. They'd have no obligation to help US and every possible reason to oppose such brutal and pointless slaughter.

[Nathreim]

only mostly in terms of soft skinned vehicles like jeeps and trucks.

The Red Army by the time of 1945 would have had an advantage over the western allies. The fighting on the Western front was pussy shit compared to the east

And ammo and food and clothing and weapons and planes. The fighting itself wasn't any more brutal that's a misconception from the high amount of deaths.

The vast majority of deaths in the east were not in combat. You had a lot of murder of non combatants by the Nazis because they would just roll into a town and kill everyone but thats not really combat. Both sides would murder anyone who surrendered. The environment was by far the worst killer for both sides. Cold, sickness, and starvation killed more on the Eastern Front than any army.

[endersblade]

Could the US HAVE theorEtically conquered the world after WW2?

Christ almighty, it's like you people don't even try sometimes.

As to the question, absolutely. We were a war machine unlike the world had ever seen. Taking over other nations would just contribute to that - more tanks, more planes, more weapons of war. Probably even more soldiers. We would have issues with a ground war in China and Russia, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

One of the issues the naysayers aren't thinking about in this thread is that technology continues to advance. They're just looking at a snapshot of what we had. Keep in mind that since we DIDN'T conquer the world, life moved in a different direction. Had we remained a war nation intent on taking global control, things would've been quite different. Technology and war hardware would've advanced differently across the board. And after taking over a few continents, we would have a solid strategy for taking over the rest. Experience is the best teacher. After clearing out Vietnam, Cambodia and the like, we would be experienced in jungle warfare. South America wouldn't be an issue. Fighting the UK (since we're talking about dominating the world, no Allies) would give us the combat experience we need for the rest of that area. And since we can pick and choose which nations and when, we don't have to fight Russia in the winter, which is their greatest advantage.

Everything would boil down to which countries we took down first. If we leave super powers up and just take the small useless ones, they would join together and fight back. I don't think the US could win a fight with the entire world's super powers beating down on us from all directions. But go after Western Europe, maybe Japan and Eastern Russia first, that would land lock a lot of our competition. Controlling England alone would allow us to sink or shoot down any ships or planes that left from the mainland. Controlling Spain would lock out the Med. Germany would be soundly defeated at this point and wouldn't pose much of a threat - hell, if we worked it in our favor, it would give us a foothold on Europe proper.

I'm sure if it came down to world domination, the US would've opened enlistement/drafting to women as well. Every body they can put behind a gun, cannon or tank, and not just relegate them to desk jobs.