Operation Unthinkable

Too bad having nukes doesn't mean your planes are invunerable. Or that you have enough of them to make a difference.

The soviets were exhausted and extended but they were still probably the hardest army in the world at the time, and their generals had experience in mass maneuvers across large spaces of land the likes the allies never had to do. It would be a battle of time, if the soviets took too long the dutch ports would bring in enough reinforcements to stop them eventually, but they'd probably crush what was in their way.

The thinking behind the whole thing was utter lunacy and incredibly perverse. If they ever seriously thought about doing that, why was lend lease a thing in the fucking first place.

If the UK and US attacked the victors of world war 2, the people most perceived back then to have been the hardest hit and the hardest fighters against nazism, there would have been litteral revolutions in the west.

This makes me want to play Hearts of Iron

Allies

- Strong, undamaged economy
- A-Bomb
- Soviet war weariness and casualities

Soviets

- Large, experienced land army
- Popular support of communists in Europe at an all time high
- Allied governments not totalitarian, less effective in a total war scenario

>rather than low intensity fighting
>PTO
>low intensity fighting
>implying
The PTO was even more brutal than the East front, if only on a smaller scale. Also good luck feeding and arming new troops without lend-lease or ports

Eastern Front was two basically equal forces slugging it out across the vast distances.
Pacific was a giant hammering a midget. Fuck off you dumb American. Japanese lost the moment they attacked Pearl Harbor. It would take literally retarded people leading America for them to succeed.

Soviets
>By the end of the war, 60% of army wiped out

English/Americans
>Muh nuclear bombs
>Better fighters
>Bretty strong economy to churn out weapons (USA atleast)

It would be a pretty brutal fight and finish, but we would win, if not the public/other leaders stopped us before.

>implying Guadalcanal, Okinawa or Iwo were "low intensity fighting"
>implying any of the battles in the Pacific weren't extremely hard fought, even if the end result of the war was a given
Wehraboo pls

Even so, are you saying that the US would ship all the forces in the PTO to Europe before defeating the Japs? This scenario takes place in July at the latest, the Japs surrendered in September 45.

No, I'm implying that the fucking US entry wasn't a walk in the park like people like you love to tout. The US commanders weren't fucking brain-dead and they weren't inexperienced in the least.

>This scenario takes place in July at the latest, the Japs surrendered in September 45
Hardly. Unthinkable was still on the table as late as 1947.

I'm not him m80, but the US certainly can't be said to have faced the 3rd Reich at its best and beaten it, or to have fought remotely similar battles in terms of size, scale and scope as the Red Army did on the Eastern Front. Bringing up the PTO is totally irrelevant to OU and trying to compare it to the Eastern Front is plain stupid.

>The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945

>but the US certainly can't be said to have faced the 3rd Reich at its best and beaten it, or to have fought remotely similar battles in terms of size, scale and scope as the Red Army did on the Eastern Front
Never claimed otherwise. I only claimed that fighting in the PTO was as brutal.

>Bringing up the PTO is totally irrelevant to OU and trying to compare it to the Eastern Front is plain stupid
So is stating that the US only ever faced low intensity fighting in the war or that US commanders were inexperienced which is something I was refuting. You should try reading previous posts instead of strawmanning the last one. It'd work wonders for your arguments.

>The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945
The hypothetical start date for fucking D-Day was in May of 1944. Turns out that didn't work so well.

>PTO
>more intensive fighting than the eastern front
Sure the pacific was intense but no where on the level of the eastern front. That was and will probably still remain the most savage and brutal fighting humanity has ever seen.

Soviets have an initially pretty strong advantage, but all the long term advantages are in the hands of the Western Allies, things like overall population, industrial levels, ability to project force at the vitals of the USSR which the USSR doesn't have in turn, command of the commons, etc.

Any Unthinkable war is going to hinge on which gives out first, Soviet material or Western will to keep fighting. That, however, is going to depend in large part on how much damage the Soviets do in their initial rush, that summer of 1945 where they have the advantage. A lot is going to hinge on whether or not the Soviets are going to be able to cross the Rhine after they've taken the Allies out of Germany (very likely) but that in turn depends on how well the Allies can conduct a fighting retreat out of their initial disadvantage, which is always a tough thing to predict.

Sure, let's nuke Europe. Who the fuck would do that?

The USSR could NEVER have been held by the Allies, and the backlash from starting another World War off the heels of the last would have caused civil discontent the likes of which hadn't been seen in the West for at least a century. Possibly the worst idea I have ever heard, there was absolutely nothing to gain from this operation.

Is your argument "War is hell?" Because it is, and any place where men are killing eachother is going to be terrible. But the Eastern front was far greater in scale and the Soviets were pressed far harder than the Americans were.

The point would likely be less about occupying the USSR and more about breaking the hold of all those satellite states in Europe.

I have a hard time believing that would work, either. You think all these Slavic nations that were JUST liberated by the Soviets being barged into by the West would have gone over well?

Especially when you consider that the USSR's manpower just got bolstered by all of those Satellite states.

Since quite a few of them historically tried to revolt away from Soviet domination (Hungary in 1956, the Prague spring in 1956), and you had long simmering resentment in places like Poland and Romania, and hell, Yugoslavia maintained quite a bit of independence as it was, no, I don't think it's at all farfeteched to think that should the Soviets not have boots on the ground, a lot of central and Eastern Europe would break away from their political control.

The Soviets weren't really liberators, just a second conqueror.

You're both pretty retarded, considering there was huge discontent in those very sattelite states. The Czechs, Austrians, Poles, and a good chunk of the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia weren't exactly pleased to be under control as Soviet satellite states. In the long run that means
>Partisans fucking your supply trains
>Partisans draining away men that could be used in the battle
>Partisans draining away manpower, if not slowly.
And add unto that, the fact that the Soviet red army by the time it reached Berlin was at its supply limit. It would have had trouble going any further, and if it did, it would have to do so under constant bombardment on these already creaky supply trains, with no land-lease, and new partisan activity.

The Prague spring was not about "revolting away from Soviet domination". There certainly was resentment but it was not a "commies get out rrreeeee" kind of deal like in Hungary.

Stalin breaking his promises about Poland made in the Yalta conference act as a suitable casus belli and the allies gain the full support of the rest of the world.

Surprise attack. A-bombs wipe out entire armored divisions, vastly superior allied air force, precision bombers and new jet aircraft dominate the skies above the front. Ex-Wehrmacht are recruited, war criminals are spared the noose if they perfom meritorious deeds on the battlefield. USSR economy collapses due to having to continue the war without material aid, USSR government collapses as Stalin is seen as being responsible for continuing hostilities for not acquiescing to allied demands.

>A-bombs wipe out entire armored divisions,

Are you completely retarded? Nagasaki's bomb was 20kt, and detonated at around 1,650 feet. That produces, in optimal conditions,a 20 psi air pressure blast of about 3/4 of a kilometer in radius. Tank formations are way more spread out than that. You'd be lucky to wipe out a single armored battalion per bomb.

> vastly superior allied air force,

Given, but

> precision bombers

Don't exist. Allied bombing was primarily centered around strategic and interdiction, not CAS.

>new jet aircraft dominate the skies above the front.

Aren't needed. Conventional mustangs are more than good enough against what the Soviets field, and given their longer shelf life, are probably more effective as well.

>Ex-Wehrmacht are recruited,

Woo, you'd get 300,000 men, tops. The Wehrmacht was in a very, very sorry state by the time any Unthinkable would have been launched.

>USSR economy collapses due to having to continue the war without material aid,

Are you stupid, or just severely ignorant? By 1945, the relocations were done, and the USSR had regained its core agricultural base. Their economy would not have collapsed.

>USSR government collapses as Stalin is seen as being responsible for continuing hostilities for not acquiescing to allied demands.

And the crown jewel of retardation. Unthinkable is an Allied attack plan. If they managed to justify it by Yalta breaking to their own people ,that's all well and good, but there's no way the Soviets would have sen it that way, and Stalin is going to be the hero who is fighting his second unprovoked invasion of the west.

Stop wanking you retard.

Considering the actual military leaders who were planning the actual operation decided it was actually unfeasible, this is kind of a stupid think to ask.
We might as well add a stupid condition like "What if Allied forces in Europe magically quadrupled in size just as they were thinking about Operation Unthinkable?"
The answer is just a series of wild guesses and vague, poorly referenced extrapolations because the fact is, the operation would have resulted in the Allies getting their balls crushed and then being forced to enter another total war.

To be fair though, the operation was scrapped when the analysis yielded the result that the Soviets would, after recovering from the surprise, make significant advances. Once it wasn't short term feasible, it was scrapped. It's entirely probable that a greater commitment, and corresponding greater willingness (at least in the political elite) to suffer losses and a short to mid term reverse would lead to a very drastically different cold war situation, especially in Europe.

The USSR would have pushed the allies right out of Europe. Eventually due to manpower and superior weapons the allies would eventually invade Europes again, with a force that dwarfed d-day. Partisan activity in the east would fuck up supply lines and divert manpower, and unlike the nazis, the allies would be capable of letting the liberated people fight for them. Eventually allies would win, the USA production was much larger than the USSR's and when combined with the other allied nations would be unstoppable.

The Soviets would definitely have the advantage.

Mostly because by this time, the British were stretched to their limits and the country was on the verge of bankruptcy after the war and devastation. and France's infrastructure was all but wiped out after their war, occupation, and resistance war, France and Britain were in no shape to fight the Red Army.

The US had sizable forces, but had much more committed to fighting Japan as they were still slugging it out. So with with bulk of American firepower in the Pacific Ocean, it would be a tall order even for the US to keep a steady enough stream of soldiers and supplies to mainland Europe to effectively counter a Red Army invasion.

Recruiting ex-Wehrmacht wouldn't do much good, Germany collapsed because there were simply no resources left for the Germans to fight with. Almost all of Germany's Panzer corps was destroyed in the fighting and the collapsed Reich meant that they would have to rebuild the Wehrmacht's command and organization structure from scratch, a tough task for an army that has now completely collapsed.

Operation Unthinkable was thrown out exactly because it was unthinkable. No world leader with common sense would look at a war that has killed 60-80 million and immediately start a war that would easily kill 20 million+ more.

Stalin began setting up his communist governments in defiance to the Yalta conference's insistence on free elections in Poland because Stalin knew he could get away with it, he knew the Western Allies were in no position to directly challenge the Red Army while the Warsaw Pact was being built.

and while the Soviet occupation wasn't ideal for the Western Allies, it was an outcome they could for the most part live with, being more preferable to a Europe under Fascism.

Casualties were pretty minimal. If I'm correct, yanks had a numerical superiority in every battle and casualty rates were like 8:1.

>Are you completely retarded?
A-bombs is plural.

>Don't exist.
Air superiority would allow daylight precision bombing.

>Are you stupid, or just severely ignorant?
USSR industry was self-sufficient but dwarfed by the allies, they would not have enough surplus to sustain the intensity of warfare needed.

>And the crown jewel of retardation.
They could ignore the USSR's and their puppets' territorial claims and sending group of loyalists who fought with the allies from Poland and other nationalities into their home territory to restore democratically elected governments overseen by representatives from acoss the world (all expenses paid) and with a heavy amount of media attention, including "london calling" style radio broadcast across the iron curtain. High ranking officers would be aware of the multiple Mexican standoffs. When an incident happens they would know the cause of the escalation.

>A-bombs is plural.
you're underestimating how much times it takes to make one, ship it to the front, then use it.

It would be months inbetween each single bomb in 1945. the US would be lucky to get one bomb off every 3 months, which is a far cry from the 1960's where thousands of warheads were stockpiled and mounted on missiles at the ready.

>sending group of loyalists who fought with the allies from Poland

The Soviets were very effective at making sure the Home Army was destroyed to the very last.

the home resistance pretty much spent all their manpower and resources in the Warsaw Uprising, which ended in the complete destruction of the resistance and allowed the Soviets to just clean up the area with all the damage done to the German occupation by the uprising.

The Polish Home Army pretty much only existed outside Poland by the time the Uprising was over and crushed by the Germans, any polish units fighting on the eastern front in 1945 was loyal to the USSR.

>Air superiority would allow daylight precision bombing.
this is pretty hit-or-miss. the Luftwaffe had near complete air superiority over the Soviet from beginning to middle to end and it still wasn't enough, so I'm not sure how much would change if you just change Luftwaffe to Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps.

>Casualties were pretty minimal
Generally numerically equal to Japanese casualties despite numerical superiority. Considering how small the pieces of land were, they were pretty large and took several weeks to take. Take Peleliu for example. It's 13 square kilometers and took almost two fucking months to take with a 25% casualty rate on the US side.

>A-bombs is plural.

Document 72 posits an optimistic estimate of 3 a bombs a month for production in very late 1945-46. Using them tactically is a ridiculous waste.

>Air superiority would allow daylight precision bombing.

Daylight precision bombing didn't exist in the context of WW2. Bombers were not that accurate. Go look up the disparity between air forces claimed kills and ground crews confirming them.

>USSR industry was self-sufficient but dwarfed by the allies, they would not have enough surplus to sustain the intensity of warfare needed.

Yeah, it's totally like they weren't on a war footing or anything in 1945.

>They could ignore the USSR's and their puppets' territorial claims and sending group of loyalists who fought with the allies from Poland and other nationalities into their home territory to restore democratically elected governments

Are you seriously implying the Soviets allowed unfettered freedom of travel? They didn't.

> and with a heavy amount of media attention,

And how do you plan on doing this without invading what is then Soviet territory with people that they will for certain insist shouldn't be allowed in?

>High ranking officers would be aware of the multiple Mexican standoffs. When an incident happens they would know the cause of the escalation.

Yes, they would know it was the West who come barging in and demanding that everything conform to their standard of how things should work. There is not going to be dissent with Stalin over this, since it's the west making all the aggressive moves, at least from the Soviet perspective.

Just one note, in 1945, while a lot of the American attention shifted to the Pacific with the collapse of Germany, the firepower was hardly more focused in the East. Downfall called for 4 American armies, the 1st, 6th, 10th, and I think the 8th. OP's pic shows 6 in Germany, and I know there were 2 more fighting in Italy, and probably a few doing rear echelon stuff in France.

I'm just going to link to document 72, the Army seemed to think they'd be doing 3 a month starting November or so.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

Would have been bloodier than PTO, but Allies could have won if they invaded from Western Front, Iran, Afghanistan, North China and East Siberia. Winter was over as well, so a Soviet collapse could have been possible, especially since Siberia and Central Asia were not as well-defended.

They've had massive numerical superiority over the Allies and their airforce wasn't "absolutely outclassed" yet, in fact it was probably in its best shape in history.

That depends whether the allies were able to delay them to perform organised withdrawal to more defensive positions where the frontline could be shorter.

He's an eternal pole, don't try to reason with him.

>especially since Siberia and Central Asia were not as well-defended.
Nah, it was only defended by people who have just wrecked Kwantung army in 2 days.

However, if the Allies were to attack, they would be seen as essentially prolonging the war and preventing peace, which would have likely meant that those satellites would actually support the USSR who would have likely won in the first place in an Unthinkable situation.

>the discontented and porentially rebellious peoples of soviet satellite states would oppose a war meant to free them

ayy lmao

PTO being so brutal is a meme. Most battles there were laughably one sided victories and the biggest problem was diseases, not the fighting.

>implying that the Soviets won't start a propaganda campaign that would make the Allies like Hitler as they try to revive the Wehrmacht which just rode across them

The fighting in western/southern europe wasn't low intensity, and there were over a million german soldiers defending france and italy.

I realistically only see the USSR winning even though I'd love the Western Allies to win. The sheer numerical superiority of the USSR at the start of the operation would've probablyb driven the Western Allies off the continent. Given that the USSR has a veteran fighting force and experienced generals. Along with a reestablished industrial base.

In the short term, yes, but it takes more than victory on the ground to establish long-term rule. It wouldn't be long before most of Europe started going the way of Tito.

As if any of the conscripts from 1941 were still alive in 1945.

I'm actually wondering if Stalin would've left Spain alone or steamrolled it. That could be important in the long term of the operation.

The Pyrinees would be a great defensive position and the allies could regroup at the Iberian peninsula

Would that be enough of a chokepoint to hold off and maybe slow down the red onslaught? If the USSR fails to wipe out the allies on the mainland, I could see a counterattack coming from 2 or three directions.

A push from Spain and another prong from Italy and maybe a landing force in France again?

Mass revolt by soldiers on all sides.

No matter who wins, Europe would be unsalvageable.

Not everybody in the world is reactionary element user.

In case of Allied attack and "revival" of wermacht only the worst scum wouldn't support the communists.