>Operation Unthinkable was a code name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Both were ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe.
>The first of the two assumed a surprise attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany in order to "impose the will of the Western Allies" on the Soviets. "The will" was qualified as "square deal for Poland" (which probably meant enforcing the recently signed Yalta Agreement). When the odds were judged "fanciful", the original plan was abandoned. The code name was used instead for a defensive scenario, in which the British were to defend against a Soviet drive towards the North Sea and the Atlantic following the withdrawal of the American forces from the continent.
>pic related, Erwin Rommel's assessment of how an Anglo/Soviet war would unfold
Ryder Miller
Russian's had their best chance from '70-80, in some scenarios possibly even winning a European war, anything before and after those dates is just too lopsided towards the Americans to possibly win
Nolan Flores
extremely variable
we could have pre 1949 with or without nukes
or post 1949 with or without nukes
Let's just give them a break post WW2 and then a conventional war erupts, per the Soviet assault
Soviets might be able to get an initial land superiority, but recall that they, having been some irrelevant peasant nation only a few decades ago, would not be able to hold for long, outproduced by USA+UK. Recall that with the fall of the USSR, Western Lend Lease was revealed to have played a critical role in helping the Soviets win in the east. While the Soviets do have some nice low altitude aircraft (like Yak-3), western high altitude stuff like the B-17/24/29 and the P-51 would pound the shit out of Soviet infrastructure, logistics, and other useful things with no opposition. At least Germans had some aircraft with high altitude performance. Not to mention the USSR lacked a capable navy, with no carriers and even pre-WWI shit. It would be a difficult war, but the West would ultimately prevail.
Isaiah Garcia
>Communism BTFO several decades early >Maoist China severely weakened or nonexistant >North Korea weakened or severely nonexistant >Vietnamese commies severely weakened or nonexistant >Germans redeem themselves getting recruited by the western allies to fight against the Bolsheviks once more
Seriously, why didn't they do this? The US was the only nuclear-armed state at the time, there's pretty much no way they could have lost, and it would have prevented the decades of commie bullshit they had to deal with after the war
Xavier Cook
We have this thread every 3 days or so, it's starting to get annoying.
Grand strategic concerns:
Allies have all long term material advantages. Higher population bases, larger industrial bases, less devastated internally by the war. Assuming the West decides that "Damn the costs, we are taking the Soviets down", they will do so. It will be hard, it will be expensive, and you will have tens of millions more die right after WW2, but they can do it if the will is there.
The will might not be there. The U.S.S.R. was an ally of sorts, and a recent partner in taking down Nazi Germany, and before 1939, despite some rather violent rhetoric, hadn't been expansionary since Stalin took power.
Ultimately, the war will be decided by which gives out first: Western morale or Soviet material, assuming that this war is started by the Western World and they don't give the Soviets a way out.
Short term, you have a different picture: Balance of force in Europe in 1945 heavily favors the Soviets. It won't stay that way forever, the western allies can build much, much faster than the USSR can, but for the first year, maybe 2 years, the Soviets will be pushing the Allies back. How fast is the 64 million dollar question; they were averaging about 130km a month against the dregs of the Heer in 1945, they'd almost certainly be slower than that against the Allies, who have things like actually decent levels of armor support and overwhelming air power. 1/2
Angel Hall
Whether or not the Soviets can attack and take enough ground to force the West to go for a hugely costly repeat of D-Day (and thus be more incentivized to bow out in face of the likely costs and casualties) is their only real hope. However, given that the West DIDN'T historically attack, we can conclude their support for such a venture would have been pretty low and it might not have taken even that much to get them to sign an agreement and end the war. If said agreement doesn't happen, the Soviets lose, and the only questions are how long it will take and how many people will die doing so.
For the love of god, please stop asking this.
And about the text; interesting that Rommel seems to know all about the impossibility of sustaining large offensives over the railroadless expanse of Libya when he tried to do it himself. Or perhaps since this is a 1944 musing, he's kicking himself for his stupidity in trying it.
Thomas Campbell
is supposed to be 2/2 to this
Charles Allen
look, you've just went through the worst war in human history (minus the Finno-Korean Hyperwar) and people are tired of suffering; besides back then things were still kind looking bright for an east-west alliance
Nathan Richardson
> Implying the Soviets didn't have high altitude interceptors as well (Mig-15, most of the Yak jets, LA-9, etc.
Kayden Cox
I think he was saying it's impossible to fight the kind of war that you have to in order to win in North Africa without substantial support logistics.
The Americans and British won because they had enough fuel and equipment to fight that kind of war. The Germans and Italians didn't. And in the case of WWIII, neither would the Soviets.
Angel Torres
>I think he was saying it's impossible to fight the kind of war that you have to in order to win in North Africa without substantial support logistics.
Well, yes, but this is after he tried, and failed to fight such a war and running into that exact same problem, after blowing off the difficulties when briefed on them by Halder. I just thought it a bit amusing, unsure if it was hindsight seeing 20/20 or him just being blind to the implications. >The Americans and British won because they had enough fuel and equipment to fight that kind of war. The Germans and Italians didn't.
That's not entirely right, but getting into it would be relatively complicated and I'm not sure you want to go that far; it would be drifting away from the main thrust of the thread in an Unthinkable sort of war.
>And in the case of WWIII, neither would the Soviets.
Almost certainly so, but it's pretty irrelevant: Yes, the Soviets almost certainly would be unable to chase whatever Allied forces there are into the Atlas Mountains, let alone beyond. They don't need to. If they overrun places like Germany, France, and Italy, and make themselves too tough to be worth attacking, they'll win. Rommel seems to be assuming unlimited commitment on the part of the Western Allies, which, if they have, they'll win (eventually) North Africa or no. And if it does come to those sorts of redoubts, Britain is going to be way, way more important than Algeria.
Leo Wright
>mfw forgot jets
>mig-15 this was assuming just after WW2
>yak-15/17 they were nice little planes, and I guess they wouldn't be too bad at altitude given they used reverse engineered Jumo 004s, but they would only be slightly faster than Allied superprops (Griffon Spits, P-51H, etc) and lack the same climb rate and firepower, and would be completely outclassed by early jets (mind you the P-80 and the Meteor F.3 both saw service during WW2, and the yak jets entered service in 1947)
>La-9 used same engine as La-7, ASh-82FN, and it would be trash compared to contemporary Allied fighters at altitude
>MiG-9 I guess the only one that would pose a threat, but then again would likely be a match for the earlier Meteor F.4 and the P-80C (MiG-9 entered service 1948)
Eli Watson
>Seriously, why didn't they do this?
Same reason they let Soviets take over half of Europe without any concessions, even retreating for them on couple occasions.
Roosevelt was a slimy pinko.
Leo Gomez
>much no way they could have lost, and it would have prevented the decades of commie bullshit they had to deal with after the war
Imagine how online discussions would be today, when we wouldn't be able to point at the numerous of communist genocides, instead the gommies would point to how the jingoist america stopped their perfectly reasonable ideology at every turn with nukes.
You might've felt the bern then.
Brandon Wright
>the Soviets almost certainly would be unable to chase whatever allied forces there are into the Atlas Mountains, let alone beyond. They don't need to.
They'd need to if they don't want the Allies to roll straight up into the Caucasus. America and Britain wouldn't bother fighting all the way across Europe when they already control North Africa and are almost within striking distance of the Soviet War Machine's backbone. That's the whole point of Rommel's assessment.
David Lopez
And if the Soviets want to protect Baku and the rest of the Caucasus, they just dig in around the Zagros and the eastern parts of Turkey, they don't go launching crusades into North Africa. North Africa isn't "within striking distance" of the Caucasus; especially as the British rail network doesn't actually hook up with the Caucasus without an extension through Turkey, which is either going neutral or going to be under Soviet occupation.
Besides, he's not talking about actually overruning the Caucasus, he's talking about bringing it into bombing range.
For starters, bombardment had trouble reducing the German oil production, them only really getting into trouble when the Soviets overran Ploesti with land forces. Secondly, the Caucasus was already within bombing range if what's now Pakistan is still within the British sphere, nobody needs to do shit in North Africa, and overruning Pakistan is outside the ability of the Soviets to nab, at least quickly.
Jordan Martin
>Russian's had their best chance from '70-80
Indeed, the post-Vietnam War / pre-Reagan era was the nadir of the U.S. military, in addition to all kinda civilian cultural trouble in the U.S. at the time.
David Nguyen
>Implying the Soviets didn't have high altitude interceptors
The WWII Soviet airforce was a joke compared to the West.
The Soviets were still building planes out of wood, because tank engines had a higher priority for the aluminum.
Adam Diaz
was russia really so stable they'd keep the fight up just to slowly lose? I get that they'd already gone full military but is that really gonna be enough if you don't win anything, aren't fighting in your own territory and your enemies aren't literal nazis?
Luke Cox
Well, remember, for the first year, maybe two, they'll be advancing, and it's the smae "attack from no reason from their western neighbors", doubly so since they had a deal which the Yalta guys are now openly reneging on.
But yes, given Stalin's almost complete concentration of power within himself and the tight channels on which information traveled, I do think that the Soviets were stable enough to keep going as long as the political elite wanted to.
Joshua King
Holy kek what the fuck do you think the Mosquito was you stupid faggot? and most Soviet Aircraft such as the La-7 and Yak-3/9 were of mixed materials, as were most allied aircraft during the war, especially in Britain. And it is a fact that any allied aircraft would get raped by an LA or Yak below 15,000 feet.
