>Operation Unthinkable was a code name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. The plannings 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.
could we have done it?
SHOULD we have done it?
I don't think anyone on either side was interested in anymore fighting.
Yes comrade, we should have driven the Anglo-American capitalist dogs into the sea.
>backstabbing your ally right after the world war
as expected of perfidious albion
There are a bunch of plans from every country that never get executed.
you should be happy Ivan didnt want to go further
as agreed in Jalta
Churchill would've probably been chased out of the country by the public in britain. The american population hadn't really suffered so they might've had public support.
You've also got to be pretty skeptical of the strength comparison in pic related. Allied armies may not be the same size as soviet, and probably were better equiped. The soviets were surrounded globally and the US had just as much, if not more manpower and industrial strength to draw upon if it had gone hot
Average normie from USA/Britain didn't care about reds and communists in 1945. It was only when Cold War started and propaganda kicked in that they were opposed to them.
The soviets did plenty of spying on the west during the war so they werent any better
meant to respond to also the russians had already backstabbed the west by installing communist puppets in eastern europe contrary to what was agreed upon
from a soviet pov you'd lose siberia in an instant
and now america has nukes as well
ur pretty much in a non position
from a uk pov u dont want america getting even more power so thats usa's first ally not supporting it
pretty safe bet it would remain unthinkable
im not sure what america would have lost, probably didn't have the firepower back home to stop the revolution that would have occured had usa decided to aggress
No and no. How bloodthirsty can you be? These people have gone through at least 5 years of horror and rations and having your loved ones die in droves and now that it is finally over you expect to war against your allies?
It was a british plan, not an american
>Soviets already fight zealously for the motherland
>now you backstab them and give them an even better justification
Soviets would have rolled into the Atlantic.
yeah sure it was, rummy
>The plannings were ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
You stupid or something?
it'd have saved us from the cold war, destroyed communism in Europe, given the Germans some dignity back, there's seemingly only endless reasons FOR the idea and precious little against.
>USSR immediately betrays it's allies
once ur a self soverign republic monopolistically dropping nukes on other countries im pretty sure ur the stupid or something one
It is obvious that the plan could never have been pulled off without the americans but saying in that they wouldnt support it is silly when they are the ones who came up with it in the first place
Meant this one
>West can't even pacify Afghanistan
>somehow they can magically pacify Russia
The question isn't whether Russia could have been defeated. The question is what would happen AFTER their defeat. The war against the Nazis proved that they are excellent in partisan and guerilla warfare. You don't want a whole country the size of Russia being a blood sponge which devours your resources, manpower and attention.
The West wouldn't nearly be as rich and popular as today if they spent decades keeping the Russian man down. The entire world would hate the West for it. It would alienate China. And you can be certain that sooner or later in a moment of weakness Russia would get organized again and would never, ever forgive what you've done right after they helped you to defeat the Nazis.
It would be the catalyst for a new cold war, only this time 10 times more brutal and fanatical. They wouldn't simply laugh about Western influence. They would treat the West like an alien invader from space that needs to be boycotted and eliminated. Such a radicalized Russia would have never collapsed and turned into a North Korea.
4.000.000 veteran allied soldiers with 100.000 german veterans with the biggest airforce and surplus in supplies and a gigantic industrial back up and exelent combined arms doctrine vs 6 million peasants with rifles, no high fly planes, overstrech supplies and at the blink of overextension with a homeland in ruins and no combined arms doctrine
>stop the revolution
What revolution?
I wish they'd done it and binned the soviets. East Europe & East Germany is still a fucking shithole because of it.
kill yourself
>no combined arms doctrine
>what is soviet deep battle
partisans were ineffective and themselfs caused alot of suffering for the locals, directly
the war was escalated by stalin aswell, it was a real threat that many of the locals would cooperate, like in the west, he stopped that by organizing there "partisans", basicly armed robbers, who killed, burned and robbed locals who cooperated with the germans
the german response was equally stupid, killing, burning and robbing the locals who were cooperating with partisans
now cooperation could mean as little as giving them food (remember these ppl were armed, while the villagers werent)
>if you dont defend yourself unarmed you are a partisan too
>we also dont have any means of protection for you so tough luck, but dont support them or else!!
No, it would have been a full on Cold War and Europe would have become even more decimated. Also the Soviets may have been able to take Europe.
it should have happened in 1948-9
Let America just shit can Russia with nukes
No, actually the Communists were pretty scrupulous about keeping to the agreements on Yalta. They installed communist puppet regimes on their side of the curtain. They were like that, keeping their word with people who could actually hurt them.
>the bloody fucking Soviets weren't any better
wtf i love anglos now
>actually the Communists were pretty scrupulous about keeping to the agreements on Yalta
>They installed communist puppet regimes on their side of the curtain
Pick one and only one
>decimated
stop using words that you don't understand the meaning of
Yalta explicitly recognized the Rząd Tymczasowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, you dumbass.
>supposed to have free elections in Poland
>but the Soviets made sure that never happened
>therefore Yalta was upheld
You fuck off, tankie.
It would have saved millions of lives in the long run.
The Soviets deserved to be nuked for Molotov-Ribbentrop. I don't care that Hitler later turned on them.
How?
The Soviets would lose the conflict, but Europe would be destroyed.
This would make Europe dependent on American cock like never before along with the rest of the world. More so than now.
This kind of proves his point. As much as people like to complain about immigrants nowadays, they are an indicator of a healthy society. Nobody tries to immigrate to a bad country. So if your country has many immigrants, then that means it is good. It means that your country is a place where people want to live, even if they must travel great distances to do so. It means that there is opportunity, and opportunity naturally attracts people who want to improve their lives.
Are you fucking retarded? Holy shit how stupid can you people be?
The soviets were the last to sign a non-agression pact with the nazis, you fucking dolt. Pretty much every other country in Europe (and also the USA) had signed one.
found the liberal cucks
Except other parties didn't sign a secret protocol dividing Europe into spheres of influence.
>Except other parties didn't sign a secret protocol dividing Europe into spheres of influence
Britain and the Soviets did just that. The difference is that only the British upheld their end of the Percentages agreement.
excellent argument lad
on par with your previous statement that the ration of foreigners to natives correlates with a countries development
No. Its an indicator of a rich society with a generous government.
Allies would have destroyed the Soviets, all these "Soviets to the Atlantic" folks don't know about Lend-Lease.
You're looking at it wrong. Even after almost 30 years unified, East Germany is still a shithole compared to West, no one wants to move there. It's nothing cultural.
If you are able-bodied and an adult man there is no reason why you shouldn't be a partisan. Can't be a soldier because the front is far away? Be a partisan.
I can see why Stalin hated those collaborators in the enemy territory who thought now they can live the easy life under their European overlords while their countrymen in other cities get bombed to ashes.
Who the fuck is going to feed 100% of a village if half the able bodied population (and the stronger half at that) is off raiding other villages and sneaking up on peeing Germans? Not to mention that they don't even have enough weapons for everybody. Not to mention that in plenty of places people still remembered having to butcher and eat their own children during Holodomor and would rather die than help Stalin's state in any way.
I think you missed the part where exterminating the Slavs was their OFFICIAL policy. The Nazis literally said for years: "Guys we need to go to Russia. Not to defeat communism. Not to steal some resources, but literally to wipe the Slavs from the face of the earth." It was not that some lowly degenerate officers came up with the idea to treat them like shit. It was orchestrated from the fucking elite of the Reich.
It may sound tough for you, but waiting in a village like a sleep waiting for the butcher and dying a meaningless death isn't preferable to dying in a raid against strategic locations like rails, command posts, supply lines etc...
The partisan war in Greece, Yugoslavia and the USSR was highly successful and was a reason why the German had trouble to continue their invasion of Russia as quickly as they had planned.
waiting in a village like a sheep*
Only because the US had the bomb, the Russians didn't, and the US somehow believed it would remain that way.
But no, we shouldn't have. The Cold War drove civilization to greater heights than ever before. All the advantages of the desperate arms race of a real war between the greatest powers on Earth, with little to none of the destruction.
Any alt history that kills the space race and thus dooms mankind as a whole is a non-starter for me. If anything, I want an alt-history where we kept the threat of the USSR alive through back door funding and no one ever finds out about it until our respective Martian colonies are warring with each other.
Take it the USSR in 45 and South East Asia doesn't lose millions upon millions of people to Russian backed communists. And Afghanistan doesn't turn into a quagmire, the West doesn't prop up jihadists, then spend decades after fighting them, etc.
This. America needs a real enemy. Not some stupid shitskins who live in caves like it is the middle ages.
No, actual opponents who are organized and highly intelligent and capable of building scary shit and see what you are trying to do and act accordingly.
The communist Soviet Union brought the best out of every American.
>official policy
This propaganda needs to end. How could that be a policy when millions of Slavs served in the Nazi armed forces?
>Americans would have destroyed the Viet Cong. All these "Ho Chi Minh to Saigon" fuckers don't know about carpet bombing.
Finally, people who might possibly be interested in one of my favorite primary sources.
web.archive.org
Read Mein Kampf retard.
Even there Hitler said it clearly that his goal is to populate all the land which is populated by Slavs, by Germans.
Mein Kampf is pretty unambiguous about. Hitler wanted to killed all the Slavs and replace them with Germans. He was a genocidal prick and arguing otherwise is to contradict Hitler's own words.
He also declared himself a devout Catholic in Mein Kampf, and well...
But I'm sure /pol/ will be here to CTR shortly, so I'll shut up now.
That doesn't actually contradict anything I said.
a government actively working against the people's best interest is not a healthy indicator though
Name one advantage the Soviets had other than they had more peasants fighting for them. The Allies would have had millions of willing Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Ukrainian, and more partisans willing to help them against the Soviets. Vietnam was all Vietnamese, very easy to frame it ad (commie) Vietnam vs. foreigners and (traitor) Vietnam, Soviets couldn't rationalize their rape army to non-Russians.
>something some autist in prison wrote in a book
>relevant to actual military operations
Come on now folks. Do you believe that the US military's goal is worldwide peace too? Nice leap to ad hominem by the way. Really displays the quality of your reasoning.
Because those Slavs were dumbasses that didn't realise that their purpose was essentially cannon fodder that were only used because the Germans were in need for more meat for the grinder.
Cannon fodder who were officers in the Waffen SS and intelligence and supply and more? No doubt some Germans thought of them as that, like Americans and blacks in the US forces, but that doesn't mean they were even close to cannon fodder.
It has nothing to do with generosity moron.
Companies love immigrants because they are cheap and will do any job. And governments love them because companies love them.
A native engineer is educated enough to demand 50k. An immigrant is only specialized in his narrow field like a good drone and ignorant in everything else and will probably accept just 30k, which is still a lot in his shit hole.
>Americans would have destroyed the Viet Cong
Americans did destroy the Vietcong. It was defunct after Tet.
>something some autist in prison wrote in a book
>relevant to actual military operations
If the same autist ends up becoming chancellor than yes, absolutely relevant. The ideology of Lebensraum doesn't leave room for peaceful co-existence.
No need for ground combat, US could've just nuked Moscow while it still had a monopoly on the tech. Absolutely should have done it, the Soviets committed far worse acts than even Nazis and are responsible for spreading their cancer-ridden garbage economic model to China and other places where it continued killing millions as it always does.
This, the Viet Cong wasn't the regular communist army.
Ivan was a puppet who got cucked out Berlin and should be thankful that his America overlords didn't completely level his homeland and hang his pathetic leader from a 6' tree.
Nuclear weapons aren't magical. The Soviets were prepared to lose Moscow since as far back as Barbarossa. Like someone already said, pacifying the region would be impossible and would probably lead to all out nuclear war later, not to mention leading to nobody ever trusting the west again, not even our own citizens.
>Soviets would have rolled into their own mass graves
FTFY
The US only had one more bomb and couldn't have produced more until 1946. I know your retarded ideology compels you to larp as a virtuous volskisch defender of whatever and to oppose jewish communism but you need to look at the facts.
>They only had one bomb, and they'd have another one 7 months later! That's nothing!
>pacifying the region
Are you fucking stupid?
How do you think the Allies de-nazified Germany? They bombed them into submission to the point where they never wanted to fight anything again.
Don't pretend like the oh-so-virtuous Russian population would have put up a front for the motherland again after Stalin just threw more than 25,000,000 of them in the meat grinder. Millions of them were already starving and would've done just about anything for peace, including denouncing king manlet himself.
>The US only had one more bomb and couldn't have produced more until 1946.
nsarchive.gwu.edu
>arguing for the destruction of communism explicitly after WWII ended makes you literally Hitler
Cry more, you delusional faggot.
>Don't pretend like the oh-so-virtuous Russian population would have put up a front for the motherland again after Stalin just threw more than 25,000,000 of them in the meat grinder. Millions of them were already starving and would've done just about anything for peace, including denouncing king manlet himself.
I'm not him, but being bombed with nuclear weapons by their allies immediately after a literal war of extermination waged on them would pretty much make them cornered animals. It wouldn't even be loyalty to anything, just fighting to survive and that's an instinct that goes beyond the rational
The ideology of Lebensraum doesn't leave room for realism or successful action either. It's just another bullshit politician lie, not some profound strategy.
The US didn’t have that many nukes back then and back then if you wanted to nuke someone you needed air superiority.
Except the U.S.. was capable of cranking out 3 nukes a month and did have air superiority vis a vis the Soviets, especially at high altitudes.
At this time the US honestly might have had air superiority, if you include equipment quality and flight experience, over everybody else combined.
It's pitiful how little self-awareness you /pol/yps have.
>could it have been done?
sure, but it wouldn't go well for any side, just adding another 20 million more deaths to already the largest conflict easily, but by 1945 all parties were exhausted by war, so actually mobilizing for another major invasion on the scale of Barbarossa would have been a herculean task, even with US equipment pulling up the slack from the fully exhausted British and re-armed Germans.
>should it have been done
no, for the reasons stated above, all sides already lost too much in terms of infrastructure and manpower, that staging another offensive when already so worn down.
Plus allied command saw their territorial gains as overall more worth preserving rather than risk possibly losing wealthy regions economic markets like Italy, Western Germany, and France to the Soviets.
>could we have done it?
The USSR crushed the Wehrmacht. Unless America send at least 500,000 troops and used nukes, no.
Look up Lend-Lease. USSR was producing neither rail nor rail cars, no tanks, no planes, no fucking anything. Without US material and humanitarian support they would have been steamrolled.
> USSR was producing neither rail nor rail cars, no tanks, no planes, no fucking anything.
Are you retarded? The railroad cars is the only part of that that's even close to accurate. And you might want to look up pre-war stockpiles of railroad cars.
>Without US material and humanitarian support they would have been steamrolled.
Yes, that U.S. aid that only started showing up in a big way in 1943. Lend-Lease was important in helping the Soviets counterattack, no doubt about it, but to pretend that the Soviets didn't have a war economy and were simply propped up by Lend-Lease is dumb as hell. You may as well say that the British didn't produce anything, after all, their GDP was lower than the Soviets, and they got close to 3 times the LL amount.
>might
China
I believe General Patton wanted to keep pushing on through Europe to Russia-- he knew there would be a war between the US and USSR eventually (conflicting ideologies and whatnot) so why not have a war when the Allies had their equipment ready?