Operation Unthinkable, would it have been possible? Or would it be too bloody for the exhausted allies?

this
tankies are completely delusional if they think that USSR has a chance against USA/UK

How logistically superior was the British Indian army?

What about Greece, woulnd't they fight there as well?

>RAF had more fighters than Soviet air force
Where did you get that?

t. HoI expert.

How exactly would you supply a massive invasion through Manchuria?

The same way the US would have supplied their planned invasion of mainland Japan.

The same way soviets supplied a massive invasion through Manchuria
You don't have to occupy all of Siberia, just secure Manchuria, Korea and Vladivostock.

>massive amphibious invasion through Korea and Manchuria
I'm sure the 10 Siberians that they stand to capture care, good luck reading relevant parts of the USSR
>British Indian Army
you meant the nation that is becoming independent and there is nothing the British can do to stop that? I'd sure look forwards to seeing how British officers deal with commanding Indian troops who were mutinying anyway in a futile offensive through terrible logistics into another empty wasteland.
>Amphibious invasion of Crimea and Donbass
Have fun trying to launch an amphibious invasion into a region with extant Soviet naval power and air power, when all you have is bases 800-900 kilometers away in Syria and Greece
>Bombing railroads
I hope you know how ridiculously hard it is to destroy a railroad track from the air, and how easy it is to repair it. It is marshaling yards and trains which are hard to replace. Not to mention that the Trans-Siberian is out of range of any allied air assault...

You sound like a real HoI player

The real answer is that Operation Unthinkable is lost by any side which launches it first, since neither side's public is fired up about a war of aggression against their war time allies, while their opponent's public would be outraged.

what would hhave happened if soviet would have pushed further into europe?

>I'm sure the 10 Siberians that they stand to capture care, good luck reading relevant parts of the USSR
You remember all that industry the Soviets spent an insane amount of effort moving past the Urals to keep away from Hitler? They have to defend it at some point, and if the Allies can base out of Vladivostok and Manchuria to mount land offensives from the east, you're going to have a hard time keeping things together.

>you meant the nation that is becoming independent and there is nothing the British can do to stop that? I'd sure look forwards to seeing how British officers deal with commanding Indian troops who were mutinying anyway in a futile offensive through terrible logistics into another empty wasteland.
India experienced a massive push for independence only after the war ended. During the war, tight control was maintained by the government.

>Have fun trying to launch an amphibious invasion into a region with extant Soviet naval power and air power, when all you have is bases 800-900 kilometers away in Syria and Greece
Soviet naval power is an oxymoron. The RN Med fleet alone could obliterate the entire Soviet navy, let alone just the Black Sea fleet. Those beaches would not be hard to reach.

>I hope you know how ridiculously hard it is to destroy a railroad track from the air, and how easy it is to repair it.
When those railways are short inter-city railways, yes, they are easy to repair, when they stretch thousands of miles through largely uninhabited land, dotted with poorly defended or undefended small towns and villages, they are not easy or quick to repair. Especially when you attack this long, snaking railway in dozens of places at once.

>Not to mention that the Trans-Siberian is out of range of any allied air assault...
That's simply untrue.

>That's simply untrue.
Good luck explaining to your army and civilians that you are going to war against your ally for no real reason after milions of people died in the previous one.
>but in terms of air and naval superiority
I didnt knew naval superiority is the most important thing to do while fighting a war in central Europe
>The US AAC and the RAF both individually had more fighters and heavy bombers than the entire USSR
citation needed
>The USSR would also be fighting on two, perhaps even three fronts (maybe even four if the Allies really wanted)
because fighting on multiple fronts is exactly a thing you want to do while being numericaly inferior
>as the US would most likely mount a massive amphibious invasion through Korea and Manchuria
Good luck attacking 1 500 000 soldiers stationed there
>coinciding with the invasion of East Germany
good job agains the enemy with 3x more soldiers
>Then the third factor would be the potential for the British Indian Army to push into USSR central Asia
top kek, literally American invasion of Siberia through the Arctic-tier
>they could even mount amphibious invasions of Crimea and exposed parts of the Donbass around the sea of Azov, basing from British Cyprus, or even Turkey.
sure bro
>The Allies don't need to achieve total theatre dominance on any front
Opposite is way how you win a war, the only other way is to starve your enemy which is impossible, Soviet union isnt Central Powers in WW1
>superior logistics through the mined Dutch ports, right?
>manpower
what, if you are one of those that bealive USA can draft 10% of its population or something, you are confirmed HoI player
>and mobility
probably the only good point, still pretty much irelevant since Soviets are well motorized as well
>And keep in mind that at this point there is only really one major rail route through central Asia.
Because route through the central Asia is exactly what you need to supply army in Europe with ammo and stuff from factories in Eur.

Part 2
this
>Also remember that moving supplies from Britain to Germany takes a matter of hours, while moving supplies from central Russia to a front in Germany takes WEEKS.
1945 isnt 2017 bro
>Or even more likely, just wait for the Soviet economy and production to completely collapse without lend-lease, and their people to start rioting in the streets.
lmao
Operation Unthinkable is impossible even considering just public opinion on new war.

>t. HoI expert.
>You sound like a real HoI player
>you are confirmed HoI player

Is this all the anally annihilated tankies can come up with?

>You remember all that industry the Soviets spent an insane amount of effort moving past the Urals to keep away from Hitler?
"moving past the Urals" isnt putting them in Vladivostok you nigger, they re-located them to places like Magnitogorsk, its about 2500km from Vladivostok.
>India experienced a massive push for independence only after the war ended. During the war, tight control was maintained by the government.
Because Indians are just waiting to die for the Anglos in war they have nothing to do with.
>Soviet naval power is an oxymoron. The RN Med fleet alone could obliterate the entire Soviet navy, let alone just the Black Sea fleet. Those beaches would not be hard to reach.
Reach the beaches and then get killed on them is quite easy. Soviets can put thousands of mines into the Bospohurs and allies are fucked.
>When those railways are short inter-city railways, yes, they are easy to repair, when they stretch thousands of miles through largely uninhabited land, dotted with poorly defended or undefended small towns and villages, they are not easy or quick to repair. Especially when you attack this long, snaking railway in dozens of places at once.
Do you know what are railway stations?

post some arguments to debunk ours

>Soviets can put thousands of mines into the Bospohurs and allies are fucked.

lmao tankies are so delusional

All the US needs to do is nuke Moscow and the war would be over.

>public opinion
Pretty much, it was just a proposition, not even a plan. You would be telling your people and forces that they have to fight their allies which your propaganda lionized for years.
And what these idiots fail to realize is that while USA was much superior to Soviets in population and industry, it is separated from Eurasian landmass by two oceans.
All troops and supplies would have to cross Atlantic (or Pacific).
Meanwhile, Soviets were literally in Eastern Europe and had quite big numerical superiority.
That's why educated people who considered this proposition concluded it's not viable.
Another factor is the fact that EF was a colossal struggle, Soviets had a lot more battle-hardended troops and experience in land operations of this scale.
Finally, out of American allies, UK was the only relevant one and they weren't really in great condition, economically at least.

This guy is Czech, I doubt he's a tankie. But you're quite obviously American equivalent of a vatnik.

the Russians on /k/ use "Fatnick"

If you think large amphibious invasions can be thrown around left and right without years of preparation and nearby naval bases, then yes you are a HoI player.

Moscow is unreachable.

B29s can only make it without ordnance and using drop tanks.

I think the allies would win.

>If you think large amphibious invasions can be thrown around left and right without years of preparation and nearby naval bases, then yes you are a HoI player.

They do not take 'years of preparation'. The entire Pacific campaign is proof that you can land tens of thousands of men on enemy beaches hundreds of miles from the nearest port with only a few months preparation, if you have the resources that the US and UK DID HAVE. To use occupied Japan as a staging point for an attack on Vladivostok or to use Greece or even Turkey as a staging point for an attack on Crimea is not far fetched, and certainly within the capabilities of the two largest navies that have ever existed with more combined logistical capability than the rest of the world many times over.

Landing on a large landmass is a whole different thing to securing a small island.

Look at all the issues the Allies had with Operation Overlord despite years of preparation and only a small channel to cross. Now multiply that by a factor of ten for Crimea or Vladivostok..

> To use occupied Japan as a staging point for an attack on Vladivostok

thinks that landing on mainland is equivalent to landing on islands.

any landing force will have to contend with the land based fighters, and bombers, and the eventual counterattack by the opposing forces. tens of thousands of troops isn't going to cut it.

The Allies have no answer to the push by the Soviets in Europe. You cannot threaten the USSR by attacking from the East.

Hell in this scenario did Japan surrender? if so you have over 1.5 million Soviet troops in Manchuria.

if Japan is still holding out (Soviet attack scenario) then you still have to take the Japanese islands etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Air_forces

Even as someone who views the plan from the viewpoint of an American nationalist. the best case scenario would be preventing Communism from taking root in Poland, Hungary, and the other Eastern Bloc nations.

And if we could strike a deal with Japan maybe prevent China, Indochina, and North Korea from falling as well.

holy shit, today's allieboos are this retarded

The Allies would have gained air superiority in like week one and could have nuked every major Russian city within the end of the year. How is this even a contest?

You wouldn't have to go far. Taking Vladivostok alone would be a major blow to them. Taking Sevastopol and bombing St. Petersburg would be the end of external trade for the USSR. They'd eventually rot from the inside out.

>neither side's public is fired up about a war of aggression against their war time allies, while their opponent's public would be outraged

Yeah, it's a shame Governments always tell the complete and absolute truth isn't it. If only they could do the unthinkable and lie.

>The Allies would have gained air superiority in like week one and could have nuked every major Russian city within the end of the year. How is this even a contest?

USSR was out of range for US strategic bombers (reconnaissance planes with no ords and drop tanks could BARELY make it to the border with poland.),

No escorts could make it past Germany.

Just a general reminder not to interact with people who find it necessary to name/tripfag

they only had like 1-2 nukes left in their arsenal when they dropped one on nagasaki iirc and it would take 1-2 months for 1 more

>distance from Tinian to Nagasaki - 2538 km
>distance from London to Moscow - 2503 km
hmmmm

they landed at okinawa on the way back.

>Plan to backstab your ally right after an apocalyptic war
>Plan to start another apocalyptic war
>Plan to redeploy former enemy divisions against former ally in said apocalyptic war

So perfidious even the eternal a*glo didn't go through with it

so just make it a suicide mission, russia defeated, the end

>The USSR would also be fighting on two, perhaps even three fronts (maybe even four if the Allies really wanted), as the US would most likely mount a massive amphibious invasion through Korea and Manchuria, coinciding with the invasion of East Germany. Then the third factor would be the potential for the British Indian Army to push into USSR central Asia (and keep in mind that in 1945 the British Indian Army was at full strength, 2.5 million men.

This is utterly delusional, and only possible in a Hearts of Iron III version of reality. In real life "invading through Korea and Manchuria" is a ridiculous and pointless exercise which would gain the US approximately no strategic advantage and cost enormous resources to execute.

The idea that the British Indian Army had the logistical capacity to sustain a campaign in Central Asia, through Afghanistan and Iran, is an even bigger joke. Never mind that the Indians were totally disinterested in fighting another big world war for Sahib, and would probably have mutinied if ordered to do so.

b29
drop tanks

really?

Japan is an island. How do you propose to supply Harbin or Mukden using boats?

I think you guys severely underestimate what the Allies having air superiority would do to the Red Army's ability to fight.

If the war broke out in June of 1945, the Soviets would make significant initial gains by dint of having far more troops on the front line.

However, the western allies had superior strategic bombing capability, superior navies, far more industrial capacity and accordingly more sustainable logistics, and growing nuclear capabilities. While it is often pointed out that the Democratic powers may not have public support for another world war on the heels of the last one, the Soviet will to keep fighting should not be overestimated. This is particularly true for the non Russian populations, who may well welcome liberators who aren't genocidal. However, communist partisans would be a concern in countries like France and Italy.

Turtledove's latest series is an interesting look at an unthinkable style scenario, with the premise that the Korean war escalates to a broader nuclear conflict

The Luftwaffe had air supremacy at the start of Barbarossa, too, and the VVS was utterly obliterated in the bargain. The Allied AFs would have to fight a VVS which actually sort of knew what it was doing.
Air superiority would not save the US and Commonwealth forces in Germany.

Imagine surviving four years on the Eastern Front fighting the Russians and being pushed back to Berlin and beyond, only to be swept up by the Allies and thrown right back into the fight.

and the Germans won like every battle at the start of Barbarossa. The Allies had significantly larger air forces than the VVS and would gain superiority pretty quickly. If you lose air superiority you lose. This is one of the major lessons of the Second World War.

>sort of knew what it was doing
>female pilots

The B-29 is an invincible super-weapon that will bomb Russia into submission in the same way that the B-17 bombed Germany into submission.

>one bomber is shot down
wtf im a tankie now

probably would've worked, the soviets aviation was entirely dependent on lendlease fuel.

the soviets had enough fuel for operating their tanks for a week at most.

That's just production, it doesn't mean that all were in service in 1945.

>people who actually studied the possibility thought it wouldn't work
That really kills any discussion, at least in these circles. Some of suggestions here are fucking retarded.

>largest oil producer in the world
>cant use the fuel for own tanks and aiplanes
hmmm

Don't you know user?
No one but Anglo-Americans has a functioning brain or any skills.

allies sent 2 670 000 tons of fuel uring the war, Soviets produced 8 091 000 tons. Realy makes you think

It's obvious USSR only won because they had hundreds of superior British and American tanks, like Matilda and Valentine!

This.
Only retards who also think the Russians won the entire war by themselves think that.

prove a single one of his claims

Why multiply though? Northern France was being prepared to defend agaisnt such invasion for years by then, unlike Crimea, Vladivostok or any other place mentioned by OP's.
>The Allies have no answer to the push by the Soviets in Europe
Except for all the American (and other) soldiers that are currently there and their potential allies - the Allies were far more likeable to your average European at the time then any goddamn commie (especially in the East).
>if so you have over 1.5 million Soviet troops in Manchuria
Absolutely true, but doesn't really change much.

What I'm not seeing here are a few arguments - first is the importance of Lend-lease at the time, that supplied massive amounts of both raw materials and finished products - the most famous example would be locomotive production (450 build by the USSR during the war, while the US delivered 1 911), which is sort of representative of other things - the Soviets were producing enough of front-line equipment, but were lacking production of supporting equipment. Third of the Soviet trucks at the end of the war were US built.
All of this would have stopped, while the production was nowhere to be gotten at the time.

The other thing I am missing is the use of nuclear weapons and their effects on population - two of those have definitely broken the Japanese.

.. and? The Soviets are yers of development away, while the Americans would only be increasing their own production, and with every bomb deleting a single Soviet city, how many do you think would it take to brake the Soviet people, when they are being evaporated from the face of Earth every few weeks? Never knowing which hundreds of thousands would perish next.
>we have gone to this war in order to save our allies, the Polish people. Now, they are being decimated by diferent dictator, along with dozens other nations, such evil must be stopped.
Doesn't seem that hard to push with the war propaganda machine going full-strength at the time.

>and with every bomb deleting a single Soviet city
top kek
>how many do you think would it take to brake the Soviet people, when they are being evaporated from the face of Earth every few weeks? Never knowing which hundreds of thousands would perish next.
lmao
>Doesn't seem that hard to push with the war propaganda machine going full-strength at the time.
because peopel are just waiting to let rest of ttheir sons die in a war for something they dont care about

In 1945 everybody just wanted to go home. The idea of having ANOTHER war so quickly is just stupid. Everybody was exhausted.

>because peopel are just waiting to let rest of ttheir sons die in a war for something they dont care about
The rest? The Americans had basically no losses at all, and unless you claim they were extremely less determined than the Soviets, they could have gone on for a long time (American losses - 419,400, about 0,32% of population).

Unlike the Soviets, who actually suffered millions of losses in both civilians and soldiers (let's say between 20-27 millions in total, about 13% of their population)
t. wikipedia, but those numbers are basically the same anywhere

>top kek
>lmao
while I like those terms and they're funny, please provide at least some argument to my claims.
Each bomb killed at least 70 000 people immediately, with about the same number dying later due to the effects of the bombs. The bombs were getting stronger with each made, so I don't see how my claims are to be dissmissed by "top kek" and "lmao".

Because 450 000 dead for Uk and 400 000 for USA is basicaly no losses, right.
Majority of the Soviet losses were civilians, while American are almost entirely soldiers, also real world isnt HoI, US didnt had conscription, their entire male population wasnt prepared for war unlike the entire male population of SU and Eastern Europe as a whole.
>while I like those terms and they're funny, please provide at least some argument to my claims.
Id like to see how do you want to "kill 70 000 people" with nukes when you have 1 or 2 of them and enemy has airforce and AA that can shoot bombers down.

I'm giving you last chance of when I'm providing actual arguments and you dismiss them without any actual claims.
>Because 450 000 dead for Uk and 400 000 for USA is basicaly no losses, right.
Well, yeah.
US Army: 8,267,958 soldiers; US NAVY: 3,380,817 soldiers; US Marines: 474,680 soldiers; US Coast guard: 85,783 soldiers (1945, nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers )
>US didnt had conscription
Wrong. 61.2% (11,535,000) of US sodliers during WW2 were draftees, "only" 38.8% (6,332,000) were volunteers.
>Majority of the Soviet losses were civilians
According to Russian sources it's about 40-60% between military:civilian deaths, the percentages vary slightly, depending on the source. It doesn't really matter, as your population pool is getting smaller anyway.
> their entire male population wasnt prepared for war unlike the entire male population of SU and Eastern Europe as a whole
Source? Implication? What is that even supposed to mean? Eastern Europe can hardly be considered as reliable pool for Soviet Union for such a war (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine - all of those countries still hated Soviet Union a lot, you know).
> with nukes when you have 1 or 2 of them
The US planned to drop 12 more on Japan alone, the general idea is that they could produce at least 1 per month at current rate (which could, most likely, be increased, but even one per month should be more than enough).
>and enemy has airforce and AA that can shoot bombers down
Read this thread. If there is one thing that even the most hardcore tankies don't dare claim, is the US air superiority. Even if we give it to them, cities on the coastline are super vulnerable and basically undefendable for the Soviet air force.

>Wrong. 61.2% (11,535,000) of US sodliers during WW2 were draftees, "only" 38.8% (6,332,000) were volunteers.
I talk about the conscription as a whole, not during the war, Soviets had conscrption since 1936 and since 1939 for all able-bodied males, US had to train all its troops at the beggining of the war while Soviet soldiers already had 3 or 4 year long military duty experience.
>40-60% between military:civilian deaths,
you literally proved my point
>Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine
>all of those countries still hated Soviet Union
Ukraine was literally part of the Soviet union and hating the Stalin or anything is literall meme, Hungary is irelevant, Romania had quite possitive relations with the Soviet union and also fought side by side with them, as well as Bulgaria.
Poland s irrelevant and wast majority of them would support Soviets because enemy (americans) bombing your cities isnt thing that could bring you into their camp.
Communists literally won election in Czechoslovakia in 1946 with over 60% majority, country itself could provide more than 1 000 000 troops and already had highly experienced unit fighting with the Soviets.
>he US planned to drop 12 more on Japan alone, the general idea is that they could produce at least 1 per month at current rate (which could, most likely, be increased, but even one per month should be more than enough).
Soviets could also get their nuke in less than a year
>Read this thread. If there is one thing that even the most hardcore tankies don't dare claim, is the US air superiority. Even if we give it to them, cities on the coastline are super vulnerable and basically undefendable for the Soviet air force.
Are you autistic? Do you undertand how does air war worked in WW2? Soviet and Angloamerican airforce had the same size, and its quite hard to drop a nuke on a city when you have to fly between 2-3000km to reach it, all the way through the hostile territory while being attacked by fighters.

>Are you autistic? Do you undertand how does air war worked in WW2? Soviet and Angloamerican airforce had the same size, and its quite hard to drop a nuke on a city when you have to fly between 2-3000km to reach it, all the way through the hostile territory while being attacked by fighters.
Soviets literally had no plane that was capable of both reaching the B-29's altitude and actually intercepting it

...

Of course they didnt had any, except for LaGG-3, La-5, La-7, La-9, MiG-1, MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-3 + P-63 , P-51, P-47 and Spitfire, only about 95% of Soviet airforce can reach B-29, Soviets are fucked.

aight, fuck it. let's do this
>while Soviet soldiers already had 3 or 4 year long military duty experience
source? Even if we admit that it could be true for the beginning of the war, it's completely unrealistic after at least 7 milion soldiers died and had to be replaced. Also this would imply that US soldiers were underperfoming when compared to others, according to you more experienced soldiers, which is very bold claim.
>you literally proved my point
Your point was based around some notion that the Americans lost more "true" or "real" soldiers, while they lost at least 6 millions less with bigger population, so your point is completely invalid.
The fact that the US haven't lost any civilians (almost any) should be a point in favor of the US, I don't even get how it should somehow be favored for the Soviets that they lost over 10 millions civilians.
>Ukraine hating Stalin is a meme
t. holodomor is not a thing even today, 70 years later
>Romania and Bulgaria had positive relations with Soviets
>Polish people who just wintessed the Red army thousands dying in Warsaw, who fought the Soviets few decades earlier, who were attacked by the Soviets in 1939 would side with them, instead of their allies who have actually gone to war for them and with whom they cooperated the whole war
whoa
>country itself could provide more than 1 000 000 troops
Source? The Czech also had units fighting alongside allies (especiallly in RAF), their (our) exile government was based in London
>Soviets could also get their nuke in less than a year
Source?
first soviet uclear bomb, 1949 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1
>Soviet and Angloamerican airforce had the same size
Source?
US had more than double the size, not even talking about quality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
>2-3000 km
Tokyo-Vladivostok 1063 km (could get closer, just for your idea);
Oslo-St. Petersburt 1091 km (could get closer)
What distances are you considering necessary?

Never refuse good old bait from supposed tankies. If they are a tankie, they deserve to be corrected, if they're not, well, it's always good to go through actual numbers to recall things and maybe find something new.
Sssshhhh, don't let them know about oxygen concentration and other things that would limit the human beings inside either, that would be too harsh.

ria.ru/spravka/20140901/1021958019.html
>Stalin did holodomor meme
>Source? The Czech also had units fighting alongside allies (especiallly in RAF), their (our) exile government was based in London
>our
If you trying to LARP as a Czech, you should know that Czechoslovakia mobilized 1 250 000 soldiers in 1938
>Source?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
>Source?
If you dont have any argument,s stop autisticaly posting "source".
I want to see your source proving that they had different size or were supperior.
>Tokyo-Vladivostok 1063 km
because your enemy allows you to use their capital as a base for airplanes, sure.

>Stalin did holodomor meme
I never claimed that - but people from Ukraine do, to this day. The resentment was even stronger back than.
>If you trying to LARP
Carlsbad born and raised, whole family from around Jičín. Born as Štěpař, father Mikulecký.
Indeed they did, but they had equipment for them, which was taken by the Germans, and they had motivation. Thinking that the same people would go fight for the Soviets, against the much admired West, is a very brave claim.
>Klaus Fuchs
Yeah, dude historically did that and the Soviets had their first test in 1949.
>If you dont have any argument,s stop autisticaly posting "source"
I posted cources for each and every my claim in your cited post.
>I want to see your source proving that they had different size or were supperior.
The link is there. Literally there, right under the sentence you are referring to.
>or were supperior
Didn't claim superiority, this is the best comparison I could find: warhistoryfans.com/who-would-win-the-battle-between-allied-vs.-russian-aircraft-during-wwii-168.html
Detailing the differences between Allied and Russian airplanes would be for another thread, but even if we consider them equal (I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's do so), they are outnumbered 1:2 - when comparing only with the US Air Force, while the RAF was almost the same size as the Soviet (use the same link as above, it has the numbers).
>because your enemy allows you to use their capital as a base for airplanes, sure.
Your enemy surrendered and is now becoming your ally, just like they did in history, you are putting troops on their islands anyway. Just like the US did in history.
We could wander into the theory part and ask ourselves "would the US forgive the Japanese everything they did in order to get an ally against the Soviets" (which they probably would), but let's not do that and just give them a few airfields, shall we?

>Now, they are being decimated by diferent dictator

AND WE WILL DO THE SAME AS WE DID LAST TIME POLAND WAS INVADED

Absolutely jack fucking shit, because no one REALLY gave enough shit about Poland to act on the behalf of Poland, ever.

i think that Czechoslovak population would be quite ok with fighting for the someone that saved them instead of someone that betrayed them. But you wont accept any arguments so arguing with you is meaningless.

The point of that was, it's not hard to make up a "worthy" reason to fight - this was just an example, I believe somehow valid, because it actually was the invasion of Poland that led to allies actually declaring war upon the Third Reich - wether they acted upon said declaration isn't relevant.
As can be seen in the 1946 election, who literally marched through where didn't really affect the people of Czechoslovakia that much - the Communists got most votes in western regions, specifically Sudetenland, where basically no fighting was done.
Pic related, percentage of people who voted for communists. And it was 43% of population.
Second most popular was Czech National Social Party with 25%.

>wether they acted upon said declaration isn't relevant.

Okay buddy, initiative and action are irrelevant in war. That's new.

B92s could not carry any reasonable ordanance past above 30k feet (like 5,000lbs) and hope to even get past germany.

B29s could not make it to the USSR border period, it was too far to make it back.

Strategic bombing could only be done for Eastern soviet cities.

>source? Even if we admit that it could be true for the beginning of the war, it's completely unrealistic after at least 7 milion soldiers died and had to be replaced. Also this would imply that US soldiers were underperfoming when compared to others, according to you more experienced soldiers, which is very bold claim.

while not soldiers the allied generals never successfully did any large scale operations, overlord involved ~10,000 troops, Bagration involved 2.3million+ troops, Invasion of manchuria is another 1.5million soviet troops completely engulfing the enemy destroying their ability to effectively fight back.

at the strategic level the allies were uncoordinated,

heres an assertion.

had the soviets invaded, another dunkirk would occur within the year. puppet governments would be setup in germany france etc, and the soviets would draw from those populations.

>I think you guys severely underestimate what the Allies having air superiority would do to the Red Army's ability to fight.

air superiority was gained due to germanys necessity to counter the bombing raids, they were forced to fight the allies fight in planes not designed to do so.

strategic bombing on the soviets would be symbolic at best, if the allied airforces wanted to destroy the vvs they would have to fight on their terms in a tactical down low style.

plus it took ~3 years and over 100,000 AAF casualties to subdue to luftwaffe.

New to the thread, but you are fucking retarded.

>B92s could not carry any reasonable ordanance past above 30k feet (like 5,000lbs) and hope to even get past germany.
WRONG! As proof, I offer the following.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay#Hiroshima_mission

>After leaving Tinian, the aircraft made their way separately to Iwo Jima, where they rendezvoused at 2,440 meters (8,010 ft) and set course for Japan. The aircraft arrived over the target in clear visibility at 9,855 meters (32,333 ft). Captain William S. "Deak" Parsons of Project Alberta, who was in command of the mission, armed the bomb during the flight to minimize the risks during takeoff. His assistant, Second Lieutenant Morris R. Jeppson, removed the safety devices 30 minutes before reaching the target area.[13]

The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the Little Boy took 43 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at 31,060 feet (9,470 m) to the predetermined detonation height about 1,968 feet (600 m) above the city. Enola Gay traveled 11.5 mi (18.5 km) before it felt the shock waves from the blast.[14] Although buffeted by the shock, neither Enola Gay nor The Great Artiste was damaged.[15]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Little boy weighed in at 9,700 pounds. It was carried by a B-29 over 2,500 kilometers flightpedia.org/distance-hiroshima-to-tinian.html
To drop at over 30,000 feet.

>while not soldiers the allied generals never successfully did any large scale operations, overlord involved ~10,000 troops,

Omaha beach alone landed about 4 times that number troops. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Beach Overlord was bigger, and of course Overlord wasn't the entirety of the Western Front.

Now answer me. Are you just making shit up and have no idea what you're talking about? Or are you deliberately lying?

*100,000 whoops typing fast

enola gay was a modified B29 with different engines

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate#Wartime_production_versions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350_Duplex-Cyclone
the orignail b29 used the -23 while the silverplate models used the -41

>allied generals never successfully did any large scale operations
>Bagration involved 2.3million+ troops
>overlord involved ~10,000 troops

What the actual fuck?

On D-Day alone, over 150,000 men were deployed.

Just the preparatory air-drops totaled almost 25,000 US and British & Commonwealth paratroopers.

Overlord as a whole involved over 2 million men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
>heres an assertion.
>had the soviets invaded, another dunkirk would occur within the year

Here's an assertion:

Within 6 months of total war, Red Army would run out of materiel, food, medical supplies, and everything else, as Soviet industry was a fucking embarrassment, and (in the words of Stalin himself) would not even have beaten the Germans without Lend-Lease, let alone be able to fight the combined forces (and economies) of the US and British Empire in 1945.

German infrastructure was bombed and burning, French industry never really existed to any real extent in the first place, what little industry the USSR had itself was literally 3 thousand miles of completely infrastructure-devoid mud and craters away. Remember that every railway from Germany to central Russia was destroyed first by the USSR in its retreat, then by the Germans in theirs. This is why the Germans had to rely on literally millions of draught horses to pull carts of supplies to the front.

People in this thread talk shit about some guy's assertion that the US and Britain could mount amphibious landings around the globe, but to be honest, the Red Army not collapsing after a few months of heavy fighting in Western Europe is more unlikely than any of those landings being logistically feasible.

Go read up on the extent of Lend-Lease, how the USSR was, in almost every area, outproduced industrially by both Britain and the US individually, let alone both combined.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP

Yeah if it wasnt for (((lend-lease))) the (((USSR))) would have been in trouble.

>US couldn't even be assed enough to stand through the entire Korean war despite having widespread UN approval, fighting less powerful countries, and after taking several years recuperating from WW2
>settles for a cease fire instead
>people actually think the Western allies could whip up enough public support for a long term war without a proper casus belli, against a former ally, right after coming off the end of the largest war ever

Could the US beat the USSR if some war hawk used his omnipotent magical mind control powers and somehow got the entire US population to want to go all in for a war against the USSR? Maybe. But as in all wars such a hypothetical scenario is meaningless; realistically no human political group could've pushed through such a plan at the time.

>Could the US beat the USSR if some war hawk used his omnipotent magical mind control powers and somehow got the entire US population to want to go all in for a war against the USSR? Maybe. But as in all wars such a hypothetical scenario is meaningless; realistically no human political group could've pushed through such a plan at the time.

That's not really how wars happen though.

Most large wars don't start because someone has a huge popular upswelling of support to go and fuck someone else up.

They start because some guy (in this scenario probably someone like De Gaulle) does something that causes an incident, the other side doesn't back down, thinking they can win, then attacks the guy, who is guaranteed help by someone else through a treaty, that someone else having a mutual support treaty with someone the third and so on.

Operation Unthinkable was a strategic plan for an 'if' scenario, as in, 'If we have to fight the USSR, this is how'. How the war was to begin was not so clear, and could have happened from any number of causes, from De Gaulle killing French Communists trying to flee to East Germany, to a US checkpoint opening fire on a Soviet convoy or something equally as insignificant.

>implying the Commies wouldn't have eventually been bombed into oblivion after several years of hard fighting

Good thing that tense of a climate was not there at the end of ww2. Both sides were in no real mood to fight another war. Both sides heavily negotiated terms for the postwar world, and despite potential issues like the Berlin blockade and Korea, the desire for peace won over the desire to wipe out the other party, and one party backed down every single time.

well Russians were only 50% of the USSR's population so you're correct but your meaning is wrong. The Soviets did singlehandedly win the war.

That's a B-24