Operation Unthinkable

>Operation Unthinkable was a code name of two related plans by the Western Allies against the Soviet Union. 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.
May 9, 1945 : Operation Unthinkable commences and Allied troops attack Soviet positions.

Soviet Strength
>Soviets can ally with Japanese
>Soviets have morale and propaganda advantage over their allies betraying them
>Soviets outnumber Allies in Europe, by over two million men - in Germany, Soviets have three million troops and Allied have one million
>Soviet spies have already infiltrated the Manhattan Project
>The Soviets can stop any Allies attempt to commence a strategic bombing campaign like they did against Germany and Japan

Allied Strength
>Allies have naval supremacy
>Allied industrial production is superior
>Allies have more aircraft, especially in strategic bombers
>Allies have the capacity to finalize and use atomic bombs thanks to the Manhattan Project

Other urls found in this thread:

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-III/UK-RAF-III-V.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Soviets can ally with japan
No the fuck they cant retard

>The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.
Are you always stupid and wrong?

>Soviets could stop a strat. bombing campaign
How? The allies would have total air superiority pretty quickly.

By intercepting allied bombers.

Soviet air force is very large and can be used in a great defensive capacity; however, the Soviet air defense would be too much, with around 200,000 personnel dedicated to just air defense. It's safe to say that Allied air superiority would be limited to the front.

Another factor is that the Soviets had a lot of support among partisan groups in Italy, Greece, and most of Eastern Europe. There was a large chance Italy would of adopted a communist system after WW2. Same with France, but the Communist parties were told to participate in government with the pro capitalist parties.

Churchill was not alone, Patton stated: "Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you."

>By the close of 1945 party membership stood at half a million, an enormous increase from its pre-Popular Front figure of less than thirty thousand. In the first post-war elections for the unicameral interim Constituent National Assembly in October 1945, the PCF became the single largest party in France with 26.2% of the vote and 159 seats.
Never knew that it was so popular, thanks for the info user.

what the fuck are you talking about? the japanese ruling elite despised those filthy communists to the goddamn max and would never ally themselves with them

This, the japanese would rather sudoku themselves than alliy with commies.

>hur dur dey hatd da commie!!!
Literal downies

If there's one example of a nation sacrificing pragmatism for ideology it's ultra-nationalist Japan.

>hurr durr nipon woud allie with usssrawrXD and make grorius gommie world yutopia

You are a moron ignorant of actual history, as you've proven before. If you were not such an ignorant biased buffoon, you would know that the Japanese and Soviets were only at war for three weeks. So, how exactly is that an example of a nation sacrificing pragmatism for ideology? Of course, you don't even know what ideology Japan had.

>Soviet war on Japan
relevant how? This is an alt-his about unthinkable, which would have happened months before the soviets declared war on Japan.
The Japanese were not willing to declare war on the Soviet Union, but would not have entered into a formal military alliance to save their lives. This is also my first post so not sure what 'proven before' means.

And how will they intercept allied bombers without air superiority?

>This is an alt-his about unthinkable
And the facts still matter.
>which would have happened months before the soviets declared war on Japan.
Yes, I already pointed this out. This directly contradicts your statement that Japan didn't care about pragmatism, instead of helping their allies and attacking the Soviet Union, they chose the pragmatic route.
>The Japanese were not willing to declare war on the Soviet Union, but would not have entered into a formal military alliance to save their lives.
So you think Japan would only be pragmatic in not attacking the Soviet Union, but would not be pragmatic in cooperating in whatever additional way with the Soviet Union against the same exact enemies? I'm not saying it would happen guaranteed, but denying it as a possibility is utter lunacy.

Try to reach the Elbe with the 1st American, make a risky flanking maneuver towards the Soviet 47th and try to break through the 1st Polish with the 9th American, the 2nd British would try to engage with the 70th Soviet and defeat them in detail, try to bomb down Magdeburg and destroy all bridges over the Elbe that are not of use for ongoing operations.

The 3rd American should harass the 4th Soviet GT.
The 1st French, 7th American, 5th American and the 8th British should be assembled southeast of Munich in order to prepare for a frontal breakthrough in Austria, after letting the Soviets capture the centre of it, the Yugos can be ignored.

Otherwise try to bomb the shit out of Czech infrastructure in order to delay the Soviets and create German Units out of POWs, veterans, volunteers, nazis and everyone that is able to fight and can be spared from production.

Also start a blockade in the Baltic Sea and bomb the harbours of Pommerania and Mecklenburg.

The Soviet frontline is overstretched and thus not able to immediately respond.

the true yaks made from real soviet steel with the blessing of stalin himself flew higher and faster with better armament than the puny american p51's

It's not necessarily pragmatism that dictated Japan's non-involvement in the war against the USSR, but more that it was an impossibility. They could not handle the allies in the pacific, the Chinese and a war in Siberia, surely proved by the way that the Soviets overran Manchuria and N. Korea in weeks.

>soviets can ally with the japanese
maybe that would have been a strength in 1941 but not in fucking may of 1945

The Soviets would not ally with the Japanese and vice versa.
The only thing why the average soldier and general staff of the Japanese Army were still fighting was due to their ideological Obligation of imperial loyalty and the honour they wanted to save, of course dogmatic unrealism played a part in this. Most of the time they were not acting pragmatic.

The Soviets would not want to fight the British in India or the Chinese in China and did not have the ressorces and logistical capabilities to do so, this is what the Soviet role would have been in a Soviet-Japanese alliance and expecting this to happen is utter lunacy, Stalin would never have done that and thinking this is a possibility (in realistic and subjective terms) is much rather utter lunacy, than what you described as such.

>It's not necessarily pragmatism
Of course it is. Otherwise they could have declared war on the USSR in 1941, while they were doing well.
>more that it was an impossibility.
It was not in 1941.

>Soviets can ally with Japanese
No they can't. Imperial Japan despised the Soviet Union more than any other country on Earth. They literally saw communists as inhuman abominations.

>opinion
>The Soviets would not ally with the Japanese and vice versa.
Based off of literally nothing.
>The only thing why the average soldier and general staff of the Japanese Army were still fighting was due to their ideological Obligation
Wrong.
>The Soviets would not want to fight the British in India
On the contrary they would rush to British Raj.
>Stalin would never have done that
Based off of nothing, for xth time.

You continuously prove you are an ignoramus who types whatever they feel.

>Imperial Japan despised the Soviet Union more than any other country on Earth.
So much in fact, they signed a treaty of friendship and refused to attack the Soviet Union and help their allies.
>They literally saw communists as inhuman abominations.
So much so they attacked the inhuman communist nation of the USA.

The Japanese really, really did not like communism, so much so that the japanese communist party was banned.

>you would know that the Japanese and Soviets were only at war for three weeks.
This as an argument against your Position used to be stopped from beeing yoused by your Opposition, who are trying to shit here with a post that is to roughly a 1/4 made up of Insults.
>you don't even know what ideology Japan had
History is not about data and puny things like ideology, this becomes especially clear if you are asked to name them in an autistic way that not even a high-school teacher would apply to his students, by an idiot such as you are.
In the book "The Second World War" by Marco Sigg, a Swiss professor, the Japanese ideology was described as "Japanese Ultranationalism".
Srsly, is your sole goal to "win" this discussion?

>Siberia is an empty frozen wasteland with no useful resources to the Japanese
>S-E Asia has tons of oil
>get embargoed by the US so you can't take over the oil
>need oil
>"hey guys let's attack Siberia for no fucking reason"
Are you actually retarded ?

>This as an argument against your Position used to be stopped from beeing yoused by your Opposition
wtf lmao lrn2english
>B-b-but in the book "The Second World War"
How pathetic. It's just Japanese militarist nationalism led by a military junta, it's not a codified ideology like NDSAP you mong.
>Srsly, is your sole goal to "win" this discussion?
I have no goal in this discussion retard. Now fuck off you moron.

>thinking operation unthinkable would be launched in the middle of fighting with Japan

In the end, you were the true brainlet.

I thought People could make their mind up on why I choose certain Arguments, but apparently some don't.
>The Soviets would not ally with the Japanese and vice versa.
This sentence was an introduction into my post, the explanation is everything that Comes after it, I'm sorry if my style of Argumentation doesn't fit into your neat narrative for that.

>Wrong.
Please tell me why you think so, now you are really basing it off of nothing.
Of course the Japanese also wanted to protect their families and fatherland from Anglo-American Invasion, but I would not like to talk about this subject as it would only lead to a /pol/-tier debate in my humble opinion.
>they would rush to British Raj
Again, please explain why, Central Asia really isn't a place through which you want to transdport your supplies and even the Soviets cannot just pull some multiple million troops out of their as, as already stated, they would have to go through Afghanistan and natives there and in Northern India would probabaly partially turn into partisans.
Also Indian infrastructure was not all that great outside of cities and I can't imagine that Soviet troops would be fit for subtropical raining seasons and just as some Soviets got motivated by Stalin when the Germans invaded, the British and Indians would also fight this foreign invader and get a morale boost in some way.
And you have not included China into that calculation, both National and Communist China were friendly towards the Soviets and at war with Japan, all they would have had to do to defeat the Soviets in Siberia was capture parts of the Siberian railway and the largest cities and towns.

Stalin would never have done that because he was actually pragmatic, when Htler invaded he was surprised because he couldn't imagine that a dictator would do such thing without calculating the risk and coming to the conclusion that this is not an attractive action.
Politically and personally he would be against an alliance.

It's called Operation Unthinkable for a reason.

everyone in this thread arguing about whether or not the japs would have allied with the soviets is a retard who forgets that such an alliance would be literally inconsequential, considering we're talking about the same japan that has been getting curbstomped for three years by the united states

I think you should look for a doctor, your complex are a sign of a negative psychological constitution.

Thank you.

>proven wrong on every point, so this moron has to move the goalpost
Okay.
>Siberia is an empty frozen wasteland with no useful resources to the Japanese
You claimed that the Japanese couldn't attack the Soviet Union and you were proven wrong.
>S-E Asia has tons of oil
>get embargoed by the US so you can't take over the oil
The US only controlled the Phillipines in SEA.

>thinking operation unthinkable would be launched in the middle of fighting with Japan
It was originally planned for that you brainlet maximus.

Are you even taking notice of the fact,that you have ruined this thread by your autistic shitposting about the probability of a Soviet-Japanese alliance?
You are not exactly the god of arguments and your aggression towards those who disagree with you is lowering the discussion-quality.

>Soviets can ally with Japanese
This is not the main statement of OP and as we all know Japan's military power in 1945 was undeniably limited( If I really have to explain this to you, the Americans bombed their urban and industrial areas en masse, defeated their insular garrisons in the pacific and destroyed the Japanese naval capabilities, a Soviet-Japanese alliance would simply lead to Red Army troops and material going to places where they are not required for the Soviet war effort but rather will try to save the Japanese from destruction, I think you know that the Japanese were not an attractive ally for the Soviets).

>the explanation is everything that Comes after i
There was no explanation on why that would be the case.
>now you are really basing it off of nothing.
Interesting with this next statement.
>Of course the Japanese also wanted to protect their families and fatherland
Clearly it's not all ideology.
>Again, please explain why, Central Asia they would have to go through Afghanistan
If you think they would go through central asia and afghanistan, you've already proven you don't know what you're talking about.
>Indians would also fight this foreign invader
Probably not. Communism is very popular in India and the urge for independence would be universal.
>both National and Communist China were friendly towards the Soviets and at war with Japan, all they would have had to do to defeat the Soviets in Siberia was capture parts of the Siberian railway and the largest cities and towns.
Maybe it sounded better in your head, but why would they want to attack the Soviet Union? The communist Chinese could just ceasefire with the Japanese. It's not as if the Soviets would send troops to fight with the Japanese.
>Stalin would never have done that because he was actually pragmatic
He would want some sort of cooperation with Japan because it would be pragmatic. They don't need to be the closest allies to cooperate with each other, similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop. Pact.

The Soviet and Western Allies were never actually allied with one another, they merely were fighting the same enemy and coordinated to a degree. They actively hid information from one another.

>hurr better change the topic
>Are you even taking notice of the fact
haha nice complete goalpost shift you moron.
>a Soviet-Japanese alliance would simply lead to Red Army troops and material going to places
Why are you under this impression? Nowhere have I stated this. I only stated that it's likely the Soviets and Japanese could cooperate in some way, similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Instead you and every other idiot have sperged out at the very possibility of the USSR and Japan cooperating, been BTFO numerous times, and have shitted up the thread. If you don't like it, then you should go elsewhere, because you and the other one have nothing to contribute but pure, unfiltered stream-of-stupidity.

This thread got shitty because some special snowflakes without goals , thought it was a good time to let others enjoy the pleasure of their posts, please remember to report those people next time, it's for our good.

Shut the fuck up nigger, you won the debate because you belong to the category of dumb people that keep screaching until the arguments are used up, I could keep discussing with you, but I won't because I came to this thread because of Operation Unthinkable which to the mind of most People apparently has nothing to do with Operation Asperger or Asia.
Fuck off.

>goalpost
Goodbye.

>Shut the fuck up nigger,
Top kek! Did I strike a nerve?
>you won the debate
Not much of a debate, just pointing out the stupidity every piece of autism that you two posted.

What makes you think the allies would have had the same level of air superiority over USSR as they had over Germany?

muh b-29 superbomber
muh p-51 mustang

For the SU, the Allies are a less cohesive Germany, if they attack first there WILL be a total collapse of the front, the Allies simply don't have enough reserves to plug the holes the Soviets will open up.

The Allies' Rush into Germany left them badly exposed, state of roads/ports , the vast majority of supplies were still coming through France due to the state of the German architecture.

Hell even the Allies hid shit from each other

Top kek xD

>Allies lost France in a month
>after twenty years of preparation and a year of active entrenchment
>to an opponent they outnumbered in manpower
>to an opponent that had less artillery and tanks
>now the Allies will soon be fighting in France again after the Soviets quickly take over Germany
>against an opponent who outnumbers them
How would the Allies not be immediately kicked out of Europe again?

>the Soviet air defense would be too much, with around 200,000 personnel dedicated to just air defense.
Kek. The Nazis utilized over 1,000,000 highly trained military and massive technical equipment to stave off the Allied bombing campaign. The Sovs had neither the training or equipment to do this. They would be devastated.

This is the point I tried to make before. On top of all of this France had a massive communist party which could organize a fourth column.

this

Every single member of the """""""""""allies""""""""""" besides the UK was working against each other in some way.

>Soviets can ally with Japanese
"no"
>The Soviets can stop any Allies attempt to commence a strategic bombing campaign like they did against Germany and Japan
explain

Nor were the Soviets terribly concerned with high altitude bomber defense.

>The Nazis utilized over 1,000,000
Over the course of six years. From various sources such a Heer, Hitler Youth, and Luftwaffe, not dedicated. Soviet air defenses is an entirely professional force that operates it's own aircraft as well. They can also be supplemented by the VVS and SA.
>highly trained military
You have no idea what you are talking about. Over six years, the people manning German air defenses were pulled from a huge range of quality, not all professional, especially from 1944.
>Sovs had neither the training or equipment
What are you basing this off of? You don't know anything about the Soviet air defenses.

Why do people always say this but ignore the possibility of similar partizians in Soviet controlled Europe?

>Over the course of six years.
No, at the highpoint of the war. The Sovs had no chance to match the Nazi effort against the bombing campaign. No equipment, no leadership, no training, nothing. They were going to get buttraped.

People in soviet controlled Europe were mostly thankful for being liberated. I doubt they would side with *another* foreign occupying force. Everybody who at one point were willing to do that was likely dead by then.

You mean the people that within years actually revolted against the Soviets?

>No, at the highpoint of the war.
No, this is the combined German air defense numbers from 1939 to 1945. Given how little you know about German and Soviet air defenses, I find it unlikely you know the one-time amount of troops dedicated to air defense, do you have a source?

The hungarian revolution was put down with about 35,000 troops. The polish revolt had only several dozen casualties. This is opposed to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were in the pro moscow militaries of those countries.

Also its debatable that they were protesting against bureaucratic deformations, desiring real socialist politics

The Soviet postwar crackdown, yet to have happened, drastically reduced pro Democratic and nationalist forces, especially in Poland. It is ridiculous to assume that revolts in Italy and France would occur, and not in Poland or Czechoslovakia. Especially as many contiuned to fight the Soviets after they made accord with the west. Remember, in May 45' Poles fought Russians several times and in June 45' the Soviets interned thousands of anti-communist poles.

>T34 is superior to M4 Sherman
>IS-2 is superior to M26 Pershing
>Yak-9 is superior to P51
Equipment doesn't win wars, but it does give an advantage.

The absolute state of vatniks

>he's right, better assume his nationality
good argument

>Japs
They were done for, no more fighting men, no more ammo, no more fuel.
>morale and propaganda
shiggy
>spies
Soviets didn't grab enough Krauts to make their own bombs before we would reach Moscow.
>stop any attempt to commence strategic bombing
You realize they didn't actually stop the Luftwaffe, right? They shut them down on the ground, not in the sky.
Allies could take the air and the sea.
Manpower is a good point, but consider that the Soviets barely beat the Germans, with the full support of Allied industry and allied aircraft.
Soviets have only manpower, not much they can do against bombs.

>T-34 has lower range between engine refits
>has lower readiness rate
>has higher loss rates vs German armor
>has lower crew survival rates after a penetration
>""""better""""

Let me guess, got laughed out of /k/.

The armament, armor, speed, and operational range are all important factors you don't want to mention, because the T34 has the advantage in those categories.
>has higher loss rates vs German armor
Perhaps because there were more Germans and German armor on the eastern front, not to mention how long the Germans had air superiority. Where did the biggest tank battles of the war happen?
>has lower crew survival rates after a penetration
Only one tank was nicknamed after a cigar. Protip: It wasn't the T34 that was nicknamed for what happened if a shell penetrated.

We've been over this a million times before. Everything hinges on which snaps first, western will to keep up the war or Soviet materiel. Since even parsing a tough to quantify variable like public and elite willingness to keep a hypothetical war going is almost impossible, actually planning this out is almost meaningless.

>Soviets can ally with Japanese
So what? Japan by May of 1945 is completely shattered.

>The Soviets can stop any Allies attempt to commence a strategic bombing campaign like they did against Germany and Japan
How, exactly? U.S. wartime airframe production was close to double that of the Soviets, their pilots have more training, their planes are generally better, and they were still gearing up by the end of the war. That's not even mentioning the British and eventually French production efforts.

dont get lost in the minute details, as long as there isn't a vast gap in equipment it frankly doesnt matter much.

"barely?"

the war was lost for germany the moment they failed to take moscow, everything after was the SU figuring out how to impose its will.

The Soviets would have fought initially a defensive war which would have made the Allied offensive even more costly (you needed two or three times the number of forces to break through a defence, roughly speaking).

The Soviets in 1945 wrote the book on mechanized warfare, the Allies did not have the ability to counter the Soviet ability to conduct set-piece attacks. A hole would be opened and the flood would pour in, hearing of a soviet attack mass surrenders/desertions would take place, retreat would be made impossible by the flood of refugees west.

The Soviets would still have had reserves in the Far East and would have become allied with the Japanese. The British and the Americans had a hard time finding new replacements and several US divisions that should have been fielded were never created due to lack of manpower. The supply problem would still have been major for the West even though they had complete control of the Atlantic.

Finally, the West suffered a vast morale problem which is usually 'conveniently ignored'. The number of soldiers with combat fatigue had skyrocketed in the final months of he war and by May 1945, 200,000 US Army men had deserted and were wandering around Europe. When they were caught, they were usually designated as AWOL as desertion was taboo; 18,000 were never heard from again. They are usually listed as MIA or KIA although most undoubtable started a new life in Europe (plenty of women and work).

It was called Unthinkable for a reason, no side actually wanted, or was able, to fight another war.

By 1945 Soviet forces outnumbered the allies significantly(4:1 in infantry, 2:1 armor) in the Western front, but its industry was exhausted and their most important cities were about to begin their long process of recovery, which would require the complete attention of the nation.

For the Allies, most of Western Europe was in literal ruins and Britain completely bankrupted, America fared a lot better but the population wanted its soldiers home ASAP and the war racked up quite a debt, over 110% in GDP.

If for some retarded reason the operation happens, it would be months of stalemate since both sides would be too busy mustering its forces for any sort of offensive operations until nukes started flying all over Europe, America would've eventually won but whether it manages to survive the aftermath is a whole different thing.

Because European are incompetent. Now that America was holding their hand it was a fair fight.

the only good post here, almost.
They had no nukes by the time Churchill wanted to start the war and even if they had, 9 nukes made until the end of the 1946 couldnt realy change anything even if they managed to drop it without being shot down by Soviets which would happen. Soviet aircrafts werent that good as Allied ones but Red airforce still had significant numerical superiority.

>but Red airforce still had significant numerical superiority.
[citation badly needed]

>So what? Japan by May of 1945 is completely shattered.
Not quite. Millions of Japanese troops are still defending their territories, which are still quite expansive in May 1945. Japan does not need to do anything but tie up resources in East Asia, the USSR can send oil, and generally try to help the Japanese keep fighting. Without the Soviets taking over Manchuria and Korea and instead sending them supplies, the Communist Chinese ceasefiring, and if the atomic bombs get dropped in Europe instead, Japan would last much longer.
>How, exactly?
Soviet airforce and air defenses are superior to the battered ones the German's had in 1944. It would take years for the Allies to wear it down and commence a successful bombing campaign over Soviet cities and production centers.
>their planes are generally better
Soviet fighters are better on average at this point.

> Japan does not need to do anything but tie up resources in East Asia,
Exactly what resources would it tie up? It's not like the U.S. has any pressing commitments on the Chinese mainland nor in places like Vietnam.

> the USSR can send oil,
How? Japan is under blockade, and the Soviets don't exactly have a fleet in the Pacific anyway.

>Japan would last much longer.
Japan is on the verge of starvation as it was and only ate in 1946 because of U.S. food aid; what with their manpower pool mostly depleted and their internal transportation network shot to hell. Soviet aid that cannot effectively reach them will not help this, nor do the Japanese possess enough striking power to force the U.S. to divert any assets that would otherwise be employed in Europe to defeating them. The Americans can just afford to sit and wait until they deal with the Soviets.

>Soviet airforce and air defenses are superior to the battered ones the German's had in 1944.
That is the single stupidest argument I have ever seen in my life. Let me turn it around.

Since the American and British armies are superior to the battered German forces of 1944-45, the Soviet attacks in Germany will be utter failures and will end up with them losing hundreds of kilometers.

Just because the VVS is in better shape than the Luftwaffe of 1944, doesn't mean it can stop the Americans and British from bombing them into pieces. Allied bomb projection ability slightly more than quadrupled from 42-43, and then quintipled from 43-44. And in 1945, they dropped slightly over 40% of their 1944 totals in a third of the year, most of it during the winter.

>Soviet fighters are better on average at this point.
Don't be ridiculous. The most produced of the late war operational VVS fighters was the Yak-9. It is slower at all altitudes than a P-51D or a Spitfire XVII, has a worse power/mass ratio, can't fly as high as either, can't fly as long as the P-51, and is less well armed than either. That's not getting into the fact that the pilots have fewer flight time hours training, nor was Soviet air doctrine as advanced, since they didn't view controlling airspace as important, viewing fighters as an adjunct to the bombers who are themselves an adjunct to land forces.

"The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis Led Germany from Conquest to Disaster", its part of the trilogy by Richard Evans.
VVS had 5184 fighters , 3845 attack planes and 1857 bombers on 1st May 1945 in Europe + 3500 in Far East. Thats about 15 000 planes and it doesnt include transportation or recon planes.

No one wanted to fight ww2 in 1940. A lot had changed by 1945 and the allies weren't fucking around anymore.

Pretty sure the same could be said of the people's liberated by the western allies. Also I'm certain the people's of the Ukraine and Baltics would be happy someone was liberating them again, cept this time no genocide and SS.

It's actually less than 12,000, but I suppose counting isn't your strong suit. Neither is basic logic, since you know, that number is completely meaningless to claim that the Red Airforce had numerical superiority over the U.S. and allies without including how many planes they had.

Considering how the RAF alone had over 8,000 front line aircraft (Also not including transportation or recon planes) in January of 1945.
ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-III/UK-RAF-III-V.html and that the USAAF is actually quite a bit bigger, I'm seriously doubting this.

Soviet air defenses are better than Nazi Germany's was...ever. I'm talking paranoid soviet AAA 4-5x as much as Nazi Germany, with a self contained defensive oriented air-force.

past eastern Germany your bombers are on their own, and the amount of ordnance that can be brought that far is small (

>Western allied nations full of people who hated communism
>No hippies to protest war like crazy
Pretty sure the public would be perfectly fine with it tbqh.

The Japanese were in no position to offer any kind of support to the Soviets. Their doom was imminent and assured and the Russians had no way of challenging Allied naval control of the waters off East Asia. Please don't be stupid.

>Soviet air defenses are better than Nazi Germany's was...ever. I'm talking paranoid soviet AAA 4-5x as much as Nazi Germany, with a self contained defensive oriented air-force.
That is completely irrelevant. Do you not get this? You need to compare the strength of the Soviet defenses to the strength of the air forces going to batter at them, not a completely irrelevant comparison involving the strength of the German air forces. It is entirely posisble for an air defense system to be better than what the Gemrans had in 1944 and still not be enough.

>past eastern Germany your bombers are on their own, and the amount of ordnance that can be brought that far is small
A P-51D with external tanks has an operational range of over 1,300 kilometers. That's enough to cover a raider from London to Western Poland, nevermind any base that's actually closer to the fighting. What do you do if the Americans decide to put fighters up in Narvik? Or Cyprus? Or Baghdad?

>The British and American armies were not superior to the forces the Soviets beat in 44-45.
Yes they are. They featured over 100 divisions and a force totalling over 5.5 million men, with a degree of firepower that's enormously more than what the Germans had.

>The LA5 and its updated son the LA7 is better in every way than the P51D at sub-3k meters.
And there were less than 13,000 built of them combined. They'll also get dived on and crushed every time they come out, becuase they are in fact shit at high altitudes.

That's why Korea turned into an all out war with the USSR ending in the crushing of communism worldwide, right?

It would be better in the late 40's after they build more atom bombs

Your P51 crashed in western Poland.

>liberated
ah yes

this is such an autistic topic, should be banned
The only non pleb answer is that whoever launches it loses, since the Western Allies were not going to go to war on a whim against the nation they had been telling their public was their biggest ally and friend for 4 years, and the Soviets aren't going to go to war when they're exhausted and just got done fighting one enemy. Whoever seriously tried to go through with this would either end up in a shallow grave or overthrown.

USA couldve singlehandedly won that war, if only churchill was our president instead

>And there were less than 13,000 built of them combined.

Not only that but there were no LA7s in service in Unthinkable's time frame. And the LA5 has a higher top speed, but literally no other advantages. It's got about half the range, a service ceiling almost 2000m lower, a slower rate of climb, and its armament is pathetic by comparison.

yes barely.
The Soviets would win but they spent their entire force.
They become a powerhouse as the war went on, they only continued moving forward things already given to them, to they scrounging for the entirety of the war.
>muh morale
there was no shortage of men in the Allied forces.
U.S. =/ entire allied force
>Soviets wrote the book on mechanized warfare
no they didn't, they were against slower much heavier tanks which were fighting in open areas.
German tanks are much better for attacking, when German tanks attacked the Soviet tanks could not withstand them.
The Soviets were trash at mechanized warfare.
The Allied tanks would have crushed them, know why?
Same reason the allies beat the Germans.
Allied Tanks were built for urban warfare, Soviet tanks were built for open warfare in the countryside, German tanks were built for firepower.
>mass surrenders and desertions
you fuckin' retarded m8?
how the fuck are the soviets going to win a war against an enemy that no longer fights on the ground? You know the place where 90% of the Soviet forces are?
>allied with the Japanese
useless, Japan could contribute nothing.
They were losing in China, indo-China, the U.S. was just the nail in the coffin of resistance. Japan had no capacity to attack.

The allies would have conducted bombing raids, hitting the soviets wherever they found them, all of this to harry the Soviets into playing a waiting game, which the allies would win eventually due to more German scientists and Allied production.

Also Spanish troops would join the allies, the spanish who notably were the most effective troops against the Soviets, at least that's what their track record says.
So manpower for the allies is not a problem.
Also the Soviets would have no food after the allies begin their air raids, they had little food to begin with and then hitting their supply lines as they begin to recover destroyed territory from the war would be a killing blow to Soviet ground troops.

One other major strength the Soviets had was that the US was unwilling to participate in Unthinkable.

When Truman was briefed on Churchill's plan drawn up the British Command, which heavily relied on the US's participation in the invasion, Truman scolded Churchill saying would not participate in the offensive under any circumstance, citing American desire for peace and the general public back home having no desire for a war with the Soviets. Truman told Churchill that he was on his own, and the plan didn't even make it off the ground with that.

Roosevelt and Truman both were fine with cutting their losses at Soviet control of Eastern Europe, despite public protests that the East were entitled to free elections, they knew they didn't have the teeth to back up those words with willingness to use force.

What's more is that the only allied power in any fighting shape was the US, Britain's economy was running on mountains of loans taken from the US and France and Germany were both in total ruin from the war already, literally no one but Churchill had the stomach for even more war.

source;

Walker, Jonathan. Operation Unthinkable: The Third World War. The History Press. 2013

>truman was resoponsible for the cold war

what a shitter

Just invade crimea and go behind them, not that hard

Nuke em. It's just German cities destroyed as collateral so who gives a shit?

range =/= radius

>That is completely irrelevant. Do you not get this? You need to compare the strength of the Soviet defenses to the strength of the air forces going to batter at them, not a completely irrelevant comparison involving the strength of the German air forces. It is entirely posisble for an air defense system to be better than what the Gemrans had in 1944 and still not be enough.

It took two years to cripple the Luftwaffe and major air defense, the W. Allies don't have even a year to cripple the VVS, because Europe would be lost by then.

>Yes they are. They featured over 100 divisions and a force totalling over 5.5 million men, with a degree of firepower that's enormously more than what the Germans had.

The British and American forces in Europe were at NO point better operationally than Nazi Germany(except in 45), they were more powerful than the forces delegated to fight in the western theater. Had the Soviet Stalemated in 44 and the forces facing them turned West, they would have pushed the W. Allies out of Europe.

The "bottleneck" isn't producing supplies its getting them into Europe, Most port facilities in Europe were Sabotaged by Germany or Bombed out.

>there was no shortage of men in the Allied forces. U.S. =/ entire allied force

The US Army wanted to field 187 divisions but managed to field only 92, and eventually only 89 were maintained by 1944.

Training had to be shortened and the bar for joining up had to be lowered. So these barely trained new recruits were send directly to the front line units as replacements as they would go through the meat grinder anyway.

Front line regiments in Northwest Europe suffered a 100% casualty rate every two months.

>Allied Tanks were built for urban warfare, Soviet tanks were built for open warfare in the countryside, German tanks were built for firepower.
lol go press that red X in the top right corner.