What does /his/ make of Operation Unthinkable? How much PCP did

Not Churchill's idea, retard. This was Patton and Marshall's.

>>3266970
>This was Patton and Marshall's
No it wasn't, retard, and you're thinking of MacArthur's plan anyway you shit-eater.

>>3266951
It would be like Operation Barbarossa but it would actually succeed.

Tbh Operation Unthinkable could had worked if FDR hadn't been Stalin's cocksleeve and spent last 3+ years by sending his sugar daddy constant gifts.

>>3267000
Huh.
Either way, bottom line is that it'd be stupider than Barbarossa and Downfall combined.

>crypto-fascists Churchill and Patton attack the USSR without provocation
>french/italian resistance backs the USSR, revived wehrmacht backs the capitalists

>6 months later
>red flag over paris, athens and rome
>spain on the verge of being liberated

>>3267007
>stupider than Barbarossa and Downfall combined
Operation Downfall would have been a piece of piss, Japs couldn't fight for shit.

>>3267019
Still stupid though given that continuing Operation Starvation most likely would had caused Japan to surrender in less than a year.

Too bad Operation Vegetarian wasn't put to play.

File: 1502939375316.gif (2MB, 532x295px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 532x295px

>>3266951
The Brits and Yanks would have annihilated the Soviets, and you'd have to be high to say they wouldn't have. But the casualties would skyrocket again and would have made the war last 2~ more years. Considering how big a pain in the ass Russia has always been I think we should have nuked Moscow.

>>3267055
It is entirely probable that you would have a non-total war political setup and a negotiated peace after initial Soviet victories. If you have unlimited commitment, sure, the Soviets lose eventually, but positing unlimited commitment seems to be a rather baseless assumption.

>>3267055

Nukes would've settled it for sure.

It would have ended with the Allies squatting in the UK sending nukes over on the regular until there was a negotiated peace.

>>3266951
The soviet manpower reserves were mostly depleted fighting the germans, and without being sent equipment/food aid from Lend-Lease they would have crumbled

>>3267015
>liberated
found the fuckin' ugly red

>>3267015
>without provocation

Lol

>muh tank columns

muh supply lines, muh navy, muh strategic bombers, muh atom bombs

>>3267048
Where? On Germany, or the Sovjets?

>>3267324
citation needed
Soviets already have about 9 milion soldiers and can easily get others, UK has no manpower and America as well, because they dont have conscription, also good luck justyfing it to the public.

>>3266951
It would've been another bloodbath killing 10+ million more men easily, and it would've been a Soviet overrun of West Germany and a push into France at worst.

Britain had next to no ability to continue waging war after the German surrender, as the British war economy drove the empire to near bankruptcy trying to keep itself alive, and US had the bulk of its firepower concentrated in Japan/the Pacific, with a standing allied force of around 3.5 million against the Soviet frontline of 6.4 million, and a total standing Red Army of nearly 16 million, war with the Soviets was out of the question, as the risk of losing what the Western Allies already gained in Europe was too great to gamble.

The other, greater deterrent to Unthinkable was that the Soviets were still needed by the Allies in the war against Japan, with the Yalta Agreement stating that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan 3 months after the end of war in Europe. they needed another front open in Manchuria to hasten the surrender of Japan, who still had their land empire in China expanding, even as the war at sea turned against them.

There would also be a diplomatic backlash to the operation, tarnishing a reputation that the allies had to hold up in order to maintain relations with other powers. If the US and Britain suddenly backstabbed their ally immediately after the end of hostilities, most of the world would look upon both the US and UK with distrust, seeing proof that any agreement signed with them wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and exacerbate communist revolutions in solidarity with the Soviets in British colonies and elsewhere.

Lastly, after the 70+ million dead from WWII and the resources spent on waging the most destructive war in history, almost no one was really eager to enter another war as all parties were sick and tired of all the killing and all peoples were just ready for war to end. It would be a daunting task to get public support for another global war.

>tfw you will never let MacArthur nuke Beijing

File: 1500278622842.jpg (133KB, 900x804px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 900x804px

Funny. If you post a thread like this on /k/ everyone will say, that Allies win hands-down, due to strategic bomber capaability, depleted/overextended Soviet manpower and nukes, interesting to see the differences in board cultures

>>3267426
Not him, but the UK and the U.S. sure as fuck had conscription. Hell, the U.S. had a larger overall military than the Soviets did in 1945; it just appears smaller because it hard far more non-combatant roles, a lot of stuff shipping cargo to and fro throughout the world.

>>3267481
And that last part is going to be a serious issue. I'm not 'lol Soviets take Paris' type either, because the issue of logistics is still there. For a fight with the Soviets, your logistics chains are going to be even longer than the Germans were. Shipping shit all over the world, and now shipping shit all over Europe.

>>3267477
of course a bunch of dumb american gun nuts would say that

>>3267477
If the war existed in a vacuum with no accounts for terrain, exhausted manpower, depleted resources, morale, public approval, and all the equipment damaged/lost in WWII, and just the full unmitigated might of the Western Allies vs. the USSR and Eastern European states, the allies would have the advantage. But the allied position between the shattered British and French, German, and Italian militaries and economies, and an ongoing war with Japan taking the lion's share of the US' attention, the Soviets were just in the better position to keep up the fight in Europe, which is why Churchill's proposal was almost immediately discarded, it really was Unthinkable to take on the Red Army with what they had left after losing so much in the war against Germany.

>>3267128
no they wouldn't have
in '45 the American ability to build nuclear weapons was still in the single digits per year, their damage was still comparatively low and it required major aerial superiority over the target to be possible.

No one mention France in threads about operation unthinkable. Sure it wasn't a major part of the allies but France was red as fuck, no way they would have been ok with it.
They probably wouldn't have joined the komintern but a good part of the population would have sided with the USRR, making their entry into west Europe easier.

>>3267477
See
>>3267500
>>3267497

/k/ is incredibly biased and uninformed. It's an american circlejerk.

>>3267518
>major aerial superiority
not a problem desu

>>3267485
Yeah, but most of the framework is already there. And it's usually the contested logistical stretch that's the tough part, not just shipping stuff. The Americans are going to have more trouble moving supplies over the 200 km immediately behind the lines than they will over the Atlantic; the Soviet navy and long range air capability is essentially nonexistant.

I still maintain that the real sticking point is political will to keep fighting, especially since the Soviets are likely to launch the first offensive owing to the balance of force in central Europe in the spring and summer of 1945.

>>3267523
France had also been essentially purging its more communist elements. In early 1945, De Gaulle was far more focused on that than actually fighting Germany. I doubt they would have been able to do all that much.

>>3267526
They also tend towards the biases that gun nuts in general tend to have (which isn't exactly surprising). They're enormously more focused on the technical than the organizational.

>>3267534
Actually, it's a very, very serious problem. Especially over that much enemy territory.

>>3267497
>>3267500
>>3267526
I wasn't saying they would be right, besides total nuclear holocaust (which wouldn't have been achievable) I don't think either side really had an upper hand, without maybe some strategic brilliance on one side, was just pointing the differences in opinion there are on a Laotian trap forum

>>3266951
The US would have absolutely PISS and SHIT all over those cunts. Drop a few nukes on Moscow and it's game over. Even with Stalin's dirty spying tactics the dumb as shit Slav's couldn't figure out nukes themselves until a year later, they would have had absolutely no defence against the Allies.

>>3267546
>oh no, gotta watch out for that 1946 Soviet airforce

>>3267554
It was a factor to consider, not just the air force, but the anti-aircraft network the Soviets had all across the region. It would've been a herculean task for an american bomber to make it all the way from the Elbe River to Moscow without it being spotted and shot down, namely by Soviet anti-aircraft guns that shielded every major city.

>>3267554
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces_Order_of_Battle_1_May_1945
Yeah, that doesn't look like much of an airforce, you're right.

>>3267565
wow it's nothing but a few rusty old tupolevs

>>3267564
Not him, but flak rates against high altitude bombers were not great. Especially given the Luftwaffe's focus on CAS and not strategic bombing, which meant that Soviet gunners were primarily trained (and usually operated flak) to hit lower altitude targets.

Then you have the rather glaring flaws in your reasoning that

1) The Americans don't have to start on the Elbe; as there are friendly airbases or areas that can be made into airbases all over the place like in Norway, Syria, India, or southern Persia.

2) They do not necessarily have to go after Moscow

3)That a lot of the rear area stuff that the Germans weren't capable of hitting did not have huge flak presences. Maybe Moscow as the capital would, but what if the Americans decided to light up Sverdlovsk, or Baku, or Omsk?

File: hmm....jpg (13KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x250px

>>3266951
>How much PCP did Churchill smoke before thinking it up?
people dodging the real question in this thread baka

>>3267575
For 2) Remember the argument is 'just nuke moscow, lol.'

>>3267574
More than a match for a few rusty old Brewster Buffalos.

>>3267587
no that's just the strawman you're going after

>>3267434
>>3267500
Do you guys REALLY think that if war had broken out with the USSR, the Americans would be focusing their main efforts on the shattered Japanese instead of the nation that could really threaten them? Not to mention the entire Europe first thing?

>>3267595
Nope, it's way back here
>>3267128
>Nukes would've settled it for sure.
That's the starting point for the conversation.

Nukes settle the matter.

>>3267597
You kind of have to, because the Japanese are very quickly going to become co-beligerents. This is actually a very important point to consider. Japan isn't going to surrender even if you nuke them now, because they have a better chance of winning the war then they have in years.

>>3267615
Nuclear weaponry settling the war does not necessarily imply some shock and awe strike on the capital to stun Stalin into submission.

>>3267621
So a nuke on Baku would end the war?

>>3267620
But they're also militarily shattered. You have some decently large standing forces remaining in China (and possibly Manchuria, depending on when exactly this breaks out), and smaller forces sitting around in places like the Solomons, Malaya, and Burma. And that's really it. No manufacturing worth mentioning, the navy's shattered, no source of oil besides a few piffling wells in Japan itself. Those 150+ aircraft carriers that the Americans have aren't going to do a damn lot of good in Germany, so they'll probably stay right where they are, and that can blockade the Home Islands pretty damn well. Maybe they won't surrender, but they've had most of their fangs drawn, and they can be dealt with after the real threat is eliminated.

>>3267626
Multiple nuclear strikes all over the place are going to put a hell of a damper on Soviet operations. http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf The Americans were capable of generating 3 a month come October of '45, and possibly more if they set up more plutonium production.

>>3266951
>Soviet supply lines
>Allied air

Also, say goodbye to the baku oil fields. Soviets had a lot of manpower and equipment on hand at the front sure, but how effectively would they have been able to use it after their supply lines are rekt? Granted, as other anons have mentioned the political situation would likely have made the war untenable, supposing it didnt i should doubt the soviets would have much success after the first few weeks if that.

>>3267700
The Soveits were only capable of advancing about 170 km a month against the shattered remains of the Wehrmacht in 1945. It's about 720 km from Kassel to Paris; and they'd advance a hell of a lot slower against the Western Allies, who are capable of putting up considerably more of a fight right at the outset, nevermind that they're constantly reinforcing in a way that Germany can't, and there are significant geographic barriers, like the Rhine and Maas rivers, that will need to be crossed somehow.

Knocking out the French and getting to the Atlantic is likely to take a year if the balance of force doesn't tilt any differently towards the Allies in 1945; given their production and manpower advantages, that is unlikely to actually be the case.

>>3267597
If the US suddenly had to switch gears and haul a good percentage of their landing forces and equipment meant for Japan back to Europe, that logistics operation would take months, maybe even a year to send it all from the Pacific to Europe, judging by how it took 2 1/2 years of the US building up forces in Britain to launch the invasion of Normandy as a comparison, 12 months to launch Operation Torch in North Africa.

The Soviets would have plenty of time to smash allied positions on the continent before any real substantial reinforcements could be brought en masse. Probably advancing to the Rhine River before enough manpower and equipment could be brought in to hold the line.

The Allies could not afford to give up that much ground just waiting for their forces to build up and launch counterattacks against the Red Army, or risk losing all of Germany to the Soviets should anything in the war go sour for them and a peace was forced to be signed.

As one anon also pointed out, declaring war on the Soviets would instantly mean an alliance between Japan in the USSR, making the Soviet Far East fleet a new combatant in the Pacific War, definitely not enough to turn around Japan's forces, but definitely enough to keep US firepower tied down fighting them.

>>3267808
>If the US suddenly had to switch gears and haul a good percentage of their landing forces and equipment meant for Japan back to Europe, that logistics operation would take months, maybe even a year to send it all from the Pacific to Europe, judging by how it took 2 1/2 years of the US building up forces in Britain to launch the invasion of Normandy as a comparison, 12 months to launch Operation Torch in North Africa.
Irrelevant; you don't need landing craft when you have friendly ports, and there are going to be fucktons of those available in France unless and until it's overrun. That's how the U.S. constantly shuttled in reinforcements over 44-45, not by using those Higgins Boats.


>The Soviets would have plenty of time to smash allied positions on the continent before any real substantial reinforcements could be brought en masse. Probably advancing to the Rhine River before enough manpower and equipment could be brought in to hold the line.
How long do you think it would take to "smash the Allied positions on the continent"? Because I'm thinking it will take a while, as per the reasoning in my last post >>3267710 You really think in months to years the Americans can't bring in more forces?

>>3267554
>>3267565
>>3267546
Wasn't one of the things lend lease actually was good for was giving the soviets like 605 of their aircraft aluminum???

>>3267808

>The Allies could not afford to give up that much ground just waiting for their forces to build up and launch counterattacks against the Red Army, or risk losing all of Germany to the Soviets should anything in the war go sour for them and a peace was forced to be signed.
While the possibility of coming to a peace is definitely present, maybe even likely, there is no "forcing" of a peace happening, as the Soviets have no idrect ability to lethally strike at the UK, let alone the U.S.. And given how pretty much none of Allied manpower or manufacturing is in Germany, it's loss means little. Losing France would be a big deal, but Germany? Nah.

> making the Soviet Far East fleet a new combatant in the Pacific War, definitely not enough to turn around Japan's forces, but definitely enough to keep US firepower tied down fighting them.
What firepower? The fleet isn't going to be able to do much in Europe anyway. The land forces can definitely be reassigned, as the first place the Soviets will throw their weight around is likely to be China, and it's not like the U.S. can project meaningful force there. Nor does it necessarily want to, cool relations between Chiang and Truman being what they are.

>>3267828
They're also going to get a lot cooler when Chiang finds out that Truman just extended the Sino-Japanese conflict indefinitely.

File: 48f696c8d6599e291b9755ee2b14f611--crescendo-aviators.jpg (65KB, 736x515px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 736x515px

>>3267426

nice one dimensional peasant ground army
>shame if sumthin were to happen to it

>>3267615
>>Nukes would've settled it for sure
That's quite a different assertation than "lol usa gon' bomb moscow 2 the ground hurr hurr". Get your head out of your ass. The USA could have used the nukes strategically to create openings on the frontline of the conflict. The fact that only one side of this conflict had nuclear capabilities AND an enormous overall advantage in industrial capacity makes that idea that a bum fuck of peasant slavshits with a mosin and 3 rounds could overrun the entirety of Europe within months preposterous.

>>3266951

The biggest problem with Operation Unthinkable is the problem of controlling people at home. The American public didn't really suffer during the war the way that Europeans did, but it still would have been very frustrating to have the war get extended a few more years after you'd been told that victory was right around the core. Also, the Allies during the war had promoted the idea that the Soviets were noble allies and so declaring war on them so soon after defeating Germany would be jarring and difficult for the general public to accept.

>>3267418
Both

>>3268020
Hitler had no problem from turning their biggest enemy and subhuman into a friend in the matter of days.
Same with Stalin.

I'm talking about Ribbentrop-Molotov

>>3267005
Yea fdr was a crippled cuck

>>3266951
Too bad it never happened

Americucks fantasying about beating mighty Soviets when best koreans beat their fat asses 8 years later and B-29 were too scared to even fly in daytime because migs dominated the sies.

>>3267710
>The Soveits were only capable of advancing about 170 km a month against the shattered remains of the Wehrmacht in 1945.
The Vistula-Oder offensive covered over 450km in two weeks. They then halted to destroy enemy forces to the north and south. The final 60km was covered in two days. At that rate it would have taken 24 days to reach Paris. Let's look at the details of Unthinkable:
>scheduled for July 1st
>according to the document posted earlier, it states there was one atomic bomb ready to go over a month later
>Unthinkable involved 47 divisions attacking into the area of Dresden, leaving 53 divisions across the entire rest of the front
>in May 1945 there were 73 Red Army division-equivalents in the Berlin area alone (note that some would have been withdrawn toward the east by the time of this plan, sadly it's not clear to me how swift the re-orientation to China was)
Following from the above, I think the option used by Stavka would have been to break the Allied line just south of Berlin and send the 1st and 2nd GTA, which don't appear to have been shipped to Asia, to form an encirclement of as many Allied forces used in their offensive as possible (tank armies would be very necessary due to the total motorization of the Allied forces) followed by as many shock and regular armies as possible to seal the pocket. The first nuclear weapon to come off the line after however long would basically have to be used to break a hole and permit as many surviving units out as possible. Best case scenario:
>Western forces escape and form a defensive line a few hundred km west, maintaining a hold on the mainland until nuclear weapons finally appear in bulk
Worst case scenario
>Western forces lose Germany and France and are reduced to lobbing nuclear weapons as they are produced at any targets in range, until peace settlement
There are so many variables bundled up in this that either side would have been fucking retarded to start shit.

>>3267477
/k/ has repeatedly stated that the soviet union immediately after WWII could not be beaten because it had large, standing veteran armies accustomed to great losses standing right in the heart of Europe, heavily outnumbering the western Allies in men, tanks, artillery and AAA.

Furthermore that the western allies had pushed strong pro-soviet propaganda all through the war, and so could not realistically sell attacking their bosom friends of freedom without turning the public against them.

One way to at least beat the USSR militarily (without going into how to sell it), according to /k/, would have been to cut lend-lease in time to slow down the soviet war machine, allowing the western allies to capture central Europe - but that would have greatly increased all difficulties faced on the western front, so it was probably smarter not to do it.

>>3270077
They really should have just never sent them lend lease at all.
Two birds, one stone.

>>3266951
If only it did happen. I would enjoy commies getting fried by nukes

>>3267554
If the 1945 Luftwaffe could still inflict major causalities on Allied bomber raids, the 1946 Soviet air force sure as shit could.

File: biz-markie-1.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>3267574
>Il-2 Sturmoviks
>Il-4's
>Yak 9;s
>La-7's
>Rusty old tupolevs

>>3270535
Bunch of old shit.

>>3267518
just imagine how much faster nuclear weapons technology would have progressed if we were actually fighting ww3

>>3267477
>guncrazed amerisharts thinking theyd win a real war

pew pew