If the US/GB/France and USSR began war with each other immediately

Soviet armies have immediate ground advantage, but the lack of Naval and Air superiority along with American manpower & industry eventually cracks the USSR.
Europe is even more of a wasteland. Significant populations starve or are just killed in the crossfire.

>>962505
Probably the Allies. The Soviets were at their ends and anymore fighting would have broken them, especially when nukes are involved.

>operation unthinkable thread

to be perfectly honest, by the time 1945 rolled around, everyone was just sick and fucking tired of war. No power was seriously going to entertain killing millions more people immediately after having 60+ million die in scenes that can only be described as true Hell.

Stalin knew that if he established Russian-friendly states where the Red Army was in control, there was very little the Western allies could do as they didn't want to continue the war longer than they had to. The Soviets also didn't want to risk continued war, but saw the establishment of the future Warsaw Pact as essential to Russian survival to stave off a potential 3rd European invasion.

The peace in Europe after the Nazi's fall wasn't one that the Allies all wanted, but it was a peace all sides could find acceptable, given the circumstances that no one was really going to fight even more after 6 straight years of combat.

>>962513
Brits would've probably starved the Indians some more.


Soviets probably wouldn't have been able to manage their nuclear stuff so soon, and eastern europe would have a lot of careless radiation going around. Tons of cancer for everyone.

The plans for invading Japan involved nuking the beaches and immediately storming them after with troops. We had no fucking clue what we were working with.

>>962579
alternate history is not history

What is history is that there was a plan to attack the Soviets, and the reason given is why it was shot down and the plan was scrapped.

>>962505
The USSR probably would have lost any such conflict. The war had taken a much heavier toll on them than on any other combatant nation and they just wouldn't have the manpower to sustain more losses . The 1939 census showed a population of 170.6 million people. By the time the war ended, they had lost nearly a QUARTER of that number.

>>962595
don't take yourself so seriously, cupcake

Soviets, they had the best equipment/vehicles, Largest army, Most veteranized army, Most tanks, More experienced pilots, Caucasian oil fields, Uninvadable country, Indu stry moved into siberia, out of range of bombers. Naval superiority means nothing, you cant drive your ships up onto land and attack the soviets. And airsuperiority doesn't matter if you have no airfields cuz the Red Army seized them all.

I think neither would have 'won' they would have ended up each holding as much off Europe add they could defend. The U.S. and allies could not have overwhelmed the Soviets, but the Soviets couldn't have pushed the U.S.out of western Europe. So the end result would be similar to reality.

File: Askeladd.jpg (40KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 225x350px

>>962695
>Naval superiority means nothing, you cant drive your ships up onto land and attack the soviets

>>962505
West.

Soviets couldn't even keep supply lines steady. It was so bad Patton demanded a premptive strike to prevent the cold war.

The United States would have had to blockade Japan or make white peace.

This would require the allied powers to do economic mobilization five times they did in world war two.
The Allies GDP combined would have to be over 60% into arms production.

The first initial offense by either side would have millions of casualties.

The death rates from the initial offense would start to dwarf the previous war.

Nukes would have to be used against the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was already beginning to have difficulties with man power.
The Soviets even faced a famine after the war over the lack of people producing food.

The Allies would eventually win from their production capabilities but at a very high cost.

>>962505
I will never understand how berlin got split up into this mess

>>962695
>airsuperiority doesn't matter if you have no airfields cuz the Red Army seized them all.
>btw what that large island to the north of france? never seen it before

Soviets would steamroll Allies pretty much to the Atlantic, unless Americans manage to put crazy amounts of troops into fighting. Russians had gigantic superiority in numbers and also huge amount of newly armed soldiers from Poland, Hungary, Romania etc.

This naval and air superiority isn't worth shit, if you can guard the straits and have a decent air defence system. Soldiers would probably resort to robbing households if they don't get supplies and the whole war would certainly fuck up Soviet economy, but they would have the initial victory.

China

>>962589
>alternate history is not history

Yes it is.

File: 1460149328959.jpg (20KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x375px

The countries occupied by USSR countries like Poland would join west

>>962570
>there was very little the Western allies could do as they didn't want to continue the war longer

That's untrue. Stalin was actually surprised that Roosevelt gives him practically everything. The Soviets were indeed scrapping the bottom of the barrel and the Western Allies had a lot of leverage to squeeze concessions out of him. Not saying that Stalin wouldn't get anything, but neutral (Austria-type neutral or Finland-type neutral) CEE states and Lwow for Poland were certainly doable.

>>962505
Probably multiply civil wars would had broken out, like at the end of WW1, the population was too tired to start another, even bloodier war.

>>963087
Of course, at the time Roosevelt's adviser alger hiss closely resembled a description of a spy found in documentation after the wall fell.
So possibly not too surprised.

>>962505
Japan. Because nobody would be in a position to invade it.
Otherwise Soviets conquer the continent relatively easy yet can't launch assault on Britain because of combined British-American fleet there.
Red Army is stretched utterly and has many weak points to stage a naval assault, but USA lacks manpower necessary unless enters total war for several years. Britain had already spent all the manpower it could muster.

Nukes are terrible, yes, but they were still delivered by conventional bombers and were very slowly produced. Japan's Airforce and AA was wrecked already, Soviet was in prime time, so nobody could touch inland cities, much less industrial centre in West Siberia and Ural.
Soviet propaganda had went so hard on genocide of Slavs it was very problematic to control the reverse-genocide and mass rape-looting of Germans. If somewhat Germanic power would nuke some coastal city like Riga or Sevastopol or even Leningrad, it would probably have reserve effect of raising Soviet morale and hatred to wh40k rates.

Germans are fucked beyond measure, because everything and anything of value would be taken away. Several tens of thousands of Nazi/Satellites POWs died of starvation and/or hard labour in camps, the death rate would soon reach 100%. And then consider that Germany would be the prime meatgrinder for both sides until Red Army breaks inferior British-American forces.

So in the end Allies would have extremely pissed off USSR from Lisbon to Vladivostok and a couple of nuke scorchmarks from Germany to Ukraine, with lazy war in India and China lasting many more years. British population is starving, India and China are destroyed beyond measure, Germans are all but extinct. Japan is pleased indeed, as nobody would nuke or assault them.

So there you go. Japan is the winner. The only winning move is not to enter this war and wait it out until both sides bleed to death, then exploit them.

>>963099
>raising Soviet morale and hatred to wh40k rates.
more like soviet satelites morale, considering Warsaw pact wouldnt be formed and the lands would be "under soviet occupation" in whole Eastern Europe
some soviet minor propaganda and picture of bombed to shit slavic city would easily make the muster up tens to hunderts of war ready divisions.

>>962505
It's a question whether USSR's lack of manpower and tired population could win with western allies public opinion overthrowing governments going into another war.

>>963096
>So possibly not too surprised.

The decisions were Rossevelt's. If anything, Stalin knew about them before it was officially announced.

>>963438
Yeah, Roosevelt was simply very naive when it came to his approach to USSR and Stalin.

Nukes, allies win.

>>963447
shut the fuckup

>>963451
Are you retarded? You think Truman would've even fucking hesitated? No. Nobody would have wanted another long war.

>>962965
Everyone felt they had a played a significant role in liberating Germany from Nazi control and wanted a role in shaping its future. It's still stupid that Berlin also got divided up even though it was deep into East Germany.

>>963462
abomb is nothing more than bit bigger bomb
doesnt help you transport it
end of WW2 planes had laughable reach, at best it would be one way mission, crashlanding and hoping to survive for the crew
it has major weakness of having to be transported, thus bombers can be shot down, mainly if they have to fly through 900 kms of hostile controlled territory
frankly US couldve bombed USSR occupied western cities at best.. and well try telling your bro that you will burn his house so soviets cant have it.
any conflict fought on mainland Euroasian soil would be victory for USSR
Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands would be blown to shit by the first year of war.

>but muh abomb, it would totally win everythin..
no dude, shut the fuck up

>hey guys, let's invade russia despite a massive numerical disadvantage!

Everyone who thinks the commies would win seems to believe that the soviets "inexhaustible" manpower lasts all they way from Berlin to Moscow. That's incorrect.

Although they had the shit kicked out of them for 4 years, the allies were less shit kicked then the soviets. Russia had lost too many men and stretched way too far in 1945. Their production had been crippled throughout the war and without Allied funds and the Lend-Lease to keep their few (relative to allies) factories running, they would collapse.

American and British air and naval superiority would ensure that Allied production bases would be invulnerable to Soviet attack, ensuring continued high output production throughout the whole war.

With a combined army over 1 million soldiers, and commanders like Patton and Montgomery, the soviets would be hit hard and quick. They were barely able to survive the first time they were gouged by a million man army, and that was only with the Allied help. Once the backbone of the Soviet army in eastern Europe was broken, it would be a free run to Moscow. The Allied advance would be so fast that it would break the land speed record.

And that's not even factoring the Bomb into the equation.

File: film-page-feature-image-front-main-stage-1.jpg (303KB, 1900x809px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1900x809px

>>964008
We're going to hold him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose.

>>962505

Soviets would the have initial advantage on the ground, but after throwing the Western Allies (Hereinafter, WAllies) out of Germany, they would have a tougher time, but still might be able to conquer France.

However, even if they're sitting pretty on the army front (and they might not be), it's hard for them to proceed from there, they have no navy to speak of, and their airforce is considerably weaker than that of the WAllies. Further strikes would be nearly impossible, and at which point the momentum stops, and at least in theory, the WAllies, mostly America, can simply outbuild them, and smother them.

However, it is far from clear that any hypothetical conflict would be as total as WW2, and war weariness was mounting in the western world. The question becomes which gives out first, Soviet material, or Western will to fight, and that's a hard thing to predict. My gut guess would figure a lot on whether or not the Soviets can cross the Rhine and break into France, if they do, the cost of tearing them back out of northern Europe rises exponentially, as you have to do a D-Dayish thing all over again, this time with a far bigger, stronger enemy. If they can hold onto France, you can reinforce through friendly ports, which makes the buildup and eventual push way, way easier.

>>963099


I'm not so sure about Japan. By V-E day, you already had Operation Starvation going in full swing, the mining of Japan's ports, and you had enormous railroad destruction caused by B-29s. Japan was quite literally going to starve by 1946 if someone didn't bring in outside help, and at the very least ,could be blockaded from the sea (what else are you going to do with those carriers and battleships anyway?) until someone has time to deal with it.

Also, nukes were not "very slowly produced". Document 72 indicates that they were gearing up to 3 a month in October 1945, and as additional reactors would come online, the number would increase still further; and so what if they were delivered by conventional bombers? Soviet air doctrine was centered around CAS, so all of their fighters were designed to fight at low altitudes. A formation of 400 B-29s, one of which is carrying a nuke and you don't know which one, would be enormously hard to stop.

They could hit the Urals from bases in India, which would be enormously hard for the Soviets to reach.

>>963501
>end of WW2 planes had laughable reach
A B-29 could nuke Moscow from Britain.

>>962505

US/GB/France, easily.

Remember, the USA was the only country with atomic bombs at the time.

Bye bye Moscow.
Bye bye Leningrad.

>>964141
But the question is can a b-29 fly over all of Europe (Dealing with AAA and Red Airforce) to drop a nuke on Moscow?

>>964151

1945 nuclear weapons didn't do substantially more damage than large strategic bombing raids of hundreds of Lancasters or Flying fortresses.

You would need to drop multiple nukes, probably running into the multiple dozens, to destroy a city the size of Moscow.

>>964171

Odds of flak knocking out a B-29 at 9,400 meters (height of the Hiroshima drop) are negligeable. IIRC, the only fighter that could even reach the cruise altitude of a B-29 was the Yak 9M, and there weren't that many of them, nor were they particularly heavily armed. Stopping a raid of 500 B-29s is going to be really, really hard.

>>962695
Butthurt Ruski identified.

>>964242
American Propaganda fiend identified

>>964052
>you
>Japan
Imma Russian Tatar.
By "winning" I meant "left relatively intact while the rest burn". Whole "strategy" of Japs was to bunker up and demand honorary peaceo termso, so as to trade Japan's dignity for couple of million of Americans intact.
Japs didn't knew how much A-bomb Americans had and were to deal with Russian air assault, and they were legit scared of Russians kicking them three times in a row (Hasan, Khalkhin-Gol, Manchuria), so they surrendered unconditionally.
In case of USSR-Anglo war already wrecked Japan is not so valuable to waste precious A-bombs on, much less conduct naval offense. Japs would quickly trade some peace deal without unconditional surrender and proceed to lick their wounded dicks until both sides bleed themselves. So much better then burn in nuclear flame in Koenigsberg or be worked to death in some Bashkirian mine because 7+ million strong Red Army with new satellites isn't exactly the same as scattered and under-supplied old veterans and green noobs in German reserve divisions.

Again, the only winning move is not to play the stupid game. Patton was a pompous fool in grand strategy,

>>964271
Filthy commie detected

The West,

The Soviets had a large, veteran army and prob could have carved up more of germany but they were at the end of the line. Their country was absolutely devastated and everyone was tired of the war.

The Allies will establish air superiority relatively early on and slowly but surely exhaust the rest of the Russians.

And while a time away, the Americans did have a couple more atom bombs in the works.

That said I doubt it would be easy. The reds were looked on with great popularity about certain leftists. Italy was consistently socialist and almost became communists, the greeks experienced a civil war that, had Stalin not turned his back to, would have extended the iron curtain straight into the mediterrean. France always had a very strong communist/socialist faction that was barely held in check by arch conservatives.

It would have also lead to an even quicker collpse of the colonial empires. I would even guess that even in the early 50s it would have ended had the war gone on for another year or two.

This might not might not get in the way of the creation of Israel but pan vaguely leftist Arab nationalism would still happen I think.

>>963087
Oh yeah except for the fact the Soviets had a massive initial advantage in ground forces and would have been able to push through France if they wanted in May 1945. Yeah if you just leave out that little important fact.

>>963081
U wot m8

>>964151
The US after Nagasaki had a grand total of 0 atomic bombs and 2kg of fissile material.

>>964554
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

>>963010
This is what would happen in the first year.

And by that point I don't think the US would be willing to liberate the entirety of Europe from Great Britain

If, for some reason the US were to go all in eventually they would win because the Soviets have no way of hitting their mainland.

File: Josefstalinjatkosota.jpg (100KB, 738x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 738x600px

Bump for glorious CCCP

>>962856
>Ask a lad!
>Any lad!
>Where's your father at, young man?

>>962505
The soviets probably would have ended up occupying continental europe, and then it depends on whether the US and britain are willing to fight a multi decade attritional war to beat the USSR, which they eventually would

File: 1459192775098.jpg (258KB, 1180x787px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1180x787px

Bump

>>963720
>I've never read The Art of War or Clausewitz the post

>>962513
Good post but Europe being a wasteland after WWII is a meme. Germany still had 75% of its railroads and its industrial capacities. The Allies left those intact to the Germans would be able to pay reparation and integrate in a European capitalist economy.

>>962505
Conventional weapons.
USSR.
They would steamroll the Allies out of mainland Europe.
The problem starts now.
Would the US public approve of another war, just as the last one ended?
And if the US stayed in the war to help Britain, would they resort to Nuking the shit out of the USSR? Committing genocide that would dwarf the Holocaust?
And even if they wanted to, what would they bomb?
Doubt they'd reach any important Soviet city other than Vladivostok and Leningrad.
Nuke their troops? And kill millions of German and French civilians?
If Britain stands alone, i think they'd just peace out and let the continent rot.

So the USSR would win.
But i don't think they would be able to keep their gains.
USA and the UK would surely fund resistances in Europe, and there would be no Eastern block. The sphere of influence of the USSR would disappear. As for the country itself? I don't know. Might collapse, might keep kicking for another decade or 3

File: 2000px-Locator_map_Croatia_Banovina_in_Yugoslavia_1939-1941.svg.png (444KB, 2000x1733px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 2000x1733px

>>970677
Oh, i might add.

Europe would be fucked. But Eastern Europe would benefit from the Marshal plan, and not be plagued by Communism, so countries like Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (?), Poland etc. would be as developed as western Europe, or at least close.
As for Yugoslavia, who knows.
It might just be divided into 3 countries. With Serbia remaining a monarchy, and Croatia and Slovenia probably becoming republics.
Boarders would be similar to the 1939 administrative boarders, but i think Croatia would have to cede some land for being nazi collaborators.

>>970677

>They would steamroll the Allies out of mainland Europe.

Not entirely convinced of this. Thrown out of Germany is quite clear, but then the Soviets will have to drive both west across the Rhine, and south across Italy, to kick the western allies out. The southern front especially is both narrow and rugged, which means that the Soviet advantage in numbers is minimized, wheras the aerial advantage of the western allies is maximized.

Even getting into France, however, also poses problems. The Rhine is about 1,200 km long, far shorter than the width of Germany, and is a naturally defensible position. The Allies are only outnumbered by 3-4:1, and have certain offsetting advantages in terms of troop quality and higher levels of fire support. They're also bringing in new forces faster than the USSR is. I am not entirely convinced that the Soviets would make the push, especially with the Americans running rampant with conventional interdiction bombing.

>>962505
The side that had 600 divisions.

>>970891
what about the side with A bombs and was responsible for supplying many of those divisions

>>970677
>Would the US public approve of another war, just as the last one ended?
The US public was jingoistic right up until after the war was over. Really it was soldiers that had been deployed for YEARS that began to turn against the conflict. There's a prime example in E.B. Sledge's memoir on the Pacific where after he came home a college registrar kept asking him useless questions about what the USMC taught him outside of his mortar squad and no matter how he tried he couldn't get it to sink in that the war wasn't a John Wayne movie and his whole purpose was to kill nips, not learn shit.

File: 1454201845661.jpg (397KB, 1258x1236px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1258x1236px

>>962695
>uninvadeable country
Yes, Russia is more uninvadeable than the US and the British Commonwealth.

>but muh winter
Fuck off you John Green level memelord

BTW I am actually a communist IRL. I'm sure that the capitalist pigs here agree with me even more

>>971323
Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

>>971323
>BTW I am actually a communist IRL
I bet you are from Western Europe/USA.

>>962505
>If the US/GB/France and USSR began war with each other immediately after the fall of Berlin and surrender of Germany, who would have won?
Nobody
Because it didn't fucking happen.

>>962505
It would've been a wash.

GB/France and the USSR were spent, the US had grorious Nippon being a pain in the ass and even if it didn't it wouldn't have fared much better than Germany.

It's like what this anon said: >>962570

Everyone was tired and well understood that a continued war against the West/USSR would've been a waste of time resources and lives.

File: just another day.jpg (57KB, 449x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 449x600px

>>962505
> If the US/GB/France and USSR began war with each other immediately after the fall of Berlin and surrender of Germany, who would have won?
Soviets, hands down.

France didn't even properly exist as of 1945, while British economy was overstretched since the beginning of war. I.e. we are talking "could US defeat USSR in 1945?" and the answer is "no".

First and foremost that would mean different war on Japan: without Soviet cooperation destroying Kwantung Army is impossible. With Kwantung Army, without the threat of Soviet invasion and with renewed trade (this time with USSR; and in much more favorable conditions than with Germany) Japan will not surrender even if you nuke some cities. I.e. additional drain on US resources.

Secondly, this will mean new and practically unwinnable war in Iran and India - Soviets are simply too close for Iran, while Indians not impressed by the British, to put it mildly.

Finally, land forces of USSR absolutely dominate in Europe. UK will survive Soviet Drang nach Westen, but both Germany and France would be overrun within two months and no amount of ships or planes could change it. Italy might take three months. And I don't think Wermacht troops that join Allies will prove to be a deciding factor.

At the end of the day, it boils down to could Allies regroup and repeat Normandy? Of course, this time it will be Soviets (with their factories and cities being far far away), they will not be underage and they will not be waging war on two fronts.

I don't see this happening.

>>962505
Nobody would win, the UK and us never could have invaded Russia and Russia doesn't posses the fleet and planes needed to invade the UK and the US, worst case scenario it would come to a stalemate once the soviets steamroll Europe. But it's dumb to think about, mainland Europe would never agree to participate in a war in which they would've been flooded with Soviet troops and the Soviet Union gets nothing except heavy casualties and a slice of mainland Europe. Honestly this war would've been shit for everybody and nobody would win, that's why it didn't happen

File: media-dday-anniversary-lg11.jpg (1MB, 2791x2310px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2791x2310px

>>962695
>Naval superiority means nothing, you cant drive your ships up onto land and attack the soviets

We could've gotten close

>>972904
>Soviets, hands down.

No
Go shitpost somewhere else
You were BTFO at the beginning of the thread

>>970891
What about the side with bigger anf more intact production capabilities, more resources, naval and air superioriority, no dependence on the enemy side's conomy and aid, the A-bomb, great generals, and a mearly untapped source of manpower on the lands that the war didn't reach?
And if they really needed more manpower (don't kid yourself the russian population wasn't and isn't enormous) then they could tap minor allies like Brazil.

>>972904

>It was the destruction of the forces in Manchuria that drove the Japanese to surrender.

This meme needs to die. Especially since the Soviets couldn't get to Japan proper; and historically, their plan to try was to borrow landing craft from the U.S., which isn't going to happen if they're at war.

Secondly, Operation Starvation would have already started, choking off Japan's imports, and the railroad bombing was already a thing, even if no nukes. Japan will starve, or more likely surrender by 1946 at the very latest, and the Americans don't have to lift a finger beyond leaving those carriers based around in position to squeeze the home islands.

>Secondly, this will mean new and practically unwinnable war in Iran and India - Soviets are simply too close for Iran, while Indians not impressed by the British, to put it mildly.

Pure idiocy. First of all, it's not like Iran has much strategic import back in WW2 beyond the Persian Lend-Lease corridor, which is again meaningless once war breaks out. And I have no idea what you're saying when it comes to India. There were literally millions of troops present, most Indians to be sure, but they weren't in open revolt, even if there was grumlbing. And the lack of rail connectivity between Persia and India at the time means that the Soviets are going to have an absolute devil of a time actually getting any forces over to help any Indian rebels.

>>972904


> but both Germany and France would be overrun within two months and no amount of ships or planes could change it.

>Italy might take three months.

And you're basing these projections on what exactly? UK planning for Unthinkable decided it was unfeasible, but came to the conclusion that an American or British division packed roughly twice the firepower of a Soviet one. The USSR forces in Europe outnumber the Anglo-Allies about 4:1 in raw numbers. When they're anchored behind rivers and mountains, in fronts that are relatively narrow and hard for the Soviets to get a flanking thing going, how exactly are they going to roll up the Allies? Trying to batter through on pure attrition will take years, not months, and the air advantage is going to be chewing on their supply lines all the while, and the production advantage means that there's going to be a steady tide of reinforcements.

>And I don't think Wermacht troops that join Allies will prove to be a deciding factor

The first and only thing you've said that made sense. But you're forgetting that the Allies quite literally had millions of soldiers in Europe, and it will take time, quite a bit of time, to dig them out if they're dug in. And the Soviets don't have a lot of time.

File: nam.jpg (194KB, 1268x849px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1268x849px

>>972971
> You
Of course. Having more than one person disagree with you could mean something unthinkable.


>>972986
> What about the side with bigger anf more intact production capabilities
Wouldn't matter in the first 4 months. By this point Soviets would've crushed most of Allies forces and taken over Germany, France and most of Italy.

> more resources
Debatable after initial Soviet expansion.

> naval and air superioriority
Might cause problems in Norway and Southern Italy. Will cause a lot of problems if Soviets attempt their own Sea Lion. Won't matter in Germany and France. Besides, in 1945 Soviet war industry is absolutely unreachable: it was moved to Urals long ago.

> no dependence on the enemy side's conomy and aid
Lend-lease (as presented by modern mass-media) is extremely overrated.

> A-bomb
Hideously expensive and not that different from regular bombs.

> great generals
Debatable. Also, they lacked experience of a massive land war. Battle of Ardennes (Bulge) was objectively a clusterfuck.

> untapped source of manpower on the lands that the war didn't reach?
Yeah. About that. Do you really think the general public of the USA will fully support new war with former allies, with socialists, far away from the US? Trade union purges didn't happen yet.

> then they could tap minor allies like Brazil.
I wouldn't call them "allies".

Not to mention, you can't use uneducated peasants in modern warfare. There is a reason why Romanian/Hungarian troops were such a mess in WWII.

>>962505
sometimes i really wish they just did this and saved us all the fucking cold war

>>973202
>A-bomb not that different from other bombs

If the yanks built another one and dropped it on any east bloc city the war is over. The A-bomb was unlike any weapon ever seen.

>>973236

And while expensive, it would have been much cheaper than a second invasion.

>>973236

Not him, but unlikely. The first generation of nukes were not much different in destructive capacity from just mid to high hundreds of Lancasters or B-17s dropping a lot of regular bombs. Germany had city after city smashed by those without crumpling due to morale shock, and that was in a war they were losing by every conventional method. Even with Japan, it was a straw breaking the camel's back sort of thing.

The Russians? Nah. The biggest thing a nuke would do is allow for smaller sorties to inflict comparable amounts of damage to larger ones, and that will mostly be useful for long range strikes, based out of India or maybe Oslo and aiming at places in the Urals.

>>973190
> Especially since the Soviets couldn't get to Japan proper;
How is that even relevant?

IRL Japan could have no idea of Soviets' naval might (or lack thereof). They knew that Soviets were good at land warfare. They knew Bolsheviks will purge Japan's ruling elite (i.e. everyone who had any decision-making power in Japan at the time). They knew Soviets declared war and Red Army annighilated their land army in China. They also knew Soviets were not big on negotiating or caring about casualties, as long as they get to destroy the opponent.

Surrendering to US as fast as possible was the only sane option.

File: fig-10.jpg (183KB, 1200x862px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1200x862px

>>973248
> based out of India or maybe Oslo and aiming at places in the Urals.
I don't think Urals could've been reach from Oslo or India.

>>973267

>How is that even relevant?

You claimed in your post >>972904

a number of things that were wrong, namely implying it was the threat of Soviet invasion that drove the Japanese to surrender, and that they could open trade up with the Russians to bring in supplies.

Both points are wrong, badly so. Japan was being blockaded by mine, and not nearly enough was coming in to sustain the islands, and Soviet military presence in mainland asia that can't get to Japan is meaningless.

>IRL Japan could have no idea of Soviets' naval might (or lack thereof).

Other than, you know, keeping basic tabs on the capabilities of their neighbors. It wasn't like Vladivostok was a stone's throw away from the border or anything, or that they didn't know about the pretense that brought all those lend-lease supplies on American ships. They knew the Soviets didn't have a fleet worth a damn in the pacific.

The relevant factors in Japanese surrender weren't Soviet ones, they were American ones. Operation Starvation, the railroad and canal bombings, and yes, the ultimate threat of land invasion. A single speech made by the Emperor to the troops who never got to fight claiming that it wasn't their fault because of developments on another front entirely is propaganda, not real history.

Patton would have been in Moscow in a week.

>>973278

B-29s had considerably higher ranges than B-24s. The historic strike on Hiroshima started out in Tinian, and the flight to Hiroshima is 2,526 km according to Google


https://www.google.com/search?q=distance+from+tinian+to+hiroshima&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Using Freemaptools and 2,500 km circles, starting from Oslo I can get to Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, and Kazan. New Dehli is less important than I had thought originally, with Semarkand being the only target of large worth within range, but if you inch closer, start in Peshawar, (Remember, this is before India and Pakistan split up) you add a nice selection of targets, like Astrakhan, Omsk, and Novosibirsk.

>>964008
The Germans invaded with 4 million fucking men and had the absolute best doctrine for offensive operations, with the Soviets following.

Any attempted Anglo-American offensive would be bloody and grinding.

>>973358

The Anglo-Americans had fully motorized forces, wheras the Soviets were still relying almost entirely on railroads for supply and communication.

While no big offensives out of the West are likely for some time, if they ever get a successful offensive, the Soviets are in trouble: Any attacks would be preceded by considerable interdiction efforts like what preceded Normandy, and with the Anglo-Allies not relying on rail networks and on trucks for their movements, that makes them operationally able to advance faster than the Soviets are likely to retreat. That's a great way to get entire Fronts pocketed.

>>973342
> Urals
> Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, and Kazan
No.

> start in Peshawar,
> Astrakhan, Omsk, and Novosibirsk.
This works. Though it's a big question how long it'll last (especially, considering presence of Soviet troops in Iran).

>>973358
He is Ameriboo. Facts are irrelevant.

>>973386

I don't have my maps in front of me, but I'm 99% sure there were no rail links between Iran and India in WW2, and I don't think there was much rail transit in Iran past Bandar Shah.

So even if the Soviets overrun southern Iran quickly, how would they mount an attack into Pakistan from there?

>>973414
I don't get your fixation with rails. It's not like Soviets didn't have trucks and horses (mongolian, of all things).

>>973523


Because you can't mount any sort of meaningful offensive on horses and trucks over mountains to a place where the enemy has complete control of the sea and a railroad network for transport.

However much material the Soviets can supply to the offensive, the British and Americans can supply way, way more to the defense. The only way you'll ever get an advantage is if they're so stretched on other fronts, they can't keep on top of this one, which is unlikely, especially if the threat of nuclear attack out of northern Pakistan is important enough to justify this kind of shoestring campaign, it'll also be important enough to the Anglo-Americans to hold onto it.

>>962570
Thats not what OP asks for. OP ask for a scenario where war continued.

In which case, the likely "winner" would be The US. Europe would become part of American little wing like it was after the war in real time line. Soviets would never be a thing because the US and the europe offense would split the state up.

I would guess the only side with atomic weapons for the next 4 years.

>>964521
Slavaboo: The post

I honestly believe that had Operation Unthinkable had went ahead, the Allies would have been driven from the continent. The Soviets had what was more or less an unstoppable army come May 1945. They had mastered combined arms warfare and had honed their craft through the bloodiest conflict in history.

The problem is though, the Allies' air and naval superiority would mean that Britain and most importantly the untouched US could operate at maximum industrial capacity, which I can't see the Soviets catching up with any time soon.

In conclusion I believe a determined Allied effort would win in the long term, especially factoring nukes into the equation, but the loses sustained in the initial operation and the battle to retake the continent would make it 100% unfeasible and idiotic. The idea stood to serve nothing but prove Churchill was a warmongering spastic.

The Allies, imagine how they wrecked the Wehrmacht, imagine the damage they could make to the red armies who's divisions were exhausted and understrenght, also supply lines were overstretched

The only fully motorized army was the US army

Since the ones starting the war were the West they could destroyed the red airforce in ground like the Germans in 1941

They had maybe 600 divisions but with with a total of 2,500,000 soldiers in Germany and the rest in the Balkans ready to be demobilise

>>974277
>the allies wrecked the Wehrmacht

Terrible meme. It was the Soviets who shattered the Nazi war machine. Day-D was a hair's thread away from failure at many points despite the Wehrmacht being in disarray in their reaction.

Imagine if the Soviets weren't marauding their way towards Berlin from the East, do you really think the Allies would have gained a foothold on the continent? The fact that the Battle of the Bulge was as anywhere near as successful as it happened speaks volumes about the capabilities of the Wehrmacht on the Western front.

>>974277
I thought the British army was motorized too?

>>974314

>Day-D was a hair's thread away from failure at many points despite the Wehrmacht being in disarray in their reaction.

What? If you want to say Clark's landing in Italy was a hair's thread away from failure, you might have a point, but D-Day? Are you kidding?

> The fact that the Battle of the Bulge was as anywhere near as successful as it happened speaks volumes about the capabilities of the Wehrmacht on the Western front.

And I could say the same thing about the Lake Balaton offensive, and saying that that speaks to Soviet weakness. Even in the final days, the Wehrmacht was capable of using localized advantages through asymmetric concentration and trying something. In neither case was any breakthrough or lasting success achieved. What of it?

>>974316

No, the Brits still had considerable segments of people slogging along on foot with no organic transport attached to formations.

The Red Army was still running on Lend Lease at the end of 1945.

Good luck trying to LOGISTICS without all those free trains, trucks and jeeps.

>>973370
>the Soviets were still relying almost entirely on railroads for supply and communication

The funny part is they all ran on free American engines via Lend Lease.

Which they sure as hell wouldn't be getting anymore once WWIII started.

>>974563

IIRC, Lend Lease gave the Russians 1,200 locomotive engines and 10,000ish cars.

Pre-war, the Russians had about 600,000 cars and 28,000 locomotives. I am not certain, however, how many were destroyed or captured during the war, especially the early phases, but while LL had a huge impact on Soviet motor transport, I don't think it had a huge amount for their rail transport.

File: 1440555577247.jpg (108KB, 639x783px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 639x783px

>>971323
>Latvian Lithuania
>Lithuanian Latvia

>>970861
This honestly. A lot of the people who think the USSR would win really aren't taking into account how important air superiority is. Sure, you may have 4 times as many men and twice as many tanks as the enemy, but that doesn't matter if those men are starving and have no ammo or gas because all of your supply trucks keep getting bombed to smithereens en route.

>>974756

As the person who wrote that post, I really am not sure about the Rhine crossing, I could see arguments for it going either way, and likely, whatever way it would have turned out in some alternate universe, it would have come right down to the wire.

My point was more that the

>Soviets would easily throw the Allies out of Europe

And

>Americans would have held firm and crushed the Soviets

Are both very likely wrong.

>>974771
I just kinda wanted to mention the air superiority thing, man. I don't think that it would be an easy victory for anyone. To its credit, the red army air force improved much throughout the war, so there could be a period where the western allies don't have air superiority yet, which would make soviet advances easier. I think the west would probably win simply because of the industry and manpower differences, though it sure as hell wouldn't be fast.

>>974842

Well, if you want to talk about air power in an Unthinkable like situation:

Unlike what happened on the ground, the bulk of the destruction of the Luftwaffe was caused by the Americans, they had considerably more planes on ready lists than the Soviets did in the spring of 1945.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

However, the Western Allies had a far less developed CAS system than the Soviets did: The Soviets viewed airpower as flying artillery, a role that the USAAF and Bomber Command wanted to wash their hands of, they did do some close support, but their favorite things were strategic bombing of enemy cities, followed by interdiction bombing of enemy railroads. You can make arguments for the ineffectiveness of strat bombing altogether, and interdiction takes time. CAS, on the other hand, has a very simple, very immediate effect. On the other hand, the Russians are going to run into similar problems against their enemies that they did against the Germans, which stemmed out of this artilleryman's mindset:

CAS is most effective at low altitudes. Therefore, fighters, who are one level removed from the bombers, ought to be designed to operate best at low altitudes, which is where your bombers are and the enemy's opposite numbers.

Germany, and Britain and the U.S. followed suit, considered attaining air supremacy a goal in and of itself, they wanted high altitude fighters who could dive on enemy fighters and kill them. The Soviets did eventually make some higher altitude planes (The Yak series, mostly) but their emphasis was on low altitude flying.

All that likely means that until the fighter reserves of the Soviets are worn out, they'll likely get their CAS runs in, which speaks badly for the chances of the Western troops in the first few months of war. Long term though, the Allies are going to rule the skies completely.

>>974771
I think the Americans would have held firm and crushed the soviets, but only if the soviets were dumb enough to keep pressing. Both armies were at an end of a very long supply chain. The Americans risk being spread out and encircled if they move forward. The soviets risk getting blown to all hell by air power.

Everything about this situation favors the defensive power.

>>975024

Well, at the very least, the Soviets have to push on and take out France: If it's left in the hands of the Americans, they can send in an almost infinite amount of troops and supplies from overseas. America outbuilds the USSR by a fairly healthy margin all by themselves, and while Britain isn't in the same league as either of the two of them, their industrial contributions aren't unimportant. Give them a year or three unmolested at a total war footing, and they're likely to build up something so big even the Red Army can't handle it.

That dictates an immediate attack, to try to get the sea in between any large scale opportunity for breakout and the Soviet positions.

Whether or not they can do it though? I dunno. A lot would depend on how quickly they can secure Germany and how much they can maul the Allied forces before they can retreat across the Rhine.

>>972904
The United States was literally funding the Soviets during WWII, they'd begin to crumble with the USA on the other side