Operation Unthinkable

In the immediate aftermath of German in May 1945, at the behest of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the British War Cabinet's Joint Planning Staff developed a plan called "Operation Unthinkable." This plan was the result of concern about the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe, coupled with concerns about Josef Stalin's intentions regarding both the lands which Soviet forces occupied in Eastern Europe and a possible future invasion of Western Europe. Basically, the plan called for military action to "impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire," by which it was meant "a square deal for Poland," and whatever other war objectives the Western powers might decide upon. The plan operated on the following assumptions...

1) Hostilities would begin on July 1, 1945.

2) It was assumed that Russia would ally itself to Japan.

3) In addition to British and American forces, use would be made of 100,000 or more German troops and remaining German military equipment and industrial capacity, as well as the Polish armed forces. Oddly, no mention was made of the French or other allied forces.

In OTL, the plan was rejected by the British Chief of Staffs Committee, and nothing came of it. But what if it had been approved, and the Western allies attacked Soviet forces in Eastern Europe on July 1, 1945? Lets assume also that Russia does indeed ally itself with Japan within a few days afterward.

A few issues immediately come to mind.

1) Does the atomic bomb still get dropped on Japan, or is it used against Russia instead?

2) Russian tanks were generally superior to those of the Western Allies, but Russia also heavily depended on Western lend-lease supplies for things like trucks, radios, down to even things like boots and shoes for the infantry. Can the Russians chew up the allied armies before they start to run out of steam due to lack of resupply?

3) The airpower of the Western Allies could prove critical. They will almost certainly dominate the skies. Fighter sweeps could make supplying the Red Army even more problematic by shooting up trains, strafing truck convoys, bombing bridges, etc. Not to mention the heavy bombers which could prove devastating to Russian rear area operations.

So, how do you think all this plays out? What kind of world comes out of it? Is the world spared 50 years of Cold War? Do Communist regimes still take over large parts of the world?
 

hammo1j

Donor
Are you sure this is not a 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' type thang? I had never heard of such a document prior to your post.

I suppose it is conceivable that planning for all eventualities must exist - apparently the US has invasion plans for the UK and vice versa, but never was a title of a document so appropriate.

Without a drastic change in public attitude this plan could never succeed: there would be near mutiny in the forces asked to carry it out. You should come up with a POD to justify a continuation of the slaughter of WWII if this is to be taken further.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
I know I read that weapons caches were being readied during 1945 after the end of the war - forgot the details, or what it was an incidental comment in, but observers got the clear impression that Britain was making contingency plans for war with the USSR

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Churchill

Banned
Are you sure this is not a 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' type thang? I had never heard of such a document prior to your post.

I suppose it is conceivable that planning for all eventualities must exist - apparently the US has invasion plans for the UK and vice versa, but never was a title of a document so appropriate.

Without a drastic change in public attitude this plan could never succeed: there would be near mutiny in the forces asked to carry it out. You should come up with a POD to justify a continuation of the slaughter of WWII if this is to be taken further.

"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 / 001

http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/01/nwar101.html
 

Churchill

Banned
Churchill's team said that the best bet would be an attack by 47 British and American divisions, 14 of which would be armoured, on a two-pronged offensive, one part along the Baltic coast of Germany towards Stettin, the second further south towards Poznan, both cities being well inside Poland. It was hoped that 10 divisions of Polish troops would join the assault. They considered a possibility that most British soldiers would have found hard to swallow: the re-arming of up to 10 German divisions under a reformed German High Command.

So, as infantry attacked westwards, the Royal Navy would sail along the Baltic coast, supporting the attack's left flank and harrying the Russian right almost unopposed. The RAF and the USAF would operate from bases in Denmark and northern Germany, outnumbered by the Russians, but with superior machinery. In fact, the hypothetical attack was outnumbered in every way. Opposing it were 170 Russian divisions, 30 of which were armoured. The planners also expected that the Russians would attempt sabotage in Western Europe, helped by local Communists.
 

Churchill

Banned
In the immediate aftermath of German in May 1945, at the behest of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the British War Cabinet's Joint Planning Staff developed a plan called "Operation Unthinkable." This plan was the result of concern about the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe, coupled with concerns about Josef Stalin's intentions regarding both the lands which Soviet forces occupied in Eastern Europe and a possible future invasion of Western Europe. Basically, the plan called for military action to "impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire," by which it was meant "a square deal for Poland," and whatever other war objectives the Western powers might decide upon. The plan operated on the following assumptions...

1) Hostilities would begin on July 1, 1945.

2) It was assumed that Russia would ally itself to Japan.

3) In addition to British and American forces, use would be made of 100,000 or more German troops and remaining German military equipment and industrial capacity, as well as the Polish armed forces. Oddly, no mention was made of the French or other allied forces.

In OTL, the plan was rejected by the British Chief of Staffs Committee, and nothing came of it. But what if it had been approved, and the Western allies attacked Soviet forces in Eastern Europe on July 1, 1945? Lets assume also that Russia does indeed ally itself with Japan within a few days afterward.

A few issues immediately come to mind.

1) Does the atomic bomb still get dropped on Japan, or is it used against Russia instead?

2) Russian tanks were generally superior to those of the Western Allies, but Russia also heavily depended on Western lend-lease supplies for things like trucks, radios, down to even things like boots and shoes for the infantry. Can the Russians chew up the allied armies before they start to run out of steam due to lack of resupply?

3) The airpower of the Western Allies could prove critical. They will almost certainly dominate the skies. Fighter sweeps could make supplying the Red Army even more problematic by shooting up trains, strafing truck convoys, bombing bridges, etc. Not to mention the heavy bombers which could prove devastating to Russian rear area operations.

So, how do you think all this plays out? What kind of world comes out of it? Is the world spared 50 years of Cold War? Do Communist regimes still take over large parts of the world?

The Russians had 264 divisions in Europe, including 36 armoured divisions, compared with 103 Allied divisions, 23 of which were armoured. America retained 64 divisions in Europe. The Soviet air force outnumbered the Allies by 11,802 in fighters and fighter-bombers, although American, British and Polish heavy bombers had a superiority of almost three to one.
Allied fighters where superior however.
 

Churchill

Banned
The British expected to see Iran, Iraq, Greece and Norway to fall to the Soviets at the start of the fighting but most of Poland to be liberated from the Soviets.
 
From what I remember of reading the above link the planners implied the situation was pretty dire. While the Allies would have in their favour total dominance of the Baltic and could achieve air supremacy once hostilities commenced (due to better tech and Soviets reliance on aviation fuel from the allies) total war would be a disaster and the only option would be a quick campaign up the Baltic supported by the navies. Even then this should only be considered if it would put the allies in a position to gain political settlement from the Soviets.

All in all things looked pretty bleak for a '45 Allied - Soviet war, I should imagine that if the allies had tried to keep driving into Poland they would have had the upper hand initially but unless they shocked Stalin into some kind of settlement things would have turned badly quickly. As to the question of nukes, the unthinkable document itself indicates that there is very little use for the Allies massive strategic bombing capabilities and the fact that there are very few nukes available makes me think they would have had little affect unless you think that it would encourage Stalin to make a political settlement.
 

Churchill

Banned
From what I remember of reading the above link the planners implied the situation was pretty dire. While the Allies would have in their favour total dominance of the Baltic and could achieve air supremacy once hostilities commenced (due to better tech and Soviets reliance on aviation fuel from the allies) total war would be a disaster and the only option would be a quick campaign up the Baltic supported by the navies. Even then this should only be considered if it would put the allies in a position to gain political settlement from the Soviets.

All in all things looked pretty bleak for a '45 Allied - Soviet war, I should imagine that if the allies had tried to keep driving into Poland they would have had the upper hand initially but unless they shocked Stalin into some kind of settlement things would have turned badly quickly. As to the question of nukes, the unthinkable document itself indicates that there is very little use for the Allies massive strategic bombing capabilities and the fact that there are very few nukes available makes me think they would have had little affect unless you think that it would encourage Stalin to make a political settlement.

I think it may have gone better than you think.
American production wasn’t at it's full height.
The allies had Jet Fighters at this point.
Soviet forces may well be less likely to fight or at least offer less resistance against the more liberal western allies.
The combined US and British fleets could be used to isolate the USSR as much as possible.
Soviet Minorities would be far more likely to fight for the west that they where for Hitler.
A large French and Polish force could recruited and deployed against the Soviets.
Spain and Turkey may well have been brought into the war in a United Communist front.
Britain had just put the Centurion tank in the field.
 
Are you sure this is not a 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' type thang? I had never heard of such a document prior to your post.

It's genuine but I don't think its serious. I think its the sort of plan that's supposed to show the proposed operation is impossible.

I suppose it is conceivable that planning for all eventualities must exist - apparently the US has invasion plans for the UK and vice versa, but never was a title of a document so appropriate.

Exactly, there are provisional plans for everything but very few of them are actually serious. I think this is one that was not. The US had plans for the invasion of Canada well into the 1970s but I don't think they were ever more than going through the motions after the early 1930s

Without a drastic change in public attitude this plan could never succeed: there would be near mutiny in the forces asked to carry it out. You should come up with a POD to justify a continuation of the slaughter of WWII if this is to be taken further.

I wouldn't put it quite that strongly but to make any of these plans even remotely feasible would require a pretty massive cataclysm in international events. A comparatively minor border disagreement like Barbarossa :p wouldn't do it.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Well, all those Soviet divisions miight be IN Europe, but they wouldn't be able to concentrate in one area. They have to hold down the countries they have 'liberated' some of which might especially try to re-liberate themselves

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Churchill

Banned
It's genuine but I don't think its serious. I think its the sort of plan that's supposed to show the proposed operation is impossible.



Exactly, there are provisional plans for everything but very few of them are actually serious. I think this is one that was not. The US had plans for the invasion of Canada well into the 1970s but I don't think they were ever more than going through the motions after the early 1930s



I wouldn't put it quite that strongly but to make any of these plans even remotely feasible would require a pretty massive cataclysm in international events. A comparatively minor border disagreement like Barbarossa :p wouldn't do it.

Churchill was quite serious about this.
 
And how did Churchill intend to explain this to the British and American public?

Aside from the fact that already the war against Japan and Nazi Germany had had a devastating effect on British finances and led to notable casualties, what casus belli would they have?

Moreover, they spent four years telling the public that Premier Stalin is their trusty ally "Uncle Joe" and now they are suddenly supposed to go on a crusade against the USSR, after having just ended the war with Nazi Germany - and use Nazi Wehrmacht troops as their allies.

Aside from that, it is doubtful that all of the other nations in western Europe would have supported such a war.

While de Gaulle was undoubtedly anti-communist, the French government would have been more interested in rebuilding their country and clinging to their colonial empire - moreover, the French communist party had a prominent role in the resistance, which would have hampered a French war effort.

Franco might send another Blue Division, but it would not have had that much of an impact.

Neither Churchill nor Truman or Attlee possessed absolute power in their countries and thus could not have pulled off such a U-turn for no reason - and the Soviets taking control over eastern Europe could hardly have constituted a casus belli, since no had a problem with that at Jalta and it was predictable in any case. Moreover, after having just won the war against the Nazis, it is doubtful that anyone would have wanted to go through a similar experience of deprivations, rationing and tribulations again.

I have no doubt that Churchill took it seriously and would have liked nothing more than hoisting the Union Jack on the Kremlin, but I doubt that it would have been feasible.
 
I think it may have gone better than you think.
American production wasn’t at it's full height.
The allies had Jet Fighters at this point.
Soviet forces may well be less likely to fight or at least offer less resistance against the more liberal western allies.
The combined US and British fleets could be used to isolate the USSR as much as possible.
Soviet Minorities would be far more likely to fight for the west that they where for Hitler.
A large French and Polish force could recruited and deployed against the Soviets.
Spain and Turkey may well have been brought into the war in a United Communist front.
Britain had just put the Centurion tank in the field.

I just don't know how the allies are going to knock out the Soviets in a land campaign. Unless there is the political will on the Soviet side to cut a deal giving up some of their gains it is a very long drive to Moscow. For everything the allies have in their favour the soviets just have so much ground they can trade for time to recover. What would you make the allied strategic objectives and when do you see the Soviets willing to talk terms over Poland and whatever else you want them to give up?
 

Churchill

Banned
And how did Churchill intend to explain this to the British and American public?

Aside from the fact that already the war against Japan and Nazi Germany had had a devastating effect on British finances and led to notable casualties, what casus belli would they have?

Moreover, they spent four years telling the public that Premier Stalin is their trusty ally "Uncle Joe" and now they are suddenly supposed to go on a crusade against the USSR, after having just ended the war with Nazi Germany - and use Nazi Wehrmacht troops as their allies.

Aside from that, it is doubtful that all of the other nations in western Europe would have supported such a war.

While de Gaulle was undoubtedly anti-communist, the French government would have been more interested in rebuilding their country and clinging to their colonial empire - moreover, the French communist party had a prominent role in the resistance, which would have hampered a French war effort.

Franco might send another Blue Division, but it would not have had that much of an impact.

Neither Churchill nor Truman or Attlee possessed absolute power in their countries and thus could not have pulled off such a U-turn for no reason - and the Soviets taking control over eastern Europe could hardly have constituted a casus belli, since no had a problem with that at Jalta and it was predictable in any case. Moreover, after having just won the war against the Nazis, it is doubtful that anyone would have wanted to go through a similar experience of deprivations, rationing and tribulations again.

I have no doubt that Churchill took it seriously and would have liked nothing more than hoisting the Union Jack on the Kremlin, but I doubt that it would have been feasible.

The British Public and armed forces would have obeyed as they always do.
As for France and Spain they would have had the choice between fighting or Soviet occupation.
The USA would have had to fight or let the Soviets take Europe.
 

Churchill

Banned
I just don't know how the allies are going to knock out the Soviets in a land campaign. Unless there is the political will on the Soviet side to cut a deal giving up some of their gains it is a very long drive to Moscow. For everything the allies have in their favour the soviets just have so much ground they can trade for time to recover. What would you make the allied strategic objectives and when do you see the Soviets willing to talk terms over Poland and whatever else you want them to give up?

The British expected gains to begin with in Poland only.
After that It was expected to be a long war with American production being brought to bare in a push East in the Spring of the the next year.
By then we may have managed air superiority and made good use of the bombers on the Soviet supply lines.
 
The same US which let Hitler take Europe and only entered the war when Japan and Hitler left absolutely no choice?

The US which gutted the armed forces months before Japan surrendered with public outcry in 1946 that the regular army wasn't reduced by more than 96% from the 1944 figure?
 
Well, with Roosevelt dead, a big hurdle may have been removed.

From ‘Warlords, the heart of conflict 1939 – 1945’ by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts.

Page 131

But as the war ground on, Churchill began to see a new threat to Europe – the man who had become the third ally in the fight against Hitler, Joseph Stalin. In late 1942 he told Anthony Eden: ‘It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarianism overlaid the ancient state of Europe.’

Roosevelt thought otherwise. As far as he was concerned, the cause of war in the first place was the in fighting between Europe’s ancient, imperialist nations and he began to see in Stalin someone who would help him in his great cause of freeing the world of that Imperialism. Also in 1942, in a conversation with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, he remarked: ‘The European people will simply have to endure Russian domination in the hope that – in ten or 20 years – the European influence will bring the Russians to become less barbarous.’


This is taken from ‘The Roosevelt Letters: Being the Personnel Correspondence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Vol.3: 1928 – 1945.
 
Churchill had other things on his mind at the time he was trying to get re-elected. Campaining for the July 5th 1945 elections started as soon as the war ended in Europe.

As for the A bomb I understand that there were only two bombs available for use in 1945 and Stalin is hardly going to be bothered by the loss of two cities. Unless of course he was in one of those two cities.
 
Top