Operation Unthinkable: a different view

I think that, if Churchill really wanted to do this, he would have made a big PUBLIC fuss about it, to get people to distrust the Soviets, probably starting with the moment Stalin stabbed the Poles in the back at Warsaw.

Actually initiating hostilities would then have probably taken place after some kind of false flag operation.

The fact that Churchill, despite being given a golden opportunity to publicly trash the soviets (Warsaw uprising) and didn't take it probably means he never had the intention of attacking them in the first place.
 
Churchill is a difficult character in this respect.

If the scales fell from his eyes after Warzaw 1944, he might have started to get pubic opinion into gear.

However, that would still be early in the process where Germany was not defeated. Not that the outcome was in any in doubt towards end of 1944, but the time to get there was not exactly mapped out.

In short: US/UK needed SU in the war! If SU had stopped (impossible!) in 1944 with Churchill declaring them enemies, it is doubtful if US/UK could have made serious inroads prior to nuclear weapons being deployed.

The whole Unthinkable is having a "feel" of lunacy. A horrible stray thought perhaps, but insofar as it got investigated would have had serious consequences if it having been known.

Ivan
 
I think that, if Churchill really wanted to do this, he would have made a big PUBLIC fuss about it, to get people to distrust the Soviets, probably starting with the moment Stalin stabbed the Poles in the back at Warsaw.

Actually initiating hostilities would then have probably taken place after some kind of false flag operation.

The fact that Churchill, despite being given a golden opportunity to publicly trash the soviets (Warsaw uprising) and didn't take it probably means he never had the intention of attacking them in the first place.

Knowing Churchill he most likely believed that he could focus on solely the Germans while fighting the Germans and then when they are defeated he would have the political capital and the trust of the free world to deal with the Soviets.

In his mind I am sure he thought he could win over the Americans with some effort and certainly his nation as well after Germany was defeated by giving his great Iron Curtain speech as PM to the free world and they would suddenly jump on the bandwagon and support him in a second war to push the Soviets out of Eastern Europe.

He didn't factor in that... the British public and American publics were damned tired of war. The American press had spent several years building Stalin up as a man who fights for freedom and democracy. He needed to convince the Americans to put the kibosh on that and start depicting him as the enemy of our enemy who is currently our ally only because we are fighting the same guy.

That was how the British press mainly wrote about Stalin at the time and he needed to convince FDR to do the same earlier. He also needed a more intact German Army able to fight meaning he needed to convince the Americans to support battlefield surrender talks with the German commanders in the West so that they had the better potential of having somewhat intact German Army Groups to use instead of broken and totally demoralized troops.
 
Spot on. How to portray Stalin as the enemy when he used to be "Good Ol' Joe" and SS as the angels? That would require an insane amount of magic.

That time from 1 May 1945 to 1 July 1945 seems awfully short for that.

I also think that Churchill's defeat in 1945 was due to the fact that he could only promise more tears. Attlee promised peace and prosperity.

Ivan
 
The American public and their troops were indoctrinated to view the Soviets as fighting for freedom and democracy. The British Empire and its citizens are a different story as Churchill didn't see the need to convince his public that the Soviet's were fighting for freedom and democracy.

I'm afraid that isn't true at all. The British quite heavily propagandized the Soviets as "the good guys, like us" and it largely worked, although I grant you that it didn't work quite as well as the American efforts. But it still worked to an extant that would have made Operation Unthinkable... well, unthinkable to the British public and the enlisted soldiers.

As an example, during the war the UK's Ministry of Information put out a pamphlet on the Soviet Union that made such claims as the Great Purges being a bunch of Nazi lies.
 
I'm afraid that isn't true at all. The British quite heavily propagandized the Soviets as "the good guys, like us" and it largely worked, although I grant you that it didn't work quite as well as the American efforts. But it still worked to an extant that would have made Operation Unthinkable... well, unthinkable to the British public and the enlisted soldiers.

As an example, during the war the UK's Ministry of Information put out a pamphlet on the Soviet Union that made such claims as the Great Purges being a bunch of Nazi lies.

Their government did promote them as friends and allies during the war. Hell Churchill helped to cover up and shift the blame for the Soviet massacres of Poles and many other things the Soviets did during the war I suspect to keep Stalin an ally and from making a separate peace with Hitler and I also suspect because the Americans who he relied on for loans expected him to do so.

But, from the reading of American vs. British news articles at the time. The British news articles seemed to be less edited by government sensors when discussing the Soviets... or shall I say differently edited. The British news articles didn't talk about Soviet crimes or anything like that, but they did do things unlike the American press like highlight Stalin's previous pact with Hitler and the articles were allowed more leeway to hint to the public that the Soviets were an Empire that though an ally now might not be entirely trustworthy.

It was the daily news articles the British public were reading that I suspect had a far bigger effect on public opinion of the war and of the Soviets then propaganda pamphlets.
 
I was interested in starting an "Operation Unthinkable" story like thread, taking in consideration every single aspect: Political, military, technological, international position of overseas countries (like, for example, the rise of Juan Peron in Argentina could be linked to how and when WW2 ended, would have he risen to power still? Brazil had been bullied into the war and just wanted for it to end, would they have continued to fight if they had to continue against the Red Army? Etc.)

Every single thing that happened just until Operation Unthinkable was to be carried out would be taken in consideration for the scenario I was thinking, which would start on July 1, 1945. If nobody is interested in making an "Operation Unthinkable" story thread, can I do it? Or is the author of this thread calling dibs on it?
 
Top