Operation unthinkable launched

[Deleted member 1487]

I realize we're supposed to handwave political reality away here, assume vast coordination made within a couple of months in perfect secrecy (I mean it's not like there is Communist espionage in the West--or it's not as though even some non-Communists might be so appalled by the idea of launching a third world war that *they* will leak it), assume that the words "false flag" magically overcome the slight problem of getting the populations of the West to *suddenly* align themselves with people they have hated for years and fight people they were taught to regard as allies--because the western governments (again all in perfect coordination and secrecy) will manufacture an incident and everyone will believe it. And of course there will be no sabotage--the one-fourth of the French electorate that votes Communist will take it all cheerfully (including those who got sabotage and military experience in the Resistance) as will the Communist-dominated CGT which has organized workers in key defense-related industries. Come to think of it, De Gaulle's Air Minister was a Communist! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tillon (Even in the US and UK Communists were a significant presence in defense-industry-related unions.) Meanwhile in Britain the General Election is presumably cancelled without anyone raising an eyebrow. And, oh, yes, the US is going to agree to all this with Japan still unsubdued. (Or if you wait for the Japanese to surrender, we have to assume Attlee and the new Labour government are going to sign on to launching World War III in 1945...)

This should be placed with "Magic and ASB" timelines.

Without a doubt.
I think we're just discussing how it would go down militarily if there was something like this, perhaps triggered by a false flag blaming the Soviets for starting something. The Soviets probably would get a heads up but be unlikely to be able to do much about it really given the timeframe and issues on their side.

 

[shirakou1]

David T raised some good points. There is no way De Gaulle would join this clusterf**k, with France 1/4 communist and a further 1/4 socialist, it would break down the country. That gets rid of 1.2 million soldiers right there.

Italy was just as divided as France. The Communist partisans were armed to the teeth and wouldn't be too happy to see the Soviets being attacked.

 

[walmart]

Italy was just as divided as France. The Communist partisans were armed to the teeth and wouldn't be too happy to see the Soviets being attacked.

Couldn't the western allies just use local anti communists and The SS and german POWs

 

[Matteo]

The non-communist forces in Italy and France would have to fight a civil war quite comparable to the one that took place in Greece.

One hardly fan fight a full-escale european war with a civil war at home. Imagine massive strikes and sabotage in the factories too.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

So? He's got an opinion I disagree with.

Unfortunately, your opinion is not backed up by the history of air warfare. Especially those between two sides with significant and competent air forces as is the case here.

Meanwhile the Soviets were still struggling to defeat the LW even in 1944-45 despite a massive numerical inferiority.

This is hardly true. In the summer of '43, the Soviets inflicted roughly just as terrible attrition upon the Germans as they suffered in the Mediterranean and over their homeland individually (although not combined) and still achieved air superiority in the end. In the '44-'45 period, the VVS dominated the skies over the Eastern Front with practically every air offensive they launched.

They had a better doctrine, better technology, far more well trained pilots,

Which is why they win in the long-run instead of getting stalemated the entire time.

Although I would change "far more well-trained pilots" into "better pilot training program". That is what ultimately matters as both sides are going to start with large numbers of combat-hardened pilots.

The PVO though was not present in Germany in 1945 or even Poland for that matter, they were still in Russia proper.

Kinda. Air defense in the immediate Soviet rear areas were the responsibility of the VVS and the Red Army's own AA battalions and regiments. Largely the Soviets relied on maskirovka techniques to fool the enemy into thinking they had successfully bombed and destroyed their targets, when in reality they had blown up decoys. The doctrine worked quite well against the Germans in 1942-45 and, with some appropriate modifications, against NATO 45 years later.

as their rail lines were still attenuated

Soviets had rail lines running up to the Oder by the time of the Berlin offensive. By July of '45, they likely already have repaired lines running all the way up to the Elbe.

anti-Soviet partisans and left over German units not yet scooped up in the rear areas

The former never had any impact on Soviet logistics while the latter no long existed by July of '45.

The Soviets probably would get a heads up but be unlikely to be able to do much about it really given the timeframe and issues on their side.

Could you yank the "Durr-hurr, Soviets don't have any agency" chain any harder? There is a ton the Soviets can do, the foremost of which is to surreptitiously have those politically sympathetic to them expose the whole plan.

perhaps triggered by a false flag blaming the Soviets for starting something.

Likely works about as well at convincing the WAllied public as Operation Himmler did.

 

[David T]

Were there anti-Communists in western Europe? Sure. Were there people who wanted to start a new war with the USSR? Very few.

One thing that strikes me reading political literature of circa 1945-7 is that almost the only people who were talking *openly* about the possibility of the West attacking the Soviet Union were the Communists--who claimed that this was what anti-Communists really wanted. Anti-Communists dismissed it as a vile slander...

 

[Napoleon IV]

Were there anti-Communists in western Europe? Sure. Were there people who wanted to start a new war with the USSR? Very few.

One thing that strikes me reading political literature of circa 1945-7 is that almost the only people who were talking *openly* about the possibility of the West attacking the Soviet Union were the Communists--who claimed that this was what anti-Communists really wanted. Anti-Communists dismissed it as a vile slander...

In 1945 I doubt anyone except Churchill and Patton wanted to strike the Soviets. They were in the end game of the largest war in human history, which had destroyed much of Europe. Everyone was war weary and ready to start rebuilding. America and the Soviet Union were still in their honeymoon period and the rest of Europe was in no shape to fight. As interesting an idea as Operation Unthinkable is it is only slightly more plausible than a successful Sealion.

 

[galanx]

Yep- there is no way the British would have followed Churchill on this. While admired as a war leader, he was distrusted by the majority who remembered the '26 General Strike and the Depression.

As it would be seen:
Go to war against the gallant long-suffering Russians for the sake of American and British plutocrats? To help a bunch of reactionary Polish generals and East European crypto-fascists get back in power?

 

[Dan]

SS back in business and 'liberating' Warsaw to the great joy of the few survivors of both 1944 and the Allies air strikes.

Just NO. The SS are destined for the noose, certainly the officers, enlisted are likely to just be "taken to the end of the road" as it were.
Especially after the camps were liberated, life expectancy for any captured SS men was significantly shortened compared to before, (although there is story of one SS man surviving almost 18 hours in Russian captivity prior to being shot, this was considered exceptionally long). And the majority of the SS fought on the Eastern Front anyway.

The 400,000 Wehrmacht troops that had been garrisoning Norway on the other hand were fresh, well equipped and rested so could have been used although as mentioned, most likely just doing basic stuff, little to no combat work at all.

Belarus, Ukraine devastated by 10-15 nuclear bombs (let us just imagine that the 15 bombs were there in the August/September time frame - and that was projected anyway).

Western Russia is a nuclear waste land and Moscow is a parking lot.

In essence:

Western Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland: Chernobyl written very large. Nothing to grow there for a few hundred years.

Death toll in the millions (again).

I think you are massively over estimating the effectiveness of the Atomic bombs available at the time. For example, you quoted:

According to wiki:

Wiki:
"Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition"

---Snip--- I 'played' one of the nuclear calculators. 20 kt in Moscow = 90,000 dead immediately, 245,000 other fatalities.
On Chernobyl:
"A significant economic impact at the time was the removal of 784,320 ha (1,938,100 acres) of agricultural land and 694,200 ha (1,715,000 acres) of forest from production".
Admittedly, Chernobyl is different, but it is probably the closest we can get to real-life figures for an Eastern European country.
Ivan

There are some major differences here - Hiroshima was a mostly traditionally built Japanese city with very few brick or stone built buildings, very very different to even Eastern Europe at the time. Nagasaki had more in the way of brick built buildings, but even then seems short of what could be expected from a Soviet city, (e.g. Minsk, Kiev, Moscow), at the time, so at "best", You would be more accurate using Nagasaki's figures, but even then, bear in mind the war time populations - these may have been somewhat lower, certainly even a liberal estimate of 90,000 is I suspect three times what is likely. I found this a useful read: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects/AtomicEffects-2.html
You're not looking at millions of dead by any stretch. Hundreds of thousands, if, and ONLY if, the targeted cities are fully populated. This is very unlikely or if entire formations concentrate in a small enough area for a 15-21kt atomic bomb to be effective.

With regards to Chernobyl as a pointer, I think you're being somewhat disingenuous with the example. That was a disaster that was concentrated in one area and released a HUGE amount of radioactive materials into the atmosphere, (some figures given as 200 times both bombs combined), to the extent that the fall out was picked up in the Welsh Mountains. Given the weapons in use at the time, even all detonated at once in the same spot, they will not generate the long, constant stream of radioactive fall out that Chernobyl did. On top of that, within a few years nature had reclaimed the area around the plant with few genetic abnormalities and then only in the most contaminated areas.
This doesn't take into account the differences in the source of contamination - both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were air bursts meaning the majority of fall out was massively diluted, Chernobyl was a ground burst equivalent. The fuel rods in Chernobyl gave out a very different type of radiation, and then you have the amounts, 140lbs of Uranium in Little Boy, 180 Tons of fuel in Chernobyl.

Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were working* again within days, and by November 1945 had recovered to their pre-bomb populations

what will the UK/US government do?

1) New government in Moscow? - Certainly
2) Say - sorry - to Poland? - For what? aside from a small amount of fall out, the W/Allies can't really do more damage than the Nazi's and Russians had already done - there's not much left to destroy really.
3) claim victory over communism? Yes - although domestic communists and the Chinese communists may disagree
4) have a few 'einzats' commands to kill the few commissars still alive? Nice try at a strawman, but not a chance

How to feed the survivors after a nuclear holocaust? UK can't do that. They are broke. Will Truman do it? how?

Nuclear Holocaust - hardly, (see above), the scale of aid is little more than is already required and luckily, the Americans & Australians particularly are still geared up for wartime supply levels so bluntly, not that difficult.

In terms of over all casualties, the strategic or tactical use of atomic weapons will be a mere blip in the figures.

*To the same extent as Tokyo was working after being firebombed.

 

[ivanotter]

Admittedly, Chernobyl was different as I also said.

However, it is really the only measure we have in terms of a European nuclear disaster.

Also correct that Chernobyl is claimed to be at least 200 times worse than 1945 Japan.

The question is then: worse how? venting nuclear fall-out? soil pollution?

It does get academic at a point. Also if we look at the four bombs which were involved in the crash in Thule. It took an insane amount of snow and ice to be removed and even now court cases are going on in terms of long-term radiation sickness.

What I wanted to high-light (in a slightly un-polite fashion) was that a nuclear release in Eastern Europe may entail that there is not a lot to 'liberate' afterwards.

On top of, agri-cultural production may be so severely impacted that hunger deaths can be the result. Chernobyl figures might be able to guide us a little bit at least.

... and who will really claim responsibility for that? and in the name of what? eradicating communism?

... hence my flippant remark about SS einzats. Eradicating communism by killing all the people in a 'communist' country is of course one way of doing it.

As I have previously mentioned (personal story, ok):

My father was not keen of welcoming German forces back into Denmark even on manoeuvres when West Germany got accepted into NATO. Not that he could not see the logic in it. That NATO was only credible with Germany in it.

But that did not make it any more palatable to him. And Denmark was not treated as badly as say Poland or Czech or ...

That being the sentiment in a country where the direct deaths by Germany could be counted in hundreds, we need to project that into other countries. The revulsion would be horrendous if German forces were to show up (again).

Now, if we leave the 'feelings' a bit alone, we could also look at the political fall-out:

The premise would be:

Unthinkable launched.
Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and a good part of Western Russia being conquered.

Now what:

1) Any new 'Russian' government would be discredited, collaborating with the new occupation forces after such forces have just invaded the country

2) who is responsible for building infra-structure? UK (broke) US (Truman might not be so interested).

3) What type of occupation will we be talking about? Military government in the 'liberated' areas? by whom?

4) Man-power. What forces would it take to occupy Russia and for how long?

5) ... and if the partisans are not interested in being 'occupied' or 'liberated' by UK/US? What if they start doing partisan things? Would we see reprisals? carried out by whom?

6) What if the USSR leadership manage to escape and now sitting in Siberia?

7) How much of Russia must be occupied to eradicate communism?

PS: I don't subscribe to the notion that UK forces will be welcomed by all and sundry as liberators. why would they after having been waging war on their brothers and sisters - just like the Germans.

Somehow, the political 'after-shock' might be more interesting than the actual war piece in this instance.

Ivan

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Unfortunately, your opinion is not backed up by the history of air warfare. Especially those between two sides with significant and competent air forces as is the case here.

The VVS was far less competent than the Wallied air forces and badly outnumbered, not to mention technically outclassed and undertrained. Without LL VVS production is going to suffer, especially without US supplied high octane Avgas, which the Soviets could barely make themselves in 1949, let alone in 1945. In fact they received nearly 2 million tons of it via LL and without it Soviet engine performance goes way down.

This is hardly true. In the summer of '43, the Soviets inflicted roughly just as terrible attrition upon the Germans as they suffered in the Mediterranean and over their homeland individually (although not combined) and still achieved air superiority in the end. In the '44-'45 period, the VVS dominated the skies over the Eastern Front with practically every air offensive they launched.

Okay, so they inflicted 1/3rd of German losses overall in 1943. By 1944-45 they were facing less than half of the LW and outnumbered it 4-5:1, yet were still suffering 3:1 losses. Meanwhile the Western air forces were inflicting favorable losses on the LW in combat in 1944-45, while facing most of it, and fighting the best the LW had to offer in more technically challenging environments (such as massed long range night bombing). The 1944-45 period was of course when the VVS dominated, because they were facing the smaller fraction of the LW and outnumbered what they faced by several orders of magnitude, all while benefiting from the slaughter that the Wallies inflicted in the air and via strategic bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich

Casualties and losses
at least 15,430 aircraft in combat[Note 2]
Est. 18,000 aircraft through bombing[3]

That was more than the VVS killed in the entire war.

Which is why they win in the long-run instead of getting stalemated the entire time.

Why would it take a long time to kill an air force that is far worse trained, badly outnumbered, technically and doctrinally inferior, dependent on the West of its supply of avgas and raw materials like aluminum, doesn't have strategic air defense beyond the zone of armies which means it's supplies are subject to aerial interdiction by day and night, is facing an enemy if the world's best radar and AAA gunnery radar, has far better supply and basing options (its easier to get large amounts of supplies to Central Europe via shipping than rail and the Soviets can't interdict Allies shipping) thanks to occupying Denmark, most of Germany, Italy, having basing options in Greece, Britain, the Netherlands, etc., and has the proximity fuze; the IL-2/10 is dog meat to proximity fuzed low level AAA. Plus the Soviets don't have an answer to high altitude bombing ops, nor a decent radar network; they also have to contend with Allied penetration of the Baltic sea via their navies and landings along the Baltic and carrier bombing of Leningrad and deep supply lines from that area.

Although I would change "far more well-trained pilots" into "better pilot training program". That is what ultimately matters as both sides are going to start with large numbers of combat-hardened pilots.

The Wallies have a ton more and theirs are far better trained with an average of 400 flight hours before showing up at the front; the Soviets even in 1944-45 had no more than 100. Plus the Soviets made their bones against a declining LW that was being murdered in the West, leaving them the left overs to deal with; their combat experience was not as tough as the Wallies from 1943 on.

Kinda. Air defense in the immediate Soviet rear areas were the responsibility of the VVS and the Red Army's own AA battalions and regiments. Largely the Soviets relied on maskirovka techniques to fool the enemy into thinking they had successfully bombed and destroyed their targets, when in reality they had blown up decoys. The doctrine worked quite well against the Germans in 1942-45 and, with some appropriate modifications, against NATO 45 years later.

Right, which is my point. The VVS is not a defense force meant to deal with strategic bombing or has an integrated defense network; its a bunch of air fleets attached to specific armies to provide point defense of their bases and immediate army area. Its a doctrinal limitation you mentioned in another thread that cost them the chance to hurt the LW worse and would be a fatal flaw against the independent Allies air forces.

Maskirovka worked against the LW in the period it was mostly not on the Eastern Front, rather it was being killed in the West. When the Soviets were able to dominate the air due to the lack of a LW presence Maskirovka in WW2 worked. 45 year later info is not relevant to 1945, as that is over two generations of refinements and multiple war experience later. Also they VVS didn't have to worry about decoying anything against air attack in 1945 due to the lack of an offensive LW; they have nothing set up in July 1945 after the war ended to deal with the hordes of enemy aircraft unlike they've ever experienced before; even during the worst days of the German invasion they were never outnumbered, nor faced strategic bombing (other than minor intermittent raids). Here they will be massively outnumbered and facing types of attacks they weren't prepared to deal with in a time frame they won't have time to prepare for. Maskirovka took a long time to prepare for an entire front and you don't build up a massive set of deceptions from May-July across the entire frontage of Europe when no preparations existed prior to that due to lack of need.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=203286&start=450
http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=348145&mode=view
Also above is a map showing the rail lines leading into Germany from the East, which would mean they could be severed by massed bombing of Warsaw's rail yards, as it was the primary choke point.

And you should note too that the Germans used deception and camouflage measures against the Wallies too with minor success. The reality is that if you have a large aerial recon capability ground based deception efforts during WW2 did not work all that well, as the German success against the Soviets in Ukraine in 1942 demonstrated (after that they lost their large recon capacity due to casualties and commitments on other fronts) and the Wallied success against Germany demonstrated. You can't hide rail lines and rail yards. Despite Soviet deception efforts the Germans were able to successfully bomb Soviet rail infrastructure during the 1944 retreat, but didn't have enough bombers to make it stick and these were constantly diverted to army support efforts once the constant 1944 Soviet offensives began, overrunning critical airbases.

Soviets had rail lines running up to the Oder by the time of the Berlin offensive. By July of '45, they likely already have repaired lines running all the way up to the Elbe.

Okay, what was the capacity at that point? And see above about how that could be severed pretty easily.

The former never had any impact on Soviet logistics while the latter no long existed by July of '45.

Anti-Soviet partisans still drew off Soviet security forces and German stragglers were being scooped up for months after the war ended by everyone.

Could you yank the "Durr-hurr, Soviets don't have any agency" chain any harder? There is a ton the Soviets can do, the foremost of which is to surreptitiously have those politically sympathetic to them expose the whole plan.

Right, because pointing out the Soviets weren't supermen that could counter anything and everything before the threat appears means they lack agency. Straw man. The Soviets can respond in the long war, but by then its too late. Considering how long it took them to adapt to the Germans, it will probably take them a while to respond to a radically different opponent that fights a different way.

Likely works about as well at convincing the WAllied public as Operation Himmler did.

Right, because a minor bungled Nazi operation in 1939 is completely the same as a Wallied one in 1945 when their propaganda machine is tuned up to 11.

 

[Magnum]

I started a thread a while back, trying to set up a framework under which an allied-soviet war might have taken place once Nazi Germany collapsed.

In OTL, there were a number of occasions where the interests of the western allies and of the soviet union clashed - for instance, the massacring of Polish officers at Katyn Forrest (1), the Soviet Union actively helping Germany out prior to Barbarossa (2), including things like facilitating access of German warships across the Arctic and into the Pacific (3), Soviet spies infiltrating American and British power structures (4), the Soviets informing the Japanese of the coming US offensive in the Philippines (5), Stalin actively betraying the Warsaw Uprising (6), but also US plans to use Nazis in anti-communist efforts in eastern Europe after victory (e.g. Klaus Barbie and many others) (7)

Now, for the purposes of this WI, let's say tensions build up throughout 1944 as (at least some of) these things come to light to both sides. The exact details are not really important, just that the chilling of relations is both significant and gradual. Propaganda on both sides stops praising the others, newspaper articles appear criticizing the various offenses carried out by the other side etc. etc.

Then, in late April 1945, when the two armies link up, despite some lackluster attempts to prevent such an occurrence, a series of shooting incidents occur, which eventually spiral out of control the day after the death of Adolf Hitler is announced by Nazi radio. Both sides come to believe that the other shot first.

How will things develop? Will Stalin strike a deal with Japan? Will the Flensburg government have any room to negotiate? Will allied airpower manage to disrupt Soviet logistics enough to compensate for the latter's numerical superiority of 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks? Where do you think the Soviet advance could be stopped - Elbe, Main, Rhine, Somme, Channel? How would secondary theaters (Iran, Greece, Italo-Yugoslav border, Nazi-occupied Norway) develop?


1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...before_1941#Pact_and_commercial_deal_signings
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet#Initial_raiding_voyage
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies
5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=posrOr6jCRQ&t=3494
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising#Soviet_stance
7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Barbie#US_intelligence_and_Bolivia

My hope was to explore the military and political developments of said conflict with the discussion bogging down in "GI Joe was tired of war and Congress would have impeached Roosevelt if he tried this".

Maybe we might use this scenario as a baseline, whereby each side comes to believe the other shot first, and discuss from there.

A couple of my ideas:


1. Stalin is likely to try and reach an outright alliance with the Japanese and actively supply them in the hopes of bogging down allied navies and shipping

2. A lot depends on how the first major engagements in central Germany occur - if the Allies suffer major encirclements, then I think it's quite possible that the Red Army reaches the channel in a few months, aerial interdiction be damned. However, if they maintain their cohesion and execute an orderely retreat , I think it will be quite hard for the Soviets to keep their advance going west of the Rhine.

This is because they will be somewhat delayed in getting there due to distance, the need to convert railways, allied bombing of rear areas, allied rearguard actions etc. Once they are in place to force a crossing of the Rhine, assuming no major encirclements have taken place, then the W. Allies will also have large forces massed in the area, and will most likely focus their air force on the bridgeheads in an effort to deny the Soviets the ability to supply large combat formations that may cross.

At that point, the main front along the Rhine probably remains static until such time that Soviet leadership realizes the American nukes cannot really be stopped and will just keep coming - so probably sometime in 1946. At that point, they probably try and negotiate a compromise.

3. Regarding other fronts, I imagine the Allies will be prevent any soviet forces from crossing the Alps and will most likely have to evacuate mainland Greece. Iran may end up almost completely occupied by the Red army, although crappy infrastructure will likely prevent them from advancing into Iraq or British India. In China, I expect the Russian, Japanese and Chinese Communists to wind up on the same side, but with Japanese forces probably withdrawing from most of China. Japanese positions in S-E Asia, being isolated after the fall of the Philippines, are bound to be slowly taken over by Commonwealth and American forces. However, I doubt America will commit to operations, involving hundreds of thousands of men, aimed at invading Japan, since those forces are more desperately needed in Europe - therefor the 'blockade' strategy might be preferred.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

I think the force Ration (have some handwritten notes alas no source) were around

4-1 on men (11 Million Soviets, 6,5 on western front)

2-1 on Tanks

1,5-1 on aircraft (not sure if that includes strategic bombers on both sides - err western side ) - the soviet aircraft were quite good in 1945

About Lend Lease I am not sure how much teh SU depended on it - once had the info the soviets had stockpiled much - exactly for the case of something like unthinkable.

Concerning strategic Bombardement the distance to the Russian Factories is larger than the distance from UK to Germany

Russian armor T-34 and derivates, IS-2/3 and derivates is superior to the arsenal available to the Wallies.

russian armor is much simpler than allied - Allied (both western and eastern) beat the Germans because they could produce more and simpler tanks. Now the fight will be among two sides who produce tanks in numbers While the Wallies produced mort throughout WWII the Soviet ones were easier to maintain. In some categories the Soviets produced more weapons than the Wallies (Artillery).

Summary: - ist hard to beat the Soviets. The Wallies Problem is that they are outnumbered in Europe and are still fighting in the Pacific.

Overall I think the Wallies would prevail - but only in the Long run. If the soviets manage to reach the Atlantic coast the Price might be too high to throw them back...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think the force Ration (have some handwritten notes alas no source) were around

4-1 on men (11 Million Soviets, 6,5 on western front)

2-1 on Tanks

1,5-1 on aircraft (not sure if that includes strategic bombers on both sides - err western side ) - the soviet aircraft were quite good in 1945

About Lend Lease I am not sure how much teh SU depended on it - once had the info the soviets had stockpiled much - exactly for the case of something like unthinkable.

Concerning strategic Bombardement the distance to the Russian Factories is larger than the distance from UK to Germany

Russian armor T-34 and derivates, IS-2/3 and derivates is superior to the arsenal available to the Wallies.

russian armor is much simpler than allied - Allied (both western and eastern) beat the Germans because they could produce more and simpler tanks. Now the fight will be among two sides who produce tanks in numbers While the Wallies produced mort throughout WWII the Soviet ones were easier to maintain. In some categories the Soviets produced more weapons than the Wallies (Artillery).

Summary: - ist hard to beat the Soviets. The Wallies Problem is that they are outnumbered in Europe and are still fighting in the Pacific.

Overall I think the Wallies would prevail - but only in the Long run. If the soviets manage to reach the Atlantic coast the Price might be too high to throw them back...

Your numbers for aircraft are way off. Maybe if you just count what was in Germany alone that would be the ratio. Are you sure that the T-34 was any simpler or more reliable than the Sherman? I'd also like to know where the numbers of tanks you're claiming come from. Don't forget things like number of trucks, because US divisions were all motorized, while the Soviets only had their mechanized corps motorized. Plus they could always cannibalize captured German gear and supplies if needed.

Plus the Allies don't have to bomb Soviet factories, rather just the infrastructure and they can't get supplies and replacements to the front, just as the Germans discovered when they launched Barbarossa.

 

[Seleucus]

Negotiated peace in favor of Soviets, as the Allied troops mutiny en masse almost immediately after the outbreak of the offensive.

I'm rather at a loss as to why people think that the Wallied armies would just keep fighting when they mutinied IOTL even without being asked to immediately fight World War 3 against an allied nation.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Negotiated peace in favor of Soviets, as the Allied troops mutiny en masse almost immediately after the outbreak of the offensive.

I'm rather at a loss as to why people think that the Wallied armies would just keep fighting when they mutinied IOTL even without being asked to immediately fight World War 3 against an allied nation.

When did Allied armies mutiny during WW2?

 

[Seleucus]

When did Allied armies mutiny during WW2?

The Wanna Go Home Riots, 1946.

Allied troops insisted on immediately being returned home post-war, and essentially went on strike/mutiny/etc., though of course it wasn't officially presented that away. To illustrate, here's a quote from William Manchester's narrative history, The Glory and the Dream

In Frankfort four thousand GIs turned into a mindless, howling rabble. Agitators shinnied up lampposts and waved the horde on toward the I.G. Farben Building with flashlights. Turned back there by the points of MP bayonets, the protesters shouted derisively that General Joseph T. McNarney was too cowardly to confront them.

Or alternatively, a period article from the Argus (Melbourne):

US Soldiers In Germany Riot To Go Home

From Our Own Correspondent

Fifty military police and para-troopers with tommyguns. rifles, andtear gas were called out at Frankfurt, Germany, on Wednesday night to quell a riot by 5,000 US soldiers. The riot, which was caused by delays in demobilisation, started as well organised marchers were passing the US Army HQ. As the paratroopers arrived the mob became quieter, but
kept cat-calling for General McNarney, Commander of US Forces in Europe, and shouting: "We wanna go home!"

In a speech from a lamp post a young soldier said to the crowd: "We asked to see General McNarney, and he answered with bayonets. We will be back tomorrow!"

US soldiers who are bordering close to mutiny in demonstrations to be returned home are being handled with kid gloves by both the Army and the Government, says a message
from Washington.

The Army gave in. By mid-1946, U.S. military power had dwindled to a mere 2.5 divisions

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Wanna Go Home Riots, 1946.

Allied troops insisted on immediately being returned home post-war, and essentially went on strike/mutiny/etc., though of course it wasn't officially presented that away. To illustrate, here's a quote from William Manchester's narrative history, The Glory and the Dream



Or alternatively, a period article from the Argus (Melbourne):



The Army gave in. By mid-1946, U.S. military power had dwindled to a mere 2.5 divisions

So a year later they had a protest. In July the war isn't over and they are going to have to fight or end up in Soviet prison camps, which isn't something they are going to want to do. Also its not likely that they will be informed of plans to attack, rather told that the Soviets attacked them and a new war just started.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The VVS was far less competent than the Wallied air forces and badly outnumbered, not to mention technically outclassed and undertrained.

Except not sufficiently for the WAllies to instantly achieve air superiority.

All of these were advantages the WAllies had over the Luftwaffe, after all (in fact, their numerical advantage was even more crushing with the LW then it would be against the Soviets). Yet it still took them over a year to break German air power.

By 1944-45 they were facing less than half of the LW and outnumbered it 4-5:1, yet were still suffering 3:1 losses.

Irrelevant. They could afford those losses and the LW could not.

Why would it take a long time to kill an air force that is far worse trained, badly outnumbered, technically and doctrinally inferior,

Because it isn't that badly outnumbered, technically, and doctrinally inferior.

The Wallies have a ton more and theirs are far better trained with an average of 400 flight hours before showing up at the front; the Soviets even in 1944-45 had no more than 100.

Which would only be relevant is both side were starting with their air forces consisting entirely of trainees. But they are not: instead they are starting with air forces made up of battle hardened and experienced pilots. Now as attrition progresses and pilots are lost, the Soviets inferior pilot training program will start to have an effect but as with the LW this will take time.

Plus the Soviets made their bones against a declining LW that was being murdered in the West,

Wrong, the Soviets were able to reorganize and seize air superiority against a still-powerful Luftwaffe in late-1942/early-1943, well before the LW really started getting put through the murder machine.

leaving them the left overs to deal with; their combat experience was not as tough as the Wallies from 1943 on.

Except it was. As Chris Bergstrom nicely points out in his books, the fighter squadrons the Luftwaffe left behind in the East during the latter-half of the war were composed of the overwhelmingly best pilots the LW had to offer. So in qualitative terms, the VVS was facing the best the Germans had out there.

Its a doctrinal limitation you mentioned in another thread that cost them the chance to hurt the LW worse and would be a fatal flaw against the independent Allies air forces.

Ultimately, yes. But as with the LW, this flaw won't instantly end them and they'll be able to successfully contest the air space for some time.

Maskirovka worked against the LW in the period it was mostly not on the Eastern Front, rather it was being killed in the West.

In 1942 and '43 the LW still had significant assets in the East. It did not help them.

45 year later info is not relevant to 1945, as that is over two generations of refinements and multiple war experience later.

Except it is. All of the techniques and tactics used by the Serbs were largely the same as those developed by the Soviets during the 2nd World War. The only modifications made were those to take account of advances in sensors technology.

Athey have nothing set up in July 1945

Despite having advanced warning.

after the war ended to deal with the hordes of enemy aircraft unlike they've ever experienced before;

Except in 1941 and 42.

Maskirovka took a long time to prepare for an entire front and you don't build up a massive set of deceptions from May-July across the entire frontage of Europe when no preparations existed prior to that due to lack of need.

Except the Soviets routinely put together masses of decoys and deception measures in just that amount of time. The entire build-up and associated deception measures for Bagration took about the same amount of time as the interim between the end of World War 2 and that proposed start date for Unthinkable.

And you should note too that the Germans used deception and camouflage measures against the Wallies too with minor success.

That German deception measures were inadequate is non-indicative of the far more sophisticated Soviet deception measures.

The reality is that if you have a large aerial recon capability ground based deception efforts during WW2 did not work all that well,

Except what were essentially the same techniques worked perfectly against a vastly more advanced and dominant aerial recon capability 45 years later.

You can't hide rail lines and rail yards.

Except the Soviets did. Repeatedly. They were able to successfully able to protect not just rail lines and yards, but also bridges and tunnels from German air attack.

Despite Soviet deception efforts the Germans were able to successfully bomb Soviet rail infrastructure during the 1944 retreat, but didn't have enough bombers to make it stick

Except there is no evidence for this. Soviet deception efforts worked perfectly in '43 and '44. The Germans repeatedly bombed the wrong targets while missing the real infrastructure. The build-up for every Soviet operation in the latter half of '43-1944 was completely unaffected by all German attempts at logistical severance.

Anti-Soviet partisans still drew off Soviet security forces

So not combat forces.

Mind you, I can see anti-Soviet partisans managing to become something akin to a threat with time when the WAllies are able to get enough aid and advisers, but that is yet another long-term advantage which may not be able to come into play before a negotiated peace is settled.

and German stragglers were being scooped up for months after the war ended by everyone.

Best I could tell, pretty much all German soldiers who actually wanted to fight were dead or captured by the end of May. The only ones who persisted afterwards were those deployed in the boonies, way the hell away from anything or anyone, who were simply forgotten about so no-one ever bothered to go out and take them prisoner.

Right, because pointing out the Soviets weren't supermen that could counter anything and everything before the threat appears means they lack agency.

Because the Soviets won't learn of Operation Unthinkable and it's implementation ahead of time despite having the WAllies decision making apparatus largely riddled by Soviet spies.

Considering how long it took them to adapt to the Germans, it will probably take them a while to respond to a radically different opponent that fights a different way.

And considering how long it took for the WAllies to adapt to the Germans, it will probably take them a while to respond to a radically different opponent that fights a different way.

Right, because a minor bungled Nazi operation in 1939 is completely the same as a Wallied one in 1945 when their propaganda machine is tuned up to 11.

Said propaganda machine has been overwhelmingly pro-Soviet, something which can not be turned around 180 in an instant. And a minor incident is going to be insufficient to pull it off. There were multiple minor incidents in 1944-45 that comprehensively failed to cause a war between the Soviets and WAllies. The WAllies are going to need to pull off a big false-flag operation in order to convince their own people and such big operations leave tons of points for a security breach.

 

[David T]

So a year later they had a protest. In July the war isn't over and they are going to have to fight or end up in Soviet prison camps, which isn't something they are going to want to do. Also its not likely that they will be informed of plans to attack, rather told that the Soviets attacked them and a new war just started.

Not "a year later"--though this article is admittedly biased, it is accurate when it states that there were massive protests by US soldiers as early as December 1945-January 1946:

"Overseas, the soldiers began to take more concerted action. On Christmas Day, 1945, 4,000 soldiers in Manila marched to the 21st Replacement Depot with a banner at their head saying "We Want Ships!" The soldiers in Manila demonstrated twice more, serving as an example to the troops stationed elsewhere. In Guam, more mass meetings sprung up and 3,500 soldiers engaged in a hunger strike against demobilization "slowdowns." More mass meetings followed, as well as marches and petitions by the soldiers stranded by the Army on that tiny island.

"A resolution adopted by soldiers stationed in Seoul, Korea on January 10th, 1946 stated "We cannot understand the War Department's insistence on keeping an oversized peacetime army overseas under present conditions." In Korea, the War Department's insistence was most likely the desire to keep the soldiers in striking distance of China and Manchuria, but like the US soldiers everywhere at the time these troops in Korea would have been absolutely unwilling to go on an offensive, especially against a country characterized to them as an ally!

"On January 8th, thousands of soldiers in Paris marched down the Champs Elysees to rally in front of the US Embassy to shout "Get us home!" The next day in Frankfurt am Main, speakers at a soldiers' demonstration stated that their commanding general was "too scared to face us here." They then cabled a message to Congress that said only "Are the brass-hats to be permitted to build empires?" The New York daily PM on January 13 reported this from Nuremburg: "The fact is the GIs have strike fever. Almost every soldier you talk to is full of resentment, humiliation and anger. He acts exactly as workers have acted and by doing so drew the GI's criticism in the past... But now the shoe is on the other foot. The GIs now feel they have a legitimate gripe against their employers."

http://socialistappeal.org/history-...ldiers-movement-the-strikes-of-1945-1946.html

See also Erwin Marquit, "The Demobilization Movement of January 1946":

"During the first two weeks of January 1946, four months after the surrender of Japan ended World War II, enlisted personnel and officers in the U.S. Army and other military services took part in massive demonstrations and protests at bases throughout the world demanding to be sent home. The specific focus of the protests was for an end to the abrupt slowdown in ongoing demobilization. The largest demonstrations took place in the Philippines, Hawaii, France, Germany, and Guam, with others, large and small, taking place in Japan, Korea, India, Burma, Austria, and Great Britain, and on the U.S. mainland." http://www.tc.umn.edu/~marqu002/demob

And what's your point in saying "In July the war isn't over"? The war *with Germany* is over, and while the soldiers knew they might have to be sent to Japan to fight, that was something quite different from suddenly starting a new war with the USSR...