Operation unthinkable - was it really unthinkable?

Selling it, no problem!

I think part of the problem is this: how does the US and UK sell a new war -against wartime allies - to the voters at home?

Are you kidding? The Soviet's have already handed them the perfect sales plan just by attacking:

"We Fed them. We Sent them Arms. We* Defeated their enemies. And they repay us by stabbing us in the back!"

You can get a year out of the anger from that alone - by which time there will be several big craters in Eastern Europe, glowing in the dark...

BTW, quite apart from the atomic bombing which starts in late summer, how long can the Soviet war machine function without lend-lease?

* It'll be "we defeated" because Soviet attacks against Germany will immediately get downplayed, especially since it now seems it was only "so they could take it over instead..."

Edit: This was based on the assumption that the Soviets attacked first, of course. Toss it all in the bin if the West does it.
 
Last edited:
The same German generals whose success rate against the Soviets can be gauged by the USA and UK meeting those same Soviets on the Elbe?

To be fair, under these circumstances said generals wouldn't have to play the "let's keep Hitler happy" game, which hamstrung their actions more than once.

Mind you, this war is nearly as stupid as anything Hitler came up with...
 
The German Generals achieved a number of tactical victories against the USSR, and had at least fought against the Soviets in Eastern Europe. There are worse advisors that the allies could talk to.

Still, if word got out about this, there would be hell to pay in the press.
 
To be fair, under these circumstances said generals wouldn't have to play the "let's keep Hitler happy" game, which hamstrung their actions more than once.

Mind you, this war is nearly as stupid as anything Hitler came up with...

Said generals gave Hitler the kind of power where keep Hitler happy was German strategy to start with. That kind of folly was sooner or later going to bite them, though in the time-honored tradition of the Gross-Preussen GeneralStab they chose to blame the leadership in Berlin as opposed to looking to their own faults. German generals are always stabbed in the back, after all.

The German Generals achieved a number of tactical victories against the USSR, and had at least fought against the Soviets in Eastern Europe. There are worse advisors that the allies could talk to.

Still, if word got out about this, there would be hell to pay in the press.

Yes, and those tactical victories brought the USSR to the Elbe. Emulating Nazi methods is not going to work better for the Allies than it did for Hitler & company.
 
To be fair, under these circumstances said generals wouldn't have to play the "let's keep Hitler happy" game, which hamstrung their actions more than once..

OTOH his support for Fall Gelb worked out great, and his stand fast order before Moscow probably saved the Wermacht.
 
The Soviets would NOT feel oblieged to open the Manchurian front - reason this would weaken Japan further - but Japan is still fighting the enemies of mother russia. so why bother with Japan Russia need her men elsewhere.

There isn't the ability to ship those forces to the western front in any time frame to do any good. However, they can be put to good use by threatening China and, as Tobit points out, even India.

Japan fighting on the other hand ties up allied forces (Japan was not THAT weak - look up the estimates what an invasion of Japan would have costed.

The need for an invasion at all was subject to a large debate. With Unthinkable, it's likely King's peripheral strategy would have won out. Japan was weak and failing quickly.

Supplying a few (or more) planes to japan would also tie up even MORE Allied assets.

Why give Japan materiel when your own forces can put it to use just as well?

in 1945 Japan could gain more being a Russian puppet (and thats not given - depends on the war) than occupied by the Allies.

IMO there is NO reason for Japan and Russia to fight each other, but every reason for them being at least co-belligerent, and even more (maybe more for Japan) to work together.

The Soviets knew Japan was done for. They knew they could steamroller the starving Kwantung Army. By doing so, they threaten the Allies position in China. Sure, Japan would love to have help from the Soviets. But, to repeat, there's no real advantage to the Soviets in doing so and lots of advantage in opening a Chinese theater against the Allies.

Please elaborate?

Japans weaknes? see my former post...

Yes, weakness. Japan was near total collapse.Their ability to carry out any fight beyond a last ditch defense of the home islands was gone. Without US food aid in 1945, there would have been mass starvation. Even the military was on starvation rations. 4 million tons of food aid were needed to bring Japan up to mere subsistence level in 1946.

In August 1945, the Japanese situation was desperate. The major cities were devastated by atomic or conventional attack, and the casualties numbered in the millions. Millions more were refugees, and the average consumption was below 1200 calories a day. The fleet was lost, and the merchant shipping could not leave home waters or sail from the few possessions still held without braving submarine or mine attack. Oil stocks were gone, rubber and steel were in short supply, and the Soviets were moving against the only sizable forces the Japanese had left, the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. They were a starving and undersupplied force. Many divisions had transferred to the Pacific, where they died in the island battles.
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm


I think China would be a major bone of contention between the Soviets and
Americans. Concern over the Soviets in Europe would be the driving reason for the allies to invade, but Asia is where the Soviets could make a very big impact for the Allies. India might even suffer some revolts.[/QUOTE]
 
yes, that's why it was called operation Unthinkable.

The unthinkable bit being that the US-UK will attack.

It is not a matter of the conventional wisdom that Soviet is attacking and is the culprint and the warmonger. This plan was for an attack by 1 July on the Soviet Union across the European plains.

All said. This was a serious consideration by Churchill, but his military leaders did not exactly take to it.

I wonder where was Brooke in this? Monty as the next CGIS.

Ivan
 
There isn't the ability to ship those forces to the western front in any time frame to do any good. However, they can be put to good use by threatening China and, as Tobit points out, even India.

Thats what I intend --

The need for an invasion at all was subject to a large debate. With Unthinkable, it's likely King's peripheral strategy would have won out. Japan was weak and failing quickly.

Don't underestimate the stubborness of Japanese people

Why give Japan materiel when your own forces can put it to use just as well?

One Point for you - though if materiel is used better in another place (tying up enemy forces over japan means they could not fight elsewhere.

The Soviets knew Japan was done for. They knew they could steamroller the starving Kwantung Army. By doing so, they threaten the Allies position in China. Sure, Japan would love to have help from the Soviets. But, to repeat, there's no real advantage to the Soviets in doing so and lots of advantage in opening a Chinese theater against the Allies.

Even if someone fights a lost cause he still binds enemy resources

Yes, weakness. Japan was near total collapse.Their ability to carry out any fight beyond a last ditch defense of the home islands was gone. Without US food aid in 1945, there would have been mass starvation. Even the military was on starvation rations. 4 million tons of food aid were needed to bring Japan up to mere subsistence level in 1946.


http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm

Soviet voice - why bother with starving japanese civilians at least they army fights on


I think China would be a major bone of contention between the Soviets and
Americans. Concern over the Soviets in Europe would be the driving reason for the allies to invade, but Asia is where the Soviets could make a very big impact for the Allies. India might even suffer some revolts.

100%
[/QUOTE]


BTW I am not argueing tht Japan is such a strong ally for the SU, just IMHO opinion it would make no sense for the SU to attack Japan when the SU is attacked by the Western allies, like some other posters suggested.

IMHO Japan is worth more as an (admittedly weak) ally to the SU than as an additional enemy.

Basically the SU would win or lose on its own, question is by which margin and each bullet wasted on Japan (by Russia) counts towards the Allies ( and each Allied bullet shot at Japan helps Russia)

If UNTHINKABLE goes bad early the W-Allies even might consider to "appease Japan" a bit (i.e. an honorable peace keeping Japan intact, but stripping it a bit like free Korea, but retaining their other posessions (meaning manchuko staying a separate nation - just ideas not 100% treaty;))

If the Wallies appease Japan August storm WOULD be an option for Russia...
 
BTW I am not argueing tht Japan is such a strong ally for the SU, just IMHO opinion it would make no sense for the SU to attack Japan when the SU is attacked by the Western allies, like some other posters suggested.

It makes good sense for the following reasons:
The Soviets regain territory lost in 1905.

The Soviets gain new territory they want in Manchuria.

The Soviets use forces that they would't otherwise be able to apply in order to tie up US forces that could otherwise be used in Europe.

The Soviets gain influance in China and a threat against the allies.

IMHO Japan is worth more as an (admittedly weak) ally to the SU than as an additional enemy.

An enemy incapable of the offensive, as Japan was, is no threat.

Basically the SU would win or lose on its own, question is by which margin and each bullet wasted on Japan (by Russia) counts towards the Allies ( and each Allied bullet shot at Japan helps Russia)

Once again, that materiel and those forces cannot arrive in Europe in time to influance that fight. They are either going to sit there uselessly or be applied usefully. Giving it away does nothing while using it gains the advantages I laid out above.

If UNTHINKABLE goes bad early the W-Allies even might consider to "appease Japan" a bit (i.e. an honorable peace keeping Japan intact, but stripping it a bit like free Korea, but retaining their other posessions (meaning manchuko staying a separate nation - just ideas not 100% treaty;))

If the Wallies appease Japan August storm WOULD be an option for Russia...

Simply not happening. The US knows Japan is beat.

As for my underestimating "the stubborness of Japanese people", I'm not. I am intimately familiar with the Japanese.

However, you are far, far overestimating the abilities of Japan at this point. Japan has no ability to go on the offensive at all - zero. It has no ability to even feed itself. Assuming Showa doesn't step in and force surrender to the US, without massive food aid, Japan will be a massive charnel house by mid-1946. The Soviets don't have the ability or inclination to feed Japan. It doesn't matter how stubborn the Japanese are - starved to death is starved to death, and they have no ability to represent an offensive threat. All the US has to do is sit back, continue Operation Starvation (which the Soviets have no ability to interfere with), and let Japan, inthe words of Cal Bear in another thread, simply lay down and die.
 
1. The Western Allies chances of achieving surprise on Unthinkable approximate when hell freezes over. The Soviet intelligence apparatus had infiltrated the west far more then vice-versa (as the Manhatten Project and ULTRA spies can attest too) and Stalin was already paranoid of just such a thing.
2. The loss of Lend-Lease is less of a factor then people here are assuming. By May of 1945, the Soviet Union had pretty much already recieved all the lend-lease it ever was going to get. They also have taken steps to remove themselves from the lend-lease spigot. For example: they have several months stockpile of spare parts for their American-made trucks and reverse-engineered the trucks to a large degree, so now they have their own factories producing the relevant spare parts.
3. The Soviets have a manpower problem, but it is less a military one and more an economic one. The Soviet armed forces had 11.5 million men in 1945, only 6.5 million of which were deployed in Europe. They also did have several million more military-eligible men who had not yet been conscripted, and whom they can replace with women in the factories and mines, but their loss will hurt further down the road.
4. The Allied public is going to be pissed at their leaders for getting into a war with the people they largely regard as their Allies and (in all likelihood) then getting hundreds of thousands more of American and British soldiers killed in the resulting war. If the Soviets had started the war, this would be another matter. But since the Western Allies are clearly the agressor, the British and American public will be pissed. And no, one will not be able to alter their perceptions just like that. In the case of the US public, it took until 1947 before we started really viewing the Soviets as a serious threat.
 
Top