Operation Unthinkable

There was a reason it was called "unthinkable". There was no way in hell they were ever going to do it. More of those kind of crazy ideas popped up among Allied countries, none would be taken seriously.

That is all.
 
Correct. The 2nd version came into play when the joint chiefs deemed the attack on USSR as unfeasible.

The attack on USSR version - the first - is the one which must have been beyond mere staff work. Staff work of such lunacy plans hardly ever (as far as I know) gets into orders to field commanders (Monty) or force allocations. That is my main point on the attack one. How far did it really go.

The Kew reference seems very interesting, but is it solely related to the 2nd option: How to fight a Russian attack?

Unfortunately Kew is not around the corner for me.

on the 1st option: Did Ike mention this in his book? Brooke? I don't think so.

Monty was 21st army chief until 25 August where he took over as commander of the army of the Rhine. He must have been heavily involved in the planning. Anybody having anything from his hand on this?

The only one who could have told Monty to store German equipment must have been Brooke.

The plot in this thickens.

Ivan

Not really

Brooke's diary 24th May

This evening I went carefully through the Planners' report on the possibility of taking on Russia should trouble arise in our future discussions with her. We were instructed to carry out this investigation. The idea is of course fantastic and the chances of success quite impossible. There is no doubt that from now onwards Russia is all powerful in Europe.
 
There was also the case of the 'missing letter'.

Churchill boasted about telling Monty to store the German arms. Monty said he never received a letter, but he still warehoused it.

When he got tired of sitting with a warehouse full of things, and could not get any confirmation out of anybody, he apparently disposed of it all.

So, the letter which wasn't there was a verbal thing. And at the end of the day, Churchill could not issue demands to the field commanders on his own. Technically it had to go through the Joint Chiefs.

Truman apparently did not want to have anything to do with it, but was he listening to the suggestion to begin with?

Conspiracies abundant.

Aktarian: Yes, apparently Stalin had heard of it, but did not react on it.

Maybe he believed:

1) A hoax to make him look bad if he starts to deploy forces accordingly. That could even trigger it all
2) Too insane to be anything but a good story around the fireplace
3) Reality. But he had the forces to beat it to death anyway

Ivan
 
I wonder how many million German troops would end up being reactivated if Operation Unthinkable happens. They were low balling it in the original plans of what they would have needed after a few months of war.

My guess is the propaganda posters suddenly switch about who is our friend who 'fights for freedom'.

freedom.jpg~original
 
My guess is the propaganda posters suddenly switch about who is our friend who 'fights for freedom'.
Adjusting the attitude of entire countries takes a lot longer and a lot more effort then slapping up some new posters. Unless Stalin attacks first, the WAllies are going to have a insurmountable PR problem on their hands if they go through with Unthinkable.
 
Adjusting the attitude of entire countries takes a lot longer and a lot more effort then slapping up some new posters.

Which is the core political problem with Operation Unthinkable. The public had been geared up to think defeating Germany and Japan was the end and Stalin was our ally who fights for freedom. You can move public opinion on a dime in a Totalitarian state or just plain ignore it, you can't ignore it in a democracy and it takes longer to alter even with wartime press controls.
 
Rifles

Prime Minister to General Ismay 23 July 45
What is being done with German rifles? It is a great mistake to destroy rifles. If possible, at least a couple of million should be preserved for Britain.
The Second World War, Volume 6, page 655. (1954 edition)

Churchill was prepared to 'go on the record' in a book published in 1954, as having raised the matter of preserving German rifles 'for Britain', with General Ismay.
 
Easier than you might from a logistical perspective.
Canadian and British forces could be re-supplied by ships docking in Danish, German and Polish ports along the Baltic coast. Moving supplies by sea is vastly cheaper than trying to move them overland, over broken roads or bombed out railways.
Just ask Napolean.
Hah!
Hah!
By 1945, WALLIES had a massive surplus of ships. They also had plenty of experience with amphibious assaults (Normandy, Scheldt Estuary and Crossing the Rhine).
 
Adjusting the attitude of entire countries takes a lot longer and a lot more effort then slapping up some new posters. Unless Stalin attacks first, the WAllies are going to have a insurmountable PR problem on their hands if they go through with Unthinkable.

What are you talking about? We've always been at war with Eurasia. ;)

>> What I mean: I'm pretty sure you argued against a 1984 reference.
 
... and the 'liberate' Poland story just makes it even worse.

Imagine 200,000 SS troops saddling up again and 'liberating' Poland. Great news for all involved.

Quickly melting down the Shermans and building Tiger-II's instead.

No more spitfires. Arm the invasion force with Me-262's

Put Steiner in overall command as he is the only one (left) with 'expertise' in fighting the Russians.

Oh yes. Unthinkable is .. unthinkable.

That it could even get to the stage where Monty is told to ease up on destroying German equipment (and putting it in storage instead) as it would soon be needed again, is just .. insane.

We have toyed with the idea if the fact that such planning was being carried out, it might topple the UK government.

Not doing it, but just considering something this left-field.

Ivan




Ivan

I'm not entirely sure if your being serious

But why would you want to build Tiger 2?

All of the Allied tanks can defeat the T34-85 and the other tanks making up the bulk of the Red Army at or beyond the ranges that it can kill them.

Also why would the allies need ME262's they have their own jet planes and an Airforce that would swamp the Russians.

And anyway all of those Spitfires and Typhoons and P47s, 51s etc etc are good enough to face what the Russians had.

I'm not suggesting that the Allies could win such a scenario - being out number 3 : 1 (Quantity has a quality of it own) is an insurmountable problem but when ever Op Unthink gets banded about its alway's T34 is l33t - Sherman is a burning death trap - etc etc which totally ignores the fact that while Sherman's burned, T34's exploded.

The 76mm gunned Sherman's might have struggled vs the big German cats but M4 Easy 8s have generally outmatched T34-85 when ever the 2 have met.

Just sayin like
 
new info

Anyone else heard of Operation Barbarossa being used as a counter to a planned soviet invasion of Europe?

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

To me this is what Churchill was afraid of the whole time. I don't see the Allies winning at all around 1945. If this invasion of Europe is believable and I believe it is then this really opens up who was really the enemy of World War 2 and if knowing how it went down with the soviets afterward would we side with them at all?
 
All of the Allied tanks can defeat the T34-85 and the other tanks making up the bulk of the Red Army at or beyond the ranges that it can kill them.

What? The T-34's reputation may be exaggerated and the Sherman's underrated but... what?

The T-34/85 is perfectly capable of killing a Sherman at standard battle ranges (and vice-versa) but the WAllies are going to find the Soviet heavy tanks and assault guns (save for the Su-76) to be nightmares on the level of the German heavies except the Soviets will and did deploy them in far vaster quantities then the Germans best dreams or the Anglo-Americans worse nightmares.

Also why would the allies need ME262's they have their own jet planes and an Airforce that would swamp the Russians.

And anyway all of those Spitfires and Typhoons and P47s, 51s etc etc are good enough to face what the Russians had.
Mainly an advantage if the war last a long-time. Air-power needs time and room to work, which the WAllies simply don't have in Unthinkable. Beating down the VVS to a point where the WAllies can claim air superiority is a process that will take the WAllies roughly a year... but given the political situation they don't have a year.

The 76mm gunned Sherman's might have struggled vs the big German cats but M4 Easy 8s have generally outmatched T34-85 when ever the 2 have met.
A lot of those encounters came down more to crew training then what tanks they were driving. Tank forces were a rather new thing for the North Koreans (to roughly quote an American who served as a tanker during the Korean War "the Koreans clearly didn't know how to use their tanks like the Russians did") while the Arab armies which fought the Israelis armies were (and really are still) just flat-out incompetent.

Anyone else heard of Operation Barbarossa being used as a counter to a planned soviet invasion of Europe?

Yeah. It's mainly revisionist garbage based around circumstantial evidence. Oh, sure... Stalin probably figured he would have to fight Germany at some point in the future, but that was because he saw Germany as a threat to be destroyed rather then because of some grand master plan for world revolution. The idea that he intended to attack in 1941 is complete bullshit, given the state of the Red Army and Stalin's own actions. And Stalin invading Western Europe is similarly McCarthyist scaremongering: Stalin was more interested in consolidating his own gains and rebuilding the war-torn Soviet Union instead of launching a new war that he was rather uncertain of winning.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else heard of Operation Barbarossa being used as a counter to a planned soviet invasion of Europe?

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

To me this is what Churchill was afraid of the whole time. I don't see the Allies winning at all around 1945. If this invasion of Europe is believable and I believe it is then this really opens up who was really the enemy of World War 2 and if knowing how it went down with the soviets afterward would we side with them at all?

Never heard about a 41 attack. I have heard rumors that he was planning to strike in 42 though however I have no idea how credible they are.
 
Anyone else heard of Operation Barbarossa being used as a counter to a planned soviet invasion of Europe?

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

To me this is what Churchill was afraid of the whole time. I don't see the Allies winning at all around 1945. If this invasion of Europe is believable and I believe it is then this really opens up who was really the enemy of World War 2 and if knowing how it went down with the soviets afterward would we side with them at all?

Sovurov's claims have been completly debunked by people historians of that period.
 
What? The T-34's reputation may be exaggerated and the Sherman's underrated but... what?

If I had to choose between the 2 - A 'Wet' (which they all would have been by May 1945) M4A3 76 (w) or easy 8 every time please - much more likely to survive a hit.

IIRC in Ospreys Sherman vs Panther (which I foolishly gave away to a charity shop when down sizing my book collection) it makes the claim that a Sherman When penetrated on average 1 crew member out of 5 died - with the T34 on average when penetrated 1 crew member out of 5 survived.

I have no idea how these stats where arrived at - but I had no reason to distrust them at the time.

So there you have it!



The T-34/85 is perfectly capable of killing a Sherman at standard battle ranges (and vice-versa) but the WAllies are going to find the Soviet heavy tanks and assault guns (save for the Su-76) to be nightmares on the level of the German heavies except the Soviets will and did deploy them in far vaster quantities then the Germans best dreams or the Anglo-Americans worse nightmares.

Again I totally agree on the numbers front which makes this discussion moot

- but for the purposes of this er discussion none of those Assault guns had armour remotely like any of the big German Hunting Cats and not including gun mantlets the 76mm is punching through them at the ranges that they would be facing each other (something it couldn't do to the Jagdtiger and JagdPanther).

The ISU-152 Probably the largest and best armed Soviet assault gun had a frontal armour of 90mm (slightly more in the gun Mantlet area)

The 76mm is penetrating at 500m (probably at a 1000m as well)

Its only the later IS tanks that 'Standard' 76mm ammo would struggle with - HVAP though......

Again - any return fire that hits from any of those tanks is snuffing the Sherman.

The IS3 on the other hand....but then the Russians were still getting it to work in 1945

Mainly an advantage if the war last a long-time. Air-power needs time and room to work, which the WAllies simply don't have in Unthinkable. Beating down the VVS to a point where the WAllies can claim air superiority is a process that will take the WAllies roughly a year... but given the political situation they don't have a year.

Again completely moot point - but if the war lasted that long then you're going to see more Gloster Meteors and DH Vampires - not ME262s

And the rather large number of existing Piston Engined Single seat fighters in the Wallied air forces is not to be sniffed at.

I am interested to see where you got the 1 Year figure from?

I don't see the VVS capable of stopping the Allied Airforces from attacking where they pleased from day 1 quite frankly

A lot of those encounters came down more to crew training then what tanks they were driving. Tank forces were a rather new thing for the North Koreans (to roughly quote an American who served as a tanker during the Korean War "the Koreans clearly didn't know how to use their tanks like the Russians did") while the Arab armies which fought the Israelis armies were (and really are still) just flat-out incompetent.

Let me guess they were also Export models with specially thinned armour to confound the decadent Westerners....:rolleyes:

Those North Koreans where good enough when they over ran task force Smith and where Knocking out the M24 Chaffies the US Army were using!

And don't let the Egyptians hear you say that! They pretty much fought the IDF to a stand still

There is a very good reason that Egypt and Israel deal with each other in such a cordial fashion. The Israelis respect them and have done since the events of 73

Just messing with you - but I could have bet good money that you would have used the Poorly trained crews / Export model that I always hear in defence of Russian Equipment found wanting when facing Western Equipment. ;)
 
The ISU-152 Probably the largest and best armed Soviet assault gun had a frontal armour of 90mm (slightly more in the gun Mantlet area)

That sounds like it's the RHA, yes. But what about the RHAe?

Its only the later IS tanks that 'Standard' 76mm ammo would struggle with - HVAP though...
Would work about as well as against the Tiger I, possibly worse if they hit a sloped part of the armor. The M4 would still have a mobility advantage, but not as big as with the Tiger. It's real advantage, though, is in RoF.

Again completely moot point - but if the war lasted that long then you're going to see more Gloster Meteors and DH Vampires - not ME262s
Agreed.

And the rather large number of existing Piston Engined Single seat fighters in the Wallied air forces is not to be sniffed at.
Neither are the Soviet's.

I am interested to see where you got the 1 Year figure from?
It's a rough estimate based on how long it took the WAllies to break the Luftwaffe. Allied air power in Normandy in 1944 pinned the Germans down, but it did so at the end of a long campaign spanning years to pound German industry, cripple their transportation networks, and destroy their air force.

Here, both sides would start with vast air forces. There would have been no long campaign before the land war in which the air forces could slowly soften up the defenses, and whittle away the threat - it would have been an immediate dive into a colossal air battle. By the time WAllies had managed to win this, if it won this, the ground war might well be over.

It's also the best case estimate for the WAllies... worse case is two years.

I don't see the VVS capable of stopping the Allied Airforces from attacking where they pleased from day 1 quite frankly
Oh, the WAllies will be able to get some of their strikes in. So will the VVS. The nature of air parity is that neither side has the advantage, not that both sides are unable to conduct air strikes.

Those North Koreans where good enough when they over ran task force Smith and where Knocking out the M24 Chaffies the US Army were using!
Not surprising... the North Koreans weren't as good as the Russians but they were good enough to try and leverage their own equipments advantages over inferior stuff. It's when they ran up against an equal that they crumpled.

And don't let the Egyptians hear you say that! They pretty much fought the IDF to a stand still.
The Egyptians are indeed one of the better Arab armies, but that is a very low bar to clear. The incompetence of Arab armies in modern warfare is extremely well documented, I recommend Pollack's Why Arab's Lose Wars for a detailed analysis.

And they hardly fought the IDF to a stand-still. After all by the war's end the Israelis had reversed all Egyptian gains, crossed the Suez themselves, encircled an entire Egyptian army, and were poised for a drive on Cairo. That is not at all

There is a very good reason that Egypt and Israel deal with each other in such a cordial fashion. The Israelis respect them and have done since the events of 73
1973 is actually quite interesting tailoring their tactical-operational methodology to the army they had while simultaneously countering the Israelis. The breaching of the Suez line was basically a phased-advance-and-entrenchment scheme straight out of World War 1, only modified to take into account advances in technology. The troops involved had been rigorously briefed and trained in live-fire exercises on exactly what they were going to do, step-by-step, repeatedly in the run up to the invasion.

And it worked... for the first 72 hours. Then Israelis adapted their tactics and the Egyptians had to abandon the plan because the Syrians had unexpectedly smashed their head against a brick. The results... were predictable to those familiar with an Arabic army. Once they ceased to know precisely what they were supposed to do and had to improvise, the Egyptian army's performance just fell apart.

Just messing with you - but I could have bet good money that you would have used the Poorly trained crews / Export model that I always hear in defence of Russian Equipment found wanting when facing Western Equipment.
It's usually more the crews, and really the entire military apparatus above them, rather then the equipment. As the old saying goes "it's a poor user who blames his tools." A poorly-equipped but well trained army with a competent military system can achieve remarkable things against a much larger, much better equipped but also much more incompetent enemy. Unfortunately for the WAllies, the Soviets of 1945 are far from incompetent.

Besides, it isn't like the Soviets are the only ones who pull monkey-model shenanigans. The M1A1s the Egyptians are using are a far cry from the Abrams the Americans roll around in.

And yes, there are examples that work the other way: Soviet equipment in Indian hands readily smashed up western tanks in Pakistan's armies (and western equipment in Indian hands smashing Soviet equipment* in Pakistani hands, since both sides were using a mix of western and Soviet gear).

*Technically Chinese knock-offs of Soviet stuff, but thats quibbling.
 
Last edited:
OK, I admit: it was partly in jest.

... and I am not suggesting that the poster should be someone in a black uniform with some other insignia and stating: "He is back!" with the caption of "to liberate you this time".

Out of all the areas where Unthinkable is .. unthinkable .. the one where it is revolting is the thought of arming 10 German divisions for a 1 July 1945 attack.

Any country having been occupied by Germany would not really appreciate such a move.

Ivan
 
Well conspiracy to plan aggressive war and preparation for aggression and planning of aggressive war were crimes at Nuremberg.

It was also made a crime for the planning or preparation of a war of aggression under the crimes against peace clause there as well.

Would then the people who ordered and conducted War Plan Red for instance also be guilty of this then? Or when the Israeli's orchestrated a surprise attack against the Arab states planning to attack them, was that also liable for prosecution?
 
OK, I admit: it was partly in jest.

... and I am not suggesting that the poster should be someone in a black uniform with some other insignia and stating: "He is back!" with the caption of "to liberate you this time".

Out of all the areas where Unthinkable is .. unthinkable .. the one where it is revolting is the thought of arming 10 German divisions for a 1 July 1945 attack.

Any country having been occupied by Germany would not really appreciate such a move.

Ivan

Did germany even have 10 divisions that could be fielded?

and yes.. i think most of eastern europe wouldnt want german troops back anytime soon...

the war ended the way it did after negotiations as to where the demarcations would be and sphere of influences.. short ofthe biggest blunder in history the war was over and everyone was taking a break for a while.. I mean what was there to liberate in '45.. dirt.. ruble.. and more lunar landscape.

now in yalta the west could have told stalin tough shit and we will fight for a free poland and we mean all of poland.. as that is why we are in this damn mess in the first place and have "d-day 2 the invasion of poland" waiting in the wings and see what he said...
 
Top