What if Operation Unthinkable happened?

[History Learner]

Something that needs to be pointed out: If the Anglo-Americans have decided to strike, there is going to be no drawdown of forces Post-VE Day. In that eventually the Anglo-Americans have parity in manpower, a nearly 2:1 advantage in tanks/assault guns, and nearly 10,000 more planes.

 

[Snufkin]

(6) Moral high ground.
Moral high ground. In this scenario SU is under an unprovoked attack. Soviet moral will be quite high, but as for Allies - they are aggressors here. It is a crucial factors, as due to the numbers of the battlefield, WA would need a courage and sometimes self sacrifice. Could WA troops, who were forced to a new war with their ex-friends by their own government provide it? I doubt so. There have already been disorders by U.S. soldiers “We want to go home riots” in late 1945–1946

If West would want to make a surprise attack they probably would stage a "Shelling of Mainila" type of event where they would justify the aggression against the Soviets. Fighting for a cause is important in more individualistic West and that cause needs to be created if it doesn't exist already.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Good question., I suspect if for some reason the US, UK, Canada etc were sufficiently motivated to fight the Soviet Union with the same level of determination they displayed when fighting the Axis, then using at least some German POW`s to fight the Soviets might be politically plausible (maybe the use of former German Army volunteers might be more plausible than using former Waffen SS volunteers .)

To recap my other post it is unclear to me what if anything would prompt such a response from the US, UK, Canada etc.

For various reasons I am thinking the UK and Canada would both be critical US allies if the US wanted to pursue such a war against the Soviets.

I believe if the Allies struck a deal with Germany to restore its 1937 borders plus Austria the Germans might be interested.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

80 vs 228 is one thing. But the Red army divisions and Wallies had not the same number of men in their divisions. How many tanks in Wallies and Red army tank divisions? How about a number of men, guns and armored wheichles instead of divisions?

The 228 figure takes that into account. If it didn’t, the figure would be more like 500 vs 80.

The Soviets had 174 rifle corps alone, which as History Learner points out were de-facto infantry division equivalents by 1945, plus another 36 tank and mechanized corps. That is around 210 Western Divisional equivalents. The cavalry corps (which were in the same boat as the rifle corps, save that they had a organic armored component at this stage) add another 7 division equivalents. It seems the remaining difference was achieved via conglomerating the Soviet divisions and brigades who weren’t organized into corps. The fact that western divisions are the rough equivalent to a Soviet corps isn’t really an advantage when the Soviets have more then 2 corps for every Western division.

There were no tank divisions in Red Army that time. But its 24 tank corps with 270 tanks and 180 artillery pieces each (on paper of course) and 14 mechanized corps (246 tanks, 252 ap each) were perfoming the same role. I guess, they got this 36 - to - 23 balance by marking every corps as a division

Pretty much, particularly since Soviet tank/mechanized corps were divisions in all but name (and after the war, were renamed as such). Soviet WW2 nomenclature on this matter can be a bit confusing. They also tended to be at full strength, unlike the rifle divisions who were lower on the replacement priority totem pole. People like to cite the declining strength of manpower in the individual rifle forces, but in doing so they ignore that it was offset by the increasing manpower strength in Soviet mechanized and artillery forces.

 

[RMcD94]

If West would want to make a surprise attack they probably would stage a "Shelling of Mainila" type of event where they would justify the aggression against the Soviets. Fighting for a cause is important in more individualistic West and that cause needs to be created if it doesn't exist already.

Couldn't they use simple Red Scare? First the Soviets allied with the Germans, etc. The Soviets want to march to the Atlantic, here is fabricated proof and evidence.

 

[TDM]

Couldn't they use simple Red Scare? First the Soviets allied with the Germans, etc. The Soviets want to march to the Atlantic, here is fabricated proof and evidence.

It's too quick a turn around, we've just spent years selling "Brave, resilient but hard pressed Russians need your help to fight the fascist monster". Plus war weariness, you'll be snatching victory and relief away and replacing it with more fighting and hardship.


Your trigger event will need to be something really good!

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

The other thing, besides fighting a former ally, is that even if the Wallies were able to scrape enough anti-communist support to have a weary populace support war agains the USSR (very unlikely), they would be fighting side by side together with Nazis, and probably not any Nazis, but the most fanatical, criminal ones, to reinvade the same countries that had been liberated* from them. Once the truth of the concentration camps would be widely spread -and the Soviets will no doubt help-, once the effects of atomic bombings are also widely recognized, once both the military civilians realize just how hard is attempting Barbarossa 2.0. and how many dead will there will be to get to Moscow if they do it at all, both Churchill and Truman would either have to stop and seek peace (if bombs are dropped, it would be a hard thing to do) or be lynched out of office.

As for Stalin, he will see this as proof as all capitalists are conspiring together against him. I wouldn't be surprised if he orders the Red Army to march all the way to France, and he probably would have had help in the way. Communist and leftists worldwide will say that capitalists and fascists are basically the same and side with the Soviets. Civilians would just want it all to be over. There could be mutinies in the Red Army of soldiers and officers tired of war, but given the circumstances, I think most would fight.

The Wallies could definitively occupy Vladivostok... for a while. In Europe, I doubt they would reach farther than Poland before their logistics train runs out. And you can't just win a war by dropping atomic bombs in random cities and formations. It worked in Japan, but the USSR just won, and it still was heavily armed. I doubt the allies would achieve air superiority in any case.

My veredict? A very harsh peace, mass destruction to Eastern Europe (again...), Western goverments and morale severely weakened, and no democratic Russia; results would range from a mess of warlords and civil war, to all of Europe under Soviet occupation. The post war world will be hostile and divided.

*leaving aside the obvious discussion about Soviet occupation and crimes, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

I've been rather fascinated by what the Allied navies might be able to do against the Russians if they were given enough time. Have the US Army garrison Japan and fill it with Air Force planes and enough light ships to make sure the Russians can't cross to the Japanese islands. Meanwhile the main fleet and all those aircraft carriers and every Marine they can carry sail south, through the Indian Ocean, through the Suez Canal and then force the Turks to give them passage into the Black Sea. The Russians would probably send every plane they could lay their hands on against them, thinking they could sink all those ships so foolishly getting within range of land-based aircraft. And the Russians would lose every one of them. They had no experience attacking ships, but the ships had a lot of experience defending against land-based aircraft. Between fighters and proximity fused AA, the Red Air force ceases to exist in a week. Then the Marines land in Crimea and open up bomber bases and start dropping A-Bombs.

Not to be rude, but this sounds something out of a videogame rather than any realistic proposal. It depends on a lot of moving parts, from a complaint Japan, to Turkey accepting passage, to a sucessful invasion of Crimea, to the complete anihilation of the Soviet Navy and Air Force because of reasons.

And then what? Sure, you could turn Crimea into a radioactive wasteland and invade it, maybe bomb Moscow or nearby cities from there (mostly devastated anyway. The Soviets would probably keep moving industry to the Urals and Siberia). And then what? Just exterminate the Russians with A-Bombs? Hitler would approve, but I doubt Allied civilians would.

 

[Geon]

... hence it was named Unthinkable'

Yes, Brooke had a look at it (after all, he had to. It was a suggestion from the minister of war = Churchill) and pretty fast said: NO
Nuclear option in July 1945 is not there. Starting date of 1 July 1945 would make that rather impossible.

So, we are talking about a traditional land-war against USSR, sitting in Germany with a fair amount of troops, tanks and other paraphenelia.

Wiki says:
The Projected Balance in Western Europe, 1 July 1945[14]

	Allied	Soviet	Ratio
Infantry divisions[o]	80	228	1 : 2.85
Armored divisions[p]	23	36	1 : 1.57
Tactical aircraft	6,048[q]	11,802	1 : 1.95
Strategic aircraft	2,750[r]	960	2.86 : 1

This could very well be why Brooke was less than enthusiastic.

How far will US/UK forces get fighting in Germany?

Let us just imagine for a moment that Unthinkable actually rolls off on 1 July. Stalin might feel a bit betrayed and rather upset about the entire thing.

So, the cooperation on Japan goes out the window. Maybe even to the extent where Stalin is suggesting a defense pact with Japan, aimed at US.

USSR forces supporting Japan in the Pacific? Releasing submarines on US?
USSR invading Iraq through Iran?
Finland?
Denmark with its straits?
Support for Communist parties in France and Italy (and that could very well get very bad)
Greece? oh dear

So, IF Unthinkable should kick off, the consequences might be rather unpleasant.

There's no question Unthinkable would have been a disaster.

However, given other discussions I have read regarding this I would like to pose a question to @ivanotter. Assume that as part of the preparation for Unthinkable the Allies are willing to cut secret deals with the surrendering Germans. Before anyone starts invoking the ASB or laughs their heads off let me just say it was a contingency actually considered as part of Unthinkable as far as I know. Assume the Germans are allowed to reconstitute what's left of their armies and armored divisions, how much would this have changed the ratios listed above? Likewise suppose the Allies could somehow contact the remnants of the Free Polish forces in Poland would this have effected the equation in some way?

Also, regarding Japan, I just don't see the Japanese being any more accommodating with the Russians then they were with the Americans.

 

[Alex1guy]

I feel the Soviets would need to be the ones to kick things off, the WAllies were exhausted and a surprise attack on their former allies would not be recieved well at home without a genuine casus belli. Getting the Soviets to try this though at this point is also remote