WW3 in 1945

Do you find this credible?


  • Total voters
    83
need
Well from a historical perspective no one could expect that the Cold War would play out the way it did.

In retrospect, the Cold War went better than most feared although it was extremely expensive.


Still that does not mean that either side had any plans to actually execute said plans.

I think the consequences here, is that such plans existed but the intent did not.

Patton definitely. LeMay and MacArthur were much more opague about what they thought about the USSR in 1945, especially when compared to later on. I get the sense they didn't think much about it at all. LeMay was to the concerned with the current war to worry about the next one and MacArthur was, as usual, too self-absorbed.

Patton wanted such an attack. LeMay, I am not so sure, the big problem here is the lack of bases to hit Russia that he has, he could hit much of Central Europe. MacArthur on idealogical would want such an attack, in fact, he proposed an assault on Red China during the Korean War but he is not in any position in 1945 to take on Russia.
 
The timing of Unthinkable - if we are to follow what Churchill had wanted - is a bit curious.

It was supposed to kick off in June/July time frame. Churchill's consideration was that it had to be before US forces started to go back to US or off to defeat Japan.

In the event that such an attack was launched or the forces concentrated for it, it would have had an impact on forces available for invasion of Japan.

MacArthur probably would not have been too happy with that.

It becomes tricky if we should leave Japan to itself, mine all the harbors and wait for hunger to take over.

Who would be in overall command in Europe on such a sneak attack on USSR?

Eisenhover would be a contender, but he was already talking directly to Stalin.
Bradley as the coming star?
MacArthur? he surely would have the ego to go for it
Brooke? - too cautious

The problem with Unthinkable would be the notion of forming 200,000 former German soldiers up to fight the Russians again.

200,000 = some 15-20 divisions.

We have VE-day in May, Then we empty the POW camps and issue new uniforms and off we go to the Eastern front again.

What type of equipment would we issue?
Tiger and panther tanks would be OK
MG 42
Nebel werfer
ME 262


How would a MacArthur feel having 20 German divisions? maybe an overload of former SS as well?

PS: Churchill also had a few words on the nuclear option: If Stalin gets nasty we can always chuck a bomb on Kiev and Smolensk and so on. That should keep him in line
Maybe Churchill was getting a bit too old at that time?
 
That is a good question.

Of course a sneak attack has got the element of surprise in it.

However, if we look at numbers, we see that US forces in Europe in May '45 should amount to 2-3 million (numbers to be checked!)
UK had another 2,5 million, making it a total of some 5 million.

USSR had 16 million in May '45 - and I presume the best part in Europe.

Tank production:
USSR: 105,250
USA: 88,410
UK: 27,900

Artillery:
USSR: 517,000
USA: 257,400

We need to take into account that a big part of US forces and equipment went to Pacific.

Airforce is something else, but the problem with air force is that it cannot occupy .

The other remarkable thing is that USSR commanders had experience in commanding BIG entities. It was not the case in US/UK instances.

So, it might not be a given that a sneak attack on USSR would have been particular successful.

Chucking in some SS Panzer divisions would probably not have been a great idea in terms of the newly 'liberated' areas.

How would Sherman tanks have performed against T-34?
Other considerations?
 
USSR had 16 million in May '45 - and I presume the best part in Europe.


That figure seems too high.

Red Army peaked at about 11 million men. By 1945, the Russian were facing major manpower problems many of its divisions were dramatically undersized and its manpower in Europe was about half its peak. I would say that in front line fighting force the Allies would be roughly equal in manpower to the Russians.

The other issue is that the Russians had many troops by then from Eastern Europe in its armies, how would say Polish troops in the Russian army behave facing US and British troops.

In Korea, the T-34 came up against the Sherman and as far as tanks are concerned they are about equal.




What is interesting is that when the British looked at Unthinkable, they were fairly confident that they could drive the Russians deep into Russia.
 
Last edited:
We need to check the USSR number, which I also found a bit high. Can't find where I found it (sorry).

If Churchill had enrolled 200,000 Germans (SS and others), how would Poles in Russian service have behaved?

Your last statement is rather 'disturbing'. Have you got a reference on that? What did the British base it on? I was really under the impression that the British were rather tired of war and would not have looked forward to another one in Europe, especially since they were terrible constrained in terms of man-power.

Driving the Russians deep into Russia seems a rather fantastic statement. The Germans didn't manage it, after all.

I could perhaps see some US generals wanting to have a go at it.
 
What is interesting is that when the British looked at Unthinkable, they were fairly confident that they could drive the Russians deep into Russia.

Source for that, as IIRC the conclusion was that the balance point was somewhere in Poland (although I'm note sure whether that was pre- or post- WW2 Poland as they are somewhat different)?
 
We need to check the USSR number, which I also found a bit high. Can't find where I found it (sorry).


https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Operation_Unthinkable

A listing here is of the balance of forces at the start, one point that disturbs me is that as a general rule an offensive army needs about 2:1, here they are almost equal. Once the attack starts I would expect both sides to start rapidly increasing their military. I expect the war on Japan to go on the low burner and large numbers of troops in the East be sent to the West. This is not trivial as the allies have something like 10 million troops outside of Europe, the Russian army in comparison has about 2 million troops in the East. Overall I would expect that the Allies will have about as many troops but nowhere near the amount recommended for a successful offensive.


If Churchill had enrolled 200,000 Germans (SS and others), how would Poles in Russian service have behaved?

They would not have liked it, no doubt the Allies would have glossed it over somehow, the French after all were able quite successfully to use German forces in Viet after the war.

...

Driving the Russians deep into Russia seems a rather fantastic statement. The Germans didn't manage it, after all.




The Germans drove to the suburbs of Moscow.





Source for that, as IIRC the conclusion was that the balance point was somewhere in Poland (although I'm note sure whether that was pre- or post- WW2 Poland as they are somewhat different)?

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/operation-unthinkable.html

When I read some details online, it states "After studies conducted by British Army Staff, it was concluded that, if they were to proceed, the same fate would await the Allies as the one that met Napoleon, and more recently Hitler. Russia was too vast to conquer. In addition, the army behind the red banner was by 1945 a powerful military force staffed with veteran soldiers and officers, equipped with advanced technology and – above all – commanded by a strong and determined leader." They are talking Russia not Poland.
 
So I presume about the time of Potsdam late July 1945 that these plans were aborted because then the bomb was real. So if this is true in early 1945, the Soviets were planning WW3.
Airforce is something else, but the problem with air force is that it cannot occupy .

No, but it can bomb the snot out of an advancing force, or entire cities used as supply depots.

Stalin and the Soviet leadership repeatedly complained about the lack of a second front, and then once a second front was advancing from Normandy the lack of western support of the Soviet advance.

In February 1945 the US Army Air Corps demonstrated how they could aid the Soviet advance into Germany proper. The Soviets were advancing on a German city, which they had designated as a provisional army center and regional capital prior to the capture of Berlin. The US Army Air Corps "aided" the Soviet advance by bombing the city.

The city was Dresden. All that was left in the central city was concrete dust and rubble.

Stalin stopped whining about the lack of allied support, and the Soviets were scrupulous about observing agreed upon zones of control after this incident. Nuclear weapons were just icing on the cake.
 
When I read some details online, it states "After studies conducted by British Army Staff, it was concluded that, if they were to proceed, the same fate would await the Allies as the one that met Napoleon, and more recently Hitler. Russia was too vast to conquer. In addition, the army behind the red banner was by 1945 a powerful military force staffed with veteran soldiers and officers, equipped with advanced technology and – above all – commanded by a strong and determined leader." They are talking Russia not Poland.

Just checked the original; the Staff recommendation was not to advance east of the line Danzig-Breslau as the length of the front would expand due to geographic elements.
 
In his book "The second world war" by Antony Beevor who is I think an extremely credible and knowledgable historian on ww2 on p765, claims that Stalin in 1944 (date not specified) was seriously considering landing in Norway, an invasion of France and Italy.
If he's going to be spreading obviously false claims, this makes the above very doubtful. The only statement Stalin made regarding a possible invasion of Western Europe (on the suggestion of some of his generals) was: "Who is going to feed them?"
 
Just checked the original; the Staff recommendation was not to advance east of the line Danzig-Breslau as the length of the front would expand due to geographic elements.

I remember reading that the German Generals in WW2, thought that the line about halfway through Poland which the Germans and Russians had in 1939 was the ideal border for Germany defence. It is interesting that the British had a similar view.
 
Picked from Wiki:

The Projected Balance in Western Europe, 1 July 1945
Allied Soviet Ratio
Infantry Divisions
80 228 2.85 : 1
Armored Divisions 23 36 1.57 : 1
Tactical Aircraft 6,048 11,802 1.95 : 1
Strategic Aircraft 2,750 960 2.86 : 1

There is a table above, which is Spring 1945. It is here:

he Balance of Forces in Western Europe and Italy, Spring 1945
Allied Soviet
W. Europe Italy Total Operational e Stavka Reserve Total Ratio
Manpower
5,077,780 1,333,856 6,411,636 6,750,149 431,838 7,181,987 1.12 : 1
Tanks and Assault Guns c. 19,100 3,100 22,200 12,333 324 12,657 1.75 : 1
Artillery c. 63,000 10,200 c. 70,200 114,344 6,838 121,182 1.73 : 1
Combat Aircraft 28,000 4,000 32,000 18,823 624 19,447 1.65 : 1
Motor Vehicles 970,000 unknown unknown 366,959 20,362 387,321 over 2.5 : 1

The Cambridge five had already told Stalin about Unthinkable so there would be no surprise. Whether Stain regarded it as just another staff plan or if he took it serious is a good question.

The above (as unclear as it is) says that Allied forces total: 6,4 million. USSR 7,1 million. Take Italy out and it is US/UK 5,0 million vs. 7,1

If US/UK should even get to a line of Danzig-Breslau and make a halt then it seems as though the entire operation was a waste. It would then only mean an occupation of territory allocated to USSR at Yalta.

Let me speculate a bit: After the initial 'surprise' (if Stalin had not been told by the Cambridge five that is), then maybe USSR would start rolling? If the numbers above are correct, and USSR able to re-enforce faster than US/UK can, the additional 2 million troops would be decisive.

The other factor is: After having been praising the virtuous of 'Uncle Joe' , how can UK politicians get the buy-in for another war - in the middle of the promises of de-mob - and especially from labour and the organized workers?

Would there be any appetite for more body-bags in July 1945 in the UK. It could even lead to mutiny.

France is another consideration. Could it turn France 100% communist? The alliance would surely fall. Would France like to act as the bridgehead for US/UK re-enforcements? What if France stopped US/UK from crossing their borders? And could that not have been a consequence?

Italy is just as shaky in this regard.

If the premise of Unthinkable would be a blitz-krieg over and dusted in weeks, it might not have toppled the entire Western Europe (as per above). But that might nto be the case.

It would indeed impact on USSR commitment to invasion of Japan.
 
One point - the USSR was, at best, going to invade Hokkaido. Doing that would have to wait until spring, 1946 when the weather/ocean conditions were favorable and the USSR had acquired the equipment need and trained the forces. OTL in August, 1945 it was all the USSR could do to take the Kuriles at a time when Japan was in the process of surrendering. The only way Soviet ground forces were going to get to the Japanese Home Islands while OLYMPIC was going on was if they marched on to American ships in Vladivostok and marched off at some Japanese port that the US had captured and reopened. As I mentioned, for the CORONET timetable maybe Hokkaido assuming they had received a lot more American aid in terms of amphibious shipping from landing craft to transports.

If UNTHINKABLE happens, which means US concurrence, or Stalin decides that ports on the Atlantic coast are a good thing, then all aid to the USSR stops. In fact, there will be slowdowns during the build up to UNTHINKABLE if the western side decides to do this. Naturally all bets are off concerning the USSR taking action against Japan, frankly the USSR is going to have to devote its resources in the Far East to defending against potential US/Allied strikes on Petropavlosk, Vladivostok and Soviet islands. The US and Commonwealth Pacific Fleets have plenty of resources to do this sort of thing while at the same time blockading Japan and retaking any outlying bits deemed necessary. The USSR simply does not have the resources to be fighting the USA/Commonwealth and Japan at the same time. If the USSR wins against the west, then Manchuria, Korea, etc can be snapped up easily. Devoting resources when the Rodina is under threat to that periphery not happening.
 
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Operation_Unthinkable

A listing here is of the balance of forces at the start, one point that disturbs me is that as a general rule an offensive army needs about 2:1, here they are almost equal.

Picked from Wiki:

The rule-of-thumb is that you need a 3+:1 superiority at the point of attack. Achieving that with a 1:1 strategic ratio is perfectly viable. In any case, the wiki article plays some accounting games to make the WAllies numbers look better then they actually are. The most glaring example is counting every single AFV the WAllies have in Europe, regardless of where it is or what's it doing, while only counting the Soviet AFVs they have assigned to units.

Looking at what was planned, the Western Alliance computed the Soviet forces as being the equivalent of 271 Western divisions, once all factors (including air power and non-divisional assets) were computed for, of which 170 would be on the North-Central European Axis as compared to a WAllied force of around 100 divisions in Europe with 49 being on the North-Central European Axis (basically a region incorporating Germany-Poland-Czechoslovakia). A brief glance thus shows that the Soviets have a combat power advantage of around 3.4:1 on the main axis of advance, although the implication is that balance of power in South-Central Europe (Austria-Italy-Yugoslavia) would be closer to (<~101 Soviet vs <~51 WAllied, minus whatever portion each side holds back for their respective strategic reserves). Now one can possibly take issue with the calculation of such a relative strength, but no historian I've read has seen fit to do so... even the ones who've written books dedicated to studying Unthinkable.

When I read some details online, it states "After studies conducted by British Army Staff, it was concluded that, if they were to proceed, the same fate would await the Allies as the one that met Napoleon, and more recently Hitler. Russia was too vast to conquer. In addition, the army behind the red banner was by 1945 a powerful military force staffed with veteran soldiers and officers, equipped with advanced technology and – above all – commanded by a strong and determined leader." They are talking Russia not Poland.

Looking at the document itself, Unthinkable planning documents themselves only ever discuss pushing up to a line running from Danzig-Breslau. They also noted that the danger to this flank

Just checked the original; the Staff recommendation was not to advance east of the line Danzig-Breslau as the length of the front would expand due to geographic elements.

They also explicitly rule it out on page 3, describing the prospect as advancing as far as the Germans did in 1941/42 as "hardly conceivable".

They also expressed severe doubts even the Breslau-Danzig was achievable, describing their odds even with the Americans as "heavy" and noting that the advances right flank would be quite vulnerable to a Soviet flanking attack towards the Baltic from Czechoslovakia. They use the phrase "hazardous" to describe the entire scheme multiple times which, as one historian pointed out, is by the standards of the British General Staff the equivalent of screaming "THIS WILL BE A DISASTER! DON'T DO IT!" Alan Brooke, the chief of the General Staff, made this entirely clear in his private diary when he uses the term "quite impossible" to describe the chances of success. Even the proposed Danzig-Breslau line leaves the Soviets in control of almost all of pre-war Poland and so it's rather unclear how it's achievement is supposed to free Poland from Soviet dominance, something which I'm sure the planners were quite aware of..

The other factor is: After having been praising the virtuous of 'Uncle Joe' , how can UK politicians get the buy-in for another war - in the middle of the promises of de-mob - and especially from labour and the organized workers?

Would there be any appetite for more body-bags in July 1945 in the UK. It could even lead to mutiny.

They can't. The Unthinkable plan assumed public support was unconditional, but the planners themselves admitted that this was a bogus assumption. Ismay, the guy in charge of the planning group who drafted Unthinkable, admitted the British army would probably mutinying if they try it. It is why I tend to regard Unthinkable (the defensive variant to a lesser extent, but still) as more an academic exercise then serious alternate history.

That said, the OP is asking about a Soviet offensive westward. In that case, as several people here have pointed out, the Western PR problem is essentially solved by the Soviets themselves.
 
Last edited:
In his book "The second world war" by Antony Beevor who is I think an extremely credible and knowledgable historian on ww2 on p765, claims that Stalin in 1944 (date not specified) was seriously considering landing in Norway, an invasion of France and Italy.
“Seriously considering landing in Norway” in 1944? How nasty of him and what a sinister plot!……:)

Yes, Stalin was quite serious about landing in Norway. Not just “planning” but in October 1944 the Red Army entered Norway and took Kirkines area. Operation involved 133K troops under command of Marshal Meretskov and actually started with taking Petsamo (the only place in the area the Soviets had been interested in). After this was accomplished these troops advanced into East-Finmark (Norway) and waited for the arrival of the Norwegian troops from Britain to Murmansk, which happened in November - December 1944. The Norwegian troops took, on the Soviet insistence, the forward positions and, with the Soviet help, started pushing Germans out of West-Finmark. The process continued all the way until capitulation of Germany.

All these events had been happening with a full knowledge and approval of the US and UK (agreement on the subject had been signed by the Big 3 in March 1944, including provision regarding temporary military administration) and with the active British help to the Norwegian troops and civilian population of the area.

Not sure how all of the above can be convincingly turned into a conspiracy theory.
 
we might be
Wiki also links to scans of the original document:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101116152301/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

See page 10 for Allied land forces, 12 for estimates of Russian forces.

Thanks for the share, it does not go into much details so there must be much more or it basically died with this. One point I noticed is that it is actually talking of two wars, one where the Allies attack and one where the allies defend.

If US/UK should even get to a line of Danzig-Breslau and make a halt then it seems as though the entire operation was a waste. It would then only mean an occupation of territory allocated to USSR at Yalta.

Why would this be seen as a waste, the Allies would argue that they are defending their ww2 goals which includes Poland (at least half of it).

Let me speculate a bit: After the initial 'surprise' (if Stalin had not been told by the Cambridge five that is), then maybe USSR would start rolling? If the numbers above are correct, and USSR able to re-enforce faster than US/UK can, the additional 2 million troops would be decisive.

The Western Allies have considerably more than 2 million troops outside of Europe, closer to 10 million. In the medium term, yes the Russians are able to re-enforce quicker but in the long-term, the West re-enforcements would favor them.


One point - the USSR was, at best, going to invade Hokkaido. ... frankly the USSR is going to have to devote its resources in the Far East to defending against potential US/Allied strikes on Petropavlosk, Vladivostok and Soviet islands. The US and Commonwealth Pacific Fleets have plenty of resources to do this sort of thing while at the same time blockading Japan and retaking any outlying bits deemed necessary. .

Japanese leaders were hoping for such a situation so they could make peace on better terms. I doubt they would get much better terms then what they got, as atomic bombs get dropped some on Japan, they will make peace.


The rule-of-thumb is that you need a 3+:1 superiority at the point of attack. Achieving that with a 1:1 strategic ratio is perfectly viable. In any case, the wiki article plays some accounting games to make the WAllies numbers look better then they actually are. The most glaring example is counting every single AFV the WAllies have in Europe, regardless of where it is or what's it doing, while only counting the Soviet AFVs they have assigned to units.

Looking at what was planned, the Western Alliance computed the Soviet forces as being the equivalent of 271 Western divisions, once all factors (including air power and non-divisional assets) were computed for, of which 170 would be on the North-Central European Axis as compared to a WAllied force of around 100 divisions in Europe with 49 being on the North-Central European Axis (basically a region incorporating Germany-Poland-Czechoslovakia). A brief glance thus shows that the Soviets have a combat power advantage of around 3.4:1 on the main axis of advance, although the implication is that balance of power in South-Central Europe (Austria-Italy-Yugoslavia) would be closer to (<~101 Soviet vs <~51 WAllied, minus whatever portion each side holds back for their respective strategic reserves). Now one can possibly take issue with the calculation of such a relative strength, but no historian I've read has seen fit to do so... even the ones who've written books dedicated to studying Unthinkable.

Let me point out that Russians were really struggling at that stage to keep their manpower up. Many of their divisions were grossly undermanned. Their supply line through Eastern Europe is not good. I would be surprised if they could keep a bigger army going for long in such a conflict in Central Europe.


“Seriously considering landing in Norway” in 1944? How nasty of him and what a sinister plot!……:)

Yes, Stalin was quite serious about landing in Norway. Not just “planning” but in October 1944 the Red Army entered Norway and took Kirkines area. Operation involved 133K troops under command of Marshal Meretskov and actually started with taking Petsamo (the only place in the area the Soviets had been interested in). After this was accomplished these troops advanced into East-Finmark (Norway) and waited for the arrival of the Norwegian troops from Britain to Murmansk, which happened in November - December 1944. The Norwegian troops took, on the Soviet insistence, the forward positions and, with the Soviet help, started pushing Germans out of West-Finmark. The process continued all the way until capitulation of Germany.

All these events had been happening with a full knowledge and approval of the US and UK (agreement on the subject had been signed by the Big 3 in March 1944, including provision regarding temporary military administration) and with the active British help to the Norwegian troops and civilian population of the area.

Not sure how all of the above can be convincingly turned into a conspiracy theory.

Good point.

Compared to WWIII, the Cold War was a bargain.

In retrospect, yes but the world was lucky. If for example, Cuba crisis had gone South we might be now saying that this WW3 was a golden opportunity that we missed.

Having said that the cost of the Cold War was frightful both in money and lives. Actually, if you were to add China, Vietnam, Middle East, Vietnam, Indochina, Indonesia (where it was large but not totally responsible for probably the largest policide in history), Africa, etc I would not be surprised if the cost in lives would be comparable to Unthinkable.
 
Having said that the cost of the Cold War was frightful both in money and lives. Actually, if you were to add China, Vietnam, Middle East, Vietnam, Indochina, Indonesia (where it was large but not totally responsible for probably the largest policide in history), Africa, etc I would not be surprised if the cost in lives would be comparable to Unthinkable.

Assuming that fighting WWIII in 1945 would have prevented those conflicts, the grizzly calculus would be straightforward.

I fail to see how kicking the USSR out of Poland would have ended the Chinese Civil War, or made Indochina and French colonial Africa garden spots of tolerance and understanding. I'm thinking they would have happened whether the US nuked Minsk and Moscow or not.
 
Top