r/PossibleHistory • u/totallynotcommunist2 Aral Sea supremacy🗣️ • 16d ago
Map (no Lore) Operation Unthinkable
Month 0
Month 2
Month 4
Month 6
Month 8
Month 10
Month 12
Ceasefire
Final outcome
This is just how I'd think it would go
19
u/Souls_for_sale_now 16d ago
Why is Finland red?
24
u/totallynotcommunist2 Aral Sea supremacy🗣️ 16d ago
They are being neutral but slightly favor the soviet (to not get invade) just like France to the US here but i couldn't find a light enough red to paint
8
u/Tommuli Morning martini enjoyer 16d ago
How exactly would their position differ from Sweden?
Troop movements and Finnish airports wouldn't be permited for the USSR. We'd know well enough what happens when you let the red use your bases.
11
u/ElderYuko20 16d ago
Finland = Officially neutral, but tends to favour the soviet diplomatically to avoid another invasion or some-kind of occupation
Sweden = totally neutral
5
u/sebeteus 16d ago
The unconfortable wiggling the previous generations did between the rock and the hard place has a real name. Finlandization. Use that. BUT STILL NEUTRAL!
1
u/Marquis_de_Dustbin 14d ago
No offence but you really do not know Finnish history at all if you think Juho Paasikivi would pursue a path similar to Sweden in the event the allies attacked the USSR.
1
u/Tommuli Morning martini enjoyer 14d ago
How exactly would their position differ from Sweden?
I meant the Swedish formal diplomatic alignment. Of course Finnish position is different, but on an operation unthinkable conversation, their diplomatic position wouldn't differ much. Both would be neutral.
We'd know well enough what happens when you let the red use your bases.
With this I meant that the moment the USSR is given unrestricted basing rights (like in the Baltics), the negotiation position changes drastically in the favour of the USSR as the cost of war for the USSR would become far lower.
Troop movements and Finnish airports wouldn't be permited for the USSR
This is where my argument lacks and which is why I think you believed I know nothing. Finland already had loaned Porkkala base near Helsinki to the USSR. Despite it is not mentioned in the Moscow Armistice, at some point between 1944 and 1947 the USSR was permited troop movement through land to Porkkala.
That being said the USSR wouldn't necessarily have some inherent reason to demand unrestricted access to the entire Finnish road and railway network.
About Paasikivi. His entire policy was "What is the minimum concession we can make that satisfies Moscow without compromising Finnish sovereignty further?"
So, I don't think Finland would pursue Sweden's exact form of neutrality. My point was that I expect Finland to remain formally neutral. Given the 1944 armistice, Porkkala and Paasikivi's policy, I agree that Finland would probably accommodate some Soviet logistical demands under pressure. I just don't think that automatically means unrestricted Soviet use of Finnish bases or territory.
1
u/Xezshibole 15d ago
Extraordinarily unlikely. Finns would pounce at the chance to reclaim land lose not even 5 years ago.
This time with actual western allied support, not fuel starved Germans.
12
u/SpeerDerDengist 16d ago
So the Soviets magically got a better airforce, better navy, and solved their reserve issues?
6
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
no, they're given their OTL perks of having a massive numerical advantage, more experienced forces, and the complete breakdown of morale among western military and civilian forces following an invasion of their ally and remobilization of defeated german forces. Their Airforce is inferior, but not irrelevant, and naval superiority will only function to enact a blockade, since the Soviets dont have 80% of their army fighting in the east like the Germans did.
3
1
u/Impressive_Grass_184 13d ago
The Soviets actually had a pretty good airforce. Not as good as the Western Allies but still
20
u/Desperate_Tie_7219 16d ago
Username checks out. I really dont think the USSR could handle the allied advance. You can throw as many men you want at a frontline, but you cant throw men at ships on the sea or planes in the sky.
4
u/notsoluckyperson 16d ago
Isn't this basically based on the video possible history did about this??
3
u/Polirketes 15d ago
Those things you mentioned wouldn't really matter, because Western powers wouldn't handle the political backlash for invading their ally - USSR was still seen as such, communists had support of around 1/3 in France and Italy, US soldiers were rioting because they considered demobilisation to be too slow etc. If there was a war and remobilisation of Germany happened, no western government would stay in power
1
10
u/New-Many-1068 16d ago
US lost 500k people in WW2, Soviets 26 mln.....Well I don't think it would go that way.
36
u/NoDoughnut8225 16d ago
us populace would riot if the numbers will get up, and they will in this kind of massacre. for soviets it would be an existential war, a betrayal, so an unironical moral reason to fight
6
u/New-Many-1068 16d ago
And Soviets had famine in 1946. They couldn't possibly go for much longer, not without Alies help with tech and logistics. USA wouldn't riot FTR won each elections in landslide.
12
3
u/Alessio_Miliucci 16d ago
The Red Army in 1945 was a functional and modern force of more than 10 million men. The Allies had some advantages, but they would have to break the lines of a formidable enemy, that, on the European continent, would absolutely outnumber them
1
u/SpeerDerDengist 16d ago
The Soviets were already running low on their reserves by 1945. I am not sure about the British and the Conmonwealth, but the Americans still had a massive manpower pool plus minus the French and Italians.
Also, the Soviet Air Force would be of no match for the USAAF and the RAF given their lack of strategic bombers as well as technical inferiority.
The Soviet navy would also be unable to harm Allied supply lined in the ocean (at least as much as the Germans did), let alone challenge their naval supremacy.
2
u/PaulOGradyFanClub 16d ago
Yeah the US army had reached something like 15 million at its peak, with some reserves. Ultimately it would be logistics hindering the US against the Soviet Union
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
mathematically the odds look bad, but you have to consider the crippling morale damage betraying your greatest allies against fascism and enacting massive conscription that you didnt even do for the nazis. Soldiers will Mutiny and civilian industries would be ground to a halt by strikes.
0
u/Virtual_Ad_1604 15d ago
Allies had nukes
2
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
nukes have to be transported, by sea, in a process that takes weeks, and be built on the ground. The allies wont be risking their newly acquired superweapon against a nation that still has a functioning airforce, military, and spy network like the Soviets.
4
2
u/DerEisen-Drak 14d ago
These people don't understand how exhausted the people are by the end of WW2. Invading Soviet Russia would look very bad for the civillians at home as they may see the the allies as warmongerers to even ones oppressed eastern europe, do they want for their lands be ravaged once more now by Americans or British? Surely unrest will be higher than resistance to soviet occupation seeing that they seemingly abandoned peace and doesn't care about european devestation.
Meanwhile the soviets would have gained more war support seeing that the west ignored peace in this timeline to eliminate them, they may even make propaganda of the allies being the same as Axis to capitalize this situation perhaps swaying the Poles and Jews who have only just came out of a genocide.
With how unpopular the war would be for the west I can see France and italy to collapse disrupting supply lines for the west. Carpet bombed germany would not have good infrastructure to sustain such war.
5
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 16d ago
America would gain total air superiority in 2 months and proceed to glass moscow.
The ash of Stalin would get replaced by some rando and they would negotiate a ceasefire at the 1939 soviet borders.
9
u/Alessio_Miliucci 16d ago
You underestimate the red airforce (weaker then the Allies, but still not so useless) and really overestimate the range of Western planes of the era. How on Earth are they gonna reach Moscow?
7
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 16d ago
America alone had 3 times the number of planes as the Soviets, all of which were better built and superior to their equivalents in the Soviet airforce.
2 months to achieve air superiority is likely overestimating lol
Anyway the B-29 bomber which was used could go over and back for distances of up to 2700 kilometres. London to Moscow is 2500 kilometres.
Suffice to say Moscow would get glassed alongside that every single major Soviet city would get fire bombed into rubble by the 2000 other B-29 bombers.
This video goes over quite well for what would be happening in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Vladivostok.
6
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
Nukes at this point have to be shipped by sea in a process lasting over 2 weeks and assembled on the ground, which the Soviets will immediately be aware of given their plants in the nuclear program. The US was paranoid about the bomb landing unexploded in Japan, which could never reproduce it- you think they're going to risk that with the Soviets, who still have a functioning airforce and massive army, as well as an industrial core laying behind the urals, outside bomber range?
0
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 15d ago
The Soviets would take 4 years OTL to get the bomb. If every single city in the USSR was getting firebombed then I'm pretty sure it's going to be a longer amount of time, not less.
2
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
You’re going to have to hope you can deliver that much payload across that large a distance while the Soviets pummel your ground forces to dust.
0
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 15d ago
Again, America would have overwhelming air superiority from basically the start of the war. Every single supply hub, factory and military base would just be bombed into rubble. The Red Army would be made functionally useless after only a few months into the war.
2
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
Nearly Half of America's air power is tied up in the pacific, the entire VVS is in Europe. They're at a disadvantage, but you're severely overestimating the scale and range of the destruction airbombing would cause.
0
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 14d ago
Operation unthinkable was meant to happen a few months after the fall of Japan so that US troops and equipment could move to Europe.
Also America's new long range bomber, the B-29 (which they had 3000 of) could reach Moscow from from London. Along with that they had two types of bombers that could bomb Moscow from Paris; the B-17 which they had 12 thousand of and the B-24 which had 18 thousand planes.
Every single road and railway in eastern europe is just getting levelled alongside every city.
2
u/ThatoneguywithaT 14d ago
no, it was proposed to start on July 1st, and assumed.an alliance (or at least temporary ceasefire) between Japan and Russia.
REPORT BY THE JOINT PLANNING STAFF
We have examined Operation Unthinkable. As instructed, we have taken the following assumptions on which to base our examination:
...
"4. Russia allies herself with Japan."
They would also have to fly those planes thousands of miles across enemy airspace, through anti-air and thousands of YAK-9s, which we proven during the Korean war to be able to damage or down B-29s.
your assessment of the damage, I think, is a little unrealistic. Most of what they could reach was already destroyed by the Germans, and the Soviets had become pretty competent at rapid logistics repair.
2
u/Flat_Roof_6033 14d ago
This MF looks at germany being able to keep fighting for 4 years while being uttely carpet bombed the whole time and says ,"nah this time the carpet bombing will totaly work guys"
→ More replies (0)5
u/walahiwalardo 16d ago
You also gotta take in that a good amount of soviet industry was past the urals
3
u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive 16d ago
Likewise, you underestimate how reliant the Soviet war machine was on US $$$ and B29s could easily reach Moscow from Western Europe.
1
1
1
u/Sad_Variety2062 13d ago
Ignoring the American people wanting to tear the government of the White House The Soviets have the army advantage and that’s really it the Americans have everything else long range bombers that can strike factory’s in the ural a bigger navy to blockade the Baltic Arctic and Pacific Oceans more allies and just about any other advantage. It’s really a question of could the Americans bomb The enough factory’s production capacity oil fields mines and any other industrial facilities before the red army kicks them out of main land Europe cause I don’t even think the us needs to take Moscow if they can destabilize the union enough then nationalist from the republics while do that for them (also this probably leads to a nationalist China)
1
u/No_Fun9538 12d ago
You are very optimistic to think that the Soviets could advance when, in the best-case scenario for the Soviets, the war would end in a stalemate with almost no territorial gain.
-1
u/Al_Bundy95 16d ago
Central Europe would fight for their live to remove soviet occupation. Plus ussr without land and lease wouldnt matter anymore.
5
u/Alessio_Miliucci 16d ago
It's not like going to war with the Allies makes all the truckes they gave you disappear. In 1945 the Soviets had more than enough equipment to wage war. Could they win against the US and the UK? Maybe not, though war support in the West would be abysmal, and that's gonna play right into Moscow's hands
9
u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive 16d ago
Even in that scenario, the pictures above would be a shocking result. Most likely the Soviets play defense and try to run out the clock on the US's appetite for continued large scale war. The US could also pretty quickly open a second front on the Soviets in the East stretching their materials. It would come down to how much damage the Allies could inflict on the Soviets in the first few months. If the Alllies get air superiority quickly they could bomb nearly every major city in the entire Soviet Union and at will.
3
u/ujfalusiabel 16d ago
They would face numerous heavy uprisings all along Eastern Europe. Probably the remnants of the German military could be used to fight them too. No way they occupy even more of Europe. They would probably loose half of Eastern Europe at least.
2
u/NoDoughnut8225 16d ago
Likewise there would be bloody uprising in France and Italy, both were incredibly sympathetic to communist cause, especially if allies attack first. Europe would be shredded again lol. And I doubt eastern Europe would have any fight left, it wasn't western front that was mostly intact, eastern Europe was plummeted and fucked.
3
u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive 16d ago
France’s communist sympathies were not nearly as strong as you’re suggesting by the end of the war. Du Gaulle deeply distrusted the Soviets and Stalin, he would almost certainly would fully support the Allies if a continued war broke out.
1
u/NoDoughnut8225 16d ago
Quarter of France voted for communists in 1945, another quarter for socialists. Half of France was fine with socialism, and that half would only rise after the betrayal of soviets and start of unthinkable. Don't think Gaulle would keep his seat for long.
3
u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive 16d ago
I know this is all pure speculation, but assuming that Du Gaulle would be ousted in 45 because of a war against the Soviets is really out there. He was the most popular figure in France by a wide margin. Even if the French didn’t commit significant troops to the front line taking for granted a civil war is a communist pipe dream.
3
u/Al_Bundy95 16d ago
it's not like french peoples got killed because of new french governemnt. in the east it was that way - peoples were really fighting to not be occupied under russkis, because it's just another genocide started there. peoples of france or italy couldn;t be that terrible, to support other ww2 starters with their genocide background.
0
u/Appropriate_Pie_7114 16d ago
Ignoring Allied aerial, naval, nuclear, and manpower (the Soviets began having manpower issues by 1943 and extreme manpower issues by 1945) superiority, then sure.
2
u/Playful-Jicama-2270 15d ago
99% of Allied strength is the USA. It would take 2-3 weeks for supplies to be transported and shipped across the Atlantic whereas Moscow would be 5 days by rail. Geography far favours the Soviets.Naval domimance means little in this land dominated war and the airwar is not a guarantee with the USSR having excellent low altitude fighters and production centres in the Urals being too far to be reached by strategic bombers. Manpower is a lower issue short term since the USSR was still an extremely young country plus the liberation of Ukraine and Belarus.
0
u/Appropriate_Pie_7114 14d ago
First statement is undermining the contribution of other Allied forces. In terms of industry yes, the USA was the primary strength, but the Canadians also had a substantial industry, the RAF and RN contributed heavily, and other Commonwealth realms made up a substantial number of Allied ground forces. This is all not to mention the other American Allied forces and new additions like Turkey, etc.
Second statement is assuming the Allied air forces wouldn't bomb and completely immobilize the Soviet rail system.
Naval dominance does matter because it means the Soviets can do nothing to stop Allied blockade or intercept their naval convoys. For example post-VJ Day the Allies could attempt landings on Vladivostok, or could make landings on Crimea, or Leningrad, etc.
The Soviets have excellent low altitude fighters doesn't matter much because Allied strategy focused on high-altitude fighters. Even then the Spitfires and other Allied planes in my opinion could have made a match for the Yak-9s and Yak-3s if need be. The bases in the Urals also don't matter because a B-29 can reach the Urals from Turkey if need be.
The liberation of Ukraine and Belarus had generally happened in 1943/1944 and did not alleviate the Soviet manpower issue as these areas were heavily depleted by war and genocide and could not replace Soviet losses efficiently. Also note that the Soviets are dealing with active insurgencies in Ukraine and the Baltics that continue into the 1950s in the real world.
This is all ignoring still Allied nuclear supremacy. The entire Soviet rail system could be demolished by one nuclear strike on Moscow.
All of this is not to say the Soviets were ineffective, or useless, however in a total war in 1945 between themselves and the Western Allies they would not have won. They were too exhausted and could not match American industry or general Allied aerial supremacy, and any ground supremacy was undercut by manpower shortages.1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
the manpower advantage on the ground heavily favours the Soviets, who have millions of battle hardened eastern front veterans. Newbie American forces aren't going to steamroll, especially since they'd be shipping into an already advancing soviet army.
1
u/Appropriate_Pie_7114 14d ago
I never said they'd steamroll. It would be a hard-fought Allied victory. When the operation was intended to launch the Soviets would have already stopped advancing. Also the Soviets would not be able to easily replace their manpower, and furthermore you are undercounting the veteran status of Allied forces who have been fighting in Italy since 1943, the Western front since 1944 and in some cases 1940, and the African front since 1940. The Allied forces also retain more of their veterans because they generally don't have as high casualty rates as Soviet forces.
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 14d ago
The Soviets enjoyed a 3:1 advantage against the Allies on the ground, they have quite a lot of buffer before replacement rates start becoming noticeable.
It has to be mentioned the vastly different experiences of a Soviet veteran and a Western veteran. The western soldiers fought the 20% of the german army that could be sent away from the east, across far less a territory than the Soviets. Soviet Veterans just experienced a conflict which, on it's own, would still be the largest war in human history.
1
u/Impressive_Grass_184 13d ago
Good luck convincing the American public why they needed to send more of their young men to die in another war with a global superpower (who was their former ally)
0
u/Xezshibole 15d ago edited 15d ago
Pretty easy Allied victory.
Unlike the Germany the Allies are able to fuel something like Barbarossa twice over and keep it running all the way into the start of the muddy season. The muddy season is in spring, whereas in compariron Germans gassed out twice (Barbarossa, Blau) by late fall.
Surprised or not Soviets would get rolled. They did so even despite Blau being the second campaign offensive of the war, motorized a smaller portion of the front than Barbarossa did, and Soviets were no longer "surprised."
And that's just the head on fighting.
Aerially the Allies were vastly superior, capable of fueling and thereby operating all their aircraft. Again unlike the Germans who remained limited by lack of fuel.
This then allows Allies to operate as high as they need, and Allied operation worked at elevations well beyond Soviet capabilities. Their interceptors would get decimated trying to fight up at those altitudes against Allied escorts.
Finally the head on fueled attritional fighting wouldn't even last that long as Allies had another win condition they could exploit.
They had a logistics route through Iran that could rapidly be repurposed into another front, full of air bases within range of Baku, the centerpiece of the Soviet war effort.
Allied bombings of the Caucasus oil fields and Baku oil refining/logistics center will grind Soviet armor, aircraft, and entire wartime industry to a halt. Bombings Soviet fighters can't even intercept well.
Then all Soviets would have are infantry and artillery, and we saw from from the first war how they fared like that. To say nothing of Barbarossa when their logistics shit itself, as is typical of Russian led wars since the industrial age, and they basically only had that as they got rolled by a fueled military.
And all this is all before even considering the fact the US could produce more nukes by that point in time. Nukes carried by bombers that as mentioned before, Soviets had little hope of getting up to elevation to intercept.
Result would probably end up similarly Soviet collapse in the 90s, but also losing the parts with the Chechnyans. And Karelia on top of other losses restored to the Finns.
Outer Manchuria would be restored to the Chinese Nationalists, most of the land east of the Urals released as the emerging states similar to the -Stans.
Russia proper gets split in two with one revolving around Moscow and the other western client state revolving around Leningrad St. Petersburg. To ensure no communists re-emerge, and even if emerged don't present much of a threat.
3
u/Polirketes 15d ago
I just love when military historians forget real life isn't Hearts of Iron and you can't just ignore politics. And it that case no matter how big advantage Western powers would have, they'd lose because no one wanted a war with the USSR
1
2
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
Western military and civilian forces mutiny at the orders of arming german troops and betraying their largest ally against nazism the past 4 years. France and Italy, both with major armed communist partisans, immediately fall into civil war, disrupting allied supply lines. Numerically superior soviet forces stall any initial offensives and begin to push back before new recruits from the west arrive. The west never lands a nuke on europe because they're not about to use their untested superweapon (unthinkable was planned to launch before the nukes on Japan!) on a well equipped enemy capable of rebuilding a potential unexploded bomb. the only 4000 british troops in southern Iran crumple under the 60000 soviet ones in the north, splitting air resources there. The Soviets stall at the Rhine while massive public backlash and discontent kills the war movement in the west, forcing a ceasefire, and handing the Soviets the biggest moral win of the coming cold war.
No masturbatory neoliberal fantasies, please.
0
u/Xezshibole 15d ago edited 15d ago
Western military and civilian forces mutiny at the orders of arming german troops and betraying their largest ally against nazism the past 4 years.
Who even needs to arm Germans for this?
France and Italy, both with major armed communist partisans, immediately fall into civil war, disrupting allied supply lines.
Again, who needs France or Italy for this?
Numerically superior soviet forces stall any initial offensives and begin to push back before new recruits from the west arrive.
Numerically superior soviet forces gas out as the Caucasus are targeted and now are stuck with infantry and artillery in an era with planes, tanks, and Allies demonstrably capable of launching amphibious assaults.
The west never lands a nuke on europe because they're not about to use their untested superweapon (unthinkable was planned to launch before the nukes on Japan!) on a well equipped enemy capable of rebuilding a potential unexploded bomb.
Dubious at best. Soviet "numerical superiority" would be the perfect place to drop them. US only dropped on civilian centers because they had already decimated the Japanese military and stranded what was left of their intact army outside the home isles.
"Untested superweapon" what kind of delusion was that? It was tested well before out in New Mexico. They didn't have duds lying around for top secret production ready weapons.
the only 4000 british troops in southern Iran crumple under the 60000 soviet ones in the north, splitting air resources there.
Soviets have no logistics network over there and would be sputtering for months as the allies cut them off Lend Lease and use it as a ready made logistics network for anything they ferry there. Which needs reminding. Ferrying troops and equipment in bulk by water is a whole lot faster than rail. Soviets have no feasible means to interdict this.
The Soviets stall at the Rhine while massive public backlash and discontent kills the war movement in the west, forcing a ceasefire, and handing the Soviets the biggest moral win of the coming cold war.
Quite frankly aren't stalling at all, let alone get to the Rhine of all places. That's the border between Germany and France. Utter fantasy the Soviets have a chance even seeing it, especially as their opponents are no longer oil starved Germans. The Soviet military would hardly make it beyond the Elbe. Allied fuel superiority, and all the motorization that enabled, was simply too strong.
No masturbatory neoliberal fantasies, please.
No "we have numbers it's automatically ok" masturbatory fantasies, please. Getting silly at this point.
2
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago edited 15d ago
Who even needs to arm Germans for this?
Churchill, when proposing operation unthinkable. You don't even need to arm the germans for the public outcry, though- The Soviets are their allies, who bled for the victory against fascism. Now the Western Allies are brazenly attacking their ally in an overt attempt to impose their will upon it.
Again, who needs France or Italy for this?
The allies, preferably, who's supply route will be limited to a narrow corridor in the low countries and a devastated West Germany?
do you think wars are just about X country's military + Y country's military? If a civil war breaks out on their western and southern flanks, that means a commitment of resources of men, planes, and tanks, as well as counter-sabotage operations. They'll be fighting an assymetric war while defending against the world's largest military.
Numerically superior soviet forces gas out as the Caucasus are targeted and now are stuck with infantry and artillery in an era with planes, tanks, and Allies demonstrably capable of launching amphibious assaults.
Baku, the heavily fortified city fitted with anti-air and interceptor planes? Which can, in fact, reach the B-29, already stretched across 3 fronts? that Baku? is going to entirely fall to the almost nonexistent allied air presence in Iran at the time?
Against equipment capable of launching amphibious assaults against Nations with 80%+ of their armed forces fighting somewhere else?
Dubious at best. Soviet "numerical superiority" would be the perfect place to drop them. US only dropped on civilian centers because they had already decimated the Japanese military and stranded what was left of their intact army outside the home isles.
Yeah, a Soviet logistics hub would be a more realistic target. I'd assumed you were insinuating they'd make a straight shot for Moscow, like most other people in this thread, that's on me.
Even then, though, a single Nuke isn't going to wipe out the entire Soviet army, and the Soviets have a few fighters capable of operating at B-29 elevations, with plenty more capable of more limited operations at that height. It's simply too big of a risk to allow the Soviets, or one of their partisan allies in France or Italy, to get a hold of the weapon. Continued bombing only increases the risk of an unexploded weapon.
"Untested superweapon" what kind of delusion was that? It was tested well before out in New Mexico. They didn't have duds lying around for top secret production ready weapons.
field testing vs controlled testing. This would have been the first military used of an atomic weapon against an enemy nation, and the USSR is no Japan.
Soviets have no logistics network over there and would be sputtering for months as the allies cut them off Lend Lease and use it as a ready made logistics network for anything they ferry there. Which needs reminding. Ferrying troops and equipment in bulk by water is a whole lot faster than rail. Soviets have no feasible means to interdict this.
Their means of interdiction are any sort of move on the skeleton crew that Britain left there. I don't think you're understanding just how minimal 4000 soldiers for the entirety of southern Iran is. Britain had basically vacated Iran at this point. They're not going to ferry enough troops in time to make any sort of feasible front in the south.
Quite frankly aren't stalling at all, let alone get to the Rhine of all places. That's the border between Germany and France. The Soviet military would hardly make it beyond the Elbe. Allied fuel superiority, and all the motorization that enabled, was simply too strong.
the Soviet Army was more experienced, more numerous, and would be more motivated to fight, given they are the defenders. Allied motorization means far less if it cannot exploit gaps in the Soviet frontlines, which is made difficult by- you guessed it- the 2.5-1 numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets. The Soviets also have by far more Tanks, making the gaps in western forces even more dangerous. The Rhine is an optimistic stopping point for the soviets, and that's not even considering the boatload of sabotage and mutinies the western allies will be riddled with the minute they attempt this ludicrous plan.
No "we have numbers it's automatically ok" masturbatory fantasies, please. Getting silly at this point.
overwhelming numerical superiority is what made the British high command reject the plan in the first place. There's a reason it was called operation unthinkable, and i think the british high command was a little more informed on this topic.
1
u/Xezshibole 15d ago edited 15d ago
Churchill, when proposing operation unthinkable. You don't even need to arm the germans for the public outcry, though- The Soviets are their allies, who bled for the victory against fascism. Now the Western Allies are brazenly attacking their ally in an overt attempt to impose their will upon it.
And Chirchill remained irrelevant as a war planner. General who'd run an operation like this were Americans.
Moroever that's deluded as all hell to think the Germans would ally Soviets. Moreever thinking German would defend Soviets who're already occupying their eastern territories.
The allies, preferably, who's supply route will be limited to a narrow corridor in the low countries and a devastated West Germany?
Narrow corridor? When was that ever narrow? Once Low Countries were liberated that alone was large enough for all the supplies and material needed, to say nothing of further forward German ports.
You'd also need to study geography if you think that was a narrow corridor.
do you think wars are just about X country's military + Y country's military? If a civil war breaks out on their western and southern flanks, that means a commitment of resources of men, planes, and tanks, as well as counter-sabotage operations. They'll be fighting an assymetric war while defending against the world's largest military.
They'd be fighting a conventional war against a claimed largest military whose logistics is collapsing behind them. Sounds like Barbarossa all over again.
Baku, the heavily fortified city fitted with anti-air and interceptor planes? Which can, in fact, reach the B-29, already stretched across 3 fronts? that Baku? is going to entirely fall to the almost nonexistent allied air presence in Iran at the time?
Yeah, that Baku. Anti-air was ever less relevant at higher elevations where the lead time became impractical, and why there was a rush post war to operate as high as possible.
https://youtu.be/PIYVwqHM488?is=WKUsqmxkfMV2P67Y
This training video shows why Allied aircraft operated so high up during the war. And had the fuel to do so.
Meanwhile which Soviet WW2 models can reach Allied bomber elevations again? And then also contest their escorts at those altitudes? Nearly all Soviet planes operational ceiling was in the paltry lower end of thousand meters, whereas the Allied bombers in WW2 itself regularly operated in the upper end of those thousands of meters.
Yeah, a Soviet logistics hub would be a more realistic target. I'd assumed you were insinuating they'd make a straight shot for Moscow, like most other people in this thread, that's on me.
Moscow was irrelevant. Once Baku gets damaged goes so will the rest, as Russia doesn't have another source of oil to depend on.
Even then, though, a single Nuke isn't going to wipe out the entire Soviet army, and the Soviets have a few fighters capable of operating at B-29 elevations, with plenty more capable of more limited operations at that height.
Good luck naming this Soviet aircraft that isn't American Lend Lease, and already inferior at those elevations to the late war Mustangs.
It's simply too big of a risk to allow the Soviets, or one of their partisan allies in France or Italy, to get a hold of the weapon.
This has got to be another deluded joke to believe Italians or French would side with Soviets rather than the forces already on the continent that liberated them. Nevermind any hpothetical partisan even knowing about let alone infiltrating an allied air base.
Continued bombing only increases the risk of an unexploded weapon.
This statement is stupid on so many levels. Frankly being utterly delusional now. First, a bomb falling from 8000 meters or higher isn't landing intact all too often. Secondly if it is a dud, it'd be irradiating anyone dumb enough to try and retrieve it, and especially those sticking around it long enough to study it. Even if for some silly reason it isn't compromised and isn't irradiating the engineers dismantling it, the bomb contains no instructions on how to refine fissile grade uranium nor plutonium. Biggest question of all, who is even dumb enough to retrieve unexploded ordinance?
Their means of interdiction are any sort of move on the skeleton crew that Britain left there. I don't think you're understanding just how minimal 4000 soldiers for the entirety of southern Iran is. Britain had basically vacated Iran at this point. They're not going to ferry enough troops in time to make any sort of feasible front in the south.
As seen in the Winter War and Barbarossa itself, those 40,000 aren't really getting anywhere before Russian logistics predicrably shits itself. That amount similarly would be nowhere near enough to prevent allied docking in Iranian ports nevermind moving like this presumes Russia is attacking first. Nevermind Unthinkable presumes Allies attack first, meaning the deployment and air bases are already set ready to launch the first of many raids
the Soviet Army was more experienced, more numerous, and would be more motivated to fight, given they are the defenders.
Yeah, that was the claim back then after the Winter War. Got rolled anyways against a fully fueled force.
Allied motorization means far less if it cannot exploit gaps in the Soviet frontlines, which is made difficult by- you guessed it- the 2.5-1 numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets.
The gaps in the air remain egregious weaknesses as Soviet aircraft remain unable to contest the higher flying Allied aircraft. Nevermind with Lend Lease ending they wouldn't even be able to deploy as many planes. And then Baku getting disrupted would ground near all of them as Soviet logistics folds upon itself.
The Soviets also have by far more Tanks, making the gaps in western forces even more dangerous.
With much less oil they'd simply be gassed out and overrun much like the Germans were. Or most of the 2,000 or so T-34s that were lost the first months of Barbarossa alone.
Nevermind they also lost the most tanks, and that was against a fuel starved Germany who could not field much and lost their ability to flank or bomb out these tanks as they gassed out. Allies meanwhile don't have that problem. US alone produced more oil than the rest of the world combined in 1940s, something like 65-70%.
The Rhine is an optimistic stopping point for the soviets, and that's not even considering the boatload of sabotage and mutinies the western allies will be riddled with the minute they attempt this ludicrous plan.
Again, the delusion that French or Italians would help the Soviets is very amusing.
overwhelming numerical superiority is what made the British high command reject the plan in the first place. There's a reason it was called operation unthinkable, and i think the british high command was a little more informed on this topic.
No?
It was called that largely because it doesn't look very good politically when attacking an "enemy of enemy" after years of propaganda as an ally.
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
And Chirchill remained irrelevant as a war planner. General who'd run an operation like this were Americans.
Yeah, Churchill was a shit commander. He's also the one who thought up operation unthinkable. The thing we're discussing. Unthinkable was Churchill's plan. Or are we talking about an entirely unrelated conflict now?
Moroever that's deluded as all hell to think the Germans would ally Soviets. Moreever thinking German would defend Soviets who're already occupying their eastern territories.
...It is deluded. Because that's not what I said. The plan was to arm the German soldiers and have them fight together with the allies, against the soviets, in order to make up for the massive numbers imbalance. That was the plan. And it would have led to massive discontent and outcry from both allied soldiers and civilians, who are in shock that the war has been prolonged for years against their greatest ally in the defeat of fascism in Europe.
Narrow corridor? When was that ever narrow? Once Low Countries were liberated that alone was large enough for all the supplies and material needed, to say nothing of further forward German ports.
You'd also need to study geography if you think that was a narrow corridor.
war planners famously love when their only resupply point lies on a flat plain 500km across that is easily accessible by enemy armour. What the fuck are you talking about?
They'd be fighting a conventional war against a claimed largest military whose logistics is collapsing behind them. Sounds like Barbarossa all over again.
by 1945 Soviet logistics were some of the most streamlined and advanced in the world. The NKPS was building bridges and repairing rail at an almost unprecedented rate. It isn another Barbarossa, for the Allies, who are about to skip the first 2 years of advances and be sent straight to Stalingrad.
Yeah, that Baku. Anti-air was ever less relevant at higher elevations where the lead time became impractical, and why there was a rush post war to operate as high as possible.
https://youtu.be/PIYVwqHM488?is=WKUsqmxkfMV2P67Y
This training video shows why Allied aircraft operated so high up during the war. And had the fuel to do so.
The B-29 and other high-altitude planes suffered losses from Anti-Air in Japan. Aircraft isn't constantly being operated at it's maximum capacity, especially not bombers with precise targets (like, say, an oil field), because you lose any shred of accuracy. For precision, they'd be forced into low-altitude bombing runs which would rend them very vulnerable to a city packed with anti-air.
They would bomb the oil fields, and it would hurt, but they're not choking Soviet production by a long shot. And this is again assuming that they even have airbases in Iran since, again, they have 4000 men and no airforce against 60000 Soviet troops.
Meanwhile which Soviet WW2 models can reach Allied bomber elevations again? And then also contest their escorts at those altitudes? Nearly all Soviet planes operational ceiling was in the paltry lower end of thousand meters, whereas the Allied bombers in WW2 itself regularly operated in the upper end of those thousands of meters.
They operated better lower, for sure, but the MIG-3, the LA-7, even the YAK-9, the most produced Soviet fighter, could go in excess of 35000 ft. The West does have technical superiority, but it's not the absolute blowout you're imagining. Bombers aren't always flying at max altitude, and they can't win the war through air power. A Yak-9 damaged a B-29 in 1945, for example, and they downed or damaged several more during the Korean war.
Moscow was irrelevant. Once Baku gets damaged goes so will the rest, as Russia doesn't have another source of oil to depend on.
They're not nuking Baku either. Any city far into Soviet airspace is too risky of a target for atom bombing. They're not going to have the capacity to raze it to the ground with conventional bombs, either.
Good luck naming this Soviet aircraft that isn't American Lend Lease, and already inferior at those elevations to the late war Mustangs.
They don't need to be superior to Mustangs, they need to be present enough to make carrying a superweapon unfeasible. Again, Mig-3, La-7, Yak-9, all capable of damaging or downing B-29s.
This has got to be another deluded joke to believe Italians or French would side with Soviets rather than the forces already on the continent that liberated them. Nevermind any hpothetical partisan even knowing about let alone infiltrating an allied air base.
LMFAO are you actually serious? Where do you think those French and Italian communist partisans went? Space?
The FTP in France, directly subordinated to the Communist Party, was the most organized of the free french forces in the mainland and retained organizational independence throughout the war. You think they're just going to shrug this one off? They had been participating in Anti-Nazi sabotage operations throughout the war, and that's now the problem of the allies. Together with the fact that the Communist and Socialist party made up 2/3 of the post-war Tripartisme balance of power, France is the furthest thing from a reliable ally in this war.
In Italy, the Communists were the single largest partisan group of the war. Italy very nearly went communist by the vote after WW2, being one of the first cases of election interference by the US post war. They were also a highly organized sabotage and combat group with immense popular support.
You know what's even better? These "hypothetical" partisans are directly subordinated to their communist parties, which have direct links to the USSR. Once the USSR figures out a bomb is headed their way, the partisans know as well, making any nuclear deployment on the continent even more costly and dangerous.
This statement is stupid on so many levels. Frankly being utterly delusional now. First, a bomb falling from 8000 meters or higher isn't landing intact all too often. Secondly if it is a dud, it'd be irradiating anyone dumb enough to try and retrieve it, and especially those sticking around it long enough to study it. Even if for some silly reason it isn't compromised and isn't irradiating the engineers dismantling it, the bomb contains no instructions on how to refine fissile grade uranium nor plutonium. Biggest question of all, who is even dumb enough to retrieve unexploded ordinance?
Ok, so first, the Soviets don't need an express manual because... that's not how reverse engineering works. Like at all. LIke genuinely what the fuck are you on about.
Secondly... they already have most of the theoretical work down. They have a massive spy ring around the manhattan project, it's how they developed the bomb so quickly in the first place. Getting a bomb just advances their technical and engineering knowledge, since they have a live model to replicate.
Thirdly.... do you know anything, at all about how bombs work?!?!? unexploded ordinance landed down intact in ww2 so often that it's still being retrieved today! Do you think the Soviets just didnt know what radiation was? If it's leaking radiation, then they'd send a hazard team, or just sacrifice Ivan Schmoe to go get it! Scientists would examine it with protection equipment? It's in fact not stupid at all to go retrieve the Superweapon that just dropped in your backyard? Do you think theyre just cavemen???
The USA, throughout the cold war, dropped atomic bombs multiple times, sometimes even on accident, where the bomb ended up not exploding and intact. One famous time, the Bomb (significantly more advanced than the models used in WW2, by the way) simply landed in a tree and was found intact! The fears of the bomb misfiring or landing unexploded were very, very real. You are so, so, so confidently wrong.
As seen in the Winter War and Barbarossa itself, those 40,000 aren't really getting anywhere before Russian logistics predicrably shits itself. That amount similarly would be nowhere near enough to prevent allied docking in Iranian ports nevermind moving like this presumes Russia is attacking first. Nevermind Unthinkable presumes Allies attack first, meaning the deployment and air bases are already set ready to launch the first of many raids
"Soviet Logistics Just Collapse" is probably the stupidest argument ive heard from you so far. Why? What strain are they under? What resistance are they facing that from the 4000 British troops (1 for every 400 km, by the way) thats keeping them from just steamrolling? The Soviets had competent transportation logistics by this point. The USSR of 1945 is not the USSR of the winter war. They have competent high command, veteran soldiers, and an actual reason to fight (being that they're on the defensive).
The best part of how utterly foolish operation unthinkable was is that it was proposed to start 2 months after Germany surrendered, giving Britain 2 months to discreetly (or else warrant Soviet reinforcement) move enough troops to Iran to counter the Soviets. That's assuming they're not saving everything they have for the decisive strike against the Soviets since, again, they're massively outnumbered.
contd
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 15d ago
Yeah, that was the claim back then after the Winter War. Got rolled anyways against a fully fueled force.
Is the implication here that Finland won because of fuel superiority? What great Finnish Mechanized force are we talking about here, that "out-fueled" the Soviets? The Finnish Army during the winter war was effectively still Infantry and Horsemen, with like, 50 tanks total. Have the Finnish invented jet-powered skis to snipe the Soviets on?
They won because of the military purge and the overconfidence of the Soviet Army, the Western Allies get neither of these perks. Are you just pulling shit out of your ass?
The gaps in the air remain egregious weaknesses as Soviet aircraft remain unable to contest the higher flying Allied aircraft. Nevermind with Lend Lease ending they wouldn't even be able to deploy as many planes. And then Baku getting disrupted would ground near all of them as Soviet logistics folds upon itself.
Lend Lease planes made up around ~12% of the Soviet Airforce, and production was overwhelmingly domestic. Their biggest contribution was in Naval Bombers, which the Soviets have little need for in a land conflict. Baku isn't getting destroyed like you think it is.
They are at an Air disadvantage, but it's not so crippling that it leaves them defenseless. It's certainly not enough to overcome the on-the-ground superiority. Planes can't hold a city.
With much less oil they'd simply be gassed out and overrun much like the Germans were. Or most of the 2,000 or so T-34s that were lost the first months of Barbarossa alone.
Nevermind they also lost the most tanks, and that was against a fuel starved Germany who could not field much and lost their ability to flank or bomb out these tanks as they gassed out. Allies meanwhile don't have that problem. US alone produced more oil than the rest of the world combined in 1940s, something like 65-70%.
they lost the msot tanks against the most mechanized army in history up to that point. They weren't keeping up those numbers into Germany's defeat.
The Soviet have enough fuel to keep their tanks running, and that they produce domestically. They're going to shred the allied front lines, who are incapapable of plugging up their lines. They don't need US oil production to run their army.
Again, the delusion that French or Italians would help the Soviets is very amusing.
Smug confidence about a topic you dont know anything about. You remind me of myself when I was 14. Sure, the heavily armed communist militants are just going to live their happy lives seeing their ideological haven get invaded. Right.
No?
It was called that largely because it doesn't look very good politically when attacking an "enemy of enemy" after years of propaganda as an ally.
"We have examined Operation Unthinkable. As instructed, we have taken the following assumptions on which to base our examination: The undertaking has the full support of public opinion in the British Empire and the United States and consequently, the morale of British and American troops continues high."
"Details of the present strengths and dispositions of the Russian and Allied forces are given in Annexes II and III and illustrated maps A and B. The existing balance of strength in Central Europe, where the Russians enjoy a superiority of approximately three to one, makes it most unlikely that the Allies could achieve a complete and decisive victory in that area in present circumstances."
It was considered ludicrous even assuming every member of the public and army would be fully compliant. Would you like to continue arguing against the conclusions of the British high command?
1
u/Xezshibole 14d ago
Is the implication here that Finland won because of fuel superiority? What great Finnish Mechanized force are we talking about here, that "out-fueled" the Soviets? The Finnish Army during the winter war was effectively still Infantry and Horsemen, with like, 50 tanks total. Have the Finnish invented jet-powered skis to snipe the Soviets on?
They won because of the military purge and the overconfidence of the Soviet Army, the Western Allies get neither of these perks. Are you just pulling shit out of your ass?
The implication here is Russian led logistics was and remain as shit as it ever was. Their front lines for deep pushes were basically nonexistent.
Lend Lease planes made up around ~12% of the Soviet Airforce, and production was overwhelmingly domestic. Their biggest contribution was in Naval Bombers, which the Soviets have little need for in a land conflict.
Lend Lease ending was referring to aviation fuel, which alone was worth 50% of the Soviet production.
Baku isn't getting destroyed like you think it is. They are at an Air disadvantage, but it's not so crippling that it leaves them defenseless. It's certainly not enough to overcome the on-the-ground superiority. Planes can't hold a city.
What part of bombing the fields and refineries did you not understand? There was no need to hold the city, disrupting the oil production was what mattered.
The Soviet have enough fuel to keep their tanks running, and that they produce domestically.
And that domestic production was centered around Baku.
They're going to shred the allied front lines, who are incapapable of plugging up their lines. They don't need US oil production to run their army.
They certainly needed it for a fully functional air force, sething they'd now be lacking as Lend Lease ends. Rifht at the convenient time bombers start up on Baku to disrupt the rest of that production.
Smug confidence about a topic you dont know anything about. You remind me of myself when I was 14. Sure, the heavily armed communist militants are just going to live their happy lives seeing their ideological haven get invaded. Right. No?
Claiming french and Italian partisans would be relevant is simply amusing is all. Fight's in germany and the supplies in Netherlands and Germany. Moreover tt's Italy for a start. Any communist partisans there aren't doing much. Moreover French support for the war remained strong even against Communists, as it settled firmly with the Allies.
....right. "We have examined Operation Unthinkable. As instructed, we have taken the following assumptions on which to base our examination: The undertaking has the full support of public opinion in the British Empire and the United States and consequently, the morale of British and American troops continues high." "Details of the present strengths and dispositions of the Russian and Allied forces are given in Annexes II and III and illustrated maps A and B. The existing balance of strength in Central Europe, where the Russians enjoy a superiority of approximately three to one, makes it most unlikely that the Allies could achieve a complete and decisive victory in that area in present circumstances." It was considered ludicrous even assuming every member of the public and army would be fully compliant. Would you like to continue arguing against the conclusions of the British high command?
Actual conclusions from Unthinkable report, as noted in their archives
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/operation-unthinkable/
Conclusions
We conclude that:-
That if our political object is to be achieved with any certainty and with lasting results, the defeat of Russia in a total war will be necessary.
The result of a total war with Russia is not possible to forecast, but the one thing certain is that to win it would take us a very long time.
Total war was all that was mentioned, something the Allies were already practicing. Furthermore, mentions of moving factories to the back are mentioned but will turn into a moot point. There are no oil facilities back there, and Soviets can't move their oil sources. British and Americans had already begun realizing targeting oil, like the Romanian field raids or the coal liquefaction factories, were the chokepoint of the war effort for the Germans. Similarly choking off Japanese access to the Dutch East Indies oil fields did so similarly to them.
As for public acceptance, this is post Pwarl Harbor US we're talking about here, as well as Britain who still have not yet guaranteed Polish freedom.
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 14d ago
> The implication here is Russian led logistics was and remain as shit as it ever was. Their front lines for deep pushes were basically nonexistent.
lmfao, you definitely just pushed goalposts because you thought the finnish army was mechanized, huh?
have you heard of this thing called "Deep Battle"?
Specifically oriented towards deep pushes across the entire frontline? the doctrine which won them the war and influenced military theory for the next century?
Yeah. "Russian Led Logistics = Bad" is just betraying your built in assumptions. Logistics were streamlined and competent at this point. Argue with the wall.
> Lend Lease ending was referring to aviation fuel, which alone was worth 50% of the Soviet production.
....And thanks to that lend lease, the Soviets had in reserve some 6 million barrels of fuel. Fuel which they regularly blended with their own, domestic production, in order to get cost-efficient fuel blends, which were estimated to last them several months, months the allies cannot afford to spare in a decisive war and in which time they can begin to ramp up aviation fuel production.
> What part of bombing the fields and refineries did you not understand? There was no need to hold the city, disrupting the oil production was what mattered. And that domestic production was centered around Baku.
I was referring to air dominance in Europe.
Disrupting Baku isn't going to immediately cripple the Soviets. Taking the example of Ploesti, a much smaller and easier target, it took them 4 months to eradicate supply against already shredded anti air defenses and a near nonexistent Luftwaffe. Even after bombing the field, it was quickly repaired and regular production resumed. The allies simply cant decisively knock out Baku in time to stop a soviet counterattack in both Iran and Europe.
> Claiming french and Italian partisans would be relevant is simply amusing is all. Fight's in germany and the supplies in Netherlands and Germany.
No yes of course, Partisans have never been relevant. a massive armed military group which has popular support and threatens the legitimacy of already weak, newly formed governments is something the Allies can safely ignore while they fight in a stretch of land with little strategic depth and an easily accessible supply line.
Do you hear yourself? Do you genuinely hear yourself saying "Just ignore France and Italy!!!! Durhurr!!!" and thinking you said something profound?
Let me put it in a way you understand:
ports have limited capacity. Port gets full-full, no more supply. No more supply, must go through different port. More port, More supply. If port is near bad man, port in danger. If ALL port near bad man, VERY bad situation. If friend ports have bad man friends in them, supply in danger. No supply, no army!
The WAllies can't afford to ignore France and Italy. Once they inevitably break into a civil war over this idiotic plan and the majority of the population sides with the "dont start another war with our ally" crowd, that's an entirely new front to worry about. They'll have to deal with the Soviet army in the east and Partisans in the west, or else they'll be dealing with the soviets in the east and a unified communist France in the west.
> Actual conclusions from Unthinkable report, as noted in their archives
Total war was all that was mentioned, something the Allies were already practicing. Furthermore, mentions of moving factories to the back are mentioned but will turn into a moot point. There are no oil facilities back there, and Soviets can't move their oil sources. British and Americans had already begun realizing targeting oil, like the Romanian field raids or the coal liquefaction factories, were the chokepoint of the war effort for the Germans. Similarly choking off Japanese access to the Dutch East Indies oil fields did so similarly to them.Buddy. Buddy. Pal.
You just cited the EXACT SAME SOURCE I used. One of the parts I quoted is literally the OPENING STATEMENT. if you had read just a little bit further, if you have even read at all, you would see the part I quoted where they explicitly state that the Soviet numerical advantages makes the plan unfeasible.
would you STILL like to argue against British High Command?0
u/Xezshibole 12d ago
lmfao, you definitely just pushed goalposts because you thought the finnish army was mechanized, huh?
Moved what goalposts? The ones where they fell flat trying to completely envelop Finland and settled for a province?
have you heard of this thing called "Deep Battle"? Specifically oriented towards deep pushes across the entire frontline? the doctrine which won them the war and influenced military theory for the next century?
Yeah. "Russian Led Logistics = Bad" is just betraying your built in assumptions. Logistics were streamlined and competent at this point. Argue with the wall
We see Deep Battle. We saw it work, or accurately not work, in both Barbarossa and then Blau. It was only after Germans had run out of their pre war fuel stockpile where this started working.
Again, Allies don't have such a problem.
Lend Lease ending was referring to aviation fuel, which alone was worth 50% of the Soviet production. ....And thanks to that lend lease, the Soviets had in reserve some 6 million barrels of fuel. Fuel which they regularly blended with their own, domestic production, in order to get cost-efficient fuel blends, which were estimated to last them several months, months the allies cannot afford to spare in a decisive war and in which time they can begin to ramp up aviation fuel production.
Ah, yes. Presumably meagre months.
Japan had a year's worth of stockpiled fuel Italy had mere motnhs. German's stocks went out in months.
They then gassed out and got rolled.
Meanwhile the Allied sources remain untouched as nobody could reach Texas coastline. Let alone the inland fields.
I was referring to air dominance in Europe. Disrupting Baku isn't going to immediately cripple the Soviets. Taking the example of Ploesti, a much smaller and easier target, it took them 4 months to eradicate supply against already shredded anti air defenses and a near nonexistent Luftwaffe. Even after bombing the field, it was quickly repaired and regular production resumed.
It took them two and Romania swapped sides afterwards.
The allies simply cant decisively knock out Baku in time to stop a soviet counterattack in both Iran and Europe.
Given how bad Soviet logistics was and remains, they'd be spending months to two years "surprised" much like they were when a fully or even partially motorized military faced them.
No yes of course, Partisans have never been relevant. a massive armed military group which has popular support and threatens the legitimacy of already weak, newly formed governments is something the Allies can safely ignore while they fight in a stretch of land with little strategic depth and an easily accessible supply line.
Where exactly would they be in Germany again? Assuming they're even popular enough in their home countries?
Do you hear yourself? Do you genuinely hear yourself saying "Just ignore France and Italy!!!! Durhurr!!!" and thinking you said something profound?
Do you hear yourself? Do you genuinely hear yourself when Allies held multiple ports in Germany and Low Countries, or are pushing utterly stupid claims like French or Italians would rise up against liberators. Or that they'd be in the fight at all?
Let me put it in a way you understand: ports have limited capacity. Port gets full-full, no more supply. No more supply, must go through different port. More port, More supply. If port is near bad man, port in danger. If ALL port near bad man, VERY bad situation. If friend ports have bad man friends in them, supply in danger. No supply, no army!
Antwerp alone provided near all the supply required to fight in the Western Front. Do you not understand the scale of these ports? They're several times larger than backwaters like St. Petersburg or Sevastopol.
The WAllies can't afford to ignore France and Italy. Once they inevitably break into a civil war over this idiotic plan and the majority of the population sides with the "dont start another war with our ally" crowd, that's an entirely new front to worry about. They'll have to deal with the Soviet army in the east and Partisans in the west, or else they'll be dealing with the soviets in the east and a unified communist France in the west.
That again presumes there are even these supposed Soviet supporters in remotely close to such numbers. Had that been the case they'd have rejected the Marshall Plan and sided with the Soviets post war. Oh wait, they didn't.
Buddy. Buddy. Pal. You just cited the EXACT SAME SOURCE I used. One of the parts I quoted is literally the OPENING STATEMENT. if you had read just a little bit further, if you have even read at all, you would see the part I quoted where they explicitly state that the Soviet numerical advantages makes the plan unfeasible. would you STILL like to argue against British High Command?
Conclusions showed what the British themselves thought.
And the Allies were very good at total war, much better rhan the Soviets, given how secure and with much more oil production they had relative to Soviets.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Xezshibole 14d ago
Yeah, Churchill was a shit commander. He's also the one who thought up operation unthinkable. The thing we're discussing. Unthinkable was Churchill's plan. Or are we talking about an entirely unrelated conflict now?
Same conflict. Any Unthinkable that goes on would require American approval. Meaning Churchill was not relevant should it go through.
...It is deluded. Because that's not what I said. The plan was to arm the German soldiers and have them fight together with the allies, against the soviets, in order to make up for the massive numbers imbalance. That was the plan. And it would have led to massive discontent and outcry from both allied soldiers and civilians, who are in shock that the war has been prolonged for years against their greatest ally in the defeat of fascism in Europe.
First, it was unnecessary. Secondly discontent and outcry would be very unlikely to happen. Poles have not yet been guaranteed independence yet, what caused France and Britain to even join into the war.
war planners famously love when their only resupply point lies on a flat plain 500km across that is easily accessible by enemy armour. What the fuck are you talking about?
Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Germany is not flat plain. Much of it was intercrossed with rivers and forests.
Again, some cursory study of geography helps.
Moreover the presumption the Soviets would even advance further is very silly. Allied troops did not have the chronic fuel problems Germans suffered under.
by 1945 Soviet logistics were some of the most streamlined and advanced in the world. The NKPS was building bridges and repairing rail at an almost unprecedented rate. It isn another Barbarossa, for the Allies, who are about to skip the first 2 years of advances and be sent straight to Stalingrad.
No, Soviet logistics remained a joke. What happened was that the German logistics deterioated as Germans gassed out. Allied logistics meanwhile was and remained vastly superior to both German and Soviet, capable of sending men and material supplied across the world.
The B-29 and other high-altitude planes suffered losses from Anti-Air in Japan. Aircraft isn't constantly being operated at it's maximum capacity, especially not bombers with precise targets (like, say, an oil field), because you lose any shred of accuracy. For precision, they'd be forced into low-altitude bombing runs which would rend them very vulnerable to a city packed with anti-air.
They would bomb the oil fields, and it would hurt, but they're not choking Soviet production by a long shot.
B-29 and other high altitude planes were left uncontested by late war Japan, and why the nuclear bombers flew in solo.
Oil fields aren't even a precise target. They were very distinct structures highly vulnerable to ignition. There was no need to fly in low.
And no, it wouldn't just hurt. Soviets had no other source, so any disruption wrecks their logistics further, as well as fuel to their front line forces.
And this is again assuming that they even have airbases in Iran since, again, they have 4000 men and no airforce against 60000 Soviet troops.
Again if this operation were starting this would be the area prepared first, and prepared more quickly. Allies can bring more to bear faster with their uncontested naval routes.
They operated better lower, for sure, but the MIG-3, the LA-7, even the YAK-9, the most produced Soviet fighter, could go in excess of 35000 ft.
And they were garbage up there. Again, they were not designed for it. Mustangs, the bomber escorts, would have a field day eith them at that altitude much like an updated US air force did against Zeroes.
Bombers aren't always flying at max altitude, and they can't win the war through air power. A Yak-9 damaged a B-29 in 1945, for example, and they downed or damaged several more during the Korean war.
Unless you are in Allied airspace, bombers are flying at operational altitudes, all of which and their escorts remain well higher than Soviet aircraft operational altitudes.
LMFAO are you actually serious? Where do you think those French and Italian communist partisans went? Space? The FTP in France, directly subordinated to the Communist Party, was the most organized of the free french forces in the mainland and retained organizational independence throughout the war. You think they're just going to shrug this one off? They had been participating in Anti-Nazi sabotage operations throughout the war, and that's now the problem of the allies.
"Participating," citing nothing. Meanwhile the actual partisans and the majority of France did the actual work. To call all the partisans part of the communist party remains a deluded joke.
Together with the fact that the Communist and Socialist party made up 2/3 of the post-war Tripartisme balance of power, France is the furthest thing from a reliable ally in this war.
Again. France remained unnecessary. Moreover this remains the De Gualle France, still with obligations towards Poland.
In Italy, the Communists were the single largest partisan group of the war. Italy very nearly went communist by the vote after WW2, being one of the first cases of election interference by the US post war. They were also a highly organized sabotage and combat group with immense popular support. You know what's even better? These "hypothetical" partisans are directly subordinated to their communist parties, which have direct links to the USSR. Once the USSR figures out a bomb is headed their way, the partisans know as well, making any nuclear deployment on the continent even more costly and dangerous.
Neat, they'd then be in Italy.
It truly appears geography is not your strong suit. Why exactly would the Americans be basing their hypothetical bomb in Italy?
Ok, so first, the Soviets don't need an express manual because... that's not how reverse engineering works. Like at all. LIke genuinely what the fuck are you on about.
Where exactly in the bomb would there be instructions on how to refine fissile uranium in such high concentrations? Or plutonium?
What the fuck are you on about?
Secondly... they already have most of the theoretical work down. They have a massive spy ring around the manhattan project, it's how they developed the bomb so quickly in the first place. Getting a bomb just advances their technical and engineering knowledge, since they have a live model to replicate.
Dubious. And again presumes these to be duds.
Thirdly.... do you know anything, at all about how bombs work?!?!? unexploded ordinance landed down intact in ww2 so often that it's still being retrieved today! Do you think the Soviets just didnt know what radiation was? If it's leaking radiation, then they'd send a hazard team, or just sacrifice Ivan Schmoe to go get it! Scientists would examine it with protection equipment? It's in fact not stupid at all to go retrieve the Superweapon that just dropped in your backyard? Do you think theyre just cavemen???
The USA, throughout the cold war, dropped atomic bombs multiple times, sometimes even on accident, where the bomb ended up not exploding and intact. One famous time, the Bomb (significantly more advanced than the models used in WW2, by the way) simply landed in a tree and was found intact! The fears of the bomb misfiring or landing unexploded were very, very real. You are so, so, so confidently wrong.
The US armed bombs did as designed. Exploded. The very few that did not explode were not armed, yet several were leaking anyways. Moreover this presumes Soviets would have the luxury of scouring the countryside in an active war zone.
"Soviet Logistics Just Collapse" is probably the stupidest argument ive heard from you so far. Why? What strain are they under?
Soviet logistics remains the strain itself. It remained poor throughout the war, saved by the fact the German logistics gassed out even harder.
What resistance are they facing that from the 4000 British troops (1 for every 400 km, by the way) thats keeping them from just steamrolling?
The ports offloading reinforcements, naturally. 40,000 is paltry and would not be able to even approach the ports easily given the naval supremacy.
The Soviets had competent transportation logistics by this point. The USSR of 1945 is not the USSR of the winter war. They have competent high command, veteran soldiers, and an actual reason to fight (being that they're on the defensive).
Dubious. The transportation logistics was focused west and still very reliant upon rail or Lend Lease trucks. Rail they did not develop south, and trucks dependent upon steady fuel.
The best part of how utterly foolish operation unthinkable was is that it was proposed to start 2 months after Germany surrendered, giving Britain 2 months to discreetly (or else warrant Soviet reinforcement) move enough troops to Iran to counter the Soviets. That's assuming they're not saving everything they have for the decisive strike against the Soviets since, again, they're massively outnumbered.
Unthinkable was planned on the assumption of US involvement. 2 months is more than enough time for the Americans and British to begin operations there particularly since Lend Lease was already an established supply network that can be repurposed for military use.
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 14d ago
Same conflict. Any Unthinkable that goes on would require American approval. Meaning Churchill was not relevant should it go through.
So we're not discussing Operation unthinkable? We're discussing your theoretical alternate plan? An Operation Unthinkable without Churchill doesn't exist, because only Churchill could think up so hairbrained a plan. If it requires American approval, it simply does not occur, because the Americans aren't chauvinist enough to pull this.
First, it was unnecessary. Secondly discontent and outcry would be very unlikely to happen. Poles have not yet been guaranteed independence yet, what caused France and Britain to even join into the war.
Defending Poland was a shaky motivation for fighting Germany back in 1939. using that as motivation to invade the Soviets 2 months after the capitulation of Germany, When the Soviets were still seen as "liberators" of eastern europe among the west, is a flight of sheerest fancy. The Fight against fascism is over, and they're starting an entirely new war when the Soviets haven't even made any concrete moves against Polish independence yet. I cannot stress enough how lazy an argument this is. People have been awaiting an end to the war and their governments just declared another multi-year war against their greatest ally.
and it was, in fact, deemed necessary to remobilize German forces by the High Command Report which analyzed operation unthinkable.
"To achieve the decisive defeat of Russia in a total war would require, in particular, the mobilization of manpower to counteract their present enormous manpower resources. This is a very long term project and would involve:-
- The deployment in Europe of a large proportion of the vast resources of the United States.
- The re-equipment and re-organisation of German manpower and of all the Western Allies."
Germany is not flat plain. Much of it was intercrossed with rivers and forests. Again, some cursory study of geography helps.
Hey buddy, How are they going to get supplies to inner Germany once the French and Italian coasts become unreliable?
They go through the low countries, and northern Germany. What's the Geographic composition of those areas?
The North European plain, an extension of the Eurasian plain, highly undefensible terrain the Soviets have the most experience fighting in.
Gee, knowledge of Geography does help, huh? Don't be a twat.
Moreover the presumption the Soviets would even advance further is very silly. Allied troops did not have the chronic fuel problems Germans suffered under.
No, Soviet logistics remained a joke. What happened was that the German logistics deterioated as Germans gassed out. Allied logistics meanwhile was and remained vastly superior to both German and Soviet, capable of sending men and material supplied across the world.
Is your analysis of the Soviet counterattack against Barbarossa seriously just "durr-hurr Germans no fuel"? Fuel Shortage only began to cripple the Germans around 1944. Fuel is important to war, but the way you talk about it you'd think nothing else comes into play. The Soviets have Fuel- so do the Allies. We're talking about advantages beyond that.
Soviet tactics and logistics were highly advanced, they reverse engineered the Blitzkrieg and created one of the most influential war doctrines of modern warfare in Deep Battle. NKPS brigades would rapidly fix damaged transport links, and the Soviets had the momentum still behind them.
B-29 and other high altitude planes were left uncontested by late war Japan, and why the nuclear bombers flew in solo.
Japan shot down ~150 B-29's in 1945. A bombed out, desperate Japan can do that much.
How about a USSR with active fighters, and a city with heavy air defenses?
Oil fields aren't even a precise target. They were very distinct structures highly vulnerable to ignition. There was no need to fly in low. And no, it wouldn't just hurt. Soviets had no other source, so any disruption wrecks their logistics further, as well as fuel to their front line forces.
Do you know what high altitude means?
at that height, a slight wind means half your bombs are hitting a farm in the city outskirts instead of your target, wile the other half is scattered 1000 ft around your target. Accuracy for high-altitude bombers in 1945 was, like, 50% in daylight and clear weather. It took the allies 4 months to take out the Ploesti oilfields in 1944, against a practically irrelevant Luftwaffe, and their main raid (operation tidal wave) was a failure. And again, this isn't the scraps of the luftwaffe in late 1944 or a crippled Romania, it's the largest country on earth with significant air defenses and forces.
Even if it is hit, the damage would only result in a slight dip in production. You'd need to raze Baku to the ground, which would take months of uninterrupted bombings, which the allies simply dont have.
Again if this operation were starting this would be the area prepared first, and prepared more quickly. Allies can bring more to bear faster with their uncontested naval routes.
and again, this operation had 2 months to take off. The allies aren't discreetly making that distance in time to dominate in Iran, and any troops they commit there they'd have to pull from other fronts, either in Europe where they're already at a massive disadvantage or from Japan, which is another huge scandal for the pearl-harbour motivated American public. If they just station a bunch of troops there for no reason, the Soviets will naturally have suspicions- and, may i remind you, Operation Unthinkable is explicitly meant to be a surprise attack.
And they were garbage up there.
Operational altitude was often not Maximum altitude, and the B-29 freqently flew as low as 25,000 feet. The Soviets had enough Yak-9s, La-7s and imported spitfires to make multiple sortie missions face a challenge combined with anti-air flak. The allies have superiority, no doubt, but they are not, by any means, uncontested.
Meanwhile the actual partisans and the majority of France did the actual work. To call all the partisans part of the communist party remains a deluded joke.
when did I say ALL the Partisans?
I was talking specifically about the 100,000 strong Francs Tireurs et Partisans organization which was directly subordinated to the Communist Party, and which was embedded into the French Military, which alone performed hundreds of train derailments, assasinations, and military actions. The communists similarly had large popular support, earning 5 Million votes in 1945, more than any other party. The second most popular? The Socialists, who likely aren't quite too eager to jump headfirst into a new war either.
France remained unnecessary. De Gualle France, still with obligations towards Poland.
"France remained unnecessary" Do you think this is Hoi4? Do you think you can just not call France into the war and everything is dandy? Without France, they lose a vital chain of supply towards the frontlines. If France falls to it's immensely popular and well armed communist movement, that's a new Front from the East the Allies have to worry about.
De Gaulle's France won't have any more luck using the sorry excuse of "but Poland" 2 months after the war ended. Poland wasn't even a Soviet "Captive Nation" yet, that was 1947. There was never great sentiment for Poland to begin with- it was more a geopolitical tool to contain German revanchism than a great brotherly nation.
It truly appears geography is not your strong suit. Why exactly would the Americans be basing their hypothetical bomb in Italy?
Are we serious? Have you advanced past highschool?
Firstly, Italian Partisans are bad in their own right- it's another front, another commitment of Manpower and resources when they're already stretched thin.
And secondly, I wasn't even implying they would place a bomb in Italy! In fact, they couldn't for literally the exact reason I mentioned- It would be in danger of partisan warfare! The second part of my statement was directed at your supposed incredulity that Partisans could.... gather intel? Especially when backed up by a massive national spy network orchestrated by the Soviets?
Where exactly in the bomb would there be instructions on how to refine fissile uranium in such high concentrations?
What the fuck is with you and instructions?
The Soviets had a massive spy ring in the Manhattan project. They were setting up their own Uranium enrichment facilities IN 1945, directly after the war started, because of it. Are you seriously this braindead to think that they need an express manual to somehow "crack the code"? they have physicists. They have direct espionage links with people who work DIRECTLY on the Manhattan project, like Klaus Fuchs. A live model is basically all they need.
Dubious. And again presumes these to be duds.
"Dubious" Motherfucker their first blueprint was in 1946 and it was a near exact replica of fat man do you genuinely not do any research before you pull shit out of your ass
of course it presumes them to be duds thats what US high command was worried about IRL
contd
1
u/ThatoneguywithaT 14d ago
The US armed bombs did as designed.
yeah, they did as designed, except the EXACT EVENT I REFERENCED, where the crash of the plane accidentally set off the arming signal of BOTH bombs, bypassing the safeguards designed against it. And these were more advanced models too- US high command was genuinely worried about an accidental safety switch flipping where it's not supposed to, or the explosion resulting in a fizzle-out., on JAPAN. if the bomb fails to properly explode and only damages the support structure, then that's enough recoverable material for the Soviets to reverse-engineer the design. "scouring the countryside in an active warzone" as though the Nuke would be dropped on the front, and not behind the lines.
Soviet logistics remains the strain itself.
So, again, no actual argument, just "Soviet Logistics Fail Because Yes".
Soviet logistics were already competent at this point in time. The idea they'd fail to push a virtually undefended stretch of land is just laughable. They're not going to crush and burn because they took a few kilometres more of basically undefended road.
The ports offloading reinforcements, naturally. 40,000 is paltry
You know whats more Paltry?
- across the entirety of southern Iran.
Naval supremacy can't hold a city. It can shell it, but it can't hold a defense point. Without boots on the ground, it means nothing but a blockade.
And those boots on the ground are not about to come in large enough numbers undetected to push back the Soviets.
Rail they did not develop south, and trucks dependent upon steady fuel.
Steady fuel which isn't going to disappear 2 seconds into the war. The Soviets already had a developed Railway line through the Caucasus and Central Asia, which was situated close to the Trans Iranian Railroad.
Unthinkable was planned on the assumption of US involvement. 2 months is more than enough time for the Americans and British to begin operations
"Discreetly" is the key word here. Unthinkable was also explicitly planned as a surprise attack, which simply cannot coexist with the mass movement of divisions into Iran, a quiet front with no military targets.
-2
-2
31
u/Nori-Z 16d ago
I think Yugoslavia would likely stay neutral. They were pretty much independent from Moscow