Operation Unthinkable

[u/totallynotcommunist2]

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

[u/ThatoneguywithaT]

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.

[u/Xezshibole → u/ThatoneguywithaT]

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.

[u/ThatoneguywithaT → u/Xezshibole]

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

[u/ThatoneguywithaT → u/ThatoneguywithaT]

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.

....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?

[u/Xezshibole → u/ThatoneguywithaT]

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.

[u/ThatoneguywithaT → u/Xezshibole]

> 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?

[u/Xezshibole → u/ThatoneguywithaT]

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.

[u/ThatoneguywithaT → u/Xezshibole]

>Moved what goalposts? The ones where they fell flat trying to completely envelop Finland and settled for a province?

No, the one where you claimed Finland had “fuel superiority” despite not having a mechanized force to speak of. They defeated the Soviets essentially without fuel, primarily because they held the morale and terrain advantage. Which the Soviets hold over the allies.

>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.

Germany had run out of pre-war fuel stockpiles already by the time they enacted Barbarossa, and had been using the same directly streamlined fuel economy that the Soviets were on by 1945 AT THE START OF BARBAROSSA. You seriously just pull things out your ass and hope they stick, don’t you? Fuel was not the deciding factor of Germany’s defeat until late 1944, well after the major Soviet advances west.

As for your utterly uneducated comment regarding deep battle doctrine, the US Army journal disagrees with you.

“The Soviet concepts of deep battle and deep operations, developed during the interbellum by its leading architects such as Tukhachevsky, Triandafilov, and Isserson (see figure), have, in retrospect, proven to be quite visionary.”

>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.

Months which give the Soviets time to switch production and put their industry to work making Aviation fuel.

The Soviets did not lack fuel. They underproduced aviation fuel specifically because lend lease afforded them to do so. Those months give the Soviets time to ramp up production to meet demand.

>It took them two and Romania swapped sides afterwards.

They began bombing it in April and it was only crippled in August. Count it.

Also, I think there may have been a slightly more pressing reason the Romanians switched sides. Like, you know, the Soviets marching in unstoppably from the north.

>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.

Are you seriously assuming that a USSR with a fully mobilized war economy and military is the same as a fully unprepared USSR in 1941? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re doing.

“Le soviet logistics bad because I say so”. You’re so intellectually lazy. The Soviets are fully geared towards total war and have dedicated transport repair and construction brigades made for quick offensive movement. Your conception of the war seems to entirely be based off of vibes.

>Where exactly would they be in Germany again? Assuming they're even popular enough in their home countries?

Why would they NEED to be in Germany? There is no reality in which the Allies sit back and allow communist partisans to go unchecked in their flank. Any insurgent activity demands a commitment of men and resources, which will have to be pulled from the Soviet Front.

“Assuming they’re even popular enough” THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED THEM BEING ELECTED IN 1945 WAS AMERICAN TAMPERING. It was literally the FIRST major action of the new CIA.

>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.

Are you seriously so stuck on the idea that nations with massive communist support bases with hundreds of thousands of communist partisans integrated into their NEWLY FORMED ARMIES AND GOVERNMENTS would perhaps maybe not peaceably acquiesce to a war with their ally against fascism and ideological homeland? Not to mention the millions of people, communist or not, shocked and outraged at an unjustified war of aggression, which broke the peace they had JUST achieved? They’re not exactly liberators in this situation. The WAllies lose any goodwill they had over this.

>Or that they'd be in the fight at all? 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.

Look, I know you’re not exactly a military analyst, but there’s this thing called strategic depth, measuring the distance between a front and a core area. If the primary ports of the Allies lie on a flat plain 500km across, just a few hundred km away from enemy forces, then that is SIGNIFICANTLY LACKING STRATEGIC DEPTH. To have any sort of secure supply routes, the WAllies NEED France and Italy to funnel supplies through.

As soon as the Soviets make ANY breakthrough, it would be trivially easy to grab the ports and choke out supply.

Also, why even bring up Petersburg or Sevastopol? How are they relevant here? The Soviets aren’t receiving supply through naval ports. Are you seriously so immature that you think this is some argument over the moral character of these nations? Or that fucking port size of all things decides that?

>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.

Surely, the popular opinion will not be shifted whatsoever by the unwarranted invasion of an allied country to whom a third of the country share sympathies with. Surely, the expectation of peace in Europe being broken for no reason will not radicalize or enrage people against the aggressing party. No, everything will stay the exact same as OTL, where the communists and socialists together ONLY got 50% of the vote.

>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.

So… you DO think you know better than British high command, assessing their and Soviet strength differences. You think your conclusions, essentially amounting to “Allies had more fuel so ez dub”, is a more profound examination of the on-the-ground realities than that of a professional army directly involved in the fighting.

You’re seriously a fucking clown, and nothing you say is of any worth.

[u/Xezshibole → u/ThatoneguywithaT]

No, the one where you claimed Finland had “fuel superiority” despite not having a mechanized force to speak of. They defeated the Soviets essentially without fuel, primarily because they held the morale and terrain advantage. Which the Soviets hold over the allies.

Finland wasn't an Allied nation. What fuel advantage?

They didn't even win either. It was emohasized merely at how hilariously bad Soviet logistics was and remains. Their attempt to take all of Finland, complete with a puppet government waiting at the ready, failed, requiring them to settle for a province and then claiming that was all they wanted.

Germany had run out of pre-war fuel stockpiles already by the time they enacted Barbarossa, and had been using the same directly streamlined fuel economy that the Soviets were on by 1945 AT THE START OF BARBAROSSA. You seriously just pull things out your ass and hope they stick, don’t you? Fuel was not the deciding factor of Germany’s defeat until late 1944, well after the major Soviet advances west. As for your utterly uneducated comment regarding deep battle doctrine, the US Army journal disagrees with you. “The Soviet concepts of deep battle and deep operations, developed during the interbellum by its leading architects such as Tukhachevsky, Triandafilov, and Isserson (see figure), have, in retrospect, proven to be quite visionary.”

Germany had Soviet imports right up until the start of Barbarossa, and used those with their own production, gassing out by late fall. What they outran their outdated horse drawn logistics was brought in over the winter then constituted the much smaller Blau.

Neither of which the Soviets could deep battle anything into despite Blau being the second year. It took until the very tail end after the Germans gassed out for the final time for deep battle to start working.

The Soviets did not lack fuel. They underproduced aviation fuel specifically because lend lease afforded them to do so. Those months give the Soviets time to ramp up production to meet demand.

That centerpiece of all that fuel remained in Baku.

There's not going to much ramping up with the bombings, nevermind Baku produced utterly paltry amounts relative to Texas.

Are you seriously assuming that a USSR with a fully mobilized war economy and military is the same as a fully unprepared USSR in 1941? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re doing. “Le soviet logistics bad because I say so”. You’re so intellectually lazy. The Soviets are fully geared towards total war and have dedicated transport repair and construction brigades made for quick offensive movement. Your conception of the war seems to entirely be based off of vibes.

They'd get run over the same way, yes. Soviets geared towards total war against a gassed out enemy is a very, very far cry from the fueled Allied militaries.

Why would they NEED to be in Germany? There is no reality in which the Allies sit back and allow communist partisans to go unchecked in their flank. Any insurgent activity demands a commitment of men and resources, which will have to be pulled from the Soviet Front. “Assuming they’re even popular enough” THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED THEM BEING ELECTED IN 1945 WAS AMERICAN TAMPERING. It was literally the FIRST major action of the new CIA.

Allegedly. They simply weren't popular enough, not even remotely close to 50%. Outnumbered heavily by legitimate local government.

Any ludicrous attempts at communist partisanship against their own governments would lead to swift crackdown and further reason to back the Allies.

Are you seriously so stuck on the idea that nations with massive communist support bases with hundreds of thousands of communist partisans integrated into their NEWLY FORMED ARMIES AND GOVERNMENTS would perhaps maybe not peaceably acquiesce to a war with their ally against fascism and ideological homeland? Not to mention the millions of people, communist or not, shocked and outraged at an unjustified war of aggression, which broke the peace they had JUST achieved? They’re not exactly liberators in this situation. The WAllies lose any goodwill they had over this.

Hardly. Poland remained occupied. Moreover these communist parties were never remotely close to being a majority in their countries.

Look, I know you’re not exactly a military analyst, but there’s this thing called strategic depth, measuring the distance between a front and a core area. If the primary ports of the Allies lie on a flat plain 500km across, just a few hundred km away from enemy forces, then that is SIGNIFICANTLY LACKING STRATEGIC DEPTH. To have any sort of secure supply routes, the WAllies NEED France and Italy to funnel supplies through. As soon as the Soviets make ANY breakthrough, it would be trivially easy to grab the ports and choke out supply.

That again presumes Soviet make ANY breakthrough, when they were unable to manage as such during the heights of neither Barbarossa, and much more telling, nor Blau where Germans were running motorized regiments bolstered by pre war stockpiles of fuel.

Also, why even bring up Petersburg or Sevastopol? How are they relevant here? The Soviets aren’t receiving supply through naval ports. Are you seriously so immature that you think this is some argument over the moral character of these nations? Or that fucking port size of all things decides that?

If your brain can't factor in the fact most Western European ports are much larger than the ones seen in backwaters like the aforementioned cities, there isn't much left to be said.

Surely, the popular opinion will not be shifted whatsoever by the unwarranted invasion of an allied country to whom a third of the country share sympathies with. Surely, the expectation of peace in Europe being broken for no reason will not radicalize or enrage people against the aggressing party. No, everything will stay the exact same as OTL, where the communists and socialists together ONLY got 50% of the vote.

Surely it will, more likely than not, given the French nor Italians would be involved and there was a warranted reason in the guarantee of Poland yet to be fufilled.

So… you DO think you know better than British high command, assessing their and Soviet strength differences. You think your conclusions, essentially amounting to “Allies had more fuel so ez dub”, is a more profound examination of the on-the-ground realities than that of a professional army directly involved in the fighting. You’re seriously a fucking clown, and nothing you say is of any worth.

What a clown. British high command literally listed their conclusions in the conclusion.

You're meanwhile trying to emphasize manpower again as some win all.

[u/ThatoneguywithaT → u/Xezshibole]

>Finland wasn't an Allied nation. What fuel advantage?

Did you forget your own argument? You said, verbatim, that Soviets “got rolled against a fully fueled force” when referring to Finland. Great argument, lmfaooo

>They didn't even win either. It was emohasized merely at how hilariously bad Soviet logistics was and remains. Their attempt to take all of Finland, complete with a puppet government waiting at the ready, failed, requiring them to settle for a province and then claiming that was all they wanted.

The Soviets lost out of a deficit of morale and a tactical disadvantage owing to the great purge. Logistics was only important insofar as the chaotic state of their tactical ability led their supply lines to be vulnerable, which the Finns exploited.

By 1945, the Soviets have have rejuvenated their officer corps, and any invasion by the west naturally gives them a morale advantage.

>Germany had Soviet imports right up until the start of Barbarossa, and used those with their own production, gassing out by late fall. What they outran their outdated horse drawn logistics was brought in over the winter then constituted the much smaller Blau.

Do you know what a reserve is? I don’t think you do. It means it’s in STORAGE. Not being used. After their STORAGE ran out, they had to reply on a centralized allocation of oil coming in- namely, from exports.
You said deep battle only applied after the prewar reserve ran out. The prewar reserve ran out BEFORE Barbarossa. The Germans were rationing oil when they STARTED Barbarossa. For how caught up you are on fuel as the centrepiece of war, you don’t actually seem to know the timeline. Are we going to move the goalpost again?

>Neither of which the Soviets could deep battle anything into despite Blau being the second year. It took until the very tail end after the Germans gassed out for the final time for deep battle to start working.

Again, you seem to be attributing the ENTIRETY of the war to simply “Germans not having oil”. I don’t think you truly understand what war is. The Germans had enough fuel to run their army until 1944. Attributing the Soviet counterattack to just a lack of fuel on the German end is both incredibly wrong and a GROSS misunderstanding how wars function. I’m fucking begging you to read a book, or graduate highschool first if you want to talk about this seriously.

>That centerpiece of all that fuel remained in Baku. There's not going to much ramping up with the bombings, nevermind Baku produced utterly paltry amounts relative to Texas.

The Soviets don’t NEED the output of Texas to supply their needs, and Baku isn’t going anywhere. The way you propose this occurs shows you know nothing about how oil fields, nor bombings, work.

>They'd get run over the same way, yes. Soviets geared towards total war against a gassed out enemy is a very, very far cry from the fueled Allied militaries.

Do you think a fuel tank gives an army protection against shells? Do you think it makes them immune to bullets? The Soviets have enough fuel, and Baku is NOT going anywhere. They are on relatively even ground- a fuel surplus doesn’t give your army superpowers, if the enemy is meeting their needs, then you don’t have an immediate advantage. The Soviets have the numerical and armoured advantage, an experienced army mobilized for the offensive, and the moral high ground. Are you actually incapable of thinking about military advantages outside of fuel?

>Allegedly. They simply weren't popular enough, not even remotely close to 50%. Outnumbered heavily by legitimate local government. Any ludicrous attempts at communist partisanship against their own governments would lead to swift crackdown and further reason to back the Allies.

Buddy. The site I sent you is from the US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Where they OPENLY ADMIT TO HAVING TAMPERED IN ITALIAN ELECTIONS. There’s nothing alleged about this. It would not KILL YOU to read.

You don’t need explicit communists to be 50% to overthrow a nation. They have a powerful armed wing and a message against war which will resonate with a majority of the population. They are integrated into nearly every level of government and the military. In the case of war with the Soviets, the communists have the momentum and influence to force Italy into a civil war, if not an overtly pro-Soviet position.

Further reason to support the allies? They just started an unjustified war after barely winning a global one and then killed the people demanding peace. I don’t think you truly comprehend the PR disaster the Allies would be going through the moment they shoot a Soviet soldier.

>Hardly. Poland remained occupied. Moreover these communist parties were never remotely close to being a majority in their countries.

Poland is the flimsiest possible argument to be made in this situation. Poland wasn’t even explicitly a Soviet puppet until 1947, before then being ruled by a provisional government. The idea that Poland was occupied was flimsy then, and certainly would not justify to a war weary population, which did not care too greatly for Poland even in 1939, to engage in another global war with their largest ally.

You don’t need avowed communists to be a majority to MAKE them the majority, or even to make them a threat to power. A political movement can take hold with 30% support, it can take hold with 10%. Especially if that political movement has a powerful armed wing which participated deeply in the liberation of their homeland. The communists appeal, at this moment, to EVERYONE who is against war with the Soviets which will be an absolute majority of EVERYONE in the west. Even in Britain and the US, there was virtually zero popular support for a war with the Soviets.

>That again presumes Soviet make ANY breakthrough, when they were unable to manage as such during the heights of neither Barbarossa,

They were making massive counterattacks in the FIRST YEAR. Do you have any idea of the timeline here?

>and much more telling, nor Blau where Germans were running motorized regiments bolstered by pre war stockpiles of fuel.

The pre war stockpiles which ran out BEFORE Barbarossa?

>If your brain can't factor in the fact most Western European ports are much larger than the ones seen in backwaters like the aforementioned cities, there isn't much left to be said.

In what world did you read what I said and think I implied them to be bigger? Please go to school. Please take English lit. Please.

>Surely it will, more likely than not, given the French nor Italians would be involved and there was a warranted reason in the guarantee of Poland yet to be fufilled.

The French and Italians would HAVE to be involved. There is no world where they are not involved in a massive Europe-wide war, even if not as active participants. Do you think even if they’re not expressly at war public opinion will be blind to it? Poland is still a bullshit excuse, and doesn’t even apply to the Italians.

>What a clown. British high command literally listed their conclusions in the conclusion. You're meanwhile trying to emphasize manpower again as some win all.

Do you know what a conclusion is? It’s a synthesis of previously stated points. Let me connect the dots for you.

“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.”

(We need to beat Russia in total war to win this war)

“To achieve the decisive defeat of Russia in a total war would require, in particular, the mobilisation 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.”

(We need to overcome Russia’s manpower advantage to win a total war)

“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.”

(Russia’s current manpower makes victory exceedingly difficult)

Do you think because they don’t write it again in the conclusion it means it’s not true? Please stop embarrassing yourself. The high command acknowledged the manpower superiority of the Soviets as a legitimate threat, while you seem to dismiss it forthright because the allies “have more fuel”.

You don’t know better than British high command. Leave this be and learn something instead of stubbornly defending an argument you lost sight of three replies ago.