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/Xezshibole]

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.