Operation Unthinkable

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
Foggy
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:47 pm
Location: South Jersey, USA

Re: Operation Unthinkable

Post by Foggy »

Interesting topic, but remember, we're looking at history with hindsight. One must judge history from what things were like at the time, and what people knew and felt at the time.

True, it was generally felt that Uncle Joe wasn't the most upright of fellows (which was clearly evident right up to June 1941), but we just fought a war in Europe where he became "Uncle Joe" thru propaganda. He was an enemy of our enemy, and our enemies were portrayed and quite readily felt by the public to be evil. (And they still didn't understand the full nature of the Holocaust or the prisoner atrocities in the Pacific.) In the spring of 1945, Stalin was our friend. The western allies were tired of war and wanted it ended quickly and definitively. Attacking the Soviets was simply out of the question, not gonna happen.

Militarily it was (and is) still a fact that the USSR fought the bulk of the war in Europe, and all that entails. We NEEDED the USSR to defeat Germany, and (initially, at least) expected to need them in the final defeat of Japan. (Would Britain have survived without Barbarosa? How long would the US have taken to defeat both Germany and Japan, and Italy for that matter? And Stalin would still have been Hitler's ally!)

And by 1945 the USSR boasted an enormous, well equipped, and blooded army. Not an easy push-over, I think, in spite of Patton or MacArthur or Churchill. (Britain, by the way, was SPENT. They had not a lot left militarily.) Atomic bombs? First, we didn't have that many; and second, the USSR was huge and production spread out, unlike, say, Japan or even Germany. So you attack their army with nukes?

We know NOW how things turned out by leaving Stalin in place. I don't think it was that clear then, and I don't think attacking the Soviet Union would have been the cakewalk we somehow seem to think it would have been.

-- Wayne
-- Wayne
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Operation Unthinkable

Post by lwd »

None of the allied peoples wanted a new war in 45. In many ways the Soviets were as spent as the British however. As for the number of atomic bombs it depends on when I've read estimates of a dozen or more by the end of 45. Furthermore while Soviet production was vary decentralized (and much of it out of easy reach) their log system was not. The final stages of the war vs Germany had shown just how critical this aspect could be.

The lack of support would proably be the most critical aspect for the western allies. The food situation the most critical for the Soviets. Which ever side started it could get a significant boost if they achieved surprise other wise pretty hard to call.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Operation Unthinkable

Post by Bgile »

I sure wouldn't categorize fighting the Soviet Union as a cakewalk, and I kind of doubt anyone here would.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Operation Unthinkable

Post by alecsandros »

Foggy wrote:
We know NOW how things turned out by leaving Stalin in place. I don't think it was that clear then, and I don't think attacking the Soviet Union would have been the cakewalk we somehow seem to think it would have been.

-- Wayne
I think it was pretty clear. that's why Churchill thought about attacking the bolsheviks in the first place.
The world had been nevertheless split between the great powers during the Yalta conference.

A good atomic bombing of the bolsheviks followed by western-led military dictatorships, may have saved millions of people.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Operation Unthinkable

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote: A good atomic bombing of the bolsheviks followed by western-led military dictatorships, may have saved millions of people.
This is an interesting sentence. Some people might interpret it as the first part being totally contradicted by the third and final part.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Operation Unthinkable

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

alecsandros:
A good atomic bombing of the bolsheviks followed by western-led military dictatorships, may have saved millions of people.
I concur 1,000000000% with alecsandros. Of course it is not that obvious for those that never lived in a country ruled by the commies or was threatened by a proxy war during the Cold War, as my country did. Only in Central America it is estimated that one million persons died in between 1978-1990. Add Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Cuba, Cambodia, etc etc etc plus the Stalinist occupation of Eastern Europe.

The funny thing is that guys like Patton forecasted this, which is why it was better to get rid of him...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Post Reply