Operation Unthinkable goes ahead - how much longer does the war last?

[ivanotter]

Russian generals were used to command huge army groups at this stage. That was not something US/UK generals had any experience in.

... and the idea of arming German POWs? they just managed to survive WWII so now they are eager to sign up for Barbarossa V2? Maybe not.

And if 200,00 (maybe also former SS) could be found, Poland would welcome them (again)?

The whole thing was never meant as a crusade to defeat USSR. The stopping line was indeed Breslau. However, maybe USSR would not see it like that?

... and this notion that the US/UK would be superior in any way in 1945 does not align with facts. Manpower, tanks, aircraft, etc etc wuld favour USSR in 1945.

Dropping nuclear bombs all over Europe might not be very popular among the people (germans, Poles, etc) whose countried would be laid waste (for years?).

Where would those B-29's fly from? USSR could be over France and shoot them down - but hey, I never liked the Eifel Tower or Mona Lisa.

Stalin (apparantly) knew about the plans but regarded them as another of Winston's fantasies.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

If Operation Unthinkable happens the WAllies lose very quickly and pressure at home forces them to sue for very unfavorable terms.

 

[Legalize Crack]

Russian generals were used to command huge army groups at this stage. That was not something US/UK generals had any experience in.

The German generals do, though.

... and the idea of arming German POWs? they just managed to survive WWII so now they are eager to sign up for Barbarossa V2? Maybe not.

Better than being ground down and sent to gulag, right?

And if 200,00 (maybe also former SS) could be found, Poland would welcome them (again)?

Better than being ground down and sent to gulag, right? At least many Germans were executed promptly by the Red Army. Polish soldiers tended to languish under heavy labor and torture for decades in Siberia before dying.

The whole thing was never meant as a crusade to defeat USSR. The stopping line was indeed Breslau. However, maybe USSR would not see it like that?

Sure, but the propaganda can be twisted like that to make it seem like a crusade against the USSR.

... and this notion that the US/UK would be superior in any way in 1945 does not align with facts. Manpower, tanks, aircraft, etc etc wuld favour USSR in 1945.

As the USSR was superior to Germany in 1941, but still almost got knocked flat. If the Allies get German generals' cooperation in 1943 or 1944 they may be well superior to the USSR. Also Lend-Lease goes away.

Dropping nuclear bombs all over Europe might not be very popular among the people (germans, Poles, etc) whose countried would be laid waste (for years?).

Who said all over Europe? Just Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Vladivostok, etc.

Where would those B-29's fly from? USSR could be over France and shoot them down - but hey, I never liked the Eifel Tower or Mona Lisa.

The Allies and Germans have fighters of their own....

Stalin (apparantly) knew about the plans but regarded them as another of Winston's fantasies.

As he should have, it's not plausible, especially in 1945. But in 1943 or 1944 it's not too long a shot.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The German generals do, though.

The same generals who have a very doubtful record?

Better than being ground down and sent to gulag, right?

You're not going to willingly go into the army, it makes your chances to end in a gulag go up by a lot.

At least many Germans were executed promptly by the Red Army. Polish soldiers tended to languish under heavy labor and torture for decades in Siberia before dying.

Between that and absolute annihilation of all Poles, I would take the lesser evil.

As the USSR was superior to Germany in 1941, but still almost got knocked flat.

In 1941 the Red Army was much worse than it was in 1944, at the beginning of Barbarossa the German army was by all means superior to the Soviet one.

If the Allies get German generals' cooperation in 1943 or 1944 they may be well superior to the USSR. Also Lend-Lease goes away.

In 1943 kind of hard to get German cooperation, while the tide of the war is going South for them they still aren't in a completely lost.
In 1944 the Nazis will start to consider the idea but they still are demanding things that are unacceptable to the Allies and Britain and the US showed that they wanted to annihilate Nazi Germany, even if they manage to ally themselves in 1944 things like Operation Bagration were starting to happen.

Who said all over Europe? Just Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Vladivostok, etc.

You have to travel over half of Europe to get there, plenty of the time for the Soviets to shoot the plane down.

The Allies and Germans have fighters of their own....

Luftwaffe was dead by that point and while GB and the US could end up having the air advantage destroying all of the Soviet aircrafts is not going to be easy.

 

[Legalize Crack]

The same generals who have a very doubtful record?

Getting within 100 km of Moscow in a two front war, and getting France to surrender so quickly, and many other feats, aren't dubious.

You're not going to willingly go into the army, it makes your chances to end in a gulag go up by a lot.

Yeah but you know what guarantees gulag or death? Letting the Soviets occupy Germany.

Between that and absolute annihilation of all Poles, I would take the lesser evil.

Not under Allied supervision they won't be annihilated. Read again when I mention pre-Munich borders.

In 1943 kind of hard to get German cooperation, while the tide of the war is going South for them they still aren't in a completely lost.
In 1944 the Nazis will start to consider the idea but they still are demanding things that are unacceptable to the Allies and Britain and the US showed that they wanted to annihilate Nazi Germany, even if they manage to ally themselves in 1944 things like Operation Bagration were starting to happen.

Probably, but it's possible. As unlikely events occurred in the war.

You have to travel over half of Europe to get there, plenty of the time for the Soviets to shoot the plane down.

If the Allies are joining forces with the Luftwaffe in early 1944, they're already in Belarus. Literally knocking on Moscow's doorstep as far as planes are concerned.

Luftwaffe was dead by that point and while GB and the US could end up having the air advantage destroying all of the Soviet aircrafts is not going to be easy.

Allies have shown they can penetrate deep into enemy territory (Romania) at the height of Nazi power. What's to stop them from reusing D-Day assets to invade the Caucasus or Circassia, behind enemy lines, and get to the Baku oil fields? Diverting enemy resources from protecting Moscow. Hell, Turkey and Iran might join the Allied side from fear of the Soviets. Finland certainly as well, and much better supplied.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Getting within 100 km of Moscow in a two front war, and getting France to surrender so quickly, and many other feats, aren't dubious.

From the ideology POV very much so and German leadership had its own problems.

Yeah but you know what guarantees gulag or death? Letting the Soviets occupy Germany.

Not really, if the Soviet rule over Germany it will be bad but not everyone will be sent to a gulag and gulag system killed 8% of its inmates. If you into the army of the Allies it assures you that if you're taken prisoner and sent to a gulag.

Not under Allied supervision they won't be annihilated. Read again when I mention pre-Munich borders.

The Poles very much know who are the Germans that decided to go for round two, they certainly wouldn't support any similar army and good luck convincing the Nazis.

Probably, but it's possible. As unlikely events occurred in the war.

This is way more than unlikely.

If the Allies are joining forces with the Luftwaffe in early 1944, they're already in Belarus. Literally knocking on Moscow's doorstep as far as planes are concerned.

The Soviets are very much capable of defending the air long enough and have fun dealing with Operation Bagration and the resistance movements in Nazi occupied territory. And the fact that Churchill and FDR will look like complete idiots and potentially as traitors, who is enthusiastic of allying themselves with the Nazis to fight the Soviet for God knows how much time?

What's to stop them from reusing D-Day assets to invade the Caucasus or Circassia

That will be counter-productive, why are you launching a D-day landing if you already have a front on land and why the Caucasus and Circassia?

Diverting enemy resources from protecting Moscow. Hell, Turkey and Iran might join the Allied side from fear of the Soviets. Finland certainly as well, and much better supplied.

Finland is already in the war, Iran is two occupation zones and Turkey made it clear that they wanted to stay neutral.

 

[Legalize Crack]

From the ideology POV very much so and German leadership had its own problems.

What does that have to do with their ability and experience with commanding large army groups?

Not really, if the Soviet rule over Germany it will be bad but not everyone will be sent to a gulag and gulag system killed 8% of its inmates. If you into the army of the Allies it assures you that if you're taken prisoner and sent to a gulag.

The whole country essentially turns into a gulag. That's not an exaggeration, look how many people risked death trying to climb over the Berlin Wall alone, let alone getting through the border elsewhere. I worked with a guy who literally got welded into distilling tank, or maybe it was some other processing equipment, in order to be smuggled into West Germany.

The Poles very much know who are the Germans that decided to go for round two, they certainly wouldn't support any similar army and good luck convincing the Nazis.

Again, pre-Munich borders, it will be Allied commanders running the show.

The Soviets are very much capable of defending the air long enough and have fun dealing with Operation Bagration and the resistance movements in Nazi occupied territory. And the fact that Churchill and FDR will look like complete idiots and potentially as traitors, who is enthusiastic of allying themselves with the Nazis to fight the Soviet for God knows how much time?

How are they viewed as traitors? In this scenario the Wehrmacht overthrows the Nazis, then sues for peace with the Allies. The Allies only work with the Germans after making peace, and making sure the Nazi Party isn't in power anymore. This also takes care of resistance movements, since resistance movements were against German/Nazi occupation. The Allies come in and say "fight for us, and you'll be free from the Germans AND the Soviets". What's not to like?

That will be counter-productive, why are you launching a D-day landing if you already have a front on land and why the Caucasus and Circassia?

It'll be a big lift trying to get German generals to surrender before D-Day. Almost impossible of a lift. So D-Day almost needs to occur. Then you reuse those resources attacking the soft underbelly of the USSR. Caucasus and Circassia puts you close to mutinous minorities, and close to the Baku oil fields. This cuts off much of the USSR's petrochemical and fuel supplies.

Finland is already in the war, Iran is two occupation zones and Turkey made it clear that they wanted to stay neutral.

Yeah and that's good, because Finland provides more distraction.
Yes, Iran is split between Soviets and Brits, right? So it's another front and distraction for the Soviets. Whereas Brits have basically infinite manpower and resources in India nearby.
Turkey sure would stay neutral against Germany, as Germany isn't much of a threat to Turkey. But the USSR borders Turkey and threatens Turkey's government with communist influence. I'm not convinced it's impossible to get Turkey to join against the USSR. This opens yet another front and/or supports (if after) or renders moot (if prior to) amphibious invasion of Caucasus and Circassia.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What does that have to do with their ability and experience with commanding large army groups?

You want to rely on war criminals and enemies not too long ago to lead your troops in battle?

The whole country essentially turns into a gulag. That's not an exaggeration, look how many people risked death trying to climb over the Berlin Wall alone, let alone getting through the border elsewhere. I worked with a guy who literally got welded into distilling tank, or maybe it was some other processing equipment, in order to be smuggled into West Germany.

That's not a reason to go in a suicidal mission.

Again, pre-Munich borders, it will be Allied commanders running the show.

Then what about the Nazis that lead army groups like you said above?

How are they viewed as traitors? In this scenario the Wehrmacht overthrows the Nazis, then sues for peace with the Allies. The Allies only work with the Germans after making peace, and making sure the Nazi Party isn't in power anymore.

Operation Valkyrie was made by Nazis, they were unhappy with Hitler but they still weren't innocent; the Wehrmacht was also Nazi.

The Allies come in and say "fight for us, and you'll be free from the Germans AND the Soviets". What's not to like?

You're going to convince local populations (in 1944 there still are many under German occupation) that allying themselves with the ones that were exterminating them a few days ago to be free?

It'll be a big lift trying to get German generals to surrender before D-Day. Almost impossible of a lift.

I wanted to say that you already have to care about the Eastern Front which around this moment is actively collapsing, why are you messing around in the Caucasus?

Then you reuse those resources attacking the soft underbelly of the USSR. Caucasus and Circassia puts you close to mutinous minorities, and close to the Baku oil fields. This cuts off much of the USSR's petrochemical and fuel supplies.

Do you have any idea how risky are operations like D-Day? It's far from easy and the resources needed for D-Day are on the Western Front.
And once you've managed to land the probability that you manage to crush the Soviets so badly that you can get to Baku is basically non-existent, more likely you'll get thrown back in the Black Sea.

Yeah and that's good, because Finland provides more distraction.

Finland was nearing total collapse by that point and it was a miracle it managed to survive the Soviets offensives in 1944, if it continues the war it will be overrun by the Soviets.

Yes, Iran is split between Soviets and Brits, right? So it's another front and distraction for the Soviets. Whereas Brits have basically infinite manpower and resources in India nearby.

India is far from being infinite resources, if the Brits try to exploit India to that extent they'll end up having to also put down revolts in the Raj, it's more a distraction to the British who have to care about a front in Iran while they would want to focus more troops in Europe.

Turkey sure would stay neutral against Germany, as Germany isn't much of a threat to Turkey. But the USSR borders Turkey and threatens Turkey's government with communist influence. I'm not convinced it's impossible to get Turkey to join against the USSR. This opens yet another front and/or supports (if after) or renders moot (if prior to) amphibious invasion of Caucasus and Circassia.

Turkey didn't join during Operation Barbarossa when it looked like the USSR was on the verge of collapse therefore I doubt you can convince it to join this time when the Soviet are much stronger.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The propaganda is super easy. "We started this war to protect (free) Poland. Now we have to see it through to the bloody end." Either Stalin gives up at least Poland, or it's war.

What the actual response to that propaganda would be:
British Public: "But the Russians freed Poland?"
American Public: "Uh, no? We got into this war to beat Germany ASAP so we could go focus on Japan. We don't want you to let the British to drag us into their own fucking myopia about 'sphere's of influence' and all that junk."

What does that have to do with their ability and experience with commanding large army groups?

Their total lack of any command. No British or American commander in 1945 is going to entertain putting German officers in command of their own forces or even on their staff.

How are they viewed as traitors? In this scenario the Wehrmacht overthrows the Nazis, then sues for peace with the Allies.

That's... not the scenario at all though? Unthinkable was solidly post-surrender. The Anti-Nazi element of the Wehrmacht was distinctly unpopular with both the bulk of the Heer AND the Western Allies and never had a realistic shot at making this scenario work.

Not to mention the PR nightmare this is for WAllied leaders. One of the planners for Unthinkable summed it up quite well:
"For over three years, public opinion in America and Britain had been led to believe that Russia was a brave and faithful ally who had done the lion's share of the fighting and endured untold suffering. If their governments had now proclaimed that the Russians were untrustworthy and unprincipled tyrants whose ambitions must be held in check, the effect on national unity in both countries would have been catastrophic.
...
Should they [Britain and US] have forgotten all that they had said about their determination to destroy Nazism, taken the Germans into their fold, and proceeded, with their help, to crush their recent allies? One is forced to the conclusion that such a reversal of policy, which dictators could have taken in their stride, was absolutely impossible for the leaders of democratic countries even to contemplate." -General Ismay Hastings

So D-Day almost needs to occur. Then you reuse those resources attacking the soft underbelly of the USSR. Caucasus and Circassia puts you close to mutinous minorities, and close to the Baku oil fields.

You're spouting military fantasies. D-Day going forward pushes all those military resources into Northern France, which means they are massively dislocated for operations elsewhere and making their redeployment a time-consuming and expensive process. It'd honestly be easier and less time consuming to drive over to Eastern Europe to try and fight alongside the Germans (which, as the Ismay quote above would show, would be PROFOUNDLY demoralizing and unpopular for the Western Allies).

Yes, Iran is split between Soviets and Brits, right? So it's another front and distraction for the Soviets.

Not much of a distraction. It's three British brigades vs 11 Soviet divisions.

Whereas Brits have basically infinite manpower and resources in India nearby.

More like a giant revolt risk. The idea of India being a infinite source of manpower and resources exists only in the minds of those ignorant to the political realities of the sort of colonial empire Britain had in India.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Man as implausible as it is I'd really love to see an "Unthinkable For A Reason" TL about the aftermath of an attempted Operation Unthinkable that predictively goes catastrophically wrong for the Wallies. Really just deconstruct the entire concept

 

[lionhead]

From the ideology POV very much so and German leadership had its own problems.

Yeah, that problem was called Hitler.

 

[Histor32]

The west doesn't go to war unless the soviets provoke or don't stop.

If we do, the soviets loose .. period it will take time depending on when this happens or not much time .. after August and Japan surrenders it's it's point.

So can the soviets in those months take the rest of Germany or get to the Atlantic..

I don't think so, just for logistics. Could they get to the rhine maybe... By August it won't matter.

Sure the atom bomb isn't everything, dropping a few of those will change their minds, especially when no leadership is left.

I will go back to an earlier post that the soviets where not stupid. They got more than they could dream of considering they started out on the wrong side allies with the Nazis.

The soviets paid in blood over and over ... How will the Soviet Union sell the British and American friends as the enemy to an army that has hit the end of the road ... Berlin was as far as they were going at that stage. These people are tired ... War sucks.. absolute carnage war even more.

The west doesn't want more war and they didn't loose anywhere near the numbers. So if the soviets provoke and start a conflict, the west won't play nice.


If the west starts it ... That's just stupid. Look at our time line. The western nations flight their way in, the Germans would much rather surrender to the west...

Russia was never known as the benevolent overlord. The poles didn't want them, no one wanted them on their territory. But the west going for Moscow ? I doubt it, they could and they would succeed. The problem is the number of lives lost and for what?

This is years into world war 2, folks are tired of war.

By August it won't matter and the soviets can't counter the bomb and that will become plural. They also can't overcome the mass damage to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe which is ruble at this point.

Those cities that aren't ruble or are useful will be targets for the bomb..


My opinion the west has the advantage, the soviets have numbers and grit, but the west has only started to tap into what it can do, thus the soviets will loose, as will the PLA, and other communist factions that will get discredited and go the way of the Nazis

 

[Gillan1220]

Estimates play it to 1946-47. Others have pointed out 1948-49. While others have even said it goes all the way to the early 1950s but then the Allies wold have been war-weary at this point.

One thing is certain, Japan is annihilated. Now modern Japan that we know of. Nukes would have been used several times as the U.S. has planned. Often used to soften beachhead landings which would have exposed all those troops to radiation.

 

[Legalize Crack]

You want to rely on war criminals and enemies not too long ago to lead your troops in battle?

They will be leading only German troops in battle. I thought that was obvious, my apologies.

That's not a reason to go in a suicidal mission.

And yet the Germans fought to the bitter end anyway? Even after Berlin fell some soldiers fought for days after. Villages committed mass suicides once they knew there was no hope. If there's hope of not being under the Soviet thumb, I really think people who fought to the bitter end, then committed mass suicide rather than surrendering, would take that opportunity.

Then what about the Nazis that lead army groups like you said above?

What about them? What does leading armies have to do with running the show? The supreme allied commander points, and the Germans shoot. What's so difficult about that.

Operation Valkyrie was made by Nazis, they were unhappy with Hitler but they still weren't innocent; the Wehrmacht was also Nazi.

Not fully committed. Evidenced by how many surrendered, and didn't commit suicide, well before Berlin fell.

You're going to convince local populations (in 1944 there still are many under German occupation) that allying themselves with the ones that were exterminating them a few days ago to be free?

Absolutely, as the Germans aren't calling the shots or exterminating people there anymore.

I wanted to say that you already have to care about the Eastern Front which around this moment is actively collapsing, why are you messing around in the Caucasus?

Opening up a second front. With allied troops and supplies moving to the Eastern Front, that will stop collapsing in short order.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Yeah, that problem was called Hitler.

Not quite, the Wehrmacht leadership was for the most part convinced Nazis and many plans that Hitler forced trough (like focusing on Ukraine) were a popular opinion in the General Staff, Hitler did things worse but the leadership had its own big problems.

They will be leading only German troops in battle. I thought that was obvious, my apologies.

Public opinion isn't very keen on fighting alongside the Nazis against the Soviets, imagine saying to the persons that suffered the Blitz that they now have to die alongside the ones who did this to get rid of your Soviet ally.

And yet the Germans fought to the bitter end anyway? Even after Berlin fell some soldiers fought for days after. Villages committed mass suicides once they knew there was no hope. If there's hope of not being under the Soviet thumb, I really think people who fought to the bitter end, then committed mass suicide rather than surrendering, would take that opportunity.

There are some who will fight but most won't.

Opening up a second front. With allied troops and supplies moving to the Eastern Front, that will stop collapsing in short order.

You yourself said that without D-day Germany won't surrender, I would like to remember you that there are 16 days between D-day and Operation Bagration, Germany needs all possible help to have a small chance of surviving Soviet offensives; meanwhile the Allied command would decide to dedicate all resources on an offensive in the Caucasus as to let the Germans collapse and lose the war very badly?
The Soviets despite all the persons that died have far more troops than the remaining German ones and the WAllies not counting that on the other side of the world they have to fight Japan.
Operation Unthinkable is what its name says: Unthinkable.

 

[lionhead]

Not quite, the Wehrmacht leadership was for the most part convinced Nazis and many plans that Hitler forced trough (like focusing on Ukraine) were a popular opinion in the General Staff, Hitler did things worse but the leadership had its own big problems.

Sure they were nazis, sure they believed in the cause, sure they were war criminals. But being that is different than being a competent military commander. The problem was Hitler because he listened to the bad ones(like von Manstein, and von Bock) and disregarded the "good" ones(like von Rundstedt, and Hoepner) because their actions either suited or didn't suit his view of things, which was more about the exterminations than the military victory, which they saw as already in the pocket, a classic Nazi fallacy. That was of course not what the actual battlefield required. So the commanders busy with fighting the red bear got their hands tied behind their back, slowly, but surely. By 1942 the generals had no way of telling Hitler how screwed they really were. Then it was just a struggle of keeping their heads whilst discretely retreating to prevent total annihilation. An exception being Model, who was listened to and did really good given the circumstances.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Sure they were nazis, sure they believed in the cause, sure they were war criminals. But being that is different than being a competent military commander. The problem was Hitler because he listened to the bad ones(like von Manstein, and von Bock) and disregarded the "good" ones(like von Rundstedt, and Hoepner) because their actions either suited or didn't suit his view of things, which was more about the exterminations than the military victory, which they saw as already in the pocket, a classic Nazi fallacy. That was of course not what the actual battlefield required. So the commanders busy with fighting the red bear got their hands tied behind their back, slowly, but surely. By 1942 the generals had no way of telling Hitler how screwed they really were. Then it was just a struggle of keeping their heads whilst discretely retreating to prevent total annihilation. An exception being Model, who was listened to and did really good given the circumstances.

Weren't most of the good ones forced to suicide in 1944?

 

[lionhead]

Weren't most of the good ones forced to suicide in 1944?

you mean the ones that wanted to dispose of Hitler? Are we talking about that? I'm confused.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

you mean the ones that wanted to dispose of Hitler? Are we talking about that? I'm confused.

I confused myself.

 

[LeX]

I think it would be a close fight but the Soviets are overall stronger IMO.

They have the biggest army, better knowledge of how to use it, and better land-based weapons. Like ObsessedNuker mentioned they will suffer from food supply issues but that just means a new Holodomor on the territory of Germany and Eastern Europe, which from Stalin's POV will conveniently starve out the liberal-nationalist tendencies in those areas anyway.

US nuke production is still slow enough and the Soviet air force okay enough to complicate an attempt at using nukes to reliably destroy the Soviet military industry or decapitate its leadership.

Morale-wise the West will have a seriously hard time convincing their populace why it is necessary to attack their former ally, while the Soviet Union has much greater control over public opinion and can easily spin a story of "the capitalists' mask of fascism and Hitlerism has been torn off, now they desperately try a second wave to crush the workers and peasants, but they shall not succeed."