Unthinkable

[caldrail]

I don't watch a lot of television these days but today I came across a program detailing political events at the close of Second World War. It focused primarily on Poland, and whilst the allies had agreed at the Yalta Conference about the fate of that nation, Stalin had little intention of honouring his part of the bargain.

 

Despite the grass roots comradeship Great Britain and Russia made uncomfortable allies. The Second World War had started over the question of Polish security and the Cold War began to rear its ugly head over Poland as well, as Stalin denied the Polish people self determination despite American pressure.and dramatically increased tension in post-war Europe.

 

Churchill had always warned against the possibility of Russian expansion across Europe and on the 22nd May 1945, asked his military planners to prepare Operation Unthinkable - The British attack on Soviet Russia.

 

In the opinion of one individual involved in planning this venture - it might take a very long time to win. Given the recent experience of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe units struggling with the climatic conditions and the vast demoralising open spaces of eastern Europe, one wonders what the British could actually do about it.

 

It is ironic of course that the Russian people were convinced (largely by offical propaganda) that the West were about to launch a full scale invasion of the Soviet Union for something like forty or fifty years. Were the Russian government aware of Operation Unthinkable via the communist sympathisers lurking in Whitehall? Or was it merely the legacy of Stalins paranoia?

 

Edited August 4, 2009 by caldrail

[Northern Neil]

My precise source eludes me for the moment, but I have encountered several references to Churchill's stance on the Soviet Union. Dresden was apparently flattened because the allies knew the Soviets would be walking through within a few weeks..

[Kosmo]

This made a lot of sense and it was better then doing nothing.

Unlike the germans the western allies could strike the SU from all directions including a Caucasus-Iran front and a Far East front (here in July Japan was still fighting). The UK and the US were fully mobilized and unlike the SU suffered little damage to the industrial base and far less human losses. And of course they would have had the Bomb and huge capabilities for strategic bombing...

Edited August 5, 2009 by Kosmo

[Maladict]

Was the UK really capable of starting a new war? I thought they were pretty much exhausted and bankrupt at that point.

[Northern Neil]

Was the UK really capable of starting a new war? I thought they were pretty much exhausted and bankrupt at that point.

We were. But Churchill's view was that the allies should have continued the push from Berlin to Moscow, taking advantage of the USSR's relative weakness, too.

[sylla]

This made a lot of sense and it was better then doing nothing.

Unlike the germans the western allies could strike the SU from all directions including a Caucasus-Iran front and a Far East front (here in July Japan was still fighting). The UK and the US were fully mobilized and unlike the SU suffered little damage to the industrial base and far less human losses. And of course they would have had the Bomb and huge capabilities for strategic bombing...

Yup; only thing was lacking was herr Hitler in the White House.

[Ursus]

I could see pushing the Red Army out of Eastern Europe, but attacking and occupying the USSR to the Urals would have been lunatic for a war weary west.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I could see pushing the Red Army out of Eastern Europe, but attacking and occupying the USSR to the Urals would have been lunatic for a war weary west.

Ursus does have a point. By 1945 the population of Western Europe were heartily sick of war and conflict. How Mr. Churchill would have sustained another long term war effort without popular support eludes me. Not to mention, of course, the support of the other western democracies.

Another factor to bear in mind was that the Red Army of 1945 had truly come of age. It was thoroughly battle hardened and had, through bitter experience, mastered the art of defensive warfare to a superlative degree and had the invaluable leadership of men like Zhukov, Koniev, and Rokossovsky. It's offensive skills were honed to fine degree in the last two years of the war. Any one doubting this has only to look at the destruction of the Wehrmacht's Army Group Centre in July 1944 during Operation Bagration, which was a masterpiece in operational and tactical planning. This was a far cry from the army of 1941 whose leadership had been decimated by Stalin's purges, thoroughly unprepared for modern war, demoralised by Russia's initial defeats in Finland, and essentially caught napping by Hitler's treacherous attack.

The Western Allies would have had a hard nut to crack indeed.

[sylla]

By May 1945 the Truman administration (the same as FDR up to his last day) still considered that massive Russian help would have been required for the definitive defeat of Japan; the A-bomb was still a project.

 

The first nuclear blast (Alamogordo) didn't happen until July 16.

[caldrail]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6672

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Edited August 6, 2009 by caldrail

[caesar novus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five#...coded_war_plans

 

http://www.booktv.org/search.aspx?For=winston%20churchill

 

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystor...ory_id=14082081

[Kosmo]

This made a lot of sense and it was better then doing nothing.

Unlike the germans the western allies could strike the SU from all directions including a Caucasus-Iran front and a Far East front (here in July Japan was still fighting). The UK and the US were fully mobilized and unlike the SU suffered little damage to the industrial base and far less human losses. And of course they would have had the Bomb and huge capabilities for strategic bombing...

Yup; only thing was lacking was herr Hitler in the White House.

 

A physically and mentally fit president and a more realist political class would have helped...

The US had the opportunity and passed. Fortunately the Cold War remained cold so it seems it was a smart decision to not have a new war but if they had to fight the commies later in a nuclear war the decision would have seemed moronic.

Britain started the WW2 to prevent germans and soviets dividing Central and Eastern Europe with the end result that that the entire area was annexed or subjugated by the soviets alone. The defeat of Japan made China communist and opened the doors of Korea and Indochina while the British were soon kicked out of India and several other colonies or areas of influence.

Not much of a victory if you ask me.

[Centurion-Macro]

Was the UK really capable of starting a new war? I thought they were pretty much exhausted and bankrupt at that point.

Maybe if they still had their backing by America they could do it. But I really don't think that Britain alone could defeat the SU, even if they attacked it from many directions. Britain just didn't have to funds or the manpower to do that without help from someone like America.

[sylla]

A physically and mentally fit president and a more realist political class would have helped....

Depending on your personal taste and operative definitions, Herr Hitler may still fit.

Britain started the WW2 ...

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources.

Not much of a victory if you ask me.

Yup, a radioactive desert might be considered a better choice than any compromise by some people. Edited August 8, 2009 by sylla

[Centurion-Macro]

Britain started the WW2 ...

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources.

I suppose one could argue that Britain and France were to blame when they made the treaty of Versailles and got the Germans angry. If they had not taken land away from Germany then maybe World War 2 never would have happened.