I still dislike all those "what if" videos personally, in UA-cam in general I mean. Most of the time they never take the full picture into account (if that's even possible), and it gets worse if it's about an older period in history: the farther you go, the more it's bullcrap. So for me even the good ones end up being a little shallow. After all, things never really evolve the way we imagine.
@@VloggingThroughHistory yup. Love your reactions to alternate history btw. "What ifs" can be really fun. I think he did one on if we actually had to invade the Japanese home land that I really liked.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Yeah Cody often cringes at his older stuff as well. You should try some of his newer/reworked stuff, For ex: there was a video about 'what if Stalin never came to power?', which he then reworked into a much better video that was far better researched. So you know you should try some of his newer stuff!
Great analysis! i would say though, this is one of his first videos (as you might tell from the quality). And Cody often says many times in his videos that his older stuff is not that good, even Cody himself cringes a little at his earlier stuff, and often jokes about it, not to take his earlier stuff too seriously. His newer stuff though is way better and has gotten much better over the years. So you should try some his newer stuff, it's much more balanced and much better researched. Personally i completely agree with you and have held the same belief, and i think even Cody would agree with you if he were to revisit this topic.
What's missing is any assessment of comparable morale on the opposing sides. The assumption that either the British or US public would have supported a preemptive war against the Soviet Union while the war with Japan was still on seems highly unlikely. Churchill's wartime coalition Government would have disintegrated. Remember, he was turned out office by the time of the Potsdam conference. The US public had been conditioned to see the Soviet Union as a gallant ally ever since Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until nearly two years after the end of WWII that public opinion had shifted enough to allow for the initiation of the Truman Doctrine that signaled the formal beginning of the Cold War. Strictly military considerations aside, the political situation simply didn't allow for a sustained attack on the Soviet Union, even if it had been undertaken. If Operation Unthinkable had gone forward, it would had to have been won quickly, which could only be accomplished, if at all, by resorting to the Atom Bomb.
@@Selendeki It's not about the decisions, it's about the support, if the vast majority of a country's population don't support a war then it would hinder the war effort significantly if not stop it outright, just look at Vietnam. And no propaganda can save faltering morale of troops, look at the German army in 1918 and what happened to it, no matter the propaganda the US & UK armies would suffer from morale issues because they went from just winning a war to fighting another one, and an offensive one at that, quite an important detail. How much would that impact them? That's impossible to predict, but impact them it would.
I’m just wondering what public opinion in the West would have been in this scenario? It presumably would have been a total shock to people who thought they had just won a war with the help of the Soviets.
Honestly, it's hard to tell. Possibly, people would see it as WW2 continuing and would support it, but at the same time, we were tired of war. It wouldn't be too shocking I don't think, but it wouldn't be a happy moment by any means.
I think the United States was very tired of war. Pearl Harbor was great motivation for fighting, but when you don't regularly feel the effects of war on the home front as everyone in Europe did, it's difficult to keep justifying to yourself why you keep fighting. I think that is partly why we dropped the Atomic Bombs in Japan.
@@marelasasav Wow. Just take the most important Brit in the victory over the Nazis, and arguably the most important America in the victory over the Nazis, and call HIM A NAZI? LMFAO. Churchill only believed in two aspects of Nazi National Socialism. Churchill believed in a strong military influence and nationalism, both were not a big deal and a core of 99% of powerful nations. He wasn't a "massive racist" like most said, he felt that there a hierarchy of racial traits not unlike 99% of people, but very much unlike 99% of people in this time, he didn't feel that people should be treated with malice because of this. He said "We will endeavour ... to advance the principle of equal rights of civilized men irrespective of colour." Patton on the other hand did have some messed up opinions, but it is hard to call a person who led the absolute massacre of enemy Nazi's in phenomenal operations, Nazis. He was, like most Americans, patriotic to the point of nationalism during conflict.
Binkov's Battles did a video covering the same subject, well worth a watch, as he goes into a lot more detail. One of the interesting things he highlights is that the Allies massively over estimated the Soviet Army, was more like a 3:5 ratio instead of a 2:1/3:1 ratio.
@@Clipedbyspanxx so thats why they encircled nearly every mayor city ? Dont forget that russia not even sent in 10% of their troops and their intention isnt destroying ukraine. If they went full in, ukraine would look like grozny after the chechnya war.
No, Soviet army could only yield those numbers because of logistical and operational support of the Allies. Fact is, USSR was so dependant on US food, materials and weapons that It couldn't do shit. Just like anno 2022, it is all soviet propgaganda
@@semiramisubw4864 Russia has sent around 200,000 personnel to Ukraine and their entire armed forces are around a million people. A military is not just a bunch of infantry, you have *far more* soldiers in supporting roles than combat roles. So it’s not like Russia has a million soldiers to engage in direct combat, that’s not exactly how that works. That’s why Russia is seemingly recruiting mercenaries from Syria and elsewhere, and using the Wagner group, to bolster manpower. On top of that, they have questionable logistical practices and they can’t just deploy the entirety of their forces to Ukraine unless they want to leave their borders and cities and ports unprotected.
Another factor. People talk about the USSR during WW2 as having essentially unlimited, inexhaustible reserves of manpower. But the US alone had a larger base population than the Soviets did, and when combined with the UK and maybe France and Germany, I think the Allies would eventually outnumber them by quite a bit. Even during the war, Germany’s starting population was only slightly smaller than the USSR. It’s just that their slightly smaller military was spread over multiple fronts and the slightly larger Red Army could concentration entirely on a single one. Their manpower advantages if I’m not mistaken rarely exceeded 3 or 4 to Germany’s 1, and were usually less than that.
United States population 1940: 132,164,569 USSR population 1940: 194,000,000 US didn't have its population boom until after WWII, so the USSR had a much higher population.
@@simp4smiley947 something in the region of 15 million of the soviet people died during the war (some say it's more than 20 mil) and in a case of war, the US is hardly alone, while most of Eastern Europe didn't really want to stay under the soviets, especially if the allies were nearby.
@@darthcalanil5333 Yeah soviet casualties are tricky. Officially, Stalin's regime stated 20 million soviet civilian casualties I believe. Later USSR figures put it as high as 30 million. So it's like a wild guess between those two numbers. Same with the military casualties on Axis and Soviet fronts. However it did cripple the soviet states on the west (Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, etc)
Britain also was not happy with the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940, and part of the reasons for the Anglo French invasion of Norway (so we could send military air to Finland). So the attack on the Soviet Union, leads to an alliance of convenience between the UK and the Soviets; one which the US was forced onto the US when you allied with Britain.
Once you pointed out the number of us troops available in Europe and the French army, all your points clicked with me. I still appreciate Cody taking on alternate history and this what if...good video gang
Correction to what you said; The majority of the tanks and planes given to the USSR were just used for training for the Soviet soldiers. (Additions in sub-thread)
The Red Army was also noticeably better trained directly after the war, as they had experience in fighting. So it's not like how they were at the start of the war, where the Red Army was full of untrained bullet sponges. The Soviet Union also could arm communist supporters in the lands that were liberated. (As quite a few Communists from not just the Soviet Union, but also Eastern European countries annexed earlier were imprisoned by the German Reich, that would be itching to fight for their Communist cousins.
The Soviet Union was fielding the brand new T-44 at the end of the war (with the T-44 being put into service internally, but never seeing combat, if I remember correctly.) These tanks could definitely have an advantage over the numerous Sherman tanks, alongside the T-34-85, which could definitely equal the Sherman with it's simpler and more practical sloped armour. The T-34 and T-44 would have had a gun that could penetrate the Sherman easily, and outmaneuver it. The Soviets could also revitalize the T-34 by continuing prototypes on the T-34-100, which was cancelled due to the lack of need to continue using the T-34. The Soviets also had more of the German vehicles and weapons than the West, as the Germans put the best they had against the Soviets, while the western front consisted mostly of 1920s technology with a bit of 1930s sprinkled in.
Every major power makes war plans that they have no intention of implementing. It is better to have a plan than not. It also informs politicians concerning which policies they should and should not implement. I certainly hope NATO has plans for what happens if the Russians attack Poland or the Baltic states.
They have more than plans for those situations. NATO has done extensive military simulations of saving the Baltics from Russia and their troops do joint training exercises preparing for that potential confrontation on a semi-regular basis.
I would even say the Soviets having more men could be a disadvantage. With the lack of supplies from the Allies, it would be extremely difficult to supply such a massive army without outside help. Not to mention the supplies needed on the civilian front.
The soviets had lost between 30-40 million people by the end of the war. The US lost, if i remember correctly, about 400,000 men. The soviets were getting stronger after they pushed the Germans back, yes, but once allied supply was cut off, i don't see the soviets being able to withstand another devastating invasion.
The plan as presented in the video counts with attack through Czechoslovakia which is odd because it didn't became communist untill 1948. So if the Op. Unthinkable started in 1945 there would be no reason to go through it and there is also big chance that Czechoslovakia would join the western allies side because USSR basically stole Carpathian Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia in november 1944.
My assumption is that the attacks would go through territory containing Russian troops. Presumably if the planning took the next step towards becoming an operational plan, instead of a contingency plan, they wouldvl have considered how to coordinate the political effects along with the military ones. There was a Czech government-in-exile based in the UK that hopefully would have been brought into the loop at some point.
@@edwardblair4096 That would be understandable but after WWII ended all soviet troops left Czechoslovakia immidiately. Most went to Austria and Hungary to form Centra group of forces. The defence of Czechoslovakia was given to the Czechoslovak army which was composed mostly from the veterans of 1st Czechoslovak Army Corps which served in USSR during the war but those soldiers did not like Soviets at all. Most of them were picked up from gulags when the unit was formed so they knew the dark side of USSR and Czechoslovak Independent Armoured Brigade Group which sereved under UK. Also Air force was made from units serving in the UK and USSR. There were no Soviet soldiers in Czechoslovakia from june 1945 to august 1968.
@@musketeer5023 you read too much Soljenitsyn. Gulag was only one, and only people who were there were office workers. Andre gulags you meant camps? not all camps under gulag were bad. People even earned money for their work. The main problem (we faced it in modern world too) was corruption. Some camps head made business on the poor people, forced them to overwork or work to death and cut the food(again just to save money). They want to the government only the half of the money/recourses they made from the camp, other part they sell or put in their pockets. Government investigate in that processes too late and slow , so many those who were guilty flew away or get retired.
I agree with your contention that it is possible that the western Allies, with Germany, could have defeated the Soviets without nuclear weapons. It is a definite possibility, especially considering the industrial and resource superiority they had. But you have to ask yourself whether the Americans would choose not to use the atomic bomb at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the fight against Russia. I think the answer is a definite no.
Saddest part is how eastern Europe suffered economically for over 50 years because of Soviets, when USA was pumping billion in western Europe, Soviets where pumping Marx and Lenin, rising economies of especially Poland/Romana/Czech Republic in interwar period show that if not Soviet occupation they will probably have x2-3 bigger economies. Communism in any form was really a disaster in any nation in history till now..
Logistic is what you need to look at in the scenario. I agree with you. I don’t see how the USSR could have produce enough to cover all the loses and maintain supply.
Unthinkable would have a very good chance of succeeding. The Soviets were on their last legs in 1945, in terms of manpower. Their own analysis of their offensive against Japan was less then flattering. Agree on the Soviet reliance on imports. Would be a huge factor. And don't forget that Ukrainians and Poles were fighting the soviets in an insurgency. Plus support from newly liberated countries and Germany, so the Allies would come close to matching the Soviets. As for nukes: Nothing really worth bombing within range of Allied airpower, city wise. But any Soviet army massing for an offensive would be facing unexpected, localized sunshine. And with Allied conventional airpower, the Soviets would struggle to move their formations.
Interesting to note that when Germany attacked Russia the civilians they came across were anti Stalin and would have been happy to join the Germans. The Germans treated them even worse in a tactically dumb move however I'm guessing there were plenty of anti Stalin support in 45 still. Since the only people who have ever liked communism are either the ones in power in those countries or don't actually live in a communist country, then I'm guessing it would not have been difficult to turn the Russian people against Stalin. Remember the west was not interested in defeating Russia, just Communism.
Yup. The USSR at that point really was as good as it was ever going to get. It was nothing but downhill numbers wise as they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Its actually a bit of a myth about the Red Human wave. There was one but it was basically wiped out during the war. And the Allies hadn't really dented theirs in some cases (although the allies also wouldnt have accepted the horrendous casualties like the soviets did due to the differences in the govt that public sentiment is much heavier a factor). Plus China was an Ally of mainly the allies even though they had tons of their own problems. That would have been a HUGE front to suddenly have to cover, even if nothing happened. Prior to USSR getting nukes the west could have steamrolled them in the end.
@@gabe75001 Apparently there were severe logistical and organisational difficulties. While the Japanese were not in a position to capitalize on them (they had problems of their own) and were overrun, the Russians were far from pleased how it went down.
Ukrainians formed a division to fight against the Soviets -- alongside German forces, who were, well, nazis. That part of Ukrainian history was shushed and seen as a disgraceful page during the Soviet era; after the fall of USSR newly-acquired freedom of speech pushed it into light. It was like -- "these things were hidden by the former regime -- the former regime was bad -- therefore, these things were good". That lead to glodifying the leaders of nazi collaboration forces (even naming streets in Kyiv after them), and some prominent politiciand capitalized on that to get to power while pushing Ukraine and Russia more and more apart. That ultimately formed the grounds for russian propaganda to show wideos of youth marching with swastikas and attacking the WW2 veterans, and to say it was widespread all over Ukraine. And now it's used as a main pretext justifying the current events for the russian people.
Resources, as well as the phenomenal industrial capability that the U.S demonstrated throughout the war, and the air power would have combined to guarantee that the Soviets couldn't have won a war. I agree that nukes wouldn't have been necessary, but I think there's a real chance we could have seen them for the same rationale that I believe made the atomic bombs on Japan the correct decision. That is, the atomic bombs didn't determine the outcome. That was already going to happen. What the bombs did was speed it up. I don't doubt Stalin's stubbornness, but how long would it take for those around him to all turn on him for their own sakes? In reality, had the Cold War turned hot at any point, I don't think there was ever a real question that the West would have won. The deterrent was MAD. Nobody with any sanity wants to "win" a war at that cost. In this scenario, when we move it all to the immediate aftermath of WW2, when only the U.S. had nuclear weapons, it's an even more pronounced certainty. I agree that I like Alternate History Hub, but I also agree that this one falls pretty flat. I'm not sure there's much of anything of substance that I agree with him on this one.
I have no specific knowledge of the variables about where the various forces were at in 1945 however I think your analysis is reasonable and accurate. Numbers on the ground really means very little when you consider technology and ability to produce. Russia was only strong in a military sense because of the massive us support. Take away that and you have a very weak army. Sure the Russian army would fight to the bitter end however so would the Japanese. It's a mute point in the face of technology and production. The more intriguing question to me really is what would the east of Europe looked like without communism and I believe in hindsight that more lives would have been saved as well as better quality of life had the Allies taken Stalin out as part of the war. It may even have stopped communism in China and considering the fact that probably close to 100 million people died in Communist countries the net benefit would certainly have been worth it. However I understand in 1945 no one could really foresee that. That's the problem with history... it does teach us lessons we need to learn however it's always difficult to project it moving forward. All I'll say is that in any given choice, always act from a position of strength and be prepared to act on that. We are seeing now that weak US leadership is allowing things like the Ukraine conflict to occur. Trying to avoid war only inevitably leads to war.
You can tell this a very early video from a very inexperienced Cody, and he’s admitted to not liking a lot of his older videos, and I’d he were to do it again, we’d likely get a much more comprehensive scenario as a result.
I think I’m somewhere in the middle. The allied air power would definitely be a major factor but the problem is that the 8th army air core was based in England and most of the Soviet factories had moved further east by the end of the war. So I don’t think that major bombing raids would have been possible like they were over Germany unless there was a foothold in turkey. With that said Soviet resupply to the front would have been very difficult due to allied interdiction. After the US cut off food and material supplies, it probably would have turned into a bit of a war of attrition (manpower vs resources) with the allies winning out over time.
Well, I agree that without allied supplies, USSR would have lost, just remember WWI, when Russia had manpower, but didn't had enough supply, from food to bullets. Indeed, that "unthinkable" is one of the best name I could think of, because that would be a huge devastation for both sides, many lives lost, but also due to that - Japan empire could get much stronger, or other country would have become superpower.
It will took more time and more suffer, but Soviet would win anyways. Land lease was given only because UK Prime Minister begged US government to help and it was small amount, big help came only after US saw that Germans stopped move forward in Eastern front. They helped a lot, but do not forget that they do the same to Germans.
@@Ratatataratatatata The allies would destroy the USSR, especially in 1945, the USSR had just lost 27 million people durin the war + 10 million during Stalin. The bread basket of Ukraine was destroyed and the USSR was relying on US lend lease of food to keep its army. There were polish and ukranian insurgencies fightning for freedom. etc.....etc........etc.....
@@mattia8327 don’t forget that USSR it’s not only Belorussia, Ukraine and Russia. There also Caucus countries and Central Asian countries who’s could support USSR with food supplies if they would have no choice. As I know they mostly worked in manufactures, but if US will not offer land lease, they could (not easily, it would be hard and more people would die) but could do food supplies
In 1945 the size of the Red army was close to 11.3 mln, but there was a shortage of people. USSR lost like 20-30 millions in the war, maybe more - nobody knows the exact numbers. So the army was enormous, but without any reserves. Also as you mentioned large parts of the supplies were coming from US. But indeed the Red army was much bigger, with much more planes, tanks, guns and etc. Yes, even the air forces, Allies had like 30 000 planes, while Red army had almost 50 000. In a short term the Red army had all numerical advantages. In a long therm, as US could send much more men, France too, Spain was untouched, and US industry was far more capable, there was parity. That parity became advantage of US in 1970s.
From a strictly military view, I agree with VTH and others; a Western victory in this scenario isn't far-fetched at all. I seem to recall that during 1940-1942 as the US planned and prepared for war in Europe, George C. Marshall and the US Army had to account for the possibility that Britain might fall, and then later that the USSR might be defeated by Germany. As such, they developed plans for how to proceed without one or even both of their major allies. So, even as large as the US Army grew during WW2, there were preparations in place - and the manpower/logistics to support - for a US Army even much larger, perhaps twice as large. That aspect, combined with clear US/UK advantages in strategic airpower and logistics, point toward at least very realistic military feasibility, if not outright likelihood of success. That said...there's more than just the military view. Politically, "Operation Unthinkable" seems aptly named. The US, UK, & France were/are representative democracies. The populations had already endured years of war...all the while being continuously told (validly and truthfully enough) that the USSR was their staunch ally in the fight against Nazi Germany. To have suddenly flipped that and embarked on an equally large-scale war against this erstwhile ally (alongside re-armed German erstwhile foes, no less) in the 1945-1946 timeframe just seems impossible from a domestic--politics perspective.
Hey, could you also make a video reacting the new extra credit's series about the brazilian empire? It's such an interesting story and i'd love for people to get to know a little bit more about it
Playing devils advocate (since I don’t think the allies would resort to dropping little boy either) but there is a case they would. Similar to the justification of the allies to use nuclear weapons on Japan when they really didn’t need to. I think the top generals who really hate the Soviet’s would say it would cripple the soviets and would justify it reasoning it would save troops and make Russia think twice. Also since the nuclear technology advantage to the US was only temporary; the allies would be more likely to use the advantage. Now as you said the allies were not trying to get a true victory, like Japan, rather simply push the Russian out of the occupied territories; makes comparing it to Japan not quite the same. But Russia was closer to nuclear capability and the allies would rather a show of overwhelming force to avoid another world war. As I said I’m do not think they would have but it is possible since the allies would not want another protracted long war. I believe the allies dropped the second bomb in Japan mostly as a demonstration to Russia. If they were fighting Russia literally, the chance they would use a nuclear power especially with alot of the anti communist general, it’s not unreasonable that the would resort to nukes as a demonstration.
Chris, at the end of the video to discussed the availability of forces to both the Soviets, and the Western Allies. The problem you are having is Soviet armies don't work like western ones. The Soviet mix is difficult to follow and the totals are still unclear 70 years later. So this is as I understand it. I'll start with the big stick of the soviets, the Operational Manoeuvre Group “OMG” (and yes "oh my god" is a good description for the offensive firepower). The OMG's is the organisational unit we in the west never had. We are not sure exactly how many OMG's formed in 1945 from combinations of units from the: • approx 22 Armoured Corps (Combined forces of the mobile motorised infantry and the Tank units ), • Approx 10 Independant Guards Armies (Guards had a higher establishment of infantry and heavier equipment went to the guards units first) • plus "many" independant" breakthrough armoured brigades (those with the IS-2/3's tanks and ISU-122/152 assault guns) and the Corps artillery assets with the heavy guns and rocket launchers (BM-13 and BM-31's) mounted in trucks. If there is an analogy I can attach to their operations, its they work like massive German Kampgroupe's. They lead offensive action and pull back to regroup/refit when offensive operations cease- they don’t defend that’s the job of infantry, who form their orderly front line, whilst STAVKA moves their OMG's to the next weak point the the enemy line. So to the numbers: A Soviet Rifle (Infantry) Division had about 10k men and a Guards Rifle Division was slightly larger (approx. 10.5-11k). The Soviets had approximately 225 of these in January 1945 for the Battle of Berlin campaign and the satellite operations in Hungary and Austria. A Soviet Tank Corps (Roughly equivelent to a Western Division) approx. 16k men and 200+ AFV’s of various models, A Soviet Mechanised Corps has 16.5k men with 200 (or so) AFV’s of various models Independent Units had variable strengths, somewhere from 4-7k men. Other than the variable OMG's , in the Soviet army- 2-3 Divisions form an "Corps" 3 Corps make and "Army" 3 Armies make up a "Front" As the larger units form together, the "independent" units of Artillery, Supply and Engineering , move in to give those formations their support assests.
I think when considering how many resources the soviets were receiving from the allies, we should consider how much that was, relative to domestic soviet production. To get a better idea for what the effect would be. Secondly, we should consider Allied Moral, The Brits had been in this was for years, and whether or not they wanted to continue the war for much longer, with a different power, that was difficult for the German army to conquer. Similarly, I'm not sure that the American public could be sold on a declaration of war on the soviet union. They had already been receiving propaganda about good ol' uncle Joe and FDR had spoken positively of Stalin, so it would be a harder sell, especially considering that the soviet's hadn't attacked the U.S. I know that both countries had already had negative opinions and hated the soviets, but I don't think that would be enough to convince them to keep the war going. Especially since FDR and Churchill would soon be replaced and the U.S still was fighting an increasingly Brutal Campaign in the Pacific. I think the soviets could hold long enough for the Allied governments to lose their will to fight, and if anything that would give them less leverage in a post-war world because the soviets would know that their enemies ran out of the will to fight, and would have a tough time convincing their population to re-arm, while Stalin, didn't have that problem.
The soviet airforce by the end was quite large, the difference was that the allied ariforce while slightly larger was more high altitude ao in the air there was an allied advantage. One thing we do have to consider tho is that the soviets used their land forces more efficiently and aggresively, i believe it is a german officer on the western front in 1944 that said "if the allies used their infantry like the soviets we would be in berlin by now" also i think your idea that soviets especially stalin would just say oh we tried to conquer the buffers between us and the west just give up goes against everything the soviets though and wanted, just think about it, the soviets would have seen now 3 major wester powers/armies march east and try to in their mind destory them(4 counting napoleon) the entire idea of the buffers was to prevent it happening again and now that it did happen again there is no way stalin would give up what the russians saw as a necessary buffer for the survival of the ussr. In addition the soviets by now do have the industrial capacity to maintain and expand their army, they by now have outproduced the americans and british in tank production and can continue pumping out equipment and since they are not an ocean away they will br able to transport that equipment to the front faster than the allies especially considering the asian front which the allies have to deal with and stalin wouldnt since he wouldnt have to uphold any type of agreement with the allies about a manchurian front with no nukes available for japan and no soviet invasion either japan wouldnt surreder leaving the allies fighting several fronts where they are out outmbered and in europe also outgunned
The Soviet Air Force however was not as large as the combined American and Royal Air Forces. Plus if we went to war with the USSR then the Japan war would’ve been scaled down to free thousands of highly experienced Navy and Marine Corps aviators. The Soviets never had a a lot of experience in air to air battles
Japan had wanted a conditional and “honorable” settlement to the pacific war for some time at this point, and it’s likely they would’ve gotten an agreement for armistice if we ended up have to fight the USSR
When I was a young teen in 1963, I knew a guy that received literature from the John Birch Society and other right wing groups. Some of it was predicting a nuclear war, probably with red China sometime in the 1970's. When I wrote about this stuff for Civics class, it pissed off my teacher. I flunked that class and 9th grade. It turned out to be instrumental in my getting into college after entering a college prep program in a different school and graduating from college just as the draft was scheduled to end in 1972.
I don't buy the idea that Nuking Moscow would be that easy. The concept of putting a Nuclear warhead on a rocket, wasn't really a thing until the 1950s. Before that, you had to actually drop the Nuclear Bomb from a plane and in order to do that; you had to have total air superiority.
It's not about numbers anyways. It's about power projection. Numbers, technology, logistical capacity, industrial capacity, motivation, skill (training), experience, terrain knowledge, local support, army composition (balance between participating fighters, and participating support, as well as correct forces "for the job") , and on and on.
True, all that air superiority and technology the British and Americans had was unrivaled. You should check out some kings and generals videos sometime, mostly the pacific war videos they got going on
Out of curiosity, how many men are in a division? I know it varies greatly even now, but I'm aware that (especially on the German side) towards the end of WW2 a lot of divisions had been run down due to casualties. In Unthinkable, what sized divisions were the West planning to use?
I completely agree with you on the outcome, but I also have the issue of IF nukes were used, I feel Moscow and Stalingrad would have been the first two targets.
one thing to think about is how the soldiers and civilians back home would have reacted to the news of a sudden war with the Soviets. Imagine running a marathon all the while believing that you'll never have to do this again if you could just hold on for a little longer, only to then be told after you reach the finish line that "joke's on you, now you have to run another one!". That has to be utterly shattering. And it gets even worse considering how much propaganda was put out at the time of painting the Russians as good and decent allies and how terrible the Germans were. Now you're expecting your people to support total war against a former ally while fighting side by side people that yesterday was still being described as monstrous demons? I think at the very least there would have been serious resistance back home and perhaps some military units on the frontline might even refuse to obey orders. How much difference this would have made is of course debatable
Don't forget Finland. I'm sure we would've been able to take Petrozavodsk for the 3rd time and besiege Leningrad for the 2nd time with the 17-year-old boys we had left if the Western allies had turned on the USSR.
@@mrbrainbob5320 True, but they somehow managed not to be overrun and to give the Soviets all they wanted and then some. That was without being allied with the Americans, British, French, etc. Given that the territorial losses were so recent and the scenario in question would have given them very favorable circumstances in which to attempt to regain the lost territory, the Finns no doubt would have been involved, and they were capable fighters.
I think that Operation Unthinkable, if it was to be used, would not occur until well after Japan surrenders because the US would be busy fighting in the West Pacific islands. I'd think maybe in the late 1940's/early 50's when the Cold War between USSR and the west really gets going.
Still getting my brain back into the studying side to keep it as knowledge so don't really like to throw to big or crazy things but all I can share is I would probably agree why you don't agree with Cody so much on this video but my only argument would be that Its only because everyone will focus on a few things more then other facts and it juts takes the brain into so many different places! Love your content and am loving the new on location series as uts the first one I get to be apart of right from the beginning!
I heard Stalin was thinking of doing the reverse uno plan of this and because of that the other soviet leaders took him out. They were sure the war would either be too costly or just a defeat. They barley survived germany & allies , not half of europe and US. As for Japan, they never signed a peace treaty with USSR at the end of WW2 so I'm sure they would just seize the opportunity to get back at least some of those island they are arguing about even today. Even if china would have helped at the time, they were not strong enough to be a deciding factor
I don't think most people here realize that the issue here isn't victory in the operation but what comes afterwards. The allies would have to occupy all of europe, the Russian people would hate the Americans for invading them out of nowhere and America would have to occupy them otherwise as soon as they left the Russains would start their own nuclear project. Knocking the Russains out wouldn't create a world without conflict either, without an enemy to unite Americans and Europeans the two might not come as close as in our timeline. Tensions might even rise between America and the old colonial powers, Germany might come back for another round, the Republican China might even fear the United States and the west for invading the soviets without provocation, my point is that Operation Unthinkable while incredibly favorable to the allies wouldn't create world peace and another enemy would take the place of the Soviets.
don't forgot that the usa was still at war with japan and the soviets would probably fund the Japanese resistance and the soviets also had German technology
I don't have too much data to back it up, but I would have to agree with your conclusion. Between the industrial might and manpower of the Americans, the resources of the entire British empire, France, and Germany I don't think it would be as one-sided as Cody makes it out to be. Plus the allies would probably have air-superiority and stop the lend lease, like you said. The one advantage I would give to the Russians is them already being on mainland Europe, whereas the U.S. and British would have to get supplies via sea. Regardless, it would have been a long and bloody war that I am happy did not happen.
Well you also have too include partisans in eastern Europe once they hear about the allies fighting Russia they would side with the allies cause of all the German brutality they received they haven't forgotten the Russian one that goes back a bit longer even also Russian main lands where devastated by Russian and German scorched earth. Also atleast 10 million dead Russian soldiers after the Germans and they had deciphered the Russian communications
it could be possible his timeline was off, if this was a couple of years after the end of WWII then his numbers might be right because a lot of the people that fought in WWII were drafted so they would have been home. Although such a conflict would 100% reinstate the draft.
While Soviet numbers were overestimated by the allies and probably had the technological edge excluding nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union could probably replace lend lease stuff within a year or two and I doubt the American people would tolerate war with Soviet Union at the time when they were allies weeks earlier and not to mention communists partisans in places like France and Italy. Especially with the massive casualties with fighting a battle hardened force that was very much the equal to the allies in 1945. The days of purged generals and throwing men into the grinder were long gone. Sure the allies may take Czechoslovakia and pre-war Poland within a year but afterwards the Soviets would probably start another march that might end not in Berlin but on the Atlantic coast.
You should really go check out Tasting History. They include videos about cooking old recipes including making food eaten by civil war soldiers. Keep up the great work, all the best from Canada
Right when I started thinking, "Maybe getting Japan into the war against the Soviets," you brought them up. What do the drinking rules say about that, who takes the shot? lol
I agree with you. Logistics is half the fight and while the USSR were battle hardened and immediately there with more regional supremacy being right there. Their logistics were fairly stretched by the end. In the long term, especially if the western allies were looking to push up to Russia with the advantage over time. The long term prospects lay with the Western Allies. The USSR manpower situation was also starting to reach critical mass. While the US hadn't really gotten that desperate yet. Not to mention the units tied up in the Pacific still. It's possible a surprise attack might push the Allies out to the edges of Western Germany in the early months. But as forces recoalesce and the cut off supplies from lend lease take place. The gains would very much be reversed. But they might not even manage that, since there's no clear answer to how the USSR would gain air superiority from the western allies' very effective bombing campaigns.
Honestly, if the war went as you predicted and the Soviets lost, I think the Union loses a lot more than those countries. Think about it. The Soviets had a lot of men to feed, and they were already reliant on western aid for food. Without it, they’d have to divert food that had been allotted to civilians to feed their army, leading to much more civil unrest and discontent back home. If they end up fighting a losing battle against the Allies, I think that Stalin might be just pissed enough to keep fighting even after they reach Russian borders. Thus, the war moves into Russian territory. With things getting too close to home, I think we might have seen an overthrow of Stalin’s government. Where we go from there, I don’t know, and honestly this is just speculation. What do y’all think?
Yeah Stalin while in charge had to stave off his rivals during the course of the war because he needed some of their leadership it was after WW2 did he conduct a second and third purge consolidating his authority again. So there is some points there if the allies invaded the Stalin government possibly that would have destroyed his government.
what is the dependence on food? from American stew? what the fuck are you talking about? the US help was there and we are grateful for it, but do not overestimate it!
@@alexejsidorenco6047 well you seem to underestimating it. Soviet Tenacity is only half of the battle especially in modern warfare supplies and logistics is key. I mean we have only to look at the current conflict in Ukraine and you can see what happens when you have an under supported industrialized military.
@@808INFantry11X well, then the war was not modern!with logistics, too, not everything was easy. The United States would have to deliver weapons and soldiers from overseas. yes, and the US assistance with the Japanese of the USSR had not yet begun. something suggests that Japan was happy to help the USSR with the war with the United States or delayed half of the forces! this is my opinion.
@@alexejsidorenco6047 ww2 is the epitome of modern warfare. The logical planning done by almost modern forces today are modeled off of the practices WW2. logical planning coordination between air assets, Naval, logistics, transports, armor, artillery and Infantry forces. All of it still largely based off lessons learned in WW2 and yes WW2 is the very epitome of modern warfare because modern warfare is large scale industrialized War.
Great reaction as always man! Personally I’m fairly certain that the west would have been able to beat the Soviets in a conflict that takes place immediately after WW2. Russia had no real chance of air superiority when fighting the UK and US, Ground forces were fairly comparable in tech. And the US would have a solid few years of nuclear supremacy. I feel like this video deeply leans into the whole Russian military hype many channels fell into around this time. The kind if videos that claim the Russians would have been able to beat Germany and Japan single handedly without any western support.
Naziiis almost beat the soviets versing the French and uk with less manpower. I think the allies win pretty easy especially with all their war industries in high gear plus nuke advantage and they get to take advantage of german tech That’s what I don’t get with people who think the soviets would rick roll everyone
@@edgynuke5007 because the goal of WWII was to defeat Nazism (and Japan) no narrative for taking down Communism was ever put forward by the Allies. Certainly the Allies could have taken out Stalin however the cost in lives and $ would have seemed too high politically I suspect. In my opinion the cost would have been less than what actually happened however considering the US only got dragged on via Pearl Harbour I dont see the political capital in 45 to take out Stalin when he wasn't directly in conflict with the US at that point
I think in 1945 after Germany fell the US had 12M troops in total with about 7m stationed abroad. About 5m were in the British Armed forces. Combine that with the US's GDP and production of materials and goods it would have been a war of attrition with the equalizer being the Russian Winter. However with Russia (or the USSR) cut off from the 12b from lend lease and more potential money and tech going to the British Empire, and possible second front from Japan or China as a base of operations it is possible that Operation unthinkable could have been successful. The thing is WW2 would have been drug out till the 1950s probably around the end of Korea.
Very few people even knew about the M project to begin with, so using it against USSR wouldn’t have probably came up. If we had the troops and manpower to fight USSR, we didn’t need to nuke them. Japan, however, was NEVER going to quit. That is the main reason the A bomb was used on them and considering we needed troops for another eastern Europe campaign we might have been more prone to dropping Little Boy on Japan. (MHO, just to say).
Re red army divisions and size: much of the 300 divisions present during Barbarossa were completely destroyed by the axis, and the soviets had to rebuild a completely new army. Although they raised something in the region of 450 divisions throughout the war, the majority of the time they didn't really outnumber the axis bzy much, let alone the allies, especially by the closing stages of the war. Were Operation Unthinkable to happen during 1945, the majority of soviet divisions could at best average a few thousand men compared to the way larger allied ones.
I would say I agree with you but then again this was also one of Cody's first videos and I think he was like 20 he's gotten a lot better and is embarrassed by by his earlier work to. Maybe next alternate history video you should do his Alexander the Great video
I agree that at the end of the War in Europe, the Soviets were projecting power they didn't have or had depleted. The Soviets took a massive beating, so I can see a US-UK-French-and German coalition taking on the Soviet Army. Also, I believe the US Nuclear Arsenal was only 3 bombs at this time, 2 of which would be used on Japan.
1 was used in the test explosion the other two were dropped on japan. if japan didnt surrender America would have had to go with operation downfall which made the losses to the nukes look sadly necessary.
I agree that the Soviets world have lost. It would have been horrible fighting on the land especially after advancing East past Poland into Ukraine. But the Allies had the Heavy Bombing and Naval Bombardment capacity to level whatever industrial capacity the Soviets had left. No nukes would be needed but when the fighting slowed nearer the Russian borders, dropping a nuke somewhere in Soviet Russia would be a blow to Soviet moral and could quicken the end of a theoretical Operation Unthinkable. The fallout of such a operation is hard to fathom. The world was so torn up the fighting already done by historical WWII. Adding Operation Unthinkable on top, the losses would be actually unthinkable.
From a technology/firearms perspective alone, the Americans and Germans would field some of the best small arms available for this operation. The Allied firepower would dominate the Soviet catalog of small arms in any fight.
@@roflmatol The poor and stupid decision making of Hitler and the hierarchy of German command is what cost the Nazis the war with Russia, not their firepower. In this hypothetical scenario, Germany could give the US the technical data in order to have US manufacturing take over production of things like the STG44 and King Tigers (granted, the King Tigers had their flaws). And in this scenario, we still get all of the Nazi scientists from Paperclip. In the hypothetical scenario, this combination would absolutely dominate Soviet technology at the time and their manufacturing capabilities wouldn’t be able to match. Just my thoughts though.
Nukes were not, strictly speaking, necessary to beat Japan. It would have just taken years longer and many many American lives. I think this video quickly glosses over what would be the biggest part of the early war: air superiority and naval superiority. If we quickly crushed their Air Force I’m guessing a victory would be a matter of time. However, they somehow won in the air or just battled to a standstill, I could see the allies putting nukes on the table in order to “shorten the war and save American soldiers lives.”
Agreed. With hindsight (remembering noone knew what impact nukes would have on Japan in mid 45) I'd have finished the war in Japan the same then gone after Stalin hopefully in surprise move. It would have taken time to develop more nukes but I would have used them on Stalin or threatened them as they would definitely have saved lives. I'm not sure how in the video he believes the Russian army would have re grouped after being nuked... by that stage 3 nukes would have been used and the threat of every major Russian city being destroyed would exercise every Russian to look for an end. Stalin was not a strong leader in terms of support I believe and the Russian people had no love of communism so I think one or 2 nukes would have had a pretty positive impact on getting Russia to surrender
VTH - There is a UA-cam channel named zvallid that has some alternate history scenarios on there. It's very interesting and I reccomend checking him out.
Japan was losing heavily already before the US nukes them. I can’t get passed how the US wouldn’t consider doing it with the more formidable USSR. Sure they’re under supplied but they had more natural gas reserves and they were beginning to mass develop their non-nuclear weaponry (ie, AK-47) so I’m confident in this situation the US would have no choice.
Allies of convenience and allies of desperation are quick to turn on one another once their ends are met. Civility is a product of a bygone era it would seem. All I can say is luckily by this time the cult of the offensive had simmered down enough because no matter who "won" the fight if this were to come to pass, I feel we all would have lost regardless.
Thanks for your video. Well, i disagree with your opinion for the next reasons: 1. Moral point would affect allies forces in such scenario. When 5 years in a row you tell, that brave soviet people doing their best to destroy the nazis; that you need to help soviet people in their fight; and then you tell, that you should destroy your recent allies - i think, it'll affect quite negative to troops and oficers. And quite sure civilians also will be quite negative. Especially after including German troops in allies forces. I'm not history expert, but i think even at first wars and conquests - usually winners give some time for those, who lost fightings, before involving their troops to their campains. And for "evil-Soviets" propaganda you need time. 2. Concerning landlease - of course it's highly appreciated. But besides volumes of shipment we need also to check the timings and dates, when most of these goods were shipped. I mean, for tanks and weapons - as far as i remember, USSR had some troubles obviously in 41-42 , but then after relocating factories to Ural and Syberia USSR hadn't much troubles with weapons (for example, from Wiki - for tanks in total allies supplied about 18500 machines, which is 17,6% of USSR produced during 1941-1945; for airplanes - also about 18500, which is 11,7% of USSR production). As i told, Landlease shouldn't be underestimated and it was highly appreciated by Zhukov and a lot of other people. But if we speak about "what if" after 1945 - USSR had really huge amount of vehicles, including those, that were shipped by allies. And of course they wouldn't give it to allies back, if any kind of war starts. But with foods and some raw materials USSR will have huge troubles during this theoretical conflict. 3. While in this video everything is told only about allies, there is another side of conflict. I'm qiute sure, that in such case USSR will take a lot of efforts to help chinese communists in their fight with Gomindan, that was not supported by even their army by the mid of 1940-s. But it's also "What if" point, and we can't be sure about it. But still i mean - USSR government obviously start looking for allies (or just suppliers) in such scenario and of course won't just sit and look, how things are going on. 4. As for Japan - not pretty sure. Kwantun army had quite out of date equipment, vehicles and pretty bad organisation. If you look at Manjurian operation (or August storm) - 84 000 japanese troops died, more than 600 000 surrender, while USSR lost 12000 troops. And again - how allies troops and civilians would react, if USA and Britain try to help Japan vs USSR. I think, the answer is obvious. P.S. Sorry for not really good english, it's not my native. I hope, my point of view is understandable. And thanks once again for your videos.
I agree that it wouldn't be as easy or a for sure win for the allies. Russian ww2 military equipment has always been underated especially their aircraft. Also, the Germans thought they could handle the Russians with better tanks, planes, and equipment and that didnt turn out so well for them.
Well I for one think atomic warfare would have been an option at some point for the same reason as nagasaki and hiroshima: the Western powers do not want to waste to many men. Furthermore I agree with your other points and I like to add that the Soviet morale would be devastated by many more losses as their numbers were already crazy.
I gotta agree with you, the only real hurdle to allied logistics is naval shipping and there’s no way the USSR could ever hinder, let alone contend with the supply ships the western allies had by 1945. Western Air power and pilot skill was much more effective than the Russian equivalent, even if they could match numerical parity in local engagements. Add in the technological progress the Western Allies made, and anything they’d bring on board from the German weapons programs. The Russians did great work in world war 2, but they paid for that heavily. I think by July 1945 post victory fatigue sets in and everyone just wants to shut down and go home. So if the Allies know they need an operational tempo they’ll keep their formations ready to go. By 1945 allied generals had finally adapted to the newer, fluid styles of command and control. Some Soviet generals understood that, but a lot of Soviet actions in 1943-45 were still set piece assaults. Add in the civil problems from installing repressive pro communist regimes, all the experience agencies like SOE had with partisan groups, and you’ve got a perfect storm of supply chain disruptions and guerrilla warfare. Even without a possible nuclear edge, I don’t see the Soviets winning
Hey man, great stuff, but you should check out some of AltHistoryHub’s newer stuff like his most recent video on Russia and NATO. Also no rush, but it would be really great if you checked Monsieur Z’s video series “The Seven Ages of America”. It’s a really good series.
It should also be remembered that the Russians in 1945 were suffering from years of war exhaustion and were suffering manpower issues. Perhaps a year or two of total war before the Russians oust Stalin from power and sue for peace. In 1945, there were dozens of resistance groups in Eastern Europe too waiting for the moment of opportunity to rise up against their new Soviet oppressors. It's pretty likely that Poland and Hungary will completely rebel behind Soviet lines with the prospect of another occupation by a foreign power. Nationalist China is still around and is keeping the Communists tied down in the East. If you read the writings of Soviet troops, all they wanted was peace. I don't think both sides would have wanted another long-fought war with each other.
This was one of his earliest videos. He got A TON better over the years.
Exactly, he jokes about it sometimes but don’t be overly critical of his earlier stuff.
@@jonathanvillanueva9206 that being said I’d really like to see Cody go back and revisit these ideas and remake these videos.
This is true.
I still dislike all those "what if" videos personally, in UA-cam in general I mean. Most of the time they never take the full picture into account (if that's even possible), and it gets worse if it's about an older period in history: the farther you go, the more it's bullcrap. So for me even the good ones end up being a little shallow. After all, things never really evolve the way we imagine.
@@xenotypos true but Cody is the best at getting the big picture IMO.
You can really tell this was an earlier video of his. I appreciate how he has grown and how his reasoning has improved
Hopefully we can all say that. It makes sense, most of his videos I find myself agreeing with him more than I disagree
@@VloggingThroughHistory yup. Love your reactions to alternate history btw. "What ifs" can be really fun. I think he did one on if we actually had to invade the Japanese home land that I really liked.
@@VloggingThroughHistory
Yeah Cody often cringes at his older stuff as well. You should try some of his newer/reworked stuff, For ex: there was a video about 'what if Stalin never came to power?', which he then reworked into a much better video that was far better researched.
So you know you should try some of his newer stuff!
Great analysis!
i would say though, this is one of his first videos (as you might tell from the quality). And Cody often says many times in his videos that his older stuff is not that good, even Cody himself cringes a little at his earlier stuff, and often jokes about it, not to take his earlier stuff too seriously.
His newer stuff though is way better and has gotten much better over the years. So you should try some his newer stuff, it's much more balanced and much better researched.
Personally i completely agree with you and have held the same belief, and i think even Cody would agree with you if he were to revisit this topic.
Most creators hate their earlier works.
What's missing is any assessment of comparable morale on the opposing sides. The assumption that either the British or US public would have supported a preemptive war against the Soviet Union while the war with Japan was still on seems highly unlikely. Churchill's wartime coalition Government would have disintegrated. Remember, he was turned out office by the time of the Potsdam conference. The US public had been conditioned to see the Soviet Union as a gallant ally ever since Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until nearly two years after the end of WWII that public opinion had shifted enough to allow for the initiation of the Truman Doctrine that signaled the formal beginning of the Cold War.
Strictly military considerations aside, the political situation simply didn't allow for a sustained attack on the Soviet Union, even if it had been undertaken. If Operation Unthinkable had gone forward, it would had to have been won quickly, which could only be accomplished, if at all, by resorting to the Atom Bomb.
@@Selendeki It's not about the decisions, it's about the support, if the vast majority of a country's population don't support a war then it would hinder the war effort significantly if not stop it outright, just look at Vietnam. And no propaganda can save faltering morale of troops, look at the German army in 1918 and what happened to it, no matter the propaganda the US & UK armies would suffer from morale issues because they went from just winning a war to fighting another one, and an offensive one at that, quite an important detail. How much would that impact them? That's impossible to predict, but impact them it would.
Well, that's why operation unthinkable didn't happen, but if it had ended up happening, I don't see this going well for the USSR.
I’m just wondering what public opinion in the West would have been in this scenario? It presumably would have been a total shock to people who thought they had just won a war with the help of the Soviets.
Yeah, especially if this took place after Japan's surrender
Honestly, it's hard to tell. Possibly, people would see it as WW2 continuing and would support it, but at the same time, we were tired of war. It wouldn't be too shocking I don't think, but it wouldn't be a happy moment by any means.
Considering how quickly western opinion shifted towards anti-USSR after the war, I don't think it would've been as much of a shock.
I think the United States was very tired of war. Pearl Harbor was great motivation for fighting, but when you don't regularly feel the effects of war on the home front as everyone in Europe did, it's difficult to keep justifying to yourself why you keep fighting. I think that is partly why we dropped the Atomic Bombs in Japan.
@@marelasasav Wow. Just take the most important Brit in the victory over the Nazis, and arguably the most important America in the victory over the Nazis, and call HIM A NAZI? LMFAO.
Churchill only believed in two aspects of Nazi National Socialism. Churchill believed in a strong military influence and nationalism, both were not a big deal and a core of 99% of powerful nations. He wasn't a "massive racist" like most said, he felt that there a hierarchy of racial traits not unlike 99% of people, but very much unlike 99% of people in this time, he didn't feel that people should be treated with malice because of this. He said "We will endeavour ... to advance the principle of equal rights of civilized men irrespective of colour."
Patton on the other hand did have some messed up opinions, but it is hard to call a person who led the absolute massacre of enemy Nazi's in phenomenal operations, Nazis. He was, like most Americans, patriotic to the point of nationalism during conflict.
Binkov's Battles did a video covering the same subject, well worth a watch, as he goes into a lot more detail. One of the interesting things he highlights is that the Allies massively over estimated the Soviet Army, was more like a 3:5 ratio instead of a 2:1/3:1 ratio.
“Hey Stalin, how many men ya got?”
“…why?”
“No reason! Not trying to invade your territories or anything…”
binkovs did russia vs canada if ukraine and even finland tought us anything russia is more of a paper giant
@@Clipedbyspanxx so thats why they encircled nearly every mayor city ? Dont forget that russia not even sent in 10% of their troops and their intention isnt destroying ukraine. If they went full in, ukraine would look like grozny after the chechnya war.
No, Soviet army could only yield those numbers because of logistical and operational support of the Allies. Fact is, USSR was so dependant on US food, materials and weapons that It couldn't do shit. Just like anno 2022, it is all soviet propgaganda
@@semiramisubw4864 Russia has sent around 200,000 personnel to Ukraine and their entire armed forces are around a million people. A military is not just a bunch of infantry, you have *far more* soldiers in supporting roles than combat roles. So it’s not like Russia has a million soldiers to engage in direct combat, that’s not exactly how that works. That’s why Russia is seemingly recruiting mercenaries from Syria and elsewhere, and using the Wagner group, to bolster manpower.
On top of that, they have questionable logistical practices and they can’t just deploy the entirety of their forces to Ukraine unless they want to leave their borders and cities and ports unprotected.
Another factor. People talk about the USSR during WW2 as having essentially unlimited, inexhaustible reserves of manpower. But the US alone had a larger base population than the Soviets did, and when combined with the UK and maybe France and Germany, I think the Allies would eventually outnumber them by quite a bit.
Even during the war, Germany’s starting population was only slightly smaller than the USSR. It’s just that their slightly smaller military was spread over multiple fronts and the slightly larger Red Army could concentration entirely on a single one. Their manpower advantages if I’m not mistaken rarely exceeded 3 or 4 to Germany’s 1, and were usually less than that.
Especially until maybe summer 1942, the axis armies actually outnumbered the soviet forces on the front
United States population 1940: 132,164,569
USSR population 1940: 194,000,000
US didn't have its population boom until after WWII, so the USSR had a much higher population.
@@simp4smiley947 ah I stand corrected. Thanks!
@@simp4smiley947 something in the region of 15 million of the soviet people died during the war (some say it's more than 20 mil) and in a case of war, the US is hardly alone, while most of Eastern Europe didn't really want to stay under the soviets, especially if the allies were nearby.
@@darthcalanil5333 Yeah soviet casualties are tricky. Officially, Stalin's regime stated 20 million soviet civilian casualties I believe. Later USSR figures put it as high as 30 million. So it's like a wild guess between those two numbers. Same with the military casualties on Axis and Soviet fronts. However it did cripple the soviet states on the west (Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, etc)
Britain also was not happy with the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940, and part of the reasons for the Anglo French invasion of Norway (so we could send military air to Finland). So the attack on the Soviet Union, leads to an alliance of convenience between the UK and the Soviets; one which the US was forced onto the US when you allied with Britain.
I’m a big of fan of you Vlogging Through History
Theres a mark felton video on how the British and Canadians rushed to save Denmark using speed and bluff
Once you pointed out the number of us troops available in Europe and the French army, all your points clicked with me. I still appreciate Cody taking on alternate history and this what if...good video gang
Correction to what you said;
The majority of the tanks and planes given to the USSR were just used for training for the Soviet soldiers.
(Additions in sub-thread)
The Red Army was also noticeably better trained directly after the war, as they had experience in fighting. So it's not like how they were at the start of the war, where the Red Army was full of untrained bullet sponges. The Soviet Union also could arm communist supporters in the lands that were liberated. (As quite a few Communists from not just the Soviet Union, but also Eastern European countries annexed earlier were imprisoned by the German Reich, that would be itching to fight for their Communist cousins.
The Soviet Union was fielding the brand new T-44 at the end of the war (with the T-44 being put into service internally, but never seeing combat, if I remember correctly.) These tanks could definitely have an advantage over the numerous Sherman tanks, alongside the T-34-85, which could definitely equal the Sherman with it's simpler and more practical sloped armour. The T-34 and T-44 would have had a gun that could penetrate the Sherman easily, and outmaneuver it. The Soviets could also revitalize the T-34 by continuing prototypes on the T-34-100, which was cancelled due to the lack of need to continue using the T-34. The Soviets also had more of the German vehicles and weapons than the West, as the Germans put the best they had against the Soviets, while the western front consisted mostly of 1920s technology with a bit of 1930s sprinkled in.
@@EnemyAtom65 I'm sure you believe all that
I know I’m late but finally found a historian who agrees with me on operation unthinkable!
Every major power makes war plans that they have no intention of implementing. It is better to have a plan than not. It also informs politicians concerning which policies they should and should not implement. I certainly hope NATO has plans for what happens if the Russians attack Poland or the Baltic states.
They have more than plans for those situations. NATO has done extensive military simulations of saving the Baltics from Russia and their troops do joint training exercises preparing for that potential confrontation on a semi-regular basis.
At the end of the war the Soviets still had 11 Million Men and around 6,000 Tanks although after losing insane amounts during The Eastern Front of WW2
What did Arbiter said in halo 3 ? "We trade one villain for A another."
I like how you looked into the numbers. It makes good sense and I agree with you. Alternate history I what we do when we make judgement calls.
I would even say the Soviets having more men could be a disadvantage. With the lack of supplies from the Allies, it would be extremely difficult to supply such a massive army without outside help. Not to mention the supplies needed on the civilian front.
This guy needs more subs
Yet another good reaction video! Would you at some point react to anything regarding the Lost Colony of Roanoke?😁
I did a reaction to Lemmino’s video on that a while back.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Amazing, must have missed that! Going to get on that right away!
JD Brick Productions makes WWI videos using Lego stop motion and it’s pretty amazing. I’d recommend it!!!
The soviets had lost between 30-40 million people by the end of the war. The US lost, if i remember correctly, about 400,000 men. The soviets were getting stronger after they pushed the Germans back, yes, but once allied supply was cut off, i don't see the soviets being able to withstand another devastating invasion.
I also think allied airpower would have bin the turning point.
The Soviets were at the end of their manpower barrel by May of 1945. I'm not convinced either by the author's quantitative assessment
The plan as presented in the video counts with attack through Czechoslovakia which is odd because it didn't became communist untill 1948. So if the Op. Unthinkable started in 1945 there would be no reason to go through it and there is also big chance that Czechoslovakia would join the western allies side because USSR basically stole Carpathian Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia in november 1944.
My assumption is that the attacks would go through territory containing Russian troops. Presumably if the planning took the next step towards becoming an operational plan, instead of a contingency plan, they wouldvl have considered how to coordinate the political effects along with the military ones. There was a Czech government-in-exile based in the UK that hopefully would have been brought into the loop at some point.
@@edwardblair4096 That would be understandable but after WWII ended all soviet troops left Czechoslovakia immidiately. Most went to Austria and Hungary to form Centra group of forces. The defence of Czechoslovakia was given to the Czechoslovak army which was composed mostly from the veterans of 1st Czechoslovak Army Corps which served in USSR during the war but those soldiers did not like Soviets at all. Most of them were picked up from gulags when the unit was formed so they knew the dark side of USSR and Czechoslovak Independent Armoured Brigade Group which sereved under UK. Also Air force was made from units serving in the UK and USSR. There were no Soviet soldiers in Czechoslovakia from june 1945 to august 1968.
@@musketeer5023 you read too much Soljenitsyn. Gulag was only one, and only people who were there were office workers. Andre gulags you meant camps? not all camps under gulag were bad. People even earned money for their work. The main problem (we faced it in modern world too) was corruption. Some camps head made business on the poor people, forced them to overwork or work to death and cut the food(again just to save money). They want to the government only the half of the money/recourses they made from the camp, other part they sell or put in their pockets. Government investigate in that processes too late and slow , so many those who were guilty flew away or get retired.
I agree with your contention that it is possible that the western Allies, with Germany, could have defeated the Soviets without nuclear weapons. It is a definite possibility, especially considering the industrial and resource superiority they had. But you have to ask yourself whether the Americans would choose not to use the atomic bomb at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the fight against Russia. I think the answer is a definite no.
Another recommendation on Operation Unthinkable and other alt history is the Talkernate History podcast they have videos on youtube.
If I remember right Kyiv was still a transport hub for soviet troops in the balkans
Saddest part is how eastern Europe suffered economically for over 50 years because of Soviets, when USA was pumping billion in western Europe, Soviets where pumping Marx and Lenin, rising economies of especially Poland/Romana/Czech Republic in interwar period show that if not Soviet occupation they will probably have x2-3 bigger economies. Communism in any form was really a disaster in any nation in history till now..
Logistic is what you need to look at in the scenario. I agree with you. I don’t see how the USSR could have produce enough to cover all the loses and maintain supply.
2:50
Talk about World War 2.5
Not exactly WW3 but not the "end" of WW2
Unthinkable would have a very good chance of succeeding. The Soviets were on their last legs in 1945, in terms of manpower. Their own analysis of their offensive
against Japan was less then flattering.
Agree on the Soviet reliance on imports. Would be a huge factor.
And don't forget that Ukrainians and Poles were fighting the soviets in an insurgency. Plus support from newly liberated countries and Germany, so the Allies would come close to matching the Soviets.
As for nukes: Nothing really worth bombing within range of Allied airpower, city wise. But any Soviet army massing for an offensive would be facing unexpected, localized sunshine. And with Allied conventional airpower, the Soviets would struggle to move their formations.
Interesting to note that when Germany attacked Russia the civilians they came across were anti Stalin and would have been happy to join the Germans. The Germans treated them even worse in a tactically dumb move however I'm guessing there were plenty of anti Stalin support in 45 still. Since the only people who have ever liked communism are either the ones in power in those countries or don't actually live in a communist country, then I'm guessing it would not have been difficult to turn the Russian people against Stalin. Remember the west was not interested in defeating Russia, just Communism.
Yup. The USSR at that point really was as good as it was ever going to get. It was nothing but downhill numbers wise as they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Its actually a bit of a myth about the Red Human wave. There was one but it was basically wiped out during the war. And the Allies hadn't really dented theirs in some cases (although the allies also wouldnt have accepted the horrendous casualties like the soviets did due to the differences in the govt that public sentiment is much heavier a factor). Plus China was an Ally of mainly the allies even though they had tons of their own problems. That would have been a HUGE front to suddenly have to cover, even if nothing happened. Prior to USSR getting nukes the west could have steamrolled them in the end.
I thought Soviet offensives into a Manchuria were a wild success? The Kwantung Army scattered easily
@@gabe75001 Apparently there were severe logistical and organisational difficulties. While the Japanese were not in a position to capitalize on them (they had problems of their own) and were overrun, the Russians were far from pleased how it went down.
Ukrainians formed a division to fight against the Soviets -- alongside German forces, who were, well, nazis. That part of Ukrainian history was shushed and seen as a disgraceful page during the Soviet era; after the fall of USSR newly-acquired freedom of speech pushed it into light. It was like -- "these things were hidden by the former regime -- the former regime was bad -- therefore, these things were good". That lead to glodifying the leaders of nazi collaboration forces (even naming streets in Kyiv after them), and some prominent politiciand capitalized on that to get to power while pushing Ukraine and Russia more and more apart. That ultimately formed the grounds for russian propaganda to show wideos of youth marching with swastikas and attacking the WW2 veterans, and to say it was widespread all over Ukraine. And now it's used as a main pretext justifying the current events for the russian people.
Resources, as well as the phenomenal industrial capability that the U.S demonstrated throughout the war, and the air power would have combined to guarantee that the Soviets couldn't have won a war. I agree that nukes wouldn't have been necessary, but I think there's a real chance we could have seen them for the same rationale that I believe made the atomic bombs on Japan the correct decision. That is, the atomic bombs didn't determine the outcome. That was already going to happen. What the bombs did was speed it up. I don't doubt Stalin's stubbornness, but how long would it take for those around him to all turn on him for their own sakes?
In reality, had the Cold War turned hot at any point, I don't think there was ever a real question that the West would have won. The deterrent was MAD. Nobody with any sanity wants to "win" a war at that cost. In this scenario, when we move it all to the immediate aftermath of WW2, when only the U.S. had nuclear weapons, it's an even more pronounced certainty.
I agree that I like Alternate History Hub, but I also agree that this one falls pretty flat. I'm not sure there's much of anything of substance that I agree with him on this one.
Oh I think people would absolutely win at that cost
I have no specific knowledge of the variables about where the various forces were at in 1945 however I think your analysis is reasonable and accurate. Numbers on the ground really means very little when you consider technology and ability to produce. Russia was only strong in a military sense because of the massive us support. Take away that and you have a very weak army. Sure the Russian army would fight to the bitter end however so would the Japanese. It's a mute point in the face of technology and production. The more intriguing question to me really is what would the east of Europe looked like without communism and I believe in hindsight that more lives would have been saved as well as better quality of life had the Allies taken Stalin out as part of the war. It may even have stopped communism in China and considering the fact that probably close to 100 million people died in Communist countries the net benefit would certainly have been worth it. However I understand in 1945 no one could really foresee that. That's the problem with history... it does teach us lessons we need to learn however it's always difficult to project it moving forward. All I'll say is that in any given choice, always act from a position of strength and be prepared to act on that. We are seeing now that weak US leadership is allowing things like the Ukraine conflict to occur. Trying to avoid war only inevitably leads to war.
@@marknolan5182 absolutely correct. Good take
@@marknolan5182 i forgot who said it but "if you want peace prepare for war."
You can tell this a very early video from a very inexperienced Cody, and he’s admitted to not liking a lot of his older videos, and I’d he were to do it again, we’d likely get a much more comprehensive scenario as a result.
I think I’m somewhere in the middle. The allied air power would definitely be a major factor but the problem is that the 8th army air core was based in England and most of the Soviet factories had moved further east by the end of the war. So I don’t think that major bombing raids would have been possible like they were over Germany unless there was a foothold in turkey. With that said Soviet resupply to the front would have been very difficult due to allied interdiction. After the US cut off food and material supplies, it probably would have turned into a bit of a war of attrition (manpower vs resources) with the allies winning out over time.
Well, I agree that without allied supplies, USSR would have lost, just remember WWI, when Russia had manpower, but didn't had enough supply, from food to bullets. Indeed, that "unthinkable" is one of the best name I could think of, because that would be a huge devastation for both sides, many lives lost, but also due to that - Japan empire could get much stronger, or other country would have become superpower.
It will took more time and more suffer, but Soviet would win anyways. Land lease was given only because UK Prime Minister begged US government to help and it was small amount, big help came only after US saw that Germans stopped move forward in Eastern front. They helped a lot, but do not forget that they do the same to Germans.
@@Ratatataratatatata
The allies would destroy the USSR, especially in 1945, the USSR had just lost 27 million people durin the war + 10 million during Stalin.
The bread basket of Ukraine was destroyed and the USSR was relying on US lend lease of food to keep its army.
There were polish and ukranian insurgencies fightning for freedom.
etc.....etc........etc.....
@@mattia8327 don’t forget that USSR it’s not only Belorussia, Ukraine and Russia. There also Caucus countries and Central Asian countries who’s could support USSR with food supplies if they would have no choice. As I know they mostly worked in manufactures, but if US will not offer land lease, they could (not easily, it would be hard and more people would die) but could do food supplies
In 1945 the size of the Red army was close to 11.3 mln, but there was a shortage of people. USSR lost like 20-30 millions in the war, maybe more - nobody knows the exact numbers. So the army was enormous, but without any reserves. Also as you mentioned large parts of the supplies were coming from US. But indeed the Red army was much bigger, with much more planes, tanks, guns and etc. Yes, even the air forces, Allies had like 30 000 planes, while Red army had almost 50 000. In a short term the Red army had all numerical advantages. In a long therm, as US could send much more men, France too, Spain was untouched, and US industry was far more capable, there was parity. That parity became advantage of US in 1970s.
From a strictly military view, I agree with VTH and others; a Western victory in this scenario isn't far-fetched at all. I seem to recall that during 1940-1942 as the US planned and prepared for war in Europe, George C. Marshall and the US Army had to account for the possibility that Britain might fall, and then later that the USSR might be defeated by Germany. As such, they developed plans for how to proceed without one or even both of their major allies. So, even as large as the US Army grew during WW2, there were preparations in place - and the manpower/logistics to support - for a US Army even much larger, perhaps twice as large. That aspect, combined with clear US/UK advantages in strategic airpower and logistics, point toward at least very realistic military feasibility, if not outright likelihood of success.
That said...there's more than just the military view. Politically, "Operation Unthinkable" seems aptly named. The US, UK, & France were/are representative democracies. The populations had already endured years of war...all the while being continuously told (validly and truthfully enough) that the USSR was their staunch ally in the fight against Nazi Germany. To have suddenly flipped that and embarked on an equally large-scale war against this erstwhile ally (alongside re-armed German erstwhile foes, no less) in the 1945-1946 timeframe just seems impossible from a domestic--politics perspective.
Projected balance in Western Europe by Allied estimates, 1 July 1945[10]
Allied Soviet Ratio
Infantry divisions[a] 80 228 1 : 2.85
Armored divisions[b] 23 36 1 : 1.57
Tactical aircraft 6,048[c] 11,802 1 : 1.95
Strategic aircraft 2,750 960 2.86 : 1
The Soviets DID outnumber the Allies
Mr Chris would you consider doing more Drawn of History or doing Geography Now????
Yes. In fact I may be appearing in a future Drawn of History video :)
@@VloggingThroughHistory That would be awsome!!!
Things to also consider are the Indian front, Siberian front and what Turkey or Sweden does.
Hey, could you also make a video reacting the new extra credit's series about the brazilian empire? It's such an interesting story and i'd love for people to get to know a little bit more about it
Playing devils advocate (since I don’t think the allies would resort to dropping little boy either) but there is a case they would.
Similar to the justification of the allies to use nuclear weapons on Japan when they really didn’t need to.
I think the top generals who really hate the Soviet’s would say it would cripple the soviets and would justify it reasoning it would save troops and make Russia think twice.
Also since the nuclear technology advantage to the US was only temporary; the allies would be more likely to use the advantage.
Now as you said the allies were not trying to get a true victory, like Japan, rather simply push the Russian out of the occupied territories; makes comparing it to Japan not quite the same.
But Russia was closer to nuclear capability and the allies would rather a show of overwhelming force to avoid another world war.
As I said I’m do not think they would have but it is possible since the allies would not want another protracted long war.
I believe the allies dropped the second bomb in Japan mostly as a demonstration to Russia.
If they were fighting Russia literally, the chance they would use a nuclear power especially with alot of the anti communist general, it’s not unreasonable that the would resort to nukes as a demonstration.
Chris, at the end of the video to discussed the availability of forces to both the Soviets, and the Western Allies. The problem you are having is Soviet armies don't work like western ones. The Soviet mix is difficult to follow and the totals are still unclear 70 years later. So this is as I understand it.
I'll start with the big stick of the soviets, the Operational Manoeuvre Group “OMG” (and yes "oh my god" is a good description for the offensive firepower). The OMG's is the organisational unit we in the west never had. We are not sure exactly how many OMG's formed in 1945 from combinations of units from the:
• approx 22 Armoured Corps (Combined forces of the mobile motorised infantry and the Tank units ),
• Approx 10 Independant Guards Armies (Guards had a higher establishment of infantry and heavier equipment went to the guards units first)
• plus "many" independant" breakthrough armoured brigades (those with the IS-2/3's tanks and ISU-122/152 assault guns) and the Corps artillery assets with the heavy guns and rocket launchers (BM-13 and BM-31's) mounted in trucks.
If there is an analogy I can attach to their operations, its they work like massive German Kampgroupe's. They lead offensive action and pull back to regroup/refit when offensive operations cease- they don’t defend that’s the job of infantry, who form their orderly front line, whilst STAVKA moves their OMG's to the next weak point the the enemy line.
So to the numbers:
A Soviet Rifle (Infantry) Division had about 10k men and a Guards Rifle Division was slightly larger (approx. 10.5-11k). The Soviets had approximately 225 of these in January 1945 for the Battle of Berlin campaign and the satellite operations in Hungary and Austria.
A Soviet Tank Corps (Roughly equivelent to a Western Division) approx. 16k men and 200+ AFV’s of various models,
A Soviet Mechanised Corps has 16.5k men with 200 (or so) AFV’s of various models
Independent Units had variable strengths, somewhere from 4-7k men.
Other than the variable OMG's , in the Soviet army-
2-3 Divisions form an "Corps"
3 Corps make and "Army"
3 Armies make up a "Front"
As the larger units form together, the "independent" units of Artillery, Supply and Engineering , move in to give those formations their support assests.
Hey love the videos, just wanted to know how often is the patreon check and updated on average?
I think when considering how many resources the soviets were receiving from the allies, we should consider how much that was, relative to domestic soviet production. To get a better idea for what the effect would be. Secondly, we should consider Allied Moral, The Brits had been in this was for years, and whether or not they wanted to continue the war for much longer, with a different power, that was difficult for the German army to conquer. Similarly, I'm not sure that the American public could be sold on a declaration of war on the soviet union. They had already been receiving propaganda about good ol' uncle Joe and FDR had spoken positively of Stalin, so it would be a harder sell, especially considering that the soviet's hadn't attacked the U.S. I know that both countries had already had negative opinions and hated the soviets, but I don't think that would be enough to convince them to keep the war going. Especially since FDR and Churchill would soon be replaced and the U.S still was fighting an increasingly Brutal Campaign in the Pacific. I think the soviets could hold long enough for the Allied governments to lose their will to fight, and if anything that would give them less leverage in a post-war world because the soviets would know that their enemies ran out of the will to fight, and would have a tough time convincing their population to re-arm, while Stalin, didn't have that problem.
Operation Unthinkable is like the most realistic doomsday scenario.
2 years ago yesterday.
The soviet airforce by the end was quite large, the difference was that the allied ariforce while slightly larger was more high altitude ao in the air there was an allied advantage. One thing we do have to consider tho is that the soviets used their land forces more efficiently and aggresively, i believe it is a german officer on the western front in 1944 that said "if the allies used their infantry like the soviets we would be in berlin by now" also i think your idea that soviets especially stalin would just say oh we tried to conquer the buffers between us and the west just give up goes against everything the soviets though and wanted, just think about it, the soviets would have seen now 3 major wester powers/armies march east and try to in their mind destory them(4 counting napoleon) the entire idea of the buffers was to prevent it happening again and now that it did happen again there is no way stalin would give up what the russians saw as a necessary buffer for the survival of the ussr. In addition the soviets by now do have the industrial capacity to maintain and expand their army, they by now have outproduced the americans and british in tank production and can continue pumping out equipment and since they are not an ocean away they will br able to transport that equipment to the front faster than the allies especially considering the asian front which the allies have to deal with and stalin wouldnt since he wouldnt have to uphold any type of agreement with the allies about a manchurian front with no nukes available for japan and no soviet invasion either japan wouldnt surreder leaving the allies fighting several fronts where they are out outmbered and in europe also outgunned
The Soviet Air Force however was not as large as the combined American and Royal Air Forces. Plus if we went to war with the USSR then the Japan war would’ve been scaled down to free thousands of highly experienced Navy and Marine Corps aviators.
The Soviets never had a a lot of experience in air to air battles
Japan had wanted a conditional and “honorable” settlement to the pacific war for some time at this point, and it’s likely they would’ve gotten an agreement for armistice if we ended up have to fight the USSR
The Armchair Historian recently made a video about Operation Unthinkable too
Please react to the Eastory eastern front, its really detailed videos of the eastern front, to moscow and then to berlin.
Mobilizing as much of your population as the USSR did during ww2 is unsustainable for long periods of time.
When I was a young teen in 1963, I knew a guy that received literature from the John Birch Society and other right wing groups. Some of it was predicting a nuclear war, probably with red China sometime in the 1970's. When I wrote about this stuff for Civics class, it pissed off my teacher. I flunked that class and 9th grade. It turned out to be instrumental in my getting into college after entering a college prep program in a different school and graduating from college just as the draft was scheduled to end in 1972.
I don't buy the idea that Nuking Moscow would be that easy. The concept of putting a Nuclear warhead on a rocket, wasn't really a thing until the 1950s. Before that, you had to actually drop the Nuclear Bomb from a plane and in order to do that; you had to have total air superiority.
It's not about numbers anyways. It's about power projection. Numbers, technology, logistical capacity, industrial capacity, motivation, skill (training), experience, terrain knowledge, local support, army composition (balance between participating fighters, and participating support, as well as correct forces "for the job") , and on and on.
Even number of quality commanders, and in particular the quality of those at the top, can make a massive difference.
Very interesting. I don’t know enough to really comment but I agree that alternate history is interesting to compare to the actual events.
Better call Saul, y'all.
True, all that air superiority and technology the British and Americans had was unrivaled. You should check out some kings and generals videos sometime, mostly the pacific war videos they got going on
i mean the russians just got ther hands on a good amount of german tech .... most was taken by the us but still the difference might not be that big
Out of curiosity, how many men are in a division? I know it varies greatly even now, but I'm aware that (especially on the German side) towards the end of WW2 a lot of divisions had been run down due to casualties. In Unthinkable, what sized divisions were the West planning to use?
I completely agree with you on the outcome, but I also have the issue of IF nukes were used, I feel Moscow and Stalingrad would have been the first two targets.
one thing to think about is how the soldiers and civilians back home would have reacted to the news of a sudden war with the Soviets. Imagine running a marathon all the while believing that you'll never have to do this again if you could just hold on for a little longer, only to then be told after you reach the finish line that "joke's on you, now you have to run another one!". That has to be utterly shattering. And it gets even worse considering how much propaganda was put out at the time of painting the Russians as good and decent allies and how terrible the Germans were. Now you're expecting your people to support total war against a former ally while fighting side by side people that yesterday was still being described as monstrous demons? I think at the very least there would have been serious resistance back home and perhaps some military units on the frontline might even refuse to obey orders. How much difference this would have made is of course debatable
Don't forget Finland. I'm sure we would've been able to take Petrozavodsk for the 3rd time and besiege Leningrad for the 2nd time with the 17-year-old boys we had left if the Western allies had turned on the USSR.
But Finland lost against the Soviets both times
@@mrbrainbob5320
So?
@@mrbrainbob5320 True, but they somehow managed not to be overrun and to give the Soviets all they wanted and then some. That was without being allied with the Americans, British, French, etc. Given that the territorial losses were so recent and the scenario in question would have given them very favorable circumstances in which to attempt to regain the lost territory, the Finns no doubt would have been involved, and they were capable fighters.
I think that Operation Unthinkable, if it was to be used, would not occur until well after Japan surrenders because the US would be busy fighting in the West Pacific islands. I'd think maybe in the late 1940's/early 50's when the Cold War between USSR and the west really gets going.
Chris, I have an idea for a video, and I was wondering the best place for me to write that out?
Still getting my brain back into the studying side to keep it as knowledge so don't really like to throw to big or crazy things but all I can share is I would probably agree why you don't agree with Cody so much on this video but my only argument would be that Its only because everyone will focus on a few things more then other facts and it juts takes the brain into so many different places! Love your content and am loving the new on location series as uts the first one I get to be apart of right from the beginning!
I heard Stalin was thinking of doing the reverse uno plan of this and because of that the other soviet leaders took him out. They were sure the war would either be too costly or just a defeat. They barley survived germany & allies , not half of europe and US. As for Japan, they never signed a peace treaty with USSR at the end of WW2 so I'm sure they would just seize the opportunity to get back at least some of those island they are arguing about even today. Even if china would have helped at the time, they were not strong enough to be a deciding factor
I don't think most people here realize that the issue here isn't victory in the operation but what comes afterwards. The allies would have to occupy all of europe, the Russian people would hate the Americans for invading them out of nowhere and America would have to occupy them otherwise as soon as they left the Russains would start their own nuclear project. Knocking the Russains out wouldn't create a world without conflict either, without an enemy to unite Americans and Europeans the two might not come as close as in our timeline. Tensions might even rise between America and the old colonial powers, Germany might come back for another round, the Republican China might even fear the United States and the west for invading the soviets without provocation, my point is that Operation Unthinkable while incredibly favorable to the allies wouldn't create world peace and another enemy would take the place of the Soviets.
don't forgot that the usa was still at war with japan and the soviets would probably fund the Japanese resistance and the soviets also had German technology
I don't have too much data to back it up, but I would have to agree with your conclusion. Between the industrial might and manpower of the Americans, the resources of the entire British empire, France, and Germany I don't think it would be as one-sided as Cody makes it out to be. Plus the allies would probably have air-superiority and stop the lend lease, like you said. The one advantage I would give to the Russians is them already being on mainland Europe, whereas the U.S. and British would have to get supplies via sea. Regardless, it would have been a long and bloody war that I am happy did not happen.
Well you also have too include partisans in eastern Europe once they hear about the allies fighting Russia they would side with the allies cause of all the German brutality they received they haven't forgotten the Russian one that goes back a bit longer even also Russian main lands where devastated by Russian and German scorched earth. Also atleast 10 million dead Russian soldiers after the Germans and they had deciphered the Russian communications
it could be possible his timeline was off, if this was a couple of years after the end of WWII then his numbers might be right because a lot of the people that fought in WWII were drafted so they would have been home. Although such a conflict would 100% reinstate the draft.
While Soviet numbers were overestimated by the allies and probably had the technological edge excluding nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union could probably replace lend lease stuff within a year or two and I doubt the American people would tolerate war with Soviet Union at the time when they were allies weeks earlier and not to mention communists partisans in places like France and Italy. Especially with the massive casualties with fighting a battle hardened force that was very much the equal to the allies in 1945. The days of purged generals and throwing men into the grinder were long gone. Sure the allies may take Czechoslovakia and pre-war Poland within a year but afterwards the Soviets would probably start another march that might end not in Berlin but on the Atlantic coast.
how would they be able to replace lend lease?
You should really go check out Tasting History. They include videos about cooking old recipes including making food eaten by civil war soldiers.
Keep up the great work, all the best from Canada
Right when I started thinking, "Maybe getting Japan into the war against the Soviets," you brought them up. What do the drinking rules say about that, who takes the shot? lol
Have you done a video on operation downfall?
Lets go 👍 Love alt History videos
I agree with you. Logistics is half the fight and while the USSR were battle hardened and immediately there with more regional supremacy being right there. Their logistics were fairly stretched by the end.
In the long term, especially if the western allies were looking to push up to Russia with the advantage over time. The long term prospects lay with the Western Allies. The USSR manpower situation was also starting to reach critical mass. While the US hadn't really gotten that desperate yet. Not to mention the units tied up in the Pacific still.
It's possible a surprise attack might push the Allies out to the edges of Western Germany in the early months. But as forces recoalesce and the cut off supplies from lend lease take place. The gains would very much be reversed. But they might not even manage that, since there's no clear answer to how the USSR would gain air superiority from the western allies' very effective bombing campaigns.
You should watch One Misconception About Each U.S. President!
Honestly, if the war went as you predicted and the Soviets lost, I think the Union loses a lot more than those countries.
Think about it. The Soviets had a lot of men to feed, and they were already reliant on western aid for food. Without it, they’d have to divert food that had been allotted to civilians to feed their army, leading to much more civil unrest and discontent back home.
If they end up fighting a losing battle against the Allies, I think that Stalin might be just pissed enough to keep fighting even after they reach Russian borders. Thus, the war moves into Russian territory. With things getting too close to home, I think we might have seen an overthrow of Stalin’s government. Where we go from there, I don’t know, and honestly this is just speculation. What do y’all think?
Yeah Stalin while in charge had to stave off his rivals during the course of the war because he needed some of their leadership it was after WW2 did he conduct a second and third purge consolidating his authority again. So there is some points there if the allies invaded the Stalin government possibly that would have destroyed his government.
what is the dependence on food? from American stew? what the fuck are you talking about? the US help was there and we are grateful for it, but do not overestimate it!
@@alexejsidorenco6047 well you seem to underestimating it. Soviet Tenacity is only half of the battle especially in modern warfare supplies and logistics is key. I mean we have only to look at the current conflict in Ukraine and you can see what happens when you have an under supported industrialized military.
@@808INFantry11X well, then the war was not modern!with logistics, too, not everything was easy. The United States would have to deliver weapons and soldiers from overseas. yes, and the US assistance with the Japanese of the USSR had not yet begun. something suggests that Japan was happy to help the USSR with the war with the United States or delayed half of the forces! this is my opinion.
@@alexejsidorenco6047 ww2 is the epitome of modern warfare. The logical planning done by almost modern forces today are modeled off of the practices WW2. logical planning coordination between air assets, Naval, logistics, transports, armor, artillery and Infantry forces. All of it still largely based off lessons learned in WW2 and yes WW2 is the very epitome of modern warfare because modern warfare is large scale industrialized War.
Great reaction as always man!
Personally I’m fairly certain that the west would have been able to beat the Soviets in a conflict that takes place immediately after WW2.
Russia had no real chance of air superiority when fighting the UK and US, Ground forces were fairly comparable in tech. And the US would have a solid few years of nuclear supremacy. I feel like this video deeply leans into the whole Russian military hype many channels fell into around this time.
The kind if videos that claim the Russians would have been able to beat Germany and Japan single handedly without any western support.
Naziiis almost beat the soviets versing the French and uk with less manpower. I think the allies win pretty easy especially with all their war industries in high gear plus nuke advantage and they get to take advantage of german tech
That’s what I don’t get with people who think the soviets would rick roll everyone
@@krusader7114 If it would have been so easy, then why didn’t they do it?
@@edgynuke5007 oh i dont know, death and more death to civilians and locals probably wasnt a happy topic to think about.
@@edgynuke5007 because the goal of WWII was to defeat Nazism (and Japan) no narrative for taking down Communism was ever put forward by the Allies. Certainly the Allies could have taken out Stalin however the cost in lives and $ would have seemed too high politically I suspect. In my opinion the cost would have been less than what actually happened however considering the US only got dragged on via Pearl Harbour I dont see the political capital in 45 to take out Stalin when he wasn't directly in conflict with the US at that point
@@edgynuke5007 the nazi ideology couldn’t get past it and the fact that over well over 50million people have already died.
Would have never have seen this if you didn't make a reaction video to it. Thank you.
I think in 1945 after Germany fell the US had 12M troops in total with about 7m stationed abroad. About 5m were in the British Armed forces. Combine that with the US's GDP and production of materials and goods it would have been a war of attrition with the equalizer being the Russian Winter. However with Russia (or the USSR) cut off from the 12b from lend lease and more potential money and tech going to the British Empire, and possible second front from Japan or China as a base of operations it is possible that Operation unthinkable could have been successful. The thing is WW2 would have been drug out till the 1950s probably around the end of Korea.
I would love to see your reaction video about ceasar vs vercingetorix
Very few people even knew about the M project to begin with, so using it against USSR wouldn’t have probably came up. If we had the troops and manpower to fight USSR, we didn’t need to nuke them. Japan, however, was NEVER going to quit. That is the main reason the A bomb was used on them and considering we needed troops for another eastern Europe campaign we might have been more prone to dropping Little Boy on Japan. (MHO, just to say).
Re red army divisions and size: much of the 300 divisions present during Barbarossa were completely destroyed by the axis, and the soviets had to rebuild a completely new army. Although they raised something in the region of 450 divisions throughout the war, the majority of the time they didn't really outnumber the axis bzy much, let alone the allies, especially by the closing stages of the war. Were Operation Unthinkable to happen during 1945, the majority of soviet divisions could at best average a few thousand men compared to the way larger allied ones.
I would say I agree with you but then again this was also one of Cody's first videos and I think he was like 20 he's gotten a lot better and is embarrassed by by his earlier work to. Maybe next alternate history video you should do his Alexander the Great video
I agree that at the end of the War in Europe, the Soviets were projecting power they didn't have or had depleted. The Soviets took a massive beating, so I can see a US-UK-French-and German coalition taking on the Soviet Army.
Also, I believe the US Nuclear Arsenal was only 3 bombs at this time, 2 of which would be used on Japan.
1 was used in the test explosion the other two were dropped on japan. if japan didnt surrender America would have had to go with operation downfall which made the losses to the nukes look sadly necessary.
I agree that the Soviets world have lost. It would have been horrible fighting on the land especially after advancing East past Poland into Ukraine. But the Allies had the Heavy Bombing and Naval Bombardment capacity to level whatever industrial capacity the Soviets had left. No nukes would be needed but when the fighting slowed nearer the Russian borders, dropping a nuke somewhere in Soviet Russia would be a blow to Soviet moral and could quicken the end of a theoretical Operation Unthinkable.
The fallout of such a operation is hard to fathom. The world was so torn up the fighting already done by historical WWII. Adding Operation Unthinkable on top, the losses would be actually unthinkable.
You should take a look at atomic soldiers on UA-cam. Its when the u.s. i believe, tested nuclear bombs on soldiers. It was between 1946 thru 1961.
From a technology/firearms perspective alone, the Americans and Germans would field some of the best small arms available for this operation. The Allied firepower would dominate the Soviet catalog of small arms in any fight.
The technological advantage the Germans had didn't really help them much against the Soviets, did it?
@@roflmatol The poor and stupid decision making of Hitler and the hierarchy of German command is what cost the Nazis the war with Russia, not their firepower. In this hypothetical scenario, Germany could give the US the technical data in order to have US manufacturing take over production of things like the STG44 and King Tigers (granted, the King Tigers had their flaws). And in this scenario, we still get all of the Nazi scientists from Paperclip. In the hypothetical scenario, this combination would absolutely dominate Soviet technology at the time and their manufacturing capabilities wouldn’t be able to match. Just my thoughts though.
Nukes were not, strictly speaking, necessary to beat Japan. It would have just taken years longer and many many American lives. I think this video quickly glosses over what would be the biggest part of the early war: air superiority and naval superiority. If we quickly crushed their Air Force I’m guessing a victory would be a matter of time. However, they somehow won in the air or just battled to a standstill, I could see the allies putting nukes on the table in order to “shorten the war and save American soldiers lives.”
Agreed. With hindsight (remembering noone knew what impact nukes would have on Japan in mid 45) I'd have finished the war in Japan the same then gone after Stalin hopefully in surprise move. It would have taken time to develop more nukes but I would have used them on Stalin or threatened them as they would definitely have saved lives. I'm not sure how in the video he believes the Russian army would have re grouped after being nuked... by that stage 3 nukes would have been used and the threat of every major Russian city being destroyed would exercise every Russian to look for an end. Stalin was not a strong leader in terms of support I believe and the Russian people had no love of communism so I think one or 2 nukes would have had a pretty positive impact on getting Russia to surrender
VTH - There is a UA-cam channel named zvallid that has some alternate history scenarios on there. It's very interesting and I reccomend checking him out.
Are you ever going to do Soviet storm
Japan was losing heavily already before the US nukes them. I can’t get passed how the US wouldn’t consider doing it with the more formidable USSR. Sure they’re under supplied but they had more natural gas reserves and they were beginning to mass develop their non-nuclear weaponry (ie, AK-47) so I’m confident in this situation the US would have no choice.
Allies of convenience and allies of desperation are quick to turn on one another once their ends are met. Civility is a product of a bygone era it would seem. All I can say is luckily by this time the cult of the offensive had simmered down enough because no matter who "won" the fight if this were to come to pass, I feel we all would have lost regardless.
@vlogging through history please look up Rodney Atkins’ “it’s America” album. You are his twin!!! Haha
Thanks for your video. Well, i disagree with your opinion for the next reasons:
1. Moral point would affect allies forces in such scenario. When 5 years in a row you tell, that brave soviet people doing their best to destroy the nazis; that you need to help soviet people in their fight; and then you tell, that you should destroy your recent allies - i think, it'll affect quite negative to troops and oficers. And quite sure civilians also will be quite negative. Especially after including German troops in allies forces. I'm not history expert, but i think even at first wars and conquests - usually winners give some time for those, who lost fightings, before involving their troops to their campains. And for "evil-Soviets" propaganda you need time.
2. Concerning landlease - of course it's highly appreciated. But besides volumes of shipment we need also to check the timings and dates, when most of these goods were shipped. I mean, for tanks and weapons - as far as i remember, USSR had some troubles obviously in 41-42 , but then after relocating factories to Ural and Syberia USSR hadn't much troubles with weapons (for example, from Wiki - for tanks in total allies supplied about 18500 machines, which is 17,6% of USSR produced during 1941-1945; for airplanes - also about 18500, which is 11,7% of USSR production). As i told, Landlease shouldn't be underestimated and it was highly appreciated by Zhukov and a lot of other people. But if we speak about "what if" after 1945 - USSR had really huge amount of vehicles, including those, that were shipped by allies. And of course they wouldn't give it to allies back, if any kind of war starts. But with foods and some raw materials USSR will have huge troubles during this theoretical conflict.
3. While in this video everything is told only about allies, there is another side of conflict. I'm qiute sure, that in such case USSR will take a lot of efforts to help chinese communists in their fight with Gomindan, that was not supported by even their army by the mid of 1940-s. But it's also "What if" point, and we can't be sure about it. But still i mean - USSR government obviously start looking for allies (or just suppliers) in such scenario and of course won't just sit and look, how things are going on.
4. As for Japan - not pretty sure. Kwantun army had quite out of date equipment, vehicles and pretty bad organisation. If you look at Manjurian operation (or August storm) - 84 000 japanese troops died, more than 600 000 surrender, while USSR lost 12000 troops. And again - how allies troops and civilians would react, if USA and Britain try to help Japan vs USSR. I think, the answer is obvious.
P.S. Sorry for not really good english, it's not my native. I hope, my point of view is understandable. And thanks once again for your videos.
I agree that it wouldn't be as easy or a for sure win for the allies. Russian ww2 military equipment has always been underated especially their aircraft.
Also, the Germans thought they could handle the Russians with better tanks, planes, and equipment and that didnt turn out so well for them.
Well I for one think atomic warfare would have been an option at some point for the same reason as nagasaki and hiroshima: the Western powers do not want to waste to many men. Furthermore I agree with your other points and I like to add that the Soviet morale would be devastated by many more losses as their numbers were already crazy.
I gotta agree with you, the only real hurdle to allied logistics is naval shipping and there’s no way the USSR could ever hinder, let alone contend with the supply ships the western allies had by 1945.
Western Air power and pilot skill was much more effective than the Russian equivalent, even if they could match numerical parity in local engagements.
Add in the technological progress the Western Allies made, and anything they’d bring on board from the German weapons programs.
The Russians did great work in world war 2, but they paid for that heavily. I think by July 1945 post victory fatigue sets in and everyone just wants to shut down and go home.
So if the Allies know they need an operational tempo they’ll keep their formations ready to go. By 1945 allied generals had finally adapted to the newer, fluid styles of command and control. Some Soviet generals understood that, but a lot of Soviet actions in 1943-45 were still set piece assaults.
Add in the civil problems from installing repressive pro communist regimes, all the experience agencies like SOE had with partisan groups, and you’ve got a perfect storm of supply chain disruptions and guerrilla warfare.
Even without a possible nuclear edge, I don’t see the Soviets winning
Hey man, great stuff, but you should check out some of AltHistoryHub’s newer stuff like his most recent video on Russia and NATO. Also no rush, but it would be really great if you checked Monsieur Z’s video series “The Seven Ages of America”. It’s a really good series.
Great video.
It should also be remembered that the Russians in 1945 were suffering from years of war exhaustion and were suffering manpower issues. Perhaps a year or two of total war before the Russians oust Stalin from power and sue for peace. In 1945, there were dozens of resistance groups in Eastern Europe too waiting for the moment of opportunity to rise up against their new Soviet oppressors. It's pretty likely that Poland and Hungary will completely rebel behind Soviet lines with the prospect of another occupation by a foreign power. Nationalist China is still around and is keeping the Communists tied down in the East.
If you read the writings of Soviet troops, all they wanted was peace. I don't think both sides would have wanted another long-fought war with each other.
The Mexican American Border | A Tale of two Colonies - great videos to react