Operation Unthinkable: Churchill's Alternative
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Uncover the shocking story of Operation Unthinkable, Churchill's secret plan to attack the USSR after World War II. Explore the risks, strategies, and potential outcomes that could have led to World War 3!
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
www.youtube.co...
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @simonstestchannel
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Imagine being a German soldier in case of this.
Fighting deep into russia, fighting while retreating back to Germany and then going back at it.
FDR was the problem. There was never any reason to fight Germany over Danzig. He and Churchill were the real warmongers of WW2. The USA's domestic policies under FDR were a total failure and he started looking for a war in Europe in 1937! There was never any reason to demand Unconditional Surrender or to play nice with Stalin.
German soldier: aww shit here we go again.
The Germans wanted the UK and US to flip and join the fight with them. So it was exactly what they were hoping for.
Most of the Germans who fought in the Eastern Front before 1942 died by 1945 or was a Soviet POW and would be executed by Stalin if Unthinkable occurred.
@@revantobias8567 More snow, and I still haven't got warm socks!
You should use more maps in your videos. It helps visualize things especially in regards to the progression of conflicts.
Agreed
LOL. That would have required actual work.
They can't even have the actual USSR map in the thumbnail...
@@San_Vito Yup, looks more like modern-day Russia to me.
In a world full of people who appreciate alt history based plotlines, whether it be in the form of shows like The Man in the High Castle or games like the Wolfenstein series, I’m really surprised this hasn’t been used as the setting for a video game or TV series yet. Would be a really cool setting in my opinion.
So write it
Look up HOI4: TNO
@@llllIlllIIIllthat’s not operation unthinkable tho. That’s more a realistic take into if the axis won.
Man in the castle went off the rails after season 1. But I don’t blame the show because the book is nutty sci fi as well. Would of been nice to have a show that’s more realistic and not full on mulitiverse craziness
@@llllIlllIIIll literally has nothing to do with the topic but tno players must use every forum to mention it
Churchill: "Just crush the russian line and the rest will crumble quick enough"
Hitler: "Did you pay any attention to what happened to me?"
Napoleon "I know, right?"
"You just have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure would come crumbling down!" So thought Adolf Hitler before Operation Barbarossa. It seems Churchill learned nothing from this.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jdChurchill is overrated nepotism cases. British won despite of him, because US lend lease and Soviet manpower save this idi0t dolt.
Germany could have taken moscow before the winter, though decided to split their forces and go for the oil fields in the caucauses instead, there were also some very experienced railway engineers out there, a quote from on raf pilot on a documentary, we could damage a railway, though the germans would fix it the next day. Think it was from an documentary on auchvitz,
@@AndyAshworth-h6w I really like how people like you genuinely think taking Moscow would have been easy as if the soviets would have just left the moment a singular German division entered the city lmao
Don't forget the allied intervention in 1918... they never learn really, now is the allied intervention No.2, via Ukraine...
A couple of thoughts here.
1 Russia was basically out of manpower reserves. They may of had a larger army on the immediate ground but that was no guarantee.
2 They couldn't depend on their new Eastern allies to fight.
3 The West had a far superior logistics system than the Germans.
4 The West would not have been able to invade Russia proper but Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, Belo Russ and Ukraine were possibilities.
The main reason it would never happen was American War weariness. Marshall was asked how long he thought the war would take and purportedly said "Four years, because that's about how long the American public will put up with the war."
Very true, however it should be noted that (from what I've heard) Germany sent around 80% of its wartime production to the eastern front, but the Soviets beat them regardless. The allies had to fight non-elite second grade units.
I wonder how far the Soviets could have pushed before collapsing...maybe to the Rhine? Or further?
@11hunter22 they would have likely held no gains by the end on the sheer production inequity the factions had, the british had shattered the spine of the empire yet we still held much of our overseas assets for a long long time following, we could have further drawn on them along with american gains and any Japanese willing to fight the Russians
This is basically Churchill wanting us to fights the soviets. What a tool. It also goes to show how little Britain had to contribute at the end of the war. I’m glad Truman & Co ignored this harebrained scheme.
@@Wüstenfuchs12209
that 80% production figure is false. they did have around 80% of the Casualties on the eastern front primarily because that's where they were fighting the most.
Also at no point except during the early stages of barbarossa did the germans ever have more manpower at the front than the Soviets.
By war's end the Western allies had far superior logistics and quality of troops than the Germans did.
The Soviets unlike what propoganda states did not have unlimited stocks of manpower.
They were in no position to roll across 'Seven days to the Rhine' style anytime soon.
Remember it took the Soviets over 3 years just to drive a weakened and inferior German Army off their own soil. Imagine fighting a peer adversary with the same if not larger force in the center of Europe with both mobilized to full extent.
I dont see the front moving a whole lot in this scenario.
#1...that is something that most people don't realize. We tend to view Russia has having limitless manpower. By 1944/1945 the Russians were scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point they were force drafting men from Eastern European countries. That's where all those Polish, Hungarian, etc divisions come from in the Red Army in 1944/1945.
His generals called it unthinkable to politely tell Churchill it is insane
The atomic bomb made it anything but insane. Maybe the English generals needed to grow some glands instead
@@starmnsixty1209That’s your answer? Atomic bomb? That’s not an answer… it’s a total end.
@@starmnsixty1209 because America was able to churn out 30000 billion atomic bombs and could deilver them to Moscow at that time? only thing it would have ended with would be the socialist republic of france italy and a bunch of other countries
@@VicthorCiprian
Not if only one side had it.
@@wambutu7679 soviets would have developed it faster if they were on war
0:35 - Chapter 1 - A square deal
3:05 - Chapter 2 - A new war
6:15 - Chapter 3 - WWIII
11:00 - Chapter 4 - Only a madman's plan
The problem that none WW2 experts keep failing at, is realizing Soviet divisions were not as big as German or American divisions. This is due to Command and Control issues and bad logistics. Each division could be 8-10 thousand, while American could be 11 and German 12k men. The year and logistics dictated the number, but 80 Soviet divisions could be 640k while 80 American divisions could be double.
If I'm not mistaken American Infantry divisions had as many as 20,000 men in them.
Yes, but soviet manpower and industry are equally powerful
They don't know what their talking about. Western Infantry Divisions (including Germany of course) were about 17.5k each at full strength. Soviets were around 8k. The German model was NOT 12k. They were worn down that later in the war.
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217Of course, that is why I said it depended on the year.
@@madgavin7568 The only way that could even be remotely true, is if they are counting even more staff that support each division from home, which is not done. A division would have less rifles than you think, since it takes 2-3 supply men per rifleman.
Is it just me. Or is Operation Unthinkable the most British sounding name for a secret plan ever created?
Followed closely by "Operation BIGOT" (British Invasion of German Occupied Territory) and "Operation NIMROD" by SAS against Iran's embassy.
Nah operation blackcock is more British sounding by far
You forgot "High Explosive Research"...
Or Operation “not ideal”
🤣🤣@@mappingshaman5280
That the imperial general staff named it “Operation Unthinkable” tells you what they thought of Churchill’s wish
WW2 was already such a nightmare. I can't imagine how much worse it would have been if this had happened
It would've been worse for the next 3 years no doubt. The next few decades would've been better. No oppression in Eastern europe. No moral compromises by the west in the name of beating the reds. No need for the military industrial complex to become permanently entrenched. It's a tough gamble but the forces on the ground weren't that balanced again for 50 years.
Exactly. The American people would not have supported it
probably the devil he himself would have left the Earth 😂
Actually most likely not.
Wars turn into nightmares when both sides are equally strong. The Soviet Union was on it's last legs in 1945 in economy and man power, the USA not by a long shot.
On top of that were the Western Allies VASTLY better in terms of military expertise. The Red Army really was rather primitive (example: they started training basic infantry courses in 1944 (ffs, who does that???)). Usually they let their untrained conscripts run to their death in sucicidal attacks, to put it very oversimplified. Allied combined arms warfare tactics would have wiped them out, just as the German one had, from which they had learned a lot (but who never had the economic power to back up their superior tactics). Red Air Force versus USAAF and RAF wouldn't have been a contest, the Allies were so much better in every aspect. The Western Allies really had a formidable fighting force in 1945.
But I agree, the population was completely burnt out from six years of constant struggle, suffering and death. And as was said, the British Army staff wasn't sure either, most likely due to some nasty suprises like Arnheim, Hurtgen Forest and the Battle of the Bulge.
Who wouldn't?
If I was a soldier in 1945, I would have no freaking opinion about testing my chances for another year or so with loss rates at around 30% per operation...
BTW I am into the topic for 30 years, so I don't just have opinions, I have the knowledge to back that up.
Compared to our timeline? Millions of Germans died in the post WW2 ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe. Tens of millions of Chinese died from the Mao regime that beat Chiang thanks to Stalin's support, plus Cambodia's Killing Fields, the still ongoing hell of North Korea with millions dead from unnecessary famine etc. The radical Arab regimes propped up by Soviet support with effects continuing to this day. Liberating Russia might have been worth it in the long run.
The think of fighting another war or another long campaign it was insane. It is easy when you're cozy in your home after almost 80 years, and pulling some math and gaming logic, but people on that era were exhausted, economy destroyed and the world, the public opinion, demanded peace everywhere.
Churchill was a psychopath, he was just a bit more restrained than Stalin. Less overtly murderous. The British public knew it and that's why he was kicked out of office straight after the war. People like him are handy to have in a war, but that's all they're good for. The fact that he was already planning for another big war against their allies, just as WWII wrapped up, shows how useless people like him are in peacetime.
One thing is to say the west was tired and it's understandable that we let it go. Another thing is to say it was for the greater good that we did or that those that defend we should have gone after Russia are just talking over the cozy sofa decades later.
What's very cozy to say is that Churchill was wrong to push against Russia back then, when you're not the one that lived under Stalin's occupation or when you're not being attacked by Putin and his delusions of grandeur.
The west paid in blood many times over not dealing with Russia back then, with all those wars during the Cold War, we're paying for it right now. Who knows what else is left for us to pay because we didn't put Russia in its place.
@@springgreenzonewest did put Russia back at its place back in 1991, but USA thought that was it and no one can challenge them. Should've used some kind of Marshall plan in motion to pacify Russia, but alas.
Even to early two thousand it was still possible.
@@springgreenzone let it go ? What makes you think the bear was at your mercy in the first place ? How do you know that they didnt retract their claws and teeth and said cheers to our fellow comrades for this victory ?
Say that the the citizens in central & Eastern Europe
Just as a slight math adjustment, a Western infantry division was ~50% stronger than a soviet one. So, instead of 3:1, you're looking at 1.6:1. Now, these are not good odds still, but it is worth noting.
(Math for those curious:
80+23 = 103
103 * 15,000 = 1.545M Western troops
223 + 26 = 249
249 * 10,000 (guard division had 10,585 while standard had 9,375) = 2.49M soviet troops
2.49/1.545 = 1.612 = ~1.6 soviet soldiers per Western soldier. Note that this is a very rough approximation as it neglects varying strengths of individual divisions, tooth-to-tail ratio, different types of divisions (marine vs rifle vs airborne vs etc), different country's divisions, and probably some other factors.)
I've always been confused about that whole division/corp/army thing the Russians do, and how that translates into "Western" sized units.
Maths
War gamers also put a premium for units in supply vs out of supply. The point being it would be fairly easy to put the Soviets out of supply as a nation. Trucks need parts, tires, lubricants and fuels which would be in short supply. What the Soviets would have would have been difficult to move as Allied Air power bombed the railroads and ports. The atomics the Americans had were truly an "ace in the hole" if we ever faced a sizable Soviet formation. The Soviet and Communist sympathizers, traitors and ''''fellow travelers''' both in the US and British governments was truly astounding, as partially revealed by the Venona Papers.
You're forgetting the square root of the "grand unifying theory of fuck that guy" that will make defenders fight to the death.
@@WalterOtterly in Russia, I'd agree. But in Poland?
Few historians know that the US was planning to make a new atomic bomb "every ten days" by September 1945. If Operation Unthinkable had somehow started, then most of the Russian cities that had not been destroyed in WWII would have been slowly but surely destroyed in a sort of slow-motion version of WWIII in late 1945 and early 1946. It would have been a mutual massacre, with stupendous losses on both sides.
One modification. US atomic strikes in such a scenario would likely have been tactical, hitting the major Soviet armies in Germany and primary military leadership (Zhukov, Koniev et al.). Soviet air defenses around Moscow et al. would have been considerable, and a single bomber or small group would likely have been intercepted. A conventional raid could lose 10% of its force but still deliver 90% of its payload, but if the strike plane in an atomic attack is shot down then you have lost that day. Japanese air defenses were mostly degraded, such that a single bomber (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was ignored as just doing photo-reconnaissance. Take a look at "Red Inferno" by Robert Conroy (pub. 2010) for a fun novelization of such a conflict.
@@stuartwald2395The Soviets didn’t have anything that could reliably intercept B-29s in 1945. They simply flew too high and the fighters couldn’t reach that altitude quickly enough (if at all).
@@stuartwald2395 what air defenses?! We didn't have even high altitude fighters to intercept even basic german Ju-86, a bomber designed in 1934! And first night fighter USSR had was MiG-17P, you heard that right, a variant of MiG-17, a plane that appeared only in 1952. What are you going to intercept B-29 with, eh?
“Few historians know” BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING 😂😂
Just making sh!t up jn youtube comments section fir no reason what so ever WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS🤣😂🤣😂
In 45 & 46 THEY DIDNT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE 1 every 10 days
Plans do Not equal reality
To paraphrase someone, the quote from the British Chief of Staff was probably accompanied by the most polite "Are you f*****g NUTS?" ever put to paper.
You forgot to mention that the US instantly shut it down, but said the British can if they want to. That would have been one of the most disastrous wars in history
Not at all. The US simply lost all of its morals after WWII. It shut the British out of the Manhattan project despite the fact that Tube Alloys had advanced US research by 10 years and it betrayed the British and French at Suez. Had the US backed Churchill in 1945 then the Cold War wouldn`t have happened
so the Americans were basically like: Good Luck bro, this is all you
So Britain wanted another major country to aid in a war that Britain wants because it can’t stomach the war.
yea the rabid anti communists in the UK were even worse than the ones in the US and among the level of NAZI's, we know this because Churchill had spent a decade praising Moussilini and Hitler before it became uncool
so much so they killed Patton
08:20 it also bears to mention that United States and China weren't at the best terms. This largely thanks to poor interpersonal relations between commander US forces in China and lend-lease coordinator General Joseph "Vinegar-joe" Stilwell and kuomingtang leader general Chiang kai-shek.
Long story short, Stilwell and Chiang kai-shek created lastin animosity between United States and Kuomingtang, where US saw Kuomingtang trying to subvert lend lease aid to amass a war treasury in fight against the communists while only keeping lipservice to fight the Japanese, and Kuomingtang saw that United States is trying to use their soldiers as meat shields while pursuing their own objectives. There was very little change that Chiang kai-shek would be on board with any invasion involving the soviets.
In fairness to Chang, Stilwell was one of the worst generals in US history. Odds are he would have been sacked if US/Koumintang relations hung in the balance. And in any event, while Chang might have had issues with Stilwell, he didn’t have a lot of options, as the Soviets would have supported Mao, and the Japanese were still at war with China.
@@bluemarlin8138yeah, I'm not running defense for Stillwell here. While Chiang Kai-shek wasn't exactly Sun Tzu reborn, that doesn't really absolve Stillwell from his own screw ups. Namely that he insisted carrying on the burma campaign, while Japanese were at the same time hammering eastern China with offensive Operation ichi-go.
It's also good to remember that it wasn't just Chiang kai-shek who had it with Stillwell. Both british and american commanders held him in contempt, as Stillwell seemed oblivious of how demanding jungle warfare was and ordered units that were debilitated by tropical diseases back to combat. They later described that they felt "thoroughly abused" by Stillwell.
He was absolutely wrong person for the job, he might've done better in any operation in the pacific but as for land war operation in asia, that was just not his expertise.
Edit: I guess should also mention that it was not just Stillwell: it was US entire approach to China that was pretty mismanaged. Roosevelt's representative Patrick Hurley was in center of it, where he for example made a deal with Mao Zedong, his signature on a declaration that wasn't checked trough Chiang Kai-shek(Hurley wasn't just Roosevelt's representive but also negotiated on Chiang kai-shek's behalf). And this worked about as well as you'd expect: while Hurley's plan was to create sort of a co-operative effort between Kuomingtang and Communists to fight the Japanese, Hurley still messed up by undermining Chiang kai-shek as he didn't consult him at all.
Chiang kai-shek however did say in the end, that he was open to possibility of putting differences aside....IF the chinese red army fights under his command. Mao predictably refused, and he felt that Hurley had misled him about talks with cooperation. So Hurley's shenanigans had now damaged US credibility in eyes of both parties.
It didn't exactly help that Hurley seemed to like conducting his business drunk.
Mean I doubt occupied Eastern Europe was happy Churchill plan didn’t happen. They spent next 40 years under horrible Soviet occupation
Should be noted that Soviet divisions were smaller. An American division at full strength would have 15,000 men. A Soviet division would only have roughly half that number, so the Soviets having more than twice the divisions doesn’t mean they had twice the soldiers.
Soviet divisions were also severely undermanned due to their high casualty rates. This was a problem for all countries, but much moreso for the USSR and Germany.
@@bluemarlin8138 It was also at the advantage that a division could move and adapt quicker than Western troops.
It actualy does not only twice or triple the man but straight up more than 11 million men serving in the soviet army by the year 1945 rolled around. The americans only had 3 million in europe.
@@Silver_Prussian America wasn't the only ally. Britain had as many as the US plus commonwealth forces (a lot would obviously be stuck in Asia), France had millions and Germany had millions (Germans would objectively be the best at fighting soviets)
@@mrcaboosevg6089 the germans didnt have millon by the end their answer was completely depleted same for brittain ,they were suffering severe manpower shortage in 1944. Also as I said what keeps the soviets from stirring up the mases in the colonies ? They are much better located to supply them to at the very least sabotage allied records extractions from those regions. Soviet promise of liberation might also convince many to switch sides while on the battlefield hundreds of thousands of men deserting to the soviet side for the promise of the liberation of their country.
For everyone who mentioned atomic bombs, while yes they were an advantage, remember that their only delivery method were bombers, which can be shot down. It’s likely that only half the bombs(from like 4 the Allie’s could build during the first month) would make it .
Less, I doubt any nukes would of made it since the soviet airforce was like 40k fighters deep
@@GGGG-jn7ib None of those aircraft were high altitude interceptors, and the Soviets had no Night Fighters until the MiG-17 which was a 50's aircraft.
@@PeterMuskrat6968b29 can reach altitude of 9.000 meters almost all soviet figthers at the time from the la series to the yaks to the mig 3 a interceptor can reach that attitude with ease and even higher up to 10.000 and 11.000 meters of altitude. They also had verious prototypes both piston and rocket engine that could fly as fast a jet engine and almost and just as high such as the i225 and the i250.
@@Silver_Prussianah yes they could try to intercept b29s with their 12 prototype I250s. With no developed GCI, and against a very experienced adversary, I don’t think any Soviet planes would get close before they’re swatted from the sky. Just the power of the American Air Force would stop the red army. Because any time the Soviets try to mass for an attack… think Operation Cobra
@@paulbeck5919 I already told you that they had many other planes in the thoudands by that point capable of intercepting the b29 with ease, their La series of fighters, the Yak series, the mig3 and others including american land lease aircraft also those prototypes were basically fully tested and finished designs the reason why they didnt take off was because of the jet engines. You think that the soviets were experienced despite having a lot of battles in the air with the germans ?
The power of the american air force would be halted and stoped with ease by the soviet airforce and their extensive AA network.
Most of you think like children not realising that simple airpower doesnt win wars
4:54 Its important to NOTE here that Soviet division (~8000) were much smaller than Western or German divisions (15-20,000) . In actuality the Strength was roughly equal on both sides if you include both front line and support personnel.
nah, not important at all
That doesn’t even take into account how undermanned Soviet divisions were due to their high casualty rates.
The Soviet Army used Corps (Rifle, Mechanized, Armored, etc, each of which was composed of several "divisions") as equivalent to western divisions. These had a similar amount of manpower and equipment as a western division and many were simply renamed "divisions" during the Cold War period. In May 1945 (not sure about July), the Soviet Army had 203 Corps of various types spread between the active armies in Europe plus their STAVKA reserve. At the same time, the Western Allies had 94 divisions in Western Europe and 19 in Italy - 113 total. So the Soviets had about a 1.8 : 1 advantage in frontline personnel, but the Allies were much better supplied and had superior air power.
If only the Americans and we listened to Patton and Montgomery Russia would not have been the issue it has been since 1944
I suspect such a war might have lead to civil unrest in the west. The promise of looming peace was important to many people and having that snatched away at the last minute would not have gone down well.
If I'm not mistaken, there was an entirely separate plan made when Stalin blockaded West Berlin. Which was a pretty stupid idea by the way since, not only did it not work, but, the Soviet Union didn't have Nuclear Weapons yet, while the United States did.
The possibility of Unthinkable actually happening may have been enough to lead Stalin to stick with what he had rather than risk expansion.
A summary of key strategic issues:
1. NAVAL FORCES: There is really no competition in this area. US and UK have overwhelming advantages and can move these forces pretty much anywhere unopposed.
a. Only limitation for allies is was with Japan which commits many of these forces for at least the first three months of this war until Japan is knocked out.
b. Some minor possibility that Japan stays in longer since the USSR would not attack in Manchuria, but allied air power and submarines have such a stranglehold on Japan by this point that there is little it can do in response except tie up allied forces. And these numbers would be dictated by their need back in the European theater.
c. Allies have the ability and experience to perform naval invasions that USSR has not really planned for or deployed for. While landings on Murmansk or Vladivostok would possibly create a distraction, they would not be worth the effort to keep these beachheads resupplied. Landings in the Black Sea though could directly threaten vital oil and food supplies coming Ukraine and also bring other Eastern European nations onto the Allied side.
Summary - Overwhelming advantage to Allies
2. AIR FORCES:
a. Both the USSR and the Allies have well equipped and capable tactical air forces. The only disadvantage the USSR has is the fuel supply issue to keep their planes flying is highly dependent on lend-lease. What may start out as equal will transition to allied advantage over time because of this limitation.
b. The allies dominate in strategic air forces. USSR has little that compare to or even stop the B-29 or the thousands of other allied strategic bombers. While these will not, by themselves, bring the USSR to its knees - they failed to do so with Germany - they will create complete havoc on USSR logistics which will compromise the armies int he field. The strategic bombing campaign for this scenario would more likely follow the war in North Africa in cutting off German and Italian logistics than in the campaign against the German heartland.
Summary - Initial advantages to allies that will only grow more decisive over time.
3. GROUND FORCES: The USSR has at the beginning the overall advantage in ground forces numbers.
a. USSR armor will be initially superior until the M-26 and M-36 begin showing up in greater quantities
b. USSR has more artillery and rockets, however, if I am recalling correctly, lacks the air burst capabilities of British and American Artillery. Plus the method used by the US, and to some extent UK, to call in artillery support and have it land near where desired was both easier and more efficient than the Soviet means. So with time to plan and prepare an offensive, the Soviet artillery is a huge capability - but allied artillery reduces these greater numbers through better targeting and lethality to troops int he open.
c. As others stated, Soviets have more divisions, but they are smaller in size than their US/UK equivalents (anywhere from half to a third based on casualty numbers.)
d. USSR could move forces to take over Greece, and maybe Turkey to prevent access to the Black Sea, but this reduces the number of available forces to oppose or attack the Allies in Central Europe. Plus it creates new logistics needs for the forces sent there that would further strain USSR's resupply capabilities.
e. Similarly USSR could attack the Nordic countries and likely take them, but again this gives them more land, but stretches their already overtaxed logistics lines for very little advantage. Note that the US/UK was quite happy to ignore the German land forces in Norway and Greece and focus instead on the Central Europe fight - there is no reason to assume they would do otherwise in this area.
Summary: Initial advantage to USSR that will decrease as the war with Japan comes to a close and all American forces can be committed to this theater.
4. LOGISTICS:
a. The USSR logistics system is barely sufficient to keep its armies supplied. Loss of lend lease will dramatically affect USSR's ability to keep its forces clothed, fed, and supplied with ammunition. This is even before allied counter-logistics actions. The USSR faces the same logistical nightmare that the German's did on their invasion of the Soviet Union, basically thousands of miles to travel to keep supplies flowing.
b. The allied logistics system is huge and capable. While it also faces thousands of miles of travel, all sea travel is uncontested and therefore not endangered. Once reaching Europe, the Allies need only continue to reopen ports to keep their supply lines relatively short. Conceivably this could allow any Baltic ports to become a major supply hub. USSR does not have an equivalent capability to lean on. If the Allies are foolish enough to push into the Soviet Union itself, unlike the Germans they would have capabilities to create supply ports much further to the East than the Germans did. Conceivably if they could take Leningrad, this too could be made a logistics hub to threaten surviving Russian forces.
c. The major disadvantage to the USSR is that the allies can attack vital logistics nodes, such as the Soviet oil fields near the Black Sea and the limited rail lines coming across Western Russia and Eastern Europe to break down the USSR logistics flow to their forces in the field, yet USSR has no means to do the same to the Allies.
Summary: Time is against the USSR logistics situation. The longer the war goes the worse the resupply situation for the USSR will be.
5. X FACTORS:
a. Japan - While Japan would be unable to mount any successful form or counter-offensive to challenge the US and UK, the longer they continue to resist the longer the US cannot commit its full capabilities to the war in Europe. The potential outcomes in this area are: 1. Japan still surrenders after the atomic bombs. 2. Japan holds out a little longer but the stranglehold on Japan shipping by submarines and bombing of the home islands eventually make them still surrender before 1946. 3. The Allies accept less than total surrender, perhaps accepting the Emperor and allowing them to keep Korea. The Americans help return the Japanese soldiers to Japan before turning everything to Europe. Ultimately this is merely delays to the inevitable.
b. Germany - The British plan for 10-20 German divisions with American equipment would bring lots of additional manpower, but at the political costs of being associated with the Nazis. Whether this would be better because of manpower, or worse because it would drive away potential allies in Eastern Europe (and even France) makes the advantage of this questionable at best. Perhaps a middle ground of some 'home guard' units used only within the borders of Germany proper would be decided on which provides some limited advantages to the Allies until the US can fully commit its forces.
c. War weariness - Both the USSR and UK are tapped out as far as new forces are concerned, and both will be challenged to even provide replacements to the forces at the beginning of this conflict. The US has many more resources it can still draw upon, but the casualty numbers from the island battles in '45 have left a bad taste in the mouth of the American public. Truman does not have Roosevelt's appeal, nor is there a 'Remember Pearl Harbor' incident to rally behind. Generally, I think the Greatest Generation would likely suck it up under this scenario, but they would be less supportive than the wars against German and Japan.
d. Atomic weapons - certainly not a game changer in this scenario, but definitely something the USSR has to reckon with. Assuming we follow the historical model and the first two are used to end the war in Japan, the decision on where the next bombs are used (Japan or Europe) starts to dictate the way the war will go. It was expected that the Manhattan Project could start producing 2 such bombs per month. Likely this could be ramped up over time as experiences would allow for innovation and refinement of the basic processes - but we will stick with 2 per month as a reasonable number. Assume a few might be saved to blunt a Soviet breakout, the others would likely be used to go against strategic targets in the Soviet Union as well. Once again, the major rail marshalling areas would be great targets. Russian industry is mostly out of range but if the industry supplies cannot reach the front, it's not very useful.
Summation: The USSR has a few initial advantage areas at the beginning of the conflict that can allow them to stop any allied offensive and even capture significant land (such as the rest of Germany, maybe even the BENELUX nations), but this advantage will quickly disappear in the face of Allied advantages in the Air, at Sea, and with logistics. It would be a bloody fight, with hundreds of thousands to millions of casualties, but in the end the Allies would push the USSR back behind their borders and possibly further in the home fronts could be convinced to keep up the struggle.
It was an understandable precaution on the part of the British. I'm actually more shocked the USA didn't take the threat of the Soviets as serious as the UK did
One of the USAs biggest blunders, world politics would be way better if this plan was implemented and succeeded.
Why would we want to go to war with a large nation that took out one of the largest lend lease loans from WWII? You forget aside from British mainstream media the United States and Russia had many military and space joint operations. Also during the Suez Canal Crisis after Israel, the British and French empire invaded Egypt and the Suez Canal the United States and Russia teamed up against them pretty much putting the nail in the coffin for the British empire because the accords were anti colonialist.
I remember asking my grandad about this, he said if they got the order the would of been mass mutiny’s the common soldiers though very highly of the red army at the time
Yeah, declaring war on your allies immediately after your joint war has concluded would not have gone down well. The plan wasn't a well kept secret either, which probably contributed to Churchill getting voted out of office at the first opportunity.
Not only did they have detailed war plans, they had detailed after war plans… how times have changed.
I'm surprised you left out mention of General Patton. I remember reading years ago he had a similar feeling about the USSR as did Churchill & he was actively advocating to use captured German troops as the first wave troops to attack the USSR. I believe it was all shortly before he was disciplined & "forced to retire". (I'm sure I'm leaving out allot of details lol)
That's why Patton was whacked by a "runaway donkey cart"
Bullshit. Patton wasn't forced to retire. He was merely relieved of his post as the military governor of Bavaria for his controversial statements to the press comparing Nazis to Republicans and Democrats.
And the theory that he was murdered has been proven to be a wild goose chase. He could've been quietly bumped off by the OSS in Munich without being fired, but even after his relieving in September he lived for another 3 months and the fact that he was going on a hunting trip in his staff car was known ONLY to his most trusted companions. Even when in hospital, he wasn't recovering a bit.
Plus, Patton's history of having covert nazi sympathies even during WW2 wasn't a secret to anyone. No idiot was gonna take him seriously.
Patton was always a blow hard
he was assasinated by secret services for this.
@@CommonSenz get a load of this conspiracy theorist, that did not happen. The moat high profile and outspoken US general was 100% whacked by an accidental "horse cart mishap"
This wasn't a big secret, my Dad was only 5 at the end of the war but I remember him telling me Churchill's hope was for the Allies to carry on through Germany and then to sort out Russia.
After seeing the thorough Nazicide the Soviets did on the Eastern Front, the Allies would've said:
"No thank you, Mr. Prime Minister."
Important to note that in this timeline, the Russians and communism would have been painted as the bad guys just like the Germans were in this timeline. Instead of hearing about the Holocaust we would be hearing about the Holodomor.
No bushy mustache but a narrow one is ok.
1) What do you mean "would have been?" The USSR was very much framed as a Nazi-level evil empire for much of the cold war, at least in the US, and they're still largely seen as "the bad guys" of the Cold War in popular history.
2) Are you implying that you think the Nazis ending up in the history books as the clear villains of WW2 is unfair?
My quotes around "bad guys" aren't to imply that the USSR didn't do some awful things, it's just that calling one side "the bad guys" implies that there was a "good guy" side. There really wasn't. The Cold War had villains and victims. That's about it. Neither side had anything approaching the moral high ground by the end.
Its very easy to spot alt-his mapboys. Their vernacular is very midwitted and fanciful
Everyone knew the Soviets were the enemy. They were the enemy before even Germany was. We just had a temporarily alliance to defeat our mutual enemy. Besides that they were by no means a friend to the west.
Had the Soviets started ww2 who knows? Maybe we'd be having a decades long cold war with the Nazis instead and all that would entail...
There was no such thing as a separate Holodomor, it was all part of the greater soviet famine of which Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 not Ukraine 🇺🇦 suffered the most. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Definitely should have been done. Imagine that: a free eastern Europe, no Korea war, no Vietnam war, no Afghanistan. The Western Allies started a war on Hitler to save Poland and ended up losing half Europe and seeing the rise of another enemy. Besides, the USSR had nothing without the western lend lease and technology, no navy, no boots, no jeeps. Easy win and a better 20th century for millions.
All Lend-Lease amounted to 4% of all USSR spending on the war.
Westerners spent decades helping USSR (since the civil war in fact), and you think they would attack them?
Also USA is anti-European so are completely fine with communists in Europe
Definitely not better you underestimate the outcome of a nuclear war
An important note here is that Churchill was rapidly voted out of power in 1945 & his support base for this kind of move would be dubious. No-one but local warlords with accommodations with the Soviets was really in control of China’s Western provinces. A war in Soviet Siberia was not possible. The snap your fingers atomic war was not considered plausible. Its only when the process became industrialised in the 1950s did the US nuclear arsenal start to become that capable.
Some interesting choices for graphics - modern tanks and aircraft not even dreamt of by 1945, and the USS Lexington CV-2, which had been sunk in 1942.
🤓🤓🤓
I was also wondering; talking about WWII factories in the Ural mountains and showing a helicopter???
I love the term "reformed prisoners of war" , sound so much better than "released Nazis".
Not every soldier was a nazi. But the most anti-communist were.
The US created a guerlilla-force out of former Waffen SS members that shoud act as terrorists in case of a Soviet occupation in the late 40s and 50s -without telling the Western German gouvernment.
are you actually know that the garman army was not nazi, the ss was nazi but like 90% of the wehrmacht were ordenary people.
@@inaktivfiok2274 The "clean wehrmacht" myth has been debunked for 80 years now. It's very probably false.
We fought the wrong enemy. Doors were wooden.
The problem with the atom bomb theory is that the US had no bombs left after Nagasaki, and they took a long time build. Truman’s threat to rain atomic bombs down on Japan if it didn’t surrender was a bluff.
There was one left
@@juavi6987 Elmer Fudd: Well, whadaya know? No mowe buwwets?
Bugs Bunny: "No mowe buwwets"? Hey, laughing boy! No mowe buwwets!
Daffy Duck: No mowe buwwets?! Let me see that! [snatches the gun, looks down the barrel... and gets shot in the face.]
Elmer Fudd: Well, what do you know? One buwwet weft!
Bugs Bunny: "One buwwet weft?" Hey, laughing boy! There was...!
Daffy Duck: [With said bullet in his scalp] I know I KNOW!
@@waynesteffen3262they weren’t expensive to make. The Americans tested a few before using them
Not sure if I like the phrase "Only a Madman's Plan". One of the main reasons WWII started was that nobody took Hitler's threats seriously and was sure public opinion would stop another war. Although the West began rearming before Hitler attacked Poland, part of the problem was that so few really saw the threat and didn't really try to anticipate any outcomes or responses other than the catastrophic move into Belgium. At least Churchill made an effort to try to be ready for a worse case scenario (the Soviets no stopping once Germany surrendered.).
That soviets were affected by ww2 more than the allies perhaps why Churchill propose it and not stalin
Everyone is too quick to dismiss operation unthinkable as non plausible; just some Churchill pipe dream. But it happens to mirror what the Valkyrie plotters wanted to propose to the western allies. Had that plot been successful it seems such a plan might well have gone through. An amenable to its role in the plan at the outset and not yet broken German army would change the math quite a bit.
The KGB didnt exist at that point the main intellkgence apparatus that existed in the soviet union during ww2 was the NKVD
Same people, different name. Just as the present FSB is really just the KGB. And most everyone in power now in Russia, including the clergy, are ex (maybe ex?) KGB people.
It would have been devastating, but i think the Allies would have pulled out a victory for a few reasons: 1)Total Air superiority. With massive B-29 and Lancaster Bombers and long-range fighters like the Mustang, the Wallies would have been able to bomb the Caucasian oil fields, the Russian rail network, and troops out equipment making their way towards the front. 2) long supply lines for the Soviets. The Soviets would have to use their vulnerable rail network to even support their troops in the field. These supplies would be under constant attack from Polish, German, Ukrainian, and Czech partisan forces as well as being bombed from the air. Good luck Russia. 3) good supply lines for the Wallies. No matter how far into Europe the Wallies would be able to advance, until they actually started advancing into Russia itself, they have near immediate access to the sea, and easy access to all the Supplies that can bring. 4) American Money. While Britain was broke, and the Russians didn't even know what money was, the Americans had yet to tap into their deepest reserves. Oil production was higher in 45 than it was in 39, and the US was still massively out producting all other nations in war production.
Yeah I think actual tacticians know more than you, and that’s why it wasn’t carried out.
You miss one fact completly: Most partizans in Belarus, Ukraine (except the former Polish part, that would have been part of dispute between the two countries in such a scenario, still anyway), Yugoslavia (sometimes heard of a guy called Tito?!), Romania, etc. were actually RED partizans.
And when in the early 20ies the British gouvernment intended to support Poland in the Polish-Soviet war, British railroad workers actually went on strike to halt those...
Any attack on the Soviet Union would not have been seen as fight a against dictatorship, but rather opposite as an attempt by industrialists to fight the workers-movement...
Also, that both Britain and France elected Socialist(F)/Labour(GB) gouvernments immediately after the war.
On their own, Soviets couldn't do all three of 1) fuel their tanks and planes 2) fuel their tractors and use oil derived fertilizer 3) have massive manpower diverted from the farms to the front. That's why they needed massive imports of US and British oil during the war. And US food. With that aid cut off, the Soviets would have either fueled their war machine while enduring a Holodomor like mega famine, or averted famine while their modern war machine sat helpless and unfueled like much of the late-war Axis navy and air force. Then with the Caucasus oil fields given the same treatment as Hamburg, Cologne, and Tokyo, the Soviets would have had BOTH a mega famine AND a crippled military. On top of that, decent treatment of civilians and POWs by Brits and GIs would have crumbled the Soviet troops' will to fight. There was massive collaboration with the Axis as it was even with how brutal the Axis had been. Combine that with Americans bringing FOOD and it would likely have been like the massive German surrenders in the Western Front in spring 1945.
"Everyone's fed up with war" - probably the only time that I'll ever agree with Stalin.
It’s hard to believe that before long that entire generation will be gone.. a lot of knowledge will disappear over the next 10 years concerning this time period..
There should be a mass effort asap to interview everyone left involved in ww2… not just about war, but life before and after
Forgotten Voices Of The Second World War did that. Book by Max Arthur. His Forgotten Voices Of The Great War is also incredible. War seen from ordinary people's perspectives.
There's a channel on UA-cam called, fittingly enough, World War Two. It's a retelling of the entire war, week-by-week, with troop movements, casualties, special episodes on special operations, spies, life in wartime, the Holocaust... It's an absolutely amazing channel that I recommend to everyone.
Incidentally, there's also a World War 1 channel that did the same.
There's a counterpoint to your supposition in that once the entire generation is gone then the guardians of the information don't have as much of a vested interest in the belief systems that existed and more details in the archives are revealed that were considered too sensitive to be 'in the public interest' to be declassified.
The United States having nuclear capabilities would have basically won the war against USSR. Unfortunately, this means the US needs to show Stalin why he should retreat.
Question about a theoretical scenario: if A.H. was somehow removed from the leadership of Germany before 1939, would an alliance of Germany, Poland, Britain and France been able to defeat the USSR in a war in 1939-1945?
Germany alone would probably defeat the USSR if they were not fighting on two fronts and blockaded from commerce with the West. I don't think it is even a question that the alliance you're proposing would have defeated the USSR in 1939-1945.
@@Igor_054 No they wouldn't lol
Absolutely. It wouldn’t have taken until 1945 either. The USSR had not truly begun its arms buildup yet in 1939, but Germany, Britain, and France had, and the Soviet industrial base was substantially smaller than it ended up being. Stalin had also just purged his military of competent officers, so it would have been even less prepared than it was in 1941. Britain, France, and Germany could have also fairly easily blockaded all Soviet ports, so the USSR’s main sources of income would have been choked off. The US would have gladly sold that alliance all the fuel and ammo it wanted. If those four countries invaded the USSR in 1939, the war is probably over sometime in 1940, maybe 1941 at the latest. Anyone who thinks the USSR would have stood a chance here is naively thinking of those countries at the end of WWII, not the beginning. Because prior to that, they were the 3 most powerful militaries on earth. The USSR was a distant 4th in 1939.
@@Igor_054No lol, the Germans could barely beat Poland and even with Soviet assistance still faced logistical collapse by the beginning of October 1939
ukraine would have joined against stalin. there was no love for stalin and russia in ukraine. they had just endured the starvation of millions by stalin so anyone fighting against that would have been welcome.
Simon what happened to your video about Cordyceps on your channel into the shadows, is it deleted ?
Considering how exhausted the Soviet military was in 1945, and the Americans likely ability to attack Soviet industrial centers in the far east, it may have actually worked.
Yea it could have if you can explain to your public why there is another war in europe that will cost us millions of soldiers just for the sake of it
Nobody wants to die fighting another pointless war because a one man decided he needs to attack an ally because he thinks that it would be very smart idea
Yeah, Nazi thought the same thing, too. So did Napolean. So did Charles XII. Didnt work out well for them.
Britain was destitute by the Summer of '45. It was exhausted by the war. How Churchill ever thought he could fight the Soviets is beyond me. I guess we can chalk this up to another one of Churchill's goofy ideas since he had been a source of dumb ideas since Gallipoli.
Gallipoli wasn't Churchills idea though was it. There was 12 other people involved and Churchill made the mistake of apologising, which was a rookie mistake on his behalf. The others pointed the finger at Churchill and got away with it. The British were full of goofy decisions most worked out.
I think one of the main reasons they did not act on this was, that the USA underestimated how much of a pain the USSR was gonna be.
I think they did not invade because they understood that a war with Russia would be costly and un winnable
It was because they overestimated how many soldiers the Soviets had.
They _under_ estimated soviet strength and that's why they didn't do it? Cannot tell what you are trying to say.
@@ZontarDow not really over estimated , USA with its ocean away logistics had zero chance of beating the USSR in 1945 , USA armed forces litteraly had to face the weakest parts of the german army and still managed to get pushed back at times .
@@narcick1018 whatever you have to tell yourself. The USSR is a meat grinder
Neither the American or British publics would have supported a sneak attack on a country they still considered an ally, Not to mention the reactions of the British Parliament and American Congress, Doubt the Commonwealth governments would have been too happy either
I mean, if WW3 has always been destined to happen, I would've rather it happened back then, than rn when everyone has nukes and hypersonic missles 😭
So you want a WW3 a few months after WW2?
The operative word is if.
The older I get the more I don't like Churchill the warmonger. He totally brought down the British Empire.
I think we were all just too tired to fight any more.
Such an attack on the Soviet Union would most likely have pushed them to an alliance with Japan and maybe even speed up the Chinese Civil War if China were drawn in. A very interesting scenario.
Wouldn't of mattered Japan was never going to defeat the allies
@@Haha-v2j True, however, if joining Japan, then the Russian invasion of Manchuria doesn't take place and those Japanese resources are then free for the homeland, and maybe with Soviet backing. At the least, WWII could become longer and maybe turn into WIII.
@@zanenobbs352How exactly was Japan going to get that army in Manchuria back home? The US Navy had the Japanese home islands totally blockaded. The Soviet navy would have lasted about 5 seconds against the USN, so that’s a no-go. And if Japan somehow managed to pull out of Manchuria, China would have taken back its territory, and Chang Kai-Shek probably could have quickly wiped out Mao at that point. Then China would have been a solid US ally.
@@bluemarlin8138 Korean peninsula and Kurile Islands. Russia would end up defending Japanese gains in Manchuria, as an ally, Chiang is stuck in a static scenario and the US had only blockaded Japan from the East, South, and partially in the North. Stalin starts supplying Mao with Soviet and former German weapons, ensuring the status quo in China remains. Better read "The Rising Sun" by John Toland to get a better idea of what the situation was like on the mainland and in the Sea of Japan. Remember too that at this time the atom bomb had not yet been tested. Up to that time the US Armed forces slogan was "Golden Gate in '48." since the Japanese were expected to prolong the war, and with Soviet help, that could have been very likely, even if they might eventually lose. It was only after the bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria the the slogan changed to "Home alive in '45."
A video on the Cambridge Five would be great.
Russian divisions were smaller than most other countries but obviously the man power difference would’ve been heavily in their favor.
More than likely the Russians would’ve pushed the allies back and we would’ve seen a very long and bloody conflict.
i would argue that to this day Russia hasn’t recovered from the USSR losses in WW2
Also Stalin killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Siberian death camps.
No not true ussr was just led by idiots where they had a miltary first policy sacrificing all other important industry for the stupid miltary
But Russia has nukes lots and lots of nukes
@JDDC-tq7qm they have a shelf life remember they don't last forever
i disagree with you here. what i think russia is recovering from as of right now is the collapse of the USSR that happened in the 90s
I've seen that poor orchard get blown to bit at least a thousand times. 9:27
It might not have been the Cambridge 5 . Zhukov was a smart bastard and a sneaky tactician he might have been thinking along the lines of if he was in the Wests position he'd be thinking the unthinkable as well
Would be interesting to know what the repressed peoples of Poland etc thought about this plan. Loosing lives is obviously awful but stopping what Stalin, his successors and those in agreement around the world did and are still doing is terrible. Hindsight of course is a wonderful thing. Churchill was right however.
Are still doing? The USSR collapsed
When Germany fell, Patton begged Ike to let him take the allied forces and march to Moscow. Ike told him no, and Patton died a very mysterious death shortly after. Patton knew if we didn't deal with them then, it'd only get worse. Also, at that time, America was the only country with working atom bombs, and that would've scared Stalin into backing off after he saw what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Patton wasn't assassinated if that's what your suggestion
@@Shinzon23 sure
Yeah... Ever thought about the American public who form ALL of the units that would fight the Soviets? Don't care about their feelings of WANTING TO GO HOME, NOW after this war is over?
Lol millions of Americans would have died fighting the soviets. You can't even stomach when thousands of Americans die (see afghanistan, vietnam) let alone millions. As for stalin backing down, this is the same guy who said "1 death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" and you think he's going to back down? Not unless you invent ICBM's capable of reaching Moscow much earlier than you did.
@@jwr2904Patton died in a well-documented Jeep accident. There’s nothing mysterious about it.
General Patton would’ve been all for this plan
World War II became a winner takes all, and the Soviet Union was determined to be that winner to take all.
As a pole, I feel that for all the blood we spilt in the war, fighting for the west, we were owed a better fate than what we got. I know it would be a tall order for the West to keep fighting, but it was not right to stop the war prematurely, leaving millions of central and eastern europeans to suffer under the Russian boot. If there was ever a war of the forces of good and evil, it was the Second World War, but the Good settled for half a victory, leaving a great wound upon the world to fester for decades, which is tragic
In russia they are taught that that the war started in 41. Not in 39 when Poland was carved up between the USSR and The Third Reich. Btw, could you cover the Aleutian Islands campaign?
Incorrect. In Russia we are taught to divide the war on WWII which begins in 1939 and Great Patriotic War which begins in 1941 after German invasion in USSR. So basically Great Patriotic War is a part of WWII.
@@sergedombrovsky4650 Are you taught about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the USSRs join invasion of Poland, and occupation of the Baltics?
@@bearok89 Sure, so?
Yes, Russians are aware of this. Even Putin himself stated it in one of his talk sessions with Baltic representatives years ago and that it was something horrible but happened due to the circumstances of those times..@@bearok89
@@bearok89they praise it
When one thinks Churchill, one word comes to mind... Gallipoli.
The man was tenacious, but not a good military thinker.
Patton suggested this shortly after the Germans surrendered. He & Winston were brilliant. Just think of hassles & horrors that could have been avoided, including the war in Ukraine right now.
Speaking as somebody who has read several biographies on Churchill, I honestly believe that Operation Unthinkable was intended as a contingency in the event the Soviets began flexing Westward. Churchill knew better than anyone that WWII had left Britain on the edge of bankruptcy and the public had major war fatigue not to mention the fact that nationalism was erupting across most of the empire.
Fighting another major conflict in Europe was a complete non starter but there was no harm in running the numbers in case it became a necessity.
@justonecornetto80 it would indeed, have been a very tall tree to climb. But to be honest, I can't help but wonder...🤔🤔🤔
@@billotto602 It`s an interesting scenario for the alternative history buff alright but it`s hard to reach any other conclusion than the one the General Staff came to and that was it probably would have turned into a stalemate in Eastern Europe unless nuclear weapons were deployed
@@justonecornetto80 Yes, and this isn't unusual. While many European nations are slacking these days, you can bet that the US is constantly making plans for every worst case scenario.
@@justonecornetto80 and nukes would probably have to be deployed.
Great video thank you
Us not going through with this operation has caused nuclear tension, third world suffering, and potential dethronement from peer status by oriental states... All because some cowards did not have the guts to go through with this.
Tell me, how can you justify to the soldiers that are MOST CERTAINLY going to die attacking the Red Army to attack the Red Army? And to the people at the Home Front to accept that their loved ones who are in the military are going to die attacking the Red Army? Like, didn't it occur to you that both the American and British public is sick of the war and wanted to end it?
2:42 has to be the most british photo ever
Really wish we’d listened to Patton
And for the exact reason you wish we listened to him, is why he was taken out. He was starting to think too much about that which we can't talk about.
To what exactly?
Don't think we'd have enjoyed the outcome . . .
@@teru797Patton wasn't assassinated, none of America's enemies would ever have been willing to do something that would benefit America to such a degree.
If Patton was half as competent as his fans pretend he was, America would have reached Berlin before the Soviets reached Warsaw.
Not really ratio 3:1 - because soviet divisions were smaller compared to the german or western divisions. That's first issue, the second issue, a manpower shortage of ussr. Some of their divisions were not fully equipped and manned- sooo even less numerical advantage
But their military equipment factories were fully ongoing
@@ИванИванов-я9ы8н true, but without manpower, you wont do much with that, plus a very long way from them, gives allies plenty of methods to harras their logistics, and well army marches on its stomach
I honestly don’t see any scenario where the Soviet Union wins. Yes they out number the allies, but as stated in the video the soviets would lose all the lend lease material imports, which have as many tanks and trucks and planes as you want. If they got empty fuel tanks, they’re pretty much cooked. Add to that, the very significant presence of anti Soviet people around the eastern block. Poland and Ukraine and Finland plus any Germans who’d be interested in another go at Russia spring to mind as trouble spots. Plus the advent of nuclear weapons and the fact that the allied war industry and supply lines were all well established. I fear that the war would be bloody but the sheer amount of mechanical force against the Soviet Union would turn the eastern front into a war like the pacific where for example in New Guinea Australia lost 9000 casualties the United States lost 7000 casualties and the Japanese lost 200,000 casualties much through exhaustion and malnutrition.
like your videos Philip ,,please do a video about the art of camouflage in war
RIP General Patton
Idk if this true or not. But didn’t Patton have the very same idea as Churchill did when it came to the Soviets after Germanys surrender
@@blackninjah8641 Patton wanted to and was completely willing to continue pressing east towards the USSR. Assuming that the western allies had some justification.
@@blackninjah8641then that “unfortunate” car “accident” happened
Patton was getting everything ready for it @@blackninjah8641
From what i read at least 25 years ago, the Soviets already knew about this operation. Stalin had stated afterwards that it couldn't have happened simply because there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the allied forces that were very sympathetic towards the USSR, for the massive effort made, to destroy their real enemy Hitler.
The British public wouldn't have been in favour.
It's by no chance that Churchill was voted OUT of power in june 1945. People knew that he was a wartime leader, and it was time for PEACE.
We should have listened to General Patton and invaded the USSR at the end of WWII. We would have clobbered them. The 3:1 manpower advantage would have meant nothing. The Red Army was poorly equipped, poorly lead and poorly trained. If not for the weather and Hitler's foolishness, they'd have lost Moscow in 1942. This is an army so bad they barely beat Finland, for Pete's sake.
Churchill's propensity to volunteer the United States for war aside, this time he wasn't wrong. But Patton said it first.
Let me ask you: did the American public wanted this war?
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 They did not want the war they had just finished either. Still had to fight it.
Ah yes the army that destroyed the Wehrmacht and took Berlin was totally incompetent suuuuuuuuure.
The Germans didn't loose because of bad weather but they lost because of the sacrifice made by tens of millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians.
@@aAverageFan Bullshit. They had no leadership, not enough equipment and no strategy other than throwing bodies at the Germans until they ran out of bullets. If the Germans could have fixed their logistics, Moe=scow would have fallen. The weather shut down the German supply lines.
The Russians never had a military that could survive without luck and propaganda.
Lest we forget, Patton had a hard-on for going ahead and taking them out.....he was sacked for running his mouth about it.
Stalin could have never kept the supply line open, kinda the same problem Hitler had......
Yeah and everybody else in the US military thinks he's insane for thinking that is a good idea. Especially Eisenhower who is the logistics guy for Europe...
Operation unthinkable seems pretty thinkable right about now
No
2:04-2:13 Poland: Finally! We are free!
Soviet Union: Oh, we wouldn't say free. More like 'under new management'.
I think the biggest argument against these sorts of counterfactuals is that you're talking about a world that had been at war for 6-7 years... people wanted to go home and back to their loved ones and lives. I think even Stalin recognised this - plus from his perspective, buffer zones help against the sort of imperialism that's been discussed here 😅 no wonder the guy was paranoid
That war weariness works both ways. Perhaps the Soviet troops and people would have been too exhausted to be willing to fight, especially since the US and UK wouldn't have been brutal like the Axis to POWs and civilians on the ground. A war with the West would not have been a battle to prevent slavery or extermination like the battle with the Axis; quite the contrary, as everyone in Western Europe and the Mediterranean knew, the arrival of Western troops was good news.
@@IrishCarney yep, very true. But I don't think either sides politicians wanted to test this. Then by the time the Soviets got nukes not long after, it was truly unthinkable!
What Stalin did WAS imperialism.
You seemed to have forgotten about the nukes.
What they gonna do? Create 5,000 bombs from the ground and use in ussr? Remember that the red army was large than every allied army combined
what about the nuclear bombs? you can't possibly think that if another major war started they wouldn't use them
This plan was made before the atom bomb was dropped on Japan and I think before Churchill knew for certain that they would be used in the future.
@@Jonny-uu7wf Plus the US didn't have that many nukes at the time. IIRC, after they dropped the first two on Japan, they only had one other bomb ready to go. The view that the US could've rained nuclear death upon the USSR is mistaken.
What's even more interesting is that among the German leadership plays after Hitler game ended himself, one had the balls to propse the USSR a conditional surrender whereas the other wanted the allies to accept a conditional surrender then continue to fight the USSR as whatever state was left by the allies.
Meanwhile the Allies accepted the Comintern and kept true to the agreement of no separate peace, only to then immediately consider going to war against them to liberate Eastern Europe.
The allies didn't realize that the USST was just gonna conquer half Europe
@@yoloswaggins7121 wrong lol, usa helped ussr take over half of Europe
Today is a good day when warographics come through!
Just like say "War creates only more war".
Meaningless platitudes.
Also should be noted that the red army had much superior artillery, and much more tanks.
Define superior?
Numbers aren’t everything
Lol
@@stargazer-elitethat's how they won lol
@@ianmacdiarmid1249compare American artillery with russian
Can't overemphasize oil. World War 2 revolved around it. It's why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (to remove the US obstacle to seizing the Indonesian oil fields so they could continue their war effort in China). It's why Germany in 1942 focused on getting to the Caucasus and to cut off the flow of Soviet oil north at the nearest (furthest-west) point of that flow (Stalingrad). More than just high-octane avgas, US oil inflow was crucial for Soviet fertilizer and tractors; without it and food aid the Soviets would have starved en masse.
Lets not forget that Stalin could also use the communist element in western Europe to stir up major trouble in those countries. Greece was already facing a civil war between communist and government forces. Imagine major communist uprisings happening in Italy and France. It could cause a lot of chaos behind the western lines. Another major question would be the loyalty of the occupied eastern countries. Would Romania, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary attempt to rebel against their Soviet overlords? If they did, then the Soviet Union would be in big trouble and most likely be forced to retreat to its own borders.
It's Churchill fantasizing about having American troops and resources so loyal they'd die for him - not peace, UK or Europe.
Listen. The idea that Russia was successful only because of Lend/Lease and British Intelligence is complete bull. The Soviets tore the guts out of the Wehrmacht. The real turning point in the eastern campaign came in August 1942-February 1943 at Stalingrad. At that time in the war The Allied material aid consisted of mainly food. The eastern war turned irrecoverably at Kursk in Southern Ukraine in 1943. The Soviets had won the war at that point. They ground down the Wehrmacht down to a point where the would stay on the defensive until losing the war. As far as intelligence goes google ‘Lucy’ and Stalin. Sure we helped, but the Allied ETO was nothing in comparison. The war in the East was larger by at least a factor of 10 and was as savage as the war in the Pacific that most westerners are familiar with. The Germans came to exterminate them and got curb stomped.
The Soviets would have been knocked out of the war by December 1941 if the British hadn`t stripped its Far East empire of most of its best equipment and sent it to them. A decision btw which cost the British Malaya and Singapore as it completely hamstrung Operation Matador. Where do you think all those Valentine tanks and Hurricane fighters that defended Moscow came from? Also, the Soviets would never have been able to open up the Persian corridor without British muscle. To put it bluntly, the Soviets were a complete liability until the Austrian corporal made his less than genius move of breaking up Army Group South and going after Stalingrad.
As for your assertion that Stalin was some sort of military genius, who was it who issued the no step back order that made the Red Army easy pickings for the Wehrmacht in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa? Who was it who gutted the Red Army`s officer corps in the 1930s by having 80% of its talent murdered to satisfy his insane paranoia despite the Austrian corporal`s gameplan being clearly spelled out in Mein Kampf? Who was it that decimated the USSR`s first line of defence by starving 5 million Ukrainians to death? Stalin`s only genius move was allowing Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky and Chuikov to get on with it after he had almost handed the Soviet Union to Germany on a plate.
While the Lucy network had its successes, it was small potatoes compared with the headache SOE created for the Axis and then there was ULTRA as well. The British indisputably won the intelligence war hands down. Even Stalin described British Intelligence as "a bunch of skilful sneaky bastards!"
You also seem to have completely ignored just how devastating the Western allies bombing campaign was in slowing down Germany`s war production without which would have probably led to a stalemate on the Eastern front as the Austrian corporal would have been able to make good his losses after Kursk. To offer some perspective, Albert Speer once said in an interview that if the Allies had launched three more missions in quick succession on the scale of Operation Gomorrah over Germany`s industrial centres in 1943 it would have finished the war because enormous resources would have been diverted toward home defence instead of the fronts. As it was, Gomorrah on its own did enough to ease the path for the Soviets.
While the Soviets suffered huge losses during WWII, many of them were down to gross negligence and stupidity, not because they fearlessly threw themselves at the Axis and they certainly didn`t win the war single handed and could never have done so without the British and Americans. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to all those who made the supreme sacrifice in other theatres.
@@justonecornetto80 I would encourage you to read the book ‘Russia At War’ by Alexander Werth. Who was an English journalist who spent most war in the Soviet Union. He basically dismantles everything you just argued. First at no point did I argue that Stalin was a military genius, so I’m not sure where you drawing that from. Secondly all the Hurricanes and Matildas that Churchill sent were a pittance. Again the scale of the conflict on the Eastern Front dwarfed anything that occurred in the Western theater. Also as you probably already know the Matilda was design as more of an infantry support tank and was not well suited to countering the Blitzkrieg tactics the Germans were employing up to that point. The Matilda had a top speed of 9 to 15 mph. While well armored it was slow and ponderous, so it was of limited value.
As far as the English debacle in Malaya, goes the British defeat can be attributed to multiple causes the least of which was the fact that they stripped their defenses of Hurricanes and Matildas. The British underestimated the Japanese and the false assumptions they made regarding jungle warfare. They believed the Northern part of the country was unsuited to mechanized warfare, they same mistake they made in the Battle of France and the Ardennes, and had all their defenses in Singapore facing the wrong way South. Due to this tactical error the Japanese quickly overran Cunningham troops.
In regards to the Air War wage by Britian and the U.S. the effects that you are describing again didn’t take affect until later in the war 1943 onward. During the critical phases of the Eastern War up to Kursk, the Germans either had superiority or where on par with the Russians in air power.
The bottom line is that up through 1943 the Soviets carried the larger part of land war, occupied the majority of the German war machine, received first priority in tactical planning by the Germans, and the list goes on.
By acknowledging that fact (despite Stalin’s gutting his own officer corps, the Nonaggression Pact, the tactical blunders with the state of readiness of Soviet forces on 22 June 1941, etc) the Soviets did more than the allies in West to defeat Germany. This doesn’t denigrate those who die in the Western Theater, but the simple fact is Soviets that had won the Eastern campaign on their own. Most of the benefits derived from Western efforts (aid, the second front, drawing off substantial Axis forces, etc.) really started having effects after 1943 at which point the German efforts had been halted. Even the drawing off of German forces in Kursk to respond to the invasion of Italy, happen after Citadel had been dealt with, especially the Northern pincer.
The data doesn’t support your claims. And I take your reaction to my statement as more of a emotional outburst which occurs after someone hears facts that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Some of things you mentioned have no bearing on the actual war. However, I’m sorry you are simply wrong.
As far as the Soviets intelligence goes Stalin had virtually access to everything going in the West and Germany, as they were riddled with Communist sympathizers who kept Stalin informed of the goings on behind scenes in both the Western Allies and German camps. While Ultra was an amazing accomplishment by British intelligence, the subversive efforts by the Soviets ensure they didn’t need to rely Ultra as their primary source of intelligence. At best Ultra confirmed what information they already had. Again google ‘Lucy’. That was their best source but by far wasn’t their only one. Stalin even knew about the Manhattan Project as he had sources inside that effort.
In World War 1 the West definitely defeated the Germans, but in World War 2 the Soviets were the main reason Hitler lost the war. In Hitler’s mind the Western theater was of secondary importance. While I haven’t bother to read Mien Kampf, I have read enough secondary sources to know it was to the East Hitler wish to expand. The only reason he ever fought Britain and France was because they declared war after the invasion of Poland. His heart was never in the Western Theater was always a distraction. While Britian and Churchill certainly showed bravery and grit while going it alone prior to Barbarosa, the fact is they were treading water and part of their ability to do so can be credited to the fact that the invasion of Russia drew the lion’s share of planning and resources.
@@ericmarcum1117 And I suggest you try reading The Eastern Front by Max Hastings who was given access to not only the British war archives but the Soviet ones as well.
Btw Werth wasn`t English he was Russian, he just held British citizenship. He also accepted the Soviet account of the Katyn massacre without question despite it being an amateurish attempt to blame it on the Germans which makes me question what else he got wrong or chose to ignore
@@justonecornetto80 I have read Max Hastings and I just disagree with many of his conclusions. I have actually read numerous books, by numerous authors. Out of them I found Werth’s account, despite the Pro-Soviet leanings, as the most factual and have the advantage of having lived through them. Every author carries their own biases that shines through in their prose. And just because Werth pushed the political narrative doesn’t invalidate every things he presents. There are numerous authors who did the same thing on their accounts on Western Effort. When reading history, I always research who wrote it so it the back of my mind when reading. I’m able to distinguish between fact and opinion. I read Kurt Myers Grenadiers, at times found myself reacting to the many false equivalencies he tries draw between the atrocities committed by the SS and the allied bombing campaign. The fact that he’s ‘wrong’ on so many things doesn’t invalidate everything he presents. In fact it’s very valuable in giving the insight to the mind of such a man. We could go back and forth all day regarding which facts present the correct conclusion. My biggest objection to videos such as this one is that they’re all slanted in view of the current crisis in the Ukraine. Decidedly anti-Russian. For the record. I grew up with a Lithuanian grandmother who escaped in the early 1900’s. I grew up hearing stories about how the Russians shot her teacher for teaching Lithuanian while working in the fields. Which is probably one of the reasons why I became so interested in the conflict. In my opinion if England had not ‘gone it alone’ and sued for peace instead and Hitler turned his attention East as planned Germany would have still lost the war. Once the war transitioned to attrition and industrial output the war was lost. Without a quick victory Germany loses every time. The same cannot be said of America and especially the British. Again that’s just facts that speak for themselves.
Operation Unthinkable is a fitting name. It's completely unthinkable, but one wonders what the result would have been.
Hindsight being what it is we probably should have. Would have made a lot of things easier for the world. Fewer countries would have adopted socialist governments
@chrisgavin2794 nope war affect encomy like it or not
Nuclear war results would have been beyond usa capabilities to fix Eastern Europe
If the Allies had agreed and launched, they would have won. The Russian factories to the East weren't touched by the Germans, mainly because the Germans never had heavy bomber approaching anything like the B-29 and never in great numbers. Those factories would have been extinct rather quickly. Combine that with the disruption on the Lend Lease, not to mention the possible use of The Bomb and it would have been over quickly. One huge advantage the Western Allies have would the use of the German military that had fought the Russians. The Germans would have provided first hand knowledge of the scale of the Steppes, the terrain and Soviet tactics. Unfortunately, it was impossible politically at the time to go to war with the Soviet Union. The American public wouldn't have supported it Truman wasn't the type of leader to rally public opinion.
Well said and analyzed
B29 cannot reach the urals , the soviet army was huge, and the russian people was moralized
@@BAHLANsarrola222 B-29s had a range of 4,000 miles. The Soviet Army was large, but Army size means little in the total construct of a military. The American people were moralized as well.
Nobody in the US Government or military would be able to rally the public to support a war against the Soviets in 1945. Everyone from Ike to your regular mudfoot infantry thinks attacking the Soviets is the dumbest thing ever, especially for the latter who would be the unlucky SOB who would be facing the Red Army if Washington decides to do that...
@@BAHLANsarrola222not from europe but Alaska and canada and probably japan. Thos could reach anywhere in the soviet union from asia
The thumbnail map is wrong: it shows the RSFSR in red but is labelled USSR.
The Stalin's ability to fight a war would have been severely hampered without Allied supply. I don't know an Anglo-American campaign could have forced the them into an unconditional surrender.
Definitely wouldn't have been unconditional, pushing into Russia again would be stupid. Best they could hope for would be freeing Poland most likely.
@@fatesgospel7963What do you mean "again"?
Soviets didnt surrender when 3 million of their soldiers perished in 1941 and their lines had completely collapsed , what makes you think russia would have surrendered because some yanks 10 times smaller than the russian army decides to declare war.
@@narcick1018 Atomic bombs?
@@eadweard. they litteraly didnt have enough bombs in 1945 , the americans even bluffed against the japanese after fat man saying they can do it again meanwhile they had none , also if you think even 10 atomic bombs will win against the soviets you are delusional , the soviet industry and population centres are very spread out and they couldnt use the nukes wşth frontline purposes anyway
Churchill was not only a madman , but also a very miserable strategist. Under His command, the Allied get ass bitten in Gallipoli , against peripheral Turkey . Imagine now the miserable UK fighting alone against the mighty Soviet Union....
If I remember correctly even before the Battle of Berlin was over Soviet battle casualties had consumed their offensive capacity. For example the use of Mongolian, etc troops was Zhucov's 'last gasp'. No wonder the given date was JULY. Plus since Roosevelt had died Churchill must have been thinking that the Americans would have been forced by a fait compli to help the "mad" Brits. Still.. those Russian IF-2 heavy tanks would have been a HUGE dilemma and how would the enlisted Germans been 'paid' for helping make the attack successful...
The videos on current events are my great but my favorite videos on this channel are the ones on older conflicts.
Churchill really wanted to end the world
How the Soviets had no nuclear weapons ez win
funny lmao. if only patton wouldn’t have gotten in that car “accident” we wouldn’t be in this situation with russia
@@Haha-v2j bro think the war would end in few months
They would have developed it faster