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

[prester.john208]

No they don’t? In the short-term, they have their existing stockpiles. Even if by some miracle the war drags out so that the longer-term matters, they have additional capacity they are already building up (see below) that can meet their needs.

And the refineries the Soviets built to fill their high-octane gas needs - as well as synthetic oil production - in ‘45 on the back of machinery from captured German oil and synthetic refining are out in Siberia, where even the ‘29s can’t reach them even had the Anglo-Americans knew about them in the first place (they didn’t).

They can't replace the oil from the caucuses. Shipping it via the trans siberian ties up a lot of scarce resources moving oil and coal around. They don't have synthetic food.

Sure. That means it’s gonna be a fight under air parity. The history of fights under conditions of strategic air parity tell us that the two air forces effectively cancel each other out, leaving it down to the ground forces to carry the day.

The west has better Radar and almost untouchable bases.

Air parity at first, air superiority later, no air supremacy (late War in Europe).

Biggest problem for the west = France, Italy and US and British publics. Plus Soviet penetration of unions and intelligence. OSS, Treasury, British Intel, etc.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Food, Trucks, jeeps and fuel.

Already covering food and fuel below. The Soviets were not dependent on L-L for their vehicles by ‘45 however: Soviet domestic automobile production had comfortably surpassed losses in 1944 as it was and that’s before we factor in the Soviet looting of German automobile manufacturing in ‘45.

They can't replace the oil from the caucuses. Shipping it via the trans siberian ties up a lot of scarce resources moving oil and coal around. They don't have synthetic food.

They kinda can replace the oil down there. Even leaving aside that Anglo-American bombers would only suppress production, not end it, there’s the new Trans-Volga fields and the already-mentioned Synthetic plants. Shipping the full half of lend-lease the Soviets got via the Pacific down the trans-sib also vied with the transport of other goods, but the Soviets managed that balance with the resources available to them anyway. And so what they don’t have synthetic food? They have enough food production to avoid any crippling to their war effort* and that’s what matters as far as the war is concerned.

And again, this is all based on the presumption that the war lasts long enough for such long-term production to matter. It won’t.

*They technically have enough to avoid a famine altogether, but the distribution system wasn’t flexible enough for that. Curtailing food exports would be an option, though functionally would shift the famine from the fringes of the USSR to Eastern Europe instead. So it’d be Poles and Germans who die from famine in the place of Ukrainians and Kazakhs. As if Unthinkable needs any further reinforcement of how counter-productive of a means it is at achieving the stated goals.

Air parity at first, air superiority later, no air supremacy (late War in Europe).

If it takes the West years to achieve air superiority when the war’s gonna be over in months, then what does it matter?

 

[prester.john208]

Already covering food and fuel below. The Soviets were not dependent on L-L for their vehicles by ‘45 however: Soviet domestic automobile production had comfortably surpassed losses in 1944 as it was and that’s before we factor in the Soviet looting of German automobile manufacturing in ‘45.



They kinda can replace the oil down there. Even leaving aside that Anglo-American bombers would only suppress production, not end it, there’s the new Trans-Volga fields and the already-mentioned Synthetic plants. Shipping the full half of lend-lease the Soviets got via the Pacific down the trans-sib also vied with the transport of other goods, but the Soviets managed that balance with the resources available to them anyway. And so what they don’t have synthetic food? They have enough food production to avoid any crippling to their war effort* and that’s what matters as far as the war is concerned.

And again, this is all based on the presumption that the war lasts long enough for such long-term production to matter. It won’t.

*They technically have enough to avoid a famine altogether, but the distribution system wasn’t flexible enough for that. Curtailing food exports would be an option, though functionally would shift the famine from the fringes of the USSR to Eastern Europe instead. So it’d be Poles and Germans who die from famine in the place of Ukrainians and Kazakhs. As if Unthinkable needs any further reinforcement of how counter-productive of a means it is at achieving the stated goals.



If it takes the West years to achieve air superiority when the war’s gonna be over in months, then what does it matter?

Agreed. The Wars senseless.

 

[ravenscroft]

I don’t believe that Churchill, or FDR/Truman would have ever seriously considered deliberately starting a war with the Soviet Union. It is true that the USSR was an evil state, and was rapidly replacing Nazi Germany as the threat, but – IIRC – a lot of the planning concluded with ‘do not do this cool thing:’ the war would be immensely costly even if the allies won, and Britain was in no state to fight and win a war with the Russians. The state was already bankrupt. Even if Churchill thought it was better get the war over with, he isn’t going to be in power much longer.

A more reasonable prospect is that Stalin hears from his spies about Operation Unthinkable and assumes that Churchill and Truman actually intend to go through with it. He recognised that Churchill had a spine, and that he was deeply concerned about the communists, and feared that Truman might be cut from the same cloth. In this state, he might think the plans are genuine, in the sense the politicians think they can be safely implemented and lead to victory. He would also be very aware of the atomic bomb, and that while production was currently very slow it would not be long before America managed to start churning out 50 or 60 bombs a year. The Russians had an atomic programme of their own, and it might make progress, but there was no guarantee that the Russia would get the bomb in time to deter an American/British attack.

If we run with this, Stalin might decide that his best chance to fight and win a war is to strike, as hard as possible. This would represent the only realistic chance for Russia to win the war. If they managed to drive the British and Americans back to Britain, and suppress the French with the aid of the French Communists, there would be enough space between American airbases and Russia for the atomic bomb to become much less of an issue. Stalin could also invade out of Russian controlled-Iran, threatening the remnants of the British Empire in India and intimidating the Turks into submission. It would look good, at least on paper.

The real world might not be so obliging. At first, the Red Army would have a major advantage. Their tanks are better, and they have mastered the art of mass movement. The allies have also started moving troops to the Far East to prepare for a invasion of Japan. On the other hand, Allied air power would be vastly superior to its Russian counterpart and it would not take long before Russian supply lines were being bombed heavily and the spearheads started to run out of fuel and ammunition. Various communist factions would cause havoc in the rear, but they would probably lose popular support very quickly as word of Russian atrocities spread west. The Russians themselves would not be particular enthusiastic about the war. They hated and feared Hitler, with good reason, but they have nothing in particular against the British and Americans. Pro-communist propaganda was nowhere near as successful as the atrocities committed by the Germans, when it came to winding up the enthusiasm for war. There’s also the simple logistics issue of getting from Berlin to Normandy, a distance big enough to make it quite possible for the allies to put together defensive lines before the Russian offenses ran out of steam.

If the Russians do crack the defences and conquer most of Western Europe, they might have a chance to win. If nothing else, the allies have to launch a rerun of D-day as well as dropping atomic bombs on European targets to clear the way. I don’t believe they could succeed before their economy starts suffering from the sudden loss of lend lease. They would have major shortages very quickly, particularly when – if - American bombers start striking the oil wells at Baku. Their army would slow down rapidly, perhaps even grind to a halt. The allies could then start mounting a counteroffensive, which would push further and further into the USSR. Unlike Hitler, the British and Americans and French would treat the locals decently and work hard to support anti-Communist factions within the USSR. At some point, the Americans would be able to fly bombers over Moscow and start nuking cities within the USSR (although targeting industrial plants might be more useful, in the short-term.) Taking out Moscow would do immense damage to the soviet union, if only because it would kill a vast number of the bureaucrats who keep the system running.

I can turn this into a full scenario, if anyone’s interested.

 

[yulzari1]

How will Britain deal with mass mutinies by troops of all ranks which seems very likely? Not to mention massive civil unrest at home. This is a country that is IOTL about to vote in a nominally socialist government. The view of the King bears weight nevertheless and I doubt he would be keen on the concept of Unthinkable.

 

[prester.john208]

A more reasonable prospect is that Stalin hears from his spies about Operation Unthinkable and assumes that Churchill and Truman actually intend to go through with it

If we run with this, Stalin might decide that his best chance to fight and win a war is to strike, as hard as possible.

the Wallies avoid mutanies.

 

[RedSword12]

I don’t believe that Churchill, or FDR/Truman would have ever seriously considered deliberately starting a war with the Soviet Union. It is true that the USSR was an evil state, and was rapidly replacing Nazi Germany as the threat, but – IIRC – a lot of the planning concluded with ‘do not do this cool thing:’ the war would be immensely costly even if the allies won, and Britain was in no state to fight and win a war with the Russians. The state was already bankrupt. Even if Churchill thought it was better get the war over with, he isn’t going to be in power much longer.

A more reasonable prospect is that Stalin hears from his spies about Operation Unthinkable and assumes that Churchill and Truman actually intend to go through with it. He recognised that Churchill had a spine, and that he was deeply concerned about the communists, and feared that Truman might be cut from the same cloth. In this state, he might think the plans are genuine, in the sense the politicians think they can be safely implemented and lead to victory. He would also be very aware of the atomic bomb, and that while production was currently very slow it would not be long before America managed to start churning out 50 or 60 bombs a year. The Russians had an atomic programme of their own, and it might make progress, but there was no guarantee that the Russia would get the bomb in time to deter an American/British attack.

If we run with this, Stalin might decide that his best chance to fight and win a war is to strike, as hard as possible. This would represent the only realistic chance for Russia to win the war. If they managed to drive the British and Americans back to Britain, and suppress the French with the aid of the French Communists, there would be enough space between American airbases and Russia for the atomic bomb to become much less of an issue. Stalin could also invade out of Russian controlled-Iran, threatening the remnants of the British Empire in India and intimidating the Turks into submission. It would look good, at least on paper.

The real world might not be so obliging. At first, the Red Army would have a major advantage. Their tanks are better, and they have mastered the art of mass movement. The allies have also started moving troops to the Far East to prepare for a invasion of Japan. On the other hand, Allied air power would be vastly superior to its Russian counterpart and it would not take long before Russian supply lines were being bombed heavily and the spearheads started to run out of fuel and ammunition. Various communist factions would cause havoc in the rear, but they would probably lose popular support very quickly as word of Russian atrocities spread west. The Russians themselves would not be particular enthusiastic about the war. They hated and feared Hitler, with good reason, but they have nothing in particular against the British and Americans. Pro-communist propaganda was nowhere near as successful as the atrocities committed by the Germans, when it came to winding up the enthusiasm for war. There’s also the simple logistics issue of getting from Berlin to Normandy, a distance big enough to make it quite possible for the allies to put together defensive lines before the Russian offenses ran out of steam.

If the Russians do crack the defences and conquer most of Western Europe, they might have a chance to win. If nothing else, the allies have to launch a rerun of D-day as well as dropping atomic bombs on European targets to clear the way. I don’t believe they could succeed before their economy starts suffering from the sudden loss of lend lease. They would have major shortages very quickly, particularly when – if - American bombers start striking the oil wells at Baku. Their army would slow down rapidly, perhaps even grind to a halt. The allies could then start mounting a counteroffensive, which would push further and further into the USSR. Unlike Hitler, the British and Americans and French would treat the locals decently and work hard to support anti-Communist factions within the USSR. At some point, the Americans would be able to fly bombers over Moscow and start nuking cities within the USSR (although targeting industrial plants might be more useful, in the short-term.) Taking out Moscow would do immense damage to the soviet union, if only because it would kill a vast number of the bureaucrats who keep the system running.

I can turn this into a full scenario, if anyone’s interested.

Stalin was too cautious to stick out his neck like that.

 

[ravenscroft]

Stalin was too cautious to stick out his neck like that.

It depends.

On one hand, it would be astonishingly risky. On the other, he did very little in 1941 as signs of Hitler's plans mounted and it nearly wound up costing him everything. He might take the chance ...

... And besides, I can't think of any other way to reasonably trigger the war.

 

[RedSword12]

It depends.

On one hand, it would be astonishingly risky. On the other, he did very little in 1941 as signs of Hitler's plans mounted and it nearly wound up costing him everything. He might take the chance ...

... And besides, I can't think of any other way to reasonably trigger the war.

Stalin's lack of preparation for the invasion of the Soviet Union was an excess of caution, not recklessness. He knew he could ill-afford a war with Germany, and as such he did everything in his power to placate and not provoke Hitler. The notion that he would risk it all on an ill-advised fight against the rest of the world is not reasonable.

 

[Sasza]

The Red Army has no chance. They are running out of recruits and without supplies from the West, the famine of the 1940s will not destroy them. As I say, either the Red Army will be liquidated on German territory or they will manage to retreat east beyond the Vistula River.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If the Allies drop the bomb quickly Stalin probably sues for peace

Err.... no. They KNOW the US has a bomb. IF they go to war it will take that into account.

the US had the monopoly of the atomic bomb but it would still take months to build more than two bombs

No. 1) OTL They had 3, not two.
2) OTL They ramped down production to make the production process much safer, and, I think more efficient. Also, the war was over, and there was no urgency.
IIRC, there were plans to ramp up production to like 3 a month by December.

Stalin was too cautious to stick out his neck like that.

There is no question that no one in power would CHOOSE to start the war. It would have to be a (black) comedy of errors where each side believes the other side betrayed them.
The obvious thing would be Stalin making some very public statement as a bluff, and the West calls him on it. Possibly someone like Patton taking him at face value

 

[Crueldwarf]

The Red Army has no chance. They are running out of recruits and without supplies from the West, the famine of the 1940s will not destroy them.

Red Army was not running out of recruits. They had whole class of 1927/28 almost entirely untapped and significant portions of 1926/27 class either not mobilized or kept in the training camps. Soviets were winding down mobilization effort since second half of 1944.

Basically, the whole thing about Red Army running out of manpower in 1945 is utter bullshit that was born out of small size of the Soviet rifle divisions at that point. Which were kept small on purpose because it made them easier to control and keep in the field.

 

[Sasza]

Red Army was not running out of recruits. They had whole class of 1927/28 almost entirely untapped and significant portions of 1926/27 class either not mobilized or kept in the training camps. Soviets were winding down mobilization effort since second half of 1944.

Basically, the whole thing about Red Army running out of manpower in 1945 is utter bullshit that was born out of small size of the Soviet rifle divisions at that point. Which were kept small on purpose because it made them easier to control and keep in the field.

Holy God, do you want to throw 18-year-olds at long-time GI veterans from the US Army? It would be a disaster. Additionally, from what I remember, most of them already work in industry.

 

[Crueldwarf]

Holy God, do you want to throw 18-year-olds at long-time GI veterans from the US Army? It would be a disaster. Additionally, from what I remember, most of them already work in industry.

There is a lot more Red Army veterans already than GI veterans. So Soviets kinda win this comparison of combat experience by default.

Some of them do because they weren't mobilized at all. Some of them were mobilized but were loaned to the workforce (while still counting as Red Army servicemen), some of them are quite literally sitting in training camps. Red Army was in draw down stage by 1945, but it was not spent in the slightest. They already had more men deployed in Europe than Allies have by significant degree and they had about as many in reserve.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

It's a very brief war that ends with massive mutinies and Truman and Churchill getting thrown out of office for suddenly becoming complete and utter idiots.

 

[Sasza]

There is a lot more Red Army veterans already than GI veterans. So Soviets kinda win this comparison of combat experience by default.

Some of them do because they weren't mobilized at all. Some of them were mobilized but were loaned to the workforce (while still counting as Red Army servicemen), some of them are quite literally sitting in training camps. Red Army was in draw down stage by 1945, but it was not spent in the slightest. They already had more men deployed in Europe than Allies have by significant degree and they had about as many in reserve.

What do the numbers of veterans have to do with the fact that you still want to send 18-year-olds to the front against stronger, better-equipped soldiers? The Red Army is extremely exhausted, they have no men in the field, they would have to cut divisions, which would reduce their overall combat strength, and they would have to send half of them back to agriculture. After a week of fighting with the RAF and USAF, the air force will be destroyed. The navy doesn't matter at all, the Royal Navy can sail into the Baltic Sea, park in Kronstadt and shoot at Leningrad like a target.

 

[Crueldwarf]

What do the numbers of veterans have to do with the fact that you still want to send 18-year-olds to the front against stronger, better-equipped soldiers?

It maybe surprising to you but 18-years old carried this war from the very beginning because it is how conscription works.

The Red Army is extremely exhausted, they have no men in the field, they would have to cut divisions, which would reduce their overall combat strength, and they would have to send half of them back to agriculture.

Why would they do that if they didn't do it OTL when they didn't have to fight a new war against former allies who betrayed them? This 'Unthinkable' thing will end in maybe six months tops. And not in the way you think it is.

After a week of fighting with the RAF and USAF, the air force will be destroyed.

Strangely enough but RAF and USAF didn't manage to destroy much weaker Luftwaffe in two weeks. How exactly they would do that to VVS?

The navy doesn't matter at all, the Royal Navy can sail into the Baltic Sea, park in Kronstadt and shoot at Leningrad like a target.

Yeah, sailing warships into the biggest minefield pond in the world is really rad idea.

 

[prester.john208]

It maybe surprising to you but 18-years old carried this war from the very beginning because it is how conscription works.

I thought the US waited till they were 19. They called people up the early 30s.

Why would they do that if they didn't do it OTL when they didn't have to fight a new war against former allies who betrayed them? This 'Unthinkable' thing will end in maybe six months tops. And not in the way you think it is.


Strangely enough but RAF and USAF didn't manage to destroy much weaker Luftwaffe in two weeks. How exactly they would do that to VVS?

Yeah, sailing warships into the biggest minefield pond in the world is really rad idea.

 

[Wr1t3r]

Stalin's lack of preparation for the invasion of the Soviet Union was an excess of caution, not recklessness. He knew he could ill-afford a war with Germany, and as such he did everything in his power to placate and not provoke Hitler. The notion that he would risk it all on an ill-advised fight against the rest of the world is not reasonable.

Hi. U seem really qualified, can you give your input on a post I made?

 

[Legalize Crack]

The propaganda is super easy. "We started this war to protect (free) Poland. Now we have to see it through to the bloody end." Either Stalin gives up at least Poland, or it's war. The Allies would be feeling this out prior to German collapse though. They would offer to maintain the Wehrmacht generals' commissions so long as the Wehrmacht overthrows high level Nazis and turns their guns on the Soviets. Lend-Lease reverses flow. Germany is guaranteed pre-Munich Agreement borders, including maybe even Austria. It's so generous in such a hopeless position, the generals will jump at the opportunity. Will the soldiers follow? Dunno.
Then the question of are the Allies satisfied with Poland untouched, or would they demand de-occupation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and part of Finland?
Stalin has a tough choice. Agree and commit political suicide (and end up dead in a basement somewhere within the month, probably), or decline and have a couple of atomic bombs tossed on him? On top of improved V-2's and such.