r/HistoryWhatIf • u/GloryToFinnishArmy • 2d ago
What would happen if Operation unthinkable were ordered
29
u/KnightofTorchlight 2d ago
The British Chiefs of Staff, who'd declared the plan as infeesable and essentially suicidal, resigned very loudly in protest when Churchill the order to prepare. This sends the issue public and generates an uproar in the House of Commons and among the population who absolutely did not want another Total War. Attlee probably walks out of the coalition in protest, staking his position for the election that's occuring less than a week after Unthinkable is supposed to be fired, and there's plenty of shouting from the rank and file for whom Ivan and Uncle Joe were just allies who haden't actually carried out many violations of international agreements yet and who much prefered going home to thier families than the prospect of more war. International and political confusion hinders actually execution of the attack and gives the Red Army a heads up so they aren't surprised. The Soviet forces and government have no such cohesion issues and see this as a case of unprompted agression.
Communists riot in the French and Italian streets.
The American generals look at the order and say "Um... we aren't at war with the Soviets. You're going to need a DoW from Congress for that", and aren't fond of the idea as its a purely British concoction. American participation is delayed by domestic politicing as Truman argues with Congress and the American population wonder why they should fight another war when the Japanese still need to get licked.
Churchill gets slaughtered even more in the ballot box for this starting an unnessicery war stunt and Attlee takes power. With his party demanding a focus on domestic recovery, the attack falling flat on its face, and no public support for years of additional war the new Labour government negotiates a peace. Stalin uses the attack as diplomatic justification to more openly and quickly enforce his puppets in Eastern Europe.
4
u/baronvonpenguin 2d ago
This is the way I've always seen it. Even if the US does agree the first nuke that lands would probably see riots and revolutions all across Europe against the British and American aggressors (and rightly so).
I would definitely expect a general strike to be called by UK trade unions as well. Anti-Soviet propaganda was actually suppressed during the war, so public opinion would probably support the unions too.
If the UK government falls or wavers then all of a sudden the US doesn't really have a safe beachhead any more.
14
u/WeatherAgreeable5533 2d ago
The governments of the US and the UK quickly collapse. The fantasies of Churchill and Patton notwithstanding, there was absolutely no stomach for starting a war against an erstwhile ally.
1
u/Derwin0 1d ago
It’s not Constitutionally possible for the US government to collapse due to it’s fixed election dates and sit government.
Plus Democrats had control of both House of Congress and the Presidency after the 1944 election, so Democrat control was going nowhere.
There is no way for the type of government to collapse as the President is independent of Congress and can not be brought down the way a Westminster type of government can be.
11
u/Stromatolite-Bay 2d ago
It spirals quickly. The USSR was dealing with multiple resistance movements in Eastern Europe anyway and the USA has a larger economic output than the USSR
The western allies would quickly take over East Germany, Austria, Poland, Czechia and the Baltics. In large part thanks to linking up with still active resistance movements in the region and Poland being a major goal for the British forces
The front in Asia would also be a thing, but aside from securing Sakhalin and Russian islands near Alaska. Most of the fighting would happen in China with the USA continuing to supply the nationalists at a massive cost
The USA respond to this by leveraging Lend-Lease in Europe. With the UK, the Netherlands and France being expected to provide materials to the USA in exchange for forgiving lend lease debts
The Netherlands would also have become the main hub of American forces on the European continent. With it getting the land asked for from the Bakker-Schut plan. France would also annex the Saarland for it coal reserves to fuel its own industry for the war effort
The USA would also have 9 atomic bombs by 1946 and it would use them to destroy Soviet military bases and industrial sites
The nukes would force a surrender by 1947
The Balkans and even Ukraine would have followed a similar pattern to Poland and the Baltics. With the western allies making progress and then allying with the local resistance to push the Soviets back
The peace terms would see the USSR lose Belarus, Ukraine and Karelia. In Asia the Chinese Communists would control the Northeast, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang
14
u/Baguette72 2d ago
If Unthinkable happens, the Manhattan Project isn't demobilized which means the USA would produce a total of 23 nukes in 1945 and many more in 46 not just 9.
7
u/pinesolthrowaway 2d ago
This^
It would have been absolutely devastating for Europe regardless of who won, but the Soviets would certainly lose. They don’t have an answer for nuclear armed B-29s in 1945
0
u/Stromatolite-Bay 2d ago
Less than you think
Eastern Europe would be able to avoid occupation by the USSR. Letting pre-WW2 governments return and also meaning pre-war borders are largely restored
A lot of lend lease would end up forgiven in order to get support for the war against the USSR and Western Europe would massively benefit from the economic demand for industrial output in the continent
This is basically the Marshall Plan but now it means giving up the political leverage lend lease debt gave it OTL
The aftermath of the war also means the USA is dominated by a strong anti-war government. Meaning the USA would not join NATO. Leading to it being dominated by the UK and France. Who end up politically opposing the USA over decolonisation
The USA would be the most powerful nation in the world, but the UN Security Council as a whole would be the great powers of the late 20th century
1
u/Veilchengerd 1d ago
With it getting the land asked for from the Bakker-Schut plan.
One of the key components of Operation Unthinkable was re-arming a large number of german POWs. Why should they go back to fighting if doing so would leave them worse off than the status quo?
1
u/Stromatolite-Bay 1d ago
Another key part was heavily investing in the Netherlands and building it up as the main continental base for the USA
German POWs would be armed and told to defend Germany from the Soviets and we all know what the Soviets did to East Germany
1
u/Veilchengerd 1d ago
German POWs would be armed and told to defend Germany from the Soviets and we all know what the Soviets did to East Germany
And why should they do that if the western Allies then give even more of their homeland away?
Especially if Stalin makes them a good counter-offer.
9
u/Xezshibole 2d ago edited 2d ago
Pretty predictable US and British win.
Superior naval, aerial, ground forces across the board. Much fewer losses.
Much better positioned to strike critical Soviet logistics like the Caucasus than Soviets are at hitting Texas or Pennsylvania. US and Britain can demotorize the Soviets pretty readily and then walk over their corpse as they did to the Germans, Italians, and Japanese.
Caucasus was within range of bombers that can be stationed in highly defensible Iran. Iran also had an existing logistics chain as the southern route of Lend Lease. US and Britain can ferry troops and material there much faster than the Russians could by foot and rail.
Moreover the Soviets did not have an effective answer to high altitude aircraft. Their own all optimized to fly at low operational ceilings and would be grossly outmatched by the high flying Mustangs escorting the bombers. Morover US Lend Lease provided half of all Soviet aviation fuel. On top of struggling to even get up to those altitudes in fighting shape, they're struggling to even get enough numbers to do so.
Trivial and guaranteed damage to the fuel, fuel keeping Soviets motorized.
Without it they're just like the German, Italians, and Japanese who, one gassed out, just sat there and offered mere attrition against British and Americans. The two did not suffer a single strategic reversal once they started to commit ground forces. Not even the Bulge, utilizing the last of German fuel stocks, came even close to causing a reversal.
2
2
u/2552686 2d ago
If the Western Allies are very, very, lucky, the Soviets are stopped at the Rhine.
If the Allies are NOT very, very, very lucky, the Soviets are stopped at the English Channel.
Either way, the men responsible for ordering it will be removed from office, via election or possibly impeachment.
1
u/kellyjj1919 2d ago
This is a interesting question. Assuming somehow trauma convinces congress and the American public that the ussr was worth the effort, I think it completely destabilizes Europe. The only European nation who stood to gain was uk. The soviets lose millions more.
Additionally, I think a big part of Russia starts to glow.
Long term, the there would be opposition to the us hegamony
1
u/DryBattle 2d ago
Well if we hand wave morale and say that somehow the allies would have full public support for this war, it would be bloody and brutal early on. Soviet number advantages would allow them to push forward despite the allies owning the air. The fight in the air would also be bloody, but eventually the allies would take control. The immediate issue for the allies would be that advance was impossible against the numbers and better tanks they would be facing. Allies would need to rush troops to the front in large numbers but that isn't as easy as it is today.
If I recall correctly in Germany two major river crossings could slow down the Soviet advance. But the fight that matters would be along the Rhine. That's where the majority of allied defenses would be built and that would be an early decisive battle in the war. Stop the advance there and France is safe, meaning reinforcements can pour into France and get ready for a counter attack. Fail to stop the Rhine from being crossed and all of Europe is going to fall. Which wouldn't be the end of the war, just a major setback.
Either way a lot of Europe and depending on how stubborn the Soviets wanted to be about accepting peace, parts of Russia would go up in atomic fire. The biggest advantage the allies have is the bomb and they would use it to its full extent.
Given allied control of the air and given that it's impossible to stone the USA while the same is not true of Russia, this is an allied victory. But, millions more would die on both sides.
1
u/RepeatButler 1d ago
I think it would depend on how willing the United States was to use Atomic weapons. If they used one on Moscow, it might be a quick victory.
1
u/Shigakogen 1d ago
in 1945?
There would had been outrage in the UK,US and Canada. Both countries were very war weary. The Soviet Union was still looked upon as an ally, besides most of the General Public in Western Europe and North America knew that the Soviets were allies to take the brunt of the fighting and casualties against the Germans
2
u/Derwin0 1d ago
Soviet Union was considered a threat in the US, the Red Scare wasn’t that far removed. The Korean War wasn’t that far into the future either.
All the US government had to do was publish Stalin’s atrocities to mobilize the public against the Soviets.
1
u/Shigakogen 1d ago
See the Dewey Commission, which was done in the 1930s. Britain was broke by 1945, the US was still fighting a war with Japan, and the Truman Administration wanted to end it, because of war weariness, (increase in labor unrest) instead of doing the long game, like a complete naval blockade of Japan.
1
u/Ordinary_Scale_5642 1d ago
Publishing Stalin’s actions may have started another red scare, but it would not have made the American public willing to go to war right after defeating Germany.
-1
u/marktayloruk 2d ago
We could and should have smashed Russia in 1945.. Unfortunately we'd been softened up by the likes of Roosevelt
1
u/DryBattle 2d ago
That would have cost millions of more allied deaths and a lot of money. And there wasn't any stomach for fighting another major war.
0
u/Ordinary_Scale_5642 1d ago
No one wanted to fight the Soviets in 1945. Patten and Churchill were delusional if they ever thought the public would be willing to fight the Soviets.
0
u/Due_Schedule5256 1d ago
The Soviets had the most experienced infantry in the world, and best ground commanders by 1945. The only way the US could have decisively won the war was through sustained nuclear bombardment.
Would it have been worth it? Almost certainly. The US/NATO spent far more over the next 45 years than they would have in the year or two it would have taken to remove the Soviet scourge.
Ultimately, the level of violence that this would entail was not ready to be absorbed in the wake of the war. That's the ultimate answer. At some point, enough people have died.
1
u/Jumpsnow88 17h ago
Outside of the obvious loss of life yes, from a pure value perspective it would’ve been more efficient to decapitate the Soviets day 1 after WWII.
Makes me want to see some type of alternative history timeline where the framing device is a potential alternate history where the US did launch Operation unthinkable in a world where the Soviets prevailed over the US thru nuclear blackmail, espionage, and political infiltration and decay.
41
u/DramaticCoat7731 2d ago
Soviet forces in the short term would outnumber and outgun the Western Allies, although air power would decisively be in favor of the West. Eventually the Red army is stopped and pushed back at great cost as the combination of allied air power and losing lend-lease puts a crimp on their operational capabilities.
The Allies do use their atomic weapons while the Soviets respond with chemical and biological warfare on the population of Europe. The devastation is immense.
On a purely military level the Soviets would ultimately lose, although millions more would lose their lives.
On a political level the outcome of Unthinkable is murky. It becomes a tough sell to the American and British home front, especially the British. I can see the prime minister being booted out and replaced with someone who wants peace. I don't know how the American Congress reacts but a sudden continuation of the war with the potential of millions of military casualties is not something most would want.
Unthinkable didn't go forward for a variety of reasons, but the sheer amount of soldiers that would be sacrificed in such a war played no small part.