Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[Dachs]

And yet...and yet Operation Unthinkable never actually took place, because it was thought "infeasible".

What would you suggest then as an explanation? The Western Allies simply had no appetite for further war?

Well, the actual Operation Unthinkable plans were only developed by the British and assumed limited to no American participation. The initial variant, the plan for an offensive war, was rapidly discarded because even the British generals had the intelligence to know that attacking the Red Army by themselves would be idiotic and suicidal. The main variant, in the event of a Soviet attack, never had to be put into play because the Red Army obviously never attacked Western Europe.

 

[Borachio]

Is this true, that it assumed no American participation?

The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines

 

[History_Buff]

Heard this statement about logistics many times, but never heard proper explanation. From logistics point of view, USSR was in more favorable position than Allies who would have to supply their forces over Atlantic ocean. Another thing is that Europe is small and well covered with roads and railroads - the distance remaining between West Germany border and Atlantic coast is about half of a distance between Moscow and West Germany.

Well I'd question how much of that infrastructure was still intact. The Allies had been doing (or at least trying to do) a good job of blowing the transportation networks to smithereens. Then you have the classic problem of Russia being on a different rail gauge from Germany.

There were certainly points where the key factor in moving the front was getting trucks together, and just driving there over anything resembling a road. The Soviets were provided a great many of these through Lend-Lease if I'm not mistaken; if you suddenly remove that support, there is a distinct possibility they are going to have drastic supply issues. But they had by that point come much further that the western Allies, and could easily have developed a local manufacturing base for transport trucks by that point, I really don't know.

And that's without counting the overwhelming air superiority that would be possessed by the western Allies..

 

[Dachs]

Is this true, that it assumed no American participation?

"Limited to no". Most of that forty-seven would be British. If they assumed serious American participation, the numbers would be much, much higher.

 

[Borachio]

But the total number of Western Allied divisions in that area were 100.

This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.

And let's not forget the Canadians. Why does everybody always forget the Canadians?

I'm still not getting why you think this meant "limited to no" American participation. But never mind. Whatever. It's too late now.

And never mind the 4:1 numerical superiority to the Soviets, either. Or was it only 3:1?

 

[red_elk]

All of the Red Army's lines of potential supply were in easy reach of Allied bombing interdiction. In addition, partisans were active against Soviet forces and their lines of supply in eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine and Poland, at least until 1948. By comparison, there was zero threat to Allied shipping after the end of the U-boat campaigns.

The distance between Antwerp and Berlin is ~700 km. The distance between Berlin and Moscow is ~1800 km.

Transport of large amounts of war matériel over water is significantly faster and more cost effective than doing so over land, even with the aid of a large in-place rail network.

Transportation infrastructure in western Europe is and has always been superior to that in eastern Europe even without the devastation of an apocalyptic war.

All this is well known and correct. I just don't see why logistics issues would be a stopper for the Soviet advance exactly at this point, where the remaining distance to go was not that big (the Soviets went even further past Berlin in 1945), and the Western-European roads were much better for advance than Eastern Europe or Belorussian swamps.

"Limited to no". Most of that forty-seven would be British. If they assumed serious American participation, the numbers would be much, much higher.

IIRC, they also planned to use several German divisions.

And never mind the 4:1 numerical superiority to the Soviets, either. Or was it only 3:1?

I was thinking the superiority was about 3:1. Still more than enough to make the attack insane.

 

[GoodGame]

And let's not forget the Canadians. Why does everybody always forget the Canadians?

I haven't forgot the Canadians.

 

[History_Buff]

And let's not forget the Canadians. Why does everybody always forget the Canadians?

We're always hiding in the background, lest our voices get hoarse from over apologizing for things.

 

[King Kalmah]

All this is well known and correct. I just don't see why logistics issues would be a stopper for the Soviet advance exactly at this point, where the remaining distance to go was not that big (the Soviets went even further past Berlin in 1945), and the Western-European roads were much better for advance than Eastern Europe or Belorussian swamps.


IIRC, they also planned to use several German divisions.


I was thinking the superiority was about 3:1. Still more than enough to make the attack insane.

I don't understand why people forget about the Axis Powers.These separate nations had some manpower left and tons of equipment on the field in Europe.Sure they would have to be lumped together with other nationalities to fuel the allied advance into Russia,but this happened during WW2 in the German armies with Romanians and Hungarians and other nationalities being lumped together esp after Stalingrad...(esp since petty rivalries were meaningless when surrounded by the enemy and the temperatures falls to below zero...)

Also factor in that the Axis nations(Hungary,Romania,Finland,Bulgaria,Yugoslavia) had an interest( for survival) in keeping the Soviets out of their "backyard" and would have been more then happy to help the allies.Since if they didn't help they would become part of the Soviet Union(Finland) or made into buffer zones(Romania.Hungary,Bulgaria,Yugoslavia,Czechs)....(even though many of the nations had no clue what the Soviets intentions were(no crystal ball)...many nations already had previews of what Russia had in mind for them from previous conflicts)

keep in mind the only reason Finland,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria joined the Axis was for protection from Russia(many of the nations weren't pro German..just anti Russian)..Yugoslavia joined just to save her ass from Italy and Hungary since both had territorial claims on Yugoslavia...

I just find it odd that everything else was taken into account during WW2 except historical feuds...

I mean wouldn't it be common sense for the Axis powers to be absorbed by the Allies to form a "liberating force" and then use Patton to blitz across the Urals and not stopping till Moscow is captured....


Oh and what was Soviet's plan if they wanted Lodon or Paris/counter attack if the west attacked?

Their strategy was "push forward!" since the Generals would say "retreating earns you a shot in the back..."

So yeah never ending advance or else you get shot.... isn't much of a battle plan..IMHO....

 

[FriendlyFire]

Roosevelt must have missed all that.

Are you questioning a President during a time of war ?

Russia was at the end of it's logistics and demographic chain in 1945. They were pumping a dry well and just took over half a million casualties in the offensives leading up to and at Berlin.

I don't know about any great success in pushing Russia out of Eastern Europe being possible, but there as no chance of the Soviets overcoming the Western allies.

Stalin got greedy, he switched hes main forces to take the Balkans, and other Nazi Satellite countries. Untested 2nd rate forces faced off the Germans and took huge losses.

By the time Russian armies enter the war against Japan, units started to consist of very young boys, 15, 16 year olds. The Japanese army was is even worse state, with some troops being equipped with only hand to hand weapons, one helmet per ten men and extreme shortages. But even so it was the most powerful land army at the end of the war.

But what ever happens the US had the atomic bomb, which redressed the strategic balance of power immediately.

 

[Dachs]

Stalin got greedy, he switched hes main forces to take the Balkans, and other Nazi Satellite countries. Untested 2nd rate forces faced off the Germans and took huge losses.

ahahahaha what

 

[FriendlyFire]

ahahahaha what

Rather then commit hes strategic reserves and supplies on taking the Balkans, Stalin should have pressed forward through the Germans central front and Prussia, Instead the Germans were allowed time to rebuild forces, defences which cost them dearly when the Russians resume there offensive.

The other thing was that 2nd rate or green troops were mostly used on the central front which explained why the Russians performance at continuing to press forward failed so badly.

 

[red_elk]

I don't understand why people forget about the Axis Powers.These separate nations had some manpower left and tons of equipment on the field in Europe.

The Soviets had already taken advantage of it, by that time. Polish infantry participated in capturing Berlin, Romania also switched sides just when the Soviet army approached their territory. They forgot that they didn't like Russians. Even if Romania, Finland, Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria wanted to attack the USSR, all what they could do is to start uprising or guerilla war. Unlike West Germany, where Allies (I mean, Western Allies, because USSR was their ally too) could create a regular army using remaining manpower and resources. Organized resistance with regular army was impossible in Eastern Europe.

keep in mind the only reason Finland,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria joined the Axis was for protection from Russia(many of the nations weren't pro German..just anti Russian).

Only partially true, for Finland and Romania. Bulgaria and Hungary didn't need protection from Russia. Finland had very bad relations with the USSR since 1920-s, and it was not only USSR's fault.

and then use Patton to blitz across the Urals and not stopping till Moscow is captured....

You propose Patton to advance from the East?

Their strategy was "push forward!" since the Generals would say "retreating earns you a shot in the back..."

So yeah never ending advance or else you get shot.... isn't much of a battle plan..IMHO....

"Retreating without an order earns you a shot". Sometimes in the back, if enemy is well aimed.
The order 227 was issued in 1942 just before Stalingrad battle, when retreating further would be indeed fatal for the country. "Never ending advance" is a very creative interpretation of this order and the Soviet tactics in general.

 

[King Kalmah]

You propose Patton to advance from the East?

Alright...damn it...well okay I think I butchered that pretty good....

To redeem myself...Allies could try to "free up" the Danube as a supply line and once the Soviets are back into Russia proper the allies would launch the naval invasion from the Black Sea/with Turkish anti air support and combine it with smaller simultaneous attacks on the Baltic region with Finnish assistance to shock and awe Soviets...

I am tired,but not bad for an idea I pulled out of no where....

EDIT also since the middle east could have been "recruited" for the allies(with promises of independence once the Soviets were toppled)So then the supply lanes would be open on the bottom of Russia too..(patton may get his eastern/southern charge....)

I will be here for three hours...good night!

 

[red_elk]

To redeem myself...Allies could try to "free up" the Danube as a supply line and once the Soviets are back into Russia proper the allies would launch the naval invasion from the Black Sea/with Turkish anti air support and combine it with smaller simultaneous attacks on the Baltic region with Finnish assistance to shock and awe Soviets...

Well, it's alternative history, here we can create as many scenarios as we want to. For example, I can imagine the Soviets taking France in several weeks' time, second Dunkirk evacuation of British troops and massive riots of workers, blacks and communists in the US, protesting against treacherous attack, betrayal of Soviet friends.

also since the middle east could have been "recruited" for the allies(with promises of independence once the Soviets were toppled)

Assuming that Middle Asian people (or you meant Caucasus?) were enslaved by inhuman Soviet monsters and dreamt of independence. Which is very one-sided point of view.

I will be here for three hours...good night!

I'm in Russia, it's afternoon here
But good night to you.

 

[r16]

hey , a laughing contest at the Russkies for they captured Balkans instead of killing Germans in Berlin ? Why should they do that , to allow Churchill invade the whole lot to inspire uprisings in the "loyal" citizens of the USSR ? Plus as the fronts got smaller German troops were getting concentrated . Can't say Americans or the British did well against concentrated German units , should not say a Russian aversion to engage the same is a weakness .

 

[King Kalmah]

Assuming that Middle Asian people (or you meant Caucasus?) were enslaved by inhuman Soviet monsters and dreamt of independence. Which is very one-sided point of view.

I never said the Soviets did enslave anyone...(British/France held the mandate of those place...)but Russia and the English did "liberate" Iran during WW2 from Pro German Reza Shah..Now nothing sinister in this...except that by Wars end the British had reasons to believe the Soviets had their eyes on another Satellite...

http://www.parstimes.com/history/anglo_soviet_invasion.html

They(Soviets) did have people on the ground in Iran if the moment arose...

I'm in Russia, it's afternoon here
But good night to you.

Good afternnon to you and thank you... tonight has been fair...

 

[red_elk]

tonight has been fair...

Agree, thank you too

 

[kochman]

Rather then commit hes strategic reserves and supplies on taking the Balkans, Stalin should have pressed forward through the Germans central front and Prussia, Instead the Germans were allowed time to rebuild forces, defences which cost them dearly when the Russians resume there offensive.

The other thing was that 2nd rate or green troops were mostly used on the central front which explained why the Russians performance at continuing to press forward failed so badly.

At what point are you talking about?

By the time the Russians were into Poland, the Germans were crumbling left and right and there were no dear costs to the Russians through the capture of Berlin. In fact, considering Berlin was the capital of the 3rd Reich and all the efforts the Nazis made to defend it, the Russians did quite well. When the Germans got anywhere near Moscow they got turned back well before reaching the actual city defenses (see Tula for example).

 

[red_elk]

At what point are you talking about?

Perhaps it was about July 1944, when Soviet advance met fresh German reinforcements near Warsaw (see battle under Radzymin), and the USSR redirected advance to more vulnerable South direction. It was the time when Poles begun Warsaw uprising, trying to take control of the city before Red Army arrives. Their mistake was that they didn't coordinate uprising with the Soviets.