Our series on the history of the Cold War period continues with a documentary on Operation Unthinkable - the plan of Churchill to defeat Stalin and push the Soviets out of Europe. Consider supporting us on Patreon: / thecoldwar
Hey guys, we are working very hard to bring you 2 videos per week with more animation and superior quality, but we need your help to do that. Please, consider supporting us on patreon: www.patreon.com/thecoldwar
Is there anything on the healthcare system of the soviet union during the late sixties and early seventies? I have no idea what it was like. All i hear about is nuclear weapons and space race. How were soviet civillians treated in urban and rural areas.
@@gabrielnieves3972 And Barbarossa was described as a swift military success by Hitler's generals. They thought that the Soviet Union would fall quickly, which they didn't
Considering their love fest with the Soviets😧😳 toward the end of the war,I could imagine alot of payback feeling.But, also a hell of a lot of trepidation.
@@xBlade87x yes but when your leadership and very foundation has been glassed off the face of the earth do you really keep fighting? The us only attacked those two cities in Japan because it had a high kill count of military to hopefully make the japanese surrender but imagine they nuked Kyoto or tokyo. Gg
SierraDelta6 did you even see Ussr on the map? And just look at first American atomic bombs. How can you destroy Ussr by a few bombs in 1945? Also you forgot the fact that for strategic bombing air superiority is required. There was no fighters that could fly on such a big ranges. Also soviets had a very strong air forces so this missions was impossible.
@@user-iv5jm5fn8j Allied control of the Baltic Sea answers the distance problem and, as is said here, the Soviet air force was dependent on the US for fuel - no fuel, no fly. Two bombs - Moscow and Leningrad would take care of it and the US had 2 ready to go in September 1945.
Churchill was a traitorous occuItist. Not only did he plan to stab Soviets in the back in 1945, he also betrayed royalist Serbian Chetniks over Tito. In his free time he liked to bow down to the dark Iord, I think this sums up what kind of a man he was.
@@enitivy for good reasons they had invaded Poland , Baltic states , Finland , Ukraine (in 1919) , transcaucasian states (in 1920) annexed Moldova (from Romania) by that point
The US never took this plan seriously - the US was still fighting in the Pacific - so it was very much Unthinkable. Also although there were worries about the USSR - overall the US and UK population still looked at the Soviets as allies not adversaries in 1945.
@@carl-os4603 Pardon. Ukraine did not pick a fight with Russia. They haven't stolen any Russian territory by force. What they did do is rather naively give up their 1800 ICBM nuclear arsenal for a promise from Clinton over US and UK help in the event of a war with Russia, which was apparently worth less than the paper it was written on. What you said is a bit like blaming Mannerheim and Stalin equally for the 1940 Winter War against Finland.
@@DrCruel I am an ukrainian and I have my own opinion about tension between Russia and Ukraine (there is a big discussion). And also, you should blame both sides in Winter war, since Soviet government had a diplomatic mission (set borders away from Lenningrad by ~ 80km, I dont remember right, and we will give you a few good islands) but finn government denied, whole conflict was stupid.
@@carl-os4603 Yeah. Right. Baltic states had it coming. Stalin did nothing wrong. The Czechs should have accepted the Sudetenland Plan to avoid the Second World War - oh wait, they did have it forced down their throats, didn't they? How did that work out. Pointless to discuss this with some people.
You are correct that the Soviets outnumbered the Western Allies, buy by April 1945 most soviet divisions were half to a third of the size of a western division. So comparing division numbers isn't a very accurate way of getting a troop ratio.
Plus the Soviet Union was almost entirely supplied by the West via railroad in the Middle East up through the caucs. It wouldn’t be a couple of years until the Soviets were able to independently supply themselves and a couple more to rebuild its army and infrastructure.
I think he considered size when he said "equivalent". The Soviets had somewhere on the order of 400 divisions in total, which would equate to about 200 western divisions in size, so 120 -150 western equivalent divisions in Europe would have been about right. The quality of these units varied greatly, with the Guards units being rated equal to their western counterparts. At the tactical level, Soviet weaknesses would include inferior aviation fuel, electronics, air-ground coordination, and artillery fire control. At the operational level their lack of an effective Navy and advanced heavy bombers would have put littoral regions and key industry at severe risk. An even greater problem for Soviet forces was their logistical pipeline, which was overstretched and quite vulnerable. The greatest potential threat they faced, and one for which they had absolutely no defense or counter-capability, was atomic bombs. Their mere existence created a strategic problem for Stalin that would only be solved in 1949 when his scientists developed a Soviet bomb. The Soviets were well aware of this problem in 1942, which is why they developed such an effective spy apparatus in the USA and Great Britain. It successfully penetrated the Manhattan Project and saved the USSR years of research and development. What's particularly maddening is our own counterintelligence services knew about much of this but were hamstrung in trying to stop the penetrations. The resulting cold war, proxy wars, and Red Scare became hallmarks of the 1950s and 60s.
When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, they had more than 100 divisions and the Soviets were unprepared both from a material aspect and from a leadership standpoint. In 1945, the Soviet Army was gigantic, composed of hardened veterans, lead by professionals and was equipped with some of the best armor and artillery on earth. Seeing as the Western Allies had less manpower than the Germans had in 1941, and were had inferior equipment (except in the air) I can't see how the Western Allies could have expected that their chances against the Russian bear would be any better than the one the Germans had. And Germany's invasion ended in collossal failure.
It was Patton's idea in the first place, and he was all for it, you dumb Yank! XD Nothing make me guffaw more that a Yank who doesn't have a clue about their own history - thnaks to the internet I guffaw a lot. XD
~ plans ordered by Winston Churchill ~ "Patton's idea...you dumb Yank...a Yank who doesn't have a clue about their own history" That's a nice glass house you're throwing stones in, @@sunnyjim1355
@@schrodingerbracat2927 German generals copied Napoleon in 1941. Hitler knew that Ukrainian grain and Caucasian oil is needed to win the war. Yet his generals convinced him he should strike Moscow witch Napoleon captured. A year later at Stalingrad Hitler struggles to finally get that oil, and generals say he should use the rest of it for a retreat, so that they can attack again in summer without any oil reserves (witch is impossible. Later Hitler said his generals know nothing about strategic aspects of the war. Heres a video about it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kVo5I0xNRhg.html
This video is far from factual on so many levels. But yes you are absolutely correct Iran was occupied by a joint British soviet invasion. Also he doesn't understand how airpower works on infrastructure and effects the speed of retreat. Or that nukes existed at this point or that America was fighting Japan alone
@@Rays_Bad_Decisions America was not fighting Japan alone. Britain was busy fighting an intense ground war in Burma against the Japanese, handing the Japanese one of their most significant defeats in the war. Not to mention a British Pacific fleet had been assembled to assist the USN. The Soviets were also preparing for an invasion from Manchuria.
Meanwhile in hoi4 operation unthinkable mode: [°] New Zealand declared war to United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Republic of China [°]
I have heard it said that General Patton wanted to fight the U.S.S.R. while the US Army was still in Europe. I had no idea that others 'may' have shared his 'alleged' opinion. An absolutely fascinating episode, thank you.
Helps you see Russias view against NATO as they saw it as threat to their motherland...we have an ocean so we can't fathom being invaded really on land by great powerful neighbors
@@Nperez1986 Yeah by that logic, you can also say the Nazi view is legitimate. Because the Allies were a "threat to their fatherland." Simple fact is: Russia doesn't have any fear, they want to build an empire. And they thought the West was too weak-willed to stop them, especially after they got away with multiple other conquests. Just like Hitler thought, up until they drew the line in the sand at Poland.
@@seventh-hydra Lmfao no. unlike Nazi Germany, there was clear evidence that the west wanted to wipe the Soviet Union off the earth. Even more so when you realize that in the beginning, most major countries viewed the Nazi State as harmless, whereas most countries at the end of the Russian Revolution were so scared of them that they sent soldiers to attempt to crush the Red State in the east, and but ultimately failing to do so. The reality of it all is that the west were 10 times more hungry for blood than the Soviet Government and people were at most of any time of the lifespan of the USSR. The west was more willing to destroy its "opposition" than live in a multi polar world. Of course, that's not to say the USSR was not also imperialistic, however its important to not equate them. I mean, even in this scenario, who forgave the Nazi's?
Western propaganda heavily promoted the idea of helping the Soviets throughout the entire war. It would be difficult for a Western regime to convince it's people that the Soviets are the enemies after just recently helping and supporting their now new enemy. Especially in a war of aggression. As we've seen in the Vietnam War, public support in Western regimes can quickly drop once a war is seen as pointless and casualties start mounting.
@Heroin Bob Iraq was known to have chemical weapons -- we'd sold or brokered the deals, during their war with Iran. Those were purchased in the 80's and were well past their use-by date; the invasion of Iraq was sold on the false premise that they were manufacturing NEW weapons.
@Heroin Bob Except the term "WMD" is entirely a bullshit term that was just used to make Iraq sound scary. The term has no clear definition and is sometimes interchangeable with NBC, however originally the term referred to mass bombing during WWII like the kind the allies did (which btw under this definition the US would have been guilty of using WMDs against Iraq). No treaty however has ever defined the term which means that it's not a term you can reliably use in international politics. You can say that chemical weapons are WMDs but that statement carries no weight or authority to it as WMD is not a technical term, and I can just as easily say that a WMD has to be particularly destructive not just be chemical. What is however clear is that Bush wasn't using WMD to just mean NBC he was clearly trying to give the impression that Iraq also possessed some sort of long range delivery system by showing "suspected ICBM sites". What is also clear is that even if we accept this definition of WMD as meaning that the country possessed chemical weapons at some point that may or may not be useful anymore then the US is a massive fucking hypocrite for condemning other countries for it as it is the only country to not sign the treaty banning chemical weapons and itself maintains a stockpile of them. You make yourself look like a fucking idiot by trying to one up people and make them look like idiots by using meaningless buzzwords instead of actual precise technical language. You're not the intellectual rational mastermind speaking down to the hapless masses you're just a fucking dipshit that swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker and it's clear as day to everyone here.
Ummm, no mention of allied use of Nuclear weapons? The Allies possessed nukes that the Soviets did not have until the 50's if my memory serves...surely they would have utilised this significant strategic advantage?
@@jplegend98 How would dropping an atomic bomb on the Soviets speed up their nuclear program? Don't quite understand that. Perhaps if the Allies delayed the deployment of operation unthinkable by a few years, enough to restock their nuclear arsenal, then hit the key Russian targets outlined in this video, destroying Moscow and annihilating the central committee and the industrial areas. Severing the supply lines to the millions of soviet troops withdrawing may lead them to surrender. Plus he sheer dear factor of nuclear annihilation...if it can make the Japanese surrender, with their Bonsai mindset, the starved, lost soviet people may also feel that control of eastern Europe is not worth the effort. With the loss is the totalitarian leadership, there would be no one to enact the dictatorial forcefullness that drove the fanaticism of the USSR.
@@dudemighster747 what i mean is if unthinkable happened shortly before or after japan surrendered (lets say they continued firebombing and saved fat man and little boy for russia). Russia already knew about the bomb and had captured german scientist's who worked on hitlers nuclear program. The american bombers at the time wouldnt be able to hit moscow from the nearest allied airbases at the time. So if they hit a less important city or some military bases the soviets would of instantly spent every last penny they could on their nuclear prodject. Also if they went woth tje full plan (50 nuclear bombings on the ussr) while at war you still have a shit tonne of russian soilders in eastern europe. They would kill and murder and rape as many people as they can (like east germany pre-ocupation) before being fored to surrender or going underground. Also nuclear bombings on europe will me the rest of europe hate the british and american.
Not only that, but even the Allies still didn't understand the implications of dropping an atomic bomb in terms of radiation fallout. So with that ignorance they would have dropped them when they saw fit.
@@teeno91 Look it up the sources are around but the records are not up to normal standards. Think about it what the affect of millions of dead have on the running of a country the affects are still hitting Russia today. I'm in the comment section and on my phone so I can't link shitall. Nation doesn't have unlimited manpower.
@@robert18productions Harrison mark 2003 counting sovietdeath in the great patriotic war. Andrew, daraskii and kharkova 1993 naselenie sovetskogo soiuza 1922-1991.
“Stalin, we want you to hold elections” “Ah yes, elections, of course” “And these elections will be free and fair, right?” “Ah yes, free and fair, definitely free and fair”
Correct, but the "unthinkable" part of the operation, was convincing the U.S. to fight Britain's anti-Communist fight, which originally failed as the Allied intervention to the Russian Civil War (1917-1924); the right-winger Churchill ignored what the Allies agreed in the Yalta and Potsdam agreements and lied that the fiendish USSR had welshed on said agreements, and thus "The West" (i.e. the U.S.) had to "liberate" fascist eastern Europe from the Judaeo-Bolshevik International Conspiracy . . . lest The Communists conquer the world.
@@Aggelos-tv3ep He is refering to the British support that gave to the crown to defeat EAM...i guess...still this happened because Greece was isolated with 3 communist regimes in her borders...not for a puppet state that never was the case...Greece was the first Cold War bettleground and the domino effect was a scary scenario (plus the geographic importance of Greece)
The allies still needed the Red Army in July 1945 to finish the war against Japan...the other enemy. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria has been underrated by historians. After this, the Japanese lost not only a large part of their military but many of their raw materials as well. This also played an equal part in Japan's defeat.
All the elite Troops were fighting against the Americans. The Japanese Troops left in Manchuria were only some regular troops. Also the kwantung army was a lot of smaller taxtet the majority was sent to the pacific. Under this circumstances the Japanese had no chance against the ussr
Operation unthinkable was going on betw us and britain during war.wedge btw friendship was created by churchill. Bcs roosevelt and stalin are getting closer.and churchill felt lost
0:40 "Entrusted with the protection of the slavic people of Eastern Europe" Highlights Hungary and Romania as well Hungarians and romanians: *TRIGGERED AF* But seriously, we aren't slavic!
Владимир Новиков actually his plan removed the vast majority of German divisions and basically all of the Panzer divisions and made them move to Greece, look up operation mince meat, it’s fascinating and Tom Scott made an excellent video explaining it
Sad as it is, the defeat at Gallipoli may have been a blessing in disguise. The British agreed beforehand to give the straits to the Russian Empire had that operation succeeded. Please excuse my misspellings. Fascinating stuff!
@only good communist are buried in forgotten graves that is why there is paranoia today in the west. Fun fact - western countries killed far more people in the same timeframe, and also tried military intervention into Russia during revolution. However, socialism is coming for you!
@only good communist are buried in forgotten graves Errm, not really. I mean in the first half of the 20th century, you have british concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer Wars, the starvation of indians, slaughtering people in middle east for wanting independence, of course there is the whole set of war crimes of carpet bombing german cities. You had the belgians cutting hands in Congo. US also rounded up japanese and put them in concentration camps, even if they were technically american citizens.
@@matheusvillela9150 It's pretty good and chill in here actually, low crime rates, plenty of opportunity, even on a surface level, the post communist Poland I was born in looks nothing like it did in the 90', although there is still work to do, unlike Russia which is basically a 3rd world country in many ways.
Excellent video. If I may add, when I studied this very period of history people were tired of war. Drafting was not a popular measure, despite what Hollywood and comics tell us today. The West, mainly the US, UK, and France had men power but were not willing to fight. Germany not so much.
Operation Unthinkable didn't call for an invasion of the Soviet Union like the Nazis, they could bomb the Urals with long range bombers the closer they get to the front, and they didn't need to attack pointless locations like the Caucuses, just bomb them. The Allies had something the Soviets and the Nazis didn't, wealth.
@@carl-os4603 The soviets could definitely win battles but it's another question if they could win a war. War primarily in modern day is based on economics and logistics.
@@carl-os4603 It worked with the Japanese Empire. The Soviets had the highest causalities during the entire war, do you really think Stalin would allow it to continue? No, he most certainly wouldn't, he would sue for immediate peace. Just think, one of your cities disappears in the blink of an eye AND you're 100% hopeless to stop it. Do you really truly believe the Soviets would continue to crush on? It would be so pointless, how would you expect to hold an effective counterattack and even be successful all the way back to France? It's just not possible, the Soviets would have no choice but to give in.
“Ending occupation of Eastern Europe” well, that’s wasn’t unthinkable, after the grievous losses the Soviets had at that point. Pushing them back into Russia wasnt that unthinkable..
@@pioneernut7487 xdd if allies attacked ussr they would capitulate in like 2 weeks. USSR just smashed unstoppable Germany army. Keep remember that France with help of allies fall faster than one house in Stalingrad. 10 million army with socialistic economic and with that much resources is strongest army in history and nobody were even close If it not, why didn’t allies attack?
Yes, it is true that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to hold their positions in Germany against an allied attack and would have needed to make a fighting withdrawal. Yes, it's true that, on balance, the allies would have had air superiority and inflicted significant damage on deficient Soviet logistics. However, note the statistic in the video reminding us that the Soviets actually outnumbered the US in the air. The US heavy bomber force wouldn't have been making attacks with impunity, because even if the Soviet fighters couldn't reach them and fight them effectively at high altitudes, the allies wouldn't have been able to fly the intensive AAA suppression missions that made their heavy bombers so effective against the Germans in the late war, nor would they have been able to count on fighter-bombers strafing Soviet armor into submission (at least, no more than Soviet attack planes would've done to their own ground forces). By 1945 the Soviets had developed cluster bombs that made their IL-3s and similar planes very effective tank hunters. Even if the Soviets lost most of their ground attack planes in the first few weeks of fighting they would do a lot to blunt the momentum of the allied armored divisions. Another factor: the largest and most devoted anti-Nazi partisan armies in the west, in France and (especially) in Italy, were in fact composed of communists. The handful of divisions that Churchill's plan called for leaving behind to maintain order would've been inadequate to defend the allied rear and supply lines against veterans with such a home-field advantage. Furthermore there would most likely have been major campaigns of industrial sabotage and espionage by pro-communist civilians and officials in England and the United States proper. Conversely, the largest potential partisan force that could've helped undermine the Soviets in Eastern Europe, the Polish Home Army, had been reduced to a shadow of its former self after Stalin (treacherously, or shrewdly, depending on your point of view) deliberately halted his advance and allowed them to be destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Although it is true that the Soviet supply situation would've quickly grown dire, the U.S. and England also had a major "supply problem" that would've made fighting a long war impossible for them: not a shortage of steel, fuel, or any kind of raw materials, but a shortage of money. The U.K. was already in a deep, dark pit of debt by this point and the U.S., which had mostly been successful funding the conflict with war bonds up until this point, would've been put in the uncomfortable position of suddenly needing to default on its debts, nationalize factories, and take other heavy-handed measures. If Truman had been convinced to join Churchill in this quixotic war, the Soviets would've known they only needed to hold the line until the next round of American elections in which Truman would have been thrown out in a historic landslide. Likewise, the U.K. public would've turned against such a war with breathtaking swiftness even if enough initial support could be mustered to launch the attack. Granted, the leadership of both the American and British militaries were politically on the far-right (in the case of Patton in particular, it is not hyperbole to say that he was essentially an American Nazi) and probably would've gone along, but the populace at large would've revolted.
@@bennshephard8682 let that sink in. Using an atomic bomb on a nation that just survived extermination by Nazi Germany and that had lost 30 million people. Let that sink in. Places the US and its allies in Nazi Germany's shoes
@@randall172 Additionally the US didn't have the infrastructure in place to mass produce them, let alone the ability to deliver them to worthwhile targets.
Thanks dark7, this is an excellent summary. I would like to add to your supply chapter by saying that the western allied forces were already slowed down just a few months after D-Day because of supplying problems, their advance eastwards halted from september 1944 until march 1945. They didnt have the capacity even though by that time the German forces were on its last legs and had zero airforce or navalforce to speak of.
@Nathan Bernacki The U.S. would have been part of this, so they'd have been committed. They wouldn't have held anything back. Then again, this was a contingency plan, so 'improbable' really doesn't matter.
@Nathan Bernacki Because this was never a battleplan! It was a contingency plan for if hostilities broke out. The British General Staff didn't make it with the intention of actually trying to start another war with the USSR. It was something Churchill thought up, so they made an outline. The plausibility of it being used wasn't the point. The point was to see what they could do.
@@mxn1948 Dude, that plan exists, and having the US military play a big part was integral to it. Nuke or not you tell me why they would have made a plan at all without consulting the Americans about their role.
@Nathan Bernacki Maybe they would have considered it if they had the foresight to recognise that the USSR would be their primary enemy for the next four decades. I mean it would be an awful idea but the US clearly had an interest in curtailing the power of the Soviet Union. So it wasn't just 'Churchill's stupid war', it was the beginning of the Cold War.
@@piecekeeper5317 The soviet army at that time was literally unkillable. Most soldiers were well trained as they already experienced combat for many years and suffered the most.
@@daddymccrackin4677 Eventually soviet union would have been depleted from manpower, where the British Empire and USA would not. Keep in mind the soviet union had already lost 40 Million people in WW2, UK and USA just 300k.
Jônatas Pereira this was all I could think throughout this video. Their population is literally still declining today from the amount of men they lost in WW2 and a variety of other factors. I find it extremely hard to believe they would be able to muster the amount of divisions this video claims.
@@11leeson I don't think they would have problems mustering those divisions in the start of the war, the problem comes after the losses begin to mount. They wont have men to replenish them.
Imagine being a german wehrmacht soldier. Having to fight against russia, advancing nearly to moscow, being beaten at stalingrad, surviving the retreat and the loss of the war just to return attacking russia under the rule of the western allies that kicked you out of france and africa. It would have been an oh so hilariously strange turn in history.
I remember my German girlfriend’s father telling me about how he was demobbed by the British in the British Occupation Zone in 1945;only to be re-called up shortly afterwards and along with many other former German Army soldiers, sent to a big army base in Schleswig Holstein, where he learnt that they would be sent eastwards to fight the Soviets.. This is a piece of primary evidence to the subject.
Great video. Very interesting. I observed a little mistake. Around 00:49 when David says:"Slavic people of Eastern Europe" the map highllight Romania and Hungary, which are not slaic, and also CechoSlovacia, who is in central not eastern Europe. Anyway, very well researched and edited video.
@Sari Çizmeli Mehmet Ağa Churchill almost got himself beheaded by the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. His military career was mired with near death experiences and spectacular failures.
The plan was drawn up by the British Imperial General Staff, not Churchill. Allied air superiority would have been so total over Europe that the Soviet logistics would have resembled those of the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad. Good luck fielding 30 armored divisions and 24 tank brigades if you can't put fuel in them. The Soviets already could not use all of their forces at once against the Germans during Operation Bagration due to not having enough supplies. Several Fronts were stopped dead in Romania while Bagration was underway. Cut off from Lend Lease and with their trucks and trains obliterated by Allied air power the Red Army would have lost operational mobility and began running out of ammunition in the first 2-4 weeks. If you want to see what would happen after that look up Operation Compass, the first British counterattack against the Italians in North Africa. The Italians outnumber the British by about 120k to 30k but the Western Desert Force ran rings around them and completely destroyed them.
Excellent video! Thank god operation Unthinkable was just Unthinkable.
5 лет назад
Excellent video, as always. It's so rare for a presentation to touch upon the lack of aviation fuel in this scenario. The war would have been a disaster for everyone, but I believe that the west would have inevitably won. The Soviets had many strengths including the vast experience its soldiers and officers had by this point. However, I believe the United Nations (Really just the British) vastly overestimated the numerical superiority of the Soviets. On paper, in 1945, a Soviet rifle division had a compliment of 11,780. In reality there had been so much chaos, death, and shortages that divisional compliments had been reorganized seven times during the war. The bulk of Soviet rifle divisions followed the Number 04/55 template that specifies a rifle division was to have 9,435 personal assigned to it. The Red Army had approximately 300 rifle divisions in 1945, though there are many contradictions that range from 200 - 400. The number of divisions isn't necessary the important part, but rather the condition of them. In the Far-East it was a completely different situation, but in Europe just 10% of Soviet rifle divisions were at 80% strength or above. The vast majority were at or below 50% strength. The same could be said of guard divisions with the added concern of poor maintenance standards, lack of parts, and an inability to keep-up with repair demands meant considerably lower states of readiness beyond merely lacking personal. Keep in mind that Churchill was resigned to delay any meaningful invasion of Europe until it seemed that the Red Army had turned the tide. The Red Army was in no condition to wage another large-scale conflict with relatively fresh major powers. Worse still is that the industrial might of the United States dwarfed the Soviets. Indeed, the United States provided 35% of all aircraft, 23% of all AFV, 50% of all 1/2 ton trucks, 75% of all 1/4 ton trucks, and enough munitions, rations, clothing, and other supplies to keep 50 divisions fighting indefinitely. This is ontop of an even larger contribution made to the Commonwealth. Despite lend lease, the United States still had the manufacturing capabilities to outfit itself with the most mechanized army in history. By the end of the war it had the largest navy and airforce in history despite essentially having to build it all from scratch in just 3.5 years. More importantly, as it proved itself a major advantage in WW2, the American homeland was virtually immune from damages. It's the only power who could claim this and doubtlessly played an instrumental role in its production figures. While the Soviets would need to deal with strategic bombing, the Americans would continue to just be concerned with sabotage.There would be no ceasing production to rebuild the facilities or having to relocate machinery to other facilities due to vulnerabilities. The UN, as the democratic power on the offensive, would also find support from occupied territory. The anti-communist sentiments would be burning harder than ever after the rape of East Germany and the plundering of Romania, Hungry, Bulgaria, and even Poland. Actual manpower would be quite limited, but intelligence and partisan cooperation proved vital during the French liberation. Critically, the Soviets would need to allocate forces to suppress them and people called away to protect bridges a thousand miles away do not help repel an invasion. I do not think Stalin would be foolish enough to strike into Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Nor do I think he would fight to the end. After the initial push Stalin may have settled upon allowing Poland to have free elections whilst negotiating that the former Axis allies should stay with them. Given that few gave two shits about former enemies, I think Churchill would have been satisfied dealing a blow to the Soviets and liberated Poland and Czechoslovakia.
What nonsense did you write? What is it ? Let's start with your lies about the UN. You don’t even know that the creation of the UN was an initiative of the USSR. And here is fucking England? Further comment on your nonsense?
Allied generals: Hey Churchill what's your plan to defeat Stalin. Churchill: We are going to swiftly invade Russia, just like Napoleon and Hitler. Allied generals: Oh shit here we go again.
JJ Brooks ur talking about the U fucking S, we invaded vietnam for sum bullshit. We’d help the fuckin poles if we could. Most americans wanted to stay out of the war. Like that dude said, european war, european problem. Gtfoh
Long ago (correct me if im wrong), i read something like this on a book. The bombs that were made for hiroshima and nagasaki were actually made to bomb moscow and one other big russian city. While the us would defeat japan by conventional landing force over japanese mainland
RichardoDF The Opposite actually. The Americans made the Nuclear bombs and used them. The Soviets Invaded Manchuria. No Invasion of the Japanese main land was ever made. Only Occupation.
@@Linneom yeah, the reality was that. The book mentions about the cancelled operation downfall, it was written in the book that after operation downfall succeed the bombs was to be dropped on the Russian while Japan become the staging ground for the US to prevent communist takeover of mainland china and expell communism over the Korean peninsula while ensuring France's victory in vietnam (first indochina war). i forgot what book that was, but it was talking about Douglas MacArthur
This plan was a great idea, I'm sure that after fighting a World war the Germans, the French, the Americans and the British were looking forward to fighting another, it's not like they were still fighting Japan, it's not that neither Soviets nor the European allies had rebuilt their nations, it's not that Britain's war dept was around the corner, it's that "muh nukes" would've carried the team to victory!
Wait, so after attacking Soviet Forces and pushing them back from the hard earned land, Churchill expected NOT A TOTAL WAR with USSR? Was that guy insane or what? Also, not sure how relevant Carrier forces would be here. I mean, why sail a carrier straight up the Baltic sea, to be attacked by soviet subs and planes when you can just put the planes on land. Attacking Leningrad would have yeilded almost nothing
Churchill own Generals said NO in no uncertain terms ... a rare rebuke to their political leader ... and yeah ... I thought the same about the carrier group in Baltic Sea too ... very easy for Soviets to eventually track it down and hammer it with its own Fighter bombers ...
Diverting valuable aircraft to deal with the carriers wouldn'tve been an option, more a suicide mission for all soviet forces in Europe. The combined huge royal navy and US navy + the other allied ships. The subs wouldn'tve gotten close..
@Nathan Bernacki The Allied navies would get into the baltic way before the soviets managed to close it off. They probably already had loads of ships in anyway, but reinforcements would be a few hours away. A push to the strait from the red army wouldn't be very fast without every single aircraft on the front.
@Dex4Sure - Трудовые отношения ? Это и есть"социал-демократы"?! Ну они никакие не коммунисты (а быть они не могут по определению) это просто название (это как современная Российская коммунистическая партия-дань традиции форма с капиталистическим содержанием) партия целиком стоящая на позициях капитализма) так что профсоюзное название "Лейбористская партия" это дань английской Профсоюзной традиции. Так что ты-предмет для шуток. Не называйте Лейбористскую партию "коммунистами". Назовите лопату лопатой "капитал искал рынок для реактивных двигателей" давайте начнем с этого (для начала) . Во-вторых, в мире по-прежнему мало стран, нуждающихся в двигателях для реактивных самолетов. По этому английскому бизнесу нашлось возможным продавать двигатели . За нашу дорогую и любимую страну Советов. Это бизнес (прецедент был уже в тридцатых годах в торговле с США), поэтому я думаю, что ваш ответ неверен.
I really enjoyed this episode, but over half of the towns and cities you talk about are not your video. It would be nice to see what strategic cross roads you are talking about in post-Germany 1945/46.
I like how Russians are so outraged that thos plan existed; as if the reason for it, the Soviet takeover of half of Europe (including Allied nations) wasn't outrageous at all.
@@alpha3488 Yeah, and left it to be freely governed by its people as they saw fit, according to their free political, cultural and economic interests and traditions, definitely without Soviet-style institutions, NKVD proxy services etc. Nobody was branded a fascist or nazi sympathizer and persecuted for desiring just that, either. ^it's a sarcasm, comrade.
@@Mira-K Hungary, Bulgaria or Poland had a strong workers movement or/and famous communists long before WW2. And it's not like the western Allies were any better in securing their zone of influence, for example in Greece.
@@alpha3488 In Bulgaria the "worker's movement" murdered off the government which had refused to participate in war against USSR. But they and Hungarians were axis, allright. In Romania the king who overthrew Antonescu and joined Allies got soviet medal... and exile at a guinpoint. In Poland communist movement was inded strong before regaining independence (1905 revolution, many Polish bolsheviks), and it was tied to desire for independence, primarily from Russia. Marx himself wanted Poland not only free but even as monarchy if need be. Communism was previously viewed as way to liberation from Russia, now turned to be viewed as means of subjugation to (red) Russia and marginalised. Many prominent Polish leaders from former Tsardom had brief Bolshevik episode before being completely freaked out by what they saw happening in Russia. Political moods after WW2 were indeed strongly to the left, but absolutely not pro-soviet. Gomułka despaired in late 40s: "people who'd otherwise endorse our ideas reject us as foreign goons". Czechoslovakia? The single real democracy in the region, with Soviet-friendly but democratic and independent government first reduced to mere yesmen and then overthrown by Soviet-sponsored coup. Greece was the sole positive example of Allies rescuing their members, because the fools were walking willingly into what most other Easterners tried in vain to avoid. Whatever follies of the new regime, it was Greeks, and only theirs, own doing, without big brothers meddling.
I'm the airforce in 45 wasnt in disarray as it was in 1940. The airforce was purged same time as the army. The front line fighter in 45 was the la9, which was very comparable to the p51. Also the yak9ut, the close support in 45 was the il10, which was a flying tank, the pe8, tu2 were the strategic bombers in 45 Pe3 were were medium bombers and heavy fighters, used in several roles. The tu4 was also in production. Operation unthinkable was Churchill warmongering plan to try and keep the british empire the dominant power in the world for another 50 years
Another episode where people should be thankful that cooler heads did prevail and this didnt happen. However such a scenario would be good for the Hearts of Iron series
Well to everyone who thought nukes would have brought the Russians to their knees, their winter is their ultimate weapon, not their tanks, not their men. It's that winter beyond which even Napolean and Hitler couldn't advance.
Youre right. No way they could've won.On the other hand,it would encourage people who were under colonial rule to turn to communism.(UK is nothing without colonies) It's hilarious to see "Reddit fat-boys" sitting on their couch talking about wars
Cringe. You wouldn’t need to conduct a full ground invasion of the Soviet Union with nukes. The same way the Americans didn’t need to naval invade Japan thanks to the nuclear bomb. And Japan were NEVER going to surrender if it wasn’t for the nuclear bomb.
