What if 'Operation Unthinkable' Happened? 

Smoit

I was just thinking that...

Operation thought about it

Operation maybe next time...

Spaceorca you mad lad (or mad lass )

yea lol

So true

Better mic basically

Sgt. VinDoy that is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking. Also sounds a bit congested.

Puberty hits hard

@Sahara there were, but I think by now they're dead.

The SS weren't exactly soldiers. They were kinda like a super-police doing the dirty work.

@@fluffynator6222 this was only at the beginning of the war but when the war turned around the ss quickly had to help the normal soldiers

The allies would have to forgive them tho

@@fluffynator6222, that was more akin to the Gestapo. The SS was the paramilitary wing of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NDAP), aka, the Nazi Party.

British Raj: Welp time to rebel!

German army: oh c mon another war???

He wanted a dlc for WW2 but unfortunately it was delayed.

Pretty much

WW2.5, perhaps?

Yes, it would be more of a continuation of ww2. You have to remember, that ww2 actually started with poland being invaded by the USSR and Germany (with them being allies until Hitler decided to invade the USSR). So, if directly after Germany's defeat the western allies went to war with the USSR, this could easily be considered part of the same conflict.

@@taln0reich just saying but Germany and the Soviet union weren't allies

@@falsterproductions9956 Depends on which timeframe we are talking about. During the conquest of Poland Germany and the SU were sort of working together ( Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ). It was only later that Hitler backstabed the soviet union, which then did the heavy lifting in defeating the Nazis.

... kids

Morons...

+Petidani0330 take a joke. It's not like this war actually happened.

+UncleJemima59 Well thank God it wasn't happened, otherwise the World would be a place without life, you know. Or if not without life, surely without space projects, Internet, computers and (guess what) first person shooters, because of the lack of the Cold War.

+Petidani0330 and here we are, living in the world without this war, with the ability to post jokes on RU-vid.

@Alfred Hugecock in 1949.

@Alfred Hugecock no they didn't. It would have been the same outcome as the Japanese. The longer the Soviets kept fighting in the field the less they would have to fight for as their cities began to vaporise. The scenario in this video isn't very clever as it portrays the Soviets as not being at all bothered by the complete annihilation of their home regions.

@@tireachan6178 Agree. It would have demoralized them. Especially after all they'd been through in WWII

@@tireachan6178 i see you don't really get it you can't beat Russia by brute force, no matter how strong, big or rich you are, because Russia will endure no matter what you throw at us, Russia will survive and fight back even harder. you can crush our armies, burn our lands, vaporise our cities - we will rise from the ashes and dust and we will come for your sorry asses to kick it as hard as never swedes thought they can beat us and failed prussians thought they can beat us and failed french thought they can beat us and failed nazis thought they can beat us and failed the thing is: the bigger war, the higher stakes, the harder we strike. we DO lose wars, when this is a small war or war for a political reason. but when its war for survival, all or nothing, we never lose

@@sinistertwister686 bro Regan literally beat you at the hight of your power with nothing but capitalism 💀

_exited spamming of space marines_

*Soviet union stopped at Germany* Yeah about that *proceed to stage coup and start full scale invasion of Britain and France*

hoi4 when ww2 ends the soviets are weak and the allies have bazillions of divisions and air planes

-crickets chirp-

+Pig Nation you're right this flopped

+Willie Cano Was Still pretty funny though

D: *Gasps*

If not atomic warfare, mass guerilla or partisan rather, warfare i guess, Napoleon and Hitler failed. It's too vast, environmentally hostile and populous to hold down.

***** i do

+plurbleman There's a book called TimeRiders. It would be kinda like this.

+plurbleman There isn't a book or series that specifically addresses this scenario, but author Harry Turtledove does have an alt WW2 novel series that I highly recommend, The War That Came Early.

+You're Spying red alert series

+chase speer The Red Alert series is caused by time travel killing Hitler off early so WW2 would've never happened. Though I suppose it may have ended up similarly.

@Leviathan 2 some of them are bald, so he ain't safe either.

@Leviathan 2 He was referring to Stalin but alright

honestly, I think we should have helped Nazi Germany take down the USSR, and THEN turn on them. Russia was simply too dangerous. Germany, while dangerous, could have been brought down much easier.

@@jwil4286 taking down ussr would have given Germany an opportunity to do a full scale assault on Britain since they already had 90 percent of Europe so they would just destroy Britain since Russia would not be a threat and only the western front would exist.

@@ibrahimbinimran4320 two things wrong: 1. Hitler had no desire to actually invade Britain; he simply wanted them to leave him alone. 2. Taking out the USSR would be a task of the army. The Royal Navy would still control the seas, especially the English Channel

Don 'Wardaddy' Collier yeah...

That’s unthinkable

Dont be messing with my boy Winston!

@Amber MGL That's not true. Britain was bombed hard during the war. Don't call him a coward because he's British. Call him a coward because he's a politician

@Amber MGL Agincourt was pretty metal. Edit: Stamford bridge too. Proof medieval times turn everyone into a man...for 20 years...then comes the plagues

Could probably set up some scenario in Civ or something. Or some type of game like that.

or rather superpower 2

eu4?

Command and Conquer: Red Alert 1 & 2

Fall out

*BIG GASP*

I couldnt imagine that would ever be the case

Deeezz

Nuts

It would be thinkable that this would be unthinkable

Italy is quite good at that

@@Rick-kq2jt because the majority choose the opposing side. Enough to overthrown the gov and change side

@@mirage_panzer2274 and that was because Italy was getting tired of entering wars where it just doesnt gain much. The "hollow victory" thing is how Mussoline convinced everyone to join the Axis. Again.

Especially against the guys that carried your ass to victory.

Britain and Russia were natural enemies until they rebranded as allies for the Entente 🤷🏻‍♂️

Directed by Shitass

Joke's on you, I never would have been born!

That's not how nukes work.

@@justinambru8529 Well during this time the nuking if Hiroshima and Nagasaki would set the stage of the war not the cold war but ww3

@@augustuzmoon3814 No my point, was that nukes wouldn't be able to kill all of humanity. Destroy civilization yes, kill all the humans no.

May God be with you all. Oh god

No, there's be no internet

I too love Jesus! Thank for spreading positivity through your username and profile picture

May God be with you all. Hail Satan

May God be with you all. Jesus is my Son.

Canada was fighting too at that point remember, and as we were still under British Dominion, if Operation Unthinkable had progressed, then Canada would have been fighting the USSR too. Even if that were somehow not to be true in this timeline, Canada still likely would have joined the war effort. I am more than a little annoyed that AltHistoryHub simplified the Allies into just the US and UK. Not only were we there, but so were the Free French Forces and the Polish Resistance Army.

Btw. At the end of 2nd WW, Canada has the 4th largest Army in the World!

oh shut up we don't all like hockey but that timbit did hit the spot last Saturday. mmmm.....

+Death Killz Gaming not to be mean or anything g I meant shut up in a good way. plz no haters

Cake24_7 It was still a dominion of the British Empire, it did have more independence after the Statute of Westminister but not in so far as the ability to refuse to join Britain in a war, that would not come until the formal dissolution of the British Empire into the commonwealth during the 1960's, and indeed we were not fully independent of Britain until our Charter was ratified in 1982. Canadian forces during WWII were still subordinate to British commanders, albeit we had our own command structure and leadership this time around. I can't recall a better instance than the fact that Canadians were responsible for the defense of Hong Kong during Japan's take over. All this neglects of course, that even if Canada could have said "no" to Britain, it would have been dragged into this war regardless because the US and Britain are both critical allies and the threat of the Soviet Union was equally apparent to Canadians as it was to the other Allies.

War criminal dangerous then stalin

Loll France couldn't even handle Germany xD Canada would be an after thought for the Russians

+Skyline711 no it would't. europe could easily create an army off 20 million soldiers. besides for every american live lost the russians would probably lose 3-7 just like the germans did in russia

+Maarten Pennings Hell, Germans couldnt survive Russia and France couldnt survive Germans, the thought of France ever beating USSR is just unthinkable. Never underestimate the enemy. It has proved to be deadly

+Yato/ /Yukine well the french are the only one to have ever walked on the kremlin

+TheFrenchCake and lost badly under Napoleon Bonaparte.

This is a very well thought out comment. However, may I add something? Yes you are very correct in the fact that outcome would be determined in an air war. And planes were the prop jobs of the day, but, remember the Germans development in that field did create the jet fighter, and towards the end of the war England also developed one as well, and when Germany surrendered a lot of German scientists fled to the United States. With this happening the Allies having the technology of jet aircraft before the Russians, I believe that the allies would have had the upper hand in the air war. Now with that said, the Russians also had captured German scientists as well, but the jet program of the Soviets didn't happen until the late forties I believe. Although, the ME 262's were small in production number, I would only assume the Americans would have built them here alongside with German scientists and the number of aircraft would have quadrupled in short time

See that's really interesting, because most of the early jets didn't actually see any combat. By the time Korea rolled around we'd already sped through a generation of crazy early jet designs. I think if Operation Unthinkable happened, we'd see Jet Technology develop far faster, and possibly in different ways. That is assuming early Jet Fighters prove worth the investment. Early Jets were way more expensive and fuel intensive, and sacrificed a lot of maneuverability for speed. It wasn't until the Sabre when we had a really effective Jet Fighter, and a War would have sucked resources away from R&D, so it's possible prop planes would have remained in service much longer. Who knows, we might have seen some kind of hybrid that incorporated a propeller for the commute but switched to jet power for short bursts of speed. I mean that's kind of how things worked for tanks during World War II. We had better tank designed than the Sherman, but manufacturing large numbers of Shermans was much more cost effective than experimenting with new designs in the midst of a War. For the cost of R&D for a new jet fighter, and the cost of manufacture, you could manufacture a whole squadron of P-51s.

during post WWII USSR though with a large manpower is in shortage of aircrafts to intercept incoming bombers.

The Soviets also had few effective high altitude fighters in 1945 which to employ against the US and UK strategic air power. The low level Yakolevs and Lavochkins that did so well against the Luftwaffe tactical aircraft in the east would get slaughtered by escorting P-47Ns, P-51D/Ks, Spitfire Mk XIs, etc if they tried to attack strategic bombers at high altitude. This would be a severe disadvantage for them until a solution could be found and would put troop concentrations, transportation hubs, airfields, and other strategic targets squarely in the cross-hairs of Norden bomb sights. The air war of any hypothetical conflict would be far different than what the Soviets had seen before and require many doctrine, training, and technological changes to overcome. Their air force was a tactical one and they would be fighting against a strategic one. Apples and oranges.

oh there could've been feasible ways of stopping ICBMs too but they were banned in a treaty between the USSR and USA because then there would be no M.A.D

Only if we imagine that for some reason Soviet fighters and air defense systems are inactive, allowing American airplanes to fly up to Moscow

@@user-pf3kv4bv5s Exactly. I doubt the Soviets would simply allow nuclear bombs to be dropped deep inside their territory. The Soviets also knew of the Manhattan Project before the atomic bombs were dropped in Japan, thanks to their spies.

The Soviet oil fields were located in Azerbaijan which was well within bombing and nuking range. They would have become reliant on Romanian oil to keep their war machine going, which means they would have needed to hold Romania, which is contrary to Russia's favored strategy of falling back into Russia and letting attrition, supply lines and winter aid the Russian defense.

He lived on the outskirts of Moscow, and rarely went to the center of the city like the Kremlin.

I mean even if the plan wouldn't be from Winston I still wouldn't call it total bullshit considering that no one knew that the cold war would be solely thought in 3rd world countries until the USSR destroys itself Churchill didn't want to give them time to recover

@@Rick-kq2jt cold war is better than this

@@mirage_panzer2274 I disagree, a wat like this would be brutal and bloody, but with the detonation of nukes in Moscow in this world it would kill Stalin and most of the command in the Kremlin. Many soviet states in the Baltics, Ukraine, and Poland would probably rebel against the soviets, meaning there would be no Cold War to happen, just a lot of rebuilding

"who cares if the indians starve to death they breed like rabbits anyway" - Churchill

i think we would all be singing mother Russia

We'll I mean you should know we "USA and England" don't like communism so yeah we did and y'all still worship Putin like Stalin but I think Obama is more like Stalin than Putin.

Мой Господин read Patton's AUTO-biography, he really wanted to kill Hitler and Stalin, I think Patton was getting very close to Berlin in 1943. Now the Nazis did have jets, if attacks in waves with German tech and american atomic weaponry, numbers become less meaningful, if the Germans had used this in overlord, dday would've failed. I do seem bias here, but Patton was by far one of the top generals of WWII next to or higher than desert fox himself. To be honest, I really fucking hated Stalin. Now that was longer than it should've been. Now I do think tensions could rise again between Russia and the USA over Ukraine(I'm really pissed off at Putin for all this stuff right now). Now for you in Russia, tread carefully, Putin is seeming to want to return to the USSR, that is not fun at all, my friend's parents lived in Poland under the Soviets, it was not good. Sorry for the bad grammar, but this is the internet. I don't know when or if I will respond...so g'night

I think you are overestimating the soviet equipment and tech. The American war machine was in full swing, while the Soviets were struggling to rebuild after the eastern front. Another problem would be the vast amount of peoples who were forced under Soviet rule. The Soviet supply lines would be stretched paper thin with a less than mechanized logistics plan and extreme partisan activity.

It will be a whole new world!

piss of m8

if a general tought that plan wouldnt work hiw can youre fat ass know,fucking idiot

+Matija Jovanovic And also, I don't weigh 300 pounds like you wish I did.

The problem is, Russia is monstrously big. US/UK forces might be able to push back the soviets from eastern Europe, but then, they would have to deal with Russia, with, i believe, the same fate as Napoleon and Hitler's armys. Russians are ment to stand Russia. The Anglo-Saxons are not. Those last would soon have to deal with supply issues. ( the same you describe for the soviets) Long distance, Russian climate, burned-ground policy, Russian resistants. They would be overrun in ennemy territory with almost no hope of retreat. (at least same hope as Napoleon's Great Army) Then there's the Soviet Army, like i said before, they would outnumbered the Allied. Plus there equipment wasn't that bad. Not as sophisticated as the Allied one, but still good enough. Suplied that to soviet patriots who just want to protect there motherland, against an army who don't know the terrain, is over confident, fights far from there homes and you've got the same situation the US army met when invading, Viet-Nâm or more recently Afghanistan and Iraq. Or for more example and as i am french; ( so what?!); the situation the french army met during the Indochina war ( beginning of "We were soldiers") and the Algerian war, a stupid slaughter of lives. Also, for the supplies line, the situation would be far worst for the Allies than the Soviets. During WW2 Allied forces struggled with supplies in the north-east of France, because the mulberrys harbor were damaged (if not destroyed) by a hurricane, the big harbor of Anvers was still german (all thanks to the failure of Operation Market Garden), same as most of the big french harbor like Bordeaux, Brest or St Nazaire. Wich leaded to the little-known battles for the Atlantic pockets. (for the record, my grand-father's dad was involved in and it was not an easy task, but anyway...) They struggled only 400 km (or 248 miles if you're from 'Murica) from where they landed, so imagine with a supply line of over 2400 km (1491 miles) from East germany to Moscou. I finally would like to remind you that the Soviets managed to held over 40 German divisions during Operation Barbarrossa (that was close but German failure was inevitable) while Allied struggle to held there positions against a half destroyed German army in the battle of the Ardennes ( they prayed for a friendly weather so there airforce could take off).

But also result in hundreds of millions of innocent people being murdered...

So is Transnistria still in the Soviet Union?

@@SOFTWAREMASTER no, it's currently a part of moldova

@@SOFTWAREMASTER its a breakaway state in moldova

I second that

;) love you too!

me too, omg we have so much in common!

Canada Does it sting?

Yes, a bit. But you get used to it.

Make a video about what if the golden circle were successful or maybe something about operation red dog, basically north american invasions of latin america..

Oh that explains that.

With the FIFA World Cup starting in about a month. Do you think some soccer history videos would be a good idea to do coming up. Maybe something like if the sport were invited in a different part of the world. Also, maybe something how the sports balance of power would be changed if any of the most stunning runs were able to win the FIFA World Cup. Like North Korea doing it in 1966 or Cameron in 1990 and how it would affect soccer power and talent in Asia & Africa for instance.

PhantomGaming, you do know that what happened in Vietnam was basically what happened in the war of independence. Britain won 230 battles of the 260 battles in the war of independence and lost considerably less men. Even when the colonists had the assistance of 3 other world super powers. However Britain lost the war because it was not worth fighting any longer and cost the country too much. Meanwhile in Vietnam, America did win most of the major battles but did not have the proper equipment, training or tactics to counter guerrilla warfare and cost America to much and so North Vietnam won against them when they withdrew. So by your logic, Britain technically won the war of independence. Welcome to Britain's overseas colonies.

what if canda had joind

>would be like you mean a world where media lies 24/7. where all permitted information is approved by the wealthy ruling class and anyone telling truth is punished? a world in which the west is at constant war with not only foreign countries for the sake of financial global power, but it's own population? yeah..."would be".

@@easyovenoperator5692 pretty sure I meant only that the political map in Europe would look like the 1984 political map

Who won?

umm ... weird but idk how ... Italy conquered 3/4 of America and whole canada ( America was left with California and other smaller areas next to it )

Radu Dominteanu Holy Shit!

i did the same . i have no idea how that happend , but yes , that Italy .

Historical accuracy FTW!

No

You're kidding me, right? Don't tell me you didn't know what Op. Unthinkable was!

TRDogukan61 yeah

TRDogukan61 thats the point of watching the video i guess

Yep

This is something that doesn’t get enough discussion. The proposed date of Operation Unthinkable was 1 July 1945, which predates the USSR’s declaration of war against the Empire of Japan and the invasion of Manchuria, which began on 9 August. I could even see the two sides coming to some sort of alliance of convenience, if only to combat the shared threat of the US and British Empire, temporarily setting any planned hostilities aside. This becomes of particular concern as Operation Downfall, the proposed invasion of Japan, was still on the table and projected to take place in November of 1945. With 6 million troops in Western Europe and another 6 million for an invasion of Japan (possibly even strengthened by cooperation with the USSR), the Western Allies would probably be stretched to their absolute limit.

@@TheKalihiMan no they wouldn’t, as this were a continuation of the Second World War, the allies could push through India into the belly of Russia. Japan was already down on its knees at that point of time and had resorted to using kamikaze attacks to defend itself. The combined might of Britain and USA would pummel the Russians

@@nutcrackerreal100 hahaha. Its time to wake-up, you shit yourself

Hahahahaha exactly

+Mieser The Crusher God and? we bought it in 1867, it was officially our territory during WW2. we also fought from other US territories in the Pacific (ex Guam), so I really don't understand your point

he failed to mention Churchill wanted to use the nukes against there'd army divisions, to lower there standing army size and fighting capacity

are you all fucking crazy,go back to 1946 and ask any normal thinking bean:will it work"they would think youre a fucking idiot,you say it would work,but the best generals that lived during that time say it wouldnt,sorry m8 but i think i would trust a general more than an agresive kid/boy mad cause UK/America didnt attack the USSR

Would the best generals include Patton or does that not fit your theory? Perhaps just Monty stuck in the sands on Normandy for a month? Anyway this is just a thought experiment so pull the stick out of your a**. Just as we saw with Chamberlain, virtue of office does not give you omniscience. There is a lot of politicking that goes on to get those top spots, not a pure meritocracy. And the decision was more of a political pulse of the nation decision, not a 'is it technically possible' choice. Patton thought it was surely possible and could be done in 6 weeks. Do you trust that f'n general?

+Bustudent1 but people reply that Patton was a mad man, even the he knew the enamy and the fighting strength of his troops

not if said air force is destroyed first. the west had a huge advantage at that point 1946.

@@jasonrist6582 sometimes we forget to mention that air support is really important

@@jasonrist6582 USSR always had the best air defense in history.

@@eliasziad7864 that’s funny

@@eliasziad7864 absolutely not

That would’ve been the end of Stalin’s Russia in my opinion, with the rest of the, now nazi/allied, western bloc becoming heavily autocratic and police state’ish.

@ByAnn better dead than red

ByAnn no… With no enemy to fight Germany would’ve become more and more moderate as time went on, especially yes the aged Hitler would’ve died easily if you years later, he was very sick by the end of World War II. I highly doubt that genocide programs would’ve continued after Hitler’s death. We would have a Eastern Europe comparable to today’s Russia governmentally

@@nstice1 they would happen because either himmler the head of the ss or goring would take over

That would not happen. But Hitler offered Stalin to join the axis. if Stalin joined the axis, the Allies would lose. Britain would have no chance. the United States would not have such an economic boom. German, Soviet and Japanese scientists could overtake the United States in nuclear weapons. The USSR already had a Kurchatov project, Germany already had launch missiles. Japan had superiority in the navy

(Continued from Part 1) (Part 2) 3. Production. This is rather straightforward. While the Soviets easily outproduced the Germans in terms of many form of materiel, the same is not the case when compared to the US. The amount of materiel produced by both nations in the war is pretty neck and neck in some regards, with the Soviets JUST BARELY out producing the US in terms of land vehicles. For the most part, however, the US outdoes the Soviet in terms of war production. In terms of perishable supplies, for example, America not only surpassed the USSR in terms of production several times over but it actually SUPPLIED the Soviets with most of their perishables which would not be the case here. This issue also extends to the next reason. 4. Air Power. I can just use the numbers to prove my point: Number of Aircraft Produced by the Three Allied Powers by 1945: USSR: 136,223 US: 324,000 UK: 177,025 The Soviet are outnumbered in terms of aircraft by both the UK and US, with the US alone outnumbering them in terms of aircraft by almost 2-to-1. Given the importance of air power, I don't think I have to go any further with this point. 5. Empire and US Size. The numerical advantage of the Soviets in terms of manpower doesn't hold as much water as one might think as there is the matter of the British Empire controlling much of Africa and parts of Asia, most notably India which, by this time, is not in any real danger of being invaded by Japan. It's safe to say the British would use this extra pool of manpower here as they did in WW1. Furthermore, the US had a population of a little over 131,000,000 people, only 10,000,000 of which were in the military at the time this operation would've occurred. It's safe to say the US would draw a bit more from this pool of manpower as well. 6. Geography. Eastern Europe isn't the only avenue the Allies have to attack the USSR. The British controlled most of the Middle East at this time so an attack from places like Iran would've been easily possible. Most probable, however, is an attack via the Pacific as the US could easily launch an attack that started in Siberia that would be launched from Alaska. Besides the proximity, the US could draw upon resources already available in the Pacific due to the war against Japan as well as possible support from China who would obviously undo the numerical advantage the Soviets supposedly enjoyed several times over. In other words, chances are that this Operation would likely be a battle on multiple fronts similar to the one that had just crushed Nazi Germany and, chances are the same would happen to the USSR. ---- These are just some reasons why I think the scenario in this video is mistaken. While I do believe that the outcome could still favor the Soviets, Operation Unthinkable is actually not that Unthinkable if one puts a little more thought into it.

+Steven Choza You make a lot of good points. Maybe they should have gone for it?

Rock Golem Thank you...! Wedelj I'm not sure... I do believe that, more than likely, both forces would be even at the start. I think, in this case, China would play the deciding factor, specifically the question of if the Kuomintang-led government can support the Allies long enough to both defeat the Soviets by keeping Mao Zedong and his faction in check.

Rock Golem Yeah... accept Japan was all but doomed. They were still fighting the US and the only thing stopping the US from invading them was the Battle of Okinawa which was ongoing at the time of Germany's surrender. Chances are, the US would firebomb the shit out of Japan, blockade it, and isolate it until the Soviets were dealt with, and then turn their attention back to Japan to finish the job once that was out of the way.

Rock Golem I didn't say that they'd count them out. I'm saying that they were already all but isolated within their home islands at this point and, with much of their navy and virtually their entire air force (save for Kamikaze planes and pilot) gone, the US could blockade and bomb the shit out of them while they dealt with the Soviets and, once that was taken care of, finish off the Japanese.

Then we wouldn’t have these oversimplified alternate history hypotheticals :(

He could make a video like that on April Fools.

Interesting More to do with time travel theory coherent thinking, than necessarily a "historical' perspective.

To remove AlternateHistoryHub, we have to stop me from discovering alternate history. So, the only solution to this problem is to remove Alternate History from existance.

LOL...xd

they may had defeated USSR but afterwards, the Nazis would fuck the Western Allies in a few months bcoz now they won't be fighting on two fronts and they lost 80% of soldiers fighting in Eastern Front and only 20% in Western, so it seems that US and UK army was much weaker than Nazi army, dumbass.

Nothing possible, remember Nazis bombed London, I doubt the British public would have agreed to join Nazi Germany to fight the Soviets, just because of ideology, and well, there's America's involvement, with America still in the pacific war, I doubt they'd still want to send supplies to fight The Soviets which they were supporting just before

ok buddy

Hitler committed attrocities against white people whereas Churchill committed attrocities against black and brown people so nobody cares about it.

Plus Russia would've teamed up with Japan

They still had to defeat Japan

You had to mobilize a army in Asia, give sufficient supplies so they don't starve or freeze and make them travel over long distances. The war would be over before the Army arrive at Moscow.

Retardosaurusrex by July 1945 japan was 95% defeated.

Retardosaurusrex en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_over_Japan_Day Still even at 95% conquered Japan would have been no use to the Soviets.

SuzuRyderHD YEAH

SuzuRyderHD Da

SuzuRyderHD let's fucking do it!!!

Jesus Christ Shut up Jesus.

Jesus Christ spam?

+absentmindedprof Wrong video

+absentmindedprof I was just going to ask, what if Attila sacked Rome?

w9ill I'd be surprised if they don't have a video about it. If they don't, maybe this will be enough suggestion for them to make one?

+Wedelj they did make a video about this topic just search for "what if carthage won the punic war?"

carlos dumbratzen Cool

***** "people in all those countries were waiting americans like the french" lol what are u talking about. Go back to history lessons. Everybody know true about US so nobody want them. Even during the war.

***** truth is too painful for you mr. american idiot? ;D

***** ofc u are xD you are so mad xD

***** Yea yea, i'm poor and stupid and you are rich and clever xD MURICA!

+MegaMapper I don´t think CzechoSlovakia would rush to join the west. Remember that they basicaly gave us up to nazis, even though they were obligated to help us. USSR was picuted in brighter colours and was acutally quite popular after war. +They were mostly slavic.

and the allies had a much much better airforce and the support of all the countries Russia had pissed off.

Lefty Hara Russia had the biggest military of the time, and probably the second most modern tanks. Though their skills lack horribly on the battlefield which is why they lost over 20million in WW2, while the allies and Germany had a fraction of that.

Vladimir Lenin The Russians exploded their first nuke in 1949, but didn't aquire much till 1954. Also the Germans had the first Stealth aircraft and the first jets. So actually the Germans had better aircraft then that soviet crap. Also, the IS-3 was outdated compared to the Centurion. Now if you said the T-55, then yes the T-55 would've destroyed the Centurion.

Wehrmacht Bunny He's Russian. Deal with it ^^. Cheers from Poland.

Vladimir Lenin If you think the Soviet air force was so good, then take a look at the list of aces from WW2. You will see how many are German (hint: they took down so many planes because they fought the shitty Soviet air force which consisted of terrible aircraft and terrible pilots).

This would have been a continuation of WWII, not a new world war though.

the american aid is heavily overstaded it was important for sure but the ussr would still have won, the ussr would not attack first, if the US started nuking cities in large numbers i dont think the public would have liked that, the ussr at that point would have steamrolled trough europe

+Chandler Hull the germans also had an superior airforce , better supply und technological advantagage against the russians ... this scenario would have ended with a draw and a devastated continental europe under red flag

True, but atomics make a huge difference in causing disarray for an already over stretched army. Again it wouldn't of been a nice victory.

Chandler Hull one strike every 2 month wouldnt be enough

+Thomas Alexander Well, to be honest the US would have, by November 1945, no less than 7 nukes ready(according to Colonel Seeman) and more coming at a rapid rate. So if they would start fighting the Soviets by July there would be more like 2 bombs a month instead of 1 bomb every 2 months and by January they would be able to drop 5 bombs a month at least. The production of nuclear weapons would be much higher if they were to keep on fighting against the Soviet Union too so you might be looking at 8 bombs a month. Thats a lot of bombs.

+Thomas Alexander the Germans were fighting a war on multiple fronts, they lost huge numbers of planes fighting the British, and in 1945 America's air force was many times the size of the Luftwaffe at its height

Nuclear bombs aren't as big as you think especially basic fission bombs of the day. It never would have worked and Russia basically could have just taken all of Europe at that point. They would have stopped around Germany though in mainland but taken all of Scandinavia to not overextend but gain massive amounts of resources including basically all of the oil that could possibly be going to England at the time

The nukes of the time weren't as devastating as they are now. Firebombed cities had far more deaths and destruction than the nukes. The initial two, plus a few new nukes, simply wouldn't be enough to stop a force of 11 million.

+Owen Schroder before nuclear bombs, there was a surprisingly effective super weapon America was planning to use on Japan: firebombs strapped to hundreds on bats. Because bats instinctively fly to nooks and crannies in urban structures, they could fly into position and the blow up. This had the potential devastate miles of urban infrastructure, and be more effective than previous firebombing. But funding was cut and sent to the atom bomb instead. No joke, this was a real plan.

+Wam power it could have been used against Russia

+Gavlick Apthesycerski to be honest though Russia was unstable in 1945 and i don't about there gun supply but i do know that it was very very low in ww2 they no joke had lines of men run with one man in the front and when he fell with a rifle or sub machine gun the man behind him would grab it and carry on they also had anti tank guns fire at men at Stalingrad when the germans pushed into the city also america would have the upper hand in night bombings and air raids could potentially brake the soviet spirit and therefore push straight to Moscow leningrad and maybe Stalingrad if they had used nukes it also would have been a morale booster for British american german troops and demoralizing to there Russian enemies British and americans navy's were bigger at the time

KeepHimAtBay I do not think that Poland would rise, after the defeat of the Warsaw uprising, the Polish national government was discredited and after all, it was the Russians who liberated Poland from the Nazis.

Marcelo Melnek poles where fighting against new govermnent for a couple of years afer the "liberation" from russians. There would be a massive riots against russians.

“Liberated”

KeepHimAtBay but wouldnt ein

Win

Jay... you mean battlefield 1942 remastered

Jay... that's what they should've made but Battlefield 1 came out, and Activision/Infinity Ward got 360 no scoped by DICE 😁

If it's dead, then how does every single CoD game sell millions upon millions of copies every year?

huffpuff1337 Because 9 year olds don't have any taste

CoD used to be awesome. Now? I can't say the same.

Yes. Who's next? But seriously this was very unlikely to happen, the reason they were so technologically inferior all links back to how few easily domesticated animals lived in the Americas (probably the same for the Australia) without these animals you kind of have to be largely nomadic (obviously not all were but still) and generally prevents progress from going forward.

+julius vidal I'm not so sure that even with sails and gunpowder that would happen. Native American culture is a lot more peaceful than European ever was, and the natives rarely attempted to force their beliefs on to others, which is what created some of the worst parts of Europe's oppression of the natives.

+Ross the Boss eh.... It depends on where you look. Maya/Aztec/Inca are not exactly peaceful cultures but unlike the peoples of North America who never really had a high enough population density for intense competition for resources to be necessary the Maya/Aztec/Inca did have that competition. Since the population density was high enough for competition we see wars and empires. But, in North America, we don't really see that. Cahokia and the Mississippian culture may have been imperial but there isn't a ton of info on that. So, the idea that Native Americans were somehow inherently more peaceful due to their culture is kind of silly. If you look at any group of people with a similar population density as Native Americans you will find them to be rather peaceful as there are plenty of resources and space for everyone (you need to be a bit time agnostic with these comparisons). But let's also look at the idea of Europeans being more violent. The first modern humans are thought to enter Europe ~35,000 BCE. The first known conflict involving organized violence took place ~5,000 BCE. That's about 30,000 thousand years of relative peace (as far as we know). Now let's look at the Americas. Peopling of the Americas is hotly debated, but I'll use standard times for this post. The first people made it in via Alaska ~13,000 BCE. After a little searching, I found 810 CE as one of the early points of warfare for the Maya. That makes it, ~12,200 years of relative peace in the Americas. I guess what I am trying to say via this suddenly long post is that people need to stop perpetuating this idyllic myth that Native Americans were somehow innocent and peaceful people. Really they fucked, fought and enslaved people like everybody else in similar situations.

Dominick Del Ponte Perhaps I spoke too soon. Thank you for broadening my perspective.

yo momma raised you stupid.

I'm sure it would much different if they had to push the button they are just theorizing on RU-vid so I am not sure this is how they would actually treat a situation.

True, savage military static.

most of the comments are legitimate good theory/points on the subject matter.

They are the Churchills of our age. XD

Well, just think about how you'd solve the situation in Civ4 instead of thinking what would actually be "right" or "moral"

Nukes do that to you?

that's, UNTHINKABLE!

Russian Anime.

TastesLikePanda Russianime

“The adventures of shoe and shoelace”

USSR had not just quantitative superiority, but also qualitative superiority in crucial things too. The Allied Navy is undoubtedly stronger than the USSR's own, which was gargantuan in its own right, but the USSR invested quite a lot on very advanced anti-ship missiles (ASM). The Allied airforce may have had an advantage over the USSR's own, which was gargantuan in its own right, but the USSR invested a lot in advanced SAM systems, and possessed excellent low level air defence in huge quantities to defend their armour from air attack. The Allied airforce would have a hard time penetrating as deep as "500 miles" behind enemy lines, because the deeper you go, the more zones of engagement of SAM systems you enter. Eventually, there would be so many intersecting zones that you might have a few dozen SAM radar arrays pointed at you from all directions, and several hundred missiles ready to fire. Additionally, the USSR had the overwhelming advantage of very, very superior artillery. They also possessed a great number of tactical ballistic missile systems that could substitute conventional fixed wing bombers. The Tochka has been used with extremely great success in Yemen by the Houthis. Each launch at a Saudi Coalition army base has resulted in more than a hundred deaths, hundreds wounded, and dozens of vehicles destroyed or disabled. Many Apaches have been destroyed on the ground by Tochka strikes. They even developed a passive radar homing system, Tochka-P, that can be used in the SEAD role in lieu of conventional aircraft.

USSR ASM and SAM's in July 1945? The first USSR SAM's didn't enter service until the mid 50's. Same thing with with ballistic missile systems, they didn't exist for the USSR in 1945. The USSR was so focused on producing war material during WW2 they didn't have the resources or time to spare on development of new weapons like ballistic missiles and SAM's.

+Greg Brance I... don't recall a particular date being mentioned. I assumed that we were somewhere in the Cold War era. It's rather impossible for an Allied-USSR war to have broken out in 1945 in any scenario, for very obvious reasons. For one, the Western Allied nations have been heaping praise on the Soviet war effort in the press. It took quite a long time for the new anti-Communist narrative to take hold in the public perception. Max Hastings' 'All Hell Let Loose: The World At War 1939-1945' captures the sentiment at that time. The American and British public were in awe of the colossal bloodletting on the Eastern Front, and had huge respect for the Russians. This was amplified by the lack of progress in Africa and the Pacific. All through to the end of the war, the average Western citizen regarded Soviet soldiers as heroes. That cannot be destroyed so quickly as to gain support for WWII: Part II in 1945.

The narrative for "Operation Unthinkable" is to launch the attack before allied forces are demobilized after VE. The date in the video mentions July 1945. If the attack happens sometime during the 50's the entire scenario changes from what is discussed from the video to make what is discussed in the video completely irrelevant.

Greg Brance​​ Then Operation Unthinkable is... unthinkable. It is simply not possible. Do you think that the American soldiers that shook hands with their Soviet counterparts in Berlin in May would so readily put a bullet in them in July? I admit that I may be off topic here, if the conversation absolutely has to be about 1945, but the only possible scenarios for such a war is during the Cold War era. 

+TheMightyThor83 the Japanese surrendered not only because of the bombs but because "tired" Soviets army occupied eastern Manchuria ((which has the size of western Europe ) within days. Search for "forgotten victory" documentary.

+RoadToFuture007 I don't want to take anything away from the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory. That would be unfair. I am well aware of the invasion of Manchuria and its influence on the Japanese surrender. However, in Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech, he makes direct reference to the atomic bombs, never a mention of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. If the Soviets had invaded Manchuria, and the United States had not dropped atomic bombs on Japan, there is a good chance that the war would have eventually saw an invasion of the Japanese mainland, but with Soviet troops joining the Americans, British, and other allies. How long would the Soviet people have stayed with Stalin if Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and other cities were nuked, American and British forces were invading at record speed, rebellions against the Soviets arose all throughout Eastern Europe, and food shortages were happening? I'm sticking with my original belief that the Soviet Union falls with Operation Unthinkable, they stand no chance.

TheMightyThor83 you overestimate the chances of success to hit those cities. Sovjet airforce was on top of its might by the end of the war, and those cities you named are far in the mid of sovjet territory. That means, only very few very long range fighters could guard the long range bombers, that means huge loss of planes. Moreover that to organize such operation, the west needed some time, which in turn the SU could use to prepare the defense OP. It is one thing to bomb an unaware city of some island country with almost no air force and other thing the inner cities of a huge continent with intact army and air force. Remember, during those times the production of atomic bombs was very expensive and time consuming and those bombs were just dwarfs compared to modern nuclear bombs by their power (nuclear =/= atomic!). Even if one or two of such bombs could have been succesfully droped, they wouldnt make much of the impact. First, the citizens were prepared and could hide underground or even leave the city long before, and second, most of the production was allready evacuated behind the Ural mountains during the war with Germany. So this action would be a huge "straw burner" of the western air force with little result. And what is more crucial, you overestimate the hate of the Sovjet people for the Sovjet leadership and Stalin personaly. I know you westernes, fed with propaganda are thinking, almost every of the "oppressed" sovjet citizen dreamed of how Stalin would die etc. The reality is quite the opposite: just watch some documentary or read about the death and burial of Stalin and the reaction of common people to that, and i mean realy common people and not some traitors like Chrustchev, who, while he was in Ukraine, asked Stalin to increase the death penalty numbers ( on which Stalin answered: "calm down idiot" ) and then afterwards told about "Stalins terror".

TheMightyThor83 and which is important too: the "might" of western allied ground troops during the fights with Germany is legendary ;) add tho this the statistics of fallen geman soldiers on eastern and western front ( like 9 to 1 ) and you get the whole picture. And dont forget: to defend your own country is one thing and to die in some distant corner of the globe for some warmogers ambition is other. With the huge losses the chances of uprisings would be higher in the westen world then in the SU.

+RoadToFuture007 When I mentioned the uprisings, I didn't necessarily mean only in the Soviet Union. I meant in places such as Poland, Hungary, and other eastern nations that were liberated by the Soviets. They most definitely would have revolted. Perhaps it would have been more difficult to hit Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad with nukes, but all it would take was one to turn the hearts and minds of people against the government. Even if you couldn't hit those cities, other cities like Minsk or Kiev could be hit. Japan had never surrendered in its history. After the bombings, it did. I don't feel the Soviets would have been any different in this regard. If they were living underground, that means they live underneath radiation and are still poisoned. By 1944, the Soviets had about 16,000 available aircraft in Europe, whereas the Americans had about 12,000 and the British 14,500. These don't include the numbers the Americans and British would recall from Asia, now that they no longer were needed. The Soviets also did not fight against the Japanese (for most of the war) or Italians. A huge part of why the Soviets lasted against the Nazis was because of the Lend Lease Act. Once that would have been cut off, they would have much of their food supply cut off. As I stated earlier, I take absolutely nothing away from the Soviets during World War 2. Their resolve helped stop the Nazis. However, I don't believe that they could have withstood a nuclear United States that was also the only country to emerge from the war stronger than when it went in.

MrAnthimos112 Another point is that the only reason the Russians got the jet fighters so fast is that they were given British jet engines after the war. If the plan was to go to war with them directly afterwards I doubt that would have happened...

Highly unlikely. The allies were insistent on the unconditional surrender of Japan. No deal would have been made that kept Japanese troops under arms.

The Chechcosl

Clarify, please.

MrAnthimos112 And the Baby Boomer generation would never have existed.

And then they would somehow find portals on Mars

How the fuck can you believe that. Just immagine it is 1945, the Soviets just did the lions share in defeating the thirth reich, at a great cost indeed but the red army hasnt had a major defeat in a long time, the morale is high, the army has cca 11 million soliders, and not peasents but rather battle hardened veterans, those are the men that descimated elite german devisions in the east, they are proud of it and they should be... Main battle tanks of the soviets were superior to german panzers in the end of the war and the new beast Jopis Stalin 3 is undoubtibly the far best tank on the field (it is basically Königs tiger on sterioids) (yes you could argue there werent many built but IS2, SU 85, T34-85 were all superior to allied tanks in almost every way), not only that they outnumber Allied tanks 2 : 1, it wouldnt even be a battle, (allies did have an upper hand in airforce but the soviets werent that far behind especially in fighters, and assuming the allies would just take the skies is wrong). Malnutritioned please give me a legitimate source that soviet army in 1945 was in any way ill equiped or supplied, i cannot find it. Industry in ruins? it was bad in 1942 but in 1945 tankograd was fully operational producing 4000 heavy tanks a year (THATS ONE FUCKING FACTORY REMEMBER) Chelyabins 40 nuclear reactors were being built soviets are now just a coupple of years away from making their own nuclear bomb. You must undersand if you are looking at the charts, yes the USSR bdp was non existing, yes the food was limited (for farmers ecpecially), but the whole country was fighting the war, state didnt care if people dont have cars or good shoes, but they did care to get every single tank possible on that front line. I understand you are patriotic and all but no the American thirth army alone would have been destroyed, the whole allied army in europe including france, liberated teritories and even recruting Wermacht would probably still loose against the Red army. And even if they didnt. Lets say the allies are really so much better, they make surprise attack, they somehow get advantage and they start to push into russian territory. How far? To Berlin ? there is nothing there the city is destroyed, to Poland ? the country is destroyed and there are now 11 million strong army very close, you need to push further. Now you immagine yourself, you are 4 000 km inside Russian teritory, you have been persuing that army since July and it is november now. There were some minor skirmishers, and the local populaton hates you. Partisans are striking supply lines and the road and railroad were destroyed or in such a poor condition it is basically useless. The food is limited, you got your coat but the night are just so cold. You have seen some of the heavy russian tanks they have left behind and are impressed how powerfull they are our shermans cant match theese beasts can they? And between you and your objective is the Red army, it has grown even larger and front lines are made of unwavering veterans, defending their motherland. There is a reason operation unthinkable was called unthinkable. There was literally no scenario where any of the sides could be considered a winner. And please dont underestimate the Red army they really dont deserve this, read about the eastern front, I cant stress this enough the world war 2 was won by russian blood. US,UK, and all the other allies did some heavy lifting but there are no battles remotely equal to Stalingrad or Kursk.

Battle of Red Cliffs maybe

This message is meant for Aljosa Gajsek: The Battle of Britain (July 10 - October 31) greatly reduced the Nazi war machine *particularly the Luftwaffe*. In the aftermath of The Battle of Britain, over half the Luftwaffe was lost. It's estimated that if the wasted resources of the Third Reich were instead devoted to tank manufacturing, Nazi Germany could have mustered anywhere from some 7,000 to even 11,000 Tiger tanks, with 1,000 being Tiger II's whilst the others are Tiger I's. This my friend is enough tanks to conquer the world. In this scenario, "the endless waves" of Soviet T-34's and their numerical advantage would not be a factor in determining the war's outcome. Tiger I's and II's were vastly superior to any Soviet tank of the time (However rendered obsolete once Germany lost air superiority and the Soviet IL-2 came into play). It is totally plausible the outcome would have been entirely different with the low-end of an extra 7,000 Tiger I's and II's being added to the German's war machine. It becomes scary when you take into account the Germans were close to completing the Tiger III model. So, you are saying why didn't the Germans just build all of these tanks. It's because tanks aren't very effective at crossing, let alone controlling, the English Channel. That's why the Germans for the first time in the war devoted so many of their resources into one battle it thought it could win through air superiority, it was so they could knock out Britain. Also, at the time Hitler had not yet proposed an invasion of the Soviet Union where tanks would become a lot more useful (a desperate attempt to sustain his armies with the oil the invasion could yield along with North Africa). One of the biggest factors of the Third Reich decline was sustainability particularly logistics concerning oil (Oil = #1 motivating factor why Germany invaded the Soviet Union along with fact that Stalin trusted Hitler). Point being, it is a huge understatement to say the Allies only did some "heavy lifting". A 1v1 scenario between Germany vs USSR would be almost laughably one sided. There is no way the Comintern's victories of WW2 outweigh the achievements of the allies. Just because the Soviets fended off the German invasion doesn't mean it's a great victory. Have you seen the numbers - Soviet casualties soar far above any of the other belligerents of the war. In the opening days of the invasion, staggering numbers of 3 million red soldiers would be captured in single, swift strokes. Not to mention Soviet tactics were horrible. The Soviets would have lost if it weren't for the backing of the Allies through supply and military aid. While the Allies fought a global conflict, the Comintern was left fighting one front. The Soviets never encountered a full scale invasion from the Japanese Empire. So, sure a lot of Russian blood was lost during the war but don't undermine the Allies efforts like that. And just because a lot of blood was lost, that doesn't mean it was effectively wasted. Also, I have read the Western Front and like you, I wish more people would read it.

@@infinitedonuts i dont underestimate the allies contribution but we are talking about facts here. The ww2 way won in tje east. I can alpretiate contribution of brave pilotes and heroic soliders that charged fortified possitiins at day d but you cannot compare eastern front to the western. Look at total loses (of germany) at the west vs east. The difference is staggering. +most movies and popular colture knows a lot about actions on the west and very little of the east. I just think the red army deserev a lit more credit :) humble opinion tho i respect eceryone that opposed the nazis, UK in particular they were lractically alone at some point and did now waver. Allied support to the soviet union isnt negligable also bit still the stats speak for itself

aljosa gajsek the Soviets did a lot - WW2 was a combined effort. I am not trying to undermine the fact that the Soviets played a big role. Western Russia was left in ruins and millions died - this country suffered more than any of the other belligerents of the war (for many reasons). But to say they are the determining factor - the reason the allies won - I simply don't agree, but I respect you believe that. Still I have to hand it, Russia at the dawn of the 20th century was a third world country which had just rid its society of its serfdom and its feudal system only less than 100 years before, but by the end of the century it became a world nuclear superpower which was more to be reckoned with - still at the expense of millions of people. FYI this is not me being a patriotic westerner, it is more just my take on world war 2 and the aftermath. Also just wondering what's your favorite war and political history movies and books. I like the movie "Enemy At The Gates" and the book Battles That Changed History. Also one of my favorite figures of history is Augustus Caesar.

Swish Gaming that shit would be amazing.

just have bavarium nukes like in just cause 3

It's ww2 now

YourFriendlyKiller nah... we’d pick you off before you got remotely close

How am I wrong? It's just one of the infinite scenarios.

AlternateHistoryHub well the seneraio you show is wrong.

maor peer It's a fictional scenario in the endless possibilites that could have occurred. Anything could have happened. It's a fictional timeline with events none of us could even imagine.

maor peer That's a very narrow-minded thing to say. The scenario shown in the video is based on the facts of the time, so it isn't necessarily wrong, it's just not guaranteed to happen.

Not millions of allied soldiers

yea we had Hot war instead.

And with big numbers of dead civilians on both sides and complete nuclear fallout around the world

Julius Houser no only in Russia if we deployed all nukes at one time to evry place that is populated in Russia than we would just have to wait maby a few hundred yrs and yes the nuclear winter would reach us but it wouldn't be as bad and it wouldn't be very difficult to survive than keep on than maby repopulate Russia

But you would be worse than the nazis in that case.

Russia did not get working nukes until 1949.

+grazzitdvram 2:1 is nothing. Anything could happen depending on terrain, equipment, strategy and logistics. My guess: the Allied would have the better weapons and thus a headstart, but the Russians would retreat behind the mountains hope that the allies are slowed down enough that winter will freeze their a... off. For both sides it would be impossible to controll the vast territory making supply lines more important than actual battle fields.

2 to 1 odds are nothing. finland fought russia 1 to 10 odds and almost beat them suomi perkele torilla kaljaa ja sauna

+xKuukkelix keep in mind that ww2 wasn't a Russo-Finnish war. Russia did not divert a large portion of their army to fight Finland. In fact, they were too busy fighting off the Germans and all of Germanys allies.

David Cordier yeah i know and almost all of the russian soldiers were from warm countries and they didnt know how to survive in cold weather. when the winter war between russia and finland happened, it was almost -50c so cold killed a lot of russians. But still finlanders overpovered russians because russians used roads to move and finnish soldiers skied in the forest and silently surrounded russians and then they shot them and they got a lot of loot like weapons and ammo. btw molotovs cocktail was invented by finlanders and they used them to destroy tanks and other armors

Another key to the Allied victory ,in my opinion, would be (providing Japan is still defeated) American forces can fight on both Soviet fronts. They have men on the Moscow, Kiev, Stalingrad side, but nothing on the modern day Japanese/Chinese side. Also not to mention that either the Republic of Chad or China was an allied presence at the time. They could've done like with the Nazis, attack on 2 sides. They may not have the numbers, but if they can separate the Red Army, they have a better chance. Also a good point with British Annexes in the war like India. They can fight for the allied cause as well, proving our forces even greater, thus forcing the soviets to defend ALL sides and borders (due to geographical location of India, Chad/China, and USA.

Yet the US is the only country to EVER use them. Oh the irony

Actually, what the Western Allies didn't know was the fact that the Soviet's march into Germany literally GUTTED in operational strength in Europe. The forces there were barely skeleton sized units. Add onto the fact that the US was literally just getting into full wargear, the USSR would be swamped by US logistical capabilities. Stalin wasn't stupid. He ran the USSR like a mafia but he wasn't stupid. He HAD to recall troops back to stabilize the homefront... any determined attack would mean that he would be pushed to moscow... AGAIN.

The soviets would've been stomped from the air, plain and simple. With that, they'd have lost the war.

Phoenix jz Now add the fact that the US could outproduce and outequip the USSR while SLEEPING as a part of the problem and the USSR is now part of the sands of time.

Aaron Neumann that's part of the stomp factor. There's no way that the soviets could've matched the Wet in the air, now when facing mass amounts of jet fighters.

Phoenix jz Or the large amounts of old Nazi gear laying around that can put the hurt on Soviet vehicles.

Colin Hicks Stalin was in power at the time. I don't think he really cares about his people so if 4 million dies in the blink of an eye it wouldn't matter

Michael Marceleno that’s likely why Stalin would die in a blast directed for him.

Nukes when hard to make and not as devastating as they are now. A couple citys being bombed wouldn't stop the Soviet union from invading the west.

Colin Hicks Or even without the nukes. They would've steamrolled through the Russians

Miguel Spagna they wouldn't have. The Russians had millions of men. Stop being stubborn.

Slavic tribes are pretty stupid and stubborn in my opinion. If you look at Russian history, a lot of times they would rather die and/or destroy their own stuff rather than be subjugated and assimilated. That's what you see right now in Eastern Ukraine, which is mostly ethnically Russian IIRC. So it's either you get rid of them completely or you have constant uprisings and stuff. I think Churchill even said something similar.

USSR no Russia.

Presiding over the British SSR containing the English, Scottish and Welsh ASSRs.

Tell me where you got those figures from, so I can promptly separate their head from their shoulders.

@@depressedoptimist6168 www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers

@@PanzerVII-df8hg That's actually not true. The estimates for the number of men the USSR had at the end of WWII range from almost 7 million to just over 11 million. The estimated American strength at that time was 12 million (check my previous link). The fact is that the American military outnumbered the Soviets and the only question is to what degree warontherocks.com/2016/07/was-the-russian-military-a-steamroller-from-world-war-ii-to-today/

@Karl Quetzacoatl Agreed. It may be that the Soviets had more men in Germany at the end of WWII but that's the only advantage I can imagine them having

@Karl Quetzacoatl You've pretty much summed up my view of it as well. That's not counting the fact that the allies were starting to produce jet fighters and A-bombs, two things the Soviets wouldn't have until the fifties. The technological gap was too wide, the manpower wasn't there and there would've been no supplies from outside, only invaders

Giorgi Lezhava This operation would have to happen right after WW2 ended, which means nobody would support allies. Russia had reason to stay there for some time as they did after the defeat of Napoleon, so freed by USSR from Nazi s countries were still ok with the situation. Except for Baltic block that is.

ljuc Yes, I imagine Eastern Poland absolutely loved USSR for kicking Nazi Germany out right after invading Poland first and killing just as many if not more people. Also all the countries under USSR really loved their leadership at that time especially with Holodomor just 10 years agoin Ukraine and general mass repressions all around. Sure.

Giorgi Lezhava At that point they would be ok. If you think that would be so easy they would have done it. Or are you thinking that you are the smartest one ?)

Giorgi Lezhava So was the UK as India and most of the Empire was a military dictatorship.

ljuc Are you stupid?

P2. When one looks at US strategy, from Ike's "broad front" invasion of Western Germany, to allowing the USSR to capture Berlin indicate that the US' intention was to keep casualties to a minimum. In part, this was because it was assumed that these forces would be needed to invade Japan, which would cost many casualties, especially after seeing how the Japanese fought in Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Churchill was right about Hitler and the threat he posed, but was wrong about so much else, such as his dogged desire to retain the British Empire, (especially India), which most of his fellow Cabinet members knew was a sentimental pipe dream. And FDR had made it very clear that US soldiers were not going to fight and die to preserve the British Empire. Marshall's views were identical. About the only key American who would have agreed with Churchill was Patton, but he was out of step with the rest of US military leaders.

P3 If there was no choice but to go along with this plan, I would want Patton to have a large role, because he might just have been able to pull it off, though at a very high cost in human lives, and I doubt very much that public support in the US would have supported yet more casualties. Europe was in ruins as it was, and it needed rebuilding. Plus there was still Japan. The US opted for the far more sensible option of the Truman Doctrine of containment -- and in the long run, it worked, albeit with many proxy conflicts in the developing world. One final point, there is no way the Labour Party, which was part of the U.K. wartime coalition government (Labour Leader Clement Attlee was Deputy Prime Minister) would have supported this scheme, and Attlee and Labour won in a landslide election between the end of the war in Europe, and the end of the war against Japan. I doubt even the Tory Party would have supported Churchill's plan.

What actually happened was the entirety of the cold war, including the Cuban crisis and near annihilation.

The year is 1948. The war is over, with the allied navies and air forces crushing the Soviets into submission. Moscow, Kiev, and many major industrial areas and airfields are radioactive wastelands. The United States takes a sigh of relief at being the sole remaining superpower. Then, suddenly, reports from France, Germany, and Italy all report tanks rolling in from the Swiss border. Paris falls in days. Rome is leveled. Germany is somehow more wrecked than it already was. Switzerland announces completion of its first nuclear tests and begins to manufacture dozens of warheads. Soon, a white cross on a red field flies over all of Europe. WWIV is over, and the Swiss have won.

Or intercepted by russian Aircraft

It could fly from the west coast and go around the back of Europe.

Lord of Keks That is still a long way for a ww2 era plane to travel and back.

M0rshu64 Yeah, I don't know if WWII bombers have that kind of range. I was just saying a possible alternative route, I don't know if it would work though.

Jake Purdy but to bomb Japan, America had to fly a much smaller distance of enemy territory in comparison to the vast land mass of Russia, the same goes for bombing Germany from London, where the flight was a maximum of two hours.

+Panda Wipeout the world would be much safer today

If that's true, how come a plane was able to get over the Japanese cities? Also consider that Japan knew that America could nuke them in 1945, and the Soviets would know a nuke was coming in this senerio. But strategically, taking out the capital of a nation ( in this case the USSR) wouldn't be as good as another city. I know that if the US government saw a nuke go off in NYC, they would be trying to do everything they could to stop one blowing up their asses. Anyway, does anyone here think that Nukes don't do much more than create millions of war crimes?

+Dank Vader planes were able to get above japan to drop bombs, because at that time in order to be effective a bombing was lots of bombers all dropping bombs at once. The Japanese did not expect a single bomber to take out a whole city. The Japanese thought the plane carrying the nuke was just a observation plane, and also relatively unarmed

I was just going to say that!

Okay guys this is bloody ridiculous. First of all you are comparing Japan to Eastern Europe, please, entire Eastern Europe has surface area of ~7000000 km2, while Japan is like 377972 km2, not to mention that Japan is a BLOODY THIN LINE! So from where ever the plane has launched, it would probably be spotted 8 times before and after it entered USSR. So using common sense, probably would get few warnings, and if ignored them, would get shot down before even getting close to it's target. Best chance of any success is bombing Soviet military positions on the border, but even then the damage wouldn't be significant because, military is not densely packed like cities are.

1. Planes would've never reached deep into the Soviet Union to drop the a-bombs. 2. Supply lines wouldn't have made 90% of your scenario possible and dropping nukes would've only enraged the Soviet Union. Look at Operation Barbarossa and how Germany believed they would just give up after so many losses. 3. I would bet that the USSR would have their own a-bombs before the Allies could even drop more of the bombs on industrial centers of the USSR. 4. The Third Reich wouldn't be willing to just fight for the Allies.

5. the german industry is destroyed in 1945 and everything will have to be shipped from New York and Detroit, 7500km from Berlin 6. 3000km east from Berlin is Uralvagonzavod, world largest tank factory, but also the factory nucknamed Tankograd in Chelyabinsk with 60000 workers. Remember than russia produced more tanks than Germany despise producing far less steel and iron

@@theHoldac RE: "Planes would've never reached deep into the Soviet Union to drop the a-bombs." The distance from Berlin to Moscow is 1,003 air miles. The combat radious of the B-29 Superfortress (with full fuel and ordnance) is 2,915 miles. RE: " I would bet that the USSR would have their own a-bombs before the Allies could even drop more of the bombs on industrial centers of the USSR. " The Soviet Union didn't test its first A-bomb until 1949.

Don't forget about revolting countries. Most countries under Soviet opression revolt. Aswell as other countries like Finland would have jumped at the opertunity to get their Revenge.