Post-WWII Europe: The "Unthinkable" War

Half_Life_Expert#4276

Here is the next what if/could it? thread. Some time ago, one of the threads I made concerned Pre-WWII aggression and whether or not the Allies could have preemptively stopped the Axis powers. Here is that thread:http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/132135-Pre-WWII-Agression-Could-the-Allies-have-preemptively-stopped-the-Axis

In that thread, I mentioned a second WWII era thread I had in mind, but I am now finally putting that thread up.

When World War II in Europe ended, the Third Reich was completely destroyed. But the specter of conflict was not even close to gone.

As we all know, Germany was divided between the Western Allies and the USSR, into lands that would become East and West Germany (and the also divided Berlin), but those two states were not created immediately after the war.

The German Democratic Republic (AKA East Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany (AKA West Germany) were not established until 1949. NATO was created around the same time, but West Germany was not admitted until 1955, and then the Warsaw Pact was established.

Until then, all of Germany was under direct and total control of the allied powers.

Most Cold War alternate history covers a conflict between east and west sometime after the Korean War. Little has been speculated on those first five years of the cold war.

I would like to examine the possibility of an "Unthinkable" War, as I call it.

I have named this concept after the British "Operation Unthinkable" which was created right after the end of WWII in Europe by the British Army for a then near-future conflict between the Western Allies and the Eastern Bloc, Chiefly the USSR. Here is the wiki link on this plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

here is the actual document, declassified after the cold war ended: https://web.archive.org/web/20101116152301/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

It was initially an offensive plan, to "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire" (direct quote from the plan), but being declared unfeasible, was modified to a defensive plan against a Soviet Invasion, and is therefore considered to be the first real war plan for the Cold War.

With this thread, the scenario envisioned in Operation Unthinkable is free to be discussed, but I also must emphasis two points:

1) This thread is for discussion of a war between the Western Allies (United States of America, British Empire and France) and the Soviet Union at any time between the end of WWII in Europe in May 1945 and the Start of the Korean War in June 1950. This thread is ONLY For the first five years of the Cold War.

2) As with the Pre-WWII aggression thread, we will hypothetically assume that the nessicary political will amongst the warring nations has been established for a war to be conducted. Basically, we will assume for the sake of argument the will to fight is there.


Also, if any of you remember one of the early threads , "Cold War Germany: A NATO Victory without nukes", I emphasized in that thread that nukes would only be a desperate last resort.

With this thread, however, nuclear weapons are available for free use. I say this because it is still early enough where nukes were still rare enough to not have the massive destructive power on the world they would have a decade later. In this timeframe, the Hydrogen bomb has not even been invented yet. Until 1949, only the US has nukes, but I think it is safe to say that at this early stage, they wont use them en mass, perhaps a few in the center of key soviet formations.

So, nukes are allowed, but very limited and relatively small ones, similar to the ones dropped on Japan, are the only ones available. I think it is safe to say that the Unthinkable war would be a primarily conventional one.

In terms of what would cause such a war, that is what you could debate, but I do have what I think is a great suggestion for a likely flashpoint: The Berlin Blockade in 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade

Stalin's effort to starve out West Berlin and for the Allies to leave the whole city to him very much could have led to war, I think.


So, I present to you this to discuss:

"Given any time between the defeat of the Third Reich and the Korean War, a five year period, What could have cause the "Unthinkable War"? how could this war have gone about? Who could have won?"

Also, if you want something more specific, "Could the Western Allies militaries have held off the Red Army, with atomic bombs at their disposal" and "given atomic support, could the Western Allies actually have driven the Soviets back to their own soil?*"

*We will not even consider a drive on Moscow, an offensive operation would have the goal of driving the Soviets out of the Eastern Bloc countries, chiefly East Germany and Poland, and back into the territory of the USSR.

Rath_Darkblade

This is not my area of expertise, but it is an interesting question. It reminds me not a little of The Grand Design, a classic satire on Cold War era nuclear policy. ;-)

It is probably wise to limit the time frame to 1950. Shortly after 1950, the United States would be drawn into the Korean War and become more and more involved in Vietnam, not to mention the spectre of McCarthyism. The British Empire, meanwhile, would be a shadow of its former self, as can be seen from its involvement in the Suez Crisis. But the late 1940s, to me, are shrouded in impenetrability - so I'm very interested to see what other people will make of this. :-)

greycat

I speculate that WWII was unthinkable after WWI (at least to most), Unless they were planning on calling it the Greater War.

They even called it "The war to end all wars"...

Ok carry on...

Maeda_Toshiie

Half Life Expert wrote: »

*snip*

So, I present to you this to discuss:

"Given any time between the defeat of the Third Reich and the Korean War, a five year period, What could have cause the "Unthinkable War"? how could this war have gone about? Who could have won?"

"What could have cause the "Unthinkable War"?"

Truman + entire US population going off their collective rockers, since in OTL neo isolationism was setting in by 1945.

Also, if you want something more specific, "Could the Western Allies militaries have held off the Red Army, with atomic bombs at their disposal" and "given atomic support, could the Western Allies actually have driven the Soviets back to their own soil?"

"Could the Western Allies militaries have held off the Red Army, with atomic bombs at their disposal"

No. See state of UK's economy in 1945 (read: flat broke) and US armed forces demobilization by 1947 (read: dismantled).

"given atomic support, could the Western Allies actually have driven the Soviets back to their own soil?"

No. See above.

---

From end 1945 till early 1980s, the Soviet will win a conventional confrontation in Europe. Both sides were exhausted in 1945, but the most likely scenario will be the Soviets kicking the Western Allies out of Germany followed by a peace settlement because the Soviets were running out of men and fuel, while the US public will be demanding an end to the fighting, and the UK can't maintain control of its colonial possessions. Oh and cue 5th column communist parties among Western Allies.

No, 1945 fission weapons are with tactical killing power and require strategic deployment means.

Thesaboteur

Step 1: Re-arm hundred of thousands of Germans
Step 2: Ready the Army for war
Step 3: Attack the Soviets
Step 4: Get overwhelmed by the best Army in the world of the time
Step 5: Get on boat in exile to America because Winston Churchill was to drunk to understand the gravity of his actions


I love politics. Hey! You're different! Let's fight!
*removed*

There's also a page on this at *removed*

Rath_Darkblade

Maeda Toshiie wrote: »

*snip*

"What could have cause the "Unthinkable War"?"

Truman + entire US population going off their collective rockers, since in OTL neo isolationism was setting in by 1945.

I knew I thought of "The Grand Design" for a reason... Here's a good quote...

Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, The Grand Design wrote:

(Jim Hacker, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has just been shown the "nuclear button" in the Ministry of Defence. He is told that if he tells the army to "press the button", they would do it immediately. He wants to know more.)

Hacker: Wouldn't someone... argue with me?

General Howard: (shocked) Of course not! Serving officers obey orders without question, Prime Minister.

Hacker: (as a joke) Yes, but supposing I get drunk?

Sir Humphrey: On the whole, it would be safer if you didn't.

Hacker: Yes, but seriously... what happens if I go off my rocker?

Sir Humphrey: (reassuringly) Hmm, I think the Cabinet might notice.

(Whoops - sorry to slightly derail the thread) *blush*

Amilcar Barca

With a soviet land superiority of 4 to one in men and 2 to 1 in tanks i dont see how the allies might win. Even if they had used a few nuclear bombs and they had gotten a strategic surprise on their attack.

Istvan

A more realistic but incredibly costly and complicated way to betray the Soviet Union would have been to cut off its advance into Eastern and Central Europe. There were actually concrete plans to launch invasions into northern Poland and into the Balkans through the sea and from there push into Central Europe, where Nazi Germany's unwilling allies - ie Hungary and Romania - would have readily joined with Allied forces (that's a fact - no one likes a sinking ship, and it did happen). Compound this with the fact that free Polish forces still existed in massive bulk at this time - representing the fifth largest army involved in the Second World War, outdone only by the USSR, Germany, the USA and the British Empire - the large, devoted and battle-hardened Polish Underground Army would have been another ready contribution to the Allied cause in defeating the German occupiers and restoring order in their retreat.

Such an offensive could, in theory, have blocked off the USSR's access to Central Europe and established an anti-Soviet frontline 800KM+ further east than where it was actually established. This move would have deprived the Soviet Union of indirect control over nearly half of the European continent, which is significant when we consider that not only did the Warsaw Pact countries contribute millions of able-bodied soldiers to the Soviet war effort, but scientists, unspeakable sums of foodstuffs, technology, natural resources, and infrastructure were all siphoned out of Central and Eastern European satellites during the Stalinist era to feed, buildup, industrialize, enrich and technologically advance Russia. Instead, all those millions of soldiers and that economic 'might'* could have been used to aid an invasion of the Soviet Union with the aim of regime change.

*I know that we don't really consider 1940s Poland, Hungary or Romania as being economic power houses, but keep in mind that Czechoslovakia represented 2/5s of Nazi Germany's industrial production, and each of these countries would have nonetheless contributed immensely to the food supply in material and logistical terms for soldiers in the event of an invasion of the USSR, thus taking pressure off of western economies.

I understand that there was certainly animosity between various countries and it may appear quite fantastical to assume that a Super League of Friendly Free European States would have arisen to cohesively fight the Red Menace, but historically pretty much all of these Warsaw Pact countries had known since the end of WW1 that the Soviet Union / Russian domination was their primary threat (that is the primary reason why Hungary and Romania became German allies) and therefore they would have been willing to contribute towards fighting that threat alongside American, British and French forces, particularly if they could expand their borders eastward as a reward. I doubt too many Poles would have minded recreating a Polish state the size of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the expense of their hated Russian enemies.

Amilcar Barca

That would have been totally unfeasible. Allies hadnt so many divisions to disembark in Poland and, lets say, Yugoslavia (romania or bulgaria was out of reach) at the same time and pushig their way to Germany. Not to talk about the logistics involved in such thing. Not enough ships to supply such a massive force. And infra was far worse in the Balkans than in France.

Imperial Guard

Invasions by sea are simply out of question for confronting the USSR because of the limits of troops and equipment they can deliver not to mention the logistic difficulties. Germany failed with millions and millions of men by land with all of the infrastructure in good condition so trying the same with a tiny amount of manpower and infrastructure already destroyed by the war would be too optimistic.

Most of the countries you mentioned, except Poland, were already defeated and suffered many casualties against the Soviet Union so I doubt they would be willing to confront it again in a couple of years time.

As for OP, I don't think that's anyhow possible that the Soviet Union could be defeated and driven off Eastern Europe not only because it had massive numerical superiority but also it had more battlehardened troops than any other country. I also don't think that the nuclear weapons of the time were intended to be used on the battlefield. Even the smallest artillery shells with nuclear warhead were designed in the 50s or 60s.

Istvan

That would have been totally unfeasible. Allies hadnt so many divisions to disembark in Poland and, lets say, Yugoslavia (romania or bulgaria was out of reach) at the same time and pushig their way to Germany. Not to talk about the logistics involved in such thing. Not enough ships to supply such a massive force. And infra was far worse in the Balkans than in France.

The fact that the Allies never carried through on these plans obviously demonstrates that they were not considered feasible enough, and so they stuck to just a Normandy invasion. However, my point was that Operation Unthinkable was completely unrealistic, and this plan - however costly and complex - would have actually been more feasible.

Invasions by sea are simply out of question for confronting the USSR because of the limits of troops and equipment they can deliver not to mention the logistic difficulties. Germany failed with millions and millions of men by land with all of the infrastructure in good condition so trying the same with a tiny amount of manpower and infrastructure already destroyed by the war would be too optimistic.

I think you misunderstood. The Allies had plans to launch an invasion of continental Europe either in the Balkan or Polish theatres in order to fight the Germans - nowhere did the Allies mention in their plans that they intend to fight the Soviets as well in this event. However, in doing so they would have prevented Soviet domination of these regions (these plans were drawn up before the Yalta Conference), as preventing Soviet domination of these regions was the entire point of the plans. For the purpose of this thread, the possibility of betrayal could come later after German capitulation, at which point the British, Americans and French would already have stable land-routes between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

Most of the countries you mentioned, except Poland, were already defeated and suffered many casualties against the Soviet Union so I doubt they would be willing to confront it again in a couple of years time.

Yes, and no. Countries like Romania and Hungary did lose a couple 100,000 men against the USSR effectively annihilating their armies there, and it's true that they were half-hearted in their efforts to begin with, but I don't think it's fair to say that they were defeated entirely, as we're not talking about 1945. Considering their populations, those losses sustained against the USSR were quite light. Their real problems were economic, as they weren't able to keep up with the modernisations in technology and so they couldn't properly arm and utilise their population to the maximum extent. Remember, Hungary was the remnant of a self-sufficient empire that had focused on developing an internal division of labour, which made Hungary into an agricultural production centre that lacked heavy industries necessary for weapons production. So Hungary in post-Austro-Hungarian era was essentially a country that had a far larger population than its industrial capacity could account for, having been cut off from the Austrian and Bohemian industrial centres. Romania on the other hand never had much industrial capacity to begin with, also having remained a largely agricultural country. However, with the proper military and infrastructure and resources, both countries could have easily deployed 100,000s of more soldiers. If we really want to push it both countries could have potentially raised a million soldiers each, but that would have been unsustainable in the long-run as that would have deprived the economy of virtually every able-bodied man left following their previous defeats.

But we're falling off track and missing the two important points:
1) Hungary and Romania would have been ready to betray the Germans, so long as they were assured protection from the USSR, which means their forces would have helped the Allied effort in the region against the Germans. This is difficult to dispute as historically they did betray and fight Germany. They would have absorbed Allied casualties, thus preserving the Americans' and Britains' strength.

2) Even if Hungary and Romania don't contribute anything to a war effort against the Soviet Union, the fact that they wouldn't have been complimenting the USSR's forces with 100,000s of extra soldiers already makes it more feasible than an Operation Unthinkable, even if ever so slightly.

Imperial Guard

Istvan wrote: »

I think you misunderstood.

I really did. Anyway, the topic's idea starts after the war so that's not an option.

Istvan wrote: »

Yes, and no. Countries like Romania and Hungary did lose a couple 100,000 men against the USSR effectively annihilating their armies there, and it's true that they were half-hearted in their efforts to begin with, but I don't think it's fair to say that they were defeated entirely, as we're not talking about 1945. Considering their populations, those losses sustained against the USSR were quite light.

Well, Hungarian total losses (military+civilian) were more than 700 000 and for a 9 million country I would call that anything but 'quite light'. Not to mention that among the injured there are people with permanent disabilities. They had ~1.2 million troops during their peak in WW2 so coming even near to that would be all but impossible. Yes Romania could have larger army but as you said, both countries would massively lack military hardware. They had deficient in hardware (tanks, armored vehicles, even trucks) during WW2 with plenty of time between the wars to arm and modernize, what do you think would be the situation in this imagined war with only a couple of years to prepare and countries razed by the war? So the question is how many soldiers those countries could field in a combined arms force not just infantry that would be used as cannon fodder.

Istvan wrote: »

2) Even if Hungary and Romania don't contribute anything to a war effort against the Soviet Union, the fact that they wouldn't have been complimenting the USSR's forces with 100,000s of extra soldiers already makes it more feasible than an Operation Unthinkable, even if ever so slightly.

'even if ever so slightly' is the key otherwise it would be like saying that without Hungarian and Romanian help, Germany wouldn't achieved what it achieved on the eastern front during WW2.

triscuit21

I feel like Hearts of Iron III simulates it pretty well. As in it's pretty much impossible for the allies to win. Here's a video of someone attempting it (he's not exactly Erwin Rommel, but he's not terrible either). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXwo7TRGm1Y

I gotta wonder what effect nuclear weapons would have upon it though. In the short term, it might even the fight a bit, since it would certainly be demoralizing as a Russian soldier/civilian to hear about an entire city or perhaps army being practically wiped out. However, I think the Russians were strong enough to sustain the damage from several nuclear strikes, and still be able to fight on. And then the Russians were not too far behind us in nuclear technology, so if we did not win quickly, then they would probably retaliate, turning it into a M.A.D. situation.