"Operation Unthinkable" by Winston Churchill

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,453
Now for a history lesson kids, gather round.

(This article stems from: Boredom + Wikipedia + Interest in WW2)

----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable -----

"Operation Unthinkable"


Operation Unthinkable was a British plan to attack the Soviet Union. The creation of the plan was ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II.


Offensive operations


The initial primary goal of the operation was declared as follows: "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though `the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment" (The word "Russia" is used heavily throughout the document, although at the time Russia as a political entity had been replaced by the Soviet Union.)

The Chiefs of Staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe.

The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japan, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally itself to Japan if hostilities commenced with the Western Allies.

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to a greater than two to one superiority in Soviet land forces in the Europe and Middle East areas where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have consisted of American and British forces, as well as the use of Polish forces and up to 100,000 surrendered German soldiers. :eek:

Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a total war which would be protracted. In the report of 22 May 1945 an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".


Defensive operations


In response to an instruction by Churchill of 10 June 1945 a follow up report was written concerning "what measures would be required to ensure the security of the British Isles in the event of war with Russia in the near future".

United States forces were relocating to the Pacific Theatre to prepare for the invasion of Japan, and Churchill was concerned that the draw down would leave the Soviets in a strong position to take offensive action in Western Europe.

The Joint Planning Staff rejected Churchill's notion of retaining bridgeheads on the continent as having no operational advantage. It was envisaged that Britain would use her air force and navy to resist, although a threat from mass rocket attack was anticipated, with no means of resistance except for strategic bombing.


Subsequent discussions


By 1946 tensions and conflicts were developing between Western and Communist areas of Europe. These were seen as being potential triggers for a wider conflict.

One such area was the Julian March, and on 30 August 1946 informal discussions took place between the British and American Chiefs of Staff concerning how such a conflict could develop and the best strategy for conducting a European war.

Again the issue of retaining a bridgehead on the continent was discussed, with Dwight D. Eisenhower preferring a withdrawal to the Low Countries, rather than Italy, for their proximity to the United Kingdom.


----------------------------

Well I never knew that! I was simply reading about Rudolf Hess on wiki, and about WW2 in general when I came upon the above article. I must say its new to me even though a bit about WW2.

Makes you think; what would have it been like? With the measure of the Red Armies' mass across Europe at the end of WW2.

Interesting article anyway, even if it was deemed unfeasible and hazardous!

Thoughts? Any other relatively unknown facts about WW2 others may find interesting?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,267
Location
Ireland
More like operation impossible, Soviet tanks for example were far superior to anything the Allies had and they were pouring around the place in their thousands.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
9,623
Location
South Wales
Finland won a war against soviet Russia IIRC. Not entirely sure what that was about though.

i remember reading that the losses of the russian army were 3x more than the overall amount of people in the finnish army... or something like that

finland.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

:)
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,267
Location
Ireland
Man of Honour
Joined
1 Aug 2004
Posts
12,678
Location
Tyneside
A very interesting read. Thank you.

Invading and pacifying the Soviet Union would have been nigh on an impossibility, even with UK and US military strength.

Hitler's biggest mistake was invading the USSR despite early successes and getting to within a few miles of Moscow.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if he had not done this and what course the war might have taken ?

Has anyone read the novel Fatherland by Robert Harris where an alternate history is depicted ?

This is Europe in 1964 in the book.

800px-FatherlansUE64-ter.jpg


Makes you wonder.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,267
Location
Ireland
Surely at that point in history America could have taken over the entire world because they were the only ones with nukes?

Having nukes is one thing, getting it to the target is another. Back then as we know it was all about planes carrying nukes. Russia were in a far better position for air power than the Japanese at that point.
 
Back
Top Bottom