Operation Unthinkable

[Zealot]

Operation Unthinkable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable), on the insistence of Churchill, was planned by Britain to attack the Soviet Union after WWII... with the help of the German Wehrmacht, USA and Poland. Did anyone know about this? What do you think would have resulted? How would this have affected the worker's movement? The more I learn about Churchill, the more of a dick he becomes.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It would have just caused World War III, and apparently dumbass Churchill could have cared less. Overall, this just goes to show how much the global imperialist bourgeoisie feared Stalin, demonstrating how he went against their class interests worldwide.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The usual overloaded plans the wet-dream of militarists; little different than what Operation: Downfall would have called for (though Downfall's statistics are a bit inflated).

[RedGrunt]

That's kind of interesting, and, while I didn't know about it, it's not really surprising.

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefs_of_Staff_Committee) as militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East, where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces_in_the_West) forces and up to 100,000 German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) Wehrmacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht) soldiers. 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".I also think that would have probably been rather disastrous for the west to do, and for the world. The Cold War of containment strategy was the better option for the them to take.

[Ocean Seal]

With which forces? Lol at thinking that they could use the Wehrmacht. Long story short, if they would have invaded they would have won, there's no way around that. The problem is that they probably couldn't muster up enough support to fight against the fellows who delivered them from the Nazis jaws.

[Bostana]

Well this isn't hard to believe considering the fact that the nations who agreed to help out in the invasion were under control of the Bourgeois's bureaucracy and saw the Soviet Union as a threat. Do to the revolutionary influence that the Soviets had it looks like the Operation lost a lot of it's allies.

Here's the map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Ww2_allied_axis_1945_sep.png

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That map simply showed who was allied with who not what countries were participating in the invasion during specific times.

[Hermes]

To be honest, most countries have military plans for most foreseeable circumstances. Germany had military plans for the invasion of Switzerland, even though it would have been a little ridiculous to use them.

[Bronco]

I wouldn't really place too much significance on this, countries make plans for all kinds of possible wars which they don't necessarily expect or hope to ever have to put into practice. The USA for example planned for a war against the British Empire in the 20's

[Zealot]

How is it a "just in case" plan when the report says that the political objective is to "impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire" and that the only reason it didn't materialise was because the Chiefs of Staff Committee concluded it was "militarily unfeasible". Not to mention he was defeated in the 1945 elections, something which I find ironic given that they felt Tony Blair was good enough to be elected three times whereas Churchill lead Britain through WWII, created for himself a personality cult that continues today and still lost his position. He served a second term in 1951 but ended up resigning. God knows what would have happened if that warmonger won the 1945 elections and kept healthy.

[Prometeo liberado]

From the standpoint of organized capital they were foolish not to march forward with those plans. The men, artillery and supply lines were already there. The costs' in dollars alone(its always the dollars) would have paid off 100 fold for years to come. Markets to open and exploit from Eastern Europe to Central Asia. That is if there were no resistance, if. Land wars in Asia are always tricky and this quagmire would have made the combined mess of Vietnam and Afghanistan look like a play-date. Obviously this plan, as well as a host of others, were looked over and the numbers crunched but at the end of the day you just can't keep sending young people and scant resources over seas without repercussions at home. Sometimes its the bombs that explode far away that awake the working class at home.

[ComradeOm]

How is it a "just in case" plan when the report says that the political objective is to "impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire"The clue is in the name: Unthinkable. This was not a serious plan and there was no intent by Churchill* to actually conquer the USSR. This should be apparent from the extremely ambivalent language used within the document. What it was was a planning document in case of a hypothetical war with the USSR over Poland. That's what military planners do: prepare for eventualities. It should be no surprise that Cold War planning started immediately after the fall of Germany. In this Unthinkable falls squarely into the category of war plans that contains the likes of the US colour plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans) and later Cold War blueprints for war

The idea that there was any serious possibility of a US/UK offensive against the USSR in the immediate post-war period is silly. There was neither the political will nor the military resources to seriously contemplate this. Which the report notes

*Who was generally quite content to sit down with Stalin and divide Eastern Europe into sphere of influence

[Invader Zim]

Of course people here fail to understand what Operation Unthinkable actually was - a plan, for a specific contingency - an unthinkable contingency. As Om noted the clue is in the name. And furthermore, the Soviet Union had similar plans to invade Western Europe and lay waste to most of the world in nuclear fallout. I don't see the Stalin kiddies bemoaning that.


It would have just caused World War III, and apparently dumbass Churchill could have cared less. Overall, this just goes to show how much the global imperialist bourgeoisie feared Stalin, demonstrating how he went against their class interests worldwide.

Dumb post is dumb.

For everything that Churchill can be accused of, being irrational when it came to dealing with foreign powers is not one of them. It was just a plan, no different from the CSLA Plan of Action for a War Period.

[Zealot]

The clue is in the name: Unthinkable. This was not a serious plan and there was no intent by Churchill* to actually conquer the USSR. This should be apparent from the extremely ambivalent language used within the document. What it was was a planning document in case of a hypothetical war with the USSR over Poland. That's what military planners do: prepare for eventualities. It should be no surprise that Cold War planning started immediately after the fall of Germany. In this Unthinkable falls squarely into the category of war plans that contains the likes of the US colour plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans) and later Cold War blueprints for war

The idea that there was any serious possibility of a US/UK offensive against the USSR in the immediate post-war period is silly. There was neither the political will nor the military resources to seriously contemplate this. Which the report notes

*Who was generally quite content to sit down with Stalin and divide Eastern Europe into sphere of influence


Of course people here fail to understand what Operation Unthinkable actually was - a plan, for a specific contingency - an unthinkable contingency. As Om noted the clue is in the name. And furthermore, the Soviet Union had similar plans to invade Western Europe and lay waste to most of the world in nuclear fallout. I don't see the Stalin kiddies bemoaning that.

Again:


the only reason it didn't materialise was because the Chiefs of Staff Committee concluded it was "militarily unfeasible".

Just because it was called "Unthinkable" doesn't mean they made an unthinkable plan for nothing. There's absolutely no indication that this was for a hypothetical defense of Britain or anywhere else as is usually the case with hypothetical scenarios. What we see here is a hypothetical -attack- on the USSR and what the predicted USSR response would be. What was this plan for? The front page of the report gives us a clue: "RUSSIA. THREAT TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION."

Now where have I heard that before... oh, every day.

[campesino]

It may have sparked the world wide proletarian revolution, in that era communism was more militant and popular(it still is, people just need to be reminded.) The Soviet Union might have began supporting armed revolutions the world over.

[Invader Zim]

Again:
the only reason it didn't materialise was because the Chiefs of Staff Committee concluded it was "militarily unfeasible".

Just because it was called "Unthinkable" doesn't mean they made an unthinkable plan for nothing. There's absolutely no indication that this was for a hypothetical defense of Britain or anywhere else as is usually the case with hypothetical scenarios. What we see here is a hypothetical -attack- on the USSR and what the predicted USSR response would be. What was this plan for? The front page of the report gives us a clue: "RUSSIA. THREAT TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION."

Now where have I heard that before... oh, every day.

Yes the plan was rejected because it was militarily unfeasible, but that is no indication that even if it were feasible that Britain and America would have done it. While it may amaze you to realise, but these people were neither irrational or stupid; unscrupulous yes, but not crazy. No state in 1945 wanted to fight another world war - even though the US alone possessed the ability to employ nuclear weapons on both a tactical and stratigic basis until 1949. It was never going to happen. Britain and America were fixed on a policy of containment, as opposed to all out war, for serious reasons and military impotency was not the only one.

And once the USSR did develop RDS-1 the whole question of another world war became purely academic until the Cuban Missile crisis, and even then no leader seriously wanted to destroy the entire world. I've read some of the casualty estimates and spoken to some serious cold-war highups within the British government; even Maggie Thatcher when briefed about the detailed consequences of nuclear war privately admitted to her senior colleagues that she couldn't bring herself to employ them. And why, you might ask, her response "Because I want grandchildren". I was told that by the former senior British intelligence official who briefed her. And you know what, having seen some of the documents that were given to new Prime Minister's, I believe him. Until you have seen the contents of these documents, you cannot comprehend just what World War Three would have entailed. It is seriously like staring into the fucking abyss.

[Per Levy]

and, i think the usa military has plans to invade canada and the canadian military has plans to invade the usa. that means nothing, military makes plans like that all the time, to be "ready" for whatever.

[Zealot]

Yes the plan was rejected because it was militarily unfeasible, but that is no indication that even if it were feasible that Britain and America would have done it. While it may amaze you to realise, but these people were neither irrational or stupid; unscrupulous yes, but not crazy. No state in 1945 wanted to fight another world war - even though the US alone possessed the ability to employ nuclear weapons on both a tactical and stratigic basis until 1949. It was never going to happen. Britain and America were fixed on a policy of containment, as opposed to all out war, for serious reasons and military impotency was not the only one.

That's the reason it was rejected; the report concludes that it would devolve into "total war" taking a very long time to achieve victory. Now if they thought it was easy picking, would they have done it? While you claim no, I'm going to say something crazy and go out on a limb here by saying yes... yes they would have.

[dodger]

British Tommy just wanted to go home. "The forgotten army" out in the far East had lost patience. They would not vote for Churchill, much less fight for him. They had enough of war and wished to return home. Colonies or redrawing map of Europe after Naziism had been defeated held no magic. Red army was thought of as gallant brave respected. As were soviet people Cleaning out an old storeroom. found an old local newspaper--Streatham News and Mercury....pages devoted to Soviet efforts and sacrifices. Pre 'D-Day' landings. All this had been internalized. C.P membership had reached a peak too. The General Staff put him straight, pretty quick. After 6yrs of war, we welcomed peace.

[Geiseric]

The war should of been opposed as an imperialist war from communists, and "national interests," or populism doesn't mean that a no strike pledge should be signed with the bourgeois government.

[ComradeOm]

the only reason it didn't materialise was because the Chiefs of Staff Committee concluded it was "militarily unfeasible"Are you quoting yourself in support of your own position? Or can you prove that "the only reason it didn't materialise" was because of the military's unfavourable view? Until then I'll maintain that an invasion of the Soviet sphere was never on the cards and this was simply a contingency


There's absolutely no indication that this was for a hypothetical defense of Britain or anywhere else as is usually the case with hypothetical scenariosWhat? What are you basing this absurd claim on? That is, that hypothetical scenarios are typically defensive in nature. That's ridiculous. A number of the colour plans that I've already linked to were offensive in nature, while both NATO and the Soviets prepared offensive plans during the Cold War

The logic behind Unthinkable is very straightforward: what if an unexpected crisis ("uncontrollable developments of events arising from some local incident") were to occur in immediate post-war Europe? How would Britain react in the case of war with the USSR? That the planners concluded that offensive is the best defence is hardly surprising; the Soviets would be of the same mind for the next several decades

[ParaRevolutionary]

Because getting rid of Stalin would have been a bad thing?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Because getting rid of Stalin would have been a bad thing?

Yes. Most of us acknowledge that imperialism is bad and this operation, if played out. would have been the dictictonary definition of capitalist imperialism. I'm going to stop here so I don't go apeshit on you and get an infraction.

[marl]

It may have sparked the world wide proletarian revolution, in that era communism was more militant and popular(it still is, people just need to be reminded.) The Soviet Union might have began supporting armed revolutions the world over.

The state-capitalist Soviet Union under the Stalinist bureaucracy with "Socialism in One Country" supporting a world revolution? u wot m8

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The state-capitalist Soviet Union under the Stalinist bureaucracy with "Socialism in One Country" supporting a world revolution? u wot m8

1. Eastern Europe (yeah, those nations became socialist through the use of national liberation movements and popular fronts, so go cry to your Trotsky statue).

2. Comintern-known for supporting national liberation movements and Marxist-Leninist movements, like China's (It was, though, pragmatic to support the KMT for a period of time).

3. Your post was nothing more than Trot-bot trolling.

[marl]

Ach, I'll PM you for debate.

On the topic at hand, sorry for the derailing, one can understand why the west fomented such a plan when the army positioning looked like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I like how people are doing apologia for the Western imperialists. Do some more.

[marl]

I like how people are doing apologia for the Western imperialists. Do some more.

It's already been touched upon that both the USSR and the west were ready for war. No one is apologizing for the west, they're only examining the conditions in which such plans emerge (as terrible as war is, both sides were ready for it).

[ParaRevolutionary]

Yes. Most of us acknowledge that imperialism is bad and this operation, if played out. would have been the dictictonary definition of capitalist imperialism. I'm going to stop here so I don't go apeshit on you and get an infraction.

Just because im opposed to imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, etc. doesnt mean im in favor of a paranoid totalitarian because he is as well.

[Yugo45]

Heard about it first time it in a Cracked article which ridiculed Churchil a month or so ago.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

Hitler's original plan was to invade the USSR with Britains help. He admired Britains empire and hoped to become strong allies.

[Invader Zim]

That's the reason it was rejected; the report concludes that it would devolve into "total war" taking a very long time to achieve victory. Now if they thought it was easy picking, would they have done it? While you claim no, I'm going to say something crazy and go out on a limb here by saying yes... yes they would have.


But, of course, your point utterly irrelevent because it would have ended in WW3. That is what the plan is talking about - how does the West react to a crisis that will result in WW3.

And you're conclusion misses several fundermental issues in how the Western democracies operated in the post-war era anyway, because I seriously doubt that even if the Soviet Union were weak that they would have engaged in a policy beyond containment. In order to have engaged in serious military intervention of that kind of scale (because of just how geographically large the USSR was) in the post-war period any western government would have had to have the population on-side and willing to write a blank cheque (and not like the Tonkin resolution - I mean literally shift the gear of half the worlds economies) and place their economies onto a military footing akin to what happened in WW2. And manifestly, there is no way that any government would have gathered popular support for that kind of war or military/economic infastructure just a few years after fighting WW2 while they were still, in the case of half of Europe, literally rebuilding their major cities and towns.

Indeed, the entire reason that the US pulled out of Vietnam when it did, and was, believe it or not, so reluctant to fully committ to either Korea or Vietnam was because they didn't have the popular support or willingness to invest. To give you an idea of relative scale, the US lost less than 60,000 in Vietnam it lost around 3-400,000 in WW2. In terms of troop numbers raised, something in the region of 500,000 troops faught in Vietnam, in WW2 the US raised something in the region 16 million. If you want to understand the full military potential of the US look at WW2, and then imagine what could have been brought to bare in Vietnam had the will been there. The fact is that none of the Presidents actually involved in Vietnam wanted the US to be there at all - because it was politically like picking up dog shit something you don't relish, approach gingerly and hold at arms length - and weren't willing to escelate the war beyond the minimum to prevent defeat until even that became too politically costly.

Put bluntly, the US wasn't willing to engage any more than it had to in anything after WW2, and even pulled out in defeat in Vietnam because it wasn't willing to press public opinion or public finances further. And Britain, during this period was undergoing relative economic, military, industrial and imperial decline, because it could neither muster the funds or the public support to engage in anything but the most minor of conflict. Do you really suppose that they would have given up India if the money and public support for serious military intervention was there? Of course they wouldn't.

So even if the USSR would have folded like a house of a cards in a stiff breeze, it would have still cost a fortune and demanded the kind of public support that simply did not exist and could not exist after WW2. Instead, they killed the USSR the other way - by engaging it in a long terms arms race for four decades that the Soviet economy could not compete in over the very long term.