Ok it is a bland heading but this seems a better place than a general chat forum.

For any one interested here is a link to the initial thread...

BritinAfrica no longer in Africa

As a starter I kind of agree with this point of view...

Originally Posted by lljadw

That Stalin was a scumbag is irrelevant : Britain and the US never had any objection to ally with scumbags against other scumbags . Besides : Stalin killed Russians, which was not the problem of Britain and the US .
Stalin was the perfect ally for the Wallies : he killed a lot of Germans who otherwise would have killed a lot of Britons and Americans .
The ceasefire of the Wallies with Germany was excluded as was after the war Operation Unthinkable : during 6 years the population of Britain and the US was brainwashed with stories about the bad Germans and the good Russians . To change this would need a new brainwashing of the good Germans and the bad Russians .

Churchill clearly liked neither Hitler nor Stalin as indicated by his speech to the House of Commons where he said

“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

Yet on the other hand Chamberlain was prepared to send troops to fight the Russians during the Winter war.

As for Operation Unthinkable, I am in two minds on whether this would have worked or not.
Both Patton and Churchill believed they could win it as did Allen Dulles and the OSS and had things gone wrong they still had the Atomic bomb to fall back on.
The Soviets had the advantage in artillery and armour but the west had superiority in sea and air as well as parity at least in infantry (less numbers but better quality).

Originally Posted by MontyB

As for Operation Unthinkable, I am in two minds on whether this would have worked or not.

What would concern me (if I were planning an attack on the USSR) about such an operation, is Stalin's total lack of concern for human life, he would have poured troops into the battle until the west was overrun.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Both Patton and Churchill believed they could win it as did Allen Dulles and the OSS and had things gone wrong they still had the Atomic bomb to fall back on.
The Soviets had the advantage in artillery and armour but the west had superiority in sea and air as well as parity at least in infantry (less numbers but better quality).

I would assume that the German military would have joined with the western allies, their experience of fighting the Soviets on the eastern front would have been invaluable. As for Soviet armour, I would think that the British Centurion among US built tanks of the period, would have been more then a match for the T34. British and American aircraft, fighters, bombers etc. would in my opinion have decimated Soviet air power. The only thing the Soviets had over British troops was small arms such as the SKS , as is well known, Britain continued to use Lee Enfield bolt action rifles well after the Suez crisis of 1956. It was without a doubt a brilliant battle rifle, but was outclassed after 1945. In the Far East the Lee Enfield number 4 was issued to the RAF up to 1968!

Originally Posted by MontyB

As for Operation Unthinkable, I am in two minds on whether this would have worked or not.
Both Patton and Churchill believed they could win it as did Allen Dulles and the OSS and had things gone wrong they still had the Atomic bomb to fall back on.
The Soviets had the advantage in artillery and armour but the west had superiority in sea and air as well as parity at least in infantry (less numbers but better quality).

An attack on the USSR in 1945 was politically impossible .
Patton could not order such an attack, only Congress of the US could declare war on the USSR . And it would not do it . It did not do it when the USSR imposed its rule on CZ in 1948, it did not when NK invaded SK.
And without the agreement of the US, Britain could not attack the USSR .
There was no reason to start WWIII in 1945,the only who could start him were the Soviets,and they did not do it,because they had no reason to do it .
In 1950 there were only 2 US divisions in Europe and the Soviets did not attack, why would they attack in 1945 when there were 40 US divisions in Europe ?
Britain and France did not start a war against the USSR when the Soviets attacked Finland in 1945, thus why would US and Britain start a war against the USSR in 1945 when the Soviets did not attack neutral countries ?

I doubt Patton had these views in isolation as evidenced by the support of Dulles.
If anything war weariness probably paid a greater part in stopping any attack than political or military expediency.

As far as Britain and France not going to war to help Finland, the offers were there and had Norway and Sweden slowed Allied troops across their borders to reach Finland it would have been a different story.

I have read that by '45 the US considered itself stretched thin. It's unlikely that starting a new War against a huge country like the USSR would have been palatable politically. It should be noted the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force, the Soviets hadn't had to face a long range strategic air force targeting production in the rear areas.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I doubt Patton had these views in isolation as evidenced by the support of Dulles.
If anything war weariness probably paid a greater part in stopping any attack than political or military expediency.

As far as Britain and France not going to war to help Finland, the offers were there and had Norway and Sweden slowed Allied troops across their borders to reach Finland it would have been a different story.

Aid to Finland was only an excuse : the aim of the allies was to block the transport of Swedish iron ore through Narvik to Germany, with the ( exaggerated) hope that this would hurt the German economy very strongly .
The allies had the same illusion about air attacks on the oil wells in the Caucasus .
The 35000 allied soldiers committed would not help Finland against the Soviets, and it would be impossible to supply them over a distance of some 1300 km ( Narvik-Helsinki ).
About Dulles : he was a Republican ,while Congress,that had the monopoly of a declaration of war,was dominated by the Democrats . And, since the Summer of 1941 there was a daily propaganda offensive by the pro Russian media in the US .
Even the former ambassador in Moscow was mobilized to justify the 1937 purges .( Mission to Moscow )

Originally Posted by George

I have read that by '45 the US considered itself stretched thin. It's unlikely that starting a new War against a huge country like the USSR would have been palatable politically. It should be noted the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force, the Soviets hadn't had to face a long range strategic air force targeting production in the rear areas.

If I remember correctly, Patton was all for having a go at the Soviets, but whether he was serious or not I don't know. I doubt if it would have been palatable to the ordinary US people in the street or indeed the whole population of the western allies, as people at that time were sick of war and UK was practically broke.

I remember my dad telling me that when he was ferrying German POW's to POW camps just before the German surrender, one German said to him in perfect English "One day we will be allies against the Soviets just you wait and see."" My dad simply replied "Well, lets get this war over with first."

Originally Posted by BritinBritain

If I remember correctly, Patton was all for having a go at the Soviets, but whether he was serious or not I don't know. I doubt if it would have been palatable to the ordinary US people in the street or indeed the whole population of the western allies, as people at that time were sick of war and UK was practically broke.

I remember my dad telling me that when he was ferrying German POW's to POW camps just before the German surrender, one German said to him in perfect English "One day we will be allies against the Soviets just you wait and see."" My dad simply replied "Well, lets get this war over with first."

Patton believed he could have fought and finished a war against the Soviets in 6 days and while this sounds ludicrous he did have some relatively sound logic behind his claims.

Basically he believed Eastern Europe from Berlin to Moscow was gutted, what the Germans didn't destroy on their way to Moscow they certainly destroyed on their way back to Berlin on to of this the Russians pillaged everything that was left on their way to Berlin as such there would be nothing left for the Red Army to live off on their way back again.

While I still think he was "optimistic" in his 6 day theory I don't think he was entirely wrong in his assessment of Red Army logistics.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Patton believed he could have fought and finished a war against the Soviets in 6 days and while this sounds ludicrous he did have some relatively sound logic behind his claims.

Basically he believed Eastern Europe from Berlin to Moscow was gutted, what the Germans didn't destroy on their way to Moscow they certainly destroyed on their way back to Berlin on to of this the Russians pillaged everything that was left on their way to Berlin as such there would be nothing left for the Red Army to live off on their way back again.

While I still think he was "optimistic" in his 6 day theory I don't think he was entirely wrong in his assessment of Red Army logistics.

I'd say Patton's 6 day theory is a lot more then optimistic, I wouldn't even attempt to put in a time frame for this operation, but I'm not too sure regarding the Soviet logistics system. On their way to Berlin, if I remember correctly, equipment and man power that was destroyed was quickly replaced, were there not factories churning out T34's, putting them into operation before the paint on them was dry. I still think Patton would have one hell of a fight on his hands if he attempted such an operation, even with help from the western allies as well as the Germans military machine that was still intact.