August 1946, the allies nuke Moscow and Leningrad

[Sir Adrian]

The premise is this, Japan surrenders as normal but Truman is somehow convinced by Churchill to enact operation unthinkable and he approves the nuclear bombing of Moscow and Leningrad. That wipes out all soviet leadership.

What would have happened, could the allies have won the ensuing war?

[IrishBlood]

This guy sums it up pretty nicely;



Basically there weren't enough nukes! The Soviets massively outnumbered the allied troops and that's not including the massive forced conscription that would have occurred in satellite states like Romania and Bulgaria who's armies were still pretty intact after they switched sides in 1945.

The loss of Stalin to a nuke or two might even be beneficial to the Soviet high command The Soviets were extremely pissed after what the Nazi's did, imagine their fury if their former allies betrayed them by nuking their cities??

The video fails to mention that by 1945 the newly reformed French state had over 1.3 million troops ready to fight, but even with those they still would have been vastly outnumbered.

[Cyclops]

Define "win".

Two nukes would not win the war but they'd rip the guts out of a devastated state. The WAllies (assuming they planned this from 1945 and didn't disband most of their formations as they did IRL) would be able to paralyse the Soviet forces in Central Europe with air superiority, a much greater supply of pilots and a strategic bomber force that could dominate Soviet supply and movement capability. That said they were not in a position to dominate the Soviet territories in toto, the Nazi forces unhindered by any humanity or morality in their conduct were unable to do so, so the WAllies (assuming they don't turn into to Nazis overnight) would face a great deal more trouble doing so. The WAllied public (who were highly unlikely to accept the nuclear attacks discussed) would not accept another multi-year campaign particularly in a part of the world famous for swallowing armies. So the war aim would have to be something like "kill Stalin and the Soviet leadership to disrupt the Soviet Union, hopefully soit will break up under the stress".

The Soviets by 1945 fielded competent and large armoured formations that the WAllies would find it very hard to engage without risking rapid destruction on the ground, but they might be able to pin them with spoiling attacks and air superiority long enough for attrition and nuclear fallout to end the war in Moscow rather than Saxony, by toppling Stalin as leader.

I recall the USSR was so short of men STAVKA was stripping out the manpower from its factories to sustain the fronts because of the shortages caused by the appalling losses they had sustained especially early in the war. While the WAllies were definitely war weary, and would find it hard to motivate their people to fight another war (against "Uncle Joe"Stalin who had been positively portrayed in Western propaganda when he was a useful ally) the Soviets were on their last legs in terms of manpower, if I have recalled the figures correctly. They were not in a position to sweep the Americans into the sea or anything dramatic like that.

As for the armies of Hitler's Eastern European allies, these had served as little more than speed bumps and caused OKH almost more trouble than they were worth even in that capacity (eg the armies of Hungary and Rumania had to be kept apart as they had a tendency to attack one another despite being allied). The Red Army got the job done in 1945 but it was a desperately close run thing: its manpower reserves were exhausted, and any putative allies would make no difference to calculations of their effective strength which was at a very hard limit: there were practically no more bodies to put in uniform.

It would be a very hard sell to tell the people of Britain and the US "You know, Hitler was right about one thing" so the political reality was despite Churchill's keen interest in destroying Stalin it was not a practical project. Britain in particular faced trouble in India, and had large colonial forces whose loyalty would be tested by further adventures. Australia had jumped ship in 1942 turning to the US as patron in a troubled world.

[conon394]

Basically there weren't enough nukes!

Incorrect, Grove's estimation of production. August 46 - 3, November -5, December foreword - 7 per month.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

Focus is always on the just WTO in isolation. Unthinkable it (it skims other theaters a bit but never really what an overall war would be) and the video above (and similar) ignores a lot of things.

The USSR had no fleet (its number of ships effectually approach zero when compared to the US and UK fleets) thus allied manpower and production could be reallocated. If the Red army was impressive, it had simply never faced the kind of air forces the Western allies had. It (the allied air force) was the flying mirror image of the Red army but for the allies. This another factor that is The US/Bench for production and trained pilots was deep. Unlike the the USSR or Japan or Germany the US (and UK) had had the ability to rotate out experienced pilots to training billets or just out. The Red army was used fighting a tired worn air force with increasing obsolete planes (often with shoddy parts) and poorly trained pilots. On the ground the Red Machine might find it a bit of surprise to operating w/o air cover. Do the intense battles around night fighters and interceptors and bombers in WTO, would see the Red air force at a distinct disadvantage that the Allies exploit.

But most of the opinions like those in the video (allied fail) forget the US could simply bomb Baku, and other logistical choke points in the USSR. With LL gone the big Red storm does not move w/o fuel and spare parts for it' allied gear (LL supplied trucks). One needs also consider what would happen out East how much could the US do to delay or trap the Soviet forces in Asia.

It would have to happen quickly before the US started its draw down of military forces (thus see below I think Aug is too late ). In the past that is I just don't see a spark to get three very tired winners to go to war. Certainly with the Axis gone there is room to forget the war time alliance with the USSR, but still not enough to start a new war (more below).

The politics of it all that is what really makes Unthinkable well unthinkable - aside from the above the US and UK and any reconstituted forces from countries liberated by the western allies were all well democracies. Its not just convincing Truman but all the leaders of the western powers. He would have to justify a 180 degree turn to surprise attack our former ally to them and they in turn (even Churchill) to war weary soldiers and citizens. Churchill was very much thing of another era, long dead. Both with his attempts to keep the UK in parity with the US and USSR and play sphere of influence games in Eastern Europe. I just don't see him making the sale.

How could he budge Truman even if he inclined to listen. Truman had the atomic bomb and he had a lot more coming. So suppose Truman thought and said there is a say 25% chance that Stain might try to bully his way into getting all of Germany to the point of risking war, while also violating other promises and understanding and agreements Stalin go ahead aims to directly absorb more of eastern Europe into the USSR, over run Finland etc. Stalin will count us be tired and done with war etc.

But then Truman could think on a bit. Truman would reason the US and UK and Japan are all safe behind the Allied fleets to which Stalin has no answer. If he does use force in Germany we could still hold Italy, The Rhine, toss him off Japan's islands and take all Korea, then bomb Baku. The US has demonstrably made it clear it would use the Atomic bomb. Most importantly the optics would be on our side with the public.

Two last points I want to add a new post below getting to the point where I do think the Western allies could end up at war in late 1945 early 1946. But I think August of 1946 in our current history is unlikely the US had a monopoly on the bomb and the US/UK conventional draw down was well underway for the western allies to consider an attack. The US not having a draw down like it always did would look rather suspicious to Stalin anyway.

Second I can't see the the Allies using German troops directly in that time frame 46. One two many U turns I can see 'vetted Germans retained for industry, reconstruction and a potential reserve if needed. Along with strict trials and detention of hardened Nazi types , SS and others deemed war criminals.

[Nikitn]

Guys let's keep the USA! USA! gung-ho nonsense under control please.

First of all, nuclear weapons in 1945 were not the doomsday machines of the cold war. You'd need to drop dozens to destroy a city like Moscow and a dozen to destroy Leningrad, as their destruction radius only is around 1.5km. In addition, at this time Soviet intelligence had thoroughly infiltrated the UK and the USA, so to think that a mobilization against the USSR could be done in secret without alerting Stalin is ludicrous. I also don't see how US bombers would be able to sneak through the USSR's air detection systems (including RADARs).

So basically the premise of the allies assasinating Stalin and the general staff is impossible.

Second, the production numbers Conon claims are fantasy. In 1945 nuclear engineering was a poorly understood science, and so they did not understand that the neutron radiation inside the nuclear reactors were destroying the graphite moderators. This means that by 1946, they had worn out the nuclear reactors and so the production had slowed down to far less than predicted in the 1945 document Conon is linking.

Third, the Red Air force was in 1946 vastly superiour to the Luftwaffe in 1944/1945 when it came to low-altitude operations. All it had to do was contest air superiority long enough for the Soviet armoured formations to encircle and destroy the allied land forces (an art they had perfected against against the far more skilled and powerful German army). Nukes wouldn't work either against land forces on open ground due to how dispersed they'd be.

And I won't even bother mentioning the difficulties allied bombing would face due to the vast size and spread out population of the USSR, the instant communist revolutions/revolts, mass disertions, the impossible political situation of the allies etc.

Basically what we would end up with is a Soviet mainland Europe by 1948 after a one year long bloodbath, followed by further Communism vs Allies bloodbath all around the world should the war continue. Churchill's generals knew this when they drew up OP Unthinkable, and that's why they considered the plan madness. And thank God for that

[IrishBlood]

Basically what we would end up with is a Soviet mainland Europe by 1948 after a one year long bloodbath, followed by further Communism vs Allies bloodbath all around the world should the war continue. Churchill's generals knew this when they drew up OP Unthinkable, and that's why they considered the plan madness. And thank God for that

While I agree with most of your points, I take issue with the assertion that it would be all over in a year, at the very least the soviets would have to face 'Maginot Line 2.0', although this time along the entire length of the Rhine. The provisional/Free French government had mobilized 1.3 million men and you can be damn sure that number would rise significantly in the face of a potential Soviet invasion, this, combined with the sheer amount of captured German equipment from the Atlantic wall and the millions of men the US would begin immediately redeploying from the Pacific would make the Rhine a formidable barrier.

I'm not saying that the USSR would never breach such a line of defense, but it wouldn't be easy and it would take longer than a year, especially when the allies would bomb/demolish every bridge in Germany while retreating, thus severely stressing Soviet supply lines.

I also seriously doubt the Soviets would be able to successfully invade Italy. Allied forces dug into the alps combined with air support and overwhelming control of the entire Mediterranean sea would have made it an extremely tough nut to crack, nullifying the Soviet Armored advantage.

I can see the Soviets overrunning Germany, Denmark, Austria and maybe even the low countries, but I doubt they could take France, certainly not in a year. Italy would never fall.

However, I can see the Americans getting bogged down in China fighting against the communist forces, who would undoubtedly be aided even more than they were IRL by the Soviets, which would reduce the amount of troops the US would be able to redeploy from Asia to Europe.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, we also need to take into account the influence of the Italian and French Communist parties. During WWII, both parties enjoyed immense gains in popularity, the latter essentially being the most powerful party in the entire country, which is also reflected on their armies' and populations' morale. Since, according to your hypothetical scenario, the UK and the USA are the aggressors and they initiate the conflict with an extremely controversial action, there's no doubt that a large part of the soldiers and the civilians, perhaps the majority, will not be very willing to support their governments' war effort. Not to mention that the propaganda machine of the local communist parties will be quick to represent the conflict as an imperialist genocidal war launched by the social-economic elite against the workers and the poor peasants, not only of Eastern Europe, but against the interests of the average conscripted soldier too, so it is very probable that many soldiers will refuse to take up the fight against their former brothers-in arms. There's precedent actually, the mutiny of the French fleet in the Black Sea, which significantly undermined the military intervention of Entente in Ukraine.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.marxists.org/history/eto.../blacksea.html

The similarities are more than obvious: War-weary sailors, recently radicalized by revolutionary ideas are not eager attack poor workers and peasants, with whom they sympathize, in defense of what they perceive as an arrogant, greedy, parasitic and bigoted aristocracy.

[Cyclops]

Guys let's keep the USA! USA! gung-ho nonsense under control please.

Yes whenever that quote attributed to Patton gets trotted out I cringe. If he was stupid enough to plough into the Soviets they would have swallowed him whole.

First of all, nuclear weapons in 1945 were not the doomsday machines of the cold war. You'd need to drop dozens to destroy a city like Moscow and a dozen to destroy Leningrad, as their destruction radius only is around 1.5km. In addition, at this time Soviet intelligence had thoroughly infiltrated the UK and the USA, so to think that a mobilization against the USSR could be done in secret without alerting Stalin is ludicrous. I also don't see how US bombers would be able to sneak through the USSR's air detection systems (including RADARs).

So basically the premise of the allies assasinating Stalin and the general staff is impossible.

I have a vague memory the B 29 could fly in at a greater altitude than any current interceptor? Of course they have to descend to drop, so the Soviets would surely nail some, but the USAF bombed at will with much more technically accomplished air forces in the Nazis and the Japanese, so I feel the Soviets would not be bullet proof.

Second, the production numbers Conon claims are fantasy. In 1945 nuclear engineering was a poorly understood science, and so they did not understand that the neutron radiation inside the nuclear reactors were destroying the graphite moderators. This means that by 1946, they had worn out the nuclear reactors and so the production had slowed down to far less than predicted in the 1945 document Conon is linking.

That's a very important point, thanks for informing me. OTOH the US did build nukes from scratch in three years so they were capable of overcoming production hitches. nevertheless if there was a hold up of three months that is extremely significant operationally. Nevertheless OP has a start date of Aiugust 21946. I think we have to assume the US has planned this disgraceful attack at Churchill's insistence from mid 1945, and that's more than enough time to iron out that kink.

Third, the Red Air force was in 1946 vastly superiour to the Luftwaffe in 1944/1945 when it came to low-altitude operations. All it had to do was contest air superiority long enough for the Soviet armoured formations to encircle and destroy the allied land forces (an art they had perfected against against the far more skilled and powerful German army). Nukes wouldn't work either against land forces on open ground due to how dispersed they'd be.

The Soviet air forces owed their domination of the Luftwaffe in part to the strategic bombing efforts of the WAllies (eg I recall the USAAF ran a CAP over the Me 262 plant from mid 1944, shooting them down as they tried to take off). Soviet performance was courageous and resourceful off a low base, they did not have the industrial capacity of the WAllies to produce first rate machines or fill them with pilots for that matter.

And I won't even bother mentioning the difficulties allied bombing would face due to the vast size and spread out population of the USSR, the instant communist revolutions/revolts, mass disertions, the impossible political situation of the allies etc.

Indeed, you could hurl a lot of bombs at the Soviets and not make much impression (and nukes were not precision weapons). Poland and the choke points into the Balkans are another matter and the Red Army could be cut off at the heels with both conventional and nuclear interventions.

Basically what we would end up with is a Soviet mainland Europe by 1948 after a one year long bloodbath, followed by further Communism vs Allies bloodbath all around the world should the war continue.

Certainly whatever the outcome in Europe then everyone is in for a bad time. India would explode if Britain attempted to continue dominance (treachery was not at a significant level in WWII, but there was enough to indicate their rule was over), IRL China and half of Korea went red and there's no reason to believe they would not (and the US would be running operations from a devastated rather than a partly rebuilt Japan there) and so on.

While I think the Soviets lacked the manpower to continue bulldozing as they had from1942-1945 (and I think it likely their forces in central Europe could be immobilised or forced to withdraw by allied air superiority, resource interdiction and a slow but steady supply of nukes) the WAllies had tried intervention in 1919-1920 against a ruined Communist state and failed dismally. It would require a far greater commitment than the occupations of Japan and Germany, which they would have to maintain as well. It was beyond their will and possibly beyond their manpower (even figuring in Germans, French and lel Italians lel).

Churchill's generals knew this when they drew up OP Unthinkable, and that's why they considered the plan madness. And thank God for that

Indeed, it would have been a disgraceful betrayal and an act of true evil, costing millions more lives. I believe they overestimated Soviet manpower reserves and may not have known about the nuclear program but there were more than enough reasons not to go ahead. Typical Churchill to even consider it.

OP's scenario is likewise a pretty disgraceful turn of events (not judging OP, I mean the mindset of the WAllied leadership would have to be pretty evil to do this).

[conon394]

That's a very important point, thanks for informing me.

No its not really.

OTOH the US did build nukes from scratch in three years so they were capable of overcoming production hitches. nevertheless if there was a hold up of three months that is extremely significant operationally.

The problem is that Nikitin is focusing a problem with only one aspect of the overall Manhattan program that was being dealt with in a post war situation, not the continuous war footing that this scenario envisions. Nitkin is also neglecting the fact that the production of enriched uranium was improving rapidly and also the steps needed were reduced to 2 from 3. Now it is true my link to the Groves (estimate above) was early but it in fact remained accurate. One needs remember all 3 bombs detonated were in effect each a novel prototype.

The project had moved on to a design that could use either all Uranium or Plutonium or a combination. Exceptions were comparable results with perhaps only half of the fuel.

Thus this somewhat later estimate of production:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/...d-beyond-1945/

Is likely quite valid since almost assuredly assumes using the 'second' generation bomb and no throttling back on Handford B. Why because of the end of the war. safety at Handford now became more of priority Also importantly staffing collapsed without the war - the US had no plans yet for a vast arsenal and people were in a rush to secure jobs in the post war economy.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/...ning-the-bomb/

"When the war ended, a lot of people went home. How many? Exact numbers are hard to come by, but my rough estimate based on the personnel statistics in the Manhattan District History is that between August 1945 and October 1946, some 80% of the construction labor left the project, and some 30% of the operations and research labor left. Overall there was a shedding of some 60% of the entire Manhattan Project labor force."[

First of all, nuclear weapons in 1945 were not the doomsday machines of the cold war. You'd need to drop dozens to destroy a city like Moscow and a dozen to destroy Leningrad, as their destruction radius only is around 1.5km. In addition, at this time Soviet intelligence had thoroughly infiltrated the UK and the USA, so to think that a mobilization against the USSR could be done in secret without alerting Stalin is ludicrous. I also don't see how US bombers would be able to sneak through the USSR's air detection systems (including RADARs).

Gasp RADAR wow because you know Germany did have any such newfangled devices. Who said sneak anyway how about just and air force that the USSR was largely not going to be able to intercept. In any case even when the US did much later get around to making a target list of the USSR in the early Cold War Leningrad was not on the list. In this case the BAKU region would almost certainty be the prime target

Second, the production numbers Conon claims are fantasy. In 1945 nuclear engineering was a poorly understood science, and so they did not understand that the neutron radiation inside the nuclear reactors were destroying the graphite moderators. This means that by 1946, they had worn out the nuclear reactors and so the production had slowed down to far less than predicted in the 1945 document Conon is linking.

See above - production slowed due to policy choices not technical reasons.

Third, the Red Air force was in 1946 vastly superiour to the Luftwaffe in 1944/1945 when it came to low-altitude operations.

Umm except the Red airforce would not be fighting the German one.

(an art they had perfected against against the far more skilled and powerful German army)

A German army overextended, short of fuel, supplies and with poor logistics and one still running on horses by and large.

And I won't even bother mentioning the difficulties allied bombing would face due to the vast size and spread out population of the USSR

Seems to be assuming an anti civilian air campaign - why?

the impossible political situation of the allies etc.

That really depends if Stalin had pushed harder or FDR and Truman had taken a harder line with Stalin earlier a few miscalculations could add up to war w/o some kind of allied sneak attack.

[hellheaven1987]

Consider Red Army ran their logistic in bare bone even with LL I highly doubt it could even move much without LL at all; in the end Red Army probably would be betrayed by General Winter and Hunger more than Allies itself.