What's new

Operation Unthinkable: Britain's Secret Plan to Invade Russia in 1945

vostok

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
10,291
Reaction score
27
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Ukraine
In the spring of 1945, Winston Churchill asked his military chiefs to prepare a secret plan.

That was nothing new. The hyper-energetic Churchill was always coming up with plans, some clever and some crazy. But this plan was beyond all that.

Winston Churchill wanted a plan for Britain to invade the Soviet Union.

In early 1945, America was focused on finishing off Germany and then taking down Japan. But Churchill's gaze beheld a darkness descending upon Europe. What would happen with a Red Army occupying its heart? Stalin had already reneged on earlier agreements that Poland—the reason that Britain had gone to war in 1939—would be free. Instead the Polish government was packed with Soviet supporters while Polish resistance fighters ended up in NKVD prisons. Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were under Soviet control, and Greece and Turkey appeared under threat. After Germany's inevitable surrender, the huge U.S. force in Europe would move to the Pacific.
Who would be left to stop the Russians?

Thus British planners devised “Operation Unthinkable,” an apt name for what would have been World War III. What could be a more unimaginable task then trying to devise some way for Britain—broke and exhausted after two world wars—from launching a preventive war to defeat the Soviet colossus?

Yet even if Great Britain was losing the “Great” by 1945, orders were orders, and military planners are accustomed to devising responses to the most unlikely contingencies. So they gamely went to work, and by 1945 had worked out a plan. The attack would begin on July 1, 1945, to allow operations before the winter weather arrived. They assumed that Soviet intelligence would detect Allied preparations and thus make an Operation Barbarossa–style surprise offensive impossible. Thus the Allies would have a tough fight right from the start.
Operation Unthinkable envisioned an offensive by the Anglo-American armies, plus a Free Polish contingent (the Canadians were also informed of the plan). These forces would breach the forward Soviet defenses in Germany. The expectation was that the Soviets would then mass their armor along the Oder and Neisse rivers, which the Soviets had made the new border between Germany and Poland. A gigantic Kursk-like armored battle would be fought around Stettin. If the Allies won it, they would advance to a 250-mile-long line between Danzig and Breslau, where they would halt to avoid exposing their flank to a southern attack from Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia.

Ironically, the plan bore many resemblances to Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, which also counted on defeating Soviet forces near the Russian border to avoid a prolonged campaign deep inside that vast nation. “The planners believed that if they could secure this line from Danzig to Breslau by autumn 1945, it might be enough to bring Stalin to heel,” writes author Jonathan Walker in his book Churchill's Third World War: British Plans to Attack the Soviet Empire, 1945. “But if the Allies reached that line by the autumn (discounting the huge advantage the Soviets held in manpower) and Stalin had not changed his mind about control of Eastern Europe—what then? With the forces available to them, Western commanders could not hold their line through the winter of 1945–46 and they would be forced either to retreat or push on into eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. Pushing on would undoubtedly result in ‘total war.’”

Total war against Russia—months before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan—was an outcome that no one wanted. The Allied forces had nearly 4 million men in Europe when Germany surrendered, the majority of which were Americans who would soon be transferred to the Pacific. The Red Army had almost 11 million men, and perhaps 20,000 tanks and self-propelled guns. To be sure, the Allies did count on the same advantages that enabled them to defeat Nazi Germany. They had vast superiority at sea, which meant their fleets could provide amphibious support in the Baltic Sea. The Allied tactical air forces would be outnumbered two to one by Soviet tactical air, but the Allies could count on better-trained pilots and the fact that the Soviets depended on the United States for high-octane aviation fuel. However, the real ace in the air would be the 2,500 Allied heavy bombers in Europe, which presumably would include B-29s. The Luftwaffe hadn’t been able to stop them, and the Red Air Force had no experience in stopping them.

Nonetheless, the Allied planners found themselves in the same trap that destroyed Napoleon and Hitler. How do you make Russia surrender if it doesn't want to? If defeating the Red Army on German soil wasn't enough, then the only alternative was to advance eastwards into Poland and then Russia. “The planners now paled at the thought of the enormous distances.
Meanwhile, the Allies had to reckon on the war expanding as the Soviets attacked Norway, Greece and Turkey (ominously, British planners expected the Soviets to ally with Japan). As for the atom bomb, the United States only had two in the summer of 1945, and they were earmarked for Japan. By 1946, America had only nine bombs. Powerful as they were, they could only inflict a fraction of the punishment that the Soviet Union suffered at the hands of the Nazis—and still kept on fighting.

What’s fascinating isn't just the hubris—or chutzpah—of Britain invading Russia, something which it hadn't done since the Crimean War. It's the assumptions behind the plan, driven either by wishful thinking or sheer desperation.

Even as the death camps were being liberated, Britain contemplated rebuilding a German army to fight the Russians. “One of the most contentious issues in the Unthinkable plan was the use of German forces within the Allied camp,” Walker writes. “It was anticipated that ten German divisions could be utilized for offensive operations, but because it would take time for them to be re-equipped from Allied sources, the units would not be ready for 1 July and would only become available in the autumn; that they should be used at all was likely to be highly controversial.”



But rearming ex-Nazis paled in comparison to an absolute foundation of Operation Unthinkable, which was that the United States would join Britain in attack on the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, and initially Truman until he knew better, were convinced that it was possible to work out a postwar accommodation with Stalin. They were wrong, but they didn't know that in the spring of 1945. And there was still the victory with Japan to be won—for which Soviet help was considered essential. In other words, America had just finished a crusade in Europe against Nazism. It wasn't about to embark on a crusade against Communism just yet.

Military buffs love to debate how a war between the Western Allies and Soviets would have turned out (though the assumption is usually that the Soviets would have attacked first). Enthusiasts love to argue the merits of Sherman vs. T-34 tanks, or P-51s versus Yak fighters. It's all very interesting, and almost totally pointless.

The rock-bottom fact of a war that would have dragged the world into World War III is this: Operation Unthinkable called for the democratic nations of the United Kingdom and the United States to initiate a war with the Soviet Union. The justification would have been the need to roll back the Soviet empire from its German and Eastern European conquests.

In return, the populations of Britain and America would be expected to endure a protracted conflict with no certain means of compelling the enemy to surrender. Rather than the relatively bloodless air and naval warfare that the Anglo-Americans preferred and still prefer, they would have been trapped in a land war with the world's foremost land power, on the vast, cold plains and swamps of Eastern Europe.

Operation Unthinkable was truly unthinkable.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...able-britains-secret-plan-invade-russia-22521
 
.
Well, I think he should have tried and faced the same as the Napolean Bonaparte experienced a quarter and a century ago.
 
. .
In the spring of 1945, Winston Churchill asked his military chiefs to prepare a secret plan.

That was nothing new. The hyper-energetic Churchill was always coming up with plans, some clever and some crazy. But this plan was beyond all that.

Winston Churchill wanted a plan for Britain to invade the Soviet Union.

In early 1945, America was focused on finishing off Germany and then taking down Japan. But Churchill's gaze beheld a darkness descending upon Europe. What would happen with a Red Army occupying its heart? Stalin had already reneged on earlier agreements that Poland—the reason that Britain had gone to war in 1939—would be free. Instead the Polish government was packed with Soviet supporters while Polish resistance fighters ended up in NKVD prisons. Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were under Soviet control, and Greece and Turkey appeared under threat. After Germany's inevitable surrender, the huge U.S. force in Europe would move to the Pacific.
Who would be left to stop the Russians?

Thus British planners devised “Operation Unthinkable,” an apt name for what would have been World War III. What could be a more unimaginable task then trying to devise some way for Britain—broke and exhausted after two world wars—from launching a preventive war to defeat the Soviet colossus?

Yet even if Great Britain was losing the “Great” by 1945, orders were orders, and military planners are accustomed to devising responses to the most unlikely contingencies. So they gamely went to work, and by 1945 had worked out a plan. The attack would begin on July 1, 1945, to allow operations before the winter weather arrived. They assumed that Soviet intelligence would detect Allied preparations and thus make an Operation Barbarossa–style surprise offensive impossible. Thus the Allies would have a tough fight right from the start.
Operation Unthinkable envisioned an offensive by the Anglo-American armies, plus a Free Polish contingent (the Canadians were also informed of the plan). These forces would breach the forward Soviet defenses in Germany. The expectation was that the Soviets would then mass their armor along the Oder and Neisse rivers, which the Soviets had made the new border between Germany and Poland. A gigantic Kursk-like armored battle would be fought around Stettin. If the Allies won it, they would advance to a 250-mile-long line between Danzig and Breslau, where they would halt to avoid exposing their flank to a southern attack from Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia.

Ironically, the plan bore many resemblances to Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, which also counted on defeating Soviet forces near the Russian border to avoid a prolonged campaign deep inside that vast nation. “The planners believed that if they could secure this line from Danzig to Breslau by autumn 1945, it might be enough to bring Stalin to heel,” writes author Jonathan Walker in his book Churchill's Third World War: British Plans to Attack the Soviet Empire, 1945. “But if the Allies reached that line by the autumn (discounting the huge advantage the Soviets held in manpower) and Stalin had not changed his mind about control of Eastern Europe—what then? With the forces available to them, Western commanders could not hold their line through the winter of 1945–46 and they would be forced either to retreat or push on into eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. Pushing on would undoubtedly result in ‘total war.’”

Total war against Russia—months before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan—was an outcome that no one wanted. The Allied forces had nearly 4 million men in Europe when Germany surrendered, the majority of which were Americans who would soon be transferred to the Pacific. The Red Army had almost 11 million men, and perhaps 20,000 tanks and self-propelled guns. To be sure, the Allies did count on the same advantages that enabled them to defeat Nazi Germany. They had vast superiority at sea, which meant their fleets could provide amphibious support in the Baltic Sea. The Allied tactical air forces would be outnumbered two to one by Soviet tactical air, but the Allies could count on better-trained pilots and the fact that the Soviets depended on the United States for high-octane aviation fuel. However, the real ace in the air would be the 2,500 Allied heavy bombers in Europe, which presumably would include B-29s. The Luftwaffe hadn’t been able to stop them, and the Red Air Force had no experience in stopping them.

Nonetheless, the Allied planners found themselves in the same trap that destroyed Napoleon and Hitler. How do you make Russia surrender if it doesn't want to? If defeating the Red Army on German soil wasn't enough, then the only alternative was to advance eastwards into Poland and then Russia. “The planners now paled at the thought of the enormous distances.
Meanwhile, the Allies had to reckon on the war expanding as the Soviets attacked Norway, Greece and Turkey (ominously, British planners expected the Soviets to ally with Japan). As for the atom bomb, the United States only had two in the summer of 1945, and they were earmarked for Japan. By 1946, America had only nine bombs. Powerful as they were, they could only inflict a fraction of the punishment that the Soviet Union suffered at the hands of the Nazis—and still kept on fighting.

What’s fascinating isn't just the hubris—or chutzpah—of Britain invading Russia, something which it hadn't done since the Crimean War. It's the assumptions behind the plan, driven either by wishful thinking or sheer desperation.

Even as the death camps were being liberated, Britain contemplated rebuilding a German army to fight the Russians. “One of the most contentious issues in the Unthinkable plan was the use of German forces within the Allied camp,” Walker writes. “It was anticipated that ten German divisions could be utilized for offensive operations, but because it would take time for them to be re-equipped from Allied sources, the units would not be ready for 1 July and would only become available in the autumn; that they should be used at all was likely to be highly controversial.”



But rearming ex-Nazis paled in comparison to an absolute foundation of Operation Unthinkable, which was that the United States would join Britain in attack on the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, and initially Truman until he knew better, were convinced that it was possible to work out a postwar accommodation with Stalin. They were wrong, but they didn't know that in the spring of 1945. And there was still the victory with Japan to be won—for which Soviet help was considered essential. In other words, America had just finished a crusade in Europe against Nazism. It wasn't about to embark on a crusade against Communism just yet.

Military buffs love to debate how a war between the Western Allies and Soviets would have turned out (though the assumption is usually that the Soviets would have attacked first). Enthusiasts love to argue the merits of Sherman vs. T-34 tanks, or P-51s versus Yak fighters. It's all very interesting, and almost totally pointless.

The rock-bottom fact of a war that would have dragged the world into World War III is this: Operation Unthinkable called for the democratic nations of the United Kingdom and the United States to initiate a war with the Soviet Union. The justification would have been the need to roll back the Soviet empire from its German and Eastern European conquests.

In return, the populations of Britain and America would be expected to endure a protracted conflict with no certain means of compelling the enemy to surrender. Rather than the relatively bloodless air and naval warfare that the Anglo-Americans preferred and still prefer, they would have been trapped in a land war with the world's foremost land power, on the vast, cold plains and swamps of Eastern Europe.

Operation Unthinkable was truly unthinkable.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...able-britains-secret-plan-invade-russia-22521
That was indeed operation unthinkable :lol:
Glad Churchill did not make that mistake otherwise the stinky teeth British soldiers would have been at the mercy of battle hardened red army.
 
.
That was indeed operation unthinkable :lol:
Glad Churchill did not make that mistake otherwise the stinky teeth British soldiers would have been at the mercy of battle hardened red army.

You do realise that in 1946 Britain could raise an additional force in excess of 4,5 million soldiers from its colonies? That would have been in addition to its then existing army which defeated the Nazis. If the USA could be convinced to join the war against the Soviet dogs under that butcher Stalin and taking into account the probability of a liberated France together with Poland and most of the neighbors of the Soviets sending in additional men to help the British cause, not forgetting that defeated Nazi forces would gladly have joined the British cause (if you take into account the sins which were being committed by the Russian soldiers against the German people) , I remain surprised at your suggestion
 
.
You do realise that in 1946 Britain could raise an additional force in excess of 4,5 million soldiers from its colonies? That would have been in addition to its then existing army which defeated the Nazis. If the USA could be convinced to join the war against the Soviet dogs under that butcher Stalin and taking into account the probability of a liberated France together with Poland and most of the neighbors of the Soviets sending in additional men to help the British cause, not forgetting that defeated Nazi forces would gladly have joined the British cause (if you take into account the sins which were being committed by the Russian soldiers against the German people) , I remain surprised at your suggestion
Well you strike me a british pakistani and sorry if i hurted your feelings by talking against your beloved english people.I advise you to do some research and you will not be surprised by my suggestion.
The credit of defeating nazis wholly goes to the red army and the soviet union.Brits and americans defeated nothing and jumped into the scene at the end of war to take the credit.It was the red army and your soviet dogs who changed the direction of WW2 and stopped in heart of germany(berlin).I doubt america and any other country would have ever joined the unthinkable mission of churchill.And in contrast soviet union and her allies were in great numbers.Red army was way more battle hardened than the british army and had already defeated german forces which were more than 18 million.So defeating 4,5 million for them was no big deal in my humble opinion.London could be the next whore house of red army after berlin.
As far as the rape of and abuse of german people is concerned.Do you know what germans did to russian people?They burned down the whole villages ,raped their women and killed kids by smashing their heads against the wall.So the russians returned them the favor ,they were angry and only they can feel the pain they have been through.I am not saying what russians did to german people was justified but war is a nasty thing and shit happens.And don,t forget it was the germans who waged war first against the soviets and they lost more than 26 million people.
It takes a dictator and leader like stalin to win WW2.He was ruthless i agree but he did this world a great favor by defeating the evil and racist nazi empire.Otherwise you and me would be speaking german today.
Stalin and all the comrades of red army deserved a great respect.
 
.
In the spring of 1945, Winston Churchill asked his military chiefs to prepare a secret plan.

That was nothing new. The hyper-energetic Churchill was always coming up with plans, some clever and some crazy. But this plan was beyond all that.

Winston Churchill wanted a plan for Britain to invade the Soviet Union.

In early 1945, America was focused on finishing off Germany and then taking down Japan. But Churchill's gaze beheld a darkness descending upon Europe. What would happen with a Red Army occupying its heart? Stalin had already reneged on earlier agreements that Poland—the reason that Britain had gone to war in 1939—would be free. Instead the Polish government was packed with Soviet supporters while Polish resistance fighters ended up in NKVD prisons. Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were under Soviet control, and Greece and Turkey appeared under threat. After Germany's inevitable surrender, the huge U.S. force in Europe would move to the Pacific.
Who would be left to stop the Russians?

Thus British planners devised “Operation Unthinkable,” an apt name for what would have been World War III. What could be a more unimaginable task then trying to devise some way for Britain—broke and exhausted after two world wars—from launching a preventive war to defeat the Soviet colossus?

Yet even if Great Britain was losing the “Great” by 1945, orders were orders, and military planners are accustomed to devising responses to the most unlikely contingencies. So they gamely went to work, and by 1945 had worked out a plan. The attack would begin on July 1, 1945, to allow operations before the winter weather arrived. They assumed that Soviet intelligence would detect Allied preparations and thus make an Operation Barbarossa–style surprise offensive impossible. Thus the Allies would have a tough fight right from the start.
Operation Unthinkable envisioned an offensive by the Anglo-American armies, plus a Free Polish contingent (the Canadians were also informed of the plan). These forces would breach the forward Soviet defenses in Germany. The expectation was that the Soviets would then mass their armor along the Oder and Neisse rivers, which the Soviets had made the new border between Germany and Poland. A gigantic Kursk-like armored battle would be fought around Stettin. If the Allies won it, they would advance to a 250-mile-long line between Danzig and Breslau, where they would halt to avoid exposing their flank to a southern attack from Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia.

Ironically, the plan bore many resemblances to Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, which also counted on defeating Soviet forces near the Russian border to avoid a prolonged campaign deep inside that vast nation. “The planners believed that if they could secure this line from Danzig to Breslau by autumn 1945, it might be enough to bring Stalin to heel,” writes author Jonathan Walker in his book Churchill's Third World War: British Plans to Attack the Soviet Empire, 1945. “But if the Allies reached that line by the autumn (discounting the huge advantage the Soviets held in manpower) and Stalin had not changed his mind about control of Eastern Europe—what then? With the forces available to them, Western commanders could not hold their line through the winter of 1945–46 and they would be forced either to retreat or push on into eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. Pushing on would undoubtedly result in ‘total war.’”

Total war against Russia—months before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan—was an outcome that no one wanted. The Allied forces had nearly 4 million men in Europe when Germany surrendered, the majority of which were Americans who would soon be transferred to the Pacific. The Red Army had almost 11 million men, and perhaps 20,000 tanks and self-propelled guns. To be sure, the Allies did count on the same advantages that enabled them to defeat Nazi Germany. They had vast superiority at sea, which meant their fleets could provide amphibious support in the Baltic Sea. The Allied tactical air forces would be outnumbered two to one by Soviet tactical air, but the Allies could count on better-trained pilots and the fact that the Soviets depended on the United States for high-octane aviation fuel. However, the real ace in the air would be the 2,500 Allied heavy bombers in Europe, which presumably would include B-29s. The Luftwaffe hadn’t been able to stop them, and the Red Air Force had no experience in stopping them.

Nonetheless, the Allied planners found themselves in the same trap that destroyed Napoleon and Hitler. How do you make Russia surrender if it doesn't want to? If defeating the Red Army on German soil wasn't enough, then the only alternative was to advance eastwards into Poland and then Russia. “The planners now paled at the thought of the enormous distances.
Meanwhile, the Allies had to reckon on the war expanding as the Soviets attacked Norway, Greece and Turkey (ominously, British planners expected the Soviets to ally with Japan). As for the atom bomb, the United States only had two in the summer of 1945, and they were earmarked for Japan. By 1946, America had only nine bombs. Powerful as they were, they could only inflict a fraction of the punishment that the Soviet Union suffered at the hands of the Nazis—and still kept on fighting.

What’s fascinating isn't just the hubris—or chutzpah—of Britain invading Russia, something which it hadn't done since the Crimean War. It's the assumptions behind the plan, driven either by wishful thinking or sheer desperation.

Even as the death camps were being liberated, Britain contemplated rebuilding a German army to fight the Russians. “One of the most contentious issues in the Unthinkable plan was the use of German forces within the Allied camp,” Walker writes. “It was anticipated that ten German divisions could be utilized for offensive operations, but because it would take time for them to be re-equipped from Allied sources, the units would not be ready for 1 July and would only become available in the autumn; that they should be used at all was likely to be highly controversial.”



But rearming ex-Nazis paled in comparison to an absolute foundation of Operation Unthinkable, which was that the United States would join Britain in attack on the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, and initially Truman until he knew better, were convinced that it was possible to work out a postwar accommodation with Stalin. They were wrong, but they didn't know that in the spring of 1945. And there was still the victory with Japan to be won—for which Soviet help was considered essential. In other words, America had just finished a crusade in Europe against Nazism. It wasn't about to embark on a crusade against Communism just yet.

Military buffs love to debate how a war between the Western Allies and Soviets would have turned out (though the assumption is usually that the Soviets would have attacked first). Enthusiasts love to argue the merits of Sherman vs. T-34 tanks, or P-51s versus Yak fighters. It's all very interesting, and almost totally pointless.

The rock-bottom fact of a war that would have dragged the world into World War III is this: Operation Unthinkable called for the democratic nations of the United Kingdom and the United States to initiate a war with the Soviet Union. The justification would have been the need to roll back the Soviet empire from its German and Eastern European conquests.

In return, the populations of Britain and America would be expected to endure a protracted conflict with no certain means of compelling the enemy to surrender. Rather than the relatively bloodless air and naval warfare that the Anglo-Americans preferred and still prefer, they would have been trapped in a land war with the world's foremost land power, on the vast, cold plains and swamps of Eastern Europe.

Operation Unthinkable was truly unthinkable.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...able-britains-secret-plan-invade-russia-22521

Good for Brits they did not materialize the plan,
 
.
Well you strike me a british pakistani and sorry if i hurted your feelings by talking against your beloved english people.I advise you to do some research and you will not be surprised by my suggestion.
The credit of defeating nazis wholly goes to the red army and the soviet union.Brits and americans defeated nothing and jumped into the scene at the end of war to take the credit.It was the red army and your soviet dogs who changed the direction of WW2 and stopped in heart of germany(berlin).I doubt america and any other country would have ever joined the unthinkable mission of churchill.And in contrast soviet union and her allies were in great numbers.Red army was way more battle hardened than the british army and had already defeated german forces which were more than 18 million.So defeating 4,5 million for them was no big deal in my humble opinion.London could be the next whore house of red army after berlin.
As far as the rape of and abuse of german people is concerned.Do you know what germans did to russian people?They burned down the whole villages ,raped their women and killed kids by smashing their heads against the wall.So the russians returned them the favor ,they were angry and only they can feel the pain they have been through.I am not saying what russians did to german people was justified but war is a nasty thing and shit happens.And don,t forget it was the germans who waged war first against the soviets and they lost more than 26 million people.
It takes a dictator and leader like stalin to win WW2.He was ruthless i agree but he did this world a great favor by defeating the evil and racist nazi empire.Otherwise you and me would be speaking german today.
Stalin and all the comrades of red army deserved a great respect.

You underscore the achievements of the allies and overscore the achievements of the Soviets in WW2. If your argument holds any weight then the first question which comes to mind is why did the Soviets only move full force towards Germany after the Normandy landings? Put simply, it took the Brits and the Americans to pave the way for Soviet forces to push towards Germany after Normandy. Until then the Soviets were mulcted in defending and could only adopt an offensive posture with the help of the UK and the US. In any event, undisputed history records that minus the Brit and the US arms supplies at the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa, the USSR would have crumbled in the face of advancing German airforce and Wehrmacht forces.
 
.
this was probably a plan to keep word "great tagged with Britain.... which they subsequently ceded to US
 
.
You underscore the achievements of the allies and overscore the achievements of the Soviets in WW2. If your argument holds any weight then the first question which comes to mind is why did the Soviets only move full force towards Germany after the Normandy landings? Put simply, it took the Brits and the Americans to pave the way for Soviet forces to push towards Germany after Normandy. Until then the Soviets were mulcted in defending and could only adopt an offensive posture with the help of the UK and the US. In any event, undisputed history records that minus the Brit and the US arms supplies at the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa, the USSR would have crumbled in the face of advancing German airforce and Wehrmacht forces.
Madam jee did you ever attend any geography class? Do you even know where on my map France and Normandy is located?Was it the americans or brits who defeated nazis from moscow to berlin? Who defeated heavy nazi presence in belorussia,poland,hungary and Czechoslovakia ?
D day landings at Normandy were just a drop in the bucket as compared to what red army achieved.Normandy is far away and the nazi presence there was quite insignificant as compared to the eastern front.
800px-Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png
 
.
well that's a shame. Europe fighting another great war amongst itself would have mean the rest of the world would have been safer from these savages.
 
.
@vostok Thanks for the green rating.These ignorant west loving people don,t know with what courage the red army defended stalingrad and other cities.They call stalin a ruthless and heartless man but they don,t know about his order "Ne shagu nazad" means not a step back which made impossible a possible.As the saying goes you cannot become a good dictator if you are not ruthless and stalin was ruthless to all invaders which is no bad thing.But i do oppose what he did to his fellow soviets.
On the other hand the westerners were not able to defend their cities like soviets .The cheese eating french surrendered even before a war began.As politico saying about the arms supplies from the west made soviet victory possible but the great courage and patriotism of red army came from nowhere.
 
.
The red army , even without coalition support in the beginning had successfully defended Moscow and t-34 began rolling in. American aid only helped later in the war against the insignificant German navy due to the Boston bombers. The invasion of Normandy was done only to prevent communist occupation of France and the low countries. It wasn't to defeat Germany
 
.
@vostok Thanks for the green rating.These ignorant west loving people don,t know with what courage the red army defended stalingrad and other cities.They call stalin a ruthless and heartless man but they don,t know about his order "Ne shagu nazad" means not a step back which made impossible a possible.As the saying goes you cannot become a good dictator if you are not ruthless and stalin was ruthless to all invaders which is no bad thing.But i do oppose what he did to his fellow soviets.
On the other hand the westerners were not able to defend their cities like soviets .The cheese eating french surrendered even before a war began.As politico saying about the arms supplies from the west made soviet victory possible but the great courage and patriotism of red army came from nowhere.
The British and Americans were confident in the success of Operation Barbarossa almost like Hitler himself. As far as I know, deliveries began in late October, when it became absolutely clear that the Barbarossa plan had failed.
It can not be denied that supplies helped the USSR, but it is not worth to exaggerate its role - we would have won without them. The USSR successfully evacuated industrial facilities to the east - this was the main our success of 1941 and the main defeat for the Germans.
By the way, the supplies of Mongolia and Tuva, two allies of the USSR, was almoust 50% of that of US and British. For some reason, no one in the West remembers this fact. That is, Tuva and Mongolia helped the Soviet Union to win more than the entire British Empire combined.
I am sure that Churchill would with great pleasure fight against Russia until the last American soldier.
 
.
@vostok Thanks for the green rating.These ignorant west loving people don,t know with what courage the red army defended stalingrad and other cities.They call stalin a ruthless and heartless man but they don,t know about his order "Ne shagu nazad" means not a step back which made impossible a possible.As the saying goes you cannot become a good dictator if you are not ruthless and stalin was ruthless to all invaders which is no bad thing.But i do oppose what he did to his fellow soviets.
On the other hand the westerners were not able to defend their cities like soviets .The cheese eating french surrendered even before a war began.As politico saying about the arms supplies from the west made soviet victory possible but the great courage and patriotism of red army came from nowhere.

The heck are you even talking about ? No one denies USSR's courage however you might forget how the start of the invasion was a total disaster with over 600,000 miles square of territory lost and millions of casualties.

ppp.jpg


They were only able to recover due to industrial capacity,large territories in which they could retreat and reserve manpower,which the allies,including France lacked at the start of the conflict.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom