The idea that the allies would have won operation unthinkable is fucking insane to me

genuinely people who hold this opinion and wonder wistfully about it should be executed by firing squad. The 'Armchair historian' youtube channel just did a whole thing about it and genuinely i regard this man as worthy of being dumped in acid for this video alone.

the allies after going to war with the nazis, declaring war on the soviets, rebuilding the fascist army, would probably lose spectacularly.

Im not saying that that soviets would have rolled over them like paper, but the idea that the allies would gain any more than a Pyrrhic stalemate after losing in france and italy is so fucking dumb. the people who know the devastation after ww2 and are like 'i want another one just to destroy the soviets' are as anticommunist as the nazis and should be treated as such. they should also follow their fucking leader.

15 comments

Yeah I mean, Stalin did stop at Berlin because there wasn't much steam left to keep going after Berlin, but the idea that the Western Allies could keep going in the same situation is completely laughable.
- i think that steam would be forced back in if the allies started doing a total war against them.
  the pro west side is filled with racists, nazis, and propagandized morons who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag
  
  70% of their industrial capacity was destroyed in Barbarossa. In terms of morale I definitely agree, but you can't fight a war on morale alone. Thankfully that applies to both sides so the Western side still could not have possibly made that work without using nuclear weapons.
  
  Patton basically wanted to continue the war of extermination against the Soviets even suggesting using German prisoners to fight them. he has some wild quotes about it. off the wall antisemite too.
I'm sure anyone who's even halfway familiar with this scenario has seen this map before, but I'm including it anyway because it hammers home how absurd the notion is that the rest of the Allies stood a chance against the Soviets. Even without taking the actual combat readiness of these units into account, the numerical disparity is simply obscene, as is the disparity of experience (recall that 8 of every 10 German casualties in this war were inflicted by Soviet troops; the scope and intensity of fighting on the Eastern Front is simply beyond the experience of the American and British armies, at that or at any point.) My off the cuff assertion is that this would've ended with mass American casualties and a rapid loss of political will, rendering superior American manufacturing capacity moot.
I kinda hate all the hypothetical history YouTubers. Even if it's interesting stuff that would have made things much better, well, it didn't happen. It's only worthwhile as far as analyzing mistakes to hopefully learn something and take the better option in the future, imo. And most of the YouTubers are reactionaries so whatever they want to happen is usually just very bad.
My question for this specific hypothetical is: Why the fuck should the Americans have even fought the Nazis in that case and not just come in, team up with Hitler, and blast the Soviets together? I would love for them to explain in detail why America even opposed the Nazis. Or, better, why he opposes Nazis. "Uh, well, because they were bad!" Yeah? At a time when America was horribly antisemitic itself and still was practicing American Apartheid in the form of Jim Crow laws, you think it was because the Nazis were racist that the Brits and Americans opposed them?
I don't even know this person, but just basing that off the majority of American's opinion. "Because we good guy and they bad guy!"
- Seuss Stalin emoji when
There is the A-bomb factor to consider, once the allied armies start retreating to Paris. Though at that point the US could only drop one as fast as they could make it, and I'm sure nuking downtown Moscow or Kiev would only hasten the Soviets' own nuclear program. Regardless the nuclear terrorism precident set by the US would be horrifying. States would probably be dropping nukes at the beginning of every war after that. Humanity might not survive that reality. Yeah, people who want that are fucking insane.
- Nukes back then werent like now. You need to be able to get a plane to where you wanna drop it. Back then planes didnt have the biggest range, and they didnt have stealth tech. It would be more realistic for them to nuke berlin or something but i doubt theyd get anywhere near moscow without having some sort of ground support close by.
what also isn't being considered is that the contradictions at home in Western countries were being pushed to the limits and people were living very insecure existences - ripe for disorder - so there was a lot of communist support at home in the west.
You try telling these people who have just witnessed the triumph of the red army that you're now doing ANOTHER war and going on the offensive against them for no reason that matters to a civilians life at home.
Perhaps they are underestimating soviet forces and are imagining the grand encirclements of 1941 by the Nazis against an unprepared Soviet army or something.
Man, I wish they would have tried.
General Patton having his "oh shit" moment hunkered down in Paris at 2 am before the partisans shot him.
The KPRA helping General MacArthur do his best
impression.
The shocking realizations among the Western Allies that their local fifth columns are a lot larger, better armed, and dedicated than they had anticipated.
A Pyrrhic victory would look much more like a loss than they ever could have anticipated. The British had an entire empire to lose and they absolutely would have. Nuking Moscow would have been impossible, nuking Paris or Berlin would only have led to a more unilateral opposition from the rest of the world as this became a global war of class struggle.

15 comments