WW3 in 1945

[bernardz]

In his book "The second world war" by Antony Beevor who is I think an extremely credible and knowledgable historian on ww2 on p765, claims that Stalin in 1944 (date not specified) was seriously considering landing in Norway, an invasion of France and Italy.

What Stalin was thinking was America would soon abandon Europe, and their colonial problems would paralyse Britain and France, he would be able to move. Stalin's generals expected that with their 400 divisions it would take less than a month to grab these areas.

What aborted these plans was that Stalin heard that the US had an atom bomb and were putting it into mass production. Stalin told Beria, "that if Roosevelt had still been alive, we would have succeeded."

FDR died in Apr 1945
Trinity test was in July 145

So I presume about the time of Potsdam late July 1945 that these plans were aborted because then the bomb was real. So if this is true in early 1945, the Soviets were planning WW3.

Do you find this credible?

 

[Saint_007]

I, for one, don't think this is credible. At this point, the USSR was a massive land juggernaut, but were running on fumes logistically and were highly dependent on Lend-Lease for food and logistical equipment (like trucks). And in WW3, they'd be fighting the USA, the selfsame provider of Lend-Lease. While they can ostensibly kick the Allies out of Europe, all they'd gain out of it is a devastated, broken Europe that would take decades to fix - and that was with the help of the Marshall program, which the USA will now be very reluctant to provide. How long will they have before the whole thing just grinds to a halt? Europe, and especially the USSR, needed a break, needed time to rebuild and recover.

Plus, the Soviets were counting on the WAllies just losing interest in Western Europe, which... didn't really happen. WW2 just meant the WAllies wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. I don't think they thought it would escalate if they invaded, which is why I'm glad they didn't try. Europe would have been even more of a mess than OTL.

 

[DougM]

Well if he tries before 46 or 47 he is going to have problems as the Wallies are still there in reasonable numbers and the US is still very much present with the occupation and has not disposed of all of its equipment back home yet so they can mobilize fast.
Yes the USSR can out man it but who is supplying them after the Wallies stop? After 4y or so trying this will result in them getting Nuked.
Before 45 the Wallies will stop supplying them, and let the USSR and Germany grind each other to bits. While the Wallies sit back in England building up power. Then once the USSR has managed to take all Europe but is running out of supplies the Wallies will invade a much weakened and spread out Europe and push them back. Meanwhile the US will turn Moscow and other various locations into craters.

So I just don’t see a moment when the USSR can pull this trick off. I don’t doubt that Stalin considered it. He was a complete paranoid maniac that was surrounded by people that would not give him bad news or disagree with him until they had no other option for fear of being killed by him so his grasp on reality was shaky at best. So he may very well try it. But it is not going to go well for him.

 

[bernardz]

I, for one, don't think this is credible. At this point, the USSR was a massive land juggernaut, but were running on fumes logistically and were highly dependent on Lend-Lease for food and logistical equipment (like trucks). And in WW3, they'd be fighting the USA, the selfsame provider of Lend-Lease. While they can ostensibly kick the Allies out of Europe, all they'd gain out of it is a devastated, broken Europe that would take decades to fix - and that was with the help of the Marshall program, which the USA will now be very reluctant to provide. How long will they have before the whole thing just grinds to a halt? Europe, and especially the USSR, needed a break, needed time to rebuild and recover.

Plus, the Soviets were counting on the WAllies just losing interest in Western Europe, which... didn't really happen. WW2 just meant the WAllies wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. I don't think they thought it would escalate if they invaded, which is why I'm glad they didn't try. Europe would have been even more of a mess than OTL.

Well if he tries before 46 or 47 he is going to have problems as the Wallies are still there in reasonable numbers and the US is still very much present with the occupation and has not disposed of all of its equipment back home yet so they can mobilize fast.
Yes the USSR can out man it but who is supplying them after the Wallies stop? After 4y or so trying this will result in them getting Nuked.
Before 45 the Wallies will stop supplying them, and let the USSR and Germany grind each other to bits. While the Wallies sit back in England building up power. Then once the USSR has managed to take all Europe but is running out of supplies the Wallies will invade a much weakened and spread out Europe and push them back. Meanwhile the US will turn Moscow and other various locations into craters.

So I just don’t see a moment when the USSR can pull this trick off. I don’t doubt that Stalin considered it. He was a complete paranoid maniac that was surrounded by people that would not give him bad news or disagree with him until they had no other option for fear of being killed by him so his grasp on reality was shaky at best. So he may very well try it. But it is not going to go well for him.

I agree with both your analysis and really if it had not been that it was presented to me by a historian of Antony Beevor statue, I would have ignored it. What I think might have happened is that almost certainly the Russians had a
contingency plan in case they did decide to go to war with the West and Stalin kept it open just in case. It just does not appear to me to be like Stalin to do such a risky plan. Such an attack could easily find Russia facing Britain, France, Germany, most of Eastern Europe that did not want Russian domination and the US against Russia.

Another point that confuses me is why does Beevor believe that Stalin thought that the atomic bomb was such a war-winning weapon. My understanding is that it was only after Japan was bombed that Stalin realised that it was much more than just a bigger bomb.

Interestingly the British also had such a contingency plan too Operation Unthinkable.

 

[sloreck]

If Stalin was to attack the US et al or send Soviet troops beyond agreed upon limits, in spite of "war weariness" in the US it would be seen as a betrayal on par with the Japanese attack on PH. During the war the USA had supplied the USSR with staggering amounts of all sorts of goods, and had dealt with all sorts of issues on cooperation - issues with the shuttle bombing program, failure to allow US/UK aircraft to supply Warsaw during the uprising and much more. To then turn around and attack using those self same supplies would really piss off the US population. OTL Stalin subjugated Eastern Europe in such a way over a couple of years keeping from crossing lines that would be too much, at least in places like Poland which were not Axis members.

Depending on a lot of factors, how far the Soviets would get militarily before things reversed is something for debate/discussion, and not relevant. Assuming they get to the Channel and the Pyrenees, they are still at war with the USA, UK/Commonwealth, and the governments in exile. This is a huge area for them to administer and "looting" these countries like Germany did 1940-1944/45 won't help as that which could be taken has been and unlike in 1940 these countries are shattered messes. Given this has been a "great betrayal" the USA is not going to simply say "fuck it let them have Europe". Medium term it would not end well for the USSR, and Stalin knew this.

 

[DougM]

Having a contingency plan and actually expecting to use it or using it are three different things, supposedly the US army has a zombie plan but I doubt they actually expect to use it.
And the US did have a plan to invade Brazil but never used it.
I am sure you have some planers sitting around dreaming up contingency plans all day long as part of thier job.
Add in that no one want to explain to Stalin why something was different then he thought and you get this. It is hard for most people to understand how much Stalin influenced what happened around him not on purpose but just because of his past actions.
Look up the time he called a radio station to get a recording of something they just played live on the air. Unfortunately it was NOT recorded, but no one dared tell Stalin this. So they got the orchestra and the singer back. Then had to find a conductor because the original had gotten drunk and then they had to fill the seats as an empty theater sounds different then a full one. And the did this very late in the evening after the original performance all so the could send a record to Stalin the next morning because no one dared tell him the truth. That it was not recorded. Note Stalin did not ask for it to be recorded or anything he just happened to listen to it and thought he would like a recording of it. So everyone involved jumped through hoops to get it for him.

I am sure that this kind of “yes men” mentality had a direct effect on what Stalin was told. And I am sure it involved all aspects of his country. So I would not be surprised if he was not exactly in possession of all the real facts.

Wasn’t it Stalin that ordered that crazy structure to be built for the Russian government but construction kept being delayed because no one truly could figure out how to build it? And this went on until he died?

 

[bernardz]

This is a huge area for them to administer and "looting" these countries like Germany did 1940-1944/45 won't help as that which could be taken has been and unlike in 1940 these countries are shattered messes. .

You can also add here that Russia was in an economic mess too.

American and British planes vs Russian tanks.

Having a contingency plan and actually expecting to use it or using it are three different things, supposedly the US army has a zombie plan but I doubt they actually expect to use it.
And the US did have a plan to invade Brazil but never used it.
I am sure you have some planers sitting around dreaming up contingency plans all day long as part of thier job.

Indeed. I would say if I was a Russian leader in 1944/45, the idea that the capitalist world would go to war against Russia is not far fetched.

Add in that no one want to explain to Stalin why something was different then he thought and you get this. It is hard for most people to understand how much Stalin influenced what happened around him not on purpose but just because of his past actions.
Look up the time he called a radio station to get a recording of something they just played live on the air. Unfortunately it was NOT recorded, but no one dared tell Stalin this. So they got the orchestra and the singer back. Then had to find a conductor because the original had gotten drunk and then they had to fill the seats as an empty theater sounds different then a full one. And the did this very late in the evening after the original performance all so the could send a record to Stalin the next morning because no one dared tell him the truth. That it was not recorded. Note Stalin did not ask for it to be recorded or anything he just happened to listen to it and thought he would like a recording of it. So everyone involved jumped through hoops to get it for him.

I am sure that this kind of “yes men” mentality had a direct effect on what Stalin was told. And I am sure it involved all aspects of his country. So I would not be surprised if he was not exactly in possession of all the real facts.

Wasn’t it Stalin that ordered that crazy structure to be built for the Russian government but construction kept being delayed because no one truly could figure out how to build it? And this went on until he died?

Despite all of this, Stalin appears to have remained logical in foreign policy to the end.

 

[ivanotter]

Actually, Churchill came up with Operation Unthinkable in 1945.

It was a sneak attack by US and UK forces on Russia. It was also supposed to enroll at least 200,000 former German soldiers.

Stalin was not crazy enough to wish for another war.

Brooke was not greatly enthusiastic about Unthinkable and that is where it died.

 

[sloreck]

IMHO the bottom line in a WWIII in 1945 scenario is that the USSR would make significant gains in the west initially, but be pushed back to the pre-1939 borders when things were finished. What happens politically inside Russia is up for grabs. The longer the fighting goes on, the more mushrooms sprout in the USSR. Details on how things would go depend on whether this is something that is an escalation or planned and exactly when it starts. While there was some level of preliminary planning for UNTHINKABLE the reality was that neither the UK nor the USA would have public support for an attack on the USSR that had haled along previously agreed demarcation lines (Europe and Asia). An attack by the USSR would, at least in the USA, generate another PH sort of reaction.

If the Soviets attacked before Japan had surrendered, IMHO you'd see preparations for OLYMPIC and CORONET put on the back burner, and a blockade plus air attack (reduced) strategy in place. Actions against Japanese forces in SEA might continue using existing forces with less support and urgency. Expect air and naval attacks on the Soviet Pacific coast, but once the Soviet Pacific Fleet has been relocated to the sea bottom this will be a relatively quiet area. Unless Turkey is involved the Black Sea is basically a non-event, and only in the Baltic is the Soviet Navy, supported by land based air, any threat. While convoys will still be in effect, the Soviet submarine force of 1945 will have little effect on trade.

Scenarios with the USSR going through Turkey or Iran to the Middle Eastern oil fields simply won't fly, they don't have the logistics to do that while fighting in the west. The terrain is bad, and once they get to flat areas they will be completely exposed to Allied air power. The alps (protecting Italy) and the Pyrenees (protecting Spain) will represent stop lines whether or not the Soviets like it.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

In his book "The second world war" by Antony Beevor who is I think an extremely credible and knowledgable historian on ww2 on p765, claims that Stalin in 1944 (date not specified) was seriously considering landing in Norway, an invasion of France and Italy.

What Stalin was thinking was America would soon abandon Europe, and their colonial problems would paralyse Britain and France, he would be able to move. Stalin's generals expected that with their 400 divisions it would take less than a month to grab these areas.

What aborted these plans was that Stalin heard that the US had an atom bomb and were putting it into mass production. Stalin told Beria, "that if Roosevelt had still been alive, we would have succeeded."

FDR died in Apr 1945
Trinity test was in July 145

So I presume about the time of Potsdam late July 1945 that these plans were aborted because then the bomb was real. So if this is true in early 1945, the Soviets were planning WW3.

Do you find this credible?

I think I remember reading this. If I recall correctly, Beevor claims the plan was to invade Western Europe in 1946, not ‘45, and it was predicated on the assumption the US would have completely disengaged from Europe (like it did after WW1) by then, making the conflict effectively a purely British vs Soviet one. I also recall that Beevor observed the Soviets only planned to have a 300 division force*, which indicates they'd have demobilized more then 200 division-equivalents. That said, Beevor is literally the only historian I have seen talk about this and nobody else, not even those who ratchet their anti-communist attitudes up to crank level and who you think would be the sort to screech this from the rooftops. The closest I've seen is one historian who commented that Stalin told a group of East German delegates in early-'46 that he expected the Americans to leave Europe completely and then he'd "undermine" the British, so it does seem to confirm the idea the Soviets expected a total US disengagement even if it doesn't verify the claim they intended to invade. Most unbiased historians who talk about Stalin's intentions in the mid/late-40s seem to agree that Stalin's stance was predicated on consolidating what he had already gained and any further gains he expected to get by playing brinksmanship games and not via outright invasion. Besides, if the US disengaged as completely as the Soviets seem to have expected them too in the '44-'46 period then they wouldn't need to invade to impose their hegemony on Europe. So at most, I suspect this was contingency planning rather then an actual intent to invade.

*Which is about what the Soviets expected to raise in the event of a war later on during the Cold War period in the event of war: 175 standing plus another 125 created post-mobilization.

 

[Marquis]

supposedly the US army has a zombie plan

Some of these 'plans' are probably less Plans than Strategic Thinking 101 Exercise for Dummy Staff Officers.

 

[bernardz]

Actually, Churchill came up with Operation Unthinkable in 1945.

It was a sneak attack by US and UK forces on Russia. It was also supposed to enroll at least 200,000 former German soldiers.

Stalin was not crazy enough to wish for another war.

Brooke was not greatly enthusiastic about Unthinkable and that is where it died.

I am not sure whether Churchill came up with it or whether he just sponsored it, but yes it died with the British military leaders.

The fact that Churchill asked for it, suggests to me that Stalin would be much more likely to ask for such a plan.

I think I remember reading this. If I recall correctly, Beevor claims the plan was to invade Western Europe in 1946, not ‘45, and it was predicated on the assumption the US would have completely disengaged from Europe (like it did after WW1) by then, making the conflict effectively a purely British vs Soviet one. I also recall that Beevor observed the Soviets only planned to have a 300 division force*, which indicates they'd have demobilized more then 200 division-equivalents. .

Here is what Beevor said about it

"
Harriman said, making conversation, 'to be in Berlin now after all your country has suffered.' The Soviet leader eyed him. 'Tsar Aleksandr went all the way to Paris,' he replied.

This was not entirely. a joke. Well before Churchill's fantasy of Unthinkable, a meeting of the Politburo in 1944 had decided to order the Stavka to plan for the invasion of France and Italy, as General Shtemenko later told Beria's son. The Red Army offensive was to be combined with a seizure of power by the local Communist Parties. In addition, Shtemenko explained, a landing in Norway was provided for, as well as the seizure of the Straits [with Denmark]. A substantial budget was allocated for the realisation of these plans. It was expected. that the Americans would abandon a Europe fallen into chaos, while Britain and France would be paralysed by their colonial problems. The Soviet Union possessed 400 experienced divisions, ready to bound forward like tigers. It was calculated that the whole operation would take no more than a month . . . All these plans were aborted when Stalin learned from [Beria] that the Americans had the atom bomb and were putting it into mass production. Stalin apparently told Beria 'that if Roosevelt had still been alive, we would have succeeded',
"

That said, Beevor is literally the only historian I have seen talk about this and nobody else, not even those who ratchet their anti-communist attitudes up to crank level and who you think would be the sort to screech this from the rooftops. The closest I've seen is one historian who commented that Stalin told a group of East German delegates in early-'46 that he expected the Americans to leave Europe completely and then he'd "undermine" the British, so it does seem to confirm the idea the Soviets expected a total US disengagement even if it doesn't verify the claim they intended to invade. Most unbiased historians who talk about Stalin's intentions in the mid/late-40s seem to agree that Stalin's stance was predicated on consolidating what he had already gained and any further gains he expected to get by playing brinksmanship games and not via outright invasion. Besides, if the US disengaged as completely as the Soviets seem to have expected them too in the '44-'46 period then they wouldn't need to invade to impose their hegemony on Europe. So at most, I suspect this was contingency planning rather then an actual intent to invade.

*Which is about what the Soviets expected to raise in the event of a war later on during the Cold War period in the event of war: 175 standing plus another 125 created post-mobilization.

I agree with this.

Some of these 'plans' are probably less Plans than Strategic Thinking 101 Exercise for Dummy Staff Officers.

Yes, it is often good practice to do these plans as it does often show the needs of the military.

 

[Tonrich]

This is an interesting idea. But I think the underlying supply/food issue would have been Stalin's main downfall. The USSR was relying on the US to feed it. All the men that were in those 500 divisions were not working the farms so had Stalin gone to war with the US and cut off the flow of food I think he would have been toppled soon. Plus if he got tangled in Europe it would potentially open the door for China in the east to take large sections of the eastern part of the USSR.

 

[ivanotter]

The military is supposed to have plans for any situation. Not surprised if Stavka had a plan for such a thing.

However, Stalin was not crazy and for USSR to do something like that in 1945 - to me - would be out of character.

However much we discard Unthinkable it was something that also went through the planning phases (before Brooke killed it off). The difference is the same.

The more interesting part of Unthinkable is that it also based itself on the enrollment of some 200,000 former German army troops. Why they would enroll for another war and cruise across the same battle field for a third time is beyond my imagination (1941 going there, 1944 coming back and third time lucky?).

How it was envisioned that Poland (as an example) would welcome the return of SS to now liberate them is also a mystery.

Insofar as Unthinkable got to a planning stage should indicate that somewhere somehow somebody must have taken it serious. Not just a snide remark by Churchill.

It was supposed to kick off in a June/July time frame, which obviously would have been great for USSR cooperation with US in terms of Japan.

It begs the question: who in the US military could have listened to Unthinkable and taken it as more than a joke?
Marshall would probably not have thought it funny
Bradley?
MacArthur?
Patton?
Le May?

Any other in the US who could have sponsored Unthinkable?

 

[sloreck]

As has been noted these were really staff exercises. For example the US military "color" plans in the interwar period existed for such things as a war between the US and the UK/Canada. These sat in filing cabinets gathering dust and did not have a lot of effort in keeping them updated but they were there. As long as Stalin more or less kept the agreements of Yalta and other conferences, there would be no support for an attack on the USSR in 1945/46. It took the subjugation of Eastern Europe, the Czech coup and finally the Berlin Blockade to bury the corpse of "Uncle Joe" and the Russian allies. Had the USSR attacked, with dead US & UK/Commonwealth soldiers that is another story. While Stalin did not need to worry about political support from "the people" in the same way, the USSR was war weary and a complete mess. He was smart enough to realize that the Japanese had counted on "the Americans are weak and will give up if kicked in the balls" for a strategy and that did not turn out well for them. The USSR simply could not win in 1945 had the USA and allies not simply given up right away.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

As has been noted these were really staff exercises.

Well, I'd say the first Unthinkable wasn't originally intended to be a staff exercise when Churchill ordered it drafted. This was discussed, but I'll note that doesn't mean he was seriously considering it's use either though. It really comes off as one of Churchill's more impulsive actions he'd take when he got emotional over a subject. The IGHQ seems to have leveraged that into a opportunity to conduct a staff exercise. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the second Unthinkable variant was a combined staff exercise and contingency plan. Even Churchill said as much when he directed it.

This is quibbling however and I'm otherwise largely in agreement with this post.

 

[bernardz]

As has been noted these were really staff exercises. For example the US military "color" plans in the interwar period existed for such things as a war between the US and the UK/Canada. These sat in filing cabinets gathering dust and did not have a lot of effort in keeping them updated but they were there. .

An interesting point is that the Canadians had a plan in that period if the US invaded. They were going to hold the line until the British could send in troops. The problem here was the British had no plans to send troops.

 

[bernardz]

It begs the question: who in the US military could have listened to Unthinkable and taken it as more than a joke?
Marshall would probably not have thought it funny
Bradley?
MacArthur?
Patton?
Le May?

Any other in the US who could have sponsored Unthinkable?

I suspect that MacArthur, Patton and Le May would be keen.

 

[DougM]

Well from a historical perspective no one could expect that the Cold War would play out the way it did. With the two super powers fighting a couple proxy wars and invading a couple small countries that got out of line but otherwise not going to war directly. Historically that is Preet unprecedented and in 1945/50 it would be logical to expect them to get into an real war sooner or later. As had happened pretty much every time in history when you had to relatively equal powers faceing each other.
And it is equally logical to assume that said war would be worse then WW2 as every major war typically was worse then the last war so no reason to expect otherwise
Add in that the USSR while an “ally” everyone knew that was basically a matter of convenience. The enemy of my enemy kind of thing. Not a friendly relationship like with England. So it is not surprising that both sides had put together plans for what to do if the relationship goes badly after the war ends.
Still that does not mean that either side had any plans to actually execute said plans.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I suspect that MacArthur, Patton and Le May would be keen.

Patton definitely. LeMay and MacArthur were much more opague about what they thought about the USSR in 1945, especially when compared to later on. I get the sense they didn't think much about it at all. LeMay was to the concerned with the current war to worry about the next one and MacArthur was, as usual, too self-absorbed.