When Winston Churchill learned in 1945 that the Americans were about to stop their march on Berlin and leave Nazi capital to the communists, he was furious. The US had made a commitment not to let post-war Europe be divided into areas of political influence. Now this was exactly what was happening. Situation was worsening by the day as Stalin's Red Army invaded the countries, making them satellites of Moscow, in spite of Yalta agreement, made only weeks earlier. Within days of Nazi Germany's collapse Churchill asked the military planners to examine ways to impose upon Russia the will of US and UK - with "the use of German manpower and what remains of German industrial capacity."

Operation unthinkable: How Churchill wanted to recruit defeated Nazi troops and drive Russia out of Eastern Europe | Mail Online

__________________

Amazing article, Ike. I get weak in the knees just pondering the scenario. Not so much the use of German troops, but the whole concept of waging war against the SU. Despite the losses incurred in WW2, I think the Russians would still have been formidable. Plus, the vast distances of the country would have made supply lines a disaster.

While Churchill's cavalier attitude toward the use of the atomic bomb is scary, at the time no one was really sure about the long term effects of such a weapon. While theoretically, a successful campaign against Russia would have completely altered world history, the risks of such a conflict were far greater. I'm not sure either the British or American populations would have been prepared for such a campaign. In any case, food for thought.

Thanks for sharing.

__________________
"Faint heart never won fair maiden", so I say "Go for it!"

Lou

I agree. In 45', Russia was geared for war. The only advantage I would say the West had was in air superiority. Ground forces were at best evenly matched.

__________________

But what about the Nazi troops? They were defeated and imprisoned by the Allies. Now the Allies say to them, "Go fight the SU to get them out of eastern Europe".

Right! I doubt that any German troops would really want to continue any fighting after serving on the Eastern Front and/or trying to stop the Alllies march across Europe. Not to mention the Allied troops all wanting to go home to the US, UK, or NZ or Australia or India, etc. "Join with these Nazis and march to Moscow"....I can imagine the resulting riots!

Churchill did see that the SU wasn't to be trusted earlier than most Westerns. America woke up briefly in the 50s about the communist threat (that turned out to be real despite the media's bleating about paranoia), but now we have a leader who endorses the SU's form of government.

__________________
__________________________________________

“The first lesson is that you can't lose a war if you have command of the air, and you can't win a war if you haven't.” - General Jimmy Doolittle

Churchill from the very beginning was worried about the division of Europe post WW2. Everything which occurred after the war Churchill had envisioned. It was also Churchill who wanted to launch an allied invasion from the East along with the Russian troops... Both Stalin and Roosevelt knew why he wanted this and Roosevelt shut him down.


I can only imagine what went through Churchill's head a decade after the war.



An interesting article PzJgr!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

General Patton was also a proponent of the "Let's invade Russia now" argument. Some think his mysterious death in a car crash was related to his inability to stop talking about the subject, very loudly and very publicly.

It took over 45 years (til 1989 and later) until eastern europe was finally free from Russian domination and occupation. So theoretically if you were a citizen of any of these eastern european countries, WW2 last until 1989 for you. If you were a Czech, Pole, Rumanian, Bulgarian, or Yugoslavian you were denied the benefits of allied victory, since your country simply traded Nazi German control and oppression for Soviet communist ditto.

The Soviets had paid extremely heavily in lives and resources during WW2
to defeat the Nazis (An estimated 20 million russian dead and much of the country destroyed), which had left them extremely paranoid about the West. Stalin and the party felt they were entitled to occupy eastern europe as a "buffer zone" against another attempt to conquer them, and proceeded to do just that. The fact that Churchill wanted to use allied forces to knock the Russians out of eastern europe indicates that he was certainly counting on American help to do it, since the British could not have dreamed of doing it alone.

The historical fact is, Roosevelt basically sold the eastern european countries down the river at Yalta, and in 1945 after Hitler was defeated Truman continued this policy since the alternatives were far worse. Churchill had a noble idea and it possibly could have been done but the question is, at what cost?

You only have to look at the equation: Millions of battle-hardened Red army soldiers and thousands of Russia's finest tanks, left behind for occupation of Stalin's stolen territories. Thousands of aircraft, much of them within striking distance of allied forces in Western Europe. Soviet supply by air and rail and all lines of communication in place and already turn key even if half-demobilized at the time. That is the army the western allies would have faced and it would have been a simple matter for Stalin to order them forward again - and the troops would have obeyed him.

Obviously the concept of nukes was brand new to the minds of the people who had authority to use them, and you have to wonder if Churchill had possessed one at that time would he actually have threatened to use it against the Soviets. Truman realized that the American public was already war weary and would not support another costly war against a country who only months earlier had been our ally.

Moreover the two nukes used in Japan to end the war in August 1945, plus the one test fired at los alimos earlier that year, were the only 3 the USA possessed at that time and it would take months or years to build another. And suppose the US and Britain had taken a hard line against Stalin and threatened to nuke Moscow or something if he did not pull out of Eastern Europe...what then?

Stalin had just defeated Hitler, and despite all evidence to the contrary (billions of dollars worth of lend lease) all through the whole war felt he had been short-changed by the allies and basically won the war on his own. For him the leap to viewing former ally as current enemy was instantaneous: so my question is what would have happened if Stalin had simply called their bluff, threatened to respond with a chemical attack in retaliation, or simply ordered an immediate assault by Soviet forces (any of which may have occured if the allies had pushed Stalin too hard about eastern Europe)?

I basically agree with everything you have said except "it would take months or years to build another". I've seen good evidence that weeks to months is a more actual timeline and the US could have "cranked 'em out" at that point. I'm sure Clint has posted evidence of this in the past and maybe I can find his post, or if I can find the time, get off my lazy butt and find supporting documentation!

Anyway, I agree that neither the US nor British populace would have had the will to continue war against their former ally, as you stated. George Marshall's "What The Soldier Thinks" series of surveys consistenty showed "Ivan" to be highly regarded among the US troops. In fact, the majority thought it as likely that the US would end up being in a war with GB as the SU! See "What Soldiers Think About Our Allies" (pdf page 6) http://www.marshallfoundation.org/pd...-thinks-15.pdf As you can see, most US soldiers thought another war would break out in the next 25 years and they were pretty evenly divided in their opinions of whether it would be England or Russia who would be to blame, though they do line up America or England against Russia as the most likely scenario. Seems a little contradictory but may just be indicative of the uncertainty that surrounded the times. As an aside, this whole series is a fascinating look into what was on the GI's minds.

Anyway, this West v. SU "what if" in the immediate aftermath of WWII has been discussed here before and I doubt it is worth re-hashing. I do believe if it occurred that nukes, chemicals and biologicals all would have eventually been employed. Maybe the Cold War wasn't such a bad alternative . . . I'm still sad about those who remained under the Soviet yoke for all of those decades and wish there could have been some way of sparing them that fate.

__________________

"I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did." - Gen. George S. Patton
"In 9 months and 3 days of combat on the Continent the 949th FA Bn had fired 51,000 rounds of ammunition, approimately 2,550 tons." - Unit History

[QUOTE=texson66;415495]
I doubt that any German troops would really want to continue any fighting after serving on the Eastern Front and/or trying to stop the Alllies march across Europe. QUOTE]

Hi Tex,
I on the contrary believe Churchill would have found many volunteers, especially those from the annexed regions who would have a possibilty to return to their Heimat if the Russians were driven back beyond the Brest-Littow border. I remember reading Rudel who wouldn't stop demanding more operations to stop the Russians and when he was out of amno he thought about ramming them with his Stuka out of despair. The German pows were weary , but on the the other hand they had nothing to loose , so I believe some would have joined the allied.

__________________

Skipper, I agree some of the Germans probably would have signed up, but not in the numbers needed.

__________________
__________________________________________

“The first lesson is that you can't lose a war if you have command of the air, and you can't win a war if you haven't.” - General Jimmy Doolittle

Here ya go "DocCasualty" In the NARA files General Groves' memos to General Marshall exist.

Leslie R. Groves' Memo to the
Chief of Staff (George C. Marshall)
30 July 1945
MEMORANDUM TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF

(a few paragraphs after Groves describes the successful Trinity test to Marshall)

3. There is a definite possibility, [sensitive information deleted] as we increase our rate of production at the Hanford Engineer Works, with the type of weapon tested that the blast will be smaller due to detonation in advance of the optimum time. But in any event, the explosion should be on the order of thousands of tons. The difficulty arises from an undesirable isotope which is created in greater quantity as the production rate increases.

4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have (already) arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by air-plane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four [more] bombs. One of these will be made from (U) 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring this up to full power. There should be either four or five bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November there should be at least five bombs [more], and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the (U) 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type.

5. By mid-October we could increase the number of bombs slightly by changing our design now to one using both materials in the same bomb. I have not made this change because of the ever present possibilities of difficulties in new designs. We could, if it were wise, change our plans and develop the combination bomb. But if this is to be done, it would entail an initial ten-day production setback which would be caught up in about a month's time; unless the decision to change were made before August 1st, in which case it would probably not entail any delay. From what I know of the world situation, it would seem wiser not to make this change until the effects of the present bomb are determined.

L.R. GROVES
Major General, U.S.A.
Source: Manhattan Engineer District -- Top Secret (de-classified), Manhattan Project File, Folder 4, Trinity Test, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

If we look at these it might extrapolate to these production estimates for bombs after August:


Sept. 3-4 bombs
Oct. 3-4 bombs
Nov. 5 bombs
Dec. 7 bombs


So it seems that 18-20 additional bombs could have been produced and dropped in 1945-46 beyond the Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the aforementioned third bomb whose core was sitting on Tinian Island using the new target list from the top of this post.(this is the assembled case on Tinian needed only its completed core to be shipped from Los Alamos)

Here is a timeline compiled from the NARA records:


July 16: At 5:29:45 a.m. The "Gadget" is detonated at Los Alamos in the first atomic explosion in history. The explosive yield is 20-22 kilotons (initially estimated at 18.9 kt), vaporizing the steel tower.


July 19: Oppenheimer suggest to Groves that the U-235 (target and projectile) from Little Boy be reworked into uranium/plutonium composite cores for making more implosion type bombs (4 implosion bombs could be made from Little Boy's core alone). Groves rejects the idea since it would delay combat use.


July 23: Secretary Stimson, in Potsdam, receives a new target list. In order of choice it is: Hiroshima, Kokura, and Niigata. He also receives an estimate of atomic bomb availability: The uranium gun-type "Little Boy" will be available for delivery on Aug. 1st. The second plutonium implosion-type "Fat Man" should be ready for use on Aug. 6th , and a third implosion-type might be ready between Aug.17/24th. Additionally, since the production plants were finally approaching reasonable efficiency, three more cores should be available in September. With more being produced each month, topping off, or reaching seven a month or more by December.


July 30; The nuclear components are inserted into "Little Boy", bomb unit number L11 on Tinian.


July 31; The assembly of "Little Boy" is completed. It is ready for use the next day with only it’s initiator needing to be inserted.


August 1; A typhoon approaching Japan prevents launching an attack with Little Boy. Several days are required for weather to clear.


August 2; "Fat Man" (implosion type) bomb cases F-31 and F-32 arrive on Tinian (two half cases/one bomb), and "Fat Man" assembly begins. Oppenheimer cables Groves with a shipping schedule, and Groves reports that the next plutonium core would be ready for shipment on August 12 or 13, with a bombing possible on August 17 or 18.


Aug.11; Oppenheimer believes that the third implosion case will arrive in the Pacific at this time (he missed by a day).


August 12; the un-named (implosion type) bomb cases F-33 and F-34 arrive on Tinian, but the next completed plutonium core that is to be placed in the un-named implosion type sitting on Tinian is recalled from shipment when it arrives in San Francisco and returned to Los Alamos the next day, and not used until the Bikini Island "Operation Crossroads" test. This core and case becomes the "Able" bomb which is air dropped in '46 a year later.

Aug.14; a fourth implosion case is completed, and this unit becomes "Baker" in the Bikini "Crossroads" tests of ‘46 when it is exploded underwater.

But, the fact is that production of both U-235 and Plutonium isotopes was curtailed after the collapse and surrender of the Japanese Empire, however if (giant IF) Imperial Japan had remained an enemy force, even those numbers would and could have been increased. Both Hanford and Oak Ridge were just "hitting their stride" in production when they were slowed up so much that actually there were only nine atomics constructed in the whole coming year. The western allies had access to millions of tons of U-238 in the Canadian Bear Lake mines, the Colorado Plateau, and the best source of high-grade ore in the world; the Belgian Congo. And, the western allies had perfected the "purification/enrichment" processes necessary for producing fissionable material of weapons grade.

Now even though the production of atomics had been curtailed after the Japanese surrendered, there were NINE atomics remaining stockpile by the date of the Crossroads tests of 1946 (when those two left-overs from 1945 were used), and over 100 in reserve by the time the Soviets exploded their first in 1949.

There were even four un-used "gun-type" (Little Boy) uranium bombs which had been built by late 1945, but were dismantled in 1949; and used in the new Mk-4 mass produced and variable yield composite design. This Mk-4 was the design rejected by Groves before the first atomics were dropped, the delay in producing them would or may have extended the length of the war.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Thanks, Clint. I knew I had read this before, and I was sure you could dig it up more quickly than I.

I just can't imagine that large numbers of German soldiers would have volunteered to head back east. I also agree that nukes would have been used, and who knows what the results of that would have been. While Churchill was correct to be worried about a divided Europe, I don't think the Americans or the British had the stomach for continued warfare.

Churchill's opinions are very clear, both in regard to his fear of Soviet domination and the use of nuclear weapons in his "Iron Curtain" speech at Westminster College in 1946. It's worth the time to re=read the speech.

Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech in its Entirety

__________________
"Faint heart never won fair maiden", so I say "Go for it!"

Lou

Risky business Winston! It is probably a good thing the world did not get to find out what a "Patton moves East" scenario would have looked like. People at the time did not have much idea how really dangerous the A bomb was-in fact there was talk of a bombing the Japanese beaches and sending our troops through the devastation. As late as the Korean War MacArthur proposed nuking Chinese troop concentrations-bad idea Doug!
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

Too true Lou, what was "not known" about the radiation of the atomics at the time is frightning. It wasn't until after a few years of observation that we (America) even started connecting the dots, and seeing they all lead back to the atomics.

But, it would have taken an OVERT action of aggression on the part of Stalin to bring the western allies into another war. We were tired of war, Stalin was tired of war, everybody was tired of war. Except for that hot-head Patton whose only death-wish was to; "die from the last bullet, fired from the last enemy, on the last battlefield." (paraphrasing). Even Stalin had his hot-heads to deal with and he rapidly discouraged them of the idea of continuing on to the English Channel.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Would Moscow or Leningrad be "NUKED" if the Stalin placed all of the Allied POW's in those cities?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Which allied POWs was he holding in this time frame? He had returned the aircrews of the impounded B-29 Superfortress units which had force landed in the USSR. The ones he copied for the Tu-4, remember? I was unaware of Stalin holding any allied POWs at the time.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

None at the time. But had war broken out as Churchill or Patton wanted im sure some would be available....

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Good question. Who knows? This all is a rather fantastic "what if" and I don't think any of us can have anything more than an opinion. I don't know what facts you could use to support any of this.

It is my opinion that were this to have occured it would have been a "no holds barred" bloodbath, which is saying quite a bit considering what had already occured. Everyone was tired of war and would have looked to what they thought was the quickest way to end it. If the West struck first, I think Stalin would have used chemicals as now he truly was alone and survival would have been his only hope. If Stalin struck first, what compunction would the US have to not use nukes? Even POWs would have likely been seen as collateral damage in this scenario.

__________________

"I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did." - Gen. George S. Patton
"In 9 months and 3 days of combat on the Continent the 949th FA Bn had fired 51,000 rounds of ammunition, approimately 2,550 tons." - Unit History

More "allied" pows than you think..... one instance De Gaulle only got the release of ten thousands of Alsatians and Lorrainians . As a matter of coincidence 1949 is the very same year Moscow got the bobmb and did no longe rnedd human shields.....


Who knows about the particular fate of Alsace and Moselle during WWII? Even most of french citizen do not know about the "Malgré-Nous", and are sometimes surprised about the strange sensibilty of Alsacians an Mosellans regarding these terrible years.
1940 : France is occupied by Germany. Alsace and Moselle are annexed to the Reich, and, once again, the inhabitants of these areas become german. The Reich and its conquests need more and more soldiers; soon, the young Alsacians and Mosellans are enlisted by force in the Wehrmacht, and are forced the wear the feldgrau uniform. They will be over 130.000, most of them being sent to the eastfront. 20.000 of them will be killed in action, 20.000 more will be reported as missing in action. From 1942 to 1945, 40.000 of them will be captured and sent to POW camps all over Russia. The last ones will not return home until 1955.
Enlisted in 1943, my father will be captured in June 1944 during the biggest battle of WWII, the Bagration operation, which will be the biggest disaster of the war for the german Army, with the total collapse of Army Group Center. The Soviets organize a huge parade of 57.000 prisoners through the streets of Moscow. My father is then sent to the camp of Cerepovec, where he escapes to death. Sent to the camp of Leningrad end of 1946, he will remain prisoner until May 1949.
These TEN YEARS OF A LIFE have left indelible marks on my father. Even if his profile was somehow different of most of the forcibly enlisted people, I wanted to write these pages to prevent his story and the story of thousands of his comrades to be forgotten.
Beside the story of my father, these pages contain numerous information about the forcible conscription of "Elsass-Lothringer", those now called the "Malgré-Nous": against our will.
Malgré-Nous alsacien et lorrain en Russie, incorporé de force: 1939-1949

If there is interest I will open a special thread to relate their ordeal.

__________________

Not having ANY sympathy for Roosevelt,but your statement that Roosevelt sold Eastern Europe at Yalta is totally wrong :in february 1945 Eastern Europe was already occupied by the Russians . It was a accomplished fact . The only thing Roosevelt could do was to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Russia,and that was .....an illusion . That Roosevelt probably did not care about the people of Eastern Europe(except for the votes of the Polish-Americans )is another thing .

Also totally wrong is this; "Moreover the two nukes used in Japan to end the war in August 1945, plus the one test fired at los alimos earlier that year, were the only 3 the USA possessed at that time and it would take months or years to build another. And suppose the US and Britain had taken a hard line against Stalin and threatened to nuke Moscow or something if he did not pull out of Eastern Europe...what then?"

After the successful Alamagordo test of the "gadget" in 1945, General Groves had informed General Marshall that between 18 and 20 bombs could be produced at the present speed before the end of 1945, if needed. Groves was never a man to overestimate his ability to produce and deliver.

The two plants, Oak Ridge, and Hanford had just hit their stride, and were only shut down when Japan surrendered. Four remaining "gun-type" uranium bombs were already built, lacking only their cores which were produced on a peace-time production level before the end of 1946.

Even at peace-time production America had 9 atomic bombs in stockpile after the two were used at the Bikini "Crossroads" tests in August of 1946. By the time the Soviet Union exploded their first atomic implosion type bomb (Joe One) in 1949, America had over 150 atomic bombs (Mk I, Mk III, and MkIVs) in stockpile and had used another 20 or so in tests.

It wasn't that they couldn't be produced, it was our (America's) choice to put the production on the back burner until a NEED for them began to appear.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

It is a viable theory that had the Allies used a nuclear weapon on them that he would have dropped Poison gas all over Europe's western Capitals. Even though the Allies had better planes, the Soviet Air Force was still huge.

__________________
-Dustin

"Zey send zer hounds! zey to vill find only death!"

Did the Allies have a bomber capable of reaching Moscow and RETURNING ?And what about air cover by fighters ? Probably the whole issue (nuking Moscow ) being no more than a wet dream of Churchill .

Doolitle never let that get in his way.. If you were to ask any cold war Vulcan or b52 crew then they would not think much of their ability to make it home and still they would go.

The B-29 could easily reach Moscow from the British Isles, or Egypt both of which were in allied hands, or even from New Delhi India if needed. All well within its operational range.

As to fighter cover, the VVS would be hard pressed to reach the height at which the B-29 Silverplates would drop their atomics, over 35,000 feet. During the war years themselves they received about 90%+ of their avgas from the USA, that wouldn't be there to use in this case. If needed these P-82 twin Mustangs would have filled the bill nicely I suspect, and wouldn't have been canceled after only 20 were built.

The first production model was the P-82B (Model NA-123), with a pair of Packard Merlin V-1560-19/21 engines. Five hundred production P-82Bs were ordered by the USAAF. These P-82Bs were basically similar to the XP-82, but differed in having provisions for underwing racks capable of carrying four 1000-pound bombs, two 2000-pound bombs, or 25 5-inch rockets. A central pod carrying eight additional 0.50-inch machine guns could also be fitted.

The P-82B was one of the hottest piston-engined fighters of the war. Maximum speed was 482 mph at 25,100 feet. Normal range was 1390 miles at 227 mph, 1280 miles with a 4000-pound bomb load. Service ceiling was 41,600 feet, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 7 minutes. Weights were 13,405 pounds empty, 19,100 pounds normal loaded, and 22,000 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 51 feet 3 inches, length 38 feet 1 inches, height 13 feet 10 inches, and wing area of 408 square feet.

Only twenty of these P-82Bs had been built by the time of V-J Day (serials were 44-65160/65179). None of these planes managed to get overseas before the end of the war. The end of the war against Japan resulted in the cancellation of the remaining 480 of these P-82Bs.
On February 28, 1947, P-82B serial number 44-65168 piloted by Robert E. Thacker and his copilot John M. Ard flew nonstop without refueling from Hickam Field, Hawaii to LaGuardia Airport, New York, covering a distance of 4968 miles in 14 hours 31 minutes 50 seconds for an average speed of 342 mph. This airplane, named *Betty Joe* after Thacker's wife, carried four external fuel tanks under the wings for this flight. This was the longest unrefuelled flight ever carried out by a piston-engined fighter. The record still stands.

See:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p82_3.html

It would still have taken an aggressive move by the USSR and Stalin for that to come to the fore, and that wasn't going to happen, and Patton wasn't being listened to (thank goodness). This is a non-starter under any circumstances, everybody was tired of war, and just wanted to get their men home, and start a "non-war" life style up again.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

the only problem i can see with that is the captured german troops might turn on the allies in battle and that they defect back to the nazis...
...unless they would be brainwashed....