Military Review

Operation Unthinkable - Should Britain attack the USSR on 1 on July 1945?

109
Operation Unthinkable - Was Britain supposed to attack the USSR on July 1, 1945?


It is generally accepted that the Cold War began on March 5 of 1946. It was on this day that President Winston Churchill delivered the famous speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, at the suggestion of US President Truman, in which he “justified” the thesis about the threat of another general war and “tyranny” from the USSR. At the same time, he scared the listeners with the disasters coming from the East and the inevitable “iron curtain” allegedly lowered by the Soviets to Europe.
He borrowed the term from Goebbels’s editorial in Das Reich (25.02.1945).

However, friction between the allies (already allies, the events before the signing of the London Union treaty by Molotov and Eden) would not start immediately after signing: regarding the timing of the opening of the second front and the place of its opening, and then after the Tehran conference 1943-go. spheres of influence.

The Yalta 1945 conference seemed to end to the delight of all parties. While leaving Crimea 14 in February 1945, W. Churchill spoke in front of the microphone of the newsreel:
"We pray that the Russian people will never again be subjected to the ordeal of which he came out with such glory."

But whether his memory failed (the memory of Churchill, who quoted whole chapters), or maybe the prayer did not reach where it should be. Soon these words were forgotten.

"Japan was not yet defeated. The atomic bomb was not yet born. The world was in turmoil. The basis of communication — the common danger that united the great allies — disappeared instantly. In my eyes, the Soviet threat has already replaced the Nazi enemy."
(Churchill W. Decree. Op. M., 1955. T. 6. C. 538.)


No one had heard of the cold war, the allies celebrated victory, they were looking for Nazi criminals all over Europe,
The world celebrated the world.

But Kennan, a counselor at the US embassy in Moscow, seeing how Muscovites celebrated 9 Victory Day on May 1945 in front of the American embassy, ​​declared: "They are jubilant ... They think the war is over. But the real war is just beginning."

Probably the same reason, and W. Churchill. Already on 22 in May 1945, the British Prime Minister, who, several days after Germany surrendered, ordered to prepare plans for an attack on Russia “for its destruction”, was given a report on the 29 pages, codenamed “Operation Incredible”.



What was more here: fear of Russians and Stalin? Or is the treachery of England and the Anglo-Saxons?

Argue about it still, no answer. As there is no answer to the questions:
- against whom the English instructors in April 45-th trained not disbanded divisions of the Germans, who surrendered to them as a prisoner.
-why Dresden was destroyed in February 1945 with inhuman cruelty.

I will not give here the full text of the plan in English (you can read it on http://web.archive.org/web/20101116152301/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/) and one of his translations (our side) into Russian (you can read it here:https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Udv-CFbRIU7snxpdvPvzQsD-iKUvJSCsy8POakGHVZM)

It is likely that the Americans about the "Unthinkable", apparently, did not know (at that time, of course).
America (and Truman) had their own thoughts on this: they were preparing for the atomic bombing of the USSR, since the atomic bomb was already ready.

There are several points of view:

1. The translation from English to Russian is not quite correct.
The Daily Telegraph "To decide it’s true
What means in translation: "This is for the Russians to decide. If they want total war, then they are able to wage it ..." ”
In the Russian version of the Plan "Unthinkable" you can meet the following phrase: "If they (Russians) want total war, then they will receive it."

ALMOST, as during the celebration of the 24 ANNIVERSARY of the GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, a report at the ceremonial meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Workers ’Deputies with Party and Public Organizations of Moscow 6 November 1941:
"German invaders want to have a war of extermination with the peoples of the USSR.
Well, if the Germans want to have a war of extermination, they will receive it. "(Stormy, prolonged applause.)"

2. Churchill's fear that the USSR would not stop in its area of ​​responsibility.
"Churchill feared that after the day of victory in Europe 8 in May, Soviet troops could continue to move to the West and threaten England. Churchill believed that the offensive against the Soviet Union would then be the only possible solution, and it would be necessary to take it before the Americans move their forces on the Pacific theater. And he ordered his headquarters to "think about the unthinkable" and develop a draft plan. "

He perfectly remembered (and often quoted) Stalin's words:
"When departing from us, comrade Lenin has commanded us to strengthen and expand our forces in the Republic of Germany. We swear to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will fulfill with honor and this our commandment! our Red Fleet! ... Lenin never looked at the Republic of Soviets as an end in itself. He always regarded it as a necessary link to strengthen the revolutionary movement in the countries of the West and the East ... "

Did the Soviet leadership have plans at the time to advance to the shores of the Atlantic and to seize the British Isles?
Unlikely. Confirmation can serve as a law adopted by the USSR on June 23, 1945 on the demobilization of the army and fleet, their consecutive transfer to the states of peacetime. Demobilization began on July 5, 1945 and ended in 1948. The army and navy were reduced from 11 million to less than 3 million people, the State Defense Committee and the Supreme High Command Headquarters were abolished. The number of military districts in 1945–1946 decreased from 33 to 21. Significantly reduced the number of troops in East Germany, Poland and Romania. In September 1945, Soviet troops were withdrawn from northern Norway, in November from Czechoslovakia, in April 1946 from the island of Bornholm (Denmark), and in December 1947 from Bulgaria.

3. Allies' failure to fulfill their obligations (and the USSR) is the same.
Everyone knows about the "unscheduled visits" by our allies to the territories that were part of the Soviet zone of occupation.
Tactics: a quick offensive (as long as there are no units of the Soviet Army), the collection of technological equipment, finished products, drawings and specialists and a rapid retreat to "their place."
There were such "attacks" and we (Austria, for example). The USSR also, in violation of agreements, "provoked" allies, namely:
- did not withdraw its troops from the territory of another state and did not clearly explain why and when it will happen. Or will it never happen?
-increased power on the borders with Iran, hanging over it from the north.
-At a certain moment, Soviet troops in Iran not only began to stand still, but Soviet tank the columns began moving towards the borders with Turkey and Iraq, as well as to Tehran.

The Third World War was supposed to start on July 1, 1945, with a sudden strike by the Anglo-Saxon combined forces against the Soviet troops ...

At that time, the combined forces of Great Britain and the USA had a significant numerical superiority over the Soviet Union in technology: the presence of 167 aircraft-carrying ships and 7700 carrier-based aircraft (the USSR did not have them at all), double superiority of submarines, nine times that of battleships and large cruisers, 19 times more destroyers, as well as 4 strategic air forces aviationwhich included bombers with a flight range of 7300 km (the radius of the Soviet aircraft on average did not exceed 1500-2000 km). "The Allies2 exceeded us in organizing the supply, in the industrial potential of the occupied territories, in the industrial potential of the United States and England, but lost in numbers the composition and combat effectiveness of the personnel of the SA (it must be admitted that the 1945 USSR soldier was practically invincible, provided that there was a sufficient MT supply).


A drawback for the USSR would also be the cessation of lend-lease supplies and the fact that the dominant superiority of the forces of the United States and England at sea would not allow the Soviet Navy to cut off the Atlantic (which Hitler could not do with Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe).
Note - the main allied supplies to the USSR: motor transport and high-octane aviation gasoline, locomotives, explosive materials, rubber, copper, magnesium oxide and some ferroalloys. [/ Size]


The third world war was supposed to start 1 on July 1945, with an unexpected attack by 47 British and American divisions. In the battles against the USSR, it was planned to use up to 100 thousands of aspiring Nazis, who were supposed to support the half-million British-American group attacking through North Germany.
As the authors of this plan had expected, in response, Stalin would intervene in Turkey, Greece and Norway, seize oil fields in Iran and Iraq, and also undertake subversive operations in France and southern Europe. At the same time, the authors expressed fears that the Anglo-American invasion might have no more chances of success than the Hitlerite plan Barbarossa. In any case, to achieve the results of the Germans in the 1942 year, they did not expect. But it stopped them more.

Did Moscow know about the British plans for a war against the USSR? With high probability, yes.
Soviet intelligence in England was one of the most effective.
A prominent expert on this period, a professor at Edinburgh University D. Erickson wrote that Churchill’s plan helps explain “why Marshal Zhukov suddenly decided to regroup his forces in June 1945, received an order from Moscow to strengthen the defense and examine in detail the disposition of the Western allies”.
The Red Army unexpectedly changed its deployment. This somewhat cooled the hot heads of the Allies and forced them to delay the attack on the USSR.
Later, the plan had to be abandoned altogether - in July, 1945, Churchill was defeated in the elections and resigned as prime minister.
Churchill’s course of confrontation with the USSR was undoubtedly one of the reasons for the conservative party’s loss of the parliamentary majority in the 1945 election of the year and Churchill’s loss of the post of prime minister.
According to public opinion polls, in 1945, about 70 percent of the British were friendly towards the USSR.

Realizing the mistake of 7 on November 1945 of the year, on the anniversary of the October Revolution, Churchill delivered a speech in the House of Commons and where he gave Stalin his unbridled praise:
"I personally can not feel anything other than the greatest admiration for this truly great man, the father of his country, ruling the fate of his country in times of peace and its victorious protector during the war." Two days later, this speech appeared on the pages of Pravda.
Stalin, who rested in the Caucasus, responded immediately:
“I consider it a mistake to publish Churchill’s speech about praising Russia and Stalin,” he said in the latest “Letter from the South” to the Quartet left on the farm (Molotov, Malenkov, Beria and Mikoyan).
“Churchill needs all this to calm his unclean conscience and disguise his hostility towards the USSR."



Churchill was not a very simple person: cunning, calculating, Pharisee and schemer, he had a phenomenal gift to confuse others and his own. But it cannot be denied that this was a patriot of his homeland, a brave man who was not afraid to take on enormous responsibility at the most difficult time, he rallied the nation, allowed her to perk, after the strongest defeats and at the same time was respectful to his opponents.
When the Soviet Union launched a campaign to expose the cult of the personality of Stalin himself, Churchill himself, this campaign deeply jarred on.
Having survived his military associate in the “Big Three” for twelve years, until the end of his life he did not agree with diminishing his role in the victory over fascism.

Other unfulfilled plans (some) former allies:
Returning to the cruiser "Augusta" from the Potsdam Conference in the United States, Truman gives Eisenhower the order: to prepare a plan for waging a nuclear war against the USSR.

The United States at the end of 40-x - the beginning of 1950-x according to the plans of “Hafmun”, “Fleetwood” and “Doublestar” was planned to launch a series of nuclear strikes on major cities and strategic enterprises of the USSR.
So, during the operation “Doublestar” it was planned to drop around the 120 atomic bombs on the USSR.

According to American historians, Eisenhower had orders on a preemptive strike on the USSR twice on the table. According to their laws, the order comes into force if it was signed by all three chiefs of staff - naval, air and land forces. Two signatures were, the third was missing. And only because the victory over the USSR, according to their calculations, was achieved if in the first 30 minutes the 65 million population of the country would be destroyed. The chief of staff of the land forces understood that he would not provide this.

In 1955, at the initiative of the British Admiralty, an operation will begin under the code name “Kadzhel” (“Dubina”).
According to “Dubin”, the United Kingdom planned to launch a series of nuclear strikes on the territory of the USSR in 1959 year. Among the priorities were the port cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. The explosions were supposed to be carried out with the help of a timed fuse, and the bombs themselves should be delivered “to the objects” with the help of the latest weapons At that time - fiberglass mini-submarines.


Sources:
Respublika newspaper, Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, No.17 (4440), 29.01.2008
Daily Telegraph (October 1 1998)
Executive Intelligence Review (October 1998)
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta", №3854, 2005
http://www.coldwar.ru
magazine "New and Newest история"(1999, #3)

Photos used:
http://web.archive.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/
http://ww2history.ru
http://www.ammonitepress.com
http://image.otdihinfo.ru
Churchill about Stalin:


Operation Unthinkable


Russia Wins
Author:
109 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Orik
    Orik 10 September 2012 08: 37
    +31
    Churchill wanted to attack, but could not. This explains everything "... I must admit that the soldier of the USSR in 1945 was practically invincible ..."!
    1. Cesar_Xnumx
      Cesar_Xnumx 10 September 2012 10: 34
      +8
      Considering what kind of British "soldiers", their fifth point would have shrunk faster than the Germans occupied the demilitarized Rhineland.
      1. borisst64
        borisst64 10 September 2012 10: 52
        +5
        Do not forget about the psychological moment, it’s not easy to shoot yesterday’s ally with whom he hugged after the fight and drank vodka and whiskey at the same table. It takes a couple of years of propaganda and brainwashing about the Soviet threat.
        1. подводник
          подводник 10 September 2012 11: 28
          +5
          boriss64
          What is the psychological moment?
          These were soldiers of the invincible and legendary Soviet Army, and not the young ladies from the Institute of Noble Maidens.
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 10 September 2012 12: 34
            +12
            Quote: submariner
            boriss64
            What is the psychological moment?
            These were soldiers of the invincible and legendary Soviet Army, and not the young ladies from the Institute of Noble Maidens.

            So in my opinion he meant the allied soldiers, not ours. It should have been psychologically difficult for THEM to repeat the "feat" of the Wehrmacht in the 1945 variation. After all, just imagine that for 4 years the whole world was only talking about the heroic struggle of the Soviet people against the brown plague of the 20th century. And you realize them as your brothers in arms, in May-June 45 you hug with them, drink vodka / whiskey, rejoice at the COMMON VICTORY, and one fine evening they say to you: "listen Johnny, the Russians turned out to be not so good at all guys, they are evil radishes and tomorrow at 4 in the morning we will kill them a little. " IMHO, I think that at least in the American army (it's easier for the British, they don't like Russians for a bunch of years) there would be a lot of honest guys who would just twist their fingers at their temples after hearing such an order. Moreover, if they, these same brave American guys, were told at the same time, "Johnny, do you remember that SS man whom you took prisoner? Well, did you still hang a shiny thing on your chest? Well, who in France killed several civilians and two Remembered? So, it is with him that you will fight against the Russians. "
            Oh, I would like to look at this scene, or rather, with what words the ranger will express his personal attitude to this order in general, and to its compiler in particular.
        2. Dovmont
          Dovmont 10 September 2012 20: 09
          +1
          nor what - our pilots shot them down on the contact line in the 45th, and no psychological moments at the same time interfered with them.
          1. Yan005
            Yan005 10 September 2012 20: 51
            +2
            Quote: Dovmont
            nothing - our pilots shot down

            and ours shot them down the same.
            and at the far, they forcedly planted.
            but these are mistakes in a war, not intentionally!
      2. vov4ik
        vov4ik 10 September 2012 22: 19
        +3
        Victory Parade of the Allied Forces in Berlin on September 7, 1945, dedicated to the end of World War II. A convoy of 52 Soviet heavy IS-3 tanks from the 2nd Guards Tank Army passes along the Charlottenburg Highway.

        In addition to Soviet troops, the American, British and French troops stationed in Berlin to secure the occupation of Germany took part in the Victory Parade on September 7, 1945. Marshal G.K. Zhukov.
      3. Click-Klyak
        Click-Klyak 11 September 2012 13: 34
        -3
        Quote: Cesar_001
        Considering which Englishmen are "soldiers"

        And which ones?
        What kind of expert has appeared?
        The Germans praised the British soldiers.
        I'm not talking about pilots and sailors.
        1. segamegament
          segamegament 11 September 2012 15: 13
          +3
          the fact of the matter is that none.
          1. When did the little shavers win at least one war with their own hands, and an expert?
          2.And Soviet soldiers were rated mediocre? So the Germans were in Moscow or the Russians in Berlin? Or maybe from Dunkirk "other" highly moral and highly regarded small-shavens skedaddle? Boers and the war with them here is the maximum level of small shaven ...
          3. And what about them? Pilots flying on another's aircraft or sailors crap in 1982 on the Falkland Islands? Which of them can we talk about?
        2. Cesar_Xnumx
          Cesar_Xnumx 11 September 2012 16: 47
          +3
          Are you the smartest? Well tell me, haven't the British been draping off the dunkirk so that the heels are sparkling?
          1. Click-Klyak
            Click-Klyak 11 September 2012 20: 57
            -2
            They managed to escape. Unlike ours. How many of them disappeared in the boilers?
            1. DIMS
              DIMS 11 September 2012 21: 07
              +6
              Many did not have time. Well, about 40 thousand French people had to be left there, what the hell are the allies, when it is necessary to escape.
              1. Taratut
                Taratut 12 September 2012 09: 10
                -1
                Well, what's the matter?
                In such a situation, the army must be saved. How did the same Kutuzov.
                By the way, the British on all kinds of ships and boats sailed through the English Channel and rescued the soldiers.
                It would be for our citizens to save the soldiers when retreating in their cars. However, what am I talking about. Thanks to Comrade Stalin, they were slaves and carried their property with them.
                The German soldiers were genuinely amazed at our villages - is it really possible to SO live in Europe in the 20th century.
    2. ImpKonstantin
      ImpKonstantin 10 September 2012 11: 01
      +9
      Personally, I don’t think that Churchill dreamed of an attack on the USSR. All the same, the plan was rather "emergency" and was developed in case the Soviet Union decides to expand its zone of influence (not necessarily by military means). Also, do not forget that there was a positive attitude towards the people of the USSR all over the world, which completely entailed the spread of pro-Soviet and pro-communist sentiments, which in turn endangered the powers that be in the West (these include Wall Street tycoons). And thirdly, the direct benefit from such an operation was only for the military industrialists and the Fed.
      1. подводник
        подводник 10 September 2012 11: 36
        +2
        ImpKonstantin
        I agree with you that the so-called plan of Operation Unthinkable was nevertheless more like a suicide plan, although I had to find in various sources the "ardent desire" of the American General Patton to reach Stalingrad on the "Shermans", and they could not do something Germans....
        Zadornov all the same said golden words: "What are they stupid ..."
    3. vov4ik
      vov4ik 10 September 2012 22: 13
      +1
      From left to right in the photo: Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov (1896-1974), British Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery (1887-1976), Army General Vasily Danilovich Sokolovsky (1897-1968), Marshal of the Soviet Union Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokos 1896 —1968), Colonel General Mikhail Sergeyevich Malinin (1899-1960) walk the streets of Berlin after awarding the Soviet military leaders with British awards. G.K. Zhukov - Honorary Knight of the Great Cross of the Order of the Bath, K.K. Rokossovsky - Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, V.D. Sokolovsky and M.S. Malinin - Cavalier of the Order of the British Empire (military).
      1. ded
        ded 10 September 2012 23: 49
        +2
        K.K. Rokossovsky - Honorary Knight Commander of the Order Bathroom


        Well, such an order can be awarded to every Russian person right at birth!
    4. Isr
      Isr 10 September 2012 22: 47
      -20
      It remains a mystery to me why, at the end of the war, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, and not on the USSR. Germany was already incredibly weak, Japan was under siege and would not last long, the USSR was in complete ruin, there were almost no men left, there was such a chance to end Hitler and Stalin at one moment. There would be no communist China, there would be no crazy Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, a headache from Sev. Korea, communist Vietnam, cold war. The world would be completely different. Hope to be better.
      1. axmed05
        axmed05 10 September 2012 23: 14
        +6
        Quote: Isr
        It remains a mystery to me why, at the end of the war, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, and not on the USSR. Germany was already incredibly weak, Japan was under siege and would not last long, the USSR was in complete ruin, there were almost no men left, there was such a chance to end Hitler and Stalin at one moment. There would be no communist China, there would be no crazy Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, a headache from Sev. Korea, communist Vietnam, cold war. The world would be completely different. Hope to be better.
        The answer is simple: God is (the creator of all things and even the creator of good and evil), and for evil (west) to exist, good (east) must exist.
        1. orfo
          orfo 11 September 2012 04: 09
          +6
          maybe it would be stupid to explain this?
          Isr and still wonder why you are not loved, it would be nice to everyone except us ...
        2. Insurgent
          Insurgent 11 September 2012 19: 17
          +4
          Well, the United States had a maximum of 2 bombs before Moscow, they would have killed the air defense system, but in the meantime, the USSR troops would have reached the manhattan
        3. gribnik777
          gribnik777 11 September 2012 21: 05
          -1
          Quote: axmed05
          creator of all things and yes creator of good and evil


          The creator of evil is Lucifer (the devil).
          1. axmed05
            axmed05 11 September 2012 22: 11
            +1
            Quote: gribnik777
            The creator of evil is Lucifer (the devil).
            And who created the devil?
      2. Yazov
        Yazov 10 September 2012 23: 32
        +3
        Jews, too, probably would not remain. Both Soviet and European. .....
        Maybe the tribes in Africa would live better ...
      3. подводник
        подводник 11 September 2012 06: 53
        +8
        Well, your brain went to the pace .........
        On August 6, 1945, at the time of the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons, Germany was not "incredibly weak" as you write, it practically did not exist since it was occupied ...
        "there are almost no men left" .... I will not reveal to you the secret that did not give rest to the defeated Wehrmacht, where do the countless Russian divisions come from? But one thing I can say - everyone who wants to "bomb a little" us - we have a lot of land , come, we'll bury everyone ...
        As for the "other" world, I think in six months or a year, when Iran finishes its nuclear weapons development, you will have a full chance to experience and taste the "new" world ...
      4. Border k
        Border k 11 September 2012 10: 57
        +2
        Mnu is also antiresno, why did you protect Hebrews from the Germans, strange, don’t you?
      5. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 11 September 2012 12: 31
        +3
        But at the same time Israel would not have been to you, since it was Stalin who created your state as opposed to Britain and their Iran ...
      6. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 11 September 2012 12: 53
        0
        Old fool will soon explain. Wait.
      7. Insurgent
        Insurgent 11 September 2012 19: 15
        +4
        Well, you should search for a villain if you weren’t for the USSR, your relatives would have burned up in the crematoriums and you didn’t write such a chush

        There is that Madeira why Isr should write this garbage?
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 11 September 2012 19: 19
          +1
          Quote: Insurgent

          There is that Madeira why Isr should write this garbage?

          There, under the comment, there is a window to file a complaint. Write with what you do not agree, if the rules have been violated, the comments will be deleted.
      8. s.cot
        s.cot 11 September 2012 20: 18
        -1
        Troll, however?
      9. Bashkaus
        Bashkaus 11 September 2012 20: 54
        +7
        The fact is that you correctly noticed that Japan was under blockade and weak, like Germany. They did not have to expect any answer from them, and therefore they dropped it with impunity to Japan. But if they dropped this bomb on the USSR, it would be much more interesting:
        1- the number of warheads in the United States at that time was calculated at best a dozen.
        2-question, where to dump? they won’t reach Moscow, it remains the same Europe and the positions of the Red Army, and it’s not the fact that the bombers will not be knocked down.

        Suppose completely destroyed one of the armies in Europe. And then all the military power of the Soviet Union, which has tremendous experience in offensive operations on all fronts, begins to advance further west. Logistics support at this point is established in the URA and trains continue to go from the east with fighters, equipment, ammunition and food. Factories beyond the Urals continue to make machinery. I think that the war in any story would end by September 2nd. Only not by signing the act of surrender of Japan, but by the sinking of the last American soldier somewhere on the stitches.
        As a result, the whole of Europe becomes communist; Britain undergoes mass air strikes, and may even seize the USSR. Well, maybe the Americans would be able to drop another couple of bombs in Europe taking off from British airfields if they were not shot down. and then EVERYTHING! This is what the US landing should have been like to break the resistance of the entire red army, which has the established production of military equipment and ship it to the west. Even temporarily occupied bridgeheads would be swept back to sea.
      10. mamba
        mamba 12 September 2012 01: 10
        +3
        Quote: Isr
        It remains a mystery to me why, at the end of the war, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, and not on the USSR. there was such a chance to end Hitler and Stalin in one moment. The world would be completely different. Hope to be better.

        Oh, what a pity that it was not possible to implement the "Solomon final solution to the Soviet question", isn't it Isr? You better remember who prevented the implementation of the "final solution to the Jewish question"? And you regret that these soldiers, their families, their children could not be destroyed? But what, the Moor did his job, the Moor can be killed, yes Isr? It is evident that your people have not suffered enough if such bastards as you write this shit! fool
      11. Bern
        Bern 12 September 2012 08: 20
        0
        It seems to me that Hitler hated the Jews much more than the Slavs! Do you know whose flag you posted?
      12. Alf
        Alf 13 September 2012 19: 16
        +1
        There would be no Israel. I dare to recall that it was Stalin who came up with the idea of ​​creating a Jewish state.
    5. Bern
      Bern 11 September 2012 19: 39
      +3
      Friends, it seems to me that you do not take into account the moment who were our allies! Poles alone are worth something! The entire history of Russian-Polish relations is based on the desire to seize Russian territories! I think Winie was counting on them and the like! Blow from the inside! "Aliens"
    6. I-16M
      I-16M 12 September 2012 13: 34
      +1
      In 1945, the USSR could defeat anyone.
    7. Oles
      Oles 15 November 2012 15: 16
      0
      this is complete nonsense ... the country is in ruins .. in the army there are only youngsters .. in Berlin 2 or 3 tank armies were killed ..... we would just be dared .. plus vigorous bombs .. there was absolutely no chance .....
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 15 November 2012 15: 25
        +1
        Quote: Oles

        this is complete nonsense ... a country in ruins .. in the army some youngsters .. in Berlin 2 or 3 tank armies were killed .....



        The army was the most combat ready in the world
        losses of all tank armies throughout the Berlin operation ranged from 15 to 20%
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 10 September 2012 08: 45
    +13
    Begin brazenly Saxons then a similar adventure, by the end of 45, Soviet tanks would be in Lisbon ... and other outlying capitals geyropi. And the shavers would be sitting on Uncle Sam’s cushions from across the ocean. Yes, and Sam would have been encouraged easily by helping the Japanese in the beat of the Yankers.
    So they did not dare to brazenly Saxons for a direct war with the USSR.
    1. Click-Klyak
      Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 09: 02
      -18
      You do not understand what state the army and the country were in by May 1945. We are exhausted - you understand? The country literally crawled to this victory, bleeding. And you give Lisbon.
      Our propagandists thought a lot of nonsense. The same story with separate talks between Wolf and Dulles. there, it was only a question of a possible surrender in Italy (where the USSR, in general, was not sideways). As soon as there was progress in the negotiations, the English ambassador (and not Stirlitz) informed us about them wink ). So the story was sucked out of the thumb for the sake of the thesis about dastardly "allies" preparing a stab in the back.
      1. snek
        snek 10 September 2012 09: 40
        +4
        Quote: Click-Gag
        You do not understand what state the army and the country were in by May 1945. We are exhausted - you understand? The country literally crawled to this victory, bleeding. And you give Lisbon.

        Wow - the people survived 4 years of total war and a new war (regardless of the outcome) would simply finish off the people. And do not forget that we only had nuclear weapons in the 49th, so the Allies would have one more trump card.
        Only here the population of both England and the USA at that time did not want another war.
      2. Redpartyzan
        Redpartyzan 10 September 2012 09: 50
        +19
        Forced to disagree. The blow of the red army in Manchuria on August 9, 1945 clearly demonstrated the full power of a tired and exhausted army. Ingenious strategic decisions flank girths interaction of artillery aviation and infantry was close to perfection. purely objective assessment: given the numerical superiority of the Allies as well as the short distances, I think in Paris they would be in August and in Loyedon before the start of winter.
        1. Skavron
          Skavron 10 September 2012 10: 05
          +2
          Well, one operation, albeit so brilliant, is not the capture of all of Europe.
        2. Cesar_Xnumx
          Cesar_Xnumx 10 September 2012 10: 38
          -3
          Still, the Kwantung Army cannot be compared with the allied divisions in Europe. The difference is painfully obvious.
          1. подводник
            подводник 10 September 2012 11: 53
            +13
            Well, with whom to compare?
            With the French?
            With the British?
            With the Poles?
            The Japanese would blow them all ..... sorry for the example.
            Remember at least what territory Japan occupied at that time, and the fact that they know how to fight, they showed on the example of Pearl Harbor.
            1. Cesar_Xnumx
              Cesar_Xnumx 10 September 2012 12: 59
              0
              Japan won due to surprise. In terms of armament, it was seriously inferior. Yes, and you can not compare Japan, before the attack on Pearl Harbor, when it had a strategic initiative and, Japan at the end of World War II, when it was completely demoralized.
              1. Dovmont
                Dovmont 10 September 2012 20: 26
                +6
                Nevertheless, the individual training of the average Japanese soldier was quite high, Discipline was an order of magnitude higher than that of Amers and Angles. Do not discount the high moral and combat qualities of the samurai, reaching the fanatical self-sacrifice. But this is absolutely alien to the Western army (excluding the Germans).
              2. revnagan
                revnagan 10 September 2012 21: 48
                +4
                Quote: Cesar_001
                Japan won due to surprise.
                ????? And Singapore? And this is Japan, about which you say that it is seriously inferior in armaments to the impudent Saxons? Or are we talking about different states?. And the Japanese fanaticism, their willingness to die in the name of the Empire? And jump on enemy tank and sword !!! hack two tankers, before they shoot themselves, is that how?
                1. mamba
                  mamba 12 September 2012 01: 23
                  0
                  Quote: revnagan
                  jump on the enemy tank and sword !!! hack two tankers

                  After the surrender of the Kwantung army, where did tens of thousands of officer swords go? What, famous katanas dispersed among the families of generals and marshals? Or went for a re-melting? In museums, their abundance is somehow not observed.
              3. Raven1972
                Raven1972 11 September 2012 19: 40
                +2
                Quote: Cesar_001
                In terms of armament, it was seriously inferior.

                Don't tell me - let's take just one example of the A6M0 "Zero" - recognized after the war as the best carrier-based fighter ... For the Americans, its appearance came as a shock, they simply did not have such aircraft at that time ... Yes, Japanese pilots are excellent masters of their craft, they had amers as they wanted ... Only due to their skill ...
            2. Yan005
              Yan005 11 September 2012 08: 56
              +2
              Quote: submariner
              Well, with whom to compare?

              on the spot. +
        3. Taratut
          Taratut 10 September 2012 11: 06
          -10
          The Kwantung army is not at all so strong.
          She surpassed, say, Romanians, in fighting spirit. In terms of armament, it didn’t exceed.
          She was not a millionth at all. 300 thousand.
          The best units, most of the tanks and aircraft were deployed to more important sectors of the front.

          Quote: Redpartyzan
          Considering the numerical advantage of the Allies and also the close distances, I think in Paris they would be in August and in Loyedon before the start of winter.

          In Paris, I guess. In London - hardly. How could we conduct a marine landing?
          During the war, we carried out many small landing operations, almost all were unsuccessful.
          In addition, we would become invaders. We would be doomed to years of confrontation and war. It would end badly.
          1. Aleksys2
            Aleksys2 10 September 2012 11: 46
            +1
            Quote: Taratut
            The best units, most of the tanks and aircraft were deployed to more important sectors of the front.

            Announce the list please.
            1. evgen762
              evgen762 12 September 2012 01: 20
              +1
              but some evil tongues assert that "Already in the fall of 1943, the first transfer of the best units of the Kwantung Army to the south was carried out. In 1944, one battalion was withdrawn from each division of the Kwantung Army in each infantry and artillery regiment and 1 company in each sapper battalion: all of them were sent to the region of the southern seas.In the summer of 1945, a large number of tank, artillery, sapper and transport units were transferred from Manchuria to China and Japan. To replenish the departed forces, six new divisions were formed at the expense of recruits and a reserve of older ages from among the Japanese settlers in Manchuria, but these divisions, manned by untrained personnel, could not replace the combat units withdrawn from the Kwantung Army, and there was no time for training personnel. On August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union entered the war with Japan. and well-trained Soviet troops relatively easily crushed the scattered parts of the Kwantung Army, which offered stubborn resistance only in certain points. The almost complete absence of Japanese tanks and aircraft allowed individual Soviet units to penetrate deep into Manchuria almost unhindered. The Kwantung Army and the military groups opposing the Soviet troops in North Korea, South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands numbered only about 900 thousand servicemen, and about 450 thousand were auxiliary units (signalmen, sappers, columnists, quartermasters, storekeepers, orderlies, hospital personnel, engineering and construction parts). About 90 thousand soldiers of the Kwantung Army were killed during the fighting. Over 15 thousand died from wounds and diseases in the territory of Manchuria. A small number fled, about 600 thousand servicemen were convoyed to the territory of the Soviet Union as prisoners of war. By this, the Soviet Union violated Article 9 of the Potsdam Declaration, according to which Japanese servicemen were to be sent home after disarmament.


              Japan from A to Z. Encyclopedia. EdwART. 2009. "
          2. Igarr
            Igarr 10 September 2012 12: 44
            +2
            Mr. Taratut ...
            what landing operations were unsuccessful?
            I can only admit one failure - the Kerch, 1941 of the year, and even then not the landing, but in general.
            What else?
            Withdrawal of troops from Odessa and Sevastopol? Is this also an operation?
            Novorossiysk Small Earth?
            Kerch-Eltigen 1943?
            Moonsund, 1944, Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, 1945 - where did we frown?
            ..and the Leningrad landings - and the goals were pursued - to scare the Germans.
            Well, they scared me - by the readiness to lay thousands of sailors in the ground.
            Small landings on the Black Sea - also from the category - so that sailors do not overgrow with fat.
            ...
            What will you bring ... successful naval landings of Germans and, dearly beloved, Finns?
            1. Click-Klyak
              Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 20: 20
              0
              Yes, give up. What is an example of a really thought-out, successful landing? I am silent about such as through the English Channel, in conditions of superiority of the enemy at sea and in the air.
              1. Igarr
                Igarr 10 September 2012 20: 32
                +1
                Let me give you examples .. two ... drop dead of thoughtful operations. One of them can even be called a .. landing.
                The first is Barbaross’s plan.
                The second is Operation Bagration.

                Draw your own conclusions.


                ..
                I thought a little ... and decided. A landing, by definition, cannot be ... a sensible operation.
                We throw a lot of people ... whether by air, by water ... into enemy positions. Prepared positions.
                What is in the air, what is on the water - they are visible. From afar, immediately and on a silver platter. With a blue border.
                ...
                That's why they cause admiration for their madness. Landing operations.
                And no matter whose they are.
                The courage of the Anglo-Canadian-American airborne assault is beyond doubt.
                It's ... about something else.
                ...
                Reasonable, thorough Germans.
                One airborne operation ... Crete. Where previously "Stukas" showed themselves in all their brilliance.
                Losses are not in the German psyche.
                We must be a little ... crazy ... to serve in the landing.
                Actually, the film even - whatever you take, even science fiction (Starship Troopers) - is about the same.
                On the special state of PSYCHE of people.
                1. Click-Klyak
                  Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 21: 34
                  +2
                  Quote: Igarr
                  A landing force by definition cannot be ... a sensible operation

                  Well why. An element of chance is possible, but look at the example of allies. Dieppe's first attempt is failure. The second in Sicily is already better. Third Overlord - they thought it over. And they laid a fuel line along the bottom, and built temporary berths, and even destroyed German weather stations on time. The next landing - operation Dragoon and did well.
                  Stalin did not in vain call Overlord an unprecedented operation. She really is on the verge of a possible.
                  1. Hole puncher
                    Hole puncher 11 September 2012 13: 00
                    +1
                    And the loss plan during the landing in Normandy was exceeded by how many times? And whose fifth point did Uncle Joe take out in the Ardennes ??
                    1. Click-Klyak
                      Click-Klyak 11 September 2012 13: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Puncher
                      And the loss plan during the landing in Normandy was exceeded by how many times?

                      What is the plan? In general, we had one plan - we are not worth the price.

                      Quote: Puncher
                      And whose fifth point did Uncle Joe take out in the Ardennes?

                      Uncle Joe to the Ardennes no place. If you are talking about the offensive on January 12th, then it was planned even earlier, on the 8th. The weather failed.
                      And the Germans recognized the failure of the offensive in the Ardennes on January 4.
              2. ded
                ded 10 September 2012 23: 57
                0
                I'm already silent about such as through the English Channel


                You are mistaken dear! Drunk reckless!
            2. Oles
              Oles 15 November 2012 15: 23
              0
              Well, you're a clinic .... our Red-bellied guys didn’t have any sensible landings ...... well, they can also land, they’ve always landed ... well, those who survived ... oh, you’re a historian. ...
          3. подводник
            подводник 10 September 2012 16: 43
            +3
            Respected Taratut
            And now I will tell you about Japan.
            The Japanese Armed Forces were deployed well in advance, were large in numbers, and were intensely prepared for offensive operations. They consisted of the Army (Ground Forces) and the Navy. The aviation was organizationally part of the Army and Navy.
            From December 1941 to August 1945, the armed forces of Japan grew 3 times and reached 7,2 million. The troops of Manzhou-Guo and other puppet governments created by Japan in a number of occupied Asian countries were completely subordinate to the Japanese command.
            Much attention was paid to combat training and ideological treatment of personnel. Personnel of military personnel with experience in combat operations were used as a nucleus for the formation of new units. At the beginning of the war, the level of combat training of troops was high, but every year (especially in 1944-1945 .) it was declining, hundreds of thousands of those drafted into the army were sent to active troops without proper preparation.
            The army consisted of regular troops, a reserve, and a militia. Its strength in 1945 grew to 5,5 million. The army included infantry, cavalry, artillery, and armored vehicles.
            engineering, transport, railway
            e troops and communications troops, air forces. The ground forces were based on infantry.
            The highest operational and strategic formations of the Japanese army were those in theaters of operations (the Kwantung Army, the Expeditionary Army in China, the Southern Group of Armies, the "national defense" armies) .They consisted of 2-3 fronts, one or several separate field armies, 1 -2 air armies; the front had 2-3 field armies and reinforcement units. The main tactical formation of the ground forces was the infantry division. By December 1941. There were 51 divisions, in 1945 - 171, but the number of personnel in them was decreasing. Until 1941 in the infantry division (there were several types), there were an average of 25000 people, in 1944-1945 - 13000-15000 people.
            Most of the tanks were originally part of the infantry formations. During the war, 4 tank divisions and 9 separate tank brigades were formed. The staff of the division consisted of more than 300 tanks, half of them light ones. Japanese tanks were outdated (they corresponded to the level of European models of the beginning of 30 -s) .Since 1943. The production of more advanced medium tanks with an 88-mm cannon began, but they could not be mass-produced. In general, the level of motorization of the Japanese army remained low.
            The air force of the ground forces consisted of air armies, which included 2-3 air divisions, special units and ground support units. The total number of aircraft, despite heavy losses, was gradually increasing, the aircraft fleet was replenished with new machines with higher flight technical data. Since 1943 heavy bombers "Mitsubishi" TV-03 (with a range of up to 4,8 thousand km), dive bombers "Aichi" T-03, fighters "Nakajima" I-03 began to enter service. However, with the expansion of the scale of struggle in the air. and also due to the acute shortage of aviation fuel in the last years of the war, the effectiveness of the Air Force's combat operations declined.
            Japan's naval forces included naval personnel, naval aviation, coastal defense, and marines. By the start of the war, the Japanese fleet was third in the world (after the US and England). Great attention was paid to replenishing the fleet with aircraft carriers and submarines, as well as the development of naval aviation Over the years of the war, about 20 strike and escort aircraft carriers, more than 130 submarines, as well as 2 battleships and 6 light cruisers were put into operation. But as a result of heavy losses, the fleet's composition was sharply reduced. The total number of naval combat aircraft by 1945. amounted to about 3,6 thousand. In general, the Navy showed high combat efficiency in the first one and a half to two years of the war in the Pacific Ocean, but then their striking force began to fall rapidly,
        4. postman
          10 September 2012 14: 02
          +4
          Quote: Redpartyzan
          August 9, 1945 clearly demonstrated all the power

          Manzuria and urban Europe are two different things.
          The Kwantung group on the mainland, with the de facto defeated Japan locked in its archipelago, is not a group of allies (USA, England, Australia, South Africa, Canada, France, and + small)
          just compare gdp
          Tanks
          USSR = 105,251 (92,595)
          USA = 88,410 (71,067)
          Great Britain = 27,896
          Canada = 5,678
          artillery:
          USSR = 516,648
          USA = 257,390
          Great Britain = 124,877
          Canada = 10,552
          Other countries of the British Commonwealth = 5,215
          Mortars (over 60 mm)
          USSR = 200,300
          USA = 105,054
          Great Britain = 102,950
          Other countries of the British Commonwealth = 46,014
          Machine guns
          USA = 2,679,840
          USSR = 1,477,400
          Great Britain = 297,336
          Canada = 251,925
          Other countries of the British Commonwealth = 37,983
          Military trucks
          USA = 2,382,311
          Canada = 815,729
          Great Britain = 480,943
          USSR = 265,600
          Military aircraft of ALL types
          USA = 324,750
          USSR = 157,261
          Great Britain = 131,549
          Canada = 16,431
          Other countries of the British Commonwealth = 3,081
          Merchant marine vessels (tonnage)
          USA = 33,993,230
          Great Britain = 6,378,899
          Japan = 4,152,361
          Other countries of the British Commonwealth = 2,702,943
          Oil million tons
          USA = 833.2
          USSR = 110.6
          Great Britain = 90.8
          Canada = 8.4
          Math just
        5. Gad
          Gad 10 September 2012 18: 20
          +5
          Quote: Redpartyzan
          I think they would be in Paris in August and in Loyedon before the start of winter.

          I won’t doubt that the Allies would have been defeated, but in London our troops were not destiny at that time. Napoleon had a fleet, but he was defeated by G. Nelson, Hitler did not have a fleet and he tried to strangle England with a submarine. And the USSR had neither a surface nor a submarine fleet, so only Romel’s passage would be repeated. At the end of WW2, the Allies had so much developed anti-submarine defense that our Kutsim submarine forces to regret. nothing shone.
        6. Dovmont
          Dovmont 10 September 2012 20: 18
          +2
          Redpartyzan I absolutely agree with you! They split the millionth Kwantung army in a couple of weeks, and even a 100 thousandth group of naked skirts would have torn like a Tuzik heating pad. In the 45th, the same amers gathered for another 3-4 years to fight with the Japanese over mainland China. Ours did it in less than a month.
        7. motors
          motors 10 September 2012 23: 55
          0
          It should be borne in mind that the Japanese did not expect an attack from the USSR and the entire Kwantung army was mainly engaged in China and failed to deploy to confront the USSR. The main forces of the Kravntun army were turned south and against the USSR, the 4th Separate Army (Japanese) consisted of garrison and many rear garrison.
          And pay attention to the dates of occupation of key cities - the Soviet troops entered them after the emperor’s appeal to the troops to lay down their arms.

          so ...


          reference: the 3rd 5th 30th 4th army was part of the Kwantung Army, to which the 2nd and 5th Air Army should be added.


          I'm sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I am not happy with Russian
          1. Hole puncher
            Hole puncher 11 September 2012 13: 03
            0
            Gotta be taught, buddy. Tolmachi will soon fit.
      3. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 10 September 2012 12: 10
        +14
        Quote: Click-Gag

        You do not understand what state the army and the country were in by May 1945. We are exhausted - you understand? The country literally crawled to this victory, bleeding. And you give Lisbon.
        Our propagandists have invented a lot of nonsense. It's the same story with the separate negotiations between Wolf and Dulles. there it was just a question of a possible surrender in Italy (where the USSR, in general, no sideways). As soon as there were some progress in the negotiations, we were informed about them by the British ambassador (not Stirlitz). So the story was sucked out of the thumb for the sake of the thesis about dastardly "allies" preparing a stab in the back.


        You know, I’m sometimes surprised how much they could dirtied the inhabitants, and how impudently the Saxons and a group of frog-eaters in striped swimsuits made a powerful contribution to the victory over the Reich. Funny, but no less sad from this. You have been so beautifully flushed from ear to ear that you believe that the Soviet army was out of breath and so on and so forth.
        The Soviet army, of course, in May 45th could not rush to Paris, but! tightening up reserves and reforming, they could very well smear the allies. Given that the experience of our army was obtained on the destruction of combat-ready units of the Wehrmacht, and the Allies only once met with the real Wehrmacht operation in the Ardennes, and it ended with a howl towards Stalin to help the dying Allies. So do not read Western propaganda about the rottenness of the military thought of the councils and the greatness of the Montgomery loser.
        1. Skavron
          Skavron 10 September 2012 13: 29
          +4
          Sakhalin, I agree. We got to Paris. London may not be, but continental Europe would have been taken.
          Only the last men would be used. And so women lifted the country.
          My grandmother just after the war worked to restore the industry of Donbass, and so she said that there were a hundred workers, a maximum of 10 men ...
        2. Click-Klyak
          Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 13: 35
          -2
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          the Allies only once met with the real Wehrmacht operation in the Ardennes, and it ended with a howl towards Stalin to help the dying Allies

          This is nonsense. Well, where did you get such nonsense?
          Hitler took the Western Front very seriously. When I read the memoirs of German generals, I was surprised - why so much about the West?
          Are you aware, for example, that from the end of 1944 40% of all troops were held by the Wehrmacht on the Western Front?
          Just imagine - how difficult it was for us in 1945, and if the Germans could pull up another 40%, gain almost a half times? Aren't you scared?
          The story about "Churchill's plea" is nonsense. By the time Churchill's letter was written (January 4, as far as I remember), the Ardennes offensive had failed. We planned our offensive on January 8, but the weather let us down. We started on the 12th. Stalin presented this as an urgent aid to the dying allies and, probably, acted wisely. In fact, we did not do anything unprepared for their sake.
          For operations on the Western Front - read. There, too, a lot of interesting things happened.
          1. подводник
            подводник 10 September 2012 14: 02
            0
            Click-Klyak
            Dear, you just unreasonably pull the explanations you need for the events you need !!!
            My question is, Stalin personally reported to you and explained why and why he presented our attack, since you presented it in your comment.
            Neher to pervert our history, washed by the blood of our ancestors, to the benefit of and in the light of the Anglo-Saxon aspirations
            1. Click-Klyak
              Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 18: 52
              0
              What exactly is washed?
              Is the version about the unprepared offensive of the Red Army for the sake of saving the Allies so dear to you?
              Match the dates.
              Here is a letter from Churchill.
              PERSONAL AND STRICT SECRET MESSAGE FROM Mr CHURCHILL TO MARSHAL STALIN

              Very heavy battles are taking place in the West, and large decisions may be required from the High Command at any time. You yourself know from your own experience how disturbing the situation is when you have to defend a very wide front after a temporary loss of initiative. General Eisenhower is very desirable and necessary to know in general terms what you intend to do, as this, of course, will affect all of his and our most important decisions. According to the message, our .emissary Chief Air Marshal Tedder was in Cairo last night, being weather bound. His trip was dragged out through no fault of yours. If he has not yet arrived at you, I will be grateful if you can tell me if we can count on a major Russian offensive on the Vistula front or somewhere else during January and at any other moments that you may be talking about. wish to mention. I will not pass on this highly confidential information to anyone, with the exception of Field Marshal Brook and General Eisenhower, and only if it is kept in the strictest confidence. I consider the matter urgent.

              6th of January 1945
              Well, who begs whom?
              But in this letter there are appealing notes.

              PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM PREMIER STALIN TO THE PREMIER Mr. CHURCHILL
              Posted September 3, 1941
              "... All this led to a weakening of our defensive capability and put the Soviet Union in a mortal threat.

              Here the question is relevant: how to get out of this more than unfavorable situation?

              I think that there is only one way out of this situation: to create already this year a second front somewhere in the Balkans or in France, which could delay 30-40 German divisions from the eastern front, and at the same time provide the Soviet Union with 30 thousand tons of aluminum to early October d. and monthly minimum assistance in the amount of 400 aircraft and 500 tanks (small or medium).

              Without these two types of assistance, the Soviet Union either defeated or weakened to the point that he loses his ability to help his allies for a long time their active actions on the front of the fight against Hitlerism. "
          2. подводник
            подводник 10 September 2012 14: 47
            +4
            Click-Klyak


            The distribution of the ground forces of fascist Germany and its European allies on active fronts in 1941-1945.
            Soviet-German Front / Other Fronts / Correlation
            June 22, 1941 190/9 / 4,5%
            April1942 219/11 / 4,7%
            November1942 266/13 / 4,6%
            April1943 233/15 / 6%
            January1944 245/21 / 7,8%
            June 1944 240/85/26%
            January1945 200/107 / 35%

            The distribution of troops is given in the accounting divisions.

            It follows that even if Hitler transferred all troops from other fronts to the Soviet-Heman, this would not mean anything, since throughout the war we fought against all the power of the Wehrmacht and ground it, and at the final stage of the war against we were not selected divisions, but their miserable and demoralized remnants, albeit manned in divisions.
            Therefore, I can firmly and confidently say: neither of them was nor will we be scared.
          3. revnagan
            revnagan 10 September 2012 22: 01
            +2
            Quote: Click-Gag
            Are you aware, for example, that from the end of 1944 40% of all troops were held by the Wehrmacht on the Western Front?
            As far as I know, not 40% of all troops, but military units. That is, units that are not completed on the Eastern Front are incomplete. So in this occupied Europe, no more than 30% of troops held the scikl.
    2. подводник
      подводник 10 September 2012 11: 42
      +6
      Sakhalininsk
      But you are right when we washed the Germans, Japan feverishly wanted to conclude with the USSR a strong and durable peace treaty on conditions favorable to Stalin ...
      It's a shame that we turned out to be loyal to the "allied agreement" in contrast to the Amers and Britons
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 10 September 2012 18: 53
        +5
        That part of the landing operation in England
        There are a lot of questions - both the PLO is magnificent for the Angles, and the aircraft carriers - death. And Hitler was preparing the landing, but never carried it out.
        I see a slightly different picture.
        Suppose - the Soviet Union decided on a landing operation to seize England .....
        A preliminary, indispensable and necessary condition would be the capture of the entire coast of Europe. Ports, marinas, moorings. Coastal airfields.
        Big challenge? Of course.
        Possible? Of course. Again, a lot of blood. But, in all cases, it’s possible. The reduction of the army began at the beginning of the 45 year. There was nowhere to go - incompletely prepared units. They grinded the regiment, the division - brought to reform, and stayed there. There it disbanded. And they could have left - to capture England.
        Even in the most optimistic scenario - until the end of the 1945 year to solve this problem is impossible. Let's throw a year - in the middle of 1946 - the whole of continental Europe - the union of the USSR.
        Question - where will the German soldiers go? Very interesting question.
        ...
        So - there remains only one navy and aviation. Former allies.
        All of these aircraft carriers and carriers of exemplary anti-aircraft defense would have remained - strained. Let the Navy of the USSR of serious competition could not make up the fleet of Her Majesty and the American as well. But to keep them in constant BG was quite capable.
        So - the delay of some part of the ocean fleet, especially with the means of anti-aircraft defense - to the Atlantic.
        Surely, the Anglo-Saxons, foreseeing unpleasant alignments - would have packed England to everyone above the roof. And the ports of transport - only in the West remain.
        And the Germans have superbly developed tactics of "wolf curtains", and the Germans have factories ready to continue driving U-bots and planes.
        ...
        Actually - this is the result.
        The capture of England is more blood than Stalingrad, Kharkov 1942 year and the Kursk Bulge - together.
        Capture England ........ Perhaps - but there is no need.
        That is why the Allies bombed Germany.
        Don’t get to anyone ... if we have not mastered.
        And there was no one to work - and civilians there too.
        ...
        Such layouts. Alternative vision.
  3. Vanek
    Vanek 10 September 2012 08: 52
    +12
    They did not attack, they were scared. The Soviet Union emerged victorious and accumulated colossal experience in conducting large-scale operations, in contrast to the "allies".
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 10 September 2012 09: 26
      +13
      I put you +, because I also think that the flywheel of the war in the USSR was already fully developed. If the Germans in the Ardennes were able to deliver a strong blow with a limited number of troops and without aviation, then the Soviet Union would have crushed the Anglo-Sans and would have stood by the English Channel in a month or two.
      1. loc.bejenari
        loc.bejenari 10 September 2012 19: 41
        -8
        well, crumpled, took Antwerp and invaded France
        and then what
        without aviation gasoline (supplied by the Allies), all the Stalinist falcons are sitting on the ground and in the air allied fighters shoot all living things
        on the ground - carpet bombing of railways
        no fuel no shells
        the same situation as the Germans in April-May - there are jet planes - there’s nothing to fly on
        then guess yourself
        most likely a coup in the Kremlin and the conclusion of peace only on worse conditions for the USSR
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 19: 48
          0
          Write nonsense!
          The Germans had a completely different situation - there was no one to fly, and most importantly there was nothing!
          There would be no revolution in the Kremlin ...
          1. Igarr
            Igarr 10 September 2012 21: 01
            +6
            Gasoline ... allies ..
            no fuel, no shells ..
            Chef, everything is gone ...
            ...
            loc.bejenari is good to be kidding.
            no gas .... and Romania and Hungary - what, donkey urine, traded with the Germans?
            there is no one to fly - ... for some reason Pokryshkin for 1944-1945 years only 20, or something, made sorties. Youngsters trained.
            Kozhedub ... flashed two Americans in passing - well, sorry, friendshpayer .... jet Messer.
            Babak’s regiment (or Rechkalov’s) also failed.
            Allied fighters ...... the death of the Hans ... accustomed to flying at the heights of strategic aviation .. and to fight there. They would have fought a lot in the style of front-line aviation covering.
            Our falcons, the same Pokryshkin, horror as proud of high-altitude, high-speed and maneuverable MiG-3 fighter. At the beginning of the war. At the attack - the airplane turned out to be rather poor.
            Also, the Mustangs ... would be slick, fast, bearing death - irons.
            ...
            If yes if only.
            Well, all the same, that in 45 on the Elbe and the Oder - we were friends with the amers.
            I hope ... and we will. Still.
            Just.
  4. Click-Klyak
    Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 08: 55
    -1
    Here is the text
    http://www.coldwar.ru/bases/operation-unthinkable.php
    As you see, this is not a plan of attack on the USSR.
    This is an assessment of capabilities in the event of a military clash.
    The attitude of the command is best demonstrated by the closing phrase "While keeping the codename 'Unthinkable', the command suggests that this is just a preliminary sketch of what I hope is still purely hypothetical probability."
    By the way, I heard about 20-30 years ago that Zhukov was a supporter of the blow to the allies after the capture of Berlin.
    But Stalin realized that we could not pull another war.
    1. подводник
      подводник 10 September 2012 12: 11
      +1
      Click-Klyak


      According to the memoirs of Molotov:
      1. In recent years, Stalin became a little conceited, and in foreign policy I had to demand what Milyukov demanded-Dardanelles! Stalin: "Come on, press! In the order of joint ownership." I told him: "They won't give it." - "And you demand!"
      2. We needed after the war Libya.Stalin says: "Come on, press!" ... Arguments
      It was difficult. At one of the meetings of the meeting of foreign ministers, I stated that in Libya a national liberation movement has arisen. But it is still weak, we want to support it and build our military base there.
      1. Click-Klyak
        Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 12: 59
        0
        We had enough hot goals. Here is from the memoirs of Mikoyan.
        “In mid-May 1965, the United States intensified its bombing of North Vietnam and began an armed intervention in the Dominican Republic. This caused a resonance in the Presidium of the Central Committee and in the government. Many were noticeably agitated. At a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Defense Minister Malinovsky made an assessment of the situation and made proposals , as it turned out later, on behalf of the First Secretary of the Central Committee, Brezhnev. ”The minister had a report in writing, he read it out, but added something on his own.
        In my opinion, the assessment of the situation was given incorrectly. The meaning of both events was distorted, the meaning was exaggerated, both events were interpreted, in fact, as a step of the Americans towards a clash with us. It was argued that we should not confine ourselves to what we are doing now, helping Vietnam, that after the Dominican events we should expect actions directed against Cuba. Therefore, we must actively oppose the Americans.
        It was proposed in the West (in Berlin and on the border with West Germany) to hold military demonstrations, to transfer some units - airborne and others - from our territory to Germany, to Hungary. The minister stressed that we need to be ready to strike at West Berlin. Then he added from himself that "in general, due to the current situation, we should don't be afraid to take the risk of war".
        These words of Malinovsky amazed me.
        Referring to the late time and the importance of the issue, I proposed to think it over and discuss this issue specially the next time.
        A week later it was done. The minister repeated the report, but there was no mention of the risk of war and of West Berlin. It was about demonstration measures, about the exercises of the troops, etc.
        Kosygin also spoke, saying that after all, Stalin had once begun the blockade of West Berlin, but had to retreat, while we lost our prestige. Khrushchev did the wrong thing in 1958 and in 1961 after Kennedy’s speech about the increase in the number of occupying forces. This did not lead to an increase in our prestige, but rather.
        Podgorny and Suslov spoke in the same spirit. "
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 12: 12
      +1
      Still, who kept the armed Germans in their zones of occupation until the last opportunity? This is still a fact, the Union officers themselves were surprised, they say, who defeated whom, if the Germans walk freely along the streets with weapons?
      1. Click-Klyak
        Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 13: 24
        0
        And who held whom?
        Here is an example - the best divisions of the SS Leibstandart and Hitler Youth.
        I even read transcripts of interrogations. The SS men themselves insisted - use us to fight the Bolsheviks. The Americans did not understand what it was about.
        Several people were executed, the rest sent to camps. Moreover, the SS men bitterly describe it all. Starving, they were mistreated (well, they didn’t get to us).
        So I don’t know who they used it there. Agents except scouts.
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 15: 48
          +1
          Do you even know that in the north of Europe in the zone of the British occupying forces, the disarmament of the Germans took place almost in the fall?
          1. Click-Klyak
            Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 18: 20
            -1
            Link to a serious source, pliz.
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 20: 32
              +4
              In a special note to the English side, it was stated that the British not only did not transfer the surrendered German troops to the state of prisoners of war, but also supported them in every possible way. Müller’s German army group was renamed the Nord group, which included the Stockhausen and Witthof corps groups of over one hundred thousand personnel each. In the English zone of occupation of Germany, five German military corps districts were created with departments and services. In addition, the German forces in the English zone included air units and formations. The British not only did not intend to disarm these troops, but also organized combat training classes with them {545}.
              http://militera.lib.ru/h/lavrenev_popov2/25.html
              http://wordweb.ru/sto_voentain/80.htm
              Yes, look for yourself!
              1. Click-Klyak
                Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 21: 41
                0
                Well, these are Zhukov’s memories. This is not historical research.

                Quote: antiaircrafter
                Hitler Youth - etozh fascist pioneers, and not the SS division, no?

                This refers to the 12th SS division.
                1. Brother Sarych
                  Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 22: 18
                  +2
                  Nevertheless, this is a fact, and not only Zhukov wrote about it ...
                  I recommend the book D.Kraminov. Second front. M .: Soviet writer, 1948
                  The Germans agreed to capitulate to the British on certain conditions: the preservation of the German command in a special zone (Schleswig-Holstein), the preservation of some autonomy of the German military authorities in this zone, the refusal to occupy the entire Flensburg area on the Adt border. (p. 211).
                  The capitulating did not want to see their winners on the streets of the cities of Schleswig, etc. Winners were forced to settle on the outskirts of these cities. (p. 216).
                  Two weeks after the surrender, Himmler was free and moved freely in the zone of their occupation! The British released infantry home to harvest, but left tankers and gunners in the army ...
                  Or are you few eyewitness accounts of those events?
        2. antiaircrafter
          antiaircrafter 10 September 2012 20: 50
          0
          Quote: Click-Gag
          the best divisions of the SS Leibstandart and Hitler Youth.

          Hitler Youth - etozh fascist pioneers, and not the SS division, no?
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 22: 19
            +1
            And the SS division too! We have already talked about this ...
            1. Hole puncher
              Hole puncher 11 September 2012 13: 14
              0
              Kicked up by these alternative history readers. Five years later, the "Inglorious Coves" of Tarantino will be passed off as the liberation of Europe from fascism.
        3. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 11 September 2012 13: 10
          -1
          Dear, the Hitler Youth is not a division at all. This is supposedly half-witted boy scouts with one Faust cartridge for five.
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 11 September 2012 13: 14
            0
            You did not try to use search?
            Especially for you the most affordable source:
            http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B
            0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%A1_%C2%AB%D0%93%D0%
            B8%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%C2%BB
  5. Igarr
    Igarr 10 September 2012 09: 33
    +3
    Oh, how scary, oh how creepy.
    What is the topic?
    I would like the Soviet Union to sweep Europe-would extinct, without hesitation.
    And no advantage of the USA and England in strategic and naval forces would help. Because planes from the United States would not fly. And the aircraft carrier formations that hang around the coast of Europe would have something to oppose.
    Especially not England to fight with the Soviet Union. At sea - I would believe.
    But not by ground forces.
    ...
    So that.
    Thanks to the Postman for the article.
    But - does not catch.
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 10 September 2012 09: 46
      +5
      Quote: Igarr
      I would like the Soviet Union to sweep Europe-would extinct, without hesitation.

      here I completely agree.
      Quote: Igarr
      And no advantage of the USA and England in strategic and naval forces would help. Because planes from the United States would not fly

      would fly easily. With bases in West Africa, Iceland, Japan.
      Quote: Igarr
      And the aircraft carrier formations that hang around the coast of Europe would have something to oppose.

      What to oppose to them? The submarine fleet is not an option. Their anti-submarine defense was perfectly tuned. I’m silent about the surface fleet.
      Quote: Igarr
      Especially not England to fight with the Soviet Union. At sea - I would believe.
      But not by ground forces.

      I agree completely. But nuclear strikes would do their job.
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 10 September 2012 10: 20
        +5
        The Union would have remained in the hands of jet and missile Messers. And there were a lot of them.
        England has just begun reactive .... forgot and look for laziness.
        How many piston, even the most developed Mustangs and Tempest would have fought against jet Messers?
        Ours would have mastered them in a matter of days.
        Anyway - land airports, even in West Africa, at least on Maideira, the Canaries - nothing shone.
        Only aircraft carriers could shine.
        And, again - after the defeat of the air wing - what would they do next? Proudly P L A V A L I? back and forth?
        ...
        I see so ..
        And, in my opinion - more important. The mood of ordinary people. Everywhere.
        I think it would be difficult to explain to the Americans and the British that the USSR suddenly attacked ..who?
        And before they were convinced - Europe and England, and West Africa (if there was a need) - they would have danced to the tune of Stalin.
        And vigorous bombs - would not fly ... to the destination.
        ...
        Yes, here's another.
        German pilots, although they were fascists, but, it seems to me, we would love to flounder with the Anglo-Saxons, if I had imagined the USSR such an opportunity.
        1. postman
          10 September 2012 12: 03
          +6
          Quote: Igarr
          The Union would have remained in the hands of jet and missile Messers. And there were a lot of them.

          Germany with production and specialists and aircraft could not do anything with the bombing: the number exceeded the quality

          Quote: Igarr
          England has just begun reactive .... forgot and look for laziness.

          They were ahead of us VERY MUCH. We had nothing but a worthless Bi-1
          England: Gloucester Meteor with Rolls-Royce Derwent 8 took part in 2 MB and fought in the Korean War
          DH 100 Vampire, (1943 first flight), although it did not participate in the "MV, but
          "Vampire" F.1 order for May 7, 1945 = 300 cars
          U.S.:
          R-59A "Aerokomet" (1944) in service until 1946.

          MiG-9 and Yak-15 (both from 1946) had trophy UMO-004 and BMW-003A.


          1947 by purchasing in England TRD READY Rolls-Royce Derwent V and Ning. AT
          and transfer of technical documentation.
          MiG-15, LA-15 and YAK-23 - flew. (RD-500 and RD-45) and Tu-14 ...
          This is a matter of
          Quote: Igarr
          Ours would have mastered them in a matter of days.

          Quote: Igarr
          And, again - after the defeat of the wing

          WHAT and HOW could it be "smashed" ???
          Quote: Igarr
          would love to wallow with the Anglo-Saxons,

          They gave the tear by any means from the Soviet occupation zone.
          And with pleasure they went as instructors to the Allied Armed Forces, all "special services" - to intelligence, counterintelligence, analysts of the Allied forces.
          Recall: Shelenberg, von Brown
          1. olegyurjewitch
            olegyurjewitch 10 September 2012 21: 26
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            Germany with production and specialists and aircraft could not do anything with the bombing: the number exceeded the quality

            What could Germany do? After all, the main forces were thrown to the east, that is, to the USSR.
        2. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 12: 13
          0
          This has taken you somewhere wrong ...
    2. postman
      10 September 2012 11: 46
      0
      Quote: Igarr
      I would like the Soviet Union to sweep Europe-would extinct, without hesitation.

      Would you stand it?
      1. almost 4 years: the soldier was tired, the rear was tired, a whole generation was knocked out. There is no one to plow, sow, mine, build.
      2. Lend-Lease (: without vehicles and locomotives, but without high-octane aviation gasoline, explosive materials, rubber, copper, magnesium oxides and some ferroalloys, it would have been VERY hard.
      3. "Allies" could bomb Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, Minsk (B-29, Lancaster), we had nothing to oppose
      4. "Allies" would destroy the oil regions
      5. "Allies" would block and destroy Murmansk
      6. "Allies" would bomb and blockade the Far East
      7. We could not block the Atlantic, and communications and industry of their occupation zone would allow us to effectively confront us.
      8. "Allies" would cut the supply of the Western Group of arms from the Urals to Europe (through Poland, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia)
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 12: 17
        +2
        The allies would not have enough strength - the country has not the same area! All this is purely hypothetical, but the allies did not have much of a chance - Kiev and Minsk are already in ruins, St. Petersburg is half, and Moscow still has to be reached! If the war continued from the conquered areas, the allies would be quickly thrown into the sea, and then they would have to agree on peace anyway, because there would be a "draw"! Allies, too, would be found where to pick ...
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 10 September 2012 12: 29
          +2
          Vasiliy...
          "Allies" COULD ....
          ..
          Could - would do.
          I have no doubt at all. For this, the German soldiers accumulated.
          ...
          Just did not.
          And all your 8 points - remain the fruit of theoretical activity.
          As, however, and my mentality.
          ..
          So - ... a draw.
          1. postman
            10 September 2012 12: 57
            +1
            . Igor, I don’t deny it.
            We could....
            And well, reason prevailed.
            What if Trumman and Patton had won?
            P:
            "Just order, and I will throw the Russians over the Vistula ..."
            ... The difficulty with understanding the Russians is that we do not realize the fact that they belong not to Europe but to Asia, and therefore they think differently. We are not able to understand Russians, just as we cannot understand the Chinese or Japanese, and, having rich experience in dealing with them, I must say that I don’t have much desire to understand them, except for understanding how much lead and iron are required to exterminate them... In addition to other Asian traits of their character "

            Maybe the Chekists got it on time (there was such a version)

            And about the resources:
            They defeated Japan. Britain again found colonies, the oceans are free.
            REMEMBER HOW MUCH AND WHEN there was a population in the largest empire in the world (over 600 million, if I am not mistaken) + USA ..
            + almost all the resources of the world.
          2. olegyurjewitch
            olegyurjewitch 10 September 2012 21: 37
            +2
            Quote: Igarr
            Could - would do.
            I have no doubt at all. For this, they accumulated German soldiers


            What are ten divisions, and what is their qualitative composition at the end of the war?
            I am not talking about the moral component of these divisions.
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 22: 20
              +1
              It took Bush and the Allies about a half million actually ...
        2. postman
          10 September 2012 12: 51
          0
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          Allies would not have the strength

          I’m not saying that they would win ..
          Most likely PAT.
          but only nah we needed it and for what.
          I can’t imagine that Leningrad (after 900 days) of the blockade) was bombed again!

          Quote: Brother Sarich
          but you still have to get to Moscow!


          Brunswick- Moscow = 1900km.

          B-29 (Number of built 3970) = Combat radius: 3250 miles (5230 km)
          +280 refueling tanker B-29

          Avro 683 Lancaster - Combat radius: 4 km
          and + the US had an atomic bomb ready.
          1. loc.bejenari
            loc.bejenari 10 September 2012 15: 51
            -5
            Leningrad just didn’t have to bomb them - they would have put on a mask of liberators from the hated Bolshevik regime (which Hitler V 41 did not do)
            and it was enough to bomb the railways and junctions in the European part
            and our valiant is 3 would become due to lack of fuel and the maximum that they could be used as bunkers
            prpo the rest of the supply-shells and food-could also be forgotten
            We would have fought on the remaining reserves for a maximum of a month, and then all
            our allies like the Ludova Army and the Bulgarians with the Romanians would have fled
            and even half of the front-line soldiers would have a question — do I want blood and then Nazi victory — would they return to the collective farm serfdom or labor for a penny to the factory — especially after I saw the life of ordinary people in Europe
            put forward allies normal political slogans-would collapse our front
            they were only held back by the fact that they had to end the war in the Far East with minimal losses (roughly speaking, with someone else's hands)
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 19: 56
              +5
              All this is only in your imagination ...
              In a couple of weeks, the allies in the Atlantic would bathe - for that period there would be enough supplies for sure, and one should not minimize the role of the communist movement in those years! Did you forget about the Italian partisans? About the French - with great difficulty de Gaulle managed to cope with them, the British would say goodbye to the Balkans at once, with the oil fields of Iran and the Middle East, and there India is on the horizon ...
              I repeat once again - the USSR did not need war, but an attempt to attack us would not end especially well for the allies ...
        3. olegyurjewitch
          olegyurjewitch 10 September 2012 21: 33
          +2
          Quote: Postman
          7. We could not block the Atlantic, and communications and industry of their occupation zone would allow us to effectively confront us.

          We must not forget that in order for the Allies to conduct hostilities in Europe they would have to constantly nourish their troops with both human and technical resources, again providing the troops with food with ammunition, weapons, despite the fact that England is an island state, America is generally a different continent.
          1. postman
            11 September 2012 21: 28
            +1
            Quote: olegyurjewitch
            Do not forget to lead the Allies
            I wrote about this: without blocking the Atlantic, victory in Europe is not possible.
            Then we could not do it. I don’t know, could the USSR pull this at the time of its dawn (naturally, without nuclear weapons)
            ZY.USA launched ships faster than Japan and Germany drowned them.
  6. romb
    romb 10 September 2012 10: 05
    +4
    Fortunately for them, they had no brains to get into this suicidal adventure.
  7. Igarr
    Igarr 10 September 2012 10: 20
    0
    The Union would have remained in the hands of jet and missile Messers. And there were a lot of them.
    England has just begun reactive .... forgot and look for laziness.
    How many piston, even the most developed Mustangs and Tempest would have fought against jet Messers?
    Ours would have mastered them in a matter of days.
    Anyway - land airports, even in West Africa, at least on Maideira, the Canaries - nothing shone.
    Only aircraft carriers could shine.
    And, again - after the defeat of the air wing - what would they do next? Proudly P L A V A L I? back and forth?
    ...
    I see so ..
    And, in my opinion - more important. The mood of ordinary people. Everywhere.
    I think it would be difficult to explain to the Americans and the British that the USSR suddenly attacked ..who?
    And before they were convinced - Europe and England, and West Africa (if there was a need) - they would have danced to the tune of Stalin.
    And vigorous bombs - would not fly ... to the destination.
  8. apro
    apro 10 September 2012 11: 12
    0
    The plan as a plan is nothing new, remember Napoleon krgda, he returned for a hundred days that he found on the table at the French emperor? Why didn’t they bring it into action? It was unclear that Japan attacked the USSR and IVStalin normalized relations with the Japanese emperors. I wouldn’t began to exaggerate the power of the USSR it was all more difficult the destroyed economy big losses new threats in Europe it is not clear how the Czechs and the Germans behaved, the risk was great for the USSR. right away the new confrontation did not bring us anything good.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 10 September 2012 12: 54
      +5
      apro, Answering you at the same time I will express my thoughts on this issue. Do not blame me.
      Well, the overwhelming majority of both Czechs and Poles perceived the USSR as a LIBERATOR. The friction began only later, after the "Sovietization". And in 1945, the relationship was close to perfect. Plus Bulgarians, I think, supported. I generally keep quiet about the Serbs. Through Iran and the Balkans - they would have taken Turkey, straddled the Straits - just to prevent the Allied fleet. Through Iran further to the Persian Gulf - control over oil. Etc. Yes, the army and the people are tired of the war BUT, do not forget that by the 45th year our army had perfected the tactics of Bliktskrieg, setting the Germans in this matter by two orders. A 45-year-old Soviet soldier was unsuitable, and I completely agree with that. And the people, what else could they do? I would have had to tighten one more hole in the belt and work on. Atomic bombs - they still had to be made. How many did the United States have? 2? 3? five? Where to throw? The atomic bombs of that time are not modern thermonuclear weapons. Why did the US use them against civilian targets? Yes, because the atomic bomb then could not cause any serious damage to a well-protected facility, and it was still necessary to fly to the cities of the USSR, and bomb Zap. Europe, this is a must see. In the USA, in 5, atomic weapons were tested to influence the fleet - as a result, of the entire armada of ships, only 1946 - 5 destroyers, 2 transports and a Japanese cruiser sank.
      1. apro
        apro 10 September 2012 13: 33
        +2
        Dear Dmitry, it’s clear that I want to believe that this is not so that the USSR is a very strong state but we could not resist the Anglo-Saxon economic and military power, we won’t put a good attitude on bread and you won’t stick a gun in the Poles and started a guerrilla war against the USSR back in 44 the Czechs, with their essentially anti-Soviet uprising in Prague, also thought about theirs and followed the instructions of the Anglo-Saxons. So, by and large, again we would have to stand alone against many opponents. Do not forget that from 1944 17 year olds were called up to the Red Arim with good equipment with tanks and artillery lack of infantry. IV Stalin knew about this plan and the timing of the execution and regrouping of the Red Army showed the British about the disclosure of their plan.
        1. loc.bejenari
          loc.bejenari 10 September 2012 15: 36
          -2
          yes - at 44 and 45 in the army they grabbed all - and 17 year old and former prisoners - especially without bothering to check them, and older ages from the occupied territories
          really = at 45 the army was at the limit of opportunity precisely because of a lack of personnel
          and one could not even dream about a war with the allies - they would have choked with blood at best in the Antwerp region
          there are many alternative versions in the literature, but everyone agrees, even if the USSR would have hit the Allies with a sudden blow, the lack of personnel and high-quality gasolines + the overwhelming superiority of the Allied aircraft would lead to the complete defeat of the European group of our troops and the defeat of the USSR
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 15: 57
            +3
            In fact, there are only two or three alternative versions (these are those that are more or less sane authors, the rest do not count) - frankly, these versions are bullshit! The Allies in a couple of weeks are thrown off to the Atlantic, but this does not give the USSR anything in the long run ...
            In general, the positions of the Allies are highly unstable - there are too many places where they can be picked up in full, and strategic aviation in an ordinary war is extremely inefficient, while at the same time it would not be able to reach industrial areas ...
            On the whole, the conversation is empty - the USSR did not need a war with the allies in any form, but if the allies were rocking, it would not have seemed to them ...
            Again, only Great Britain was planning, and its capabilities were more than modest ...
            1. Click-Klyak
              Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 18: 25
              -3
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              On the whole, the conversation is empty - the USSR did not need a war with the allies in any form, but if the allies were to rock the boat, it would not have seemed to them ..

              Yes, no one was going to rock the boat. They were afraid of provocations from the USSR.
              Roosevelt so hoped that after the war the United States and the USSR would remain in good relations. Under the Marshall plan, we were offered good conditions. The catch was in one. We had to account for what we spend money on (they were not going to arm us for our money). Stalin said that we are a great country and will not report. So the cooperation was established. Already in 1946, 1 million people died of starvation in the USSR.
              1. Brother Sarych
                Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 19: 58
                +1
                You forget that you are writing fiction to people who have become interested in history for a long time, so it’s better not to talk about Marshall’s plan ...
                1. Click-Klyak
                  Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 20: 46
                  -1
                  You may have been interested for a long time. But so far you have no reason to objectively argue. Objections are scanty, without specifics.
                  So what do you know from the Marshall Plan?
  9. understudy
    understudy 10 September 2012 11: 36
    +2
    They were enemies then, they remain so now.
  10. TROG
    TROG 10 September 2012 11: 49
    +4
    I think that for almost 70 years, nothing has changed.
    And now, in front of a general of theirs, there are secret documents with an insidious plan, only the name of the operation is different.
  11. Gavril
    Gavril 10 September 2012 11: 53
    +3
    Well, Europe would be unambiguously tidied up, before that we had already fought with the whole of Europe. And they would quickly reach out to England, but they would tinker with the USA specifically, hide reptiles across the ocean and show everyone the middle finger ... uki, but in the end they would have won.
    1. postman
      10 September 2012 13: 50
      +1
      Quote: Gavril
      And they would quickly reach out to England

      Hitler could not reach, having an advantage in everything after Dunkirk.
      Without a fleet dominating the sea, there is nothing to do there.
      And the Atlantic we could not block at that time.
  12. loc.bejenari
    loc.bejenari 10 September 2012 13: 11
    0
    the allies had the main question - to defeat Japan so that they would not get involved in protracted bloody battles on the islands
    for this, it was necessary for the USSR to enter the war on the continent, in order to exclude the transfer of the Kwantung army to the islands
    so all these mythical plans are nothing more than an invention of our political workers
    all the more - the main task in Europe for the Jewish oligarchy has already been achieved - England and Germany have lost everything
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 13: 18
      +1
      This is not fiction - plans existed ...
    2. postman
      10 September 2012 13: 48
      +2
      Quote: loc.bejenari
      to exclude the transfer of the Kwantung army

      I at that time already had nothing to transfer the Kwantung army, let alone to the islands that were already captured by the Americans. Have you accidentally mixed up the year since 1943?

      That's at the expense of the USSR to defeat the Kwantung army on the mainland, yes. .
      Only if the metropolis (Japanese archipelago) of the Kwantung army had been occupied, there was nothing to do on the mainland.
      1. loc.bejenari
        loc.bejenari 10 September 2012 15: 28
        +1
        landing on the islands according to the calculations of the American command could cost 300000 - casualties - more - than during the whole war
        and there is no need to transfer personnel to the metropolis - special transport
        Let me remind you again - the goals of the war in Europe for Jewish capital were fulfilled
        if in someone’s inflamed brains there were plans for a war with the USSR, it’s just not with American bigwigs and politicians
        they first of all had to bloodlessly finish off Japan - which without the Soviet Union was impossible to do
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 19: 59
          0
          In fact, they considered future losses by millions ...
          1. Yan005
            Yan005 10 September 2012 21: 10
            +1
            Quote: Brother Sarich
            In fact, they considered future losses by millions ...

            They would never go to millions.
        2. Yan005
          Yan005 10 September 2012 21: 08
          +2
          Quote: loc.bejenari
          and there is no need to transfer personnel to the metropolis - special transport

          What do you need? in the swim, or what? or ford?

          The average depth is 40 m, the maximum is 106 m. The depths increase evenly from north in the south to 84-92 m, in the extreme south-east. - up to 105 m
  13. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 10 September 2012 13: 57
    0
    Yes, the British, in principle, were never our friends, the same wars with Turkey have always been from their submission
  14. wax
    wax 10 September 2012 15: 02
    +5
    Overwhelming Russia is the eternal dream of the West. France - walked, Germany - walked, England - did not walk, but jackal in full, always and everywhere, where and when it smelled of carrion. A country corrupted by colonialism.
  15. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 10 September 2012 15: 05
    +3
    It's not their brains, but the fact that ours even then learned about this operation. And they showed that it simply wouldn’t work out for the naglitsy, so they canceled it. They have no permanent allies - only permanent interests. And their main interest is to turn us into a raw materials appendage and take everything almost for free.
  16. pinachet
    pinachet 10 September 2012 15: 08
    +5
    so they are still sleeping and see how to pick us up.
    just while they are openly afraid, they are acting through the fifth column.
    I read somewhere that there was a good plan in the 90s .. to bring the situation with us to critical, and then, under the good pretext of guarding nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, send NATO troops. (as if by this time our troops and the population would be degraded)
  17. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 16: 04
    +4
    By the way, I remembered that the alternative people forgot what condition the allied armies were in!
    Technique technique. but the soldiers are fighting! Back in 1944, it turned out that there was no one to fight in the infantry! The British had already involved everyone who could, even from the colonies, therefore, after landing in Normandy, the army began to decline, had to disband units to replenish the existing ones, the Americans didn’t have much who wanted to serve in the infantry, so they had to drive troops into the infantry from the technical branches of the armed forces, including aviation, it was also necessary to disband the divisions to replenish the existing ...
  18. strannik595
    strannik595 10 September 2012 16: 21
    +6
    it must be admitted that the USSR soldier of 1945 was almost invincible, (subject to sufficient MT supply)................ that's who did not let the third world start, battleships and planes are good, but millions of superprofessional commandos (and this was the level for the summer of 45th) would crush any army in the world and even the united Allied armies. The Japanese Yankees mocked for many, many years, the Union for a month they just crushed them like aphids ..... what does this mean? about the Soviet blitzkrieg led by talented marshals in the event of an attack on the USSR. The whole country was one debugged, military machine. There were no means of delivering atomic bombs (very heavy) at such distances then, and no one would have let them fly, our air defense and aviation were also at their best ................ England would suffer the fate of Japan 100% despite all their formidable plans
  19. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 10 September 2012 16: 32
    +2
    The summary is simple - you need to handle them based on the benefits for our homeland. Stalin knew how and enjoyed it well.
    1. Vladimir 70
      Vladimir 70 10 September 2012 18: 09
      +3
      The conclusion suggests itself: there is no more enemy for Russia than the Anglo-Saxon! It’s better to have them as an enemy than an ally who is ready to stab in the back at any time.
    2. Yan005
      Yan005 10 September 2012 21: 03
      +5
      Quote: AKuzenka
      we must handle them based on the benefits for OUR

      this is true.
      otherwise Suvorov saved, Brusilov saved, the Soviet army saved, and thanks?
      Something is missing from the press about plans to strike the USSR in England, the USA or separate negotiations with Japan at 45m
  20. red 015
    red 015 10 September 2012 18: 13
    +4
    the name of the correct operation is "INCONCENT" because it was not an option to carry out, because the Soviet soldier in 1945, by swimming, would have reached both England and America, and would show them xy from xy
    1. ALPETSEM
      ALPETSEM 10 September 2012 19: 01
      +2
      Yes, it would be better if they immediately called their operation not "Unthinkable", but "Impossible" ...
      1. Yan005
        Yan005 10 September 2012 21: 01
        +3
        Quote: ALPETSEM

        Yes, it would be better right away

        So there are a bunch of translation options:
        unthinkable
        incredible
        improbable
        unimaginable

        choose to taste, it all depends on the context and the word environment.
  21. Click-Klyak
    Click-Klyak 10 September 2012 20: 48
    0
    God, guys, stop writing this pseudo-patriotic dregs.
    This is not a plan of attack on the USSR. That's all. And leave the discussion about how dare you dare everyone and everything. If Stalin could - he would have dared, do not hesitate.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 September 2012 22: 23
      +2
      Stalin simply did not need it - he fulfilled allied obligations in full ...
      1. Taratut
        Taratut 11 September 2012 09: 12
        +1
        Any agreement is worth something while it is backed up by real power. When we needed to, we disavowed non-aggression treaties. And that’s it.
        Also the same Italians, Romanians, Finns - when necessary, switched to the other side.
  22. Dmitry 77
    Dmitry 77 11 September 2012 01: 13
    0
    It's nice to think that you are opposed by a strong enemy.
  23. understudy
    understudy 11 September 2012 09: 06
    +2
    And here is an even more interesting and, to my shame, previously unknown to me.
    "A great victory
    Five days, and History went a different way ...
    05.05.2011 13:31
    Alexander Trubitsyn
    A Lockheed-23A twin-engined civilian aircraft with registration number G-AGAR took off from the airfield in the London suburb of Heston on March 1940, 12. It was led by English pilot Haig MacLaine. The plane headed for Malta, then flew through Cairo to the British military base in Baghdad. From there, having taken on board two specialists in aerial photography, the plane headed towards the border of the USSR. Having flown unnoticed over the border at an altitude of seven thousand meters, the plane flew to Baku for an hour, making a reconnaissance survey.
    What did all this mean?
    The captured photographs were transferred to the relevant services of England and France. On their basis, plans were prepared for a surprise attack on the USSR, the English "Ma-6" and the French "RIP" (Russia. Industry. Fuel.). The attack was to begin with the bombing of the cities of Baku, Grozny, Batumi, Maikop and Poti. For a bombing strike on Baku, it was supposed to use British Blenheim bombers and American Glen Martin in the amount of 90-100 aircraft. The bombardment was supposed to go on day and night, guided by the flames of the fires. All oil fields, refineries and oil ports were to die in the fire.
    At the beginning of 1940, the re-equipment of oil refineries was completed in the USSR. But from the past there were still huge oil collectors - pits filled with oil, and a large number of wooden oil rigs. According to American experts, "the soil of those places is so saturated with oil that the fire will certainly spread with great speed and move to other fields ... Putting out these fires will take several months, and the restoration of their production will take years."

    Modern knowledge of ecology makes it possible to evaluate the scenarios of such bombings as an ecological disaster. Its consequences would cause the emergence of "convective columns" over fires, when hot air carries combustion products into the upper atmosphere. This would cause acid rain, disrupt heat exchange in the atmosphere, contamination of space with carcinogenic and mutagenic substances. The inhabitants of Baku, of course, would be left without water, since the wells would be poisoned by combustion products. We can also talk about the fires of deep wells with the release of "dead water" containing compounds of copper and nitrogen. The runoff of combustion products into the sea would destroy the marine life and flora.

    It’s scary to imagine such a picture. It does not fit the head that the civilized West calmly prepared the assassination of hundreds of thousands of civilians, long before the barbaric bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s peaceful, since neither in Baku, nor in Dresden, nor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki there were any significant military forces and objects.

    The script was prepared in earnest

    Secretary General of the French Foreign Ministry Leger wrote on January 11, 1940 to the American Ambassador Bullitt: "France will not break off diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union or declare war on it, it will destroy the Soviet Union, if possible - if necessary - with the help of cannons."

    French Prime Minister Daladier proposed sending a squadron to the Black Sea to blockade Soviet communications and shell Batumi from the sea. On January 19, 1940, he sent a document on the attack on the USSR to the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Ground Forces in France and the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Military Council, General Gamelin, as well as to the Commander-in-Chief of the French Navy, Admiral Darlan. Two copies of this document were addressed, respectively, to General Kelz, commander of the French ground forces and General Vuyemen, chief of the French Air Force General Staff and commander-in-chief of its air fleet ... "And so on.
  24. подводник
    подводник 11 September 2012 12: 18
    +3
    But I dug up something interesting !!!
    As soon as the Soviet Army won the battle of Kursk, representatives of the high command of the United States and England began to think about a possible conspiracy with the Nazis"in case of the overwhelming success of the Russians."Will the Germans want- asked American General J. Marshall, his English counterparts, -to promote our entry into their country so that reflect the Russians? "Marshall's anti-Soviet sentiments were also shared by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff of England, General A. Brook

    NAUS.CCS.Minutes of 113th Meeting.August 20,1943, p.6.
    1. Click-Klyak
      Click-Klyak 11 September 2012 13: 46
      0
      Well, what did not realize? Decided that success is not overwhelming?
      Let me remind you that in the spring of 1943 the Allies announced that they would fight until unconditional surrender. The USSR joined this demand only in the fall.
      Where do you just dig these excavated.
      1. подводник
        подводник 11 September 2012 14: 52
        +1
        Click-Klyak
        Dear, well, they probably weighed all the pros and cons and decided that it was better not to get on the rampage. After all, even having such a handicap as nuclear weapons, they did not dare to use it against the USSR, but only tried to "scare" using it against Japan. But apparently Stalin's reaction to the news of the successful use of nuclear weapons introduced amers into an even greater blunt.
        Where I am looking for materials — and more and more in the old fashioned way — libraries. Well, and to a lesser extent the Internet.
        1. Taratut
          Taratut 12 September 2012 09: 15
          -1
          Quote: submariner
          After all, even having such a handicap as nuclear weapons, they did not dare to use it against the USSR

          But did they really need it?
          1. подводник
            подводник 12 September 2012 09: 23
            +1
            They still bite their elbows, recalling a missed chance ...
            Ask to Mita Romney ...
            1. Click-Klyak
              Click-Klyak 12 September 2012 15: 53
              +1
              Well then. First, Romney is no one yet.
              After becoming President, he will immediately begin to filter the market, do not hesitate.
              Secondly, when did Romney regret that the USA did not drop an atomic bomb on the USSR?
              It’s ridiculous for us in general. Let's say Madeleine Albright is credited with the phrase that Russia takes up too much space and it must share minerals. Even Putin somehow quoted. They began to search - what is it?
              It turned out that the article was published in a magazine. Like some kind of secret laboratory reads thoughts and read Albright’s thoughts. Such a cranberry.
  25. GAMER0761
    GAMER0761 11 September 2012 15: 08
    +2
    I am not at all surprised. England (at least her government) always hated Russia.
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 11 September 2012 16: 03
      +2
      Rather, she did not hate, but saw an opponent. Hatred would have ended in a different way in the war, but here an absolutely rational feeling is to prevent the exaltation of another power. As a result, similar plans ...
      The name amuses me. Interestingly, does it reflect the final conclusions of the British or is it a sort of application - they say, are we so cool that we want to do something that is even scary to think about?
  26. Oles
    Oles 15 November 2012 15: 14
    +2
    "The victory over the USSR, according to their calculations, was achieved if 30 million of the country's population were destroyed in the first 65 minutes. The chief of staff of the ground forces understood that he would not provide this."

    kapets .. well, the Anglo-Saxons and cannibals ..... Hitler nervously smokes on the sidelines .... here are the bastards ....
  27. wolverine7778
    wolverine7778 15 November 2012 21: 06
    0
    Intelligence from the USA and Great Britain worked to the fullest, they drew all kinds of plans, blue and red arrows on the maps, it’s not casual either, there were reasons for that, so the USSR had some plans)
  28. renics
    renics 9 May 2016 02: 26
    0
    A heavy article, scrolling with the mouse goes with some inhibition, apparently burdened by a large number of invisible tags, such as protection against copying certain lines in the text. The author of the article is asked, why are they installed? If you think there is no such information anywhere, then this is an obvious miscalculation. Such information is a dime a dozen, I do not want to copy it. And the lack of an article in an incorrect sequence in the description of the chronology of events.
  29. SAG64
    SAG64 20 May 2018 21: 14
    +1
    Churchill, Eisenhower and Montgomery are plotting The Unthinkable.