sabaton_

Operation "Unthinkable", yes it was unthinkable

161 posts in this topic

20 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

Why the personal attack? Interesting response.

 

"You are underestimating the civilian casualties of communist rule in the countries they controlled"

 

You posted a one-sided claim, insinuating that many people died in Communist countries. Really?

 

You make a claim with no back up, no lists of these countries, no events showing these casualties. You make an implied criticism of the communist regimes with no backing and ONLY mentioned the Communist regimes and not the casualties of Western-backed nations.

 

 

I can only see one agressive poster here, and that is you. Everyone else is having an interesting conversation. Cool down.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

The Soviet Union didn't even need to fight. There was no popular support for war against the Soviets in either the United States or the United Kingdom. The last Gallup poll on the subject recorded a staggering 80% "favorable" rating towards the Soviet Union.

 

Again, people love to jump to military fantasies without first considering the political realities. Except for Churchill (who, as noted above, may have been just faking it) nobody in either the US or UK high commands really wanted to fight the Soviets. Patton supposedly did (but the man was half-crazy), but he wasn't even an Army Group commander - meaning all he commanded was one of the rectangles in the OP's map. Only the Free Polish Forces in the West would have seriously supported any such offensive - but that would only lead to a brother fighting brother situation given nearly as many Poles were also already fighting with the Red Army. 

 

If the Western Allies tried to attack the Soviets, it is much more likely that there would be a widespread mutiny and disobedience among the troops themselves before an offensive would even start. Anti-communist feelings did not run high among the troops back in 1945. It took a decade of scare-mongering by US politicians like McCarthy and the Soviet development of their own atom bomb before the American public got really scared of the Soviet Union; which is ironically around the same time Stalin died and the Soviets became much less dictatorial.

 

Let us consider the military scenario, and not how plausible it actually was. How plausible it actually was is immaterial for the moment since, as you pointed out, it didn't happen and there was no real drive for it (Russian logistics and infrastructure were already in ruins as was).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

 

Ironically enough, when the "west" is at fault, it is usually western reporting that digs up the dirt. In the "east", such things are usually swept under the rug. For instance, the Katyn Massacre. 

 

As is, I tend to take a dim view of hand-wringing about the west's "crimes." I don't think there is an excuse for it all the same, however I often find that the phrase "western crimes" or "western-backed crimes" is usually followed by some sort of craven justification of whatever atrocity is being committed by [insert autocratic major power or dictatorship here].  

 

This is so common, in fact, that what you see above is practically a knee-jerk response for me.

 

We're getting off-topic though. I suggest that you leave political and blame-gaming aside for the moment.

 

Fairy snuff, I just get annoyed when it's always the Commies that get the twirling mustache and top hat treatment.

 

When you get down to it, nobody was in a fit state to keep going after 1945.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fallenkezef said:

When you get down to it, nobody was in a fit state to keep going after 1945.

 

Is that so? Why should the US have had a problem. They were not bled white, their air force ruled the day, the RAF the night sky. There was no shortage in supplies. Production was in high gear. The troops were there and the german army would have joined the cause if it had offered them an alternative to surrender.

 

Public opinion is another story. Britain was certainly war weary. I don't know how russian soldiers felt about their regime if no polit officer was present.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dodo_Dud said:

 

Is that so? Why should the US have had a problem. They were not bled white, their air force ruled the day, the RAF the night sky. There was no shortage in supplies. Production was in high gear. The troops were there and the german army would have joined the cause if it had offered them an alternative to surrender.

 

Public opinion is another story. Britain was certainly war weary. I don't know how russian soldiers felt about their regime if no polit officer was present.

 

America is a democracy, war weariness is a major factor. It would be a massively tough sell to suddenly go to war with an ally. American anti-soviet propoganda didn't really kick off till the 50's, back in 1945, after VE day, the American people wanted their boys back.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dodo_Dud said:

 

Is that so? Why should the US have had a problem. They were not bled white, their air force ruled the day, the RAF the night sky. There was no shortage in supplies. Production was in high gear. The troops were there and the german army would have joined the cause if it had offered them an alternative to surrender.

 

Public opinion is another story. Britain was certainly war weary. I don't know how russian soldiers felt about their regime if no polit officer was present.

 

I'd imagine that they were also war-weary, but the average Russian soldier had seen a lot by that time and they were more curious about the rest of the world than they might have been previously. AFAIR from a lecture I got from J. Arch Getty back in 2012, Soviet society was fairly open in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Wasn't until the late 1940s early 1950s that you had the hardening of positions on both sides. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

Why the personal attack? Interesting response.

 

"You are underestimating the civilian casualties of communist rule in the countries they controlled"

 

You posted a one-sided claim, insinuating that many people died in Communist countries. Really?

 

You make a claim with no back up, no lists of these countries, no events showing these casualties. You make an implied criticism of the communist regimes with no backing and ONLY mentioned the Communist regimes and not the casualties of Western-backed nations.

 

 

I've responded in a tone appropriate for your baseless bashing. In my first post I've mentioned both communist rule and countries messed up by USA and its allies. While I expect anyone taking part in this discussion to know the distinction without me spelling it out, it was rarely one-sided. Most countries were manipulated by both sides.

 

But really, if you want to count the casualties of communist rule, start by hundreds of thousands that died in gulags after 1945, and add to it milions that lost everything but their lives there, because the Soviet treatment of former gulag inmates took from them any privacy, hope of finding a job or possibility of living a normal life. Then move on to all those people who were resettled, lost all their possessions and were barred from any decent job or their children recieving any higher education simply because they or their parents were of wrong social class. And casualties of disastrous Soviet economic policy of "planned economy". Then move on to political trials that led to executions of thousands of people who did nothing more but to voice their opposition against pro-communist leadership. And that's just in Europe. In Asia, communism killed about as many people as WWII, mostly thanks to Mao's effort.

 

22 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

Fairy snuff, I just get annoyed when it's always the Commies that get the twirling mustache and top hat treatment.

 

When you get down to it, nobody was in a fit state to keep going after 1945.

 

And I get really annoyed when the crimes of communism are downplayed. Because it's an inherently destructive ideology that should have been condemned along with nazism, but instead it's still alive and still killing people.

 

And because I live in one of countries sold to Societs at Yalta, and I can still see the scars.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sarin said:

 

I've responded in a tone appropriate for your baseless bashing. In my first post I've mentioned both communist rule and countries messed up by USA and its allies. While I expect anyone taking part in this discussion to know the distinction without me spelling it out, it was rarely one-sided. Most countries were manipulated by both sides.

 

But really, if you want to count the casualties of communist rule, start by hundreds of thousands that died in gulags after 1945, and add to it milions that lost everything but their lives there, because the Soviet treatment of former gulag inmates took from them any privacy, hope of finding a job or possibility of living a normal life. Then move on to all those people who were resettled, lost all their possessions and were barred from any decent job or their children recieving any higher education simply because they or their parents were of wrong social class. And casualties of disastrous Soviet economic policy of "planned economy". Then move on to political trials that led to executions of thousands of people who did nothing more but to voice their opposition against pro-communist leadership. And that's just in Europe. In Asia, communism killed about as many people as WWII, mostly thanks to Mao's effort.

 

 

And I get really annoyed when the crimes of communism are downplayed. Because it's an inherently destructive ideology that should have been condemned along with nazism, but instead it's still alive and still killing people.

 

And because I live in one of countries sold to Societs at Yalta, and I can still see the scars.

 

Really? Communism is no better or worse than capiltalism, it's how it's applied that matters.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of communism isn't destructive it's just the way certain nations carry out the idea that's destructive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read marx, communism is pure destruction, the communism is established through revolutions and uprisings, classes of people deemed worthless get killed, the rest gets "retrained", the communist government is in a permanent state of war against its own population because of the counter-revolutionaries, the list goes on. And no thats not what people made out of marx but this is what marx envisioned and he had no probs with it.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fufubear said:

The idea of communism isn't destructive it's just the way certain nations carry out the idea that's destructive.

 

Yup, it's a feature of Human history. We use religions, political and social ideaologies to service our own desires and justify everything from positive social change to genocide.

1 minute ago, _Sev_ said:

You should read marx, communism is pure destruction, the communism is established through revolutions and uprisings, classes of people deemed worthless get killed, the rest gets "retrained", the communist government is in a permanent state of war against its own population because of the counter-revolutionaries, the list goes on. And no thats not what people made out of marx but this is what marx envisioned and he had no probs with it.

 

Marx was a keen student of Human nature.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, _Sev_ said:

You should read marx, communism is pure destruction, the communism is established through revolutions and uprisings, classes of people deemed worthless get killed, the rest gets "retrained", the communist government is in a permanent state of war against its own population because of the counter-revolutionaries, the list goes on. And no thats not what people made out of marx but this is what marx envisioned and he had no probs with it.

I've heard he figured class war would eventually happen and maybe some of that other stuff you mentioned would happen but not that it wold be carried out continously. The way I've learned it is that eventually the lower class would get tired of being on the bottom and revolt and in the end things such as private property are given up for equality across the board.  It's an idea for a perfect world not the world we live in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zinegata said:

Again, people love to jump to military fantasies without first considering the political realities. Except for Churchill (who, as noted above, may have been just faking it) nobody in either the US or UK high commands really wanted to fight the Soviets. Patton supposedly did (but the man was half-crazy), but he wasn't even an Army Group commander - meaning all he commanded was one of the rectangles in the OP's map. Only the Free Polish Forces in the West would have seriously supported any such offensive - but that would only lead to a brother fighting brother situation given nearly as many Poles were also already fighting with the Red Army.


Polish People's Army couldn't be considered as a real Soviet ally. Poland was betrayed by Western Allies, they just left us (I am a Pole) because untill it was too late they treated Stalin as "Uncle Joe", especially Roosvelt who never understood war in Europe. In fact Poland was treated worse than Germany after war. We lost big part of our land, were forced to adopt communism, never got any war reparations and moreover our land was looted by Red Army, when Germans got their Marshall Plan (look how powerful they are now). People who fought against III Reich were hunted by NKVD and executed because they were also willing to fight with new invader and they remembered about Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, it's sometimes said that we were in war until late 1950's because many polish soldiers were hiding in woods till after Stalin died. So I can't calmly read about Poland allied with USSR. Stalin was aware of it and in soviets strategy Polish Forces were designated to be cannon fodder followed by Red Army so they couldn't retreat. Stalin never trusted Poles  so he even commanded to execute polish devoted communists from Communist Party of Poland.

Summarizing "Unthinkable" was polish dream that never came true.

.

Edited by szepol
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military feasibility aside, I don't see how they could have convinced the civilian population to back another war after just having finished the last brutal one, much less go to war with a country that had been considered an ally for the last couple years (even if the alliance was tentative at best).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

Really? Communism is no better or worse than capiltalism, it's how it's applied that matters.

 

There you are totally wrong. Communism is, in its principles, dead wrong. Quite often literally.

 

Compared to democratic republic, because communism is as much political ideology as economical, communist principles don't account for human nature. There isn't system of checks and balances to limit corruption, nor does it value the ability of leaders to perform their role, instead the main measure of man is the percieved loyalty to the communist ideals.

 

Communism doesn't value individual lives. The essential doctrine of communism is to shape the people and entire world to its ideal, by force if seen as necessary. Whatever doesn't fit, cut it away. Planned economy, an essential aspect of communism, is its embodiment. Other flaws aside, it doesn't have the flexibility to deal with unforseen and unforeseeable, instead it tries to set the way how the leaders think it should be...and after all, in communism, people are secondary to the ideal. So what if some die, because the agricultural region is supposed to be, in minds of leaders, industrial region, and can't feed itself during the transition. It's no coincidence that most destructive famines in history were caused by communism.

 

And the communist "utopia" is nothing beautiful either, if you look at it critically. It lacks driving force. Be honest. Would you really get up in the morning and go to work, if you know that you'd get the same amount of resources even if you stay at home? Would you really spend eight, ten, twelve hours a day to invent new things, make art, try hard and harder to really achieve something great, if you knew that it won't make a difference in your life compared to spending half of that time doing common labour. It's the human nature. We're not inherently absolutely selfless beings, quite the opposite. Marx realized that, and he realized that the only way to overcome that is to remove everyone who doesn't fit the ideal. Everyone who thinks different. Everyone who is individual. To essentially braniwash people to become mindless automatons, because that's what we'd be without our hopes, dreams, aspirations, differences, everything that makes us individuals...because individualism is incompatible with communist "utopia".

 

Bottom line. Communism is flawed from beginning to end. The ideals are flawed. The execution is flawed to the point where it's wide open for corruption and incompetence, and thus inherently degrades into despotism. The end, the utopia, is actually a dystopia.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sarin said:

 

There you are totally wrong. Communism is, in its principles, dead wrong. Quite often literally.

 

Compared to democratic republic, because communism is as much political ideology as economical, communist principles don't account for human nature. There isn't system of checks and balances to limit corruption, nor does it value the ability of leaders to perform their role, instead the main measure of man is the percieved loyalty to the communist ideals.

 

Communism doesn't value individual lives. The essential doctrine of communism is to shape the people and entire world to its ideal, by force if seen as necessary. Whatever doesn't fit, cut it away. Planned economy, an essential aspect of communism, is its embodiment. Other flaws aside, it doesn't have the flexibility to deal with unforseen and unforeseeable, instead it tries to set the way how the leaders think it should be...and after all, in communism, people are secondary to the ideal. So what if some die, because the agricultural region is supposed to be, in minds of leaders, industrial region, and can't feed itself during the transition. It's no coincidence that most destructive famines in history were caused by communism.

 

And the communist "utopia" is nothing beautiful either, if you look at it critically. It lacks driving force. Be honest. Would you really get up in the morning and go to work, if you know that you'd get the same amount of resources even if you stay at home? Would you really spend eight, ten, twelve hours a day to invent new things, make art, try hard and harder to really achieve something great, if you knew that it won't make a difference in your life compared to spending half of that time doing common labour. It's the human nature. We're not inherently absolutely selfless beings, quite the opposite. Marx realized that, and he realized that the only way to overcome that is to remove everyone who doesn't fit the ideal. Everyone who thinks different. Everyone who is individual. To essentially braniwash people to become mindless automatons, because that's what we'd be without our hopes, dreams, aspirations, differences, everything that makes us individuals...because individualism is incompatible with communist "utopia".

 

Bottom line. Communism is flawed from beginning to end. The ideals are flawed. The execution is flawed to the point where it's wide open for corruption and incompetence, and thus inherently degrades into despotism. The end, the utopia, is actually a dystopia.

 

You are abit too close to the subject methinks.

 

"pure" communism is no better or worse than "pure" capitalism. It's how these principles are applied that matter.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

You are abit too close to the subject methinks.

 

"pure" communism is no better or worse than "pure" capitalism. It's how these principles are applied that matter.

 

Please throw in some real argumens into discussion...or a towel. Right now you're doing nothing but poor ad hominem attempt.

 

Frankly, neither pure communism nor pure capitalism are achievable or desirable. But capitalism, in its principles, is flexible and lend itself to changes, and its intermediary forms are, as evidenced by experience (and rationale), actually viable economic concepts, communism is unyielding march in wrong direction. I did a brief deconstruction of the principles behind it in previous posts, and I'd welcome you to try to refute them with any actual rational argumentation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa! Operation:Unthinkable? Why does something like that ring a bell? This crazy scheme of Churchill's reminds me of what I saw near the end of the 1970 movie 'Patton',where 'Ol Blood & Guts' himself,played by George C. Scott,expressed desire to attack the Soviet forces in Europe...He reputedly told this to a gaggle of press correspondents while with one of the Lippazaner stallions in Austria after WW2 ended! Oh boy...Did he get himself in **** for that? When Gen.Dwight Eisenhower heard about this,he was angry as heck...& soon enough,General Patton was stripped of his command with the US 3rd Army (Who reading about this topic doesn't remember the movie? Time to refresh your intuitive brain cells!) Of course,we all know what happened to Gen.Patton after that...Suffered serious injuries in a car accident,& died just 4 days before X-mas in 1945! (I still remember seeing the sad photograph of 'Willie',Patton's beloved dog lying next to his master's belongings...knowing then that his master wasn't coming home!) Then there was Gen.Douglas MacArthur's desire to attack China during the Korean War in 1951...Who knows what THAT would've lead to! Anyway,President Harry S.Truman let MacArthur go as Commander-in-Chief of the U.N. Forces when he heard about that! Man,sometimes there is a declassified topic that can stir a debate...In my point of view,I'm sure as glad nothing...& I mean 'NOTHING'...ever came of 'Operation:Unthinkable'! The results of such an enterprise as that would've been way too much to bear!!! Anyone sane enough to agree with me on that?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

This is getting way off topic by the way

 

So, the towel I take it...

 

Pity. I actually enjoy debating the "hot" topics. And we're still a bit topical, I was initially responding to claim that the Unthinkable would lead to more deaths than Cold War, a claim I see as wrong, since Cold War, in addition to the casualties caused by both sides meddling into affairs of third parties and creating proxy wars, gave wide berth to spread of communism, which has proven itself to be most genocidal ideology in history...even excluding deaths due to WWII, just two most powerful communist leaders are responsible for roughly 60-100 milion deaths, exceeding WWII's death toll.

 

Anyway, if you change your mind, I'll be here tomorrow to discuss this further. Right now I'm going off...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, szepol said:


Polish People's Army couldn't be considered as a real Soviet ally. Poland was betrayed by Western Allies, they just left us (I am a Pole) because untill it was too late they treated Stalin as "Uncle Joe", especially Roosvelt who never understood war in Europe. In fact Poland was treated worse than Germany after war. We lost big part of our land, were forced to adopt communism, never got any war reparations and moreover our land was looted by Red Army, when Germans got their Marshall Plan (look how powerful they are now). People who fought against III Reich were hunted by NKVD and executed because they were also willing to fight with new invader and they remembered about Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, it's sometimes said that we were in war until late 1950's because many polish soldiers were hiding in woods till after Stalin died. So I can't calmly read about Poland allied with USSR. Stalin was aware of it and in soviets strategy Polish Forces were designated to be cannon fodder followed by Red Army so they couldn't retreat. Stalin never trusted Poles  so he even commanded to execute polish devoted communists from Communist Party of Poland.

Summarizing "Unthinkable" was polish dream that never came true.

.

last time i've read about that the Polish Government made a deal with the Soviet Union: they will renounce their claims on War Reparations from  Germany to the Soviets and the soviets will pay the Poles their share or something along the line....

 

side note: Stalin also kept his armies waiting unitl after the Warsaw Uprising...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

last time i've read about that the Polish Government made a deal with the Soviet Union: they will renounce their claims on War Reparations from  Germany to the Soviets and the soviets will pay the Poles their share or something along the line....

 

side note: Stalin also kept his armies waiting unitl after the Warsaw Uprising...

 

Yeah, we forced to do this with Demokratische Deutsche Republik since we were told to be "countries united in socialism". Since Germany got united and GDR no longer exists this case remains opened (there was never such pact with Western Germany). When it comes to Soviet Union and help from them, there was a joke in Poland (I believe it's true for all Soviet puppets): "How can you recognize that the train is heading East? It's loaded". How can you not be russophobic?

Stalin knew that he could not allow uprising to succeed because it could give Poles freedom from their own hands. "Releasing" Warsaw was important for soviets to justify their claims on Polsih land and installing puppet government. Red Army sat at the Vistula river and watched the city burn. Later insurgents not killed by nazi Germans were hunted by communists as "folk enemy".

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fallenkezef said:

"pure" communism is no better or worse than "pure" capitalism. It's how these principles are applied that matter.

 

Quote

 

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is the radical social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

 

By this definition, Soviet Union was not an communist by any means but (ironic enough) fascist. And anyone who has read about communism and socialism knows that!

 

Funny enough, current society is moving towards the "communist" ideas that everyone dreads about but we just call it differently.

 

 

Edited by Sodanjumala
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind...

Edited by Josephs_Piano
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.