Talk:Operation Unthinkable

"were rightly concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the fact that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. "

'Were rightly' and 'was unreliable' are normative/subjective judgements, no? Not NPOV. 'They were concerned', 'they considered Stalin to be unreliable' instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.120.92 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The map

I have some complaints about the map but the main one is: can we consider Finland part of the western allies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoygan!! (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Finland wasn't neutral - it had declared war on Germany, and wasn't pro-Soviet - it had fought two wars against the Soviet Union. Certainly debatable, but any other colour would be equally misleading. Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actual Goal

I have no great insight into Unthinkable, but the page to which the link is given not only does not include the quote given about imposing American and British will on Russia but, indeed, undermines that entire argument suggesting, instead, that WSC's concern was that Russia would seek to impose its will on Britain and Europe. Any comments or clarification?

Czrisher (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The right page is #1. Corrected. Take a look once again. --Fastboy (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still see no reference to it as "a precautionary study" nor "purely hypothetical contingency", though it is clearly both, so I do not dispute the point. More troubling is the fact that this is a report from the Joint Planning Staff. I would imagine, thus, that it was to Churchill, likely in response to questions he had raised in a memorandum, rather than from him as the article suggests. Further, the combination of the phrase about how 'Even though "the will"...may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland' with the connotations on the latter page mentioned above suggest that the quotation is misleading and the analysis of Unthinkable is inaccurate. Perhaps we simply need more language? Czrisher (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference has, again, been modified and yet I can still see nowhere the language it supposedly contains. As far as I can tell, the supposed quotation to which the citation refers is wholly inaccurate and I intend to remove it. (The link to the memo is, of course, of great use and will be maintained.) My objections continue that the language of this article is, at best, confused and misleading. Czrisher (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This article is almost completely incomprehensible. Was the Operation Unthinkable report a plan to invade Russia (the Soviet Union)? --217.76.87.120 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All the pages of the report are available as separate URLs - just change the number of the page from 001 to at least 026. I'm going to give it a read. From the first part it would appear that the plan was a defensive one, in the event of US forces being drawn down in Europe, and Soviet forces being able to conquer Western Europe, namedly France and the Low Countries. Stevebritgimp (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've actually done the work of expanding this article which was so obviously needed. I'm going to remove the improvement template, in that now I think it just becomes a regular article that will need the normal level of review for POV, notability and verifiability. Stevebritgimp (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, in my hubris I will say that Stevebritgimp's improvements have made this a valuable article. As he says, it can be refined, tightened, and improved, but we're now starting from a solid foundation.Czrisher (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"conflicts were developing between capitalist and communist areas of Europe" is incorrect. The conflict was between democratic (or at least non-communist) and communist areas. This is a frequent error, but an error nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What the article does not make clear was that both the USA and UK felt that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. One totalitarian dictatorship had been defeated, and another remained. The Soviets were never really allies, so much as so-belligerents. After all the Soviets had started the war as allies of the Nazis. The plans were based on the notion that if was inevitable it had to be planned for. That angle is entirely missing from the article, which implies simply that Churchill wanted to invade the Soviet Union.122.59.167.152 (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dead link

elegraph link doesn´t work. Best, CK.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.205.237.4 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Feasibility of the plan

Did the judgment of whether it would've been feasible to wage a successful war against the Soviets in 1945 take into account the use of atomic weapons? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. By 1946 atomic bombs were very heavy and could only be delivered by strategic bomber. They were also few in number. In places where it mattered most (military formations facing western allied troops) they could not be used without radiation poisoning western troops too and they would have to advance through the area afterward, and wouldn't have made much difference anyway due to their small number. And they could not be used on russias most important cities at the outset of conflict because of lack of air superiority, it would have to be gained first and that necessitates a total conventional war first. Gaining that air superiority would have proven...difficult over a country as vast as russia, and the massive airforce it possesed by the end of ww2. Escort FIghters back then simply didn't have much range, you had to take land first, then move your air bases forward, and so on. THe land operation proved unfeasible so from there was everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.201.39 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That... map... even though I understand it was supposed to show those countries aligned with the West (or perhaps those of the United Nations, recently created, not directly tied to the USSR), but putting it there is absolutely ridiculous. Not one African or South/Central American country, as anticommunist and some of them might be at the time, would engage in war at the behalf of other countries. Let alone them all! Perhaps that map's label could change to (and even this is highly debatable) "countries aligned with the United States or USSR"

Vocabulary

C'mon guys. Use language that everyone can understand. You're not writing an academic treatise here. This is supposed to be an encylopedia for the general population, including those who didn't finish high school. Look at the number of words in this short article that send people scurrying to the dictionary:

pars pro toto -> calling something by the name of one of its parts

coterminous -> the same place

commenced -> began

unfeasible -> won't work

projected -> expected

protracted -> long

an instruction by Churchill -> on Churchill's orders

relocating -> moving

envisaged -> believed, thought

anticipated -> believed, thought

proximity -> near, close

bridgehead -> position

Although short, I nominate this as the most pompous page on Wikipedia. In trying to prove how smart you are, you are proving how terrible you are at communicating simple concepts. "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."

P.S. - This complaint is written by a native English-speaker who scored in the 98th percentile in the language section of his GMAT. I can use big words, too, but I'd rather be understood.

--68.232.66.237 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an native english speaker (my native tongue is german), but I under stand everything. I understand that for some people some words are harder to unterstand but some "easyer" words have different meanings like bridgehead --> position,--Thaodan (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft numbers

The article mentions the soviets having a 4-to-1 troop advantage, and a 2-to-1 tank advantage, but fails to mention the number of air craft. Air craft became a much more important part of warfare in this war, and would EXTREMELY relevant in any war between the two powers. Mention should also be given to the existence of both British and American Jet aircraft, which would likely be the main advantage the allies had. Joesolo13 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful with numbers not numbers but "force ratio" counts:

some examples:

both the British and Americans possesed more long-range fighter and medium bombers than the Soviet Union. the naval forces of the western powers were supirior to any Soviet force, the US and the British, equipped with US planes, fleet-carrier alone were able to inflicted massive damage on Soviet infrastructure. Beside that both western Navies had massive amphibious capabilities.

German ballistic missiles and "buzz-bombs" could be deployed against known Soviet supply depots, troop concentrations and airfields, etc.. British and German tank were equal or supirior in quality but not in quatity. The 17 pd. QF Gun and German 88mm and 75mm HV guns were able to cope with any Russian tanks.

And last the US were unreacheable for the Soviet Union in 1945. --88.152.148.127 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Should Mention Churchill's 1954 Disclosure

It might be technically true that the plans were highly secret and not disclosed until 1998, but you should mention Prime Minister Churchill's remarks to his constituents in Woodford in November 1954. At that time, in a widely reported speech, he said that at the end of the War he had instructed Montgomery to stockpile German weapons in case the Allies had to fight the Russians with German help. He was a bit confused (he was about to hit 80 and beginning to realize that he wasn't up to the job any more) but this was in fact an oblique reference to Operation Unthinkable. 69.119.169.59 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

Soviets knew of the plan?

This documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVo6AzUI3ug (skip to 40 min in) claims the plans were given to the Russians by a soviet agent in the British military and that Soviet forces were redeployed to counter any offensive from the west. Should this be mentioned in the article? ... Seabhcan 23:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The atom bomb

I think mention of this should be included in the article. Certainly by 1946 it would have drastically improved the Allied defence. The plan continues to be mentioned to this date in the article. At least a dozen nuclear weapons of the Fat Boy design were in the Allied arsenal by 46, and Moscow would certainly have been in range by B29 and Avro Lincoln strategic bombers. Any thoughts? Irondome (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong flag

In the image the wrong flag; its the one from Indonesia. The polish flag is the other way around :) ...Sicherlich ^Post 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)