TIL that Winston Churchill drew up plans for a surprise attack against the then-allied Soviet Union. Dubbed "Operation Unthinkable," the plan would have rearmed up to 100,000 former Nazi soldiers and kicked off World War 3 almost before World War 2 had ended. (en.m.wikipedia.org)

{todayilearned}

825 ups - 223 downs = 602 votes

168 comments submitted at 14:51:46 on Nov 25, 2013 by auroch27

  • [-]
  • rick7475
  • 15 Points
  • 16:50:51, 25 November

He and Patton must have gotten along, they both wanted WW3.

  • [-]
  • Jpakolypse
  • 3 Points
  • 22:02:23, 25 November

Those two guys never saw a fight that they didn't like.

  • [-]
  • T1Brit
  • -12 Points
  • 17:23:52, 25 November

They both wanted to get rid of a satanic evil that still ruled over half the world and continued to do so for another 50 years of misery, while they had the means to do it.

  • [-]
  • Svarog123
  • 15 Points
  • 20:03:02, 25 November

>According to Yale Lecturer Richard Pipes, 74% of Russians surveyed for his 2005 book regret the demise of the Soviet Union and believe life was better under Communism.

>78% of respondents in a 2003 survey said that democracy is a facade for a government controlled by rich and powerful cliques. Only 22% expressed a preference for democracy; 53% disliked it.

>74% of Russians regret the Soviet Union's passing. Only 12% regard the post-communist regime as "legitimate". In an October 2003 survey they were asked how they would react to a Communist coup: 23% would actively support it, 19 would collaborate, only 10% would actively resist.

Statistics taken from "Flight from Freedom: What Russians Think and Want" by Richard Pipes, published in the May/June 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs

>At the end of 2011, some 22 years after the fall of the communist regime, Romania seems to be going through what is probably the deepest economic and social crisis of its post-communist existence. In this context, many Romanians seem to be displaying a certain appreciation for different attributes related to the communist regime or ideology. This appreciation is always interpreted as nostalgia for the communist past and/or regime.

>The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.

http://www.balkanalysis.com/romania/2011/12/27/in-romania-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-for-communism/

>Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.

>Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. "The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html

>A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country's economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country's switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary's integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/

>Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday.

>Only 23 percent said they had a better life now.

>More goods in shops, open borders and better cultural offer are considered the biggest successes of the system that was installed after 1989.

>On the other hand, the voucher privatisation, the worsening of human relations and work of the civil service are its biggest flaws, most Czechs said.

http://praguemonitor.com/2011/11/21/poll-many-czechs-say-they-had-better-life-under-communism

>A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -"during the time of socialism".

>The survey focused on the respondents' views on the transition "from socialism to capitalism", and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito.

>The standard of living during Tito's rule from the Second World War to the 1980s was also assessed as best, whereas the Milosevic decade of the 1990s, and the subsequent decade since the fall of his regime are seen as "more or less the same".

>45 percent said they trusted social institutions most under communism with 23 percent chosing the 2001-2003 period when Zoran Djinđic was prime minister. Only 19 per cent selected present-day institutions.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country

  • [-]
  • inexcess
  • 2 Points
  • 22:35:20, 25 November

None of which matters, because the fact is at the actual time those countries existed people clearly did not want to be there under that government. People did not risk their lives trying to cross into West Berlin for nothing. People would not have resisted the warsaw pact constantly if things were so great. There would not have been uprisings in almost every warsaw pact country. The governments of all these countries collapsed all around the same time because they were bullshit.

  • [-]
  • theguyisaguy
  • 7 Points
  • 19:28:39, 25 November

How's that kool-aid, buddy?

  • [-]
  • inexcess
  • 2 Points
  • 22:35:58, 25 November

you tell me

  • [-]
  • Vaktathi
  • 2 Points
  • 19:23:54, 25 November

They didn't realistically have the means to do it, the operational assesment considered it unfeasible.

  • [-]
  • Jabbaland
  • 1 Points
  • 17:57:16, 25 November

It would have probably saved a whole lot more lives and misery. Remember it was not just Russia / China. It was the Middle-East, Far-East, South America, essentially everywhere would have been spared huge amounts of heartache.

  • [-]
  • Vaktathi
  • 5 Points
  • 19:31:35, 25 November

Let's not forget that such a conflict would have re-devastated Europe, and that it's outcome would likely have been in favor of the Red Army. That would have been far worse for the world had that happened.

  • [-]
  • RIP_BerthaChampagne
  • -4 Points
  • 18:10:10, 25 November

>satanic evil

Then he should have left Germany alone. Germany could have defeated Russia without the western front attacks.

  • [-]
  • Vaktathi
  • 6 Points
  • 19:29:42, 25 November

The backbone of the Wehrmacht was broken before the western allies landed in Europe, at Stalingrad and Kursk. After that the Wehrmacht was in permanent retreat, and as the allies were consolidating in Normany the Red Army annihilated German Army Group Center and drove to the baltic in just a few weeks. 90% of all german ground forces casualties were sustained on the Eastern Front, over 75% of all German casualties were sustained on the Eastern Front.

The critical western assistance wasn't on the battlefield, it was food and trucks more than anything else.

Germany could have defeated the USSR had it taken Moscow in 1941, after that, despite the success of the 1942 offensives, any hope of victory thereafter was very weak indeed.

  • [-]
  • alekzander01
  • 12 Points
  • 18:30:24, 25 November

HAHAHAH

No

Logistics bro, Germany was doomed. I am a big Germab Panzer fanboy, but face it, Grrmany couldn't beat Russia

  • [-]
  • Puzzles21
  • 4 Points
  • 19:05:24, 25 November

The end of the game was, Europe was completely locked in stalemate, the sort that could have lasted a century.

Britain couldn't be defeated unless the Germans established Naval and Aerial supremacy, which they couldn't. And the USSR would not fall, the man power, the resources. Russia was crazy, the soldiers were brutal and blood thirsty, and borderline insane.

Without America, the outcome would have been the same, eventually, but it would have taken so much longer.

  • [-]
  • RIP_BerthaChampagne
  • -1 Points
  • 19:14:14, 25 November

No. Germany could have defeated Russia if it wasn't attacked from all sides. Plus, Russia had to receive lots of weapons and aid from the U.S. in order to keep fighting the Germans. They were poor and starving while the Germans were holding strong.

  • [-]
  • Puzzles21
  • 5 Points
  • 19:19:22, 25 November

I'd have to disagree with you here, from what I can see, after the battle of Kursk, there was literally no way that the Red Army could have been defeated by Germany. I mean, it's true, if the Battle Of Britain had never happened, they'd have had aerial supremacy over Russia, but most German air raids targeted dummy soviet bases.

  • [-]
  • RIP_BerthaChampagne
  • 3 Points
  • 19:29:01, 25 November

>I mean, it's true, if the Battle Of Britain had never happened, they'd have had aerial supremacy over Russia

This is what I mean. If the western front was peaceful and the Nazis had all of their resources against Russia and Russia only then they would defeat them. Germany was an industrial powerhouse and to this day manufactures more goods than the entire country of Russia. And Germany is the size of Montana.

  • [-]
  • Vaktathi
  • 2 Points
  • 19:56:39, 25 November

Keep in mind Germany had already been at war with the West for almost two years by the time the Wehrmacht engaged the Soviet Union, they weren't just going to stop.

  • [-]
  • RIP_BerthaChampagne
  • 1 Points
  • 20:01:40, 25 November

Yeah I know. But Hitler wanted to stop fighting them. He called for a truce several times so he could dedicate his forces to Russia. WWII started with Poland vs. Germany until France and Britain decided to step in. It wasn't much of their business but France wanted excessive war reparations from Germany because of WWI.

  • [-]
  • Vaktathi
  • 1 Points
  • 20:09:56, 25 November

Right, that's all true, though I don't think Europe would have been better off under the Nazi's as opposed to half-under the Soviets XD