It could’ve saved the world from Marxist degeneracy.

>Britain attacking through the Balkans
>again

The Soviets would immediately overrun allied forces on the continent, with allied air superiority only momentarily slowing it down.
Then comes 2-3 years of bombing and starvation and sporadic skirmishes around Mesopotamia/Iran/Caucasus as allies will push back thr soviets there and bomb Baku.
Once these 2-3 years has passed, USSR will be near breaking point, with famine and looming civil war. USA will begin to drop nuclear bombs. Allies will make a new invasion of continental Europe. Come 1950s, Soviets and being pushed back into pre-1939 borders. Russia enters New civil war. Germany, Italy, Greece gets communist revolutions from the constant stress of war. Famine around the world. More civil wars outside Europe. Loss of colonial control.

War finally ends; another 20 million Russians and 1-2 million allies are dead. Unknown amount of dead outside Europe because of 15 years of supply and production disruption since 1939 that was never restored in 1945.
Most of Europe, especially central and Eastern Europe are in complete ruins.

>>17867200 (OP)
considering that all that degeneracy flow from usa I doubt that

>>17867200 (OP)
>marxist degeneracy
Working and housing?

The US and England have been the ones pushing liberalism and faggotry, the Soviets were conservative

>>17867200 (OP)
Stalingrad and Kiev were both reduced to rubble. Why the fuck would the western allies waste nuclear weapons on them when they barely had any to begin with?

>>17867284
you forgot the soviets would control Germany and reactivate them as quickly as possible, along with a new Japan alliance. Italy would go hard communist. Assuming the US drops nukes as soon as they're available, soviet efforts would be focused on making their own nuke, at which point (with the bomb hanging over London) everything becomes boring again like in our timeline. Only this time communism won and capitalists lost because they acted in a completely churlish gutless and dishonorable way.

I'm more interested in what the post war settlement would look like. What happens to the ethnically not Polish lands that Poland used to own?

>>17867378
Assuming the soviets would even have the men and material to spare for the nuclear program.
They were in a pretty dire position immediately after ww2, Russia experienced the worst famine in its modern history around 1947, specifically because of the catastrophic losses from the war. The red army was forced to demobilize to get the men back to work, to avoid a social and economic collapse.
In 'Unthinkable', they are never given this luxury of pause.
Then again, neither does Britain, whom were still rationing food many years after ww2. Other parts of the world such as Indonesia also experienced catastrophic famine because of the disruption of supply and production around the world from the stress of the war.

Basically, if 'Unthinkable' did happen, it would be a very sluggish war, with many many millions more dead simply from the economic and social breakdown from an already unstable world.
The allies would have to use bombing as their main weapon, which means many tens of millions more dead Russian civilians.
Americans at home would probably severely question why more of their men are coming home in boxes than they were during the war with Germany, especially since USA never joined ww2 over Poland.

It's a very nasty war to imagine since it's a world war fought over already piles of bodies and ruins. Normally a war is started with the (presumed) understanding that its going to be a short war. With 'Unthinkable' everyone knows its going to be an unpredictable grind.

>>17867200 (OP)
>Marxist degeneracy
t. the 52 genders ethnic group when they have to work for a living

>>17867398
Basically, I don't think 'Unthinkable' would be worth simply enduring 45 years of living with the Soviet Union, and I think all those millions of people that would have perished in 'Unthinkable' are grateful that the people at the time decided to give peace and co-existing a chance.
The only people who thinks that the cost of Unthinkable does outweighs the 45 years of the east bloc are the literal fascists of this board.

>>17867398
Germites would have nothing better to do but build nooks and infernal machines for their new masters, as well as supernazi incel divisions who would otherwise be hunting rats in the ruins of Berlin.

>>17867404
There are many countries that became communist during the Cold War era, thanks to Soviet support for Marxist groups, that are still living under commie dictatorships today. I bet the people who live under such regimes wish the West had gone through with Unthinkable.

>>17867200 (OP)
>nuking Kyiv
VGH

>>17867425
Unthinkable would have changed the entire world history because it's essentially ww3. Its impossible to predict the long-term ripple effects up until 2025. Communism was mostly regarded as the preferable choice to post-colonial states and generally regarded as a liberation, the US might not even become involved at all in their independence struggle if there is no USSR umbrella reaching out to any communist regime, nor any "Red Scare" within the US itself that cause US to break isolationism in the 1950s.


Like the other anon said, it's even a possibility that the soviets develop the nuclear bomb before the war is concluded, and you will still end up with a cold war but from a far worse beginning.
Unthinkable wasn't even about destroying the USSR, it was to undo the changes of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for a pre-1939 hard reset by releasing Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc.

>>17867284
>Most of Europe, especially central and Eastern Europe are in complete ruins.
Implying they weren't in complete ruins after WWII

>>17867207
it works in HoI III

>>17867200 (OP)
Degeneracy is literally a synonym for capitalism you disgusting libfag.

>>17867508
>Establish pre-1939 borders
By essentially destroying the Soviet Union, the remnant wouldn't be that much different from modern Russia, a Husk of a resource state ran by a card-carrying member of the NKVD
>Soviets would nuke London
And? If they are in WW3, that would do little more than embolden whichever satanist runs the bomber commands of their respective states at the time. You would see anthrax bombings of continental Europe and carpet bombings of anyone remotely Russian and Turbo denazification in the for of decommufication.
A very funny scenario where the line of progressivism
Liberalism>Jacobinism>Socialism>Communism>Fascism>National socialism
is banned in the communist stage instead of fascist and progressives are simultaneously in power and purging themselves at the same time in the west.
I assume whichever socialist thinks of the logical conclusions of his ideology would have to skip communism and directly try fascism or national socialism, which would be in the position commies are today. A world with Less subversion and more violence, where anarcho-tyranny never exists for the normal tyranny, is more than enough. Also, probably no internet.

>>17867323
yeah starving to death and state worship are the definition of conservatism

>>17867200 (OP)
If they did it before the Soviets had nukes, sure.
Cut the Lend Lease and watch them crumble. They had an advantage on land, but the industrial might of the US combined with uncontested air space means it's over for the Ruskies. Now the USSR getting nuked and turned on by the West would lead far more credence to the already existing in real life commie cope that the West = Nazis. The amount of butthurt and bad blood would be fucking insane.

>>17867425
>I bet the people who live under such regimes wish the West had gone through with Unthinkable.
It's not the 90s anymore gramps, no one finds the west axiomatically supreme anymore.

>>17867200 (OP)
no it wouldn't, the seeds for the destruction of Europe and USA have already been sown long before 1945