Seven Days to the Rhine: Conventional WWIII

After reading the book Red Storm Rising, I have become interested in the scenario of an at least paritally conventional war scenario between the USSR plus the Warsaw Pact vs. the United States plus NATO.

So what if, in the late 1970's or early 1980's the USSR invaded West Germany. There was a plan for this, know as Seven Days to the Rhine. Now, this did involve the use of nuclear weapons, but on a tactical level, as in striking at strategic locations in Western Europe, not in France or Britian, which might invoke full retaliation.

There could be numerous casus belli for this war in this period, such as the one used in Red Storm Rising, in which the USSR wanted to sieze the Persian Gulf, and needed to get rid of NATO first. Then again, a minor border dispute could escalate into a full war.

Also, assuming that the USSR is successful and pushes to the Rhine, what does the post-war world look like?

1) Would there be any other possible fronts for this war, or just Europe? Maybe the Persian Gulf, if the USSR needs oil?

2) Who would China, India, and some of the Middle Eastern nations(Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) side with?

3) Would other wars break out? Maybe:
-The US using the war as an excuse to take out other less friendly governments in Central America, like Nicaragua or Cuba?
-South Africa/Isreal asserting dominacne over surrounding nations while major powers are looking away(this happened in another WWIII thread I saw)

4) What would relations between the USSR and the US look like afterwards? Would the USA try and keep the war going against the USSR, via a Naval war, bombings, or a blockade?

5) Could NATO win, without nukes?

I would like to say lastly that I don't think it would balloon into a nuclear doomsday(read the strategic thread in the Future Hist. forum for my reasoning). The USA isn't going to lose Chicago for Munich. Sorry about that!

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:

So what if, in the late 1970's or early 1980's the USSR invaded West Germany.

Now, this did involve the use of nuclear weapons, but on a tactical level, as in striking at strategic locations in Western Europe, not in France or Britian, which might invoke full retaliation.

1) Would there be any other possible fronts for this war, or just Europe? Maybe the Persian Gulf, if the USSR needs oil?

2) Who would China, India, and some of the Middle Eastern nations(Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) side with?

5) Could NATO win, without nukes?

I would like to say lastly that I don't think it would balloon into a nuclear doomsday(read the strategic thread in the Future Hist. forum for my reasoning). The USA isn't going to lose Chicago for Munich. Sorry about that!

Click to expand...

The middle to late 1970s, and perhaps the early 1980s, was the USSR's last chance to win a conventional war.

Global Wargames believed that limited nuclear strikes on non-populated strategic targets that did not themselves hold nuclear weapons would be acceptable to both sides, if announced in advance (i.e. you can nuke a battlegroup at sea or Diego Garcia, you can't nuke the French ICBMs). Trading cities would escalate and require the American President to begin SIOP. That said, the threat of SIOP would probably pull the world back. That said, again, the French will go nuclear if the Russians cross their borders.

1) It's only logical to seize the Middle East, if for nothing else than to cut off Western Europe from oil. Whether or not the USSR can afford to divert the forces is another matter.

2) Pakistan and Iran are American allies in the late 1970s, and Iran would back the Americans IF the USSR invades. India is neutral but friendly to the USSR. The Chinese would probably look on in amusement and wish they could take Taiwan.

5) Yes. Caveat: The Soviet Union has from 30 to 60 days to win. Longer than that and they will lose.

Okay, I tend to think that the United States will just keep on mailing reinforcements to Europe, even if the Soviets reach the Rhine. This is where things get really hairy. If the Soviets continue to drive on France and the Low Countries, I think NATO will resort to tactical nuclear weapons.

I simply see little way the United States will agree to concede Germany after a quick war. I mean, I would think the US would continue to fight and nuclear weapons get used. Eventually, the ICBMs get launched.

The Soviet Union can not hope to win a long, drawn out war against the United States, and the United States can not hope to hold Europe without resorting to nuclear weapons. The USA had committed itself to using said weapons to holding Europe--and they would.

Red Storm Rising rides on the very tip of forcing either side to resort to nukes. NATO would probably hold off on nukes for as long as they could; and short of the Rhine they would probably not use them. But because the fighting will not remain contained, it either leads to a quick cease fire and a return to antebellum borders or ends in a nuclear holocaust.

US Invading Cuba is probably going forward. Once a shooting war with the Soviets begins all tacit truces with the Soviet Union are off.

As for Nuclear Weapons--Would France lose Bordeaux to save Paris? Can the United States resist the pressure to use nuclear weapons if they are facing ejection from Europe? The right answer is: We are very glad we never had to find out. But once the first weapon goes off--and it might be France using it to defend itself from an onrushing Soviet Attack, the USA resorting to such weapons to keep its forces from getting routed, or something else.

The Book On Nuclear War discusses some of the game theory of Nuclear War. If the United States resorts to nuclear weapons against advancing Soviet Troops, the Soviets might not opt to hitting a civilian target. And then, hopefully, the United States might not decide to launch a disarming first strike against the Soviets.

So, I think the Middle East and Central Europe are going to be where the bulk of the fighting happens. There might also be a proxy duel in India/Pakistan and in South Africa.

Electric Monk said:

T

5) Yes. Caveat: The Soviet Union has from 30 to 60 days to win. Longer than that and they will lose.

Click to expand...

In the 70s and early 80s the US military was incredibly weak. It's doubtful they would have been able to support the European forces in any meaningful sense in at least the first six months of combat. The Soviet Union would have in all likelihood just rolled over the West Germans and forced the French, British, and Americans to terms.

Could the USSR win in the Middle East? If they invaded, all of the Middle East turns fanatically against them. Then against, the Soviets didn't kid around, and may not have qualms about killing civilians if there might be insugrents.

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:

Could the USSR win in the Middle East? If they invaded, all of the Middle East turns fanatically against them. Then against, the Soviets didn't kid around, and may not have qualms about killing civilians if there might be insugrents.

Click to expand...

That's rather simplistic - The Soviets were on friendly terms with several Middle Eastern powers. What is most likely is that the SU, after running over Germany, would pursue a diplomatic offensive to sway the Arab powers and Iran rather than outright invade them.

At first I enjoyed the book "Red Storm Rising" myself too.

However after re-reading it and looking at the whole picture, I found out that the book has one major flaw:
The political will on NATO's part to actually start the war.

In Red Storm Rising the first major action (apart from the Soviet commando raids) was the destruction of the Elbe bridges and the decapitation of the Soviet Air Force by a preemptive strike.
Looking in retrospect, I find it very difficult to believe that NATO would be able to pull off this kind of operation with everyone (except France) agreeing and without the Soviets noticing.

If the Soviets did indeed agree to steamroll, then they did indeed have a window of opportunity to win the war in the 70s and early 80s. The mid80s is the time when the US gained a massive technological advantage with powerful new systems introduced like the M2-Bradley, M1 Abraams, F-16.
Furthermore anti-tank missiles became extremely better by then and were available in large numbers which clearly diminished the Soviet advantage.
There is a nice book out there called "Red Army", which demonstrates a European WWIII from the Soviet point of view. The Soviets make it to the Rhine indeed, after destroying a smaller German city, causing shock amongst the Germans and demonstrating them, that if they keep fighting, the Soviets "would bury them" (as Nikita would say )

I don't think the Soviets would go beyond the Rhine. In fact the French built small range missile systems called "Pluto" and "Hades" which were designed to hit advancing Soviet troops. The Germans were of course "not amused", since they clearly understood that any detonations would take place over their soil.

Apart from the German border, I would expect action to happen in the Balkans with Bulgaria going for Greece and Turkey, while the USSR goes for Turkey as well and tries to bring their fleet into the Med. Securing a gateway to the Aegean and the Med was always a Soviet and Bulgarian dream there.
Furthermore deep penetration airlifting operations may happen, with the Soviets trying to airlift troops through Austria for example towards Italy (which indeed was one of NATOs nightmares) or going for the Rhine bridges. Some more action would take place in the Baltic. Perhaps the Soviets would try to invade Denmark too. In the North Norway would come under very heavy air attack, although I do not expect much of an invasion to take place.
In the Pacific front, the Soviets would probably keep quiet, not much to win there.
In the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean mostly submarine operations would take place with the Soviets trying to disrupt the flow of oil to NATO.

Okay, upon further investigation, there is a very basic logical problem with this entire scenario.

France.

If the Soviets stop at the Rhine River, France becomes a marshalling ground for NATO to eject the Soviets from Germany and perhaps further.

If the Soviets move into France, France will use nuclear weapons in its own defense. Doctrinally, France was aiming for Soviet Cities with its nuclear weapons; this means that a Soviet Advance into France proper will result in France launching its nuclear weapons. The Soviets may or may not launch everything in response, but they're going to do something; and the US and UK MUST respond to that something.

Basically, France will pull the trigger on a nuclear exchange. And I see no real way France is going to stand down without using its nukes. The Soviets can threaten an all-out launch against France--but by this point I'm sure ALL the nukes are ready for an all-out exchange. Now the Soviets and NATO can come to a deal with the threat of nuclear destruction on each other heads--but that deal is probably not going to be anything other than a white peace. NATO isn't going to sell out West Germany--any more than the Soviet Union would sell out Hungary, Czechloslovkia and East Germany.

Basically, the world is going to get screwed.

Blue Max said:

Okay, upon further investigation, there is a very basic logical problem with this entire scenario.

France.

If the Soviets stop at the Rhine River, France becomes a marshalling ground for NATO to eject the Soviets from Germany and perhaps further.

If the Soviets move into France, France will use nuclear weapons in its own defense. Doctrinally, France was aiming for Soviet Cities with its nuclear weapons; this means that a Soviet Advance into France proper will result in France launching its nuclear weapons. The Soviets may or may not launch everything in response, but they're going to do something; and the US and UK MUST respond to that something.

Basically, France will pull the trigger on a nuclear exchange. And I see no real way France is going to stand down without using its nukes. The Soviets can threaten an all-out launch against France--but by this point I'm sure ALL the nukes are ready for an all-out exchange. Now the Soviets and NATO can come to a deal with the threat of nuclear destruction on each other heads--but that deal is probably not going to be anything other than a white peace. NATO isn't going to sell out West Germany--any more than the Soviet Union would sell out Hungary, Czechloslovkia and East Germany.

Basically, the world is going to get screwed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to say.

France is the sticking point. The Soviet Union can't win without crossing the Rhine (if only because if they don't cross the Rhine they've hardly "won", have they?) and if they cross the Rhine the French will play the "Fuck this, everyone dies" card. The Soviets can't win (of course, NATO victory is an iffy, iffy thing too, but the Soviets have no possible win-conditions).

Ironically, what might be best for one of the combatants in this situation would be to nuke one of your own cities, just to prove your resolve, and willingness to go all the way. Upon seeing that, your opponent would almost certainly give into whatever demands were made, since you aren't fucking around.

Of course, any government that ordered such a thing would be kicked out of power rather quickly (and violently).

I am IN NO WAY using the cheese eating surrender monekys card, but I really dont think its a foregone conclusion France would take the world down in flames rather than accept Soviet domination. I think if the Germans had already surrendered, France would rather be red than dead. That was always an American POV, not a european one.

RedRalphWiggum said:

I am IN NO WAY using the cheese eating surrender monekys card, but I really dont think its a foregone conclusion France would take the world down in flames rather than accept Soviet domination. I think if the Germans had already surrendered, France would rather be red than dead. That was always an American POV, not a european one.

Click to expand...

That's what the French arsenal was for: it was their stated, explicit, absolutely guarenteed policy that any WP crossing of the Rhine would be met with French carpet-nuking of the Soviet Union. The hairtrigger isn't there because the French love WWIII - the point is to make sure the Soviets don't cross the Rhine by tying it to MAD. The Soviets know crossing the Rhine => death; so they won't cross. Of course, this only works if you're absolutely willing to Do It.

And you are going for the CESM card there. I'm not sure why you think "crossing the Rhine => disproportionate retaliation" is harder to follow through on than "first-strike on silos in North Dakota => disproportionate retaliation".

Zyzzyva said:

Yeah, I was going to say.

France is the sticking point. The Soviet Union can't win without crossing the Rhine (if only because if they don't cross the Rhine they've hardly "won", have they?) and if they cross the Rhine the French will play the "Fuck this, everyone dies" card. The Soviets can't win (of course, NATO victory is an iffy, iffy thing too, but the Soviets have no possible win-conditions).

Click to expand...

I'll be fair, and suggest that France might well make this stand at the Seine instead of the Rhine. But I can't see France losing Ille De France without resorting to nuclear weapons.

And RRW, this difficulty in a war is trying to get the third way--using nuclear weapons in such a method that you are neither dead nor red. France has a nuclear arsenal, and the Soviets know this. They also know that France will hit their cities if they advance deep into the country (perhaps this means Strasbourg, it might mean Paris, in either case, sooner or later they'll unleash hell.)

Even if we grant that France will be very reluctant to use nuclear weapons and might wait on them until no other options are possible, there's no getting away from the fact that they're going to ENSURE that they are NOT the only ones who are going to be utterly screwed.

Remember, the Soviet Decision to attack NATO means that a nuclear war is very possible; the Soviets have already decided that their actions are worth a potential nuclear exchange. All the deterrence, all of the political considerations--the Soviets have decided to screw all of it to hell. Indeed, the only answer to this situation is for the Soviet Union and United States to make some kind of agreement both sides can live with. Otherwise, you can cue the Final Countdown theme.

I'd like to hear or See LA's reasonings on how this doesn't go very, very nuclear.

Blue Max said:

I'll be fair, and suggest that France might well make this stand at the Seine instead of the Rhine. But I can't see France losing Ille De France without resorting to nuclear weapons.

And RRW, this difficulty in a war is trying to get the third way--using nuclear weapons in such a method that you are neither dead nor red. France has a nuclear arsenal, and the Soviets know this. They also know that France will hit their cities if they advance deep into the country (perhaps this means Strasbourg, it might mean Paris, in either case, sooner or later they'll unleash hell.)

Even if we grant that France will be very reluctant to use nuclear weapons and might wait on them until no other options are possible, there's no getting away from the fact that they're going to ENSURE that they are NOT the only ones who are going to be utterly screwed.

Remember, the Soviet Decision to attack NATO means that a nuclear war is very possible; the Soviets have already decided that their actions are worth a potential nuclear exchange. All the deterrence, all of the political considerations--the Soviets have decided to screw all of it to hell. Indeed, the only answer to this situation is for the Soviet Union and United States to make some kind of agreement both sides can live with. Otherwise, you can cue the Final Countdown theme.

I'd like to hear or See LA's reasonings on how this doesn't go very, very nuclear.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was the Rhine, and very specifically the Rhine.

I'll admit expecting rationality out of the guys who just kicked off The Big One is a bit optimistic, but the whole point of the French deterrent was that it was on a very specific hairtrigger. WP crosses the Rhine => all hell breaks loose. This was not secret. The French ran around yelling this at everyone who would listen. As long as the Russians know this - and the Russians knew this - and were rational, France was safe. The WP could conquer West Germant in a conventional war (well, maybe); but but they cannot conquer France, because to do so they need to trip the French deterrent; and if they wanted everyone to die they would have just opened the war by slagging NYC.

The corollary to this is that the French are stuck with defending the Rhine; if the Russians cross it and the French don't loose all hell, they've lost all effect their nukes have. They can't say "well, we really don't want you to take the Seine" because the Russains won't believe them; so they might as well drive for the Pyrenees. So once the French drew the line in the sand at the Rhine, they damn well had to stand on it.

I'm not sure what's particulary hard to understand about this strategy.

Zyzzyva said:

That's what the French arsenal was for: it was their stated, explicit, absolutely guarenteed policy that any WP crossing of the Rhine would be met with French carpet-nuking of the Soviet Union. The hairtrigger isn't there because the French love WWIII - the point is to make sure the Soviets don't cross the Rhine by tying it to MAD. The Soviets know crossing the Rhine => death; so they won't cross. Of course, this only works if you're absolutely willing to Do It.

And you are going for the CESM card there. I'm not sure why you think "crossing the Rhine => disproportionate retaliation" is harder to follow through on than "first-strike on silos in North Dakota => disproportionate retaliation".

Click to expand...

Dont know what CESM is.

and my point is that I dont think its a guarantee that the French ARE willing to do it. It's literally a choice between being a soviet satellite, which, while not a popular option at all for France, isnt the end of the world, and committing national mass-suicide and taking the world down with them. Which is.

you can say the same about the Russians, but its is different for them, because they really dont have the option of just stopping on the Rhine, if they do everything has been in vain and they will probably get nuked anyway.

you cant seriously think anyone has that much resolve, that they wouldnt even hesitate on pressing the button?

RedRalphWiggum said:

Dont know what CESM is.

and my point is that I dont think its a guarantee that the French ARE willing to do it. It's literally a choice between being a soviet satellite, which, while not a popular option at all for France, isnt the end of the world, and committing national mass-suicide and taking the world down with them. Which is.

you can say the same about the Russians, but its is different for them, because they really dont have the option of just stopping on the Rhine, if they do everything has been in vain and they will probably get nuked anyway.

you cant seriously think anyone has that much resolve, that they wouldnt even hesitate on pressing the button?

Click to expand...

Abbreviation of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey.

...You really just don't believe in MAD, do you? By that standard, the Soviets should have Red Dawn'd the US, because the US is "better off" as a Soviet satellite than black glass. The whole damn point of every damn nuclear arsenal on the whole damn planet is that if They cross a line, you slag the planet. So They never cross the line. And the corollary is it only works if you're willing to do so, so you staff your silos with people who are willing to do it.

Yes, I personally might not fire the nukes. That's why I'm not running a missile silo.

Try Sir John Hackett's book WORLD WAR III.

Very interesting putting forward an easily readable novel of such an event.

He was a major player in NATO planning

I don't think the Soviets ever actually wanted to CONQUER France by force. They don't need to do that.
There is enough out there for them already in case they manage to break NATO's defence:

West Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg.

They can evey try to take out Italy too and the Balcan campaign would probably lead to Greece falling and Turkey becoming Finnland V2.0.

Then they can use covert actions, propaganda, etc to make France either turn red through internal uprisings or simply ask France if they would like to become their trading partner.

One should furthermore not OVERestimate France's nuclear capabilities. They did have good tactical capabilities, but beyond those they only had a couple of SSBNs and 18 (?) IRBMs.

MUC said:

I don't think the Soviets ever actually wanted to CONQUER France by force. They don't need to do that.
There is enough out there for them already in case they manage to break NATO's defence:

West Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg.

They can evey try to take out Italy too and the Balcan campaign would probably lead to Greece falling and Turkey becoming Finnland V2.0.

Then they can use covert actions, propaganda, etc to make France either turn red through internal uprisings or simply ask France if they would like to become their trading partner.

Click to expand...

*Sighs*

Did you read my post on France?

And let me make this perfectly clear--betting on a coup to solve your political problems is MORE THAN INSANE. That's, in summary, what Hitler wanted the Soviets to do.

I refer you to NATO Article 5. France will honor this arrangement. Otherwise, hell, why didn't the USA use covert actions, propaganda etc to make the Soviet Union go White? It just doesn't work this way.

Zyzzyva said:

Abbreviation of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey.

...You really just don't believe in MAD, do you? By that standard, the Soviets should have Red Dawn'd the US, because the US is "better off" as a Soviet satellite than black glass. The whole damn point of every damn nuclear arsenal on the whole damn planet is that if They cross a line, you slag the planet. So They never cross the line. And the corollary is it only works if you're willing to do so, so you staff your silos with people who are willing to do it.

Yes, I personally might not fire the nukes. That's why I'm not running a missile silo.

Click to expand...

I do believe in it, and I think the USSR and US would have done it if it had come down to it, however I dont think France was as utterly terrified of being red as the US was, I think France knew that foreign occupation dosent mean the world has ended and I think France was more likely to be rational than the USSR or USA.

I'm not saying that France wouldnt have done it, I'm saying they werent guaranteed to do it, and I dont think the odds are as high as some people do.

The people with their fingers on the button are humans just like you and me, they have moments of self doubt and consciences. When the Soviet or American leaders were trying to decided to use neculear weapons, they knew it meants their utter destruction if they did, and possible, if not probably utter destruction even if they didnt, because the other side probably would anyway. France, in this situation, on the other hand, could choose between literally ceasing to exist for ever or becoming the western version of Poland. This is not particularly directed at France, a nuclear armed West Germany would have had similar options and I think the likelyhood either way would have been same for them as for France.