I know my uncle served in the US Army in the 1980s and was told in event of war to expect most of them to flee their posts. He believed it.
WW3: Battlefield Germany 70's-80's
- Thread starter nova2010
- Start date
I know my uncle served in the US Army in the 1980s and was told in event of war to expect most of them to flee their posts. He believed it.
Yeah, I'm sure there would be pro-Soviet peace movements in Western Germany because everyone knows it's ACTUALLY Nazi Germany in all but name... Wtf...MrHaakwood said:
What the poster is saying is a lot of West Germans believed that nonsense and the poster wouldn't be wrong, but in this case I don't think they will amount to much as power wise in West Germany assuming they aren't overcome quickly and it grinds down it will be a small cadre of what is left of the regular Army with a far larger cadre of older German WW2 vets virtually running things in West Germany while war is going on.
So yes I imagine what the RAF would feel however an armed insurrection attempt in the West during the battle would not be pretty.
Last edited:
"France had long made it perfectly clear that Soviet troops crossing the Rhine would automatically trigger a French nuclear attack on the USSR. No ifs, ands, or buts."
That was their stated intention, but we will never know if they would have followed through. Although the call to "fight to the last man, the last drop of blood" sounds patriotic and resolute, very few nations have chosen annhilation over painful defeat. Leaders usually find a way to make the unpalateable tolerable and I suspect there isn't a country on the planet who would choose nuclear armageddon over defeat.
Or to put it another way, if you were the leader of your country and you had the choice to a) follow through on the pledge and press the button, so ensuring the destruction of your country and your entire family, or b) swallow the bitter pill and surrender, but ensuring that millions of people survive, which would you choose? What should a responsible leader choose to do?
And at what point do you feel that decision has to be made? Similarly to the way the episode of Yes, Prime Minister put it, if one Soviet scout paddles over the Rhine do you press the button? Of course not, one soldier is not a threat. So what if it's a battalion crossing a bridge? Do you press the button? How about a tank division gets to Metz? Button? And so on - the tipping point may not be that easy to identify.
That was their stated intention, but we will never know if they would have followed through. Although the call to "fight to the last man, the last drop of blood" sounds patriotic and resolute, very few nations have chosen annhilation over painful defeat. Leaders usually find a way to make the unpalateable tolerable and I suspect there isn't a country on the planet who would choose nuclear armageddon over defeat.
Or to put it another way, if you were the leader of your country and you had the choice to a) follow through on the pledge and press the button, so ensuring the destruction of your country and your entire family, or b) swallow the bitter pill and surrender, but ensuring that millions of people survive, which would you choose? What should a responsible leader choose to do?
And at what point do you feel that decision has to be made? Similarly to the way the episode of Yes, Prime Minister put it, if one Soviet scout paddles over the Rhine do you press the button? Of course not, one soldier is not a threat. So what if it's a battalion crossing a bridge? Do you press the button? How about a tank division gets to Metz? Button? And so on - the tipping point may not be that easy to identify.
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
1940s Britain would choose death rather than submit to the NAZIS. Lets list off what the germans tried to do to get us to surrender.
They used u-boats
they tried and failed to bomb us into surrender and failed
the V-1 and V-2 both which failed
the only thing they did not do was use bio-chem-or nukes and even then if the did use or have them we would not surrender to the NAZIS. We shall fight them on the beaches,on the landing grounds, in the hills and in the streets WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER.
They used u-boats
they tried and failed to bomb us into surrender and failed
the V-1 and V-2 both which failed
the only thing they did not do was use bio-chem-or nukes and even then if the did use or have them we would not surrender to the NAZIS. We shall fight them on the beaches,on the landing grounds, in the hills and in the streets WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER.
nova2010
Banned
3 Soviet nuclear missiles SS-4 hit on the ground the British cities of Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool.
Results:
Estimated fatalities: 1,161,550 Estimated injuries: 1,377,630
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
Three British Polaris missiles hit ST Petersberg Moscow and Leningrad
Estimated death toll 25-000-000 + and the soviets are with out most of there command structure.
Estimated damage in pounds £12-000-000-000 +
The Hermitage in ST Petes is a total write off and the works of the writer Trotsky and Stalins diaries are totaled
Estimated death toll 25-000-000 + and the soviets are with out most of there command structure.
Estimated damage in pounds £12-000-000-000 +
The Hermitage in ST Petes is a total write off and the works of the writer Trotsky and Stalins diaries are totaled
"1940s Britain would choose death rather than submit to the NAZIS. Lets list off what the germans tried to do to get us to surrender.
They used u-boats
they tried and failed to bomb us into surrender and failed
the V-1 and V-2 both which failed
the only thing they did not do was use bio-chem-or nukes and even then if the did use or have them we would not surrender to the NAZIS. We shall fight them on the beaches,on the landing grounds, in the hills and in the streets WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER."
Hyperbole which has no basis in fact. Churchill may well have thought that way but it's very clear that many Britons didn't. In 1940 Britain was never in the position of having to choose between utter annhilation and surrender, but even then there were voices in British government calling for a negotiated peace with the 'hated Hun'. Your points about 'what Germany tried to do to win' are irrelevant to the question, and shouting in capitals adds nothing to your argument.
In this scenario the French, about to be attacked en masse and presumably about to be overrun, have the nuclear tripwire as a last line of national defence. The choices seem clear - a) surrender and hope for the best under Soviet dictatorship, or b) nuclear strike followed by inevitable retaliation and probable destruction as a nation with most of your people dead. Neither is an agreeable outcome, but if those are the two choices then what would most leaders (or parents) do? How long would they try to delay having to make the final decision?
The closest analogy is Japan in WW2. The Japanese and their leaders in the 1940s were just about the most brainwashed people in a major state that we can think of, who suffered catastrophic losses and hardships in their vain attempt to win, but even they chose to eventually surrender rather than fight to the last child's dying breath. And no modern Western population has experienced any hardship that is remotely similar so I find it a little difficult to believe that the leaders of 1980s France, or the UK/Germany/US etc for that matter, will so easily choose the 'let's all die together' option without a lot of serious arguments. They might just still do it, which is probably why the Soviets never did take the risk because you could never be sure of the response, but the "no ifs, ands, or buts" concept is unlikely because most human beings don't think in those terms. Humans are usually pragmatic and tend to be good at making compromises. That may be one reason why we have been so successful as a species.
They used u-boats
they tried and failed to bomb us into surrender and failed
the V-1 and V-2 both which failed
the only thing they did not do was use bio-chem-or nukes and even then if the did use or have them we would not surrender to the NAZIS. We shall fight them on the beaches,on the landing grounds, in the hills and in the streets WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER."
Hyperbole which has no basis in fact. Churchill may well have thought that way but it's very clear that many Britons didn't. In 1940 Britain was never in the position of having to choose between utter annhilation and surrender, but even then there were voices in British government calling for a negotiated peace with the 'hated Hun'. Your points about 'what Germany tried to do to win' are irrelevant to the question, and shouting in capitals adds nothing to your argument.
In this scenario the French, about to be attacked en masse and presumably about to be overrun, have the nuclear tripwire as a last line of national defence. The choices seem clear - a) surrender and hope for the best under Soviet dictatorship, or b) nuclear strike followed by inevitable retaliation and probable destruction as a nation with most of your people dead. Neither is an agreeable outcome, but if those are the two choices then what would most leaders (or parents) do? How long would they try to delay having to make the final decision?
The closest analogy is Japan in WW2. The Japanese and their leaders in the 1940s were just about the most brainwashed people in a major state that we can think of, who suffered catastrophic losses and hardships in their vain attempt to win, but even they chose to eventually surrender rather than fight to the last child's dying breath. And no modern Western population has experienced any hardship that is remotely similar so I find it a little difficult to believe that the leaders of 1980s France, or the UK/Germany/US etc for that matter, will so easily choose the 'let's all die together' option without a lot of serious arguments. They might just still do it, which is probably why the Soviets never did take the risk because you could never be sure of the response, but the "no ifs, ands, or buts" concept is unlikely because most human beings don't think in those terms. Humans are usually pragmatic and tend to be good at making compromises. That may be one reason why we have been so successful as a species.
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
Actually i can think of one peoples that suffered more - The Jews how many dead 6 million + thats just from the germans what about the Soviets how many did they kill? Never again the words WELDED on the very first Israeli nuke plus the Sampson option you nuke us we will take the world with us.
"Three British Polaris missiles hit ST Petersberg Moscow and Leningrad
Estimated death toll 25-000-000 + and the soviets are with out most of there command structure."
A few technical points
i) St Petersburg (sic) AND Leningrad?
I'll let you think on that one for a minute.
ii) NATO and the Soviets were expected to participate in proportional exchange if a conventional conflict went nuclear. No British PM would authorise a nuclear retaliation on the USSR's two main cities (and there's your hint for thinking about i) above) for strikes on 3 northern UK cities. Only a strike on London would trigger a strike on Moscow. So smaller cities would be chosen for any retaliation as the British would believe that the next step after an attack on Moscow would see a massive retaliation against all of the UK. That's why proportional exchange was the strategy both sides trained for.
iii) "he soviets are with out most of there command structure."
Well, IF Moscow and Leningrad were gone then the genie is out of the bottle and the missiles fly in all directions. But, the central Soviet command complex was built under a granite mountain in the Urals and orders were relayed by the Politburo and Stavka from there. Not Moscow.
Estimated death toll 25-000-000 + and the soviets are with out most of there command structure."
A few technical points
i) St Petersburg (sic) AND Leningrad?
I'll let you think on that one for a minute.
ii) NATO and the Soviets were expected to participate in proportional exchange if a conventional conflict went nuclear. No British PM would authorise a nuclear retaliation on the USSR's two main cities (and there's your hint for thinking about i) above) for strikes on 3 northern UK cities. Only a strike on London would trigger a strike on Moscow. So smaller cities would be chosen for any retaliation as the British would believe that the next step after an attack on Moscow would see a massive retaliation against all of the UK. That's why proportional exchange was the strategy both sides trained for.
iii) "he soviets are with out most of there command structure."
Well, IF Moscow and Leningrad were gone then the genie is out of the bottle and the missiles fly in all directions. But, the central Soviet command complex was built under a granite mountain in the Urals and orders were relayed by the Politburo and Stavka from there. Not Moscow.
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
No relative cities in the USSR other than the satellite states and Britain is not gonna bring the UN down on themselves with out good cause unless the PM is visiting one of those cities is he/she in Glasgow on a visit to faslane or is in manchester watching Manchester united play Manchester city or is he/she in Liverpool visiting where the Beatles first played.
"Actually i can think of one peoples that suffered more - The Jews how many dead 6 million + thats just from the germans what about the Soviets how many did they kill? Never again the words WELDED on the very first Israeli nuke plus the Sampson option you nuke us we will take the world with us."
They are not 1980s France, and the situation is completely different. I will repeat, any Western democracy of the 1980s (or 70s, 90s etc etc) is not going to easily choose nuclear annhilation over surrender to a Soviet Union that, though tyrranical and often brutal, is not Nazi Germany or a fanatical opponent that has vowed to sweep your people into the sea. People usually make compromises to choose the least worst option. So in this case, which is likely to be the least worst option in the minds of a French politician elected to represent the interests of his people? No matter what the decision, there will be some furious debating as nobody but a complete moron blithely says "ok, let's just stick with the rhetoric and kill everyone without bothering to do some soul searching first".
Human beings don't usually think in such absolutist terms regardless of the cost.
They are not 1980s France, and the situation is completely different. I will repeat, any Western democracy of the 1980s (or 70s, 90s etc etc) is not going to easily choose nuclear annhilation over surrender to a Soviet Union that, though tyrranical and often brutal, is not Nazi Germany or a fanatical opponent that has vowed to sweep your people into the sea. People usually make compromises to choose the least worst option. So in this case, which is likely to be the least worst option in the minds of a French politician elected to represent the interests of his people? No matter what the decision, there will be some furious debating as nobody but a complete moron blithely says "ok, let's just stick with the rhetoric and kill everyone without bothering to do some soul searching first".
Human beings don't usually think in such absolutist terms regardless of the cost.
"No relative cities in the USSR other than the satellite states and Britain is not gonna bring the UN down on themselves with out good cause unless the PM is visiting one of those cities is he/she in Glasgow on a visit to faslane or is in manchester watching Manchester united play Manchester city or is he/she in Liverpool visiting where the Beatles first played."
Care to try using a little punctuation to make your thoughts a bit clearer?
Of course there are relative cities in the USSR to Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool - Kiev, Minsk, Novosibirsk, Vladivostock, Rostov and Sevastapol just to name a few. All of those are industrially and militarily significant cities whose destruction would make a point to the Soviets but don't up the ante so much that MAD automatically ensues. NATO is supposed to have maintained lists of city equivalencies so that suitable targets could be quickly selected a nuclear tit-for-tat.
What has the UN got to do with anything? By this stage we have moved well beyond what the UN can do.
I don't see what point you are trying to make with the rest of that sentence, please rephrase if you want a response. At the moment it looks like you actually do agree with my point that the UK would launch a proportionate response rather than just nuke Moscow as you originally had it. The PM might visit Faslane, but it's unlikely that the EPL would be running in the 2nd-3rd week of WW3. As for the PM choosing that time to visit the Beatle's museum??
Care to try using a little punctuation to make your thoughts a bit clearer?
Of course there are relative cities in the USSR to Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool - Kiev, Minsk, Novosibirsk, Vladivostock, Rostov and Sevastapol just to name a few. All of those are industrially and militarily significant cities whose destruction would make a point to the Soviets but don't up the ante so much that MAD automatically ensues. NATO is supposed to have maintained lists of city equivalencies so that suitable targets could be quickly selected a nuclear tit-for-tat.
What has the UN got to do with anything? By this stage we have moved well beyond what the UN can do.
I don't see what point you are trying to make with the rest of that sentence, please rephrase if you want a response. At the moment it looks like you actually do agree with my point that the UK would launch a proportionate response rather than just nuke Moscow as you originally had it. The PM might visit Faslane, but it's unlikely that the EPL would be running in the 2nd-3rd week of WW3. As for the PM choosing that time to visit the Beatle's museum??
Thats a classic!
Regarding the RAF in case of a war. They would be used as a fifth column, meaning the STASI would gear the financiation even higher. Perhaps some technical advisors from the STASI or KGB. Nevertheless, The support for the RAF would be dimish even faster when the first WP tanks cross the FRG border. The longer the RAF where around, the more their support group dimished over the time. Because the 68er movement didint want to be associated with a gang of murderers. The fight against the RAF is a rather good example of how to fight a terror group and in the end defeat them. This would even more true in case of a war.
Regarding ww2 vets, on a politcal - military desicion level, like in OTL (Schmidt, Brandt and a lot of others where ww2 generation and deeply affected by the war) yes. In the army, well all ww2 vets would be in their old ages by than.
"EPL would be running in the 2nd-3rd week of WW3"
Correction - First Division as it was back then not EPL. Man City also spent a lot of time out of the top tier back then.
Correction - First Division as it was back then not EPL. Man City also spent a lot of time out of the top tier back then.
That's some amazing psychic power you have. You haven't even seen my notes and are easily able to comment on them. I wish I could do that.