Berlin Crisis '61 WWIII Planning Thread

[KuboCaskett]

Inspired by Ace009's thread about making a WWIII that starts in 1973, I've taken upon myself to do the same with one that happens in the early 60's, though it is for my TL.

Edit: Once had a "conventional first" requirement but I removed it recently due to research related issues of how a better conventional NATO front would have on the war (which is an entirely different story per say).

Any ideas and such on how the war goes and its aftermath would be appreciated.

 

[KuboCaskett]

I should also add to possibly having Robert McNamara still serve as Secretary of Defense, just as he did OTL; there's a reason for this as he was a proponent of the Flexible Response doctrine, i.e. fighting a war on a conventional scale at first. People can argue there was already a precedent at first with the US role in the Korean War but I would argue that the nuclear question when it comes to fighting the Soviets is a different story given that the US would use nukes in general sometime soon after the Soviets make their move.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Okay so I got this part down:

1960-Nixon does better by avoiding injuring his knee while campaigning and was able to influence more voters which led to his victory during the election.
Early 1961-Bay of Pigs invasion gets heavy US backing which results in the Castro regime, leading to the Soviets more reluctant to spread their influence in the third world.
Late 1961-Work on the Berlin Wall begins raising tensions between the Eastern and Western blocs; Nixon orders more troops unto West Berlin just like Kennedy did OTL. There tensions raise even more as both US and Soviet tanks face each other just like OTL but Kruschev refuses to back down, prolonging the crisis beyond November.
1962-Kruschev finally agrees to reduce troops first just to have Nixon do the same; he gets overthrown in a coup by Soviet hardliners who form a collective leadership of sorts and resurrects Stalinism. Nixon responds by placing heavy embargoes upon the USSR, pushing the leadership to wage war against NATO of which commences in the spring of 1962.

Any suggestions or comments for this scenario? or am I still missing something?

 

[KuboCaskett]

I think I might need to change this to have JFK as president as OTL since a Nixon presidency would have butterflied the whole crisis away.

 

[Historyman 14]

The OTL Bay of Pigs was just so badly planed, and in the wrong location. Nixon would need to outright invaded Cuba to take down Castro.

I don't see the USSR just going back to Stalinism, they already been a lot of De-Stalinization, but the USSR would go hardline and see Leonid Brezhnev/someone like him take back.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

IIRC Nixon was gonna throw in an entire marine division to support the bag of pigs landing

 

[GDIS Pathe]

So is there any way to make this happen plausibly without going nuclear instantly like that one TL did or is there something more to this idea?

America is gonna go nuke happy this is the age of nuclear everything after all and they USSR with 4 ICBMs and 30 or so bombers will do limited damage but the USSR will be one big radioactive parking lot

 

[KuboCaskett]

America is gonna go nuke happy this is the age of nuclear everything after all and they USSR with 4 ICBMs and 30 or so bombers will do limited damage but the USSR will be one big radioactive parking lot

So what do you propose can keep the conflict from going nuclear right off the bat? Perhaps have the Soviets trick the US into fighting conventionally with some bluffing?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

What the fact that the Soviets have a grand total of 4 ICBMs capable of hitting America IIRC. There is no why the Soviets can bluff their way out America will fire a nuke first ads they can't win conventionally and the USSR becomes that giant green radioactive parking lot. It might stay convention for 24 to 72 ours before the first tac nuke goes off and then bye bye Eastern Bloc and Bye be PRC

 

[Catsmate]

Okay so I got this part down:

1960-Nixon does better by avoiding injuring his knee while campaigning and was able to influence more voters which led to his victory during the election.
Early 1961-Bay of Pigs invasion gets heavy US backing which results in the Castro regime <><><>, leading to the Soviets more reluctant to spread their influence in the third world.
Late 1961-Work on the Berlin Wall begins raising tensions between the Eastern and Western blocs; Nixon orders more troops unto West Berlin just like Kennedy did OTL. There tensions raise even more as both US and Soviet tanks face each other just like OTL but Kruschev refuses to back down, prolonging the crisis beyond November.
1962-Kruschev finally agrees to reduce troops first just to have Nixon do the same; he gets overthrown in a coup by Soviet hardliners who form a collective leadership of sorts and resurrects Stalinism. Nixon responds by placing heavy embargoes upon the USSR, pushing the leadership to wage war against NATO of which commences in the spring of 1962.

Any suggestions or comments for this scenario? or am I still missing something?

Well you seem to be missing a few words in your second paragraph...
BoP would not have worked without huge and direct US involvement.
Also 'Khrushchev'.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Well you seem to be missing a few words in your second paragraph...
BoP would not have worked without huge and direct US involvement.
Also 'Khrushchev'.

Indeed, Nixon's presidency would have changed that in favor of the rebels.

And I'm letting people know that I'm not working with the Berlin Crisis of '61 with OTL conditions since it would getting way too nuclear for my tastes.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

So then whats the POD

 

[KuboCaskett]

So then whats the POD

I'm glad you asked, and it's simple: Truman gets assassinated and his successor, Barkley, allows some atom bombs to be dropped on China, which gives the world a taste of nuclear warfare, again, and ironically gets both the Western and Eastern blocs to rely less on them; and that Stalinism never went away in the USSR. That might sound contrived but IMO if there's a nuclear arms race, there's the MAD "doctrine", and when there's MAD, there's less of a need to use the nuclear genie when the cold war goes hot.

Similar to how WWII IOTL avoided the need to use chemical weapons; but it would take a lot of like in this war to avoid the nukes.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Doesn't change much unless the Americans can stop the Soviets conventionally someone is gonna fire a tac nuke and begins the step of nuclear escalation the Americans still have the utterly ridiculous nuclear arsenal and the Soviets will still get beaten into the dirt also there was mad doctrine in our world but the west thought that there was actually a difference between tac and strategic nukes. The nuclear genie is still unleashed and the soviets die in nuclear hellfire as the Americans get their hair tussled in the words of general ripper

 

[KuboCaskett]

Doesn't change much unless the Americans can stop the Soviets conventionally someone is gonna fire a tac nuke and begins the step of nuclear escalation the Americans still have the utterly ridiculous nuclear arsenal and the Soviets will still get beaten into the dirt also there was mad doctrine in our world but the west thought that there was actually a difference between tac and strategic nukes. The nuclear genie is still unleashed and the soviets die in nuclear hellfire as the Americans get their hair tussled in the words of general ripper

I'm not sure the US would still have a large arsenal by TTL's 1960's; maybe I'm a fool but the fact that nukes got used ITTL's Cold War would have spurred the Western bloc to be more prepared for the case of nuclear escalation and perhaps the same for the Soviets too. Though I highly doubt NBC gear in the 60's would be effective as ones in the 80's.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

If Ike s still pres guess what nukes for everyone remember by the point nuclear weapons are still seen as a bigger bomb deployment of nuclear weapons may reverse the nuclear taboo and again the US cannot win conventionally they either break out the nukes or lose everything west of the Rhine or maybe western Europe because the US army simply can't win against the Soviets in the 60s

 

[KuboCaskett]

If Ike s still pres guess what nukes for everyone remember by the point nuclear weapons are still seen as a bigger bomb deployment of nuclear weapons may reverse the nuclear taboo and again the US cannot win conventionally they either break out the nukes or lose everything west of the Rhine or maybe western Europe because the US army simply can't win against the Soviets in the 60s

So what can be done to ensure that the US forces don't lose conventionally easily ITTL's 60's? I'm mighty curious.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

you need the Americans to either maintain a sizable conventional post-war military after WW2 or undertake a major military buildup sometime in the 50s that allows it to maintain parity with the Soviets conventional military. You might be able to prevent nuclear war. Off course there is always the question of either the Soviets or Americans using tac nukes to blow a hole through enemy lines

 

[KuboCaskett]

you need the Americans to either maintain a sizable conventional post-war military after WW2 or undertake a major military buildup sometime in the 50s that allows it to maintain parity with the Soviets conventional military. You might be able to prevent nuclear war. Off course there is always the question of either the Soviets or Americans using tac nukes to blow a hole through enemy lines

Since the POD happened in 1950, the latter might be more doable, though Ike isn't suited for that unless he has a change of heart about the military.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Alright I'm removing the conventional first requirement since it's a bit of a hassle to research how getting the NATO side a better conventional edge would effect the war; that and figuring out a good POD to get the incident spiraling out of control.