AHC: NATO Attacks Warsaw Pact/USSR

Huh? Where'd you dig up this gem of wisdom?

Anyways, I recommend reading "Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland. Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse eines NVA-Offiziers" (War Theatre Germany. Experiences and Insights of an NVA officer). Mr Lautsch back in '90 was the NVA's youngest colonel and Frunze-trained. According to him, up until 1985, ALL WP war plans that made their way into official policy called for offensive action against NATO. I am not aware of any serious planning by NATO to invade the WP. FOFA and deep air strikes don't count...

Anyway of getting an english language copy of this?
 
I am reading a book on this very subject right now. By Michio Kaku "To win a nuclear war." It has a kind of leftist bent, and clearly tries to portray the US as the big evil aggressor (IMHO a tad unfairly). However, it is based on FOI requests and it seems rather accurate.

It details several scenarios with a US first strike.

The earlier in the Cold war you get, the more likely it seems. There are several reasons.

Reason 1) less Soviet retaliation capability means war planners are more willing to give it a go.

Reason 2) MUCH less concern the earlier back you go about civilian casualties. Also, nuclear winter wasn't really considered.

Reason 3) Anti-war and anti-nuclear movement was less of an issue before 'Nam.


So, as for some interesting scenarios, ripped right from the book. (and from history). There are more, but these are my favorite.

Scenario 1: 1953 - Korean war: Peace talks with North Korea and China do not have the critical breakthrough that they had in our TL. As a result President Eisenhower implements OPLAN, which called for the use of tactical nukes on North Korean positions. Soviets declare war resulting in the US implementing its "massive retaliation" plan of dropping hundreds of nukes on the USSR.

Scenario 2: 1954 - Dien Bien Phu - Rather than rejecting the offer of two nukes, the French accept the US offer of two nukes to stop the Viet Min at Dien Bien Phu. Using nuclear weapons in 'Nam starts a cycle of escalation leading to ww3, with the US launching first.

Scenario 3: 1961 - Berlin Crisis: JFK, after satellites discover that the USSR has only four, rather than the hundreds of ICBMs that Khrushchev was boasting, opts to KO the USSR in a crippling first strike. (in our TL this plan was rejected because of concern that too many Soviet bombers would still get through, killing millions of Americans. In this TL have the planners be more optimistic about our air defense).

These are all pretty fun and interesting and are based on actual historical plans.
 
Last edited:
Pizzaeater, I've read the same book and found it just as interesting, if swinging left as you mentioned.

The aforementioned 1948 Berlin Crisis may be the most likely candidate for a Western attack IMO. Say the Soviets seriously attempt to halt the airlift, perhaps by shooting down a number of planes. Could the US force through a limited ground force along the roads to Berlin, and say "If you attack our supplies to Berlin, we'll start vaporizing cities"?
 
Strictly speaking, those scenarios would not be attacks by NATO but rather the fire-eating US generals of the Curtis LeMay bent having their way unilaterally. The further one advances towards 1989, the more awareness there is that a slugfest in Europe would escalate to nukes flying both ways and ending the world as we know it. And that a nuclear war is unwinnable.

So I admit that the alleged "blood thirst" of "NATO" isn't too far off the mark, althugh it is more of an American phenomenon. Better dead than red and all that...
 
Huh? Where'd you dig up this gem of wisdom?

Anyways, I recommend reading "Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland. Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse eines NVA-Offiziers" (War Theatre Germany. Experiences and Insights of an NVA officer). Mr Lautsch back in '90 was the NVA's youngest colonel and Frunze-trained. According to him, up until 1985, ALL WP war plans that made their way into official policy called for offensive action against NATO. I am not aware of any serious planning by NATO to invade the WP. FOFA and deep air strikes don't count...

FWIW, "Seven Days to the River Rhine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine which the conservative Polish government offered in 2005 as proof of the Warsaw Pact's aggressive intentions, was in fact premised on NATO's striking first. (I know it's been argued that the Warsaw Pact leaders didn't really believe any such NATO first strike was possible, that they just included it as a premise as a cover to portray a Soviet war of aggression as a counterattack. But why would such a cover have been necessary in a top-secret military document?)
 
Political cover. It is that simple. The "peace-loving fraternal Socialist peoples of the Warsaw contract" could not be seen in any way to strike first. Even dicuments deemed TS can turn up in the wrong hands. The first-strike scenarios the East German colonel brings up are always presented as a pre-emptive strike - and were presented to the military - into the preparations of NATO to attack eastwards. Window-dressing.
 

takerma

Banned
FWIW, "Seven Days to the River Rhine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine which the conservative Polish government offered in 2005 as proof of the Warsaw Pact's aggressive intentions, was in fact premised on NATO's striking first. (I know it's been argued that the Warsaw Pact leaders didn't really believe any such NATO first strike was possible, that they just included it as a premise as a cover to portray a Soviet war of aggression as a counterattack. But why would such a cover have been necessary in a top-secret military document?)

Soviet intelligence was always paranoid, this is why it was always so good. Having this sort of cover fits very well.

All of the earlier dates would be US using its far superior nuclear forces to destroy USSR. Early enough and Western Europe does not get turned into radioactive wasteland from all the intermediate range Soviet nukes.

You need some sort of POD where Manhattan project does not happen. Perhaps works on the nukes continues into 50s before one is tested?
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
In 1961, the Soviets and East Germans put up the Berlin Wall. The US went on a higher state of alert at this time (reserves called up, higher draft calls, heightened civil defense measures) because there was a serious concern that the Soviets were going to try another Berlin Blockade

This incidence, and the earlier 1948 Berlin Blockade, actually created circumstances where a possible (albeit unlikely) NATO move east to open up land routes to Berlin were seriously considered.

The only other possibility I can think of would have been in 1956 during the revolt in Hungary but with the Sinai crisis at the same time and a very prudent Eisenhower in office this would be a very long shot.

Any other move east is even more unlikely. To succeed, it would require surprise (good luck with that in an open society) involving at least the US, West German, British and Canadians (the most hitting power in Centag) and the Norwegians (to move against Murmansk). Strategic surprise, according to James Dunnigan in his 1980s first edition of "How to Make War" would effectively double or triple the combat value of the NATO forces sufficient to get or almost get that 3:1 combat power advantage generally required to pull off a successful offensive in the modern era.

(He also estimated a Soviet surprise attack might get that same advantage)

The trick of course is getting that surprise. With Soviet intelligence efforts (generally pretty good ... even now...) that would be a very very tall order, not to mention getting all of those governments to agree.

So a crisis is the only likely instance, and the only two crisis that would have created the requisite circumstances involve Berlin

Cracking book by James Dunnigan filer, got a copy myself.

Anyone into this type of stuff would be well advised to get a copy, even 2nd hand.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Every WW3 scenario I've read starts with either a full-blown Soviet attack on the West (specifically West Germany) or a minor altercation escalating into a similar situation. What could be a casus belli for the reverse? Can anyone create a plausible scenario where NATO (or a Western coalition not necessarily operating under NATO) attacks the Warsaw Pact or the USSR itself?

Off the top of my head, you could watch the 1st half hour of "The Day After" starring Jason Robards.

Although the main dialogue gets in the way, if you listen to the background TV and Radio news reports it describes how NATO forces begin to advance in West Germany after the Soviet hegemoney in Europe starts to collapse.

Hope this has helped

Regards filer
 
Just to clarify, I don't think there was any real chance of this occurring, I was just curious if anyone else had any input or any PODs that could lead to a NATO attack.

The best chance is pre NATO the Berlin Blockade. American spin doctors did a great job of switching Russia from an partner to an advisory. But Stalin helped much more. If during the Berlin Airlift Russia and the Eastern Europe countries started shooting down a lot of planes it would be WW3. Without nukes and the Eastern Europe countries still rubble and may switch sides it would be bloody but the US still had 2000+- B29's and B36's were coming on line plus a boneyard full of various other bombers used in the war. The Allied military was in much better shape then the Russians. Plus we had the advantage of being to hit them from every side and we would. With out nukes it would take Russia a long time to be a threat.
 
Top