AHC: Soviets win WW3
- Thread starter Zachariah
- Start date
Maybe beginning around 1960, the USSR, realizing its main edge was in conventional forces, could've tried a new approach: Propose the abolition of nuclear bombs, or severe cutbacks in arsenals effectively ending nuclear deterrence and/or a no-first-use treaty. If the West opposed all that it may have found itself in a dilemma. It could refuse Soviet disarmament proposals and lose the propaganda war, or go along and lose a conventional war.
I was talking about nobody using it. Did you mean the West, facing conventional defeat, would've used it in violation of a treaty?
ASB solution not involving Hoxha.
Homero Rómulo Cristalli Frasnelli's analysis of international relations was correct and after the nuclear war space faring communist aliens rebuild the Soviet Union along the lines of the 4th International (posadist). *1
Yours,
Sam R.
*1 STILL not the most ridiculous Trotskyite or post Trotskyite position.
Homero Rómulo Cristalli Frasnelli's analysis of international relations was correct and after the nuclear war space faring communist aliens rebuild the Soviet Union along the lines of the 4th International (posadist). *1
Yours,
Sam R.
*1 STILL not the most ridiculous Trotskyite or post Trotskyite position.
I think we overestimate our degree of certainty about how WW3 would play out. Protect & Survive is probably the most plausible scenario, but we just don't know what would happen if those keys turned, and I think you can at least make an argument that it's not impossible for the USSR to win in some not-completely-meaningless sense, at least in the 70s. Especially if there's a US president who is unwilling to risk the destruction of civilization to save Western Europe, and the Soviets pursue a different strategy than they historically did in the 70s. (Though I may be mistaken about that - I'm not very up on Soviet nuclear strategy.) It's not very likely, but it's possible.
I collect bizarre ideologies. If there is a Trotskyite position more ridiculous than posadism, I must know what it is.
I collect bizarre ideologies. If there is a Trotskyite position more ridiculous than posadism, I must know what it is.
Darn, I already had him... I classify him under authoritarian socialist instead of Trotskyite, is all.
I would whole-heartedly agree, but really, that's true of most of the groups in my collection - at least, the ones that consist of more than one person - so it's not very useful as a category.
The 1989 novel Red Army by Ralph Peters depicts the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact winning a conventional WWIII against NATO.
West Germany surrenders after its government becomes unwilling to tolerate any further destruction upon their country. The Soviets had released a propaganda film graphically depicting the destruction of a West German city during the fighting between NATO and WP forces, which was meant to weaken West German morale. Hanover is also mentioned as suffering heavy destruction due to urban combat there. By the end of the novel Soviet forces are approaching the Rhine and the Americans, British, and French are about to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield (intermediate-range nuclear forces had already been withdrawn from Europe in accordance with the INF Treaty). In light of that development, the West German government unilaterally makes peace with the Soviet Union to prevent the FRG from perishing in a nuclear inferno, and a general ceasefire is declared. All NATO forces retreat west of the Rhine while Warsaw Pact forces occupy everything east of the Rhine; the Soviets have no interest in advancing beyond the Rhine, as it will serve as their western geographic defensive barrier and control of Germany will give them control of Europe. It is implied that continental Western Europe (including France) will be Finlandized and fall under Soviet hegemony, while Britain will remain an "American outpost."
probably took the guy 2-3 years to write it.. only to have his whole idea trashed by real events
For a Soviet "win", you could try modifying the scenario from Sir John Hackett's The Third World War. That is set in 1985, but was written in the 1970s, and showed the West winning only because of a reversal of defence policies of the '70s (reversals which pretty much took place and then some IOTL under Reagan). The 'win' in this case wouldn't be unconditional surrender by NATO/USA, but would be the Soviets achieving their war aim of occupying Europe up to the French border and the political collapse of the NATO alliance. The thing there is making sure that no-one on the NATO side is prepared to risk nuclear exchange on behalf of Germany or the Low Countries (not too implausible), whilst also ensuring the Soviet conventional attack is successful (and fast) enough to ensure they don't feel the need to use nukes to send a message (which is what happened in the book). If the attack happens sooner, or if western leaders (principally Reagan and Thatcher) don't stiffen their resolve as per OTL, I could see this scenario as a possibility.
you also need a soviet leadership wanting a war, and an aligned china. china by the 80's was more in the ameircan camp. and Brezhnev, Andropov who was ancient and but in no way wanted war with the west, followed by Gromyko who also didn't want war, who was followed by Gorbachev who we all know didn't want war. the only other problem is how do you get this world war three with out nukes? that was the backbone of nato and western doctrine to stop any invasion.
Last Question, how do you plan to Finlandize France and the low countries?
Last Question, how do you plan to Finlandize France and the low countries?
I'm inclined to agree the only way the USSR can "win" is by avoiding a nuclear exchange. In the 1970s there was a lot of speculation about a Communist Italian Government withdrawing from NATO and inviting in Russian troops while a strongly left-wing British Government would throw out the Americans.
With France bought off by an advantageous economic treaty, West Germany would be effectively isolated and invaded. The Warsaw Pact occupies West Germany, Austria, Denmark and Italy before stopping leaving Britain and France militarily exposed and vulnerable.
The political and military collapse of NATO seems implausible now but less so in the 1970s.
With France bought off by an advantageous economic treaty, West Germany would be effectively isolated and invaded. The Warsaw Pact occupies West Germany, Austria, Denmark and Italy before stopping leaving Britain and France militarily exposed and vulnerable.
The political and military collapse of NATO seems implausible now but less so in the 1970s.