AHC/WI: US Embassy in Moscow assaulted in the Late Cold War Era

So, how could this happen? If you read Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire, you may remember a scene where the populace of Moscow assaulted several embassies. How could this happen between 1980-1988? What could be the consequences? What if the American Garrison shoot at the crowd? And if the assaulters took hostages? What if the Soviet Government does nothing, and lets the crowd assault the embassy?
Bonus points if several other western nations (France, Germany and so on) embassies are also attacked.
 
Last edited:
It possible that rouge hard-line elements during the Gorbachev era could stage such an attack in order to derail thawing relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
With Government support?

That would get REALLY bad, REALLY Fast.

Without? Attackers wind up seriously dead. Between the USMC inner guard force, the Moscow Militia on external guard, and KGB/GRU watchers that is going to be a lot of guns (not to mention the 9th Chief Directorate forces, which amount to better than a brigade).
 
With Soviet Government suipport? Its called "an act of war". A significant portion of the Earth dies.
Okay, "government support" it's maybe a bit extreme, but what if if instead of this something more in the line of "let them do this" is the attitude of the government?
And, what could be the causes of all this? Which situation could trigger something like this?
Also, I don't think that the USA could start WW3 over it's embassy. Sure, there would be some response, but I heavily doubt the USA would launch her nukes for some embassy personel.
 
Last edited:
Okay, "government support" it's maybe a bit extream, but what if if instead of this something more in the line of "let them do this" is the attitude of the government?
And, what could be the causes of all this? Which situation could trigger something like this?
Also, I don't think that the USA could start WW3 over it's embassy. Sure, there would be some response, but I heavily doubt the USA would launch her nukes for some embassy personel.

Attacking an embassy is literally attacking that country's own soil - this is not figuratively an act of war; this is LITERALLY an act of war. When Iran let that happen in 1979, the United States sent in troops to try and rescue them - Operation Eagle Claw was a failure, but it happened.

What do you think happens when the United States responds by sending troops into Moscow? Do you think that Reagan is going to get cold feet?
 

Wallet

Banned
Attacking an embassy is literally attacking that country's own soil - this is not figuratively an act of war; this is LITERALLY an act of war. When Iran let that happen in 1979, the United States sent in troops to try and rescue them - Operation Eagle Claw was a failure, but it happened.

What do you think happens when the United States responds by sending troops into Moscow? Do you think that Reagan is going to get cold feet?
Yes, a nation attacking an embassy is attacking another nation's soil and an act of war. But that's if the government of the host nation does it.

If it's the general public in a riot, on paper the government has no involvement. Rather they have the power to step in is another story.

1979 Iran was an example of the latter. Of course the Iranian government could have stepped in at any point and had no business holding the hostages, but not an act of war.

An attack on the Soviet embassy would be different. Reagan know the only reason he is president is because of the hostage crisis in Iran. He doesn't want it to happen to him. He is going to put EXTREME pressure on the acting Soviet Governmrnt to step in
 
I think that Pellegrino Shots depicted a similar scenario happening in his 'Zhironovsky's Russian Empire' TL.
 
If state authority were to crumble in the form of a Soviet revolution/civil war, then I can see it happening with either extreme leftists/rightist forces engaging in anti-American terrorism.
 
An attack on the Soviet embassy would be different. Reagan know the only reason he is president is because of the hostage crisis in Iran. He doesn't want it to happen to him. He is going to put EXTREME pressure on the acting Soviet Governmrnt to step in
And that assumes it happens without the Moscow Militia and MVD stepping in before it gets out of control.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Attacking an embassy is literally attacking that country's own soil - this is not figuratively an act of war; this is LITERALLY an act of war. When Iran let that happen in 1979, the United States sent in troops to try and rescue them - Operation Eagle Claw was a failure, but it happened.

The United States didn't invade Iran as a result of the hostage crisis, and that took place at the same time the pro-Western government was being overthrown, causing upheaval in the world's largest petroleum exporting state possessing one of the largest and most advanced militaries on Earth (that happened to be equipped with a lot of advanced Western equipment).

What do you think happens when the United States responds by sending troops into Moscow? Do you think that Reagan is going to get cold feet?

Launching Operation World War III as a result of the Moscow Hostage Crisis wouldn't bring the hostages back and would would be very detrimental for Reagan's chances of reelection.
 
Officially, the Iranian takeover was by "students," not the government, though the Iranian government neglected its duty to protect the American embassy. I suspect that, if it had been an official government act, the consequences would have been MUCH messier.

Same thing in the USSR...no sane government is going to throw the rules of diplomacy out the window, nor will most insane ones.
 
But what would be the Soviet gain to standby and let this happen here? Internationally it'll be an embarrassment. Domestically while it's fanning patriotic rage agains the capitalist aggressors, it'll still represent a loss of control, particularly once they get to the point where they have to get the occupiers out.

I can only see it as some kind of insane brinksmanship. Making the American pig dogs fear the resilient willpower of the premer and soviet people. Which is really not the type of diplomacy that is good for avoiding WW3.
 
The United States didn't invade Iran as a result of the hostage crisis, and that took place at the same time the pro-Western government was being overthrown, causing upheaval in the world's largest petroleum exporting state possessing one of the largest and most advanced militaries on Earth (that happened to be equipped with a lot of advanced Western equipment).

I suggest you go look up Operation Eagle Claw, where Carter sent in troops to try and extract the hostages. If sending troops into another country isn't an invasion, what is?
 

gaijin

Banned
I suggest you go look up Operation Eagle Claw, where Carter sent in troops to try and extract the hostages. If sending troops into another country isn't an invasion, what is?

And I suggest you look up the definition of a raid. Eagle claw is best described as a raid: a quick strike on an enemy force aiming to achieve a set limited goal, but not aiming any long term military presence or occupation.

Eagle Claw wasn't intending to hold ground or anything like that. It was attempting to go in, get the hostages and then get the hell out. The key point being the last part.
 
Top