Cold War Hot in the 50's
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Hard to say. As for a POD, maybe the Korean War hostilities towards the USSR breaks the peace in Europe as well. In 1952, the USSR has only had nukes for three years, and the US for almost ten. Keep in mind, though, that nukes at this time still had to be dropped by bombers; they were in no means the strategic weapons of the '60s and '70s and beyond.
As for the war not going nuclear, it's possible. I don't know the military statistics of this time period, so I can't really say who would be the victor in a conventional ground war. I would think that the USSR has the advantage in tank strength and ground troops, but the naval and air advantage undoubtedly goes to NATO. If somehow either side shows a quick advantage and wins some big victories, and cooler heads prevail (This has happened quite a bit throughout history.), nuke warfare might be averted. But I would imagine that, in reality, the side that begins to lose will sink to using nukes.
As for the war not going nuclear, it's possible. I don't know the military statistics of this time period, so I can't really say who would be the victor in a conventional ground war. I would think that the USSR has the advantage in tank strength and ground troops, but the naval and air advantage undoubtedly goes to NATO. If somehow either side shows a quick advantage and wins some big victories, and cooler heads prevail (This has happened quite a bit throughout history.), nuke warfare might be averted. But I would imagine that, in reality, the side that begins to lose will sink to using nukes.
I think I saw on several of the other posts that neither side really had that many nukes in 1952 (at least compared to later).
What if the cold war goes hot, and then both sides keep their few nukes in reserve so long as the war takes place 'on the edges', such as in Eastern and Central Europe. Maybe the main battle ground could be Germany / Poland, with periodic breakouts into other areas.
Britain and the USA would have definite control of the seas, France and Germany could do littlel more than contribute forces (probably to both side, so long as they were equiped by one of the powers)
One positive butterfly would be that Great Britain (as the unsinkable aircraft carrier) would once again be of critical importance. As a result there would be a build up of a great many industries where they could serve to feed the war effort.
Conversely, the US (having to underwrite the cost of the war) would not be able to fund a marshall plan, so there would also be instability throughout Europe.
My guess, the war would probably slowly be ratcheted up for two years but never going nuclear, then the USSR would begin to unravel, finally breaking down into civil unrest.
What if the cold war goes hot, and then both sides keep their few nukes in reserve so long as the war takes place 'on the edges', such as in Eastern and Central Europe. Maybe the main battle ground could be Germany / Poland, with periodic breakouts into other areas.
Britain and the USA would have definite control of the seas, France and Germany could do littlel more than contribute forces (probably to both side, so long as they were equiped by one of the powers)
One positive butterfly would be that Great Britain (as the unsinkable aircraft carrier) would once again be of critical importance. As a result there would be a build up of a great many industries where they could serve to feed the war effort.
Conversely, the US (having to underwrite the cost of the war) would not be able to fund a marshall plan, so there would also be instability throughout Europe.
My guess, the war would probably slowly be ratcheted up for two years but never going nuclear, then the USSR would begin to unravel, finally breaking down into civil unrest.
I don't know about the limited conflict. I doubt either side was interested in war at the time (though some folks on both sides were itching to 'have it out'), but if the conflict had come, the USSR had little chance of winning a long-drawn exchange with its still crippled economy and badly overstretched forces. If I were in charge of the Politburo, I'd go for the jugular and pray I can parlay the winnings into a new postwar borderline. Of course, the US strategy at the time was aimed precisely at preventing that by basically saying ANY aggression would be answered by nuclear weapons (though admittedly there was some give in that, I doubt it would apply to 30 tank divisions crossing the Elbe)
Given the parlous state of the USSR's economy and infrastructure, the continuing internal unrest in the East bloc, and the inequality of the two militaries, I would assume a brief period of Soviet advances into Germany, Austria and Yugoslavia, followed by a number of humiliating defeats in the air and at sea and the first nuclear strikes against advancing armor. A few days later, the Western forces begin systematically bombing the USSR's strategic infrastructure. Of course, the Soviet air force will retaliate, but until the mid-50s any aerial attack on the US would almost have to be by dint of surprise. Britain, OTOH, is going to get it bad, as is Germany, France, and Italy.
After the first weeks, the counterattack will be marshalled (it might take longer if the USSR can deploy its submarine force to the best effect AND manages to nuke its wish list of Western targets AND they neutralise Germany and France, but that's unlikely. The Red Army at the time would have made a formidable defense force, but I doubt it had the makings of an invader in the face of a decisive defense). I don't think the Soviets had the breath to slog it out, even without continual nuclear attacks against all large concentrations of troops or supplies. Especially early in the 50s, when the Americans could leverage ethnic and political opposition (in case of war, the Ukrainian nationalist groups alone were scheduled to get support from two dedicated bomber squadrons).
The end will look NASTY. Not exactly nuclear winter, but still - think DRC
Given the parlous state of the USSR's economy and infrastructure, the continuing internal unrest in the East bloc, and the inequality of the two militaries, I would assume a brief period of Soviet advances into Germany, Austria and Yugoslavia, followed by a number of humiliating defeats in the air and at sea and the first nuclear strikes against advancing armor. A few days later, the Western forces begin systematically bombing the USSR's strategic infrastructure. Of course, the Soviet air force will retaliate, but until the mid-50s any aerial attack on the US would almost have to be by dint of surprise. Britain, OTOH, is going to get it bad, as is Germany, France, and Italy.
After the first weeks, the counterattack will be marshalled (it might take longer if the USSR can deploy its submarine force to the best effect AND manages to nuke its wish list of Western targets AND they neutralise Germany and France, but that's unlikely. The Red Army at the time would have made a formidable defense force, but I doubt it had the makings of an invader in the face of a decisive defense). I don't think the Soviets had the breath to slog it out, even without continual nuclear attacks against all large concentrations of troops or supplies. Especially early in the 50s, when the Americans could leverage ethnic and political opposition (in case of war, the Ukrainian nationalist groups alone were scheduled to get support from two dedicated bomber squadrons).
The end will look NASTY. Not exactly nuclear winter, but still - think DRC
Berlin Crisis?
Unless you go to the Berlin crises that started in the late-50s, you'd probably have to use the Berlin Airlift in '48 rather than go to the early-50s. Perhaps the airlift fails and Truman orders that a line be opened to Berlin.
Unless you go to the Berlin crises that started in the late-50s, you'd probably have to use the Berlin Airlift in '48 rather than go to the early-50s. Perhaps the airlift fails and Truman orders that a line be opened to Berlin.
Early 1952 might be a bit of a stretch. By then, most of the NATO countries had downsized their militaries, and Stalin was gearing up for another general purge (the Jewish Doctors plot was just the tip of the iceberg). If Stalin survives to the mid-to-late 1950's, then you might see something.
Alisdair, Michael. There was SUPPOSED to be a book published several years ago called OPERATION DROPSHOT-US's plans for WWIII. It was supposed to detail the plans and tactics to be used for the war. DO not think it's in print. I might check Library of Congress. I read somewhere that the Atomic forces of the USAF-Code-named "Silverplate" had few bombs to use-no more than 3O or so. I will check into THIS latter matter.
Xen
Banned
NATO falls back to the Rhine but quickly establishes Air Superiority and as the old saying goes he who controls the air controls the land and the sea. The Soviets try to make a desperate nuke run to Paris but the plane is shot down by the USAF over western Germany. F-86 continuously pounds Soviet lines. Perhaps the F-4 is rushed into combat, and when the United States industry kicks into full gear, the war is over.
I can see the United States rearming Japan to fight China, in desperation the Soviets might try to nuke a US military base in mainland Europe. When the US is in range of the Soviet heartland, Leningrad or perhaps Stalingrad will be nuked, maybe even both with the ultimatum that Moscow is next unless the USSR surrendors.
I can see the United States rearming Japan to fight China, in desperation the Soviets might try to nuke a US military base in mainland Europe. When the US is in range of the Soviet heartland, Leningrad or perhaps Stalingrad will be nuked, maybe even both with the ultimatum that Moscow is next unless the USSR surrendors.
You know, I think there is something online about Operation Dropshot.
I wonder what the impact would be of having two major wars in two decades?
Well, if the USA and its allies were to defeat the USSR, which is what I think would happen, then I'd assume the West would turn to defeating any Communist insurgencies not already destroyed in the war.
I wonder what the impact would be of having two major wars in two decades?
Well, if the USA and its allies were to defeat the USSR, which is what I think would happen, then I'd assume the West would turn to defeating any Communist insurgencies not already destroyed in the war.
I know that there is a book called "Dropshot" on the plan edited by Anthony Cave Brown and published around 1978. You can get it at Amazon.com right here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/104-6923263-7016713?v=glance&s=books
Alas, I do not have a credit card, so I am scouring the used bookstores hoping I'll get lucky.
This site has a link to a discussion about the plan here:
http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/ww3.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/104-6923263-7016713?v=glance&s=books
Alas, I do not have a credit card, so I am scouring the used bookstores hoping I'll get lucky.
This site has a link to a discussion about the plan here:
http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/ww3.htm