Different kind of " cold war" post 45

Khanzeer

Banned
WI
NATO encouraged the countries around the periphery of USSR like Turkey Iran Pakistan China Japan to adopt a more belligerent attitude towards USSR in the 1945-1980 period.And West would use the nuclear umbrella to protect these countries from Soviet nukes ? At the same time dragging the soviets in dozens of smaller localized conflicts
Think of rerun of Russo ottoman ,Persian , Japan wars of 16th to 20th century , plus a resurgent China with full western backing
Constant localized conventional conflicts would totally exhaust USSR much sooner
 
Last edited:
Why on Earth would the small nations surrounding the USSR willingly poke the war machine that just steamrolled Nazi Germany with only some vague promise of NATO nuclear protection?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Why on Earth would the small nations surrounding the USSR willingly poke the war machine that just steamrolled Nazi Germany with only some vague promise of NATO nuclear protection?
If they do it collectively at multiple fronts then USSR cannot sustain so many localized conflicts
 
If the West is supporting simultaneous conventionnal attacks from USSR neighbors with nuclear protection they might as well just start WW3 and finish the job now. It will be really obvious or blatant that it wants to defeat the USSR so really the Soviets are just going to call out the Westerners for that and start WW3 as well.

What you're asking for is basically Operation Unthinkable.

As someone else summed up the idea:
"What if we start a war with the Soviet Union, but don't put any effort in it?"
 

Khanzeer

Banned
If the West is supporting simultaneous conventionnal attacks from USSR neighbors with nuclear protection they might as well just start WW3 and finish the job now. It will be really obvious or blatant that it wants to defeat the USSR so really the Soviets are just going to call out the Westerners for that and start WW3 as well.

What you're asking for is basically Operation Unthinkable.

As someone else summed up the idea:
"What if we start a war with the Soviet Union, but don't put any effort in it?"
Maybe but Soviets will face a dilemma

Scenario 1
Fend of attacks of multiple smaller nations but still maintain the integrity of the rump of ussr , keep main population industrial centers safe and maintain their position as atleast a strong eurasian power
Downside severe economic penalty of the multiple wars and give up dreams of a global superpower

Scenario 2
Risk all out war with NATO and lose everything in a series of devastating nuclear strikes essentially go back to stone age
 
USSR uses it's forces to quash the rebellious satellites and proceeds to occupy West Germany. Couple of nuclear weapons if we are talking about the late 40s won't deter the Soviet Union.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
USSR uses it's forces to quash the rebellious satellites and proceeds to occupy West Germany. Couple of nuclear weapons if we are talking about the late 40s won't deter the Soviet Union.
And risk their best field armies being completely mauled by NATO in the process ?
 
And risk their best field armies being completely mauled by NATO in the process ?

I think you mean having NATO and the USSR get involved in a massive tug of war in Germany with the USSR winning? USSR would have enough forces, KGB spies and allies, friends in the satellites that they could quash a rebellion. You'd also think if it were so easy to inspire satellite-rebellion in the USSR sphere, then NATO would have tried what you have suggested they had done.
 
Maybe but Soviets will face a dilemma

Scenario 1
Fend of attacks of multiple smaller nations but still maintain the integrity of the rump of ussr , keep main population industrial centers safe and maintain their position as atleast a strong eurasian power
Downside severe economic penalty of the multiple wars and give up dreams of a global superpower

Scenario 2
Risk all out war with NATO and lose everything in a series of devastating nuclear strikes essentially go back to stone age

Read about Finlandisation and you'll find the answer for why they didn't join NATO or even move closer to more Nordic cooperation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
I think you mean having NATO and the USSR get involved in a massive tug of war in Germany with the USSR winning? USSR would have enough forces, KGB spies and allies, friends in the satellites that they could quash a rebellion. You'd also think if it were so easy to inspire satellite-rebellion in the USSR sphere, then NATO would have tried what you have suggested they had done.
Yes it will not be easy but I'm not talking about just separatism within borders of USSR, but border states actively trying to attack and annex border regions of USSR.
Except for Europe any such war will unlikely go nuclear.
 
Yes it will not be easy but I'm not talking about just separatism within borders of USSR, but border states actively trying to attack and annex border regions of USSR.
Except for Europe any such war will unlikely go nuclear.

They were all loyal satellites of the USSR and they wouldn't dream of attacking Moscow though?
 

nbcman

Donor
And risk their best field armies being completely mauled by NATO in the process ?
I think you need to look at the balance of forces between the West and the Soviets in the late 1940s before you start talking about the West mauling anyone.
 
Turkey Iran Afghanistan China japan ?

Japan is an US ally. Japan attacking USSR means WW3 and either way Japan will probably get beaten and won't be able to land anywhere in the USSR.
Afghanistan is a country that is constantly boiling under the lid with tribal conflict, you really think they would attack the USSR?
While the Iran Crisis in the later 40s may somehow escalate to WW3 in a given scenario, outside of that there's no reason for Iran, same as Turkey, to attack.
Your premise is basically this.
"Countries around the USSR who are afraid/neutral to the USSR and have no reason and not even the means to attack the USSR, attack the USSR hoping for some sort of nuclear umbrella from NATO which in their calculation most likely won't come because that would probably mean WW3."
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Japan is an US ally. Japan attacking USSR means WW3 and either way Japan will probably get beaten and won't be able to land anywhere in the USSR.
Afghanistan is a country that is constantly boiling under the lid with tribal conflict, you really think they would attack the USSR?
While the Iran Crisis in the later 40s may somehow escalate to WW3 in a given scenario, outside of that there's no reason for Iran, same as Turkey, to attack.
Your premise is basically this.
"Countries around the USSR who are afraid/neutral to the USSR and have no reason and not even the means to attack the USSR, attack the USSR hoping for some sort of nuclear umbrella from NATO which in their calculation most likely won't come because that would probably mean WW3."
No my premise
" russia historically has a lot of enemies who were intimidated into not attacking her due to the bluff of nuclear weapons , NATO while maintaining maximum deterrence would arm and encourage these nations to pick small local fights with USSR without the fear of nukes "
Ofcourse neither side with use nukes first but that means all the advantage to NATO and its allies as now they have the conventional forces advantage over USSR

And just dont focus on late 40s alone , I said anytime from 1945 to 1980
Realistically if NATO starts arming the peripheral nations it will not be until 1960s that they are strong enough to take on ussr

Japan---- they just have to take kurils

Iran ---- by 70s they are a superpower militarily

Turkey ...huge military and can
have regional disputes in the Caucasus

Afghanistan-'--- all they have to do is house central Asian dissidents and cross border terrorists
 
Last edited:
No my premise
" russia historically has a lot of enemies who were intimidated into not attacking her due to the bluff of nuclear weapons , NATO while maintaining maximum deterrence would arm and encourage these nations to pick small local fights with USSR without the fear of nukes "
Ofcourse neither side with use nukes first but that means all the advantage to NATO and its allies as now they have the conventional forces advantage over USSR

And just dont focus on late 40s alone , I said anytime from 1945 to 1980
Realistically if NATO starts arming the peripheral nations it will not be until 1960s that they are strong enough to take on ussr
.....
WI
NATO encouraged the countries around the periphery of USSR like Turkey Iran Pakistan China Japan to adopt a more belligerent attitude towards USSR in the 1945-1980 period.And West would use the nuclear umbrella to protect these countries from Soviet nukes ? At the same time dragging the soviets in dozens of smaller localized conflicts
Think of rerun of Russo ottoman ,Persian , Japan wars of 16th to 20th century , plus a resurgent China with full western backing
Constant localized conventional conflicts would totally exhaust USSR much sooner
The problem is who is sufficiently stupid to actually attack USSR? (and what date are we talking about 45-80 is huge with big changes in the balance of power?)

NATO is only a defensive alliance the real risk of it not wanting to fight WWIII to protect somebody who openly attacked the Soviets would be very high, US might support them but once we get to late CW MAD they need to decide if New York is worth losing to avenge Iran or Pakistan.....
 
Top