Expanding an ATL WWIII (1989)

Your scenario - blame West Germany for a terrorist act to spark war with NATO, then invade the Middle East for oil - reminds me a lot of Red Storm Rising. Not that I don´t think it´s an interesting scenario to investigate from a post-Cold-War point of view, though.


How about the casus belli is faked "West German terrorist attacks" against East Germany? Say, the "West Germans" try to assassinate an East German government that shows itself too resistant to the idea of more openness and closer relations to the West? That, and they are found "supporting violent counterrevolutionary elements" in several Eastern Bloc countries.

Then, while the crisis slowly escalates because West Germany denies everything and fake "West Germans" continue to act against the Soviet Union, some kind of coup like the 1991 one removes Gorbachev from power because he is "too weak to resolve this crisis" (because the crisis is being caused by the coup plotters).

How does that sound to you?

Yeah, since I've read that book several times I can't deny being influenced by it.

Hmm. I like the idea of the causus belli being NATO support for 'violent counterrevolutionary elements' which are killing off NSWP leaders; it really brings the NSWP nations on board with the war and culls off some of the democratization movements therin at the same time. Nice.

I still think Gorbachev needs to die, not just be removed. In OTL he had enough influence to stop the coup; if he's dead no one can argue that he has any influence left. Plus if he dies in the midst of a bunch of terrorist attacks on NSWP member states... "the counterrevolutionaries could be anywhere! See? They have murdered our beloved Comrade Gorbachev! To arms, workers and peasants!"
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
Yeah, since I've read that book several times I can't deny being influenced by it.

Hmm. I like the idea of the causus belli being NATO support for 'violent counterrevolutionary elements' which are killing off NSWP leaders; it really brings the NSWP nations on board with the war and culls off some of the democratization movements therin at the same time. Nice.

I still think Gorbachev needs to die, not just be removed. In OTL he had enough influence to stop the coup; if he's dead no one can argue that he has any influence left. Plus if he dies in the midst of a bunch of terrorist attacks on NSWP member states... "the counterrevolutionaries could be anywhere! See? They have murdered our beloved Comrade Gorbachev! To arms, workers and peasants!"

I´m not sure he needs to die. Let him have house arrest, and then, at a convenient point, "discover incriminating evidence" that he was in on the whole NATO terrorism plot, because more trouble for the Eastern Bloc means more justification for him to dismantle the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Then you don´t need terrorists to kill him, only the KGB and a bullet to the back of the neck.
 
I´m not sure he needs to die. Let him have house arrest, and then, at a convenient point, "discover incriminating evidence" that he was in on the whole NATO terrorism plot, because more trouble for the Eastern Bloc means more justification for him to dismantle the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Then you don´t need terrorists to kill him, only the KGB and a bullet to the back of the neck.

If he's displaced, there's a strong risk of fracturing the chain of command on the eve of a war. If he's dead, he's a rallying point.

Since my POD is infusing the hardliners with the fortitude and foresight to start a war before the USSR falls, I think they have the fortitude and foresight not to leave an enemy inside their country.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
If he's displaced, there's a strong risk of fracturing the chain of command on the eve of a war. If he's dead, he's a rallying point.

Since my POD is infusing the hardliners with the fortitude and foresight to start a war before the USSR falls, I think they have the fortitude and foresight not to leave an enemy inside their country.

I just can´t see why the fake NATO terrorists should assassinate the guy who is their best chance of ending the Soviet Union.

Maybe they should reveal their fake evidence against Gorbachev right away and depose and execute him as a traitor, without the coup and house arrest thing.
 
I just can´t see why the fake NATO terrorists should assassinate the guy who is their best chance of ending the Soviet Union.

Maybe they should reveal their fake evidence against Gorbachev right away and depose and execute him as a traitor, without the coup and house arrest thing.

No, I'm now thinking two separate 'reactionary imperialist puppet' groups.

Group One is pulling terrorist attacks in Eastern Europe. The KGB will report that they are NATO-sponsored. This is the causus belli for the invasion of Western Europe.
Group Two assassinates Gorbachev (and anyone standing nearby). The KGB will report that they are Muslim fanatics sponsored by the Gulf states. This is the causus belli for the invasion of the Gulf... though it will take a while for them to 'find the evidence'.
Gorbachev is a hero (a dead hero - the best kind), and the USSR has the fig leaf excuses they need for invasion.

Thanks to all who've contributed so far!

Anyone want to suggest ways to widen the conflict? China, India, Chile, Columbia... any nation at all, points for tying them into the conflict.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
No, I'm now thinking two separate 'reactionary imperialist puppet' groups.

Group One is pulling terrorist attacks in Eastern Europe. The KGB will report that they are NATO-sponsored. This is the causus belli for the invasion of Western Europe.
Group Two assassinates Gorbachev (and anyone standing nearby). The KGB will report that they are Muslim fanatics sponsored by the Gulf states. This is the causus belli for the invasion of the Gulf... though it will take a while for them to 'find the evidence'.
Gorbachev is a hero (a dead hero - the best kind), and the USSR has the fig leaf excuses they need for invasion.

Thanks to all who've contributed so far!

Anyone want to suggest ways to widen the conflict? China, India, Chile, Columbia... any nation at all, points for tying them into the conflict.

Okay, now killing Gorbachev makes sense.

Do China and the others actually have to be allies of the Soviet Union, or just take part in the war? Because I could imagine China for example seizing the opportunity, now that the US is distracted, to try and "reintegrate" Taiwan.
 
Okay, now killing Gorbachev makes sense.

Do China and the others actually have to be allies of the Soviet Union, or just take part in the war? Because I could imagine China for example seizing the opportunity, now that the US is distracted, to try and "reintegrate" Taiwan.

Allies, no - but I don't want them on the side of the US.

I've considered China invading Taiwan, but with major US Navy forces just a little ways north around Korea I don't see how they could expect to pull it off. I'm looking into it, but them invading Vietnam is looking more promising.
 
Soviets can't invade Gulf. At that time they are in process of losing in Afganistan, and there is very little hard liners can do to change that. If they any supply lines for Gulf states invasion force running trough A-Stan would be stupidly vulnerable.

Blitzing trough Iran would be even more difficult. While Iran is bloodied by its recent war with Iraq, same war has also given them experience in fighting a superior adversary.
Even if USSR could crush Iran in any reasonable timeframe, it would still give more than enough time for US forces to deploy in Gulf.


But all of above are mere technicalities. Over and over USA publicly stated that Gulf was their area of strategic importance and that they would respond to any invasion of said are by foreign power with nuclear weapons.
If Soviets go for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, its nuclear from day 1 (meaning, till day 1 + couple of hours)

Back to other issues. Deploying troops to Kora, and starting and stopping and restarting of REFORGER creates huge delays and disorganization. NATO is still of course strong, but above might take from it the edge it needs to win a conventional battle in time. And just in case, a lovely remainder of French policy "if any Soviet troops cross French border we fire our nukes at Soviet cities, thank you for your attention".

How about pointing out this lovely set of thoughts. During most of Cold War NATO knew that they couldn't stop Soviets quickly enough to have time to mobilize and teploy troops to Europe, because of that any initial Soviet attack would have caused use of tac nukes. Soviets of course knew this and weren't much hiding that they planned on using chemicals against NATO bases and airfields, well knowing that USA would respond with nukes to their chems, after which they would use their own tac nukes. Yes, both sides openly stated that only way its gonna happen is tac nukes all over Middle Europe from very start; and I honestly believed that was said and done only because neither side wanted to fight that war and kept trying to deter the other side. But fact remains, doctrines and warplans of both sides relied on and integrated nuclear weapons.

Each side would have used couple hundred tactical in opening hours, likely over a thousand detonations in Germany, Hungary, Poland and Chekoslovakia on the first day or two of fighting. Already by this time frontmost deployed forces of both sides would have been almost completely eradicated. But keeping it tactical and strictly focused on military targets, hundreds more targets in Europe on both sides (ports, bases, airfields) further away from the front demand to be serviced if any hope of winning the war is to be had. UK was covered with NATO assets, and all of them had Soviet bombers, IRBMs and MRBMs targeted on them. And UK has its V bomber force for a reason...



To summarize. Both sides planned for "conventional" war in Europe to include tac nukes from very start (and Soviet bad jokes about chemical weapons). Even if somehow this doesn't happen, if one side suffers a major setback, they have huge temptation to use nukes. Further, if a decisive battle is identified in advance, one of sides might not be able to resist using nukes to its own advantage. It can't be kept only conventional, as it was made that way by political and military leadership of both sides.
 
grdja83, a few notes:

By May of 1989 the USSR was already out of Afghanistan, both in OTL and TTL.

Iran had a hard time fighting Iraq. The Soviets have better equipment, better tactics, and an air force that will lay waste to anything in the Gulf with the possible exception of the IDF (who they won't go near). They will also happily use chemical weapons in this campaign, plus most of their airborne troops. Their plans, of course, may not work out (they won't, fully), but there's no reason the Soviets would believe they couldn't roll over the Gulf states (holding them down would be a separate task).

The whole POINT of the Soviet plan is to cause NATO (and the US) to dither and be distracted. Yes, starting and then stopping REFORGER is a real mess logistically; but as I've noted above, the US can't ignore a real, active war in Korea NOW because the crystal ball says this time the Soviet exercises are actually war preparation. Yeah, 'order, counter-order, disorder' is something we should have learned a long time ago. You want a list of stupid military decisions by politicians in OTL?

I think a lot of people overestimate the ease of crossing the nuclear threshold. If WMDs are so easy to use, why didn't the major powers use chemical weapons on each other during WWII? The US had a large and well-equipped Chemical Corps, optimized to deliver CW munitions (the 4.2" mortars would prove to be extremely good weapons firing HE, as well). The US issued gas masks and trained for a slimed battlefield. It never happened. It Hitler and Stalin weren't crazy enough to cross the chemical threshold when their own capitols were in danger, why should we believe that Bush would cross the nuclear threshold because the Soviets are moving forward in Germany?

Now, would the French use nukes if the WP crosses the Rhine? Sure, but they won't get that far.
 
Allied Order of Battle, May 25th 1989:

West Berlin
US Berlin Brigade
UK Berlin Brigade
French Berlin Brigade
NATO AFNORTH (Norway, Denmark, NE corner of FRG):
Norwegian Army (3 Division Equivalents)
FRG Schleswig-Holstein Corps (2 Divisions)
Danish Army (5 Division Equivalents)
Allied Mobile Force 1st Echelon (1 Division Equivalent)
NATO NORTHAG (HQ: British Army of the Rhine)
UK I Corps (3 Divisions)
Dutch I Corps (3 Divisions, 1 Brigade)
FRG I Corps (4 Divisions, 1 Brigade)
FRG Northern Corps (2 Divisions)
Belgian I Corps (4 Brigades)
NATO CENTAG (HQ: US 7th Army)
US V Corps (3 Divisions, 1 Armored Cavalry Regiment)
US VII Corps (3 Divisions, 1 ACR)
Canadian 4th Mech Brigade
FRG II Corps (3 Divisions, 1 Brigade)
FRG III Corps (3 Divisions, 1 Brigade)
FRG Southern Corps (3 Divisions)
Reinforcements
US III Corps (3 Divisions, 1 ACR); Arriving per REFORGER for NORTHAG
US 24th Infantry Division (Mech; 2 Bde); via fast sealift, for US III Corps
US 9th Infantry Division (Mot; 2 Bde); via air, for US V Corps
USMC 2nd Division (in several waves); via amphib to Norway (AFNORTH)
US National Guard (IX Corps, 4 Divisions, 6 Brigades, 1 ACR); via SLOC
UK Territorial units (1 Division, 3 Brigades); reserve units via Channel
Belgian reserves (2 Brigades); reserve units via road/rail
Canadian forces (2 Brigades); active units via SLOC, for US VII Corps
Allied Mobile Force 2nd Echelon (1 Division Equivalent); via various routes
French 1st Army & FAR (7 Division Equivalents); via road/rail
NATO Air OrBat (5,200 A/C, 2,000 Fwd Deployed):
United States Air Force, Europe (2,660 A/C) (730 Fwd Deployed)
French Air Force (640 A/C)
Luftwaffe (580 A/C)
Royal Air Force (430 A/C) (160 Fwd Deployed)
Royal Belgium Air Force (230 A/C)
United States 2nd Marine Air Wing (190 A/C)
Royal Netherlands Air Force (160 A/C)
Canadian Air Force (120 A/C) (50 Fwd Deployed)
Royal Danish Air Force (100 A/C)
Royal Norwegian Air Force (80 A/C)
Royal Luxembourg Air Force (20 A/C) (NATO Crews)


South Korea:
US 8th Army
I Corps (3 Divisions)
XVIII Airborne Corps (3 Divisions)
USMC (1 Division & Air Wing)
ROK Military
US 5th AF, 7th AF, 13th AF
Reinforcements
US National Guard (1 Division, 5 Brigades, 1 ACR); via SLOC
[FONT=&quot] USMC (1 Division & Air Wing); via amphib/airlift/SLOC [/FONT]
 
Top