Fire Kindled Anew - World War III in 1950

I have my print copy of Dropshot with me now, so I'll try to get some things down and send them to you.

Sounds good. I'll have some more time to go over that after this week. :)

Great start, I really like the tl. In the end, I predict the allies will win due to longterm economic superiority and a much better nuclear arsenal. On that note, what will Germany's postwar borders look like? I say they get most if not all of Silesia and Pomerania back (I know the this is WAY too early in the tl for this, but I had to ask).
Scipio

I'll have to do some research, but I think by this point the demographic shift of Germans westward is largely accomplished. I believe it was pretty much over by 1948, or at least enough that it shouldn't affect the postwar borders. But it's something to look into. As for the ultimate end to the war, that's pretty much what will happen, but it will be a long and hopefully interesting struggle.

why is mongolia considered neutral?

I didn't know enough about it to speculate what they'd be doing. Also, I made the map really fast. :eek:

I've now modified it, as there seems to be no reason for them not to be in the alliance.
 
AmericanCataphract

Best of luck. I'll be away for the holidays after this Friday but will catch up when I get back. Have a good holiday.:)

Steve
 
Since they've been brought up. It needs to be said that Spain and Turkey’s armed forces are a mess, so any contest between them and the Soviets would be a mismatch without NATO support of course any NATO moves to supply or reinforce Turkey would lead to an invasion. One from Bulgaria to secure Istanbul and close the Black Sea to NATO shipping and another into Anatolia. Whatever else they do, the Soviets are most certainly not going to allow the Turks to give passage to NATO ships into the Black Sea.

In response to the map Mongolia is Soviet aligned (part of the U.S.S.R, in all but name really) as is Albania, as for the European colonies. I don’t expect them to offer much in the way of assistance. In fact quite a few notably Indochina are already in a state of outright revolt. I see Tito jumping in against Italy if the Soviets make the right promises, look like they’re winning and apologize for the little spat in 1948, Stalin isn’t one to let his pride get in the way of his short term goals. If the matter is important enough and I submit WW3 falls under that category..
 
Since they've been brought up. It needs to be said that Spain and Turkey’s armed forces are a mess, so any contest between them and the Soviets would be a mismatch without NATO support of course any NATO moves to supply or reinforce Turkey would lead to an invasion. One from Bulgaria to secure Istanbul and close the Black Sea to NATO shipping and another into Anatolia. Whatever else they do, the Soviets are most certainly not going to allow the Turks to give passage to NATO ships into the Black Sea.

They may not be well equipped but both nations had tough troops and especially in eastern Anatolia the terrain will be very much on their side. Spain may have problems with surviving left wing elements but the civil war had been over for a decade so if asked I would expect Franco to be willing to supply some forces, which could help hold the line.

In response to the map Mongolia is Soviet aligned (part of the U.S.S.R, in all but name really) as is Albania, as for the European colonies. I don’t expect them to offer much in the way of assistance. In fact quite a few notably Indochina are already in a state of outright revolt. I see Tito jumping in against Italy if the Soviets make the right promises, look like they’re winning and apologize for the little spat in 1948, Stalin isn’t one to let his pride get in the way of his short term goals. If the matter is important enough and I submit WW3 falls under that category..

I doubt if many of the colonies will be that significant but I suspect few would be looking to move from frying pan to fire. With Chinese forces advancing southwards I could see locals outside Vietnam [along with possibly some inside that country] being very nervous about being under either Chinese or communist domination let alone both.

Steve
 
Had some free time, so I've decided to post a short update on the situation in the Far East. Also, NATO decides to form a unified wartime command structure. Each post has vacancies, which will be filled in the future. Criticize at your pleasure.

_______________________________

After the fall of Seoul, the Republic of Korea was essentially doomed. With no tanks, no aircraft, minimal artillery, and vastly fewer numbers, the South Korean military had been at a disadvantage from the start. The loss of the capital had also seen the encirclement and capture of many of South Korea’s best troops and a large amount of equipment. The withdrawal became an escape attempt; surviving army units tended to either retreat or surrender, and the demoralization of the rest meant that scant resistance was offered.

Syngman Rhee had fled Seoul on June 27th, and arrived in Pusan by July 1. Almost immediately he began to demand American support, only to find that none was forthcoming. The outbreak of the war in Europe had in fact led to the stripping down of what American forces remained in the Far East, and the only American military assistance rendered so far consisted of F-82 Twin Mustangs based in Japan. The Navy had deployed Task Force 77 off Taiwan with the outbreak of hostilities, including most of its force of battleships, but this force was being recalled to Japan to await new orders.

The only way the North Korean advance could have effectively been halted was by ground power. However, Europe had automatically become the highest-priority front, and by July 1 operations were underway to remove the 24th Infantry Division from Japan for redeployment to Europe. The risk to Japan’s security was deemed acceptable by the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to the massive naval superiority that NATO possessed in the region, and the order to remove the 24th Infantry was given on June 29th over the strenuous objections of Douglas MacArthur.

While the United States began drawing down its forces in the Far East, the few remaining South Korean troops were forced to fall back. North Korean forces captured the heavily populated region around Seoul, while on the eastern side of the peninsula the city of Gangneung was overrun, even though American aircraft intervened and caused significant damage. Syngman Rhee would lodge a series of diplomatic protests demanding American intervention over the next few weeks, but was firmly rebuffed at each occasion.

*****

On July 1, the NATO military committee announced the official creation of “a unified command structure for the conduct of operations within the boundaries defined in the North Atlantic Treaty”. The command structure was to be headed by a specially appointed Allied Operations Commander. He and his staff would be responsible for providing logistical oversight and inter-regional coordination for the five extant NATO military regions. The commander of each military region would report to the Chairman and would oversee operations within their region of defense. Now began the difficult task of choosing commanders and establishing their staffs and chains of command.

_______________________________________

The map: each colored area represents one of the five planning regions as outlined in the NATO Medium Term Defense Plan.

Orange - Western European Region
Brown - Southern European-Western Mediterranean Region
Blue - Northern European Region
Green - North Atlantic Ocean Area
Not Shown - Canadian-United States Region

Special Cases:
United Kingdom - included in both Western European and North Atlantic
Sweden - a possible but not assumed co-belligerent, Northern European
Denmark - included in both Western European and Northern European

Fire Kindled Anew - NATO Regions.png
 
Last edited:
I suppose it would be a little much if NATO assumed the OTL command divisions; AFNORTH, AFCENT, NORTHAG, BALTAP, etc...

I'm guessing Sweden will stay out of things until its neutrality is violated by one side or the other... which is more or less bound to happen eventually.
 
A few thoughts...

I am late to this party, so forgive me if I am covering ground that others have already dealt with.

If the Soviets are truly willing to start WWIII in 6/50, they have (at most) about a half-dozen nukes to work with, and no reliable delivery system against any sort of organized opposition. Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to use them as part of the opening attack? A few sub crews (who aren't informed about their mission - only a few true believers onboard need to know) are killed when their subs detonate as close to various US ports (SF, NYC, LA, Seattle, Norfolk, and Pearl come to mind, but others make viable option), along with some freighters loaded with explosives in other ports (the major French ports would be ideal targets, though some of the British ones would be worth hitting as well) and voila!, the American logistical situation is massively complicated, and their ability to make effective use of the naval and merchant fleets is compromised. If a reasonable level of strategic surprise can be obtained, this strategem doesn't seem unworkable, and certainly beats most of the other options for getting the bombs 'into play' in an effective way.

I am sure that chemical warfare has already been analyzed to death here, but the obvious place for it would be on NATO (my shorthand for the non-Soviets) tactical airfields and naval ports (the latter at about D+15 or so, when the ports are actually filled with military cargos) rather than against frontline troops that may have some equipment and training to cope with it. Soviet front-line armies in 1950 may or may not be trained to deal with a chem battlefield, but advancing over one is problematic at best with the sort of equipment that the Red Army had available in 1950. Chemical 'suicide freighters' against NATO port cities might be a useful technique as well, forcing the various NATO navies to patrol closer to home with at least some of their forces, thus weakening overall NATO offensive strength.

I did notice some discussion of the MiG-15. Remember that this was a fairly short-legged interceptor heavily dependent upon ground control, and thus not particularly useful without either a fairly compact theatre of operations (such as Korea) or a well-developed, well-integrated air defence environment, which the Soviets did not have in 1950. Certainly they had radar and some air defence centers worthy of the name, but the sheer size of the Soviet Union (and its various satellites), as well as the limited technical resources of the Red Army meant that air defence in 1950 was still pretty much a point-defence operation, something that the MiG-15 was quite good at. If the Americans began using nukes against Soviet military targets (large military depots, troop concentrations, ports, etc.), and did so with a modicum of cleverness in execution (they had good practice at this during WWII, and here they could do so with far smaller - hence more flexible - forces), it is unlikely that the Soviets could do much about it. Soviet tactical air would be a different matter, however, but you don't need MiG-15s for that...

Since we aren't engaging in the silliness of the 1946 timeline I have seen elsewhere here, I assume that realistic issues of logistics for the Red Army will be incorporated into the scenario, which suggests that things won't end well for the Soviets, though it will be a long and ugly fight. I am curious though...how aggressively do you intend to use 5th columnists? A few well-planned assassinations and perhaps some prewar scandals/general strikes/etc. might prepare the battlefield nicely....
 
Hey all, I've been a bit distracted the last few days, and I'm probably going to spend much of the break on other things. The next update is going to be a short bit on the first battle in Germany. On to the comments.

Since they've been brought up. It needs to be said that Spain and Turkey’s armed forces are a mess, so any contest between them and the Soviets would be a mismatch without NATO support of course any NATO moves to supply or reinforce Turkey would lead to an invasion. One from Bulgaria to secure Istanbul and close the Black Sea to NATO shipping and another into Anatolia. Whatever else they do, the Soviets are most certainly not going to allow the Turks to give passage to NATO ships into the Black Sea.

I figured as much, but the real question now becomes how well the actual invasion of Turkey would go down. Greece has a few divisions to deploy which will be able to assist in the defense of Istanbul (funny thought, that!) or to threaten Soviet supply lines in Bulgaria, and I don't think anyone would look forward to fighting an offensive war in Anatolia, particularly a mechanized one such as the Soviets are geared for.

In response to the map Mongolia is Soviet aligned (part of the U.S.S.R, in all but name really) as is Albania, as for the European colonies. I don’t expect them to offer much in the way of assistance. In fact quite a few notably Indochina are already in a state of outright revolt. I see Tito jumping in against Italy if the Soviets make the right promises, look like they’re winning and apologize for the little spat in 1948, Stalin isn’t one to let his pride get in the way of his short term goals. If the matter is important enough and I submit WW3 falls under that category..

Interesting points on Yugoslavia - I expect you're right and Tito will probably join up against NATO. As for the colonies, my main idea was to convey that those areas remain open for Allied resource exploitation, and show why Stalin has the perspective that NATO needs to be broken up - it looks like most of the world's against him. The map's been edited to put Albania and Mongolia into the Soviet sphere.

I doubt if many of the colonies will be that significant but I suspect few would be looking to move from frying pan to fire. With Chinese forces advancing southwards I could see locals outside Vietnam [along with possibly some inside that country] being very nervous about being under either Chinese or communist domination let alone both.

Agreed. The colonies provide an interesting additional facet to the war, especially Indochina.

I suppose it would be a little much if NATO assumed the OTL command divisions; AFNORTH, AFCENT, NORTHAG, BALTAP, etc...

I'm guessing Sweden will stay out of things until its neutrality is violated by one side or the other... which is more or less bound to happen eventually.

Probably correct on both counts. Keep in mind that the later command divisions weren't established until 1952 or so, so this is a quickly-formed chain of command in response in keeping with the MTDP to minimize the confusion.

If the Soviets are truly willing to start WWIII in 6/50, they have (at most) about a half-dozen nukes to work with, and no reliable delivery system against any sort of organized opposition. Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to use them as part of the opening attack?

I considered this option, but dropped it for a couple of reasons. First, attacking American cities with nuclear weapons invites the US to retaliate with overwhelming force. I figure Stalin will be banking on the threat of his nukes acting as a deterrent, as well as thinking he can force the Allies to the negotiating table before the nukes come into play fully. Attacking NATO with nuclear weapons escalates the conflict early, taking it beyond the conventional theater where Stalin knows he is at a disadvantage. Better to keep his half-dozen or so nukes as a threat hanging over Western Europe than immediately spend them for a tactical gain which may not be necessary and will leave him with no ability to retaliate if the US decides to use their own atomics on him.

Of course, this doesn't mean that submarines with nuclear weapons won't become a factor later in the timeline. Another thing to think about is how fast both sides can create nuclear weapons in wartime. This will probably be a factor later in the war (sabotage of ports in the Belgian Congo, perhaps?).

I am sure that chemical warfare has already been analyzed to death here, but the obvious place for it would be on NATO (my shorthand for the non-Soviets) tactical airfields and naval ports (the latter at about D+15 or so, when the ports are actually filled with military cargos) rather than against frontline troops that may have some equipment and training to cope with it.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was figuring. It is what the Soviets settled on for chemical warfare doctrine later in OTL, precisely because it causes maximum damage to the enemy without risking too many of their own troops.

I did notice some discussion of the MiG-15. Remember that this was a fairly short-legged interceptor heavily dependent upon ground control, and thus not particularly useful without either a fairly compact theatre of operations (such as Korea) or a well-developed, well-integrated air defence environment, which the Soviets did not have in 1950. Certainly they had radar and some air defence centers worthy of the name, but the sheer size of the Soviet Union (and its various satellites), as well as the limited technical resources of the Red Army meant that air defence in 1950 was still pretty much a point-defence operation, something that the MiG-15 was quite good at. If the Americans began using nukes against Soviet military targets (large military depots, troop concentrations, ports, etc.), and did so with a modicum of cleverness in execution (they had good practice at this during WWII, and here they could do so with far smaller - hence more flexible - forces), it is unlikely that the Soviets could do much about it. Soviet tactical air would be a different matter, however, but you don't need MiG-15s for that...

The thing I need to investigate is how many MiG-15s were actually in service at the time, but I expect there were enough to allow for the point defense of Soviet cities while also permitting the deployment of a few squadrons in Germany with 24th Air Army. They're mostly going to be deployed in a defensive role, but their advantage in an offensive role is that they're better than any NATO fighter besides the F-86. And Europe, along with North America, is one of the two places that the F-86 has been deployed to in large numbers. So use of MiG-15s in an air superiority role has the logic of providing a counter to the best fighter NATO has as well as being significantly better than anything else NATO can call on. As you said, range is a preeminent problem, and the Soviets will probably lose the ability to operate MiG-15s in large numbers beyond about the Rhine. In fact, the Rhine may also represent one of the further lines of operation for NATO forces as well - it'll probably become a Yalu analogue for the timeline. The MiGs are mainly being deployed in the early offensive phase in an effort to secure air superiority as much as possible. The piston-engined, longer-range planes will carry the burden once the armies get outside Germany, and at that point the MiGs can return to the USSR to stave off the bombers. That's my logic, anyway, and the numbers appear to back me up, though neither side knows this in the timeline - about two weeks both to get to the Rhine and for the strategic air offensive to begin.

Since we aren't engaging in the silliness of the 1946 timeline I have seen elsewhere here, I assume that realistic issues of logistics for the Red Army will be incorporated into the scenario, which suggests that things won't end well for the Soviets, though it will be a long and ugly fight. I am curious though...how aggressively do you intend to use 5th columnists? A few well-planned assassinations and perhaps some prewar scandals/general strikes/etc. might prepare the battlefield nicely....

I expect that the fifth columns and spies will play a large role on both sides. One of the things that the 1946 timeline correctly notes but at the same time seems to seriously overestimate is the role the Soviet spies play. Nevertheless, they are there and will begin taking an active role in the story as time goes on. High-scale assassinations are doubtful, but considering the large Communist parties in Western Europe especially, general strikes and attempts to influence public opinion will be likely courses of action with a decent potential for success - with some interesting implications for freedom of speech and social issues in those countries afterward.

And of course the CIA and other NATO intelligence services, once they get moving, will be making hay in the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe and the Baltic/Ukrainian SSRs, where discontent and outright resistance to the Soviet regime will allow the West to complicate matters for the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Probably correct on both counts. Keep in mind that the later command divisions weren't established until 1952 or so, so this is a quickly-formed chain of command in response in keeping with the MTDP to minimize the confusion.

(Nod). Agreed, it wasn't meant as a criticism. I was more bemoaning the fact that my study of later-period command structure won't be any use in following the story, not any problem with the story itself. :-}
 
Just found this, and it's really interesting. Any chance it will be continued?

Well, I haven't been able to get back into it yet this year - college has interfered so far. I certainly will try to continue it, but I need to do some more research before adding new installments.
 
Well, I haven't been able to get back into it yet this year - college has interfered so far. I certainly will try to continue it, but I need to do some more research before adding new installments.
Hope to see more soon.
Maybe IKE as commander of military again? If not IKE then Bradly
With regards to NUc's;; Truman would use them. reason less US lives lost. That was why he used the two at end of WW2. B-36 were in service by 1950 Mig 15 could not climb high enough to attack it.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Hope to see more soon.
Maybe IKE as commander of military again? If not IKE then Bradly
With regards to NUc's;; Truman would use them. reason less US lives lost. That was why he used the two at end of WW2. B-36 were in service by 1950 Mig 15 could not climb high enough to attack it.
While Ike is certainly a possibility, right now Bradley is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Matt Ridgeway is probably a better choice as commander. He's far more aggressive than Bradley, but not senselessly so. Besides, he's fought in the European theatre before.

Ridgeway demonstrated a great deal of skill OTL in handling situations where he was vastly out numbered. While admittedly the Soviets aren't the PLA, the technique is pretty much the same, channel the enemy into killing zones, and put lots of hot, high velocity explosive steel on them.

For armored maneuver warfare, Walton Walker and Creighton Abrams are available. Both served under Patton and know the drill.
 
I suspect the British and the French are going to be suddenly very, very willing to "compromise" with the Egyptian government in order to keep the Suez canal open and secure during the war.

That sort of willingness to compromise probably becomes the method of decolonization, financed by the United States in order to supply resources, labor, or even troops in some cases. The West can't afford problems in Africa right now, and the US ought to be urging the Europeans right along to make whatever promises there they need to in order to keep the focus on the Communists.

There's also something that's been nagging at me--a number of posts here have described how the PRC is likely to move into Southeast Asia en masse, only maybe to be held at the Kra isthmus. Isn't that a bit of a slog for an infantry-heavy army in a region laced with rivers, mountains, jungles and swamps with poor infrastructure and no naval support? The Chinese, communist or not, probably are going to wear out their welcome rather quickly if they try living off the land in any sense for supplies.
 
if the soviets enter the middle east and the arab nation are on NATO's side, would israel join the soviets as we were a socialist country back then
 
Top