In a 1980s WWIII scenario, what "neutral countries" would we expect to be dragged in?

What it says on the title, I'm not exactly talking about a nuclear situation, more the conventional side, Finland, Sweden, Austria, and Yugoslavia certainly have something at stake here, along with the slow burning wars of Africa and the Middle East.
 
Finland is almost certainly going to be in a fight or die scenario, as is Austria. If the war is confined to Germany Yugoslavia might be able to sneak out of it, or become a theatre in their own right.
 
Like what Luath said, though I can see Yugoslavia being brought to either the side of the Warpac or NATO along with possibly Switzerland and Albania being dragged in, most likely at the hand of the WP. China can be a good candidate to get dragged into the conflict if you count them as "neutral", considering how they have beef with the USSR at the time.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Finland, Sweden, Austria and Yugoslavia in Europe as posters have stated above.
Many non-European countries would be dragged in too through US arm-twisting diplomacy or 'common interests': South America, the Middle East both
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Soviets would probably prod the North Koreans into invading South Korea, so as to tie American resources down in the Pacific. That brings them in, and probably Japan, too. Australia and New Zealand might dispatch troops to the Korean peninsula to help out.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Soviet war plans called for the nuking of Vienna and the invasion of Austria.

One published war plan from Poland says that as a hypothetical Polish scenario. Actual Soviet war plans haven't and probably won't be ever released.
 
Probably the only country that avoids being involved in WWIII in Europe is Switzerland, simple because invading doesn't do much good for the Soviets - unlike Finland, Sweden and Austria which become approaches to NATO. Japan won't be neutral because of US/Japan defense pacts, likewise Australia, and New Zealand. The PI, even if officially neutral, has US bases which will be hit so at least conventional collateral damage. The Israelis may get involved to neutralize a potential ally and potential logistic assist. An ANC South Africa probably is left alone, the pre-ANC South Africa probably gets involved. Most of Africa and most of South and Central America are left alone by the Soviets as long as they are neutral of course Panama gets some collateral damage from Soviet attempts to close the Panama canal even with conventional weapons like sea launched cruise missiles aimed at the locks. WHat happens in South Korea depends more on North Korea.
 
I think its highly probable the whole MENA region gets dragged in, as well as South Asia due to the Indo-Soviet alliance against China at the time, and that bring in Southeast Asia.

I think the whole of Eurasia, Northern North America, Austral-New Zealand would be brought in. At the time the South Africa Apartheid regime was targeted by both sides. Panama canal zone is gone. Basically parts of Africa, Latin America and the Pacific would be left.
 
There would be scarcely any country that doesn't get involved in this scenario. Like sloreck said, only Switzerland would likely remain 'neutral' (probably because the Soviets would find invasion meaningless). All other countries will, in at least one way, be involved in the conflict. Even Austria, Sweden and Finland may be involved if the Soviet Union targets them.
 
I think its highly probable the whole MENA region gets dragged in, as well as South Asia due to the Indo-Soviet alliance against China at the time, and that bring in Southeast Asia.

I think the whole of Eurasia, Northern North America, Austral-New Zealand would be brought in. At the time the South Africa Apartheid regime was targeted by both sides. Panama canal zone is gone. Basically parts of Africa, Latin America and the Pacific would be left.

I'm not sure of India would get involved on the side of the Soviets since the US and its allies would trash India to a pulp if they did; they might likely declare neutrality and even lean to the side of the allies the same way the US did in the first world war given that the USSR would be considered more of an aggressor that started a terrible war ala Nazi Germany and Delhi might start to get uncomfortable with that kind of nation in the long run.
 
I'm not sure of India would get involved on the side of the Soviets since the US and its allies would trash India to a pulp if they did; they might likely declare neutrality and even lean to the side of the allies the same way the US did in the first world war given that the USSR would be considered more of an aggressor that started a terrible war ala Nazi Germany and Delhi might start to get uncomfortable with that kind of nation in the long run.
well give the fact that Pakistan is going to be allies of both US and China historically, India is going to be in an interesting position if its not, and China might not want a neutral India to survive.
 
In a conventional conflict the last thing the Soviets want to do is to bring China in. In the 1980s Pakistan is not going to get too actively involved on its own, the USA may stage recon missions and perhaps special forces activity out of Pakistan, use Pakistan for emergency landings etc but no more. Yhe USA does better with this level of involvement, and will probably tell Pakistan that if they start something with India the US can't resupply them. Similarly the Soviets can't spare anything to resupply India so while both sides will glare at each other, maybe even border incidents absent some tragic error they won't go at each other. The countries of South Asia/SE Asia will do everything they can to stay neutral as long as possible. Similarly South and Central America - they may tilt, but no commitment until they see a winner. Picking the losing side, even if it does not have immediate military consequences, will have major consequences postwar. While firing off a few nukes at a neutral would be enough to put them out of the game, doing so with conventional forces would take a l
 
In a conventional conflict the last thing the Soviets want to do is to bring China in. In the 1980s Pakistan is not going to get too actively involved on its own, the USA may stage recon missions and perhaps special forces activity out of Pakistan, use Pakistan for emergency landings etc but no more. Yhe USA does better with this level of involvement, and will probably tell Pakistan that if they start something with India the US can't resupply them. Similarly the Soviets can't spare anything to resupply India so while both sides will glare at each other, maybe even border incidents absent some tragic error they won't go at each other. The countries of South Asia/SE Asia will do everything they can to stay neutral as long as possible. Similarly South and Central America - they may tilt, but no commitment until they see a winner. Picking the losing side, even if it does not have immediate military consequences, will have major consequences postwar. While firing off a few nukes at a neutral would be enough to put them out of the game, doing so with conventional forces would take a l

I think the last thing happened to China in the Able Archer 83 TL where the Soviets think nuking most of China would solve their problems when it obviously didn't. Other than nuking, I can't see much that would bring China into WWIII conventionally, maybe get the Soviets into an accidental border war of sorts with the Chinese that's interpreted as a deliberate attack on them that's supposedly encouraged by NATO I guess?
 
Last edited:

Hunter W.

Banned
Japan also had disputes with the Soviets, and vice-versa so maybe the Soviets attempt a paratroop operation to secure their Eastern most flank? or to counter this a Japanese attack against Soviet submarine bases.
 
One published war plan from Poland says that as a hypothetical Polish scenario. Actual Soviet war plans haven't and probably won't be ever released.

I can't think that the speculative war plans would have differed greatly from the actual Soviet plans. What would be the point for the Polish general staff to work on the basis of one scenario if the actual Warsaw Pact offensive was going to be different?

Austria is going to have the most trouble staying neutral, what with its territory being the natural corridor to West Germany and Italy. Sweden, Finland and Yugoslavia may manage to remain neutral, depending on how narrowly focused the war remains. Switzerland has the best chances of neutrality, if only because the Soviet army would have to fight through NATO to come close to threatening Swiss neutrality.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I can't think that the speculative war plans would have differed greatly from the actual Soviet plans. What would be the point for the Polish general staff to work on the basis of one scenario if the actual Warsaw Pact offensive was going to be different?

The point would be because that is what planning officers do. They make plans over and over again. I am not saying that one plan was false, a lie, but it is important to note, I think, that the Soviet war plans have not been released. They are the only ones that would have any meaning.
 
Austria's a good probable. Finland is treaty obligated to allow passage to the Soviets, but whether they'd actually live up to said treaty obligation can be considerably debated... either way they'll get dragged in. Sweden's another probable, definitely on NATO's side. Yugoslavia's a "maybe, could go either side". China's another "maybe", although if it does join it almost certainly will on NATO's side.
 
Top