The Berlin Blockade leads to World War III. Who wins?

it would take a few days for it to ready itself for a nuke strike.

I should point out that according to USAAF plans it should only take a few days but the USAAF plans assumed adequately-trained crews in adequate quantities, adequate numbers of decently-maintained aircraft, adequate numbers of adequately trained bomb assembly teams, and the forward bases from which the bombers were supposed to launch already outfitted with adequate infrastructure. In 1948, literally not one of these assumptions were valid.

If they should be stored in Germany, it would take a few conventional raids to bomb the airfields and set of a few nukes (I believe that PAL was not exactly prevalent in 1948 vintage bombs).

Leaving aside the misunderstanding of how nukes work threaded through this post, given the rapidity with which mainland Europe would fall the US might as well just give the USSR those nuclear components instead of airlifting them over to West Germany.

Tibi is spot on. It is not an easy decision to start chucking nuclear bombs around.

Eh, I'm a bit dubious. Even leaving aside that the US doesn't have much practical alternative, while there were some moral scruples among the civilian administration at the time about nukes, those heavily stem from the fact the country was at peace. Had a serious war started, those scruples would have eroded fast In 1939 the RAF refused to even consider bombing the Black Forest because the trees were private property of German citizens. By 1945 they were torching German civilian centers as a matter of policy and the attitude had become basically ALL WILL BURN! I'm not convinced that even today we're all that far away from normalizing atrocities. The fall can come very fast.

Not to say I condone it, of course. The very fact that national morals tend to become so loose in wartime terrifies me. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
True enough, however if Stalin did order it, once seeing the reaction, would not just blame a low ranking pilot for not following orders?
Once maybe, but the OP specifies planes, indicating multiple attacks. That's hard-to-impossible to disguise as accidents.

As others pointed out, the incident was not necesserily ordered by Stalin. Knowing how cautious he was I simply cant see him starting a war he cant hope to win - actually i cant see him start any war he doesnt believe he is sure to win.

And even if the americans have the right of it, they too decided that west Berlin is worth to start WWIII over. Even if they have good cause and every right to start a war, it was still their decision. OP didnt specify any subsequent soviet offensive or air strike or agressive moves. This indicantes the soviets, even if they planned the incident werent planning to begin WWIII with it.

This indicates the soviet position at the onset of the conflict was at worst that they want to take west Berlin even using force - but no more at the moment. But it could be that the americans turned an on the soviet part unintentional incident to WWIII.
As per the OP they attack multiple, unarmed planes. There is no way they can't be aware the Americans won't respond. It's deliberate, bald-face provocation.

Well that wouldn't be much of an issue. The conventional power of balance in Europe at the start of this war is such that American war plans observed that mainland Europe would be all in Soviet hands within the first three months. Post-Cold War scholars, with full access to Soviet and American sources, are even more pessimistic: they project that the Soviets would have been at the Atlantic within weeks.
Maybe early in the war, Later after the Americans have started massing B-29s I'm not so sure.

Well, siding with the Allies and surviving the Soviet invasion long enough for the US to establish forward airbases.
Well the Soviets don't have troops in position to invade Sweden at this point. And the US doesn't need forward bases, just a Swedish agreement to allow them to sail warships into their territorial waters.
 
Maybe early in the war, Later after the Americans have started massing B-29s I'm not so sure.

Well, early in the war is when the Soviets would overrun Europe because it would make no sense for them to wait and let the Americans mass B-29s so...

Well the Soviets don't have troops in position to invade Sweden at this point.

Your evidence for this?

And the US doesn't need forward bases, just a Swedish agreement to allow them to sail warships into their territorial waters.

You mean into the Baltic? When past Soviet control of Denmark would ensure that it's a Soviet lake?
 
Yes, yes, we know. You are completely unaware that the Soviets in 1948 have aircraft and radars for their air defense systems and think their the sort of untermenschen Nazi propaganda made them out to be, presumably imagining the Russians to still be pounding rocks together in caves or something.

Don't put words into my mouth; I've actually been to Monino. ;)
 
Don't put words into my mouth; I've actually been to Monino. ;)

Sure, so have I. I also remembering visiting the Kremlin. It was a lovely day, which made it all seem surprisingly beautiful. Didn't get a chance to go to Kubinka though, much to my disappointment.
 
Sure, so have I. I also remembering visiting the Kremlin. It was a lovely day, which made it all seem surprisingly beautiful. Didn't get a chance to go to Kubinka though, much to my disappointment.

I've also met a WW2 Soviet fighter pilot and worked with a former Colonel in a fighter unit in the Soviet Union.
 
That's nice, if indicative of nothing really.

Apart from my knowledge of Russia includes a chunk of first hand experience and does not include the

imagining the Russians to still be pounding rocks together in caves or something

that you tried to ascribe to me.
 
Apart from my knowledge of Russia includes a chunk of first hand experience and does not include the

imagining the Russians to still be pounding rocks together in caves or something

that you tried to ascribe to me.

The attitude you've established here very much includes that and your "first-hand experience" (hint: if you didn't experience it yourself, it's actually second-hand) is both unverifiable and anecdotal.
 
The attitude you've established here very much includes that and your "first-hand experience" (hint: if you didn't experience it yourself, it's actually second-hand) is both unverifiable and anecdotal.
Nevertheless, you did come across quite poorly in this particular exchange. Part of the reason why I asked you for some sources (and thank you for supplying some) was to try and gently nudge the debate onto a more factual basis, as you seemed to be drifting into straw men and playing the man, not the ball.
 
Nevertheless, you did come across quite poorly in this particular exchange. Part of the reason why I asked you for some sources (and thank you for supplying some) was to try and gently nudge the debate onto a more factual basis, as you seemed to be drifting into straw men and playing the man, not the ball.

Hm, fair enough. I'll admit I tend to develop an irascible tone when it comes to debates. Call it a bad habit that I've picked up from other forums.
 
are nukes used (by the US) and do the USSR fast track there nuclear bomb program (say have one ready to go before our timeline)

Beria whipped hard to get Joe-1 usable as a test, a tower shot like Gadget.

Joe-3 in October 1951 was the first bomb that was drop tested.

And USA hadn't yet much of them, IIRC only just few dozens and early nukes weren't so effective as for example in 1980's
In 1950 then USA had approximately 299 deliverable nuclear weapons and the USSR 5. In 1948 that number would be zero, and for the USA a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 50
year
1945 6
1946 11
1947 32
1948 110
1949 235
1950 369

In 1950 most of the weapons were the Mk.4, with most in the 20-31kt range. Most of the 120 Mk.3 build between 1947 and 1949 had been withdrawn in 1950 to be remanufactured, except for some Mk.3 Mod2 of 49kt yield.
There was also around a half dozen Little Boy style bombs for use with USN Neptunes

Actual scholarly analysis have found that Soviet air defense capabilities were quite sophisticated by the 1947-48 period

P-3 'Dumbo' 55kW Radar with 100 mile range was hardly sophisticated. it was hardly an improvement over Chain Home of 1940. P-8 'Knife Rest' wasn't till 1950, and that was about as good as mid 1940s Radar, with later example getting a PPI indicator, but only 75kW.

were so high that there were only three airfields in the world capable of supporting them, all three of which were in the Continental US.
Bristol's Filton airfield, Farnborough, Heathrow and Paris were able to host the equally large and weighty Bristol Brabazon in the 1948-1950 timeframe
 
For the record, only the prototype B-36 and the XC-99, which employed single-wheel main gear exceeded the support strength of fields long enough for them to operate from. Doubtlessly a few exceptions, which I'll probably hear about, but I note that the XC-99, which was fabricated in San Diego, had no problems operating from notoriously thin Lindbergh field.

Dynasoar
 
Well, early in the war is when the Soviets would overrun Europe because it would make no sense for them to wait and let the Americans mass B-29s so...
Except that that makes no sense, because in the early stages they were sure the airlift would fail. Realistically, it wouldn't come until the airlift was actually a proven success.

Your evidence for this?
Well, none, now that you mention it, I made an assumption that they wouldn't have troops in position, since most of the focus was on Central Europe, not Northern Europe.

You mean into the Baltic? When past Soviet control of Denmark would ensure that it's a Soviet lake?
True.


I would say the most likely inciting incident is the protest on 9 September 1948 going bad. However, that's more likely to lead to an invasion of Berlin than a severing of the air links.
 
Last edited:
In order to take Denmark the USSR is going to have to do it by the land route - there is essentially zero amphibious capability. You won't se the sort of combined amphibious and air assault coup de main described in a lot of AH WWIII scenarios set in the 60s and beyond. In 1948 the question is what ready forces did the USSR have in Germany, or at best west of Warsaw. What was their readiness on day one of the blockade. The Czech coup happens in early 1948, so don't expect a meaningful Czech military contribution, and in fact I very much doubt that the Russians would expect anything from any of the newly communist countries do have their militaries do more than internal security. In 1948 the USSR is not really in any sort of condition to fight west from a standing start, in spite of numerical superiority. I don't know the answer, but I expect many months of mobilization, training, building up stockpiles and moving assets westward to a greater or lesser extent would be the case if the Soviets (a) planned severe provocations like a shoot down or invasion of West Berlin and (b) expected the west to go to war as a result of (a).
 
This map published by LIFE magazine August 8th 1949, fits right into this thread and shows what if a Soviet attack came in 1949, the West planned to hold at the Rhine and nuke the advancing armies as they assembled to cross the river.

DwOXbVzWwAAhJsY.jpg:large
 
Amazing. This is the scenario that will surely have a few Europeans up in arms.

Why stop with only three bombs if you have a few extra.

… and if the Russians should cross the Rhine, then we will use even more bombs .

Very few people to liberate after that.

Ivan
 
It would be a bloody conflict, without a doubt. But with the Soviets nuclear technology until later in the year (approximately 1 year if the war begins in 1948, or 3 months if it begins in May 49, the time it ended OTL) or a concept of MAD, the US would use its nuclear arsenal on Soviet forces Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenberg-Vorpommern, giving them the time and potential to invade into these areas. Meanwhile, the Soviets would be gathering the majority of their army to the front to begin their defense. West Berlin would fall into Soviet hands. Norway would possibly be invaded via the thin but crucial border shared with the USSR in Murmansk.

The war, most likely, wouldn't drag on, as both sides recently came out of WW2. Depending on how soon it ends, the death of Stalin and the Sino-Soviet split could lead to a possible war with the Soviets given they're currently occupied with NATO, although I'm not 100% sure how likely this is.

In the end, though, one thing is certain; the USA and NATO will be victorious.

I'm interested in how Stalin's death will turn out, though. How would this change the war?
 
Top