Well in ancient and medieval times up until maybe I dunno 1700 or something it probably worked-10,000 peasants given a spear will overwhelm a hundred elite soldiers.
But it doesn't work in an era of mass produced bullets. The Russians thought they could send more men into the fray "than the germans had bullets" which cost Russia something like a million men
The Germans in WWII were also much more mobilized than NATO would be, and began the war with the initiative, occupying most the Soviet Union's most valuable territories after destroying Red Army 1.0. In a WWIII scenario, much of the most important conventional ally in Central Europe is going to be sitting behind enemy lines in a matter of weeks, if not days; given the memory of WWII and its destructiveness, the Continental allies would be tempted to spare themselves the devastation.
In the last 250 years there have been exactly Six wars involving democracies where an existential threat could reasonably be seen. in every case where the situation arose the democracies involved fought to the last.
Two involved Israel, in 1967 and 1973 and ended quickly, long before the question of fighting to the last man could even be considered.
The British were also involved in two, WW I & WW II, in neither case did the British public blink, despite horrific losses and, in the case of WW II, stunning reversals on the battlefield.
The U.S. was, as already noted, involved in the one, the Civil War along with the CSA. Both sides absorbed almost unimaginable losses compared to any previous (or following) conflict and both sides fought to the bitter end.
The sixth was the War of the Pacific involving Chile, Bolivia and Peru. Peru fought on AFTER all of its major cities were occupied and its forces were reduced to small bands of insurgents in the Andes.
It is completely unreasonable to expect a population to accept unending losses when there is no identifiable reason to continue fighting. This is best seen with the American experience in Vietnam (where, to this day, the American people have yet to be given a reason that 50K+ U.S. troops had to die) and the British experience in the American Revolution (where even the then limited democratic representation could not find any reason worth continuing what was becoming an ever widening war). The only time that democracies run into difficulties is when they can not EXPLAIN to the voters why they are fighting. That did not exist in WW II. The Western democracies (and their populations) were very aware of the stakes.
Personally doubt it; numerical inferiority, more complicated alliance politics, and weak forward positions are serious millstones to have around your neck. Tech is good to have, but better organization and capacity to mobilize are more reliable advantages.
How far along were NATO smart weapons (PGMs etc) by the 1980s?
Training, technology, troop morale, probable to the point of almost certain sea superiority, and the defensive advantage are pretty nice as well.
Although as far as NATO is concerned, things such as training, troop morale, and troop quality varied massively over the Cold War period. I'm sure it did with the Warsaw Pact as well, but for obvious reasons, I didn't get to see that so much.
Mid 1970s, and NATO troop quality was most kindly described as questionable. In some cases, mid 1970s NATO troops from some places were notorious for their total uselessness and incompetence. Early 1980s, and variable would be fairer description. Late 1980s, and competent applies.
NATO certainly had resources to mobilize, but it's difficult to overstate just how committed Germany was to Soviet annihilation; people claim the Germans weren't really committed until after Stalingrad and the Göbbels speech, but this conceals the fact that Germany started the war with as much debt as the US finished with, and only continued to mobilize more resources, either their own or ruthlessly stolen from conquered territories. If they hadn't spent a decade preparing, taken the offensive, destroyed Red Army 1.0 in untenable forward positions, and occupied the most economically important regions of the country, WWII as we know it would have been utterly unimaginable, and the Soviet numerical advantage insurmountable.To be fair, while the Soviet numerical advantage was important, the "Asiatic hordes" trope is grossly exaggerated.
I would heavily question your first sentence. It depends completely on how the war starts. NATO had extremely well-practiced procedures to get mobilized quickly and the Soviets won't be able to completely hide their preparations even in the best case scenario. If the war starts after a period of international tension that puts people on guard, NATO will be mobilized. If intelligence sources NATO had behind the Iron Curtain (Oleg Gordievsky in particular comes to mind as one who would have been very well-placed to alert them and he was only compromised after the balance had swung far more in NATO's favor), they would probably mobilize. I've also noticed that Soviet doctrine seemed to call for some ill-advised things, particularly the "Grey Terror" phase in which Spetsnaz would operate behind the lines in the West before the war, that would have likely alerted NATO something was up and led them to mobilize. I made a thread on that here.
This is actually another Cold War cliche that I'm really not fond of: that Western countries are very casualty averse and will quit and accept Communist domination to spare some lives. Looking at the actual history of democracies in existential struggles, that's very much not how it happened. @CalBear , pardon my random quote of you; not trying to drag you into this thread if you don't want to be here but I just wanted to use this as a reference because it very well encapsulates how committed democracies can be:
NATO wasn't going to cut and run; if the Soviets charged the Fulda Gap they were ready to fight to the end to stop them.
I would question who had more issues with alliance politics. The Soviets literally had to worry about their allies turning their guns on them and their own people revolting.
Training, technology, troop morale, probable to the point of almost certain sea superiority, and the defensive advantage are pretty nice as well.
NATO certainly had resources to mobilize, but it's difficult to overstate just how committed Germany was to Soviet annihilation; people claim the Germans weren't really committed until after Stalingrad and the Göbbels speech, but this conceals the fact that Germany started the war with as much debt as the US finished with, and only continued to mobilize more resources, either their own or ruthlessly stolen from conquered territories. If they hadn't spent a decade preparing, taken the offensive, destroyed Red Army 1.0 in untenable forward positions, and occupied the most economically important regions of the country, WWII as we know it would have been utterly unimaginable, and the Soviet numerical advantage insurmountable.
It's important to remember that even the most militarily powerful democracy in the world (and certainly Continental Europe), France in 1940, folded despite all the advantages you list; its situation corresponds much better with the FRG in the 80s than does, for instance, the British. It's one thing to grit your teeth when victory is in sight, and it's simply a question of casualties; it's quite another when your country has been physically overrun and risks being blasted flat in continued fighting. It would depend on what the terms to Soviets offered would be; there's quite a gulf between neutralization in the Cold (well, hot, but whatever) War, unification under a coalition government (in Germany's case), and the imposition of a communist government. This would in turn depend on why the Soviets are intent on breaking NATO at that moment.
The important thing to realize is that France was *conquered* as opposed to its popular and political will collapsing. Even though the cabinet voted for armistice it was a reaction to the fact that the Nazis had taken Paris a week earlier and were rolling up everything else. The Third Republic didn't collapse because it decided to accept Nazi dominion in exchange for a few less casualties, it happened because the Nazis pulled it inside out on the battlefield. Even after that, a very large part of it fought on.
How far along were NATO smart weapons (PGMs etc) by the 1980s?
Most definitely... I was very worried all through 1983, particularly when the former head of the KGB became the leader of the Soviet Union, the same guy who was behind an attempt to kill the Pope, while it wasn't long since it looked like the Soviets were really going to invade Poland and meanwhile the US President literally joked about launching a nuclear strike.
Worried enough to develop a provisional escape plan from the Houston Texas area in the event of war as oil refineries are a primary target.
Sometimes history is no substitute for living through the time period.
That by the way was BEFORE we learned about how Able Archer almost triggered a nuclear war
Wow. Born in 1982 but I have been learning about the fall of 1983. And surely it was gloomy. KAL-007, Andropov, Able Archer - Plus Threads and The day after sickening gritty doomsday movies. Even Reagan was depressed by The day after (he was lucky not to watch Threads, he would have had a nervous breakdown...)
I'm sorry for encroaching on your safe space, sweetie.Or you could just fuck off and have a normal discussion instead of trying to run people off the board.
If the Soviets started a conventional WWIII I think that would pretty thoroughly discredit Communism. Even today it isn't a widely loved ideology. Throw some more millions of deaths on the pile in an unprovoked offensive (NATO wasn't going to start anything so that's pretty much the only way it could happen) and I think it would be a hated to an only slightly milder degree than fascism.
Well, the good news (for you) is that you managed to hold off until you aren't trolling straight out of the gate, so you avoided one of the Eight Ways to Crash Land.Or you could just fuck off and have a normal discussion instead of trying to run people off the board.
...and you don't need to respond in kind. Report and move on.I'm sorry for encroaching on your safe space, sweetie.![]()
Well it worked for "Doc" Smith...That's a classic science fiction trope, and I love it because of the retro feel it gives whatever work it shows up in.
You know what Cold War cliche I hate?
Ideological arguments in every single thread.
As beautifully represented by two volunteers above.
A general observation about cold war TLs - is it possible that we have an age problem here ? My impression is that many here were born after the end of the cold war and see the whole thing filtered through thriller novels of doubtful accuracy (like Clancy et al.)
Bad shit always happens to the People's Republic of China in what seems like every Cold War TL. Whether it's a Sino-Soviet War (and the Sino-Soviet split is also always destined to happen) leading to nuclear destruction, Mao collapsing the country during the Great Famine or Cultural Revolution, a coup by Lin Biao or Zhou Enlai starting a civil war, or the whole state generally turning into a giant North Korea, the PRC always seems to get boned. Bonus points if there's a new warlord era or KMT reconquista.