USSR victorious in non-nuclear WWIII?

[Tetsu]

Would it be possible for the Soviet Union to defeat the United States in a World War III devoid of nuclear weapons? (Red Storm Rising presented a pretty plausible scenario for this, but *SPOILER* NATO was victorious.) Let`s put it in the middle of the Soviet Union`s existance, say in the late 50s or early 60s.

A war of this kind would be impossibly hard to fight, in my opinion, considering invasion is pretty much out of the question for both countries. (With Russia`s immense size, no one has ever succeded in conquering it with the exception of the Mongols; and I`m sure the size of the United States would have a similar effect.) Thoughts?

 

[Alikchi]

I'm not sure if the 50s and 60s are the -best- possible time for this. If a POD could be thought up for something to flare up within a few years of the end of WWII - say sometime before '50 or '51 - that would be the Russkie's best chance, I think, with Truman's gutting of the US Army and virtually nothing else standing in the way. I'm also going to guess - someone correct me on this - that the US didn't have the arsenal to obliterate the USSR or its armed forces. If the POD is post-1949, Stalin has them.

The thing is, the Soviet Army of 1949 is a massive, experienced, blooded fighting force - even with demobilization, it's still much better than most of the opposition it will face, and I'm pretty sure it can steamroll whatever is in its path. 50s and 60s.. I don't know.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this..

 

[Beck Reilly]

Yes, it is possible, hell, even, insome cases, plausible.

Have you ever read any Soviet armored doctrine? It was extremely advanced. In fact, it made NATO doctrine look like childs play in comparison. Although NATO was capable of fielding an extremely powerful military force. NATO, however, was likely incapable of moving at the speed that Soviet armor was designed to strike. The Soviet doctrine, at least for armored warfare, is nothing short of brilliant, perfectly designed to expose any flaw within NATO. The NATO military machine on the other hand, was much slower, more methodical, more PREDICTABLE than their Soviet opponents. On the field of armored combat, a combination of luck and NATO political fragmentation could very well have led to a Soviet victory. Obviously, the same was not true at sea. "Red Storm Rising," however, presents a very plausible method of overcoming NATO Naval superiority. If you haven't read that, I suggest you do. Another good one is "Red Army" by Ralph Peters.

 

[Tetsu]

Interesting idea Alikchi, but if memory serves me correctly, the USSR didn`t have nukes in 1949; they did their first test in 1952-3? Thusly, the United States could potentially nuke the USSR without fear of MAD, which would pretty much end it for the Soviets.

And I have read RSR, it`s actually one of my favorite books.

 

[Tetsu]

I must correct myself, the USSR tested their first A-Bomb in 1949.

 

[carlton_bach]

I'd expect the USSR to have a very good chasnce of winning any conventional showdown with NATO between the mid-50s (when the Red Army finally overcame its crippling supply shortages) and the later 70s (when NATO superiority in electronics, communication and such begins to tell). Even as late as 89, it's even at best. I don't think they could have destroyed NATO (how, for one thing, would they invade America exactly? Cuban paratroopers?), but western Europe is theirs. I haven't seen a single scenario before the 70s that expected the west to hold Germany other than by nuclear attack.

What I doubt is that such a conflict was ever a plausible scenario. NATO had formulated strategies that said pretty clearly "we may not beat the Soviets conventionally, but if we start losing we'll nuke them". That's what 'Massive Retaliation' was all about, and that's why the United States could not match the USSR's unilateral renunciation of a nuclear first strike (aside from the fact that the USSR's government were lying through their teeth on that one, that is). IIRC the Soviet contingency plan for an attack was 'keep it non-nuclear as long as you can'. The different attitudes in the Soviet and NATO forces towards chemical weaponry would probably have tripped nuclear retaliation pretty early, though.

If it had worked, though - the postwar period would be the hardest test of Soviet government. You have all these soldiers who had been told the West was plotting to kill them and take their land, and now they find that not only did the Imperialists not nuke them, they didn't even attack first! I saw a former NCO from the GDR's National People's Army laugh and cry when he heard West German soldiers got Sundays off. He had firmly believed they were revving up for invasion every waking minute... How can they manage that wave of disillusionment, AND keep their embarrassingly liberal Eurocommunist friends in line, AND explain to their army why everyone in Western Europe is so rich AND deal with the economic fallout from a massive war effort that impoverished what remained of their consumer economy while they can't just take a leaf out of Stalin's book and shoot the lot (there are things even Breshnev won't do). It would not be pretty, I'm sure.

 

[Fiji]

(Red Storm Rising presented a pretty plausible scenario for this, but *SPOILER* NATO was victorious.)

you may want to read the book again ... it was a draw.

The Warsaw pact couldn't keep attacking (being completely out of A and B units)

NATO knew the tactical nukes were already deployed and any attempt to push the reds back would result in the end of the world

Have you ever read any Soviet armored doctrine? It was extremely advanced. In fact, it made NATO doctrine look like childs play in comparison. Although NATO was capable of fielding an extremely powerful military force. NATO, however, was likely incapable of moving at the speed that Soviet armor was designed to strike. The Soviet doctrine, at least for armored warfare, is nothing short of brilliant, perfectly designed to expose any flaw within NATO. The NATO military machine on the other hand, was much slower, more methodical, more PREDICTABLE than their Soviet opponents. On the field of armored combat, a combination of luck and NATO political fragmentation could very well have led to a Soviet victory. Obviously, the same was not true at sea. "Red Storm Rising," however, presents a very plausible method of overcoming NATO Naval superiority. If you haven't read that, I suggest you do.

On the ground, the Soviets had a window of opportunity in the 50s and 60s ... in the air, however, they didn't stand a chance. They once invited a NATO general to an airshow where they flew dozens of long range bombers over the stands ... or rather the same 4 bombers passed over the stands dozens of times ... since they only had 4 of em! The same was true of just about anything that could compete with NATO planes.

Any war in the 50s or 60s will see NATO air superiority in a few weeks or even days time. And you don't want to be inside hostile armor in the north German lowlands when that happens.

but, on the ground, yes, NATO was in deep fecal matter.
Belgium, fe, was still useing US WW2 surplus in the mid 60s.

Another good one is "Red Army" by Ralph Peters.

I wouldn't exactly describe Red Army as "good"
Everyone on the NATO side was utterly incompetent except of course ... the US.
And some of the successes the Soviets met with were of the Hollywood level.
Also, logistics sorted themselves out magically and NATO pilots suddenly had collective amnesia.

If you ask me, Red Army was firmly based in ASB land.

 

[Adam Parsons]

I recall reading this scenario about WWIII in 1957 at CTT, and one of the author's main points was that, if the war were to happen in the 1950's, nuclear weapons would not be much of a problem. After all, the only way to transport them was the bomber. After 1960, we start marrying these weapons to missiles, so long-range anniliation becomes possible.

BTW, wasn't the Soviet economy in the tank in the late 1940's/early 1950's? How did it recover?

 

[Melvin Loh]

Hmmm, I'd tend to agree with the assessment of the best chances for Soviet victory being immediately post-WWII given the still-existent Red Army steamroller opposing the skeletonised corporal's guard US Army, British, French and embryo West German formations, although possibly even up to the mid-70s there could still have been a chance for a Red Army fait accompli in overrunning Germany given the US garrison's lack of preparedness and VW-era poor morale.

I remember there was also a 1994 article in TIME magazine revealing how much the Red Army had planed upon the projected blitzkrieg invasion of western Europe, and how close they would've come to victory.

 

[Tetsu]

How, for one thing, would they invade America exactly?

That was pretty much the problem I was thinking of. As hard as it was for anyone to invade Russia, I think it would be even harder to invade the continental USA. When I asked if it was possible for the USSR to win WWIII, I meant with complete and total defeat of the United States. I`ve been tossing around the idea of the USA defeated and a puppet Soviet government installed. When you think about it, that would essentially mean the complete Soviet domination of the planet. No other nation could possibly stop them with the US out of the way.

To paraphrase a quote from, I believe, Alfred Schlieffen in How Few Remain, Russia defeats her enemy by allowing them to penetrate deep into her territory and then engaging the enemy where and when she wants. (The harsh winter also plays a part.) I`m sure the United States could deploy a similar situation in the event of an invasion, but I`ve had the idea of the Soviets going through the Norse countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway), on to Iceland (ala Red Storm Rising) and through Canada, eventually onto American soil. Perhaps a simulateneous air invasion could be performed (ala Operation Overlord).

 

[Linkwerk]

...eeeh, not plausible, but watch Red Dawn for an entertaining (and often unintentionally hilarious) dramatization of those exact events.

I mean, maybe if you made the communist nations the greatest naval power on earth, they could have done it, but...geography was against the russians. We had to take our whole navy and divide it by 2 to get how many ships we could mass into each fleet. They had to take their whole navy and split it between four fleets.