World War III: 2000

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union and through his policies, the Soviet Union collapsed. I'm assuming everyone on this site knows that.

What if, however, Gorbachev was killed or otherwise made unable to become Premier. This results in a neo-Stalinist regime coming to power in the USSR. Through utterly ruthless oppression, they manage to stabilize the country and pull out of Afghanistan. There are some minor revolts in the 1990s, but overall things remain stable. However, by 1999, even neo-Stalinism is obviously threatening to tear the USSR apart and only two options are left to the neo-Stalinists; give in and institute democratic reform or launch a desperate military strike against the west that will allow them to shore up the Union. On May 12th 2000, the Soviet Army surges over the border between East and West Germany and World War III has begun.

That's the basic bare bones of the TL up to 2000. Things are relatively similar to OTL; Tony Blair is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Bill Clinton is in the last months of his term in office and China is increasingly becoming the most powerful state in Asia. Other things are different, Yugoslavia collapsed but a Soviet backed Serbian regime was established, while Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia became part of the west's sphere of influence. Saddam was not defeated in the First Gulf War, but instead secured his control over Kuwait. He was however 'persuaded' not to strike south into Saudi Arabia by the Soviets, who were fearful of a flare-up in the gulf.

I'm planning for the US elections to follow a similar path, without any real progress in foreign policy and the economy suffering because of raised oil prices, Bush Sr. wouldn't get elected in 1992. I'm not so sure about 2000, Americans don't usually vote out a president in the middle of a major war but the Republicans could well make gains on anti-communist platform and 2000 was close enough anyway. Suggestions are welcome. I'll try and get a proper update done by September 8th (when I go back to school...:().

Notes:
-Use of nuclear weapons will be kept to a minimum in this TL, certainly there won't be a MAD event.
-No military/intelligence agency coups in any of the combatants, that's been done too many times.
-The losing side in this war will not be defeated anything like as thoroughly as Germany in 1945, it will be more like Germany in 1918.
 
The Soviet Union will be getting throughly curb-stomped in the TL, America is at her military, economic, political height, NATO equipment and training is overkill for the Soviets as shown in Desert Storm, the USN will smash the Soviet Navy and with no chance of closing the Atlantic, the Soviets will not be able to win at all.
But if you do decide to make this a NATO wank (which it will become) it would be nice to see how NATO would go on the offensive in WP territorys. US armor spearheading straight into East Germany and Poland would be a nice change of pace.
 
Saddam was not defeated in the First Gulf War, but instead secured his control over Kuwait.

You're not serious, are you? Saddam defeated the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, plus the combined forces of thirty-three other nations?
 
AAH-
I think the US army would be smaller and less well equipped than it was in OTL. This is because of the huge budget defecit and the lack of progress such collosal military spending is having on the Soviet Union. Given this, I think the Soviets would be able to advance quickly at first, but we'd soon have a horrifically costly stalemate similar to World War I (with UAVs and guided missiles and automatic rifles and MkII Abrahams and Challenger IIs and helicopters and jet fighters and computers and artillery that actualy hits where it's suppoused to and in central Germany instead of northern France...)

Cash-
I didn't phrase that very well. Saddam wasn't defeated, he didn't have to fight the First Gulf War at all because the USA did not want to risk war with the Soviet Union. I still hope to give Saddam a good curb-stomping, preferably by Iran (which would be pleasingly ironic) or Israel...
 
Last edited:
AAH-
I think the US army would be smaller and less well equipped than it was in OTL. This is because of the huge budget defecit and the lack of progress such collosal military spending is having on the Soviet Union. Given this, I think the Soviets would be able to advance quickly at first, but we'd soon have a horrifically costly stalemate similar to World War I (with UAVs and guided missiles and automatic rifles and MkII Abrahams and Challenger IIs and helicopters and jet fighters and computers and artillery that actualy hits where it's suppoused to and in central Germany instead of northern France...)

Cash-
I didn't phrase that very well. Saddam wasn't defeated, he didn't have to fight the First Gulf War at all because the USA did not want to risk war with the Soviet Union. I still hope to give Saddam a good curb-stomping, preferably by Iran (which would be pleasingly ironic) or Israel...
Okay I guess well have to see then...
 
AAH-
I think the US army would be smaller and less well equipped than it was in OTL. This is because of the huge budget defecit

Clinton had budget surpluses for much of his presidency. And he was not at all averse to military spending, especially when it strengthened his political position.

and the lack of progress such collosal military spending is having on the Soviet Union.
The USSR made huge investments to counter Reagan's 600-ship navy, Star Wars, and other programs, money it couldn't afford because oil prices had dropped so low that its income from oil exports was negligible. Between that and Afghanistan, the Soviet economy was a hollow shell. Private citizens were raising more food in personal gardens than the state farms could provide. Add to that widespread alcoholism and corruption, and it all gets pretty grim. The situation didn't improve under Clinton. (I remember paying 99 cents a gallon for gasoline in 1998.)

Given this, I think the Soviets would be able to advance quickly at first, but we'd soon have a horrifically costly stalemate similar to World War I (with UAVs and guided missiles and automatic rifles and MkII Abrahams and Challenger IIs and helicopters and jet fighters and computers and artillery that actualy hits where it's suppoused to and in central Germany instead of northern France...)
Sounds more like a video game, but ... No. The Soviets/Warsaw Pact (and you haven't addressed unrest in WP countries like Poland) could not mobilize without alerting NATO. They'd be walking into a killzone.

Cash-
I didn't phrase that very well. Saddam wasn't defeated, he didn't have to fight the First Gulf War at all because the USA did not want to risk war with the Soviet Union. I still hope to give Saddam a good curb-stomping, preferably by Iran (which would be pleasingly ironic) or Israel...
No way is the U.S. going to allow a major source of imported oil fall to Saddam's control, not with the Saudi oilfields just across the border and down the coast. Taking back Kuwait would not have risked war with the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Clinton had budget surpluses for much of his presidency. And he was not at all averse to military spending, especially when it strengthened his political position.

The USSR made huge investments to counter Reagan's 600-ship navy, Star Wars, and other programs, money it couldn't afford because oil prices had dropped so low that its income from oil exports was negligible. Between that and Afghanistan, the Soviet economy was a hollow shell. Private citizens were raising more food in personal gardens than the state farms could provide. Add to that widespread alcoholism and corruption, and it all gets pretty grim. The situation didn't improve under Clinton. (I remember paying 99 cents a gallon for gasoline in 1998.)

Sounds more like a video game, but ... No. The Soviets/Warsaw Pact (and you haven't addressed unrest in WP countries like Poland) could not mobilize without alerting NATO. They'd be walking into a killzone.

No way is the U.S. going to allow a major source of imported oil fall to Saddam's control, not with the Saudi oilfields just across the border and down the coast. Taking back Kuwait would not have risked war with the Soviets.
I was planning to point these out but I really don't feel like argueing my at the moment.
With the Soviet economy your going to have to go farther back to fix that problem teg.
 
I'm planning for the US elections to follow a similar path, without any real progress in foreign policy and the economy suffering because of raised oil prices,
Why is the economy suffering from raised oil prices? Oil prices were quite low from the early 1980s through the early 2000s. (ETA: Except briefly during the First Gulf War.)



Bush Sr. wouldn't get elected in 1992. I'm not so sure about 2000, Americans don't usually vote out a president in the middle of a major war but the Republicans could well make gains on anti-communist platform and 2000 was close enough anyway.
You mean Bush Sr. won't get re-elected in 1992, right? Just as he wasn't re-elected OTL. Clinton was at the end of his second term in 2000, and Bush II (George W.), a Republican, was about to be elected.

You might want to rethink this scenario a little and get the history a little firmer. The idea isnt bad, just needs some fine tuning.
 
Last edited:
Top