Would NATO really be able to defeat both the USSR and PRC?

If in 1960s a total war was erupted between NATO on one side, and both the USSR and PRC on the other, will NATO win?
Or will the entire Eurasia be succumbed by victorious Communist juggernaut?

(And this is a hypothetical scenario, so we can take nuclear weapons out of the equation.)
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I think in the early 60s NATO was numerically inferior and didn't have the Technological edge it had later. Also i think the PRC might stay out of it. I'm not sure if the Sino-Soviet split happened yet.
 
If in 1960s a total war was erupted between NATO on one side, and both the USSR and PRC on the other, will NATO win?
Or will the entire Eurasia be succumbed by victorious Communist juggernaut?

(And this is a hypothetical scenario, so we can take nuclear weapons out of the equation.)

Well, without nuclear weapons, Soviets might overwhelm NATO and possibly occupy Germany and the Low Countries. Any further is hard to imagine, as their supply lines become increasingly vulnerable with many river crossings and what with probably hostile and restless population between their homeland and front line.

Chinese, even if they were on Soviet side have nothing to gain in Europe and given a choice between defending Europe and handful of Far East countries, I can see what US would choose. Especially since all the really valuable ones are safe with sea imposed between them and the Chinese juggernaut.

Of course, conflict goes nuclear before you can spell DEFCON 1. But aside from that, bloody WW1esque stalemate on Rhine or thereabouts.
 
Presuming no chemical/biological weapons either?

It depends what the aims of the Warsaw Pact and PRC are? If it's to conquer Eurasia as the OP implies, then even with India throwing their weight behind an alliance that will be incredibly difficult. NATO could outproduce and defeat the Soviets in time, but only if the Americans are willing to endure millions, if not tens of millions dead. Vietnam generated enough protests as it was in OTL, what is the public reaction going to be when the only young men on the street are crippled and all the women seem to be wearing black.
 
Presuming no chemical/biological weapons either?

It depends what the aims of the Warsaw Pact and PRC are? If it's to conquer Eurasia as the OP implies, then even with India throwing their weight behind an alliance that will be incredibly difficult. NATO could outproduce and defeat the Soviets in time, but only if the Americans are willing to endure millions, if not tens of millions dead. Vietnam generated enough protests as it was in OTL, what is the public reaction going to be when the only young men on the street are crippled and all the women seem to be wearing black.

IF there is a longer war, it would naturally be much worse than Vietnam. On the other hand, it's much easier to sell the population that war when you're fighting the Soviets on the Rhine than when you're fighting in a third world country nobody ever heard of. Anyway, that's a serious issue with all NATO countries. In Germany, they used to say "better red than dead".

In any case, I doubt that there would be a longer war. The Soviets do not have the economy to sustain such a war against NATO, I'm not sure whether NATO is willing to sustain such a war on their own turf, they won't continue far into enemy territory anyway. Both sides however do have weapons to end it more quickly...
 
Last edited:
Well, without nuclear weapons, Soviets might overwhelm NATO and possibly occupy Germany and the Low Countries. Any further is hard to imagine, as their supply lines become increasingly vulnerable with many river crossings and what with probably hostile and restless population between their homeland and front line.

NATO's Gladio Network would cause significant problems for Soviet occupation forces, and there would be large scale insurgency conducted behind enemy lines. That's for certain.
 
I wonder just what China could do to help the great commie alliance. I suppose they could attack into S. Korea and S. Vietnam, swamp Thailand and Cambodia; none of those would be particularly harmful to the west, although it would be damaging to morale. Would China do anything so wild as to attack India?
 
I wonder just what China could do to help the great commie alliance. I suppose they could attack into S. Korea and S. Vietnam, swamp Thailand and Cambodia; none of those would be particularly harmful to the west, although it would be damaging to morale. Would China do anything so wild as to attack India?

AFAIK, India was loosely Soviet-aligned, so it might even end up as an ally. India almost certainly wouldn't want to enter the war on the NATO side, considering that it is much, much closer (and hence more vulnerable) to the USSR and PRC than America is to either.
 
I wonder just what China could do to help the great commie alliance. I suppose they could attack into S. Korea and S. Vietnam, swamp Thailand and Cambodia; none of those would be particularly harmful to the west, although it would be damaging to morale. Would China do anything so wild as to attack India?

Probably not, the logistics would be nightmarish with the only real ways into India being through Southeast Asia. The Himalayas, except for some detachments of light mountain troops, are practically impassible.
 
Probably not, the logistics would be nightmarish with the only real ways into India being through Southeast Asia. The Himalayas, except for some detachments of light mountain troops, are practically impassible.

India is also Soviet aligned, or least closer to them than the West, making a friend into a major enemy is never a good idea.
 
I wonder just what China could do to help the great commie alliance. I suppose they could attack into S. Korea and S. Vietnam, swamp Thailand and Cambodia; none of those would be particularly harmful to the west, although it would be damaging to morale. Would China do anything so wild as to attack India?

China did fight a war against India in 1962: they won, but it was more of a border skirmish in the mountains than a full-scale invasion.

To have China in any condition to fight offensively before the mid' '60s, you have to butterfly away the Great Leap Forward IMO. And TBH, an army invading China in the midst of that nightmare might even be "greeted as liberators" - though invading China is still a mug's game. And the Sino-Soviet split started in '59, so it's very possible they wouldn't want to fight regardless.
 
Presuming no chemical/biological weapons either?
Yes.
Well, without nuclear weapons, Soviets might overwhelm NATO and possibly occupy Germany and the Low Countries. Any further is hard to imagine, as their supply lines become increasingly vulnerable with many river crossings and what with probably hostile and restless population between their homeland and front line.
I thought the general opinion here is that, in the event of NATO-Soviet War, the Soviets would be able to push up to the Atlantic?
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Yes.I thought the general opinion here is that, in the event of NATO-Soviet War, the Soviets would be able to push up to the Atlantic?

While nuclear weapons can be with held to a certain extent, if the soviets cross the Rhine the French will nuke them.
 
Early '60s or late '60s? Most American who see the USSR invade Western Europe will not see our troops going there as a corporate defense of an imperial holding but more likely a necessary defense against godless communism. If earlier in the decade or on the heels of the Cuban Missile crisis the case becomes more clear, and while the USSR will have an edge in numbers the Warsaw Pact nations will likely experience subterfuge from within. After all, revolts from East Germany, Hungary, and Poland were still fresh in everyone's minds so those populations will likely try again if they see a chance to do so.

If in the later 60's I think the situation becomes more awkward. US involvement in Vietnam will come to a standstill in a hurry and the draft likely increased with a shift to Europe as soon as possible. There would be a lot more US servicemen with field experience and we would be deplying newer weaponry with some technological edge over the USSR in more areas.

Either way the USSR will likely take Germany, Benelux, and Denmark with moves into northeastern Italy up to the Po and Greece. Turkey will likely lose Istanbul but put up fierce resistance in the rural areas. Persia will be in a difficult position early on but if they can hold off the Communist hordes they would be able to invade the underbelly of Soviet Central Asia. Look for a 8-12 month standard war with logistic problems arising in the Soviet occupied areas, eventually the whole of Europe, with difficulty replacing losses and keeping the people fed without US help.
 
Mao once said (probably in line with his penchant for saying ridiculous stuff to troll people with) that China was prepared for nuclear war simply based on its huge population. However in the 60s NATO had 30,000 nuclear warheads while the Russians had about a tenth that and even less that could actually hit America. In such a war Russia would have been literally wiped out and had the US attacked China too they might not have been totally destroyed as a people (China was not as urbanized back then as it is now) but the state would certainly cease to exist, unless you count Mao's bunker complex as a state.

Conventionally...it depends on how the Russians do in Europe. They had force of numbers as well as a really good blitzkrieg doctrine down. Given a solid Sino-Soviet alliance and reasonable war aims (continental Europe, East Asia, Finlandized UK, India, and Japan, more or less), I think they could've pulled it off.
China had some fortified industry by this point and the whole Communist bloc would've been self-sufficient materially. Vietnam and the DPRK would be on the Pact side, pretty much securing the Asian theater goals.
 
Top