WW3 (1989)

The Soviets are willing to stop because of the French nuclear deterrent but not the American and British deterrent? I need to see how you set that up. It would be worth reading a more developed storyline to see that developed. That said I agree that 1989 is way to late without some extensive changes before that.

Just following French military doctrine that they'd use nuclear weapons to protect their boarders. The US and UK didn't face the same threat of Soviet invasion, so they never had to throw down that level of a red line.
 
Just following French military doctrine that they'd use nuclear weapons to protect their boarders. The US and UK didn't face the same threat of Soviet invasion, so they never had to throw down that level of a red line.
To echo comments of others I have my doubts that the "West" would accept the Warsaw Pact seizing West Germany by force.

I wouldn't rule out a U.S. / UK / French use of nuclear weapons if that happened.

Edit to add:

If a West German government claimed they had decided to give up, I could see the rest of NATO saying something along the lines of "we won't even think about recognizing this until the Warsaw Pact leaves and you hold an election / refferendum to ratify this. Oh and by way the U.S., France and the UK still have some residual powers over their occupation zones so we do get a say in things."
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Pact had advantage in numbers. Also in this TL Warsaw Pact was a bit more royal to USSR(ASB, yeah), and they had luck on their own side
Is this based on a book or movie? If so, this is the wrong forum.

If not-

IOTL the various Pact countries, with the possible exception of the DDR, were restive beyond words. It is likely that Soviet Army formations would have been engaged by at least some elements of the Polish military, very possibly the Czechs and Hungarians as well. The Soviet military was also at a low ebb that hadn't been seen is prior to the Winter War. This is the version of the Soviet military that was quite literally unable to get most of its tanks to start, lacked fuel to train pilots, had ammo stocks that were mouse eaten and warships that were vin virtual sinking condition tied up to the quay.

On the other hand, the NATO powers were, arguably, at their very peak. The U.S. military had not suffered from the successive "peace dividends" that greatly reduced force leaves, the British Army was at a high point, as was the Heer, the French military was also nearing its post war max effectiveness.

Until Moscow pulled the nuclear button out of the holster the Soviets would have gotten rolled.
 
What of Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands?

They were going to get invaded too. Denmark and the Netherlands were both NATO, and leaked Soviet war plans show they had no intention of respecting Austrian neutrality (and we didn’t expect them to).
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The Soviets are willing to stop because of the French nuclear deterrent but not the American and British deterrent? I need to see how you set that up. It would be worth reading a more developed storyline to see that developed. That said I agree that 1989 is way to late without some extensive changes before that.
The assumption is that America and Britain will not use a nuclear first strike to defend Germany, but France will use a nuclear first strike to defend itself.
 
What about November, 1983? "Able Archer" provoked Soviet attack?

Probably a very rapid escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange (if not initiated with a strategic attack), and that would be that. Operation RYAN and the nature of Able Archer leaves room for little else.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t call it ASB. If you have a PoD in the 1970s or early 80s you might be able to finangle a scenario where the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies remain strong and unified enough to defeat NATO in a 1989 conventional war.
I'm going to agree with this. If you take OTL up to the 80s and then try to get the OP scenario.. yeah, it's unlikely in the extreme. But if you go back to the 70s and put in a bunch of PODs, it gets more likely.
 
Fuccccc. There's no possibility to create a soviet victory TL. Because if we are going to create war before 1985- it's goes nuclear anyway, because NATO achieved conventional parity with WP in 1985. If we are going to create war after 1985- it's curbstomp for USSR by USA
 

Anchises

Banned
Fuccccc. There's no possibility to create a soviet victory TL. Because if we are going to create war before 1985- it's goes nuclear anyway, because NATO achieved conventional parity with WP in 1985. If we are going to create war after 1985- it's curbstomp for USSR by USA

You need widespread subversion. Essentially a Europe that embraces Soviet Communism.
 
Top