Warsaw Pact could have won

[popo!]

It would have been simple for the Soviets to have won in a ground conflict with NATO. During the height of the Vietnam war, numbers of American forces in Western Europe were at an all time low, and at home, support for the military was also low.

If the Soviets truly wanted to defeat NATO and take over mainland Europe, it would have only taken the cooperation of the Communist states of Europe and Asia in one massive offensive. In one swift stroke, the entire scenario could be finished within a few weeks.

First stage:

With the United States fully devoted to the War in Vietnam, it would be logistically impossible to defend both Europe, and Asia effectively at one time.

North Korea would again cross the DMZ into South Korea, using full force to push the South Korean military and American reserves to the very south of the peninsula, and eventually out completely.

China, who had marred ties with the Soviets at the time, could be coxed into the plan by their Korean allies, with whom they had strong ties. Chinese forces would aid the North Koreans, as well as send armies into Vietnam to aid in driving out American forces from the south. Linking with Cambodian and Laotian paramilitary forces, Thailand would be taken.

India who was never a member of NATO would be guaranteed safety, and thus would not take up an offensive into Asia.

With the aid of Soviet forces and advisers, each Eastern European country would have it's own task.

Bulgaria would invade Greece with the aid of Hungary and Albania.

East Germany with the aid of Poland and Romania would push into West Germany, and then onto Denmark, Luxemburg and the other smaller states surrounding Germany. Soviet and East German paratroopers would be dropped miles behind the lines to take out strategic locations, power plants, fuel depots and such.

Czechoslovakia would invade Austria, and then meet up with the East German, Romanian, and Polish armies.

Soviet marines could land strategically in Norway, under the cover of the Soviet Northern fleet.

Second stage:

American strategic command would be in disarray, the sheer amount of troops in Asia would prevent the use of a nuclear weapon. The battle ensuing in Europe would not involve nuclear weapons, America would not want to contaminate the homelands of her allies.

The now regrouped Eastern Bloc armies would push west into France, with a detachment of Bulgarians and Hungarian armies pushing into Northern Italy.The rest of the strategy would be quite obvious.

[Rolf]

If decided did the cold war to become warmer, there would not be victory that was not pyrrhic... not be worth what little would be left to gain. Rolf proclaims this is why it was not done.

[TheRascalKing]

Heh...that's actually pretty cool from just skimming it.

[Daily]

Fuck Poland.

[Daily]

More like Pooland.

[Rolf]

Ye, fuk Polland, Pooland cannot into space, it is known as proclaimed by Rolfimus.

[Issue313]

Even if the nukes were out of the picture, civilians and politicians will never again go to war when it could result in WW2 style destruction of the home cities. Its easy enough to send a bunch of young guys out to die pour la patrie, but no one likes getting strategically bombed. Bombing before WW2 was a small scale, poor affair. The poor German, Jap, Brit and Soviet bureaucrats and politicians, sitting in their cities reading their newspapers, did not expect, and did not appreciate, the 500lb presents they sent each other with such abandon during the 1940s. No one, who is sane, will risk that happenning again. WW1 was the end of the old world, but WW2 proved that there actually is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

Terrorists are rediscovering, you can kill soldiers as much as you want, but for the real bonus points you got to go for the cities, where the rich people live. 911 of course(a false flag) but also Canary Wharf (probably not false flag, but you can't tell with the Brits).

Edit: I note that Gary Brecher agrees with OP, which is a huge recommendation for the OP. If you're into US military hardware and toys, you might note that the coolest stuff came out of the weakness of the US in OPs scenario - Hummers, Abrams, etc.
http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?...1&IBLOCK_ID=35

[The Fuck Shit]

Interesting. Wouldve needed alot of cooperation though...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by popo!

It would have been simple for the Soviets to have won in a ground conflict with NATO. During the height of the Vietnam war, numbers of American forces in Western Europe were at an all time low, and at home, support for the military was also low.

A surprise Soviet attack and NATO and other American allies would likely serve as a "Pearl Harbor" type event and untie the country around President Johnson/Nixon. The anti-war movement would quickly become irrelevant.

Originally Posted by popo!

With the United States fully devoted to the War in Vietnam, it would be logistically impossible to defend both Europe, and Asia effectively at one time.

In the case of a major Warsaw Pact offensive into Western Europe the USA would almost definitely withdraw the troops from South Vietnam to be used on other, dramatically more important fronts.

Originally Posted by popo!

North Korea would again cross the DMZ into South Korea, using full force to push the South Korean military and American reserves to the very south of the peninsula, and eventually out completely.

Although I agree that with open Soviet help the Reds would force the Allies out of South Korea it would be a tough fight and there is no way in hell they can invade Japan or Taiwan with overwhelming American naval supremacy and frankly Korea is not ultimately going to be the decisive front in this kind of war.

Originally Posted by popo!

China, who had marred ties with the Soviets at the time, could be coxed into the plan by their Korean allies, with whom they had strong ties. Chinese forces would aid the North Koreans, as well as send armies into Vietnam to aid in driving out American forces from the south. Linking with Cambodian and Laotian paramilitary forces, Thailand would be taken.

I'm pretty sure China wouldn't go to war with the West alongside the USSR. Keep in mind that China has been struggling to get out of the Soviet Union's shadow since the 1950's and even got in to very violent border clashes with the Soviets in 1969. Map didn't want to play second fiddle to the Soviets. China would be quite happy to see their two biggest rivals dukeing it out with each other. Also, China doesn't have as much love for North Korea then you might think.

Originally Posted by popo!

Bulgaria would invade Greece with the aid of Hungary and Albania.

Keep in mind that you also have Turkey to contend with in that theater, and Persia may very well attack the USSR as well. This will force the Soviets to locate powerful forces there to defend Baku and other oil fields. The Turks and Persians have decent forces and aren't going to roll over easily.

Originally Posted by popo!

East Germany with the aid of Poland and Romania would push into West Germany, and then onto Denmark, Luxemburg and the other smaller states surrounding Germany. Soviet and East German paratroopers would be dropped miles behind the lines to take out strategic locations, power plants, fuel depots and such.

It's not as simple as just rolling over West Germany and pushing into Denmark and Benelux. There are substantial and high-quality American forces there waiting for just this event and it is a key part of Allies doctrine to use a series of tactical nuclear weapons to slow the Soviet advance. The Soviets could make it to the Rhine though, but I don't think they are going to pull a 1940esque conquest of Europe.

Originally Posted by popo!

Czechoslovakia would invade Austria, and then meet up with the East German, Romanian, and Polish armies.

Don't forget the Warsaw Pact forces would probably have to invade Yugoslavia as well in this scenario. It may seem ironic but they did not have good relations with the Soviets, and will probably see themselves as next on Moscow's hit list.

Originally Posted by popo!

American strategic command would be in disarray, the sheer amount of troops in Asia would prevent the use of a nuclear weapon. The battle ensuing in Europe would not involve nuclear weapons, America would not want to contaminate the homelands of her allies.

It was NATO doctrine to use a series of tactical nuclear weaspons to slow the Soviet advance in Europe. That being said I would agree with the assertion that all-out nuclear war would not break out, despite the predictions of alarmists.

Originally Posted by popo!

The now regrouped Eastern Bloc armies would push west into France, with a detachment of Bulgarians and Hungarian armies pushing into Northern Italy.The rest of the strategy would be quite obvious.

It was France's openly stated policy to use nuclear weapons on any Warsaw Pact troops advancing across the Rhine river. I suspect the same would apply to the Po river valley in Italy.

[Shrike]

I don't really think anyone had the desire to go into another full-scale world war just 20 years after WW2. I mean I know that happened after WW1, but 2 was a lot more damaging and bloody. And yeah, like Issue said the weapons available in the 60s were just light years ahead of the late 30s when the Nazis attacked everyone. I'm pretty sure if Europe was being invaded, they would have used nukes.

Honestly, the later Soviet commanders were not as insane as Hitler or Stalin. They had a pretty strong streak of self-preservation, and they could just fight their proxy wars with the US in Asia, and have the space race etc, which were not so suicidal as all-out war. I don't really know what they would have to gain, and they would have everything to lose.

[LSA King]

The whole point of the Cold War was that nobody wanted to fight it. The political situation in the East and the political situation in the West, manufactured a hostile environment. Not to mention politicians and the people on both sides didn't want a war and were far more scared of a nuclear conflict than a ground war which was nothing but for show. Remember the placements of troops in Europe was strategically done with the intention that both sides had nukes aiming at one another and troops were somewhat placed where they could push a ground war if they had to.

Would've, could've, should've...you can make the argument either way for either side, it doesn't change the fact nobody was seriously considering attacking the other except in retaliation. Russia had a more, hit us first we destroy the world scorched earth policy. The U.S. and our infinite paranoia was looking for anything that could be considered a threat to preemptively launch first if they had to. It's a goddamn miracle we are here today when you think about it and the intentional actions those political idiots were taking to try and destroy each other.

[popo!]

All valid points gentlemen, at least it got the imagination working.

[popo!]

It also could have played out like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diJFBZk9uFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diJFBZk9uFY
Video: click to display

[Oct]

Great thread, i could see the idea being very likely of success but i'm sure Poland's pride would have prevented them from helping but it wouldn't have mattered. Mao being Mao would have helped the North Koreans kill themselves as he did anyway but like you said with the US and SK forces being pushed further south, victory would have definitely been imminent which would have allowed Mao to either:

A: Join the fight with Laotian & Cambodian forces and take Thailand etc.

B: Funded the the Communist takeover of Asia before eventually joining.

Judging from what i've read about him, Mao was no fool i think he would have gone for plan B. Regardless, he would have been dead by '76 and with the party being in a state of crisis regarding the "Gang of Four", China would have left unless his successor, Hua Guofeng was complicit in carrying on once things was business as usual or if victory had already succeeded by then.

A US surrender would have also happened had the Soviets reinstalled Nuclear silos in Cuba by this time.

However unless your Tacho or any other commie sympathizers, you all know the world would be a much worse place than now albeit there would be no theocracies and of course, no fucking Muslim extremists.

[popo!]

^ Although my friend that served in the Soviet Army said that the Polish were the least reliable, they were in fact heavily involved in all Warsaw Pact strategies to invade Western Europe. All major WP military exercises involved Polish ground forces. My friend also said that when the Soviet soldiers and Polish got into verbal altercations the East Germans always sided with the Soviets. In his words he said to me "Nobody like Polish".



In the above photo you see the Polish soldier in between the East German and Soviet soldiers to the far left.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Octovia

A: Join the fight with Laotian & Cambodian forces and take Thailand etc.

B: Funded the the Communist takeover of Asia before eventually joining.

The problem I see here is why would China want to enter such a war, especially on the Soviet side? If victory were achieved then China would yet again be doomed to play second-fiddle to the much more powerful USSR.

I think you forgot option C: Launch a surprise attack on the Soviet Union and enter the war effectively on the Allied side. This would force the USSR to fight on two major fronts and although Soviet forces in the area will be of higher quality the Chinese will have much more.

I just don't think it's altogether realistic for China to enter the war on the Soviet's side by this point in the Cold War (1969). Maybe in a hot war in the early 1950's.

Originally Posted by Octovia

A US surrender would have also happened had the Soviets reinstalled Nuclear silos in Cuba by this time.

I respectfully disagree. How would the Soviets even get those missiles to Cuba during a war with NATO?

A.) The Soviets simply can't deliver the quantity of weapons to Cuba to have a major impact. The NATO navies will have near total dominance of the sea lanes on day one of the war.

B.) Even if the Soviets somehow put missiles into Cuba again during the war, what then? The USA isn't going to "surrender" just because the Soviets have a few rockets in Cuba. America + UK/France still maintain nuclear arsenals capable of wiping out the entire Warsaw Pact as an entity.

C.) If America even thought that Cuba was going to actively fight for the Soviets in any manner, they would invade and crush Cuba swiftly. So the whole point is moot.

[Captain Falcon]

Nobody gives a fucking shit. But seriously, it wouldn't have won. The Warsaw Pact was basically just some poor Russian satellites + Russia.

[popo!]

^ YOU don't give a fucking shit, thanks for your input. Our minds are enriched.

[Captain Falcon]

Originally Posted by popo!

^ YOU don't give a fucking shit, thanks for your input. Our minds are enriched.

I was joking, as evidenced by the "but seriously", autistic child.

[vovka351]

Originally Posted by popo!

It also could have played out like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diJFBZk9uFY

Him speaking russian was painfully bad.

[Ebola]

It would have gone nuclear. Strategic Air Command (SAC) had enough nukes constantly in the air to pretty much make our little globe uninhabitable for decades. Also the M28/29 Davy Crockett launchers placed all along the European border towards the Warsaw pact could supposedly have stopped/delayed a full scale land invasion of Europe enough to mobilize the defense.
Normally I don´t care much for Sting, but I guess "The Russians love(d) their children too"