Cold War what if

[StrategyFTW]

Hey guys, I was just wondering what everyone thinks would happen if the Cold War went hot. I was thinking along the time period of Khrushchev's early reign, I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think would happen (i.e. invasion routes, battle sites, outcomes, and ultimately the victor). Please let me know let me know what you think would have happened (from a military standpoint preferably but I recognize political standpoints are important too) if the US and the USSR were to go for an all or nothing war for dominance.

 

[Antigrav1117]

Sir John Hackett

Hey guys, I was just wondering what everyone thinks would happen if the Cold War went hot. I was thinking along the time period of Khrushchev's early reign, I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think would happen (i.e. invasion routes, battle sites, outcomes, and ultimately the victor). Please let me know let me know what you think would have happened (from a military standpoint preferably but I recognize political standpoints are important too) if the US and the USSR were to go for an all or nothing war for dominance.

I recommend reading "Third World War" by Sir John Hackett. He did a credible job developing and completing a scenario for this.

 

[t68]

Hey guys, I was just wondering what everyone thinks would happen if the Cold War went hot. I was thinking along the time period of Khrushchev's early reign, I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think would happen (i.e. invasion routes, battle sites, outcomes, and ultimately the victor). Please let me know let me know what you think would have happened (from a military standpoint preferably but I recognize political standpoints are important too) if the US and the USSR were to go for an all or nothing war for dominance.

For this to be answered you have to define the era for which it occurs (40, 50, 60, 70, or80) and the why, has there been a mass mobilization on both sides or was it started by misunderstanding?

Incidents which could have turned thing hot were Berlin blockade of 1948 or building of the Berlin wall to the East-West stand off during Berlin Crisis of 1961 at check point Charlie. Exercise Able Archer is a prime example how things had the potential to spiral out of control out of fear.

China was the elephant in the room how would she react. Well we saw how they could due the Korean War but the relationship deteriorated to the point of the 1960 Sino-Soviet split then one has to look at the Sino-American relations from the 1940 till the 1990. The answer you are seeking is complex and defined by era.

 

[fortion]

i believe that if the world gets launched into another war this time it will not be USSR who is going to be a major contendor . this time the powers will be the ones which were not involved the last tme . china , india , korea , pakistan and probably afghanistan as well is going to play a MAJOR role
:ar15

 

[t68]

This thread is not about what could happen in the future but a theoretical debate on a possible outcome in the past.

There’s no denying we are living through a complex set of circumstances which the seeds were planted way before my time. Events that occurred before and after WWII are the catalysts for what we are see today, China has always been in the peripheral vision post WWII from President Truman through to the current President.

Whilst China is well on its way to becoming an economic power house and the US pivot into Asia, Europe has never before in its history been more stable than the current period, but with the countries in the Middle East imploding and those citizens rising up that has me worried the most it’s the power vacuum after the fact which will determine history for others to judge in the future.

The United States and China during the Cold War | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that if you look at the eighties especially the latter part, the US & NATO would've been the ultimate victors, but the cost would've been horrific. The Warsaw Pact was starting to fall apart, the USSR was bogged down if Afghanistan and I think the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries were in economic strife. Reagans arms race and the Star Wars program had forced the USSR to commit ever increasing resources to their armed forces at the expense of civilian infrastructure and social reforms and social spending. One major problem the US would've had was the very long SLOC from the US to Europe. WWs 1 & 2 had shown what a sub campaign could do and add to it Soviet long range maritime air strike capabilities, life on the Atlantic Ocean could have been quite interesting.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Reagans arms race and the Star Wars program had forced the USSR to commit ever increasing resources to their armed forces at the expense of civilian infrastructure and social reforms and social spending.

The arms race had been present since the early 50s, long before Reagan, with ups and downs; underinvestment in the civilian economy was a fact of life for the Eastern Bloc, not in any way aggravated by the SDI program. It wasn't as though they hadn't been spending oodles of money on defence in the decades prior and then suddenly splurged because of SDI. Honestly SDI was much more a war of rhetoric and posturing that worsened relations and brought about flashpoints and crises than any real change in the military balance. The balance was already tipping in favor of the West as you mentioned, thanks to advances in electronics in the West in the late 70s/80s and the AVF in the US/UK.

 

[PO2GRV]

as someone with an interest in the Cold War I do *not* recommend reading Cold War Hot edited by PG Tsouras. It is light on the technical or political and heavy on the righteousness and predestined superiority of anything and anyone fighting against those darn Reds

that aside, its a hard concept to envision as, it being the Cold War afterall, is largely impossible. Nuclear weapons have by and large guaranteed an end to large scale conventional conflict, for better or worse, and any situation that involved the USSR and USA in a shooting conflict that lasted longer than an incident (or days at longest) would invariably end in nuclear fire if it had the slightest level of realistic depth

the only situation I can imagine where this isnt the case would be in 45-46 after VE day but before the Soviets had their own Bomb and we had a stockpile of them. Even then I wonder if the answer wouldnt be very obvious: the Soviets were (by all accounts Ive consumed) at their limit and while the US and Allies had a smaller piece of continental Europe under its control, they had suffered far less damage and war materiel were being cranked out in earnest, especially by the US

perhaps a firmer hand on the Soviet tiller during the late 80s/early 90s couldve led to something as SH invaded Kuwait and the Soviets vetoing any action, but to that I argue that if someone with firmer control of the Soviet Union had been in power than Gorby then SH never wouldve felt emboldened to attack Kuwait. Its easy to forget that the other half of what kept the Cold War cold was cooler heads interested more in the success of their respective states and status quo than idealogy and warfare

 

[Lcf]

Overrunning Western Europe (and UK as some declassified documents show) with its conventional might was something Soviets had planned from the beginning of the Cold War in the 'what if' scenario but does anyone know had they any plans to set foot in Northern America? Or was it just plain nuking they had in mind regarding the USA?

 

[alexkvaskov]

Overrunning Western Europe (and UK as some declassified documents show) with its conventional might was something Soviets had planned from the beginning of the Cold War in the 'what if' scenario but does anyone know had they any plans to set foot in Northern America? Or was it just plain nuking they had in mind regarding the USA?

The Soviets never had the amphibious capabilities or naval air for an invasion of North America. Supposedly there were hundreds if not thousands of SPECOPS operatives that were undercover in the US, ready to sabotage dams, pipelines, industrial plants, military installations etc. According to Vasily Mitrokhin, a KGB sabotage cache was unearthed either in Austria or Switzerland, can't remember exactly, during the 90s lending some credence to the idea of KGB operatives undercover in the US and Canada.

 

[alexkvaskov]

What I always wondered was how well Warsaw Pact nations would have been able to coordinate their forces. I've read that few mid level officers in WP armies spoke Russian. There's also the question of how well individual WP nations could coordinate the various branches of their militaries, never mind when there being half a dozen allies to coordinate with, all speaking different languages and officers and soldiers from the USSR speaking several different languages. In short, the same kind of problems NATO faced. Somehow I suspect NATO was more successful/effective when it came to interoperability issues.

 

[Lcf]

What I always wondered was how well Warsaw Pact nations would have been able to coordinate their forces. I've read that few mid level officers in WP armies spoke Russian. There's also the question of how well individual WP nations could coordinate the various branches of their militaries, never mind when there being half a dozen allies to coordinate with, all speaking different languages and officers and soldiers from the USSR speaking several different languages. In short, the same kind of problems NATO faced. Somehow I suspect NATO was more successful/effective when it came to interoperability issues.

Not much real multinational coordination you would normally expect. Given that the chief of the Soviet General Staff was listed above the Warsaw Pact commander in chief It is reasonable to assume the WP armed forces would have been directly subordinated to the Soviet High Command... all the way down to Soviet field commanders (as it was in the invasion of Czechoslovakia). Also, since the Soviet armed forces made up the bulk of the WPs military power, in operations against NATO non Soviet forces would have probably been deployed mostly defensively and only as part of Soviet fronts. Basically, the Soviet MoD was to do all the coordination.

 

[Beatmaster]

I do not know much about the cold war but what i do know is that the warchau pact was much bigger in size and that Europa would probably be bombed back to the stone age.
NATO on EU side did only have tactical nukes to stop a invasion and by doing so it would have forced the USSR in a nuclear war as conventional the USSR did outnumber NATO.

So according to various sources eastern germany would be the first to be nuked to stop the Russian tanks.
After that strategic places within the EU would have been taken out.
The US, France and the UK would probably respond to that by taking out the western part of Russia.

End result?
A large part of Russia and the US destroyed by ICBM's.
And europa's population would have been decimated if not destroyed prior to that.

Anyway it does not matter how you twist this scenario, it would not have looked good for the EU.

 

[ngatimozart]

I do not know much about the cold war but what i do know is that the warchau pact was much bigger in size and that Europa would probably be bombed back to the stone age.
NATO on EU side did only have tactical nukes to stop a invasion and by doing so it would have forced the USSR in a nuclear war as conventional the USSR did outnumber NATO.

So according to various sources eastern germany would be the first to be nuked to stop the Russian tanks.
After that strategic places within the EU would have been taken out.
The US, France and the UK would probably respond to that by taking out the western part of Russia.

End result?
A large part of Russia and the US destroyed by ICBM's.
And europa's population would have been decimated if not destroyed prior to that.

Anyway it does not matter how you twist this scenario, it would not have looked good for the EU.

Yes I agree with. Most of the northern hemisphere would've been radioactive and nuclear winter would've been upon us. Once the first nuke went off, it would've escalated to thermonuclear war. From the 1950s on I don't think there could've been any such thing as a conventional non nuclear war in Europe between NATO & the Warsaw Pact.

 

[Beatmaster]

Yes I agree with. Most of the northern hemisphere would've been radioactive and nuclear winter would've been upon us. Once the first nuke went off, it would've escalated to thermonuclear war. From the 1950s on I don't think there could've been any such thing as a conventional non nuclear war in Europe between NATO & the Warsaw Pact.

Yes indeed, i did some reading up and its not like NATO would have teethless in this war, as conventional the USSR was superior in many ways, but on the flipside the technological differences in various area's would have been significant.
The initial non nuclear period (Early hours of the war itself) Russia would have been able to gain significant ground but would have a hard time gaining air control, infact various sources suggest that NATO's airforce would deal significant damage to invading forces and even was capable of stopping the momentum which would give the rest of Europa time to mobilize as sources indicate that it would have taken anywhere from 6 up to 48 hours for NATO to be able to mount a credible defense.
On the flip side NATO would have a seriously hard time to retake lost ground and doing so would have been a slaughter on both sides.
The only real credible non nuclear thing NATO could do was trying to halt the Russians and make sure they pay a seriously heavy prize for each mile of gained ground.
So that being said NATO did have teeth and they where big enough to chew trough the invading forces "defense" wise but question remains if NATO did have enough juice to be able to buy enough time for US, UK, and possible France to commit fully to the war, as most sources indicate that France as major power and UK would have been hit in the very first hours to disable their ability to interfere on the mainland.

So again if NATO where to stop Russia then turning east germany, large parts of poland, Ukraine and west Russia in a nuclear wastland would probably the only real thing that would have stopped Russia from pushing trough in the initial days of the war.
But then again Russia has factored those losses into their plans and they did have the ability to sustain large casualties and losses amongst their battalions and divisions and squadrons.
And this was exactly the hamstring to NATO as NATO did not have that flexibility.

So one could say that if NATO where to react decisively (Conventional) to the invading forces that they would have a slim option to make the Russians redraw and call it. But the moment NATO misjudges the intentions and strategic elements of the warschau pact it would have strenghted the momentum of the Warschau pact.
Any hour passing after that moment Russian forces would mounted up into a virtually unstoppable force forcing NATO into Nuclear war.

I do not believe that the USSR would be able to kick it as far as UK mainland but i do venture to say that anything left on NATO EU side mainland after the nuclear exchange would have been under Russian control.
And US and remaining UK, France (And a hand full other EU forces) would not be able to take turn the tables.
Infact ones Germany would fall it would automaticly mean that Danmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland would fall within the next few days, leaving Netherlands, Belgium as a stepping stone to contain the UK and finish of whats left of France, Italy and Spain (If they have not been destroyed prior to that.)
Not to mention the Rush trough the balkans to secure and cut of the med region.
Blocking southern EU from side stepping the Russian main forces.

As i said i do not know much about the cold war, and i did do some reading up.
So if i did misunderstand the info as i did put it here then please correct me.

Anyway what i would like to know is this, What was exactly the reason that the Warschau pact did not execute the plans they did have?
Because the USSR was well aware that if things would have been taken to the next level then they actually would become the victor. (Ok granted victor is a wrong word, but lets say that some of their plans could be realized)
It never has been the plan to defeat the US as neither Russia and neither VS would have been strong enough to do so.
The only thing the USSR would have to do is either destroy the EU or control it.
By doing so US power would have been contained to the US mainland where the USSR would control virtually the rest.
So knowing this and knowing that a nuclear exchange would be survivable on US and Russian side? (Obviously the EU would draw the short stick and would be uninhabitable for the next 50 years poor us)

And what could NATO in general really do to turn the tide after east and west germany would fall? (Non nuclear)
Because from a Russian perspective it seems most of the issues have been covered or factored in.
So besides moral what did stop the Russians from goind on a all or nothing run?
Could anyone shine some serious light on this and explain it?

 

[ngatimozart]

The doctrine of M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. That's what stopped the Soviets from an attempt to invade Western Europe. They were knew full well that if they attacked NATO a nuclear exchange would happen, and no one would be the winner. What would have been interesting is how the Soviets planned to fight the Atlantic maritime war. They would've had to sink shipping and intercept reinforcement by air from North America.