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?