World War 3

WI in 1979 instead of invading Afghanistan the Soviet Union decided to invade West Germany which sparked a World War because the Soviets would then invade Japan, Northern Africa, and Western Europe. Who would be the Soviets allies(maybe East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam)? Who would they be against(maybe U.S., England, France)? What would the action be? and please no big nuke the world is over things!
 

Straha

Banned
the soviets are toast. On the home front expect the boomer genertation to become more like the GI generation. Sicne in major national crisesis like WWII, the great depression and in this case WWIII social intoxicants become more acceptable. Expect anti-ciggate laws besides those that appaered at the time to not happen,marijuana and other drugs ot be legalized and no push for alcohol restrictions. Technology would be far more advanced. As for the millenial generation expect them to recieve a less supervised and restrictive upbringing.
 
1979: HMMM! Just some historical notes first.

This was while Jimmy Cater was President, US forces a bit on the decline. The Warsaw Pact is still around, although I think the Poles would leave given half a chance.

Unfortunately, I somehow recall that US military doctrine involved use of tactical nuclear weopens in the event of a Soviet invasion. Since this question is based on a no use of Nukes, we have a problem.

Soviets had a big army, Western Europe was beginning to think about accomodating the Soviets.

In general, if the West holds on long enough it will win, but if they cave, the Soviets win.

The more the Soviets take on the more likely it is that they will spread themselves too thin. Also the Soviets have to win or the image of the Soviet war machine's invincibility is broken.

Convesely, we have the Islamic Revolution on Russia's southern border, if they move to much from there we get Islamic militants revolting.
 
Norman said:
Unfortunately, I somehow recall that US military doctrine involved use of tactical nuclear weopens in the event of a Soviet invasion. Since this question is based on a no use of Nukes, we have a problem.

Norman, I did an enormous, rambling thesis on the Cold War last year. NATO defensive doctrine, from the early 1960s to the mid-to-late 1980s called for NATO forces in Western Europe to actually withdraw to the west, at which point NATO naval and air based forces would put up a wall of nuclear weapons. The Soviet forces would have been devestated, but probably would have nuked the rest of the NATO nations in retaliation. Barring this, however, the Soviets would most likely have overrun West Germany at the very least.
 
Walter

I think I remember the work, it was pretty thorough. But new board, new post, so it's probably worth going back over our tracks on this one.

Most of my beliefs with respect to this issue are basedon the book "The Thir World War" by a retired (English?) general. As I recall, his basic thesis was essentially Germany was toast, but that Western forces would eventually win.
 
SurfNTurfStraha said:
the soviets are toast. On the home front expect the boomer genertation to become more like the GI generation. Sicne in major national crisesis like WWII, the great depression and in this case WWIII social intoxicants become more acceptable. Expect anti-ciggate laws besides those that appaered at the time to not happen,marijuana and other drugs ot be legalized and no push for alcohol restrictions. Technology would be far more advanced. As for the millenial generation expect them to recieve a less supervised and restrictive upbringing.
Its getting old Straha... Along these lines, why weren't these drugs legalized during WWII?
 

Straha

Banned
less widespread and prohibition ended in the great depression so you see a connection?? It would more apply to something were the war takes a few years and rebuilding takes a decade or 2. The most likely option is the USSR falling in a year ad war ending with only a few eastern european cities nuked.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Why do the Russians decide to invade the entire world at once in 1979? Tell us that and we may be bettter able to surmise who their, and our, allies will be and what will happen.

And don't just say that's the POD. ;) Its got to have some sort of reason before any sense can be made of it.
 
The Soviets have been getting very paranoid up to this point. Every time the Soviets try to get involved in a proxy war(Korea, Vietnam), or move diff military equipment to different countries gets stopped by some kind of U.S. or NATO countermove(U.S. getting involved in Korea and Vietnam, Coalition supplying weapons to Western Germany).
 
ConfederateFly said:
The Soviets have been getting very paranoid up to this point. Every time the Soviets try to get involved in a proxy war(Korea, Vietnam), or move diff military equipment to different countries gets stopped by some kind of U.S. or NATO countermove(U.S. getting involved in Korea and Vietnam, Coalition supplying weapons to Western Germany).

But why would the Russians, which, at this point, are actually liberalizing, invade West Germany and face a potential nuclear holocaust for absolutley no reason...?
 
Well in this book I read they made up the reason that the west germans were raiding into east germany and the west german were being imperlistic and threating them and that neo-nazis from west germany were creating revolts in east germany.
 
Hmmm...they invaded Afghanistan to put down a challenge to a Communist gov't (Brezhnev doctrine) and some Sov leadership had fantasies about getting a port on the Indian Ocean (long story...it involves the Pashtuns); however, that was in a part of the world where they figured the West couldn't act due to the loss of Iran.

An invasion of West Germany, however, would require something more drastic. Perhaps US/NATO weakens enough so that a possible war of conquest looks possible, or the USSR has a REALLY BAD grain harvest, and, desperate, either launches a war of plunder or tries to use West Germany as a bargaining chip to get grain at lower prices.

OR, you could have the "Red Storm Rising" scenario where the Soviets decide to make a move in the Middle East, but need to get rid of NATO first.
 
Hmmm...they invaded Afghanistan to put down a challenge to a Communist gov't (Brezhnev doctrine) and some Sov leadership had fantasies about getting a port on the Indian Ocean (long story...it involves the Pashtuns); however, that was in a part of the world where they figured the West couldn't act due to the loss of Iran.

That would be a good POD for a War between India and the Soviet Union

An invasion of West Germany, however, would require something more drastic. Perhaps US/NATO weakens enough so that a possible war of conquest looks possible

That is excately what happens in the book
 
They may invade because they figure out that if they don't move now, they lose. So they go for broke.
 

Xen

Banned
India and the USSR was quite close, its not likely theyd be fighting. Pakistan and the US were close though.

I think the trump card here is China. China and the US was begining to get on something resembling good terms and China wasnt exactly best friends with the USSR. The US could China to their advantage.
 
"That is excately what happens in the book"

In "Red Storm Rising," the Soviets arrange a terrorist incident in the USSR to make it look like West Germany is trying to provoke a NATO-USSR conflict in order to reunite with East Germany. They then attack West Germany and attempt to conquer it, gambling that the West (or at least enough of the West's public opinion to make a difference) would fall for it. NATO stands by while a NATO member is conquered and it collapses from sheer irrelevance and is thus not be a problem for their planned Middle Eastern adventure.

I don't think NATO weakness was an issue in the book, though of course, the Sovs would probably think of a worst-case scenario in which NATO stayed together and worry about that.

"That would be a good POD for a War between India and the Soviet Union"

But WI India and the USSR decided to cooperate? USSR gets Pashtun territories in west Pakistan (incl. the port of Karachi) added to Afghanistan or a new "Pashtunistan" state, while India gets the rest of Pakistan. India and the USSR were rather friendly during the Cold War due to India's leftish gov't and dislike of US-backed Pakistan.

The Soviets get the port on the Indian Ocean they've wanted since Peter the Great, which in the modern age will enable them to threaten the oil flow from the Persian Gulf, while India gets rid of a potential military headache. Plus, if the Sovs can blockade the oil route, that means no $$ for the oil states which means they'll eventually collapse (all they HAVE is oil).

Brezhnev wanted the petroleum "treasure house" of the Middle East in the East Bloc if he could get it (also the "mineral treasure house" of southern Africa); a Soviet-Indian move on Pakistan could be the first step.

Heck, that's a WWIII scenario right there. The US won't allow something THAT blatant to go by, and so air-naval attacks from Diego Garcia are launched on Indian and Soviet targets.
 

gianluca790

Banned
the bottom line is the following one

There is no way Iran and the other Middle Eastern countries would allow the Soviets to take Pakistan, since it is, at least nominally, an Islamic country. The Soviets picked the wrong part of the world to mess with this time, and it will go worse than with the Afghanistan War. The middle Easterners would probably unite against the Soviets in this case. Imagine the Soviets being faced with angry Arab militants from all over the Middle East, not just the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Zionists in Isreal might be tempted to help out against the godless Communists. This would go very bad, for not just the Soviets, but the West. If China, Iran and Pakistan join forces with the Mujahedeen against the Soviet-Indian alliance trying to take over Afghanistan, heaven help the Russians and the West. Berlin is going to get nuked out of existence, but Tibet and the pro-Western factions of the Chinese student movement might force a change of government in Nationalist China at this point, especially with a pro-democracy stance by the Military. What if there were a Chinese version of Perestroika as a result?
 
But they Soviets wouldn't be annexing Pakistan; instead, they'd be "liberating" the Pashtuns and setting up a nominally independent Pashtun state that just happened to let them use Karachi as a naval base. :)

Given how pro-Soviet the "non-aligned" states generally were, it wouldn't surprise me if they fell for that one hook, line, and sinker.
 
Not to mention that Pakistan's population was higher than 100 million people. It would be worse than the hypothetical US-Iran war.
 
Top