Fire Kindled Anew - World War III in 1950

So I've decided to take the plunge. Yes, after more than two years of membership and nearly five years of lurking, I've decided to go ahead with my first-ever attempt at a legitimate alternate history timeline. My reasoning for this is threefold - to expand my knowledge, to develop my writing skills, and to legitimize myself as an alt-historian. The objective here is no less than to lay out, as nearly as possible, a blow-by-blow account of a hypothetical Third World War. I have no idea if you'll like it, but I can say a few things with certainty. Responses and opinions are solicited, substantive responses will be responded to in turn, suggestions will receive all due consideration, and expert opinions and information will be greatly appreciated. Criticism of all types is desired. If this effort succeeds, it'll be due to you the reader telling me what I'm doing wrong and how to fix it. After all, this whole endeavor will be a learning experience for me. So, without further ado, here's the first installment.

______________________________________________

Why the War Began

Just as most modern historians perceive the Second World War to have had its genesis in the resolution of the First World War, so many of them perceive the Third World War to have sprung from the untenable position that resulted after the end of the Second World War. The Soviet Union and its communist puppet states in Eastern Europe found themselves at ideological loggerheads with the capitalist countries of Western Europe, backed by the world’s other superpower, the United States. However, communism was not merely a European ideology. In the aftermath of World War II it had spread throughout East Asia, as the Red Army won its civil war in China and the northern half of the Korean peninsula became a Communist state.

1949 was the seminal year in which the global fault line established itself. The formation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), the final victory of the communist forces in China, the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the detonation of the first Soviet atomic bomb split the world into two parts.

The next step was for the communist world to become a more cohesive, or at least cooperative, entity along the lines of the capitalist world, and a key event in achieving this came in January 1950. In January 1949 the Soviet Union and her European satellite states had formed Comecon, in hopes of rivaling the Marshall Plan in Western Europe and speeding on their recovery from the ravages of the World War II. However, Comecon was not, at least in theory, intended merely for Europe. In East Asia, both China and North Korea possessed communist governments and were attempting to rebuild their own economies. Starting in March 1949, at a meeting between Kim Il Sung and Josef Stalin, the subject of attempting economic integration of North Korea into Comecon was broached. In fall, after the official creation of the People’s Republic of China, the government of that country, not wishing to be the only Communist state not to seek entry into Comecon, began negotiating their own entry into the organizaion Finally, in January 1950, at a meeting between Josef Stalin and Kim Il Sung, the accession of China and North Korea to Comecon was agreed to in principle by the Soviet dictator. A few weeks later, the addition was agreed upon unanimously by the members of that body. With the Soviet Union now officially associated with its Asiatic communist counterparts, the Communist bloc had established links that would allow them to coordinate and hopefully attain greater interconnectedness in their mutual struggle.*

The next question, of course, is how the small matter of how increased ties between the communist countries led to an all-out war on two continents. In recent decades the “Great Man” theory of history has been discredited as too simplistic, but in surveying the origins of World War III this concept fits surprisingly well. Almost any Soviet leader besides Stalin may not have possessed the necessary qualities of aggression and paranoia that led to the decision to make war on NATO. At the April 1950 meeting, Kim Il Sung had informed Stalin that the North Koreans were planning an invasion of South Korea, to go forward in June. Stalin declared that he would lend diplomatic support to the North Koreans, and proposed later to take pressure off them by keeping NATO occupied in Europe. He pointed out the difficulty faced by Germany in the last war, and pointed out that both sides of an alliance would more readily achieve their objectives if they could force the capitalists to divide their efforts.

Stalin had not reached the decision to wage his own war without a great deal of consideration of his position. The Soviet Union was bordered on the west by NATO, whose very existence seemed oriented toward destroying communism. Western Europe was rebuilding and rearming at a far more rapid pace than Eastern Europe, and the United States remained in a postwar economic boom that had faced only a short downturn the previous year. The Soviets had just recently gained access to the atomic bomb, but the American military was producing hundreds of the weapons each year and it would be a long time until the Soviet Union could catch up. It seemed like there was no time like the present to move against NATO and weaken its position in Europe; to delay would leave the Soviet Union playing catch-up for the next decade.

To this end, the Soviet Union began planning for what would hopefully be a swift and decisive war. The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany retained massive strength from its World War II days, while the Western Allies had engaged in a military drawdown that left their conventional forces comparatively weak and retained an over-reliance on nuclear weapons to maintain a deterrent. The issue of the new military environment, including the threat posed by the atomic bomb, seemed resolvable in several different ways. First of all, the Soviet high command and many of their troops retained combat experience from the Eastern Front of World War II, both on the wide plains of Eastern Europe and from the latter days of the war in the more densely populated countries of Central Europe. This would enable them to conduct their offensives with a higher level of coordination, leading to a faster and more efficient victor. Second, Soviet fighter aircraft technology had advanced significantly – the MiG-15 was capable of catching any bomber the United States had in service at the time before it could drop its deadly nuclear payload. Lastly, the Soviets anticipated that their advance would get them close to NATO territory very rapidly, into a position where the United States would presumably be more reluctant to utilize its nuclear advantage.

As the agreement admitting North Korea and China into Comecon was signed, and the North Koreans planned for war, the Soviet Union began preparations for offensive action. Throughout April and May the already massive number of existing Soviet forces entered a new phase of maintenance, preparation, and supply buildup. Units on the border were put through exercises, so that any suspicious military activity could be excused as part of a springtime increase in the units’ training regimen. Much of the influx of supplies and troops was kept in Poland, where they were less exposed to prying Allied eyes, until just before the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the Soviet military buildup was so rapid that NATO was barely aware it was happening before the dam burst. On June 25, 1950, North Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel and entered South Korea, leading to immediate condemnation by much of the world. Two days later, the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany launched their own surprise attack.

The Third World War had begun, and initially the western world was caught off guard. North Korean forces rapidly overwhelmed the small South Korean military, taking Seoul on June 28 and continuing further south. By that point, however, efforts to alleviate the situation of South Korea had taken a backseat to the twin Soviet thrusts into western Germany. Soviet forces in East Germany had begun moving directly westward into the former British occupation zone, while those in Austria had begun moving up the Danube with the intention of pinning down American troops in Bavaria. As NATO forces scrambled to respond, the stage was set for the first major combat actions of the war.

_________________________________________________

*Edited to provide further explanation regarding the admission of the PRC and DPRK to Comecon.
 
Last edited:
So I've decided to take the plunge. Yes, after more than two years of membership and nearly five years of lurking, I've decided to go ahead with my first-ever attempt at a legitimate alternate history timeline. My reasoning for this is threefold - to expand my knowledge, to develop my writing skills, and to legitimize myself as an alt-historian. The objective here is no less than to lay out, as nearly as possible, a blow-by-blow account of a hypothetical Third World War. I have no idea if you'll like it, but I can say a few things with certainty. Responses and opinions are solicited, substantive responses will be responded to in turn, suggestions will receive all due consideration, and expert opinions and information will be greatly appreciated. Criticism of all types is desired. If this effort succeeds, it'll be due to you the reader telling me what I'm doing wrong and how to fix it. After all, this whole endeavor will be a learning experience for me. So, without further ado, here's the first installment.

______________________________________________

Just as most modern historians perceive the Second World War to have had its genesis in the resolution of the First World War, so many of them perceive the Third World War to have sprung from the untenable position that resulted after the end of the Second World War. The Soviet Union and its communist puppet states in Eastern Europe found themselves at ideological loggerheads with the capitalist countries of Western Europe, backed by the world’s other superpower, the United States. However, communism was not merely a European ideology. In the aftermath of World War II it had spread throughout East Asia, as the Red Army won its civil war in China and the northern half of the Korean peninsula became a Communist state.

1949 was the seminal year in which the global fault line established itself. The formation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), the final victory of the communist forces in China, the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the detonation of the first Soviet atomic bomb split the world into two parts. The next step was for the communist world to become a more cohesive, or at least cooperative, entity along the lines of the capitalist world, and a key event in achieving this came in April 1950. At a meeting between Josef Stalin and Kim Il-sung, the accession of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to Comecon was agreed to in principle. A few weeks later, the addition was agreed upon unanimously by the members of that body. With the Soviet Union now officially associated with its Asiatic communist counterparts, the Communist bloc had established links that would allow them to coordinate and hopefully attain greater interconnectedness in their mutual struggle.

The next question, of course, is how the small matter of how increased ties between the communist countries led to an all-out war on two continents. In recent decades the “Great Man” theory of history has been discredited as too simplistic, but in surveying the origins of World War III this concept fits surprisingly well. Almost any Soviet leader besides Stalin may not have possessed the necessary qualities of aggression and paranoia that led to the decision to make war on NATO. At the April 1950 meeting, Kim Il sung had discussed with Stalin the fact that the North Koreans were planning an invasion of South Korea. Stalin declared that he would lend diplomatic support to the North Koreans, and it would seem that this discussion prompted him at this time to consider his own position in Europe.

The Soviet Union was bordered on the west by NATO, whose very existence seemed oriented toward destroying communism. Western Europe was rebuilding and rearming at a far more rapid pace than Eastern Europe, and the United States remained in a postwar economic boom that had faced only a short downturn the previous year. The Soviets had just recently gained access to the atomic bomb, but the American military was producing hundreds of the weapons each year and it would be a long time until the Soviet Union could catch up. It seemed like there was no time like the present to move against NATO and weaken its position in Europe; to delay would leave the Soviet Union playing catch-up for the next decade.

To this end, the Soviet Union began planning for what would hopefully be a swift and decisive war. The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany retained massive strength from its World War II days, while the Western Allies had engaged in a military drawdown that left their conventional forces comparatively weak and retained an over-reliance on nuclear weapons to maintain a deterrent. The issue of the new military environment, including the threat posed by the atomic bomb, seemed resolvable in several different ways. First of all, the Soviet high command and many of their troops retained combat experience from the Eastern Front of World War II, both on the wide plains of Eastern Europe and from the latter days of the war in the more densely populated countries of Central Europe. This would enable them to conduct their offensives with a higher level of coordination, leading to a faster and more efficient victor. Second, Soviet fighter aircraft technology had advanced significantly – the MiG-15 was capable of catching any bomber the United States had in service at the time before it could drop its deadly nuclear payload. Lastly, the Soviets anticipated that their advance would get them close to NATO territory very rapidly, into a position where the United States would presumably be more reluctant to utilize its nuclear advantage.

As the agreement admitting North Korea and China into Comecon was reached, the Soviet Union began preparations for offensive action. Throughout April and May the already massive number of existing Soviet forces entered a new phase of maintenance, preparation, and supply buildup. Units on the border were put through exercises, so that any suspicious military activity could be excused as part of a springtime increase in the units’ training regimen. Much of the influx of supplies and troops was kept in Poland, where they were less exposed to prying Allied eyes, until just before the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the Soviet military buildup was so rapid that NATO was barely aware it was happening before the dam burst. On June 25, 1950, North Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel and entered South Korea, leading to immediate condemnation by much of the world. Two days later, the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany launched their own surprise attack.

The Third World War had begun, and initially the western world was caught off guard. North Korean forces rapidly overwhelmed the small South Korean military, taking Seoul on June 28 and continuing further south. By that point, however, efforts to alleviate the situation of South Korea had taken a backseat to the twin Soviet thrusts into western Germany. Soviet forces in East Germany had begun moving directly westward into the former British occupation zone, while those in Austria had begun moving up the Danube with the intention of pinning down American troops in Bavaria. As NATO forces scrambled to respond, the stage was set for the first major combat actions of the war.
Yes looks good.
 
The writing is good; I'm a little skeptical of Mao and Kim joining forces with Stalin. IIRC the US was very afraid this would/already had happened, but with 20/20 hindsight it was extremely unlikely. I suggest fleshing this out, pointing up OTL incidents and meetings if possible.

Stalin is, of course, the ideal person to start WWIII.

I'll give extra kudos if you keep this from going nuclear. :)
 
I'm a little skeptical of Mao and Kim joining forces with Stalin. IIRC the US was very afraid this would/already had happened, but with 20/20 hindsight it was extremely unlikely. I suggest fleshing this out, pointing up OTL incidents and meetings if possible.

Yeah, I was afraid the closer cooperation between the three would be the most disputed point. I've got various references to meetings and diplomatic exchanges between them throughout 1949 and 1950, and the April 1950 meeting, at which I have the "agreement in principle" to join Comecon made, is pretty well attested to as the point at which Stalin gave approval for an invasion of South Korea. The difference is that in OTL he attempts to foist main responsibility for supporting North Korea onto the Chinese, whereas in this TL he uses the distraction that a North Korean invasion would cause to carry forward his own agenda in Europe. As I see it, he knows from experience that things go a bit more easily when you're just one of multiple fronts that your enemy has to deal with.

So if I edit and expand upon the matter of cooperation further, should I move the final four paragraphs to a new post, or keep them in the OP? I'm not sure which people prefer, or if having a post that's too long will result in a loss of coherency.

I'll give extra kudos if you keep this from going nuclear. :)

Unfortunately, I've already got things vaguely fleshed out, and nuclear weapons play a role. I'll address it in my next full update, but the bottom line is that NATO war planning of the period seems to have largely acknowledged that at least some use of nuclear weapons would be necessary for the foreseeable future, at least until they could get their conventional forces built up and a more in-depth war plan online.
 
Last edited:
So if I edit and expand upon the matter of cooperation further, should I move the final four paragraphs to a new post, or keep them in the OP? I'm not sure which people prefer, or if having a post that's too long will result in a loss of coherency.

Unfortunately, I've already got things vaguely fleshed out, and nuclear weapons play a role. I'll address it in my next full update, but the bottom line is that NATO war planning of the period seems to have largely acknowledged that at least some use of nuclear weapons would be necessary for the foreseeable future, at least until they could get their conventional forces built up and a more in-depth war plan online.

I suggest editing your first post, noting added paragraphs with an "edit to add" note. I've seen people do it both ways here.

To be sure, the majority of war plans on both sides (at least prior to the 1980's) assumed the war would go nuclear, possibly in the first hour. However, wars don't always go as planned... if you want a conventional war, write one, perhaps with a few scenes where people like MacArthur demand nuking Moscow on general principles but are told to sit down and shut up.

I'll cheer the use of nukes if one lands on MacArthur's head, however. :)
 
I suggest editing your first post, noting added paragraphs with an "edit to add" note. I've seen people do it both ways here.

I have done so, as well as changed a few other sentences around to hopefully improve clarity and help the narrative flow.

To be sure, the majority of war plans on both sides (at least prior to the 1980's) assumed the war would go nuclear, possibly in the first hour. However, wars don't always go as planned... if you want a conventional war, write one, perhaps with a few scenes where people like MacArthur demand nuking Moscow on general principles but are told to sit down and shut up.

True, nuclear war was a key element in NATO planning strategy. However, at this time NATO's plan, such as they have, is not to start nuking right away. Some of their plans actually come off as even more extreme than that. But that's a matter for the next update, which I'm researching and beginning to write just now.

I'll cheer the use of nukes if one lands on MacArthur's head, however. :)

Nothing quite so drastic will happen to Dougie - but he'll definitely be facing some powerful butterfly-induced obstacles.

Who would the main commanders of the different forces be?

That's a matter for my next update, as I'm researching it right now. Finding out the Soviet commanders shouldn't be terribly hard.

I know that for the United States, Third Army is the one in Germany at this time. I still need to look around for its orbat and dispositions. Seventh Army was reconstituted after the outbreak of the Korean War and subsequently took over primary garrison duties in Germany throughout the Cold War in OTL. An interesting factoid is that after the outbreak of the Korean War in OTL, Third Army command was given to John R. Hodge. I'm not sure till I do more research whether the butterflies will conspire to give Hodge the reins, keep them in the hands of Alvan C. Gillem, Jr., or put a third party in charge (and I don't know who that would be). Input from readers would be nice in this regard.

Further down the road I'll be working up a list of French and Benelux commanders and forces, as well as the various air forces and navies.

The group I have the most knowledge of so far is the first one that'll be featured once I get to detailing the campaigns - the British Army of the Rhine. I know its orbat and dispositions for the year, and that it's commanded by Lt.G. Sir Charles Keightley, whom I know nothing else about so far. So I'm going to be busy with research and planning for a night or two before I get down to writing.
 
Honestly, I'd like to see NATO's strategy as it plays out, including the use of nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the US doesn't have nearly as many nukes as it would in the mid-'50s - it has maybe a few hundred - and that the MiG-15 will make any nuclear bombing raids tricky.
 
I suggest editing your first post, noting added paragraphs with an "edit to add" note. I've seen people do it both ways here.

To be sure, the majority of war plans on both sides (at least prior to the 1980's) assumed the war would go nuclear, possibly in the first hour. However, wars don't always go as planned... if you want a conventional war, write one, perhaps with a few scenes where people like MacArthur demand nuking Moscow on general principles but are told to sit down and shut up.

I'll cheer the use of nukes if one lands on MacArthur's head, however. :)

It's too bad Patton didn't live past WWII............if U.S. general deserved to be sandblasted out of existence, it was him without a doubt, LOL. :D
 
It's too bad Patton didn't live past WWII............if U.S. general deserved to be sandblasted out of existence, it was him without a doubt, LOL. :D

I vote for pushing the POD back to December 9th, 1945. Patton isn't severly injured in the MVA. Butterflies lead to the OP's POD.

This allows us the chance to confront the Red Army with NATO's secret weapon: the combined egos of MacArthur, Patton, De Gaulle, and Montgomery! Add 'em up and by my calculations you get about eighteen point nine megatons of ego, enough to stop two Guard Tank Armies in their tracks.

OK, AmericanCataphract, I'll stop hijacking your thread now. Looks like you're off to a good start here.
 
Honestly, I'd like to see NATO's strategy as it plays out, including the use of nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the US doesn't have nearly as many nukes as it would in the mid-'50s - it has maybe a few hundred - and that the MiG-15 will make any nuclear bombing raids tricky.
By the same token, it also bears mentioning that Soviet stockpiles are still quite small, and that nuclear weapons are generally a lot weaker than they get later on. A lot of things commonly associated with nuclear weapons, like MAD and Nuclear Winter, were not problems yet in 1950 since Hydrogen Bombs and ICBMs had not been developed yet.
 
I suggest all interested review this

http://www.allworldwars.com/Dropshot - American Plan for War with the Soviet Union 1957.html

there is a hardback book version available as well

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/B...n&ph=2&sortby=3&tn=Operation%3A+World+War+Iii

it might be available in your public library or through inter library loan (I have read several times as it is in my local library)

The Joint Chiefs and the planners did not expect to stop the Soviets before they overran all of Western Europe, and planned to put all resources into holding Japan, UK, the Azores and North Africa. The plan was to mobilize and take everything back with a massive amphibious invasion of Germany via the North Sea, with subsidary operations through the Mideast and Turkey.

Where the manpower was going to come from for 200+ divisions was a problem for them. They looked carefully at bombing, and decided that losses were likely going to wreck SAC before SAC wrecked the Soviet Union based on forces available in 1948-50 (when they did the planning). The entire 1950s Post Korean War buildup was devised to enable Dropshot to succeed.

The plan called for a desperate stand on the Rhine early in the war, but it was not expected to succeed after a quick retreat from Germany behind the river.
 
To this end, the Soviet Union began planning for what would hopefully be a swift and decisive war. The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany retained massive strength from its World War II days, while the Western Allies had engaged in a military drawdown that left their conventional forces comparatively weak and retained an over-reliance on nuclear weapons to maintain a deterrent. The issue of the new military environment, including the threat posed by the atomic bomb, seemed resolvable in several different ways. First of all, the Soviet high command and many of their troops retained combat experience from the Eastern Front of World War II, both on the wide plains of Eastern Europe and from the latter days of the war in the more densely populated countries of Central Europe.

In reality the Soviet Union did complete a demobilization of the Red/Soviet Army after ww2. In addition to changing it's name from Red Army to Soviet Army, they went from 590 Division in 1945 to 158 Division in 1948. Even then many of the Soviet Army divisions that were in Germany were made up of a small cadre of long service Officers and newly drafted conscripts maintaining a divisions worth of equipment. The Soviets planned to send reserve troops to fill the divisions up if it looked like NATO tried anything.

The Soviets took horrible loses in WW2, after it ended they had to walk a fine line with what manpower remained. They couldn't really keep the WW2 era enlisted on active duty for too long, because those men were needed to go home and rebuild the factories, cities, farms damaged in the war. You're going to be hard pressed to explain how they advanced their economy, technology, and kept a WW2 size military. The same worker can't be in Germany in the Army, and building a jet at the same time. Unless you go decide to go the same way (just wave a magic wand to better Soviet tech.) Hairog did in his story.
 
Last edited:
I am loving the intro and hope this turns out to be an interesting war but it better be one where NATO repulses the Soviets and not a Red Eurasia timelline
 
Honestly, I'd like to see NATO's strategy as it plays out, including the use of nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the US doesn't have nearly as many nukes as it would in the mid-'50s - it has maybe a few hundred - and that the MiG-15 will make any nuclear bombing raids tricky.

Yes, there'll be plenty of allowance for strategy in this timeline. The information I've been able to find indicates that the United States has about three hundred at the war's outbreak, but they won't be using them for some time to come.

The fact is that the MiG-15 will cause trouble beyond just nuclear warfare. At this time the force of F-86 Sabres is limited, but air warfare will get as complex as it was in OTL's Korea, and the technology will probably be a bit better by the end.

By the same token, it also bears mentioning that Soviet stockpiles are still quite small, and that nuclear weapons are generally a lot weaker than they get later on. A lot of things commonly associated with nuclear weapons, like MAD and Nuclear Winter, were not problems yet in 1950 since Hydrogen Bombs and ICBMs had not been developed yet.

Yeah, I've got figures on American and Soviet nuclear arsenals at the end of each year, and they're nowhere near as impressive as they were by the 1960s. The United States has vastly more, but they're not going to escalate to immediate strategic bombing. In fact, given the small yields of nuclear weapons at this stage, just about all of those in the US arsenal can be used sub-strategically. The issue for the Soviets is their lack of delivery systems for their limited number of bombs.



Good stuff. I'll have to scrutinize that Dropshot info very carefully. Thanks for pointing it out. So far my primary source has been the NATO MTDP, but any new info is appreciated.

As for your other points, it's interesting to note that it pretty much reflects what I have thought up so far. I haven't made too many allowances for other theaters besides the European and Korean ones, but the rest of it has all crossed my mind at the very least. You've actually given a pretty good summation of how I would have expected things to go in a standard ATL involving only a European war. A lot of it will carry over.

You're going to be hard pressed to explain how they advanced their economy, technology, and kept a WW2 size military.

Well, I was aware the Soviets cut back their military significantly in order to focus on economics, but the same is true of every other country in the world except the United States at this point, and they'll now be turning some attention to Japan. Anyway, they're not really trying to keep a World War II-sized military, at least not by their standard. The whole point of the scenario is that it's a huge gamble by an Stalin. If it works out, NATO is broken as a cohesive force and the Soviets are set in Europe for a long time to come. If not, they can always hold the nuclear threat over everyone's heads.

I am loving the intro and hope this turns out to be an interesting war but it better be one where NATO repulses the Soviets and not a Red Eurasia timelline

Well, my hope is to make it interesting as well. :D I can promise you that there will be no Red Eurasia. To me that would be a wank, which I don't trust myself to write in any plausible manner. It'll be a war of ups and downs for each side - I'm hoping to keep it within the bounds of reality, so if I appear to be swinging too far in one direction, let me know!

So, everyone, thanks for your comments! I'm now working on the second installment, which will showcase the overall war plans of each side as well as their initial objectives for the conflict. In the meantime, feel free to weigh in on what I've just said, or talk amongst yourselves (that means you, Gridley and Caliboy;))
 
Top