I do not think that there are any good analogies. Maybe some of the most radically declined areas of post-Communist Europe start to approach this, in terms of highly developed areas that have fallen on very hard times, but even these have seen hugely less damage.
Seven Days to the River Rhine: the Third World War - a TL
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
I do not think that there are any good analogies. Maybe some of the most radically declined areas of post-Communist Europe start to approach this, in terms of highly developed areas that have fallen on very hard times, but even these have seen hugely less damage.
There is also the problem of radioactive fallout, which destroys crops and cancer.
The lost of the West and the USSR as agricultural hubs means that I can see a lot of famines being regular across the world.
There is even a case to be made that, faded with annihilation, western European countries should have surrendered. The fact of Soviet occupation after what was done would be horrible and unjust, but at least they would be alive. (I also question whether or not the collapse of the Soviet Union would have been advanced notably by such a scenario, especially taken the huge damage inflicted to date.)
I personally wouldn't be inclined to attach any blame to leaders that decided to surrender under such circumstances, but on the other hand I would not be inclined to attach any blame to those who decided to keep fighting (or at least not surrender..) IMHO I can see why leaders might be concerned about breaking ranks with their allies even when facing annihilation. (Things might go quite badly both for the leaders as individuals and their respective nations if they broke ranks with an alliance that somehow ended up "winning.")
I didn't and don't live in or have any practically significant in this context allegiance to Western European nations that might have had to make such a choice so I really can't comment any further.
Last edited:
Fxgentleman
Donor
I agree with your sentiments. I was nineteen years old in 1983 and living in the Wash. DC area. I grew up there, learning about nuclear war and coming to the realization that if World War III broke out, my region would likely be the first hit and me and my parents would die. I prayed that if, heaven forbid, it happened, we would go quickly and not die a lingering death. That is a hard pill to swallow at that age for anyone. You had to learn to put your fears in a box, not think about them, and learn to live your life. I remember watching Special Bulletin and The Day After on television in 1983 and it having a big effect on me. I've seen Threads as well and it is also quite chilling. Although it is interesting to think about these kind of AH scenarios and ponder what ifs, it never escapes my mind what would have happened to me at the time. I will say it was quite a shock to learn about the Able Archer and the Petrov incidents about fifteen years ago and know how close we actually were to thermonuclear war at the time.
You know, it might be likely that in this timeline, the world's opinion of Americans and (ex-)Soviets might be, let 'em rot in the nuked out remains of their lands, don't even try to rebuild - a combination of schadenfreude at seeing the world's former overlords fall, and contempt for the very radioactive way in which they fell. One of Kim Stanley Robinson's novels was set in a California where any attempt at rebuilding society beyond a certain level was countered with extreme prejudice by the rest of the world, for example.
It's just like how the USA and the USSR in 1983: Doomsday are viewed with negative light by the post-war survivors, even though the Soviets fired first.
Making the enemy surrender in a nuclear war was the chief goal by the 1980s. Rather than directly nuking cities, nukes would be used for attacking enemy military infrastructure (bases, command centers, defense installations, missile silos, etc.) — under the assumption that if enemy military forces are depleted by nuclear attacks, then your conventional military could force him to surrender without resorting to mass civilian casualties.
Of course, given the massive nuclear radiation killing people, destroying farmland and annhilating the ecosystem, nuclear weapons would still kill millions.
One of the doom and gloom scenarios that seemed prevalent during the latter part of the cold war involved a massive bolt out of the blue attack on the US (and presumably US forces overseas and possibly at sea) that destroyed much of the US military but left the cities more or less intact (although there still would likely have been tens of millions of direct and indirect civilian causalities..) I tended to believe that any US Government that had managed to get elected would not have been inclined to simply give up at that point. I did tend to pay a bit more attention to scenarios that might have made it difficult for the US Govt to retaliate (or at least retaliate in a timely and relatively organized fashion.)
The authorities did seem to take the threat of such an attack quite seriously. I seem to recall reading an account of a cold war era interview with a senior USAF Official who essentially said that the Looking Glass mission was the single most important USAF mission and if the USAF suffered resources shortages, they would prioritize keeping a Looking Glass aircraft in the air at all times.
I do quite disagree, on the grounds that Western leaders didn't choose a course of action against a mindless force of nature. The war itself was started by the Soviets, and everything that followed was a reaction stemming from that one action. Agree or not with said Western Leader's choice, one undeniable fact remain: that if the Soviets had stayed on their side of the border, no choice would have been made at all.
Last edited:
I wonder if the surviving countries would have been happier if the US and other nations hadn't retaliated after the massive nuclear attack the USSR launched against the USA and other nations in this fictional time line ? Would they have been happier living in a less devastated world with the USSR (or perhaps in practice the Gang of 8) in a position to yield more or less un checked power, or would they be grateful that the USA (along with other NATO members and China) essentially sacrificed themselves to level the playing field so to speak for the nations that were not involved in the war or were involved but managed to escape major damage ?
I suspect at some point in the distant future in this fictional time line this topic might get debated in political science classes in at least some of the surviving nations in this fictional time line. I also wonder if there might be some be grudging appreciation towards the US, the rest of NATO and probably China whose actions made it impossible for the Gang of 8 to subsequently dominate other countries in this fictional time line ? I'm thinking this line of reasoning might be more prevalent in countries such as Australia, Spain, New Zealand and possibly Japan ?
I suppose one could debate if Gang of 8 in this fictional time line would or would not have been inclined to become a world hegemon if the US, China and NATO had simply given up after the massive nuclear strike was launched against them.
Last edited:
It would be debatale for sure.
The U.S. does not retaliate after Soviet counterstrike? Many would argue it would save the planet but at the cost of the USSR could now use nuclear blackmail to do its bidding. The U.S. and the West will be seen as weak. It will be like 1938 all over again.
These are all interesting questions worthy of debate.
I just find myself thinking that a scenario where West Germany surrendered to Soviet domination in this war, no matter how unjust and unjustifiable the circumstances, would have worked out far better for the West Germans than what actually transpired in the course of the war. That domination would not be in West Germany's interests, but infinitely less so was West Germany's destruction.
Sure, but even an unjust and forced choice is still a choice.
The surviving Belgians and Dutch, FWIW, seem to think that their countries should have accepted the Soviet offer and split from NATO. How many other survivors might think this?
Would the Soviet Union still wind up collapsing in a scenario where the west backs down and gives them what they want? The Soviet system is still going to be impotent to deal with the country's problems, and with hardliners in control, I could very well see a much more ugly Soviet collapse than IOTL.
Looting their gains will give them a few more years of existence, so there's that at least.
This particular scenario would seem likely to result in a worse implosion. Even in a scenario where NATO fragments and West Germany ends up under Soviet domination, the Soviet bloc will have taken huge amounts of damage, with East Germany wrecked, the other Soviet satellites unhappy about being dragged into a costly war that they did not want, and the Soviet Union's expensively-built military thoroughly wrecked. West Germany may be lootable to an extent, but I very much doubt the ability of Soviet occupation forces to avoid choking a high-value added industrial economy that has suffered considerable damage. I also suspect that the Soviet Union's domestic economy, however untouched by the physical effects of war will suffer hugely without the income generated by trade with the West.
From what I saw it seems that politics in the USA seems quite progressive for the time.
Compared to the rest of the world, which has become much more conservative.
Compared to the rest of the world, which has become much more conservative.