West Europe instead of Vietnam?
- Thread starter CaRL
- Start date
By this time, US is tied up in Vietnam. We can call out the reserves and transfer part of the forces in Nam, but the US response is much smaller then OTL plans. A nuclear war would depend on how much the Soviets wanted. We might give West Germany, Austria, and/or Italy without going nuclear (same with France and UK). If not, we are wearing animal skins and trying to keep the fire going for our next meal (six or eight legs? two heads?
maybe it can cook itself?). P.S. I basing the surrender of a few Western European nations on the fact there is a large anti=war bias already in US.
maybe it can cook itself?). P.S. I basing the surrender of a few Western European nations on the fact there is a large anti=war bias already in US.
Well the US response really depends on the year. What is even harder to determine, however, is what the US' response would be in 1968, after the Tet Offesive by the NVA. I would be inclined to say that Western Europe would just launch their nukes the Soviets. The US could send in troops, though. I dunno; this is a tough one.
I've actually thought of a derivative of this, where Vietnam doesn't take place and the Czechoslovakian situation gets out of hand, either because of NATO intervention or forcing NATO intervention.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
In 1968? The US might send in troops to see if London, Paris and Moscow were still glowing a thousand years later, if we'd redeveloped the concept of Armies by then.
I don't mean to be desultory but the whole idea is silly and ahistoric from the get go. To begin, the Soviets supplied the N Vietnamese with materials and expertise, their contribution in fighting men never even approached ours to S Vietnam, so a direct Soviet invasion of Western Europe would be an entirely different thing. In any case, the Soviet Army was several times that of all the European nations combined and could have rolled right over Europe without even thinking hard.
They didn't for the same reason we didn't bomb their ships bringing war supplies to Hanoi. Mutual Assured Destruction the major, no, really the only, determining factor of foreign policy in the entire world from 1960 to 1989. Some guys here, apparently born after that date, really need to read up on it.
The Sandman
Banned
Ummmm...
The world ends.
Cockroaches rule the Planet!
Well, he'll certainly be pleased when he finds this thread, then.
Guys, I'm talking about NO U.S. INVOLVEMENT in Vietnam. Not even advisor support. Maybe I should bump the date back to '63 or '64, or any time before U.S. involvment (this era isn't in my best of knowledge). If U.S. troops are still on the homefront, and the USSR strikes, what happens next?
Regardless of the date, the UK and France have Nuclear weapons. Should the USSR attmempt to invade them its armageddon. The US would probably fight as there are US troops in Europe, but this would work out badly for the Americans, as it would probably draw them into the Nuclear War which would in all liklehood ensue.
well otl during the Vietnam War the Bonn govt was quite concerned about the inordinate commitment of American combat forces in SE asia due to the cont'd WARPAC threat against the FRG, & the fear that the Commies would use the distraction of the US in Vietnam to launch an invasion oif western Europe.
Why would the Russians invade Western Europe anyway? Because they're evil? All the invasion-paranoia was on the NATO side. Russian literature throughout the Cold War always supposed western Capitalism would just collapse from within, and much of the Soviet leadership during the '80s was convinced that it was NATO that was chomping at the bit to invade the Warsaw Pact.
The late sixties was the time when MAD was starting to really assert itself. Really, the Cuban Missile Crisis was the last point in which a military confrontation would not have resulted in the end of human civilisation. After 1965...any invasion by either side would mean the death of us all. This should not be a controversial opinion.
The late sixties was the time when MAD was starting to really assert itself. Really, the Cuban Missile Crisis was the last point in which a military confrontation would not have resulted in the end of human civilisation. After 1965...any invasion by either side would mean the death of us all. This should not be a controversial opinion.
This was at least as stupid as western invasion paranoia:
"the Soviet leadership during the '80s was convinced that it was NATO that was chomping at the bit to invade the Warsaw Pact."
They really had to go through alot of mental gyrations to assume that a US that had accepted a tie rather than go nuclear in Korea in the 1950s, and had accepted a defeat rather than go nuclear in Vietnam in the 60s or 70s was going to go on the offensive in a much more difficult war attacking the heart of Soviet power in the 1980s, when even more Soviet nuclear ordnance was available for use against the US, and Europe than even in 1975. Coalitions are hard to motivate for an offensive, and there were no marshaling of pro-invasion fervor in the US and certainly not Western Europe. Such a belief was well and truly retarded, if sincerely held. As a job security plan, that's another story.
What probably led the Russians down this path was a belief that "everything is a WWII analogy" held even more acutely by them than even by American neoconservatives. They could make themselves believe a western surprise attack was plausible by citing the precedent of being surprised by Hitler and his coalition of dependents in 1941, ignoring relevant details such as the weak analogies between the NATO governments and Axis governments and their abilities to keep secrets, and the fact that the Soviets were surprised not for lack of indicators in 1941 but for the politicization of intelligence against warnings.
"the Soviet leadership during the '80s was convinced that it was NATO that was chomping at the bit to invade the Warsaw Pact."
They really had to go through alot of mental gyrations to assume that a US that had accepted a tie rather than go nuclear in Korea in the 1950s, and had accepted a defeat rather than go nuclear in Vietnam in the 60s or 70s was going to go on the offensive in a much more difficult war attacking the heart of Soviet power in the 1980s, when even more Soviet nuclear ordnance was available for use against the US, and Europe than even in 1975. Coalitions are hard to motivate for an offensive, and there were no marshaling of pro-invasion fervor in the US and certainly not Western Europe. Such a belief was well and truly retarded, if sincerely held. As a job security plan, that's another story.
What probably led the Russians down this path was a belief that "everything is a WWII analogy" held even more acutely by them than even by American neoconservatives. They could make themselves believe a western surprise attack was plausible by citing the precedent of being surprised by Hitler and his coalition of dependents in 1941, ignoring relevant details such as the weak analogies between the NATO governments and Axis governments and their abilities to keep secrets, and the fact that the Soviets were surprised not for lack of indicators in 1941 but for the politicization of intelligence against warnings.
Well, Russians have always been rather paranoid and xenophobic.(witness current events) They have always believed their neighbors are out to get them. Turned out to be true quite a number of times too.
The thing is, it doesn't matter that the Russians didn't actually want to invade the West. The fact that their paranoia led them to believe NATO was going to attack makes them invading more likely. There were plenty of NATO generals calling for preemptive strikes whenever they believed the WP was about to invade. The same is likely true for Russia. The difference was, that the liberal democratic governments of the West were far less likely to actually do so, while the secretive and closed Russian ruling group were far more likely. All it would take would be a particularly threatening NATO military exercise coupled with mobilization on both sides and a particularly paranoid General Secretary to get the Russians to preemptively attack.
The thing is, it doesn't matter that the Russians didn't actually want to invade the West. The fact that their paranoia led them to believe NATO was going to attack makes them invading more likely. There were plenty of NATO generals calling for preemptive strikes whenever they believed the WP was about to invade. The same is likely true for Russia. The difference was, that the liberal democratic governments of the West were far less likely to actually do so, while the secretive and closed Russian ruling group were far more likely. All it would take would be a particularly threatening NATO military exercise coupled with mobilization on both sides and a particularly paranoid General Secretary to get the Russians to preemptively attack.
Indeed, this almost happened in 1982 during the NATO exercise 'Operation Able Archer'. Apparently there was an assumption in the Soviet military echelons that any attack by NATO would come during a publicly announced training exercise to lull the Warsaw Pact into a false sense of security. Cooler heads did prevail, but we have to keep some perspective, it's not as if the US military was immune to the same mentality as well, since like I said by far and away the vast majority of invasion paranoia was on the NATO side of the Iron Curtain.
This was what the 'Hot Line' telephone link between the White House and the Kremlin was for, after all. Should there be some erratic behaviour by detected by one side, all it has to do is phone up the other side to check what's going on. Although it's funny that neither side used this to their own advantage:
"What are you people doing!? Our radars are going crazy with NATO activity!"
"No, no, no, there's nothing to worry about! We're just testing logistics and conducting communication trials, that's all."
"But...but...the USAF is bombing Prague!"
"Nah, your electronics must be acting up, mate."
Last edited:
4:00 A.M. - Warsaw Pact forces cross into West Germany
4:16 A.M - a ceasefire is signed between the United States and Russia
4:16 A.M - a ceasefire is signed between the United States and Russia