PDA

View Full Version : "Boris Godunov" plan - has anyone heard of it?



Geralt
17 Sep 08,, 11:47
Hello,

Just recently I've read about this. The short info I have (I see nothing relevant in Google or Wiki) is that in the 70s Soviets - faced with increased economic difficulties and other problems - quite seriously considered launching the sudden attack at the Western Europe; taking by a storm continental Europe without any serious nuclear response will be formulated and utilizing Western resources to help their bankrupting economy.

Is that info reliable? Does anyone here know more about this?

Regards,
Geralt

Officer of Engineers
17 Sep 08,, 12:18
The current NATO Parallel History Project (Staff professionals from both sides of the Iron Curtain) suggests that the Warsaw Pact always saw WWIII as a nuclear exchange.

Tarek Morgen
17 Sep 08,, 12:40
The current NATO Parallel History Project (Staff professionals from both sides of the Iron Curtain) suggests that the Warsaw Pact always saw WWIII as a nuclear exchange.

Because they wanted (or deemed it necessary) on their behalf, or took a nuclear respond by the west for granted?

Sumku
20 Sep 08,, 16:45
Nothing much Online.
I tried it previously also when I heard about it the first time, there's absolutely nothing and today also I am not able to find anything on that matter, however there's fictional novel that deals in that .... its "The Devil's Alternative" by "Frederick Forsyth".

You might want to check that out

Geralt
20 Sep 08,, 19:15
Because they wanted (or deemed it necessary) on their behalf, or took a nuclear respond by the west for granted?

To all posters responding here: I think first of all we should differentiate between Warsaw Pact war plans and Soviet plans. As far as I know, the former (at least official ones, but on the other hand: what do we know for sure about unofficial plans?) never assumed using nuclear weapons first. One might add: unlike NATO doctrines, which e.g. in the 50s predicted dropping nuclear bombs in the line of Vistula river to separate Eastern troops from their reinforcements even in case of only conventional attack from the Warsaw Pact. Of course, this difference is both heavily propaganda-driven and self-explanatory by the fact of huge advantage of the Warsaw Pact in conventional forces - so they didn't have to consider employing nuclear strike first in order to stop far more numerous opponents' columns, but nonetheless the difference remains.
On the other hand, we don't know much about real Soviet plans, hence my question about "Boris Godunov": it's a pity nobody seems to know more about it, so perhaps I'll ask the same question on the boards with more visitors here.

BTW, Soviet strategists could and should have considered using nuclear weapons inevitable in the long run, but avoidable in case of such swift attack vs. continental Europe I've been talking about. Imagine these lands occupied by Warsaw Pact's forces and American/British decision-makers faced vs. a dilemma; to start the Third World War and risk everything or try to reach some compromise with Soviets? Hard choice...

I have a good article on NATO-Warsaw Pact issues, but it's in Polish, so will be useless for you, unless you want to use some mistake-prone web translator; the choice is yours:

O rywalizacji NATO z Układem Warszawskim (http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34274,1160887.html)

S2
21 Sep 08,, 00:02
Your point about the destabilizing nature of the conventional force imbalance- (an unfavorable correlation of forces for the western fascists:biggrin:) is well-understood by western policymakers of the time.

It accounts for the subsequent conventional buildup in western Europe. Without countering the Soviet disparity in conventional forces, Europe was vulnerable to going nuclear immediately or acquiescing altogether. There was no viable middle ground.

Finding our conventional balance neutered Soviet ambitions at great cost to their society by rendering the very expensive Red Army irrelevant.

We discuss these matters, perhaps, here but you'll also find discussions further down in modern warfare.

Officer of Engineers
21 Sep 08,, 03:49
To all posters responding here: I think first of all we should differentiate between Warsaw Pact war plans and Soviet plans. As far as I know, the former (at least official ones, but on the other hand: what do we know for sure about unofficial plans?) never assumed using nuclear weapons first. One might add: unlike NATO doctrines, which e.g. in the 50s predicted dropping nuclear bombs in the line of Vistula river to separate Eastern troops from their reinforcements even in case of only conventional attack from the Warsaw Pact. Of course, this difference is both heavily propaganda-driven and self-explanatory by the fact of huge advantage of the Warsaw Pact in conventional forces - so they didn't have to consider employing nuclear strike first in order to stop far more numerous opponents' columns, but nonetheless the difference remains.
On the other hand, we don't know much about real Soviet plans, hence my question about "Boris Godunov": it's a pity nobody seems to know more about it, so perhaps I'll ask the same question on the boards with more visitors here.

BTW, Soviet strategists could and should have considered using nuclear weapons inevitable in the long run, but avoidable in case of such swift attack vs. continental Europe I've been talking about. Imagine these lands occupied by Warsaw Pact's forces and American/British decision-makers faced vs. a dilemma; to start the Third World War and risk everything or try to reach some compromise with Soviets? Hard choice...

I have a good article on NATO-Warsaw Pact issues, but it's in Polish, so will be useless for you, unless you want to use some mistake-prone web translator; the choice is yours:

O rywalizacji NATO z Układem Warszawskim (http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34274,1160887.html)Fortunately, I have a better translation of a real war plan


Warsaw Pact War Plan of 1964 (http://se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=PHP&fileid=9F64B1FE-9E5A-DF9E-885C-CBC8BB7BFAD3&lng=en)

Formations and units of the Czechoslovak People’s Army, on permanent alert, upon the announcement of combat alarm should leave their permanent location in no more than 30 minutes, move to designated areas within 3 hours, and deploy there ready to carry out their combat tasks. Formations, units and headquarters that do not have set mobilization dates, leave their locations of permanent deployment and take up the identified areas of concentration in the time and in the order determined by the plan of mobilization and deployment. The following disposition of forces is possible in the area of operations of the Czechoslovak Front for the entire depth of the operation:

-- in divisions – 1.1 to 1.0
-- in tanks and mobile artillery launchers – 1.0 to 1.0
-- in artillery and mine-launchers – 1.0 to 1.0
-- in military aircraft – 1.1 to 1.0, all in favor of the Czechoslovak Front.

In the first massive nuclear strike by the troops of the Missile Forces of the Czechoslovak Front, the front aviation and long-range aviation added to the front must destroy the main group of troops of the first operations echelon of the 7th US Army, its means of nuclear attack, and the centers of command and control of the aviation.

During the development of the operation, the troops of the Missile Forces and aviation must destroy the approaching deep operative reserves, the newly discovered means of nuclear attack, and the enemy aviation.

Altogether the operation will require the use of 131 nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs; specifically 96 missiles and 35 nuclear bombs. The first nuclear strike will use 41 missiles and nuclear bombs. The immediate task will require using 29 missiles and nuclear bombs. The subsequent task could use 49 missiles and nuclear bombs. 12 missiles and nuclear bombs should remain in the reserve of the Front.

I really suggest you check out this site

Parallel History Project - HOME - (http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/)

The Warsaw Pact expected nuclear war right from the start, not an escalation.