NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[S2]

tankie Reply

"...we gave them the name ,, donkey wallopers ?"

Too sweet!!!

I'm sure a bruised knuckle or two over that.:))

[tankie]

"...we gave them the name ,, donkey wallopers ?"

Too sweet!!!

I'm sure a bruised knuckle or two over that.:))

Haha yea , but guess what they called us , a clue , it started with W ended in Y had an A N K in the middle and TANKIES ,, poetry in motion huh ?


But apart from that it was all friendly rivalry ;)

[astralis]

S-2, zraver,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think the world dodged a big bullet in the early 70s. If the Soviets had decided to come west only nukes would have stopped them."

I absolutely concur. Preoccupation pales as a description with our focus on turning around the conventional imbalance. It was thoroughly de-stabilizing otherwise.

NATO's inability to win the "first battle of the next war" (oh, and the next and next in the Soviet echeloned advance) meant that we'd go nuclear almost immediately. Force manpower, structure, doctrine, training, equipment all had to be revitalized- ASAP.

An all-consuming task, but then everybody was sorta uncomfortable with our conventional (in particular, our ground force) options back then. A pair of deuces and on our ass, to put it mildly, is no way to play nuclear poker.

american or soviet conventional superiority notwithstanding, could either of you imagine a cold war going hot in europe that DOESN'T involve nukes one way or another?

[S2]

Astralis Reply

Yes. For how long is another matter. At some point, one of two directions- escalation to nukes or surrender. Either is very possible in Europe's political climate.

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm still trying to reconcile how the Soviets planned to go nuclear post 1989. They have switched from an offensive mindset to a defensive mindset, using East Germany as the battleground. Post 1989, I think both sides would be extremely confused as to the battle picture, essentially asking "why aren't you attacking?"

I can't think of any worthwhile targets in East Germany to employ Soviet nukes.

[Blademaster]

I think once the Soviet Union found itself fighting or being confronted on three sides, east by China, south by Afghanistan and Pakistan and west by NATO, that Soviet Union had to go on the defensive.

As for employ nukes, the Soviets would have no choice but to employ nukes on NATO forces if they go on the attack but initially it would be in the East Germany territory and then once escalation takes ahold, it would spread all over Europe.

[zraver]

I'm still trying to reconcile how the Soviets planned to go nuclear post 1989. They have switched from an offensive mindset to a defensive mindset, using East Germany as the battleground. Post 1989, I think both sides would be extremely confused as to the battle picture, essentially asking "why aren't you attacking?"

I can't think of any worthwhile targets in East Germany to employ Soviet nukes.

Rostock, Wismar and Straslund: ports

Berlin and Dresden: major road/rail junctions going east

Cotbus, Neubrandenburg, Greifswald and Eberswalde-Finnow: Minor road and rail links going east

If fighting defensively , if they cut those, NATO won't even reach Poland. If they target the rail/road out of East Berlin they might bypass NATO's nuclear tripwire and not initiate a nuclear exchange unless they caught NATO armies in the blast.

[Officer of Engineers]

I would argue a regiment of engineers at each of those places would do a better job than a nuke. Besides, are you going to take them out before a NATO advance ... that would never be coming? Let's face it. I was surprised when they (Soviets) told me that we were going to attack.

[S2]

OoE Reply

"I was surprised when they (Soviets) told me that we were going to attack."

Jeezuz!! With what and why? Eastern Europe FELL into NATO's lap. And we sure didn't have it in us to road march to Moscow- I don't care HOW good we were then.

We weren't THAT good.

Those boys remain committed xenophobes. Does that actually make them xenophiles:))

I know...

Shaddup!

[Officer of Engineers]

Jeezuz!! With what and why?

That's what I want to know.

From Cold War In Perspective, The | Army | Find Articles at BNET
As we got ready to end this conference, Gen. Lyakhovsky and Vyacheslav Vasenin noted that they still could not believe that NATO had no attack plans against the Warsaw Pact back in the days of the Cold War. The Czech general joined them in their skepticism. One of the Russians expressed his opinion that the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation might have terminated, but that he still believed the Cold War had not ended.

[gunnut]

I guess the Soviets needed an external threat to keep the grip on power. It was and still is the best way to unite a nation. Without this external threat, people would begin to question the leadership. We couldn't have that, now, could we?

Chavez is desperately trying to convince his people that US wants to attack Venezuela. Why would we want to?

[S2]

OoE Reply

Colonel,

"One of the Russians expressed his opinion that the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation might have terminated, but that he still believed the Cold War had not ended."

Although printed in 2006 it's relevance is clear today, that's for sure.

[Kansas Bear]

Chavez is desperately trying to convince his people that US wants to attack Venezuela. Why would we want to?

They have the recipe for a mean Mexican pizza!

[zraver]

"I was surprised when they (Soviets) told me that we were going to attack."

Jeezuz!! With what and why?

The Beatles and Iron Maiden, cause you can't stop Rock and Roll.

[Triple C]

Russians were, if I recall correctly, totally at a loss with it comes to Rock and Roll. There were vehement official diatributes against it but other than that I don't they ever figured out how to deal with this pollution of proper socialist morals.

They had good reasons to be xenophobic though, they had been jumped by invasion forces from the west more times then I could keep scores.