1969: Massive Soviet invasion; nuclear option

[Chogy]

Then again, if it was prepositioned stocks, then they are very tempting targets for Warsaw Pact bombers. Taking out those prepositioned stocks would render Reforger useless unless Reforger includes a backup plan of resupplying by naval convoys. If that happens, then I m curious to what the Warsaw Pact naval commanders thought about those naval convoys and how to stop them.

The facilities, at least the ones I saw, were quite survivable. I don't know what sort of overpressure they were rated to, but my guess would be that they'd survive a nuke air burst unless the targeting was dead-nuts on. or they were lobbing 15 MT monsters. Generators could hum along for months on the diesel stocks, and the filtration systems were excellent, keeping nerve agents and radiation at bay.

Maintaining those stocks must have been extraordinarily expensive. Just about everything had a shelf life, and had to be rotated out for training or simply scrapped and replaced.

While the quantity seemed immense to us, it was designed only to last long enough for the sea convoys to crank up. And NATO certainly wasn't defenseless... there were plenty of high-quality air defense assets, and we'd be launching our own interdiction sorties as well.

[Stitch]

If it was "understood" that NATO would lose a stand-up conventional war in Europe in the early 70's, then it begs a basic question - why place much emphasis and expenditure in those conventional forces in the first place?

Speed-bump, or nuclear trigger, depending on how you look at it.

[junoth1001]

There are two good books written by former Senior NATO Officers about WW3, these give an insight into the NATO mindset in the early eighties.I also have a handbook produced for the Canadian army which provides a scenario of their action in ETO during WW£ But I was posted to MHQ Pitreavie Castle in 1976, it was designed to survive a direct strike from a 1MT weapon and we had rations and stores to last about a month. I remember during a Wintex in the early days of my time there and I had to pick up a signal. The signal listed successful nuclear strikes by "Warpact", among the targets was a place near to my home town, which would have meant my family would have been destroyed within a second and a half of the explosion.

An interesting point, in 1983, I was given a tour of would was an early form of the internet, it was based at RDAF Tirstype, and again it was housed in a building designed to withstand a direct hit from a 1mt. weapon.

In 1983 I was part of a signal unit which was attached to 6th airborne bde, providing comms for support helicopters. The BDE would be facing a Soviet Operational Manoeuvring Force of divisional strength, basically our orders where to hold our positions for 48hrs, to allow reinforcements time to arrive and if overrun, to break up and cause as much havoc behind enemy lines as possible.

[Mandala]

Joseph Stalin: Reply to Churchill, 1946

As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union has irrevocably lost in battles with the Germans, and also during the German occupation and through the expulsion of Soviet citizens to German slave labor camps, about 7,000,000 people. In other words, the Soviet Union has lost in men several times more than Britain and the United States together...

One can ask therefore, what can be surprising in the fact that the Soviet Union, in a desire to ensure its security for the future, tries to achieve that these countries should have governments whose relations to the Soviet Union are loyal? How can one, without having lost one's reason, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as "expansionist tendencies" of our Government?
Modern History Sourcebook: Stalin: Reply to Churchill, 1946

--------

I hope this does not seem like a hijack of this thread, but I do not think a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was ever likely. If it happened in 1969 or any other time I think it could have been stopped without nuclear weapons.

At the end of the Second World War a number of prominent men in the West including Gen. Patton and even Bertrand Russell were advocating a war against the Soviet Union. This too was unlikely. Great Britain was bankrupted by the War. France and Italy were seriously damaged. They also had large Communist parties. These were content to compete peacefully in democratic elections and to lead labor unions. In the event of a war with the Soviet Union they would have become violent resistance movements.

At the end of the Second World War the American people wanted to get on with their lives.

Nevertheless, Stalin was the leader of a country that had been devastated by two invasions in three decades. He had to take seriously the possibility of another invasion.

Although leaders of the Soviet Union may have liked to pretend that the Warsaw Pact was an alliance of kindred countries joined together by socialist solidarity most must have known that it more closely resembled an empire, conquered in war, and held together by force. Consequently the loyalty of Eastern European armies could not have been counted on.

By 1969 there had been revolts in East Germany and Hungary. The East Germans remembered that Soviet soldiers had raped over two million German women during their invasion of Germany. The aborted reform movement in Czechoslovakia had happened only a year before.

In 1969 Western Europe alone was more populous, more industrialized, and richer than Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The only reason the Western European countries had smaller military forces than Eastern European counterparts was that they agreed with me that a Soviet invasion was unlikely.

Anyway, once the Soviets achieved Mutual Assured Destruction the nuclear option was not feasible.

[Officer of Engineers]

Funny, I don't recall you in uniform with some stars on your shoulders.

[Mandala]

Funny, I don't recall you in uniform with some stars on your shoulders.

Generals are unlikely to conclude that their profession is less necessary and that military budgets can be safely reduced.

[Officer of Engineers]

Does NOT change the fact that you WERE NOT IN MY CHAIN OF COMMAND NOR do you know DIDLY SQUAT on how we were supposed to fight.

[Mandala]

Does NOT change the fact that you WERE NOT IN MY CHAIN OF COMMAND NOR do you know DIDLY SQUAT on how we were supposed to fight.

Instead of answering my arguments you are trying to pull rank on me. On this website we are equal. The only thing that matters is the plausibility of our arguments.

In his response to Winston Chruchill's Iron Curtain speech Joseph Stalin estimated Soviet casualties as 7,000,000. He was probably underestimating the extent for security purposes, and to shore up sagging morale in the USSR. More recent estimates are about 23,954,000.

World War 2 Statistics

In addition the Soviet Union lost one third of its industrial and farm plant. Nevertheless, Cold War foreign policy assumed that the USSR was bent on world conquest. A country that badly devastated needed to recover. In addition, Soviet citizens and leaders were fully aware of how horrible war was. Americans had Hollywood images of bloodless wounds and painless deaths.

A certain amount of tension was probably inevitable with the Soviet Union after the Second World War. Nevertheless, I do believe the United States could have behaved unilaterally in ways that would have reduced tensions.

Communist subversion was never a legitimate concern for the United States. It was only successful in countries where right wing dictators suppressed impoverished populaces on behalf of parasitic oligarchies. Even then it usually failed.

Where popular governments existed American military support was unnecessary. Where they did not exist, as in South Vietnam, it was insufficient.

[Officer of Engineers]

Instead of answering my arguments you are trying to pull rank on me. On this website we are equal. The only thing that matters is the plausibility of our arguments.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUEMENTS! DUMBASS!

We've listed a Czech war plan to which 100+ nukes were to be used on the first day of the war. My brigade, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group had nukes assigned to us because if shit hits the fan, my 5000 man brigade was going to delay two Soviet armies - that's 60,000 men.

Tell me we can do that without nukes.

You know shit all. Don't come into my forum telling me what my job was, especially when you're not my boss, nor even in my line of work.

[Mandala]

YOU HAVE NO ARGUEMENTS! DUMBASS!

We've listed a Czech war plan to which 100+ nukes were to be used on the first day of the war. My brigade, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group had nukes assigned to us because if shit hits the fan, my 5000 man brigade was going to delay two Soviet armies - that's 60,000 men.

Tell me we can do that without nukes.

You know shit all. Don't come into my forum telling me what my job was, especially when you're not my boss, nor even in my line of work.

You are not my boss either.

I have two questions for you. Why would the Soviet Union have wanted to invade Western Europe in 1969, or any other time?

If the invasion was succeeding, should nuclear weapons have been used, keeping in mind that the Soviets had them too?

Nuclear weapons are only useful if your side has them and the other side does not. Otherwise they are only good for deterrents. They did not help the United States in Vietnam. They did not help the Soviets in Afghanistan.

[Officer of Engineers]

You are not my boss either.

I'm not commenting on your job. You're commenting on mine.

I have two questions for you. Why would the Soviet Union have wanted to invade Western Europe in 1969, or any other time?

You want an honest answer? LUCK! I'm damned serious. LUCK! There were times when all of us at the Fulda Gap on both sides thought this was it.

If the invasion was succeeding, should nuclear weapons have been used, keeping in mind that the Soviets had them too?

My brigade had absolutely no illusion what it meant to use nukes. We trained constantly on earthworks that would be help reduce but not eliminate the effects of a nuclear blast. We trained to receive nukes as well as to deliver them.

Nuclear weapons are only useful if your side has them and the other side does not. Otherwise they are only good for deterrents. They did not help the United States in Vietnam. They did not help the Soviets in Afghanistan.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

http://warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_101.pdf
http://warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_102.pdf
http://warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_103.pdf

Damned ignorant stupid idiot.

[Mandala]

I'm not commenting on your job. You're commenting on mine.

For all I know you are or were a competent military officer. Nevertheless, competent military officers are not infallible. Sometimes they lose wars. Sometimes they advocate wars that are best off avoided. During the Cuban Missile Crises President Kennedy was shocked by the nonchalance with which his generals and admirals viewed a war with the Soviet Union.

That entire crises was avoidable. The Soviets were justified under international law to put missiles in Cuba, which was an ally. Those missiles were no more threatening to the United States than were U.S. missiles in Turkey threatening to the Soviets. The Soviets were soon to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. When they had them the missiles in Cuba would have been obsolete anyway.

[Officer of Engineers]

For all I know you are or were a competent military officer. Nevertheless, competent military officers are not infallible. Sometimes they lose wars. Sometimes they advocate wars that are best off avoided. During the Cuban Missile Crises President Kennedy was shocked by the nonchalance with which his generals and admirals viewed a war with the Soviet Union.

Have you seen war? I have. I've seen the worst kind of war. Civil War. Brother against brother. Father against son. Brother whoring sister if not raping her. Grandmothers throwing grandkids into the starving cold. I was UNPROFOR.

My job was to fight wars, not to start them. That's the job of you civies BUT DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME FOR ONE SECOND HOW I EXPECT THE WAR TO BE FOUGHT. The Soviets had nukes. We had nukes. We expected them to use theirs just as they expected us to use ours. WE WERE DAMNED BLUNT TO EACH OTHER. Even when your kind was marching for nuclear disarmament, neither set of uniforms on both sides had any illusions on how we were going to kill each other.

You have a complete misread about Mutual Assured Destruction. We were not scared to start it. We were scared we can't stop it.

That entire crises was avoidable. The Soviets were justified under international law to put missiles in Cuba, which was an ally. Those missiles were no more threatening to the United States than were U.S. missiles in Turkey threatening to the Soviets. The Soviets were soon to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. When they had them the missiles in Cuba would have been obsolete anyway.

Your read is so off. The Cuban Missile Crisis was NOT avoidable. It established off limits spheres of influence. The Soviets can't put missiles into our spheres and we can't send help to the Hungarians and the Czechs.

The tit-for-tat missile trade was the face saving way out for both sides but the actual agreement was they can't intrude into our side and we can't intrude into theirs.

Either way, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFY TO TELL ME HOW TO DO MY JOB!

[Doktor]

Instead of answering my arguments you are trying to pull rank on me. On this website we are equal. The only thing that matters is the plausibility of our arguments.

Sorry, but you and the Col are not equal here. He is a long time member and you are new. He can throw one liner out of his ass and they will be facts. Why, because he was right in the past. And when he was wrong, he knows how to back up. You on the other hand have to earn that position. 10 years to do that.

In addition, Soviet citizens and leaders were fully aware of how horrible war was. Americans had Hollywood images of bloodless wounds and painless deaths.

You are talking 60s there not 90s.

A certain amount of tension was probably inevitable with the Soviet Union after the Second World War. Nevertheless, I do believe the United States could have behaved unilaterally in ways that would have reduced tensions.

Like what?

Where popular governments existed American military support was unnecessary. Where they did not exist, as in South Vietnam, it was insufficient.

You forget that Soviets and Chinese were ready to throw even the kitchen sink in order not to lose in Nam.

If the invasion was succeeding, should nuclear weapons have been used, keeping in mind that the Soviets had them too?

There was no option for invasion to be succeeding, once one of the sides moves nukes start lobing.

Nuclear weapons are only useful if your side has them and the other side does not. Otherwise they are only good for deterrents. They did not help the United States in Vietnam. They did not help the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Yes, because both Nam and A-stan had nukes, too. Or you are saying Soviets and US used them there?

That entire crises was avoidable. The Soviets were justified under international law to put missiles in Cuba, which was an ally.

UNSC veto member thinks not. What international law?

Those missiles were no more threatening to the United States than were U.S. missiles in Turkey threatening to the Soviets. The Soviets were soon to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. When they had them the missiles in Cuba would have been obsolete anyway.

Yet, US objected. And that's what matters. What followed was readjusting.

[junoth1001]

"In his response to Winston Chruchill's Iron Curtain speech Joseph Stalin estimated Soviet casualties as 7,000,000. He was probably underestimating the extent for security purposes, and to shore up sagging morale in the USSR. More recent estimates are about 23,954,000."

In an edition of may 1946 of Pravda, Stalin, gave the figures as being 6 million dead, 14 million causalities, hence the well known figure of 20 million dead banded about by historians. I have a copy of that edition in a plastic sack up the loft!


"I hope this does not seem like a hijack of this thread, but I do not think a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was ever likely. If it happened in 1969 or any other time I think it could have been stopped without nuclear weapons."


General Sir John Hackett and others in his Book, "World War 3 - August 1985", said that if the war had not started by then, the Soviet Union could not afford to go war!