Another possible World War III storyline...looking for feedback

[Mgellis]

I was playing around with ideas for possible World War III scenarios and I would be grateful for feedback...

Let's say that when, in 1968, Czechoslovakia rebelled against Soviet rule, the West decided to help liberate them. There is no threat of direct attack against the Soviet Union; the West just wants the Soviets out of Czechoslovakia. After all, that by itself would be a huge victory.

So...what would be a plausible outcome here? Obviously, the Soviets would try to force the West out of Czechoslovakia, so we could count on air battles, etc. But how far would they go, assuming they did not think the West would try to invade Russia itself? Is it reasonable to assume they might fight only with conventional weapons, although perhaps try to knock out convoys and some bases in places like Greece and Italy to make it harder for the West to keep their war effort going? Or would they use nuclear weapons in Czechoslovakia, in effect burning it down to keep it from being taken away from them?

Would it make any difference if the ground war ground to a halt early on and it looked as if neither side was going to be able to push the other out entirely, that the long term result would probably be that the Soviets would not lose Czechoslovakia entirely, but that it would end up partitioned, like Germany?

Would the outcome have been different for different uprisings, like the Hungarian one in 1956? What if the West had intervened then?

What are your thoughts on this?

[Russian Heel]

Brezhnev Doctrine, which boiled down to the Soviet Union would no longer actively attempt to change the world communist, but no country could leave the Eastern Bloc and any force 'hostile to socialism' whether it be foreign nations or internal dissidents would be confronted with all force necessary. However, under this doctrine the satellite state's governments were given more autonomy, as long as they didn't move (in the opinion of Moscow) away from socialism. The doctrine diplomatically was saying to the West, stay in your backyard, we'll stay in ours. It was applied in a broad sense and was even used as the justification for the intervention and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. It effectively died in 1980-81 with the events in Poland.

Any attempt at intervention in Czechoslovakia would have resulted in an invasion of West Germany and had a very high possibility of leading to a nuclear war. It would have been a mess. A lot of people would have died.

[Mgellis]

Okay, thanks. Tsk! Another fine idea foiled by reality!

[Mgellis]

A related question...

What I'm really trying to figure out is what circumstances would allow for a large enough war that Soviet submarines would be going after Western convoys, but which would NOT turn into an all-out nuclear war? After an all-out nuclear exchange...well, would there have been enough left of Europe for it to even make sense to send any convoys?

Back to an earlier question...if a ground war had started and then bogged down, similar to World War I, and it people are pretty sure that in the end one side might gain some territory, but neither side is going to sweep the other out of Europe...would that go nuclear? If East Germany had rebelled, NATO invaded to liberate it, and the Soviets stopped their advance at Berlin, still leaving them with a strip of East Germany, but sure that NATO was not going to get into Poland...would they have been willing to accept a cease fire, go the negotiating table, etc.? This assumes no Western nuclear weapons have been used. Or would they have gone nuclear at this point? It sounds like the Soviets actually had a pretty good understanding of how bad a nuclear war would have been. I can see them using absolutely massive conventional attacks, and going after air bases all over Europe, with conventional weapons, but would they have used nuclear weapons at this point?

[Sardaukar]

How about hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact encounter in Yugoslavia? That country was not really in either block.

Lets say that Tito suddenly dies (he was about only thing keeping the country together) and Yugoslavia starts to splinter like happened later historically?

Could add some naval action in Med/Adriatic.

[guanotwozero]

Full-on WWIII scenarios are hard to imagine without going nuclear; indeed maybe the most plausible spark would be an unintended nuclear incident that escalates.

e.g. An EW station mistakenly believes that an enemy nuke is launched, so a retaliatory strike is launched before the mistake is realised. A limited global-reaching war results, but nobody wants to throw any more nukes after the first couple of cities are destroyed. Each side wants to give the other a bloody nose, not eliminate them (or risk being eliminated).

Alternatively, and maybe more plausibly, a limited theatre war could happen if one of the many proxy wars or events escalated, e.g. Angola in the '70/80s, or Indonesia in the '60s. Both sides would tacitly agree to a restricted theatre of operations, outside of which hostilities would not happen. The fact that the turbulent post-colonial world coincided with the hottest days of the Cold War gives a lot of scope for scenarios.

I agree that a post-Tito Jugoslavia could be an interesting one; The Warsaw Pact still sees it as a renegade member that should be brought back into the fold; NATO decides to help preserve its neutrality. On top of that, the suppressed but simmering ethnic tensions within start to resurface...

However, I reckon most of the interesting superpower scenarios will have to wait until some form of land combat is implemented and territory can be taken.

[Russian Heel]

Honestly, if East Germany 'Rebelled' it would have gone down like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and almost Poland. NATO had no wish to overtly support any East German uprisings. As a matter of fact not intervening helps the NATO cause even more, if the uprising gets big enough or even splits the East German military, you now hove the GSFG tied down quelling the rebellion and the loss of something like 6 East German Divisions slated for attacking into Schleswig-Holstein with the North Group of Forces.

NATO secures their position with zero loss of life and the opposing side weakens more.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact encounter in Yugoslavia? That country was not really in either block.

Lets say that Tito suddenly dies (he was about only thing keeping the country together) and Yugoslavia starts to splinter like happened later historically?

Could add some naval action in Med/Adriatic.

Now THAT makes sense...at least to me. Neither bloc is in danger, but a new piece of territory is suddenly up for grabs. Both sides want it but neither side will go nuclear if they don't get it.

So...say Tito dies in 1985, Yugoslavia collapses, the USSR moves in, and the West says, "Oh, no you don't," and you've got World War III on your hands.

This would also make sense for ANY country not actually in NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Say Gaddafi died in the 1986 air strikes. The Soviets see the country starting to unravel and send in troops to "restore order." This triggers a civil war and the West moves in to help the anti-communist side. It's Vietnam all over again.

Other possibilities...

* Pakistan (in the 1980s...an invasion through Afghanistan)

* Iran (which would give the Soviets more oil and a warm water port...probably more inviting than just getting the rest of Germany, I would think)

* Finland

* If North Korea had suffered a sudden crisis (coup, leader has a heart attack, etc.) and looked like it might rejoin the South, is it possible the Soviets would have tried to occupy it (perhaps to keep China from doing so)?

Any others that look promising?

[Russian Heel]

Mike, have you ever read Sword Point by Harold Coyle? Not as good as Team Yankee and not all the Soviets are mustache twirlers, but a much more interesting scenario. I think it would be up you alley with what you are looking for. I won't spoil the story if you haven't read it, but the USSR invades Iran, I think to support some socialist insurgency, but in reality to get ports and oil. The US invades southern Iran to prevent the Soviets from getting the oil. So you have the Iranians fighting the Soviets and the Americans/Brits/French and the Soviets fighting the Western powers in Iran.

ISBN 0671665537, 9780671665531

He uses fake names of divisions and regiments but they are easy to figure out what units they really are.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

Full-on WWIII scenarios are hard to imagine without going nuclear; indeed maybe the most plausible spark would be an unintended nuclear incident that escalates.

e.g. An EW station mistakenly believes that an enemy nuke is launched, so a retaliatory strike is launched before the mistake is realised. A limited global-reaching war results, but nobody wants to throw any more nukes after the first couple of cities are destroyed. Each side wants to give the other a bloody nose, not eliminate them (or risk being eliminated).

Alternatively, and maybe more plausibly, a limited theatre war could happen if one of the many proxy wars or events escalated, e.g. Angola in the '70/80s, or Indonesia in the '60s. Both sides would tacitly agree to a restricted theatre of operations, outside of which hostilities would not happen. The fact that the turbulent post-colonial world coincided with the hottest days of the Cold War gives a lot of scope for scenarios.

I agree that a post-Tito Jugoslavia could be an interesting one; The Warsaw Pact still sees it as a renegade member that should be brought back into the fold; NATO decides to help preserve its neutrality. On top of that, the suppressed but simmering ethnic tensions within start to resurface...

However, I reckon most of the interesting superpower scenarios will have to wait until some form of land combat is implemented and territory can be taken.

Yes, I think that's probably the best option for a limited war. A non-aligned country is having a civil war. The Soviets back one side; the West backs the other side. Lots of arms sales, and "military advisors" might fly jets for both sides (or conduct special operations, etc.). And rather than a Soviet submarine trying to stop an American convoy bringing supplies to its side in the civil war, a submarine owned by the non-aligned country (the Soviet-backed side) sold to them, maybe just weeks ago, by the Soviets, and probably with some military advisors aboard, might go after the convoy.

Heck, there is no reason why the Soviets could not have sold some submarines to North Vietnam and let them have a go at an American carrier in 1970 or something. (It would have been a good way to test the subs out and see how well they do against NATO forces.)

So...

Step 1: Non-aligned country collapses in civil war

Step 2: Soviets and the West each back one of the sides

Step 3: Proxy war takes place with well-armed sides in the civil war fighting each other (so it's basically a NATO vs. Soviet war, in terms of machinery...)

Step 4: Each side in the civil war might try to injure the powerful backers of the other side...the North Vietnamese certainly had no fear of attacking Americans

Step 5: One side in the civil war eventually loses; one superpower make arrogant happy noises and the other glares irritably at them across the global dinner table, but nothing else happens except that each superpower starts looking for the new opportunities to gain influence...

Thoughts on all this?

[Russian Heel]

You just described most conflicts of the Cold War, so sounds quite plausible [:)]

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis
Step 1: Non-aligned country collapses in civil war

Step 2: Soviets and the West each back one of the sides

Step 3: Proxy war takes place with well-armed sides in the civil war fighting each other (so it's basically a NATO vs. Soviet war, in terms of machinery...)

Step 4: Each side in the civil war might try to injure the powerful backers of the other side...the North Vietnamese certainly had no fear of attacking Americans

Step 5: One side in the civil war eventually loses; one superpower make arrogant happy noises and the other glares irritably at them across the global dinner table, but nothing else happens except that each superpower starts looking for the new opportunities to gain influence...

Thoughts on all this?

Yep, or a colony on the cusp of independence collapses into factions vying for control. The factions seek powerful backers, so become aligned with superpowers (or their allies) as a means to an end. If it's early in the Cold War, the backers are keen to get involved; late in the Cold War, they might get dragged in despite intentions to the contrary.

One real-life example is Angola, where the colonial war involved different factions who were hostile to each other, as well as fighting the Portuguese. On the brink of independence, this transformed into a civil war. One faction (MPLA) was backed by Cuba, who sent materiel and manpower at a critical time to save them from annihilation. South Africa felt compelled to back an opposing faction (UNITA), fearing the influence of Cubans next door.

The USSR now felt compelled to provide support to Cuba and their proteges, as otherwise they'd badly lose face in the communist world, despite having had no original intention to get involved. This led to the US and certain allies fearing communism spreading in Africa, so they covertly backed South Africa, while being careful not to be seen supporting the Apartheid regime. Fear and face-saving were the escalators for war much more so than firebrand ideology.

There's a lot more to the Angola story than that, e.g. another major faction backed by Zaire and various others, and even revolts with the MPLA, and really it's a conflict that needs ground conflict to do it justice, e.g. tanks at Cuito Cuanavale. In the end it came down to a grudge match between two of Africa's 'big men', with ideology and even ethnic identity becoming secondary.

However, the back-story is one that could be adapted to other scenarios. Civil war factions seek backers, and superpowers are either keen to help or feel compelled to do so. Either they provide high-tech weaponry but no manpower, or their armed forces (or their allies') get directly involved. In real life the superpowers never directly met on the battlefield (apart from some 'advisors'), but here we have the tools to create such a 'what if' scenario.

For the present state of C:MANO, land conflict must be irrelevant, so a coastal or archipelagic setting would be ideal.

Maybe an escalated Vietnam where the USSR supplies significant offensive weaponry (whereas in real life it was mainly defensive) and provides armed convoys for delivery. Or Indonesia where the PKI gets direct Soviet support, prompting the US to back their opponents and a hot war ensues throughout the archipelago.

While the big scenarios would provide a good challenge, There could be interesting smaller conflicts too, with the potential for escalation. e.g. Portugal decides to defend its colony of East Timor from the Indonesian invasion, and others get drawn in; the North/South Yemen civil war is more evenly matched due to external backers, or a boundary dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon hots up when oil is discovered offshore from the disputed territory.

Yeah, oil... that's the other potential trigger [;)]

[SSN754planker]

Actually, this is the exact scenario used in Sir John Hacketts book, The Third World War: August 1985.

I actually read this before i got my hands on Red Storm Rising.

[tommo8993]

Sounds good, you may also want to look up able archer '83

[Russian Heel]

ORIGINAL: tommo8993

Sounds good, you may also want to look up able archer '83

Able Archer was was leading to a nuclear war, he's trying to work out a way it would stay conventional.

[guanotwozero]

If you can narrow it down to a decade you'd prefer (for tech level), and maybe even a region, perhaps we can suggest a story.