[Legbreaker]

NATO was not at war until late November 1996.

Until then, Poland and the rest of the Pact were only (in Europe at least) at war with one (1) country - Germany.

If ANY unit of ANY other nationality had fired upon Pact aircraft during that period, it would have been a clear act of war, unless they were defending their own soveriegn airspace ie Not just in Germany. Meanwhile, why would Pact aircraft ignore the landing fields and other military facilities the Germans were using? They'd had 50 years to find out where each and every one of those targets were so firing on British, US, French, Danish, etc positions would be near impossible to do by mistake.

Until November 1996, the war was surely seen as a local matter between Poland and it's allies and ONE member of Nato - Germany. While ever Pact forces made efforts not to attack anything not German, Nato would not be drawn in to the conflict - why would they be? Germany hadn't asked for help and nobody in their right mind likes to go to war without a reasonable cause.

It is even possible that the Pact could have seen Nato air patrols and ground units deploying from bases as an act of war in themselves. Yes, it's common sense to deploy troops just in case, but politics play a very big part in this sort of situation....

The thing to remember here is that Germany was at war, NOT Nato. Nato had no cause to interfere in any way until they too entered the war 4-5 months after it had started.

Once Germany asked for help however, the situation changed. Nato commanders and their soldier would probably have revelled at finally being able to act after months forced to do nothing but watch.

Even though technically not at war, it's probably a safe bet that many dependants of the British and US would leave at the first sign of trouble. However, as these two countries were not at war, would they spend the money on evacuations when looking at Pauls earlier post, they are so apparently uninterested when they're actually at war?