[Webstral]

I know it looks like I hijacked the thread about Berlin to talk about the bigger picture. However, I think decisions about Berlin fit into a larger context.

The challenge with predicting how the Soviets react to any stimulus is the fact that very few people make the important decisions. Personality and background become very important. All of the outcomes we have described certainly are possible. I argue for what is likely and supports the existing chronology, but a variety of outcomes at any juncture is possible.

Apart from the fact that the chronology doesn’t support a nuclear action in December 1996, I think there is good reason for the Soviets to hold off on nuclear action. They have a massive conventional military. Although there are some real short term challenges presented by the situation in East Germany, the situation is very far from lost. Even if NATO captures East Germany, the place is so thrashed that it will be a generation before it’s any use to them. In the meantime, there’s Poland. Why else did Stalin capture Poland and install a communist regime except to give the Soviet Union room to fight? Massive treasure and effort have gone into building a conventional military capable of winning an all-out conventional war in the medium term. Why throw all that away for a premature roll of the nuclear dice? Better to use Poland the way Poland was always intended to be used—as a buffer and battlefield—than risk nuclear destruction in Russia before a clear necessity has been demonstrated. It’s never too late to annihilate the world, but it’s possible to move too early.

Berlin is a special case. Urban fighting is consumptive of manpower. As stated, though, Berlin has a political value. I can see the Soviets going either way. The generals would argue that letting mechanized forces become bogged down in street fighting is wasteful. The Party people would argue that taking West Berlin and ruining it in the process will drive home the costs of war to the West regardless of the outcome of the fighting. The Party types would argue that the Westerners need to be shown that the Reds are neither afraid of suffering casualties nor afraid to inflict them as necessary.

The use of chemical weapons is an important issue deserving of discussion. Loss of life is going to be gargantuan. This presents the Soviets with some problems. How can they claim to be defending fellow communists from capitalist aggression while slaughtering East German civilians by the hundred thousand?