[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thank you for your insights, Ursus. Although it is rather far-fetched, German reunification by force is a central component of the v1 timeline. As a fan of said, I'm more interested in trying reconcile it with reality than in poking holes in it.

I appreciate this and I hope my comments are helpful. Not everything that could be printed in a journal of modern history, can also be appreciated in a roleplaying game. Most often, realism stands in the way of good drama. Please note that I am not here to spoil your game, just trying to give insight into a rather complex part of European history. I also took the liberty to take the discussion on Germany into another thread, since it would derail from your initial question to much, I fear.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Regardless of what the Warsaw Pact Treaty actually read, the Soviets called the shots. Any rebelliousness on the part of its signatories, like Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '69, was met quickly with overwhelming force (yes, Albania left the alliance, and Romania was a reluctant partner, at best, but neither were considered crucial to Soviet security by Moscow; East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, on the other hand, were). If the Soviets had demanded troops for the East Asian Front, how likely would it be for their Warsaw Pact allies to refuse, even citing the treaty's terms, given what happened to Hungary and Czechoslovakia?

To be clear: The fear of being invaded by the USSR was constant by its so called allies, who themselves were quite aware that they were merely existing at the mercy of the Soviet army. Poland in the 1980s was in constant fear of being the next victim after the ČSSR in 1968 and so was the East German leadership, when demonstrations started in the late Eighties. Little did they know that Gorbachev would not intervene and even less could GDW have known in 1984.

However, demanding troops to fight in the Far East is not at all the same as leaving the path of Socialism, which was what the Soviets accused the ČSSR in 1968 (and Hungary in 1956 and East Germany in 1953). The latter was an infringement against the very core, why the Warsaw Pact existed. Not heeding the call of the USSR or at least demanding high premiums when fighting a war in Far East, especially since it seems the USSR invaded China large-scale and did not stop the border conflict after maiming Chinese border troops. The main point here is that the USSR clearly is not defending itself, but in a war of aggression, i. e. beyond the point of self-defense. And that means, allies are not only not obliged, but also clearly prohibited from aiding the USSR in this case, because wars of aggression are the opposite of fostering the peaceful coexistence of peoples and the United Nations. So it's not only a breach of the UN Charta, but also of the Warsaw Treaty.

This is a different situation from gunning down protesters or toppling a government in one's primary sphere of influence. Within the Warsaw Pact, rules were applied differently, but existed nonetheless. Direct neighbors could not leave, but e. g. direct interference with the succession of one head of state by another was out of the question, as long as Socialism was still the way of the land and Communism the (distant) goal. Yugoslavia and Albania were allowed to leave the primary sphere of influence, because they remained officially socialist nations and were on the outer perimeter of the Soviet Empire. Romania was, as you said, of less importance, but had to at least officially remain "in the club".

Contrary to what might be believed about the USSR and its allies, the rule of law - at least on international level - meant a great deal to all nations directly involved in the Cold War. Otherwise, treatise on arms reduction, borders etc. would not have been such a huge topic and causes for war would not have been searched for so thoroughly, whenever one wanted to intervene militarily: Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? This is so controversial, because it was an open secret that the US wanted to escalate the conflict in Vietnam and used the incidents of 2-4 August 1964 to enact laws to do exactly that.

Likewise, the USSR did not attack Afghanistan out of the blue, but intervened - juridically speaking - when a friendly government (the communist party of Afghanistan) asked for help against internal dissidents. Of course that is to a large degree farce in the eyes of Westerners, but in the end, all parties involved in conflicts will have their own points of view and invest huge efforts to impose these views on other parties: allies, neutrals and ultimately opponents as well.

Once a nation clearly leaves the grounds of having a rational reason to go to war, it therefor goes rogue and that creates great amounts of insecurity. For if one nation - especially a superpower like the USSR - stops following rule of law, what's next? Who's next?

One can of course remedy such situations. This usually takes a lot of diplomacy and information warfare plus a good deal of trust building and monetary convincing towards allies and neutral parties at least. Only positive arguments can be used here, however. Bullying your allies or even neutral nations into allegiance would actually enforce the impression that the USSR is going rogue. This would have averse effects and thus in such a case faked intelligence dossiers, false-flag operations and large amounts of cash, technological transfers etc. are used.

So the question is, what would the USSR offer Poland, Germany, the ČSSR or Hungary and Bulgaria as payment or compensation for sending its troops to China? It's worth noting that almost all of these soldiers would have been conscripts, since that immediately involves the whole society of each of these nations. The first that the USSR would have to do is, deliver conclusive evidence that it is not the aggressor here, but was unlawfully attacked and thus the invasion in fact is a punitive expedition and has the goal to remove the Chinese ability to conduct offensive operations against the USSR and Mongolia. Mongolia is important here, because it's a (officially) neutral third party and protecting someone else is always viewed as a good thing, it takes away the taste of arbitrariness and enforces to argument of righteousness.

Second, the USSR would likely have to foot large parts of the bills. If not the payment of soldiers at least the expanses in material, fuel, food and most likely provisions for dependents of soldiers killed in action, though this might be deferred to "after our victory" or a one-time deposit would be handed over to every ally.

Third, if a nation is going to sell out its youth as mercenaries for foreign conquests and these nations already have large problems with getting enough young people to stay, educate them and enhance productivity on a general level, said nations would be wise to have their masters in Moscow deliver them certain high-tech goods, lift bans of export and import and pay them in resources, while demanding less of all of these items than the USSR usually did.

This is not only a matter of compensation for likely losses and the strain a war places on one's own security and labor force, but it's also a big chance. For, if the USSR comes begging - and begging it is - this turns the distribution of power in the Warsaw Pact upside down.

[Which is a major problem I have with the narrative: The USSR is effectively signaling it can not handle another nation, non-European even, and asks for mass-help. This cannot end well for its European Empire, i. e. the Warsaw Pact.]

So, I would expect most Pact nations - except the GDR, which was quite servile - to make a good bargain out of it, because what is the Soviet Union to answer, if everyone else is writing a huge bill upfront? And here we are at the central point of making this policy choice: The USSR is in a war it probably started, but seemingly cannot win. What is it prepared to pay to its allies and what would it do, if they refused their aid or asked to much? What could it do, the best of it's troops are in China or have been annihilated. And how to react, if more than one nation denies help? Invading the ČSSR was an effort made by the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary (East German forces stood ready, but the USSR did not use them, fearing being associated with Hitler's invasion of the ČSR 30 years earlier), so who would help the Soviet Union to punish neighbors that refused to send troops to the Far East.

The most likely candidates for such illoyal action would have been Poland and the ČSSR. The USSR would not have been able to invade both countries with just the help from Bulgaria and Hungary. East Germany could not send troops into the ČSSR and Poland for the same reasons that applied in 1968. This would leave the task to Hungary and Bulgaria, the worst armies in the Pact against the best, while also sending troops east and taking on duties from the Soviet armed forces, which these cannot accomplish, because they are in a full-scale war with the PRC.

If I were facing these questions in the Kremlin, I would make sure there are at least one Japanese and Indian passenger plane each full of tourists, definitely including Korean, Germans, Polish, Hungarian, Czechoslovakian and Bulgarian civilians getting shot down by PRC missiles. It's important that China is seen as the baddie here, not only against the USSR and its allies, but also against Japan: This victimizes the aggressor of World War Two and opens a whole new diplomatic front against China. Also, India needs to be firmly on the side of Moscow, not just generally "anti-Chinese", for India offers yet another front physically and diplomatically plus millions of troops.

Then I would open Soviet coffers and pay a premium for each divison, while cranking up production of T-72s, BMP-2s, BTR-80s and other almost-first-tier (for 1995) products (artillery, planes, helicopters) and handing them out like candy to my allies. This would definitely include paying Pact nations more for every ton of goods they deliver and sharing some tech-secrets with them, preferably outside the arms industry. A great war with China, which the USSR is visibly not winning decisively and swiftly is a 'all hands on deck' situation for the USSR, because China is a nuclear power and in defending enjoys similar advantages as the USSR did in World War Two: wide open spaces, personnel and population reserves far in advance of that of the aggressor and industrial capacities not easily destroyed; yes the USSR could try to attack the Chines coast, but the Pacific fleet would probably not be up to the task and doing so would certainly escalate the war to a strategic nuclear exchange, which is already a looming threat and must be avoided at all costs. So, either this is over by late 1996 or the USSR is done.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I appreciate you weighing in and sharing your perspectives. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone else. To be clear, my goal is to try to make v1's war in Europe- as described in canon- work, as much as it can.

I get that and I hope I could be of some help.