Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
Well if was specifically to distract NATO's attention away from Central Europe.
"In late 1996, the Soviets moved against northern Norway in an attempt to score a quick victory and draw some of NATO's attention away from central Europe." (Page 11, Boomer)
So the Soviet hawks get their way to an extent, but saner elements also prevail by diverting it to NATO's northern flank and avoiding an all out war with NATO in Central Europe which they can't win.
|
Attacking a NATO nation doesn't avoid an all out war with NATO. It simply moves the focal point away from Central Europe. It doesn't mean that NATO won't also add its strength to the fighting in E. Germany. In fact, it does, starting with U.S. and British forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
If the Soviets can't defeat an unprepared China after a year of bludgeoning them across Manchuria and northern China, how are they going to defeat a better prepared and far better armed NATO in Central Europe the following year?
|
I agree that it's foolish, but that was my point. Nations sometimes do foolish things in war. This particular argument is becoming rather circular. I point out that nations don't always behave rationally and you give another example of how the Soviets don't act rationally. Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
If the Soviets are going to preserve the state of East Germany and stop German Reunification they are going to have to defeat the Bundeswehr, and that will mean pushing it back into West Germany and crossing the inter-German border.
|
No, they don't. They just have to force W. Germany to the negotiating table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
The use of tactical nuclear devices began in July. In the east they were used on a massive scale, first against Chinese military columns and then against Chinese industrial centers. In the west, they were limited at first to tactical attacks against front-line units. (Page 11 of Boomer)
Some ambiguity, but the implication is that China got wacked first.
|
I agree that it's ambiguous, but I think it's more clearly implied that it starts in Europe, since that's the first theater mentioned (in the quote I posted). If it started in China, why wasn't that the first theater mentioned? German forces setting foot on Soviet soil is clearly the trigger for the nuclear option. Why would the Soviets use nukes in China first when the existential threat is in West?
I like debate, but this is starting to seem like arguing for argument's sake. I clearly can't persuade you to accept my ideas, and I've not been swayed by yours. I guess at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In your T2KU, the Soviets allow Western access to W. Berlin after the W. German invasion. In mine, they don't.