4th ed T2K

[Raellus]

All fair points, UM. I don't disagree with your assessment. I still think NATO weakness has to be a major factor in both the Soviet's calculations vis-a-vis launching a war and in explaining their early success when it got underway.

I didn't mention this earlier but I think another contributing factor to NATO weakness in the run-up to WWIII would be internal divisions in the former East Bloc countries (and, in particular, within reunified Germany). I think that communist fifth columns in Eastern Europe would be more troublesome in v4 timeline than they were IRL. Netflix did a doc on former DDR military and Stasi antigovernment activities in the days after reunification. There's a thread on that here:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....=perfect+crime

To sum it up, I can see these efforts being much more sustained and disruptive with an extant Soviet Union (providing moral and perhaps covert material support). I can also see similar operations taking place in the other former-WTO countries.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

My biggest problem here is that as per FL's timeline, the Soviet Union attacks Poland in a similar manner as it did attack the Ukraine in 2014 or Georgia in 2008: deception, propaganda warfare, instigation of riots and then an offensive thinly veiled as peacekeeping mission. The US answer that by conducting "a broad air bombing campaign against the advancing Soviet forces with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles". That's a unilateral approach by the USA which is stupid, but plays into the hands of the USSR: Poland is backed by a US air campaign, but there are no other belligerents. Now the USSR does the most idiotic thing it could do: It rips of it carefully donned mask of "coming in peace" and strikes against US installations in Germany, Turkey and the UK, triggering NATO Article 5; mutual defense. In order for that to make sense, there must have been a plan, even if it was dumb.

To put this into perspective, this is like Germany getting away with laying hands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 (equivalent to the USSR annexing the Baltic States), then attacking Poland and when France and the UK declare war, going on a killing spree against every other nation in Europe and America, drawing everybody into a war already in 1939. Why would the USSR do that? What's the plan here? By comparison, in Red Storm Rising the USSR starts a conventional war against NATO as a feint attack to have free hands in seizing Middle-Eastern oilfields. It's not a great plan and it fails, but it's a plan.

So, why would the USSR draw NATO into a war that until then had "only" been a punitive air-campaign by the USA and a ground-warfare campaign the Soviets certainly were winning. If the USSR had wanted a surprise attack against its former Bloc allies, strategic surprise could have been achieved better before NATO got involved than afterwards. But if it was not about Central or Eastern Europe, what is the goal of this war? A Clancyesque war for oil? Plundering Europe for revenue? Defense under the impression of an imminent attack?

I think that question needs an answer, before we can ask what went wrong on both sides. The question of the weakness of NATO is important, but it is likely connected to the reason of the war.

I agree with you that there's definitely something missing, as far as explanation goes. I have a hard time reconciling what v4 presents with real-world geo-political and military strategic considerations. I can't really explain it, but I'll try.

I did read the Soviet invasion of Poland as a fait accompli for a general offensive aimed at reconquering most, if not all, of the former WTO nations. In other words, the Soviets were planning on restoring a buffer between itself and the pre-'91 NATO nations by regaining control of the former WTO countries. The offensive's strategic objective was to do so, although its publicly stated objective was to save the Polish people from an oppressive military regime.

Maybe the Soviets didn't expect much resistance, given what happened in the Baltics (I have a hard time buying the tiny, poorly armed Baltics being allowed to break away in the first place). Maybe they figured that NATO wouldn't go to war to protect Poland, much like Britain and France didn't really go to war with Nazi Germany in 1939 (i.e. the Phony War/"Sitzkrieg").

Maybe the US airstrikes were too effective to be ignored and the Soviets were faced with the decision of calling off the offensive or starting the next, general offensive vs. NATO phase early?

I still very much prefer the v1 timeline, but I like trying to make things work, so this a fun thought exercise for me.

-