On V.1 Background: Germany and the Bundeswehr in the Eighties

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unipus

I just think there's a lot of reasons realistic and otherwise why "Germans start WW3" is an inherently silly place to start from.

Well, when you put it that way, yeah, it is.

I don't think that's really what GDW was going for in v1. That's certainly not what I've been arguing for. Technically, the USSR had already started WW3 over in Asia. In v1 the West German military saw an opportunity to reunify the two Germanies and they took it. They're not portrayed as warmongers, I don't think. They're portrayed as patriotic opportunists who were egged on by counterparts in the NVA. It's more that they made two fatal miscalculations. One, they underestimated the USSR's resolve to maintain its grip on the DDR and two, they underestimated the USSR's ability to fight a two front war (they probably assume that the Soviets were overcommitted in China).

So, perhaps v1's Germany scenario doesn't work as written.

How about Berlin as a flashpoint? It's got NATO and PACT forces in close proximity. We know from RL that many people in East Berlin wanted out. There've been major Cold War crises there before.

-

[Raellus]

Two more questions for my German friends:

Given the points you've made about West German mindset, politics, and the mission of the Bundeswehr, do you see German forces operating on foreign soil (say, during a counteroffensive into Poland for example)?

I don't think it's too OT to ask how you view Germany's treatment in the v2 timeline? Is it any better? Worse? Looking at it again today- given what I've learned from this thread over the past few days- it seems problematic as well.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Two more questions for my German friends:

Given the points you've made about West German mindset, politics, and the mission of the Bundeswehr, do you see German forces operating on foreign soil (say, during a counteroffensive into Poland for example)?

I don't think it's too OT to ask how you view Germany's treatment in the v2 timeline? Is it any better? Worse? Looking at it again today- given what I've learned from this thread over the past few days- it seems problematic as well.

-

I have to read v.2 again and will share my thoughts later. I think Germany would follow its obligations to NATO in the event of a war. We were on board with Afghanistan from day 1 and we'll leave close to last this year. It won't be easy for the government to sell a full war, but once the Soviets bomb Germany, it's a very different game. There would probably still be large pacifist demonstrations, though. Even today many defend Russia's invasion of Crimea and otehr policies, plus I would expect the USSR to go full hybrid and propaganda warfare on Germany. Taking Germany of the war would be the end for all NATO logistics, so it's worth almost every investment.

But as I said, attacking German soil will set the machinery into motion and once the federal government takes full control, calls up reservists and starts handing out checks like candy to keep the war going, there will be enormous pressure to follow along, condemn the Soviets and take up arms. I could even see peace protestors getting lynched or rightwing terrorists start hunting Soviet sympathizers (i. e. the notorious Red Army Faction). From what we learned during the last years and various political scandals, rightwing terrorists and German internal intelligence services had a few cozy relationships for decades, so I could see some of these rightwing terrorists getting tipped off about leftwing terrorists, leading to hunting parties and something akin to gang warfare, even before the state's monopoly on violence visibly softens up after the nukes hit and the army conscripts police officers etc.

[unipus]

I mean that's all basically Operation Gladio.

As you said, the Soviets are well aware of the logistical importance of Germany in all things. So is the CIA.

[Ursus Maior]

It goes far beyond Operation Gladio or its national equivalents. The West German security apparatus was rebuild from the part of Nazi Germany's intelligence community that specialized on the USSR (Abteilung Fremde Heere Ost, transl. Department Foreign Armies East), for obvious reasons. It turned out that looking at counter-intelligence within your own population from the perspective of fascist extermination warfare does something to your ability to foster a liberal democracy, even 50-70 years later. Let's just say, no other extremist group has been paid in cash by these agencies or committed murder against civilians with intelligence agents sitting in the next room.

[Raellus]

Forgive me- I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything- but something that you posted in another thread compels me to circle back to the concept of Germany as a possible flashpoint for WW3 in Europe, or, more to the point, your insistence that such a scenario is too unrealistic to suspend disbelief.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

I always liked the premise of the novel Arc Light by Eric L. Harry. Essentially (quoting Wikipedia), "China and Russia clash in Siberia, and war brews between the United States and North Korea, a series of accidents and misunderstandings lead to a Russian nuclear strike against the United States. The U.S. retaliates against Russia, and World War III begins." This could easily happen in a timeline, where the USSR would still be around. In essence, the USSR/Russia and the USA need to be committed elsewhere, i. e. the Pacific, so that a crisis in Europe can overstretch ressources and overload capacities to acurately assess the situation. Errors and bad decisions have to be made.

You've stridently contended that the Germanies (W. Germany, in particular) would not make "errors and bad decisions" leading to a shooting war in Europe. You've stated that 20th century German history, and post-WW2 politics and society especially, render such an event almost unthinkable, or at least highly implausible. Fair enough.

On the other hand, you seem totally comfortable with the premise that USSR and USA would make such massive errors and bad decisions that nuclear strikes against each other would follow. Apparently, that is somehow much more plausible, in your mind, than a German origination of any fighting in Europe. Fair enough but, with all due respect, this seems to me like a double-standard.

Since Nagasaki, no nation has willingly or accidentally used nuclear weapons against another- this despite numerous misunderstandings. When MacArthur advocated using nuclear weapons against the Chinese after their "surprise" intervention in Korea, Truman fired him (there were other reasons, but that was the final straw). When Soviet early warning systems an American ICBM launch in 1983 (multiple times!), Stanislav Petrov did not launch a counterstrike. Even during the Cuban Missile crisis, when both Kennedy and Khrushchev were being encouraged by their top military advisors to launch a preemptive first strike on their respective national rivals (and Khrushchev was being egged on by his ally, Castro), neither leader did so. There have also been numerous occasions during the Cold War when either the USA or USSR were preoccupied with major military misadventures outside of Europe (Korea/Vietnam and Afghanistan, respectively, all of which, to one degree or another, was a proxy war between the superpowers), yet didn't come to blows. Both the USA and Soviet Union were familiar with the concept of MAD. Launching even a limited first strike with strategic nuclear weapons would open the door for massive retaliation. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, the only way to win a nuclear war is not to play the game. So are Russians and American people, governments, and militaries just that much more bellicose, reckless, and/or prone to human error than their German counterparts?

I don't think I'm being jingoistic here. I don't have a problem with a T2k background where the USA starts or escalates a global war. I don't see that as beyond the realm of possibility at all. But I could raise the same points about precedent, constitutional law, governmental checks and balances, and the USA's own peace and anti-nuke movements, if I chose to argue against an American fulcrum for WW3. Heck, I could make a compelling socio-cultural arguments for the USSR, an oppressive one-party state. The Soviets lost over 20,000,000 people killed during WW2. Twenty million (at least)! Is a country that suffered 20m dead in the last major war going to start another major war with a peer (i.e. the USA), much less a nuclear-armed one? (Although the PLA had nukes in 1995, their capacity to deliver them was much less than it is today, nor did they have near as many as the USA; a well-planned first strike by the USSR could effectively destroy the PLA's ability to retaliate massively; this was not the case with the USA.). The Soviets would know just about better than anyone the cost of fighting a large-scale war, let alone a nuclear one. This made them less likely to start one, rather than more.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinions, and I'm not arguing that you're wrong. Nor do I hope to change your mind. That being said, for some reason, double-standards bother me a lot, and I felt compelled to point out what I see as a rather significant one (i.e. W. Germany c.1995 was essentially incapable of actions which could start a war, whereas the USSR and USA were not only fully capable of such actions, but also much more likely to take them).

P.S. Did you get a chance to take another look at v2.2's take on Germany yet? I'm still really curious about your thoughts on it.

-

[B.T.]

Fair points, Raellus. From my personal point of view, the main points regarding Germany (espacially West-Germany) are the following:
1. German politicians are not better or worse than politicians of other countries. Off course, they make errors or/and take stupid decisions. But the legal situation is the main argument against a hot war, started by German forces: The German Bundeswehr had no possibilities to start a war without the allies (and the most important ally was the US) knowing about that fact. The whole command structure of the Bundeswehr was subordinated to NATO. From a legal PoV, there was no chance for any large scale operation.
2. The fear of the Soviet military power was large. The Bundeswehr was viewed upon as an interim solution in case of an attack on Germany/NATO territory.

Furthermore the Bundeswehr had no nuclear missiles. The few nuclear ammunitions, that could be used by German forces, were under direct control of NATO partners - as far as I know. If you have other information, please let me know.

If it seems, that some of us German posters try to say, German politicians don't make mistakes, this seems to be a kind of misunderstanding: The German forces were in reality not capable to start a hot war in Europe.

If anyone wants the story to go in a different direction, he can do that. But from a German point of view this is unbelievable.

For the other question: Although the background story of ver2.n (IIRC there are differences between both versions, I play ver2.2 and have no access to the ver2 books right now.) is still a little strange, compared with reality, I for myself can live with that idea. In the end, "it's a freaking game, people"

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Interesting points there. I'm a whole mess of things including German but I have German ancestors who came from all over the place, My maternal grandmother's side was from the Munich area and my maternal grandfather, the Rhineland from the Landau area along with Alsacian side as well. Many of those actually originated in Zurich Switzerland. Of those ancestors, my 5th great grandfather came over with his mother from Landau to settle in Lancaster County, PA and join the American Revolution, the commander was General George Washington. Later on, he was the second White settler in Mercer County, PA. His father and baby brother died on the way over to America. I downloaded a book from 1906 about their story in America up to that time. A lot of the smaller German states have changed hands in time. If I go back further like the 1200's, I also have a long line of Jewish Rabbis in my background who suffered persecution back then.