Berlin in 1996

[Jason Weiser]

That's kind of why I think if anything...the Stasi HAD to be in on the coup..now, that said..there might have been a falling out between them and the Army later..but, initially, the Stasi had to be in on it, or any coup was doomed to fail.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I am inclined to agree with you Jason. The Stasi had a massive apparatus in place to collect information, I just can't imagine them missing something like the coup.
Whether it was a case of high ranking Stasi telling the lower ranks to "just go along with it" or whether the lower ranks performed their own coup and kept the higher ranks uninformed could make for a whole other discussion but regardless of who played what part, as mentioned, I cannot see the Stasi not knowing something about the coup and taking some part (either by participation or by not actively opposing it).

[James Langham2]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

That's kind of why I think if anything...the Stasi HAD to be in on the coup..now, that said..there might have been a falling out between them and the Army later..but, initially, the Stasi had to be in on it, or any coup was doomed to fail.

An alternative may be a vast disinformation campaign so the truth was hidden following Churchill's maxim

[Raellus]

Here are some possible explanations for the Stasi's inability to detect the "invasion", or convince the Soviets that it's coming.

1. They've shifted focus to the Far East. Perhaps the Stasi that count have been reassigned to monitor the Chinese diplomatic corps in Europe. It would be quite a stretch for them, as I'm sure language would be a barrier. A good chunk of the KGB and GRU would also have shifted their focus to the situation in the Far East.

2. The Soviets don't believe Stasi reports of an impending W. German invasion. Perhaps they believe that the Stasi is simply acting in concert with the civilian gov't of the DDR to forestall sending yet more NVA units to China. Canon's pretty clear that WARPACT governments are not happy with repeated requests for more military manpower. Perhaps the Soviets see reports of a coming West German invasion as a foot-dragging technique to avoid making more "contributions" to the fighting in the Far East.

3. Key Stasi have been turned by Western Intelligence. Perhaps they're contradicting or burying reports of the impending invasion. Disinformation spread via double-agents would also contribute to #2.

A combination of all of the above scenarios is the most plausible explanation for why the Soviets are caught flat-footed, IMO.

[Raellus]

I don't buy the idea of an air corridor to W. Berlin remaining open after fighting kicks off between the Bundeswehr and the GoSFiG. The fog-of-war would be so thick, you could cut it with a knife, and "accidents" would be unavoidable- inevitable even. Both sides would know this. I imagine W. Berlin would be placed in a de-facto stage of siege as soon as Bundeswehr forces cross the border into the DDR. Sure, the Soviet Union wouldn't be keen on provoking the rest of NATO into joining the fight, but I just don't see them being willing to allow air traffic from the West unimpeded access to East German territory. The Soviets would be too rattled- paranoia isn't paranoia when the fear is substantiated- by the clear and present danger of losing its western buffer to an aggressive, potentially united Germany (1941, anyone?). Sure, they'd warn off the West in the most unambiguous of terms and, unlike 1948, I think they'd back their threats with deadly force (the Soviets didn't have an operational nuclear deterrent in '48; in '96, they would, and it would be massive). The Stavka would remember Stalin's mistake of writing off reports that Barbarossa was underway, and instructing border troops not to fight back in fear of "provoking" Hitler. I think a hard-line, military backed Politburo would draw a line in the sand, and prepare for the worst. With a war well underway in the Far East and a war flaring up in central Europe, the Soviets would not be willing to show weakness.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't buy the idea of an air corridor to W. Berlin remaining open after fighting kicks off between the Bundeswehr and the GoSFiG. The fog-of-war would be so thick, you could cut it with a knife, and "accidents" would be unavoidable- inevitable even. Both sides would know this. I imagine W. Berlin would be placed in a de-facto stage of siege as soon as Bundeswehr forces cross the border into the DDR. Sure, the Soviet Union wouldn't be keen on provoking the rest of NATO into joining the fight, but I just don't see them being willing to allow air traffic from the West unimpeded access to East German territory. The Soviets would be too rattled- paranoia isn't paranoia when the fear is substantiated- by the clear and present danger of losing its western buffer to an aggressive, potentially united Germany (1941, anyone?). Sure, they'd warn off the West in the most unambiguous of terms and, unlike 1948, I think they'd back their threats with deadly force (the Soviets didn't have an operational nuclear deterrent in '48; in '96, they would, and it would be massive). The Stavka would remember Stalin's mistake of writing off reports that Barbarossa was underway, and instructing border troops not to fight back in fear of "provoking" Hitler. I think a hard-line, military backed Politburo would draw a line in the sand, and prepare for the worst. With a war well underway in the Far East and a war flaring up in central Europe, the Soviets would not be willing to show weakness.

I agree somewhat with you. The Politburo is backed into a corner, but it is one of their own making..and they need to find a way out. I am sure there was already multiple feelers sent out to semi-sympathetic Western nations (Italy and Greece come to mind) to mediate a end to the fighting in China before the '96 offensive. By the time October 1996 rolls around, the Soviets are in a corner. But they aren't dumb.

One, they cannot simply nuke somebody into compliance, NATO has the means to retaliate, swiftly, and it would paradoxically, demonstrate they are now conventionally speaking, weak on the ground.

Two, as much as some elements in the Politburo want to show the West that the Bear still has his claws, there are others who want to get the hell off the tiger they now find themselves on. Thus, a flurry of contradictory orders are going to come out of the Defense Council from Moscow..blockade Berlin, don't blockade Berlin..hell GSFG might get ten different orders on that in a day, and now that it's short an entire Combined Arms Army, as well as significant air assets? Might not be the time to pick a fight with NATO. I don't think the Soviets would go much further than '48 for that reason. Might there be an incident or two? Yes. But they are going to be very careful about that. Suppose the Soviets shoot down an American C-141 leaving Templehof with American military dependents on board because they wanted to make a point? That will not go over well, and the Soviets strike me as pragmatists. Don't buy more trouble when you have enough already is probably the predominant thinking in the Kremlin.

Three, I would state 3 is the most likely thing. It would make the most sense and explains how the Stasi are "in" on the coup. Now, granted, the West Germans and the East German army do not trust them at all, and I am sure more than a few are later liquidated, but that said, the fact remains..the Stasi was ever present in East Germany, for the East German army to have simply remained in barracks when the Bundeswehr came calling? That suggests preparation and coordination of some sort, at the highest levels for it to be army-wide. No way the Stasi would not get wind of that. Unless somebody in the Stasi buried it.

Four, considering the plans and responsibility for reducing West Berlin in case of war was primarily a job for the East Germans, and the East Germans have now thrown in their lot with the enemy, where are the Soviets going to get the troops to throw up a proper cordon around West Berlin? The Soviets need every soldier they have to hold off the Bundeswehr. Maybe when the Poles and Czechs show up, they can take that responsibility, but that will take time.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't buy the idea of an air corridor to W. Berlin remaining open after fighting kicks off between the Bundeswehr and the GoSFiG. The fog-of-war would be so thick, you could cut it with a knife, and "accidents" would be unavoidable- inevitable even. Both sides would know this. I imagine W. Berlin would be placed in a de-facto stage of siege as soon as Bundeswehr forces cross the border into the DDR. Sure, the Soviet Union wouldn't be keen on provoking the rest of NATO into joining the fight, but I just don't see them being willing to allow air traffic from the West unimpeded access to East German territory. The Soviets would be too rattled- paranoia isn't paranoia when the fear is substantiated- by the clear and present danger of losing its western buffer to an aggressive, potentially united Germany (1941, anyone?). Sure, they'd warn off the West in the most unambiguous of terms and, unlike 1948, I think they'd back their threats with deadly force (the Soviets didn't have an operational nuclear deterrent in '48; in '96, they would, and it would be massive). The Stavka would remember Stalin's mistake of writing off reports that Barbarossa was underway, and instructing border troops not to fight back in fear of "provoking" Hitler. I think a hard-line, military backed Politburo would draw a line in the sand, and prepare for the worst. With a war well underway in the Far East and a war flaring up in central Europe, the Soviets would not be willing to show weakness.

I wouldn't be proposing open air corridor to West Berlin, just the likely possibility that the US, Britain and France will insist that aid and supplies be allowed to their troops and civilian in West Berlin, and the civilian population of West Berlin on certain dates and times. The Germans are not going to interfere and there is no East German air force left to speak of, so the problem will be the Soviets.

Looking at the Soviet position. They are fighting a costly war in China against five million plus Chinese troops who are now being armed by the West and causing all sorts of problems for the Soviet military and logistics chain. Closer to home in Europe they are no fighting the potentially more dangerous one million plus German army who is better armed and trained than their own army. Shoot down a USAF or RAF transport plane carrying supplies or evacuating civilians from West Berlin, and there is a strong possibility that the Soviets will soon be also fighting another couple of million Western troops in Europe, backed by 20,000 tanks, 5,000 combat aircraft and a few thousand nuclear weapons.

[Raellus]

I see this as more likely:

The Soviets offer to evac Western personnel from W. Berlin- civilian and military. They also announce that anyone who elects to stay behind is taking his/her life into their own hands, as the Soviets cannot/will not acknowledge responsibility for their well-being. They also offer to provide basic humanitarian supplies (food, water, medical) to those who elect to remain, but they make it clear that the "roads" to Berlin are closed.

Y'all make some good points about just how dire the straits the Soviets are in and I agree that the Soviets don't want the rest of NATO to join in on the fun at the frontier. I just don't see the Soviets allowing Western traffic through an active war-zone during a full-blown shooting war. I'm hard pressed to come up with another example of "neutrals" being allowed safe passage through an active war-zone during a modern war. Was the Suez canal open during the 6-Day War or Yom Kippur wars? Look what happened to that Malayan airliner over Ukraine a couple of years ago- and that was through a designated "safe" air corridor over a "low intensity" conflict zone!

And who are we kidding? With the West actively supporting the Chinese in their war against the USSR, there are no neutrals, really. The Soviets would already be pissed about that and I'm sure there would already have been incidents where Western-flagged merchantmen on their way to China had been sunk by Red Fleet commerce raiders. Tension would already be incredibly high. I just don't see a riled up, backed-into-a-corner Stavka/Politburo being OK with U.S./British/French aircraft flying across the contested frontier and landing in Berlin. What if "relief" flights actually include reinforcements? That paranoia would be there.

And would the West be willing to push an aggressively pro-W. Germany agenda in Europe? It's brinksmanship all around. If the West insists on supplying W. Berlin, it's provocative. If the Soviets declare a land/air blockade, it's provocative. The Soviets have an incentive to de-escalate but we also know that the rest of NATO is extremely reluctant to go to war on behalf of W. Germany. I mean, some of NATO quits over this. Is the U.S., as the helmsman of NATO, going to push an action that could lead to an escalation? I guess it all depends on whether the gov't. is hawkish or not. From canon, it's hard to tell. But canon seems to suggest that the Soviet gov't. is quite hawkish. Does that change between '95 and forced reunification?

And, as a fait accompli, we know from canon that the Soviets were willing to use nukes, and use them first, on both fronts. Therefore, I don't think it's outlandish that the Soviets draw that proverbial line in the sand. You shall not pass! (into W. Berlin).

[Adm.Lee]

My best friend from high school was in the Berlin Brigade, '88-92. He told me the Berlin police were curiously heavily armed, having rifles and AT weapons, almost like light infantry.

On top of that, West Germany had 3 airborne brigades. If one is fighting defensively, what good are those? Fighting in an urban area behind enemy lines, that's more like their style. No idea if that was true, but that's what this wargamer often did. FWIW, I almost always bypassed West Berlin when I played the Pact, leaving the ugly fighting to the Polish armies coming up on mid-game turns.

So, yeah, I agree that the Stasi had to have been in on the unification; the Soviets in and around Berlin had much bigger fish to fry when the West Germans crossed the border and the East Germans flipped sides. I'd have to check, but wouldn't the SGFG now be outnumbered?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I see this as more likely:

The Soviets offer to evac Western personnel from W. Berlin- civilian and military. They also announce that anyone who elects to stay behind is taking his/her life into their own hands, as the Soviets cannot/will not acknowledge responsibility for their well-being. They also offer to provide basic humanitarian supplies (food, water, medical) to those who elect to remain, but they make it clear that the "roads" to Berlin are closed.

West Berlin is under Allied administration not German, and no NATO power is helping the Germans in East Germany and in fact many are condemning it including France. Also the Soviets are assisting their ally East Germany in resisting a West German invasion, not a NATO invasion. The Allied garrison in West Berlin is separate from West German forces. If they do the above which is to all intensive purpose an ultimatum to evacuate West Berlin or else, then the US and the rest of NATO (which means Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Turkey), but also France will support Germany and send their forces into East Germany.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Y'all make some good points about just how dire the straits the Soviets are in and I agree that the Soviets don't want the rest of NATO to join in on the fun at the frontier. I just don't see the Soviets allowing Western traffic through an active war-zone during a full-blown shooting war. I'm hard pressed to come up with another example of "neutrals" being allowed safe passage through an active war-zone during a modern war. Was the Suez canal open during the 6-Day War or Yom Kippur wars? Look what happened to that Malayan airliner over Ukraine a couple of years ago- and that was through a designated "safe" air corridor over a "low intensity" conflict zone!




And who are we kidding? With the West actively supporting the Chinese in their war against the USSR, there are no neutrals, really. The Soviets would already be pissed about that and I'm sure there would already have been incidents where Western-flagged merchantmen on their way to China had been sunk by Red Fleet commerce raiders. Tension would already be incredibly high. I just don't see a riled up, backed-into-a-corner Stavka/Politburo being OK with U.S./British/French aircraft flying across the contested frontier and landing in Berlin. What if "relief" flights actually include reinforcements? That paranoia would be there.

The situation of Berlin in 1996 is unique, but there are other examples of flights into war zones or through hostile territory. The original Berlin Airlift itself in 1948. Operation Frequent Wind which evacuated Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, the evacuation of one million Portuguese from Angola and Mozambique in the 1970's, and the 1990 airlift of 110,000 Indians from Kuwait City during the First Gulf War. The political and strategic position of Berlin in German Reunification is obviously quite different to those airlifts, but West Berlin is under the administration of three nuclear powers who if they intervene on the side of Germany will radically change the Soviets defence position for the worst. The Soviets quite frankly do not have the resources and manpower to take on so many powerful countries in Europe and also fight a war in China. The Soviet Union would be reckless in the extreme to provoke the US, Britain and France by issuing ultimatums.

Originally Posted by Raellus

And would the West be willing to push an aggressively pro-W. Germany agenda in Europe? It's brinksmanship all around. If the West insists on supplying W. Berlin, it's provocative. If the Soviets declare a land/air blockade, it's provocative. The Soviets have an incentive to de-escalate but we also know that the rest of NATO is extremely reluctant to go to war on behalf of W. Germany. I mean, some of NATO quits over this. Is the U.S., as the helmsman of NATO, going to push an action that could lead to an escalation? I guess it all depends on whether the gov't. is hawkish or not. From canon, it's hard to tell. But canon seems to suggest that the Soviet gov't. is quite hawkish. Does that change between '95 and forced reunification?.

The West is not pushing a pro-West German agenda in Europe, they like the Soviets are shell shocked by events in Germany. But its also quite clear that German Reunification is not solely a West German affair as the East Germans are also in on it. So we have a situation from October until the beginning of December were the both NATO and the Soviet Union are trying to contain the issue of German reunification without being dragged into a general war in Central Europe over it. But its also clear that their are divisions within Germany, NATO and the Warsaw Pact strategy. All sides seem to want to avoid a war in Central Europe, but certain actions by all concerned indicate that some do not want to compromise and want a war.

NATO continues to defend West German territory and airspace despite the Germans fighting the Soviets in East Germany, and by November they start to shoot down incoming Soviet raids on West German territory. In November the Soviets send the Czech and Polish armies into East Germany which will rub NATO's nose in it as half of NATO's members don't want to get involved. Then the Luftwaffe starts to attack Warsaw Pact bases in Poland, and the Soviets invade northern Norway to divert NATO's attention from Germany. By December the US, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Turkey support Germany, but Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain declare their neutrality and France and Belgium pull out of NATO (the Atlantic Alliance in France's case). Romania also refuses to support the Warsaw Pact military operations in Europe leading to an invasion by the Soviets, Bulgarians and Hungarians. Turkey then invades Bulgaria and starts fighting the Greeks, and neutral but communist Yugoslavia supports Romania. At the end of the year the Soviets pull off another master stroke and launch and invasion of Iran!!!

Strategies all over the place and reckless to the extreme. But in regards to West Berlin some aid flights into early November before it all starts going to hell and then nothing until NATO takes Berlin at the end of December.

Originally Posted by Raellus

And, as a fait accompli, we know from canon that the Soviets were willing to use nukes, and use them first, on both fronts. Therefore, I don't think it's outlandish that the Soviets draw that proverbial line in the sand. You shall not pass! (into W. Berlin).

They didn't use nukes until the late summer of 1997, and that was firstly in China when the could see the writing was on the wall.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Here are some possible explanations for the Stasi's inability to detect the "invasion", or convince the Soviets that it's coming.

1. They've shifted focus to the Far East. Perhaps the Stasi that count have been reassigned to monitor the Chinese diplomatic corps in Europe. It would be quite a stretch for them, as I'm sure language would be a barrier. A good chunk of the KGB and GRU would also have shifted their focus to the situation in the Far East.

2. The Soviets don't believe Stasi reports of an impending W. German invasion. Perhaps they believe that the Stasi is simply acting in concert with the civilian gov't of the DDR to forestall sending yet more NVA units to China. Canon's pretty clear that WARPACT governments are not happy with repeated requests for more military manpower. Perhaps the Soviets see reports of a coming West German invasion as a foot-dragging technique to avoid making more "contributions" to the fighting in the Far East.

3. Key Stasi have been turned by Western Intelligence. Perhaps they're contradicting or burying reports of the impending invasion. Disinformation spread via double-agents would also contribute to #2.

A combination of all of the above scenarios is the most plausible explanation for why the Soviets are caught flat-footed, IMO.

I read somewhere (I think in a 2300AD article) that rumours about the Germans planning a reunification were known to Western intelligence agencies well in advance of the event. But nobody took it seriously and no evidence ever surfaced to implicate the Germans. Turning back the clock to this period and the idea that the Germans would unilaterally unite by themselves under the noses of NATO and the Warsaw Pact would be considered preposterous. It seems the diversion of the warfare in China and other international Super-Power tension gave them the chance to do it.