Berlin in 1996

[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.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

1948 didn't involve any shooting. The other examples that you cited (barring Kuwait) are mismatches where the forces controlling the ground were unable to significantly impede operations; those mounting the evacuations had air superiority (or supremacy even). Neither of those caveats would apply in East Germany, c. '95.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Quite right. I don't contest the validity of these points, I just disagree about how the Soviets would approach the situation.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

A very valid point. In fact, this argument swayed me a little.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

And this is what I was contending in my previous post. The more hawkish elements in the Soviet high command would likely oppose any airlift or resupply missions, fearing such operations were actually Trojan Horse-style ruses to reinforce the W. Berlin garrison or facilitate the W. German offensive in E. Germany.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.
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.

Right. So if NATO is willing to shoot down Soviet combat aircraft over W. Germany, the Soviets wouldn't respond in kind? That's a really big reach, in my opinion.

I agree that the Soviets wouldn't want to provoke the rest of NATO into joining the fracas, but would they be willing to project weakness by allowing NATO aircraft to operate over E. Germany? What's the realpolitik response? Once again, it depends on leadership. If you see the Soviets as cautious, prudent, and pragmatic, then I guess it makes sense for them to allow NATO continued access to W. Berlin. I see the Soviets taking the opposite tack, though, trying to convey strength and resolve. It's essentially a game of double-bluff.

In my T2KU, the Soviets were tired of losing these tests of will- Berlin '48, the October Crisis (what we call the Cuban Missile Crisis). In fact, as I see it, the hawks in the Politburo are arguing that it's precisely the Soviet responses to those past crises that have emboldened the W. Germans, and that further displays of weakness will only worsen the situation.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

I know this, and actually I think canon says that they used them in Europe first, albeit sparingly, then far more liberally in China. I could be wrong, though (I'm on my 30 min lunch break at work and can't access my rulebook). Either way, the Soviets were willing to use tac-nukes. "When" does matter, but they clearly had the will. It's the difference between pointing a gun at someone and actually pulling the trigger. The Soviets pulled the trigger first, so to speak. They had the will, as well as the way. That suggests to me a mindset where defeat/surrender were not an option- a more hawkish mindset, if you will.

I think that you're presupposing a very rational Soviet leadership. I see quite a bit of evidence in canon that the Soviet gov't. and military were not thinking or acting in a particularly rational way (launching a full scale invasion of China, for example). Given that, my views on Berlin make sense.

I respect your opinions- they're rational and well-supported- and I'm not trying to impose mine on anyone. That said, I wouldn't argue this if I didn't think that my POV was justified by the available evidence. I'm totally cool with continuing a cordial, respectful debate here, and I'm equally cool with just agreeing to disagree.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

1948 didn't involve any shooting. The other examples that you cited (barring Kuwait) are mismatches where the forces controlling the ground were unable to significantly impede operations; those mounting the evacuations had air superiority (or supremacy even). Neither of those caveats would apply in East Germany, c. '95.

The Soviets did everything in their power to prevent the Berlin Airlift from succeeding in 1948. No shooting but plenty of harassment, including buzzing the transports, obstructive parachute jumps within the air corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night. Also reportedly flak, air-to-air fire, rocketing, bombing, and explosions. But no shooting!!!

But the political situation of Berlin is unique I think, no real parallel to compare with in history but also nowhere else in the world were the stakes are so high. During Operation Frequent Wind the North Vietnamese could certainly have caused a lot of trouble for the US evacuating Saigon. Maybe the situation in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could be similar, surrounded by hostile Cuba but America still keeps its base and dares Cuba to stop it from maintaining it.

Originally Posted by Raellus

And this is what I was contending in my previous post. The more hawkish elements in the Soviet high command would likely oppose any airlift or resupply missions, fearing such operations were actually Trojan Horse-style ruses to reinforce the W. Berlin garrison or facilitate the W. German offensive in E. Germany.

This would have also have been the Soviet position about West Berlin in 1948 and now its 1996! Also there is only so much that you can transport by air into West Berlin, you wont be able to sneak in an armoured division under the noses of the Soviets. In fact there is not even any airforce in the city other than a few helicopters.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Right. So if NATO is willing to shoot down Soviet combat aircraft over W. Germany, the Soviets wouldn't respond in kind? That's a really big reach, in my opinion.

They did respond, they invaded Norway!

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree that the Soviets wouldn't want to provoke the rest of NATO into joining the fracas, but would they be willing to project weakness by allowing NATO aircraft to operate over E. Germany?

Strictly speaking its not NATO aircraft, its aircraft of the Western Allies of WW2 who were once Soviet allies. And we are not talking about combat aircraft, we are talking about transports or more likely commercial airliners.

Originally Posted by Raellus

What's the realpolitik response? Once again, it depends on leadership. If you see the Soviets as cautious, prudent, and pragmatic, then I guess it makes sense for them to allow NATO continued access to W. Berlin. I see the Soviets taking the opposite tack, though, trying to convey strength and resolve. It's essentially a game of double-bluff.

They acted though and tried to convey strength and resolve by invading China. How did that work out for them?

Originally Posted by Raellus

In my T2KU, the Soviets were tired of losing these tests of will- Berlin '48, the October Crisis (what we call the Cuban Missile Crisis). In fact, as I see it, the hawks in the Politburo are arguing that it's precisely the Soviet responses to those past crises that have emboldened the W. Germans, and that further displays of weakness will only worsen the situation.

I think that you're presupposing a very rational Soviet leadership. I see quite a bit of evidence in canon that the Soviet gov't. and military were not thinking or acting in a particularly rational way (launching a full scale invasion of China, for example). Given that, my views on Berlin make sense.

Yet the Soviet Army never crossed the inter-German border into West Germany. In fact it is NATO who crosses into East Germany in December and starts a full scale war in Central Europe.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I know this, and actually I think canon says that they used them in Europe first, albeit sparingly, then far more liberally in China. I could be wrong

I though it was in China first and then used in Poland against NATO. Not quite sure at this moment, as I haven't gone through the books and looked it up.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I respect your opinions- they're rational and well-supported- and I'm not trying to impose mine on anyone. That said, I wouldn't argue this if I didn't think that my POV was justified by the available evidence. I'm totally cool with continuing a cordial, respectful debate here, and I'm equally cool with just agreeing to disagree.

No bother.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

They did respond, they invaded Norway!

Exactly. It kind of proves my point by refuting your assertions that the Soviets would have gone to great lengths to avoid a war with NATO. Attacking a NATO nation not already involved in the war in Germany would be the ultimate provocation.

Originally Posted by RN7

Strictly speaking its not NATO aircraft, its aircraft of the Western Allies of WW2 who were once Soviet allies. And we are not talking about combat aircraft, we are talking about transports or more likely commercial airliners.

IIRC, Soviet Spetsnaz used civie airliners during their coup-de-main in Kabul, 1979. Just because it's a United 747 doesn't mean it can't be full of troops.

Originally Posted by RN7

They acted though and tried to convey strength and resolve by invading China. How did that work out for them?

Granted, not so well. But there's plenty of historical precedence for governments reinforcing failure, or making the same mistakes multiple times. Hitler, a most infamous example, was a master of both.

Originally Posted by RN7

Yet the Soviet Army never crossed the inter-German border into West Germany. In fact it is NATO who crosses into East Germany in December and starts a full scale war in Central Europe.

That's a bit of a straw man argument because I've never suggested that the Soviets would attempt to cross the inter-German border.

Originally Posted by RN7

I though it was in China first and then used in Poland against NATO. Not quite sure at this moment, as I haven't gone through the books and looked it up.

"On July 9th, with advanced elements of 1st German army on Soviet soil, the Red Army began using tactical nuclear weapons." (page 25 of the v1 Referee's Manual)

Han shot first.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Exactly. It kind of proves my point by refuting your assertions that the Soviets would have gone to great lengths to avoid a war with NATO. Attacking a NATO nation not already involved in the war in Germany would be the ultimate provocation.

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.

Originally Posted by Raellus

IIRC, Soviet Spetsnaz used civie airliners during their coup-de-main in Kabul, 1979. Just because it's a United 747 doesn't mean it can't be full of troops.

That is a good example, but its also an example of how the Soviets prepared for a surprise invasion of Afghanistan. West Berlin would hardly be a surprise to anyone. There are already 10,000 Western troops in West Berlin they have been there since the late 1940's, and the composition of the Berlin garrisons have hardly changed in all of those 50 years.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Granted, not so well. But there's plenty of historical precedence for governments reinforcing failure, or making the same mistakes multiple times. Hitler, a most infamous example, was a master of both.

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?

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's a bit of a straw man argument because I've never suggested that the Soviets would attempt to cross the inter-German border.

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.

Originally Posted by Raellus

"On July 9th, with advanced elements of 1st German army on Soviet soil, the Red Army began using tactical nuclear weapons." (page 25 of the v1 Referee's Manual)

Han shot first.

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.

[Raellus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

NATO has no forces in East Germany (excluding West Berlin) until December 1996.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

There are a lot of things about Twilight 2000 that are irrational!

Originally Posted by Raellus

No, they don't. They just have to force W. Germany to the negotiating table.

They will have to defeat them which means pushing them back into West Germany to do that.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

Alright Raellus.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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?

More ambiguity, or maybe not.

From UK Sourcebook, Page 8:

"In mid-July in the Far East, the Chinese launched a major offensive in the summer. At this time, the Sino-Soviet nuclear exchange began, and the division took heavy losses from several tactical nuclear strikes."

" By the end of September, NATO began to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets. The Soviets replied by using their own nuclear weapons."