v1 Background: Where/How Should the War Start in Europe?

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Louied

Pulled from the archives…….
IMHO Webstral did an excellent job laying a entirely believable prologue to T2K

https://forum.juhlin.com/attachment....1&d=1613321392

Ursus Major, thoughts from your experience/knowledge base?

This is certainly a massive prologue encompassing many, well laid out thoughts and minute detail. Forgive me for not giving it a full study, at 81 pages, it will be moved onto my to-read-list for the summer (hopefully).

From what I read so far, the author keeps the coup d'état, which I think is a smart move, and the Sino-Soviet War as well. I like the latter to, since it gives credibility to many options for Europe: A weakened USSR allows room for several flashpoints across Europe with various involvments of Pact forces in the Sino-Soviet War (or not), break-aways etc. It's just a great narrative tool for many things. I'm not certain how credible a Soviet aggression here is in 1995, given the shoddy state of Soviet forces in 1989 already, and I certainly would like a Chinese aggression scenario (cf. The Bear and the Dragon by Clancy), but it's probably asking to much for 1995 and would fit 1999 better, which would make a Twilight War in 2000 unlikely.

As far as I read this script, it's less of an alternate history to v.2(.2) but more of a prelude, right? That would leave it open to anything one has to say about v.2(.2) per se.

I shall come to that in the (hopefully) near future.

[Ursus Maior]

Food for thought, there is a 1998 German-British pseudo-documentary on the start of World War Three in 1990 with a lengthy prelude beginning in 1989. It's available in English on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZf-M_vC22w.

The German version, also on YT, and the English differ in various details explained on Wikipedia (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_(film)), the article also gives a extensive summary.

I quite recommend that piece of fiction, the scenario is fictional, of course, but well researched and based on all plans and scenarios available back then to public research.

[kato13]

Using the wiki code to fix the link above

https://forum.juhlin.com/misc.php?do=bbcode#wiki

World_War_III_(film)

[Ursus Maior]

Thank you for that.

[Rainbow Six]

I stuck with East Germany. largely for the reasons that I gave in the other poll about which timeline is most plausible, i.e. it's the version that I know and have played for thirty years and it's only very recently that I've seen its plausibility questioned. As I said in the other thread, I'm not doubting the validity of these questions but for the moment at least I'm sticking with what I know.

I am slightly puzzled as to why Poland (or any other Warsaw Pact nation for that matter) would be considered a potential flash point. While I absolutely agree that there's a potential for civil unrest / protests leading to internal violence I don't follow how that would lead to any sort of armed confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. For sure I could imagine NATO nations using diplomatic and economic measures if Soviet tanks start machine gunning Polish civilians but it's not as if NATO intervened in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 so I don't see why Poland in circa 1995 would be any different?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I am slightly puzzled as to why Poland (or any other Warsaw Pact nation for that matter) would be considered a potential flash point. While I absolutely agree that there's a potential for civil unrest / protests leading to internal violence I don't follow how that would lead to any sort of armed confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. For sure I could imagine NATO nations using diplomatic and economic measures if Soviet tanks start machine gunning Polish civilians but it's not as if NATO intervened in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 so I don't see why Poland in circa 1995 would be any different?

I agree. Poland makes a bit more sense if one is going with the v4 timeline, but the numbers from this poll and the timeline poll don't match up (to date, only 1 person has voted the v4 timeline most plausible).

[shrike6]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I stuck with East Germany. largely for the reasons that I gave in the other poll about which timeline is most plausible, i.e. it's the version that I know and have played for thirty years and it's only very recently that I've seen its plausibility questioned. As I said in the other thread, I'm not doubting the validity of these questions but for the moment at least I'm sticking with what I know.

I am slightly puzzled as to why Poland (or any other Warsaw Pact nation for that matter) would be considered a potential flash point. While I absolutely agree that there's a potential for civil unrest / protests leading to internal violence I don't follow how that would lead to any sort of armed confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. For sure I could imagine NATO nations using diplomatic and economic measures if Soviet tanks start machine gunning Polish civilians but it's not as if NATO intervened in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 so I don't see why Poland in circa 1995 would be any different?

I also voted for East Germany and Rainbow said it more succinctly than I could but imo the new scenarios presented so far would seem to be more the sanctions/boycott the olympics/stern press conference territory then worthy of WWIII to me. At least the ones that have been presented to this point. The only thing I would add is that there might be a case for Yugoslavia dissolution causing things but the sales pitch would have to be very good on it. My 2 cents on it anyways

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I am slightly puzzled as to why Poland (or any other Warsaw Pact nation for that matter) would be considered a potential flash point. While I absolutely agree that there's a potential for civil unrest / protests leading to internal violence I don't follow how that would lead to any sort of armed confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. For sure I could imagine NATO nations using diplomatic and economic measures if Soviet tanks start machine gunning Polish civilians but it's not as if NATO intervened in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 so I don't see why Poland in circa 1995 would be any different?

Twilight v2.2 started in Poland, didn't it? I don't find that particular scenario quite likely, but when the Germans of that edition invaded Poland over ethnic shenanigans (1939 calling?), they made Poland the flashpoint of the war. Maybe more people know T2K v2.2 than v1 by now?

[unipus]

I should probably go back and re-read my v.2 history.

I didn't vote in the poll. I really don't find any of these backgrounds to be perfect; they all require a major leap of logic of some sort or another.

But as to "why Poland" in the Hungary/Czech playbook... I can answer that, in a way that makes sense to me at least. It comes down to timing and geography, to me. NATO doing a ground intervention in Hungary seems logistically just about impossible, and doing it in 1956 seems even more so. Czechoslavakia was not so much a real nation as a forced marriage. 1968 is the height of the Vietnam War and the height of MAD. I don't see real intervention there being appealing to anyone in the West, whatsoever.

Fast forward 20+ years though and the power dynamic is different. Everyone knows the Soviet Union is collapsing -- not least of all the Soviets! Starting a conflict to try to save your government certainly isn't a new tactic, and it certainly can backfire (see: Israel just a few weeks ago?) or escalate in unanticipated ways. Throw in USSR coup dynamics and post-Reagan US bravado and I can see things going sideways. Poland openly appealing to the west for support, all the way up to NATO membership, and I just think it starts to make more and more sense as a focal point.