Slow Drift to War Europe 1984

[lukedalton]

In a any given situation clearly heading to all-out war between the superpowers, such as this, panic in Western Europe, especially in urban areas, would have been simply inconceivable as for scale, level and intensity, it would have severely disrupted any civil defense preparation, military recruitment, regular work by industry, commerce and administration, and so on. "Grim acceptance" what?

Human adapt, the crisis has not been a short sudden one that can allow burst of panic, it was a...slow drit (tachaa...drum roll please). People will have started to hoard food and leave the cities only in this last days...but by now i expect that many will have come to the conclusion that at least in Europe there is no place to go, damn i hated the existential dread of the 80's

 

[ferdi254]

Sloreck paid for agents were against the myth few and far between in the peace movement. Actually the WP was more targeting people with access to secrets and power as agents and there were hardly any of those in the peace movement. Stasi documents have been very revealing.People who thought socialism as in the WP was better to live in were also a very small minority. About 1% of the FRG. Tops.

 

[ferdi254]

Hmm one thing here. ITTL the NATO is facing an ultimatum that basically sais: Throw on the printing press and send over Dollars Pounds Lire... and load some ships with surplus food and send it over. Both easily done and much better than a conventional much less a nuclear war. Demobilizing first is the tricky part.

But hell (literally) what is the alternative? And yes Sloreck how do you get rid of the Danes but the Danes did not have nuclear weapons. And civilication eventually got rid of them.

The one and potentially fatal error in the MAD concept was always that it relied on the other side „loving their children too“. If one side got crazy (as in Hitler crazy) the other only had two alternatives. Get killed (even 2.000 warheads aimed at the largest towns in the USA would kill 90% of the population and all of Europe would be a wasteland) and kill (same for the WP) or surrender.

Here we are not even talking about surrender but money and food. Any western european politician not seriously considering the Soviet demand has forgotten its oath.

And most of the rather dead than red faction (of course they had their fringe elements as well) later admitted that their position was largely posture just to deter. And most of them knew again that even if you liked to be dead that was not a decision to make for your entire country. If a couple 10.000 of each Germans Belgiums Dutch survived it would have been many. Maybe a couple 100k for Polisch Czeck French and British. Short term survivors to be clear on that.

No politician wanted to go down with the thought: Damn why did I not do everything to avoid this.

 

[Geon]

Hmm one thing here. ITTL the NATO is facing an ultimatum that basically sais: Throw on the printing press and send over Dollars Pounds Lire... and load some ships with surplus food and send it over. Both easily done and much better than a conventional much less a nuclear war. Demobilizing first is the tricky part.

But hell (literally) what is the alternative? And yes Sloreck how do you get rid of the Danes but the Danes did not have nuclear weapons. And civilication eventually got rid of them.

The one and potentially fatal error in the MAD concept was always that it relied on the other side „loving their children too“. If one side got crazy (as in Hitler crazy) the other only had two alternatives. Get killed (even 2.000 warheads aimed at the largest towns in the USA would kill 90% of the population and all of Europe would be a wasteland) and kill (same for the WP) or surrender.

Here we are not even talking about surrender but money and food. Any western european politician not seriously considering the Soviet demand has forgotten its oath.

And most of the rather dead than red faction (of course they had their fringe elements as well) later admitted that their position was largely posture just to deter. And most of them knew again that even if you liked to be dead that was not a decision to make for your entire country. If a couple 10.000 of each Germans Belgiums Dutch survived it would have been many. Maybe a couple 100k for Polisch Czeck French and British. Short term survivors to be clear on that.

No politician wanted to go down with the thought: Damn why did I not do everything to avoid this.

If there is no war and the NATO allies do agree to the Soviet demands then again as you said above where does it stop? The Soviets get free grain (by the way who pays for this as nothing is "free" here? The farmers are getting nothing as far as I can see for this ransom they are paying.) and the West is forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for something that wasn't their fault with very little to show in return. On the one hand as you say there are those who if there is a war will ask why they didn't do everything they could to stop it. On the other hand after furious voters remove many politicians from office over capitulating to the Soviets it's likely they'll still be asking the same question.

 

[Archangel]

European NATO members (and the vast majority of European voters, both from the left and the right) wouln't accept any kind of threat from the Soviets.

 

[ferdi254]

As I said MAD was always relying on the other side acting rationally. If that does not work... see above. And then Andropov and others did actually threat with a third world war the west did answer with talks. It did work OTL.

And yes most of it was no fault of the west (deploying the Bundeswehr against the German constitution was) but that is not the point of decision here. But again paying something (and yes the farmers would be fully paid as the most subsidized economical areas was and is) is it not better compared to being radioactive dust?

And I agree there need to be assurances it does not happen again but if you were the head of any european country what would have been your choice?

Tell the Soviets to stick it: meaning only a handful of your citicens would survive or tell the printing press for money to make extra shifts?

 

[dangerdalli]

Errrrrrmmmmm not sure the SAS, for instance, could be classed as far right extremists. They were tasked to stay behind the lines in the event of the cold war turning hot weren't they?

I only meant paramilitaries. Sorry when i was unclear. The stay behind armies were meant to free spec ops for more missions.

 

[kent]

Appeasement worked so well in the 1930's

As I said MAD was always relying on the other side acting rationally. If that does not work... see above. And then Andropov and others did actually threat with a third world war the west did answer with talks. It did work OTL.

And yes most of it was no fault of the west (deploying the Bundeswehr against the German constitution was) but that is not the point of decision here. But again paying something (and yes the farmers would be fully paid as the most subsidized economical areas was and is) is it not better compared to being radioactive dust?

And I agree there need to be assurances it does not happen again but if you were the head of any european country what would have been your choice?

Tell the Soviets to stick it: meaning only a handful of your citicens would survive or tell the printing press for money to make extra shifts?

 

[kessock]

Appeasement worked so well in the 1930's

And the people in 84 remembered that or had parents or siblings who did and were affected by the results. You can not compare the way people thought back then compared to today. Hell even 9/11 is more academic for a lot of people on this site let alone the depths of the cold war. Resignation to fate was quite high and you made the best of life you could and didn't dwell on possibilities. But the Soviet Union was also not going to walk over everyone even with the risks.

 

[Farmer12]

Sorry about the late announcement but i will be going out of town to play a little ASL so i will not be posting anything until next Thursday. Who knows maybe I will win for once.

 

[sloreck]

You can expect that if the Soviets blackmail the west in to paying the Danegeld, further demands will be made. Very shortly after the mandatory demobilization the Soviets would demand the removal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe, and probably all US military forces from the continent - "only European forces should be in Europe" - to prevent future potential unfortunate confrontations of course. I expect at some point the Europeans would be leaned on to accept the ruble as a "hard" currency, at exchange rates fixed by the Soviets. This won't happen overnight but over a not overly long period of time the former NATO countries will be marginally more independent than the WP countries.

While the upcoming war has a very high probability of becoming nuclear, there is the hope it could remain conventional. Yes, even a conventional war will cause a lot of damage and a lot of deaths. OTOH if West Germany, and other NATO countries basically become satellites to the USSR...

 

[lukedalton]

Well as said Western Europe has the choice of war and basically give up his economic prosperity and long term independence without the URSS having to even shoot a single bullet, plus this kind of demand will mean a lot (really a lot) of economic disruption in the West...so it's very probable that if cornered (as in this situaion) Europe will fight, just with the understanding that this will be very probably really the war that will end all the war and yes there were still the historic memory of appleasment and a lot of resignation that all that was unavoidable.

 

[sloreck]

To elaborate, the issue ITTL is the the USSR is determined to have a war of conquest. If the overall goals of the war can be accomplished merely with threats well and good, but if the demands are not met troops will march. The economists have presented the reality to the leaders, basically the Soviet/WP economy cannot maintain its military strength vis-a-vis the west long term. If you co-opt the economic resources of Western Europe, whether directly by conquest or indirectly by intimidation, and also secure a reliable food source from the US/Canada, this problem goes away for a long time. On top of this, the reality is that should the Soviet Union defeat NATO militarily or emasculate it and remove the alliance (and the US) as a competing presence, this will go a long way to crush restiveness in the WP. Will there be underground movements, restiveness, etc still ongoing? Of course, but these will be small and controllable. The reality is that a conquered/occupied country, especially in the case of a smaller one under the heel of a much larger one, needs some outside help directly or indirectly to free itself. In WWII had the Axis won or achieved an armistice, resistance in France, the PI, and elsewhere would have eventually flickered out as risking death for yourself and family without hope of success is not attractive. Sure resistance in the face of a choice of dying and taking some with you or simply dying is one thing, but that is not the choice in the WP countries, or in the now "unified" Germany after a Soviet victory.

One can debate when (or if) you'd see a Soviet collapse if the resources of Western Europe are added, and if the US and Canada are feeding the USSR, but for sure it would not be 1989.

 

[ferdi254]

Sloreck you sort of nailed it. ITTL the politburo is brainless enough to go for an aggressive war.

And now you have a bunch of aggressive morons (which the politburo IOTL never was) going all in.

And now the west seemingly has 2 alternatives:

1. Throw on the printing press for currency, load food and be prepared to maybe feed the USSR continously or even have Germany and the Benelux change sphere.

2. Tell the USSR where exactly they can stick their demands and go to war.

The problem with a conventional war is once the WP comes too close to France nukes will fly (those damned short range rockets the French had). If NATO wins (which should be a pretty given iTTL) what will stop the USSR to start with nukes? The leaders are still the same aggressive morons. Hackett and Clancy solve this with internal revolts.

So you loose nukes fly you win nukes fly. The ways to avoid the total destruction of Europe the USA and a large part of Asia (plus a couple hundred million dead in the rest of the world) is either to stand down now or surrender unconditionally once the first nuke flies,

Hmm just one moment what are my real alternatives?

1. Throw on the printing press and load food. Minimal consequences for the economy, printing press money in WP hands will not harm it.

2. Have a massively destructive war and then surrender unconditionally.

3. Have NATO and WP become radioactive ruins with massive loss of life in the rest of the world.

Easy choice ain‘t it? MAD only works if both sides are sane. If one is insane (as ITTL as opposed to OTL) the other in the end either has to stand down or go for an all out war which in the thermonuclear age means total destruction of both sides and millions of neutrals dead.

 

[ferdi254]

ITTL the WP could as well say: Give us the money or one(!) rocket with a 5 MT nuke will go to New York City. And IOTL they could have said this anytime but never did.

 

[Geon]

.

Easy choice ain‘t it? MAD only works if both sides are sane. If one is insane (as ITTL as opposed to OTL) the other in the end either has to stand down or go for an all out war which in the thermonuclear age means total destruction of both sides and millions of neutrals dead.

I wouldn't call the Politburo insane. Desperate yes. Insane no. They see themselves having a similar choice to the Politburo in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. The choice is a collapsing economy and the prospect of unrest in both the WP nations and their own nation - unacceptable. Or fighting a (hopefully) limited war to knock Germany out of NATO and gain much needed industrial and economic resources for a time.

If the Politburo here is at all intelligent they will opt for a short limited war with goals that do not directly threaten the U.S. France, or U.K.

France is already going to be very trigger happy if the Soviets get to the Rhine. To offset this the Soviets might make an offer to stop at the Rhine and to withdraw troops from West Germany after three months - during which time the Soviets would be replacing the existing West German government with one amenable to Soviet goals.

Of course also when I think about the French response to this offer is likely to be a loud NO!

 

[lukedalton]

1. Throw on the printing press for currency, load food and be prepared to maybe feed the USSR continously or even have Germany and the Benelux change sphere.

The problem is by doing that you destroy your economy and suffer a lot of agricoltural problem, Western Europe can theoretically feed herselfs but need time to change the type of crops and even doing that it's further economic stress.
Oh i expect that the debate will be serious and very heated, but i doubt that in the end there will be a surrender...just the still live historical memory of Munich will prevent that

 

[sloreck]

If the USA turns on the presses to print an extra"X" billion dollars worth of hundred dollar bills, it matters not whether or not those are let loose in the USA or sent to Russia. That will be highly inflationary which will hit the average American as well as the US economy. Similarly sending the grain to Russia is inflationary. You can bet the farmers will burn it or dump it rather than simply give it to their governments to send as a blackmail payment - either way it is a bankruptcy inducing situation for them. (note how farmers dumped various farm products in the past rather than sell at a loss).

In 1984 the technology gap between the west and the USSR is accelerating, if you think issues with forced technology transfer to China is an issue, you ain't seen nothing if the west surrenders. Turnkey factories for producing computers and whatnot, mandatory licensing of new patents dirt cheap or for free, its only the start. Maybe the Soviets will let Apple take some profits home from the factory in Kiev, but all the technology will be transferred and most of the profit will go to the Soviet state - of course Apple makes 100% of the capital investment, and has to hope they reach break even before the factory is nationalized.

Even after Soviet forces are demobilized, the agricultural situation in the USSR/WP is not going to magically improve. Will next years' mandatory grain shipment again be free, or at a subsidized price (subsidized by the US/Canadian governments).

The reason MAD worked, and it did, was because both sides had a pretty good idea of where the no shit red lines were. If, ITTL, NATO folds those lines have been moved and it will be very tempting to the USSR to test them again. Sure the USSR invading the USA is not in the cards any time in the lifetime of those who are adults here, but further moves are inevitable. In Asia you know Kim will lean heavily to the USSR seeing them as the tough guys, and then what happens between North and South Korea. What happens with Japan, can they count on the USA to be big brother protecting them anymore or will they need to make new arrangements. Even in the western hemisphere, Castro/Cuba will be empowered at a minimum to be more aggressive in supporting "revolution". So it goes.

Given the Soviet demands, if Europe gives in, they have lost their best chance to fight and win a conventional confrontation with the USSR. They will only be weaker relatively speaking in the future. As far as France goes, if the USSR decides to they can do a no notice strike and probably take out a very high percentage of the French nuclear force should that become necessary - sincew in the future NATO and the US guarantee under Article 5 won't exist.

The point I am trying to make there are no good choices here, only degrees of bad ones. If Europe wishes to avoid ending up like the countries behind the iron curtain, now is the time - it won't get better in the future. If you wish to make the argument that this alternative is better than a conventional war, and certainly better than a nuclear one, that is certainly an argument that can be made. If you make the argument that folding now won't be the first step down the road to that fate, that is totally wishful (and unrealistic) thinking.

 

[ferdi254]

Sloreck even your worst case scenario is at least for all Europeans better than a nuclear war. And most likely for all Americans and a vast part of the rest of the world as well.

For those who argue inflation: The money in the hand of the USSR will not inflate anything unless it is spend and does meet full production lines. And IOTL the USA is creating one trillion of additional money each year without creating inflation but a nice economic growth by now.

Both Clany and TTL have a couple of basic things about the Soviet economy wrong. It was not money but goods driven (a fundamental difference to capitalism) and as long as they were willing to reduce the standard of living in their empire going broke was literally impossible. In 89 they had the choice of doing what they do ITTL or simply coming to terms with the NATO as they rightly figured out that reducing the standard of living in the empire would lead to rebellion.

Here they do not care about rebellion so why go to war?

 

[Geon]

Here they do not care about rebellion so why go to war?

In Red Storm Rising and here in this TL it is the perceived threat of a rebellion that has the Politburo concerned. The Politburo remembers the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring. They don't want such a thing happening ever again. Even the hint something like this could happen is to be avoided. If that means a war then so be it.

On the Western side I agree with other posters here. At what point is the line drawn? Survival is all well and good but if the price of survival is a life lived in what amounts to a prison camp environment is that really survival?