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

[Raellus]

We have a thread dedicated to why v1's scenario for the start of the Twilight War in Germany probably isn't realistic enough for many Refs and/or players with knowledge of the subject to suspend disbelief*. If the European war doesn't start in Germany, where should it start instead (Note: I didn't include Albania because it formally withdrew from the Warsaw Pact in 1968; I also did not include Yugoslavia- even though it was a communist country, considered part of the East Bloc by some, it was technically non-aligned, and not a Warsaw Pact nation. Furthermore, war did break out there in the 1990s and it did not start a Europe-wide conflict.)

Poland
Pros:
The Solidarity Movement
Widespread anti-Soviet sentiment
Soviet troops stationed there (Northern Group of Forces)

Cons:
Shares a border with the USSR
Kaliningrad Oblast
Soviet troops stationed there (Central Group of Forces)
Does not share a border with any NATO country

Czechsoslovakia
Pros:
It's really two nations forced to be one
Widespread anti-Soviet sentiment
Soviet troops stationed there (Central Group of Forces)

Cons:
Shares a border with the USSR
Memories of Pact Troops invading to crush the Prague Spring in 1968
Soviet troops stationed there (Central Group of Force

Hungary
Pros:
Widespread anti-Soviet sentiment
Soviet troops stationed there (Southern Group of Forces)

Cons:
Shares a [short] border with the USSR
Doesn't border any NATO country
Soviet troops stationed there (Southern Group of Forces)

Bulgaria
Pros:
Shares border with NATO countries*
Soviet troops stationed there (Southern Group of Forces)

Cons:
Arguably most loyal of Warsaw Pact nations
Soviet troops stationed there (Southern Group of Forces)
*Greece & Turkey were two of the weakest NATO nations (at least in the 1980s & '90s)

Romania
Pros:
Most recalcitrant Warsaw Pact member
No Soviet troops stationed there

Cons:
Doesn't border any NATO nation
Considered strategically insignificant by both Warsaw Pact & NATO
No Soviet troops stationed there

...

I see Soviet troops stationed in a country as both a pro and a con. It's a pro in that it creates tension and the possibility of a clash with NATO troops. It's a con because any nation would think twice about rebelling against Soviet suzerainty knowing that well-armed Red Army troops are already well-established on its home soil in significant numbers.

So, where should WW3 in Europe start Under what circumstances What's the trigger Who starts it and why/how

-

[Ewan]

I always imagined the Soviet Union invading Poland during the early 80s with the rise of Solidarity

[Raellus]

Follow-up

I always imagined the Soviet Union invading Poland during the early 80s with the rise of Solidarity

How do you seeing that lead to a war with NATO

-

[Ewan]

How do you seeing that lead to a war with NATO

-

Soviet intervention in Poland would lead to Polish American elements putting pressure on Ronald Reagan to give covert intelligence/military support to various factions within the Polish military/government.
Soviets find out and put pressure on NATO, NATO reacts and after naval clashes in the Baltic the Warsaw Pact invade West Germany.

[Ursus Maior]

It would be interesting for this question to know when war breaks out and if there are goals to be achieved for the aggressor or if it's a "come as you are war" that happens more by accident.

Nota bene: I can hardly see a NATO-Soviet war break out over anything south of the Czech Republic or the ČSSR. The countries south are historically underdeveloped, thus economically unimportant, have few population centers and are not well tied into the international economies or infrastructures. To make it short: It's hardly worth dying for Romania, Bulgaria or Hungary, unless you live there.

[Raellus]

It would be interesting for this question to know when war breaks out and if there are goals to be achieved for the aggressor or if it's a "come as you are war" that happens more by accident.

The question is directed more towards 1e than other editions, but three out of Twilight 2000's four versions have fighting starting in Europe c.1996, so that's the temporal focus here.

As to the second point, that's also an open question, and up to the responder.

-

[unipus]

My alternate history for Poland uses a few key points of divergence:

1. without Gorbachev and glasnost, Poland doesn't follow suit, keeps pressure on Solidarity and reformists. Soviets take a harder line which the Church buys and does not intervene
2. the assassination of Lech Walesa
3. widespread protest and unrest
4. elections are held but the results are clearly manipulated and Communists remain in most positions of power
5. the Wall still comes down in '89, if anything, these events spur it along
6. Poland is therefore adjacent to a NATO power as Germany reunifies
7. Eventually, a nationwide strike leads to the Soviets reluctantly supporting the Polish government with their troops
8. kinda goes from there

The only real issue I've had with this timeline is stretching out the last stages for 5+ years. Frankly, on this timeline, I'd expect the collapse of Poland or final intervention no later than 1992 or '93.

[Ursus Maior]

The question is directed more towards 1e than other editions, but three out of Twilight 2000's four versions have fighting starting in Europe c.1996, so that's the temporal focus here.

I'd call v.1 a good focus for this discussion, thanks for the clarification. Since v.1 does not assume an implosion of the USSR or an abolishment of socialist dictatorships in Central and Eastern Europe, but assumes the Cold War effectively to go on as it did in 1984 for another ten to twelve years, I think war would have to come from big power competition. Accidents could have happened far easier than planned action, since no-one was actually interested in war breaking out.

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.

I see this happen in Poland along the German border or at multiple points, i. e. Czechoslovakia and North (Eastern) Europe (Finland, Norway, Sweden) simultaneously. The threat arising during the situation must fit the bill though. Simply having a mid-level madman stage an attack or ships wrecking each other by accident, won't start a death spiral. High-level strategic assets of the two super-powers need to be endangered basically without warning or time to react. Otherwise one gets a Falklands scenario: Even a direct attack on the soil of a major NATO partner is not getting close to a nuclear war, if no superpower is involved and the attack happens in the (far) periphery of any epicenter of power.

[Louied]

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

https://forum.juhlin.com/attachment.phpattachmentid=4571&d=1613321392

Ursus Major, thoughts from your experience/knowledge base

[B.T.]

Jugoslavia

I have not voted. Just an idea: Is "The Third World War: The Untold Story" by Sir John Hackett something to consider As far as I know, Juguslavia did still exist in ver1. Could the storyline of "The Third World War" be adopted to 1995 Not the entire storyline, but the bits taking place in Europe Add the Chino-Soviet war and the story could work.

[Ursus Maior]

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

https://forum.juhlin.com/attachment.phpattachmentid=4571&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'tat, 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/watchv=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.phpdo=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