4e What happened to the rest of the world?

[Heffe]

That's great context, thank you Ursus Maior.

It seems then that Yugoslavia would have likely still have broken into multiple states. While their political future would have remained uncertain, it isn't clear that they would have been able to get their shit together enough by the time major war had broken out to "pick a side". Due to that, I think with some possible exceptions, the Balkans would have remained fairly neutral as things started falling apart. Given the USSR's rolling through Hungary and Austria however, I think it can be assumed that the former Yugo states would have been very cautious indeed, being caught between NATO nations and the Russian Bear.

Given what's happening in eastern Europe, and the USSR not really having any real allies in Europe during the 4E timeline, I think that just really bolsters the idea of the PRC joining the USSR. I also think there's a strong case for India joining up as well, though surely the tensions between India and China would remain. In short, it seems the major players on the Axis side in Europe and Asia would be:

The USSR, China, India, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. There's probably cases to be made for some additional nations to switch sides which would be interesting to explore, such as (IMO), Turkey. Elsewhere in the world, you'd also have nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. possibly picking up arms with the Axis. The USSR also had a few treaties with nations in Africa and southeast Asia as well which would likely come into play

NATO at the time would have been comprised of the following nations (apologies if I missed any here): The US, UK, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey (officially). In Asia, you'd also have allies of various scope in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and Pakistan. Australia and NZ surely would join the Allied endeavors as well. Not sure how many nations in Africa and South America would join in on the Allies side.

[Ursus Maior]

I really don't see India, Iran or even Syria join the USSR or China in a formal alliance. Syria would get immediate unwanted attention from Israel and thus the US. This is not in the interest of Hafze al-Assad, who was seriously ill since the 1980s and had his son and designated successor Bashar receive Western education, in London mostly. A Soviet-leaning neutrality, yes, that I could see, but an alright alliance seems highly unlikely. There is nothing to gain for Syria or the Assads from that, only preemptive strikes from Israel. Syria had learned its lesson after Yom Kippur and never challenged Israel directly afterwards, just through intermediaries. Stability and prosperity became Syrias goals and they were achievable. The USSR always wanted something from Syria, a naval base, ressources, selling weapons, but Syria needed little in return, mainly weapons and money, which it also got from Europe. Going into a full alliance would mean loosing that.

India is a different case, but essentially similar. Technological transfer, including money and weapons from the USSR and Europe would prohibit a wartime alliance with the USSR. You don't choose a side in a war, unless you have to, especially, if both sides want to sell you their stuff. India is also in no need to align with the Soviets and certainly unwilling to align with the Chinese. In the 80s, India is going through a liberalization and booms quite a bit; though not as much as the Tiger States do, which is why it's often forgotten.

Certainly, Iran was one of the states the US feared most to join the Soviet bloc. It was always highly unrealistic, though. The mullahs were as much opposed to the USSR as they were to the US. The one thing the Soviets had going for themselves was that the US had the more recent imperialistic past in Iran. But the agnostic to outright anticlerical Soviet policy was as much a no-go to Iran as was Soviet imperialism. For a Soviet-Iranian alliance to work, the Iranian communist Tudeh Party would have had to come to power. That's a nigh impossible thing to happen. In the 80s, the mullahs were in power through popular support and the sheer will to survive Iraqi aggression. The communists didn't help at all in the war, plus it didn't help them that nominally Iraq was aligned to the Soviets and a socialist state. A communist coup in Iran would have fared even worse than in Afghanistan.

Essentially, if you weren't allied to the USSR in peace, why join them in war China I could see, because they have ideological mutuality (to some degree) and China has an axe to grind with the US after 1996 plus it's booming fast. The rest Not so much, with caveats.

Now, all of these three states probably would take Soviet and maybe Chinese money. Some might even have joint exercises (India might), but why be drawn into conflicts that don't gain them anything Being member of the "neutral bloc" worked historically, I don't see, why that would change.

Now, I could see Iraq join the Soviet bloc after 1991. The reason that didn't happen historically is certainly that the USSR was on its deathbed and never recovered. But if it would recover, foreign aid and arms exports would be all over the place in Iraq. The same might work for Eritrea, which has the power to close the Red Sea through its islands.

I see other potential candidates, too. Libya is one such country. Gaddafi was egocentric enough to put his ideas of amassing power before the people of Libya, so he might renew his partnership with a USSR hellbent on revisionism in during the 1990s. Benghazi was already used to seeing Soviet ships earlier in the Cold War, so releasing it, would be easy to manage.

Another country could be Yemen. Though communist South Yemen imploded in 1990 and reunified de jure with North Yemen into Yemen proper, the reunification process was halted during a brief civil war from 4 May to 7 July 1994. I could see the USSR intervene here on behalf of its former allies. It might be the first glance of things to come, in the Balkans or Caucasus, but less visible. If the Soviets play their hand correctly here, airmobile forces deployed from Iraq, Tartus (Syria) and Benghazi (Libya) would deploy swiftly, reinforced by marines landing several days later, who would sail in from Iraq.

There would be repercussions from the West, but only so much. Yemen is of little interest to most during these days and ending a civil war is always welcome. The US would probably put more troops into Saudi Arabia, but other than that, it's not a big thing in the media. Once the Twilight War nears, however, the USSR has bases in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, which would threaten the Persian oilfields and Israel, creating a third point of interest the US have to watch out for other than Europe.

[Heffe]

My apologies, I'm talking specifically about the 4e timeline. In the 4E canon timeline, it's clear that Syria and Iran are already on board with the USSR. In fact, it appears as though the apocalypse really starts specifically because of those three countries working together.

The official timeline from 4e follows (summarized):

1998 - After more than a decade of occupation, Israel retreats from Lebanon, under heavy fire from Hezbollah. Syria attempts to capitalize, and attacks the Golan Heights. Israel pushes back hard, deep into Syria. In response as Israel reaches just a few miles from Damascus, al-Assad starts using chemical weapons, driving Israel out of Syria. With the help of Iranian and Soviet airstrikes and Soviet warships in the Mediterranean, Syrian forces descend into northern Israel. Israel calls for aid from the US, but the US balks, already heavily engaged in Europe. Israel, thinking they're alone, decides to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Which brings me back to what we were talking about previously - in the 4th edition, the USSR is already somewhat isolated, geopolitically speaking. Most of Europe has either already joined NATO, or is at least more friendly with NATO than they are with the Soviets. Hence why I think it makes sense for China to get on board with the Axis as well as possibly India, given that Pakistan, their primary regional enemy, is already aligned with the US.

[unipus]

This is definitely a part of the 4e timeline that takes some chewing to swallow. Why would any nation be eager to get into bed with the Soviet Union It can't be doing all that much better than historically, economically. The Warsaw Pact has collapsed. The USSR itself can be seen as an illegitimate state since it has only been preserved by an armed coup. It's hard to see anyone who has a choice in the matter seeing the Soviets as a good one.

What's missing, I think, is a demonstration of power from the Soviet Union that could convince others that they're the winning side.

Today, you have countries siding with Russia because they have fears about over-expansion from the West. But that's taken 30 years to develop.

[Heffe]

This is definitely a part of the 4e timeline that takes some chewing to swallow. Why would any nation be eager to get into bed with the Soviet Union It can't be doing all that much better than historically, economically. The Warsaw Pact has collapsed. The USSR itself can be seen as an illegitimate state since it has only been preserved by an armed coup. It's hard to see anyone who has a choice in the matter seeing the Soviets as a good one.

What's missing, I think, is a demonstration of power from the Soviet Union that could convince others that they're the winning side.

Today, you have countries siding with Russia because they have fears about over-expansion from the West. But that's taken 30 years to develop.

Here's what I have from the Ref Manual so far:

1994 - Spike in global oil prices and economic reform leads to economic prosperity and reformation of the Red Army begins. The USSR closes the troop technology quality gap with the US over the next couple of years.

1995 - Kryuchkov says the Baltic states leaving the USSR was due to a CIA plot.

May 9 1996 - USSR invades Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and brings them under Soviet rule within a week. US response is tepid. Soviet forces move to the borders of Poland and Finland.

1997 - West takes office and the US bolsters troops in Europe. Kryuchkov sees it as an existential threat, and orders a false flag, followed by an invasion of Poland. This triggers the US to start a bombing campaign against Soviet forces in Poland. The USSR responds in kind by striking US bases in the UK, Germany, and Turkey. The USSR advance approaches the Polish border, and NATO/US forces are sent to the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. The USSR responds by invading much of eastern Europe.

Options developed from canon for why some of the nations jumped in bed with the USSR:

• I can't see Iran and Syria being overly dependent on Russian oil, but perhaps they're so eager to get at Israel that they join the US's enemy
• Maybe the Baltic states leaving really was a CIA plot. Or at least Russia was able to convince a few nations of such.
• The show of force against the Baltic states is powerful enough to convince some nations.
• Some nations believe Russia's false flag against Poland, and see the US as the aggressor

[Raellus]

Leverage

What's missing, I think, is a demonstration of power from the Soviet Union that could convince others that they're the winning side.

Rolling the Baltic States demonstrates to Europe- Eastern Europe, in particular- that the Soviet Union has the means and the will to use military force to back its policy goals. Frankly, I think this should happen earlier in the timeline.

Also, in the 4e timeline, Soviet natural gas might be nearly as important to Europe as Russian gas is today, giving the USSR a bit of economic leverage there (as evidenced by current real-world fears that a strong NATO response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine would prompt Russia to close its pipeline to the west, resulting in civilians deaths due to cold during winter).

As for India and Pakistan, I don't think clear-cut alignment with one or another of the Superpowers is necessary for achieving the desired end. In fact, I think the Superpowers- in particular, the Soviets- are not going to be able to focus their diplomatic efforts everywhere, with equal efficacy. The Soviets are going to be focused on Europe, China is going to be focused on Taiwan, and the USA is going to be focused on Europe and Taiwan. Add in a volatile Middle East, and the Superpowers are going to be spread very thin. In other words, the Superpowers, preoccupied with other flashpoints closer to home (or more vital to their national interests) essentially leave South Asia up to its own devices. (Perhaps China steps in later, once war breaks out, to help one side or the other, but mostly to pursue its own ends). That neglect essentially leads to a war where curated diplomacy might have saved the day.

So, border and ethno-religious tensions boil up between India and Pakistan, not directly related to what's going on elsewhere in the world, and the Superpowers (USA, USSR, PRC) don't step in with a diplomatic solution. A shooting war between India and Pakistan ensues. It's not directly related to the rest of World War III, but it becomes a part of the global conflict nonetheless. And, of course, it goes nuclear...

-

[Heffe]

As for India and Pakistan, I don't think clear-cut alignment with one or another of the Superpowers is necessary for achieving the desired end. In fact, I think the Superpowers- in particular, the Soviets- are not going to be able to focus their diplomatic efforts everywhere, with equal efficacy. The Soviets are going to be focused on Europe, China is going to be focused on Taiwan, and the USA is going to be focused on Europe and Taiwan. Add in a volatile Middle East, and the Superpowers are going to be spread very thin. In other words, the Superpowers, preoccupied with other flashpoints closer to home (or more vital to their national interests) essentially leave South Asia up to its own devices. (Perhaps China steps in later, once war breaks out, to help one side or the other, but mostly to pursue its own ends). That neglect essentially leads to a war where curated diplomacy might have saved the day.

So, border and ethno-religious tensions boil up between India and Pakistan, not directly related to what's going on elsewhere in the world, and the Superpowers (USA, USSR, PRC) don't step in with a diplomatic solution. A shooting war between India and Pakistan ensues. It's not directly related to the rest of World War III, but it becomes a part of the global conflict nonetheless. And, of course, it goes nuclear...
-

I like that approach with southern Asia - it feels a lot cleaner than trying to figure out a way to shoehorn them into the broader conflict.

[Ursus Maior]

My apologies, I'm talking specifically about the 4e timeline. In the 4E canon timeline, it's clear that Syria and Iran are already on board with the USSR.

I know the paragraph, but given the fact that FL offers us just that, I'd be cautious to read a full blown military alliance between the three states into that, since that would be a major political shift and is nowhere mentioned before or afterwards. I'd expect more to take that for granted.

In fact, this is all we get for that region for 1998, the year that the war becomes global an nuclear. So, it could also be that the Iranians help Syria, since both regimes are close, and the USSR does the same, for the same reasons. Similar to how other countries might conduct punitive actions at the same time against the same opponent of their mutually allied state, without themselves being in any form of formal alliance.

Case in point: Syria participated in Operation Desert Storm, but at no point was there a formal alliance between Syria and the US in place beyond the goal to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Also, the following nations supported North Yemen in the 1994 civil war: USA, Jordan, Qatar, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and India. While South Yemen was supported by Saudi Arabia, Oman, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, UAE, Cuba, North Korea and China. Though neither were the US allied with Iran during that time, nor at war or even close to with Saudi Arabia.

I hope, I'm getting my point across here.

[Ursus Maior]

Today, you have countries siding with Russia because they have fears about over-expansion from the West. But that's taken 30 years to develop.

I think, there is more to it than just the fear of over-expansion, but yes, the 30 years gap is a problem. Today, authoritarianism seems to be appealing, too again, not just for autocrats, but also the masses that vote them into power. Authoritarianism was never the selling point of the USSR, though, despite being part of the package. It had to be masked over, however, despite its appeal to some, since ending exactly that: tyranny, was part of the selling narrative the USSR always used.

So, why go into bed with the USSR after 1991 Well, the coup d'etat wasn't a bad thing for everyone. The Chinese applauded it, having long feared Gorbachev's policies of democratization and transparency. Cuba, North Korea and all other recipients of Soviet aid weren't to happy either, this included Serbian nationalists, by the way, since Yugoslavia slipped out of their hands for precisely the same reasons: transparency leads to questions and multi-party elections led to nationalist parties taking control in member states.

Everyone wanting to suppress this at home, might hop onboard the train of "anti-nationalist internationalism", if there's money to be made from, power gained or both. And there are plenty of anti-West, anti-American sentiments around by 1991 already. This is after decades of ideological warfare, keep in mind. I'd say, this could be argued to be plausible, despite "the end of history" being big talk. The anti-American and anti-Western narrative, historically, was a bid dead, sure, but it reared it's head in the form of terrorist attacks on capitalist and American institutions by 1993 (World Trade Center bombing) and then the 1998 United States embassy bombings.

The USSR was always quite good at spinning these narratives. Imagine, the likes of Timothy McVeigh getting some help by the KGB. Not in Soviet disguise, obviously, but maybe by some Irish guys. McVeighwas raised Catholic, the IRA was aided by the Soviets (as were other urban guerillas in Europe), contacts could be established. If the US appear vulnerable from the inside, this would drive flock into the Soviet camp.

If one wants to establish an alliance between Muslims and Soviets, I'd still consider Iran an unlikely true ally of the USSR. But influencing extremists that used to fight in Afghanistan into now fighting the US covertly, is not hard to imagine. The US weren't exactly a role model for many of the mujahedin, they were seen as imperialists, too. Especially after US forces were stationed more or less permanently in Saudi Arabia, did certain groups begin to target the US.

What the USSR would need to do in the 1990s is, get on its feet, start influencing covert groups wanting to hurt the US and then connect these groups to the nations from which their members come. The latter is the tricky part.

Can it be done in 7 years or so No, probably not. But can a Soviet leader, who maybe thinks a little bit too much of himself come to think he has all the pieces in place for a necessary operation of the scale of invading Eastern Europe Certainly. Miscalculations of that sort have happened before. It would probably make his so called allies turn their back on him, once they recognize his follies. But that just makes the world a messier place, not a safer one.

[Ursus Maior]

Also, in the 4e timeline, Soviet natural gas might be nearly as important to Europe as Russian gas is today, giving the USSR a bit of economic leverage there (as evidenced by current real-world fears that a strong NATO response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine would prompt Russia to close its pipeline to the west, resulting in civilians deaths due to cold during winter).

It's really not. Gas hasn't been unimportant, of course, since the 1970s. However, by the 1990s, Germany, the main buyer of Russian/Soviet gas was still using a lot more coal and nuclear fuel. Gas power-stations weren't so common 25-30 years ago. Between 1997 and today gas power-stations almost doubled their share from 8.7 % to 16.1 %, but energy consumption for heating changed more drastically, since until the 2000s, oil and even coal were used in private homes for heating and oil in industrial and commercial buildings as well.

In an era, when the Soviets would have had little else to trade with Europe, they were much more dependent on gas exports than Europe was. All former Eastern Bloc countries were more or less running on coal and nuclear, with oil and gas in the mix only spuriously.

In the 1990s, what Europe needed from Russia or Soviet Union, was not creating problems for them in the security realm. Exports into Russia didn't become a relevant thing until the late 1990s, because purchasing power remained so small. That could be levied differently, had the USSR survived, maybe.

Maybe, the USSR needs to become China to Europe, before China does There is not a lot of time, though.

[Questerr]

(Multi-year lurker, first time poster)

I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.

It seems like the strategic nuclear strikes were mostly counter-force strikes against critical military and nuclear facilities as well as targeting leadership and continuity of government sites.

That means, its quite possible aircraft could still be in use, but are becoming less common as spare parts dry up.

[Ursus Maior]

(Multi-year lurker, first time poster)

I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.

It seems like the strategic nuclear strikes were mostly counter-force strikes against critical military and nuclear facilities as well as targeting leadership and continuity of government sites.

That means, its quite possible aircraft could still be in use, but are becoming less common as spare parts dry up.

Hi there and welcome from my neck of the woods.

I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, but I think the approach as to how to narrate World War III differs greatly between FL and GDW. A lot of this might have to do with personal experience. FL are hobby enthusiasts and Tomas H$renstam apparently was a Middle East correspondent for some time. Most GDW founders and full time staffers were war veterans and wargame designers. There is a difference in life experiences and the kind of stories one wants or even is able to tell.

And from how I read FL's edition, which I mechanically quite like, ideas like "counter-force strikes", "continuity of government sites" or strategic supply chains are not something they're focusing on or even consider in the back of their head to be of narrative value. The FL team seems to be about the first-hand experience of the scarcity of the barest things that make civilization in an ongoing warzone. Hence the "survival" aspect of 4E and the more "Jane's Division Remnants Catalogue" approach of 1E and 2E, if I might say so.

All in all, I think any referee would be best advised to bespoke tailor a timeline for their respective campaigns. I found this forum (and the Discord) to be excellent troves of ideas for that. Although, I might come off as very critical sometimes (I fear, I hope not!), ideas from both places will probably make it into my campaign at some point.

[Questerr]

Hi there and welcome from my neck of the woods.

I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, but I think the approach as to how to narrate World War III differs greatly between FL and GDW. A lot of this might have to do with personal experience. FL are hobby enthusiasts and Tomas H$renstam apparently was a Middle East correspondent for some time. Most GDW founders and full time staffers were war veterans and wargame designers. There is a difference in life experiences and the kind of stories one wants or even is able to tell.

And from how I read FL's edition, which I mechanically quite like, ideas like "counter-force strikes", "continuity of government sites" or strategic supply chains are not something they're focusing on or even consider in the back of their head to be of narrative value. The FL team seems to be about the first-hand experience of the scarcity of the barest things that make civilization in an ongoing warzone. Hence the "survival" aspect of 4E and the more "Jane's Division Remnants Catalogue" approach of 1E and 2E, if I might say so.

All in all, I think any referee would be best advised to bespoke tailor a timeline for their respective campaigns. I found this forum (and the Discord) to be excellent troves of ideas for that. Although, I might come off as very critical sometimes (I fear, I hope not!), ideas from both places will probably make it into my campaign at some point.

Personally, I think the nature of the strategic nuclear strikes is very important, especially if your story at all involves Americans who want to get home and find out what happened to their families.

A counter-force strike means an America that is badly wounded and severely disrupted with various on going problems, but one with the hope of recovery.

A counter-value strike means America is the corpse of a country, where every city with a population above 25,000 is a smoking radioactive crater and theres no hope for anything beyond tiny local governments likely for centuries.

And even with the breakdown in supplies and the survival situation in Europe, there should be enough radio signals reaching Americans even in Poland/Sweden for them to know which scenario occurred.

[Olefin]

(Multi-year lurker, first time poster)

I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.

It seems like the strategic nuclear strikes were mostly counter-force strikes against critical military and nuclear facilities as well as targeting leadership and continuity of government sites.

That means, its quite possible aircraft could still be in use, but are becoming less common as spare parts dry up.

Obviously there must be fuel available as the manuals state that the USN is still very much in the game - i.e. that its not like the 1st and 2nd editions where outside of places where fuel was available (i.e. CENTCOM basically) the USN is not a going concern - witness Satellite Down where it is basically stated that the USN had no ships capable of going to Mexico to get the satellite back or Last Submarine on the east coast

[Raellus]

Welcome, Questerr!

I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.

I see it as strongly implied, by the 4e rulebook's presumption that military units generally need to brew alcohol fuel for their vehicles.

A major lesson of the Allied strategic bombing campaign during WW2 is that its biggest impact was achieved by targeting oil refineries. Raids against Axis war production largely failed to achieve significant reductions in arms (in fact, it increased every year until 1945); damage to transportation and infrastructure was often repaired fairly quickly. Raids on cities did not lower morale as much as hoped. In fact, studies showed that bombing raids usually steeled resolve instead of weakening it. Raids against oil refineries and synthetic oil production, however, brought the Axis war machine to a near standstill. If the Allied air forces had shifted their focus to bombing oil production earlier in the war, the war very likely would have ended earlier than it did.

I can't see either side ignoring that lesson in WWIII.

-