The British will hold, a British-Soviet war in the 1980s.

[stevep]

Mar 4, 2018 12:54:46 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

A NATO that does not have the US in it will want this replicated too, particular the Belgian and Dutch governments.

I'm not sure how the USA out of NATO would manage to coordinate NORAD - an isolationist USA post-1945 pre-1990 government is an idea that's not going anywhere remotely plausible.

  I would agree with vH here that a US that quits NATO is very unlikely, although not willing to totally rule it out.  It would take a big incident, which is another reason why I think it would need something like W Germany doing the neutralisation deal, which IIRC the Soviets proposed at various times, along with a 'difficult' President might do it but it would take that sort of scale of incident.  If it looked like Europe wasn't willing to defend itsef - in American eyes anyway - with both Germany and France effectively overboard this might be enough. 

[Deleted]

Mar 4, 2018 13:02:33 GMT lordroel said:

I doubt that any US government is going to leave its nuclear weapons behind,

Yes, that is what I said in the post you quoted.

[lordroel]

Mar 4, 2018 13:06:05 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

Mar 4, 2018 13:02:33 GMT lordroel said:

I doubt that any US government is going to leave its nuclear weapons behind,

Yes, that is what I said in the post you quoted.

Sorry my fault.

[lukedalton]

Mar 4, 2018 12:34:07 GMT stevep said:

Overall if we think of the needs of the thread we require:
a) Something to isolate the US from the defence of Europe, at least initially, but having it come in fairly quickly.

b) Something to remove France from play, either having it come under Soviet control or be neutral. I think the latter is marginally more likely, both because it would avoid the question of how the Soviets gained control over a nuclear state and it makes Britain's plight markedly more defensible.

c) Arguably some way for W Germany to be overrun quickly or without fighting so that we have a 'last stand' for Britain and also Britain hasn't lost much of its regular forces and air force seeking to defend Germany.

How about if we have some crisis which results in W Germany accepting full neutrality in return for reunification with the east? This would greatly weaken NATO and possibly cause a de facto collapse with the US withdrawing and France, already slightly removed deciding on a stronger independent nuclear force. Because the reunification involves reserving some influence for the former communist east regime plus the communist cheat like mad and also there is an argument for disarmament for Germany [as obviously there's no longer any east-west tension ] then Germany is largely unarmed and increasingly drawn into the Soviet sphere. The crisis then comes possibly with a staged incident in Germany, prompting claims by the Soviets and their German stooges, of a threatened right wing/fascist coup and a rapid military intervention, then the Soviet forces advancing on into Denmark and the Low Countries. France, alienated from its European neighbours and having received reassurances from Moscow puts its forces on alert and threaten nuclear attack if Soviet forces cross their border but does nothing else and the Soviets leave it alone.

The rump of NATO, probably organised largely around Britain, Italy and the Low Countries as well as Norway and Iceland - with Greece and Turkey's status being unclear, refuse to accept the Soviet actions, aided immediately by Canada and with strong signs that the US will support them quickly - say a forecoming change of President with the President elect already stating he intended to rejoin NATO, decide to fight on. What happens in Italy and Greece-Turkey depends on what Lordroel decides. [Its his thread if I'm not hi jacking it too much]. Ditto with Norway and possibly Sweden/Finland and with Spain. However the most immediate threat would be to Britain as the obvious base for a reforming western alliance to look to rearm and liberate occupied areas. You are likely to have resistance in occupied areas, including much of Germany and possibly unrest in parts of eastern Europe and Russia might also be making a move in the ME which would detach forces and also speed up US intervention.

Anyway a few ideas as to how you might get a ~1980s BoB which isn't totally suicidal for Britain but does give the Soviets a logic for seeking to overrun Britain before aid from N America becomes too strong. It still leaves the question of how they dare risk this in the face of a possible nuclear response from Britain but I don't know what to do about that?

A it's already difficult but possible; but put together with B or (not and, or) C and we need a 'deus ex machina' of Titanic proportion and better remember that not only France had just left the command structure of NATO not the alliance itself but it's already extremely integrated to the rest of the Western european economy and structure by the EEC and later EU, so them deciding to not play any role in Europe it's not credible. Frankly in this scenario it's more credible if it's the United Kingdom that decide that once the USA are gone they can save money retreting their troops from Germany, detaching themselfs from the major continental affair and play their own game...till explode in their face.
France can surrender after a couple of nuclear weapons from both side are used in Germany and the risk of nuclear annihilation it's imminent, so the goverment decide to throw the towel (a little cliches for the French to surrender...but nevertheless) and so we can have two French goverment, one collaborationist and one free

Regarding any complication regarding German finger on nuclear weapons...it's not different from the nuclear sharing program of NATO, except that instead of US warhead with have French warhead (the warhead are an american proprierty but the launcher and aircraft are of the host), i used that example because it will be the quickest method to replace part of NATO deterrent (from both logistical and legal pow) but yes can also quickly become the casus belli for a more aggressive URSS that seen this as a golden occasion to neutralize the rest of western europe

[lordroel]

Mar 4, 2018 14:37:52 GMT lukedalton said:

Mar 4, 2018 12:34:07 GMT stevep said:

Overall if we think of the needs of the thread we require:
a) Something to isolate the US from the defence of Europe, at least initially, but having it come in fairly quickly.

b) Something to remove France from play, either having it come under Soviet control or be neutral. I think the latter is marginally more likely, both because it would avoid the question of how the Soviets gained control over a nuclear state and it makes Britain's plight markedly more defensible.

c) Arguably some way for W Germany to be overrun quickly or without fighting so that we have a 'last stand' for Britain and also Britain hasn't lost much of its regular forces and air force seeking to defend Germany.

How about if we have some crisis which results in W Germany accepting full neutrality in return for reunification with the east? This would greatly weaken NATO and possibly cause a de facto collapse with the US withdrawing and France, already slightly removed deciding on a stronger independent nuclear force. Because the reunification involves reserving some influence for the former communist east regime plus the communist cheat like mad and also there is an argument for disarmament for Germany [as obviously there's no longer any east-west tension ] then Germany is largely unarmed and increasingly drawn into the Soviet sphere. The crisis then comes possibly with a staged incident in Germany, prompting claims by the Soviets and their German stooges, of a threatened right wing/fascist coup and a rapid military intervention, then the Soviet forces advancing on into Denmark and the Low Countries. France, alienated from its European neighbours and having received reassurances from Moscow puts its forces on alert and threaten nuclear attack if Soviet forces cross their border but does nothing else and the Soviets leave it alone.

The rump of NATO, probably organised largely around Britain, Italy and the Low Countries as well as Norway and Iceland - with Greece and Turkey's status being unclear, refuse to accept the Soviet actions, aided immediately by Canada and with strong signs that the US will support them quickly - say a forecoming change of President with the President elect already stating he intended to rejoin NATO, decide to fight on. What happens in Italy and Greece-Turkey depends on what Lordroel decides. [Its his thread if I'm not hi jacking it too much]. Ditto with Norway and possibly Sweden/Finland and with Spain. However the most immediate threat would be to Britain as the obvious base for a reforming western alliance to look to rearm and liberate occupied areas. You are likely to have resistance in occupied areas, including much of Germany and possibly unrest in parts of eastern Europe and Russia might also be making a move in the ME which would detach forces and also speed up US intervention.

Anyway a few ideas as to how you might get a ~1980s BoB which isn't totally suicidal for Britain but does give the Soviets a logic for seeking to overrun Britain before aid from N America becomes too strong. It still leaves the question of how they dare risk this in the face of a possible nuclear response from Britain but I don't know what to do about that?

A it's already difficult but possible; but put together with B or (not and, or) C and we need a 'deus ex machina' of Titanic proportion and better remember that not only France had just left the command structure of NATO not the alliance itself but it's already extremely integrated to the rest of the Western european economy and structure by the EEC and later EU, so them deciding to not play any role in Europe it's not credible. Frankly in this scenario it's more credible if it's the United Kingdom that decide that once the USA are gone they can save money retreting their troops from Germany, detaching themselfs from the major continental affair and play their own game...till explode in their face.
France can surrender after a couple of nuclear weapons from both side are used in Germany and the risk of nuclear annihilation it's imminent, so the goverment decide to throw the towel (a little cliches for the French to surrender...but nevertheless) and so we can have two French goverment, one collaborationist and one free

Regarding any complication regarding German finger on nuclear weapons...it's not different from the nuclear sharing program of NATO, except that instead of US warhead with have French warhead (the warhead are an american proprierty but the launcher and aircraft are of the host), i used that example because it will be the quickest method to replace part of NATO deterrent (from both logistical and legal pow) but yes can also quickly become the casus belli for a more aggressive URSS that seen this as a golden occasion to neutralize the rest of western europe

So in the end after 6 pages of this thread, it is very unlikely we could a British-Soviet War without turning it into a global nuclear war.

[James G]

Unlikely, not very unlikely nor impossible.
The situation you proposed has several strong underpinnings that need some shoring up.
Plot out what you have and seems to work. Then see where you go from there.

[lukedalton]

Mar 4, 2018 20:17:28 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 4, 2018 14:37:52 GMT lukedalton said:

A it's already difficult but possible; but put together with B or (not and, or) C and we need a 'deus ex machina' of Titanic proportion and better remember that not only France had just left the command structure of NATO not the alliance itself but it's already extremely integrated to the rest of the Western european economy and structure by the EEC and later EU, so them deciding to not play any role in Europe it's not credible. Frankly in this scenario it's more credible if it's the United Kingdom that decide that once the USA are gone they can save money retreting their troops from Germany, detaching themselfs from the major continental affair and play their own game...till explode in their face.
France can surrender after a couple of nuclear weapons from both side are used in Germany and the risk of nuclear annihilation it's imminent, so the goverment decide to throw the towel (a little cliches for the French to surrender...but nevertheless) and so we can have two French goverment, one collaborationist and one free

Regarding any complication regarding German finger on nuclear weapons...it's not different from the nuclear sharing program of NATO, except that instead of US warhead with have French warhead (the warhead are an american proprierty but the launcher and aircraft are of the host), i used that example because it will be the quickest method to replace part of NATO deterrent (from both logistical and legal pow) but yes can also quickly become the casus belli for a more aggressive URSS that seen this as a golden occasion to neutralize the rest of western europe

So in the end after 6 pages of this thread, it is very unlikely we could a British-Soviet War without turning it into a global nuclear war.

No, it can be done...but it will involved at least the use of a couple of nuclear warhead at the German-French border and the remaining european goverment decididing to throw the towel to spare the continent from a nuclear holocaust; resulting in the end with the UK remaining the last bastion.
Said that, for me work better if it's London the one that initially go on her own way after NATO collapse, but later change her mind when it's clear that the shit had hit the fan and the red army will soon strike.

[lordroel]

Mar 4, 2018 20:29:21 GMT lukedalton said:

Said that, for me work better if it's London the one that initially go on her own way after NATO collapse, but later change her mind when it's clear that the shit had hit the fan and the red army will soon strike.

A Commonwealth Treaty Organization with the United Kingdom, Canada,Australia, New Zeeland and lets say South Africa trow in.

[lukedalton]

Mar 4, 2018 20:31:23 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 4, 2018 20:29:21 GMT lukedalton said:

Said that, for me work better if it's London the one that initially go on her own way after NATO collapse, but later change her mind when it's clear that the shit had hit the fan and the red army will soon strike.

A Commonwealth Treaty Organization with the United Kingdom, Canada,Australia, New Zeeland and lets say South Africa trow in.

I will go for an (unsuccesfull) attempt at that, depending on when this story happen, after NATO is gone, the goverment in London can try to revive the old ties...but well time has passed, interest have diverged and while there are still cultural and economic ties, well thing are different from the time of the Empire.
the UK lack the power projection to make feel Australia and New Zealand safe and that a military alliance it's worth the effort; Canada it's tied to the Americans and with them isolationist they probably take the same stance even if in a much more reasonable way and South Africa while willing it's a political hot potato of titanic size.
Ironically this type of organization can become a reality once the war start

[lordroel]

Mar 4, 2018 20:38:35 GMT lukedalton said:

Ironically this type of organization can become a reality once the war start

But not before the war it seems.

[lukedalton]

Mar 4, 2018 20:40:07 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 4, 2018 20:38:35 GMT lukedalton said:

Ironically this type of organization can become a reality once the war start

But not before the war it seems.

IMHO without the massive incentive for working together that a couple of thousands of soviet tank at your border gave and the protection of an Ocean, nation like Canada and Australia will be not very keen to enstablish military alliance that can bring them in a conflict in Europe and the UK, while a nuclear power, lack the military conventional power to make that nation feel safe and that an alliance it's worth the risk of entanglement; expecially when your interest are not in that region (even if economical important).
Once the war start, it will be a scenario better stay together or be eliminated one by one; people have the capacity of work rationally...but usually once they have exausted every other option

[stevep]

I doubt if Britain would seek to go it alone, even with an idiot like Thatcher in charge. It has too long an history of being tightly entangled in coalitions to maintain the balance of power. That's why if Nato collapsed I could see it being the power seeking to organise something as an alternative. Britain also knows from long history it needs continental allies to help in such a mission.

I don't think a situation where Britain is hanging on, resisting severe Soviet pressure is impossible. You could have it from a conventional conflict in the 80's where NATO is overwhelmed on the continent but this does presume that the US is in from the start and also we have the question of what happens with France. I.e. is it occupied and if so why no nuclear use to prevent this, still fighting, in which case the main attention would be there rather than Britain or neutral and if so why?

If Lordroel wants the concentration on a new BoB with the US initially either out of the war or at least not operating in Europe at the start of the conflict, then I can't really see a better alternative to what I proposed. Its still requiring a fair number of unlikely events but its the best I can see that works and doesn't have a fairly quick either stomp by the Soviets or ending in a nuclear exchange.

[lordroel]

Mar 4, 2018 22:01:56 GMT stevep said:

I doubt if Britain would seek to go it alone, even with an idiot like Thatcher in charge. It has too long an history of being tightly entangled in coalitions to maintain the balance of power. That's why if Nato collapsed I could see it being the power seeking to organise something as an alternative. Britain also knows from long history it needs continental allies to help in such a mission.

I don't think a situation where Britain is hanging on, resisting severe Soviet pressure is impossible. You could have it from a conventional conflict in the 80's where NATO is overwhelmed on the continent but this does presume that the US is in from the start and also we have the question of what happens with France. I.e. is it occupied and if so why no nuclear use to prevent this, still fighting, in which case the main attention would be there rather than Britain or neutral and if so why?

If Lordroel wants the concentration on a new BoB with the US initially either out of the war or at least not operating in Europe at the start of the conflict, then I can't really see a better alternative to what I proposed. Its still requiring a fair number of unlikely events but its the best I can see that works and doesn't have a fairly quick either stomp by the Soviets or ending in a nuclear exchange.

Well at first i was working on a BoB 2.0 but how more we discuses it on this thread how more it is becoming unlikely that it is going to happen without seeing any major nuclear exchange happen.

[forcon]

First post on this forum;

If you wanted to have the U.S. out of Europe, you could have a communist Chile leading to increased U.S. support for Argentina and Kirtkpatrick-esque President taking Argentina's side over the Falklands, causing a major rift between the U.S. and Europe.

Just my two cents.

[lordroel]

Mar 29, 2018 18:52:50 GMT forcon said:

First post on this forum;

If you wanted to have the U.S. out of Europe, you could have a communist Chile leading to increased U.S. support for Argentina and Kirtkpatrick-esque President taking Argentina's side over the Falklands, causing a major rift between the U.S. and Europe.

Just my two cents.

Welcome on board to this forum forcon.

While i could see a major rift between the UK and the US, i doubt it is going to lead to a US rift with West Europe.