Russia should have attacked in 1958
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: AE Geopolitical Institute
Forum Discription: Implications of Strategic Policies.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18807
Printed Date: 17-May-2024 at 09:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Russia should have attacked in 1958
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Russia should have attacked in 1958
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:48
| against NATO. They may have been at their strongest relative to NATO. |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:50
| This was all before the ICBM era and no one really knew how accurate the bombers could deliver the nukes. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:25
|
Even the possibility of an army having nukes,especially in an era where radar and ,generally,surveillance capabilities where primitive, is severe enough to prevent a war. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 18:14
|
This probably would have been Russia's best chance...once the ICBM era came in it was over. Russia could never complete with the US. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 23:16
|
The swarms of Russian troops and tanks invading West Germany would have been nuked into sl*g. I doubt at this stage there were enough nukes to cause total destruction to the planet, but I'm glad the war never happened. It would have been long, bloody, and destructive.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 01:18
|
Under Eisenhower the U.S. saw a great growth in it's nuclear arsenal, many of the weapons were tactical. In 1958 they had battlefield nukes that could be shot from cannon, launched by rocket or dropped by tactical air. Any Soviet breakthrough would have been vapourized, which is probably why it never happened. ------------- |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 08:46
| Even if it did happen, would we be any better off today? |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 18:42
|
Russia would have had better chance, yes. But the possibility of Soviet military to wipe out all European resistance as well as the American reinforcement would be slim.
And this is only possible if we take the nuclear warhead out of the equation. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 23:58
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/250px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png - Here is a graph of US and USSR nuclear arsenals during the Cold War. As you can see, in 1958 the USSR had a limited arsenal and the USA had a fairly large one. If anything, the USA should have attacked the Russians then. The Soviets also got a much bigger advantage out of ICBM's than the USA did. The Red Air Force would have a much harder time destroying American bombers than the USA would have had shooting down Russian bombers over Europe and the North Pole. ICBM's (and later SLBM's) could not be stopped by the enemy after launch and were the Russians only real chance of assuring the destruction of the USA as a functioning society. The USSR also had a much better chance in the late 1970's after Gorshkov had expanded their fleet. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 06:15
|
The Russians should have attacked west in 1945, going by your reasoning. They would have crushed the allies. had numerical superiority, 9 Army Groups vs 3. ------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 15:14
|
They also didn't have a nuclear deterrent then, and much of their homeland lay in ruins. They also had no fleet to pose any sort of a threat to NATO shipping lanes from North America to Europe.
According to any sort of reasoning I really don't think it would have been a prudent decision for the USSR to attack the West at any time. All it would have gotten them would have a been the ruins of Europe and several million dead soldiers and a great deal of destruction within Russia itself. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 15:51
|
I think that 1974 would have been the best year for a Soviet attack due to the following reasons:
- U.S military was exhausted after Vietnam and many units had serious discipline problems.
- U.S. had to maintain a large strategic reserve to deal with the possibility of a North Korean military (very formidable in 1974) attack into South Korea.
- USA did not have an overhwleming technological advantage in 1974. In contrast, the Soviet Union had just introduced many new weapons including anti aircraft systems such as (SA-6, SA-7, ZSU23-4) and new combat vehicles (BMP, T-72). These weapons may have given them a slight edge in ground combat power. Then factor in the Soviet numerical advantage.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 23:14
|
^
Good point. Add to that, it being the era of detante, the Russians would have had strategic surprise.
------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 00:03
|
Even during the height of Detente, I don't think they'd have that much surprise. US-Soviet relations were cold ever since 1943. NORAD would have been on alert for a soviet surprise attack for decades. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 14:06
A nasty soviet surprise would not have to involve nuculear weapons. A far more likely scenario would be a massive conventional attack into West Germany with only three days warning. This is not enough time to dig comprehensive denfenses etc. .
The Soviet dream scenario would be.... Soviet troops advance deep into West Germany while Polish / Soviet amphibious forces sieze parts of Denmark. The Germans refuse to allow the use of nukes to stop Soviet armour formations. West German government then collapses as more territiory is occupied. Soviets bring up reinforcements far faster than USA can ship units across the Atlantic. Even more troubling, not all NATO nations "fully honor" the treaty commitments.
Soviet tank divisions advance into parts of the Netherlands. NATO calls for a cease fire. Soviets get West Germany, Denmark and most of the Netherlands.
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 11:42
|
You need to factor in the tension between the east and west blocks during the Cold War. There was a great deal of antagonism between them and any major Soviet operation into western Europe would have been met with tactical and then probably strategic nuclear weapons as the conflict escalated. In a crisis it wouldn't have mattered if the West German government opposed the use of nukes, the French, British and Americans would have overridden them. Keep in mind that a successful Soviet invasion would have meant the probable destruction of European society. I doubt the Soviets would have stopped in the Netherlands, they would have kept going all the way to the U.K.
MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) prevented any openly aggressive action between the NATO and the communist block. The leaders on both sides were fully aware of the consequences of even a limited conflict escalating into a full nuclear exchange. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 08:41
If NATO was forced to use tactical nuculear weapons to stop a Soviet conventional attack, NATO would be saying "We have lost and we are getting very desperate". Besides, it may take scores of tactical nukes to stop the Soviet dispersed heavy armoured formations (tanks, APC etc can absorb alot of damage / radiation and then quickly relocate). In addition, the Soviets had alot of comprehensive decontamination equipment and would be sheltering in captured towns when possible. In short, many West German civilians would be killed for every one Soviet Soldier.
Soviet hawks would not want to stop, but Soviet realists would. In capturing large parts of West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, the Soviets would have suffered heavy casualties. Almost all of the fighting would have to be done by Soviets (other Warsaw Pact members make only limited contributions). Soviets would also be risking a nuculear war if advances continued. Best not to gamble "double or nothing" when you are already ahead
 .
I dont think so. Strong NATO conventional forces developed int he 1980s under Ronald Reagan created a "flexible response". This is what kept the peace. Relying purely on MAD was was a weak strategy and encouraged agressive Soviet leaders to gamble as in the hypothetical scenario that we are discussing.
Under Stalin yes, but not under 1970s style Soviuet rule. Captured nations would "elect" socialist governments" and become satellites with only very minimal internal purges.
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 11:47
|
It was part of NATOs stated policy to use battlefield nukes in the event of an overwhelming Soviet ground attack. By the 1980s the U.S. had weapons like the Pershing II tactical missile in place that would have targted Soviet command centers far behind the front. This in turn probably would have seen Soviet response with their tactical rockets and missiles and then further escalation. A Soviet advance into Europe was probably one of the most gamed scenarios in history and most of its possible outcomes ended with a full nuclear exchange. The Soviets were as aware of this as anyone, which is why they never attacked.
As for for Soviet restraint, after staring down the west for 20 or more years, if they got a chance to end the conflict they would have taken it-fully. I doubt that the Soviets would have stopped until both France and the U.K. and their nuclear forces were neutralized. And considering how poorly the Soviets treated their own people, even at that time, their rule in the west would have been harsh. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 17:14
In contrast, the main goal of the 1980s USA defense build up was to create a flexible response. The USA did not want to be reliant on an "all or nothing" MAD strategy to stop the Soviets. The development of M-1 Abrams and Bradley IFV as part of the "Big Five" weapons systems gave the USA the ability to stop the Soviets with conventional forces. The Pershings then served as a deterrant to Soviet nuculear forces.
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 19:58
War is a messy business. With upwards of 100,000 armored vehicles and SPAs heading west along with several thousand tactical aircraft and possible use of chemical and biological weapons I think that things would have gotten totally out of control. Somebody would have panicked either at the operational level or above and used NBC weapons setting a chain reaction off.
The modern NATO weapons would have made a Soviet advance much more difficult but probably wouldn't have stopped it, they just didn't have the numbers. Western leaders would have had to choose between defeat or the use of NBC. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 07:45
This was the situation during some parts of the cold war. NATO had a technological equality / numerical supereority (USSR) window of vulnerability for most of the 1970s. In addition, the US army was weakened by Vietnam.
In the 1980s, however, NATO and the USA took the lead in technology and this lead widened every year. The USA also corrected discipline problems in the Army and took steps to reduce Soviet numerical advantage as well. At one point, the USA alone had 22(+) well trained , large size Divisions and more in Reserve. Though stopping the Soviets would not have been easy, I dont think that Soviets had the ability to beat NATO conventionaly at this point.
I agree, that is a very likely possibility. Especially when very complex decisons by both sides must be made with in days, or in some cases within hours, or not be made at all (use them or loose them).
This is in direct contrast to WWI and WII where decisons regarding the use of certain weapons could be made over a period of months.
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 16:01
NATO definitely had a better chance in the late 1980s when M1A1s, Apaches, TOW-2s, F-117s and other systems began to replace many of the older systems. Getting reinforcements and resupply across the Atlantic would have been a challenge with the large Soviet submarine fleet and naval aviation though. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 17:40
That would be a challenge, but with 10 U.S Heavy aircraft carriers plus a few British and French light carriers, the supplies would get through (with losses). Now if North Korea attacked South Korea at the same time the Soviets advanced into West Germany, the Soviets may still be able to pull of a victory in the 1980s. (U.S. sends several carriers and divisions to Korea).
Sometimes I feel sorry for the Soviets. They could be creative, ingenious, even "rob Peter to pay Paul".... but in the end, they still had to compete with an economy that could afford to ten fully equipped heavy aircraft carriers and Aegis destroyers and Los Angles class attack subs. It just got to be too much by the early 1990s.
|
Posted By: TheRedBaron
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 06:21
|
I think the real reason why the Soviets didnt attack the West is because they knew how fragile the Warsaw pact was and that they could never compete with the West's qualitive superiority.
With the continual rumblings for freedom from the various Warsaw Pact countries, an all out war with the West would probablly have just brought the collapse of the Pact quicker than anything else.
I have friends who are Ex-Warsaw Pact officers, from the Polish Army, and they all say that had a major war with the West developed then many countries would have faced serious internal problems. One of them commented that he felt the Polish Army would use such a war to turn on Soviet Russia and break away from communist rule... How likely that would have been remains open to conjecture but its a valid point that the Warsaw Pact may have been a big paper tiger and war with the West may just have caused it to collapse.
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 00:11
Only a fraction of those groups would be available at any one time in the North Atlantic and the Soviets had the ability to tie U.S. forces down in other parts of the globe. Also after the acquisition of computerized milling machinery from Toshiba in the mid 1980s the Soviet navy was able to produce much quieter screws for it's latest attack subs like the Victor IIIs. They probably would have bagged a few carriers, and definitely would have got a lot of the merchants.
The Soviet Navy had capabilities that the U.S. Navy lacked. It had several hundred long-range bombers and survelliance aircraft that would have made any Atlantic crossing a challenge, especially if the NATO bases on Iceland were neutralized. Victor IIIs were close in capability to the first batch of Los Angeles class subs and had the advantage of being in the hunting role. It would have been a very challenging battle for both sides.
IMO it was the stealth aircraft that did the Soviets in, they couldn't afford the very expensive and highly computerized systems that would have been required to protect against the new threat, ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 10:59
Good point. I think that the Soviets would only have felt comfortable asking Warsaw Pact allies to a.) defend their airspace against NATO strikes and b.) perhaps contribute a few elite brigades for special missions
Ironically, the Soviets would not be the only ones wth less than enthusiastic allies. Though armed revolt was never a possibility, U.S. relations with some NATO members were strained at times. This may have led these countries to "fullfill" their treaty commitments by contributing only token forces outside their own borders. (The rest kept at home as "reserves" or as a "local counter attack force".) This especially so if they could claim that Soviets were provoked by U.S.A or U.K. .
That is the area that the Soviets could not even began to compete in. I think, however, that they were losing their ability to field competitive systems in other areas as well. For example, F-16s were countered with Mig-29s (to a degree). The Soviets, however, could only afford a very small number of MIG-29s.
The Soviets never produced vehicles tha were truly competitive with M-1s, Challengers and Bradleys (technically, they could have, but they had too many commitments with subs, aircraft etc. and could not afford it). Though the Soviets still had a numerial advantage, the increasing quality gap "across the board" was making the numbers far less important.
|
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 16:47
|
I would agree with Cryptic, the Soviet Union lost the arms race, not the arm race. It was the economic strain of incorporating the revolution in the use of computers, electronics, and miniaturization in all of their existing weapon systems and the possibility of creating new weapons to counter Star Wars that bled the last drop of blood from the Soviet economy. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 17:43
|
I think the question is a bit of a misnomer. Russia never wanted to attack. At anytime.
A question, should Russia have attacked in the 1920's would have been a valid one. Had Troskey taken power, they very well might have attacked. Lenin and trotskey's belief was beligerantly promoting the revolution around the world. Stalin however believed in consolidation. It the reason the western powers tolerated him after wwi, they saw him as no threat, and he saw posing no threat as a way of holding onto power.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 19:41
|
Russia almost launched a nuclear attack on the USA of false information that the USA was preparing for war using their new Pershing IIs (supposely armed with nuclear warheads), however it was an error because the new missiles were never really tested for range that it could strike Moscow at the time. So these false information almost led to a nuclear war. Suprisingly, the USA never really knew about this until recently, so at the time, the Soviets was basically hallucinating and the Americans were dozing about...  |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 21:30
I disagree, Stalin was an opportunist and had no regard for human life. If he had seen a chance to destroy his opponents he would have taken it.
And Khrushchevs belicosity almost touched off WW III in the early 1960s. The image of him banging his shoe on his desk at the general assembly of the U.N. and yelling "we will bury you" made it pretty clear what his intentions were towards the west. Then moving nuclear missiles with a few minutes flight time into Cuba were a step towards making that happen.
------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 02:52
|
I completely disagree. Taken out of context and literally it would seem that Khruschev was in fact trying to completely destroy the West. However, new archival evidence and witnesses show that all Khruschev wanted to to was gain respect for the USSR. If he wanted war, he would've went to war. It's just a matter of bias, I mean: could USSR interpret the US' placement of missiles in Turkey the same way? During 1962 the US had 5,000 nuclear warheads, the USSR had 300 so who really took the steps to destroy the other? Neither because neither side wanted to go to war because there were so many opportunities to do so and neither took them. How many lost submarines and recon aircraft could've set off World War III but were instead buried by both governments? ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 07:28
|
I agree with Jonathan. Kruschev could not have instigated a war with the West without risking the imminent survival of millions of Russian nationals. The Missile Crisis was a direct response to the Bay of Pigs; the mentality being that, "You can't try to invade a Communist nation and not expect reprisals." It was a poker bluff. JFK responded with verve and tact, surely, but Russia lost no face in the incident. A successfully played ruse of aggression to bring about non-aggression. And it paid off. Cuba is still a Communist nation, even though the US could easily have invaded at any time, and consolidated the conquest within a matter of days.
------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 01:17
|
The Soviet Union did lose face in the Cuban crisis (not as much as Kruschev), but to some degree, this move into the Western Hemisphere was a temporary success. The Western Hemisphere initiatives of the USSR had little to do with Communist solidarity, or with spreading communist ideology. As far as ideology, in the 1960s and 70s there was plenty of that already.
If we analyze Soviet Western Hemisphere initiatives, they appear to be more attempts to divert US attention and effort away from Soviet moves in other areas where their perceived vital interests were identified. In the 1960s, while influence was being exerted in Colombia through Cuba, those were in the eastern Mediterranean (historical drive for access to warm water commerce and strategic influence).....Egypt, Syria.
In the 1970s, the attempt to influence revolutionary movements in Chile and Argentina occurred during the conflict in southeast Asia that both stymied the US for a decade, and more importantly, placed strong Soviet influence in Viet Nam after 1975....a threat to Chinese influence, already weakened by the failure of Chinese backed moves in Malaya and Indonesia.
In the 1980s, Soviet moves in central America and the Caribbean were orchestrated at the time of the Soviet move toward the Gulf by positioning Soviet power in Afghanistan.
Cuban proxies were useful in Soviet initiatives in Angola and Ethiopia, a rather expensive support effort that failed, but not for lack of trying.
None of this stuff was major in any lasting way, and I doubt if it was ever conceived as such. It was intended to keep the Americans busy with diversions and by redirecting attention away from far more important perceived Soviet vital interests.
|
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 18:06
|
The question can really be seperated into two parts. First, when would have been the best time for the USSR to attack from the perspective of the best chance to win a military victory? Second, what would be gained by winning a military victory in western Europe at all?
Regarding the first point, 1958 might have been a very dangerous time. With NATO being relatively weak on the ground, but with a huge advantage in nuclear weaponry, the temptation to use nukes would have been very strong. A few US and western European cities nuked, and the USSR devestated does not look like a very favourable outcome for anyone, least of all the Soviets. Later might have been better, although once the French had nuclear weapons, any potential Soviet gains in western Europe would have been limited. The French would have used nukes rather than allowing themselves to be overrun.
Regarding the second question, I'm not sure any Soviet military victory in western Europe would really have made much difference in the longer term. Imposing Stalinist regimes was not very 'profitable' from an 'imperial' perspective. The more the USSR 'grew' by 'force', the greater the burden upon them. Such a victory would have been, IMHO, short term 'gain' for long term 'pain'. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 20:37
|
deadkenny,
I agree that Soviet military victory over NATO would have been disastrous.....for both blocs. The perception of gain in peripheral areas where Western attention could be diverted certainly took some of the attention off Europe. The Soviet Union always has seemed to me to have been primarily in a defensive mode. The more remote they could divert conflict, the safer they felt.
The Soviet Union was always half hearted in extending international Marxist-Leninist influence unless they could directly control it. They brought it into play mostly when diverting attention away from their attempts at shoring up their positions in areas (mostly) contiguous with the USSR.
|