Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Russia should have attacked in 1958
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Russia should have attacked in 1958
    Posted: 18-May-2007 at 07:45
Originally posted by DukeC

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.
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.
Originally posted by DukeC

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.
 
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.  


Edited by Cryptic - 18-May-2007 at 07:54
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 16:01
Originally posted by Cryptic

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.
 
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.


Edited by DukeC - 19-May-2007 at 16:02
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 17:40
Originally posted by DukeC

 
Getting reinforcements and resupply across the Atlantic would have been a challenge with the large Soviet submarine fleet and naval aviation though.
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.
 
 
Back to Top
TheRedBaron View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 15-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote TheRedBaron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2007 at 00:11
Originally posted by Cryptic

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).
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic

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.
 
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,


Edited by DukeC - 22-May-2007 at 00:14
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2007 at 10:59
Originally posted by TheRedBaron

 
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.
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. .
Originally posted by DukeC

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,
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.   
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 22-May-2007 at 11:47
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656 		  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952 		  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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... Tongue
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2007 at 21:30
Originally posted by Paul

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.
 
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.
 


Edited by DukeC - 22-May-2007 at 21:31
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185 		  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925 		  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 11-Jun-2008 at 01:22
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.