Over the last week, I've been trying to wrap my head around setting up the strategic game for a world war set in the Germanys of 1958, and I've been struggling a bit. Despite all of my research, there are many holes in my info, and I'm at the point, where I have to bite the bullet, and just make some decisions to move ahead.
One of the things that I'm doing is creating a 1958 version of GDW's The Third World War, which at the moment involves sorting a lot info, filling in gaps, and deciding how far I want to go with board game design (not something that I'm really interested in).
A second issue that I've been addressing is the differences in my alternate history with respect to available forces, resources/technology, and changes to politics. With the premise being that the US leads an attack on East Germany with intent to unify East and West, and put the USSR in "its place", I constantly struggle with my real world view that NATO never could have pulled this off.
Trying to sell myself on the idea that a more hard-line Soviet leadership could catalyze a more "McCarthian" movement in the US, and that it could get (enough of) its NATO allies to make it happen, has been more problem than expected. I have to keep reminding myself that it is a fictional game.
While the purpose was to create a framework for a series of linked and interdependent miniatures battles, I keep getting lost in the real world politics of the day (or at least, what little I know of it). A big "just go with it" is the US convincing West Germany that the only way to avoid a war in the west is to invade the East.
Other issues involve France being concerned enough with the Soviets to draw attention and forces away from their African problem, and then there is the the problem of the UK economically supporting/surviving a war, and so on. I also struggle badly with the idea that the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada would be willing to get sucked up into the American Red Menace craziness.
Other challenging considerations include having understanding of the Soviet limitations of the day. They don't have many nukes, or at least not a lot of good ways to deliver them. Really just a handful of Scuds, and bombers that would take a pounding. Oh some would get through, and each one that did would have a tremendous "impact', but there probably would not be a lot of repeat offenders. And though I really want to play a conventional war, I have to accept that the "Atomic Battlefield" was the American plan of the day.
So right now, I've mostly distracted myself with deciding what forces are available, inventing some units to fill in my informational gaps, and creating 1958 vintage counters for all of the forces involved.
While working on all of this, in the back of my mind is the thought that it could all go wrong (like any version of a third world war could be things going right?), and instead of months of Cold War miniatures games, I find that the game ends in a couple of days with nuclear apocalypse, or that Pentomic divisions were such a bad idea that the Soviets are in Normandy faster than I can say, "Red Menace".
I have an answer, or at least a what if?
ReplyDeleteWhat if the Hungarian Revolution occurred in late 1957 and the Russian response escalated, either by spilling over into Austria, or have East Germany rally to the call of reform?
That's an interesting idea; I'll have to revisit it. Even if I maintain the historical timeline in '56, it still might work as a catalyst for East Germany in an alt-timeline.
DeleteGlad that was a helpful comment. We all need to be kind during these troubled times.
DeleteThat might not be a bad starting point. It also has the French and British main effort districted in Egypt, along with other post colonial conflicts when it kicks off.
DeleteYeah those are all good points. I mean you would also have to factor in that the UK and France might still be pissed off about the Suez Debacle.
ReplyDeleteAnd might tell the US to pound dirt.
So might have to say, hang historical Politics and just go wargaming aspect only.
Yeah, I imagine that they may have still been smarting from how that played out. You may be right about the history. I had just hoped to have a good story to get things there, and while I have a story, it isn't a very strong one.
DeleteCan't help wondering whether that was part of the reason the UK didn't get involved in Vietnam too...
DeleteIt could be, whatever their reason, it would have been a terrible burden on their economy, and would have been interesting to see what trade-offs they had to make with their NATO commitment.
DeleteA cold war hawk of questionable scruples travels back in time and convinces the governments of the day that the only time the war can be won and russians vanquished is early before the balance of nuclear power evens up. Descriptions of mutually assured destruction and the threat of mirvs and a red dawn style invasion of homeland north america with some artistic license is enough to make the allies pull together and finish the 'incipient threat of global communism assimilating billions of people over the next 30 years'.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I immediately find myself exploring the role playing side of how he convinces anyone to believe him. And how he might change the viewpoint of Eisenhower about initiating a war.
ReplyDeleteI imagine with access to a lot of declassified material from both sides a time traveler could make a pretty good pitch. "These are the decisions you are working on, this is what company x is working that is top secret, here is what your allies are working on, and here's some goodies about the USSR'. You really need to listen to me because the communists have all but won. Youngsters in the US are talking positively about socialism. The Russkies are actively interfering in our elections. The time to strike.....IS NOW!
ReplyDeleteWith access to the right ears, he might have a winning argument, though, getting to the right ears might be the more improbable part of his adventure.
DeleteOn the flip side, what if a future Russian, went back to convince Stalin to keep going in 1945-46. I'm sure that Stalin kills him, but maybe acts on the information. Maybe Stalin "purges" Khrushchev, after finding out what he does, creating a different Soviet path.
Getting the right people to listen to you would be important. But with huge amounts of historical data and declassified info you could probably find some important senators/congresscritters that could be 'encouraged' to make some introductions for you. Knowing about scandals ahead of time is amazing for veiled threats I imagine.
Deleteyes, if you got the first person to listen, who could then get someone like Lemay involved, you might have a chance.
DeleteI often find that I start off with a fairly vague and flimsy premise but the results of the battles allow me to ret-con other ideas and background scheming into the earlier games.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious: What is the Soviet impetus to not just push onwards and take up a Lebensraum approach of their own? Sure, the USSR has land, but not enough of it is (perhaps) as nice as what can be grabbed up in Europe proper. Stalin was a shrewd and complex character. I also feel like he can be a bit arbitrary at times. He picks and chooses what intelligence to listen to in a manner that borders on reading chicken blood splattered on a wall. So where an Iron curtain is ok to buffer against contact with the west, why not take that one logical step further and eliminate the west? Stalin was paranoid enough to perhaps make that leap, and at the end of the war he at least had an army that was capable. Where it was not capable it was at least vast. If that push west never stopped I would imagine that the rest of the world would just pick up where it left off and continue to defend the sovereign rights of other nation states who were "in the club." That might not benefit Poland, but France is a card carrying member that gets the full attention of everyone when they are threatened.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I have to imagine that Stalin would understand, if not other world leaders, that a nuclear exchange with the USSR wouldn't have had parity. A nuke in Paris would be far more devastating than a nuke anywhere in Russia could have been. Call that the benefit of a rather callous regard for human life, which the USSR had fully developed by that time. I would imagine that Stalin would have gladly sacrificed multiple cities in the Iron Curtain area for the chance to take one good bite at a bastion of western ideas such as Paris or even Berlin. It might have even been fathomable that he would nuke Berlin with his troops still in occupation in the East. "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." - J. Stalin
Despite how things did go, I think Stalin creates a fantastic leaping off point for some really shocking 90 degree turns in history.
Perhaps ironically, I'm not real well read up on Stalin, but here are some thoughts. First the Soviet Union was still standing, but had taken an incredible pounding during the fight. Stalin may have believed that the USSR might not be able to complete an advance farther east. Also, I think he was really afraid of what the US might do with atomic bombs. We showed that we were willing to use it, and he didn't push too hard for a piece of the action in Japan. Another thing is that his world view in the post war period was less maybe a little more hazy than it had been in the past. He made some big mistakes like the Berlin blockade, where I think he didn't understand the situation, and maybe that made him more reserved. He might have also believed that the west would consume itself, so why not just wait.
DeleteAll of that said, on the table top, a continuation in 1945-46 is certainly enticing, and despite Korea, if the west had wanted war in the early 1950s, with the aid of nukes, the game is again very interesting. All of that said, I have a feeling that you simply can't really defeat the Russian people, regardless of the condition their army might be in. I don't know that they ever stop fighting an invader.
Well, no, I'm not sure how you could defeat any country that size. Russia, China, the USA. Even if you could establish a beachhead (the Nazis arguably established a HUGE territory within Russia) the supply lines to span the country are probably insurmountable. At least at that time. Russia also seems to have their "12th Man" in the weather. Everything I've read about invading Russia from Napoleon onward basically says that there is a pretty limited window to make war. Time when the ground is hard, but not because it is frozen because no soldier wants to wage a protracted war in the dead of a near-arctic winter. Once that window shuts, it is going to be a nightmare of mud, frostbite, and stalled progress. If progress and forward momentum stalls, then Russia/USSR has time to build tanks and drink vodka. You can't hope to win a war that gets waged in this manner.
ReplyDeleteThen you have the Communist belief that anyone who could hold a gun is a soldier. It might not have been quite that pragmatic, but if you are Germany your ability to wage war relies on fighting aged males. That is a pretty big handicap when mustering a fighting force. By adding women and children, Stalin made a damn big army in a hurry. Screw waiting for little Nikolai to be old enough to be conscripted, hand him a gun and send him on his way.
Then you have the magnificent "In the Soviet Army it takes more bravery to retreat than advance" quote from Stalin. In true 40k fashion, you get commissars who kill fleeing men who refuse to fight. I think you see a little of this in WWI where a Brit might fail to stand their ground and get tried for treason or what not, but I don't recall that happening while the shells are falling. More like they find some runaway soldier drinking in a bar and haul him in for a trial. That is still common enough in the modern military world. But you don't have soldiers who are just there to kill you if you think about running back. That is brutal. I'd rather take my chances with the Nazis. At least if you beat the Nazis they retreat. You can't go home if the way home is lined with people who want to kill you for not beating the Nazis. Actually, scratch that, not just not beating them but not dying from the effort. Anything less was not accepted. There is a certain inspiration in that.
One of those "what if" moments in history would have come when the Allies and USSR were snatching up all those German scientists. It wasn't really a foregone conclusion that the Soviets would not have grabbed the right scientists who would have greatly hastened their completion of an atomic weapon. So, give Stalin a bomb in parity with the US and see if he wouldn't have dared us to use it in France. It is one thing to bomb the home islands in Japan, but another to use it in the occupied territory of your ally. I think that gives the Soviets an edge in that conflict that we could have done little about. Especially pre-proliferation. Even if the entire war only saw 5-7 bombs used, I suspect that the willingness to keep going down that path would have waned faster on the side of the Allies than the Soviet union.
All fun to speculate about. Can't wait to see the new game in action.
-Andrew