Quote:
Smersh said:
NATO would have about 48 hours or less warning of a Soviet attack. I don't think enough logistical damage and scortched earth could have been performed in that time to seriosly stop an offensive, even if there was strong enough political will (which is questionable).
You have to remember that Soviet strategy depended on total and overwhelming commitment to win a possible war within a week or two. again I don't think a few blown bridges and cratered highway would have stopped the 'show'.
But we should also consider that CPSU remained against a war of conquest in Europe, and there wasn't much support among the general population for one either. So, talking about a unprovoked suprise WP attack is a little unrealistic. I can only see war between NATO and WP happening a result of a smaller European conflict escalating into a general war.
|
True, the whole debate of a WP vs NATO conflict in europe does sidestep the cause and lead up to a war. Many scenario's can be imagined and much of the subsequent combat would depend on it.
Unprovoked is a tricky term though. I can see an WP attack as a reaction on severe economic setbacks within the SU (possibly influenced or engineered by the west). That could imo have led to a WP attack, and very possibly one they were not ready for themselves. Many possibilities and the ones we all have in our respective heads probably have a great influence in how we see a further conflict develop.
For example I don't believe in a WP surprise attack, which your 48 hour warning time would amount to. They simply would not have enough forces available in such a short time. As far as I know it would have taken them at least a month to prepare and get ready (that month refering to noticeable preparations, in other words indicating to the west that something was afoot). So either no surprise but a lot of troops or surprise and very few troops. While they'd need both to have a chance of defeating NATO... That at least is the context in which I see such a conflict.
Narwan