Did NATO ever have a chance to win a conventional conflict in Europe without the use of tactical nuclear weapons (and...

Do you think America is gonna stand by while Millions of dollars are wasted and an integral part of NATO obliterated?

I'd say cut your losses, let NATO die, and secure the Americas and maybe South East Asia and Japan.

>hurr

>secure the Americas
How would you go about doing that, user? Especially when Communists want to secure them just as badly as you do.
And what happens when China invades Japan? Is it still secure then? Or would you cut your losses in Japan, too? Maybe the US should give up all of its defensive commitments and break every treaty its ever signed, pull back to the continental US, and let Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii fall, because why not? It would take effort to defend those places.

>We're talking about a situation without nuclear weapons, though, so why the fuck do you people keep talking about them?
It's silly to exclude nukes. They were an integral part of the whole situation. At very least tactical nukes would be used for defense. Once the seal is broken the USSR wouldn't shy away from using them either. If Britain didn't sue for peace as soon as France fell then you can bet their ass there would be a nuclear exchange before an amphibious invasion.

There were more American troops in Europe than in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam War. On top of this, Eastern Europe was already on the verge of internal fracture by the mid 60's which echoed into the very public revolts of 1968. The Soviets steamrolling Europe was understood by the Soviets as a fleeting dream as early as 1951. The West didn't get the memo until 1989.

>It's silly to exclude nukes.
I agree, but did you even read the OP?

Literally the dumbest shit in the world
>Cut your losses and secure SEA
SEA was a shit hole before the 90's the EU combined has a GDP larger then the USA right now imagine NATOs state without that, not to mention the mindset at the time was kill the commie's and we had just spent MILLIONS rebuilding Europe

>China invades Japan
This isn't possible even now, it was never possible during the Cold War.

>How would you go about doing that, user? Especially when Communists want to secure them just as badly as you do.
Not him, but the Americas were under firm US control during the Cold War with a whole two exceptions: Cuba (because we brushed it off forever) and Nicaragua (because Carter was a fucking pussy). There wasn't any country outside of Cuba that got away with turning away from the US during the Cold War. Even MINOR HINTS at social reform were met with quick covert retribution.

>And what happens when China invades Japan?
China doesn't even have the navy to invade Japan now. How the fuck are they going to do it 50 years ago?

>How would you go about doing that, user?
By selling guns to Latin American countries that play ball and by militarily or covertly destabilizing countries that don't play ball. There is no point in fighting over a radioactive shit hole. If parts of Russia were successfully nuked then all America has to do is sign a ceasefire and wait to become the uncontested global hegemony. Until then all America has to do is keep as many countries as possible from being nuked so they have someone to sell their American made shit to.

Oh, and let's just let Korea fall, because fuck Asians. It seems reasonable that we've already given up on the idea that finance can be a positive asset during war, not when the Soviets steamroll Europe anyway! And who cares about Africa at all? It's not like various proxy wars were fought across the continent, it's not like everyone needs its resources to build literally everything they use to fight wars.
What the fuck, user? Why do you post in threads like this?

>This isn't possible even now
Are you 100% sure?
That isn't secured, military control during a war. Those are strongmen. There's a significant difference.
>How the fuck are they going to do it 50 years ago?
I wasn't sure what the timeline was for all this.
>By selling guns to Latin American countries that play ball and by militarily or covertly destabilizing countries that don't play ball.
But that isn't secure at all.
> There is no point in fighting over a radioactive shit hole
1) This is about a situation without nukes
2) Why do you assume this is true?

Securing an irradiated France and Germany from a thermonuclear USSR wouldn't be worth the effort and probably wouldn't even be possible. What do you think Germany would have done to defend fortress Europe if they had nukes? Sicily and Normandy would have been nuked as soon as the invasions gained footholds, not to mention England would have been nuked long before that.

America would support France in every way possible to defend against the Ruskies, but if France falls then America would have a lot of reason to cut its losses.

In case of war everybody can afford everything.
Why do you think people still care about Russia? As in - internationally, why are Euros using "you're helping putn by being X" as an argument for internal conflicts? Why are they even invited to G8 and other summits like that?
Russia is economical nothing but they have huge armament industry and raw resources to fuel it. It's not running at even 10th of its capacity but it can run given that you'll push them into war. They'll pay in warbonds and hope they'll rob enough to cover for it, kinda like Germany did back in the times.Otherwise the country isn't worth shit and there wouldn't be a single reason to care about Putin's whims.

As for OP.

NATO had completely missed strategy of stopping soviets in 2 logical strategic points(Fulda gap and I don't remember what else) where they've concentrated their forces. Lucky for them, the war didn't start because Warsaw Pact went for overall coverage, so the troops weren't really focused on those two points.
Warsaw Pact's strategy in case of NATO's attack was to perform tactical withdrawal on Oder or Vistula line, launch amphibious assault in Pommerania, encircle NATO troops and then continue the march to the west.

Whole the time NATO was convinced that they can only delay the conquest of continental Europe while WP was convinced they can conquer it which kinda shows you that it was a result of some simulations and wargames rather than some prophetic visions.

In next post I'll cover what would happen on the sea.
>Eastern Europe was already on the verge of internal fracture by the mid 60's which echoed into the very public revolts of 1968.
You don't seem to understand the way things worked back in the times. I'll just give you example - in 1970 protesters in Polish shipyards had banners saying "yes to socialism, no to abuse". 1980's protests were different.

True there were more Americans than in Vietnam, but that would still be maybe a million Americans vs a much bigger Russian force. At the end of World War 2 they had well over 3 times that. The Russians also put down the revolts quickly and efficiently, so if they started the conflict and moved into Germany, NATO would start out on the backfoot. They could get pretty far into Western Europe before reinforcements came, or until the nukes started flying.

>Are you 100% sure?
How are they going to do it? They'll be fighting the JMSDF, USN and ROKN

>well sure, it's secured, but not if I define secured like this
Stop.

>They'll be fighting the JMSDF, USN and ROKN
That's my point, that poster is being an idiot because he's advocating abandoning any country the US has a defensive commitment to. The Chinese wouldn't need to do much to invade Japan if the USN had no presence in or near its waters.

>That isn't secured, military control during a war
Let me spell it out for you so you can understand:
>Latin American militaries control Latin American countries
>US controls Latin American militaries
>Therefore, the US has military control over Latin America
Fin.

>I wasn't sure what the timeline was for all this.
We're talking about the Cold fucking War. Even then, it doesn't fucking matter in the slightest when it's happening. The Chinese can't do it today and they couldn't do it at any point during the Cold War.

>You don't seem to understand the way things worked back in the times
Allow me to retort: In 1968, the Russians had to call tanks into Prague to stop armed revolt. In 1953, Russians had to call in the Red Army to stop an armed uprising all over East Germany.

It's NATO vs. Combloc and half of the Combloc doesn't even want to be part of the Combloc not the US vs Russia.

>NATO had completely missed strategy of stopping soviets in 2 logical strategic points(Fulda gap and I don't remember what else)
North German plain?

Strategic

I don't understand the situation you think you're dealing with. Do you think nobody in South America will invade anybody else? Do you not think it'll be desirable to have well-trained American soldiers in some of those countries to push back those invasions?

>We're talking about the Cold fucking War
Some of which was 20 years ago.
>>Therefore, the US has military control over Latin America
Sure, but we're talking about a potential invasion by a non-LA military power. I thought that was obvious.
>tactical nuclear weapons (and the potential escalation that comes with them)?

err 25-30 years*

I don't think you know anything about Latin America during the Cold War. Latin American countries rarely if ever invade one another and America has always dominated the political climate there.

You're right, it is Nato vs The Warsaw Pact. But if a war broke out, the eastern europeans would still be contained, and the western europeans and the US soldiers there could only hold out so long against the tide of soldiers they were facing before the US and other Euro countries fully deployed.

>Sure, but we're talking about a potential invasion by a non-LA military power. I thought that was obvious.
No non-LA country is going to throw their full military might into Latin America. Even the French weren't that stupid in the 1860's. Even if they did, LA militaries are fully armed, trained and funded by the US during this period. The US gave so much money to the Guatemalan military during the Cold War they started their own bank and bought Manhattan Real Estate which they used to fund themselves during the Carter funding drought.

Carter did nothing wrong.

Carter didn't do anything right either.

He tried to wake up America from our dream. We should have listened.

>He tried to wake up America from our dream. We should have listened.
He single-handedly fucked American diplomacy with our staunchest allies too. For every "A" Carter gets, he gets another big fat "F".

Strategy on sea was even more reliant on nuclear weapons but you conventionally you've had:
>Baltic being treated as internal Soviet sea after Sweden was put on its knees
>marines being trained in DDR, Poland and USSR and using massive fleet of fast assault boats for amphibious operations(mostly related to disabling Swedish defences and later launching previously mentioned assault on Pomeranian coast)
>large "carrier task force killers" being developed, initially it were rocket-armed destroyers then the concept turned into what became Kirov class rocket cruisers

for USN it went through stages:
>bikini atol trials absolutely proved that a nuke annihilates surface fleet so better screw it completely(obviously it didn't prove shit other than that there was need for collective NBC systems in warships)
>korean war happens, holy crap it would be nice to have our old aircraft carriers and battleships
>korean war ends, everybody still convinced that surface fleet is obsolete
>navy saves their funding by creating "nuclear bomber aircraft carriers" that obviously were just very big ordinary carriers(something they wanted anyway) that could've been theoretically equipped with airplane armed with nuclear bombs [cont in next post]
>Allow me to retort: In 1968, the Russians had to call tanks into Prague to stop armed revolt. In 1953, Russians had to call in the Red Army to stop an armed uprising all over East Germany.
As a result by 1970's 20% of Eastern German civilian population were stasi informers. I'm not kidding, it was the most infiltrated society in the eastern bloc. In Czechoslovakia the "armed revolt" was started by Czechoslovakian government, not by civilians(although they've had popular support) and said government was replaced by Moscow's puppets, which dealt with policing rather well seeing as protests of any kind were rare ever since.

I wouldn't count on eastern bloc being destroyed by revolutions. CIA didn't count on it until 1980's.

>which dealt with policing rather well seeing as protests of any kind were rare ever since
>1970's protests in Poland which culminated into Moscow forced military coup
>1970's protests in Czechoslovakia
Outside of Germany and Hungary, no one wanted to be part of the Combloc. The former out of fear, the latter out of being the happiest little barrack.

Maybe it isn't clear, but I'm assuming that the Soviets will have interests in LA and will send support to their own insurgents there? It's not like there were never socialists in Latin America, the most successful dictators were put in place to shut down socialist movements.
>No non-LA country is going to throw their full military might into Latin America.
I'm not talking about full military might, I'm talking about maybe the Soviets trying to take part of the Strait of Magellan. The Falklands War happened.

>The Falklands War happened
The UK didn't put their full military might into it and they also had the support of the US.

>cont. obviously the whole thing was just a ploy to convince the dumb-asses at DoD to fund new aircraft carriers
>battleships couldn't be saved but Iowa class remained in service
>lighter vessels were limited to corvets, frigates and destroyers(that got light-cruiser big anyway)
>the fleet was focused on what worked during WW2 except with fancier AA weapons and anti-ship missiles being new threat.
>Kirov class unveils, the west is shocked, to counter their threat Reagan reactivates and modernises Iowa class battleships

The overall strategy is little hard to describe because it was heavily nuke-dependant and the conventional use of their fleets would be ground support, commerce defence and some bombing(if possible), there were very few wide-drawn plans like Soviets' did(no wonder the balance at seas was in NATO's favour, no need to try to reinvent the wheel when you have hegemony).
>1970's protests in Poland which culminated into Moscow forced military coup
1970 protests ended up in new communist government with enormous popular support taking over the power in the country. 1976 were largely inconsequential. You're thinking 1980 user that resulted in short period of liberalisation(but without stopping the cooperation with the rest of Warsaw pact) that ended in a coup that wasn't even Soviet-backed as you've said. They've did it because they didn't want to repeat Czechoslovakia even though Moscow ensured them that they don't plan any interventions. So it was either hunger for power or paranoia.

I never used the phrase "full military might," you illiterate contrarian. I'm leaving this thread anyway, nobody here can even agree on the terms of discussion.

>no more large scale protests
>except these that you pointed out but they don't count because I say
Fuck off.

Yeah, so 1968 students riots meant that western bloc was about to fall apart, right?

Of course not.

The situations like happened in Yugoslavia(where USSR didn't intervene), Hungary(where USSR entered alone) and Czechoslovakia(where they've did full scale WP intervention) were dangerous for the integrity of the block, the remaining ones literally don't count.

They did mean that French society was and still is an unstable mess

What about the martial law in Pooland?

>Yeah, so 1968 students riots meant that western bloc was about to fall apart, right?
The fucking American students weren't trying to get autonomy for their states away from the US. In fact, quite the opposite. Nor were the French riots trying to get autonomy for Paris in fucking France. Strawman as fuck.

>The situations like happened in Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia wasn't even in the fucking Combloc.

>Yugoslavia wasn't even in the fucking Combloc.
At first they were. Then Tito broke out.

America dominated Latin America during the Cold War. That would be even more the case if America forgot about Europe and put all it's resources into securing Latin America.

Which allies were that?

>securing Latin America
Against what? The Soviet interests that I've been explicitly referring to this entire fucking time? You people refuse to read or something, I swear.

Almost every non-European anti-communist country. Predominantly those in Latin America who were in the middle of anti-communist civil conflicts like Argentina, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

>NATO ever have a chance
It would have steamrolled the Soviets at any time based on durability only, the USSR just did not have the economy (nor internal unity and peace in the occupied territories) to sustain a war.

The short answer is no

>Combloc forms in 1955
>Tito split occurs in '48
You're continuing to show your genius.

So why didn't other communist countries split up or accept financial aid from Marshall plan if there wasn't comblock before 1955? Some pacts are not written, I know, shocker.

>Sovietland wasn't interested in Latin America during the Cold War
wat?

>So why didn't other communist countries split up or accept financial aid from Marshall plan if there wasn't comblock before 1955?
Besides the fact of Soviet military domination in their countries?

>Some pacts are not written
I can say emphatically and objectively that there was no Combloc before 1955.

Probably because Russian troops were occupying them and Stalinism exerted more revolutionary influence there? Central and Eastern Europe were basically being de-Nazified at that point.

I never even fucking said that. What are you talking about?

>Carter broke ties with the corrupt shit holes that should have collapsed decades ago if not for the hypocrisy of American interests abroad.
And nothing of value was lost.

>Ending relationships with valuable allies because people who don't have a grasp on foreign policy or economics think they're hypocritical in a way that actually goes so far as to impede the distribution of justice in both countries, somehow
l a d
Do you have a better argument than that?

That's actually correct. They Soviets didn't fund revolutions in the Americas like the US did due to them holding to the ideas of spheres of influence. When Cuba revolted and turned to the Soviets, the Soviets jumped with joy, but they refused to fund the Cuban revolution until after it had succeeded. The Sandinistas also approached the Soviets who turned them down. Almost all communist insurgencies in Latin America were self-funded or funded by the Cubans after 1961.

>implying Taiwan should fall to the PRC just because of some Georgian peanut farmer and a shit for brains on a singaporean woodcarving website

>insurgencies
That's the big issue here, I'm not talking about an insurgency, I'm talking about the Soviets trying to take Panama or Tierra del Fuego to fuck with NATO supply lines.

Supporting dictators instead of allowing popular opinion to run its course is against American ideals and is therefore hypocritical.

inb4
>sometimes you have to act like an asshole in geopolitics therefore you are naive to think we shouldn't abandon every single one of our principles at the drop of a hat

And even then you're still wrong for reasons I've stated throughout this thread but you keep coming back to it. It's as unrealistic of a premise as Red Dawn was.

Nations aren't individuals, they can't act as hypocrites. Stop pretending everybody is an American citizen.
This is a thread about a Soviet conquest of Europe without nuclear weapons, it's a retarded premise from the beginning.

>Nations aren't individuals, they can't act as hypocrites. Stop pretending everybody is an American citizen.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counter argument unless you are indeed arguing what I inb4ed in the greentext, that nations should never stand by the principles largely inherent to their history and culture.

>Soviets didn't fund revolutions in the Americas
Not a revolution, but Allende was theirs.

You're begging the question by acting as if it's rational to base foreign policy decisions on eliminating "hypocrisy," as you've vaguely defined it (oh, wait, it's yet undefined ITT) and altruism is the foundation of international relationships.

Common myth. Having relations isn't the same as being in bed with. He consistently turned down Soviet advice and even balked at their ideas of military policing. Even then, it was after he was elected which is in no way contrary to my original statement.

Nobody said he was in bed with them.

You said he was theirs. He wasn't. He just had warm relations with them like Mexico and Costa Rica. I'm guessing you're not American since you didn't get the colloquialism.

You are implying the opposite extreme, that nations should NEVER stand by their principles. National mythologies/narratives are what hold countries together, they are what define nations. Stating that democracy is the best form of government and then squelching democracy abroad is not a good long term plan because it undermines the very principles that hold your country together. American domestic policy will regress away from democratic principles if no one actually believes it is the best form of government.

You're seriously underestimating the intensity of a hypothetical WW3 that OP is describing. Industrial capacity only plays a minor role, when you lose 3000 tanks per day.

>in everything but air-power and naval power

For a nuclear war, air and naval matter a fuck-load more than infantry. I'm pretty sure that the Soviet's plan for a real war was to try and capture as many European capitals as soon as possible and basically hold them hostage to sue for peace.

Why not just nuke the airbases as soon as NATO begins setting off tactical nukes to slow the Soviet land invasion?

No I'm not. You're question-begging and have been all along. You don't understand America's principles, anyway, obviously.

Quality Equipment vs QUALITY Equipment

Soviet Union would have lost the war eventually, but not without fucking up poor Europe and the US gets to jack off to the complete economic domination of post-war Europe

>democracy isn't an American principle

This.

In a long conventional conflict the soviets would lose, and europe would be ruined by said conflict which means the US would be even more predominant then it was already.

Not that user, but I'm sick of this argument going on. Democracy as an American principle has always been one of the City on a Hill. We are not to install democracy abroad, but instead we are supposed to show the uplift of democracy using ourselves as an example while holding steadfastly to realpolitik. This has been upheld with a whopping 3 exceptions: Wilson, FDR, and Carter, who were all VERY controversial presidents. Now shut the fuck up and read your founding fathers actual writings instead of arguing about horseshit on a fucking Mongolian dressage board.

user was right though.
Republicanism is a US Principle not Democracy

No they didn't have a chance. Everyone realized that in those times. That is why Soviet union nuclear doctrine was no first use, since they had conventional superiority. Russia's nuclear doctrine now allows for first use precisely because they do not have conventional superiority anymore.

It is mainly due to the fact that USA is behind an ocean, and it would take them too long to mobilize and get in europe in large numbers.

And dictators aren't republican. What are you even on about?

So America has a moral obligation to create republican governments around the world? Or to only associate with republics that don't abuse the human rights of their citizens? What the fuck is your point?

>We are not to install democracy abroad, but instead we are supposed to show the uplift of democracy using ourselves as an example while holding steadfastly to realpolitik.
No one said anything about installing democracies. The discussion is about toppling democracies and keeping unpopular dictators in charge.

see No one said anything about invading a country and installing democratic governments.

>The discussion is about toppling democracies and keeping unpopular dictators in charge
Neither realpolitik nor the idea of City on a Hill have anything against either of these.

...

Don't make me repeat myself, cunt.

So we are aback at
>sometimes you have to act like an asshole in geopolitics therefore you are naive to think we shouldn't abandon every single one of our principles at the drop of a hat

The principles of a nation come into play in geopolitics.

Why don't you make a better argument instead of calling me names when you fail to convince anybody that you have the slightest idea what you're on about?

>The principles of a nation come into play in geopolitics.
[citation or argument needed]
Your emotions and intuitions do not constitute an argument, nor do Hollywood movies.