USA plan for WWIII against USSR

jonniebgood1

Operation Dropshot was the US plan for war against USSR in 1957.

After Nazi's defeat in 1945, Soviet Union emerged as a new superpower with its own aggressive agenda to promote Communism and eventually, dominate in the world. American Joint Chiefs of Stuff had to contemplate probable Soviet's actions and by 1949 came up with a plane of effective military response. "Dropshot" is a result of these contingency planning, a frightening but realistic scenario of the Third World War, started between NATO and USSR in Europe and all over the world on January 1, 1957.

http://www.allworldwars.com/Dropshot%20-%20American%20Plan%20for%20War%20with%20the%20Soviet%20Union%201957.html#Conclusions

Does this plan show the US identifying Britain as a potential 'puppet' to be used for the US's means, they were providing funding at the time-

The United Kingdom has great strategic significance because of its manpower and industrial potential [and] its suitability as a base for air operations against the USSR, as a base for naval operations, and as a base for mounting major operations to seize other strategic areas in Western or Northern Europe when such operations become necessary and feasible. Loss of the United Kingdom would be a serious blow to Allied industrial capabilities, with a possible consequent increase in Soviet capabilities. Further, the psychological effect on the other Allies and potential Allies would be considerable. These factors make the holding of the United Kingdom mandatory. Soviet capabilities will be such that the United Kingdom will be in grave danger from air, guided-missile, and airborne attacks, especially if Western Continental Europe is overrun. Contributing greatly to the effective defense of the United Kingdom would be the holding of Western Europe as far east as possible. The security of the United Kingdom must of necessity be primarily a British responsibility. The British should be able to provide the ground defense and to control the adjacent sea areas.

They also make assumptions about Ireland:

Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, Turkey, the Arab League (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen), Israel, Iran, India, and Pakistan will attempt to remain neutral but will join the Allies if attacked or seriously threatened.

How could such a war could have started? It could not have started by accident. The hair-trigger nuclear response procedures which characterized the later stages of the Cold War simply did not exist during the period in question. There was no need for them, since it would have taken hours for a nuclear-armed bomber to reach its target. Indeed, the leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have been less constrained than were the leaders of the major European powers in August 1914. The intricate mass mobilization plans devised by France and Germany in preparation for the First World War could not really be controlled once they were started. They were intimately tied to strategic plans of offense and defense which required major battles to occur within days of the start of mobilization. A war in 1957 between the United States and the Soviet Union would have started very differently. The mobilization of whole continents is necessarily a leisurely affair. The plans the newly mobilized armies would have been called on to execute would have been calculated in terms of months or years. Therefore, though accidental skirmishes between East and West might have occurred in Europe or the Mediterranean in the 1950s, an actual war would probably have to have been deliberate.

http://www.johnreilly.info/ww3.htm

Victor

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Does this plan show the US identifying Britain as a potential 'puppet' to be used for the US's means

I think puppet is the wrong word, the traditional "unsinkable aircraft carrier" comes to mind. However, its a bit more subtle than that. What this says is that by having Britain as a (relatively) dependable position form which a reaction could be launched, even if Western Europe was over-run, the mainland European allies (not sure if that counts West Germany as they weren't in NATO yet) were more likely to put up a fight. If they though the war wasn't winnable, they would be disinclined to get into a major fight on their home territory as it would be their own countries that they would be destroying.

jonniebgood1

Victor wrote: »

I think puppet is the wrong word, the traditional "unsinkable aircraft carrier" comes to mind. However, its a bit more subtle than that. What this says is that by having Britain as a (relatively) dependable position form which a reaction could be launched, even if Western Europe was over-run, the mainland European allies (not sure if that counts West Germany as they weren't in NATO yet) were more likely to put up a fight. If they though the war wasn't winnable, they would be disinclined to get into a major fight on their home territory as it would be their own countries that they would be destroying.

West Germany was under special assumptions (like Ireland). It was to be either under occupation or availiable as a base for forces.

I thought the points on Italy were interesting in the plan:

Two primary considerations keep her aligned with the West, and particularly with the United States, in her attempts to attain these objectives. First is her realization that political stability can be maintained and economic recovery achieved only through very extensive outside assistance and that the West is able to give such assistance. Second is her realization both that her former position as a world power can be achieved only through political alliances and that no alliance with the USSR is possible on any basis of equality or even of independence

Capt'n Midnight

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I thought the points on Italy were interesting in the plan:

At the time Italy had the largest communist party outside of a country with a communist government.

There were fears of a coup

Capt'n Midnight

ii. Surface-to-Surface. The surface-to-surface missiles which can be available in operational quantities in 1957 include V-I and V-2 types copied from the original German missiles as well as V-2 types with wings. These Soviet missiles may be expected to have improved operational characteristics. Ranges of six hundred nautical miles for V-1 types and four hundred nautical miles for V-2 types are within the Soviet capability.

"may be expected to have improved operational characteristics." :pac:

Manic Moran

They also make assumptions about Ireland:

It's a reasonable assumption.

NTM

Victor

Did we have the Bren guns yet?