Remove ads

The Able Archer War - A Timeline

Reader mode
So was wondering what Al Haig was doing (a man I'm quite fond of for his go getter Political carreer while simultaneously being in the Military and then having some of the most galaxy brained ideas around), so I took the liberty of making my own head canon for the man, please ignore it entirely if it dosent work with what you had in mind, but well here we go:

As a Former Supreme Commander of NATO and political actor (if one not in favor right now), the newly recalled General Haig is dispatched at once as a Liason to NATO command and Allies, where he redeems himself in the eyes of the Administration for providing, good information to the President (something utterly crucial when he is perpetually in the sky) and being a good bulldog when needed for rough diplomatic encounters. After the war, he snags himself a spot as a peacekeeping general in Eastern Europe, where he serves with distinction until early 1989, when he resigns his command and returns to the United States. Running for President in 1992, he actually becomes the Republican Nominee based on his service, marketing himself as another Ike, but alas, his akwardness and embarrasing leaks from his time as Secretary of State help sink him against President Leland.
 
Earl Warren said:
So was wondering what Al Haig was doing (a man I'm quite fond of for his go getter Political carreer while simultaneously being in the Military and then having some of the most galaxy brained ideas around), so I took the liberty of making my own head canon for the man, please ignore it entirely if it dosent work with what you had in mind, but well here we go:

As a Former Supreme Commander of NATO and political actor (if one not in favor right now), the newly recalled General Haig is dispatched at once as a Liason to NATO command and Allies, where he redeems himself in the eyes of the Administration for providing, good information to the President (something utterly crucial when he is perpetually in the sky) and being a good bulldog when needed for rough diplomatic encounters. After the war, he snags himself a spot as a peacekeeping general in Eastern Europe, where he serves with distinction until early 1989, when he resigns his command and returns to the United States. Running for President in 1992, he actually becomes the Republican Nominee based on his service, marketing himself as another Ike, but alas, his akwardness and embarrasing leaks from his time as Secretary of State help sink him against President Leland.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Actually works pretty great, I probably would've written similar for wartime service. Running for president doesn't raise any flags, either. Lol, I hadn't realized his involvement in Red Dawn but I love that. Co-chairing an org called "Peace in the Caucasus" makes orders of magnitude MORE sense ITTL than OTL, so something similar might pop up. The development of the internet is off-kilter enough that I don't think we see him in Silicon Valley at all.

I just got an image of this buddy comedy where Haig is chief-of-staff to First Gentleman Howard Baker during the Kassebaum presidency and they keep trying to pull diplomatic capers behind her back. This is nothing, ignore this.
 
Since there is evidence of American land lease equipment from WW2 being used in Ukraine right now, did the Soviets use them against NATO? I Can imagine a American soldier capturing a Soviet soldier armed with a Tommy gun.
 
I imagine there will be a TV show based on the exploits of either the 101st during the war. Especially their heroic defense of the towns in which many of its residents despise them being there thanks to Khomeini.

I imagine it will be called Band of Brothers
 
Felipe Trigo said:
Since there is evidence of American land lease equipment from WW2 being used in Ukraine right now, did the Soviets use them against NATO? I Can imagine a American soldier capturing a Soviet soldier armed with a Tommy gun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ha, I don't know about tommy guns specifically but it seems possible that they'll start shipping anything they have out before too long. Factors include domestic production, the intensity of the war, the length of the war, and the state of Soviet logistics. I have to speculate that even in the best of conditions, the intensity of the war means they're going to outstrip domestic production in terms of sending full trains of stuff to the front. Their logistics degradation is naturally going to be lowest closest to home, meaning stuff is going to at least get out of the storehouses and on the road.

Also might be a great lower-security source of supply for the stockpiling phase preceding rebellions throughout Soviet territory. That seems much higher probability than that quality of equipment making it to the front lines.

That said, anything that's really useful or interchangeable that can boost capacity (like an artillery piece or heavy machine gun that uses ammo they've already got at the front) might be prioritized.

The wars, bandits, and unrest in the post-war years in former Soviet territory are almost certainly going to be full of lend-lease weaponry.

justherelooking said:
I imagine there will be a TV show based on the exploits of either the 101st during the war. Especially their heroic defense of the towns in which many of its residents despise them being there thanks to Khomeini.

I imagine it will be called Band of Brothers
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lol I mean I'm sure people won't stop telling WWII stories and switch wholesale to WWIII stories so I dunno if Easy Company have missed their shot. As for the title, it's a Shakespeare reference, so it's certainly not wedded to the OTL book.

That said, I would certainly expect a glut of war media in the years following the conflict. Plenty of units in the thick of it. Hard to find one that didn't do something noteworthy, but the Battle of Bam is definitely getting a movie.
 
Would the communist nations of the Tirana Pact change flags because they pretty much abandoned communism?

I imagine every time the Dutch and Yugoslavs meet, someone in their entourage will get lazy and just flipped each others flag
 
justherelooking said:
Would the communist nations of the Tirana Pact change flags because they pretty much abandoned communism?

I imagine every time the Dutch and Yugoslavs meet, someone in their entourage will get lazy and just flipped each others flag
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know if I can answer that question in its current form, but we can definitely talk about whether the three countries claiming a variety of socialist identities before the war maintain their pre-war flags.

Would Titoist Yugoslavia abandon its flag? They've enshrined a lot of Titoist principles in the new constitution and the nation's history under him is at least a partial factor in its continued existence. Almost certainly keeping the flag. Even with the name change, they'd consider this an evolution of Titoist principles rather than a break with them.

Would the People's Republic of Bulgaria abandon its flag? Well it's kept continuity with the pre-war system. It's even a bit of a point of pride, even as the nation evolves. It's possible it might evolve enough to change the flag, but the flag's already been changed once during the Warsaw Pact period to make it a bit more nationalistic. I personally dislike seals on flags, especially ones that mess up symmetry, so I wouldn't mind seeing it go. I think they've shown an inclination to alter the flag, but they also don't have a super-good reason to alter it again. Coin flip. (And like Yugoslavia they also wouldn't say they've abandoned communism).

Would Albania change its flag? It's arguably the only one who might be seeking a break with its past. And it's pretty easy to just lose the star and end up with the OTL current Albanian flag. However, I think they'd follow Yugoslavia's lead in this and maintain continuity. No particular reason to change.
 
justherelooking said:
I imagine that Reagan would be viewed by the Poles the same way the Kosovar Albanians viewed Clinton.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think he would be viewed positively, but the Poles really did it for themselves. Having US support didn't really affect their efforts, and if anything the inability of NATO to intervene in the Soviet terror/destruction campaign in Poland during the war...well, even if a majority are not inclined to blame the West for its inability to intervene, there's certainly a noticeable blank in the positive column, too.

Big Reagan-lovers: Korea, for sure. Probably many of the Soviet successor states, the kinds of places that would have a recognition barrier (similar to Kosovo, not similar to Poland), especially the less-probable states like Siberia, Kola, Okhotsk, etc. Venice. Kurdistan. Turkey and Japan are probably outsized fans just because of how things shake out post-war.
 
So I was watching a documentary series when I came across the story of the man who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II (Mehmet Ali Agca). I'm curious to what happened to him in this timeline, especially since he is incarcerated in a country that pretty much Balkanized, with communists and fascists running around. Will he stay in jail or will he find a way to escape and possibly join some neo-fascists or will he simply be killed by communists since he talks too much?
 
justherelooking said:
So I was watching a documentary series when I came across the story of the man who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II (Mehmet Ali Agca). I'm curious to what happened to him in this timeline, especially since he is incarcerated in a country that pretty much Balkanized, with communists and fascists running around. Will he stay in jail or will he find a way to escape and possibly join some neo-fascists or will he simply be killed by communists since he talks too much?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can't find where in Italy he was imprisoned, that would definitely be the main factor in what happens to him. Though I can't imagine the brand of crypto-fascists we see in Italy would want anything to do with him, even if he falls into their laps.
 
Rufus T Firefly said:
Can't find where in Italy he was imprisoned, that would definitely be the main factor in what happens to him. Though I can't imagine the brand of crypto-fascists we see in Italy would want anything to do with him, even if he falls into their laps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fear not for I found out where he was imprisoned thanks to TIME magazine. Rebibia Prison in Rome

Since Rome was in the Neutral Zone, Its possible that he simply stayed in jail during the course of the war or maybe he escaped thru the help of sympathetic prison guards.

Also Curious but did Americans and Soviets used captured Iranian Weapons and Tanks against each other in Iran? I imagine the Yanks using Chieftains and M60Ss and so do the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
justherelooking said:
Fear not for I found out where he was imprisoned thanks to TIME magazine. Rebibia Prison in Rome

Since Rome was in the Neutral Zone, Its possible that he simply stayed in jail during the course of the war or maybe he escaped thru the help of sympathetic prison guards.

Also Curious but did Americans and Soviets used captured Iranian Weapons and Tanks against each other in Iran? I imagine the Yanks using Chieftains and M60Ss and so do the Soviets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Probably just stuck in Rome, then. Possibly the Pope sees a danger to Mehmet and asks the interim president for the pardon he'd end up asking for years later. In which case he's in Turkey, in which case I would think that government, as opposed to the OTL later Turkish government, would execute him for his additional crimes. They're trying to demonize the Grey Wolves and reduce their base, after all. So either mostly like OTL or kaput.

I'm sure in a few exigent circumstances some local weapons are used in Iran. I don't think there's time or logistics for either side to incorporate enemy tanks into their units. If anything, all of that hardware is immediately sent to the Iraqi Army to replenish their battle losses of the last three years.
 
Why didn't the Chinese use ADMs (nuclear landmines) against the Russians invading Manchuria since their primary delivery systems such as bombers and ballistic missiles had been destroyed?

Also why didn't the Russians nuke the Yellow river dams and dikes to recreate the floods of 1938 and thus further hampering Chinas ability to fight back?
 
Last edited:
justherelooking said:
Would the battles of Hamburg and Seoul will be branded as the new Stalingrads after the war? I can't really blame those people to call those battles as Stalingrad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mmmaaybe? Stalingrad wasn't the first city under siege. My guess is, like Stalingrad, people will brand the battles as themselves. They all have their own emotional signature worth remembering, I reckon. "Seoul" is going to bring as much pathos as "Stalingrad" without needing to say "Stalingrad."

Felipe Trigo said:
Why didn't the Chinese use ADMs (nuclear landmines) against the Russians invading Manchuria since their primary delivery systems such as bombers and ballistic missiles had been destroyed?

Also why didn't the Russians nuke the Yellow river dams and dikes to recreate the floods of 1938 and thus further hampering Chinas ability to fight back?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A couple things (and this is not really my wheelhouse). The stockpiles were targets of the initial attack. If anything survived, it'd have to be moved to the front to detonate. My understanding (could be wrong) is that the Chinese didn't have anything close to miniaturization necessary for ADMs until later in the decade. So if you're not moving it by plane you're talking about really slow and heavy specialized ground equipment. The battle develops really quickly over just a handful of days, during which time military communication with leadership has largely broken down.
 
Was there a massive revival of German nationalism during the war? At least its mild forms, like popularization of certain nationalist songs that isn't associated with Nazism or either this was done through the glorification of German democratic values.
 
Last edited:
justherelooking said:
Was there a massive revival of German nationalism during the war? At least its mild forms, like popularization of certain nationalist songs that isn't associated with Nazism or either this was done through the glorification of German democratic values.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm stuck on "massive effort," which is kind of disqualifying. It indicates that there is a project directed by some force, presumably the government. Massive projects the West German government undertakes during the war include trying to bring any kind of order and support to the millions of its citizens under refugee status across the continent/world, and trying to keep an army in the field without a secure industrial base. Beyond that and a significant amount of espionage/underground support, I'm not sure the West German government is doing much of anything.

Is there an inclination of some citizens, and possibly private organizations, to revive concepts thrown aside due to their association with Nazism and/or the system that gave rise to Nazism? It's probable. Would host countries for refugees put a quick end to any meaningful public embrace of these concepts among said refugees? In just about every case. Nobody wants anything close to verboten German stuff tied to their cause on the homefront. Would anyone in the West be discouraging those under occupied territory from organizing around these concepts? Almost certainly not. If you want to wear a pickelhaube and snipe at Reds in the Schwarzwald, who's gonna stop you?
 
I read in some threads that after Saigon fell, US soldiers and officers did not fully trust those in the Bundeswehr, largely because they thought they probably would collapse the moment the Soviets invaded. Would this mindset would be prevalent in the War, at least in the first few days of it? Since you can't blame them for having that view since pacifist sentiment is at an all time high before WW3.
 
Last edited:
justherelooking said:
I read in some threads that after Saigon fell, US soldiers and officers did not fully trust those in the Bundeswehr, largely because they thought they probably would collapse the moment the Soviets invaded. Would this mindset would be prevalent in the War, at least in the first few days of it? Since you can't blame them for having that view since pacifist sentiment is at an all time high before WW3.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well first off, the purpose of exercises like Able Archer '83 were to get the different NATO militaries on the same page, along with other policy shifts and operational changes made throughout the decade following the Vietnam War. I do think it's reasonable to say that the failures of Vietnam (starting in '73 but especially after the final pullout in '75) preoccupied US military thought and doctrine in the years that followed. In many ways that I think would've been invisible to them, the Soviets picked perhaps the worst time to try this, given an opponent that is capable of learning from its mistakes and almost a decade to correct them.

As for opinions of the Bundeswehr among the US military in the early days of the war, the entire front is in disarray for those opening days. As it settles in, we do see the Germans (and Dutch and Belgians) trying to hold some of the heaviest-combat sectors in the north. Whether the US is happy about this or not, that's just how it worked out in the axis of retreat.

As soon as they're available, the US do send the bulk of its reinforcements to the north, but I don't think that indicates an over-arching mistrust of the Germans. It's an elastic reinforcement strategy that could've sent those forces to the south, if needed. That they happen to be needed more in the north isn't necessarily down to German pacifism, since the fighting has been undeniably fiercer against the Germans. I think it's definitely the case that the Soviets considered the Germans (and Dutch and Belgians) the weak links in the alliance and tried to throw more at them.

Honestly the only concrete thing we have on this in the text is the German general calling for a forward defense with the Americans and Brits going for the "more timid" (but much smarter) defense-in-depth.

If I had to generate an average opinion for the higher echelons of the US military, I'd say it would go something like, "If pacifists were going to be a problem, they ceased being a problem after the first three days. Those less willing to fight either surrendered, deserted, or converted in the heat of battle."
 
I imagine that there will be a moment in Which a former American and Soviet soldier or pretty much any soldier of NATO and WP will have a chat in the former battlefields that they fought on. Probably a way for them to reconcile.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember if you mentioned this earlier at all, but what is going to happen to Navies of the world? Will there be a massive wave of decommission or will some strength be kept just in case? Also, will there be more or less ships preserved as museums in this timeline due to most Navies now having ships that are combat veterans?
 
Felipe Trigo said:
What happened to Giorgio Almirante and Artur Axmann?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm still not super jazzed about looking up extremists, but these are pretty easy. They're probably both dead. Axmann's in Berlin at the start and certainly any former Nazi is on Stasi list. Easy propaganda win. Almirante is in Rome, and though it's technically neutral, someone like that is going to be the kind of target the KGB are going to insist on removing from the field. If he happens to avoid the initial roundup, he's dead after he (with absolute certainty) participates in the failed right-wing coup in Rome that occurs later in the war.

Soundwave G1 said:
I don't remember if you mentioned this earlier at all, but what is going to happen to Navies of the world? Will there be a massive wave of decommission or will some strength be kept just in case? Also, will there be more or less ships preserved as museums in this timeline due to most Navies now having ships that are combat veterans?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a whole it hasn't been explicitly stated beyond the US situation, but you can read into it somewhat from that. Yes, navies are going to be shrinking. Navies are still a very important part of the UN peacekeeping framework, as well as a treasured tool of national prestige and often a protected domestic jobs program. But as military budgets shrink all over, it's the easiest part to put on the chopping block. We'll get some further developments on this front in a future update (if I ever get to writing it).
 
Remove ads
Two Maps: IHD Index and Democracy Index in the year 2000
  • Threadmarks
    • Democracy Index 2000

    8.01 - 10.00 = Full Democracy
    6.01 - 8.00 = Flawed Democracy
    4.01 - 6.00 = Hybrid Regime
    2.01 - 4.00 = Authoritarian Regime

    Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index 2000

    .801 - 1.00 = Very High Human Development
    .701 - .800 = High Human Development
    .601 - .700 = Medium Human Development
    .501 - .600 = Low Human Development
    <.501 = Very Low Human Development
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top