It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World War 3 Could Have Started in 1989

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

World War 3 Could Have Started in 1989


news.yahoo.com

MOSCOW (Reuters) – The Kremlin could have started World War Three in 1989 had it used troops to crush the demonstrations that preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday.

Gorbachev is hailed in the West for ignoring hardliners who advised him to guarantee the Soviet Union's future by crushing a growing wave of dissent in Eastern Bloc countries which led to the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989.

When asked by a reporter why he did not use force to halt the demonstrations, Gorbachev said it would have sparked a catastrophic set
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
"My policy was open and sincere, a policy aimed at using democracy and not spilling blood. But this cost me very dear, I can tell you that," he said.

Most Russians revile Gorbachev for his weakness in allowing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of Moscow's global empire. A poll last year found that 60 percent of Russians still viewed the demise of the Soviet Union as a "tragedy."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So there you go. There could have EASILY been a World War in the early 1990s, but because Gorbachev decided not to, there wasn't.

What I find interesting, is this part of the article:

"They now need their own perestroika," he said, adding that he was glad Barack Obama had won the U.S. presidential election.

Meaning, he wants Obama to prepare the US for its end!? :O

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
It almost started in 1986 when a Soviet nuclear sub caught fire in the Atlantic.


Read the book Hostile Waters.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Bah, the man is tooting his own horn so people don' t forget him

This type of mental masturbation is common of those that have fallen from the lime light.

You really think the US and allied nations would risk all out ground incursion and nuclear war with soviet forces over a rebellion suppression?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Nope. He's playing to hard line factions in his Party who want the old times back. Kind of like Obama, Pelosi and Reed playing to the far left, because that's where the money is thanks to campaign finance reforms. Putin thinks that this is where his support is going to come from.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I don't think NATO would have intervened militarily had the USSR cracked down on the democratic movements of Eastern Europe in 1989. They couldn't have. In terms of conventional weaponry NATO were completely outgunned.

As I remember, the fall of the Berlin Wall wasn't an isolated event. The Solidarity movement in Poland was legalised in early 1989 and they were allowed to participate in elections ; that was the start of the peaceful revolution which swept Eastern Europe later in the year.

Had the USSR either threatened to use force against Poland, or actually used it, as they had in the early 1980's, the West would've been merely bystanders.

I think Mr Gorbachev is overblowing his account of things, tbh.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
But yeah, the interesting thing about Gorbachev - is one can either see him as the world's saviour - or, he just prevented WW3 for self-preservation or a NWO unity between the West and East.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I dont see him as any of those.

He certainly didn't save the world, as the world was never in jeopardy from an all out Red takeover.

The only unity that would ever exist between West and East is Client-State expropriations. Which he did little to stem.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I have to disagree with the statement that NATO wouldn't have interfered because they were out gunned. The Soviets had severe problems with the reliability of their weapons systems due to a lack of spare parts and poor maintaince. At the time that this happened the Soviets were also moving their primary forces East to prevent their being siezed in the event of rebellion.

I don't think that NATO would have interfered at this time because of the US troops that would have reinforced them were staging to hit Panama at this time. Both the 82nd Airbourne and the 101st were in training to hit Panama and the 24th Mechanized was in the process of loading their armour in case it was needed.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Imagine telecommunications to Poland have been cut, Solidarity leaders arrested, foreign media expelled and demonstrations put down by force. How would NATO militarily intervene ? They'd have the whole of East Germany to battle their way through, a complete impossibility ... even if they had the plans & supply lines immediately available ; which they didn't.

Panama wasn't invaded until December 1989, all this kicked off much earlier in the year. And with due respect to our Panamanian friends, that situation was as a raindrop in an ocean compared to the situation in Eastern Europe.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There's many instances in history that world war 3 could have started, like in 1954, in Vietnam when the US nearly used nukes on the Vietminh like it was no big deal... but fortunately, due to others events, it did not happen.

Also nukes were nearly used against China during the Korean war... and also there were british plans to nuke China if China wanted to conquer Hong Kong by force...

And you add all the radars/missiles mix up over the years... and we probably avoided nuclear war/world war 3 more than 10-15 times.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I don't quite think that Gorbachev was thinking of a NATO invasion in the east.

It sounds more like he was thinking that a soviet clampdown would lead to a popular uprising in one or more Warsaw pact countries, possibly with that country withdrawing from the pact, declaring war on the USSR... Possibly even fighting the red army and/or confiscating military equipment such as short and medium range atomic weapons. One stray atomic detonation later and we have ww3.

The USSR would HAVE to assume that NATO was behind it, and NATO would HAVE to mobilize and this would be taken as confirmation that NATO was involved by the USSR.

The first shot probably wouldn't be fired by either the Warsaw Pact or NATO, but one of them would HAVE to fire the second.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by aaa2500]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
There's many instances in history that world war 3 could have started, like in 1954, in Vietnam when the US nearly used nukes on the Vietminh like it was no big deal... but fortunately, due to others events, it did not happen.

Also nukes were nearly used against China during the Korean war... and also there were british plans to nuke China if China wanted to conquer Hong Kong by force...



And....


Of course none of that happened.

Setting speculation and assumptions aside. I can understand what Gorbachev is trying to convey. The deal is that Eastern Europe and the Russian population at the time had had enough of communism. Even though now many revisionists want to try and romanticize the old Soviet Union and their version Communism.

It failed for many factors, despite the CIA activities most of the rot came from within.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
I think Mr Gorbachev is overblowing his account of things, tbh.


I think Mr Gorbachev has a better and more intimate understanding of the events and potentialities of that time than either you or I.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Gorbachev is full of crap. There was no risk of WW3 in regard to East Germany, and that is not why he didn't intervene. By 1989 Gorbachev's extreme "shock therapy" reforms have spiralled out of control, and so had his leadership and grasp of power. By that time it was clear to the "reformists" that the USSR is set to split, and everyone was too busy figuring out how to best cut up the pie. Gorbachev tried to keep the USSR in one piece, but by that time it was too late.

The main reason why he didn't intervene in East Germany, is because there was a rising rift among the senior leadership and he could not have reached a consensus on action in regard to East Germany. Unlike what many people think, Soviet Union was not run by one man, at least not in late 1980's. Gorbachev needed approval to act, and despite what he says now it will never be known whether he personally wanted to intervene or not. Another reason why there was no intervention is that other republics of USSR were already showing signs of wanting independence. If the Soviet leadership was to intervene in Germany, it would need to intervene in other republics as well - and that would be too costly and still wouldn't delay the demise of the USSR.

Gorbachev likes to speak of himself now as some sort of a savior. He isn't. He was reckless with his reforms and let himself be controlled by "reformist" interests, and in doing so lost his grip on power. Eventually these "reformists" within the Soviet government were the ones who overthrew him and the hardline Communists in 1991.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have to disagree with the statement that NATO wouldn't have interfered because they were out gunned. The Soviets had severe problems with the reliability of their weapons systems due to a lack of spare parts and poor maintaince.


Even if what you say is true, the NATO didn't know it. Reagan's foreign policy and renewed weapons build-up proves this point. NATO didn't discover the true state of the Soviet military until after the dissolution of USSR. And even then, in 1989 the two sides were pretty much matched in capability, at least on land. The arguement of which side was stronger is futile and endless - there are simply too many factors to consider.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
At the time that this happened the Soviets were also moving their primary forces East to prevent their being siezed in the event of rebellion.


The withdrawal of Soviet forces was not fully underway yet in 1989. And the withdrawal was not because of the fear that the units would be ceased. Simply the units were no longer needed in those regions if the Soviet leadership was letting the republics proceed with becoming independent.


Fact is, that NATO would never have risked a World War for East Germany, or any other Soviet bloc republic for that matter. Direct confrontation between the Cold War opponents was limited to proxy wars. By 1989 NATO had to be aware that the Soviet Union was beginning to gradually fall apart. Best approach for them then would have been to just let nature take its course. Any direct interference by NATO could in fact have delayed the fall of the Soviet Union, and would have given the hardline Communists a rallying point.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join