World War 3 Could Have Started in 1989, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 3-11-2009 @ 02:20 PM by Donnie Darko

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)


reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:03 PM by JIMC5499
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.


reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:05 PM by Ulala
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.


reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:10 PM by InSpiteOf
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.



reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:26 PM by Ulala
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.


reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 05:18 PM by maloy
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.

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 112 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 11 hours ago, 96 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 9 hours ago, 63 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 50 replies