One thing that Tom Clancy left open was the aftermath of the war in Red Storm Rising. He didn't detail the postwar world very much: just dropping hints as to what might happen: Mike Edwards, the USAF officer on Iceland, marrying the girl he and his four Marines rescued from a Russian patrol was strongly hinted at in the book (Clancy said on a Larry King Live interview that they did get married, and Edwards became a TV weatherman), but not much else. Did the Soviet Union disintegrate in the postwar period, or did the coup plotters succeed in holding the USSR together? A breakup of the Warsaw Pact would not be out of the question as well. The fact that Clancy never wrote a sequel leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Any thoughts on the postwar world in RSR?
Red Storm Rising: the Aftermath
- Thread starter Matt Wiser
- Start date
I'm pretty sure that the USSR doesn't survive. One does not launch a war like that, lose Minsk to a nuclear blast, and try to go on as before.
Relations between the United States and Turkey, Greece, and Japan might be strained for a while, over their failure to enter the war.
On the flip side, relations with Cuba might improve greatly compared to OTL, as the USSR likely comes apart (thanks to the quiet help Fidel gave in helping the US spot a Soviet sub, IIRC).
Iceland might become something of a fully-fledged protectorate of the United States, while West Germany begins to put itself back together.
On the flip side, relations with Cuba might improve greatly compared to OTL, as the USSR likely comes apart (thanks to the quiet help Fidel gave in helping the US spot a Soviet sub, IIRC).
Iceland might become something of a fully-fledged protectorate of the United States, while West Germany begins to put itself back together.
It seems the USSR doesnt really have much options left, they still dont have enough oil so they still need to solve that problem. If they head for the oil in the middle east america would raise hell. So they would have to take on NATO again, as soon as possible.
The pros seem to outweigh the cons, here in soviet eyes. Besides the effect of being at war for a few months moral for the soviets should still be high. They could fudge that instead of a coup in the kremlin the CIA bust in and killed everyone in the building. The war hasent even lasted one year, and the Russians have not lost a large decisive battle, probably in most peoples eyes they are wining the war. By pulling out the CIA card, they would be able to avoid the stab in the back myths. Then with NATO top commander negotiating in Moscow, kill him and that would buy the Red Army a few hours to make a surprise attack after a few days of regrouping.
So to them if they attack they would have first strike on the nukes and probably not able to win still. Now if they dont attack they would start facing starvation in the cities (its noted that they were low on fuel for transportation), another possible coup by the military (cause of stab in the back), and NATO might play the stupid card and stop all trade with the USSR, which will cause the Soviet Union to collapse.
I should make a tl bout this.
The pros seem to outweigh the cons, here in soviet eyes. Besides the effect of being at war for a few months moral for the soviets should still be high. They could fudge that instead of a coup in the kremlin the CIA bust in and killed everyone in the building. The war hasent even lasted one year, and the Russians have not lost a large decisive battle, probably in most peoples eyes they are wining the war. By pulling out the CIA card, they would be able to avoid the stab in the back myths. Then with NATO top commander negotiating in Moscow, kill him and that would buy the Red Army a few hours to make a surprise attack after a few days of regrouping.
So to them if they attack they would have first strike on the nukes and probably not able to win still. Now if they dont attack they would start facing starvation in the cities (its noted that they were low on fuel for transportation), another possible coup by the military (cause of stab in the back), and NATO might play the stupid card and stop all trade with the USSR, which will cause the Soviet Union to collapse.
I should make a tl bout this.
Mea culpa, but the point stands. The USSR loses a lot of men and material, not to mention wrecking Central Europe for a generation.
There's several other factors: the KGB is leaderless for the moment (the KGB Chief was summarily shot by General Alekseyev's new aide for killing his daughter in the Kremlin bomb plot), the Soviet economy (and the other Warsaw Pact members) is down the tubes due to the fuel shortage, and no doubt the seeds of independence got sown during the war for the Baltics and the 'stans. How effective the post-coup Soviet government would be in suppressing them is another matter.
Then the ex-members of the Politburo have two big problems: their trial for Crimes Against the State in Moscow, and then, according to SACEUR, a reconvened Nuremberg Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity. Would most members of NATO waive their opposition to the death penalty in such a case?
U.S. and Turkish relations probably didn't suffer all that much: the Turks probably wanted to do more, but without a secure flank (Greece staying out), active participation was out of the question. The Greeks probably have some explaining to do, once the Bomb Plot was revealed postwar to be a KGB ploy, and not just to the U.S., but the rest of NATO. And the Japanese had better prepare themselves for a recession, as a "blame Japan" mood might take hold in the U.S. "We paid in our blood and treasure against the Russians, and our allies the Japanese stayed out?"
Then the ex-members of the Politburo have two big problems: their trial for Crimes Against the State in Moscow, and then, according to SACEUR, a reconvened Nuremberg Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity. Would most members of NATO waive their opposition to the death penalty in such a case?
U.S. and Turkish relations probably didn't suffer all that much: the Turks probably wanted to do more, but without a secure flank (Greece staying out), active participation was out of the question. The Greeks probably have some explaining to do, once the Bomb Plot was revealed postwar to be a KGB ploy, and not just to the U.S., but the rest of NATO. And the Japanese had better prepare themselves for a recession, as a "blame Japan" mood might take hold in the U.S. "We paid in our blood and treasure against the Russians, and our allies the Japanese stayed out?"
Not really. After all it is never mentioned how much men and material is lost. Surely they lose a lot, but how much is that in context? 1,000 tanks and 1,000,000 soldiers? Or are we talking about 300,000 deaths out of an army of 5 million?
What ever happened to the KGB Chief's deputies? Didn't the KGB have a Chairman, 1-2 First Deputy Chairmen and at least 4 Deputy Chairmen? Can't see how it would be leaderless
Yep.
Which book was that?!? I don't recall Clancy mentioning any significant action in the Baltic republics or in the central asian republics. Kola peninsula yes, but not those. So what war for the Baltics and the 'stans is this?
Well this would go back to the war in question that I can't recall Clancy ever writing about in RSR.
Was it definitely stated that the Nuremburg Tribunal would actually get to try those ex-Politburo members? Plus if they are tried for crimes against the state and the punishment is death, how are they going to be tried by NATO if they are already dead?
Would it matter if the Politburo members in question are already dead?
This is of course ignoring the fact that there is no legal basis for reconvening the Nuremburg tribunals short of having the Axis treaties (especially the Tripartite Pact) being brought back into existence and having the USSR sign onto them right before the war starts in RSR. The NATO governments could set up a new military tribunal and have it based in Nuremburg for show, but it will not be a reconvening of the original 1945-1946 Nuremburg Tribunal.
Last edited:
The new Soviet government has already carried out one major and very important reform by greatly increasing the amount of farmland owned as private plots.
Think of the effects caused by this return to capitalism!
1) At a time when crippling shortages of fuel, manpower of military age and trucks has everyone in Russia expecting severe rationing(or worse...) there will instead be more food on every table. MAJOR boost for the new regime. The minister of agriculture is going to be a national hero.
2) No more exporting Russian gold and other valuables on an annual basis to buy grain(not so good for the US and Canada).
3) An obvious precedent for other economic changes.
4) No more having the national food supply dependent on the military's trucks and military manpower.
I would seriously expect more reforms to follow with this much more pragmatic leadership in command.
As to the former Politburo members expect the new government to convict them under Soviet law, thus proving their guilt, then selflessly yield them to the reconvened tribunal, earning brownie points in the west for the act and in the USSR for saving Russia from the monsters who butchered Russian children and so many Russian soldiers to cover their own incompetence.
I would imagine that Greece is in serious trouble with NATO and with the EEC(now the EU). At minimum I would imagine the EU ending all subsidies and favored trade status until substantial repairs have been done in places like West Germany and Norway.
As for Soviet losses, by the end of the book they were sending Category C divisions to the front line, which is not a good sign at all, given the Category B divisions and Category A divisions previously deployed to the front(s). At minimum I would expect to find that modern Soviet equipment(tanks, aircraft, etc) stationed in the Warsaw Pact nations prior to the crisis has been effectively wiped out with something like 50% losses among modern equipment in the USSR's European territories.
It would take several years to replace all this except that the Soviet economy is crippled with so many men of military age gone and the oil crisis still underway.
Think of the effects caused by this return to capitalism!
1) At a time when crippling shortages of fuel, manpower of military age and trucks has everyone in Russia expecting severe rationing(or worse...) there will instead be more food on every table. MAJOR boost for the new regime. The minister of agriculture is going to be a national hero.
2) No more exporting Russian gold and other valuables on an annual basis to buy grain(not so good for the US and Canada).
3) An obvious precedent for other economic changes.
4) No more having the national food supply dependent on the military's trucks and military manpower.
I would seriously expect more reforms to follow with this much more pragmatic leadership in command.
As to the former Politburo members expect the new government to convict them under Soviet law, thus proving their guilt, then selflessly yield them to the reconvened tribunal, earning brownie points in the west for the act and in the USSR for saving Russia from the monsters who butchered Russian children and so many Russian soldiers to cover their own incompetence.
I would imagine that Greece is in serious trouble with NATO and with the EEC(now the EU). At minimum I would imagine the EU ending all subsidies and favored trade status until substantial repairs have been done in places like West Germany and Norway.
As for Soviet losses, by the end of the book they were sending Category C divisions to the front line, which is not a good sign at all, given the Category B divisions and Category A divisions previously deployed to the front(s). At minimum I would expect to find that modern Soviet equipment(tanks, aircraft, etc) stationed in the Warsaw Pact nations prior to the crisis has been effectively wiped out with something like 50% losses among modern equipment in the USSR's European territories.
It would take several years to replace all this except that the Soviet economy is crippled with so many men of military age gone and the oil crisis still underway.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Those reforms also happened right before the war too so with their obvious success and saner heads in control they would probably keep those reforms.
Surely you mean yielding them to a new tribunal.
Still doubt there would anything to yield other than some dead bodies - after all, what kind of verdict would any conviction under Soviet law give for the the murder of children, conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to endanger the state? It's rather difficult to see anything other than a death sentence.
Greece would probably be trouble with NATO for sure.
I find it strange though that Clancy made no mention of Portugal or Spain though. I think he mentioned Italy, but I would that that Portugal and Spain (which joined in 1982 - and the book is apparently set in 1982 or 1985) would contribute at least in terms of their airforces.
Don't see why Greece would really be in trouble with the EEC since the EEC isn't a military alliance and Ireland being a member in 1973 wouldn't have done anything in the war either. Plus how could the EEC end favoured trade status with Greece? Wasn't Greece already a member of the EEC by then? Greece joined in 1981.
Norway wouldn't really factor into the EEC either since Norway wasn't a member (and still isn't). What might happen with Norway though is that it might end up being more in favour of joining the EEC after the war, so possibly any referendum from 1987 to 1994 might just see Norway enter the EEC/EU.
But weren't some higher quality divisions being held in reserve for the expected operations in Iraq and Iran? And what percentage of the total forces would these A, B and C divisions from the western military districts constitute?
Well looking it up, Soviet conscription was for 2 or 3 years for the army starting from the age of 18. In Russia today (with conscription) the armed forces has about 1 million service members but the number of men of military age is about 30+ million (of which 20+ million are fit for service). Extrapolating that to the USSR for the 1980s (with a population of 270 million instead of 145 million of Russia in 2000-2009) we would get approximately 65 million men of military age which is similar to the 70+ million men of military age in the USA today with a population of 300 million.
The oil crisis is certainly going to cripple the economy, moreso than any losses of men since in the 1980s anyway it is likely that 90% of the military-aged men in the USSR weren't in the military to beginwith. And most of them would be over the age of 21 anyway.
The one thing that really stuck in my throat about the book (which otherwise was fairly good except for a few bits here and there) was the whole premise for going to war (I know it was just so he could write about what a modern war would look like and it wasn't the worst premise thought up) - the loss of the refining/production capacity of that one oil field just didn't seem sufficient to really warrant it. I mean what was the capacity lost? 30%? 35%? Something like that? In a country that exports oil? And was using natural gas, coal and nuclear power to free up more oil for export? Surely all this means is that they cut back on exports for a bit and maybe look to export other forms of fuel (coal, natural gas, maybe sell nuclear powered electricity) in the interim. Granted it is fairly difficult to come up with a really plausible reason for the USSR to want to start any war in Europe, what with MAD and the strength of NATO's conventional forces anyway.
What I would love to have read about though is when the Soviet paratroopers drop into the middle of the Iran-Iraq war (which must surely have been going on unless Clancy had a different 1979-1980). Just imagine what would happen then! Might even see the Iraqis and Iranians starting to fight side-by-side until they've seen off the Soviet threat.
Clancy had several (at least six) Cat A divisions in the Southern Ukraine waiting to move south, presumably along with the divisions in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (North Caucasus, Transcaucasus Military Districts), and the Turkestan MD, to move into Iran and Iraq. Those divisions were no doubt fully mobilized, and the Cat B and C divisions were undergoing their postmobilization training.
Regarding the ex-Politburo members: they no doubt would've been sentenced to death for Treason, Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, and Crimes Against the State and People (a broad category here). Then the extradition request gets handed over. NATO would want them alive for trial. And then hand them back to the Soviets to be shot. (with NATO witnesses at the executions)
Greece in any event would have a lot of explaining to do. Falling for a KGB ploy would not help whatever government is in Athens in the postwar era. The Greeks had better get ready for a recession.
Clancy says in another of his books that "wars are begun by frightened old men." In this case, the Politburo, being a bunch of frightened old men, seeing a worst-case scenario of economic collapse as a strong possiblity, decided on war.
Regarding the ex-Politburo members: they no doubt would've been sentenced to death for Treason, Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, and Crimes Against the State and People (a broad category here). Then the extradition request gets handed over. NATO would want them alive for trial. And then hand them back to the Soviets to be shot. (with NATO witnesses at the executions)
Greece in any event would have a lot of explaining to do. Falling for a KGB ploy would not help whatever government is in Athens in the postwar era. The Greeks had better get ready for a recession.
Clancy says in another of his books that "wars are begun by frightened old men." In this case, the Politburo, being a bunch of frightened old men, seeing a worst-case scenario of economic collapse as a strong possiblity, decided on war.
I wonder what Soviet satelite states were doing during the Red Storm. AFAIR the Soviets did all the fighting and the only other WARPAC military mentioned is East Germany (once, I think, and only its navy). And the rest? Poles, Czechoslovakians, Hungarians?
And now, that the Red Army is decimated, what Eastern Europe looks like? I don't see any border changes, naturally, but there might be some internal changes. I mean, WARPAC went to war and pretty much lost it. What next?
Poles are probably making trouble again 9from communist POV, of course).
And now, that the Red Army is decimated, what Eastern Europe looks like? I don't see any border changes, naturally, but there might be some internal changes. I mean, WARPAC went to war and pretty much lost it. What next?
Poles are probably making trouble again 9from communist POV, of course).
If i remember the book right that was exactly what the Politburo envisioned. The problem being that exports were what they were using to pay for western grain. The energy production wasnt enough to continue sufficient exports to pay for grain and keep soviet agriculture and military production going. The choice as the Politburo saw it was either starvation or reduced military production. The war option was seen as the way to cut the gordian knot.
Which makes the reasoning more plausible. Only thing is that reasoning should have fallen apart if someone brings up the obvious fact that they are going to expend huge reserves of oil and gas to actually fund not one, but two wars!
I guess however the counter-argument would be "it will be over quickly!"
You my friend have a serious flaved perception of Norways foreign policy
Why would Clancey's WW3 change Norway's position towards the EEC?
The dependency on US in matters towards USSR would be strenghtend ant our NATO policy confirmed. Already in '82, Norways oil made us independent of Europe regarding economic matters.
I see no reason Norways US leaning would change. Rather the oposite
When the cease fire deal is being struck and the question of the Nuremberg Trials comes up the Soviet General says "you can have them after we are done trying them for crimes against the People. It will be a very boring trial."
The Red Army and the remaining civilan members of the Coup seemed to be fairly sure that they would be cleaning house.
A "try 'em on Tuesday and bury 'em on Thursday" sequence would seem just about right.
The Red Army and the remaining civilan members of the Coup seemed to be fairly sure that they would be cleaning house.
A "try 'em on Tuesday and bury 'em on Thursday" sequence would seem just about right.
What I'd really like to know about the post-war world is indeed Greece. Falling for a KGB ploy I can ( sorta ) understand, but they were still bound by treaty and refused to follow through. Countries like Germany, Denmark and Norway ( which have been hit even if it wasn't mentioned in the book, because AFAIK the warplans called for it ) will have very frosty relations with Greece at best. The greeks better say goodbye to these Leopard 2.
Which makes the reasoning more plausible. Only thing is that reasoning should have fallen apart if someone brings up the obvious fact that they are going to expend huge reserves of oil and gas to actually fund not one, but two wars!
While I'm no fan of Tom Clancy that is exactly what happened in OTL, minus the war part. Soviet Union had huge reserves of oil and gas ready to be exploited but instead decided to use all of the available funds for military toys.