Russia bad, USA good? Dude... The Russians didn't ever fight directly... If you know your history you would know that the Russians obviously help Start a lot of communist revolutions
if Assad gets killed the whole middle east will go up, which would draw the attention of the west in order to protect oil supplies, and most likely draw in russia and china.
I'm not a military historian, but my own feeling is that Soviet military power was overstated. I don't see the United States of the time - having tomahawk cruise missiles and stealth bombers - being defeated by a primitive Soviet land army of 1990. I think they would have lost after some period of time.
@HousekaterClaudio I don't see where you have gone with this comment, considering this "documentary" of a cold war scenario that dindn't happen and takes place during the Soviet Union's time. The United States and the Soviet Union are just as much to blame for the devfestation brought by the proxy wars of the cold war. The Soviets, and Russians have had more than their fair share of "interventions" throughout the cold war and afterwards.
What action footage is being used, I noticed a couple of shits from the Flaklands Conflict, what otber footage is used, I am guessing footage from Vietnam in the 70's, Afghanistam in the 80's, Iran-Iraq in the 80's and Desert Storm Early 90's
I've spoken to those who served in the military in the 80's as well as researching myself the subject of a WP vs NATO war in europe. The conclussion I and those who served are is the best that NATO could do is prolong the fighting until they run out of ammo and supplies and then the release of chemical/biological or nuclear weapons would be authorized.
@worldslinger81 It really isn't bullshit, the Soviet Union and Aarsaw allies had a larger and in many cases more powerful military. After our western leaders played bluff over the years with our defence spending in NATO, if the Soviets ever moved in force against us, we would of lost.
Who would of stopped them putting that blockade into place? See my point?
@Sonnypjim09 I was talking about the politics of it. The put a blockade line covering all of Europe. They had no legitimate right to push the line that far.
And obviously no one really knows who would have won but if you look at history it's not usually the army with the most men that wins. It's usually the army that is better led, better equiped, has better tactics and better weapons that wins.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
funny how thoses fat old fuckers are saying yeah lets go to war and kick him back to moscow. hell his ass isnt going to war, he's gonna stay home and watch the news while the young are being sent to fight
A cold war that broke into conventional warfare could never have been won by either side. Unlike Hitler, sitting in his bunker, awaiting the inevitable defeat as Berlin was overrun, the losing side of a cold war turned conventional war would have had the option to press the nuclear button and take the "victors' with him into oblivion. A stalemate would have only ever been possible.
@CSATexan Well, the Red Banner Fleet and other surface Russian navies we probably could have handled. Their ever-present Russian subs though, that might have been a different story.
9:00 nobody gives any reliable reason of escalation from atlantic convoy to north sea and Backfire bases. This is not how you progress the war, everybody knows that, unless it is US-led invasion. If so, the movie is fictionally attempting to back one side 'after the facts' what makes shallower scripting for a political fiction movie.
8:20 nonsense use of Russian antisubmarine weapons, from the Russian ships that were never designed to operate beyond North Sea. Another random footage.
@vvsignin1 Which is what I love about World in Conflict, they tried pretty damn hard to accurately portray a theoretical war between the Soviet Union and NATO.
The Bush 41 footage of him talking about blackmail was from the early 90's Iraq war.I guess the line applies here as well.Speaking of which, I bet the Arabs would have launched on Israel about now with the US's hands tied eh?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ussr was much better than freakin nato who talks sh*t and are a bunch of thief!
Im from afganistan and when the solviet were fighting they killed us in mass grave but told us the truth why they were their but americans and its allies who like to kiss ass kill civillians and trash peoples houses and leave. they have no honour
@bryan82034 So the dishonesty bothered you that much? I'm from America, and while I agree with about 70% of what my government does, I don't believe them for shit. US government treats everyone, including their own citizens, like children.
@DJMikaelito it is possible, the ships that were lost could have been cargo ships, not warships or it could have been a pyrrhic victory, the US has superior air power
@DJMikaelito Sorry for the two replys, you might be right, it either could've gone both ways. But it would probably end up ine the world getting destroyed in a nuclear firestorm. I don't think i said the Us and russia are enemies or allies. I hope this never happens.:)
Hey wait just a second! how would the soviet surface fleet have a prayer surviving that close to that many NATO countries in a shooting war. plus they said the convoy was attacked by soviet land based aircraft...from where? their bases in the Kola peninsula? NATO would see all this way in advance and would most likely have land based AWACS and JSTARS offering ISR and lets not forget the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. SOSUS barriers with air force bases in all three countries. NATO has bite too.
Learn a bit about that time Soviet Naval Aviation, and Soviet Navy of that time - they well stood fighting chance, even employed in such limited scenario with distinct operatinal disadvantage. NATO munitions would depleted and many ships sunk. There would be no means of benefit in pressing the attack, as attempt to contain crisis and work out diplomatic solution.
@AnteyPL yes but my simple point was soviet surface forces would be "annihilated" if they ventured too far from friendly air cover i.e. their naval aviation assets. The RAF, the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and the French air force are all very serious forces to reckoned with, not counting the U.S. Navy. then you must account for NATO submarines, Norway and France have quiet diesel electric subs still. My point is, Soviet admirals were smarter than to risk their forces in the open like this.
By the way, KGB had developed a perfect counterfeiting method for attacking the US dollar, if that happened goodbye US economy, today many of the former agents work for organized crime and successfully counterfeit Euro currency and gold coins, they even fooled many gold collectors.
@BunkerGearGal I'm afraid I respectfully disagree. You may be thinking of a smaller regional conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan. Something of this magnitude which would potentially stretch across several continents would be a different matter entirely...
@BunkerGearGal however the international investors may lose faith in the west and pull there money out of wall street but yes war usually war is good for the stock market.
@BunkerGearGal that it is, after all look up brown brothers hairman and prescott bush, they funded both sides of ww II which most of history fails to mention.
@BunkerGearGal There are other things that can affect the stock market besides war - such as impending nuclear war, which would basically destroy the value of any bond.
Wall Street does generally rally before a war, but that's usually based on the assumption of arms sales and a possible victory. None of that would apply in a nuclear war.
Think about it - would YOU want to be holding european bonds (or stocks or loans that depend on them) in a situation like this?
@BunkerGearGal depends if it is rumors of victory or defeat. If it looks like a budgetary holiday then a rally. If it looks like a defeat that might collapse the ability of the nation to pay on debts or cause massive global disruption in trade then panic.
@BunkerGearGal i think wall street would crash for most things and would make a quick boost in military sales which ppl will switch their assets to..but i think lots of corporations will crash in stock..unless its oil,manufacturing military weapons and ship building .
with todays problems...i really hope that america down the line dosent start with iran next....cause we all know...their close ally is .....RUSSIA.......one of the biggest superpowers of the world....and one to be feared if pushed against a wall
it's funny how every decision made by russians is somehow "forced" by other people or situations.. it seems they always try to clear their conscienes.. i think this is the way europeans saw russian mindset, at the time.
@alecaccia I've seen this before, personality and mental disorders vaguely related to narcissism, where the ego suffocates the brain. The general idea is that the perpetrator is deluded into thinking they are always right. Their own belligerence is simply a non issue in their mind because they choose to believe they've done nothing wrong. In this case it's the blockade of West Berlin and refuses to take responsibility.
Remember - neither Soviet or other lidership were actually omniscient. This document greatly shows how random convergence of events gain larger meaning in greater scheme of things. Just like it was really during Able Archer '83 and preceeding months.
This way overestimates the capabilities of the Soviet Military. Those Soviet subs would have been lucky to get one shot off. . It would not have been pretty but the SU did not stand a chance. The Warsaw Pact was a joke. The Soviet military supported Yeltsen. This is all pure fantasy.
It's an interesting alternative history. Too bad it's completely Western biased. Like the Russians would just blockade the middle of the Atlantic and start attacking US ships in international waters. You gotta be slightly ignorant or slightly American to buy this scenario;)
@bossmastercheif dude its predictable and ignorant but people would do it. The Germans did it, the Russians would do it. For thousands of years people do it, its common logic to attack enemy shipping.
@BlitzoftheReich the Germans were already at war when they attacked US shipping, imagine Hitler blockading the Atlantic to prevent the US from supplying Britain in 1940. Besides, unlike in this scenario the location of German u-boats was unknown to the Americans. Here the Soviets just position their subs in the mid-Atlantic and say do not cross this line. Not very realistic and absurd in strategic thinking. The best weapon of a submarine is surprise!
@bossmastercheif yes but here the US already knows their attacking so they did what they did in the battle of atlantic, they reinforced the column. It's perfectly reasonable as to the US doing such a thing, nowadays politics aren't blitzkrieg and supriuse invasions like they are, because they don't know with how much of a force you will retaliate. It was basically a bluff movement to stop the US from going to Europe.
@BlitzoftheReich Sorry, i don't believe the Russians would have gambled away their navy like that. If they really wanted to stop the convoy a surprise attack would have been much better than trying to bluff an opponent with a superior navy. In the extreme example, just one nuclear tipped torpedo fired from those subs would have destroyed that entire convoy. A more plausible scenario than the nonsense in the movie, despite the political dangers this would entail.
@bossmastercheif sorta like they gambled their entire army in the second world war? History is known to repeat itself. We've made gambles too and so has everybody else.
@BlitzoftheReich one makes such gambles when the odds of winning are in his favor which is certainly not the case for Russia in this scenario. It goes against statistics and sound military strategy and the Russians are not stupid strategists despite of what some Americans may think. Unless the fictional Russian commanders in this scenario are total zombies they would not implement such a strategy. I think i gave enough arguments to make my point. But u can believe what u want. Dasvidanya!
And first use of a nuclear warhead would have resulted in retaliatory nuclear strikes on Soviet military units at least. Including carrier based nuclear depth charges on those submarines. The Russians even had as their official policy at the time regarding nuclear weapons "no first use." The US policy was "no first use unless necessary."
@MattShizzle True, but in a tightly packed convoy with troops and equipment on board the U.S losses would be far greater than any retaliation against the Russian Subs could provide, since they are harder to spot and could easily be spread out over a larger area. However, I don't think it's likely the Russians would use this tactic since it would probably lead to a nuclear exchange. Still, the tactics they use in this scenario are even more unlikely in a real confrontation.
This was disproven during two world wars - convoy IS safer. And remember about RORSAT US-A/Liegienda satellite system as well as regiments of Tu-142s scouting the ocean. And 100+ nuclear sub strong force was far more mobile and threating than WW II uboots.
@bossmastercheif I believe the whole scenario in this movie is based on the assumption that those in power in the SU in this scenario are complete wackos. With the real soviet leaders, it wouldn't have happened.
The Soviets spent a large portion of their money on the military and starved their people during the cold war.
Makes me wonder if the USSR would have been able to sustain a military operation like the one in this movie without large internal revolts and assassinations of military and civilian leaders.
I think if it came down to it and this was happening it would have been handled way diffrently and most likely either the C.I.A.,M.I.5,or some German special federal police would have assassinated that mad Soviet general before it was too late.
That would have been a strong possibility in this scenario. Another possibility is that Soshkin might have been taken out in a "Valkyrie" type operation by some of his own officers when it was clear he was leading Russia to destruction.
yes YAK 38 Forger and the carrier it took off from is class Kiev class aircraft carrier (a more fitting description would be a heavily armed cruiser with a flight deck!!!)
Also to add if we was at defcon 2 as people said..we would be ready for a nuclear war..now that is just fucking retarded i mean come on..to be at defcon 2 we would have to have a ground war ffs
Not necessarily a ground war -- our nuclear strategic forces were at DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962....there was no ground military confrontation (yet), other than the confrontations between Soviet ships and the US Navy.
you know im studying a degree in history and this has to be one of the most facinating what if's i have seen also i have to say i cant see the soviet's coming back yim sorry dude..
@OniLunchbox I don't wish to alarm you, or anyone else here, but we're at Defcon 2 now, matey. Still, these measures are only with regards to an attack on U.S. forces, which could mean anything, not necessarily nuclear weapons. Oh, and I don't think they're insane enough to nuke a fleet fifty miles from their own coast. Still, if that did happen, China and Russia would NOT be happy with NK, and they have nukes, so Pyongyang wouldn't be around for long.
I really wonder what is going to happen when the Chinese decide to collect on the debts we owe to them. Will the Chinese military basically act like a repo man and seize our assets by force?
@wvd1979 Doubtful... China will probably make a deal with the US: forgiveness of all debts in exchange for turning a blind eye to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan
@antred11 Why would they get it for free without a shot? The majority of Taiwanese/Han Chinese on Formosa, don't support reunification as long as the CCP is in control of the mainland.. If Communism falls in the PRC, then yes probably they would reunify without a fight, but I don't see that happening.
Where this part is not logical is Russia claiming it is making a zone from America it has in "its rear" NATO Naval Forces and the US Naval Forces in the Med---which would take out Russian Naval Forces...also Hunter/Killer Allied Subs would know where the Russian subs would be---tracking their positions with underwater list systems---
if a resulting nuclear conflict wouldnt have occured, id have liked to have seen a naval conflict between us and the russians,thatd be interesting to see whod come out on top.
Thats just it, when you are on reeling in defeat, you'll use whatever you've got as a last resort, so a conflict escalating to the thermonuclear level is almost inevitable.
This is a possibility with an Iranian/Israeli/USA ground war, which must be avoided.
though both Russia and the USA are decreasing there nuclear warhead stockpiles but still 1500 nuclear warheads are enough to kill half of the worlds population :(
for the world sake Russia and the USA must NEVER fight each other :(
So? What the hell are you going to do with 21000 nukes? You only need a dozen before it gets to the point where you can pretty much fuck up the entire world.
@Tidusauron12 missiles made to defend from interplanetary attack. Not all missiles are meant for use on the earths surface. They can go pretty far into space before they run out of fuel.
@nurdapurda You said exactly what I was thinking. This is why Gibraltar is such a strategic place. Controls all that come in and out of the Med sea and is a useful detour. You know your stuff.
@SSgtParmer , well,in 1962 the nearest missiles to USSR were in Turkey- but they were, of course, within the range of quick SS-4s- and in Italy. Of course there were lots of bombers and bases from Iceland to Pakistan, and that was the scarest menace
@ivankov410 NATO needed America's help. America could have done without NATO. Of course that would have meant Europe would have had to fend for itself.
@SSgtParmer Are you fucked? The USA never burried any type of nuclear missile anywhere near the Russian coast. What part of the Russian coast again? What missile type?
Also the USA missile buildup was in response to a huge increase in sovet convential forces, and bluffing that their nuclear capability was far in excess of reality
@jyanixbach No, it was just the Soviets doing the same thing the US had already done. The US had already stationed a large number of medium range ballistic missiles in Western Europe and Turkey. Considering how few ICBMs the Russians had, they figured they'd try the same thing with Cuba. The underestimated how angry this would make the United States, clearly.
LOL, we all lose in war dude. It doesnt matter really. Have fun hating bro, i really dont give a shit about it. You are all owned as we are so whatever.
i feel like i'm living in the year 4060 watching a history channel documentary dealing with events that are happening today.
kellkane 3 days ago in playlist WW III
we'll teach that prick a lesson... kick his ass right back to moscow... hahahahaha
dantheweatherguy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thatcher:We're mad as hell we're not going to take it anymore....Right USA?
btqy 1 month ago
Comment removed
btqy 1 month ago
BUILD the Wall HIGHER-no war
btqy 1 month ago
BUILD the Wall HIGHER-no war
btqy 1 month ago
We have the Stealth Bomber which scared the shit out of the Russians
2READYCRETE 1 month ago
@2READYCRETE Yeah right...
GodHatesWar 1 month ago
@2READYCRETE I bet they won't ;)
igor7702 1 month ago
@2READYCRETE Yes, but we only have 20 of it and it can't do everything. Besides, in a nuclear war everyone loses.
Syndicate7707 3 weeks ago
Russia bad, USA good? Dude... The Russians didn't ever fight directly... If you know your history you would know that the Russians obviously help Start a lot of communist revolutions
roromeng 1 month ago
if Assad gets killed the whole middle east will go up, which would draw the attention of the west in order to protect oil supplies, and most likely draw in russia and china.
stumer56 2 months ago
stupid movie. ww3 is a bad idea.
creativeprojects720 2 months ago
I'm not a military historian, but my own feeling is that Soviet military power was overstated. I don't see the United States of the time - having tomahawk cruise missiles and stealth bombers - being defeated by a primitive Soviet land army of 1990. I think they would have lost after some period of time.
Robocain1 2 months ago
@Robocain1 We had many edges over them, but their larger amount of nuclear weapons sort of evens it out.
ajbenius 1 month ago
Another one sided "documentation"
Does Russia have military based all aroiund the US?
Does Russia bomb and murder hundert tousandfs of people in over 50 "interventions" since WW2?
Does Russia continuosly builtd up their military?
Does Russia spend nearly as much on military as all other countries in the world combined?
Does the Russia destroy democracies & governments of other countries for oil & other resources?
No, it's the US!
But western Brainwashing says: Russia bad, USA good
HousekaterClaudio 2 months ago 2
@HousekaterClaudio I don't see where you have gone with this comment, considering this "documentary" of a cold war scenario that dindn't happen and takes place during the Soviet Union's time. The United States and the Soviet Union are just as much to blame for the devfestation brought by the proxy wars of the cold war. The Soviets, and Russians have had more than their fair share of "interventions" throughout the cold war and afterwards.
matrin2 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
couple of shots from the flaklands*** not shits :-P
MistaFozz 2 months ago
What action footage is being used, I noticed a couple of shits from the Flaklands Conflict, what otber footage is used, I am guessing footage from Vietnam in the 70's, Afghanistam in the 80's, Iran-Iraq in the 80's and Desert Storm Early 90's
MistaFozz 2 months ago
@Sonnypjim09 and @worldslinger81
I've spoken to those who served in the military in the 80's as well as researching myself the subject of a WP vs NATO war in europe. The conclussion I and those who served are is the best that NATO could do is prolong the fighting until they run out of ammo and supplies and then the release of chemical/biological or nuclear weapons would be authorized.
atomicR4GER 2 months ago
Isn't the US at war in Iraq in early 1990?
dougklem 2 months ago
That blockade line is complete bullshit. You can't just throw down a line that is completely past your own territory.
worldslinger81 3 months ago
@worldslinger81 It really isn't bullshit, the Soviet Union and Aarsaw allies had a larger and in many cases more powerful military. After our western leaders played bluff over the years with our defence spending in NATO, if the Soviets ever moved in force against us, we would of lost.
Who would of stopped them putting that blockade into place? See my point?
Sonnypjim09 2 months ago
@Sonnypjim09 I was talking about the politics of it. The put a blockade line covering all of Europe. They had no legitimate right to push the line that far.
And obviously no one really knows who would have won but if you look at history it's not usually the army with the most men that wins. It's usually the army that is better led, better equiped, has better tactics and better weapons that wins.
worldslinger81 2 months ago
I recognize speeches made by George Bush regarding the "hostages" used as human shields by Saddam in 1990 and 3:16 is from "Threads" (1984).
acer3573 3 months ago
at 830 its from the falklands war i think the Argentine blown the Sir GALAHAD and SIRt trishtram
kokosam1959 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
funny how thoses fat old fuckers are saying yeah lets go to war and kick him back to moscow. hell his ass isnt going to war, he's gonna stay home and watch the news while the young are being sent to fight
tonic51 4 months ago
What did one Russian General say to the other in a cafe in France? By the way, who won the air war?
GmanSig220 4 months ago
German girl at 1:00 is very cute. :)
cfrait1968 5 months ago
@cfrait1968+99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
sinusbradycardia 4 months ago in playlist ww3
A cold war that broke into conventional warfare could never have been won by either side. Unlike Hitler, sitting in his bunker, awaiting the inevitable defeat as Berlin was overrun, the losing side of a cold war turned conventional war would have had the option to press the nuclear button and take the "victors' with him into oblivion. A stalemate would have only ever been possible.
britishjohn04 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4:07 Best comment about the entire escalation ever IMO
nucleartactician 5 months ago
Comment removed
nucleartactician 5 months ago
6:48 pretty much shows the entire Soviet Surface navy LOL
What kind of a joke battle would that be???
CSATexan 5 months ago 4
@CSATexan Well, the Red Banner Fleet and other surface Russian navies we probably could have handled. Their ever-present Russian subs though, that might have been a different story.
Schone23666 3 weeks ago
@Schone23666
A very short story
CSATexan 3 weeks ago
world war III could even signal our anihilation.by the cold war era this movie is like a warning to the world about the dangers of such a conflict.
captstark1972 5 months ago
I'm 31, why don't I remember this stuff. And to think, papa bush went after iraq not long after this!
MrBrownstone8881 5 months ago
9:00 nobody gives any reliable reason of escalation from atlantic convoy to north sea and Backfire bases. This is not how you progress the war, everybody knows that, unless it is US-led invasion. If so, the movie is fictionally attempting to back one side 'after the facts' what makes shallower scripting for a political fiction movie.
krbosak 6 months ago
8:20 nonsense use of Russian antisubmarine weapons, from the Russian ships that were never designed to operate beyond North Sea. Another random footage.
krbosak 6 months ago
6:11 french frigate, not british. somebody randomized the footage.
krbosak 6 months ago
In case you, like me, where wondering:
The person Reagan refered to as "Hitler revisited"
was Saddam Hussein.
Xigano1 6 months ago
@Xigano1 Um, that was Bush Sr...
taylorcm76 5 months ago
At 7:58 OMG PUTIN!!!!!!
hotboi1520 7 months ago 3
Fucking brits they got there panties in a knot over bunch of drunk ass russians.
MrLovestospoog 7 months ago 3
Soviet Navy against NATO Navy, LOL no chance in hell for the commie bastards
DaytonaRoadster 7 months ago 3
The protect and survive clips are still scary.
jpnarino 8 months ago
Thanks for posting ColdWarWarriors, I really enjoyed watching this TV movie.
jpnarino 8 months ago
The Sovs would take W Germany before Reforger was started.
vvsignin1 8 months ago
@vvsignin1 Which is what I love about World in Conflict, they tried pretty damn hard to accurately portray a theoretical war between the Soviet Union and NATO.
UninsaneRocker 7 months ago
so similar like whats happening in the middle east
urantiruslan 8 months ago
Trolling produces intense heat, this can get through unprotected windows and set fire to things in your home :)
moleman9000 8 months ago
Fuck politics. People don't start wars, politicians do.
SuperYashok 9 months ago
The Bush 41 footage of him talking about blackmail was from the early 90's Iraq war.I guess the line applies here as well.Speaking of which, I bet the Arabs would have launched on Israel about now with the US's hands tied eh?
verbusen 9 months ago
The Sh235 SSSR have hold europa in slavery and terror !
Thank's USA!
Thank you!
God Bless The OLD GOOD USA!
123jolien 9 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ussr was much better than freakin nato who talks sh*t and are a bunch of thief!
Im from afganistan and when the solviet were fighting they killed us in mass grave but told us the truth why they were their but americans and its allies who like to kiss ass kill civillians and trash peoples houses and leave. they have no honour
bryan82034 10 months ago
@bryan82034 So the dishonesty bothered you that much? I'm from America, and while I agree with about 70% of what my government does, I don't believe them for shit. US government treats everyone, including their own citizens, like children.
blindthrall 9 months ago
7:28- he was talking about Saddam Hussein in that clip
Wolfboy183 10 months ago
How can NATO won the battle if its sayed that they have lost the 50+% of they ships....that movie is another pro usa propaganda...
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito it is possible, the ships that were lost could have been cargo ships, not warships or it could have been a pyrrhic victory.
elysian109 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito it is possible, the ships that were lost could have been cargo ships, not warships or it could have been a pyrrhic victory, the US has superior air power
elysian109 10 months ago
@elysian109
has now but back then it had not....dont believe me search google.
anyway Russian and Usa are not ALLIES and not enemys.
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito Sorry for the two replys, you might be right, it either could've gone both ways. But it would probably end up ine the world getting destroyed in a nuclear firestorm. I don't think i said the Us and russia are enemies or allies. I hope this never happens.:)
elysian109 10 months ago 11
@elysian109 looks possible now....russia is tired of the states
shakysyxx 3 months ago
This is very well done! Almost scary when we see what is going in the world today. May we all see we are one people.... b4 its too late!
mystico09 10 months ago
Hey wait just a second! how would the soviet surface fleet have a prayer surviving that close to that many NATO countries in a shooting war. plus they said the convoy was attacked by soviet land based aircraft...from where? their bases in the Kola peninsula? NATO would see all this way in advance and would most likely have land based AWACS and JSTARS offering ISR and lets not forget the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. SOSUS barriers with air force bases in all three countries. NATO has bite too.
Rimasta1 10 months ago
@Rimasta1
Learn a bit about that time Soviet Naval Aviation, and Soviet Navy of that time - they well stood fighting chance, even employed in such limited scenario with distinct operatinal disadvantage. NATO munitions would depleted and many ships sunk. There would be no means of benefit in pressing the attack, as attempt to contain crisis and work out diplomatic solution.
AnteyPL 10 months ago
@AnteyPL yes but my simple point was soviet surface forces would be "annihilated" if they ventured too far from friendly air cover i.e. their naval aviation assets. The RAF, the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and the French air force are all very serious forces to reckoned with, not counting the U.S. Navy. then you must account for NATO submarines, Norway and France have quiet diesel electric subs still. My point is, Soviet admirals were smarter than to risk their forces in the open like this.
Rimasta1 10 months ago
Great documentary exept for 1 thing, Wall Street would never crash so close to war, Wall Street loves war, it's good for business.
BunkerGearGal 11 months ago 50
@BunkerGearGal Just like the Ferengi
n987 9 months ago
@BunkerGearGal There was a recession going on back then, though, under Bush Sr.'s watch. It very well could have crashed...AT the time.
Politcalamity 7 months ago
@BunkerGearGal If there's uncertainty (as there would be in a global war) stocks do go down as investors buy gold.
VERGIS92 7 months ago
By the way, KGB had developed a perfect counterfeiting method for attacking the US dollar, if that happened goodbye US economy, today many of the former agents work for organized crime and successfully counterfeit Euro currency and gold coins, they even fooled many gold collectors.
VERGIS92 7 months ago
@BunkerGearGal I'm afraid I respectfully disagree. You may be thinking of a smaller regional conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan. Something of this magnitude which would potentially stretch across several continents would be a different matter entirely...
Schone23666 7 months ago
@BunkerGearGal That's why our economy is so fucking great right now huh?
xXGoDxiSxdEaDx666Xx 5 months ago
@BunkerGearGal however the international investors may lose faith in the west and pull there money out of wall street but yes war usually war is good for the stock market.
alexlovestoski 5 months ago
@BunkerGearGal what about nukes? There's no point buying or selling when you know nobody will be alive!
Purplecatsoup30 5 months ago
@BunkerGearGal Wall street crashed for lesser things then a war lol
Teranex 4 months ago
@BunkerGearGal that it is, after all look up brown brothers hairman and prescott bush, they funded both sides of ww II which most of history fails to mention.
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@BunkerGearGal There are other things that can affect the stock market besides war - such as impending nuclear war, which would basically destroy the value of any bond.
Wall Street does generally rally before a war, but that's usually based on the assumption of arms sales and a possible victory. None of that would apply in a nuclear war.
Think about it - would YOU want to be holding european bonds (or stocks or loans that depend on them) in a situation like this?
Wobbothe3rd 4 months ago
@BunkerGearGal Spoken like a true socialist moron!
tecumseh1175 3 months ago
@BunkerGearGal yes for exemple World War 2 1941 !
CaporalMichelson 3 months ago
@BunkerGearGal I am not sure if there is a threat of full scale nuclear war.
Bravesfan4500 3 months ago
@BunkerGearGal depends if it is rumors of victory or defeat. If it looks like a budgetary holiday then a rally. If it looks like a defeat that might collapse the ability of the nation to pay on debts or cause massive global disruption in trade then panic.
azezel2311 1 month ago
@BunkerGearGal i think wall street would crash for most things and would make a quick boost in military sales which ppl will switch their assets to..but i think lots of corporations will crash in stock..unless its oil,manufacturing military weapons and ship building .
MrPleasentville 1 month ago
most of the war images of this video are of the faklands war when argentine air force destroyed many british ships
UCN2027 11 months ago
08:13 World War III has "begun" .....loving this "documantary" on World War III.....awesome stuff man
shakysyxx 11 months ago
with todays problems...i really hope that america down the line dosent start with iran next....cause we all know...their close ally is .....RUSSIA.......one of the biggest superpowers of the world....and one to be feared if pushed against a wall
shakysyxx 11 months ago
i wouldn't be surprised if this actually happens with Iran,Russia and North Korea but the country in dispute will no doubt be Israel.
vardiss22 11 months ago
Holy shit seems so real
HotHeadCJ 1 year ago
it's funny how every decision made by russians is somehow "forced" by other people or situations.. it seems they always try to clear their conscienes.. i think this is the way europeans saw russian mindset, at the time.
alecaccia 1 year ago
@alecaccia I've seen this before, personality and mental disorders vaguely related to narcissism, where the ego suffocates the brain. The general idea is that the perpetrator is deluded into thinking they are always right. Their own belligerence is simply a non issue in their mind because they choose to believe they've done nothing wrong. In this case it's the blockade of West Berlin and refuses to take responsibility.
launch4 11 months ago 2
@alecaccia
Remember - neither Soviet or other lidership were actually omniscient. This document greatly shows how random convergence of events gain larger meaning in greater scheme of things. Just like it was really during Able Archer '83 and preceeding months.
AnteyPL 10 months ago
This way overestimates the capabilities of the Soviet Military. Those Soviet subs would have been lucky to get one shot off. . It would not have been pretty but the SU did not stand a chance. The Warsaw Pact was a joke. The Soviet military supported Yeltsen. This is all pure fantasy.
rallyone 1 year ago
It's an interesting alternative history. Too bad it's completely Western biased. Like the Russians would just blockade the middle of the Atlantic and start attacking US ships in international waters. You gotta be slightly ignorant or slightly American to buy this scenario;)
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif i dont like or dislike american gov but i do know they are first in to help countries regardless of the motive they do help
jonbobbie 1 year ago
@jonbobbie Right, go tell that to the people of Iraq and to the people of the other countries that they "helped".
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif dude its predictable and ignorant but people would do it. The Germans did it, the Russians would do it. For thousands of years people do it, its common logic to attack enemy shipping.
BlitzoftheReich 1 year ago
@BlitzoftheReich the Germans were already at war when they attacked US shipping, imagine Hitler blockading the Atlantic to prevent the US from supplying Britain in 1940. Besides, unlike in this scenario the location of German u-boats was unknown to the Americans. Here the Soviets just position their subs in the mid-Atlantic and say do not cross this line. Not very realistic and absurd in strategic thinking. The best weapon of a submarine is surprise!
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif yes but here the US already knows their attacking so they did what they did in the battle of atlantic, they reinforced the column. It's perfectly reasonable as to the US doing such a thing, nowadays politics aren't blitzkrieg and supriuse invasions like they are, because they don't know with how much of a force you will retaliate. It was basically a bluff movement to stop the US from going to Europe.
BlitzoftheReich 1 year ago
@BlitzoftheReich Sorry, i don't believe the Russians would have gambled away their navy like that. If they really wanted to stop the convoy a surprise attack would have been much better than trying to bluff an opponent with a superior navy. In the extreme example, just one nuclear tipped torpedo fired from those subs would have destroyed that entire convoy. A more plausible scenario than the nonsense in the movie, despite the political dangers this would entail.
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif sorta like they gambled their entire army in the second world war? History is known to repeat itself. We've made gambles too and so has everybody else.
BlitzoftheReich 1 year ago
@BlitzoftheReich one makes such gambles when the odds of winning are in his favor which is certainly not the case for Russia in this scenario. It goes against statistics and sound military strategy and the Russians are not stupid strategists despite of what some Americans may think. Unless the fictional Russian commanders in this scenario are total zombies they would not implement such a strategy. I think i gave enough arguments to make my point. But u can believe what u want. Dasvidanya!
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif
And first use of a nuclear warhead would have resulted in retaliatory nuclear strikes on Soviet military units at least. Including carrier based nuclear depth charges on those submarines. The Russians even had as their official policy at the time regarding nuclear weapons "no first use." The US policy was "no first use unless necessary."
MattShizzle 1 year ago
@MattShizzle True, but in a tightly packed convoy with troops and equipment on board the U.S losses would be far greater than any retaliation against the Russian Subs could provide, since they are harder to spot and could easily be spread out over a larger area. However, I don't think it's likely the Russians would use this tactic since it would probably lead to a nuclear exchange. Still, the tactics they use in this scenario are even more unlikely in a real confrontation.
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif
This was disproven during two world wars - convoy IS safer. And remember about RORSAT US-A/Liegienda satellite system as well as regiments of Tu-142s scouting the ocean. And 100+ nuclear sub strong force was far more mobile and threating than WW II uboots.
AnteyPL 10 months ago
@bossmastercheif I believe the whole scenario in this movie is based on the assumption that those in power in the SU in this scenario are complete wackos. With the real soviet leaders, it wouldn't have happened.
thtben 1 year ago
@thtben right, i couldn't agree more.
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
The Soviets spent a large portion of their money on the military and starved their people during the cold war.
Makes me wonder if the USSR would have been able to sustain a military operation like the one in this movie without large internal revolts and assassinations of military and civilian leaders.
Thankfully, none of this really happened.
nightfrog65 1 year ago 2
I think if it came down to it and this was happening it would have been handled way diffrently and most likely either the C.I.A.,M.I.5,or some German special federal police would have assassinated that mad Soviet general before it was too late.
PolizeiPaul 1 year ago 2
@PolizeiPaul
That would have been a strong possibility in this scenario. Another possibility is that Soshkin might have been taken out in a "Valkyrie" type operation by some of his own officers when it was clear he was leading Russia to destruction.
cfrait1968 5 months ago
I know what N.A.T.O. is but what does O.T.A.N. mean? After all it's just N.A.T.O. wrote backwards.
PolizeiPaul 1 year ago
@PolizeiPaul O.T.A.N.=Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord
nubbie1944 1 year ago
the russians had VTOL?!
nero91 1 year ago
@nero91
yes YAK 38 Forger and the carrier it took off from is class Kiev class aircraft carrier (a more fitting description would be a heavily armed cruiser with a flight deck!!!)
juuls26 1 year ago 2
WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!? OMG!! (lol)
iTeaze888 1 year ago
Unfortunately, that's been Western Europe's motto, more or less since 1917...
Schone23666 1 year ago
LOL. "I'm not a big fan of the Americans, so I hate to say this... they're our only hope."
That might as well be the EU motto.
macconnell100 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
offamychain 1 year ago
@macconnell100, unfortunately it is as true as the Sun
anisocoro 1 year ago
04:11 The real life Peter Griffin.
alpha18412 1 year ago
Also to add if we was at defcon 2 as people said..we would be ready for a nuclear war..now that is just fucking retarded i mean come on..to be at defcon 2 we would have to have a ground war ffs
MrAnub12 1 year ago
@MrAnub12,
Not necessarily a ground war -- our nuclear strategic forces were at DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962....there was no ground military confrontation (yet), other than the confrontations between Soviet ships and the US Navy.
knightryderrwn 1 year ago
@knightryderrwn It's no wonder Kennedy was assassinated after that, he couldn't have handled it any worse.
06hurdwp 1 year ago
you know im studying a degree in history and this has to be one of the most facinating what if's i have seen also i have to say i cant see the soviet's coming back yim sorry dude..
MrAnub12 1 year ago
you know im studying a degree in history and this has to be one of the most facinating what if's i have seen
MrAnub12 1 year ago
Oh man We just went to defcon 3.
OniLunchbox 1 year ago
@OniLunchbox I don't wish to alarm you, or anyone else here, but we're at Defcon 2 now, matey. Still, these measures are only with regards to an attack on U.S. forces, which could mean anything, not necessarily nuclear weapons. Oh, and I don't think they're insane enough to nuke a fleet fifty miles from their own coast. Still, if that did happen, China and Russia would NOT be happy with NK, and they have nukes, so Pyongyang wouldn't be around for long.
Nurdapurda 1 year ago
What is level of the DEFCON system in the european 3rd world war ( not nuclear weapons)
MarkTheRide 1 year ago
02:22 Lol is that an addidas bag?
Alecanderification 1 year ago
I really wonder what is going to happen when the Chinese decide to collect on the debts we owe to them. Will the Chinese military basically act like a repo man and seize our assets by force?
wvd1979 1 year ago
@wvd1979
I am neither American nor Chinese...but I doubt that China would even think about doing that :)
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo.....play Fallout...lol....
YimChun 1 year ago
@YimChun
yeah maybe.
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo...it's perfectly possible...even more so now that America owes China all that money...lol
YimChun 1 year ago
@om996jo 1/10th of all the money in circulation on the planet is owed to China by the US. That is fucking scary.
06hurdwp 1 year ago
@06hurdwp \do you mean the 10% of world's debth is owed to China by the US ?
how much do you owe them any way ?
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo No, I meant what I said.
There is around $10 trillion of various currencies in circulation around the world. The USA owes China $1 trillion
06hurdwp 1 year ago
@06hurdwp oh my god ?
what did you do to owe tham that much ?
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo I am not American. All I know is what I have said
06hurdwp 1 year ago
@wvd1979 Doubtful... China will probably make a deal with the US: forgiveness of all debts in exchange for turning a blind eye to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan
PhatFarm60 1 year ago
@PhatFarm60 The Chinese aren't going to invade Taiwan. They don't need to ... they'll eventually get it for free without a single shot.
antred11 1 year ago
@antred11 Why would they get it for free without a shot? The majority of Taiwanese/Han Chinese on Formosa, don't support reunification as long as the CCP is in control of the mainland.. If Communism falls in the PRC, then yes probably they would reunify without a fight, but I don't see that happening.
PhatFarm60 1 year ago
Where this part is not logical is Russia claiming it is making a zone from America it has in "its rear" NATO Naval Forces and the US Naval Forces in the Med---which would take out Russian Naval Forces...also Hunter/Killer Allied Subs would know where the Russian subs would be---tracking their positions with underwater list systems---
rangeclerk 1 year ago
if a resulting nuclear conflict wouldnt have occured, id have liked to have seen a naval conflict between us and the russians,thatd be interesting to see whod come out on top.
CA1CWilliams 1 year ago
@CA1CWilliams
Thats just it, when you are on reeling in defeat, you'll use whatever you've got as a last resort, so a conflict escalating to the thermonuclear level is almost inevitable.
This is a possibility with an Iranian/Israeli/USA ground war, which must be avoided.
Mopar21277 1 year ago
@Mopar21277 agreed
CA1CWilliams 1 year ago
@Mopar21277
you are right.
though both Russia and the USA are decreasing there nuclear warhead stockpiles but still 1500 nuclear warheads are enough to kill half of the worlds population :(
for the world sake Russia and the USA must NEVER fight each other :(
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo Russia still has got 21000 nuclear warheads in 2009 and US has 9845 nukes. UK only has 372 and France has 395. China has 400.
1234567loading 1 year ago
@1234567loading
yes :)
but I mentioned the quantities after START treaty :)
om996jo 1 year ago
Comment removed
om996jo 1 year ago
@1234567loading
So? What the hell are you going to do with 21000 nukes? You only need a dozen before it gets to the point where you can pretty much fuck up the entire world.
Tidusauron12 1 year ago
@Tidusauron12 missiles made to defend from interplanetary attack. Not all missiles are meant for use on the earths surface. They can go pretty far into space before they run out of fuel.
commentmutant 1 year ago
@nurdapurda You said exactly what I was thinking. This is why Gibraltar is such a strategic place. Controls all that come in and out of the Med sea and is a useful detour. You know your stuff.
marcs990 1 year ago
@marcs990
well they can cross through the straight of Gibraltar to land these forces at Italy or France.
om996jo 1 year ago
Couldn't the convoy land at Gibraltar?
Nurdapurda 1 year ago
@SSgtParmer , well,in 1962 the nearest missiles to USSR were in Turkey- but they were, of course, within the range of quick SS-4s- and in Italy. Of course there were lots of bombers and bases from Iceland to Pakistan, and that was the scarest menace
anisocoro 1 year ago
War is useless. *** illuminati and we can have peace.
Niacin11 1 year ago
haha so sad that america needed help from other countries NATO huh haha so strong but weak
ivankov410 1 year ago
@ivankov410 Russia needed help from European counties of the Warsaw pact.....
ala4akbar 1 year ago
@ivankov410 NATO needed America's help. America could have done without NATO. Of course that would have meant Europe would have had to fend for itself.
antred11 1 year ago
@SSgtParmer Are you fucked? The USA never burried any type of nuclear missile anywhere near the Russian coast. What part of the Russian coast again? What missile type?
Also the USA missile buildup was in response to a huge increase in sovet convential forces, and bluffing that their nuclear capability was far in excess of reality
EasyEs 1 year ago
Oh if only the Russian did that... turns out their military didn't want to slaughter the civilians, resulting in the last 20 years of boredom
adrastea99 1 year ago
you know what a mean
wifiman1 1 year ago
Anushka what are you doing in the Vids woman!
Insomaniaartist 1 year ago
@SSgtParmer So what was the Cuban Missle Crisis? Wasn't that the Soviets surrounding and antagonizing the Americans?
jyanixbach 1 year ago
@jyanixbach No, it was just the Soviets doing the same thing the US had already done. The US had already stationed a large number of medium range ballistic missiles in Western Europe and Turkey. Considering how few ICBMs the Russians had, they figured they'd try the same thing with Cuba. The underestimated how angry this would make the United States, clearly.
Nater245689 1 year ago
the soviets were probably like: screw it, lets own those americans.
then the americans were like: hellaz no, screw you guys. BEAST MODE: [ON]
TheCheesyProductions 1 year ago 3
LOL, we all lose in war dude. It doesnt matter really. Have fun hating bro, i really dont give a shit about it. You are all owned as we are so whatever.
RAZOR2177