"NATO fighting resolve if attacked in Europe?" Topic

Would NATO forces fighting a conventional war in Europe be less effective fighting than when fighting elsewhere in the world? Would "home-advantage" prove to be a disadvantage?

Would home-grown public opinion, anti-war demonstrations, lack of public resolve discourage NATO troops to any significant level and impair their ability to fight?

Would a Syrian-style stalemate be the likely outcome?

Don't know there would have been time or the inclination to raise demonstrations if they had been attacked during the Cold War. If a future conflict, ditto – but all bets are off if they are perceived by their own populations as the aggressor.
Who do you imagine they are fighting?

I see no indication that the Europeans won't fight, and fight well, if called upon to do so.

Too many Transatlantic commentators seem to equate an unwillingness to get involved in unwinnable wars abroad as cowardice.

As it was, whereas we had massive demonstrations against fighting in Iraq, there were nonesuch when the British government were considering massive intervention against Serbia….

Too many Transatlantic commentators seem to equate an unwillingness to get involved in unwinnable wars abroad as cowardice.

Absolutely. This can't be stated strongly enough.

Advantages and disadvantages. For example, I could imagine Bundeswehr troops to fight tenaciously to defend their home soil, but be less inclined to cross the border into East Germany for a counter attack/offensive. Also, there would be a huge uproar from the German public if tactical nuclear weapons are to be used inside Germany against WP troops.

Considering the bulk of the Warsaw Pact is in or allied with Nato, I think you just mean western europe?

Warsaw Pact – dis-established in 1991. Subsequently former Warsaw Pact members Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and newly re-emergent states from former WP members; Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia joined NATO.

I assume Hey Joe's original question was predicated on a putative shooting war with the Russian Federation? What the outcome of that might might I do not know but it is difficult to see the inhabitants of former WP countries quietly acquiescing to a 'Soviet-style' Russian take over. I incline to agree with Bangotu and jpattern2 sentiment that unwillingness to support unwinnable wars does not equate to cowardice.

The stalemate in Syria evolved because regional and international powers are in effect fighting a war by proxy. This will continue until one side 'wins' or the opposition and Assad regime get sick of the business and call it quits. There is also the added complication of the emergence of ISIS. It is difficult to see how similar conditions might ensue in Europe.

Added to which there hasn't been an East Germany for over 20 years. ;)

Even during the Cold War every Bundeswehr officer, and NCO, I ever met expected that after we had stopped the Soviet attack we would counter attack and free at the very least East Germany.

Fatman

Hey Joe
Funnily enough I was having a similar conversation with a very good family friend, a Dane, last month. She said that her generation, she is in her thirties, had parents and grand parents who had suffered the occupation and had taught their children that sometimes you have to fight when necessary. She pointed out that while still basically pacifist by nature the Danes were also patriotic and determined not to let an aggressor "take advantage of there pacifist stance again.", she also very proud of and knowledgeable her countries are forces. Just one person but I think you will find that sort of attitude is a lot more common than the media would have us think.

Fatman

Eastern and western Europe is much more built up than it was in 1939-45. This would give any Nato troops a big defensive advantage. During WW2 the Russians had lots of self propelled artillery, SU-122, SU-152's plus towed artillery to blast buildings. They no longer have this form of tactical ability.

Canada has a company deployed in Europe at this moment, the first in many years. Nato armies are volunteer and professional. Given orders to defend western Europe, I see no reason why that professionalism would come into question.

What people say in time of peace and do in time of war can be very different. I recall reading once that either Oxford or Cambridge Universities debating whether they would fight in case of war. The vote said ihey wouldn't fight. That was 1939, a year later most of those who said they wouldn't fight had been KIA.
(It was Oxford in 1933: link )

Anti-war demonstrations when their own nation is invaded?
Seems close to fantasy to me.

If NATO were actually invaded I think they'd fight. And I imagine they'd do rather well. But I don't think they would be willing to, say, rise to the defense of someone like the Ukraine, or Georgia. But I also don't see how the Russians would be so… inept… as to try invading a NATO member state. I'm not sure what other scenario might be in mind.
Now, just what the United States might do in such a situation is another question…

I see no indication that the Europeans won't fight, and fight well, if called upon to do so.

That might be put to the test in one of the Baltic states in the future.

Clearly, the West will not intervene in the Ukraine, but will it defend a NATO member such as Latvia? That is the question.

This is a political debate suited for UM board. So ducks are ducks and geese are geese. Nothing to do with the British Wargames board Joe and you know it.

Fighting on home ground is almost always advantageous to the defender, if it is their homeland.

The sole exception I can think of about that would be nuclear war. Perhaps chem and bio war as well, though the latter is rarely confined by national borders once started.

Anti-war demonstrations in the NATO nations, if they are the ones attacked, would most likely be conducted by communist/socialist agents/Spetznatz, and the like, to stir up trouble at home I suspect. Few sane citizens would disapprove of defending against external aggressors, in order to protect one's homeland.

…seems to me that there just was a very long thread about how Ultramodern has little to do with wargaming…

If the OP is talking about now or the near future and the protagonist is Russia, I'd answer any doubts in one word – Poland!

Anti war demonstrators will oppose just about anything – its not about the logic, its about the way they are raised, trained, organised and funded – the same core few thousand people throughout Europe who protest against, well, anything really; globalisation, hunting, logging, war, furs, anything that will destablilize and get media attention. You only need a couple of hundred for the media to make it seem like a mass wave, just for a bit of drama and to big themselves up.

So count on anti-war demonstrations, no matter how clear and justifiable the war.

Depends on just how "clear and justifiable" the war is.

"According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war." link

Wow, those "core few thousand people" sure do get around, don't they?

"Anti war demonstrators will oppose just about anything – its not about the logic…".

True, in some cases, though they are/were frequently led (at least here in the West) by communist/socialist agitators with strong ties to our foes.

Fatman – the Danes actually did a lot of fighting in Afghanistan and suffered proportionally higher casualties than anyone else except the ANA.

I'm guessing most Americans don't know that…. hence we get these questions about the European willingness to fight.

Which i guess is fair enough. Back when we were wanting to kick Serbian butt we said equally nasty things about the Americans… exacerbated when they pulled out of Somalia in a hurry.

And we were wrong too.

Oh – and around a million people in the UK demonstrated against Iraq…

Bangorstu
Those Danes included my friend Tina's nephew. She was also very proud of a college professor who had been involved in an action in he Balkans where the Serbs thought the Danish contingent would back of and got a very rude surprise. Not sure of the details but apparently the man is well respected on campus because he was part of the action.

Fatman

Willingness to fight and capability to do so are two different things. When core members of NATO like the Netherlands have disposed of their entire inventory of Main Battle Tanks, it is not out of line to question their willingness to fight if Russia tried to reclaim the Baltics. The Dutch government has at the very least shown that they are not willing to spend money on the wherewithal to conduct combat operations in a high threat environment. I have no doubt that Dutch soldiers would fight valiantly if called upon to do so but I have little confidence in their elected officials.

I think it was the Danes who took Leopards the the Balkans and used them in action, certainly they took them to Afghanistan.

Carne – given Russia only borders NATO in the Baltics, Kaliningrad and northern Norway, I wonder how much use they'd be?

Threatening Kaliningrad (or just rolling through) isn't an appropriate response to Russian aggression in the Baltics?

Communist agitators in 2015? Are you guys taking the ?

What do you think it is? 1937?

…and mine needs emptying.

This commie is ON the bed, thank you very much.

To each according to his needs….
Move over comrade weasel I need some rest from opposing the oppression of the masses.
Ie the oppression that I get when looking at my miniature pile that is I painted!

No miniatures shall be painted until all the miniatures shall be painted!

From each painter according to his spare time, to each miniature according to its points value.

Codex Creep is the opium of the masses.

Back to the original question, about would NATO oppose a direct attack on a member states home territory – the answer is yes – the capacity of each will be different as each has different force structures, readiness levels and commitments. However I'm sure that NATO will defend iwith vigor – it just may take time for the forces to get where they are needed. However foreign interventions might be less likely to get as unified/enthusiastic response. Isolationism and political will and all that.

But there are commies under every bed !!!!

Still ?!? Or are you just having an LSD '60s flashback ?

I see no indication that the Europeans won't fight, and fight well, if called upon to do so.

Funny, there's an article in the May/June 2015 issue of Foreign Affairs that says that a 2014 Gallup poll showed that just 29% of French citizens, 27% of British citizens, and 18% of German citizens polled said that they would be willing to fight for their country. 68% of Italians said that they would outright refuse to fight.

Carne – given Russia only borders NATO in the Baltics, Kaliningrad and northern Norway, I wonder how much use they'd be?

Bangorstu, you forgot about Poland. Poland not only borders Russia, but it contains prime steppe lands which are perfect for armor incursions. (Lack of natural boundaries left Poland open for mechanized invasion by both Russia and Germany in WWII.)

Im pretty sure that Poland wouldn't mind a few brigades of Leopard II tanks parked along their border with Russia.

Lion – I imagine that poll was not taken while foreign troops are in the streets, murdering citizens and bombing peoples homes.

Poland not only borders Russia

it borders a small enclave called Kaliningrad. It's heavily militarised, but nothing the Poles couldn't handle.

Apart from that, it borders Belarussia and Ukraine….

Fatman – That is my experience, too with the Danes and West Germans. The West Germans designed much of their equipment specificaly to invade East Germany. That's why you saw all the Hanomag trucks with the huge tires – perfect for East German low country. I think most (maybe not all?) European countries that are members of NATO would fight along with the U.S. Putin talks a big game but I doubt he really has the resources to back it up. Make an interesting game with a Baltic States or Polish or Rumanian or Hungarian Battlefield (assuming they go straight thru Ukraine and Belarus).

@Weasel: granted, but the results of that poll sure makes it a lot more likely for someone to get ambitious and put foreign troops on the streets, murdering the locals and blowing up their homes. Because there's not going to be much military to stop the invaders!

With any poll you need to look at the questions and context

Eg series of leading q's to get where you want to go..
Do you support denial of civil liberties?
Do you support children being maimed and killed?
Do you support your government doing that?
Do you support your troops doing that?
Do you support your government sending your troops to wage war overseas?

How many Americans pre-ww2 said they should never get involved in a European war?

I don't think Putin reviewed Ukrainian poll data to decide if he was going to sneak "green men" into the Ukraine.

@David: True enough. As Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

And Weasel, while I doubt Czar Vlad checked Ukrainian polls, I'd bet someone on his staff checked how willing NATO/EU would be to fight over the Ukraine!