"East German army in WW3" Topic

Following on from my question about the Polish army, was the army of the DDR more politically reliable ? Would they have followed orders better than the Poles ?

No one really knows, I suspect.

Soviets/Russians are/were masters of misdirection and misinformation.

Nuke a Polish, or East German city, port, or base, and blame it on NATO, in order to secure hatreds and alliances?

I suspect it might have been part of their planning to do that, and blame NATO for starting the war.

Yes, I am rather cynical on communist motives, but with good reason, as you can see in various regions even today, and/or throughout history, e.g. Czech, Hungary, Berlin and East Germany (trying to starve them into submission after WWII, hence the Berlin Airlift), Afghanistan, Georgia, Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, Balkans, Baltic, etc., etc……..

Are you seriously asking if German troops would follow orders???

My sarcasm meter doesn't read high enough.

I've commented on the Polish thread, but the Germans were considered more reliable politically. How this would translate on the ground is anyone's guess, but the comments from a former TMPer whose father was (from memory) a senior GDR officer indicates a certain amount of dissent.

Good D.D.R. TO&E: PDF link

Most soldiers in most wars follow orders just fine.

Most soldiers in most wars are not asked to fight for the nation that holds them in subjugation. I think the entire WARPAC was up for grabs if the balloon went up.

WW1 Austria-Hungary? WW2 SS volunteers from occupied territories? Indians in English service? Assorted Germans in Napoleons Grande Armee? Polish brigades in Soviet service in WW2? Ukrainians in WW2?

History is full of people doing just that.

It might lead to lower morale but historically, that's typically only been an issue in extended fighting and once the nukes started falling, everyone's morale is going to drop precipitously.

The real question is WHY everyone is shooting.
If the Soviets are clear aggressors, the WARPAC countries are likely to be very hesitant unless it exploits an older rivalry.
If NATO are the aggressors, they might be more reliable.

Roll 5+ for a full intervention, 3-4 for a token force and 1-2 for outright refusal.

In 'Next War' the DDR were one of the more reliable Warpac allies, and I believe the USSR considered them so.

They certainly adhered to the principles of Marxism-Leninism with rather greater enthusiasm than a lot of their eastern bloc neighbours. Perhaps it was because they let them keep their jackboots and M45 helmets from WW2?

Anyway, we often pitch the Bundeswehr against the NVA in our WW3 campaign. Both sides get to be panzer commanders, so what is not to like? Our WW3 is in 1981, using the starting scenario from 'Threads', and given the situation postulated, it is very easy for both NATO and the USSR to point to the other as the aggressor.

What is the problem? Soldiers do not usually ask who they are fighting for. Dissident / non-dissident, likes communism / capitalism / strawberry jam, listens to the Soviet Army Choir or Modern Talking – no difference.

In general, Martin Rapier is absolutely right. NVA was considered the most loyal of the armies of the Warsaw Pact. Bulgaria and Poland took the second place. At the last – Romania.

"Panzer vs Panzer" would be a great title to get the ww2 crowd into playing ww3 games :D

"strawberry jam, listens to the Soviet Army Choir, no difference."

YouTube link

Honecker was an odd fish who carried out some 'liberal' reforms but was quite happy to see his own people shot if they tried to jump the border. He was considered hardline by Gorbachev and had the frighteningly effective Stasi to back him up. Doubt I would brave enough to refuse to fight with the Stasi doing their thing back home, but it all depends how much control they could exert over the military as a whole if the balloon went up.

My conclusion? Well, I haven't amassed a sizeable collection of 20mm East Germans for nothing…

I'm guessing most of the Pact armies would have done well enough as long as things were going in their favor.

Soldiers do not usually ask who they are fighting for.

I agree, and I heard that the East Germans were the most reliable … Some habits from the last war would have been hard to break, in their case. I'd guess …

However, someone mentioned a few years back on TMP . That is was believed by some that the NVA would not stand for the USSR using Chem/Bio weapons in Germany. But I can't confirm that. Not really sure of it's veracity ?

[As a sidebar, NVA was the abbreviation for the North Vietnamese Army. Used by those in the US military during the war in Vietnam. So I always have to remember that it also means the East Germans too … ]

Yea, first few times I saw NVA I was immediately thinking North Vietnamese.

DDR was more common in my day for the East Germans.

Me too …

Hello, Legion 4!
I honestly do not believe in such an assumption. Nobody would ask the GDR. In the USSR, too, it was at one time a similar assumption that of the European NATO members in the event of war, only the Bundeswehr will fight, while the rest will succumb to pacifism and will not fight.

Yes, I, too, sometimes sometimes in English-language texts just can not understand which of them are in question. In Russian, by the way, the names of the Vietnamese and Hungarian armies of those times are identical: VNA – Vengerskaya Naradnaya Armija or Vietnamskaya Narodnaya Armiya.

Yes I have a tendency to agree about GDR, UsmanK … But I know the USA had a lot of troops in Europe. Most in West Germany. And in the US or in Europe. The US Military trained and prepared to fight a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. However, I'm glad we never had to test your theory … about who would fight and who wouldn't.

And yes, English is a confusing language enough. But the Americans, we added another level of confusion at times …

Hello, Legion 4!

And I am also very happy about this. In general, all these speculations about who will / will not fight are quite typical for all times, and in practice all pacifist theories prove to be unviable.
Compared with Russian, English is very understandable and logical. In the Russian extremely confusing grammar, and to incorporate with it the completely unchaste text is very easy. Leo Tolstoy's example (I do not know how it is translated, but in the original it is impossible to read it).

in practice all pacifist theories prove to be unviable.

You got that right !

Well you have me grammatically … I can't speak Russian. And you speak better English than I do !

Hello, Legion 4!

For me, basically speaking Google Translator. I'm just correcting it. And in real life I speak English with an eerie accent, and my vocabulary is very small.

Well I'll have to try that ! Using that translator technique … And I always like the Russain/Eastern Euro accents. They sound like some of the villains in James Bond movies !