The Third World War: August 1985

Meanwhile, a new crisis began to develop nearer home. After Tito’s disappearance from the political scene Yugoslavia had survived the succession problem in the first instance with less difficulty than had been forecast. Inevitably the regions had obtained a little more power and the economic arrangements in each region had diverged a little more from the general norm, mostly leaning even further than before towards the market economy, but the basic federal organization remained more or less intact. Now, however, the general difficulties caused by oil shortages and price increases added to the latent tensions between the richer north and the poorer south of the country. The non-aligned group of countries, of which Yugoslavia and Egypt had been founder members, had been brusquely reduced by Egypt’s acceptance of Soviet tutelage. As the path of non-commitment became narrower, Slovenia began slipping off to the West and Serbia to the East.

West Germany had for some time seen Ljubljana as one of the gateways to the development of the more intensive trade with Eastern Europe which its industry seemed increasingly to require. The Slovenian provincial administration responded to West German advances with an alacrity that went beyond merely commercial advantage and suggested a vision of a new Balkan Switzerland where East and West could meet on equal terms. The central government took fright at this separatist trend and sought to redress the balance by turning a blind eye to pro-Soviet groups which had always been in existence and had lately been sharpening up their capability for agitation against just this eventuality. Their danger signals to the CPSU lost nothing in transmission. The restoration of orthodox communist control in Yugoslavia was now moved up to quite near the top in the Kremlin’s list of objectives.

CHAPTER 8: Heidelberg, 27 July 1985

It was a warm summer afternoon in Heidelberg. The visitors from the Committee on Armed Services of the United States Senate were listening with close attention to the Chief of Staff of the United States Army in Europe (USAREUR). The press and TV crews were absent.

‘As I am sure was made abundantly clear this morning in the Commanding General’s opening address and the informal group briefings which followed,’ the Chief of Staff was recorded as saying, ‘this visit is warmly welcome in USAREUR, from top to bottom in the whole command. It is evidence of the interest and support we have increasingly been able to count on in the United States as international tension has mounted further south and as we in this command have steadily improved our state of readiness.

‘What I have to say is classified but, as you have wished, it is on the record, and I know you will bear with me if it is occasionally on the technical side.’

He turned to the map.

Dispositions in CENTAG are known to you, and I have at this stage no further comment on them. It is a matter for regret that the recommendations of the Nunn-Bartlett Report in 1977 and of the Annual Defense Department Report of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for the Fiscal Year 1978, could not, for reasons of finance, be fully acted on. Nevertheless, there has been steady progress since the period of dangerously low levels of readiness during which these reports were rendered — progress which is at least to some extent, if in varying degree, reflected among our allies — and the US Army in Europe is today in better shape than at any time in the last ten years. Progress at this rate, other things being equal, could within two years put the Alliance in a position of unquestioned security against any conventional attack from the Warsaw Pact.

Nuclear armaments will be covered at another time. I shall deal now with conventional equipment.

The XM-1 tank, three times as effective as the M-60 it is replacing, is widely in service throughout the command. The Mechanized Infantry 86 Combat Vehicle, whose earlier introduction would have doubled the effectiveness of our infantry, regrettably is not. Its stabilized auto-cannon for fire suppression and its two under-armor ATGW (TOW or Hellfire) with a 3,000-meter range and a 90 per cent first-hit probability would be invaluable. It has, of course, been accepted for service and we have some, but not enough.

On the other hand we have through the improved Tacfire a 50 per cent improvement in automated artillery fire direction, plus battery computers, and the extended range ammunition for 200 mm and 155 mm tube artillery, with which it can now reach out thirty to forty kilometers. This much improved counter-fire capability has helped to correct a grave weakness on the CENTAG front. The weakness I refer to is our difficulty in switching fire support laterally, given an enemy possessing the initiative in choice of attack axes and a terrain not always friendly to lateral movement on the ground.