This is the book that re inspired a genre of near future conflict projection. Perhaps now it could be considered an alternate history read but at the time it was an exercise in military realisation should the Cold War turn quite heated.

Though it is a book that lacks a narrative of good and bad and does not come as a novel, though it is a fiction. It is written as a historical piece as though the then future has already happened and those that lived through it and those yet to be born, sought some answers, then this book would be full of many of the events and answers.

Although it may seem far fetched now with the benefits of hindsight it does however illustrate the potential darkness that loomed over the World thanks to the futility of Empire and Nation States that danced before the twilight of calamity.

I really loved this book as a kid and I hope to re read it soon. Despite its age and the changing tides of history, the book I feel is still relevant a read for those who are interested in this subject matter.

If you are to read one book of this type, I personally feel that this is the one.

90 %alternate-military-fiction8 s Jonathan777 110

Interesting hypothetical look at a potential world conflict in the 80's. Bit dry in some places but very interesting none the less.cold-war8 s Jeffrey193 6

This book is a unique artifact of the Cold War: in 1977, a retired British general wrote a book about a hypothetical "World War 3" centered in Europe in 1985. It's not actually an enjoyable reading experience - much of it reads a textbook - and a lot of their future predictions turned out very wrong (China and Japan allied; the Shah's Iran dominant in the Middle East; Germany permanently partitioned; the draft restored in the US). However, other projections turned out well (a stronger EU; the Soviet Union split up by nationalism; the technology gap between East & West the determining factor in the future). It's a singular treat for military history fans and a fascinating view into the technology and mindset of the late '70s ... but most readers will want to skim it at best.history-military7 s Endeavour Award5 1 follower

Quite interesting. Somewhat thinly veiled propaganda for a pro-military, conservative approach to world affairs (It was all the liberals' fault!), but a lot of fun and I'm learning a lot about Cold War era politics.

Among the more unintentionally hilarious lines: "He was also, very many generals, a brave, sincere, and selfless person."

This book was written by General sir John Hackett and "Other Top-Ranking NATO Generals & Advisors."

I wanted the next line to be: "He was the very model of a modern major general!"history science-fiction-fantasy5 s Matt892

I started this but did not finish. The premise is way outdated and uninteresting. I am certain that at the time it was published it was relevant. There was a Soviet Union and East and West Germany. I didn’t find it interesting enough or th writing good enough to continue past 40 pages. In many ways it was he same writing style used in “World War z”.5 s Sean209 5

Originally published in 1979, John Winthrop Hackett’s novel was intended to present a logical, if obviously fictionalized, narrative overview of what might happen if the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe. It’s the kind of book that Tom Clancy virtually monopolized later on, but fans of Clancy’s military thrillers may be disappointed with Hackett’s more staid, pseudo-historical approach. Written in textbook fashion a few years after the imaginary war’s end, THE THIRD WORLD WAR is particularly noteworthy for its detailed analysis of not only the relative military strengths and weaknesses of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but also the myriad socio-political factors around the globe which contribute to the outbreak of war as well as its ultimate resolution. Though it goes without saying that for all its cool-headed realism Hatchett’s novel fails to correctly forecast some of the events which in fact transpired between 1979 and 1985 (the date when Hackett’s version of World War 3 breaks out) it is interesting how accurate many of his prognostications proved to be. For example, the United States and Britain, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, did abandon the weaker national policies their nations had followed to that point, choosing instead to pursue a policy of peace through strength which led the USSR into an arms race which it could not win, in large measure due to the inherent flaws of any highly socialized economy. Hackett also successfully predicts the breakup of the Soviet Union into its native republics due to economic and social upheavals which effectively neutralize Russia as a threat to Europe for a generation—pretty much what actually happened. Hackett also foresees the emergence of China as America’s primary national security rival following the Soviet Union’s collapse. Perhaps most chillingly, Hackett postulates that had the Soviet attack come at the time he began writing the book—1977—NATO would have almost surely been crushed by the Communist onslaught. That, in part, was why Hackett wrote the book—to address the weaknesses in NATO’s defensive preparations and hopefully encourage the proper authorities to take the necessary steps to correct them. Though thirty years after the fact the specific circumstances addressed by Hackett’s novel are obviously outdated, the book’s general precepts are not, and his story serves as a standing warning to America, England, and other nations who profess to value the freedom of their peoples that it is both shortsighted and dangerous to ignore the threats our nations face.4 s CharlesAuthor 41 books271

Hard to know where to put this. It's fiction, but was an attempt by General John hackett and other military advisors and generals to predict, realistically, how the Third World War might be fought. Of course it is far dated now. It was first published in 1979 and predicted the war for August, 1985.

I actually found the book pretty interesting reading. It held my attention, although it wasn't written exactly a novel. I've often figured this book was an influence on Tom Clancy's work. Today it would probably best be read or studied as an illustration of the mindset of the NATO allies at the time.

historical-fiction4 s Tom Schulte3,071 64

Early in 1977 a retired NATO general called together six of his colleagues--including an admiral, an airman, an economist and a diplomat--to write a dramatized fantast of the next world war.
The vivid, detailed imagining of on-the-spot reports from battlefronts, excerpts from fantasy memoirs, internal Soviet documents, etc. reads a treatment for a big screen war movie.

Well, since it it looks World War III already started, I thought it was finally time to take this prediction of a 1985 WWIII and see how well it matches up. Now, this is basically NATO vs. USSR, so in the post-Soviet world it cannot be an apples to apples comparison. We don't have Warsaw Pact nations (most are in NATO, now) and so no blitzkrieg across the Fulda Gap into Central Europe. Still, some similarities and dissimilarities are of interest to me. This war is over in a few weeks and basically starts with Russian expansionist African movements to me somewhat similar to the agitation in provinces of various nations of Central Asia seeking to foment separatism. Also, things go from chemical attacks from both sides to both sides skipping strategic nukes to each launching one city killer in over about ten days. Whoa! Things went from bad to worse fast in this vision!

One thing that does jive with where we are at is anti-tank and other potent man-portable armaments making wreckage out of armor directed from Moscow.

Also, this one imagines beams against space vehicles, etc. and of course misses the cyberwar.

One eerie bullseye is the neo-Nazi claims from the Kremlin:

From the outset the world was swamped with Soviet claims, flooding through every possible channel of communication, that this was no more than defensive action, to which the Warsaw Pact had been driven by neo-Nazi ambitions supported by capitalist imperialism. 'It has long been clear,' the announcement proclaimed,

'that the new Nazis are set on the reunification of Germany by force and the subsequent domination of Europe as an early step to world supremacy. The policy of "forward defense", which is self-evident military non sense if it does not mean action by the FRG east of the Demarcation Line, has never been more than a thin cloak for the firm intention to invade the GDR as a first move towards the dismemberment of the Warsaw Pact and the destruction of the USSR. The change of name from Vorwärtsverteidigung (Forward Defence) to Vornever teidigung (Frontal Defence) has done nothing to disguise the nakedness of an essentially aggressive policy. Plans for the invasion are now, in total authenticity,' as the announcement put it, 'in Soviet hands, and their authors will in time be brought to justice. Meanwhile, it has become abundantly clear that there is no time to lose in cutting out the Nazi canker. Otherwise all hope will vanish of a lasting peace in Europe.'3 s Odhran472 5

Makes Tom Clancy look realistic.

Seriously, it's actually quite worrying that so many big-name decision-makers had such a poor understanding of their enemy during the Cold War. I can forgive mispredictions thinking Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would fall to revolution and Iran would stay stable - you can't call details. And I can forgive the propaganda nature of the book - it's blatantly obvious it was written to encourage the West to spend more on guns, and I'll let the heavy-handed way it's done slide. (Although I can imagine the authors furiously masturbating to their dream world of no unions and flag-waving patriots. C'mon lads, let's try a bit of nuance here.) I'll even forgive the poor writing, which only becomes atrocious when they're trying to do action bits rather than mock-history. WWIII is a niche interest, I don't expect top-notch everything.

There are two things I hate in the genre - lack of realism, and a complete misunderstanding of the Soviet position. This book falls down on both. For realism: a single-missile nuclear strike? SERIOUSLY? That's all I really need to say. As for failing to understand the Soviets, the constant insistence that the Red Army was going to march into Western Europe and collapse capitalism by force is a misapprehension (or possibly deception) on the scale of thinking that the "We will bury you" speech was a threat of nuclear war. There was a brief spark of insight when one of the authors suggested that the former Warsaw Pact countries might, in fact, want to continue with socialism (albeit without Soviet domination) rather than adopt capitalism, but the rest of the book implies that this might have been more motivated from a desire not to see Germany reunited and needing a reason than any understanding of political motivations among Communists.

Still worth a read, if only for the insight it provides into the workings of security state minds.military world-war-iii2 s Artur Coelho2,380 65

A resposta à pergunta de como seria uma guerra entre a NATO e o Pacto de Varsóvia é, felizmente, hoje uma especulação retórica. Não o era no final dos anos 70, quando este livro foi escrito, as realidades da história passada colocavam como quase inevitável um confronto destes. Escrito por um general inglês, este livro é uma visão sóbria e realista de como um conflito destes poderia ter acontecido. Spoilers: não acaba com um holocausto nuclear.

Tendo sido escrito por um general, não esperem uma pérola literária. É essencialmente um imenso infodump especulativo, alicerçado no conhecimento das tecnologias militares, escolas de pensamento estratégico e relatórios sobre condições políticas. Tem um lado otimista, com o ocidente a triunfar e uma certa antevisão da desagregação da União Soviética, e a visão conservadora do militar coloca de lado algumas vantagens sociais óbvias (como ter sociedades onde as organizações laborais são uma voz ativa, embora há que reconhecer que nos tempos da guerra fria a instrumentalização destas no jogo político tenha sido uma realidade). Como adoro infodumps e retro-futurismos, mergulhei a gosto neste livro.

Hackett extrapola algumas das condições históricas do final dos anos 70. Com as economias europeias a desinvestir na vertente militar, e os Estados Unidos moralmente enfraquecidos após a guerra do Vietname, a União Soviética explora os movimentos políticos no médio oriente e áfrica, para tentar garantir um progressivo controle de recursos naturais, ao mesmo tempo que mantém debaixo de olho o crescimento da China como potência asiática (curiosamente, sem grandes explicações, Hackett imagina uma espécie de união entre a China comunista e o Japão capitalista, o que não faz muito sentido, mas dá-se o desconto do livro ser sobre a europa). Mas o crescimento da influência soviética na geoestratégia global tem um reverso. As sociedades dos países da Cortina de Ferro (hey, lembram-se disto?) estão a ficar instáveis, em grande parte pela sua proximidade com a europa ocidental. Torna-se difícil convencer os cidadãos dos benefícios de viver na utopia soviética quando, do lado de lá da fronteira, os cidadãos dos países da europa ocidental gozam de um nível de vida muito superior.

Hackett imagina uma sequência de movimentações políticas e diplomáticas que conduzem a uma decisão funesta. O esmagar das veleidades cidadãs nos países da cortina de ferro é contra-balançado por uma intervenção americana a favor destes. E a guerra torna-se inevitável. Será a Alemanha o palco principal do conflito, embora Hackett analise o impacto global, especialmente focado no atlântico norte.

A análise especulativa reflete o potencial histórico, com a superioridade numérica e em artilharia soviética a enfrentar o menore número de soldados, mas equipados com melhores tecnologias, da NATO. Hackett descreve um cilindrar inicial dos europeus e americanos, a enfrentar vagas esmagadoras de tanques e artilharia soviética, mas a serem travados por táticas inteligentes e uso de armas avançadas anti-tanque, que erodem a superioridade numérica. Junta-se a isto uma luta pela superioridade aérea e naval, em que os meios ocidentais se revelam superiores em capacidade tecnológica e perícia das tripulações.

A guerra é curta e brutal, Hackett observa que o fortíssimo desgaste de meios militares que não podem ser rapidamente substituídos é o principal fator da necessidade de rapidez no conflito. O uso de armas nucleares é evitado a todos os momentos, temendo-se sempre alguma decisão irrefletida no terreno (uma das observações de uma potencial guerra era que, face à superioridade numérica soviética, seriam os militares da NATO a usar armas táticas como forma de deter os soviéticos). Mas o que decide o conflito é o uso de uma explosão atómica sobre uma cidade britânica, logo respondida com detonação similar sobre uma cidade soviética (uma aplicação das teorias de guerra nuclear estratégica limitada, com ataques contidos recíprocos para garantir a contenção do conflito). Uma ação que terá como consequências o afastamento dos países do pacto de Varsóvia da guerra, que não querem arriscar ter as suas cidades aniquiladas, bem como uma revolta no interior da União Soviética, porque as repúblicas não-russas também não se querem ver envolvidas no conflito. A União Soviética entra em derrocada, porque o seu poderio militar não consegue contrariar a evolução política, nem a necessidade de melhores condições económicas para os seus cidadãos.

O livro é otimista, mas tenta ser brutalmente realista. A guerra é curta, mas sangrenta e brutal, com um enorme potencial de derrota ocidental. Hackett não poupa esforços a traçar um quadro global detalhado do conflito, suas origens e consequências. Não é por acaso que, apesar das suas idiosincrasias, este livro se tornou um clássico da especulação militar.

É curioso lê-lo nos dias da guerra Ucraniana, onde uma Rússia que se afirma herdeira do império soviético tenta absorver uma Ucrânia independente. Curiosamente, no livro de Hackett, a faísca que levará a União à derrocada parte precisamente de independentistas ucranianos no seio do governo soviético. É curioso ver nas notícias que as táticas de esmagamento do adversário por intensas barragens de artilharia e tanques são hoje o elemento de combate russo, com consequências horrendas e criminosas para os civis. E, também, que o uso de mísseis anti-tanque portáteis anula a premissa do tanque como arma primordial de guerra. É, obviamente, uma curiosidade amarga.1 Billy Leon34

Difficult book to review. It actually did not read a novel, but yet it was about an event that did not take place.....at least not yet. I found the book to be very technical, in fact in some places perhaps to technical for my taste. Very little effort was spent on developing characters, in fact in most spots there was no character development at all, and chief players in the story were referred to by their generic names only. Very little effort was placed to the performance of some of the equipment. While the story of what could have happened was well played out, the book misses the mark as a novel. Their is not any principal character to love or hate. Also missing is the crack of the rifle or boom of the cannon. It was an ok read but it could have been much better.1 John710 18

A fictional account of a Third World War taking place in 1985, published in 1978. Obviously written as propaganda, there are repeated heavy handed messages about how lowered defense spending in the 70s nearly doomed the West, and only a reversal of the trend beginning in the late 70s made it so that they were able to not lose WWIII.

Along the way, the authors take swipes at labor unions, left leaning journalists, and even rock music. In hindsight, this is all rather ridiculous given just how wrong the authors get most of their predictions. One of the biggest was their failure to foresee the Iranian Revolution. Not something I really blame them for, but highly ironic given that it had started by the time this book even hit the shelves, and it wrecks most of the larger world picture that the authors set out, as that picture relies on an Iran still solidly in the US camp.

They also predict the breakup of South Africa, an economic alliance of China and Japan, peace between Israel and Arab nations, a second term for Carter, re-institution of the US draft, and that East Germans don’t really want unification with West Germany. Ironically, the real world peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union is mentioned by them as something that we’ll never know whether or not it would have happened, since in their scenario the Soviet Union breaks up following a failure to win WWIII.

Just about the only things they get right are that the US and the UK would shortly start increasing military spending, and that there would be a female Prime Minister in the UK in 1985 (they probably figured it would be Margaret Thatcher too, but for all their wild speculation elsewhere, they decided not to jinx things and actually name her).

There are also a lot of weird and sometimes problematic takes along the way. They barely acknowledge the existence of apartheid, never mentioning it by name, while later painting a picture of heroic white South Africans fighting off black soldiers and guerrillas from other nations.

They continue the trend I’ve seen of British speculative writers of the era referring to the M-1 Abrams as the XM-1. At least they have the excuse that the Abrams wouldn’t be officially known as the M-1 for another couple of years, but it should have been obvious that an ‘X’ in the name of an in-development project stands for “experimental”, and would be dropped as soon as it was accepted.

There’s an entire chapter devoted to the horrific aftermath of the nuking of Birmingham, England. This seems excessive, and is obviously just another bit of the propaganda. The most interesting thing about it is the complete lack of description of what happens to Minsk in retaliation. After spending the chapter on description after description of Birmingham, the book simply tells us that it was even worse in Minsk.

At one point the authors basically describe Soviet soldiers as being worse than Nazis in their treatment of the Dutch.

The final chapter of the book leaves behind the Third World War entirely, and goes off on how the authors feel about how the future of European governments should develop. Interestingly enough, I think this last bit could be a great setup for a dystopian cyberpunk future, given that they propose the possibility of farming out some governmental duties to corporations.

So, all that aside, how is the story? There is something to the core of the story, which is certainly why Team Yankee takes it and turns it into a much more engaging tale set at a smaller scale. It’s just that there’s not much more to it than what is presented in Team Yankee. Two to five more pages of backstory or epilogue in Team Yankee would make this book completely redundant. I understand now why Harold Coyle didn’t do that, because the missing pieces are laughably inaccurate from the viewpoint of just a few years later.

Most realistic outcomes from an actual WWIII breaking out in the 80s would have been the destruction of civilization, so crafting a scenario where that doesn’t happen took a good deal of creativity. At its core, this is all that the story has going for it: a scenario where World War III could happen, and yet civilization survives.fiction science-fiction1 Dave54

A future history written long ago. I picked this up after seeing it mentioned as an influential book of its time in Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control".

The book really suffers from the fact that the future it predicted in the late 70s for 1985 diverged so much from the reality we knew. It gets things so very wrong with Iran, and that makes reading it now quite difficult. It is a scenario we know to be impossible. I'm aware the book was updated, but I'm not sure I'll bother to see if it improves things.

It isn't an easy read, certainly not reading a novel. There's no characters of any value. There's a lot of acronyms. There's not much in the way of explanation for the outcome of various actions in the war.

Writing this makes me think I'm being over generous with two stars, but I will leave the second in place. The book has a place for students of the cold war and has an interesting theory of how war might have started. It is also interesting as a propaganda piece by the military as a "warning from the future" if the West didn't up its game at the end of the 70s.1 Carlos2,248 71

As a novel this book failed, but as a war plan written by a general in 1978 it does stir the imagination of the reader. While the book seems to have been written mainly as a way to advocate for improvements in NATO’s military readiness, the assessments of the strengths, weaknesses and interests of the US and the USSR do strike the reader as astute and compelling. Similarly, while the detailed run down of numbers of tanks, submarines and aircraft was more than a bit mind-numbing, the overall arch of the war does serve to highlight interesting points about strategy and its limitations. Lastly, the interested modern reader will also enjoy comparing the predictions Hackett makes of a post-Soviet world with what actually took place. fiction history1 Dark-Draco2,226 41

I picked this up from the charity shop as I really thought it would be my sort of thing. The author takes the world situation as it was in 1979 and extrapolates what would lead to WWIII breaking out in 1985. And the first chapter was good - read more a novel and really had me hooked. Unfortunately, it went downhill a bit from there. Each chapter just became a list ie. Isreal has this many boats, Russia does this, the UK sells this, America buys interests in that. By Chapter four, I had kind of given up and was quite happy that the word was in the process of nuking itself to bits!! gave-up-reading1 P.79 3

The first chapter of this book was amazing... the next few chapters detailing the political backdrop were excruciating at the time, and the last half of the book was ok. So, overall 3 stars.

Of course, the whole thing seems quite silly now (and come to think of it, it seemed silly even when I first read this back in middle school). Still, the first chapter is worth it for its imagining of the frenetic crush of events on the modern kinetic battlefield. 1 Kelby32 7

I thought it was a decent book. With my age, I found myself having to read this book with my phone close I'm hand to Google certain things.

I also see a lot of criticizing how the author predicted the future wrong. I personally think he did a great job of taking a shot at it. He did the best he could at the time and honestly, I'm pretty sure than the Shah of Iran overthrow caught everyone off guard. I think everyone remembers that little hostage situation.... :)1 Steven Booth1 review

The book was written by a British General so naturally the Brits are portrayed as playing a central role in the naval arena. Rule Britannia. I'm not knocking the Royal Navy. I'm a big fan and they would play a role, but not a central role. Maybe back in 1978 things were different, but today our navy is the best and strongest in the world and China is the real threat. Am I wrong? Wasn't the U.S. Navy slightly marginalized in this book?1 Brian Turner707 10

Written in the '70s, looks at what a nuclear war could be in the far future of 1985.
Partly it's a gripe against cost & personnel cutting that was going on, other parts look at the sea, land and air forces and the role they would play.

It's an interesting book, obviously some of the predictions didn't happen as expected. It suffers from being really dry in its presentation. Lots of lists of the type of vehicles and weapons in use by the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces.
fiction1 Tony78 14

The precusor novel to TEAM YANKEE by Harold Coyle. The book theorizes an invasion of western Europe by the Warsaw pact in 1985. For the most part, it was a very well considered novel. The only really weak point that I recall was his impression of what the space war element would be . Rather dated now, but it was a great read at the time.alternate-history1 Terence1,188 427

Wow! This brought back memories. I was just at a library book sale (1-Nov-08), saw a copy on the table and remembered reading this around 1981-82 (when the "intelligence community" still thought the Soviets could have mounted a worldwide war).

A bit too "right wing" for me now but a plausible enough scenario, I suppose, if the Pentagon's fantasy had any basis in reality.1 carl theaker918 45



A good read, though often from a technical perspective,
of a possible WW3 played out primarily on the battlefields of
Europe. This scenario was planned & practiced for by NATO in
those cold war days and is brought to life by the author.

Subject is much dated now that the USSR has gone its
way, still would be an interesting take for the
point of view of the era.

history-fiction war1 David Dalton2,578

Read this years ago.....Enjoyed it very much. Tons of military related details. If you enjoy Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, then this novel is for you. Remember when it was written, in the mid-80's. The world has changed since then, but this sets up the time period very well.1 Max32 1 follower

A just about plausible story written in a quite entertaining manner. (if you are interested in all things military of course)1 Clay DavisAuthor 3 books135

A good technical book on how a Superpower war in Europe might have been fought. Rory14 Read

Tough going for the uninitiated. Not a narrative but a strategic history of WWIII.1 Kevin136 68

This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985. The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results. The “advisors” were listed as: John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).

The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978. It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980. I initially read the paperback version. I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore. In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year. (review here: A Novel War). The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work. This prompted my re-interest in the original…

During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico. The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance. We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming. This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s. I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.

Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them). They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact. The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France. The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s. The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.

In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1) an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2) a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3) resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective; and,
4) the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.

When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike. The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city; (and falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation; the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat; the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR; and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order. The “war” is barely a month old before it is over. Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).

Is this a “good” book? Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)? Is it entertaining or interesting? Do I recommend this book? With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are): yes to so-so…

The book is not a “good” novel. There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone. In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel. It is very much an military style “after-action” report. If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book. If you are not, you will not. I did. Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war? Yes! Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city. (Very much: “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”) Is the book entertaining or interesting? This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”; but, I did find the book interesting. I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight. There is no China – Japan alliance; the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985); South Africa did not fall to external forces; and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.

Final recommendation: strong recommendation. I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable. I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too. For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?). Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later. It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed. At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so. My reaction to “2034” was reinforced: this version is much better than the more recent book. If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else. James Knupp90 2

Wow, this is probably the longest a book has sat on my "currently reading" shelf on Goodreads. It's hard to really give this book a truly fair review considering the authors were prognosticating and didn't have the benefit of hindsight I do reading it now. So much of their predictions for the future are not just off, but hilariously wrong: the US and Iran remaining staunch allies through the 1980s, China and Japan allying to form a "sphere of co-prosperity," East and West Germany never reunifying, etc. But some of their less specific predictions were quite prescient: the idea of specific citizenship in a more economically and diplomatically unified Europe becoming less important, nationalist sentiment in border republics of the USSR helping lead to its downfall, and the advancement of telecommunications leading to the rise of telecommuting, making where you live less and less relevant to your employment.

The authors personal political bias seeps through often, blaming liberals and trade unionists and "peaceniks" for a decline in military ability for NATO that almost costs them the war. They blame generational shifts for not having proper military officers ready to serve. The book reads a thinly veiled Cold Warrior's appeal to ramp up defense budgets, relying on a severe misunderstanding of the actual aims and motivations of their adversary.

The speculative history (or for us now, alternate history) the authors create is quite intriguing to read. The authors weave a tale of international and domestic events that lead to the outbreak of war in August 1985 that while some of it quite implausible, does tend to follow its own logic if your accept the initial premise. I found myself really wanting to dive in more to the series of events they laid out, and found myself craving an old school History Channel documentary made about it.

The real reason the review is as low as it is, and why it took me almost a year to actually get through this book (reading 14 books in between starting and finishing it) is while its marketed as a thriller paperback, it reads most of the time a very dry think tank report. The entire middle section of the book is dedicated to intricate discussions of force structure and armaments development. Chapter after chapter of the reshuffling of chains of command, civil defense development, replacement of aircraft models with new ones, etc. While this information is important to understanding the war, it is overly detailed here to a point it just serves to dissuade you from reading more. At least half of the info contained within could have been cut and summarized much more efficiently.

Unless you're a cold war military buff, there's not really enough redeeming here to really make this worth your time. Matthew Taylor362 4

A very enjoyable "alternate history" (as it now is) written as a "future history" in 1978. The course of the WW3 depicted is very interesting and you can feel the weight of military experience Hackett and his unnamed helpers brought to this scenario. The idea of the USSR launching an invasion for internal political reasons with the intent of quickly knocking out (at least) West Germany, betting that the US (in particular) wouldn't escalate to nuclear weapons for fear of a strategic world-ending exchange when the mainland US isn't directly threatened is quite plausible.

The political aim of the book is quite clear, as Hackett eviscerates UK defence policy in particular; at the time, as memorably put in "Yes Minister": pile up the nukes and trim the regular forces, so as to make it clear that the tactical, then strategic use of nuclear weapons would be essential for small scale UK forces to have *any* hope of success against the Soviet steamroller. Hackett would much prefer NATO in general to be capable of winning a conventional war against the USSR (much more sporting!).

Hackett does also fit the stereotype of a brand of upper-class British officer (with, it must be noted, combat experience in WW2 - including being severely wounded in Operation Market Garden - read "A Bridge Too Far" for more on that), taking pot-shots at money obsessed politicians, long-haired Dutch soldiers (a particular bugbear that also appears in Otto von Pivka's "The Armies of Europe To-day") and leftist pacifist groups.

However, there is a great deal of strong speculative thought behind this work, including a brief but exciting mention of space warfare that I suspect may have had some more "sci-fi" elements nixxed by editors or more sceptical colleagues. His latter "post-war" thoughts on 'telecommunication government' suggesting both a need to, and ease of, moving to larger supranational political bodies to face the future foresees the "globalisation is good" mindset of the 1990s and the growing importance of the Pacific rim.

One should also spare a thought for his incorrect thoughts, which - to be fair - are not particularly pants-on-head silly, from the perspective of the late 70s, and suffer to my mind more from his very soldierly "instrumental" way of thinking of politics - so, "of course" virtually every nation north of South Africa allies together (with communist assistance) to besiege a fractured South Africa's "white republics" when they'd probably be significantly better off biding their time and waiting to see how WW3 plays out. Andrew190 4

Autor del comentario:
=================================