TRANSFORMATION OF THE DEFENSE STRATEGY OF THE CENTRAL NATO REGION BY THE USA AND ITS ALLIES (1949–1969)

DOI 10.17721/2521-1706.2024.17.4

Oleksandr Milkov,

Master’s student, Education program «American and European studies», Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6525-6049

Abstract. This article delves into the crucial issue of the formation and evolution of the defense strategy of the Central region of the Alliance from 1949 to 1968. This region, being one of the most priority areas of NATO’s defense throughout the Cold War, holds significant importance for understanding the overall defense strategy.

The article aims to evaluate the North Atlantic Alliance’s defense strategy in relation to its eastern borders, trace its evolution during the first decades, and discuss the means used to increase its effectiveness.

The scientific novelty of the study lies in creating a holistic picture of the evolution of NATO’s defense strategy in relation to the Central region of a certain period of the Cold War, its components, and methods of strengthening.

The article’s methodological basis is general scientific (logical, synthesis, and analysis) and special historical (comparative-historical, chronological, periodization) methods. The following general scientific methods of research were used: historical analysis, comparative analysis, complex analysis, generalization, and systematization.

Conclusions. Over twenty years, the defense strategy of the Central region has undergone a significant transformation. At first, in the early 1950s, it relied exclusively on conventional forces, which had the task of delaying the invasion troops at the line of enormous water obstacles. But later, at the end of the decade, the strategy evolved to rely on nuclear forces, which were supposed to cause irreparable damage to the enemy. Which, as it became known later, did not live up to expectations. This factor forced the military leadership of the Alliance to balance both components of defense and change the strategy to be able to respond to a wide range of threats, from regional crises to military invasions. These threats could be solved by a large arsenal of means, starting with conventional defense forces and ending with strategic nuclear weapons.

Key words: strategy, NATO, USA, West Germany, defense, nuclear weapons.

Submitted: 28.01.2024

Download

References:

  1. Blackwell, J. (1985). In the laps of the gods: The origins of NATO forward defence.S. Army War College. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA509967.pdf. [In English].
  2. Das, I. (2016). Corps of the Bundeswehr. https://www.relikte.com/nds_heer/korps1.htm. [In German].
  3. NATO. (1952, February). Final Communiqué session of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon. Online library / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c520225a.htm. [In English].
  4. North Atlantic Council. (1952). Final decision on MC 48/3. Measures to implement the Strategic concept for the defence of the NATO area. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a691208a.pdf. [Іn English].
  5. North Atlantic Military Committee. (1968). Final decision on MC 14/3. Overall Strategic concept for the defense of the North Atlantic treaty organization area. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a680116a.pdf. [Іn English].
  6. North Atlantic Military Committee. (1968). Final decision on MC 14/2 (Revised). Overall Strategic concept for the defense of the North Atlantic treaty organization area. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a680116a.pdf. [Іn English].
  7. Hafner, R. A. & Blozan, C. F (1965). Study of the Prepositioning Concept: Operation «Big Lift». Final Report (U). Department of the Аrmy / Office of the Chief of Research and Development. Washington D. C. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0369233.pdf. [In English].
  8. Hammerich, H. R. (2014). Defense at the Forward Edge of the Battle or rather in the Depth? Different approaches to implement NATO’s operation plans by the alliance partners, 1955–1988. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 15 (3). http://surl.li/tnjxk. [Іn English].
  9. North Athlantic Military Committee. (1954). North Athlantic military committee decision on M.C. 48. The most effective pattern of NATO military strength for the next few years. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a541122a.pdf. [Іn English].
  10. North Athlantic Military Committee. (1955). North Athlantic military committee decision on M.C.48/1. The most effective pattern of NATO military strength for the next few years. Report No. 2. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a551209a.pdf. [Іn English].
  11. North Athlantic Military Committee. (1952). North Athlantic military committee decision on M.C. 14/1 a report by the standing group on Strategic guidance. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a521209a.pdf. [Іn English].
  12. North Athlantic Military Committee. (1950). North Athlantic military committee decision on D.C. 13. North Athlantic theaty organization medium term plan. NATO Strategy Documents 1949 – 1969 / NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a500328d.pdf. [Іn English].
  13. Seelinger, M. The M28/M29 Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system. The Army Historical Foundation. http://surl.li/tprht. [Іn English].