QuoteAmerican F-16s Aren't Supposed to Dogfight MiG-29s and Su-27s
2012 Air Combat Command policy limited jets' missions
War Is Boring
Written by David Axe
Automatic budget sequestration cut deeply into the U.S. Air Force's training in 2012. Air Combat Command got just $3,1 billion—three-quarters of what it needed to fully train the thousands of pilots flying the command's 1,600 F-15, F-16 and F-22 fighters, A-10 attack jets and B-1 bombers.
So the command did something radical—and with far-reaching consequences as American air power retools for fighting high-tech foes following more than decade bombing insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Air Combat Command stripped certain airplanes of many of their missions, thus cutting back on the number of flight hours a particular pilot needed to be officially war-ready. Air-to-air dogfighting and low-altitude maneuvering suddenly became much rarer skills.
Perhaps most interestingly, the command essentially barred F-16s—at a thousand strong, America's most numerous fighter—from engaging any enemy jet newer than a 1970s-vintage MiG-23.
The mission cuts originated in a May 2012 conversation between four generals—ACC boss Mike Hostage, his operations director Charles Lyon, Donald Hoffman from Air Force Materiel Command and Air Mobility Command's Raymond Johns.
Hoffman asked Hostage whether, in light of sequestration cuts, the Air Force could finally dispose of its obsolete LANTIRN infrared navigation pods and free up the related maintenance funds.
"From this initial question, a broader question emerged," Air Combat Command recalls in its official history for 2012, a heavily-redacted copy of which War Is Boring obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
Lyon proceeded to ask the generals in charge of numbered air forces—each of which usually includes several wings and potentially hundreds of planes—which "systems, skills and tactics" they though were no longer important. "For example, low-altitude weapon-delivery or low-level navigation."
"How good do B-1 aircrews need to be at running around in formation at low altitude?" ACC vice commander Gen. William Rew asked. "They can do it, it's challenging and it's hard to do well. But it may not be tactically relevant."
Based on the feedback, Air Combat Command narrowed the missions it assigns to many planes—and by extension the flying hours pilots spend preparing for those mission.
When it all shook out, Air Combat Command's roughly 60 B-1 bombers mostly stopped flying low-level attacks—and the command's hundreds of F-16s gave up a lot of their dogfighting responsibilities.
Block 50 pioneers
The idea of changing missions to reduce training and thus save money had a precedent in Air Combat Command, the official history explains. Starting in 2011, Rew advocated reducing close-air-support training for pilots of the latest Block 50 F-16.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, Air Force fighters and bombers were spending most of their time flying slow circles at medium altitude, scanning for insurgents and bombing them with the help of controllers on the ground.
Rew, himself a former Block 50 pilot, explained that his version of the F-16 is wasted on this kind of close air support. The "Wild Weasel" Block 50s specialize in locating enemy air defenses with radar-detecting sensor pods—then destroying them with special radar-homing missiles.
"Pilots could not train to be good at everything," the history points out. And since no other planes could handle the Wild Weasel mission, the Block 50 crews should spend less time prepping for low-intensity close air support and more time training to escort U.S. planes through heavily-defended enemy territory, Rew argued.
Now, the Block 50 F-16s' mission shift—away from close air support and toward defense-suppression—also demanded their pilots spend at least some time training for air-to-air dogfighting. "The Block 50 F-16 and its pilots were unique in their capacity to serve as a dual-role escort over enemy territory in defense against ground-based and airborne threats," the history explains.
But the brass only wanted the 1990s-vintage Block 50s tangling with "second- and third-generation adversaries"—meaning 50-year-old MiG-21 designs and MiG-23s from 1970s, respectively. Apparently, more modern MiG-29s and Su-27s were too dangerous for the Block 50s, if the American planes' pilots were mostly focusing their training on attacking defenses on the ground.
Instead, ACC's F-15Cs and F-22s would fly ahead to fight the MiG-29s and Su-27s. Based on that assumption, the generals also dialed back air-to-air training for F-15E fighter-bombers and older Block 30 and Block 40 F-16s.
"This particular effort did not seek to eliminate air-to-air training altogether," the history notes. "Rather, the initiative strove for the proper mix of air-to-air and air-to-ground training."
Meanwhile, the ACC brass consigned the B-1s to high altitude, reducing the need to train the bombers' crews for risky low-level flying. But weirdly, bombers are usually especially vulnerable to enemy defenses when they fly high and make themselves more visible.
Likewise, in a high-intensity war, F-16 pilots could probably expect to encounter plenty of MiG-29s, Su-27s or similar fighters—whether or not the fliers had trained to battle these types.
The mission shifts might have saved the Air Force some money, but it's not entirely clear all the shifts also helped the flying branch prepare for high-tech combat.
The B-1 was
designed for NOE flying, goddammit.
AIR FARCE
In the era of JDAM and SLAM, the old NOE tactics are obsolete and unnecessarily risky. Good to see someone in the Chair Force start to recognize that sacred cows really aren't so sacred. Training pilots to perform Yesterday's Missions makes them crappier than they need be at Today's Missions.
How much does our SSBN force cost? Seems like that should be equal to the defense budget.
Quote from: grumbler on November 21, 2014, 06:39:16 PM
In the era of JDAM and SLAM, the old NOE tactics are obsolete and unnecessarily risky. Good to see someone in the Chair Force start to recognize that sacred cows really aren't so sacred. Training pilots to perform Yesterday's Missions makes them crappier than they need be at Today's Missions.
Bah. There will always be a need to train pilots for NOE just to deliver that extra special package right down Karl Marx Boulevard. BYE BYE BABY BABUSHKAS
Is this real or is this the old 'We had to cancel this Absolutely Vital program in its entirety with no sense of proportion what soever that will just so happen to get the public frothing at the mouth, because budget cuts' PR trick of militaries the world over?
Let the bomb trucks truck.
Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 08:34:06 PM
Is this real or is this the old 'We had to cancel this Absolutely Vital program in its entirety with no sense of proportion what soever that will just so happen to get the public frothing at the mouth, because budget cuts' PR trick of militaries the world over?
Did you mean to post this in this thread? Because it seems to have no bearing on the topic. What "Absolutely Vital" program that has been "cancell[ed].. in its entirety" are you referring to?
Sounds pretty sensible to me. Training pilots for dog fighting when all they're doing is bombing villages full of people who've never even seen a plane (except the last ones to bomb them) makes no sense.
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2014, 07:55:40 AM
Quote from: Warspite on November 21, 2014, 08:34:06 PM
Is this real or is this the old 'We had to cancel this Absolutely Vital program in its entirety with no sense of proportion what soever that will just so happen to get the public frothing at the mouth, because budget cuts' PR trick of militaries the world over?
Did you mean to post this in this thread? Because it seems to have no bearing on the topic. What "Absolutely Vital" program that has been "cancell[ed].. in its entirety" are you referring to?
The training programmes mentioned in the OP. Been at the bottle again, have we?
Quote from: Warspite on November 22, 2014, 08:59:54 AM
Did you mean to post this in this thread? Because it seems to have no bearing on the topic. What "Absolutely Vital" program that has been "cancell[ed].. in its entirety" are you referring to?
The training programmes mentioned in the OP. Been at the bottle again, have we? [/quote]
Too Raz for me. I'm done.
Sweet, I'm winning arguments before I even get involved!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Sweet, I'm winning arguments before I even get involved!
:cool:
Yeah, pretty neat tick, but don't you miss having to dissect a sentence word by word?
Quote from: mongers on November 22, 2014, 12:59:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Sweet, I'm winning arguments before I even get involved!
:cool:
Yeah, pretty neat tick, but don't you miss having to dissect a sentence word by word?
With Grumbler it can be tiresome.
Whoosh.
:lmfao:
Oh, come on you people, how the hell is the F-22 or the F-35 gonna get funding if the Chair Force admits the F-16s can match most of what the russians have in everything except perhaps acceleration and turning speed.
I blame it on the Dalai 0bama.
How long has it been since the last dogfight between technologically matched planes?
By dogfight do you mean cannons and machine guns, or just air to air combat?
Either way, probably the Korean War.
Quote from: chipwich on November 23, 2014, 04:37:46 AM
How long has it been since the last dogfight between technologically matched planes?
6-Day and Vietnam wars perhaps. Though The Iran-Iraq war, Falklands war, The 1971 Bangladesh War, The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, The Yom Kippur War (the reason why Mubakarak, the Air Force Chief, got to be vice president) all had non-trivial contested air warfare.
Didn't Iran's handful of F-14s face MiG-23s and SU-20/22s during the Iran-Iraq war? That could've been the closest match in recent memory.
What about some of the wars in Africa? Maybe there's been some case of air combat between the old beat up pieces of shit they fly there?
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2014, 05:36:40 AM
What about some of the wars in Africa? Maybe there's been some case of air combat between the old beat up pieces of shit they fly there?
I'm sure that in some of the conflicts alluded by Viking one could find examples of legacy planes fighting same-generation ones, too. Like maybe Phantom IIs going toe-to-toe against Mig-21s in Iran.
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2014, 05:17:59 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 23, 2014, 04:37:46 AM
How long has it been since the last dogfight between technologically matched planes?
6-Day and Vietnam wars perhaps. Though The Iran-Iraq war, Falklands war, The 1971 Bangladesh War, The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, The Yom Kippur War (the reason why Mubakarak, the Air Force Chief, got to be vice president) all had non-trivial contested air warfare.
Probably the biggest ones on the list.
Well there was that last Ecuador-Peru thing in the 1990's.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2014, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2014, 05:17:59 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 23, 2014, 04:37:46 AM
How long has it been since the last dogfight between technologically matched planes?
6-Day and Vietnam wars perhaps. Though The Iran-Iraq war, Falklands war, The 1971 Bangladesh War, The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, The Yom Kippur War (the reason why Mubakarak, the Air Force Chief, got to be vice president) all had non-trivial contested air warfare.
Probably the biggest ones on the list.
6 Day War - 500 planes destroyed total
Vietnam War - US lost 2500 planes on it's own in combat and accidents.
Iran-Iraq - Iraq lost at least 200 planes, Iran probably much more than that, over 300 air to air engangements with both sides getting actual gods honest aces.
Falklands War - 135 aircraft destroyed total
Bangladesh - Based on each side own claims 90 in total (based on the other side's claims 215)
Lebanon War - 90 aircraft (almost all syrian) and according to wiki "This was the largest aerial combat battle of the jet age with over 150 fighters from both sides engaged."
Yom Kippur War - 350-900 aircraft destroyed (more likely to be lowed due to arab fantastical claims)
So, the Bangladesh war vies to be the smallest air war on the list competing only wiht the falklands where the brits only had 42 harriers and lebanon where israel resolutely refused to let any of it's aircraft get shot down in air combat. The Bangladesh war is the only wan without any significant air combat since the pakistani air force was pretty much destroyed immediately and hardly compares to the 6 day war (the only equivalent situation). Vietnam on it's own dwarfs all the other wars put together.
Quote from: chipwich on November 23, 2014, 04:37:46 AM
How long has it been since the last dogfight between technologically matched planes?
1973 Yom Kippur War
507 arab aircraft destroyed to 114 Israeli.
Quote from: chipwich on November 23, 2014, 04:37:46 AM
How long has it been since the last dogfight between technologically matched planes?
Balkans? That was MiG-29s versus F-15s and F-16s.
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2014, 05:17:59 AM
6-Day and Vietnam wars perhaps. Though The Iran-Iraq war, Falklands war, The 1971 Bangladesh War, The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, The Yom Kippur War (the reason why Mubakarak, the Air Force Chief, got to be vice president) all had non-trivial contested air warfare.
Vietnam definitely didn't feature technologically matched aircraft. The Reds were a generation behind.
In the Yom Kippur War the reds were a generation ahead.
In both aircraft and tanks.
Due to western slagging in Israeli support, or outright boycott in the case of Europe.
This is the reason why the Merkava and Lavi projects came on.
The Centurion and M60 were a generation behind the T54 and T62? The Phantom and Mirage were a generation behind the MiG23?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 02:29:19 PM
The Centurion and M60 were a generation behind the T54 and T62? The Phantom and Mirage were a generation behind the MiG23?
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2014, 05:17:59 AM
6-Day and Vietnam wars perhaps. Though The Iran-Iraq war, Falklands war, The 1971 Bangladesh War, The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, The Yom Kippur War (the reason why Mubakarak, the Air Force Chief, got to be vice president) all had non-trivial contested air warfare.
Vietnam definitely didn't feature technologically matched aircraft. The Reds were a generation behind.
They were? Mig 21s put up decent service against Phantoms. They are about the same age as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2014, 05:17:59 AM
6-Day and Vietnam wars perhaps. Though The Iran-Iraq war, Falklands war, The 1971 Bangladesh War, The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, The Yom Kippur War (the reason why Mubakarak, the Air Force Chief, got to be vice president) all had non-trivial contested air warfare.
Vietnam definitely didn't feature technologically matched aircraft. The Reds were a generation behind.
Huh? The MiG-21 and F-4 were both first-line fighters.
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
The T-62 was a cheap shit tank designed to be such. It wasn't newer than the M-60 anyway. The T-54 was definitely behind the M-60 and by that time had been replaced in front line Soviet battalions by the T-64, which was never exported.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 02:29:19 PM
The Centurion and M60 were a generation behind the T54 and T62? The Phantom and Mirage were a generation behind the MiG23?
My dear, the M48 was still the workhorse of the 7th Armored Brigade during the Six Days Crap and The Yom Kippur Crash.
Ok, upgraded to Israeli stndards with the 90mm main gun.
Still behind the T54.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 23, 2014, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
The T-62 was a cheap shit tank designed to be such. It wasn't newer than the M-60 anyway. The T-54 was definitely behind the M-60 and by that time had been replaced in front line Soviet battalions by the T-64, which was never exported.
dude, the armored corp did not had M60s during the Arab Wars.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 23, 2014, 02:40:42 PM
Huh? The MiG-21 and F-4 were both first-line fighters.
I thought the Hos flew mostly MiG-19s.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 02:55:55 PM
dude, the armored corp did not had M60s during the Arab Wars.
Wanna bet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 02:58:24 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 02:55:55 PM
dude, the armored corp did not had M60s during the Arab Wars.
Wanna bet?
Ok man.
I know you think you know everything, but Arabs had a numerical AND technological adavantage on Eretz during the Arab Wars.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 03:03:45 PM
Ok man.
I know you think you know everything, but Arabs had a numerical AND technological adavantage on Eretz during the Arab Wars.
OK man as in let's bet, or OK man as in you concede?
No argument on my part that the Ayrabs had many more tanks and planes than the Juden.
The Centurion was a very old model, but IIRC its gun did outrange the T54s gun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 03:03:45 PM
Ok man.
I know you think you know everything, but Arabs had a numerical AND technological adavantage on Eretz during the Arab Wars.
OK man as in let's bet, or OK man as in you concede?
No argument on my part that the Ayrabs had many more tanks and planes than the Juden.
The Centurion was a very old model, but IIRC its gun did outrange the T54s gun.
Man, T-54 got a 100mm main gun, the D-10 gun from the SU-100.
That's 16,000m with stadiametric or laser sights.
The M-48 Patton has a 90mm main gun, effective at 17,823m but with far less armor penetration capabilities.
This lead to the myth by arm chair warriors that the M-48 was better than the T-54.
I hope you understand that all tanks are only effective at about 4000m, rendering range a measure of effectiveness against armor.
The armor of the T-54 was superior to the A1M1 though.
I knew Jordan had M48s but didn't know Israel did. I thought it was all Centurions, M60s, and Ishermans.
The Israelis has M48s and wound up souping them up into a bunch of variants, as well as the Patturion, which was the Centurion chassis with the M-48 drivetrain and lifting the 105mm cannon from the M60 (or was it M48)?
Well you know what they say: Jews are very good with machinery.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2014, 04:36:39 PM
The Israelis has M48s and wound up souping them up into a bunch of variants, as well as the Patturion, which was the Centurion chassis with the M-48 drivetrain and lifting the 105mm cannon from the M60 (or was it M48)?
They actually mounted the L7 105 mm gun of the Leopard 1, M60 and M1 (early versions) on the M-48. They were operating with alot of scrap metal they had to made work when, especially after the french and british abandoned them in the decade after 1956.
Couldn't remember, I know the L7 was on a variety of models back in the day.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 02:55:55 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 23, 2014, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
The T-62 was a cheap shit tank designed to be such. It wasn't newer than the M-60 anyway. The T-54 was definitely behind the M-60 and by that time had been replaced in front line Soviet battalions by the T-64, which was never exported.
dude, the armored corp did not had M60s during the Arab Wars.
Mongers made the statement, "I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60". I was refuting that statement. I don't care and it doesn't matter what the Israeli army actually had.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 23, 2014, 04:58:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 02:55:55 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 23, 2014, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
The T-62 was a cheap shit tank designed to be such. It wasn't newer than the M-60 anyway. The T-54 was definitely behind the M-60 and by that time had been replaced in front line Soviet battalions by the T-64, which was never exported.
dude, the armored corp did not had M60s during the Arab Wars.
Mongers made the statement, "I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60". I was refuting that statement. I don't care and it doesn't matter what the Israeli army actually had.
Well, fuck you!!11
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 02:54:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 02:29:19 PM
The Centurion and M60 were a generation behind the T54 and T62? The Phantom and Mirage were a generation behind the MiG23?
My dear, the M48 was still the workhorse of the 7th Armored Brigade during the Six Days Crap and The Yom Kippur Crash.
Ok, upgraded to Israeli stndards with the 90mm main gun.
Still behind the T54.
Wrong, Sho't's during the '73 Golan shindig.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 02:55:55 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 23, 2014, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
The T-62 was a cheap shit tank designed to be such. It wasn't newer than the M-60 anyway. The T-54 was definitely behind the M-60 and by that time had been replaced in front line Soviet battalions by the T-64, which was never exported.
dude, the armored corp did not had M60s during the Arab Wars.
Wrong again
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 02:29:19 PM
The Centurion and M60 were a generation behind the T54 and T62? The Phantom and Mirage were a generation behind the MiG23?
I don't think the M60s performed that well, the M60 battalion that got to the Bar Lev line, ended the day consisting of two tanks, mainly anti-tank missiles and guns responsible, but big high silhouette tanks were a real disadvantage.
I'd say the T62 was possible a next generation on from the M60 or Centurion(which nearly made it into WW2 combat).
Had nothing to do with how well the "Tank" performed. More to do with the tactics, or lack of, against ATGM's.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2014, 04:36:39 PM
The Israelis has M48s and wound up souping them up into a bunch of variants, as well as the Patturion, which was the Centurion chassis with the M-48 drivetrain and lifting the 105mm cannon from the M60 (or was it M48)?
What?
Check your AH's Arab Israeli Wars counter manifest. :P
The problem with Soviet tanks is they had Soviet trained crews and were designed for people who were trained in Soviet methods. A barely literate peasant can crew a T-54/54 which makes them attractive to countries with lots of barely literate peasants. The downside is tend to lose lots of these barely literate peasants in battle. For what the Soviets originally designed them for, nuclear war in Europe this might not be a big disadvantage. If both sides were expected to take a lot of losses the side the could replace them the fastest might win.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2014, 04:23:50 PM
I knew Jordan had M48s but didn't know Israel did. I thought it was all Centurions, M60s, and Ishermans.
Germany secretly supplied Israel with Pattons in the early 60s. They were disassembled in Germany, then shipped through various channels to Israel and reassembled there. The deal was leaked to the press (most likely from the german foreign ministry) and delivery had to be stopped with only 40-50 tanks completely shipped, due to arab threats to formally acknowledge the GDR.
The US later supplied more M48 tanks to Israel, again with secret help from Germany, who participated in the funding.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2014, 03:03:45 PM
I know you think you know everything, but Arabs had a numerical AND technological adavantage on Eretz during the Arab Wars.
Not in everything.
Israel definitely had a technological advantage in nuclear weapons, in that they had them in 73 Sadat didn't.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on November 24, 2014, 06:00:34 AM
due to arab threats to formally acknowledge the GDR.
Was that really a big deal, even at the time?
Okay, Arab countries recognize the DDR. Then what? West Germany is canceled?
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2014, 12:08:21 PM
Okay, Arab countries recognize the DDR. Then what? West Germany is canceled?
It would be part and parcel of falling in with the soviet bloc, and rejecting the west.
Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2014, 12:10:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2014, 12:08:21 PM
Okay, Arab countries recognize the DDR. Then what? West Germany is canceled?
It would be part and parcel of falling in with the soviet bloc, and rejecting the west.
Well they are batshit about this one issue.
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2014, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Malicious Intent on November 24, 2014, 06:00:34 AM
due to arab threats to formally acknowledge the GDR.
Was that really a big deal, even at the time?
Yes, sadly. Our foreign policy back then was dominated by the Hallstein doctrine: The BRD is the only legitimate german successor nation. Acknowledging the DDR was declared an unfriendly act and could be sanctioned breaking off diplomatic relations (which also meant no more development aid and economic cooperation). For a time, this threat had the desired effect and kept many states depending on help from the BRD from acknowledging the DDR. But the "tank crisis" showed, that the threat also worked the other way around.
In the end, Ostpolitik made the Hallstein doctrine obsolete.
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2014, 12:08:21 PM
Okay, Arab countries recognize the DDR. Then what? West Germany is canceled?
It was later picked up by Netflix.
LULZ, but I wanted to know how it ended.