9 ms·

I would have thought it was unlikely that an apparatus as large as the Soviet Union would never have drawn up plans for a contingency in which politics forced t

I would have thought it was unlikely that an apparatus as large as the Soviet Union would never have drawn up plans for a contingency in which politics forced them to consider an invasion of their rival superpower. Not that they would intend to use them, but to have gone to the trouble of mapping the military targets at such a scale, then never spending time to have someone think about how they'd occupy those sites if they had to, seems so foreign to how I expect military brains to work, that I have trouble believing it's true. A brief Google search doesn't show any (credible) plans, so maybe you're right: but, absence of evidence, especially in a secretive bureaucracy that actively expunged so much of its archives, is not necessarily evidence of absence!

p_l 5y ago
Reality is probably more unrealistic than people think, and funnier to boot. People who were at least slightly aware of military planning in Poland but not necessarily with the "why" of the plan (this included pretty big portion of citizenry, due to conscription) tend to think Warsaw Pact's claims about defensive warfare were just lies. Meanwhile the defensive warfare concept was to counterattack once the "inevitable NATO strike against communism" happens, to as quickly as possible take logistic routes that America could use to wage war in Europe. Atlantic is pretty big issue for any invasion not just towards America, after all. Then you hit the next layer of hilarious misunderstandings (YMMV) which is western planners somehow not getting the memo that Soviet decision makers in Moscow actually believed in NATO first strike (honestly, I don't blame them) and in turn often wargaming first strike from warsaw pact side. Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" and Soviet one being "ugh we could have done with much less forces, we didn't actually want to start a war"
- wolverine876 5y ago
  The Soviet Union invaded and took control of many of their neighbors, including most of Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia (including invading Afghanistan in 1979), as well as creating and supporting regimes elsewhere (Cuba, etc.). When the people of some countries (e.g., Hungary, Czechoslovakia) tried to form democracies, the Soviets sent in tanks. They tried to sieze Berlin early on. It's not at all far-fetched that they would try to expand further into Europe. Do you have good sources for the claims above? It looks pretty revisionist, and matches Soviet propaganda, to suggest the Soviets weren't aggressive and expansionist.
  - wolf550e 5y ago
    Both things are true. The Soviets were very afraid of NATO because NATO was always richer and had more population and industry. So the Soviets wanted a lot of buffer. To have the front far away from Russia, and be able to fall back a long way before being forced to fight on Russian land. That is what the conquest of Eastern Europe was for. The propping up of communist states worldwide was an attempt to not get surrounded by American client states / satellites / allies. Look at China propping up North Korea. Why? Because they see South Korea as an American client state and they do not want to have a border with it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Com... for what made Soviets think maybe NATO is serious about first strike.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Yes, the poor victim Soviets. Not expansionist at all. You can make up whatever rationalizations you want, but they did conquer other countries on a scale rarely seen in history. The rest, your claims about their motivations and poor victimhood, are baseless.
      - the_af 5y ago
        > You can make up whatever rationalizations The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression. The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this. This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things. Also, > Not expansionist at all Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  > Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" This makes for a good story but seems pretty unlikely. Recognizing the disparity in army sizes available for rapid deployment in Central Europe, the NATO doctrine through the Cold War was to stop any invasion attempt somewhere in Germany with large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons. There were enough NATO forces in the area that invading Soviet forces would have to be concentrated enough to be vulnerable to theatre deployment of nuclear weapons.
  - p_l 5y ago
    The steamroll, of course, assumed that NATO didn't nuke Western Germany out of existence. And while Warsaw Pact returned to idea of Close-in Air Support later on, the idea of making holes in NATO front by dropping a nuke then blitzing through still hot ground held at least to 1989 in limited fashion. But yes, there's a reason why I put "supposedly". It's a nice story and there might be a kernel of truth to it, but the details probably were different. That said, a lot of the front line units (especially american) in western germany were there to make nice coffins to mobilize public into support for war in europe (and at least some soldiers definitely were aware of the concept).
- the_af 5y ago
  Yes, Warsaw Pact military policy, planning and wargaming was defensive in nature against a presupposed NATO aggression. The Warsaw Pact itself was formed as a reaction against NATO, which was formed first. The famous "Seven Days to the River Rhine" [1], a Soviet designed 7-day scenario of limited nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO presupposed a NATO nuclear first-strike. It goes against Cold War era propaganda and of course Hollywood paranoid fiction like Red Dawn, but the Warsaw Pact -- as far as NATO was concerned -- was preparing for a defensive war against the West. Satellite countries and "failing" communist allies are a different matter, and of course the Soviets steamrolled them when they thought it was needed. ---- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

p_l 5y ago

Reality is probably more unrealistic than people think, and funnier to boot. People who were at least slightly aware of military planning in Poland but not necessarily with the "why" of the plan (this included pretty big portion of citizenry, due to conscription) tend to think Warsaw Pact's claims about defensive warfare were just lies. Meanwhile the defensive warfare concept was to counterattack once the "inevitable NATO strike against communism" happens, to as quickly as possible take logistic routes that America could use to wage war in Europe. Atlantic is pretty big issue for any invasion not just towards America, after all. Then you hit the next layer of hilarious misunderstandings (YMMV) which is western planners somehow not getting the memo that Soviet decision makers in Moscow actually believed in NATO first strike (honestly, I don't blame them) and in turn often wargaming first strike from warsaw pact side. Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" and Soviet one being "ugh we could have done with much less forces, we didn't actually want to start a war"

wolverine876 5y ago
The Soviet Union invaded and took control of many of their neighbors, including most of Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia (including invading Afghanistan in 1979), as well as creating and supporting regimes elsewhere (Cuba, etc.). When the people of some countries (e.g., Hungary, Czechoslovakia) tried to form democracies, the Soviets sent in tanks. They tried to sieze Berlin early on. It's not at all far-fetched that they would try to expand further into Europe. Do you have good sources for the claims above? It looks pretty revisionist, and matches Soviet propaganda, to suggest the Soviets weren't aggressive and expansionist.
- wolf550e 5y ago
  Both things are true. The Soviets were very afraid of NATO because NATO was always richer and had more population and industry. So the Soviets wanted a lot of buffer. To have the front far away from Russia, and be able to fall back a long way before being forced to fight on Russian land. That is what the conquest of Eastern Europe was for. The propping up of communist states worldwide was an attempt to not get surrounded by American client states / satellites / allies. Look at China propping up North Korea. Why? Because they see South Korea as an American client state and they do not want to have a border with it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Com... for what made Soviets think maybe NATO is serious about first strike.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Yes, the poor victim Soviets. Not expansionist at all. You can make up whatever rationalizations you want, but they did conquer other countries on a scale rarely seen in history. The rest, your claims about their motivations and poor victimhood, are baseless.
    - the_af 5y ago
      > You can make up whatever rationalizations The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression. The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this. This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things. Also, > Not expansionist at all Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
dodobirdlord 5y ago
> Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" This makes for a good story but seems pretty unlikely. Recognizing the disparity in army sizes available for rapid deployment in Central Europe, the NATO doctrine through the Cold War was to stop any invasion attempt somewhere in Germany with large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons. There were enough NATO forces in the area that invading Soviet forces would have to be concentrated enough to be vulnerable to theatre deployment of nuclear weapons.
- p_l 5y ago
  The steamroll, of course, assumed that NATO didn't nuke Western Germany out of existence. And while Warsaw Pact returned to idea of Close-in Air Support later on, the idea of making holes in NATO front by dropping a nuke then blitzing through still hot ground held at least to 1989 in limited fashion. But yes, there's a reason why I put "supposedly". It's a nice story and there might be a kernel of truth to it, but the details probably were different. That said, a lot of the front line units (especially american) in western germany were there to make nice coffins to mobilize public into support for war in europe (and at least some soldiers definitely were aware of the concept).
the_af 5y ago
Yes, Warsaw Pact military policy, planning and wargaming was defensive in nature against a presupposed NATO aggression. The Warsaw Pact itself was formed as a reaction against NATO, which was formed first. The famous "Seven Days to the River Rhine" [1], a Soviet designed 7-day scenario of limited nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO presupposed a NATO nuclear first-strike. It goes against Cold War era propaganda and of course Hollywood paranoid fiction like Red Dawn, but the Warsaw Pact -- as far as NATO was concerned -- was preparing for a defensive war against the West. Satellite countries and "failing" communist allies are a different matter, and of course the Soviets steamrolled them when they thought it was needed. ---- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine