# Kilo_302 Defends The Soviet Empire[ split from] UN is rotten to the core



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

I do not think that the USSR can be considered a real aggressor. United States military forces have seen major deployments outside the United States a total of 22 times since 1950. In that period, the USSR deployed outside its borders 6 times. While the US (and the West) obviously have a much better human rights record in their own nations, foreign policy is a much different matter. It would be hard to incriminate the USSR for its foreign adventures when similar American actions are taken into account. It has long been proven that the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap" were myths. The USSR from the very beginning practiced "minimum deterrence", possessing just enough weapons to mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike. In the US however, military intellectuals throughout the Cold War, most from the RAND Corporation were trying to find ways to actually use nuclear weapons in wartime (Rumsfeld and now his supporters at the Pentagon are still trying to include nuclear weapons as "just another tool").  The massive buildup of US missiles (due to the ficticious "gaps")  obliged the USSR to also increase its arsenal. The continuing trend throughout the Cold War was that of US provocation, and Soviet response. I would argue that today the US is practicing the same tactics with China. By initiating a military alliance with India just last year, the US has completed the encirclement of China with US allies. China realizes its position and will not do anything, but this can change quickly if domestic conditions shift towards democracy, and the Chinese people have any say about it. The fact that the Chinese government has so much control over the population has meant that China is extremely stable and predictable, no matter how provocative US moves are. The same goes for the USSR. Soviet leaders knew what "containment" meant, and they knew that to challenge it could mean WWIII, so they didnt. I think we in the West give too much credit to our leaders for avoiding all-out nuclear warfare, and not enough to the cool heads in the USSR.


----------



## FredDaHead (12 Dec 2006)

Hey, we have ourselves a Soviet apologist!

Remember a little event that happened in october 1962. I don't remember all the details, but it included moving some nuclear weapons to some island off Florida, I think? Yeah, and, oh yeah, I think it was the Russians that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yeah, that's right, now I remember! The Russians moved nuclear weapons into Cuba and so they could target most of the big US cities, and when the US told them to get them out--I think having nuclear missiles pointed at you from a few hundred kilometers away is a bit threatening, don't you?--the Russians told them to piss off, and kept moving them.

Yeah, totally non-threatening. The Russians were perfect little angels being bullied by the big, bad American Empire!  :

And that's without mentionning all the nice peacekeeping the Russians decided to do in Afghanistan. Yeah, totally peace-loving and non-threatening, too! Small-scale and with very limiting ROE too!

Stop blaming the US for everything.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It has long been proven that the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap" were myths. The USSR from the very beginning practiced "minimum deterrence", possessing just enough weapons to mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike.



Excuse me!  "To mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike" is in no way a "COUNTERSTRIKE"; it is in fact a "FIRST STRIKE".  That is the only way that they could strike and prevent the US from making the First Strike.  (BY being the First TO STRIKE.)

Along with the Cuban Missile Crisis, that you conveniently forgot all about, you are right out of it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2006)

Gotta love someone who thinks being a behind the scene back-stabbing sneaky bastard is much better than a country that mostly tried it with thier cards on the table......


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2006)

>In that period, the USSR deployed outside its borders 6 times.

What sort of ass-hattery is this counting game you're playing?  The Soviet Union was permanently deployed in the eastern European subjects of its empire, and there was no illusion beyond polite Quisling puppetry that they were there as invited guests.  Get a grip.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

> Remember a little event that happened in october 1962. I don't remember all the details, but it included moving some nuclear weapons to some island off Florida



I believe that was in response to US missiles being based in Turkey. In fact the Soviets demanded the removal of those US missiles and got what they wanted. Remember, this was also near the height of US missile dominance.



> And that's without mentionning all the nice peacekeeping the Russians decided to do in Afghanistan. Yeah, totally peace-loving and non-threatening, too! Small-scale and with very limiting ROE too!



And what do you think Vietnam was?! The Soviets invaded Afghanistan (they were "invited" by an illegitimate government). The United States invaded South Vietnam (they were invited by an illegitimate government). The ROE argument is ridiculous. The American performance in Vietnam in terms of civilian deaths is comparable if not worse than the Soviets in Afghanistan. I don't think many serious people blame the US for the Cold War (I do not) , but they most certainly contributed, being the one of poles in a bipolar world. 



> Yeah, totally non-threatening. The Russians were perfect little angels being bullied by the big, bad American Empire



While I realize you are being sarcastic, no where in my post do I suggest the _Soviets_ were being bullied by the American Empire. The point I am trying to get across is that the Soviet leadership at most points during the Cold War was rational, and logical, not the hell bent on world domination stereotype that is popular in the West. By being logical I mean that the Soviets were aware of the true "missile gap" that is that the United States possessed many more nuclear weapons than they did until the 1970s. Placing missiles on Cuba made sense, and they got what they wanted from that move, as dangerous as it was.



> Leftist-Communist-Stalinist



There has never been a true Communist state. The USSR was never Communist so even if I supported it I could not be called a true Communist. The term Leftist could refer to a Democrat in the United States, or a Green Party member in Canada, or any number of things. I could take from that comment that you are a "rightist"? Suggesting that I am a Stalinist is ridiculous, and offensive. Stalin presided over some of the worst atrocities of the century, and by advocating a more realistic and balanced view of the Cold War am I in no way advocating the slaughter of millions of people.



> The Soviet Union was permanently deployed in the eastern European subjects of its empire



This is true, but it does not translate into hostility towards the United States. The Soviet occupation of the East must also be seen through the prism of World War II. No one, not the Americans, the French, the Brits nor the Soviets wanted to see a strong united Germany.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Both Kilo_302 and outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are wrong.



And going steadily downhill from there, too, I fear.

Kilo_302 spent _waaaay_ to much time listening to the likes of Jim Laxer.

But, it's entertaining, I didn't think anyone subscribed to the _Party Line_ any more.  Great stuff, keep it up Kilo_302 and ignore the carping critics: this place can use a little humour.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...... The Soviet occupation of the East must also be seen through the prism of World War II. No one, not the Americans, the French, the Brits nor the Soviets wanted to see a strong united Germany.



I am sure that the people's of Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungry, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, ...........and the list goes on...... all welcomed the Soviet domination of their societies.  [Que Bill Cosbie 'Noah' voice:] Right!


----------



## FredDaHead (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is true, but it does not translate into hostility towards the United States. The Soviet occupation of the East must also be seen through the prism of World War II. No one, not the Americans, the French, the Brits nor the Soviets wanted to see a strong united Germany.



George, you beat me to it, but you forgot Latvia, Belarus, and all the -stan countries (most notably Kazhakstan). DAMN YOU BATMAN!


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I do not think that the USSR can be considered a real aggressor.



That is absolutely irrational.

It has no foundation in the historical record.  What on earth do you think was happening in 1945, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and beyond?

That you might say that with even a tiny grain of seriousness indicates that the Canadian education system is an abject failure.

I would edit it as follows:



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I do not think that the USSR can be considered a real aggressor.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

> And going steadily downhill from there, too, I fear.
> 
> Kilo_302 spent waaaay to much time listening to the likes of Jim Laxer.
> 
> But, it's entertaining, I didn't think anyone subscribed to the Party Line any more.  Great stuff, keep it up Kilo_302 and ignore the carping critics: this place can use a little humour.



Try as I might, I couldn't find an argument in there. Post one and I would be happy to engage in a proper, and _polite_ debate with you.

As for the all the nations occupied by the USSR, point taken. Obviously not all (if any) welcomed the Soviets. My initial point remains the same however. The Americans are just as responsible (and in many ways more responsible) than the Soviets when it comes to the escalation of the Cold War.



> It has no foundation in the historical record.  What on earth do you think was happening in 1945, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and beyond



Again, I would point to the US record of military interventions (frequently unilateral) around the world. I am not going to list all the instances where the United States overthrew foreign governments (some democratically elected) through either military interventions or CIA sponsored coups. This should be self-evident. And again, I can count only six times that the USSR engaged in aggressive foreign miitary actions.


----------



## FredDaHead (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Again, I would point to the US record of military interventions (frequently unilateral) around the world. I am not going to list all the instances where the United States overthrew foreign governments (some democratically elected) through either military interventions or CIA sponsored coups. This should be self-evident. And again, I can count only six times that the USSR engaged in aggressive foreign miitary actions.



So your argument is "the US did some overt stuff, and they did some bad covert stuff, and the USSR did a few overt things"? ..What about the covert actions the USSR undertook? Heck, the Russians are still (presumably) continuing today; see Alexander Litvitenko. (sp?)

You're, by your own admission, comparing apples and bananas. Comparing the number of overt AND covert operations from one party and the number of overt operations from another is not only a bad comparison, it's intellectually dishonest.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302: "...the US has completed the encirclement of China with US allies."  Such as, say, Russia?  Do elucidate.  And, before India, which other countries contributed to the encirclement--DPRK, Vietnam. Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan--maybe Mongolia is the key encircler? One awaits your geographical counter-value argument since one can see none of  counter-force.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.enchantedlearning.com/asia/china/map_bw.GIF&imgrefurl=http://www.enchantedlearning.com/asia/china/mapquizprintout.shtml&h=444&w=560&sz=13&tbnid=xDhngK4udvN4ZM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchina%2Bmap&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

And by the way there is no military alliance between India and the US--can you show otherwise?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

> Excuse me!  "To mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike" is in no way a "COUNTERSTRIKE"; it is in fact a "FIRST STRIKE".  That is the only way that they could strike and prevent the US from making the First Strike.  (BY being the First TO STRIKE.)



 Wrong. A first strike capability means a nation can strike first, knowing that any counterstrike from an opposing nation will be not be very effective. The Soviets at this point did not have this advantage. They could never have hoped to knock out the US capacity for a retaliatory strike. All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first. Again, a first strike capability means you are nearly guaranteed that you will not receive any nuclear missiles in retaliation, because you have knocked them all out in a _first strike.   The United States enjoyed a nearly 10-1 ratio in nuclear weapons over the USSR until the 1960s. At this time, American policy was based on the doctrine of "massive retaliation" which essentially meant that the US would be the first to use nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely case of a Soviet conventional attack._


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Wrong. A first strike capability means a nation can strike first, knowing that any counterstrike from an opposing nation will be not be very effective. The Soviets at this point did not have this advantage. They could never have hoped to knock out the US capacity for a retaliatory strike. All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first. Again, a first strike capability means you are nearly guaranteed that you will not receive any nuclear missiles in retaliation, because you have knocked them all out in a _first strike.   The United States enjoyed a nearly 10-1 ratio in nuclear weapons over the USSR until the 1960s. At this time, American policy was based on the doctrine of "massive retaliation" which essentially meant that the US would be the first to use nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely case of a Soviet conventional attack.
> _


_

Look who is posting irrationally now.   This; "All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities  that the US government would not dare strike first" sounds like an aggressive "FIRST STRIKE" statement to me.  By the way, your impression of 'first strike' is wrong.  

Makes your statement here a joke:



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		


			Foverf, I have gotten the same thing many a time. That is, rational arguments of mine are replied with insults and suggestions as to my intelligence and political persuasion. I still don't understand what there is to be so defensive about. What's wrong with a healthy debate?
		
Click to expand...


I don't think you are thinking rationally, but then you wouldn't realize that._


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2006)

I love that line.  The one about 





> There has never been a true Communist state


.

The system would be just fine if it wasn't for all those "people".


"Next year in Jerusalem." Jerusalem in the Next World.  The New Jerusalem in Manchester.  When we recover Al Quds.  If only it wasn't for all those people.  ;D 

I'm with Edward.  We need a comedic interlude.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

> Kilo_302: "...the US has completed the encirclement of China with US allies."  Such as, say, Russia?  Do elucidate.  And, before India, which other countries contributed to the encirclement--DPRK, Vietnam. Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan--maybe Mongolia is the key encircler? One awaits your geographical counter-value argument since one can see none of  counter-force




Now it should be quite obvious that I was not referring to Mongolia or Myanmar etc . However, there are US bases in the 'stans as we speak. In Kyrgyzstan, Russian and US airbases are mere miles from each other. George W. Bush has been making overtures in Vietnam, and in SE Asia in general.  As far as the India-US defense agreement, it is thus far unofficial. The US and India have signed a nuclear cooperation agreement, even though India is not a signatory to the NPT. The US and India have also begun to hold regular military exercises in the north east of India. I don't know why this would be hard to believe. One would be mistaken to overlook these developments as the United States government itself has identified China as America's main rival. It only makes sense from a realist perspective (which is the perspective American policymakers have largely reverted to since 9/11) to surround your potential adversary with nations friendly to your interests.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

> Look who is posting irrationally now.   This; "All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first" sounds like an aggressive "FIRST STRIKE" statement to me.  By the way, your impression of 'first strike' is wrong.



I thought I explained what a first strike capability is in a previous post, however I will attempt to explain it again.  First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying or degrading its nuclear weapons to the point where the attacking country can withstand the retaliatory strike. By being capable of hitting American cities (at this point Soviet missiles weren't accurate enough to reliably target US launch facilities), all the Soviets could guarantee was that millions of Americans would die if the US struck first. The USSR would still inevitably be destroyed. So in fact it was the United States who enjoyed a "first strike" capability until the 1970s, and American policymakers strove to achieve this. The USSR possessed what was called "minimum deterrence".


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2006)

>There has never been a true Communist state.

Yeah, but next Tuesday fer shure.  Sorry 'bout that last multi-megadeath wrong turn on the previous try.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I thought I explained what a first strike capability is in a previous post, however I will attempt to explain it again.  First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying or degrading its nuclear weapons to the point where the attacking country can withstand the retaliatory strike. By being capable of hitting American cities (at this point Soviet missiles weren't accurate enough to reliably target US launch facilities), all the Soviets could guarantee was that millions of Americans would die if the US struck first. The USSR would still inevitably be destroyed. So in fact it was the United States who enjoyed a "first strike" capability until the 1970s, and American policymakers strove to achieve this. The USSR possessed what was called "minimum deterrence".



You are sooo funny.  This time you made no mention of the Soviets making a strike against the US to prevent the US making a 'First Strike'.  I would suggest you lay off those korner drugs.

Just to keep you in the picture, your previous posts:



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It has long been proven that the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap" were myths. The USSR from the very beginning practiced "minimum deterrence", possessing just enough weapons to mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit  the United States from conducting a first strike.





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...... All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first. Again, a first strike capability means you are nearly guaranteed that you will not receive any nuclear missiles in retaliation, because you have knocked them all out in a _first strike. _


_

But I guess your grammar could be in need of improvement, along with your communications skills.  Reality and Logic are another question.
_


----------



## Long in the tooth (12 Dec 2006)

The Soviet Union in 1945 had suffered one of the greatest and tragic victories ever, on a scale of Rome's battle against Carthage.  In the last 150 years they had been invaded by the US, Britain, France, and Germany.  They had even been humbled by tiny Finland who could muster all of a dozen Vickers Tanks yet destroyed 2500 Soviet Tanks and 1000 Aircraft in 'the Winter War'.  I will make no attempt to defend the Gulags or other affronts to human rights.

The Soviet State in 1945 is one with enemies all along its border and an embryonic NATO complicated with an independent Nuclear France.  China is distancing itself and the separation of India and Pakistan (with Nuclear aspirations as well) further muddy the waters.

Now the Soviets may have been paranoid, but they also knew that as early as 1934 USAF Gen Curtis Le may had postulated the most efficient methods to destroy Japanese cities - fire.

Although we know a lot about Soviet Intelligence, how much do we know about British, American and even French (former close allies) penetration of Russian nets?

With over 25,000,000 dead, the Russians bore the brunt of the Nazis.  The Molotov-Rippentrop pact was a deal made with the devil.  In the Soviet's minds, one devil just seems to replace another.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> ...
> The Soviet State in 1945 is one with enemies all along its border and an embryonic NATO complicated with an independent Nuclear France.  China is distancing itself and the separation of India and Pakistan (with Nuclear aspirations as well) further muddy the waters.
> ...



In 1945 the USSR faced almost universal good will, including from a newly elected Labour government in London and a war-weary government in Washington.  Berlin was in Russian hands and communist parties were on the verge of legitimate electoral success in Paris, Rome and Athens.

The ‘West’ did not even begin to solidify until late 1946.  The Truman Doctrine, followed by the Marshall Plan and NATO emerged, in large part, as a result of the now famous 12 March 1947 address to the US Congress by President Truman.  Things got kicked into action in the summer of 1948 when the Russians made a grab for power through the Berlin Blockade – an overt act of aggression.

The problems with China didn’t begin until the ‘60s; France’s _force de frappe_ didn’t materialize until 1960 – more as a response to the Anglo-American nuclear monopoly in the West than as a threat to Moscow.

Relations with India have deteriorated and will continue to do so as India ties itself closer and closer to the ‘West’ – a grouping from which Russia is, historically (and currently) excluded.  Relations with China are on the mend, albeit on China’s terms because Russian ‘power’ is no longer visible in Asia.

Western _reaction_ to Soviet/Russian sabre rattling, expansionism and outright aggression has been exactly that: a reaction.  Moscow’s undoubted problems all (including 1941/45) began in the Kremlin.  Russian leadership has swung, throughout the centuries, including the 21st century, between barbaric and inept; given that: problems and failure are inevitable.


Edit: typo - "... *L*abour government in ..."


----------



## Redeye (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I believe that was in response to US missiles being based in Turkey. In fact the Soviets demanded the removal of those US missiles and got what they wanted. Remember, this was also near the height of US missile dominance.



Read your history a little more.  Kennedy made the concession about the Jupiter missiles in Turkey willingly since they were obsolete anyhow.  It wasn't caving to a Soviet demand, it was an orchestrated concession to end the Crisis by giving Khruschev something to make a bit of press about at home.


----------



## dglad (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As for the all the nations occupied by the USSR, point taken. Obviously not all (if any) welcomed the Soviets. My initial point remains the same however. The Americans are just as responsible (and in many ways more responsible) than the Soviets when it comes to the escalation of the Cold War.



This is an interesting, if specious, argument.  One could also share the blame for WW2 with the Commenwealth, France, the US and the Soviet Union...although few rational people would be likely to.

As for the countries occupied by the USSR, I believe one would be hard-pressed to find one that DID "welcome" them.  Your point about seeing an end to a united Germany after WW2 is valid, but again, not the point.  NATO did not occupy West Germany; it was established as, remained and remains a progressive democracy.  The USSR DID occupy eastern Europe, using military force as a means to maintain control.  They didn't hesitate to use this force, brutally, in Czechoslovakia or Hungary when those countries made even tentative moves towards self-determination.



> Again, I would point to the US record of military interventions (frequently unilateral) around the world. I am not going to list all the instances where the United States overthrew foreign governments (some democratically elected) through either military interventions or CIA sponsored coups. This should be self-evident. And again, I can count only six times that the USSR engaged in aggressive foreign miitary actions.



One would be hard-pressed to defend many US foreign policy decisions.  But again, that's not the point.  Your thesis was that the USSR was not an aggressor.  If they conducted foreign military adventures even once, they are, by definition, an "aggressor"...so you have undermined your own argument by acknowledging their "six" aggresive foreign military actions.  It would be more correct to say that, because they were attempting to hold together an empire established through aggressive military action (starting under the Czars, and propagated into the 20th Century under the "communists"), most of their aggressive military action was directed inward.  Their external adventures were conducted more by proxy (through Egypt, Syria, Cuba, N Vietnam, etc.)

To say the US was also aggressive is correct.  To say the USSR was NOT aggressive is simple apologism that ignores a pretty unambiguous (because many of us lived it) historical record.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302: "Now it should be quite obvious that I was not referring to Mongolia or Myanmar etc . However, there are US bases in the 'stans as we speak. In Kyrgyzstan, Russian and US airbases are mere miles from each other. George W. Bush has been making overtures in Vietnam, and in SE Asia in general."

In other words there is no "encirclement"--just some small stuff in the wild west.   And any encirclement would have to include Russia which clearly is not part of your plot.  Admit the facts or change your terminology--I would agree there may be an emerging confrontation but it is basically China/Russia on one side with US/Japan/Taiwan (and maybe sometime India) on the other.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2006)

Yet another example of how revisionist "history" has replaced the study of History in schools and Universities. I suppose we will be hearing about the "Great Leap Forward" and how Canada should emulate Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" next.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Yet another example of how revisionist "history" has replaced the study of History in schools and Universities. I suppose we will be hearing about the "Great Leap Forward" and how Canada should emulate Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" next.



Didn't we just have that five or ten years ago with 'Chretian's Little Red Book'?


----------



## safeboy43 (13 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Didn't we just have that five or ten years ago with 'Chretian's Little Red Book'?


+1



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There has never been a true Communist state.


Wow, I love this one too. I'm not disagreeing with you on this one but I think you should have spent some time in the USSR or even present day Russia if you think like that. The government is run corrupt and in recent days (after collapse), is completly run by the Mafia. If you don't call that communism try and move to North Korea or some place similar. I think you will find everything you are looking to support. Rule by fear, domminant attitude and a corrupt government. 

Enjoy your visit,
Twitch


----------



## time expired (13 Dec 2006)

Gentelmen this young man is not a Stalinist or even a closet commie, he is just a raging anti 
american he believes all the evil in this world is somehow the fault of G.W.Bush and his evil imperialistic
country, the United States of America.In this he is not alone, our places of higher learning are full
of people who share his ideas.So IMHO we should just let him rave on and not take him too
seriously after all most of us with a somewhat wider, less blinkered view of the world should find 
his opinions quite entertaining and so so predictable.
                          Regards


----------



## Trinity (13 Dec 2006)

time expired said:
			
		

> Gentelmen this young man is not a Stalinist or even a closet commie



Good

Cause we have Fred.. and he's the resident Communist (or so we joke about)
here at Army.ca.   I'd hate to see him lose his position as it's all he has left
in the world.


----------



## FredDaHead (13 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Good
> 
> Cause we have Fred.. and he's the resident Communist (or so we joke about)
> here at Army.ca.   I'd hate to see him lose his position as it's all he has left
> in the world.



I thought I was also the resident in-the-closet guy, too?  I can give up the resident Commie position, really.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

> You are sooo funny.  This time you made no mention of the Soviets making a strike against the US to prevent the US making a 'First Strike'.  I would suggest you lay off those korner drugs



You are right. I must be taking drugs if you of all people fail to understand English. For what is now the third time, read more carefully.



> "I thought I explained what a first strike capability is in a previous post, however I will attempt to explain it again.  First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying or degrading its nuclear weapons to the point where the attacking country can withstand the retaliatory strike. By being capable of hitting American cities (at this point Soviet missiles weren't accurate enough to reliably target US launch facilities), all the Soviets could guarantee was that millions of Americans would die if the US struck first. The USSR would still inevitably be destroyed. So in fact it was the United States who enjoyed a "first strike" capability until the 1970s, and American policymakers strove to achieve this. The USSR possessed what was called "minimum deterrence".



The Soviets WERE NOT capable of a first strike against the United States as they could not target US nuclear silos. Again, their weapons were not accurate enough. A first strike depends on that nation being able to survive the response. The Soviets would not survive a US response if they struck first. The US WOULD survive a Soviet response if THEY struck first, however the cost in civilian lives would be high. This is why the Soviets practiced "minimum deterrence."




> But I guess your grammar could be in need of improvement, along with your communications skills



Are we going to start doing this instead of debating?



> Chretian's



Does anything pop out at you?


----------



## old medic (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is why the Soviets practiced "minimum deterrence.



minimum deterrence ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111301054.html



> Western agents received their best information not through psychological manipulation and complex schemes but through Soviet and East European defectors who offered themselves up voluntarily. Col. Ryszard Kuklinski, the Polish Warsaw Pact liaison, passed 35,000 pages of mostly Russian documents to the West because he'd seen plans for a Russian invasion of the West, during which Poland would be destroyed.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

Invasion plans mean nothing. It is the job of professional soldiers to plan for any contingency, however unrealistic. Most NATO exercises in Germany centered around a Soviet invasion, just as most Soviet exercises centered around a NATO offensive. Canada and the US were both making plans to invade each other as late the 1920s for Christ's sake!


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The Soviets WERE NOT capable of a first strike against the United States as they could not target US nuclear silos. Again, their weapons were not accurate enough. A first strike depends on that nation being able to survive the response. The Soviets would not survive a US response if they struck first. The US WOULD survive a Soviet response if THEY struck first, however the cost in civilian lives would be high. This is why the Soviets practiced "minimum deterrence."



Now you are getting it.  That was not what you were saying at first.  You were talking about the Soviets striking the US to eliminate their First Strike capabilities, which would have made them the ones to commit the First Strike.  It is all there in your posts (Too late to Edit them, as they have been quoted several times.), recorded for posterity in Black and White.

So we have now decided that you are not a Communist, as you really don't have what it takes; but just a very Anti-American historical revisionist with a poor grasp of what you post.  

Take it away Kilo_302...................


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> .......  just as most Soviet exercises centered around a NATO offensive. .



And where did you come up with this gem of information?  Have you any experience at all in this matter?  Have you talked to anyone who is experience in this matter?  I am sure if you had done any research into the matter you would have found that statement to be completely false.  If you really want, there are many on this site who "Were There" and can tell you that you are full of crap.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are many on this site who took part in Soviet exercises?!



> Their scenarios, equivalent to ours, always start with a NATO offensive, then after twenty-four hours or so they sort of turn this around and they start plodding through to the Rhine to counter this.



Adm. Robert Falls, chairman of the NATO military committee, 1980-83


----------



## old medic (13 Dec 2006)

Wow.... You should stop and go research what soviet leaders were telling their own people.


----------



## dglad (13 Dec 2006)

So, it appears that your argument, kilo32, is something along the lines of, the US was an aggressor, so the USSR wasn't.  Does this sum it up?  Because you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the USSR wasn't aggressive in its pursuit of foreign policy, including seizing every possible opportunity to further its interests and expand its influence, by overt or covert means.  You've tried to argue that the US did MORE of this, so that makes the USSR somehow less of an aggressor.

The trouble is, this is a complete logical fallacy.  If I show you two fires, one hotter than the other, does that indicate that the cooler of the two isn't hot?  If your answer to this is no, then your essential argument is flawed.

More generally, is it possible that the US and USSR were, throughout the Cold War, both very aggressive states, willing to use all sorts of means to gain advantage and consolidate their power globally, short of resorting to open war?  If your answer to this is yes, this is possible, then your essential argument is, once again, flawed.

That leaves, then, two states, both vying for some form of global supremacy.  Now, based on their human rights records, economic performance, environmental track-records and general standard of living, which would be preferable to have as the "winner"?  Or, if you don't like it framed that way, try this...if we accept that the Cold War was going to end, and that end wasn't going to be as a result of some form of mutual annihilation, then it would be reasonable to accept that one power would emerge ascendant--a "hyperpower".  Which of the US or USSR would represent the least bad alternative?

(I would add that if it was to be the USSR, then we would have a global hyperpower based on a Stalinist legacy of mass execution on a virtually unprecendented scale, a centralized, state-controlled economy characterized by hyper-inefficiency, a record of environmental abuse and damage that dwarfs the worst Superfund site in the US, and a standard of living barely above that of a 3rd world country for the vast majority of its citizens, few of whom had any meaningful input into state policy or affairs.  I know what my choice would have to be.)


----------



## dglad (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are many on this site who took part in Soviet exercises?!
> 
> Adm. Robert Falls, chairman of the NATO military committee, 1980-83



Adm Falls was mistaken.  In fact, I was in Germany in 1981, working at 4 CMBG HQ.  The Warsaw Pact exercise that ran concurrent with our final ex had nothing to do with a NATO invasion; it was, very much, a show of force intended to demonstrate just what the Warsaw Pact was capable of doing.  Ours was focused on defense against a WP strike out of Czechoslovakia, into Germany through the Hohenfels area.  We thought, at the time, that it was very decent of them to show us just what that would look like, on their side of the border.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

> Adm Falls was mistaken.  In fact, I was in Germany in 1981, working at 4 CMBG HQ.  The Warsaw Pact exercise that ran concurrent with our final ex had nothing to do with a NATO invasion; it was, very much, a show of force intended to demonstrate just what the Warsaw Pact was capable of doing.  Ours was focused on defense against a WP strike out of Czechoslovakia, into Germany through the Hohenfels area.  We thought, at the time, that it was very decent of them to show us just what that would look like, on their side of the border.



I am not saying that the Warsaw Pact never ran offensive exercises, I am saying that MOST of their exercises were of a defensive nature, as were NATO's. Because you can point to one example that shows otherwise does not mean I, nor the good Admiral (who I would suspect is an authority on the subject), are incorrect.

My overall argument here is that the way we in the West view the Cold War is inaccurate. Of course the Soviets pursued all means to help their cause. I am suggesting that some of those policies were in response to Western provocation. That's all. I am not suggesting I would have preferred that the USSR had won the Cold War, I was happy to see it collapse. I am merely saying that commonly accepted history on this subject matter tends to be extremely biased (as is to be expected, history being written by the winners and all that), and that there are two sides to every coin. In general, obviously the USSR was aggressive. It was a major power. But in comparison to the US (which is how this debate must be seen, as it deals with a bipolar struggle) the USSR was NOT the aggressor.  I see where your argument as merit on the basis that Soviet human rights abuses were numerous. This would give the US moral credit in making more of a concerted effort to destabilize it. However, human rights and similar issues were not primary motivating factors in the US, nor the West.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> My overall argument here is that the way we in the West view the Cold War is inaccurate.



...and this you know better than those on this board who spent many years looking across the abyss??   PLEEEASE



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> But in comparison to the US (which is how this debate must be seen, as it deals with a bipolar struggle) the USSR was NOT the aggressor.



Please list the countries that the US held hostage for some 50 years, please.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> However, human rights and similar issues were not primary motivating factors in the US, nor the West.



...and in a few years I bet you will be spouting the same thing about us in Afghanistan.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

> Adm Falls was mistaken.  In fact, I was in Germany in 1981, working at 4 CMBG HQ.  The Warsaw Pact exercise that ran concurrent with our final ex had nothing to do with a NATO invasion; it was, very much, a show of force intended to demonstrate just what the Warsaw Pact was capable of doing.  Ours was focused on defense against a WP strike out of Czechoslovakia, into Germany through the Hohenfels area.  We thought, at the time, that it was very decent of them to show us just what that would look like, on their side of the border.



Having served in the military during the Cold War means you know a great many things I do not. Depending on what capacity you served in (I do not know) I am sure you could enlighten me on many subjects pertaining to your trade, and many that do not pertain to your trade. These facts do not preclude me from forming my own opinions based on research and comparative analysis, as well as simple numbers and figures.



> Please list the countries that the US held hostage for some 50 years, please.



I am not going to list nations that the US has held hostage. What I will do is point you to Central and South America.



> ...and in a few years I bet you will be spouting the same thing about us in Afghanistan



I can spout the same thing about Afghanistan right now. I applaud and support the mission, as I believe it is definitely improving conditions in Afghanistan as well as aiding in the prevention of a terrorist attack on Canadian soil, or elsewhere. Though in some ways, it has raised Canada's profile among Islamic extremists, but this is to be expected when we start doing our part. Back to the conditions in Afghanistan, the Canadian public does not hear about these improvements often enough. You can thank Canadian media for that. However, you would have to be naive to argue that the primary aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was to improve human rights and ease poverty. If those are the results however, good.


----------



## FredDaHead (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> However, you would have to be naive to argue that the primary aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was to improve human rights and ease poverty. If those are the results however, good.



And what WAS the primary aim of the invasion, in your expert opinion?


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

Well the immediate reason was to deny Bin Laden and his followers a free sanctuary in which they could train and plot and plot and train wherever they wanted. Of course there were probably some other strategic considerations (most decisions as important as war factor in several possible outcomes through cost benefit analysis).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I am not going to list nations that the US has held hostage. What I will do is point you to Central and South America.



OK, I checked, they are still there........what?


----------



## dglad (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I am not saying that the Warsaw Pact never ran offensive exercises, I am saying that MOST of their exercises were of a defensive nature, as were NATO's. Because you can point to one example that shows otherwise does not mean I, nor the good Admiral (who I would suspect is an authority on the subject), are incorrect.



But Adm Falls WAS incorrect.  In the quote you provided, he said "always".  I demonstrated an instance where that wasn't true.  Therefore, the WP didn't "always" initiate their exercises with a NATO invasion.  I don't decry the good Admiral's expertise on the subject...I'm saying that he was mistaken.  That makes an argument based on this particular quote of his less than credible.[/quote]



> My overall argument here is that the way we in the West view the Cold War is inaccurate. Of course the Soviets pursued all means to help their cause. I am suggesting that some of those policies were in response to Western provocation. That's all. I am not suggesting I would have preferred that the USSR had won the Cold War, I was happy to see it collapse. I am merely saying that commonly accepted history on this subject matter tends to be extremely biased (as is to be expected, history being written by the winners and all that), and that there are two sides to every coin. In general, obviously the USSR was aggressive. It was a major power. But in comparison to the US (which is how this debate must be seen, as it deals with a bipolar struggle) the USSR was NOT the aggressor.  I see where your argument as merit on the basis that Soviet human rights abuses were numerous. This would give the US moral credit in making more of a concerted effort to destabilize it. However, human rights and similar issues were not primary motivating factors in the US, nor the West.



The "history was written by the winners" argument falls rather flat when its applied to a period in recent memory.  The fact is that one cannot make a blanket statement like "the way we in the West view the Cold War is inaccurate", because my view of the Cold War is based on direct experience, NOT on recorded history.  And based on that observation, I believe that both sides responded to what they perceived as provocation on the other.  More to point, this was especially true on the part of the Soviets, as they had recently come through a horrific war that inflicted titanic damage on their country and their people (and this only 20 years after a war that did much the same thing, and also resulted in huge political, social and cultural upheaval).  The country's leadership, as a result, became very sensitive about national security; the psychology that would reasonably result from this is, "never again".  Hence, the USSR expanded its borders as aggressively as it could post-WW2, establishing Eastern Europe as a "buffer" against further threat from that direction (since the invasions in WW1 and WW2 had come from that direction).  They developed forces that were very specifically tailored to be offensive in character, so that they could carry a war "off-shore".  Their policies through the 50s and 60s were INTENDED to be aggressive and expansionist, for reasons that the Soviet leadership believed to be perfectly valid and justified (remember that Nikita Kruschev personally witnessed the horror of Stalingrad).  Passive defence of the Motherland in 1916 and 1941 spectacularly failed to stave off disaster, so in 1945, the national strategic policy became one of imminent offence, specifically designed to pre-empt any threat, any repeat of Operation Barbarossa.

US reasons for opposing the USSR were hardly pure; superficially, there was certainly some sincere desire to protect and promote democracy.  However, their reasons were, at a more fundamental level, much more pragmatic and cynical; the US economy was increasingly dependent on foreign resources and access to overseas markets.  This meant it was necessary to project power around the globe; confrontation between the US desire to protect and further its economic interests and Soviet paranoia about threats to their territory, sovereignty and people was inevitable.  In such a scenario, it's hard to particularly label one side or the other as the "aggressor"; moreover, the role changed from time to time and place to place.  But overall, it was the USSR that held the more aggressive stance--not because they were "evil" in some cartoonish, villainous way (well, actually, Josef Stalin was a homicidal megalomaniac, but his successors were much more practical men), but because the post-war Soviet psychology equated defence with ruin, and offence with protection.

It wasn't until a new generation of leaders came along that the old paranoia began to wane.  Mikhail Gorbachev was born in 1931, so he was in his early teens through the devastation of WW2, young enough that it simply wouldn't carry the same weight as it did for Kruschev (born 1894), Brezhnev (born 1907), Andropov (born 1914) or Chernenko (born 1911), or any of these leaders' respective party apparatus.

So I believe the USSR WAS the "aggressor" in the Cold War; if they hadn't occupied Eastern Europe and had withdrawn, after the war, to their pre-war borders, the entire rationale for the formation of NATO and the alignment of the West would have been weakened (we may, in fact, have seen a much stronger US-Europe competition develop much sooner).  But they did seize Eastern Europe...for reasons that are relatively easy to understand, if impossible for rational people to accept.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302:  With regard to first strike capabability are you aware of the SS-18?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-36m.htm



> The Reagan and Bush administrations respected the SS-18 to such a degree that they made it the main focus of their arms control initiatives. The START II Treaty
> http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/starthtm/start2/st2intal.html
> specifically banned land-based MIRV systems, in part, because of the threat the SS-18 posed to the balance of power. It was seen as a first-strike weapon and a very destabilizing presence in the bilateral relationship


.

Before, there was the SS-9, progenitor of the 18:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-36.htm



> The SS-9's combination of high accuracy and yield constituted a convincing threat for the American ICBMs for the first time. The SS-9 was viewed in the United States as specifically designed to attack American Minuteman ICBM Launch Control Centers (LCCs), which initially were the "Achilles heel" of the Minuteman system, as 100 LCCs controlled all 1,000 Minuteman missiles. However, by 1969, as a result of redundant internetting of Minuteman silos and a backup airborne launch control system, the LCCs no longer were the "achilles heel" of Minuteman, so building one SS-9 for each Minuteman silo required MIRVed systems.



I would however agree that the US military too was, in spite of political doctrine, always looking for a potential first strike capability.  The decapitation possibilities of the Pershing II were, I think, significant:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/theater/pershing2.htm

Especially if combined with a simultaneous launch of ICBMs.  Not much reaction time and the SLMBs would still be there plus the bombers with SRAMs--which might have been en route.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52_hist.htm
http://imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

But then the Americans never tried, did they?  Decent folk, all things considered.

You have still not replied to this comment:



> Kilo_302: "Now it should be quite obvious that I was not referring to Mongolia or Myanmar etc . However, there are US bases in the 'stans as we speak. In Kyrgyzstan, Russian and US airbases are mere miles from each other. George W. Bush has been making overtures in Vietnam, and in SE Asia in general."
> 
> In other words there is no "encirclement"--just some small stuff in the wild west.   And any encirclement would have to include Russia which clearly is not part of your plot.  Admit the facts or change your terminology--I would agree there may be an emerging confrontation but it is basically China/Russia on one side with US/Japan/Taiwan (and maybe sometime India) on the other.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo-302: "(most decisions as important as war factor in several possible outcomes through cost benefit analysis)."

The British declarations of war in 1914, 1939?  The response to 9/11 by the US?  Honestly, do you not understand honour and, indeed, pride?

Did you not see the service in the Washington Cathedral, Sept. 14, 2001 I think, and hear the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" sung?
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/h/bhymnotr.htm

Nothing to do with cost/benefit there, though the war in Iraq has clearly been a disaster--not though as a result of intent but of execution.

Glad you're still onside on Afstan.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

The data i was referring to was until 1960, I thought I posted that. for the encirclement, no obviously it is not a literal "encirclement" but the United States is definitely trying to find allies that are located near China. I still think the India nuclear agreement is the most dangerous as India and China don't enjoy a peaceful history.Sorry for the late reply. I am juggling responses to a good half dozen people here. Good thing I'm on holiday. ;D 



> But Adm Falls WAS incorrect.  In the quote you provided, he said "always".  I demonstrated an instance where that wasn't true.  Therefore, the WP didn't "always" initiate their exercises with a NATO invasion.  I don't decry the good Admiral's expertise on the subject...I'm saying that he was mistaken.  That makes an argument based on this particular quote of his less than credible



I think these are semantics. I was merely trying to point out that both sides primarily planned for defensive operations.  That one was taken from a conversation (my fault, I should have been more clear) so when he says "always" he probably does not mean 100% of the time. More than likely he means "usually" or "constantly" or something similar.



> The British declarations of war in 1914, 1939?  The response to 9/11 by the US?  Honestly, do you not understand honour and, indeed, pride?



Honour and pride have their place. Bush and his advisors probably decided on September 11 that a response was warranted. Yes there are examples of war being declared as a result of emotion. But in this case, war wasn't declared. I don't how soon after 9/11 the US decided to go after Afghanistan, but I guarantee you once they found out the attacks may have originated there, Bush and his senior people, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc sat down and planned the thing, probably through a cost benefit analysis. Almost all major FP decisions made by any government operating through a realist framework does this.


----------



## FredDaHead (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The data i was referring to was until 1960, I thought I posted that. for the encirclement, no obviously it is not a literal "encirclement" but the United States is definitely trying to find allies that are located near China. I still think the India nuclear agreement is the most dangerous as India and China don't enjoy a peaceful history.Sorry for the late reply. I am juggling responses to a good half dozen people here. Good thing I'm on holiday. ;D



You said 1945, with an embryonic NATO and a nuclear France.

You made stuff up, and then when proved wrong you make up new stuff to back out of what you said previously. Once again, intellectual dishonesty. I hope you're out of university or that you have very understanding teachers, if you write your papers the same way you write your posts.


----------



## paracowboy (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Almost all major FP decisions made by any government operating through a realist framework does this.


okay, I'll bite. Just how many governments have you been a part of? And how many decisions were you involved with, as part of those governments?


----------



## Klc (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Almost all major FP decisions made by any government operating through a realist framework does this.



I've been trying to keep my mouth shut here, but I have to call this one. What background do you have in Major FP decisions that allows you to come to this conclusion?

[edit: Drat! PC beat me to the punch. At least I know I'm not the only one wondering about this.]


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

I have a joint degree in Political Science and History. As for cost-benefit analysis, you can literally look up any book on government, American or Canadian or otherwise and come to the conclusion that most of the time, thats how decisions are made. In fact there are entire books dealing with cost-benefit analysis alone.



> You said 1945, with an embryonic NATO and a nuclear France.



The USSR didn't have the bomb yet, so I don't see how that could have been my argument.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302,
Well lad, I just went through all your posts and its time to put you on a shorter leash................you need to start putting info into your posts instead of just ' pick up any book' or 'just look for it", etc.

I want substance to back up your arguements because all we get from you is the same tired old Jan Brady syndrome.

The U.S. did it, the U.S. did it.......


----------



## paracowboy (13 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As for cost-benefit analysis, you can literally look up any book on government, American or Canadian or otherwise and come to the conclusion that most of the time, thats how decisions are made.


you can come to *any* sort of conclusion. You could conclude that decisions are made based on rolling sheep's bones. But that don't make it proof, now do it?

Fella, you been makin' a real horse's ass out of yourself on any number of threads, and getting your head handed to you in ever' one. Don't you get tired of bein' wrong all the time?

Jus' wonderin'.

I'll leave ya'll to your li'l discussion. But, it seems to me that you're all wrestlin' with a pig.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

I think I'm done on this thread. When some "cowboy" starts throwing around weird references to wrestling with pigs, the debate as taken a decided turn for the worse. You aren't the guy from the village people are you?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2006)

Everyone is done on this thread.........................but its a nice slice of revisionist history for the ages.

Locked.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2006)

_Alright, not everyone is done. ;D

Here is a PM I recieved from Edward Campbell whom, pay attention Kilo, was there and involved.

I'm posting it like this so no dogpile ensues while the thread is unlocked. [ well that and some might think I had half a brain and wrote it]_

Correcting the revisionist history

Adm Falls was a very nice man; he went to the NATO MC after being CDS; he was tired.  Chairman of the NATO MC was meant to be a quiet, well paid, comfortable reward for his many years of service.  He wasn’t expected to stay awake at every briefing – especially not the INT ones which are, without fail, excruciatingly dull, indeed sophoriphic.

Like Adm Falls, I neither monitored every Warsaw Pact exercise nor paid close attention to the briefings by those who did.

What I did, for a time, follow, closely, was Warsaw Pact tactics and doctrine.  Both were based firmly on the offensive.  The Russian and East German marshals and generals did not preach nor did they practice the defensive battle.  Every Warsaw Pact battalion commander (a glorified company commander by our standards) was taught to advance, attack, continue the advance and attack again.  The ‘plan’ was to ‘burn through’ our defences, sacrificing the lead battalions, the lead regiments and, indeed the lead divisions.  There was no defensive doctrine.  The military schools and staff colleges did not teach defensive operations except those necessary to allow another division to pass through and continue the attack.

The Warsaw Pact armies, and there were several combined arms armies (big corps, by our standards) and guards armies and guards tank armies and so on, were more than enough, the Russians believed, to overwhelm eight small, poorly prepared NATO corps strung out North to South from Denmark to Switzerland – especially given that half of those corps were poorly positioned and some would, most likely, fail to deploy.  We had some surprises for them, we hoped: nuclear surprises because, being on the strategic, operational and tactical defensive, we could not renounce our ‘first use’ option – only the aggressor can do that, and the Warsaw Pact, which was the aggressor, without a single, tiny shadow of a doubt – and no single reputable historian disputes that (although Jim Laxer certainly does).

The ‘numbers game’ proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who was the aggressor and who was the defender: NATO, with less than two dozen divisions on the central front was, clearly, on the defensive.  The Warsaw Pact, with, literally, scores of divisions and tens of thousands of tanks and howitzers was, equally clearly, prepared to attack.  They were, from 1945 onwards, the aggressor.  That is indisputable.

That the Soviet leadership was realistic in its approach is true: that’s why they never attacked.  They were not certain that they could win, not even with their overwhelming numerical superiority and not even with all that mass and shock effect.

Why were they so timid?

First: lousy troops.  The Russians may have been big and brave in 1941/45 but, by 1960 they were a large, ill trained, poorly led mob of largely drunken bums – kept that way (drunk) to avoid mutiny.

Second: The Russian officer corps – I have been told by quite senior East Germans, confirming our own intelligence – was a disgrace: ill educated, poorly trained (well enough drilled but no initiative), disloyal and crooked.

Third: while the kit was fine but poorly maintained because of a decrepit and badly mismanaged logistics system.

Finally: The command, control, communications and intelligence system was a bad joke.  It took more than 48 hours to move (not process, just move intelligence from e.g. high level SIGINT sites like the famous ‘Borken’ to the HQ which might act on it.

Realistically they could only win if they followed a barrage of nukes – and they weren’t interested in smouldering, radioactive ruin.  (We, on the other hand, were not averse to leaving that behind as we withdrew Westwards.  Understandably, ‘we’ did not include the West Germans whose territory we ‘gridded’ into hundreds of Nuclear Killing Zones.)

That theoretical realism did not, in any way, alter the practical reality that the USSR and its empire was poised for the offensive.  It was the aggressive force in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s.


----------

