Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: The nature of the Warsaw Pact take 2, first bugged

  1. #21

    Default Re: The nature of the Warsaw Pact take 2, first bugged

    Quote Originally Posted by SovietDoom
    No force can stand before the Soviet Union and its hundreds!
    There was one who did. And was victorious.
    No, actually more. Two?

    And the number of soviet soldiers within polish border was around 60.000 during 1980-89. Of course there were much more waiting around in case of...

  2. #22

    Default Re: The nature of the Warsaw Pact take 2, first bugged

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix33
    No direct control besides tenths of thousands soldiers, puppet militias, puppet goverments... The "support" was carried on tanks...
    I would never ever compare US allies to puppet countries in Warsaw Pact. I know because I live in one of them and I'm old enough to remember dependance from Soviets... Quoted above words could be said by one who never experienced it and have no idea what meant to be under Soviet control.
    As I said, ideological involvement in other countries, certainly, but not to a greater extent than NATO involvement all over the place, all in all a pretty even struggle for ideological supremacy by both sides from Central America to Asia. But regular Soviet soldiers establishing and protecting satelitte countries only took place in close proximity to Soviet territory, namely Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe so there was a greater interest in maintaining a status quo (which included satelitte nations as buffer zones) then recklessly expanding in all directions.

    After 45 (the Eastern European satellites were already about to be established) the Soviet Union pretty much only actively intervened in Afghanistan and Korea to gain a buffer, anywhere else you might have military aid, military trainers, etc. but not the regular Soviet army getting involved.
    Just to clarify, my point was not that the Soviet Union had no satellite nations but that they were not running around recklessly aquiring more after 1945 but with few exceptions were more interested in maintaining the achieved status quo.

    The point being there was no big expansionistic drive by the Soviet Union, more a desperate search for potential allies (even if it meant creating said allies by funding militias) and various quotes by Soviet leaders now also accessable thanks to the end of the cold war also show that the Soviet Union at no point felt in a strong enough position to risk a war by behaving expansionist.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •