Is the Warsaw Pact Organization a USSR Military-Strategic Mistake?

65 years ago, during the Conference of European States in the Polish capital on ensuring security and peace in Europe, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was signed, which went down in history right at the place of its conclusion. However, despite its name and the principles declared in it, the definition of the Warsaw Pact became a symbol of not just peace initiatives, but the name of the only military-political bloc in the history of the socialist countries.

The United Armed Forces of this alliance have never participated in a real war, but, nevertheless, its fate is tragic. And it is very instructive for Russia, which is the successor of the USSR.

Our NATO response

Before starting a frank discussion about the Warsaw Pact Organization, certain extremely important accents must be identified. The real Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ended on March 5, 1953, when its creator and only true head, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, died (died, was he killed?). Everything that happened next was only a movement along the path of more or less rapid destruction of all that was erected by the great Generalissimo. In some areas, this inexorable movement was accelerating, slowing down somewhere, sometimes attempts were made to suspend it or even reverse it ... However, it all ended with what ended - the crash in 1991. But, alas, it could not be otherwise, since the leaders of the USSR, "having debunked the personality cult," and, in fact, having renounced Stalin's ideas and course, made one mistake after another. The creation and functioning of the ATS was, no matter how bitter it is to admit, just one of these mistakes. Yes, the first steps leading to the emergence of this military-political bloc were taken under Joseph Vissarionovich. Churchill’s Fulton speech, the beginning of the Cold War, the emergence of a structure that later became the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its “maturity,” the blockade of West Berlin - all this happened during his life. As well as the American intervention in Korea, the Franco-American intervention in Vietnam and some other attempts of a new world redistribution behind the back of the USSR. Did Stalin respond to this? And how! But he did it in his manner, and to nobody, alas, more than from the Soviet leaders, manner.

Belief in the decency and sincerity of the recent forced “allies” in World War II and in the intention of the United States and Britain to abide by the agreements reached in Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam, began to be dispelled by the Supreme, there is no doubt, back in 1945. By 1949, there was no trace of it, and besides, there were completely different leaders in Washington and London, and Stalin saw through their rotten intentions regarding the USSR. Well, it wasn’t the first such a thing for him - one might think that in 1939, signing the Non-aggression Pact with Hitler Germany, he admitted for at least a second that there would be no war with her! The Stalinist USSR responded to the "aggressive machinations" as it should - red-star "falcons" were sent to Korea without any contracts and the presumptuous Americans got such a "first number" that they sat quietly for ten years and did not think about new military adventures in Indochina or elsewhere. In the then Vietnam, more than enough help from the Chinese comrades was enough to kick the French-financed Washington out of the country. It would never have occurred to Stalin to conclude any militarypolitical alliances with the socialist countries created by his will and power in Eastern Europe! First of all, he knew the price well for them, both as “allies” and as woeful warriors (with the exception of the Germans). Secondly, apparently, he did not intend at all in the early 50s to arrange any “balances” and “parities” with the West and NATO ... He was going to defeat them, once and for all putting an end to all wars - “Cold” and “hot”. And as the chief assistant in this matter, I saw in no way completely useless Bulgarians or Romanians in such a situation, but the Chinese, who at that time were blazing with boundless gratitude and love to the Soviet Union and personally to Stalin. At the same time, they were eager for battle so that they sometimes had to be restrained.

Blinded from what was

However, Stalin went into a different world, and Khrushchev, who seized power in the USSR as a result of a coup, was insignificant and infinitely narrow-minded, spoiled relations with China almost instantly and tightly. Moreover, this half-fool (forgive me, but I have no other words for Lysy) began to break the Soviet army, grind rubbish from the UN rostrum about "general disarmament" and the dissolution of all armed forces in the world. NATO at that time created a joint command, standardized and unified weapons, carried out maneuvers one after another and created military bases. In 1952, in addition to the United States and the United States acquired an atomic bomb, France was rapidly eager for nuclear status. Things began to turn around a very bad side ... In 1954, the North Atlantic bloc hospitably opened the doors to the Federal Republic of Germany, putting an end to its “demilitarization” declared in 1945. The prospect of a revival of German military power loomed before the USSR, and even this time with allies that this country could not even dream of before. If someone thinks that in the FRG at that time in power at various levels there were no people not only with the Nazi past, but also with the corresponding worldview, craving revenge and revenge, then it is very deeply mistaken. I advise you to carefully study serious sources on this topic - you will find a lot of interesting things. However, the United States remained the main danger anyway, after World War II, unauthorizedly assuming the status of both a “world hegemon” and a “world policeman”. On the Western borders, an increasingly aggressive and dangerous NATO bloc hung over the "socialist camp", and on the Eastern borders, thanks to Khrushchev's stupidity, China turned from a true friend into a fierce enemy ...

The creation of the Warsaw Pact Organization in this situation was not just a forced, but simply an emergency measure. The “collective West” had to urgently oppose at least something insolent and not particularly hiding its plans to destroy the Soviet Union. To make one think that in a hypothetically possible confrontation, in the Third World War, whose new and new plans were “baked” like hot cakes almost every year in the Pentagon, the victory will go to the “damned imperialists” at too high a price. The only real military force of the "socialist camp" was (and remained so until 1991) exclusively the Soviet Union. It was he who possessed nuclear weapons, the huge Armed forces, the most advanced military technology and developed defense industry. The German Democratic Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania, which entered the OVD in 1955, performed, we will be frank, in this organization, rather, the role of the "extras". Ah, yes - there was also Albania, quietly washed away from the police department in 1968, away from sin. This thesis is best emphasized by the fact that all five Commanders-in-Chief of the Joint Armed Forces of the Warsaw Treaty countries and all six chiefs of staff of these forces were military leaders of the USSR - from marshals to army generals. Although I was smart enough even formally to “allies” not to trust such posts ... But, on the other hand, why the hell, tell me, do we need such “allies” who cannot be trusted with anything ?! However, a similar kind of imbalance was observed in this strange military alliance not only in terms of command personnel, but also in other, no less fundamental issues.

Allies or parasites?

The main documents relating to the military doctrine of the police department, its defensive and offensive plans, for the most part, remain classified to this day. However, from the available data and that information, albeit rather scarce, which turned out to be in open sources, we can make unambiguous conclusions - all the armies of the Organization, except the Soviet, were assigned secondary roles in a hypothetical military conflict with the West. Covering, providing, at best, maintaining strategic communications and transport hubs. Until the Russians come up ... To such "warriors" as the Bulgarians, apparently, it was generally attributed to sitting quietly, embracing Kalashnikov and not getting underfoot. According to some reports, the Czech People's Army was entrusted with the task of a large-scale attack on West Germany and almost a breakthrough to France, but it is believed very weakly. Those are still soldiers ... Something more or less worthy of attention was the armies of the GDR and Romania. In general, the Joint Armed Forces of the Warsaw Treaty countries in the 80s numbered more than 7 and a half million people. That's just as of 1985, 5.3 million "bayonets" were given by the Soviet army. The global correlation of NATO-ATS forces could well be called approximately parity - and this despite the fact that the first block included 15 states, and the second - only 7. Yes, the North Atlantic Alliance could put up more divisions against us in Europe (besides , they were more numerous in staffing), but in tanks they couldn’t compete with the ATS. On the other hand, Western troops had some advantage in anti-tank weapons and combat aircraft. Well, as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the whole burden of "nuclear deterrence" lay exclusively with the USSR.

A special topic is the armament of the countries participating in the ATS. The same tanks (exclusively under a Soviet license) were produced in Poland and Czechoslovakia. The rest of the countries were supplied by the USSR. The situation with small arms was a little better - here almost every country "riveted" its own version of Kalashnikov. However, with regard to military aviation - all of it was exclusively Soviet-made. Incidentally, some researchers are inclined to believe that one of the great mistakes of the USSR was the failure to use, for example, the enormous potential of Czech military plants and design bureaus. For some unknown reason, Moscow preferred to supply the Allies with its own weapons, rather than assigning any significant portion of military spending to their budgets - as was originally accepted by NATO. In this way, the Brothers in Arms quickly turned into the most natural “military parasites,” who not only sat behind the “nuclear shield” of our country, but also used the entire enormous potential of the military-industrial complex of the Soviet Union for free. The enormous quantities of weapons and military equipment that were “poured” into the ATS member countries are more than eloquently evidenced by the fact that many of them, long ago being NATO members, still use it quite successfully (although they criticize while how much in vain). And scandals with the sale of these same “former” Soviet weapons, which later pop up around the world in the most unexpected places: from Africa’s “hot spots” to ISIS arsenals, have not shocked anyone for a long time. Well, it’s been stocked up so stocked! Moreover, the most unpleasant detail here is that they supplied at the most ridiculous prices, based on the “friendship of peoples” and the need to support economics "Friends." The enormous debts of the USSR to the countries of the same ATS, "drawn" in 1991, which Russia paid before 2017, have just such an origin.

Union out of the stick?

The kind of “allies” or “friends” for our country, how “thankful” they really were for its liberation from the Nazi occupation, is evidenced by the sprint speed with which, after the same 1991, the entire Warsaw Pact rushed , losing on the way the port, to NATO, as well as mockery of the monuments to Soviet soldiers in the same Poland, the Czech Republic and other former ATS countries. They were never “brothers” to us - neither in spirit, nor in essence, nor in arms! Here, by the way, it would be quite appropriate to recall that the first of the “allies” —the Hungarians — to “set their brains” had literally a year or so after the foundation of the Organization, in the fall of 1956. There the bucha rose thanks, again, to the completely nonsense actions of Khrushchev and his team, but that is not the point. Just as they were faithful supporters of the Third Reich who came with weapons to our land, they remained in their souls. The Danube became the only “combat operation” of the Joint Armed Forces of the OVD countries in 1968 - actions to restore order in Czechoslovakia, which began to fool, for which they still resent us in Prague. The tender hearts of the leaders of the "socialist camp" were even more affected by the so-called "Brezhnev doctrine." Leonid Ilyich, a man who really fought, with soldier’s bluntness told them that “the borders of the lands liberated into the Great Patriotic War by a Soviet soldier are our borders.” And the Soviet Union intends to sacrifice them under no circumstances, contrary to periodically appearing in the heads of the "allies" all sorts of "democratic" nonsense and projections. The USSR should have adhered strictly to this position - you look, and the country itself would have survived, and the "brothers" would not have spoiled our soldiers' graves now.

Moreover - instead of almost the gratuitous weapons of this entire gop company, the USSR should have stepped up its efforts in those areas where there was a real chance to “pour fat over the skin” to the Americans and NATO. In ATS it was necessary to accept the same Cuba, Vietnam. Better yet, make peace with China as soon as possible and create a military alliance with it. Then, the “bear disease” on a massive scale would definitely have happened in the North Atlantic Alliance. Alas, we have to admit that the role of the Warsaw Pact Organization was purely decorative. How did the countries participating in it manifest themselves during the Caribbean crisis? What was their contribution to the confrontation of American aggressors in the same Vietnam, in the war that the USSR waged in Afghanistan? What was the general idea of ​​arming Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others to the teeth? "Maintaining a position in Europe" ?! So in all these countries, if anyone forgot, our military contingents stood! The group of Soviet troops in Germany, the Central group of forces in Czechoslovakia, the Northern group of troops in Poland, the Southern group of troops in Hungary. The cunning Romanians in 1958 pushed out our Separate Mechanized Army, fearing a repetition of the fate of the Hungarians, but it was necessary not to withdraw! What kind of groupings these were, which they had in numbers and weapons, everyone can find independently - information is publicly available. Based on them, you can try to figure out what “penny” the USSR flew the content of these contingents abroad - “allies” did not spend on it. By the way, our country subsequently organized the withdrawal of these troops at its own expense, leaving the entire military infrastructure that we created on their territory with one foot in NATO countries.

Today, every single member of the Warsaw Treaty Organization is a member of NATO. However, before reproaching them for treachery (which clearly took place), it is worth recognizing that the process of betraying the ideals of this organization began in the USSR itself - from the moment Gorbachev came to power and his clique. The Warsaw Treaty was extended on April 26, 1985 for another 20 years. However, already in 1988, the Secretary General of Judah announced to the UN that he intends to significantly reduce the Soviet armed forces and withdraw their units from Eastern Europe. It was the end ... All this is bitter and painful to remember today, but it is necessary. Awareness of the critical errors and miscalculations made by the USSR in relation to the Warsaw Pact Organization will allow Russia to prevent their repetition in the creation of its own military-political alliances in the future.