Questions on the Warsaw Pact

[Enkidu Warrior]

I was curious about one aspect of the Pact, and in trying to find an answer I just ended up with more questions, so I throw it over to you guys:

1) Why didn't the Soviet Union's European puppet states end up being incorporated into the Soviet Union as SSR's?

2) Quoting Wikipedia:

One historical curiosity is that after German reunification in October 1990, the new united Germany was a member of NATO (East Germany's Warsaw Pact membership ended with reunification), but still had Soviet (later Russian) troops stationed in its eastern territory until mid-1994.

My question: huh?

 

[RedRalph]

1) Why didn't the Soviet Union's European puppet states end up being incorporated into the Soviet Union as SSR's?

these territories never had been part of the Russian empire (bar Poland, but most of the land of 1945 Poland never had) so it would have been very hard to make this case, plus it would almost definitely have led to war with the west.

 

[innonimatu]

these territories never had been part of the Russian empire (bar Poland, but most of the land of 1945 Poland never had) so it would have been very hard to make this case, plus it would almost definitely have led to war with the west.

Now that I think of it, it is a good question. In theory the USSR was a federation of socialist republics, those eastern european countries were socialist republics, therefore...
I can't think of a good answer, but I'm curious.

 

[Rack1111]

1) Why didn't the Soviet Union's European puppet states end up being incorporated into the Soviet Union as SSR's?

The ideas about creating one big Socialist State were abandoned by the early 1920's. It was considered too inpractical, as it would have lead to much highter resistance to communist rule. Remember that in the mid-40 the Soviets and their allies were trying to keep an appearance of democracy. Most of the Eastern European countries' governments were mulit-party coalitions, old constitutions were kept in place, some of them even keep their monarchs (!) for a while.


2) Quoting Wikipedia:
My question: huh?[/QUOTE]

USRR had armed forces in (almost?) all Pact countries and it took a while to have them rebased to Russia

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

1) Why didn't the Soviet Union's European puppet states end up being incorporated into the Soviet Union as SSR's?

If you take a look at any of those single color coded maps of the old big empires, the Red for Rome and Grey for Genghis often doesn't show the true nature of the empire. Alot of the regions supposedly under their control were not directly governed by the empire and sometimes amounted to little more than client-states. The leadership was local, subservient to the empire, and generally paid some taxes, but most of their local affairs they'd handle on their own.

A number of reasons to do this. A friendly buffer state is sometimes more useful than outright claiming the territory. Nearby rivals might have no problem raiding the hated Romans (or whoever). But they might have some friendly ties with or political reasons not to attack the little buffer state between the two empires, even if that state is essentially a Roman proxy. Also to appease the locals. Yeah those Eastern Block countries knew that Russia could dictate their policy whenever they felt like it, but they had enough autonomy to at least maintain the semblance of nationalism. Or maybe because the seat of the empire simply didn't want to deal with the hassle of incorporating new territories and peoples and left them to their own devices unless they caused trouble or Russia had a pressing interest.

One historical curiosity is that after German reunification in October 1990, the new united Germany was a member of NATO (East Germany's Warsaw Pact membership ended with reunification), but still had Soviet (later Russian) troops stationed in its eastern territory until mid-1994.

I think Russia still has troops in one of their former client states. They do that sometimes.

 

[Cutlass]

I think they were maintaining the fiction that the Warsaw Pact nations were choosing to be communist countries allied to the Soviets.

 

[say1988]

Now that I think of it, it is a good question. In theory the USSR was a federation of socialist republics, those eastern european countries were socialist republics, therefore...
I can't think of a good answer, but I'm curious.

And in theory, the US is a federation of independent states, but I suspect people would have problems if they started incorporating foreign countries. And I doubt the people of those countries would appreciate it either.

As to question 2, the Soviets/Russians gradually withdrew (and East Germans disbanded) as the West Germans gradually took over took over (you can't unite a pair of modern states overnight), and with all the problems in Russia (the break-up of the Soviet Union and all that) their withdrawl was delayed.

 

[TheLastOne36]

1) Why didn't the Soviet Union's European puppet states end up being incorporated into the Soviet Union as SSR's?

They wouldn't be able to do that to Poland. That's why

I think Russia still has troops in one of their former client states. They do that sometimes.

They still have troops stationed in Belarus IIRC.

 

[Tee Kay]

Russia still have troops in Armenia, Tajikistan, Georgia, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

IIRC, Todor Zhivkov actually tried to get Bulgaria annexed to the USSR, but Moscow wouldn't agree to it.

I agree that a major reason for the USSR not doing this was because it wanted to maintain the fiction that the Warsaw Pact countries were independent and Communist (and pro-Soviet!) by choice.

 

[RedRalph]

No Zhivkov and Tito had talks on merging Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, but Stalion would let Bulgaria join

 

[innonimatu]

No Zhivkov and Tito had talks on merging Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, but Stalion would let Bulgaria join

That's weird, I thought the yugoslav government was always wary of Bulgaria's claims over Macedonia, and the two countries had sour relations. Well, I guess joining in a single federation might have been seen as a solution.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The USSR was very much dominated by Russia, particularly due to Stalin's Russification policies. The addition of these new countries would have led to an explosion of unrest as these new peoples would be somewhat averse to being forced to speak Russian. Local nationalism of a very traditional character was one of the key pillars that kept the eastern bloc functioning without the need for extreme coercion, Stalinist-style.

 

[Dachs]

The addition of these new countries would have led to an explosion of unrest as these new peoples would be somewhat averse to being forced to speak Russian.

One would think that Turkestan's peoples would be somewhat averse to speaking Russian as well, given that they have a religious divide as well as a language and cultural one.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But that had already been part of Russia for a couple centuries.

 

[red_elk]

The USSR was very much dominated by Russia, particularly due to Stalin's Russification policies. The addition of these new countries would have led to an explosion of unrest as these new peoples would be somewhat averse to being forced to speak Russian. Local nationalism of a very traditional character was one of the key pillars that kept the eastern bloc functioning without the need for extreme coercion, Stalinist-style.

People weren't forced to speak Russian in the USSR. There were national schools in every republic, and children learned native languages along with russian. If somebody didn't want to leave his local area, he could speak his native language for entire life, nobody punished him for this. But knowing Russian as state language was very useful for speaking with people of different nationality, understanding TV translations, etc.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

People weren't forced to speak Russian in the USSR. There were national schools in every republic, and children learned native languages along with russian. If somebody didn't want to leave his local area, he could speak his native language for entire life, nobody punished him for this. But knowing Russian as state language was very useful for speaking with people of different nationality, understanding TV translations, etc.

That certainly was true, but only after Stalin's death.

 

[warpus]

The West would never allow it, either.

I'm sure they would send a bunch of angry letters to Moscow if this happened.

 

[Dachs]

But that had already been part of Russia for a couple centuries.

Nah, try less than one hundred years.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, they had been part of Tsarist Russia, and had been subjected to russification back when Petrograd could get away with a lot more without worrying about what the West thought.

. . . right?