Questions on the Warsaw Pact

[Dragonlord]

Re your second point.... 'huh'...

You have to remember the sheer pace of German reunification and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The fall of the Berlin Wall came as a surprise to East and West politicians alike - I can well remember their helpless attempts to catch up with events, which had their own momentum. It seemed one day you had the entrenched blocks of the Cold War, the next you had a reunited Germany and an imploding Soviet Empire.
After half a century of occupation, you simply can't relocate hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment within a few days or weeks - especially not to a homeland which was itself in economic collapse.

The German government gave literally billions of Marks to Russia for the express purpose of building barracks in Russia to which the troops from Germany could be relocated - with German corporations doing most of the work, of course..
Worth every Pfennig to get rid of them, though...

 

[Dachs]

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?

They were part of Tsarist Russia starting in the mid-nineteenth century and were subjected to Russification throughout both the remainder of the Russian Empire as well as the entirety of the Soviet Union. However, that didn't mean that they were all or even mostly Russian; only a tiny minority spoke the language, and most of those by this point didn't consider themselves Russian anyway. So there was still a huge cultural and language and religious (although admittedly in the Soviet Union that last doesn't matter as much, given that good Communists are supposed to be atheists) divide between Russian overlords and Turkic denizens, greater than the one between the Russians and the various Eastern Europeans, some of whom had already been ruled by the Russians in the past.

All I was trying to do was rebut a silly point here, not the entire argument.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Right, but my point was, the Russians could get away with a lot more than the West would have allowed had they tried that in Poland.

 

[Dachs]

Right, but my point was, the Russians could get away with a lot more than the West would have allowed had they tried that in Poland.

I'm not so sure about that. Russia essentially had control of the Polish government for a long time, and the West let them get away with that; they also got to steal about a third of prewar Poland and Russify that too.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But that was all before/during the war, when the Germans were still the biggest threat.

 

[REDY]

Well I dont think it I should provide some more points than are these mentioned. It would be uneffective, it should make unrest , large migrating and tarnished relationships with non-communist countries. It would also show that all propaganda about evil imperialists is lie (well it was shown many times before, but this kind of action cant be perceived in any other way). Communists were thinking internationally, but for effective rule they needed nationalist. With living under one rule, there is also more possibilities of international resistence, Czechoslovak dissident wasnt care much about dissident in other countries but this should make them to cooperate. Generally I think that some coutries should not have big problems with it (Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria) some should have bigger(Poland, Hungary)

 

[red_elk]

I'm not so sure about that. Russia essentially had control of the Polish government for a long time, and the West let them get away with that; they also got to steal about a third of prewar Poland and Russify that too.

You mean land to the east of Curzon line, which was annexed by Poland in 1920? And this territory was russified so that now there live Ukrainians and Belorussians?

On topic: It wasn't worth to do it for a number of reasons
- People in some of these countries would resist it. Oppressing was inappropriate in this case.
- It is difficult to incorporate territory which hasn't been in Russian Empire before (language, culture differences, etc.)
- Relations with many other countries will be worsened.
- Buffer in case of war in Europe was required.
- Degree of control to Warsaw pact members was already enough.

 

[chad187]

why would Stalin want russifcation if he is georgeian.

 

[Dachs]

But that was all before/during the war, when the Germans were still the biggest threat.

No, it was part of the settlement after the war.

You mean land to the east of Curzon line, which was annexed by Poland in 1920? And this territory was russified so that now there live Ukrainians and Belorussians?

...the same Ukrainians who have Russian subtitles in their movie theaters, and the Belorussians who are fairly far along the path to unifying with Russia (not that it'll happen, but many people are trying)? And yes, I do mean the territory east of the Curzon Line, which belonged to Poland before the Partitions...and which was Lithuania during the personal union. It doesn't have to make sense. Right now I'm just playing devil's advocate.

- People in some of these countries would resist it. Oppressing was inappropriate in this case.

But oppressing them in 1956 and 1968 was definitely appropriate, right?

- It is difficult to incorporate territory which hasn't been in Russian Empire before (language, culture differences, etc.)

Most of Poland has been in the Russian Empire before, though, and East Prussia/Kaliningrad Oblast never belonged to the Russian Empire before.

- Relations with many other countries will be worsened.

Back when FDR was in charge Stalin could do whatever the hell he wanted and get away with it. What's a bit more territory?

- Buffer in case of war in Europe was required.

In case of war in Europe, the USSR would be on the offensive, as per long-standing doctrine. No buffer required.

- Degree of control to Warsaw pact members was already enough.

Bingo, give the man a prize. Like I said, why take over a country officially and inherit all of its economic problems (times two, because the USSR would have to try to fix these things themselves along with their own territory) from the recent war when you can saddle the locals with a lot of the cost and control their military and political apparatus via well-placed Russian bureaucrats and generals for NO EXTRA CHARGE? Stalin didn't need or want any extra territory, outside of the part where he punishes Germany in a roundabout way by seizing eastern Poland, thus forcing the Polish border west. He was interested in securing Socialism in One Country, and he did that admirably.

 

[red_elk]

...the same Ukrainians who have Russian subtitles in their movie theaters, and the Belorussians who are fairly far along the path to unifying with Russia (not that it'll happen, but many people are trying)? And yes, I do mean the territory east of the Curzon Line, which belonged to Poland before the Partitions...and which was Lithuania during the personal union. It doesn't have to make sense. Right now I'm just playing devil's advocate..

There were no special "russification" of this territory, except people were required to know state language. And annexation of this territory by Poland in 1920 was no more justified than annexation by Stalin in 1939.

But oppressing them in 1956 and 1968 was definitely appropriate, right?

I didn't say that. In 1956 and 1968 there was another goal to achieve.

Most of Poland has been in the Russian Empire before, though, and East Prussia/Kaliningrad Oblast never belonged to the Russian Empire before.

I know. This is applied only on part of Poland.

Back when FDR was in charge Stalin could do whatever the hell he wanted and get away with it. What's a bit more territory?

Whatever? He should demand whole Europe to join Warsaw pact then. It wasn't as simple as it may seem.

In case of war in Europe, the USSR would be on the offensive, as per long-standing doctrine. No buffer required.

In case of war in Europe in 1970 for example, Germany and Poland could be a nuclear wasteland because of mass using tactical nukes. It was reasonable to have buffer.

Bingo, give the man a prize. Like I said, why take over a country officially and inherit all of its economic problems (times two, because the USSR would have to try to fix these things themselves along with their own territory) from the recent war when you can saddle the locals with a lot of the cost and control their military and political apparatus via well-placed Russian bureaucrats and generals for NO EXTRA CHARGE? Stalin didn't need or want any extra territory, outside of the part where he punishes Germany in a roundabout way by seizing eastern Poland, thus forcing the Polish border west. He was interested in securing Socialism in One Country, and he did that admirably.

Agree here, but it is not the only reason.