Soviet Military Maps of North America and UK(sovietmaps.com)
sovietmaps.com
Soviet Military Maps of North America and UK
https://www.sovietmaps.com/node/2
151 comments
> "The maps are still a taboo topic in Russia today, so it’s impossible to know for sure, but what they’re finding suggests that the Soviet military maps were far more than an invasion plan. Rather, they were a framework for organizing much of what the Soviets knew about the world, almost like a mashup of Google Maps and Wikipedia"
This doesn't surprise me and it shouldn't anyone else either. It's obvious these weren't meant for invasion or occupation of North America, which were never part of Soviet planning or policy.
A nuclear exchange with the US? Maybe. War in Europe? Sure. But invasion of North America? No, why would they? It would be costly and likely to end in defeat, and for what end goal?
Most Soviet war plans that we know of where either defensive in nature (arguably; preemptive strikes or even reactive after an attack), reacting to perceived threats to their satellite countries or assets, or corrective actions against their allies when they were perceived to get out of line with the Kremlin. None of these fit invading North America, however cinematic that notion might be.
This doesn't surprise me and it shouldn't anyone else either. It's obvious these weren't meant for invasion or occupation of North America, which were never part of Soviet planning or policy.
A nuclear exchange with the US? Maybe. War in Europe? Sure. But invasion of North America? No, why would they? It would be costly and likely to end in defeat, and for what end goal?
Most Soviet war plans that we know of where either defensive in nature (arguably; preemptive strikes or even reactive after an attack), reacting to perceived threats to their satellite countries or assets, or corrective actions against their allies when they were perceived to get out of line with the Kremlin. None of these fit invading North America, however cinematic that notion might be.
A great quote from Lincoln:
> From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.
> From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.
That is a great quote. But isn't the obvious answer From the South, or Canada, or a fracturing of states within?
(I'm not American nor living there btw, I don't mean it as any sort of political point.)
It is also perhaps dated in the send that it assumes crushing defeat happens on the battlefield.
(I'm not American nor living there btw, I don't mean it as any sort of political point.)
It is also perhaps dated in the send that it assumes crushing defeat happens on the battlefield.
This is purely my opinion: Lincoln’s point was that the threat of civil war or violent dissent (what we today would call domestic terrorism) is a much greater threat to the US than foreign states. I think this remains true today. In fact, what you mention when you say a fracturing of states within was exactly what he was talking about.
A foreign state would need to cross the Atlantic ocean, contend with the most powerful Navy on earth several times over, land in either Canada or Mexico, both of which are US allies, and then mount a land invasion on the US homeland. It’s hard to imagine how that would be possible.
You raise a good point when you say crushing defeat does not necessarily happen on the conventional battlefield. Nuclear weapons create the possibility of MAD, and other “battlefields” like the cyberspace or global economic warfare have developed since Lincoln’s time. I still think the essence of what he said is true though: the greatest threat to the US comes from within.
A foreign state would need to cross the Atlantic ocean, contend with the most powerful Navy on earth several times over, land in either Canada or Mexico, both of which are US allies, and then mount a land invasion on the US homeland. It’s hard to imagine how that would be possible.
You raise a good point when you say crushing defeat does not necessarily happen on the conventional battlefield. Nuclear weapons create the possibility of MAD, and other “battlefields” like the cyberspace or global economic warfare have developed since Lincoln’s time. I still think the essence of what he said is true though: the greatest threat to the US comes from within.
Drones will change things before long.
I'm thinking of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
almost forgotten, but how different it would be if they were intelligent.
Talk about an amazing coincidence:
"On March 10, 1945, one of the last paper balloons descended in the vicinity of the Manhattan Project's production facility at the Hanford Site. This balloon caused a short circuit in the power lines supplying electricity for the nuclear reactor cooling pumps, but backup safety devices restored power almost immediately."
I'm thinking of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
almost forgotten, but how different it would be if they were intelligent.
Talk about an amazing coincidence:
"On March 10, 1945, one of the last paper balloons descended in the vicinity of the Manhattan Project's production facility at the Hanford Site. This balloon caused a short circuit in the power lines supplying electricity for the nuclear reactor cooling pumps, but backup safety devices restored power almost immediately."
How would smart balloon bombs make the U.S. more 'invadible'?
Not literally balloons, but guided drones generally. They would make the US "more invadable" by being an invasion. Think about it being just a constant for years, and disrupting American society kind of like covid. People would have to change their lives, consider everything in relationship to defense, even if there were few casualties. It would be demoralizing if most of the existing weaponry was no use.
I haven't gone out of my way to familiarize myself with the perennial rocket launches at Israel, but that's the general sort of thing I'm picturing. Harassment that would demonstrate people are never safe, while not rising to the level where the international community would accept massive retaliation.
I haven't gone out of my way to familiarize myself with the perennial rocket launches at Israel, but that's the general sort of thing I'm picturing. Harassment that would demonstrate people are never safe, while not rising to the level where the international community would accept massive retaliation.
How are drone attacks an invasion? So from your own argument, do you consider Israel an occupied country because rockets are constantly launched at it? How about London during the Blitz? I don't think either group would ever consider themselves having been 'invaded'.
In both cases, the rockets weren't/aren't guided precisely and can't loiter, right?
And in any case, Israel is used to it and used to having missile defense, and is a very small country. Nobody expects that any part of the country is far away from the borders and enemies. Whereas it would be a sea change for the US, if attacks could occur anywhere, and psychologically it would be like an invasion.
I'm using "invasion" loosely to mean an attack that reaches inner areas that people take for granted are safe, not necessarily boots on the ground.
And in any case, Israel is used to it and used to having missile defense, and is a very small country. Nobody expects that any part of the country is far away from the borders and enemies. Whereas it would be a sea change for the US, if attacks could occur anywhere, and psychologically it would be like an invasion.
I'm using "invasion" loosely to mean an attack that reaches inner areas that people take for granted are safe, not necessarily boots on the ground.
Sure, if you define 'any attack whatsoever' as 'invasion', then, of course -- according to your own definition -- any attack is an invasion. Just doesn't mean anything anymore.
Lincoln’s point was that the threat of civil war or violent dissent (what we today would call domestic terrorism) is a much greater threat to the US
Which us why those which dislike the US's place in the world, focus so much on fanning any flames of discontent, or political differences they can.
Which us why those which dislike the US's place in the world, focus so much on fanning any flames of discontent, or political differences they can.
Agreed. Even when the forces were more balanced and Hitler had declared war on the USA the German army never stepped foot on the lower 48. the closest they got a few uboats picking off merchant shipping but even that was pushed back after a few months of horrendous American losses.
I'm truly surprised Hitler never tried some sort of guerrilla attack with a small force just to cause chaos and terror in the heartland. it's not like the USA was very well defended at all from any sort of coordinated landing back in the early 40's.
I'm truly surprised Hitler never tried some sort of guerrilla attack with a small force just to cause chaos and terror in the heartland. it's not like the USA was very well defended at all from any sort of coordinated landing back in the early 40's.
There was a rather incompetent attempt that was quickly rolled up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius
By the point the USA declared war, he had basically just lost the war against the USSR (as it's in those days that his Blitzkrieg definitely ground down, in visual sight of the Kremlin, to add insult to injury). So he just didn't have anything to spare for such an attack.
Hitler made the rather peculiar decision to declare war on the US first, a few days after Pearl Harbor.
Supposedly it was pointed out that their agreement for mutual defense with Japan didn't require them to declare war if Japan was the aggressor. But that was ignored.
Supposedly it was pointed out that their agreement for mutual defense with Japan didn't require them to declare war if Japan was the aggressor. But that was ignored.
A lot of Canada doesn’t have what you would call “infrastructure” until you’re well within range of the US Border. They’re also about equally insulated from foreign invasion and I think any US invasion that called for invading Canada first would be facing challenges that make invading Russia in the winter look like a pleasant stroll in the park.
Mexico is also about equally protected from foreign invasion. I guess their biggest threat would be us, and not without precedent, but they are not a threat to us. And just as Mexico is not a threat, neither are the nations south of Mexico a threat to Mexico. This was all true even in Lincoln’s time.
So, yeah, suicide it is. That includes any kind of internal fracturing.
Mexico is also about equally protected from foreign invasion. I guess their biggest threat would be us, and not without precedent, but they are not a threat to us. And just as Mexico is not a threat, neither are the nations south of Mexico a threat to Mexico. This was all true even in Lincoln’s time.
So, yeah, suicide it is. That includes any kind of internal fracturing.
I enjoyed this comment. Our Canadian defensive strategy is to simply keep walking away from the attackers. I remain convinced here are many places in Canada that no human has yet laid eyes on.
We have forest fires in the northwest territories that span hundreds of thousands of acres and its a coin flip if they'll even send a plane up to observe them. No one cares because no one lives within 500 km of them.
If you average the number of people per square kilometer, from a statistical perspective, this country is completely empty.
We have forest fires in the northwest territories that span hundreds of thousands of acres and its a coin flip if they'll even send a plane up to observe them. No one cares because no one lives within 500 km of them.
If you average the number of people per square kilometer, from a statistical perspective, this country is completely empty.
canada isn't even in the top 10 countries with the smallest population density: https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies...
Being pedantic, but yes it is. (I investigated as I found your statement surprising). That table is sorted by rounded value, which means the six countries whose density rounds to 4 are in more or less random order relative to each other, and also several entries near the bottom are not actual countries. Canada is the 8th least dense actual country there, counting Western Sahara. Here are the densities based on the population and area numbers in that table (reordered):
Mauritania: 4.272157756864267
Botswana: 3.8729690721649486
Libya: 3.7956278345476657
Canada: 3.712146921230246
Guyana: 3.6238062232228834
Suriname: 3.5159931632279333
*French Guiana (France): 3.387099863528623
Iceland: 3.2690582524271843
Australia: 3.2368791361025395
Namibia: 2.9702730179990002
Western Sahara [note 10]: 2.13309022556391
Mongolia: 2.0268419989310256
*Falkland Islands (UKOT): 0.2656699252443933
*Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Norway): 0.04253308128544423
*Greenland (Denmark): 0.02611345994572699250%+ of Canadians live south of the 45th parallel. However, that's only a minute fraction of Canada's land area. I've driven the road between Baie-Comeau, Quebec, and Labrador City, NL/Labrador. Seven hours at 100km/h, at least 5 hours of which the only signs of human life you see are the occasional vehicle driving in the opposite direction. Not much different if you drive around Northern Ontario, or start heading north from Edmonton or Prince George.
So yes, Canada has 37 million people and may or may not rank up there with the lowest densities in the world. But if you actually drive around Canada you'll quickly realize that the entire family is packed into one tiny closet when the rest of the house is completely empty.
So yes, Canada has 37 million people and may or may not rank up there with the lowest densities in the world. But if you actually drive around Canada you'll quickly realize that the entire family is packed into one tiny closet when the rest of the house is completely empty.
Australia's pretty similar FWIW. Everyone lives near the coastline.
With a strict definition of “country” it is exactly number 10
Mexico did suffer invasion and occupation by the French in the 1860s. The US was busy with the Civil War and in no position to try to enforce the Monroe Doctrine (Monroe's statement saying the US would oppose any European attempt to re-establish colonies in the Western Hemisphere).
A fair point, but that story ends with French withdrawal and Maximillian I’s execution after a Republican victory.
You may be interested in the Revolutions podcast though which touches on these events from a couple of different perspectives, but includes an entire part dedicated to Revolution in Mexico.
You may be interested in the Revolutions podcast though which touches on these events from a couple of different perspectives, but includes an entire part dedicated to Revolution in Mexico.
The fracturing of the states is what he is referring to: "we will live forever or die by suicide".
It case you don't know, he was the president when states did fracture (US civil war).
It case you don't know, he was the president when states did fracture (US civil war).
> or a fracturing of states within?
That's precisely Lincoln's point:
> if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher
That's precisely Lincoln's point:
> if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher
[deleted]
He admittedly didn't know about computers. No need to walk in anymore.
There were multiple reasons to make the maps.
An asteroid smashes into Mexico and millions of refugees are rushing to the southern states. What logistical implications to expect?
New factories are being built in Ohio. Why?
Soyuz crash-landed in Arizona. When US will get to it?
US is moving Minutemen rockets from Memphis. Where to?
Los Angeles is in riots. How will it affect SU?
Somebody tasked with analyzing such intel would have to have maps. Maps are important and keeping mapmakers' skills sharp required a constant workload. Teaching fresh intel recruits about the US knowing they are never going to visit the US required maps.
There were gazillion reasons to produce and maintain maps in the Soviet Union. And I am glad they did. I used to use Soviet military maps for hiking back in the day.
An asteroid smashes into Mexico and millions of refugees are rushing to the southern states. What logistical implications to expect?
New factories are being built in Ohio. Why?
Soyuz crash-landed in Arizona. When US will get to it?
US is moving Minutemen rockets from Memphis. Where to?
Los Angeles is in riots. How will it affect SU?
Somebody tasked with analyzing such intel would have to have maps. Maps are important and keeping mapmakers' skills sharp required a constant workload. Teaching fresh intel recruits about the US knowing they are never going to visit the US required maps.
There were gazillion reasons to produce and maintain maps in the Soviet Union. And I am glad they did. I used to use Soviet military maps for hiking back in the day.
"The maps are still a taboo topic in Russia today, so it’s impossible to know for sure, but what they’re finding suggests that the Soviet military maps were far more than an invasion plan. Rather, they were a framework for organizing much of what the Soviets knew about the world, almost like a mashup of Google Maps and Wikipedia"
Thanks, I've had a good laugh. The maps were declassified in late 1980's/early 1990's and since then are freely available. I, from Russia, have been browsing these maps online for years. I'm still waiting for the KGB to come and take me...
Thanks, I've had a good laugh. The maps were declassified in late 1980's/early 1990's and since then are freely available. I, from Russia, have been browsing these maps online for years. I'm still waiting for the KGB to come and take me...
Haha, I was quoting the article, the words are not mine.
My point is that it's obvious these weren't invasion plans.
My point is that it's obvious these weren't invasion plans.
I would have thought it was unlikely that an apparatus as large as the Soviet Union would never have drawn up plans for a contingency in which politics forced them to consider an invasion of their rival superpower.
Not that they would intend to use them, but to have gone to the trouble of mapping the military targets at such a scale, then never spending time to have someone think about how they'd occupy those sites if they had to, seems so foreign to how I expect military brains to work, that I have trouble believing it's true.
A brief Google search doesn't show any (credible) plans, so maybe you're right: but, absence of evidence, especially in a secretive bureaucracy that actively expunged so much of its archives, is not necessarily evidence of absence!
Not that they would intend to use them, but to have gone to the trouble of mapping the military targets at such a scale, then never spending time to have someone think about how they'd occupy those sites if they had to, seems so foreign to how I expect military brains to work, that I have trouble believing it's true.
A brief Google search doesn't show any (credible) plans, so maybe you're right: but, absence of evidence, especially in a secretive bureaucracy that actively expunged so much of its archives, is not necessarily evidence of absence!
Reality is probably more unrealistic than people think, and funnier to boot.
People who were at least slightly aware of military planning in Poland but not necessarily with the "why" of the plan (this included pretty big portion of citizenry, due to conscription) tend to think Warsaw Pact's claims about defensive warfare were just lies.
Meanwhile the defensive warfare concept was to counterattack once the "inevitable NATO strike against communism" happens, to as quickly as possible take logistic routes that America could use to wage war in Europe. Atlantic is pretty big issue for any invasion not just towards America, after all.
Then you hit the next layer of hilarious misunderstandings (YMMV) which is western planners somehow not getting the memo that Soviet decision makers in Moscow actually believed in NATO first strike (honestly, I don't blame them) and in turn often wargaming first strike from warsaw pact side.
Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" and Soviet one being "ugh we could have done with much less forces, we didn't actually want to start a war"
People who were at least slightly aware of military planning in Poland but not necessarily with the "why" of the plan (this included pretty big portion of citizenry, due to conscription) tend to think Warsaw Pact's claims about defensive warfare were just lies.
Meanwhile the defensive warfare concept was to counterattack once the "inevitable NATO strike against communism" happens, to as quickly as possible take logistic routes that America could use to wage war in Europe. Atlantic is pretty big issue for any invasion not just towards America, after all.
Then you hit the next layer of hilarious misunderstandings (YMMV) which is western planners somehow not getting the memo that Soviet decision makers in Moscow actually believed in NATO first strike (honestly, I don't blame them) and in turn often wargaming first strike from warsaw pact side.
Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" and Soviet one being "ugh we could have done with much less forces, we didn't actually want to start a war"
The Soviet Union invaded and took control of many of their neighbors, including most of Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia (including invading Afghanistan in 1979), as well as creating and supporting regimes elsewhere (Cuba, etc.). When the people of some countries (e.g., Hungary, Czechoslovakia) tried to form democracies, the Soviets sent in tanks. They tried to sieze Berlin early on. It's not at all far-fetched that they would try to expand further into Europe.
Do you have good sources for the claims above? It looks pretty revisionist, and matches Soviet propaganda, to suggest the Soviets weren't aggressive and expansionist.
Do you have good sources for the claims above? It looks pretty revisionist, and matches Soviet propaganda, to suggest the Soviets weren't aggressive and expansionist.
Both things are true. The Soviets were very afraid of NATO because NATO was always richer and had more population and industry. So the Soviets wanted a lot of buffer. To have the front far away from Russia, and be able to fall back a long way before being forced to fight on Russian land. That is what the conquest of Eastern Europe was for.
The propping up of communist states worldwide was an attempt to not get surrounded by American client states / satellites / allies.
Look at China propping up North Korea. Why? Because they see South Korea as an American client state and they do not want to have a border with it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Com... for what made Soviets think maybe NATO is serious about first strike.
The propping up of communist states worldwide was an attempt to not get surrounded by American client states / satellites / allies.
Look at China propping up North Korea. Why? Because they see South Korea as an American client state and they do not want to have a border with it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Com... for what made Soviets think maybe NATO is serious about first strike.
Yes, the poor victim Soviets. Not expansionist at all. You can make up whatever rationalizations you want, but they did conquer other countries on a scale rarely seen in history. The rest, your claims about their motivations and poor victimhood, are baseless.
> You can make up whatever rationalizations
The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression.
The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this.
This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things.
Also,
> Not expansionist at all
Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression.
The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this.
This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things.
Also,
> Not expansionist at all
Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
>The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination
World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC.
And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?
World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC.
And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?
Eh, that isn't so extreme. The most unusual there is that this plan to partition a country didn't have a British or French representative at the negotiating table.
The Soviet Union was a disaster, and certainly the they did a lot of things to other countries that they shouldn't have. But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
The Soviet Union was a disaster, and certainly the they did a lot of things to other countries that they shouldn't have. But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
I apologize in advance, I'm about to be somewhat pedantic.
>But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
If I've understood your intent correctly, you probably want "...the amount of their blood that was shed...". My understanding of "blood they shed was absolutely unreal" would be that they were killing others in massive amounts.
>But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
If I've understood your intent correctly, you probably want "...the amount of their blood that was shed...". My understanding of "blood they shed was absolutely unreal" would be that they were killing others in massive amounts.
Is it false to say that Germany only was able to invade because of their ability to import Soviet resources due to the pact?
Yes, I would say it's false.
It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. Germany was gearing for war against the Soviet Union, it was the sine qua non of Hitler's plan, which he even detailed in writing years before.
It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. Germany was gearing for war against the Soviet Union, it was the sine qua non of Hitler's plan, which he even detailed in writing years before.
>Yes, I would say it's false.
Have you any comments to make about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commerci...
"there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies"
>It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers.
How? As you say, Germany was gearing for war, how does that contradict the Soviet Union supplying them with the means?
Have you any comments to make about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commerci...
"there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies"
>It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers.
How? As you say, Germany was gearing for war, how does that contradict the Soviet Union supplying them with the means?
For those unfamiliar with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... (esp. the Secret Protocol and the subsequent invasion of Poland).
Something I ran across while browsing related pages that I hadn't thought about, is the assertion that Germany got a huge amount of imported resources from the Soviets before they invaded that enabled them to engage in the devastating invasion, as well as carrying on the war with others.
The assertion is dubious. I mean, yes, Germany imported resources from the Soviet Union. No surprise there.
Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".
Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".
Which is why the peaceful trading before the invasion miiiiiight have been a miscalculation by Stalin that led to millions of deaths.
Germany invaded because they needed resources that they couldn't get elsewhere. Letting them bootstrap that into the invasion, among all of the mistakes that were made in WWII, seems like it might have been one of the top ones.
Germany invaded because they needed resources that they couldn't get elsewhere. Letting them bootstrap that into the invasion, among all of the mistakes that were made in WWII, seems like it might have been one of the top ones.
> started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC.
If 'IIRC' then you should at least check Wikipedia on events what preceded Molotov-Ribbentrop. It surely wasn't a a great sunny day when Molotov called Ribbentrop and said "Hey, Josha! I have a great idea this morning! Let's split Poland!"
If 'IIRC' then you should at least check Wikipedia on events what preceded Molotov-Ribbentrop. It surely wasn't a a great sunny day when Molotov called Ribbentrop and said "Hey, Josha! I have a great idea this morning! Let's split Poland!"
Well, if examined history starts in 1939, then agreement looks really bad.
If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm.
Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders).
Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders).
Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm.
Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders).
Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders).
Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
> Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland:
From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War:
> "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique"
Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian.
His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland:
From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War:
> "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique"
Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian.
His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
Oh, I've replied to a reply to your message.
I think what you've wrote is closer to my own perception than the reply to your message that I have replied to.
Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way.
I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified.
On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many.
And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941).
Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours).
I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?).
Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)
Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way.
I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified.
On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many.
And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941).
Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours).
I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?).
Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)
> World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC.
Why not start counting WWII from the Munich Agreement [0] of September 1938 when Britain and France gave Hitler a go ahead to occupy Czechoslovakia? This capitulation by Western powers greatly expanded hitler's appetite craving for more.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
Why not start counting WWII from the Munich Agreement [0] of September 1938 when Britain and France gave Hitler a go ahead to occupy Czechoslovakia? This capitulation by Western powers greatly expanded hitler's appetite craving for more.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
>Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
Most powers are expansionists in some way at any point of time in history. I think a quote from "Seventeen Moments of Spring" is quite appropriate here.
(the dialog is between a soviet spy and a german general while they are on a train. The war is almost over at this point):
General: States are like people. Static makes them sick. Borders suffocate them. They need movement, this is an axiom. Movement is war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk (no english subs)
Most powers are expansionists in some way at any point of time in history. I think a quote from "Seventeen Moments of Spring" is quite appropriate here.
(the dialog is between a soviet spy and a german general while they are on a train. The war is almost over at this point):
General: States are like people. Static makes them sick. Borders suffocate them. They need movement, this is an axiom. Movement is war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk (no english subs)
I'm not saying they didn't take control, I'm saying that the reasons for those actions might differ from the obvious take - they were fond of buffer zones, for example (resulting in Finland being "left free" due to neutrality, though they pushed them to arm up - to prevent NATO access - or lose that neutrality). Controlled neighbours were just as good if not better as third world (aka neutral) countries in that respect. N.B. part of the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin was that Trotsky did want to expand the revolution with military force, whereas Stalin proposed "socialism in one country".
The belief about "western capitalism first strike" was one of the major fuels for the paranoia spiral involved in soviet foreign affairs, combined with experiences starting from western support of "Whites" during revolution, through the rather belligerent actions (especially from USA) once Truman was POTUS (and well, all of Truman doctrine and its long-term effects). A non-trivial issue that shows up from reading as stuff becomes declassified is how both sides constantly misunderstood each other, leading to (in hindsight idiotic) situation where initial ideas about disarmament on Soviet side turn into Berlin airlift. Meanwhile Austrian politicians figure out how to get everyone to leave by making the country neutral. It also didn't help that in Poland we probably didn't finish burying our dead in Warsaw when USA drawn up plans to nuke it as part of nuclear first strike on USSR, plans that I have little doubt were heard in Moscow, further fueling the spiral of cold war.
So the end result is a paranoid regime (and from paranoid to controlling there isn't even a step, it's a blink) that, even when some forces try to reduce said paranoia, they stumble upon evidence that it's warranted, resulting in nobody willing to back off (on USA side, you can probably shift some proportions and replace paranoiacs with "communism must die!" die hard ideologists). In the end it's not even one side playing checkers while the other plays chess - it's two sides playing long-distance play-by-mail chess where they delegate their moves to be done by a pigeon[1].
As for propaganda - consider that both sides, to a certain extent, bought into their own propaganda, sometimes even those that should know that a specific aspect of it was false (like JFK strong arming USSR to take missiles out of Cuba, instead of admitting that the missiles were taken away in exchange for removal of the reason they were placed there - which was USA placing missiles in Turkey).
As much as the books are fiction, John Le Carre summarised it pretty well in The Secret Pilgrim although from the western PoV (but similar take could be probably pretty much taken about soviets on the average):
Smiley muses that the most vulgar thing about the Cold War was that the Western societies learned to "gobble up [their] own propaganda." The West became so convinced of the righteousness of its own cause, and the evil of the Soviets', that it never stopped to examine the ethics of its actions. In the name of expediency, the Circus opened its arms – and its purse – to every petty thug and two-bit con man who called himself an anti-Communist.
[1] Referencing a polish idiom about playing chess with pigeon - not only does it not know how to play, it will push the pieces away and shit on the board.
The belief about "western capitalism first strike" was one of the major fuels for the paranoia spiral involved in soviet foreign affairs, combined with experiences starting from western support of "Whites" during revolution, through the rather belligerent actions (especially from USA) once Truman was POTUS (and well, all of Truman doctrine and its long-term effects). A non-trivial issue that shows up from reading as stuff becomes declassified is how both sides constantly misunderstood each other, leading to (in hindsight idiotic) situation where initial ideas about disarmament on Soviet side turn into Berlin airlift. Meanwhile Austrian politicians figure out how to get everyone to leave by making the country neutral. It also didn't help that in Poland we probably didn't finish burying our dead in Warsaw when USA drawn up plans to nuke it as part of nuclear first strike on USSR, plans that I have little doubt were heard in Moscow, further fueling the spiral of cold war.
So the end result is a paranoid regime (and from paranoid to controlling there isn't even a step, it's a blink) that, even when some forces try to reduce said paranoia, they stumble upon evidence that it's warranted, resulting in nobody willing to back off (on USA side, you can probably shift some proportions and replace paranoiacs with "communism must die!" die hard ideologists). In the end it's not even one side playing checkers while the other plays chess - it's two sides playing long-distance play-by-mail chess where they delegate their moves to be done by a pigeon[1].
As for propaganda - consider that both sides, to a certain extent, bought into their own propaganda, sometimes even those that should know that a specific aspect of it was false (like JFK strong arming USSR to take missiles out of Cuba, instead of admitting that the missiles were taken away in exchange for removal of the reason they were placed there - which was USA placing missiles in Turkey).
As much as the books are fiction, John Le Carre summarised it pretty well in The Secret Pilgrim although from the western PoV (but similar take could be probably pretty much taken about soviets on the average):
Smiley muses that the most vulgar thing about the Cold War was that the Western societies learned to "gobble up [their] own propaganda." The West became so convinced of the righteousness of its own cause, and the evil of the Soviets', that it never stopped to examine the ethics of its actions. In the name of expediency, the Circus opened its arms – and its purse – to every petty thug and two-bit con man who called himself an anti-Communist.
[1] Referencing a polish idiom about playing chess with pigeon - not only does it not know how to play, it will push the pieces away and shit on the board.
Thank you very much for these insightful comments! I think it's extremely important to learn from these mistakes from the past. However I see so many believe in the good vs. evil narrative of the cold war. The real world is often much more complex.
What you are saying has no basis in fact (and then you bring in actual fiction!). How about some significant evidence? There is plenty of the Soviets conquering and taking away the freedom of dozens of countries.
> What you are saying has no basis in fact
Which parts? That the Soviets feared a NATO first strike, or at least deemed it a real enough possibility to prepare for it, is true (see: "Seven Days to the River Rhine"). That they Cuban missile crisis was a consequence of the US placing missiles in Turkey is fact. That the Soviets were fearful of the West and paranoid about signs of their interference is fact. That Finland was left alone because of its neutrality is fact. And the list goes on.
PS: Le Carré wrote fiction but also had real insight into the intelligence world, having worked in it. And what his fiction states is absolutely true: the West, in its eagerness to combat communism, supported, aided and propped up all sorts of ruthless murderers and dictators as long as they declared themselves anticommunists.
Which parts? That the Soviets feared a NATO first strike, or at least deemed it a real enough possibility to prepare for it, is true (see: "Seven Days to the River Rhine"). That they Cuban missile crisis was a consequence of the US placing missiles in Turkey is fact. That the Soviets were fearful of the West and paranoid about signs of their interference is fact. That Finland was left alone because of its neutrality is fact. And the list goes on.
PS: Le Carré wrote fiction but also had real insight into the intelligence world, having worked in it. And what his fiction states is absolutely true: the West, in its eagerness to combat communism, supported, aided and propped up all sorts of ruthless murderers and dictators as long as they declared themselves anticommunists.
> And what his fiction states is absolutely true: the West, in its eagerness to combat communism, supported, aided and propped up all sorts of ruthless murderers and dictators as long as they declared themselves anticommunists.
For example, western germany happily supported the RENAMO in the Mozambican Civil War - and the US at least contemplated support until the sheer scale of atrocities committed was too big to ignore. One million people died in this conflict. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_Civil_War
For example, western germany happily supported the RENAMO in the Mozambican Civil War - and the US at least contemplated support until the sheer scale of atrocities committed was too big to ignore. One million people died in this conflict. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_Civil_War
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. The OP is giving some pretty good overview of the motivations of the USSR for how they acted. They never argued that they never invaded other countries. Why do you think they did what they did? Just to be evil? So what about the enty of democratic governments that were overthrown by the US and their allies (and that includes most western European countries) and the totalitarian regimes they supported. Was that also just to be evil?
I guess we are left with two superpowers doing evil just to be evil.
I guess we are left with two superpowers doing evil just to be evil.
And at no point I said they didn't do any conquering and taking freedoms, just like other superpowers that got high on "great game". The paranoia that led to things such as nearly starting preemptive strike in response to Able Archer 83 is well documented though. Great powers don't go for conquering for fun (usually...). They wage wars and atrocities to fulfill the goals as they see them, whether it's ensuring creation of border zones by conquest or making vassals out of border countries, or ensuring they get cheap fruit or ensuring another country doesn't better on literacy tests - none of that excuses the atrocities done.
However understanding the reasoning can help figure out why, what, and how things happened, and it's useful for actually stopping to believe in propaganda and, most importantly, keep seeing the other side as people - even if horrible people (then you might figure out the levers to pull).
As for Carre - I picked it out, because he wrote it better (on basis of his own professional experience, even) than I had the idea for, about believing one's own propaganda.
However understanding the reasoning can help figure out why, what, and how things happened, and it's useful for actually stopping to believe in propaganda and, most importantly, keep seeing the other side as people - even if horrible people (then you might figure out the levers to pull).
As for Carre - I picked it out, because he wrote it better (on basis of his own professional experience, even) than I had the idea for, about believing one's own propaganda.
> Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?"
This makes for a good story but seems pretty unlikely. Recognizing the disparity in army sizes available for rapid deployment in Central Europe, the NATO doctrine through the Cold War was to stop any invasion attempt somewhere in Germany with large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons. There were enough NATO forces in the area that invading Soviet forces would have to be concentrated enough to be vulnerable to theatre deployment of nuclear weapons.
This makes for a good story but seems pretty unlikely. Recognizing the disparity in army sizes available for rapid deployment in Central Europe, the NATO doctrine through the Cold War was to stop any invasion attempt somewhere in Germany with large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons. There were enough NATO forces in the area that invading Soviet forces would have to be concentrated enough to be vulnerable to theatre deployment of nuclear weapons.
The steamroll, of course, assumed that NATO didn't nuke Western Germany out of existence. And while Warsaw Pact returned to idea of Close-in Air Support later on, the idea of making holes in NATO front by dropping a nuke then blitzing through still hot ground held at least to 1989 in limited fashion.
But yes, there's a reason why I put "supposedly". It's a nice story and there might be a kernel of truth to it, but the details probably were different.
That said, a lot of the front line units (especially american) in western germany were there to make nice coffins to mobilize public into support for war in europe (and at least some soldiers definitely were aware of the concept).
But yes, there's a reason why I put "supposedly". It's a nice story and there might be a kernel of truth to it, but the details probably were different.
That said, a lot of the front line units (especially american) in western germany were there to make nice coffins to mobilize public into support for war in europe (and at least some soldiers definitely were aware of the concept).
Yes, Warsaw Pact military policy, planning and wargaming was defensive in nature against a presupposed NATO aggression. The Warsaw Pact itself was formed as a reaction against NATO, which was formed first.
The famous "Seven Days to the River Rhine" [1], a Soviet designed 7-day scenario of limited nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO presupposed a NATO nuclear first-strike.
It goes against Cold War era propaganda and of course Hollywood paranoid fiction like Red Dawn, but the Warsaw Pact -- as far as NATO was concerned -- was preparing for a defensive war against the West.
Satellite countries and "failing" communist allies are a different matter, and of course the Soviets steamrolled them when they thought it was needed.
----
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
The famous "Seven Days to the River Rhine" [1], a Soviet designed 7-day scenario of limited nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO presupposed a NATO nuclear first-strike.
It goes against Cold War era propaganda and of course Hollywood paranoid fiction like Red Dawn, but the Warsaw Pact -- as far as NATO was concerned -- was preparing for a defensive war against the West.
Satellite countries and "failing" communist allies are a different matter, and of course the Soviets steamrolled them when they thought it was needed.
----
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
It is one thing to note.
The US "homeland" has not been at play.for a real invasion. Nuclear destruction sure.
Limited bombing like Pearl Harbor or 9/11
Not Germans, Japanese, Soviets, North Koreas, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Loas, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Cambodia, Granada, Haiti, Sudan, Uganda, Nicaragua.
Whereas for Russia it is a near and existential threat, that they have lived through several times.
The US "homeland" has not been at play.for a real invasion. Nuclear destruction sure.
Limited bombing like Pearl Harbor or 9/11
Not Germans, Japanese, Soviets, North Koreas, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Loas, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Cambodia, Granada, Haiti, Sudan, Uganda, Nicaragua.
Whereas for Russia it is a near and existential threat, that they have lived through several times.
> Whereas for Russia it is a near and existential threat, that they have lived through several times.
I think people tend to forget that detail a lot of times because the history of the WW2 Eastern Front is many times only presented as an after-thought in Western historiography. There are some mentions of Stalingrad, the Leningrad siege, maybe the Kursk tank battle on more technically-inclined web forums, and that's about it.
Granted, a lot of the details of the war are either hidden somewhere in some Moscow archives or have been burned to the ground in Germany during the final stages of the war, plus the people who went in that meat-grinder, more exactly through that hell, were not as "interviewed" (for lack of a better term) post-WW2 as compared to the people who had been active in the Pacific or in Western Europe. To say nothing of their (lacking) media presence, in fiction or not (there are countless documentaries about war in Western Europe, less so when it comes to the Eastern Front).
I was fortunate enough to have known a close person who had been a soldier on the Eastern Front (he had been active on the Axis side). He and his comrades went through hell, multiple times. Everything around them was hell. I can only imagine that the view from the other side was pretty much the same one.
I think people tend to forget that detail a lot of times because the history of the WW2 Eastern Front is many times only presented as an after-thought in Western historiography. There are some mentions of Stalingrad, the Leningrad siege, maybe the Kursk tank battle on more technically-inclined web forums, and that's about it.
Granted, a lot of the details of the war are either hidden somewhere in some Moscow archives or have been burned to the ground in Germany during the final stages of the war, plus the people who went in that meat-grinder, more exactly through that hell, were not as "interviewed" (for lack of a better term) post-WW2 as compared to the people who had been active in the Pacific or in Western Europe. To say nothing of their (lacking) media presence, in fiction or not (there are countless documentaries about war in Western Europe, less so when it comes to the Eastern Front).
I was fortunate enough to have known a close person who had been a soldier on the Eastern Front (he had been active on the Axis side). He and his comrades went through hell, multiple times. Everything around them was hell. I can only imagine that the view from the other side was pretty much the same one.
So, I don't know if Soviets actually prepared NA invasion plans. However Pentagon has whole archives of plans of all sizes. Starting from infiltration of a a compound by a Seal team deployed from a submarine to invasions of pretty much everywhere under all kinds of scenarios. I don't exactly know rationale behind these plans, but maybe they are amazing at training military planners/leaders and some of the are probably occasionally dusted off and even used.
If you will be tasked to take a compound or a country, you will write a perfect plan in minutes, of course.
That's true, Soviet military textbooks clearly state the defensive combat to be a primary kind of it, and Soviet military training devoted about 2x more time and resources to prepare for defensive vs offensive action.
This should come logical since Soviet presence in the outside world was far outstretched, going deep into the countries with no cultural or historical ties with them and they knew it was hard to sustain. Probably changed today.
The Soviets definitely had extensive and detailed invasion plans of Sweden, a neutral country. Sure, offense is the best defense, but you make them sound as if they were just protecting what was theirs.
You don't provide any context. All the great powers have all kinds of ridiculous plans [0]. None of them are meant to be "first tier", they are meant to be used under certain bad circumstances when things have already gone down the drain. I doubt that that plan for invasion of Sweden was meant to be used with nothing else going on forcing them to do so. So, could you provide the context those plans were made in and for, please? If it turns out the SU indeed just wanted to become bigger without any other pressure I'll admit you were right, but I doubt it.
[0] I've no intention to single out the US specifically, it's just that this one was easy to come to my mind as an example: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... -- I doubt the US would actually send an invasion force, this is more a political tool. If you cut the context you could claim "US has plans to invade the Netherlands", which would be highly misleading.
[0] I've no intention to single out the US specifically, it's just that this one was easy to come to my mind as an example: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... -- I doubt the US would actually send an invasion force, this is more a political tool. If you cut the context you could claim "US has plans to invade the Netherlands", which would be highly misleading.
Every good enough IT team has the "Restoring to the baremetal from the off-site backups" plan. Yet they never intend to put it in action.
One thing that could make some sense is if the US surrendered and they had to come in and take over the government --like governing us. In that unlikely scenario, they would need to have this info. On the other hand, why not just have a puppet government instead? Their long term goal was to Sovietize the world so, who knows, maybe these were dreamer cartographers.
> But invasion of North America? No, why would they? It would be costly and likely to end in defeat, and for what end goal?
For Soviets invading North America was logistically impossible. Soviet Union never possessed a navy large and strong enough for such a feat.
For Soviets invading North America was logistically impossible. Soviet Union never possessed a navy large and strong enough for such a feat.
Exactly, it was logistically impossible and the Soviet Union was aware of this. That's part of my point.
Its interesting the level of paranoia Americans felt about the USSR. That the idea of a USSR invasion ever entered the public imagination is genuinely laughable, any such invasion would stand no chance and benefit the USSR not one bit. A ground invasion of the USSR was more plausible (but still not plausible) given that the US at least could have used Western Europe as a launching pad. Duking it out in the Fulda gap would be dumb and unlikely, but it’s orders of magnitude more likely than the USSR deciding to take on the pacific fleet in the hopes of landing ground troops on a Californian beach.
With some retrospect I think that on the whole the USSR had more to fear from aggressive US policy more than the US had to fear from aggressive USSR policy. And both were right to fear accidents and miscommunication leading to disaster, which is certainly the most likely cause of conflict between the two.
With some retrospect I think that on the whole the USSR had more to fear from aggressive US policy more than the US had to fear from aggressive USSR policy. And both were right to fear accidents and miscommunication leading to disaster, which is certainly the most likely cause of conflict between the two.
> Its interesting the level of paranoia Americans felt about the USSR
Entire financing of military-industrial sector relied on this myth.
It was intentionally manufactured and promoted.
When USSR collapsed, top people in USA were shocked, dissapointed and unsure of the future. Fortunately terrorists popped up, so militay industrial complex got new easy lease on life by spinng them into existential threat pretty much the same way it did with USSR before.
But now terrorist narrative petered out and USA is in trouble again. China is obvious next narrative target. However China is actually dangerous economically and in military way. USA doesn't want to pick a narrative enemy it will eventually actually loose to irl.
I think recent actions of Putin create a great opportunity for doing business as usual.
Entire financing of military-industrial sector relied on this myth.
It was intentionally manufactured and promoted.
When USSR collapsed, top people in USA were shocked, dissapointed and unsure of the future. Fortunately terrorists popped up, so militay industrial complex got new easy lease on life by spinng them into existential threat pretty much the same way it did with USSR before.
But now terrorist narrative petered out and USA is in trouble again. China is obvious next narrative target. However China is actually dangerous economically and in military way. USA doesn't want to pick a narrative enemy it will eventually actually loose to irl.
I think recent actions of Putin create a great opportunity for doing business as usual.
> When USSR collapsed, top people in USA were shocked, dissapointed and unsure of the future. Fortunately terrorists popped up, so militay industrial complex got new easy lease on life by spinng them into existential threat pretty much the same way it did with USSR before.
Can you back that up with anything? The arms manufacturers were not fans of the War on Terror because it didn't require expensive weapons, and those expensive weapons programs were cut right and left and the defense budget was put on a diet.
Can you back that up with anything? The arms manufacturers were not fans of the War on Terror because it didn't require expensive weapons, and those expensive weapons programs were cut right and left and the defense budget was put on a diet.
Sure. Terrorists weren't as good of a threat as USSR.
But you do with what you have. Business adapts. USA dumped a lot of equipment in various countries over last two decades under the guises of figting terrorists, to make room for purchase of new equipment.
Be glad. Alternative is dumping MRAPs on local police forces in small USA towns.
If you are interested in similar perspectives "Power of nightmares" by Adam Curtis is an interesting watch.
But you do with what you have. Business adapts. USA dumped a lot of equipment in various countries over last two decades under the guises of figting terrorists, to make room for purchase of new equipment.
Be glad. Alternative is dumping MRAPs on local police forces in small USA towns.
If you are interested in similar perspectives "Power of nightmares" by Adam Curtis is an interesting watch.
The Soviet Union invaded and took control of many of their neighbors, including most of Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia (including invading Afghanistan in 1979), as well as creating and supporting regimes elsewhere (Cuba, etc.). When the people of some countries (e.g., Hungary, Czechoslovakia) tried to form democracies, the Soviets sent in tanks. They tried to sieze Berlin early on. It's not at all far-fetched that they would try to expand further into Europe.
(Pardon the redundancy.)
(Pardon the redundancy.)
Europe, sure. But america only really cared about that because of domino theory and it’s own empire to protect. It’s not like america didn’t do the exact same thing in South America, but on the other side of the political spectrum.
But fears of a Red Dawn scenario were always delusional. And that’s my point.
But fears of a Red Dawn scenario were always delusional. And that’s my point.
> It’s not like america didn’t do the exact same thing in South America, but on the other side of the political spectrum.
It's not like that at all. The US relationship with South American countries was nothing like the Iron Curtain.
> Europe, sure.
And Central Asia, and many others.
> But america only really cared about that because of domino theory and it’s own empire to protect.
That's just an empty claim. How about some facts?
It's not like that at all. The US relationship with South American countries was nothing like the Iron Curtain.
> Europe, sure.
And Central Asia, and many others.
> But america only really cared about that because of domino theory and it’s own empire to protect.
That's just an empty claim. How about some facts?
> The US relationship with South American countries was nothing like the Iron Curtain.
They did prop up or support right wing dictators that murdered our population and sometimes even waged futile war against other NATO allies (whooops!). On one thing we agree: the US didn't dirty their hands directly, they trained murderers in things like the School of the Americas and then sent them to do their dirty work.
They did prop up or support right wing dictators that murdered our population and sometimes even waged futile war against other NATO allies (whooops!). On one thing we agree: the US didn't dirty their hands directly, they trained murderers in things like the School of the Americas and then sent them to do their dirty work.
> It’s not like america didn’t do the exact same thing in South America, but on the other side of the political spectrum.
What did America do in South America that you think is "the exact same thing" as the USSR's establishment — and four decades of control — of puppet communist governments across central and eastern Europe?
What did America do in South America that you think is "the exact same thing" as the USSR's establishment — and four decades of control — of puppet communist governments across central and eastern Europe?
Just one data point, the democratically elected government of Guatemala was overthrown with support by the CIA and a military dictatorship installed that killed about 150 000 people through disappearances etc.. Read up on the Guatemalan civil war.
The history of every Latin American country reads very similar, ironically with the exceptions being the strongly soviet aligned countries.
The history of every Latin American country reads very similar, ironically with the exceptions being the strongly soviet aligned countries.
"The exact same thing" is hyperbole of course, but the US was playing the "great game" of the Cold War just as well as the Soviets. Where the Soviets many times directly interfered by sending troops (while the US was less direct, with the exceptions of Korea, Vietnam, etc), the US preferred undermining existing regimes they didn't like in South America -- their "backyard" -- and propping up right-wing dictators trained in the School of the Americas (Chile, Argentina, etc).
The Soviets were way less subtle and way more direct, but I believe there are geographical reasons for this.
The Soviets were way less subtle and way more direct, but I believe there are geographical reasons for this.
Personally I think that the difference between a CIA backed coup and direct military invasion is a distinction without a difference if you live in the country. Either way you have a stronger foreign power stripping you of your local political autonomy and threatening your physical safety.
A ground invasion of the USSR wasn’t just plausible, a bunch of Allied troops left over from WWI were landed at Arkhangelsk to actively fight the Bolsheviks in cooperation with White Russian forces. [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_intervention
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_intervention
Participating in a multilateral civil war is much easier than actually invading a unified country, because you have friendly forces to get you in past the frontier and help your supply lines out. Generally speaking invading armies haven’t had a great time in Russia when there wasn’t a civil war on. America on the other hand is an absolute nightmare to consider invading, given geography and the power of our navy.
The Bolsheviks were absolutely correct to be paranoid about the west’s intent towards them. But that doesn’t mean that American tanks rolling east through the Fulda gap was that likely either. Too bloody, and too likely to fail.
The Bolsheviks were absolutely correct to be paranoid about the west’s intent towards them. But that doesn’t mean that American tanks rolling east through the Fulda gap was that likely either. Too bloody, and too likely to fail.
Agreed. In the end, for whatever reasons, both Blocs were paranoid of something that was unlikely to happen (invasion way less likely than accidental nuclear war) because the costs and consequences of defeat (or even winning!) were way too terrible for either of them.
The Cold War with their proxy conflicts and puppet governments was a whole different deal though.
The Cold War with their proxy conflicts and puppet governments was a whole different deal though.
Hardly an attempt to sieze Russia.
Maybe not an attempt at annexation, but Winston Churchill made speeches late in life bemoaning the effort’s failure to ‘strangle bolshevism in its cradle.’
Tell me where things would have stopped if the Whites, Allies, and Czechoslovak Legion had gained the upper hand.
Tell me where things would have stopped if the Whites, Allies, and Czechoslovak Legion had gained the upper hand.
> Tell me where things would have stopped if the Whites, Allies, and Czechoslovak Legion had gained the upper hand.
In no way would it involve the UK or US controlling any part of Russia.
Also, the Whites were Russian. The Bolsheviks had no claim on representing Russia any more than the Whites did.
In no way would it involve the UK or US controlling any part of Russia.
Also, the Whites were Russian. The Bolsheviks had no claim on representing Russia any more than the Whites did.
Given that UK's habits at the time I'm pretty certain we'd have found some excuse to hold onto a chunk of Russia in those circumstances.
The Bolsheviks were completely correct in being paranoid about western attitudes and intentions towards them. But that’s a far cry from “the UK is going to seize Moscow”
Whites would have reestablished empire and put whatever Romanov bolsheviks did not murder on the throne? Stalin would be dead.. Beria, Ezhov and co too. :)
It would be an amazing thing if bolsheviks could be strangled in the cradle. I think only Poles had a chance if they waged their offensive through Ukraine better, western powers had no real say in any of it after the ww1 bloodletting nobody was going to go invade Russia.
It would be an amazing thing if bolsheviks could be strangled in the cradle. I think only Poles had a chance if they waged their offensive through Ukraine better, western powers had no real say in any of it after the ww1 bloodletting nobody was going to go invade Russia.
Yeah, Russians just want to return Russian Alaska, which is not a part of the USA.
What I read is that they had plans for invasions of some western European countries, but not the nuclear-armed ones.
C’mon, haven’t you watched Invasion U.S.A. starring Chuck Norris?!
> Most Soviet war plans that we know of where either defensive in nature
Soviet Union had an invasion plan of Western Europe. That's the end of the story.
Soviet Union had an invasion plan of Western Europe. That's the end of the story.
The United States had a plan that would have killed one third of all people on the planet (1 billion of the 3 billion alive in the early 1960s).
Source: "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg
Militaries do all kinds of planning - doesn't mean that anyone has the intention of actually executing them.
e.g. The UK did war planning of invading Eastern Europe after WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Obviously, the conclusion of this planning was that it was a bad idea...
Before WW2 the United States had a plan on how to fight the British Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Around the same time the Canadians had plans for attacking the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1
Source: "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg
Militaries do all kinds of planning - doesn't mean that anyone has the intention of actually executing them.
e.g. The UK did war planning of invading Eastern Europe after WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Obviously, the conclusion of this planning was that it was a bad idea...
Before WW2 the United States had a plan on how to fight the British Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Around the same time the Canadians had plans for attacking the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1
Which one? It's possible one existed, so I'd like the exact title so we can debate the aims of the plan.
For example, the "Seven Days to the River Rhine" plan was explicitly a reaction to an hypothetical NATO first strike, which the Soviets believed was a possibility.
> That's the end of the story.
No, discussion doesn't work like that.
For example, the "Seven Days to the River Rhine" plan was explicitly a reaction to an hypothetical NATO first strike, which the Soviets believed was a possibility.
> That's the end of the story.
No, discussion doesn't work like that.
NATO also had such plans. That's the end of no story.
Wired had a interesting piece on this back in 2015: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/secret-cold-war-maps/
And with some spooky details on San Diego, California (and many other places): https://www.wired.com/2015/07/soviet-militarys-eerily-detail...
And with some spooky details on San Diego, California (and many other places): https://www.wired.com/2015/07/soviet-militarys-eerily-detail...
The story goes that Soviet military/KGB maps of USSR were so precise and full of details even for unpopulated areas such as forests, my grandpa, who served in KGB, once secretly took one of such classified maps with him to better orient in a forest when mushroom picking, because civilian-level maps were pretty poor. Once, he noticed that a window in his appartment was closed in a different way than he had left it. Being a KGB man himself, he realized someone had visited his home when he was away. He searched the rooms and found radio bugs, i.e. they were aware he took the maps and started spying on him, suspecting that his goal was to sell those maps to Americans or something like that. Somehow his explanation that he only wanted to have a good mushroom picking experience convinced the superiors, he wasn't charged and stayed in KGB, later becoming a colonel.
The maps, at least at the scale of around 1:500000 or 1:200000, are still used by hikers and such outdoorsy folk. (Or they were ten years ago, dunno about now.)
Your grandpa is/was a fun guy for sure - he told you ridiculous stories that you seem to completely believe to.
Interesting selection of cities:
https://redatlasbook.com/cityplansus
No Detroit (probably in the top 5-7 in population then, and a major manufacturing center), Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans (control access to the Mississippi River) ... but they do have Worcester, MA.
Edit: Possibly that list is a subset of the Soviet maps selected by the publisher.
https://redatlasbook.com/cityplansus
No Detroit (probably in the top 5-7 in population then, and a major manufacturing center), Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans (control access to the Mississippi River) ... but they do have Worcester, MA.
Edit: Possibly that list is a subset of the Soviet maps selected by the publisher.
Vancouver, Montréal and Halifax but no Ottawa, Toronto or Deep/Chalk River. Bizarre! The only connection I can make is that Vancouver, Montréal and Halifax are navigable by ocean going ships and the others are not?
I spent my childhood worrying about a nuclear attack on my city and now I find out that we didn't even make it to the map? I am disappoint.
My city in eastern Europe was close to a nuclear target. So much for USA liberating us from Russian influence.
I guess we can't be under communist regime if we are dead.
I guess we can't be under communist regime if we are dead.
I believe the strength of the Western German peace movements can be significantly attributed to the NATO war scenarios that pretty much all had Germany as a nuclear wasteland to stop the Soviets as a key element.
> My city in eastern Europe was close to a nuclear target. So much for USA liberating us from Russian influence.
How are those two sentences related?
How are those two sentences related?
Imagine being a hostage and finding out that snipers were intending to shoot the criminal through you.
I see: You mean a target aimed at by NATO, not the USSR. Now it makes more sense.
Some people found out that the reality of "USA liberating you from the bad commies" (sold by american propaganda) was "liberation through liberal application of nuclear fire to any larger population center" (and we'll figure a reason for the strike after we decide where)
The 'missing' major US cities can be reached by ocean-going ships.
Great book - San Francisco is particular interesting
I posted the same in the other thread, but since we're here -- here is my 1:500k map of south/central Ohio. You can see Columbus and Dayton at the top.
https://imgur.com/a/wlN5aAe
(right-click, open in new tab to really zoom in)
https://imgur.com/a/wlN5aAe
(right-click, open in new tab to really zoom in)
My parents were linguists in the US Army, having studied Russian. I got a print of one of these maps of Washington DC framed for my mom for Christmas one year. She has it hanging in her office. Seeing the phonetic Cyrillic names for places was kind of a trip.
These maps are good snapshots of history. East side of Tana Fjord in Norway is now totally abandoned. And yet I found washing machines and TVs -- how were these powered? Soviet map to the rescue: 100 kilometer long power line came from Berlevåg once.
Why does Russia have the best maps of Britain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bqzwsM6eoQ
check also
https://maps.vlasenko.net/soviet-military-topographic-map/
like
https://maps.vlasenko.net/soviet-military-topographic-map/ma...
etc inside domain.
Text is mostly in russian. But there are quite a few maps.. And as a mountain-walker, i found sometimes their maps are better than our own :/
https://maps.vlasenko.net/soviet-military-topographic-map/
like
https://maps.vlasenko.net/soviet-military-topographic-map/ma...
etc inside domain.
Text is mostly in russian. But there are quite a few maps.. And as a mountain-walker, i found sometimes their maps are better than our own :/
Well that's a bit odd - no Yeovil.
I live in Yeovil, Somerset, UK. Small town ~40,000 people these days.
There's an Italian helicopter factory here - Leonardo. Back in the day it was called Westland Helicopters and before that Westland Aircraft.
During WW2, WA manufactured the Lysander, which was a sneaky aircraft. Quite a lot of other things were made here too and since.
I suspect that the whole set of plans are not available.
I live in Yeovil, Somerset, UK. Small town ~40,000 people these days.
There's an Italian helicopter factory here - Leonardo. Back in the day it was called Westland Helicopters and before that Westland Aircraft.
During WW2, WA manufactured the Lysander, which was a sneaky aircraft. Quite a lot of other things were made here too and since.
I suspect that the whole set of plans are not available.
Some really nice ones of Bristol though that I went through. Damn, how many West Country folks are on here?
"And remember this well: If you are not one up, you are one down".
Would the US u2 overflight maps of the USSR be broadly similar? I'm not trying for whataboutery, it's the comparison of interest: how well an you account for place names and features from what's available? The Russians had access to a lot of information, OS maps for instance.
All the Americans had were often photogrammetry and after satellite imagery.
For the DDay invasion, It is said the allied planners asked to see tourist maps, snaps, and postcards to help compile planning maps for the invasion and immediate days after. Beach profiles, off beach structures to compare with aerial photography for bunker finding, tide profiles, you name it.
(Like other art college students my mum did map tracing at uni preparing invasion maps and escape maps for the troops)
All the Americans had were often photogrammetry and after satellite imagery.
For the DDay invasion, It is said the allied planners asked to see tourist maps, snaps, and postcards to help compile planning maps for the invasion and immediate days after. Beach profiles, off beach structures to compare with aerial photography for bunker finding, tide profiles, you name it.
(Like other art college students my mum did map tracing at uni preparing invasion maps and escape maps for the troops)
The product of overflights, satellite balloon and aircraft, were absolutely used for cartography. NIMA (now NGIA) spent lots and lots of time making maps (how else would SAC find their way to the ICBM complex at Laputa?).
Not only was getting ahold of Soviet maps something a bit more complex than just going to the local gas station, but the Soviets actually purposely introduced inaccuracies into their civilian-issue maps:
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/03/world/soviet-aide-admits-...
Not only was getting ahold of Soviet maps something a bit more complex than just going to the local gas station, but the Soviets actually purposely introduced inaccuracies into their civilian-issue maps:
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/03/world/soviet-aide-admits-...
> but the Soviets actually purposely introduced inaccuracies into their civilian-issue maps
China does the same thing today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...
> GCJ-02 (colloquially Mars Coordinates, officially Chinese: 地形图非线性保密处理算法; lit. 'Topographic map non-linear confidentiality algorithm')[21] is a geodetic datum formulated by the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (Chinese: 国测局; pinyin: guó-cè-jú), and based on WGS-84.[22] It uses an obfuscation algorithm[23] which adds apparently random offsets to both the latitude and longitude, with the alleged goal of improving national security.[
China does the same thing today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...
> GCJ-02 (colloquially Mars Coordinates, officially Chinese: 地形图非线性保密处理算法; lit. 'Topographic map non-linear confidentiality algorithm')[21] is a geodetic datum formulated by the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (Chinese: 国测局; pinyin: guó-cè-jú), and based on WGS-84.[22] It uses an obfuscation algorithm[23] which adds apparently random offsets to both the latitude and longitude, with the alleged goal of improving national security.[
So does the US and every nation that can.
> So does the US and every nation that can.
That's just plain not true. IIRC, China is the only country that mandates the use of an obfuscated coordinate system. The US certainly doesn't (and no, selective availability doesn't count, it was an entirely different thing).
That's just plain not true. IIRC, China is the only country that mandates the use of an obfuscated coordinate system. The US certainly doesn't (and no, selective availability doesn't count, it was an entirely different thing).
> Would the US u2 overflight maps of the USSR be broadly similar? I'm not trying for whataboutery, it's the comparison of interest: how well an you account for place names and features from what's available? The Russians had access to a lot of information, OS maps for instance.
There was a Wired article about these maps from years ago that talked a bit about the differences:
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/secret-cold-war-maps/:
> The US military made maps during the Cold War too, of course, but the two superpowers had different mapping strategies that reflected their different military strengths, says Geoff Forbes, who served in the US Army as a Russian voice interceptor during the Cold War and is now director of mapping at Land Info, a Colorado company that stocks Soviet military maps. “The US military’s air superiority made mapping at medium scales adequate for most areas of the globe,” Forbes says. As a result, he says, the US military rarely made maps more detailed than 1:250,000, and generally only did so for areas of special strategic interest. “The Soviets, on the other hand, were the global leaders in tank technology,” Forbes says. After suffering horrific losses during the Nazi ground invasion in WWII, the Soviets had built up the world’s most powerful army. Maneuvering that army required large-scale maps, and lots of them, to cover smaller areas in more detail. “One to 50,000 scale is globally considered among the military to be the tactical scale for ground forces,” Forbes says. “These maps were created so that if and when the Soviet military was on the ground in any given place, they would have the info they needed to get from point A to point B.”
There was a Wired article about these maps from years ago that talked a bit about the differences:
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/secret-cold-war-maps/:
> The US military made maps during the Cold War too, of course, but the two superpowers had different mapping strategies that reflected their different military strengths, says Geoff Forbes, who served in the US Army as a Russian voice interceptor during the Cold War and is now director of mapping at Land Info, a Colorado company that stocks Soviet military maps. “The US military’s air superiority made mapping at medium scales adequate for most areas of the globe,” Forbes says. As a result, he says, the US military rarely made maps more detailed than 1:250,000, and generally only did so for areas of special strategic interest. “The Soviets, on the other hand, were the global leaders in tank technology,” Forbes says. After suffering horrific losses during the Nazi ground invasion in WWII, the Soviets had built up the world’s most powerful army. Maneuvering that army required large-scale maps, and lots of them, to cover smaller areas in more detail. “One to 50,000 scale is globally considered among the military to be the tactical scale for ground forces,” Forbes says. “These maps were created so that if and when the Soviet military was on the ground in any given place, they would have the info they needed to get from point A to point B.”
USSR also similarly maintained very detailed ocean/sea maps, and the stream of corrections and new information was coming non-stop (i had a relative working in the hydrography department at the Navy base).
People in marine navigation may know the company Transas - a USSR/Russian company, a digital marine navigation systems pioneer back in 199x and one of the leaders in the industry and which supply digital navigation systems for example even to Sweden and Germany Navies - the company was founded in 1990 by some very entrepreneurial and technical people who kind of "privatized/commercialized" ocean/sea mapping and navigational info collected in USSR.
People in marine navigation may know the company Transas - a USSR/Russian company, a digital marine navigation systems pioneer back in 199x and one of the leaders in the industry and which supply digital navigation systems for example even to Sweden and Germany Navies - the company was founded in 1990 by some very entrepreneurial and technical people who kind of "privatized/commercialized" ocean/sea mapping and navigational info collected in USSR.
Dunno about Western maps, but old ‘military’ maps of Russia are now frequently used by hikers, climbers and such folk to plan outdoors routes. There are tons of details on the maps, and I guess nature doesn't change that much in the 60 years or so (until now, at least).
(Maybe something digital is more in use now, compared to ten years ago—but I sorta doubt it, since neither satellite maps nor vector maps tend to mark useful features in the outbacks. Maybe OSM comes close, since hikers themselves put in the routes and markings there. There's also https://opentopomap.org — dunno how good it is.)
(Maybe something digital is more in use now, compared to ten years ago—but I sorta doubt it, since neither satellite maps nor vector maps tend to mark useful features in the outbacks. Maybe OSM comes close, since hikers themselves put in the routes and markings there. There's also https://opentopomap.org — dunno how good it is.)
Opentopomap is openstreetmap with height data primarily from the space shuttle LIDAR missions. The resolution is good for 60N-60S, towards the poles not so much.
I have two of these, one for Washington DC and Baltimore area and one for SF Bay... absolutely love them, although they drove the framing guy -crazy- because they're slightly smaller at the top than the bottom :)
https://mapshow.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/J-10.html https://mapshow.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/J-18-1.html
https://mapshow.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/J-10.html https://mapshow.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/J-18-1.html
I checked the area where I grew up. There's a minor but quite obvious mistake.
Interesting to see the place names phoneticised to Cyrillic. Not sure how useful that would have been in an invasion.
Interesting to see the place names phoneticised to Cyrillic. Not sure how useful that would have been in an invasion.
Some of it was to make it easier to talk for people who didn't know the language of the country on the map, I heard that polish military maps of the UK apparently were "localized" the same way - and the persistent rumour is that under "take all of europe in counterstrike to prevent USA supplying the invasion" plan, Polish forces were to occupy major portions of UK.
Imagine trying to figure out how to correctly say "Port Hueneme" if you're a random Soviet officer. Probably best they were phoneticized if only so other Soviets would have some idea of what you were talking about.
Also, I think we can feel somewhat confident that over the years the Soviets intended for special operations to take place on American soil. Few non-nuclear things screw with preparations for a deployment overseas more than transmission power lines for San Diego and/or Norfolk dropping, or an outbreak of a crop disease, or what have you. If you're feeling sporty, assassinate a few people (preferably false flag ops to stoke domestic divisions).
Also, I think we can feel somewhat confident that over the years the Soviets intended for special operations to take place on American soil. Few non-nuclear things screw with preparations for a deployment overseas more than transmission power lines for San Diego and/or Norfolk dropping, or an outbreak of a crop disease, or what have you. If you're feeling sporty, assassinate a few people (preferably false flag ops to stoke domestic divisions).
Would have been horrible when it came to converting Welsh:
https://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysil...
https://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysil...
They weren't seriously planning a land invasion. Air and missile strikes only.
For a similar rabbit hole with US maps, somewhere (a Google away - sorry I'm on my phone) there's historic USGS Topo maps of the USA. Once I found Chicago maps going back to the 1890s, and moving through the years you could see the city grow explosively in the early 20th century.
Man, it’s creepy to find your house on a Soviet map.
All in all the Soviets did a really excellent job. I suspect they had their inside sources in the Romanian State map-making department (a military-run department at the time, most of its work was a State-secret), because they're as detailed as the "official" Romanian military maps that were to be released about 10 years later (these Soviets maps are approximately from the 1960s, the Romanian military maps were released in the mid 1970s)
[1] https://map.cimec.ro/Mapserver/#