Thread: An alternative view of the USA & some other countries

Originally Posted by fortheether

So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda?

Those were real. As real as the nuclear silo installations across Western Europe. By the way, the SDI concept was next to useless against those subs.

As far as I remember, the war concepts of that time were based on not allowing the counterpart to launch the strategic (ballistic) missiles. Those were for the retaliation purpose only if one of the sides were to lose the war. The Soviet military concept was based on the principles of:

1. Sending the special forces to each and every nuclear silo to attack the silo personnel just hours before the war starts and thus prevent the launch of the strategic missiles.

2. Disrupt the command and the communication channels of the counterpart so that to prevent the orders to be issued or delivered. That included one-time mass-assassination of the major political figures and their deputies.

3. The sudden one-time shock attack on the air-carriers by means of the nuclear subs destroying the air fleet and getting the overwhelming dominance in the air.

4. The massive ground assault with the tanks which would be almost invincible given the Soviet dominance in the air.

As a result, the entire Europe would be conquered and the US paralyzed. Then the new leaders of the US would have no choice but to acknowledge the expansion of the Soviet Union in the entire Europe given the Soviet Union would leave the rest of the NATO members alone. As a consequence, the major communist revolutions would spark in Africa, Middle East, and Asia. Having NATO forces without decent command and inability to make the hasty vital decisions, those revolutions would most likely succeed. That would leave the Soviet Union expanded over the entire Eurasia and Africa continents. Those would be 'accepted' as the new soviet republics as additions to the already 15 present. The North and South America would be left alone. For how long?

Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

Well, they should have had different plans. Honestly, I think the NATO's strategic situation was hopeless by the early '80s. The NATO might have had some local tactical victories, but strategically in Europe it had nothing to prevent a possible SU assault and had to solely rely on its strategic ballistic missiles. So, the only question the SU had - will the Soviet Army be successful enough to deactivate the missiles to prevent the SU from the total destruction? The US made all the attempts to distribute their nuclear weapons and make them hard to reach. However, at some point someone woke up in NATO (perhaps they realized what Andropov's ascending to the Soviet Throne might mean), so they started the SDI out of no other choice available. Which definitely made the situation much worse right away.

So you're suggesting that if Gorbachev had waited for another ten years or so USSR would have won the Cold War? Or if Andropov lasted for a few more years.

Originally Posted by fortheether

Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:

We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which says he didn't say it. Most Americans think he said it.

In the USSR even a better story circulated: he said it at the UN meeting, yelling and banging his shoe upon the desk to make his point more clear.
I don't know how many people actually believed that, but I did hear several people mentioning it as if it were a fact.

Originally Posted by E-learner

In the USSR even a better story circulated: he said it at the UN meeting, yelling and banging his shoe upon the desk to make his point more clear.
I don't know how many people actually believed that, but I did hear several people mentioning it as if it were a fact.

Originally Posted by Ramil

So you're suggesting that if Gorbachev had waited for another ten years or so USSR would have won the Cold War? Or if Andropov lasted for a few more years.

Quite the opposite. The SU might have started the WWIII within a few years and had the war won or made the entire globe uninhabitable for large mammals like Homo Sapiens. Think about it this way: will the newly appointed fresh US political command launch the few of the remaining strategic missiles if they know the US itself will not be conquered and the Europe has already been conquered?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quite the opposite. The SU might have started the WWIII within a few years and had the war won or made the entire globe inhabitable for large mammals like Homo Sapiens. Think about it this way: will the newly appointed fresh US political command launch the few of the remaining strategic missiles if they know the US itself will not be conquered and the Europe has already been conquered?

Of course they would. But you're insisting upon the fact that USSR wanted to strike first. Your logic is flawless if one accepts this fact but what gave you this idea in the first place? I have not heard of this.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Of course they would. But you're insisting upon the fact that USSR wanted to strike first. Your logic is flawless if one accepts this fact but what gave you this idea in the first place? I have not heard of this.

Let's start with the comparison: what was the focus of the pure assault weapon in the USSR and NATO? The USSR heavily invested in tanks. The main Soviet Army special forces were both airborne - ВДВ and Спецназ. The NATO heavily invested in aircraft carriers. The NATO's main special forces - marines. Start thinking from that point.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Let's start with the comparison: what was the focus of the pure assault weapon in the USSR and NATO? The USSR heavily invested in tanks. The main Soviet Army special forces were both airborne - ВДВ and Спецназ. The NATO heavily invested in aircraft carriers. The NATO's main special forces - marines. Start thinking from that point.

A little bit thin. Aside from Mexico and Canada all other US borders are naval. US marines were basically the same thing as were the Soviet paratroopers. You don't defend homeland with marines, you know. They had carriers so they could transport their armies (and airfields) overseas.
USSR had the land border with NATO and its tanks, according to the doctrine I've seen were to reach the Atlantic in 48 hours should the war start. This was necessary to neutralize the medium and short range missiles deployed in Europe. And, according to the stats I've seen, US almost all the time had more missiles and warheads than USSR (though it didn't really matter since it was 4x overkill). And USSR was ever the second in the arms race (if you count warheads only).

Originally Posted by Ramil

It was said that the subs were sent there to balance the missiles deployed in Turkey )))

Just responding to this:

They have military bases and nukes all around the USSR while USSR has no nukes near the USA.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

Did the citizens of the USSR hear about the Cuban missile crisis as it was happening?

Originally Posted by fortheether

Did the citizens of the USSR hear about the Cuban missile crisis as it was happening?

Till October, 26th 1962 USSR denied it had deployed missiles on Cuba.

During the Cold War, the USA started and participated in many more wars than the USSR did!
The USA came across as aggressive, imperialist, expanionist and ultra-capitalist.
The USSR came across as paranoid and insular.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

PLEASE NOTE: I LIKE lots of things about the USA and I have nothing against American people in general. I just hate the foreign policies of the USA and I don't think decent Americans would support them if they knew how unpopular this really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But here is an "alternative" view of the USA for you.



Somebody posted about this in another part of the forum. The text is about how the USA should pack up their bases in Germany and go home (+ a few other things).
Plus the person who made the video is unhappy about the influence English is having on the German language.

I can't stand these American bases! They have long since served their purpose. But it seems, once a country allows the USA to set up a base, they hang on like a leech.
There are tons of those bases in certain European countries.

Same theme from South Korea:



Same theme from Japan:



And if the USA goes ahead with the war that it seems really keen on against Iran, then Misha Tal from this forum could be killed and many others like him.

Originally Posted by Ramil

US marines were basically the same thing as were the Soviet paratroopers. You don't defend homeland with marines, you know.

Of course, not. The marines are meant for the assault. The SU also had marines. What I meant, marines are not meant for attacking the nuclear silos. No country would ever station a nuclear silo near the sea shore. That's why the airborne special forces are different in principle from the marines. They have different potential targets, different equipment and different training. In the US there weren't a lot of the paratroopers and so they weren't enough to "neutralize" so many Soviet silos. On the other hand, the importance of the airborne special forces in the Soviet military doctrine could be seen even from the fact that the ВДВ were named the 'kind of the military force' (род войск) equal in importance to the naval, the airforce, and the ground forces. There were a lot of the paratroopers in the Soviet Army. A lot. Enough to form a 'kind of the military force'. All of them could be used only if the Soviet Army would have an absolute dominance in the air. The US marines are legacy from the WWII in which the major operations were done in the islands and the seashore. The marines are meant to assault and hold the ground for a very short time until the 'heavy' equipment (like tanks) is unloaded to the sea shore.

The US seemed to have a different approach to attacking the nuclear silos. Do you remember the first Iraq war (1990-1991)? That was the first time the world had seen the so-called 'high precision' weapons that were designed to penetrate the underground bunkers. By the time of the war, those weapon system were already delivered to the US Army. So, those were designed and built during the Cold War era apparently for a different purpose - to penetrate and destroy the undeground Soviet nuclear silos. Those high-precision missiles were to be delivered over the oceans by the aircraft carriers, then the Stealth jets would deeply penetrate the territory of the USSR and those high-precision bombs/missiles would then be deployed to destoy the silos. No absolute air dominance is required, therefore no need to strike first. The first thing the Soviet Army should have done was to destroy all/majority of the aircraft carriers. By means of the nuclear subs which were to deploy tactical nuclear warheads which did not even require the direct hit of the aircraft carrier. Just a nearby small nuclear exposion would be enough to make the carrier overturn with all its aircraft. As a result: (i) the absolute dominance in the air have been obtained, and (ii) the US has no means to attack the Soviet nuclear silos. The conclusion of this lengthy explanation: the Soviet Army had to strike first. And the US Army had not (but of course it could). A strategic military doctrine sometimes could be deduced from the way an army is structured.

Originally Posted by Ramil

USSR had the land border with NATO and its tanks, according to the doctrine I've seen were to reach the Atlantic in 48 hours should the war start.

Exactly. So, by the time the newly appointed US government takes over the power and gather to work out any type of decision the war over Europe has already finished. Nothing the US could do for Europe. And the SU has no means and no intention to ground assault the US. Any nuclear strike to the SU would get a nuclear response. Why would the US do that? I think - they wouldn't. Then the local revolutions would start within a month and here you go - the entire Eurasia and Africa are communist.

As you said, Brezhnev government was lazy and unmotivated. Andropov actually started some new initiatives. What would you do if you were the US president?

Originally Posted by fortheether

So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda?

If you remember, my point was that Reagan's aggressiveness probably prolonged life of USSR a bit more rather than shortened it. What I gave in quotation is not an exact formulations but a brief summary to provide a general idea of the point of Soviet propaganda so you can see that Reagan gave many good confirmations to it. Do you see?

Originally Posted by fortheether

Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:

We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which says he didn't say it. Most Americans think he said it.

Yeah, he could say that. Khrushchev was old stinky pig, hysterical goop, very non-diplomatic. Sill he had one merit: during Caribbean crisis he was one who stopped. He was not ready to destroy the World for his ambitions like beautiful and noble Mr. Kennedy was. So there are words against deeds.

1) The paratrooper corps is the legacy of the WW2. This branch of arms (or 'kind' as you put it) was created long before US even had any missile silos. They've proven themselves useful and nearly universal. They could attain a wide range of combat tasks, they were swift, they were flexible and everyone in the general staff saw that. But they were not the main fighting force. They merely speaheaded the assault. Their task was always just as simple -- to hold the ground until the main force arrives. The only difference is that they were airborne since USSR had more ground to cover and you could deliver them to any point on the map pretty quickly.

2) Let's be real, despite the fact that Russian military aircraft are probably the best in the world (or at least they were in 1980s), but when things came down to combat co-operation systems and radioelectronic warfare support, US had the upper hand. Thus, air-superiority couldn't be attained quickly enough. In all scenarios of military conflict between NATO and Warzaw Pact you only had hours (if not minutes). We could, probably, destroy all the aircraft carriers quickly enough, but we couldn't establish air-superiority over the US territory itself.

3) About this task of attacking the silos -- I doubt the attack on it would be successful. Think. You should transport a large body of paratroopers over the ocean deep into the US territory (losing 50%-70% to AA fire even before they are deployed). You won't approach undetected and the course of your attack will give the Americans plenty of time to co-ordinate the measures to repel the attack. Now, a Silo is not that 1 missile buried underground. It's a complex of many underground structures (individual missiles are scattered 20-40 km apart to minimize the chances of being all destroyed by a single nuclear hit. It has two command centers and in order to 'neutralize' the silo you should either sabotage every single missile (which is impossible in that short period of time you would have) or find and destroy all command centers (which is also extremely difficult since they are heavily defended and are built to sustain at least one direct nuclear hit. How you you open it to get in?
Now, US missiles were solid-fuel propelled and thus required no time for fueling up. They can be launched within minutes. Any number of paratroopers would have no chance of neutralizing them all within such a short period of time. I'm afraid that the only thing the surviving Soviet paratroopers see at the doors of the US silo command center would be a spectacular launch of the ICBMs.

Now, about US plans for attacking USSR.
1) In the early 80s US had no stealth technology available to them. They relied on cruise missiles and SRBM launched from nuclear subs (by the way, US had more ballistic missile carriers than Russia at any time).
2) Russian stationary silos are too scattered over large territories to prevent them being destroyed all at once and had several 'spare' command centers.
3) Russia had quite a number of mobile launch sites (refrigerator cars and mobile launchers) so you couldn't get them all in time.

As far as I know, neither side could think up a winning strategy for WW3. Perhaps, we are lucky they couldn't.

And finally, about USSR striking first.
It was US who started the so called nuclear blackmail in 1947. It was US who's changed several war plans for atomic bombardment of the USSR during 1948-1955. We attained parity in nukes by the end of 70s (past Cuban crisis and when a number of treaties were already signed), no I don't think anyone planned to strike first in 1980. Neither USSR, nor USA. Back in 50s maybe, but not in 80s.

Originally Posted by Ramil

They merely speaheaded the assault. Their task was always just as simple -- to hold the ground until the main force arrives.

That's not what the Paratrooper #1 General Margelov had thought:

(http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...B2%D0%B8%D1%87)

Он категорически отверг установку на удержание захваченного десантом района до подхода наступающих с фронта войск методом жёсткой обороны как пагубную, ибо в этом случае десант будет быстро уничтожен.

It's ok that we have different opinions, after all, neither you nor me had access to the top secret documentation of the Soviet Army.