NEWS & FEATURES
1
MORE NEWS
FEATURES
STATS & RESOURCES
PHOTOS & ARCHIVES
SPECIAL SECTION
LINK PAGES
|
T H E C O L D W A R

( 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 9 1? )
"...from Stettin in
the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across
the continent of Europe." Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime
minister during World War II. speaking in Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946.
Editor's Note - The time period of The Cold War is and will forever
be a point of debate for historians, politicians. governments, and those who
served. Some say it began soon after the Russian Revolution AKA The
Bolshevik Revolution or October Revolution of 1917, most however use the
dates of 1945 or 1946 soon after WW II, and ending in 1991. Others however contend
the Cold War never really ended but thawed somewhat and is now beginning to
chill once more. Please consider the above dates as a focus period only.
Yalta summit in 1945 with
Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. Also present are
USSR Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (far left); Admiral of the Fleet
Sir Andrew Cunningham, RN, Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal, RAF (both
standing behind Churchill); and Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, USN,
(standing behind Roosevelt).

Summit Meeting - President
Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachov
at first Summit in Geneva, Switzerland.
The actual "Check Point Charlie"
building sits on display at the Allied Museum June 26 in Berlin. This
facility was moved a few miles from its actual location where it was used to
cross from East to West Berlin until the end of the Cold War in 1990. The
Allied Museum is one of the venues of the commemoration of the 60th
Anniversary of the Berlin Airlift. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Ron
Przysucha)
Berlin Wall Comes
Down in Nov. 1989
The following is an excerpt from
President Reagan's address.
"In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: 'We will bury
you.' But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level
of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the
Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining
standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even
today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades,
then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable
conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient
hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
"And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited
way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from
Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners
have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being
jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with
greater freedom from state control.
"Are these the beginnings of profound changes in
the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes
in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We
welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go
together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of
world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be
unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and
peace.
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace,
if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek
liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RECENT NEWS ...............
Senate Recognizes Berlin Airlift Anniversary

A C-47 Skytrain recevies minor
engine repairs during the Berlin Airlift in 1948. (Courtesy photo)
Radio calls from incoming aircraft
were monitored by personnel at the traffic control point during the Berlin
Airlift in 1948. The traffic control point used this information to help
facilitate loading operations. Pictured are from Left to right: Lt. Howard
L. Pruden, Lt. Ralph A. Lerch, Driver Peter K. Davis, Driver James Anderson,
Lance Cpl. Horton Albert, Capt. Donald Barker. (Courtesy photo)
7/10/2008 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The U.S. Senate recognized the 60th
anniversary of the Berlin Airlift with an official resolution recently.
Introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Sen. Evan Bayh of
Indiana, the resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent with no
recorded vote and without objection June 26.
The resolution confirmed that the Congress recognizes the 60th anniversary
of the Berlin Airlift as the largest and longest-running humanitarian
airlift operation in history, and honors the service and sacrifice of the
men and women who participated in, and supported, the Berlin Airlift. On
June 26, 1948, the fledgling Air Force began its first major international
challenge -- the Berlin Airlift -- two days after Soviet forces blockaded
all land routes into the city.
For the next 462 days, the Air Force and its Allies supplied food, coal and
other items to the 2.5 million residents of Berlin. They delivered more than
2.3 million tons of cargo, about 75 percent of it flown on American
aircraft. U.S. crews took off more than 189,000 times, totaling about
600,000 hours of flight time, covering more than 92 million miles.
Thirty-one Americans lost their lives in 12 crashes.
Simple resolutions are used to express nonbinding positions of the Senate or
to deal with the Senate's internal affairs, such as the creation of a
special committee. They do not require action by the House of
Representatives.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Collapse of The USSR -
10 Years On
BBC News- Collapse of the Soviet Union
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sunken Former Soviet Submarine Juliett 484

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (July 07, 2008) U.S. Navy Diver 1st
Class Mark Sawyer, assigned to Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit (MDSU) Two, Co.
21, returns from diving in the cold and murky waters of the Providence River
while conducting salvage operations on the sunken former Soviet submarine
Juliett 484. Sawyer completed a dive that required tunneling in the mud
underneath the former Soviet submarine. U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication
Specialist 2nd Class Christopher Perez.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (July 7, 2008) Army Staff Sgt. Joshua
West assigned to 511th Engineering Dive Team, Fort Eustis Va., lowers himself
down to the sunken former Soviet submarine Juliett 484 to conduct salvage
operations. U.S. Navy and Army Divers along with federal, state and local
authorities participate in a joint service operation to raise the sunken former
Soviet submarine at Collier Point Park. Mobile Diving & Salvage Unit (MDSU) 2,
U.S. Army Dive Company and a NAVSEA Support Unit prepare to salvage the former
Soviet submarine that sank at her mooring point in about 30 feet of water during
a nor'easter, which struck Providence in April of 2007. This training exercise
is part of the DoD's Innovative Readiness Training program. U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Christopher Perez.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HISTORICAL ARCHIVE ..............
Statistics, Features, Descriptions, Links...
Francis Gary Powers: U-2
Spy Pilot Shot Down by the Soviets

Francis Gary Powers with
a model of the U-2. &
Trial of Francis Gary Powers
On 1 May 1960, U-2 pilot Francis
Gary Powers was shot down by the Soviets over Sverdlovsk. He was tried in August
1960, in a three-day open trial in Moscow and was sentenced to 10 years by the
USSR Supreme Court's Military Cases Collegium. He spent 21 months in prison and
was then exchanged in February 1962, for Soviet intelligence officer Rudolph
Abel, who had been arrested in New York in 1957. Source: cia.gov released
photos...
CIA FOIA Search Francis
Gary Powers
http://www.foia.cia.gov/powers.asp
This collection provides yet another view of US
intelligence activities vital to national security. It showcases the use of
state-of-the-art technology and air reconnaissance to gather intelligence on
the Soviet bomber force, missile program, and nuclear program. The U-2
program entailed grave risks both internationally and domestically,
including domestic political ramifications when a successful program is
exposed. Specifically, the collection includes CIA Director Dulles'
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the CIA report
from its own Board of Inquiry into Powers' conduct during his flight and
capture. In addition, other documents include his trial in the USSR, his
exchange for another Soviet spy held by the US, and his activities once he
left the CIA.

Khrushchev and Gary Powers Wreckage
Soviet leader Nakita Khrushchev and the
recovered wreckage from the shoot down of the U-2 piloted by
Francis Gary Powers. Source: cia.gov released photos... Flight Path of May
1, 1960 U-2 Flight.
The U-2 Spy Plane Incident
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/dl/U2Incident/U2documents.html
At the height of the "cold war," as critics of the
Eisenhower administration complained about the growing "missile gap," the
United States secretly gathered data on Soviet missile capabilities through
photographs obtained from U-2 reconnaissance plane overflights of the Soviet
Union. In May 1960, plans were finalized for a crucial Paris summit
conference between western nations and leaders of the Soviet Union with
disarmament to be the main focus. Hopes for a successful summit were dashed
when on May 1, May Day, an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary
Powers was shot down over Soviet air space. On the first day of the Paris
summit, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stormed out after delivering a
condemnation of U.S. spy activities.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
President in Crisis - National Archive - Maps -
Photos - Text
President John F. Kennedy - Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962

23 July 1962 President Kennedy's News Conference.
Washington, D. C., State Department Auditorium. Photograph by Abbie Rowe,
National Park Service, in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum,
Boston.
EXCOMM meeting, Cuban Missile Crisis, 29 October 1962. 29
October 1962 Executive Committee of the National Security Council meeting.
Clockwise from President Kennedy: President Kennedy; Secretary of Defense Robert
S. McNamara; Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric; Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Maxwell Taylor; Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul
Nitze; Deputy USIA Director Donald Wilson; Special Counsel Theodore Sorensen;
Special Assistant McGeorge Bundy; Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon;
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy; Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (hidden);
Ambassador Llewellyn Thompson; Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director
William C. Foster; CIA Director John McCone (hidden); Under Secretary of State
George Ball; Secretary of State Dean Rusk. White House, Cabinet Room.
Photograph by Cecil Stoughton, White House, in the John F. Kennedy Presidential
Library and Museum, Boston. Photograph by Cecil Stoughton, White House, in the
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Year - 1951

"Men of the 1st Marine Division
capture Chinese Communists during fighting on the central Korean front.
Hoengsong." By Pfc. C.T. Wehner, March 2, 1951.
National Archives and Records Administration,
Records of the U.S. Marine Corps.
"'Exercise Desert Rock.' Troops of the
Battalion Combat Team, U.S. Army 11th Airborne Division, watch a plume of
radio-active smoke rise after a D-Day blast at Yucca Flats, as the much prepared
Exercise 'Desert Rock' reaches its peak." By Cpl. McCaughey, Las Vegas,
Nevada, November 1, 1951. National
Archives and Records Administration, Records of the Office of the Chief Signal
Officer.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel
Office
http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/coldwar/pmcold.htm
Thirty-nine U.S. military aircraft and one
civilian aircraft were either shot down by communist forces or crashed on
the periphery of communist countries while flying operational missions
during the Cold War (1946-1991). This table summarizes the 14 operational
missions whose crews were either wholly - or partially - unaccounted for
when DPMO was created in 1993. For greater detail on each incident, go to
the incident description page.
As you view these tables, keep in mind that behind
every figure, there is-or was- a courageous services member. Although we’ve
arranged them in tables and numbers to assist researchers, they will always
be much more than that to us.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DPMO Cold War
Report- Cold War Losses, Single Page Summary
|
Loss Date |
Aircraft Type |
Location |
Aircrew Size |
Returned or
Recovered Alive |
Remains Recovered |
Missing |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. 8 Apr 50 |
PB4Y2 |
Baltic Sea |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
2. 6 Nov 51 |
P2V |
Sea of Japan |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
3. 13 Jun 52 |
RB-29 |
Sea of Japan |
12 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
4. 7 Oct 52 |
RB-29 |
Pacific Ocean
|
8 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
|
5. 29 Nov 52 |
Civilian |
P.R. of China |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| 6. 18 Jan 53 |
P2V |
Formosa Straits |
13 |
7 |
0 |
6 |
| 7. 29 Jul 53 |
RB-50 |
Sea of Japan |
17 |
1 |
2 |
14 |
| 8. 17 Apr 55 |
RB-47 |
Bearing Sea |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
| 9. 22 Aug 56 |
P4M |
East China Sea |
16 |
0 |
4 |
12 |
| 10. 10 Sep 56 |
RB-50 |
Sea of Japan |
16 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
| 11. 2 Sep 58 |
C-130 |
Armenia |
17 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
| 12. 1 Jul 60 |
RB-47 |
Barents Sea |
6 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
| 13. 14 Dec 65 |
RB-57 |
Black Sea |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| 14. 15 Apr 69 |
EC-121 |
Sea of Japan |
31 |
0 |
2 |
29 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
165 |
12 |
28 |
125 |
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CREWS ARRANGED BY
SERVICE
|
Service |
Aircrew |
Returned or Recovered Alive |
Remains Recovered |
Missing |
| Air Force |
81 |
3 |
21 |
57 |
| Civilians |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| Marine Corps |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Navy |
79 |
7 |
6 |
66 |
|
Totals |
165 |
12 |
28 |
125 |
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
http://www.nato.int/

Signature of the Paris Agreements - Paris, France, 23 October 1954
- The Federal Republic of Germany is invited to join NATO. Please credit
NATO photos.
North Atlantic Council Meeting at the level of Foreign Ministers.
Lisbon, Portugal 20 February 1952. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) meeting
in Lisbon re-organises the structure of the Alliance and NATO becomes a
permanent organization with its headquarters in Paris. Please credit NATO
photos.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith
in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and
their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom,
common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles
of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote
stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for
collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They
therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the
Charter of the
United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be
involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further
development of peaceful and friendly international relations by
strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better
understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded,
and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to
eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will
encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the
objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of
continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop
their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the
opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or
security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one
or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack
against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack
occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective
self-defence recognised by
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party
or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with
the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of
armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic
area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a
result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such
measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the
measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security
.
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on
one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
-
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe
or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2),
on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the
Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
-
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of
the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe
in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the
date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the
North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be
interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the
Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the
primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international
engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any
third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and
undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with
this Treaty.
Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which
each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the
implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be
able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary
bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a
defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of
Articles 3 and 5.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite
any other European State in a position to further the principles of this
Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to
accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty
by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United
States of America. The Government of the United States of America will
inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of
accession.
Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions
carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited
as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America,
which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty
shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as
the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the
ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come
into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their
ratifications. (3)
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years,
or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests,
consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for
the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area,
including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements
under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international
peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty
years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of
denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of
America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the
deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts
are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government
of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted
by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
-
The definition of the territories to which
Article 5 applies was revised by
Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the
accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
-
On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council
noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were
concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as
from July 3, 1962.
-
The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949,
after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

Creation of the NATO Air Defence Ground Environment System (NADGE)
Paris, France. 1 July 1966. Please credit NATO photos. Official opening
of the new NATO Headquarters - Brussels, Belgium - 16 October 1967.
Photo credit NATO.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following is
Re-published from:
Library of Congress
/ Federal Research Division / Country Studies
APPENDIX C: THE WARSAW PACT -- Soviet Union
THE POLITICAL AND MILITARY ALLIANCE of the Soviet
Union and East European socialist states, known as the Warsaw Pact, was
formed in 1955 as a counterweight to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), created in 1949. During much of its early existence, the Warsaw Pact
essentially functioned as part of the Soviet Ministry of Defense. In fact,
in the early years of its existence the Warsaw Pact served as one of the
Soviet Union's primary mechanisms for keeping its East European allies under
its political and military control. The Soviet Union used the Warsaw Pact to
erect a facade of collective decisions and actions around the reality of its
political domination and military intervention in the internal affairs of
its allies. At the same time, the Soviet Union also used the Warsaw Pact to
develop East European socialist armies and harness them to its military
strategy and security policy.
Since its inception, the Warsaw Pact has reflected
the changing pattern of Soviet-East European relations and manifested
problems that affect all alliances. The Warsaw Pact evolved into something
other than the mechanism of control the Soviet Union originally intended it
to be and, since the 1960s, has become less dominated by the Soviet Union.
Thus, in 1962 Albania stopped participating in Warsaw Pact activities and
formally withdrew from the alliance in 1968. The organizational structure of
the Warsaw Pact also has provided a forum for greater intra-alliance debate,
bargaining, and conflict between the Soviet Union and its allies over the
issues of national independence, policy autonomy, and East European
participation in alliance decision making. At the same time that the Warsaw
Pact has retained its internal function in Soviet-East European relations,
its non-Soviet members have developed sufficient military capabilities to
become useful adjuncts of Soviet power against NATO in Europe (see fig. A,
this Appendix).
The Soviet
Alliance System, 1943-55
Long before the establishment of the Warsaw Pact
in 1955, the Soviet Union had molded the East European states into an
alliance serving its security interests. While liberating Eastern Europe
from Nazi Germany in World War II, the Red Army (see Glossary) established
political and military control over that region. The Soviet Union intended
to use Eastern Europe as a buffer zone for the forward defense of its
western borders and to keep threatening ideological influences at bay.
Continued control of Eastern Europe became second only to defense of the
homeland in the hierarchy of Soviet security priorities.
The Red Army began to form, train, and arm Polish
and Czechoslovak national units on Soviet territory in 1943. These units
fought with the Red Army as it carried its offensive westward into
German-occupied Poland and Czechoslovakia and then into Germany itself. By
1943 the Red Army had destroyed the Bulgarian, Hungarian, and Romanian
forces fighting alongside the German armed forces. Shortly thereafter it
began the process of transforming the remnants of their armies into allied
units that could re-enter the war on the side of the Soviet Union. Red Army
political officers (zampoliti--see Glossary) organized extensive
indoctrination programs in the allied units under Soviet control and purged
any politically suspect personnel. In all, the Soviet Union formed and armed
more than twenty-nine divisions and thirty-seven brigades and regiments,
which included more than 500,000 East European troops.
The allied national formations were directly
subordinate to the headquarters of the Soviet Union's Supreme High Command
and its executive body, the General Staff of the Armed Forces. Although the
Soviet Union directly commanded all allied units, the Supreme High Command
included one representative from each of the East European forces. Lacking
authority, these representatives simply relayed directives from the Supreme
High Command and General Staff to the commanders of East European units.
While all national units had so-called Soviet advisers, some Red Army
officers openly discharged command and staff responsibilities in the East
European armies. Even when commanded by East European officers, non-Soviet
contingents participated in operations against the German armed forces only
as part of Soviet fronts.
By the end of World War II, the Red Army (renamed
the Soviet army after the war) occupied Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland,
significant portions of Czechoslovakia, and eastern Germany, and Soviet
front commanders headed the Allied Control Commission in each of these
occupied countries. The Soviet Union gave its most important occupation
forces a garrison status when it established the Northern Group of Forces in
1947 and the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany in 1949. By 1949 the Soviet
Union had concluded twenty-year bilateral treaties of friendship,
cooperation, and mutual assistance with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Poland, and Romania, which granted the Soviet Union rights to a continued
military presence on their territory. The continued presence of Soviet armed
forces guaranteed Soviet control of these countries. The East European
satellite regimes depended entirely on Soviet military power--and the
continued deployment of 1 million Soviet soldiers--to stay in power. In
return, the new East European political and military elites were obliged to
respect Soviet political and security interests in the region. By contrast,
the Soviet Union did not occupy either Albania or Yugoslavia during or after
the war, and both countries remained outside direct Soviet control.
In the late 1940s and the 1950s, the Soviet Union
was more concerned about cultivating and monitoring political loyalty in its
East European military allies than increasing their utility as combat
forces. The Soviet Union assigned trusted communist party leaders of the
East European nations to the most important military command positions
despite their lack of military qualifications. It forced its East European
allies to emulate Soviet military ranks and uniforms and abandon all
distinctive national military customs and practices; these allied armies
used all Soviet-made weapons and equipment. The Soviet Union accepted many
of the most promising and eager East European officers into Soviet
mid-career military institutions and academies for the advanced study
essential to their promotion within the national armed forces command
structures. Furthermore, the East European ministries of defense established
political departments on the model of the Soviet Union's Main Political
Directorate of the Soviet Army and Navy.
The Formation of
the Warsaw Pact, 1955-70
On May 14, 1955, the Soviet Union
institutionalized its East European alliance system, henceforth known as the
Warsaw Pact, when it met with representatives from Albania, Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania in Warsaw to sign the
multilateral Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, which
was identical to their existing bilateral treaties with the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union claimed that the creation of the Warsaw Pact was in direct
response to the inclusion of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)
in NATO in 1955. At the same time, the formation of a legally defined,
multilateral alliance reinforced the Soviet Union's claim to be leader of
the world socialist system (see Glossary), enhanced its prestige, and
legitimized its presence and influence in Eastern Europe. The new alliance
system also gave the Soviet Union a structure for dealing with its East
European allies more efficiently when it superimposed the multilateral
Warsaw Pact on their existing bilateral treaty ties. Finally, as a formal
organization the Warsaw Pact provided the Soviet Union an official
counterweight to NATO in East-West diplomacy.
The 1955 treaty establishing the Warsaw Pact
stated that relations among the signatories were based on total equality,
mutual noninterference in internal affairs, and respect for national
sovereignty and independence. It declared that the Warsaw Pact's function
was collective self-defense of the member states against external
aggression, as provided for in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The
terms of the alliance specified the Political Consultative Committee (PCC)
as the highest alliance organ. The founding document formed the Joint
Command to organize the actual defense of the Warsaw Pact member states,
declared that the national deputy ministers of defense would act as the
deputies of the Warsaw Pact commander in chief, and established the Joint
Staff, which included the representatives of the general (main) staffs of
all its member states. The treaty set the Warsaw Pact's duration at twenty
years with an automatic ten-year extension, provided that none of the member
states renounced it before its expiration. The treaty also included a
standing offer to disband simultaneously with other military alliances,
i.e., NATO, contingent on East-West agreement about a general treaty on
collective security in Europe. This provision indicated that the Soviet
Union either did not expect that such an accord could be negotiated or did
not consider its new multilateral alliance structure very important.
Until the early 1960s, the Soviet Union used the
Warsaw Pact more as a tool in East-West diplomacy than as a functioning
political-military alliance. Under the leadership of Nikita S. Khrushchev,
the Soviet Union sought to project a more flexible and less threatening
image abroad and, toward this end, used the alliance's PCC to publicize its
foreign policy initiatives and peace offensives, including frequent calls
for the formation of an all-European collective security system to replace
the continent's existing military alliances. In 1956 the Warsaw Pact member
states admitted East Germany to the Joint Command and sanctioned the
transformation of East Germany's Garrisoned People's Police into a
full-fledged army. But the Soviet Union took no steps to integrate the
allied armies into a multinational force.
In his 1956 "secret speech" at the Twentieth Party
Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Khrushchev
denounced the arbitrariness, excesses, and terror of the Joseph K. Stalin
era. Khrushchev sought to achieve greater legitimacy for communist party
rule on the basis of the party's ability to meet the material needs of the
Soviet population. His de- Stalinization campaign quickly influenced
developments in Eastern Europe. Responding to East European demands for
greater political autonomy, Khrushchev accepted the replacement of Stalinist
Polish and Hungarian leaders with newly rehabilitated (see Glossary)
communist party figures, who were able to generate genuine popular support
for their regimes. He sought to turn Soviet- controlled East European
satellites into at least semiautonomous countries and to make Soviet
domination of the Warsaw Pact less obvious. He allowed the East European
armies to restore their distinctive national practices and to reemphasize
professional military opinions over political considerations in most areas.
Military training supplanted political indoctrination as the primary task of
the East European military establishments. Most important, the Soviet
Ministry of Defense recalled many Soviet army officers and advisers from
their positions within the East European armies.
In October 1956, the Polish and Hungarian
communist parties lost control of the de-Stalinization process in their
countries. The ensuing crises threatened the integrity of the entire Soviet
alliance system in Eastern Europe and led to a significant change in the
role of the Warsaw Pact as an element of Soviet security.
The Polish October
The Polish government's handling of the workers'
riots in Poland in October 1956 defined the boundaries of national communism
acceptable to the Soviet Union. The Polish United Workers' Party found that
the grievances that inspired the riots could be ameliorated without
presenting a challenge to its monopoly on political power or its strict
adherence to Soviet foreign policy and security interests. Poland's new
communist party leader, Wladyslaw Gomulka, and the Polish People's Army's
top commanders indicated to Khrushchev and the other Soviet leaders that any
Soviet intervention in the internal affairs of Poland would meet united,
massive resistance. While insisting on Poland's right to exercise greater
autonomy in domestic matters, Gomulka also pointed out that the Polish
United Workers' Party remained in firm control of the country and expressed
his intention to continue to accept Soviet direction in external affairs.
Gomulka's position permitted the Soviet Union to redefine the minimum
requirements for its East European allies: upholding the leading role of the
communist party in society and remaining a member of the Warsaw Pact. These
two conditions ensured that the Soviet Union's most vital interests would be
protected and that Eastern Europe would remain a buffer zone for the Soviet
Union.
The Hungarian
Revolution
By contrast, the full-scale revolution in Hungary,
which began in late October with public demonstrations in support of the
rioting Polish workers, openly flouted these Soviet stipulations. Initial
domestic liberalization acceptable to the Soviet Union quickly escalated to
nonnegotiable issues like challenging the communist party's exclusive hold
on political power and establishing genuine national independence. Imre
Nagy, the new communist party leader, withdrew Hungary from the Warsaw Pact
and ended Hungary's alliance with the Soviet Union. The Soviet army invaded
with 200,000 troops, crushed the Hungarian Revolution, and brought Hungary
back within limits tolerable to the Soviet Union. The five days of pitched
battles left 25,000 Hungarians dead.
After 1956 the Soviet Union practically disbanded
the Hungarian People's Army and reinstituted a program of political
indoctrination in the units that remained. In May 1957, unable to rely on
Hungarian forces to maintain order, the Soviet Union increased its troop
level in Hungary from two to four divisions and forced Hungary to sign a
status-of-forces agreement, placing the Soviet military presence on a solid
and permanent legal basis. The Soviet forces stationed in Hungary officially
became the Southern Group of Forces.
The events of 1956 in Poland and Hungary forced a
Soviet reevaluation of the reliability and roles of the Non-Soviet Warsaw
Pact (NSWP) countries in its alliance system. Before 1956 the Soviet
leadership believed that the Stalinist policy of heavy political
indoctrination and enforced Sovietization had transformed the national
armies into reliable instruments of the Soviet Union. After 1956 the Soviet
Union increasingly suspected that the East European armies were likely to
remain loyal to national causes.
A Shift Toward
Greater Cohesion
After the very foundation of the Soviet alliance
system in Eastern Europe was shaken in 1956, Khrushchev sought to shore up
the Soviet Union's position. Although Khrushchev had invoked the terms of
the Warsaw Pact as a justification for the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the
action was in no sense a cooperative allied effort. In the early 1960s,
however, the Soviet Union took steps to turn the alliance's armed forces
into a multinational intervention force. In the future, an appeal to the
Warsaw Pact's collective self-defense provisions and the participation of
allied forces would put a multilateral cover over unilateral Soviet
interventions to keep errant member states in the alliance and their
communist parties in power. By presenting future policing actions as the
product of joint Warsaw Pact decisions, the Soviet Union hoped to deflect
the kind of direct international criticism the Soviet Union was subjected to
after the invasion of Hungary. Such internal deployments, however, were
clearly contrary to the Warsaw Pact's rule of mutual noninterference in
domestic affairs and conflicted with the alliance's declared purpose of
collective self-defense against external aggression. To circumvent this
semantic difficulty, the Soviet Union merely redefined external aggression
to include any spontaneous anti-Soviet, anticommunist uprising in an allied
state.
In the late 1950s, the Soviet Union began to take
a series of steps to transform the Warsaw Pact into its intra-alliance
intervention force. Although it had previously worked with the East European
military establishments on a bilateral basis, the Soviet Union started to
integrate the national armies under the Warsaw Pact framework. Military
exercises with Soviet forces and the allied national armies became the
primary focus of Warsaw Pact military activities.
The Soviet Union planned these joint exercises to
prevent any NSWP member state from fully controlling its national army and
to reduce the possibility that an East European regime could successfully
resist Soviet domination and pursue independent policies. A series of joint
Warsaw Pact exercises, organized and controlled by the Soviet Union, was
intended to prevent other East European national command authorities from
following the example of Yugoslavia and Albania and adopting a territorial
defense strategy.
The Prague Spring
In 1968 an acute crisis in the Soviet alliance
system suddenly occurred. The domestic liberalization program of the
Czechoslovak communist regime led by Alexander Dubcek threatened to generate
popular demands for similar changes in the other East European countries and
even parts of the Soviet Union. Domestic change in Czechoslovakia also began
to affect defense and foreign policy, just as it had in Hungary in 1956,
despite Dubcek's declared intention to keep Czechoslovakia within the Warsaw
Pact. Once again, the Soviet Union felt it necessary to forestall the spread
of liberalization and to assert its right to enforce the boundaries of
ideological permissibility in Eastern Europe. This concern was the major
factor in the Soviet Union's decision to invade Czechoslovakia in 1968. The
Soviet decision in favor of intervention focused, in large measure, on
ensuring its ability to maintain physical control of its wayward ally in the
future.
In contrast to its rapid, bloody suppression of
the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the Soviet Union engaged in a lengthy
campaign of military coercion against Czechoslovakia. In 1968 the Soviet
Union conducted more joint Warsaw Pact exercises than in any other year
since the maneuvers began in the early 1960s. The Soviet Union used these
exercises to mask preparations for, and threaten, a Warsaw Pact invasion of
Czechoslovakia that would occur unless Dubcek complied with Soviet demands
and abandoned his political liberalization program. Massive Warsaw Pact rear
services and communications exercises in July and August enabled the Soviet
Union's General Staff to execute its plan for the invasion without alerting
Western governments. Under the pretext of conducting exercises, Soviet and
NSWP divisions were brought up to full strength, reservists were called up,
and civilian transportation resources were requisitioned. The cover that
these exercises provided allowed the Soviet Union to deploy forces along
Czechoslovakia's borders with Poland and East Germany and to demonstrate to
the Czechoslovak leadership its readiness to intervene.
On August 20, a force consisting of twenty-three
Soviet divisions invaded Czechoslovakia. Token NSWP contingents, including
one Hungarian, two East German, and two Polish divisions, along with one
Bulgarian brigade, also took part in the invasion. In the wake of the
invasion, the Soviet Union installed a more compliant communist party
leadership and concluded a status-of-forces agreement with Czechoslovakia,
which established a permanent Soviet presence in that country for the first
time. Five Soviet divisions remained in Czechoslovakia to protect the
country from future "imperialist threats." These troops became the Central
Group of Forces and added to Soviet strength directly bordering NATO member
states. The Czechoslovak People's Army, having failed to oppose the Soviet
intervention and defend the country's sovereignty, suffered a tremendous
loss of prestige after 1968. At Soviet direction, reliable Czechoslovak
authorities conducted a purge and political reeducation campaign in the
Czechoslovak People's Army and cut its size. With its one-time closest
partner now proven unreliable, the Soviet Union turned to Poland as its
principal East European ally.
The Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia showed
the hollowness of the Soviet alliance system in Eastern Europe in both its
political and its military aspects. The Soviet Union did not convene the PCC
to invoke Warsaw Pact action during the 1968 crisis because a formal session
would have revealed a deep rift in the Warsaw Pact alliance and given
Czechoslovakia an international platform from which it could have defended
its reform program.
While the participation of four NSWP armies in the
Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia ostensibly demonstrated considerable
Warsaw Pact cohesion, the invasion also served to erode it. The invasion of
Czechoslovakia proved that the Warsaw Pact's mission of keeping orthodox
East European communist party regimes in power--and less orthodox ones in
line--was more important than the mission of defending its member states
against external aggression. The Soviet Union was unable to conceal the fact
that the alliance served as the ultimate mechanism for its control of
Eastern Europe. Formulated in response to the crisis in Czechoslovakia, the
Brezhnev Doctrine (see Glossary) declared that the East European countries
had "limited" sovereignty, to be exercised only as long as it did not damage
the interests of the "socialist commonwealth" as a whole.
The Romanian leader, Nicolae Ceausescu, after
refusing to contribute troops to the Soviet intervention force as the other
East European countries had done, denounced the invasion of Czechoslovakia
as a violation of international law and the Warsaw Pact's cardinal principle
of mutual noninterference in internal affairs. Ceausescu insisted that
collective self-defense against external aggression was the only valid
mission of the Warsaw Pact. Albania also objected to the Soviet invasion and
indicated its disapproval by withdrawing formally from the Warsaw Pact after
six years of inactive membership.
In 1968, following the Warsaw Pact's invasion of
Czechoslovakia, Romania demanded the withdrawal from its territory of all
Soviet troops, advisers, and the Soviet resident representative. Reducing
its participation in Warsaw Pact activities considerably, Romania also
refused to allow Soviet or NSWP forces, which could serve as Warsaw Pact
intervention forces, to cross or conduct exercises on its territory.
Following the lead of Yugoslavia and Albania, Romania reasserted full
national control over its armed forces and military policies by adopting a
territorial defense strategy called "War of the Entire People," whose aim
was to end Soviet domination and to guard against Soviet encroachments.
Organization and
Strategy of the Warsaw Pact
The Warsaw Pact administered both the political
and the military activities of the Soviet alliance system in Eastern Europe.
A series of changes that began in 1969 gave the Warsaw Pact the structure it
retained through the late 1980s.
Political
Organization
The general (or first) secretaries of the
communist and workers' parties and heads of state of the Warsaw Pact member
states met in the PCC. The PCC provided a formal point of contact for the
Soviet and East European leaders in addition to less formal bilateral
meetings and visits. As the highest decision- making body of the Warsaw
Pact, the PCC was charged with assessing international developments that
affected the security of the allied states and warranted the execution of
the Warsaw Pact's collective self-defense provisions. In practice, however,
the Soviet Union was unwilling to rely on the PCC to perform this function,
fearing that Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania would use PCC meetings to
oppose Soviet plans and policies. The PCC was also the main center for
coordinating the foreign policy activities of the Warsaw Pact countries.
Since the late 1960s, when several member states began to use the alliance
structure to confront Soviet domination and assert more independent foreign
policies, the Soviet Union has had to negotiate to gain support for its
foreign policy within Warsaw Pact councils.
In 1976 the PCC established the permanent
Committee of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (CMFA) to regularize the
previously ad hoc meetings of Soviet and East European representatives to
the Warsaw Pact. Given the official task of preparing recommendations for
and executing the decisions of the PCC, the CMFA and its permanent Joint
Secretariat provided the Soviet Union an additional point of contact to
establish a consensus among its allies on contentious issues. Less formal
meetings of the deputy ministers of foreign affairs of the Warsaw Pact
member states represented another layer of alliance coordination. The
ministers were tasked with resolving alliance problems at these working
levels so that they would not erupt into embarrassing disputes between the
Soviet and East European leaders at PCC meetings.
Military
Organization
The Warsaw Pact's military organization was larger
and more active than the alliance's political bodies. Several different
organizations were responsible for implementing PCC directives on defense
matters and developing the capabilities of the national armies that
constituted the Warsaw Pact's armed forces. The principal task, however, of
the military organizations was to link the East European armies to the
Soviet armed forces. The alliance's military agencies coordinated the
training and mobilization of the East European national forces assigned to
the Warsaw Pact. In turn, these forces could be deployed in accordance with
Soviet military strategy against an NSWP country or NATO.
Soviet control of the Warsaw Pact as a military
alliance was scarcely veiled. The Warsaw Pact's armed forces had no command
structure, logistics network, air defense system, or operations directorate
separate from the Soviet Ministry of Defense. The 1968 invasion of
Czechoslovakia demonstrated how easily control of the Warsaw Pact's armed
forces could be transferred in wartime to the Soviet General Staff and to
Soviet field commanders. The dual roles of the Warsaw Pact commander in
chief, who was a first deputy Soviet minister of defense, and the Warsaw
Pact chief of staff, who was a first deputy chief of the Soviet General
Staff, facilitated the transfer of Warsaw Pact forces to Soviet control. The
subordination of the Warsaw Pact to the Soviet General Staff was also shown
clearly in the Soviet military hierarchy. In the Soviet order of precedence,
the chief of the Soviet General Staff was listed above the Warsaw Pact
commander in chief even though both positions also were designated first
deputy ministers of defense.
Ironically, the first innovations in the Warsaw
Pact's structure since 1955 came after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which
had clearly underlined Soviet control of the alliance. At the 1969 PCC
session in Budapest, the Soviet Union agreed to cosmetic alterations in the
Warsaw Pact designed to address East European complaints that the Soviet
Union dominated the alliance. These changes included the establishment of
the formal Committee of Ministers of Defense (CMD) and the Military Council,
as well as the addition of more non-Soviet officers to the Joint Command and
the Joint Staff.
Headed by the Warsaw Pact's commander in chief,
the Joint Command was divided into distinct Soviet and East European tiers.
The deputy commanders in chief included Soviet and East European officers.
The Soviet officers serving as deputy commanders in chief were specifically
responsible for coordinating the East European navies and air forces with
the corresponding Soviet service branches. The East European deputy
commanders in chief were the deputy ministers of defense of the NSWP
countries. While providing formal NSWP representation in the Joint Command,
the East European deputies also assisted in the coordination of Soviet and
non-Soviet forces. The commander in chief, deputy commanders in chief, and
chief of staff of the Warsaw Pact's armed forces gathered in the Military
Council on a semiannual basis to plan and evaluate operational and combat
training. With the Warsaw Pact's commander in chief acting as chairman, the
sessions of the Military Council rotated among the capitals of the Warsaw
Pact countries.
The Joint Staff was the only standing Warsaw Pact
military body and the official executive organ of the CMD, commander in
chief, and Military Council. As such, it performed the bulk of the Warsaw
Pact's work in the military realm. Like the Joint Command, the Joint Staff
had both Soviet and East European officers. The non-Soviet officers also
served as the principal link between the Soviet and East European armed
forces. The Joint Staff organized all joint exercises and arranged
multilateral meetings and contacts of Warsaw Pact military personnel at all
levels.
The 1969 PCC meeting also approved the formation
of two more Warsaw Pact military bodies, the Military Scientific-Technical
Council and the Technical Committee. These innovations in the Warsaw Pact
structure represented a Soviet attempt to harness NSWP weapons and military
equipment production, which had greatly increased during the 1960s. After
1969 the Soviet Union insisted on tighter Warsaw Pact military integration
as the price for greater NSWP participation in alliance decision making.
Soviet Military
Strategy and the Warsaw Pact
The Soviet armed forces constituted the bulk of
the Warsaw Pact's military manpower. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union provided
73 of the 126 Warsaw Pact tank and motorized rifle divisions. Located in the
groups of Soviet forces and four westernmost military districts of the
Soviet Union, these divisions comprised the majority of the Warsaw Pact's
combat-ready, full-strength units. Looking at the numbers of Soviet troops
stationed in or near Eastern Europe, and the historical record, one could
conclude that the Warsaw Pact was only a Soviet mechanism for organizing
intra-alliance interventions or maintaining control of Eastern Europe and
did not significantly augment Soviet offensive power vis-ŕ-vis NATO.
Essentially a peacetime structure for NSWP training and mobilization, the
Warsaw Pact had no independent role in wartime nor a military strategy
distinct from Soviet military strategy. The individual NSWP armies, however,
played important roles in the Soviet strategy for war outside the formal
context of the Warsaw Pact.
The goal of Soviet military strategy in Europe was
a quick victory over NATO in a nonnuclear war. Soviet miliary strategists
planned to defeat NATO decisively before its political and military command
structure could consult and decide how to respond to an attack. Under this
strategy, success would hinge on inflicting a rapid succession of defeats on
NATO to break its will to fight, knock some of its member states out of the
war, and cause the collapse of the Western alliance. In this plan, the
Warsaw Pact countries would provide forward bases, staging areas, and
interior lines of communication for the Soviet Union against NATO. A quick
victory would be needed to keep the United States from escalating the
conflict to the nuclear level by making retaliation against the Soviet Union
futile. A rapid defeat of NATO would preempt the mobilization of the West's
superior industrial and economic resources, as well as reinforcement from
the United States, which would enable NATO to prevail in a longer war. Most
significant, in a strictly conventional war the Soviet Union could have
conceivably captured its objective, the economic potential of Western
Europe, relatively intact. This plan for winning a conventional war quickly
to preclude the possibility of a nuclear response by NATO and the United
States was based on the deep offensive operation concept that Soviet
military theoreticians first proposed in the 1930s.
Continuing Soviet concern over the combat
reliability of its East European allies influenced, to a great extent, the
deployment of NSWP forces under the Soviet military strategy. Soviet leaders
believed that the Warsaw Pact allies would be most likely to remain loyal if
the Soviet armed forces engaged in a short, successful offensive operation
against NATO while deploying NSWP forces defensively. Soviet concern over
the reliability of its Warsaw Pact allies was reflected in the alliance's
military-technical policy, which was under Soviet control. The Soviet Union
gave the East European allies less modern, though still effective, weapons
and equipment to keep their armies less capable than the Soviet armed
forces. Thus the Soviet Union could keep the East European armies somewhat
modernized while not substantially increasing their capability to resist
Soviet intervention.
The Weakening of
the Alliance's Cohesion, 1970-85
Beginning in the early 1970s, the East European
allies formed intra-alliance coalitions in Warsaw Pact meetings to oppose
the Soviet Union, defuse its pressure on any one NSWP member state, and
delay or obstruct Soviet policies. The Soviet Union could no longer use the
alliance to transmit its positions to, and receive automatic endorsements
from, the subordinate NSWP countries. While still far from genuine
consultation, Warsaw Pact policy coordination between the Soviet Union and
the East European countries in the 1970s was a step away from the blatant
Soviet control of the alliance that had characterized the 1950s. East
European opposition forced the Soviet Union to treat the Warsaw Pact as a
forum for managing relations with its allies and bidding for their support
on issues like détente, the Third World, the Solidarity movement in Poland,
alliance burden- sharing, and relations with NATO.
Détente
In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union abandoned its
earlier efforts to achieve the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the
Warsaw Pact and concentrated instead on legitimating the territorial status
quo in Europe. The Soviet Union asserted that the official East-West
agreements reached during the détente era "legally secured the most
important political-territorial results of World War II." Under these
arrangements, the Soviet Union allowed its East European allies to recognize
West Germany's existence as a separate state. In return the West, and West
Germany in particular, explicitly accepted the inviolability of postwar
borders in Eastern Europe and tacitly recognized Soviet control of the
eastern portion of both Germany and Europe. The Soviet Union claimed the
1975 Helsinki Accords (see Glossary), which ratified the existing political
division of Europe, as a major victory for Soviet diplomacy and the
realization of long- standing Soviet calls, issued through the PCC, for a
general European conference on collective security.
The consequences of détente, however, also posed a
significant challenge to Soviet control of Eastern Europe. First, détente
caused a crisis in Soviet-East German relations. East Germany's leader,
Walter Ulbricht, opposed improved relations with West Germany and, following
Ceausescu's tactics, used Warsaw Pact councils to attack the Soviet détente
policy openly. In the end, the Soviet Union removed Ulbricht from power in
1971 and proceeded unhindered into détente with the West. Second, détente
blurred the strict bipolarity of the Cold War era, opened Eastern Europe to
greater Western influence, and loosened Soviet control over its allies. The
relaxation of East-West tensions in the 1970s reduced the level of threat
perceived by the NSWP countries, along with their perceived need for Soviet
protection, and eroded Warsaw Pact alliance cohesion. After the West
formally accepted the territorial status quo in Europe, the Soviet Union was
unable to point to the danger of "imperialist" attempts to overturn East
European communist party regimes to justify its demand for strict Warsaw
Pact unity behind its leadership, as it had in earlier years. The Soviet
Union resorted to occasional propaganda offensives, accusing West Germany of
revanchism and aggressive intentions in Eastern Europe, to remind its allies
of their ultimate dependence on Soviet protection and to reinforce the
Warsaw Pact's cohesion against the attraction of good relations with the
West.
Despite these problems, the détente period
witnessed relatively stable Soviet-East European relations within the Warsaw
Pact. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union greatly expanded military
cooperation with the NSWP countries. Joint Warsaw Pact exercises conducted
in the 1970s gave the Soviet allies their first real capability for
offensive operations other than policing actions within the alliance. The
East European countries also began to take an active part in Soviet strategy
in the Third World.
With Eastern Europe in a relatively quiescent
phase, the Soviet Union began to build an informal alliance system in the
Third World during the 1970s. It employed its Warsaw Pact allies as
surrogates primarily because their activities minimized the need for direct
Soviet involvement and obviated possible international criticism of Soviet
actions in the Third World. East European allies followed the lead of Soviet
diplomacy and signed treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual
assistance with most of the important Soviet Third World allies. These
treaties established a "socialist division of labor" among the East European
countries in which each specialized in the provision of certain aspects of
military or economic assistance to different Soviet Third World allies.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
and East Germany were the principal Soviet proxies for arms transfers to the
Third World. These NSWP countries supplied Soviet- manufactured equipment,
spare parts, and training personnel to various Third World armies. During
this period, the Soviet Union also relied on its East European allies to
provide the bulk of the economic aid and credits given by the Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe to the countries of the Third World. Beginning in the
late 1970s, mounting economic problems sharply curtailed the contribution of
the East European allies to the Soviet Union's Third World activities. In
the early 1980s, when turmoil in Poland reminded the Soviet Union that
Eastern Europe remained its most valuable asset, the Third World became a
somewhat less important object of Soviet attention.
The rise of the independent trade union movement
Solidarity shook the foundation of communist party rule in Poland and,
consequently, Soviet control of a country the Soviet Union considered
critical to its security and alliance system. Given Poland's central
geographic position, this unrest threatened to isolate East Germany, sever
vital lines of communication to Soviet forces deployed against NATO, and
disrupt Soviet control in the rest of Eastern Europe.
As it did in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet
Union used the Warsaw Pact to carry out a campaign of military coercion
against the Polish leadership. In 1980 and 1981, the Soviet Union conducted
joint Warsaw Pact exercises with a higher frequency than at any time since
1968 to exert pressure on the Polish regime to solve the Solidarity problem.
Under the cover that the exercises afforded, the Soviet Union mobilized and
deployed its reserve and regular troops in the Belorussian Military District
as a potential invasion force (see fig. 30). Faced with the threat of Soviet
military intervention, the Polish government instituted martial law and
suppressed Solidarity. From the Soviet perspective, the imposition of
martial law by Polish internal security forces was the best possible
outcome. Martial law made the suppression of Solidarity a strictly domestic
affair and spared the Soviet Union the international criticism that an
invasion would have generated.
Although the Polish People's Army had previously
played an important role in Soviet strategy for a coalition war against
NATO, the Soviet Union had to revise its plans and estimates of Poland's
reliability after 1981, and it turned to East Germany as its most reliable
ally. In the early 1980s, because of its eager promotion of Soviet interests
in the Third World and its importance in Soviet military strategy, East
Germany completed its transformation from defeated enemy and dependent ally
into the principal junior partner of the Soviet Union.
The End of Détente
In the late 1970s, the West grew disenchanted with
détente, which had failed to prevent Soviet advances in the Third World, the
deployment of SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) aimed at
West European targets, the invasion of Afghanistan, or the suppression of
Solidarity. The Soviet Union used the renewal of East-West tension as a
justification for forcing its allies to close ranks within the Warsaw Pact.
But restoring the alliance's cohesion and renewing its confrontation with
Western Europe proved difficult after several years of good East-West
relations. In the early 1980s, internal Warsaw Pact disputes centered on
relations with the West after détente, NSWP contributions to alliance
defense spending, and the alliance's reaction to IRBM deployments in NATO.
The resolution of these disputes produced significant changes in the Warsaw
Pact as, for the first time, two or more NSWP countries simultaneously
challenged Soviet military and foreign policy preferences within the
alliance.
In the PCC meetings of the late 1970s and early
1980s, Soviet and East European leaders of the Warsaw Pact debated the
threat that they perceived emanated from NATO. Discussions of the "NATO
threat" also played a large part in Warsaw Pact debates about an appropriate
level of NSWP military expenditure. The issue of an appropriate Warsaw Pact
response to NATO's 1983 deployment of American Pershing II and cruise
missiles, matching the Soviet SS- 20s, proved to be the most divisive one
for the Soviet Union and its East European allies in the early and
mid-1980s. After joining in a vociferous Soviet propaganda campaign against
the deployment, the East European countries split with the Soviet Union over
how to react when their "peace offensive" failed to forestall it. The
refusal of the NSWP countries to meet their Warsaw Pact financial
obligations in the 1980s further indicated diminished alliance cohesion.
The Renewal of the
Alliance, 1985-89
After becoming general secretary of the CPSU in
March 1985, Mikhail S. Gorbachev organized a meeting of the East European
leaders to renew the Warsaw Pact, which was due to expire that May. Few
people doubted that the Warsaw Pact member states would renew the alliance.
Some Western analysts speculated, however, that the Soviet Union might
unilaterally dismantle its formal alliance structure to improve the Soviet
image and to put pressure on the West to disband NATO. The Soviet Union
could still have relied on the network of bilateral treaties in Eastern
Europe, which predated the formation of the Warsaw Pact and had been renewed
regularly. Combined with later status-of-forces agreements, these treaties
assured the Soviet Union that the essence of its alliance system and buffer
zone in Eastern Europe would remain intact, regardless of the Warsaw Pact's
status. But despite their utility, the bilateral treaties could not fully
substitute for the Warsaw Pact. Without a formal alliance, the Soviet Union
would have to coordinate foreign policy and military integration with its
East European allies through cumbersome bilateral arrangements. Although the
Soviet and East European leaders debated the terms of the Warsaw Pact's
renewal at their April 1985 meeting, they did not change the original 1955
treaty, nor the alliance's structure, in any way.
In the mid- to late 1980s, the future of the
Warsaw Pact hinged on Gorbachev's developing policy toward Eastern Europe.
At the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress in 1986, Gorbachev acknowledged that
differences existed among the Soviet allies and that it would be unrealistic
to expect them to have identical views on all issues. He demonstrated a
greater sensitivity to East European concerns than previous Soviet leaders
by briefing the NSWP leaders in their own capitals after the 1985 Geneva and
1986 Reykjavik superpower summit meetings. In 1987 the Warsaw Pact, under
Soviet tutelage, adopted a defense-oriented military doctrine. And,
following Gorbachev's announced unilateral reduction in the Soviet armed
forces, the NSWP countries also announced unilateral military reduction
during 1988 and 1989. In the late 1980s, however, mounting economic
difficulties and the advanced age of trusted, long-time communist party
leaders, like Gustáv Husák in Czechoslovakia, Todor Zhivkov in Bulgaria, and
János Kádár in Hungary, intensified the danger of domestic turmoil and
internal power struggles in the NSWP countries and threatened the alliance's
cohesion.
The 1980s have witnessed a dramatic increase in
the amount of secondary source material published about the Warsaw Pact. The
works of Alex Alexiev, Andrzej Korbonski, and Condoleezza Rice, as well as
those of various Soviet writers, provide a complete picture of the Soviet
alliance system and the East European military establishments before the
formation of the Warsaw Pact. William J. Lewis's The Warsaw Pact is
a very useful reference work with considerable information on the
establishment of the Warsaw Pact and the armies of its member states. The
works of Malcolm Mackintosh, a long-time observer of the Warsaw Pact, cover
the changes in the Warsaw Pact's organizational structure and functions
through the years. Christopher D. Jones's Soviet Influence in Eastern
Europe and subsequent articles provide a coherent interpretation of the
Soviet Union's use of the Warsaw Pact to control its East European allies.
In "The Warsaw Pact at 25," Dale R. Herspring examines intra- alliance
politics in the PCC and East European attempts to reduce Soviet domination
of the Warsaw Pact. Soviet military journals are the best source for
insights into the East European role in Soviet military strategy. Daniel N.
Nelson and Ivan Volgyes analyze East European reliability in the Warsaw
Pact. Nelson takes a quantitative approach to this perennial topic. By
contrast, Volgyes uses a historical and political framework to draw his
conclusions on the reliability issue. The works of Richard C. Martin and
Daniel S. Papp present thorough discussions of Soviet policies on arming and
equipping the NSWP allies. (For further information and complete citations,
see Bibliography.)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

President John F. Kennedy's speech cards show his remarks in Berlin, June
26, 1963. National Archives, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston, Massachusetts
(NLK-29248)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEARCH TOPICS:
Google Search
http://www.google.com/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Presidential Libraries -
Links:
http://www.berlin-brigade.de/
Berlin-Brigade-Memories
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/
CNN Perspectives Series
http://www.coldwar.org/
The Cold War Museum
Collapse of The USSR -
10 Years On
BBC News- Collapse of the Soviet Union
The Cold War Museum
http://www.coldwar.org/index.html
|