Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) 1 2 [3]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> 1968 - Russian-Romanian tensions, The Czechoslovak scenario in Romania?
Victor
Posted: December 24, 2011 09:22 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 23, 2011 11:20 pm)
I also read Larry Watts book who is excellent!

I intended to buy the book after I heard of it on TV several months ago, but somehow it skipped my mind. Now I'm really going to get it.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: December 25, 2011 07:53 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 24, 2011 10:25 pm)
the romanian autonomous policy embodied especially in foreign policy and defense, visibly disturbed Moscow!

Obviously, but it it bother them so much as to invade us, too?
oh, another thing that's pretty uch an urban legend:
When did Romania refuse to take part in the "Danube" operation? The Warsaw Pact did not even think at inviting Romania to that!!!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: December 25, 2011 01:59 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



QUOTE
oh, another thing that's pretty uch an urban legend:
When did Romania refuse to take part in the "Danube" operation? The Warsaw Pact did not even think at inviting Romania to that!!!

Well MMM, it was (...ar fi fost...) the height of stupidity to invite us! The invasion occurred after tensions, latent threats, negotiations a.o. that have stretched from the spring of 1968 until the invasion of august... During all this period our leaders have always been on the side, and openly supported the Czechoslovak leadership, so...
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
IoanTM
Posted: January 05, 2012 09:58 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 3229
Joined: January 04, 2012



QUOTE (MMM @ December 24, 2011 02:20 pm)
All right, but I have a question:
WHY would the USSR have wanted to invade Romania? (compared with Hungary 1956 and/or Czechoslovakia 1968)

This seems to be somehow a wrong question - the correct one would be probably the following : Why the Soviet Army restrained itself for such an opportunity as another invasion ? :P

In a dictatorship like USSR - which heavily relied on army forces to maintain its internal structure - such opportunities are usually nice to be exploited as a reward ... or just to keep busy the officers ... :ph34r:
PMEmail Poster
Top
Petre
Posted: January 06, 2012 09:53 am
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 697
Member No.: 2434
Joined: March 24, 2009



QUOTE (IoanTM @ January 05, 2012 09:58 am)
This seems to be somehow a wrong question - the correct one would be probably the following : Why the Soviet Army restrained itself for such an opportunity as another invasion ? In a dictatorship like USSR - which heavily relied on army forces to maintain its internal structure - such opportunities are usually nice to be exploited as a reward ... or just to keep busy the officers ...

Well, well ! It seems to be too much... The Soviet Army was not by itself. Also, in those years they were not big problems with the internal structure and, anyway, that was a KGB mission ...
PMEmail Poster
Top
IoanTM
Posted: January 06, 2012 10:04 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 3229
Joined: January 04, 2012



QUOTE (Petre @ January 06, 2012 09:53 am)
Also, in those years they were not big problems with the internal structure and, anyway, that was a KGB mission ...

:huh:

Invasion of Czechoslovakia was not at all a KGB operation - but a real&complete Soviet Army operation. :)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Petre
Posted: January 06, 2012 03:31 pm
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 697
Member No.: 2434
Joined: March 24, 2009



Please, don't get me wrong.
It was about "... USSR - which heavily relied on army forces to maintain its internal structure ..."
PMEmail Poster
Top
IoanTM
Posted: January 10, 2012 10:08 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 3229
Joined: January 04, 2012



QUOTE (Petre @ January 06, 2012 03:31 pm)
Please, don't get me wrong.
It was about "... USSR - which heavily relied on army forces to maintain its internal structure ..."

OK - I get it now.

But I still maintain my previous argument : despite the infamous reputation and discretionary power of KGB ( and Securitate and so on ) the Army in ex-communist states post-WWII usually enjoy an even larger power-base - dedicated enterprises, scores of conscripts to be used for "private benefit" too not for military instruction ( as normal should ), generous budgets and wages for ( inflated ) number of upper-ranks, whose enjoyed privileges too and so on.
After fall of communism the Army-officers managed somehow to "clean" their public image while Secret Services officers remains ( the only ) scapegoats ... but this doesn't change the fact that the Army was a crucial institution too to maintain the establishment in Soviet Union. ;)
PMEmail Poster
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: January 11, 2012 12:37 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



@IoanTM
QUOTE
the Army in ex-communist states post-WWII usually enjoy an even larger power-base - dedicated enterprises, scores of conscripts to be used for "private benefit" too not for military instruction ( as normal should ), generous budgets and wages for ( inflated ) number of upper-ranks, whose enjoyed privileges too and so on.

I disagree with you if you refer to Romania and Romanian Army, especially after 1980! About the other countries from the Eastern Block and Soviet Union I believe you are right!
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
IoanTM
Posted: January 11, 2012 01:06 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 3229
Joined: January 04, 2012



QUOTE (ANDREAS @ January 11, 2012 12:37 am)
@IoanTM
QUOTE
the Army in ex-communist states post-WWII usually enjoy an even larger power-base - dedicated enterprises, scores of conscripts to be used for "private benefit" too not for military instruction ( as normal should ), generous budgets and wages for ( inflated ) number of upper-ranks, whose enjoyed privileges too and so on.

I disagree with you if you refer to Romania and Romanian Army, especially after 1980!

It's an interesting to discuss point - but generally I tend to agree with you ...

In '80 - especially when Ceausescu started to "milk" the armament industry in order to obtain the needed foreign currency to pay the external debt ... there was somehow a "breaking point" in his relation with the Army ... :roll:
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 2 [3]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0466 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]