“Army operation gives corpses ...” The film “In August of the 44th”
As you know, for any job it would be nice to have the appropriate tool. Of course, you can build a hut using only an ax, but doing this is inconvenient and unproductive. For some reason, I recall the era of the Napoleonic Wars and all the lancers, cuirassiers, huntsmen, horse rangers, grenadiers, dragoons ... That is, the armies were very diverse in composition. And it was hardly anyone's whim.
That is, all these units with very different equipment and weapons were created to solve some of their tasks, and this did not surprise anyone. That is, in the most surprising way, the ground army was not simply divided into infantry, cavalry and artillery, as was later customary to think.
It is unlikely that the European monarchs of that era simply wanted to play with the soldiers (although not without it!). Obviously, the costs of creating and maintaining "unique" units paid off during wars and battles, otherwise no one would simply bother with this, they would create standard cavalry and infantry regiments. For some reason, in the modern era, from a certain moment, it became very popular tank troops, literally expected miracles from them, and the question arose periodically: did the tank become obsolete or not?
Later, some strange increased interest arose around special forces - as the name implies, units designed to solve very specific problems. You won’t win wars, as well as tanks alone. There is no such “magic” kind of troops that would help solve all problems. This does not happen.
It is clear that the world's most remarkable tank troops will not be able to solve all tasks on the battlefield, but it is even more erroneous to believe that they can be successfully applied to solve political problems.
Regarding Hungary-56, and especially Czechoslovakia-68, not to mention the GDR-52, serious questions arise specifically about the work of the Soviet special services, and not about whether or not to introduce tanks. Entering tanks is already from hopelessness. That is, when it all went down the drain. With the help of tanks and even paratroopers (who came to Prague much earlier and were much more useful), political problems are not solved.
It’s a rather strange situation when similar events happen “suddenly” in the country of internal affairs. Such events do not occur suddenly (usually). There had to be some kind of preparation, some kind of background. This is not a “sudden landing of Martians”, when half an hour ago there was nothing, and then all of a sudden ... And it is always better to extinguish a fire at the very beginning (any fireman will confirm this to you).
If we take the most interesting (and the most famous) example, Czechoslovakia-68, then one cannot help but be struck by this absolutely fake choice of the summer of the year 68, namely: to introduce tanks or not to introduce them. Quite a strange choice. In fact, tank troops were initially designed a little for other tasks. Something like that. What does the Czechoslovak event have to do with, it's hard to understand. If you think about it, it was just the tank forces that were most useless for solving the very questions that existed in Soviet-Czechoslovak relations.
Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague created a “good” picture for the Western media, but, apparently, solving political problems with their help was about the same as hammering screws, not even with a hammer, but with a sledgehammer. Sloppy somehow happened. Stupid and hopeless. In principle, this “dilemma” is already here: to enter / not to introduce tanks (plug) is already a sign that we have missed something. Moreover, it was not tank commanders who missed it, but politicians, diplomats and special services.
Actually, that was their task. Prevent, extinguish or launch events in some other direction. Generally do something. On the whole, there is a bad impression that by the summer of 68th we in Czechoslovakia had completely lost absolutely everything in the sphere of politics, diplomacy and special services, the situation is completely uncontrollable, and one thing remains - to introduce tanks. Bad decision.
In general, the situation is quite typical: if you are offered a choice of two obviously unacceptable solutions, bad and very bad (and then choose it yourself), then a logical question arises: how did it happen and why did we end up here? Here are some comrades who do not like this much. Say, what is there to brainstorm — to decide, in the sense of “shaking”, it is necessary, moreover, urgently.
But it’s just not clear, because Czechoslovakia was an ally, and work was inevitably carried out both on the party line and on the line of special services. And why did you get such a “wonderful” result, all of a sudden? What the heck? Everything was lost, everything was lost, we urgently need to put out everything with tanks. And, apparently, before that “happy” moment, did the guys drink Czech beer and write up correctly written memorandums that everything goes the way? So it turns out?
It is completely incomprehensible why exactly the situation arose that completely lost control over the situation, when there, in Prague, everyone unequivocally made a decision there ... That is, we did not see problems there, but a catastrophe. But this does not happen. Usually, problems increase little by little. You can do something, somehow fight them, take some steps. That is, a “fall”, even if it is inevitable, must be very time-stretched.
And (purely theoretically) there should have been a serious split in the Czechoslovak leadership - there is no other way. And among the Czechoslovak people, too. How else? But in some strange way, we already had a “ready” situation, when literally all organized forces were against us. This makes no sense.
Here it must be understood that, as in the case of Hungary and Yugoslavia, foreign interest was behind all this “happiness”. This did not work out by itself. And yes, why did they succeed in practically everything, but we have practically nothing? Who's guilty? One essential thing to understand here: these very “free Eastern Europeans” (who honestly fought for the Führer) love to chat about the fact that they should have been given some free choice where to join and with whom to be friends.
Yeah, or to the galactic council, or to the Martian confederation. In fact, in addition to the ATS, they could only and exclusively join NATO, which confirmed история after the 91st year, and deploy on its territory American military bases. No other way. The exit of Czechoslovakia from the eastern bloc "split" the police department in half. This would be a strategic catastrophe for the USSR, and this could not be allowed in any case.
The war begins "before the war"
It’s somehow customary for us to count the beginning of the Second World War precisely from June 22, which is somewhat erroneous. Military-diplomatic maneuvers in Eastern Europe, the adoption of new republics and territories into the USSR is also a war. It is quite difficult to name the exact date of its beginning. The “Ideal Coup” in Prague, which was sacked by Soviet politicians, diplomats and special services, is also from the category of war before the war.
If it is successful, the next steps (at least with regard to Czechoslovakia) are easy to predict: the tale of a “neutral”, friendly USSR state should not deceive anyone. Czechoslovakians had no options other than changing the flag. Or do you believe in a second Switzerland? The level of naivete of Prague politicians and the level of incompetence of Soviet diplomats are striking.
The exit of Czechoslovakia from the social. community inevitably radically changed the situation in Europe, put the USSR in an extremely difficult situation and, in principle, led to the drain of the Cold War. Too Czechoslovakia was “successfully” located. That is, some strange proposal: we are your friends, we are fundamentally changing the state policy, as a result of this, our country leaves the block you created, and you (possibly) lose the confrontation with the United States. Please shave.
That is, the “kindest state” in the place of the USSR could not have allowed such a step and would have been forced to fight for its survival. Only complete idiots could count on the fact that all this geopolitical nonsense was "going through". The exit of Czechoslovakia from the ATS is a split of the ATS into two parts and (in the future) NATO’s exit directly to the borders of the USSR. Are there, in Prague, full of cretins sitting? What were they counting on?
The loss of Vietnam did not nearly create the United States such geostrategic risks, but they fought there to the last. And somehow they were not very ready to give Vietnam to the Vietnamese. That is, in the era of the Cold War, to say that such a change of vector is a completely internal affair of Czechoslovakia, smacks of insanity.
Czechoslovakia-68 is a prosperous sovereign state ruled by the Czechs and Slovaks themselves. And somehow the Soviet troops were not there. Live as you want, do what you want! Yeah, and according to the results of the Czechoslovakia, they quickly fled from the eastern bloc. Why didn’t politicians in Prague understand the consequences of such a move and why did Soviet diplomats and party leaders not describe these consequences to them? Who was more incompetent?
There, still later arrested, Dubcek was very indignant, they say that I am your enemy? Rather, a very narrow-minded and incompetent head of state. Well, how could a professional politician not understand the consequences of such an escapade? Brezhnev intervened at a very late stage of the crisis, but if he had waited a little longer, then perhaps in the late 60s we would have had a military conflict between NATO and the ATS in Czechoslovakia. Was pan Dubcek doing this? Or what?
In the case of Chile and Allende, in spite of all the savagery and cruelty of the coup, the USSR was extremely difficult to intervene because of its geographic remoteness and “lack of presence” in this country. But here in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union was present, and very active. What prevented us from solving the problem politically? To push some politicians and push others? To control the situation and manage it? Do anything? Keep in touch with existing politicians and explain to them the consequences of their steps? Work?
And even if, for example, everything went wrong, then what prevented the active involvement of special services? They had to monitor the situation, track and suppress (initially), but at the time of the political crisis they should start their so-called “dirty games” with radical nationalist groups, with separate, “prepared” politicians in advance, and so on ... But neither the work of Soviet diplomats, nor the work of Soviet special services is imperceptible.
I once read a translated publication on the actions of British bombers during WWII. In the preface, our man mocked slightly naive British: they say that in the initial period of the war they had no organization and no planning - almost the crews of the bombers themselves chose their goals. Judging by the "memoir" - yes, there was a certain mess, but the attention was attracted by a completely different one.
There is a meeting "at the highest level", and there the Royal Air Force marshals report on possible targets for striking in Germany and the rest of Europe. The option of attacking Romania from the south is being considered ... and here a boring little civilian gets into the conversation. And he quite sincerely begins to wonder: why bomb Romania (even without German troops)? Why risk people and cars?
It turns out that this is a representative of the British special services, and he proposes ... to organize "popular unrest" in Romania, followed by the burning of oil rigs by "angry crowds." So, suddenly. The term of preparation is a month, well, a "small amount" in pounds for preparation. And the oil fields burn "by themselves." And if you add money and time, you can set fire to the Balkans a lot ... And, having drowned the barges with concrete slabs with the hands of the "rebels", block the navigation on the Danube ... Yes, there is a lot to offer. There is progress.
That is just a purely British approach: to intervene in the affairs of a foreign state so skillfully as to achieve the desired result and not leave traces. Without military incursions, occupation and economic obligations. What for? Correct the operation of the system subtly and accurately using relatively small amounts. Intelligence, diplomacy, influence groups, non-governmental organizations, business.
If you want to eat a serving of stew, you do not have to buy the whole restaurant. If you want to drink a glass of milk, it is not necessary to provide someone's cow with hay for the whole year. These are slightly different things. As it became widely known, back in WWI, the British special services, along with diplomats, worked very actively and successfully throughout Europe. Both in the Central Powers and in the Entente countries. In neutral countries, they also worked tirelessly.
And if the British army did not glorify itself with any special achievements during this war, then this can not be said about the British special services. They worked in Russia (successfully), and in Germany (no less successfully), and in Central Europe. And they worked in Italy: the neutral Rome’s performance on the Entente’s side was entirely due to British diplomats and special services. Thank them for that.
An equally well-known fact is that during World War II British intelligence worked successfully both in the Reich and ... in the USSR! There was nothing for German intelligence officers to catch from Stalin, but gentlemen took the level and old developments. And after WWII, British intelligence continued to work in the USSR, and continues to do so in Russia (recall at least the famous spy stone and mentally take off our hat before someone else's professionalism). And we have all the tanks to enter are torn ...
An example with the storming of Amin’s palace and not only
For some strange reason, this very example is constantly cited, and constantly this example is proud of beyond measure. This is strange ... Drawing into an armed conflict in a foreign country - what good could be in this? And it was impossible to eliminate Amin somehow otherwise? There are methods, and very different. Without a force assault by parts of the Soviet special forces. There, it seems, his cook worked for the KGB.
And did Amin really have no enemies in Afghanistan? This is the first question that a British politician / diplomat / secret service would ask himself. Is it possible to do this dirty business with the wrong hands, without attracting attention? Isn’t a "accident" possible with Amin? Can't he get seriously ill? Can he not have serious disagreements with his inner circle? Can't a random, unintentional shot happen at the moment of a sharp conflict in the political leadership? And was Amin himself an enemy of the USSR?
Forgive me, of course, but the author does not succeed in sincerely rejoicing over this very “assault on the forehead”. Well, you have special forces, but do you have special services? Do you always hammer screws with one hit? No other way?
I recall the mention of a senior Russian official about the aircraft of the US Vice President - there seems to be a whole command post for "special operations." And, they say, “we don’t work like that”, we are noble. And you, you mean, can only "enter tanks" or "do not enter tanks"?
Ukraine, bored by all, is the same example of a stupid fork: either enter or not enter. Excuse me, what did our diplomats and special services do until February 2014? Introducing tanks is a very controversial and controversial decision. Thus, Russia exposes itself as the unambiguous “aggressor” and “invader”. And where is the “profit"? At the same time, in Ukraine 2014 there was no close “pro-Russian” government that could be supported in extreme cases by caterpillars. Remember: the army does not know how to solve political problems, it is not for this purpose. Especially the tank army.
They say absolutely correctly about Afghanistan: the Soviet Army decided all set before her purely military tasks, but to solve the problems of "political settlement" is the task of politicians, diplomats and workers special services. Acting by a variety of methods. Not always “conventional,” alas. I do not like? Then go to the kindergarten as a tutor. And even an army officer does not have to play such “games”. Even in the course of the war - everything is clear there, on the one hand its own, on the other - alien.
Politicians, diplomats and special services so does not work. As a rule, they don’t have “clean hands”, nor a “clear conscience”. And what can you do, this work. Remember the “permissive letters of Cardinal Richelieu” justifying allWhat will make this or that subject the interests of the crown? But the French are still proud of him and consider him the greatest statesman. And the aircraft carriers are named after him. By the way, it was Richelieu who raised the French secret services from obscurity and made them the best in what was then Europe, providing organization and financing.
And it was he who categorically objected to France’s open entry into the Thirty Years War, preferring to fight purely with finances, special services and diplomats until the last possible moment (you’re a perdimonocle, not an army operation!). And all because the army is a very large sledgehammer (and very expensive), it does not fit the filigree political work, and God forbid the budget during the military campaign. And grabbing at this “sledgehammer” with or without it is not the smartest approach.
If you could not (politically) work in Ukraine when there were no Russian tanks, then why do you think that their presence would solve all the problems? Where from a confidence? From the point of view of normal politicians / special services, it is much more convenient to work in the country without the occupying forces there (which everyone hates and shoot at from every angle). Normal political work requires silence and calm, not a situation where everything is burning and exploding, and angry crowds are trying to burn your "magic" tanks.