Prague Spring, or the Danube Military Strategic Operation?
To the new historical assessment of the Czechoslovak events of 1968 and their participants
On the night of 20 on 21 August 1968, the troops of the five member states of the Warsaw Pact Organization entered Czechoslovakia. The military strategic operation "Danube" began - the largest military operation in Europe after the Second World War. As a result of its implementation, it was possible to prevent the revision of the postwar world order and to preserve Czechoslovakia’s membership in the Eastern European socialist bloc. An agreement was concluded on the conditions for the temporary stay of Soviet troops in the territory of Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet group remained in Czechoslovakia until the 1991 year.
More than 45 years have passed since the Czechoslovak events, but today their history is more topical than ever. It is quite in tune with the alarming modernity and the turning point of that time, and the magnitude of the events. 1968 year clearly demonstrates the relativity of historical time, the possibility of concentration of extremely significant events in a short chronological interval. This is one of the maxima of the geopolitical confrontation, the significance of which is especially acute in the context of the “second edition” of the Cold War being experienced today. The ill-wishers of our country are already using their own interpretation of Czechoslovak events to substantiate the thesis about its initial hostility to Western civilization and the legitimacy of the latest sanctions as “punishment for Ukraine”. An analysis of Czechoslovak events is also important in that the legal status of their participants often becomes the subject of the professional activities of lawyers, who, despite the fairness of the requirements presented to the state, due to imperfect legislation based on the ideological principles of the late 80's - the beginning of the 90's, cannot provide proper legal assistance to applicants. And the fact that the current legislation is hostage to the decadent ideology of the perestroika period does not raise any doubts among the thinking person. So, is it necessary for the legislator to change his approach to both the analysis of the events in Czechoslovakia of the 1968 year and the determination of the legal status of their participants?
It is well known that from a military point of view, the operation "Danube" was carried out brilliantly. An undeniable strategic success was achieved. However, historical assessments of the Czechoslovak events are still not satisfactory. First of all, the key question has not been resolved: what was decisive in the 1968 events of the year - the so-called “Prague Spring” with the notorious “socialism with a human face” or the military-strategic operation “Danube” as a historically justified response to a frank challenge to the post-war world ? The answer to the question is largely determined by the personal civil choice of the researchers.
It has long been noticed by us that during the upsurges of Russia, the public seems to be ashamed of the greatness of their own country. And only after going through a period of catastrophic (crisis) development, caused by the fluctuation of state foundations, does public opinion begin to lean toward overcoming internal counter-statehood.
At the end of the 80 of the 20th century, pro-Western-oriented liberals succeeded in inculcating in the public consciousness a sense of historical guilt over the 1968 year, presenting the events solely as a peaceful “Prague Spring”. The democratic transformations, in their opinion, were interrupted as a result of Soviet aggression, although it did not meet with organized military resistance, but faced with the resistance of the people to communist totalitarianism. The authors, who sought to study the Czechoslovak events in the general context of the Cold War, who were trying to emphasize the possible negative consequences for the entire world community in the event of the defeat of the USSR and its allies, were then few and unpopular. History has been supplanted by lightweight journalism with its characteristic fragmentation, which makes it easy to implant pseudoscientific myths.
It should be recognized that the wide dissemination of such assessments has been possible largely as a result of the low level of Soviet historical works. Official Soviet historiography followed L. Brezhnev, who voiced the thesis on the “international duty” of socialist countries in November 1968 (the so-called “Brezhnev doctrine”), interpreted the introduction of troops solely as a preventive measure aimed at preventing the separation of the country from the socialist camp by those who had chosen power "Revisionists", while artificially sticking out the ideological component of the Czechoslovak events.
The objective necessity of having a military contingent in Czechoslovakia occupying a central position in Europe (which its leaders opposed) was obscured in every way in the conditions of bloc confrontation. As a result, for a further liberal revaluation, it was enough just to mechanically replace the “pluses” with the “minuses”, which happened immediately after the betrayal of the “Danube” by the political leadership of the era of Mikhail Gorbachev. Numerous compilations claiming to be scientific have appeared, only repetitive offenses, mainly by Czech and Slovak authors seeking to take an ideological revenge for the military-political defeat of the 1968 of the year.
Modern ideas about the Czechoslovak events of 1968 continue to include many diverse points of view, historical assessments, and political myths. At the same time, the liberal approach is increasingly revealing its own scientific failure. His textbook poetic expression ("Tanks go through Prague / In the woven blood of dawn. / Tanks are going to be true, / Which is not a newspaper ”) is already perceived mainly only as a reason for reflection on the inclination of the creative intelligentsia to national treason. The social interest in Prague Spring is gradually dying out.
The main liberal dogmas have already been subjected to reasoned criticism. The possibility of forming a truly scientific historical assessments. Probably, 40 — 50 years is the necessary period, which allows you to avoid distortions caused by the close proximity of the event, to move away from direct projection on the scientific knowledge of ideological attitudes. In this regard, the geopolitical approach with the characteristic focus on Operation Danube and the perception of the Prague Spring as the first attempt of a “color” revolution organized from outside is attracting more and more attention. The formation and development of this approach is in many respects directly related to the ascetic efforts of a number of direct participants in the 1968 events of the year, dissatisfied with the conclusions and assessments, originally Soviet, and later liberal historiography.
It is noteworthy that almost all, including the rank and file, the participants of the "Danube" retained the conviction of the historical justification of this military strategic operation. Moreover, with their social growth, the scores of the operation were getting higher. A common historical memory led to the rapid formation of a community of like-minded people who directed their activities towards the restoration of historical truth. The first solution to this task was taken up by the legendary participant in the operation and the researcher of the Danube Guard colonel V.P. Suntsov, who published the acclaimed work “Operation Danube”: how it was ”and in many respects contributed to the publication of the collection“ Stinks have stolen the world from Europe ”. Of course, even before V.P. Suntsev published memoirs of the participants of the Czechoslovak events, but it was he who managed to make the work of collecting and publishing historical materials organized and regular.
The main conclusion of V.P. Sunntsev, according to which the successful conduct of the Danube prevented the upcoming invasion of the North Atlantic Treaty and avoided a large-scale, possibly nuclear, war in Europe, was a major contribution to the study of the military-strategic operation Danube.
Activities V.P. Suntseva inspired veterans living in the entire post-Soviet space. Increased their desire to create their own organizations.
In Rostov-on-Don, the Danube-68 public movement emerged, bringing together the participants in the operation and today known far beyond the region. Along with intra-organizational work and participation in the patriotic education of young people, the movement set itself the task of preserving the historical memory of the “Danube” and establishing a fair historical assessment of the operation and its participants. By personal efforts, it was possible not only to preserve and publish a large amount of materials capable of compensating still inaccessible archival sources, but also to substantiate conclusions that significantly change the understanding of the Czechoslovak events of the 1968 of the year.
It became finally clear that the “Prague Spring” was no more than an ideological cover for the next attempt to revise the postwar world order by the forces of aggression, which began as early as 1956 in Hungary by the aggression of Czechoslovakia, only the unenviable role of a springboard. For a proper assessment of the nature of the military-strategic operation, it is crucial to take into account the fact that all the participants of the Danube, without exception, had to act in new, especially difficult, conditions. For the first time, the main elements of the so-called “war of the new generation” were actively used.
The characteristics of such a war are not currently a secret. They are associated with the impact on the enemy by methods of primarily psychological nature, using social manipulation. Most powerful weapons in the “war of the new generation”, it’s not so much the military contingent as the mass media. The basic mechanism is straightforward. It consists, firstly, in the artificial creation of a so-called “overheating point”, secondly, in considering this situation through a magnifying glass (multiple replication of its own interpretation of the event using the media), and thirdly, in disseminating this distorted view to the whole country. The role of the media component is so great that the fighting is no longer for the sake of victory, but for the so-called PR. Ideological stamps are imposed not only on the local population, but also on the entire world community. The basic signs of such a war are also associated with this mechanism: the use of civilians as human shields against the troops; the desire to maximize their own losses; attributing to the enemy forces the actions that the real provocateur practices himself. (When you look at the photographs of Prague 1968 of the year, you unwittingly mark the unnatural stage performances of the protests, and cadre of Libya, Serbia, Syria and other “liberated” or “liberated” countries shot in the same way). Change in the historical assessment of the military-strategic operation “ Danube ”provides an opportunity for a new question about the status of participants in this operation.
It should be recognized that Russia is indebted to veterans: the issue of recognizing this category of servicemen as participants in hostilities has not yet been resolved. Czechoslovakia is not in the corresponding list of states. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. Despite numerous appeals to various instances, the case is limited to official official replies, the content of which makes you smile only once again. Of course, the issue of veteran status is far from simple, and no one offers to solve it without taking into account possible international legal consequences. However, one cannot accept the fact that the vulnerability of the defenders of the Fatherland is a sad tradition of our state, which declares high patriotism and forgets (and sometimes represses) its own heroes.
However, despite this annoying circumstance, we still pay tribute to veterans - participants of the events of the distant 1968 year. Perhaps in the near future, the legislator will radically change his position on this issue. However, this should be preceded by a fundamental change in state ideology, based on an understanding of the real meaning of historical events from both the distant and recent past.
Information about authors:
Bulgakov Vladimir Vasilievich - Hero of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General, Candidate of Military Sciences.
Shevchenko Vitaly Viktorovich - a participant in Operation Danube during his military service, an honorary employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Major General of the Police, Chairman of the Rostov Public Organization of Soldiers-Internationalists Danube-68.
Aleksey Vladimirovich Bailov - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology, History, Political Science of the Institute of Management in Ecological, Economic and Social Systems of the Southern Federal University.
On the night of 20 on 21 August 1968, the troops of the five member states of the Warsaw Pact Organization entered Czechoslovakia. The military strategic operation "Danube" began - the largest military operation in Europe after the Second World War. As a result of its implementation, it was possible to prevent the revision of the postwar world order and to preserve Czechoslovakia’s membership in the Eastern European socialist bloc. An agreement was concluded on the conditions for the temporary stay of Soviet troops in the territory of Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet group remained in Czechoslovakia until the 1991 year.
More than 45 years have passed since the Czechoslovak events, but today their history is more topical than ever. It is quite in tune with the alarming modernity and the turning point of that time, and the magnitude of the events. 1968 year clearly demonstrates the relativity of historical time, the possibility of concentration of extremely significant events in a short chronological interval. This is one of the maxima of the geopolitical confrontation, the significance of which is especially acute in the context of the “second edition” of the Cold War being experienced today. The ill-wishers of our country are already using their own interpretation of Czechoslovak events to substantiate the thesis about its initial hostility to Western civilization and the legitimacy of the latest sanctions as “punishment for Ukraine”. An analysis of Czechoslovak events is also important in that the legal status of their participants often becomes the subject of the professional activities of lawyers, who, despite the fairness of the requirements presented to the state, due to imperfect legislation based on the ideological principles of the late 80's - the beginning of the 90's, cannot provide proper legal assistance to applicants. And the fact that the current legislation is hostage to the decadent ideology of the perestroika period does not raise any doubts among the thinking person. So, is it necessary for the legislator to change his approach to both the analysis of the events in Czechoslovakia of the 1968 year and the determination of the legal status of their participants?
It is well known that from a military point of view, the operation "Danube" was carried out brilliantly. An undeniable strategic success was achieved. However, historical assessments of the Czechoslovak events are still not satisfactory. First of all, the key question has not been resolved: what was decisive in the 1968 events of the year - the so-called “Prague Spring” with the notorious “socialism with a human face” or the military-strategic operation “Danube” as a historically justified response to a frank challenge to the post-war world ? The answer to the question is largely determined by the personal civil choice of the researchers.
It has long been noticed by us that during the upsurges of Russia, the public seems to be ashamed of the greatness of their own country. And only after going through a period of catastrophic (crisis) development, caused by the fluctuation of state foundations, does public opinion begin to lean toward overcoming internal counter-statehood.
At the end of the 80 of the 20th century, pro-Western-oriented liberals succeeded in inculcating in the public consciousness a sense of historical guilt over the 1968 year, presenting the events solely as a peaceful “Prague Spring”. The democratic transformations, in their opinion, were interrupted as a result of Soviet aggression, although it did not meet with organized military resistance, but faced with the resistance of the people to communist totalitarianism. The authors, who sought to study the Czechoslovak events in the general context of the Cold War, who were trying to emphasize the possible negative consequences for the entire world community in the event of the defeat of the USSR and its allies, were then few and unpopular. History has been supplanted by lightweight journalism with its characteristic fragmentation, which makes it easy to implant pseudoscientific myths.
It should be recognized that the wide dissemination of such assessments has been possible largely as a result of the low level of Soviet historical works. Official Soviet historiography followed L. Brezhnev, who voiced the thesis on the “international duty” of socialist countries in November 1968 (the so-called “Brezhnev doctrine”), interpreted the introduction of troops solely as a preventive measure aimed at preventing the separation of the country from the socialist camp by those who had chosen power "Revisionists", while artificially sticking out the ideological component of the Czechoslovak events.
The objective necessity of having a military contingent in Czechoslovakia occupying a central position in Europe (which its leaders opposed) was obscured in every way in the conditions of bloc confrontation. As a result, for a further liberal revaluation, it was enough just to mechanically replace the “pluses” with the “minuses”, which happened immediately after the betrayal of the “Danube” by the political leadership of the era of Mikhail Gorbachev. Numerous compilations claiming to be scientific have appeared, only repetitive offenses, mainly by Czech and Slovak authors seeking to take an ideological revenge for the military-political defeat of the 1968 of the year.
Modern ideas about the Czechoslovak events of 1968 continue to include many diverse points of view, historical assessments, and political myths. At the same time, the liberal approach is increasingly revealing its own scientific failure. His textbook poetic expression ("Tanks go through Prague / In the woven blood of dawn. / Tanks are going to be true, / Which is not a newspaper ”) is already perceived mainly only as a reason for reflection on the inclination of the creative intelligentsia to national treason. The social interest in Prague Spring is gradually dying out.
The main liberal dogmas have already been subjected to reasoned criticism. The possibility of forming a truly scientific historical assessments. Probably, 40 — 50 years is the necessary period, which allows you to avoid distortions caused by the close proximity of the event, to move away from direct projection on the scientific knowledge of ideological attitudes. In this regard, the geopolitical approach with the characteristic focus on Operation Danube and the perception of the Prague Spring as the first attempt of a “color” revolution organized from outside is attracting more and more attention. The formation and development of this approach is in many respects directly related to the ascetic efforts of a number of direct participants in the 1968 events of the year, dissatisfied with the conclusions and assessments, originally Soviet, and later liberal historiography.
It is noteworthy that almost all, including the rank and file, the participants of the "Danube" retained the conviction of the historical justification of this military strategic operation. Moreover, with their social growth, the scores of the operation were getting higher. A common historical memory led to the rapid formation of a community of like-minded people who directed their activities towards the restoration of historical truth. The first solution to this task was taken up by the legendary participant in the operation and the researcher of the Danube Guard colonel V.P. Suntsov, who published the acclaimed work “Operation Danube”: how it was ”and in many respects contributed to the publication of the collection“ Stinks have stolen the world from Europe ”. Of course, even before V.P. Suntsev published memoirs of the participants of the Czechoslovak events, but it was he who managed to make the work of collecting and publishing historical materials organized and regular.
The main conclusion of V.P. Sunntsev, according to which the successful conduct of the Danube prevented the upcoming invasion of the North Atlantic Treaty and avoided a large-scale, possibly nuclear, war in Europe, was a major contribution to the study of the military-strategic operation Danube.
Activities V.P. Suntseva inspired veterans living in the entire post-Soviet space. Increased their desire to create their own organizations.
In Rostov-on-Don, the Danube-68 public movement emerged, bringing together the participants in the operation and today known far beyond the region. Along with intra-organizational work and participation in the patriotic education of young people, the movement set itself the task of preserving the historical memory of the “Danube” and establishing a fair historical assessment of the operation and its participants. By personal efforts, it was possible not only to preserve and publish a large amount of materials capable of compensating still inaccessible archival sources, but also to substantiate conclusions that significantly change the understanding of the Czechoslovak events of the 1968 of the year.
It became finally clear that the “Prague Spring” was no more than an ideological cover for the next attempt to revise the postwar world order by the forces of aggression, which began as early as 1956 in Hungary by the aggression of Czechoslovakia, only the unenviable role of a springboard. For a proper assessment of the nature of the military-strategic operation, it is crucial to take into account the fact that all the participants of the Danube, without exception, had to act in new, especially difficult, conditions. For the first time, the main elements of the so-called “war of the new generation” were actively used.
The characteristics of such a war are not currently a secret. They are associated with the impact on the enemy by methods of primarily psychological nature, using social manipulation. Most powerful weapons in the “war of the new generation”, it’s not so much the military contingent as the mass media. The basic mechanism is straightforward. It consists, firstly, in the artificial creation of a so-called “overheating point”, secondly, in considering this situation through a magnifying glass (multiple replication of its own interpretation of the event using the media), and thirdly, in disseminating this distorted view to the whole country. The role of the media component is so great that the fighting is no longer for the sake of victory, but for the so-called PR. Ideological stamps are imposed not only on the local population, but also on the entire world community. The basic signs of such a war are also associated with this mechanism: the use of civilians as human shields against the troops; the desire to maximize their own losses; attributing to the enemy forces the actions that the real provocateur practices himself. (When you look at the photographs of Prague 1968 of the year, you unwittingly mark the unnatural stage performances of the protests, and cadre of Libya, Serbia, Syria and other “liberated” or “liberated” countries shot in the same way). Change in the historical assessment of the military-strategic operation “ Danube ”provides an opportunity for a new question about the status of participants in this operation.
It should be recognized that Russia is indebted to veterans: the issue of recognizing this category of servicemen as participants in hostilities has not yet been resolved. Czechoslovakia is not in the corresponding list of states. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. Despite numerous appeals to various instances, the case is limited to official official replies, the content of which makes you smile only once again. Of course, the issue of veteran status is far from simple, and no one offers to solve it without taking into account possible international legal consequences. However, one cannot accept the fact that the vulnerability of the defenders of the Fatherland is a sad tradition of our state, which declares high patriotism and forgets (and sometimes represses) its own heroes.
However, despite this annoying circumstance, we still pay tribute to veterans - participants of the events of the distant 1968 year. Perhaps in the near future, the legislator will radically change his position on this issue. However, this should be preceded by a fundamental change in state ideology, based on an understanding of the real meaning of historical events from both the distant and recent past.
Information about authors:
Bulgakov Vladimir Vasilievich - Hero of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General, Candidate of Military Sciences.
Shevchenko Vitaly Viktorovich - a participant in Operation Danube during his military service, an honorary employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Major General of the Police, Chairman of the Rostov Public Organization of Soldiers-Internationalists Danube-68.
Aleksey Vladimirovich Bailov - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology, History, Political Science of the Institute of Management in Ecological, Economic and Social Systems of the Southern Federal University.
Information