The so-called Brezhnev Doctrine and the delicate balance of the Warsaw Pact

fat tony

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
People, when they think of the good old days of the USSR, think of a huge red monolithic alliance that ran From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, to paraphrase the Great Winston Churchill. On the contrary, the Pact was in constant danger of falling apart which would have led to internecine squabbling and war between the member states.

What lessons does this have for us Westerners in the 21st century, if anything.

One possible lesson is that the senior partner, Russia proper, could not deliver the goods vis a vis the projection of Soviet prestige, influence, and power globally. Next, the former member states turned on each other and inwardly, resulting in a hellacious round of quite vicious post soviet wars (round I). Well round I did not deliver the goods wrt the settling of longstanding issues in the former Soviet alliance. Currently, we are seeing round II of these sinister, callous and merciless internecine wars starting up again.

I am sure there are lots of diplomats (by any other name) working their butts off to get a handle on what is going on, but from my point of view, things have not hit rock bottom, thus, we are currently seeing the conflict in the Ukraine in a 'becoming' stage if you will. Things have not come to a head, and if things do come to such a head the next level of fun will start. I have no idea what that will be.

I could be way off base, maybe a true lasting peace will break out, but it is clear to me that the Ukraine has severe internal problems that are not going to go away anytime soon, and I may be again off base, but other former soviet member states probably have their own festering internal problems that my come to a head at some future point. / rambling discourse.

Brezhnev Doctrine section:
********************************************************************************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_Doctrine

Brezhnev Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Brezhnev Doctrine was a Soviet foreign policy, first and most clearly outlined by S. Kovalev in a September 26, 1968, Pravda article, entitled Sovereignty and the International Obligations of Socialist Countries. Leonid Brezhnev reiterated it in a speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party on November 13, 1968, which stated:
Eastern Bloc

When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.

This doctrine was announced to retroactively justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 that ended the Prague Spring, along with earlier Soviet military interventions, such as the invasion of Hungary in 1956. These interventions were meant to put an end to liberalization efforts and uprisings that had the potential to compromise Soviet hegemony inside the Eastern Bloc, which was considered by the Soviets to be an essential defensive and strategic buffer in case hostilities with NATO were to break out.

In practice, the policy meant that only limited independence of the satellite states' communist parties was allowed and that no country would be allowed to compromise the cohesiveness of the Eastern Bloc in any way. That is, no country could leave the Warsaw Pact or disturb a ruling communist party's monopoly on power. Implicit in this doctrine was that the leadership of the Soviet Union reserved, for itself, the right to define "socialism" and "capitalism". Following the announcement of the Brezhnev Doctrine, numerous treaties were signed between the Soviet Union and its satellite states to reassert these points and to further ensure inter-state cooperation. The principles of the doctrine were so broad that the Soviets even used it to justify their military intervention in the non-Warsaw Pact nation of Afghanistan in 1979. The Brezhnev Doctrine stayed in effect until it was ended with the Soviet reaction to the Polish crisis of 1980–81.[1] Mikhail Gorbachev refused to use military force when Poland held free elections in 1989 and Solidarnosc defeated the Polish United Workers' Party.[2] It was superseded by the facetiously named Sinatra Doctrine in 1989, alluding to the Frank Sinatra song "My Way".[3]

Contents

1 Origins
1.1 1956 Hungarian Crisis
1.2 1968 Prague Spring
1.3 Formation of the Doctrine
1.4 Brezhnev Doctrine in Practice
1.5 Renouncement
2 See also
3 References
4 Bibliography

Origins
1956 Hungarian Crisis

The period between 1953-1968 was saturated with dissidence and reformation within the Soviet satellite states. 1953 saw the death of Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin, followed closely by Nikita Khrushchev’s ‘Secret Speech’ denouncing Stalin in 1956. This denouncement of the former leader led to a period of the Soviet Era known commonly as “De-Stalinization.” Under the blanket reforms of this process, Imre Nagy came to power in Hungary as the new Prime Minister, taking over for Mátyás Rákosi. Almost immediately Nagy set out on a path of reform. Police power was reduced, collectivized farms were breaking apart, industry and food production shifted and religious tolerance was becoming more prominent. These reforms shocked the Hungarian Communist Party. Nagy was quickly overthrown by Rákosi in 1955, and stripped of his political livelihood. Shortly after this coup, Khrushchev signed the Belgrade Declaration which stated “separate paths to socialism were permissible within the Soviet Bloc.”[4] With hopes for serious reform just having been extinguished in Hungary, this declaration was not received well by the Hungarians.[4] Tensions quickly mounted in Hungary with demonstrations and calls for not only the withdrawal of Soviet troops, but for a Hungarian withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well. By October 23 Soviet forces landed in Budapest. A chaotic and bloody squashing of revolutionary forces lasted from the October 24 until November 7.[5] Although order was restored, tensions remained on both sides of the conflict. Hungarians resented the end of the reformation, and the Soviets wanted to avoid a similar crisis from occurring again anywhere in the socialist camp.
1968 Prague Spring

Notions of reform had been slowly growing in Czechoslovakia since the early-mid 1960’s. However, once the Stalinist President Antonín Novotný resigned as head of the Czechoslovak Communist Party in January 1968, the Prague Spring began to take shape. Alexander Dubček replaced Novotný as head of the party, initially thought a friend to the Soviet Union. It was not long before Dubček began making serious liberal reforms. In an effort to establish what Dubček called “developed socialism”, he instituted changes in Czechoslovakia to create a much more free and liberal version of the socialist state.[6] Aspects of a market economy were implemented, travel abroad became easier for citizens, state censorship loosened, the power of the secret police was limited, and steps were taken to improve relations with the west. As the reforms piled up, the Kremlin quickly grew uneasy as they hoped to not only preserve socialism within Czechoslovakia, but to avoid another Hungarian-style crisis as well. Soviet panic compounded in March of ’68 when student protests erupted in Poland and Antonín Novotný resigned as the Czechoslovak President. March 21 Yuri Andropov, the KGB Chairman, issued a grave statement concerning the reforms taking place under Dubček. “The methods and forms by which the work is progressing in Czechoslovakia remind one very much of Hungary. In this outward appearance of chaos…there is a certain order. It all began like this in Hungary also, but then came the first and second echelons, and then, finally the social democrats.”[7]

Leonid Brezhnev sought clarification from Dubček on March 21, with the Politburo convened, on the situation in Czechoslovakia . Eager to avoid a similar fate as Imre Nagy, Dubček reassured Brezhnev that the reforms were totally under control and not on a similar path to those seen in 1956 in Hungary.[7] Despite Dubček’s assurances, other socialist allies grew uneasy by the reforms taking place in an Eastern European neighbor. Namely, the Ukrainians were very alarmed by the Czechoslovak deviation from standard socialism. The First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party called on Moscow for an immediate invasion of Czechoslovakia in order to stop Dubček’s ‘socialism with a human face’ from spreading into the Ukraine and sparking unrest.[8] By May 6 Brezhnev condemned Dubček’s system, declaring it a step toward “the complete collapse of the Warsaw Pact.”[8] After three months of negotiations, agreements, and rising tensions between Moscow and Czechoslovakia, the Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion began on the night of August 20, 1968 which was to be met with great Czechoslovak discontent and resistance for many months into 1970.[6]
Formation of the Doctrine

Brezhnev realized the need for a shift from Nikita Khrushchev’s idea of “different paths to socialism” towards one that fostered a more unified vision throughout the socialist camp.[9] “Economic integration, political consolidation, a return to ideological orthodoxy, and inter-Party cooperation became the new watchwords of Soviet bloc relations.”[10] On November 12, 1968 Brezhnev stated that “[w]hen external and internal forces hostile to socialism try to turn the development of a given socialist country in the direction of…the capitalist system...this is no longer merely a problem for that country’s people, but a common problem, the concern of all socialist countries.” Brezhnev’s statement at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers Party effectively classified the issue of sovereignty as less important than the preservation of international socialism.[11] While no new doctrine had been officially announced, it was clear that Soviet intervention was imminent if Moscow perceived any country to be at risk of jeopardizing the integrity of socialism.
Brezhnev Doctrine in Practice

The vague, broad nature of the Brezhnev Doctrine allowed application to any international situation the USSR saw fit. This is clearly evident not only through the Prague Spring in 1968, and the indirect pressure on Poland from 1980–81, but also in the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan starting in the ‘70s.[12] Any instance which caused the USSR to question whether or not a country was becoming a risk to international socialism, the use of military intervention was, in Soviet eyes, not only justified, but necessary.[13]
Renouncement
The long lasting struggle of the war in Afghanistan made the Soviets realize that their reach and influence was in fact limited. “[The war in Afghanistan] had shown that socialist internationalism and Soviet national interests were not always compatible.”[13] Tensions between the USSR and Czechoslovakia since 1968, as well as Poland in 1980 proved the inefficiencies inherent in the Brezhnev Doctrine. Although the Soviet Union wanted to preserve socialism in its allies sometimes that proved easier said than done. Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika finally opened the door for Soviet Bloc countries and republics to make reforms without Soviet intervention.
 
Last edited:
What can we say? Communism was a bankrupt system which was destroyed by its own contradictions. It took away the freedoms of the people that it claimed to liberate from their oppressors and established itself as the new oppressor. And of course, the communist ruling elite simply replaced the former czars and nobility. Poor Russia. the people have been screwed over by nobility, communists and now the oligarchs for a very long time.

We can expect conflicts around the periphery of Russia for some time to come. The breakup of empires is always followed by struggles to pick up the pieces.
 
No pictures of milsurplus? No?


P.S. These how you call them "internal problems" of ex-USSR, ex-Warsaw Pact countries, or other countries have something in common. I can't figure out what exactly. Can you?
Let's start looking starting from 20th century:
1917-1921 - series of wars of Soviet Russia against Ukraine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian–Soviet_War
1920 - Soviet Russia war against Poland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War
1921 - Soviet Russia war against Georgia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia
1939 - USSR war against Poland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
1939 - USSR war against Finland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
1945 - USSR as result of WW2 occupies Eastern Europe and installs pro-Soviet governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungaria.
1945 - USSR as result of WW2 annexes Kennigsberg
1956 - USSR intervention to Hungaria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
1968 - USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries intervention to Czechoslovakia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia
1979 - USSR intervention and war in Afganistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
1994 - Russia's intervention and war in Chechnya - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
1999 - Russia's Second Chechen war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
2008 - Russia war against Georgia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
2014 - Russian Annexation of Crimea and war on Donbass in Ukraine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass
 
Last edited:
No pictures of milsurplus? No?


P.S. These how you call them "internal problems" of ex-USSR, ex-Warsaw Pact countries, or other countries have something in common. I can't figure out what exactly. Can you?
Let's start looking starting from 20th century:
1917-1921 - series of wars of Soviet Russia against Ukraine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian–Soviet_War
1920 - Soviet Russia war against Poland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War
1921 - Soviet Russia war against Georgia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia
1939 - USSR war against Poland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
1939 - USSR war against Finland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
1945 - USSR as result of WW2 occupies Eastern Europe and installs pro-Soviet governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungaria.
1945 - USSR as result of WW2 annexes Kennigsberg
1956 - USSR intervention to Hungaria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
1968 - USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries intervention to Czechoslovakia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia
1979 - USSR intervention and war in Afganistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
1994 - Russia's intervention and war in Chechnya - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
1999 - Russia's Second Chechen war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
2008 - Russia war against Georgia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
2014 - Russian Annexation of Crimea and war on Donbass in Ukraine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass

No pics of M39s sorry.

Not having an ethnicity that was directly affected by Soviet muscle, I can only make observations as an outsider. I have much empathy for those who were. I understand that internal problems of far flung countries is often a hot button issue, so I am not going to be specific about that. I am not a member of the Fifth International though, in case you were wondering. Best regards cou:
 
Last edited:
Roddy: Whatever's going on, I assure you, I'm not involved. I'm just an innocent bystander.
Spike: Rita, Rita, Rita.
[laughs]
Spike: Thought you could give us the slip?
[Slips and falls]
Spike: What are you looking at? Keep still! Come on, then! Right! Who have we got here?
Whitey: I believe he said his name was Millicent Bystander.
 
I can't help but notice that the only country the fought them off, was also the least affected over the long term.

The Finns bit the Soviets so hard they declined another go at them even once they lost their German support. There may have been more going there apart from their few concessions that I'm not aware of though.
 
Last edited:
Actually about Winter war with Finland there is few very good academic works done by Russian and German historians. They explain Stalin motivations to go to war with Finland in 1939 and why there was such big human lose by Soviet army. Stalin had basically 3 motivations and problems needing immediate attention.

Objective 1

Move Finnish border away from Leningrad in 1939 it was only 30km or less from Leningrad which was Soviet Unions second most important centre. With Peace treaty with Finland in 1940 giving Karelia to Soviet Union it was achieved

Objective 2

Make sure that if Germany decides to attack Soviet Union in the future, Finland would never fully support Germany either would dare to advance beyond Finnish ethnic borders (the fact is that large portions of Northern Russia are ethnically Finnish despite most of the population is Russian speaking)
This was achieved Manherhim never dared to cross that line despite limited Soviet oposition in some parts of Northern Russia

Objective 3 (this was most important)

On September 17 1939 Soviet Union annexed eastern part of Poland that had substantial western Ukrainian minority about 70% of the total population. Soviets deported most of the Polish minority to Kazakhstan but were left with what is called by governing circles in that area "Toxic Asset" western Ukraine. Area with high levels of wild and brutal peasant based nationalism and likelihood of anti-soviet rebellion or activity. What Stalin did was a master strike it was basically "evil genius". He could not deport Ukrainians since they were the pretexted to annexation of that portion of Poland in 1939, he did not want to simply start executing them on masse since it would start rebellion.
So the "evil genius" came with exceptional plan:

Start war in very hard terrain to fight successful that favours defenders: Finland
Stalin new Fins were good fighters he also made sure that all this newly formed red army units stuffed with Ukrainian peasants would be unprepared for winter combat and would be marched to Finnish killing fields by Soviet officers.

Objective of removing most of western Ukrainian peasants was achieved very skillful without them even knowing they were sent to die.

It is well known fact that when Stalin wanted to end that war he simply bombed Helsinki and Torku and Finland surrendered within a week
 
One more thing please do not link Stalin soviet governing circle to Russia today. Russia today is governed by Russians. Lenin's and Stalin's governing elite was only less then 20% Russian the rest were other nationalities. Shift some blame to them
 
So a sort of Russian Monroe Doctrine?

Fascinating, but Brezhnev and friends are long gone.
 
So a sort of Russian Monroe Doctrine?

Fascinating, but Brezhnev and friends are long gone.

Some things don't change. Big powers have interests and spheres of influence which they act on and which are recognized by other big powers. The Russians have always been interested in warm water ports on the Baltic and the Black Seas and in establishing buffer zones of vassal, allied or non-aligned states between themselves and their perceived rivals. They've also had an enduring interest in access to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.

This is why they view NATO involvement in the Ukraine and the Baltics as so provocative.

One current theme is the Russian interest in exploiting their oil and gas reserves via pipelines to Europe, and this is why they are active with Turkey and why they are involved in the Ukraine and the Middle East. One of the cleverest Russian moves in recent years was to make Europe dependent on their gas and oil. This found a powerful amount of support among European environmentalists, pacifists and leftists and has probably gotten them more advantages as they would have gotten by overrunning Western Europe during the Soviet era. Its kind of a Mexican standoff here. The Russians are highly dependent on oil and gas revenues from Europe and the Europeans are equally dependent on Russian oil.
 
Watching media and light reading on the Soviet era, esp. the latter part is interesting to me. I am glad Canada so far has taken a relatively high road with regards to Baltic State relations. Seems to have borne fruit as we appear to have pretty good relations with those states now, knowing full well we did not help them militarily in the bad old days.
 
Last edited:
As far as the Baltic states have you guys heard about "Suwalki Gap". It is the only means of supply and only land connection to the Baltic states. That gap is only 50km, heavily forested. Technically it is Poland but majority of the population in that region is eastern oriented and when trouble starts "little green man" will be their at home. Most people in Suwalki gap will sympathize with Russia not Poland. Suwalki region is an oddity as far as gun owner ship goes in Poland. Poland has one of the most restrictive gun laws in Europe. Only 1 firearm per 100 citizens. However in Suwalki region this is different due to large forest areas possession of hunting rifles is about 30% of households
 
Some things don't change. Big powers have interests and spheres of influence which they act on and which are recognized by other big powers. The Russians have always been interested in warm water ports on the Baltic and the Black Seas and in establishing buffer zones of vassal, allied or non-aligned states between themselves and their perceived rivals. They've also had an enduring interest in access to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.

This is why they view NATO involvement in the Ukraine and the Baltics as so provocative.

One current theme is the Russian interest in exploiting their oil and gas reserves via pipelines to Europe, and this is why they are active with Turkey and why they are involved in the Ukraine and the Middle East. One of the cleverest Russian moves in recent years was to make Europe dependent on their gas and oil. This found a powerful amount of support among European environmentalists, pacifists and leftists and has probably gotten them more advantages as they would have gotten by overrunning Western Europe during the Soviet era. Its kind of a Mexican standoff here. The Russians are highly dependent on oil and gas revenues from Europe and the Europeans are equally dependent on Russian oil.

The Russians at present seem quite content behind their own borders. While I was a hawk during the Cold War and still have many dozens of books on the Soviet regime and its evils, we are not dealing with the Soviet Union anymore. The Russians do not need "living space", they do not need natural resources, nor do they need our money, they need only to be left alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom