# Warpac would they fight?



## The Basket (Sep 23, 2016)

Would the Soviet WarPac allies actually bleed for USSR?
If there was a war East v West would the Poles and Slovaks actually fought?
There are a few former WarPac country staff at my work and there view of the Soviet years is ambivalent to say the least.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2016)

My Sweetheart is Bulgarian and her father was Bulgarian Army, her brother was Bulgarian Navy.

From conversations I've had with them and several friends of theirs, they had no love for the Soviets and no animosity for the U.S.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 23, 2016)

Did the Russians trust the WarPac nations? I bet not.
Thing is the Soviet doctrine would be total war and if you throw tactical nukes and chemical and biological weapons about like confetti then it's not Moscow that will suffer but central Europe.

I thought Bulgarians would be more pro Russian as they share similar church and Slavic language.


----------



## stona (Sep 24, 2016)

The Basket said:


> D
> I thought Bulgarians would be more pro Russian as they share similar church and Slavic language.



That didn't stop them backing the German horse in WW2 (and WW1) 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 24, 2016)

"...That didn't stop them backing the German horse in WW2 (and WW1)"

They are, after all, supreme _pragmatists_. 

As to the question of "would they fight?" I believe that WAPAC being a military organization comprised of professional military folk .... trained and _trained_ to fight together .... using common military hardware and tactics .. they _would_ fight "the plan". How things would turn out long term in terms of their loyalty and performance efficiency is another story .... and depends on the success or defeat of The Plan. NATO never had "a plan" to invade WAPAC territory while the Soviets had "a plan" and rehearsed massive armored drives ..... which would be directed into open territory in Germany, IIRC.


----------



## stona (Sep 24, 2016)

I don't know, putting money on the German horse three months before 'Barbarossa' might be more bad judgement than pragmatism.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 24, 2016)

don't underestimate the audacity of _Hope_ .... the Barbarossa war machine, despite shortcomings, was very, very impressive. As Njaco's 'Day in the War' thread documents, the Soviets just didn't collapse .... they _fought _.... and the German coalition casualty figures confirm that.

Many folks in Central Europe feared Russian Communists more than they feared Germans. Germans, historically speaking, brought progress, prosperity and industriousness wherever they settled in Eastern/Central Europe. So _hoping_ for the success of Barbarossa is not out-of-character, as I understand it, .


----------



## stona (Sep 24, 2016)

And we have the benefit of hindsight. The Bulgarians, even if hoping for a triumph of hope over expectation, did not..

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 24, 2016)

I thought the majority of the military would be conscript.
The swiftness of the WarPac collapse as soon as the fear had gone is proof that if left to thier own devices they would have folded like superman on laundry day. 
The Soviet invasion of Western Europe would have happened I have absolutely no doubt if it was purely conventional warfare. Only the threat of nuclear annihilation could stop the steam roller.


----------

