DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 1: NATO and Warsaw Pact Forces in Europe-Data Published by the Two Alliances

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appendix 1: NATO and Warsaw Pact Forces in Europe-Data Published by the Two Alliances NATO Estimates' WTO Estimate~ Type NATO WTO NATO WTO Personnel 2,213,593' 3,090,000 3,660,200 3,573, I OQd Combat aircraft 3,977• 8,250 7,130 7,876f Total strike aircraft NA NA 4,075 2,7831 Helicopters 2,419h 3,700 5,270 2,785i Tactical missile launchers NA NA 136 1,608 Tanks 16,424i 51,500 30,690 59,47Qk Anti-tank weapons 18,2401 44,200 18,070 11,465m Armored infantry fighting vehicles 4,153" 22,400 46,900 70,330P Artillery 14,458q 43,400 57,060 71,560' Other armored vehicles 35,351' 71,000 Armored vehicle launch bridges 454' 2,550 Air defense systems 10,309" 24,400 Submarines 200 228• Submarines-nuclear powered 76 80 Large surface ships 499 102'" Aircraft-carrying ships 15 2 Aircraft-carrying ships armed with cruise missiles 274 23 Amphibious warfare ships 84 24• Sources: • Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts, November, 1988. b "Warsaw Pact Releases Figures on Force Strengths," Foreign Broadcast Information Service: Soviet Union, January 30, 1989, pp. 1-8. Notes for Data Published by the Alliances The following explanatory notes may be helpful to explain differences in the data presented by the two alliances caused by differences of definition: ' "Covers full-time military personnel of land forces, including Army personnel who perform ground-based air defence duties. Also included are 325 326 Meeting Gorbachev's Challenge command and general support troops and other ministry of defence troops. Paramilitary forces are excluded." d WTO definition: "Total of armed forces in Europe and adjoining waters." • Includes: F-16, F-4, F-5, NF-5, F-104, F-100, F-18, CF-18, F-Ill, F-35/RF-35, T-2E, A-7/TA-7, A-10, Alphajet, G-91, Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar, Mirage Fl/3/5, Tornado, F-15, Mirage 2000, Lightning, RF-4, TR- 1, C-212, PD808, EF-111, EC-130H, DC-8, Sarigue, C-160 Gabriel, RF-5, RF-16, RF-84, Hunter and Canberra for NATO. NATO has 530 combat aircraft in storage. MIG-15, MIG-17, MIG-21, MIG-23, MIG-25, MIG-27, MIG-29, MIG-31, SU-7, SU-15, SU-17, SU-22, SU-24, SU-25, SU-27, YAK-28, YAK-28P, L-29, L-39, IL-28, AN-12, TU-16, TU-22, TU-128 and TU- 22M for WTO. Also included is the TU-22M (Backfire) land-based naval aircraft. Excluded in the figures given are combat-capable training aircraft: 530 for NATO and 5,700 for WTO. r WTO classification: "Combat aircraft of front-line (tactical) Air Force aviation and Air Defense forces and naval aviation." Types include: fighter­ bombers (Buccaneer, Tornado, F-Ill, Mirage 5, F-4, F-15, F-16, F-18, Jaguar, Mirage III, F-104, Mirage 2000, F-100, F-35 Draken, F-5, F-84, and G-91), ground attack aircraft (A-7, A-10, Harrier, and Alphajet), fighters (F-16, Tornado, Mirage 2000, F-4, F-104, Mirage F-1, F-5), Air Defense Forces fighter-interceptors (Lightning), reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft (EF-111, RF-4, Tornado, Jaguar, Mirage F-IR, RF-5, Mirage IIIR, RF-16, Nimrod, Orion P-3, G-91, RF-104, RF-84, EC-130, DC-8, Canberra, and Shackleton), naval aviation (A-4, A-6, A-7, F/A-18, Sea Harrier, AV-8, Etendard, Super Etendard, F-4, Tornado, F-104, F-14, Crusader, ASW aircraft, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare planes), and combat support aircraft for NATO. Front-line bombers (Su-24), fighter-bombers (Su-22, Su-76, Su-17, MiG- 27), ground-attack aircraft (Su-25), fighters (MiG-29, MiG-23, MiG-21, Su-27), Air Defense forces fighter interceptors (MiG-31, MiG-25, Su-27, Su-15, Tu-128, Yak-28), reconnaissance and electronic warfare planes (MiG-25, MiG-21, Su-17, Su-24, Yak-28), naval aviation (Tu-16, Tu-22, Tu-142, 11-38, Be-12, Yak-38, Su-17, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-27) forWTO. 8 Includes: bombers, fighter-bombers, ground-attack aircraft within front­ line (tactical) Air Force aviation aircraft and naval aviation aircraft. h Includes: attack helicopters equipped with anti-tank guided missiles and machine guns and assault/transport helicopters. Not included in the given NATO figure are 180 helicopters held in storage. ' WTO definition: "Combat helicopters, including naval." Types include: gunships (Apache, Huey Cobra, Cobra-TOW, Bo-105P, Lynx, Mangusta, and Gazelle), multi-role (Iroquois, Black Hawk, Bo-105M, A1ouette, Lynx, AB-204, AB-205, AB-206 and AB-212), reconnaissance (Kaiowa, Gazelle, Alouette), assault transport and specialized (Puma, EH-IH, and EH-60), Navy helicopters (Sea King, Wessex, Lynx, Super Fre1on, Alouette, AB-212, Sea Cobra, Sea Stallion, Sea Hawk, and Iroquois) for NATO and gunship Appendix I 327 (Mi-24), assault transport (Mi-8), reconnaissance and force adjustment [razvedka i korrektirovka] (Mi-24 and Mi-8}, electronic warfare (Mi-8), and Navy helicopters (Ka-25, Ka-27, Ka-29, and Mi-14) for WTO. i Includes: Challenger, M-1, Leopard I and II, AMX-30, M-60, Chieftain, Centurion, M--47 and M--48 for NATO and T-80, T-72, T--62, T--64, T-55/54 and T-10/IOM for WTO. Not included in the given NATO figure are 5,800 tanks held in storage. k WTO definition: "All types of tanks with which the Warsaw Pact and NATO are equipped." 1 Includes vehicle mounted and non-vehicle mounted anti-tank guided missile launchers, anti-tank guns and recoilless rifles. Armored fighting vehicles and helicopters whose primary purpose is not anti-tank but which are equipped with anti-tank guided missiles are also covered. Not included in the figure are NATO's 2,700 anti-tank weapons held in storage. m WTO defines this category as: "Antitank missile complexes." Includes: "ATGM combat vehicles of frontline, army, divisional, and regimental echelon and portable systems of the battalion echelon" for WTO and "systems similar in terms of designation and characteristics" for NATO. • Includes: Marder, AMX-IOP, M-2 (Bradley) and YPR-765 (25 mm) for NATO and BMP-1/2 and BMDI for WTO. Not included in the given NATO figure are 575 AIFV held in storage. P WTO definition: "Infantry combat vehicles and armored transports"; includes "infantry combat vehicles, armored personnel carriers, combat assault vehicles, combat reconnaissance patrol vehicles, and combat reconnaissance vehicles," yet excludes light tanks from this category. q Includes: artillery, mortars, and multiple rocket launchers with tubes of 100 mm and above. Not included in the given figure are 2,870 artillery pieces held in storage. ' WTO includes much smaller armaments in the definition of this category: "Rocket propelled salvo-fired systems, field pieces (75 mm and above), and mortars (50 mm and above)." ' Includes: light tanks, armored personnel carriers, armored command vehicles and military support carriers that are not covered in the preceding category. Not included in the given figure are 7,560 Armored Vehicles held in storage. ' Includes assault bridges mounted as an integrated system on armored carriers. Not included in the given figure are 160 Armored Vehicle Launch Bridges held in storage. " Includes anti-aircraft artillery and fixed and mobile surface-to-air missiles. Not included in the given figure are 770 Air Defense Systems held in storage. v Excludes submarines armed with strategic ballistic missiles. w Includes aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, amphibious warfare ships with a displacement of 1,200 tons and over. • Includes those with a displacement of 1,200 tons and over. Appendix II: NATO and Warsaw Pact Forces in Europe-Data Published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies NATO guidelines Area (NGA)" Jaruzelski Aretf Atlantic to Urals Global NAT()< WP NAT()< WP NAT()< WP NAT()< WP w N 00 I. Land/Air Manpower (000) Total active ground forcesd 786 995 803 1,137 2,340 2,143 3,197 2,744 Total ground force reserves• 1,167 1,030 1,222 1,157 4,543 4,239 5,710 5,340 Divisionsr Manned in peacetime' 291 491 311 58 105! 1011 125 1271 Manned on mobilization of reservesh 101 12 121 14 36 113 54! 158 Total war mobilized 40! 611 44! 72 1411 2141 179! 2851 Ground Force Equipment; Main battle tanks 12,800 18,800 13,000 21,300 22,200 53,000 33,600 68,900 MICVi 4,400 8,700 4,400 9,800 6,200 23,600 9,900 31,400 Artillery (incl MRL)k 3,100 11,100 3,500 12,200 10,600 36,000 17,000 48,700 Mor (120 mm and over) 1,100 2,100 1,200 2,400 2,900 8,300 2,900 11,700 ATGW, ground-based' 6,200 2,650 6,300 3,100 11,000 13,700 28,300 22,400 AA gunsm 3,100 2,200 3,200 2,400 9,000 ll,OOO 9,900 14,100 SAMm 1,100 2,600 1,200 3,000 2,400 12,400 3,400 15,500 Armed heln 516 545 516 635 864 1,220 3,208 2,105 Land Combat Aircrafto BombersP 84 225 84 225 350 888 489 1,020 FGA/CAS 978 915 1,017 1,005 2,865 2,330 4,895 3,180 Air defencejfightersq 309 1,422 347 1,737 1,178 4,432 2,861 5,755 European/ Atlantic waters Global NATO WP NATO WP 2. Maritime Naval Forces Submarines' 206 190 241 272 Carriers' 15 2 22 4 Battleships/cruisers' 23 24 46 36 Destroyers/frigates' 327 193 435 257 Amphibious' 69 84 107 117 Naval Air" Bombers 286 400 433 899 Attack 188 } 290 Air defence/fighter 161 } 347 ASW fixed-wing ac 232 137 700 219 ASW hel 349 274 704 387 w N\0 Source: The International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, 1988-1989 (London: IISS, 1988) pp.
Recommended publications
  • Persecution of the Czech Minority in Ukraine at the Time of the Great Purge1

    Persecution of the Czech Minority in Ukraine at the Time of the Great Purge1

    ARTICLES Persecution of the Czech Minority in Ukraine 8 Mečislav BORÁK at the Time of the Great Purge Persecution of the Czech Minority in Ukraine at the Time of the Great Purge1 prof. Mečislav BORÁK Abstract In its introduction, the study recalls the course of Czech emigration to Ukraine and the formation of the local Czech minority from the mid-19th century until the end of 1930s. Afterwards, it depicts the course of political persecution of the Czechs from the civil war to the mid-1930s and mentions the changes in Soviet national policy. It characterizes the course of the Great Purge in the years 1937–1938 on a national scale and its particularities in Ukraine, describes the genesis of the repressive mechanisms and their activities. In this context, it is focused on the NKVD’s national operations and the repression of the Czechs assigned to the Polish NKVD operation in the early spring of 1938. It analyses the illegal executions of more than 660 victims, which was roughly half of all Czechs and Czechoslovak citizens executed for political reasons in the former Soviet Union, both from time and territorial point of view, including the national or social-professional structure of the executed, roughly compared to Moscow. The general conclusions are illustrated on examples of repressive actions and their victims from the Kiev region, especially from Kiev, and Mykolajivka community, not far from the centre of the Vinnycko area, the most famous centre of Czech colonization in eastern Podolia. In detail, it analyses the most repressive action against the Czechs in Ukraine which took place in Zhytomyr where on 28 September 1938, eighty alleged conspirators were shot dead, including seventy-eight Czechs.
  • Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (Cfe)

    Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (Cfe)

    CFE TEXT TREATY ON CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE (CFE) Signed: 19 November 1990. inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Entered into Force*: 9 November 1992. Charter of the United Nations, Duration: Unlimited. Depository: The Netherlands. CONSCIOUS of the need to prevent any military conflict in Europe, Number of States Parties: 30 — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Re-public, Denmark, France, Georgia, CONSCIOUS of the common responsibility which Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, they all have for seeking to achieve greater stability Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, and security in Europe, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation*, Slovakia, Spain, Tur-key, Ukraine, Striving to replace military confrontation with a new United Kingdom, and United States. pattern of security relations among all the States Parties based on peaceful cooperation and thereby to *On 14 July 2007, Russia announced that it would contribute to overcoming the division of Europe, suspend implementation of its Treaty obligations, effective after 150 days COMMITTED to the objectives of establishing a secure and stable balance of conventional armed The Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, forces in Europe at lower levels than heretofore, of Canada, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the eliminating disparities prejudicial to stability and Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the security and of eliminating, as a matter of high Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic
  • Timeline of the Cold War

    Timeline of the Cold War

    Timeline of the Cold War 1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin - the 'Big Three' Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army in Berlin July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into four zones of occupation. August 6: The United States drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima (20 kiloton bomb 'Little Boy' kills 80,000) August 8: Russia declares war on Japan August 9: The United States drops atomic bomb on Nagasaki (22 kiloton 'Fat Man' kills 70,000) August 14 : Japanese surrender End of World War II August 15: Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day 1946 February 9: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible March 5 : "Sinews of Peace" Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill - "an "iron curtain" has descended on Europe" March 10: Truman demands Russia leave Iran July 1: Operation Crossroads with Test Able was the first public demonstration of America's atomic arsenal July 25: America's Test Baker - underwater explosion 1947 Containment March 12 : Truman Doctrine - Truman declares active role in Greek Civil War June : Marshall Plan is announced setting a precedent for helping countries combat poverty, disease and malnutrition September 2: Rio Pact - U.S. meet 19 Latin American countries and created a security zone around the hemisphere 1948 Containment February 25 : Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia March 2: Truman's Loyalty Program created to catch Cold War
  • August 21, 1968 Letter from the Central Committees of The

    August 21, 1968 Letter from the Central Committees of The

    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified August 21, 1968 Letter from the Central Committees of the Bulgarian, East German, Hungarian, Polish, and Soviet Communist Parties regarding the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia Citation: “Letter from the Central Committees of the Bulgarian, East German, Hungarian, Polish, and Soviet Communist Parties regarding the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia,” August 21, 1968, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, ANIC, Fond CC RCP - Chancellery, File No. 133/1968, pp. 27-36. Translated by Delia Razdolescu. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110458 Summary: Letter from the Central Committees of the Communist Parties of East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Soviet Union explaining the need for intervention in Czechoslovakia. The letter lays out the rationale behind the Brezhnev Doctrine. Original Language: Romanian Contents: English Translation TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE ROMANIAN COMMUNIST PARTY The Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, of the Socialist United Party of Germany, of the Polish United Workers' Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union make it their duty to inform you that most of the members of the Presidium of the C.C. of the C.P. of Czechoslovakia and of the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic addressed us the request to grant the Czechoslovak people without delay support in the struggle against the rightist, anti-socialist and counterrevolutionary forces, as in the wake of the developments of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, there appeared a real danger of a counterrevolution and of losing the conquests of socialism.
  • Cold War Perceptions

    Cold War Perceptions

    Cold War Perceptions Cold War Perceptions Romania’s Policy Change towards the Soviet Union, 1960-1964 By Elena Dragomir Cold War Perceptions: Romania’s Policy Change towards the Soviet Union, 1960-1964 By Elena Dragomir This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Elena Dragomir All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7073-0 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7073-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ............................................................................................. vii Abstract .................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... x Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 The research problem Theory and method Previous research Sources of the study Structure of the study Chapter One ..............................................................................................
  • The Actual Strength of All Soviet Land Combat Units in a Deployed (D) State on 22Nd June 1941 Part IV 6

    The Actual Strength of All Soviet Land Combat Units in a Deployed (D) State on 22Nd June 1941 Part IV 6

    The Actual Strength of all Soviet Land Combat Units in a Deployed (D) State on 22nd June 1941 Part IV 6 Chapter IV-6: The Actual Strength of all Soviet Land Combat Units in a Deployed (D) State on 22nd June 1941 In Part IV 6 we will examine one of the main reasons why the Red Army forces in the Western Military Districts in June 1941 were unable to stop the German invasion. So far we have examined the authorised Table of Organisation and Equipment (TOE) of Soviet combat units deployed in the USSR in June 1941, and the actual units deployed (using the Deployment Matrix). We will now examine the actual manpower and equipment of these same combat units compared with their TOE, and where appropriate the overall state of these units on 22nd June 1941. The actual strength of Soviet land combat units on 22nd June 1941 is determined using historical references, the principles of heterogeneous and homogeneous models, and checksums. Refer to the Part I 8. in order to see how different information relating to the actual manpower and equipment in a particular combat unit is reconciled between various sources. 1 If reconciliation between sources is impossible and only conflicting information is available, then the most likely and/or reliable source is used, and the source referenced. Review of the Overall Strengths of Selected Red Army Units and PVO forces on 22nd June 1941 Before establishing the actual strength of individual combat units and reconciling this with the actual strength in each military district, we need to make some general observations about the actual strength of selected unit types and branches of the Soviet armed forces in June 1941.
  • Barbarossa, Soviet Covering Forces and the Initial Period of War: Military History and Airland Battle

    Barbarossa, Soviet Covering Forces and the Initial Period of War: Military History and Airland Battle

    WARNING! The views expressed in FMSO publications and reports are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Barbarossa, Soviet Covering Forces and the Initial Period of War: Military History and Airland Battle Dr. Jacob W. Kipp Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 1989 The issues surrounding the German attack upon the Soviet Union in June 1941 continue to attract the attention of historians and military analysts. The nature of the Soviet response to that attack has, as recent articles in Air University Review suggest, set off heated polemics. The appearance of Bryan Fugate's Operation Barbarossa with its assertion that the Soviet High Command did, indeed, have a "realistic plan or operative concept for coping with the situation" marked a major departure from conventional Western scholarly interpretation of the events leading up to the invasion.1 The response by Williamson t1urray and Barry G. Watts that Fugate was "inventing history" to find an unsuspected Soviet military genius where there was none confirms the controversial nature of the issue.2 These authors underscore the impact of surprise and tend to treat it as systemic and general. The Soviet Union, they argue, did not expect the blow and was unprepared for it. Soviet military doctrine and field regulations spoke of the offensive, while neglecting the defense.3 In assessing Soviet perception of the German threat, the authors are at odds not
  • High Treason: Essays on the History of the Red Army 1918-1938, Volume II

    High Treason: Essays on the History of the Red Army 1918-1938, Volume II

    FINAL REPORT T O NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH TITLE : HIG H TREASON: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF TH E RED ARMY 1918-193 8 VOLUME I I AUTHOR . VITALY RAPOPOR T YURI ALEXEE V CONTRACTOR : CENTER FOR PLANNING AND RESEARCH, .INC . R . K . LAURINO, PROJECT DIRECTO R PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : VLADIMIR TREML, CHIEF EDITO R BRUCE ADAMS, TRANSLATOR - EDITO R COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 626- 3 The work leading to this report was supported in whole or i n part from funds provided by the National Council for Sovie t and East European Research . HIGH TREASO N Essays in the History of the Red Army 1918-1938 Volume I I Authors : Vitaly N . Rapopor t an d Yuri Alexeev (pseudonym ) Chief Editor : Vladimir Trem l Translator and Co-Editor : Bruce Adam s June 11, 198 4 Integrative Analysis Project o f The Center for Planning and Research, Inc . Work on this Project supported by : Tte Defense Intelligence Agency (Contract DNA001-80-C-0333 ) an d The National Council for Soviet and East European Studies (Contract 626-3) PART FOU R CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE RKK A Up to now we have spoken of Caligula as a princeps . It remains to discuss him as a monster . Suetoniu s There is a commandment to forgive our enemies , but there is no commandment to forgive our friends . L . Medic i Some comrades think that repression is the main thing in th e advance of socialism, and if repression does not Increase , there is no advance . Is that so? Of course it is not so .
  • The EU Border Mission at Work Around Transdniestria: a Win-Win Case?

    The EU Border Mission at Work Around Transdniestria: a Win-Win Case?

    n°21, janvier 2010 Daria Isachenko Université Humboldt de Berlin & Université de Magdeburg The EU border mission at work around Transdniestria: a win-win case? Until recently little was known about Transdniestria, a small piece of territory situated between Moldova and Ukraine. What was mostly known is that this place is a “diplomatically isolated haven for transnational criminals and possibly terrorists”, a “black hole” making “weapons, ranging from cheap submachine guns to high-tech missile parts”.1 In brief, it is a “gunrunner’s haven”, where “just about every sort of weapon is available” upon request.2 Moreover, to arms production and smuggling, many experts add human trafficking and drug smuggling.3 Transdniestria as an informal state appeared on the scene in the early 1990s as the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. Since then, Transdniestria remains a contested territory which officially belongs to Moldova, but has managed to create its own attributes of statehood, seeking international recognition. The claim to statehood of this entity presents a great challenge to Moldova’s territorial integrity, whose officials mostly view this statelet as a puppet, created by the “certain circles” in the Kremlin with the sole purpose of keeping Moldova under Russia’s sphere of influence. Since no progress was made in settling this “frozen” conflict over the years, Moldova started to search for allies in the West. By 2005 the Moldovan government managed to persuade the European Union to 1 G. P. Herd, “Moldova and the Dniestr region: contested past, frozen present, speculative futures?”, Central and Eastern Europe Series, 05/07, Conflict Studies Research Centre, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Febuary 2005.
  • The Invasion of Czechoslovakia: 1968F

    The Invasion of Czechoslovakia: 1968F

    BY RICHARD M. GOODMAN* The Invasion of Czechoslovakia: 1968f During the night of August 20-21, approximately 175,000 "Warsaw Pact" troops1 crossed Czech borders to occupy Prague and other strategic locations in Czechoslovakia. World response to the invasion was in- stantaneous. Virtually all the nations of the free world, three Communist states (one a member of the Warsaw Pact), and leaders of the French, Italian and Swiss Communist parties condemned the invasion. Author- itative Czech organs-the Central Committee of the Czech Communist Party, the Presidium of the National Assembly, the National Assembly, the Czech Foreign Ministry, the Czech Socialist Party, the Slovak Com- munist Party-denounced the invasion as a "violation of international law and the United Nations Charter". The Czech Government and the extraor- *Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Alabama; graduate Yale Law School (LL.B), Member American Society of International Law. tThis article, which was prepared as a working paper for forums conducted by state and local bar associations of the American Bar Association, attempts to state the principal legal issues relating to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Although it concludes that the invasion is unlawful, it is not intended to be a brief against the Soviet Union or the other members of the Warsaw Pact; if it were, the case would be urged far more strongly. For pedagogical purposes, the article presents the Soviet justifications of the invasion with more force and clarity -and with more frequent reference to legal norms-than have Soviet diplomats or Government sources. For an almost macabre example of Soviet argumentation, see Press Group of Soviet Journalists, ON EVENTS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA (1968).
  • MAKING PROSESS in UKRAINE by Oleg Strekal a Research

    MAKING PROSESS in UKRAINE by Oleg Strekal a Research

    CIVIL CONTROL OVER THE NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY- MAKING PROSESS IN UKRAINE by Oleg Strekal A research paper prepared in the framework of NATO Democratic Institutions Fellowship (1995-1997) Kyiv, Ukraine 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 3 1. Issues of civil-military relationship in the 7 post-communist states 2. Primed with power: Ukraine’s move from the Soviet 12 to ist own army 3. Civil control: legal and institutional aspects 18 4. Obstacles for the implementation of policy of 22 civil control over the military 5. Conclusions / Proposals 41 6. Bibliography 47 2 Executive summary The reform of civil-military relations in Ukraine had a task to transform the grouping of the former Soviet troops located on country’s soil into an army which ought to be relevant to the principles of a democratic state and society. In addition, the reform was aimed at the following specific goals: to enhance the international status of Ukraine; to develop armed forces as a pillar during the process of state-building; to use army as a significant unifying element of nation-building in the country. The problems of building of Ukraine’s military have always attracted the considerable attention of country’s government and the different political forces. Moreover, the process of the establishing of armed forces, as a key- stone of the concept of state-building, was developing more actively, than the creation of another elements (political, social, psyhlogical) of Ukrainian statehood. One can define three basic dimensions of the Ukrainian military reform: · political (protection of state sovereignity and territorial integrity); · military-organisational and military-technical (re-construction of the command system and force structure, armament and disarmament policies); · social ( army’s adaptation to the new social environment as well as development of basic understanding and acceptance of army’s role within the society).
  • Tito's Yugoslavia

    Tito's Yugoslavia

    The Search for a Communist Legitimacy: Tito's Yugoslavia Author: Robert Edward Niebuhr Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1953 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2008 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of History THE SEARCH FOR A COMMUNIST LEGITIMACY: TITO’S YUGOSLAVIA a dissertation by ROBERT EDWARD NIEBUHR submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ABSTRACT . iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . v NOTE ON TRANSLATIONS AND TERMS . vi INTRODUCTION . 1 1 A STRUGGLE FOR THE HEARTS AND MINDS: IDEOLOGY AND YUGOSLAVIA’S THIRD WAY TO PARADISE . 26 2 NONALIGNMENT: YUGOSLAVIA’S ANSWER TO BLOC POLITICS . 74 3 POLITICS OF FEAR AND TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE . 133 4 TITO’S TWILIGHT AND THE FEAR OF UNRAVELING . 180 5 CONCLUSION: YUGOSLAVIA AND THE LEGACY OF THE COLD WAR . 245 EPILOGUE: THE TRIUMPH OF FEAR. 254 APPENDIX A: LIST OF KEY LCY OFFICIALS, 1958 . 272 APPENDIX B: ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF JNA, 1963 . 274 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 275 INDEX . 289 © copyright by ROBERT EDWARD NIEBUHR 2008 iii ABSTRACT THE SEARCH FOR A COMMUNIST LEGITIMACY: TITO’S YUGOSLAVIA ROBERT EDWARD NIEBUHR Supervised by Larry Wolff Titoist Yugoslavia—the multiethnic state rising out of the chaos of World War II—is a particularly interesting setting to examine the integrity of the modern nation-state and, more specifically, the viability of a distinctly multi-ethnic nation-building project.