Question: Why are the Soviets always shown as the aggressor?

The Soviets had no military forces present in its vassal nations that bordered NATO members? Riiight.

according to this
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html

the 1989 order of battle for the Soviet Union, they do not have actual divisions in Bulgaria. However, the OB notes that Bulgaria is considered the most reliable of the Soviet allies. Rumania does not as well, and is considered questionable (and was low on the list for getting modern Soviet weapons as a result). The Soviets probably figured that since the entire Southwest TVD ... 3 military districts (Kiev, Carpathia and Odessa) are right next door with several armies between them that stationg actual forces there was unnecessary

(this is an impressively detailed OB)
 
according to this
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html

the 1989 order of battle for the Soviet Union, they do not have actual divisions in Bulgaria. However, the OB notes that Bulgaria is considered the most reliable of the Soviet allies. Rumania does not as well, and is considered questionable (and was low on the list for getting modern Soviet weapons as a result). The Soviets probably figured that since the entire Southwest TVD ... 3 military districts (Kiev, Carpathia and Odessa) are right next door with several armies between them that stationg actual forces there was unnecessary

(this is an impressively detailed OB)

Regardless, Bulgaria was practically an SSR anyway with the way it was run and the ambitions of its leadership at the time.
 
Regardless, Bulgaria was practically an SSR anyway with the way it was run and the ambitions of its leadership at the time.

I would agree with you on that... Rumania might have done anything, but Bulgaria would have followed orders if war had come

after all, it was the Bulgarian Secret Service that tried to kill Pope John Paul II and certainly they didn't come up with that idea on their own
 
On the Central Front, the East Germans were utterly loyal. So much so that they were trusted with Operation CENTER: the attack on West Berlin, should that order be given. 32,000 East German and 4,000 Soviets (their Berlin Brigade) would storm West Berlin and face 12,000 American, British, and French troops, and 6,000 West Berlin police. The plans were well detailed, giving preattack dispositions, objectives, locations to be occupied either by the Soviet or East German Army, or by the Stasi. Occupation bureaucrats had already been appointed, and not only propaganda leaflets already prepared, but handbills and safe-conduct passes for civilians were also ready for distribution. Throw in the occupation currency, new street signs, medals to be awarded the troops, and other such preparations, and that kinda makes the Soviet (and East European) Argument that the Warsaw Pact "was defensive only" a sham.

Other East German (along with Polish and Czech) archives show both conventional-force and nuclear attacks on Western Europe, with Pact forces at the Channel Coast within 35-40 days of commencement of hostilities. There were two options: a nuclear-first option, with tactical and even strategic nuclear weapons used, and then sending the tanks west; and a conventional-only option (including chemical). Pact forces were trained for both.

How detailed were the plans? Here's a hit: there was a GRU officer in HQ Group of Soviet Forces Germany whose job it was to plot the location of every civilian gas station and car wash in West Germany, Holland, and Belgium. Captured civilian gas supplies can be used to support the advance, while car washes can be used for NBC decontamination. Street signs were also prepared-with new names, and many of the preparations for West Berlin were also being taken with regards to West Germany and the Low Countries. Including the lists of those to be arrested....those documents have not survived, but there are mentions of them in the archives.
 
The Soviets had no military forces present in its vassal nations that bordered NATO members? Riiight.
Considering that the Soviet Union didn't have troops in Czechoslovakia before 1968, I don't see what's so unbelievable about this.

Regardless, Bulgaria was practically an SSR anyway with the way it was run and the ambitions of its leadership at the time.
What exactly do you mean with the way it was run? I don't really think it was that different from the way the other Eastern block countries were run. Also, if you refer to the suggestion that Bulgaria become a republic of the Soviet Union, that was most likely a ruse for Bulgaria's Zhivkov to ingratiate himself with the leaders of the Soviet Union. And it worked, considering how the Soviet Union sold goods to Bulgaria at lowered prices and Bulgaria then resold at market rates.

I would agree with you on that... Rumania might have done anything, but Bulgaria would have followed orders if war had come

after all, it was the Bulgarian Secret Service that tried to kill Pope John Paul II and certainly they didn't come up with that idea on their own
This theory still refuses to die? When it was build on the flimsiest of evidence and supported by the evidence of a mentally unstable man? When, despite all efforts, it was dismissed by the Italian court trying Ağca nearly 30 years ago?
And they wonder that so many people in Eastern Europe don't like Westerners.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Soviets had great trust and confidence in East Germany and rightly so...say, did Moscow ever get an explanation for that East German stash of military hardware sufficient to double the East German army and air force which the Soviets knew nothing about?
 
You do notice that you are citing a paragraph without sources? Or perhaps you mean the Mitrokhin commission which also claimed that Prodi was the KGB man in Italy (note that the commision took place during Berlusconi's government and simply repeated long refuted claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Mitrokhin_Commission#The_.22Bulgarian_connection.22_claim. And there is still the fact that the whole theory relies on the unstable evidence of an unbalanced person who constantly contradicted himself and was an embarrassment at the trial of Antonov.
 
The East Germans only had seven divisions active in peacetime: their mobilization plan had 5-6 additional divisions to be mobilized by M+2.
 
You do notice that you are citing a paragraph without sources? Or perhaps you mean the Mitrokhin commission which also claimed that Prodi was the KGB man in Italy (note that the commision took place during Berlusconi's government and simply repeated long refuted claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Mitrokhin_Commission#The_.22Bulgarian_connection.22_claim. And there is still the fact that the whole theory relies on the unstable evidence of an unbalanced person who constantly contradicted himself and was an embarrassment at the trial of Antonov.

as noted in the wikipedia article, there are competing theories. We will probably not know for sure for many years, but as the Soviets had motive, method and opportunity, the most likely scenario is that the Bulgarians did indeed carry out an operation at the behest of the Soviet Union.
 
as noted in the wikipedia article, there are competing theories. We will probably not know for sure for many years, but as the Soviets had motive, method and opportunity, the most likely scenario is that the Bulgarians did indeed carry out an operation at the behest of the Soviet Union.
How it is the most likely theory when it almost entirely relies upon the unreliable evidence of Ağca and the speculations of journalists linked to the CIA (which also had motive, method and opportunity to link this up with the Soviet Union in order to discredit them)? Or are the Soviets and their allies guilty by presumption?
 
How it is the most likely theory when it almost entirely relies upon the unreliable evidence of Ağca and the speculations of journalists linked to the CIA (which also had motive, method and opportunity to link this up with the Soviet Union in order to discredit them)? Or are the Soviets and their allies guilty by presumption?

it is unlikely he was a lone gunman like Sirhan Sirhan etc, and no one else had motive, so therefore, simply on logic, I think the verdict of history is going to rest on the Soviets and Bulgarians unless proven otherwise
 
The Basic answer to Why are the Soviets always shown as the aggressor? is they lost the cold war.

The Soviet Union collapsed, communism is on its way to the ash heap of history, and the capitalist west is now dominating the world. Anything that the USSR did is going to be portrayed in a bad light.

The same thing would have happened had the Soviets won the cold war. Capitalism would be discredited, Europe would be dominated by the Soviets as several pawns of Moscow. America would either be ruled by a communist dictator, or it would be a third world nation wracked by famine, chaos, and poverty.

So to sum up my post in one sentence - History is written by the winners.

Here's a quote from Gorbachev, in Latin, Pacta sunt servanda, which says "agreements must be honored"

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor
 
it is unlikely he was a lone gunman like Sirhan Sirhan etc, and no one else had motive, so therefore, simply on logic, I think the verdict of history is going to rest on the Soviets and Bulgarians unless proven otherwise
Why is it unlikely? He seems quite the type to do such a thing. As for the verdict of history, many of the writings supporting the theory were discredited within several years. Of course, there will be always many who will continue sprouting the theory, as it's rather convenient, but historians who have investigated the question in more detail don't seem to regard it so highly.
 
Why is it unlikely? He seems quite the type to do such a thing. As for the verdict of history, many of the writings supporting the theory were discredited within several years. Of course, there will be always many who will continue sprouting the theory, as it's rather convenient, but historians who have investigated the question in more detail don't seem to regard it so highly.

a few historians have.. and only a few of them are taking your side on this

as to it being rather convenient... sometimes the evident answer is indeed the answer. The Soviets had trouble in Poland; the Pope is Polish and is actively siding with Lech Walensaw etc and thus is a threat to the Soviet control of Poland; Andropov, the head of the Soviet Union is a former intelligence officer dating back to the bad old days of the Cheka under Stalin; Bulgarian intelligence had carried out a murder of a Soviet defector before in a well documented case involving poison in London; the Soviet and other East Bloc intelligence services had a long history of using 'useful idiots'; plausible deniability is crucial;

therefore, the Soviet Union ordering a hit on the Pope carried out by the Bulgarians who use an idiot is extremely credible.

Less credible is why this guy would try to kill the Pope simply because he is loony and wanted to drive to Italy to carry it out. Therefore, logical reasoning and not a little bit of historical research makes the Soviet plot angle the most likely. Any other conspiracy theory has as big a credibility issue as there being a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (just for example)
 
Top