WI: Soviets intervene in Poland in 1981?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_reaction_to_the_Polish_crisis_of_1980–81

So if the Soviets decided to go ahead with invading Poland to quell the rebellions (either by their choice or because the situation got worse than OTL), what would be the consequences to this intervention? We know for one thing that Poland and possibly other countries would get more destabilized than OTL, almost to Afghanistan levels and that the Western bloc would get more harsh on the Soviets on than OTL, but what of the outside world?
 

Towelie

Banned
Poland was useful to the USSR because of one thing. Its army. The Polish Communist Army was a formidable force that played an integral role in all Soviet military plans for Europe.

There was no massive trove of natural resources that the USSR was dependent on. There were no groups of people in Poland not expendable. If the Russians wanted to move in with their troops and kill any dissenters, executing the ringleaders, and enforcing martial law while deporting groups of people elsewhere, they could have done so. The international condemnation would ring forward, but much like with Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the US and the west really could not do anything outside of sanctions.

OTL, the Soviets balked at this, and allowed the Polish government to do what it felt necessary up to a point. But they in my view could have easily pushed a harder line. With the economic issues in the US at the time and the growing anti-nuclear left in Western Europe, the West was not in much of a position to dictate terms.
 
The West wouldn't be in any position to dictate terms, no, but a Soviet invasion of Poland coming just a couple of years after the invasion of Afghanistan will kill off détente. The effect might be most significant in western Europe: I do not see West Germany, to name one, responding well to another invasion of Poland. Will Soviet sales of natural gas be possible, for instance?

Meanwhile, there's the important question of what will happen to the invasion. Why will the Soviets be invading? Will they be invading against the will of the Polish government? Will they find themselves trying to suppress Polish dissidence? The Polish military was quite large, and it's entirely possible that the Soviet Union might find itself in a noteworthy conflict in central Europe. What will the other satellite states be expected to do? Could this spread?
 
The West wouldn't be in any position to dictate terms, no, but a Soviet invasion of Poland coming just a couple of years after the invasion of Afghanistan will kill off détente. The effect might be most significant in western Europe: I do not see West Germany, to name one, responding well to another invasion of Poland. Will Soviet sales of natural gas be possible, for instance?

Meanwhile, there's the important question of what will happen to the invasion. Why will the Soviets be invading? Will they be invading against the will of the Polish government? Will they find themselves trying to suppress Polish dissidence? The Polish military was quite large, and it's entirely possible that the Soviet Union might find itself in a noteworthy conflict in central Europe. What will the other satellite states be expected to do? Could this spread?
What will other satellite states do? At my University time at Slovakia I worked for guy who at 1981 served his time as officer candidate in Czechoslovak People Army (basically all Czechoslovak university graduates were getting officer training during thei 4-5 years at Uni) and he said his unit went to full alert and was moved to the border with Poland... He said they were scared shitless as they and their commanders expected Poles to fight. But you know. It's just one low ranking officer story. There could be something totally different behind unexpected excercise of his unit and they put it together wrongly.
 
I can attest that my unit in the US Army, 3rd Armored Division "Spearhead", did go to an heightened state of readiness during this time.
 
A Soviet invasion of Poland might have jeopardized the Western loans (primarily West German) the Soviets were already dependent on. They needed Western currency to buy the West's exports needed to modernize their factories and build oil pipelines plus grain to feed their people as well as some consumer goods. If backlash against Soviet invasion prevented future loans from being made, it might have sped up the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.
 
I suspect if anything Poland would be less destabilised, not more. Eastern Europe had already seen this type of Soviet intervention in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and in each case it had re-enforced Soviet control and acted as a deterrent to other Communist regimes that might have been considering loosening up. At this point Brezhnev is still the boss (nominally at least) and his doctrine is still in force. Poland is not Afghanistan - the CIA are not going to be smuggling Stingers over the border, let alone send in the Army, and the Soviets already have massive forces in place. Talks of freezing credit are unlikely to cut much ice with the regime at that time - even if they are economically dependent on them, Soviet economics is so divorced from reality it would hardly be an effective deterrent (this is the period when the primary medium of exchange in the USSR was vodka).
I suspect you'd basically see OTL's martial law in Poland, but imposed by a Soviet-back puppet regime rather than Jaruzelski's government - and a stern reminder to others that liberalisation is not an option. Solidarity would be outlawed, the West would protest, the Pope would speak out, but Poland would be brought back into line and the Soviet empire would remain firmly in place... until Gorbachev starts dismantling it.
 
I suspect if anything Poland would be less destabilised, not more. Eastern Europe had already seen this type of Soviet intervention in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and in each case it had re-enforced Soviet control and acted as a deterrent to other Communist regimes that might have been considering loosening up. At this point Brezhnev is still the boss (nominally at least) and his doctrine is still in force. Poland is not Afghanistan - the CIA are not going to be smuggling Stingers over the border, let alone send in the Army, and the Soviets already have massive forces in place. Talks of freezing credit are unlikely to cut much ice with the regime at that time - even if they are economically dependent on them, Soviet economics is so divorced from reality it would hardly be an effective deterrent (this is the period when the primary medium of exchange in the USSR was vodka).
I suspect you'd basically see OTL's martial law in Poland, but imposed by a Soviet-back puppet regime rather than Jaruzelski's government - and a stern reminder to others that liberalisation is not an option. Solidarity would be outlawed, the West would protest, the Pope would speak out, but Poland would be brought back into line and the Soviet empire would remain firmly in place... until Gorbachev starts dismantling it.
Well question is what would Polish People's Army do in case of Soviet intervention. I have Polish friend who served at that time in Air Force. I can ask his opinion what he thinks soldiers and officers would do. Actually it may end up as in Czechoslovakia. Most of the soldiers and officers were supporting reforms but facing reality (quick invasion from route you do not have any defense prepared) they stayed in garrisons. In few cases Soviet and Czechoslovak tanks facing each other but nobody pulled the trigger.
 
I suspect if anything Poland would be less destabilised, not more. Eastern Europe had already seen this type of Soviet intervention in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and in each case it had re-enforced Soviet control and acted as a deterrent to other Communist regimes that might have been considering loosening up. At this point Brezhnev is still the boss (nominally at least) and his doctrine is still in force. Poland is not Afghanistan - the CIA are not going to be smuggling Stingers over the border, let alone send in the Army, and the Soviets already have massive forces in place. Talks of freezing credit are unlikely to cut much ice with the regime at that time - even if they are economically dependent on them, Soviet economics is so divorced from reality it would hardly be an effective deterrent (this is the period when the primary medium of exchange in the USSR was vodka).
I suspect you'd basically see OTL's martial law in Poland, but imposed by a Soviet-back puppet regime rather than Jaruzelski's government - and a stern reminder to others that liberalisation is not an option. Solidarity would be outlawed, the West would protest, the Pope would speak out, but Poland would be brought back into line and the Soviet empire would remain firmly in place... until Gorbachev starts dismantling it.
So it wouldn't lead to destabilizing the Eastern bloc? What about the other countries, wouldn't they decide to rebel too after having most of their fair share of Soviet intervention?
 
Frightening times I know 1 11 year old thought it was all going to kick off and was s*** scared. Me.

Looking back it would most likely have been no different to when the Soviets went into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. A lot of western hand wringing and condemnation but no more than that. Even if the Poles fought back, without help they would have no chance and to put it bluntly Poland wasn't worth getting nuked for.

I didn't miss those nightmares one bit, but now they're coming back. When will we ever learn.
 
So it wouldn't lead to destabilizing the Eastern bloc? What about the other countries, wouldn't they decide to rebel too after having most of their fair share of Soviet intervention?

They didn't the last three times, and I don't see anything in 1981/2 that would make them act differently. On the contrary, renewed evidence of Moscow's willingness to intervene to shore up Communist rule in its vassals would likely cause the other Warsaw Pact regimes to crack down on any dissent or liberalising tendencies. As I understand, Hungary was on a long term path of gradual liberalisation - that would most likely be paused if there's a threat of Soviet tanks in the streets.

Almost all of the regimes in Eastern Europe were fully aware of their reliance on the threat of Soviet force to keep them in power in their own countries, so they have little incentive to rebel (indeed, Honecker in the DDR was one of those pushing for invasion in both Czechoslovakia and Poland), and the dependence of Warsaw Pact military command structures on the Red Army made an organised armed rebellion by local militaries difficult if not impossible. Partisan warfare might be a possibility - but only a remote one given the reach of the security services and restrictions on access to weapons.
 
Partisan warfare might be a possibility - but only a remote one given the reach of the security services and restrictions on access to weapons.
Well restrictions on weapon ownership was probably not higher then in some western countries.

Other thing which is still suprising me even now how much weapons from WWII are turn in every time state and Police in Slovakia are offering weapon amnesty on unregistrated weapons in Slovakia. One time it was even such a rare piece as MP-18 or Czechoslovak MG vz.26!
 
Other thing which is still suprising me even now how much weapons from WWII are turn in every time state and Police in Slovakia are offering weapon amnesty on unregistrated weapons in Slovakia. One time it was even such a rare piece as MP-18 or Czechoslovak MG vz.26!

After the Soviet Union collapsed, quite few WW2-era weapons did pop up from people's attics and storage rooms in Finland. This was legacy of the Finnish Army's (unofficial) post-war plans to ensure that there exists enough weaponry to resist a possible Soviet occupation. There was actually a big scandal in the late 1940's when some of these preparations became public ("the Weapon Hiding Affair" as it is called in Finnish historiography) and not surprisingly caused some problems in Finno-Soviet relations. Nevertheless, some of these preparations stayed(/have stayed?) secret.
 
There is a reason the Poles themselves issued martial law and sent in their tanks before the Russians. I think Solidarity themselves was ok with Poland issuing martial law considering what the alternative was
 
After the Soviet Union collapsed, quite few WW2-era weapons did pop up from people's attics and storage rooms in Finland. This was legacy of the Finnish Army's (unofficial) post-war plans to ensure that there exists enough weaponry to resist a possible Soviet occupation. There was actually a big scandal in the late 1940's when some of these preparations became public ("the Weapon Hiding Affair" as it is called in Finnish historiography) and not surprisingly caused some problems in Finno-Soviet relations. Nevertheless, some of these preparations stayed(/have stayed?) secret.
Same happened in Slovakia. I guess after Uprising 1944 people hid a lot. Every weapon amnesty there are interesting peaces popping out. Onte time even ZB 26 light MG or very rare MP18. In 80- ties my cousin with friends discovered German weapon cage with MP-40s. They were trying it in foelds till at the time local commie police got word of it. Luckily cops took it sporty. Take got few slaps behind the ears for endangering themselves, cops collected weapons nut there was no prosecution. As far as I know my cousin got
More from his father then from cops. :D
 
Also in 80ties during repairs of roof on village church near town I am from cage of German WWIi weapons was found. Possibly hidden there by German/ Slovak authorities in late 1944 for possible anti Soviet resistance.
 
They didn't the last three times, and I don't see anything in 1981/2 that would make them act differently. On the contrary, renewed evidence of Moscow's willingness to intervene to shore up Communist rule in its vassals would likely cause the other Warsaw Pact regimes to crack down on any dissent or liberalising tendencies. As I understand, Hungary was on a long term path of gradual liberalisation - that would most likely be paused if there's a threat of Soviet tanks in the streets.

Almost all of the regimes in Eastern Europe were fully aware of their reliance on the threat of Soviet force to keep them in power in their own countries, so they have little incentive to rebel (indeed, Honecker in the DDR was one of those pushing for invasion in both Czechoslovakia and Poland), and the dependence of Warsaw Pact military command structures on the Red Army made an organised armed rebellion by local militaries difficult if not impossible. Partisan warfare might be a possibility - but only a remote one given the reach of the security services and restrictions on access to weapons.

I disagree with this assessment. It's possible this is correct but consider the alternative. In 1976, Brezhnev signed the Helsinki Accords, which formalized post-WWII borders. Also included was a statement that affirmed the USSR's commitment to basic human rights. It became a rallying cry for dissidents as well as both Carter and Reagan. Further, for a system of whose legitimacy was based on its supposed superiority to Capitalism/Democracy, how do you rationalize an invasion by the USSR to crack down on dissidents. It's one thing for a country to crackdown on its own citizens. But for a third party, it undermines the validity/legitimacy of the system in question. And while the USSR did just this multiple times, Hungary and Czechoslovakia being the obvious examples, these are more justifiable as they were less removed from WWII. The farther away one gets, the less the War Communism argument stands up on its own.
 
Top