USA and USSR created blocs of states opposing each other. Strengthening the position of the United States was achieved through the allocation by Congress in 1948 of financial assistance to Western European countries in the amount of $17 billion in accordance with "Marshall Plan". Its receipt provided for the fulfillment of a number of demands of the American administration - first of all, the removal of communists from the governments of a number of European countries. In accordance with the accepted conditions, representatives communist parties in the governments of Italy and France were forced to leave government posts. This assistance allowed the US's Western European allies to quickly overcome the consequences of the war. On April 4, 1949, ten European (Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, France) and two North American (USA and Canada) countries created North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The North Atlantic and the territory of the countries participating in the treaty were declared its area of ​​responsibility. Although the agreement provided for the achievement consensus When making decisions, the military power of the United States, supported by economic influence, provided it with a priority place in the alliance. The first commander of the united armed forces American General D. Eisenhower became a block. Subsequently, this position was also occupied exclusively by Americans.

Military blocs with US participation were created in the Middle East and Pacific countries. The network of military bases provided the United States with the ability to quickly and effectively protect its own interests in various parts of the planet. Military units located at the bases were repeatedly used to overthrow governments that the United States did not like.

Stalin regarded the Marshall Plan as a means of subordinating Europe to US interests. Under pressure from the leadership of the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries refused to participate in the Marshall Plan. Despite difficulties in economic recovery and drought, the USSR provided significant economic and food assistance to Eastern European countries. In 1949, under the auspices of the USSR, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) was created.

In 1955, in opposition to NATO Soviet Union created his own military-political bloc - Warsaw Pact Organization. The decision to form it was made after the Federal Republic of Germany joined the North Atlantic Alliance. The inclusion of the West German Bundeswehr, recreated from the wreckage of the Wehrmacht, into the NATO armed forces was regarded by the leadership of the USSR as a threat to the country's national security. IN ATS included the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Romania and the GDR. The Soviet military presence on the territory of most countries participating in the Warsaw Warsaw War contributed to the preservation of pro-Soviet regimes in them. The commanders-in-chief of the united armed forces of the Department of Internal Affairs have always been Soviet generals.

After the end of World War II, despite the creation of the UN, whose main task was to prevent a new war, a sharp confrontation developed between two military-political blocs led by the USA and the USSR.Material from the site

On this page there is material on the following topics:

The end of World War II did not mean the end of the struggle for influence in the world. The era of the Cold War began, the key element of which was the confrontation between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO).

In the post-war years, Western European countries considered the danger of further expansion of the USSR in Europe to be quite real. They believed that it was unrealistic to confront the threat individually and saw a solution in consolidating efforts. The first step towards NATO was the Brussels Pact, signed in March 1948 by Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Its provisions formed the basis of the Western European Union. In parallel, negotiations were held between the United States, Great Britain and Canada to conclude an alliance based on the civilizational unity of these countries. The final result of the complex diplomatic process was the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949 in Washington by representatives of twelve countries. The agreement finally came into force on August 24, 1949, after it was ratified by all signatory states.

The essence of the North Atlantic Treaty was the creation of a collective security system: all parties pledged to collectively defend any party to the treaty that would be attacked. This system was extremely attractive, which led to the repeated expansion of NATO. Greece and Turkey joined the Treaty in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982. The real wave of NATO expansion began at the end of the 20th century: in 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic became members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in 2004 - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, in 2009 - Croatia and Albania. A number of European states are striving to join NATO. The closest countries to this are Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are implementing the Membership Action Plan. Georgia is a member of the so-called. "accelerated dialogue". Ukraine also participated in such a dialogue, but in 2010, with the coming to power of V. Yanukovych, it withdrew from it. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Moldova are implementing Individual Partnership Plans. Finally, almost a dozen more states are participants in the NATO Partnership for Peace program.

ORGANIZATION OF THE WARSAW TREATY

In Eastern Europe, interaction between the USSR and its allies - the people's democracies - was initially built on the basis of bilateral treaties signed in 1943-1949. However, by the mid-1950s, such a legal framework was recognized by the Soviet leadership as insufficient. The reason for establishing a closer multilateral form of military-political cooperation between the socialist states was the adoption in 1954 of the decision to remilitarize the Federal Republic of Germany and include it in NATO. On May 14, 1955, the Warsaw Pact was signed in the capital of Poland. This document formalized the creation of the Warsaw Pact Organization, a military-political alliance in which the USSR played a leading role. In addition to the Soviet Union, seven more states became participants in the Warsaw Warsaw: the Polish People's Republic, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Hungarian People's Republic, the German Democratic Republic (participated in the military structures of the Warsaw Warsaw since 1956), the Socialist Republic of Romania, the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the People's Republic of Albania.

Thus, all European socialist countries with the exception of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became participants in the ATS. The treaty entered into force on June 5, 1955. On April 26, 1985, due to its expiration, it was extended for another 20 years. As the political situation in the world changed, the ATS was reduced. The “weakest link” turned out to be Albania, which rather quickly reoriented itself from the Soviet Union to Maoist China. In 1961-1962, it actually ceased participation in the structures of the Department of Internal Affairs, and on September 12, 1968, it formally left the Organization. The reason for Albania's official withdrawal was the entry of troops of the Warsaw Pact countries into Czechoslovakia in 1968. And on September 25, 1990, in connection with the unification with Germany, the German Democratic Republic left the ATS. In connection with the transformations in the USSR and other countries of Central and of Eastern Europe On February 25, 1991, the member states of the Warsaw Warsaw Forces abolished its military structures, and on July 1, 1991, in Prague, they signed a Protocol on the complete termination of the treaty.

ALTERNATIVES

NATO's sphere of influence until the 1990s was limited to Europe and the North Atlantic. But military-political alliances were also created in other regions of the world.

Military-political cooperation between the USA, Australia and New Zealand, which actively developed during the Second World War, continued after war time. On September 1, 1951, these three states signed the Pacific Security Pact in San Francisco, according to which the ANZUS bloc (an abbreviation for Australia, New Zealand, United States) was created the following year. The main task of ANZUS was to coordinate collective defense efforts in the area Pacific Ocean(In 1978, the Indian Ocean was also included in the bloc’s scope of action). An addition to ANZUS was the ANZUS bloc, created in 1971. Its participants were Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. But if cooperation within the framework of ANZUS continues to this day (mainly during peacekeeping operations), then ANZUS ceased to exist in 1975 - due to the withdrawal of New Zealand from its membership.

MANILA AND BAGHDAD PACTS

On September 8, 1954, the Treaty on the Collective Defense of Southeast Asia (Manila Pact) was signed in the capital of the Philippines, Manila, which laid the foundation for the SEATO bloc (South-East Asia Treaty Organization), officially created in 1956. Its participants were the USA, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, France, Thailand, the Philippines and Pakistan, and the dialogue partners were South Korea and South Vietnam. The main task of SEATO was to counter the spread of communist influence in Southeast Asia. The headquarters of SEATO was in Bangkok (Thailand), but there was no unified military command in this bloc (unlike NATO). In the early 1970s, SEATO found itself in crisis. The secession of East Pakistan in 1971 and the creation of an independent Bangladesh made it impossible for Pakistan to participate in SEATO, and it left the Organization in 1973. In 1974, France left the bloc, Thailand in 1975, and on June 30, 1977, SEATO was officially dissolved.

After the end of World War II, the United States and Great Britain hatched plans to recreate the Middle Eastern Entente. The first step was the signing of a treaty between Turkey and Pakistan in 1954. On February 24, 1955, the Baghdad Pact was signed between Iraq and Turkey, and over the next few months Great Britain, Pakistan and Iran joined it. This is how the CENTO bloc (Central Treaty Organization) was created. CENTO was conceived as a military bloc for the region of South-West Asia and the Indian Ocean. However, in 1959, Iraq withdrew from CENTO. In 1979, after the Islamic revolution, Iran left CENTO, and soon Pakistan also left the ranks of the Organization. As a result, only two NATO member countries remained in CENTO, which made the continued existence of the bloc meaningless. In August 1979, CENTO was officially dissolved.

ALTERNATIVES TO NATO

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) united some of the former republics of the Soviet Union. It began on May 5, 1992, with the signing of the Collective Security Treaty in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) by the heads of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

In 1993, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia joined the Treaty. The contract was for 5 years and could be extended. On April 2, 1999, the presidents of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan signed a protocol to extend the treaty for the next five-year period, but Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan refused to extend the treaty. In May 2002, a decision was made to transform the Collective Security Treaty into a full-fledged international organization - the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The corresponding agreement came into force on September 18, 2003. In 2006, Uzbekistan joined the CSTO, but in December 2012 it left the organization. The task of the CSTO is to protect the territorial and economic space of the countries participating in the treaty through the joint efforts of armies and auxiliary units from any external military-political aggressors, international terrorists, as well as from large-scale natural disasters.

In 2001, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This organization is not a military bloc (such as NATO) or an open regular security meeting (such as the ASEAN Regional Forum), but occupies an intermediate position. The main objectives of the organization are strengthening stability and security in a wide area uniting member states, combating terrorism, separatism, extremism, drug trafficking, developing economic cooperation, energy partnership, scientific and cultural interaction. In July 2015, the decision to admit India and Pakistan to the SCO was approved. It is expected that these states will become full members of the Organization.

You might be interested:

After the victory over Nazi Germany, the USSR began to reduce its armed forces. By 1948, the number of Soviet troops was reduced to 2874 thousand people. However, the Western allies, frightened by the expansion of the socialist system in Europe and the growth of the independence movement in colonial countries, soon took the path of confrontation with the USSR. Former British Prime Minister W. Churchill, in his famous speech in Fulton in 1946, openly called for a military campaign against the Soviet Union and people's democracies. The Cold War was further embodied in the Truman Doctrine, based on nuclear blackmail, as well as in the Marshall Plan. After the creation of the NATO military bloc, Europe split into two parts. On one side were the Western countries, supported by the United States, and on the other, the eastern states of the socialist community, behind which stood the Soviet Union.

Despite the decision of the Potsdam Treaty, the Allies created a buffer state within the boundaries of their occupation zones - West Germany (FRG), whose ruling circles advocated the revision of all borders in Europe and put forward revanchist demands on the territory of a number of socialist countries. Then the former allies of the USSR began to form military-political blocs directed against the entire socialist system and national liberation movements. Already in March 1948, arose Western Union, which included England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

WESTERN UNION

This union barely had time to emerge when negotiations began on its expansion to include the United States and Canada. This was followed by a resolution of the US Senate on June 11, 1948, which allowed the government of this country to join in time of peace “such regional and other collective organizations as are based on constant and effective mutual assistance and on which the national security of countries depends.”

By the time the agreement was signed creation of NATO On April 4, 1949, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Portugal also joined the seven participating states. Later, Greece and Turkey (both in 1952), West Germany (in 1955) and Spain (in 1982) joined this bloc. All NATO member countries endorsed a declaration of cooperation drawn up in general terms. The main point The treaty was Article 5, which stated that in the event of an "armed attack" on one or more of its members, other NATO members would immediately provide assistance to the country or countries being "attacked" by taking such action as they "deem necessary, including the use of armed force" .

NATO TAKES A CONCRETE FORM

However, only after the start Korean War in June 1950, NATO began to take on the form in which it exists today. On April 2, 1951, two years after the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO's European Command began to function, headed by the former liberator Western Europe General Dwight Eisenhower.

At the same time, the NATO Air Force in Central Europe was created, with Lieutenant General Loris Norstad becoming its commander-in-chief. These air forces were equipped with American jet aircraft supplied under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.

In the first months, about a dozen Republic F-84E Thunderjet fighters arrived. By early 1952, the number of jet fighters delivered to Europe numbered in the hundreds, which radically changed the appearance of the air forces of Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. Later, a decision was made to supply the same ubiquitous Thunderjet to Greece and Turkey, and a significant batch of these aircraft arrived in Southern Europe. But more modern swept-wing fighters F-84F Thunderstreak and the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance aircraft created on its basis were supplied to Central Europe. During the Korean War, the F-86F Saber fighter was a rare sight in the skies of Europe, and such Canadian-made aircraft were only in service with RCAF and RAF units. Then Italian, Greek, Turkish and West German pilots also began to fly them. In May 1953, the Italian concern Fiat acquired a license to produce the F-86K all-weather interceptor. This Italian-made interceptor later entered service with the French and Dutch Air Forces. Norway and Germany.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union watched with increasing alarm the revival of West Germany's armed forces and then the outfitting of the Bundeswehr with new equipment provided by the Western powers. After Stalin's death in 1953, the new government continued his foreign policy with minor changes, and one of its main goals was to prevent the remilitarization of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Soviet leadership took the initiative to create a demilitarized zone in the center of Europe. However, this proposal was unacceptable to NATO, and preparations for the admission of Germany to this bloc continued in full swing. Then the Soviet Union attempted to make the existence of NATO meaningless and on March 31, 1954, submitted an application to join NATO. England and France, and then a month later the United States, vetoed this request. On May 5, 1955, West Germany became a full member of NATO, and then the rapid revival of the country's military industry began, and a law on universal conscription was adopted there.

In 1966, the regular army of the Federal Republic of Germany already numbered about 468 thousand people, and the military industry of this state provided almost 65% of the Bundeswehr's needs for military equipment.

WARSAW TREATY

The agreement on the remilitarization of Germany and the admission of this country to the NATO bloc sharply increased international tension in the center of Europe. In addition, in September 1954, on the initiative of the United States, a new military bloc was created - SEATO, and in the Middle East, under the leadership of the British, the Baghdad Pact arose in 1955, later reorganized into the CENTO bloc.

Under these conditions, the Soviet Union was forced to begin increasing the size of its armed forces, and in May 1955, the Warsaw Pact of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was concluded between the socialist states in Europe. It included the USSR, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Romania. According to pre-existing bilateral agreements, parts of the Soviet troops were located on the territory of Poland, the GDR, Romania, Hungary and, later, Czechoslovakia. The Warsaw Pact was essentially purely defensive in nature and was created to ensure peace in Europe.

The Soviet leadership also took certain steps in banning nuclear weapons, but subsequent events in the world related to the armed struggle of imperialist countries against national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America led to a further deterioration of relations between the two military-political systems and, as a consequence, to a large-scale arms race.

(Prepared for the portal “Wars of the 20th Century” based on materials from the book by K. Bishop “Air Wars of the 20th Century. 1945-2000”).

In the first post-war decade, a bilateral system of international relations was established in the world. This is the time when the global confrontation between two superpowers began - the United States of America and the Soviet Union, as well as the confrontation between two military-political organizations - the North Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact Organization.

The Warsaw Pact was signed in Eastern European countries. This happened in 1955. Its main task was to exercise control over these states, as well as to ensure security and peace in Europe. According to the Treaty, it was intended to provide assistance to the participating countries in the event of a military threat, conduct mutual consultations in crisis situations and form a Unified Command of the Armed Forces.

The Warsaw Pact of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was signed by Albania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia and the USSR 6 years after the formation of NATO. It should be noted that cooperation between these states existed long before the signing of the document. The fact is that in most of them, after the end of the war, a communist system of government was established, which was largely facilitated by Soviet troops remaining in Eastern Europe. And until the signing of the agreement, all relations between them were carried out on the basis of agreements of friendship and cooperation. In 1949, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was formed, which initially included Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, Hungary, Romania, Poland and Czechoslovakia, and later other countries.

At the same time, after 1953, in some of the countries of Eastern Europe there were signs of mass discontent caused by the controversial policies of the USSR. Thus, mass demonstrations and strikes took place in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. And in the GDR they were so numerous that the Soviet leadership was forced to introduce tanks to suppress the protests of workers dissatisfied with the deteriorating standard of living. When I. Stalin died in 1953 and new leaders came to power, they undertook a number of trips to the countries of the socialist camp. Their result was the signing of the Warsaw Pact. It included almost all Eastern European states, with the exception of Yugoslavia, which adhered to neutrality. Signing of this document was caused primarily by the emergence of military threats as a result of the ratification of the Paris Agreements of 1954, which envisaged the creation of the Western European Union and the accession of West Germany to the North Atlantic Alliance.

The signing of the above document formalized the creation of the Warsaw Pact Organization, a military-political organization of socialist European states. Its creation became a kind of response to the formation of NATO, which was aimed against the socialist camp.

The goals of the Warsaw Pact included ensuring the security of the participating countries. It consisted of a preamble and eleven articles. According to its terms and the Charter of the United Nations, all signatory states were obliged to renounce or refrain in international politics from threats or direct use of force, and in the event of an armed conflict, to provide assistance by all available means.

Also, the participating countries were obliged to act in order to strengthen cooperation and friendly relations for the further development of cultural and economic relations, while respecting national sovereignty and not interfering in domestic policy each other. But it should also be noted that membership in the Organization was not always voluntary, and rare attempts to leave it were harshly suppressed (for example, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland).

The highest body of the Warsaw Treaty Organization was also created - the Political Consultative Committee, the main tasks of which included consultations on controversial issues that arose within the framework of the implementation of the Treaty.

But the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs were very controversial and not always successful. It is important to recall that in its confrontation with NATO there were two major crises that almost became the cause of the Third World War: the Berlin and Caribbean crises.

The cause of the Berlin crisis of 1959-1962 was the mass relocation of East German residents to West Berlin. To put an end to unauthorized relocation, the famous Berlin Wall was built overnight, with checkpoints installed. But such actions caused even greater discontent among the population; huge crowds of those who wanted to leave the borders of Soviet Berlin gathered near the checkpoint. This led to the concentration of Soviet and American tanks near the Brandenburg Gate and the main checkpoints. As a result, the confrontation between the two states ended with the Soviet authorities being forced to withdraw their tanks from these positions.

Another crisis situation arose in 1962 in the Caribbean, putting the world at risk of nuclear war. It all started with the Americans placing their missile base in Turkey. The Soviet Union could not leave this unanswered, so they secretly placed their missiles on the island of Cuba. When this became known in the United States of America, real panic began there, since the actions of the Soviet leadership were perceived as the beginning of preparations for war. Fortunately, it didn’t end so badly: Soviet troops withdrew their missiles from Cuba, the Americans liquidated their base in Turkey and pledged not to take any action against Cuba.

In addition to these conflicts, there were many other crisis situations within the Organization itself. The main reason for them was the desire of some countries for a better life and the desire to free themselves from the influence of the Soviet Union. Such crises include the uprising in Hungary, which occurred in 1956 (Operation Whirlwind), attempts to carry out reforms in Czechoslovakia in 1968 (Prague Spring, Operation Danube). All of them were solved with the help of Soviet tanks.

We should not forget about the war in Afghanistan of 1979-1989. In 1979, as a result of a military coup, a new leadership came to power there, which had the intention of building a model of a socialist state, taking the USSR as a model. This policy caused discontent among the population, as a result of which Afghan President Amin was forced to turn to the Soviet Union for help. What happened next is known to everyone. The introduction of a limited Soviet contingent into Afghan territory, which was only supposed to keep the situation under control. The result was a 10-year war and international isolation of the Soviet Union.

In 1985, due to the expiration of the Warsaw Pact, it was extended for 20 years.

When perestroika began in the USSR, changes occurred in the entire foreign policy of the country. The Soviet leadership did not interfere with the “velvet” revolutions in Eastern European countries in 1989-1990. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and a year later the two Germanys were united into a single state. For the Union, this meant the loss of a faithful ally.

The impetus for the beginning of the collapse of the military Soviet empire was the signing of the Budapest Treaty of 1991 by three countries - Poland, Hungary and East Germany. This document drew a line under the existence of the Warsaw Pact Organization.

The Warsaw Pact itself raises many questions. So, for example, what did the Soviet Union directly gain with its signing? IN Lately many historians are inclined to think that this was a well-thought-out political move by N. Khrushchev, who sought to create some kind of joint organization to ensure collective security. The Soviet leadership began to understand the fact that NATO was beginning to threaten the military power of the USSR and its advantage on European territory.

However, if we talk about the superiority of the West that really existed at that time, it consisted only in methods of intimidation using nuclear weapons. As for conventional weapons and equipment, the undeniable advantage was on the side of the Soviet Union. Moreover, this, according to many experts, was the reason for the emergence of the North Atlantic Alliance.

America and its allies immediately after the end of the war began disarmament and mass dismissal of military personnel, but the USSR was in no hurry to do this. And Americans could feel safe only until 1957, when the first Soviet artificial satellite was launched and, thus, the threat of launching nuclear weapons into orbit arose.

Be that as it may, the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, however, just like the USSR. But the unspoken confrontation between the United States and Russia still persists.

The United States of America and the Soviet Union were the main, but not the only, participants in the Cold War. Both superpowers were leaders of powerful military-political coalitions. The creation and activities of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) fully reflect the content, nature and features of the era of global confrontation.

The allies - both the USA and the USSR - were by no means mere extras. All of them, although to varying degrees, contributed to the Cold War, and the role of each of the member states of the Western and Eastern blocs requires special study. Relevant scientific work is actively carried out in numerous research centers of the most different countries, not to mention independent scientists.

Within the framework of this section, however, we will not talk about the “contribution” of specific states to the Cold War (this is simply an impossible task for a review book), but about some aspects of the coalition confrontation. As is known, any system has qualities that cannot be reduced to the sum of the properties of its components, and NATO and the ATS are, of course, no exception to the rule. In the first post-war years, the USSR and its allies opposed the organization of closed military-political blocs, for preserving the integrity of Europe and creating a system of collective security throughout the European continent. However, the West preferred a different path.

The process of forming the North Atlantic Alliance, as discussed in detail above, did not end with the signing of the 1949 Treaty. And in the subsequent period, its strengthening and expansion seemed to be a priority policy in the West. By signing the Paris Agreements in the fall of 1954, the United States and its allies provided the opportunity for West Germany and Italy to create their own armed forces and resume military production. The desire to achieve the unification of Germany through the absorption of the GDR was declared. Following this, in May 1955, in violation of the Potsdam Agreements, Germany was admitted to NATO, which received half a million German Bundeswehr at its disposal. The international situation has sharply deteriorated, and the military danger has increased. Under the new conditions, bilateral treaties between socialist countries no longer fully ensured their collective security.

An urgent need arose to reorganize military-political cooperation on a broader international legal basis, when the combined forces of Western countries would be opposed by the joint power of the Soviet Union and the states of Eastern Europe. Since the early post-war years, the Eastern European states (also called “people's democracies”) and the Soviet Union have pursued a policy aimed at establishing close and comprehensive partnerships. The basis for this was numerous bilateral agreements. Military contacts soon became one of the priority areas of cooperation, especially since the treaty process coincided with the creation and formation of new national armies in people's democracies.

It was widely practiced to supply the “brotherly armies” with modern (at that time) Soviet weapons and various military equipment, as well as to send military advisers of command and technical profiles to assist in mastering military equipment, organizing combat training of troops and training personnel. The practice of training national personnel in Soviet military educational institutions also became widespread. The formation of the armies of the people's democratic countries was facilitated by their close ties with Soviet troops stationed in the GDR, Poland, Hungary and Romania. On May 14, 1955, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic (GDR), Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia signed an allied Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance in the Polish capital, which went down in history as the Warsaw Pact. The new military-political commonwealth was organized on the principles of the unity of Marxist-Leninist ideology, the leading role in the states of communist parties, socialist internationalism and joint provision of their military security. The text of the Treaty, as well as the military doctrine adopted much later, noted that the Department of Internal Affairs was of a purely defensive nature. Of course, this did not exclude the decisive action of his combined armed forces in the event of aggression.

Moreover, in combat planning at one time the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against groups of troops of a potential enemy “prepared to attack” was even allowed. The countries participating in the Warsaw Warsaw Forces created coalition leadership bodies, formed the corresponding allied armed forces and means of controlling them in peacetime and war, and determined the optimal forms and methods of military cooperation. This system was supplemented and improved throughout the entire period of its existence, until the spring of 1991. The supreme body of the Department of Internal Affairs was the Political Consultative Committee (PCC), which was entrusted with resolving general fundamental issues related to the defense capability and military development of the allied states, their armies and the United Armed Forces (JAF), which were headed by the Commander-in-Chief.

According to the established practice of the PAC, its meetings were held annually. Delegations led by top officials of the participating states took part in them. As a rule, the agenda included two issues: one of them was the report of the Commander-in-Chief on the state of the Allied Forces with the adoption of decisions on their further development, equipping them with military equipment and weapons, preparing infrastructure, etc.

The second issue was usually the consideration and adoption of political statements, for example on the problems of arms reduction or in connection with “the aggressive actions of Western countries.” The working bodies of the PAC were the Joint Secretariat, the Committee of Foreign Ministers (KMFA) and the Committee of Defense Ministers (KMO); the latter acted as the highest military coalition authority in the Department of Internal Affairs. The body of military-strategic control in peacetime was the Joint Command of the Armed Forces (then the United Armed Forces), consisting of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces and his deputies from each participating country (with the rank of deputy ministers of defense or chiefs of general staff with residence in their countries) , as well as the chief of staff of the Allied Forces and the commander of the Air Defense Forces of the Internal Affairs Directorate. The commanders-in-chief of the Allied Forces at different times were Marshals of the Soviet Union I. S. Konev, A. A. Grechko, I. I. Yakubovsky, V. G. Kulikov and Army General P. G. Lushev. Under the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces, the Allied Forces Headquarters and the Allied Forces Technical Committee functioned as permanent bodies to manage the daily activities of the Allied Forces. In addition, the Military Council and the Military Scientific and Technical Council of the Allied Forces worked on a temporary basis. The Allied Forces Headquarters and the Allied Forces Technical Committee were staffed from among generals, admirals and officers of all allied armies on the principle of proportional representation, based on the accepted funding standards for these bodies: Bulgaria - 7%, Hungary - 6%, East Germany - 6%, Poland - 13.5 %, Romania - 10%, Soviet Union - 44.5% and Czechoslovakia - 13%. It is characteristic that, subject to these norms, the majority of leadership positions in the named structures (chief of staff, his first deputy, chairman of the Technical Committee, heads of all departments and departments) were occupied by Soviet military personnel. In the Unified Command, in addition to the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces himself, the Soviet military commanders were his deputies for the Air Force, Navy and Air Defense. Naturally, this practice ensured the implementation of the ideas and guidelines primarily of the Soviet political and military leadership, the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, and the provisions of the Soviet military science and military doctrine. The Commander-in-Chief and Chief of Staff of the Allied Forces simultaneously held the positions of First Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR and First Deputy Chief of the General Staff (respectively).

These circumstances sometimes had a negative impact on the moral and psychological situation in the structures of the Department of Internal Affairs, especially since the actions of Soviet leaders did not always fully take into account the interests, characteristics and real capabilities of the USSR’s allies. The representation of the allied armies in the Allied Forces Headquarters was limited to the presence of deputy chiefs of the Allied Forces Staff from the ministries of defense of all participating states with the rank of deputy chiefs of general (main) staffs.

These representatives worked at the Allied Forces Headquarters, constantly being in Moscow. Military command and control bodies were engaged in developing proposals and recommendations on the problems of strengthening the defense capabilities of allied countries, building national armed forces and coordinating the activities of the United Armed Forces in the interests of collective defense. Over the years of its existence, the Warsaw Treaty Organization has developed an effective mechanism for multilateral political and military cooperation, which has constantly developed and improved. Its legal basis was both the Warsaw Pact itself and bilateral agreements between its participants. Accordingly, cooperation in a variety of areas of activity was carried out both within the framework of the Department of Internal Affairs and on a bilateral basis. The most important area of ​​activity of the Department of Internal Affairs was cooperation between participating states in the field of foreign policy.

There was also a mechanism for its coordination, the central link of which was the Political Consultative Committee. Its important elements were the Standing Commission for the Development of Recommendations on Foreign Policy Issues, the Committee of Foreign Ministers and the Joint Secretariat. The leaders of the ATS countries also coordinated their foreign policy actions during scheduled and working meetings. Sometimes such contacts were closed. Thus, when developing a common position of socialist countries in Berlin crisis 1961 their leaders met secretly in Moscow. At this meeting, in particular, a decision was made to build a separation wall around West Berlin. Military-strategic interaction within the framework of the Warsaw Warfare was carried out by coordinating the efforts of the allied countries in strengthening defense, building national armies, increasing their combat capability and combat readiness, as well as planning the joint use of joint forces in case of war.

It included the coordination of plans for the development of national armies, equipping them with weapons and military equipment, carrying out joint measures to improve the combat and mobilization readiness of troops and fleets, their field, air and naval training, operational training of commanders and staffs, operational equipment of the countries' territories as part of military theaters actions, joint development of plans for the combat use of operational formations allocated from national armies in wartime.

Efforts were coordinated in personnel training, development and production of weapons and military equipment, joint (united) defensive and special systems were created, mutual assistance was provided in the development current problems military art, introduction into practice of uniform principles and methods of training troops and headquarters. Coordination of efforts occupied a special place government agencies, national ministries of defense, general (main) headquarters of the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries. It is known that the main form of any coalition military interaction is the coordination of the joint use of military force, in other words, operational planning.

Unified operational-strategic planning for the use of the Joint Armed Forces in wartime in the activities of the Internal Affairs Directorate represented the highest form of military integration. The methods, essence and goals of such work were constantly improved. The General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces acted as the organizing link in planning the use of both the armed forces of the ATS states and the operational-strategic and operational formations created on their base in wartime. At the end of the Cold War era, the legal basis for such planning was the “Regulations on the Joint Armed Forces and Their Commanding Bodies in Wartime,” adopted by the heads of state of the Warsaw Pact on March 18, 1980.

In accordance with it, a single Supreme High Command was established for centralized leadership in wartime, the governing body of which was the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces. Thus, in wartime, the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, along with performing the functions of the working body of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command of the USSR Armed Forces, also became the governing body of the Supreme High Command of the United Armed Forces created during a special period (the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Armed Forces was appointed as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces of the Warsaw Pact Organization ).

Therefore, the scope of activity of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, already in peacetime, included issues of military development, determining the plan for the use, planning and training of the armed forces of the countries participating in the Warsaw Pact and their territories for the joint implementation of tasks in wartime. The basis for the preparation of planning documents was the “Protocols on the allocation of troops and forces of a given participating state to the United Armed Forces” developed by the Allied Forces Headquarters and the corresponding general (main) headquarters of each national army with the participation of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces. They determined the main directions of development of the troops and forces of a given state, plans for equipping them with weapons and military equipment, the volume of accumulation of reserves, materials, as well as the number of formations and units of all types of armed forces allocated from the armed forces of this state to the United Armed Forces. As for the number of allocated troops, it was indicated in the corresponding List (appendix to the protocol), in which, in addition to indicating specific formations, units and institutions, the number of their personnel, organizational structure, and the number of main types of weapons and military equipment were determined.

The Protocols also indicated measures to prepare the territory of a given country in an operational sense. Planning for the use of troops (forces) in wartime (fronts, armies and fleets) allocated to the Allied Forces “was carried out by the Ministers of Defense and the General (Main) Staffs of the Warsaw Pact member states, taking into account the recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces and proposals of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, and if necessary, in cooperation with neighboring armies of other countries.” The general operational plans developed at the national headquarters were subject to approval by the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces before they were signed by the ministers of defense and the commander-in-chief of the Allied Forces.

The European continent was considered as the main theater of possible war for NATO and Warsaw General Forces groups. In Europe, especially in its central part, the combined military power of the two military-political alliances was especially impressive. In total, more than 7.2 million people opposed each other here, armed with more than 90 thousand tanks, 128.5 thousand guns and mortars, over 23 thousand combat aircraft and helicopters, 600 large surface ships and about 430 submarines. The armed forces of the United States, Great Britain and France consisted of the classic triad: general purpose forces, theater nuclear forces (medium and shorter range) and strategic nuclear forces. Since for many years the United States and NATO relied on atomic weapons in a possible war, priority in development was given to nuclear weapons.

However, at the end of the 80s, when the parity in strategic offensive weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union became more than obvious, and it became clear that there could be no winner in a world nuclear war, strategic concepts were clarified. For the first time, the armies of the bloc countries were given the task that they should have the ability to conduct large-scale offensive operations from the very beginning of the war. fighting using only conventional means of destruction. Thus, the role of general purpose forces increased significantly. The general purpose forces of the United States and its allied countries were: ground forces, tactical aviation of the Air Force and naval forces (excluding SSBNs). They were the most numerous and versatile component of the armed forces.

In accordance with the American strategic concept of “forward deployment,” the main groupings of general purpose forces were already deployed in peacetime and maintained outside US territory in likely theaters of military operations, most of them near the borders of the Soviet Union. The most powerful of them was stationed in Europe. It contained about 30% of regular ground forces, in which we found

More than 75% of all available anti-tank weapons were in use. The US Tactical Air Force in Europe had 900 combat aircraft, of which 400 were medium-range fighter-bombers. The Americans also maintained the 6th and 2nd operational fleets in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, which consisted of about 200 warships, including 9 aircraft carriers and 900 naval aviation combat aircraft. To accommodate these colossal forces and assets, 188 large military bases and facilities were created in Germany alone. There were up to 60 American bases in Turkey, and dozens in Italy and Great Britain. In total, the Americans have deployed over 1,000 military installations in Western European countries, of which more than 270 are large.

In addition to the four US armored and mechanized divisions located in Germany, heavy weapons reserves were stored on its territory for four more divisions transported by air from the American continent during a special period. In total, US general purpose forces in Europe numbered 300 thousand people, 5,000 tanks, 3,100 field artillery pieces. Within 10 days from the time the decision on mobilization was made, in addition to the troops available in the Western European theater of operations, six more combined arms divisions and one brigade were deployed, and 60 air squadrons (16–18 aircraft each) were relocated. There are about 1000 aircraft in total.

In total, it was planned to transport up to 400 thousand American troops to Europe by air and in a short time increase the number of combined arms divisions by 2.5 times, and the aviation group by 3 times. Over 7,000 nuclear weapons were stationed in Europe for the general purpose forces of all NATO countries. Together with the troops of the Federal Republic of Germany (12 combat-ready tank and motorized infantry divisions), the group of American troops was the main striking force of the NATO Allied Forces, aimed against the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries. The armed forces of NATO states in Europe (except France) constituted the bloc's Combined Armed Forces (JAF), which were territorially divided into three main commands: in the North European, Central European and South European theaters. The most powerful group of troops was located in the Central European Theater (CET). It included the armed forces of Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, as well as formations and units of the USA, Great Britain and Canada in Europe located on German, Dutch and Belgian territories. A total of 23 divisions, up to 10 thousand tanks and 6 thousand units of field artillery, organized into eight army corps. In addition, two French army corps were stationed on the territory of Germany. A kind of forward base of NATO Allied Forces on the CET, extended to the east, was West Berlin with its military garrison of three Western powers (USA, Great Britain and France), numbering 12 thousand people, not counting 20 thousand West Berlin police.

In total, NATO, including France and Spain, had 94 combat-ready divisions in Europe. The size of the deployed American division was 16–19 thousand, and the German division was more than 23 thousand people, while the divisions of the armies of the VD countries numbered a maximum of 11–12 thousand people. All NATO first-echelon force groups in Europe were maintained in a high degree of readiness to occupy the starting areas on the so-called forward defensive line, running at a distance of 10 to 50 km from the border with the GDR and Czechoslovakia, and for further actions in accordance with operational plans. Their weapons consisted of the most modern, mainly offensive, types of military equipment and weapons, the main of which were dual-use systems capable of using nuclear weapons in addition to conventional ammunition. In accordance with the strategic concept then existing in the USSR, it was considered necessary for the reliable security of the Soviet Union and its allies to have in Central Europe a powerful group of armed forces of the Warsaw Pact states, the core of which were Soviet troops. The defense system of the Soviet Union and the entire Warsaw Pact was built by concentrating the main efforts primarily on the Western and Southwestern theater of operations, where the most combat-ready groups of troops, equipped with the most modern equipment, with appropriate supplies of material and technical means were deployed. Groups of Soviet troops on the territory of the GDR and Poland arose as a result of the defeat fascist Germany. In the eastern part of Germany, the Group of Soviet Occupation Forces was first created, then it was renamed the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSVG), and in 1989 - the Western Group of Forces (ZGV). In Poland, Soviet troops, intended to protect communications and strengthen the Western Group of Forces, were represented by the Northern Group of Forces (SGV). In addition, in the German Democratic Republic and Poland, on the coast of the Baltic Sea, one basing point for the Soviet Baltic Fleet was located. The presence of Soviet troops in Hungary, under the name first of the Central and then of the Southern Group of Forces (YGV), is associated both with post-war agreements and with the Soviet military action in the fall of 1956. The deployment of the Soviet Central Group of Forces (TsGV) in Czechoslovakia was considered expedient after the entry of a group of troops from the Warsaw Warsaw countries there in 1968. Until 1958, Soviet troops (Separate Mechanized Army) were also on the territory of Romania. In total, in 1985, the four Soviet groups of forces of constant readiness included eight combined arms and tank armies (over 30 fully deployed and ready for battle motorized rifle and tank divisions), as well as 10 aviation divisions. In total there are more than 600 thousand military personnel, 11 thousand tanks and over 1,600 combat aircraft.

These groups of Soviet ground forces, air force and navy, advanced 600 - 800 km to the West from the borders of the Soviet Union, together with the armies and navies of the Warsaw Pact allies, represented a powerful first operational echelon of the first strategic echelon of the United Armed Forces of the Warsaw Pact. The USSR-allied troops and forces in Europe were: the National People's Army (NPA) of the GDR, the Polish Army (VP), the Czechoslovak People's Army (CHNA), the Hungarian Defense Forces (VOS), the Army of the Socialist Republic of Romania (ASRR) and the Bulgarian People's Army (BNA). ), which included 13 combined arms armies and a number of associations and formations of other types of armed forces and branches of the military. It was believed that the presence of groups of troops (forces) constantly ready for action, in direct contact with NATO forces, ensures the necessary effectiveness common system defense and maintaining a comprehensive military-strategic balance between East and West in Europe. The troops of the first operational echelon, which included more than 60% of all available general purpose forces of the Warsaw Pact, were tasked with repelling aggression and defeating the invading enemy.

The second operational echelon consisted of troops of the western border military districts: Belarusian, Carpathian, Odessa and Kyiv, partly Baltic, which mainly consisted of tank formations and formations and were ready in a short time for rapid advance (mainly in a combined march), and their air force - to relocation by air, to the West to areas of operational destination to enter the battle in order to complete the defeat of the enemy and develop the success of the troops of the first operational echelon. Organizationally, all troops and forces of the Warsaw Pact countries for the preparation and conduct of joint military operations in Europe were consolidated into the United Armed Forces of the Warsaw Pact Organization (JAF). Their composition in peacetime and wartime was different.

With the transition to martial law, all peacetime Allied Forces of the Internal Affairs Directorate, as well as other troops and forces, including those deployed under mobilization plans, were transformed into: - Allied Forces in the Western Theater of Internal Affairs; - Allied forces in the South-Western theater of operations; - Reserves of the Supreme High Command of the Allied Military Forces. These strategic groupings in the theater of operations, consisting of fronts (both national and coalition), separate combined arms armies, air armies, air defense armies and united fleets (in the West - the United Baltic consisting of: the Baltic Fleet, the PPR Navy and the GDR Navy, and in the Southwest - United Black Sea Fleet: Black Sea Fleet, Bulgarian Navy and Romanian Navy) and other connected units and institutions were united by a single action plan (within the framework of strategic operations in the theater of operations) and centralized control by the main commands of the Allied Forces in the Western and South-Western theater of operations. In 1984, the Main Commands of Directional Troops were created in the USSR Armed Forces.

In particular, in Europe, the Main Commands of the Western Direction troops were formed with headquarters in the city of Legnica (Poland) and the South-Western Direction (Chisinau). In wartime, they were transformed into the Main Commands of the Allied Air Forces in the corresponding theaters of military operations and were intended to direct the actions of all troops and forces available there. Thus, almost all the available forces and means of armed struggle of the states participating in the Air Force (except for the strategic nuclear forces of the USSR Armed Forces), their command and control bodies, as well as the defensive and support systems and complexes created within the framework of the Military Organization of the Treaty constituted the United Armed Forces of the Air Force. In peacetime, the potential enemy was continuously monitored.

The main emphasis was on conducting radio and electronic reconnaissance, the forward posts of which were deployed or permanently equipped along the entire border with Germany, Austria and Turkey, as well as mobile ones - at sea and in the air. The Unified Unified Air Defense Air Defense System was kept in constant readiness for action, which was centrally controlled and united the air defense forces and means of air defense of groups of troops of the participating countries of Central and Eastern Europe, air defense troops of Soviet border military districts and air defense forces of the country (USSR). The duty assets of this system responded to any air targets, so that if they violated the airspace, they would immediately stop the flight of the violators already in the border areas. Thus, only in the Western Front, for the possible interception of air targets - potential violators of airspace - several duty fighter aircraft took to the air every day.

Constantly ready troops - motorized rifle, tank, missile, artillery formations and units, as well as formations of other branches of the military, engaged in daily activities, were able to completely leave military camps of permanent deployment in a few tens of minutes, go to designated areas (positions) and begin carrying out combat missions. Military equipment (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns) were kept in parks with full ammunition for guns, machine guns and other small arms, tanks filled with fuel, transport vehicles - with loaded supplies of materiel, ready for movement and combat. Even hand grenades and signal cartridges were loaded into the combat vehicles. The only weapons in the barracks were machine guns and pistols of crew commanders and driver mechanics.

Nuclear ammunition for missile forces and artillery, front-line aviation, both for those included in the groupings of Soviet troops and the armies of other airborne forces countries, constituting the first operational echelon in the theater of operations, were stored at missile and technical repair bases located on the territory of the airborne forces countries. These nuclear weapons were kept in readiness by special order for delivery and transfer within a short time to units and formations. Actions of each join and join Soviet groups troops and troops of the armies of the USSR's allies for a special period were carefully planned in accordance with various possible options for the outbreak of war. These plans were refined as the situation changed (the appropriate frequency and order of such work were established). The Allied Forces control system created in advance in theaters of military operations included a network of stationary protected (underground) and mobile control points (from the Allied Forces Main Command in the theater of operations up to and including formations), equipped with modern communications equipment, automated control systems and life support systems, as well as a network of lines and nodes communications, primarily cable, radio relay and tropospheric.

At most of the command posts of associations, formations and even units, combat duty was already organized and carried out in peacetime. In addition to the forces and means of command and control, reconnaissance and air defense since the mid-90s. in groups of forces, a certain number of strike assets (front-line and army aviation, missile forces and artillery) were placed on combat duty for the immediate destruction of the so-called priority enemy targets.

The basis of the general purpose forces in the armies of the Internal Affairs Directorate has traditionally been the Ground Forces. In the post-war period, in the Soviet Armed Forces they continued to develop as the second most important (after the Strategic Missile Forces) and as the largest type of Armed Forces in terms of numbers and diverse in combat composition. It was believed that the Ground Forces, possessing fire and striking power, high maneuverability and independence, would play important role when conducting combat operations both with and without the use of nuclear weapons. Their development proceeded in the following directions: increase in combat strength; improving the organizational structure of associations, formations and governing bodies; re-equipment with new types of weapons and military equipment to increase firepower and striking force while simultaneously increasing mobility, maneuverability and survivability. Only during the reorganization carried out in 1980 - 1982, the number of artillery of motorized rifle and tank divisions was increased by 20 - 60%, new T-72, T-80 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles entered service. As a result, the combat capabilities of these combined arms formations increased by an average of 25%. In general, “conventional” types of weapons not only in the Ground Forces, but also in other branches of the Armed Forces were constantly being improved and qualitatively new weapon systems were created, having increasingly high destructive characteristics.

The state of tension in relations between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Department of Internal Affairs and NATO was largely facilitated by the nature and content of military doctrines, the provisions of which each side was guided by. The official US doctrine, regardless of the periodic change of its concepts and names: “massive retaliation”, “flexible response”, “realistic deterrence” and “direct confrontation”, has always provided for the possibility of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike in the event that the American leadership comes to the conclusion that a suspected enemy intends to launch a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies. And in relation to a war waged by conventional means, the United States and NATO have officially stated that, if necessary, they will use nuclear weapon first.

For a long time, the doctrinal guidelines of the Warsaw Treaty Organization were of a semi-formalized nature and were reflected mainly in statements, declarations and other similar documents of the Political Consultative Committee and individual member states. The basis of the coalition doctrine was the provisions of the military doctrine of the USSR as the recognized political, economic and military leader of the socialist states. A characteristic feature of the military doctrine of the Warsaw Pact was its defensive orientation. Since the formation of this union, its military efforts have been aimed at protecting against possible attacks from the outside, including through provoking internal counter-revolution. The defensive nature of the coalition doctrine was primarily reflected in the combat composition, structure and purpose of the Allied Forces and armies of the participating states, the content of their training, and the selected and planned methods and forms of combat operations.

But the main and determining aspect of the military doctrine was its political side. It was determined by the policies of the ruling communist and workers' parties of the participating states and their Marxist-Leninist ideology in the field of war and defense. This ideology in the military sphere was based on the principles of “socialist internationalism” and the “class approach” to problems of military security, the identification of military threats and potential opponents, as well as allies. The outward expression of this concept was, for example, the slogan widely known at that time: “Brothers in class are brothers in arms!” As part of the political side of the doctrine, a negative attitude of the Department of Internal Affairs towards war as a phenomenon was recorded, with corresponding military-political tasks for each country and for the Organization as a whole to prevent war, strengthen the collective defense and military security of the “countries of the socialist commonwealth”.

Let us emphasize once again: both the Soviet military doctrine and the military doctrine of the Department of Internal Affairs never 1 provided for the proactive start of any war, especially a nuclear one, or even a local attack. But the groups of the Armed Forces were supposed to have such a composition, the order of their deployment, as well as the level of training and readiness, so that in the event of aggression from the United States, the NATO bloc, they would repel and stop the invasion, go on a counter-offensive, and then during deep offensive operations decisively defeat the enemy. This is partly why in the West the Soviet strategy was assessed as clearly offensive.

But was it sincere? Using propaganda clichés of the military power of the USSR and the Soviet military threat, as well as interpreting some Soviet foreign policy actions in an extremely broad manner, the United States managed to convince Western public opinion of the aggressiveness of the USSR and its allies. The Soviet side responded in kind in its propaganda, but was less convincing. By the mid-80s. The current Soviet military doctrine required revision in order to comply with the political course of the new Soviet leadership, to help intensify the negotiation process and reduce the military potentials of the parties. They decided to make issues of war prevention the content of not only foreign policy, but also military doctrine. Around the same time, the theory of a gradual escalation of a world war, the subsequent stages of which, it was believed, would definitely be nuclear, was replaced by the concept of an equal probability of a world nuclear war and a conventional war (in the form of a general or local one).

The new Soviet military doctrine, the theory of which was developed at the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, was primarily to be distinguished by its unambiguous defensive orientation. For the first time (and perhaps the last time) in history, its main goal was not to prepare for war, but to prevent it, which now, a quarter of a century later, looks at least ambiguous.

Mixing military doctrine and foreign policy concepts may have a certain propaganda effect, but it also disorients the military organization of the state. At the end of 1986, new doctrinal guidelines were reviewed and approved by the USSR Defense Council. They formed the basis of the coalition military doctrine of the Warsaw Pact member states. A document entitled “On the Military Doctrine of the Warsaw Pact States” was adopted at a meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of these countries in May 1987 and published. A comparison of the main provisions of the NATO military doctrine and the new ATS doctrine was carried out within the OSCE at two seminars in Vienna in 1990 and 1991. The political side of the doctrine determined the tasks of reducing the danger of war and preventing it. The member countries of the Warsaw Treaty Organization stated that they would never, under any circumstances, be the first to begin military action against any state (union of states) unless they themselves became the target of an armed attack.

This fully applied to nuclear weapons. These statements were not mere declarations. They corresponded to the established procedure for developing a decision on the use of nuclear weapons, strictly defined methods of delivering a nuclear strike, as well as the algorithm for the functioning of the automated control system for the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the USSR Armed Forces and other systems for controlling troops and weapons. Thus, the use of Soviet strategic nuclear forces and operational-tactical nuclear weapons could only be carried out in the form of a retaliatory or retaliatory strike against the aggressor. A number of specially implemented organizational and technical measures at nuclear control points made a pre-emptive nuclear strike simply impossible. The doctrine contained a number of initiatives for real disarmament.

Bearing in mind that the most important and destructive of all types of offensive weapons is nuclear weapons, including in the theater of military operations, it was decided to start with them, and then continue this process in the field of reducing conventional weapons. An analysis of data on the composition and balance of general-purpose forces, as well as their nuclear weapons, indeed shows that mutual force deterrence was based on the parties maintaining their combined military potential at such a high level that victory in the war became impossible. It is no coincidence that throughout the existence of the two blocs, the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO states did not allow even a small armed conflict between themselves. And there were more than enough reasons and reasons for this.

The overall goal of the reform was to create in Europe a military-political situation in which both NATO and the Warsaw Department of Internal Affairs, having reliably ensured their defense, would not have the means to launch a surprise attack on the other side. This is where the concept of “reasonable sufficiency for defense” arose, which meant the level of military power of a state or a coalition of states commensurate with the level of military threat, the nature and intensity of military preparations of a potential enemy.

It was determined by the needs of ensuring security at the minimum acceptable level when repelling aggression from land, air, sea and outer space. Closely associated with the concept of “reasonable sufficiency for defense” is the concept of “forceful deterrence of aggression,” which includes a set of the most rational forms and methods of neutralizing existing and potential military threats. “Forceful deterrence of aggression” was understood as a set of measures and actions of a coalition of states aimed at creating and maintaining a level of their total defense potential at which the opposing side realizes that the possible benefits from its preventive actions will obviously be inferior to losses from the retaliatory actions of potential victims of aggression. The goal was to force the potential aggressor to abandon the idea that victory in the war would remain his. Compliance with the principle of sufficiency for defense required the parties not only to mechanically reduce troops, forces and their weapons, but also to deeply restructure their structure, deployment, change the nature of military activity, and build up the armed forces.

Among other things, it was necessary to eliminate imbalances and asymmetries in the armed forces of the states of the two opposing military blocs. Another important condition for the implementation of the principle of achieving sufficiency for defense was to be the signing of an agreement to limit the creation of new types and systems of weapons (such as the US missile defense system). Thus, the Warsaw Pact Organization advocated maintaining military-strategic parity at an increasingly lower level, within the limits of reasonable sufficiency for defense, implying such a composition and structure of the armed forces of the parties when they are able to repel possible aggression, but do not themselves have the ability to carry out an attack and conduct large-scale offensive operations.

Revealing the military-technical side of the new Soviet military doctrine and its key issue - preparing the armed forces to repel aggression, Marshal of the Soviet Union S. F. Akhromeev wrote in his memoirs: “In the event of aggression, we refused to switch to offensive in a short time after its occurrence actions - conducting offensive operations. It was decided to repel the attack only with defensive operations, while simultaneously trying to eliminate the armed conflict. By deliberately giving the strategic initiative in the war to the aggressor, we were prepared to defend ourselves for several weeks. And only then, if the enemy’s invasion could not be stopped, was it planned to launch large-scale actions to defeat the aggressor.”

This approach indicated fundamental changes in Soviet military strategy, which was acquiring increasingly unrealistic, “Manilov-like” features. Moreover, the defensive nature of the doctrine should have been reflected not only in the selected and planned methods and forms of combat operations of the armed forces, but also in the direction of their preparation. It should be noted that many military leaders accepted these innovations with caution, viewing them as another manifestation of a policy of unilateral concessions. Time has shown that there was every reason for these fears. It is difficult to even imagine what sacrifices the practical implementation of new doctrinal guidelines would require if a large-scale war occurred.

Doctrinal guidelines of the Department of Internal Affairs of the late 80s. provided not only for the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons and the elimination of other weapons of mass destruction, but also for a further reduction in conventional armed forces and weapons in Europe, the elimination of military bases on the territory of other states, the withdrawal of troops within national borders, and the simultaneous dissolution of the North Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact. However, this program, as we know, turned out to be unrealistic. It must be said that the accumulated stockpiles of conventional weapons in Europe were indeed colossal. Of course, this was not a random occurrence. The basis for determining the number and combat strength of Soviet troops in the West, as well as the Allied Internal Affairs Forces in general, was the calculations of the Soviet General Staff about the need to initially create and maintain such a balance of forces and means with a potential enemy, which, in conditions where losses in the war would exceed the volume of the possible reproduction of weapons and military equipment will nevertheless ensure the fulfillment of the assigned tasks.

Negotiations between the Warsaw and NATO countries on the limitation of conventional armed forces and weapons in Europe, which have been sluggish since 1973, intensified only after the scope of their consideration was expanded in 1986 with Central Europe to the entire European continent: from the Atlantic to the Urals. It should be noted that the West has constantly stated the “overwhelming superiority” of the Warsaw Warsaw countries in terms of general-purpose forces, especially ground forces (it is here that significant disproportions and asymmetries allegedly existed not in favor of NATO). In reality, the actual balance in the field of general-purpose forces was far from easy to establish. The times when the forces of the parties were measured only by the number of available “bayonets” and “sabers” are a thing of the past.

In the 80s it was necessary to make an in-depth analysis of the real purpose, composition, level of training and capabilities of the parties' troop groups and their weapons as a whole, taking into account their qualitative characteristics, and not be limited to arithmetic comparisons of similar types of weapons. Thus, in the GSVG (ZGV), out of 6,700 available tanks, about 1,200 (almost 20% of the total) were intended to cover the state border with Germany and the Baltic Sea coast. These were mainly obsolete T-10 heavy tanks and ISU-152, SU-122 self-propelled artillery mounts. Organizationally, they were part of separate tank regiments and battalions stationed in the border zone. These included the 5th separate tank brigade with medium tanks, covering the sea coast of the GDR. All these units had the task of quickly occupying pre-selected firing positions and, by creating a dense anti-tank belt, repelling a sudden invasion. After completing this task, the listed tank units were withdrawn from the combat composition of the group of forces.

As you can see, a fifth of the tanks and self-propelled guns of the GSVG initially did not have offensive missions. This example confirms that it was indeed very difficult to make a reasonable calculation of the balance of forces due to the difference in the structures of the armed forces of the Warsaw Department and NATO, the wide variety of types and types of weapons, the difference in tasks, as well as the subjectivity of the parties’ approach. Some comparative data on the size of the military forces of the Warsaw Department and NATO in Europe, according to the estimates of the parties for 1989, are given in table. 6. Thus, assessing the ratio of the military potentials of the parties taking into account the given data, we can draw the following conclusions: a) with approximately equal numbers of ground forces and air forces, the North Atlantic Alliance was 2 times larger than the Internal Affairs Directorate in terms of the number of naval forces. NATO also surpassed the ATS in the number of attack aircraft of front-line (tactical) and naval aviation, combat helicopters and anti-tank missile systems; b) on the side of the ATS there was superiority in tanks, interceptor aircraft of air defense forces, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, as well as in artillery; c) in terms of naval forces, NATO was superior to the ATS in all respects, with the exception of submarines, especially in the number of large surface ships (including aircraft carriers), as well as in naval aircraft. In general, in terms of conventional weapons, there was approximate parity between NATO and the Warsaw Division in Europe. The London Institute for Strategic Studies then concluded: “The overall balance of conventional weapons is such that neither side has sufficient combined power to guarantee victory.” At the aforementioned negotiations on conventional armed forces, NATO insisted on reducing only ground forces and their weapons (tanks, artillery and armored vehicles). They categorically did not want to cut their own Air Force and especially the Navy.

The Warsaw Warsaw agreement to exclude the Navy from the subject of negotiations on the reduction of armed forces in Europe was erroneous, primarily because it put the Warsaw Warfare countries in an inherently disadvantageous position. But under great pressure, they managed to force the West to consider the problem of aviation at the negotiations, as well as to agree to subsequent negotiations on reducing the naval force. The day before the signing of the CFE Treaty, the final figures were agreed upon with great difficulty. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), signed in Paris on November 19, 1990, had the goal of establishing military-strategic parity in conventional armed forces and weapons at the lowest possible level. For this purpose, general maximum levels were established for each group of countries, which were then clarified by the parties for individual states participating in the coalitions. On the way to agreeing on the parameters of this treaty, the Soviet Union and its allies, in addition to the above-mentioned Navy, made a number of other serious concessions. In order to somehow compensate for this, the Soviet side, at the final stage of signing the Treaty, resorted to some “military tricks” in order to make it somewhat easier for itself to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty: a) in order to artificially reduce the total number of the Armed Forces subject to reduction in Europe, it was adopted legislative act on the exclusion from the Armed Forces of the USSR of the KGB Border Troops, Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Railway Troops, Civil Defense Troops, Government Communications Troops; b) using the ongoing regrouping of troops associated with the beginning of their withdrawal from the countries of Eastern Europe, the military-political leadership of the country decided to redeploy a significant part of the conventional weapons subject to reduction from the European part of the USSR to its Asian part, beyond the Urals, so that they would not be destroyed. The USA and other Western countries knew about this. S. F. Akhromeev, in a letter to the US Presidential Assistant for National Security, General B. Scowcroft, reported that the following were transferred beyond the Urals: 16.4 thousand tanks (mostly more modern types), 11.2 thousand armored combat vehicles, 25 thousand . artillery systems and 1200 aircraft. Such a relocation was explained by the need to fill the shortage of such equipment in the troops in the East, as well as to replace outdated weapons. However, even before the official entry Treaty of Paris in force in 1992, the parity in conventional weapons it established was violated.

After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic Alliance began to outnumber the USSR in tanks and artillery by 1.5 times, and in airplanes and helicopters by 1.3 times. As a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO's superiority over Russia in tanks and artillery reached 3 times, in armored personnel carriers - 2.7 times. With the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to NATO, the provisions of this Treaty finally deformed the security system in Europe and consolidated the overwhelming superiority of the alliance over Russia. It should be emphasized that, despite all the theoretical errors and practical failures, the very concept of reasonable sufficiency for defense has not lost its significance today. Many of its conceptual provisions still seem logical and justified. In general, the history of the military organization of the Warsaw Pact provides an instructive example of the creation and activity of a large military-political coalition, which, by concentrating the efforts of the allied countries, was able to resist the exceptionally powerful Western bloc, providing conditions in which the Soviet Union and its allies pursued a sovereign foreign policy, resolutely defending their state interests.