Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

The Red Army and the Afghanistan War

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Apr 2005, 05:47
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 Apr 2005, 05:52
I would like to know your opinion about the Afghanistan War ....
Do you think this war was a key factor to Soviet Union collapse?
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 07 Apr 2005, 07:16
How was it a key factor to the Collapse of the Soviet Union? the amount of troops there were 20% of the total front line forces-- which wouldn't have effected the military aspect of the collapse of the CCCP. The overall cost of the war is around 200 billion dollars [US] - so not drastically draining the governments treasury.

So, why do you link it to the collapse of the CCCP?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Apr 2005, 05:47
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 Apr 2005, 07:55
Nikita*K wrote:
So, why do you link it to the collapse of the CCCP?


As i explained in the other post ...
it is not about money (military budget, costs, etc)
what i think, is the Red Army was invencible before that war...
after Afghanistan war, they lost credit of their own citizens ... and became weak (in terms of moral) ...
then ... people lost their faith in the regime ... politicians also lost credit ... and finally the CCCP was devoured by their enemies (capitalistic forces, islam, catholics, etc )

this link support this opinion:
http://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf

this is my explanation that i posted in the other discussion:
I think the Afghanistan war was the main key factor to collapse.
It was unthinkable the breakdown in 1979...
Because of this war, the Red Army became weak. The people started to think they were not invencible, and they did not agree to the idea of violating other nations sovereign ...
These collapse opened the door to Catholics pressure to liberalize the eastern europe countries. Pope John Paul II had a trascendental role about this.
Finally the rest of the world saw the collapse as a capitalistic victory ... but this is false ... it was a religious and god`s victory over atheism and USSR materialistic culture ....

Now, the same battle is playing role ... the US materialistic culture will suffer the same punishment as the USSR ...

... it is a question of time ....

USSR ocuppied Afghanistan in 1979 ... and in 1989 they retired and the Berlin Wall breakdown they definitely collapsed...
USA will collapse definetely in 2011 ...(ten years from september eleven 2001)
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 07 Apr 2005, 09:24
Quote:
after Afghanistan war, they lost credit of their own citizens ... and became weak (in terms of moral) ...


You said in a previous post, that, the Soviet Citizens weren't informed of the defeats of the afghani war, so how could they be aware of them if they were supressed by the government? you say one thing, then contradict yourself in another thread-- saying the complete opposite.

The Soviet's didn't lose in Afghanistan-- how do you conclude that we were't delt a blow? hardly a scratch it was.

Quote:
in terms of moral


Ask a former-Soviet soldier, some former officers said that they had some of the best days of there lives in Afghanistan. Also, in what way did it affect moral? they didn't lose, hence no loss of moral.

Quote:
and finally the CCCP was devoured by their enemies (capitalistic forces, islam, catholics, etc )


False. The entire collapse of the Soviet Union can be blamed souly on Gorbachev.

Quote:


I don't need to; Just look at the URL ["Washington"].

Quote:
and they did not agree to the idea of violating other nations sovereign ...


Some people did agree.

Quote:
These collapse opened the door to Catholics pressure to liberalize the eastern europe countries. Pope John Paul II had a trascendental role about this.




The entire collapse of the USSR was due to internal problems alone, nothing else.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2004, 20:50
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Apr 2005, 13:03
In fact the sovietarmy did not became weak.

Here are the casualties. As you can see, they aren't that high. The reason why the RA had to withdraw from Afghanistan isn't a military reason but a political one.
Image

Ya Basta!
Soviet cogitations: 66
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2005, 23:20
Unperson
Post 07 Apr 2005, 15:44
Of course USSR didn't lose in Afghanistan! During ten years Soviet Army abated only about ONE DIVISION and she had over 200 divisions at that time! So, USSR has fallen in Afghanistan and he didn't fallen during war with Hitler??? Completely absurdity!

Real reason is simple: CIA agent Gorbie withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan because Old Bush ordered him to do so! That was one of many steps which had to explain world's public opinion a Soviet dowfall "miracle" (some US "maskirovka" as you wish) !
Now most of mankind belives in such a bullshits like this: USSR was smashed thanks to war in Afghanistan, "Solidarity" movement, economic downfall, Chernobyl catastrophe, Reagan "Star Wars" etc.!
All these rubbishes are only a "smoke's curtain" which should hide a real cause: Western consiparacy with Gorbie and a few of his collagues in the prime's roles!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Nov 2004, 17:44
Unperson
Post 07 Apr 2005, 16:11
Rokosowsky wrote:
Of course USSR didn't lose in Afghanistan! During ten years Soviet Army abated only about ONE DIVISION and she had over 200 divisions at that time! So, USSR has fallen in Afghanistan and he didn't fallen during war with Hitler??? Completely absurdity!

Real reason is simple: CIA agent Gorbie withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan because Old Bush ordered him to do so! That was one of many steps which had to explain world's public opinion a Soviet dowfall "miracle" (some US "maskirovka" as you wish) !
Now most of mankind belives in such a bullshits like this: USSR was smashed thanks to war in Afghanistan, "Solidarity" movement, economic downfall, Chernobyl catastrophe, Reagan "Star Wars" etc.!
All these rubbishes are only a "smoke's curtain" which should hide a real cause: Western consiparacy with Gorbie and a few of his collagues in the prime's roles!



These conspirary theorists sure are funny!
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Apr 2005, 18:01
osama bin laden wrote:
Quote:
I would like to know your opinion about the Afghanistan War


The US wanted to make Afghanistan their Vietnam. It is offten reffered tp that in America. Of course it did not take Russia to realise that they could not win (the cost would be to great), and they did not suffer as many causlities.

Quote:
Do you think this war was a key factor to Soviet Union collapse?


A small factor perhaps but no.

I recommened that if anyone is intrested in the Afghanistan War to read Afghanistan The Bear Trap.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0971170924/qid=1112892714/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-3240053-8716667?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Also some other comments about the war that are intresting:

The US introduction of the Stinger anti air weapons.

When the USSR was almost completly done evacuating a weapons store house blew up (I forget where) and Russia stopped giving aide to Afghanistan (because they were leaving) and the US stopped giving aide (because Afghanistan was not going to be communist). Conclusion: Afghanistan was screwed after the war and nobody gave a damn about them.

If the USSR had won the war their would be no power (aside Japan) in Asia in their way. This is assuming China would not sign on with the US and India would join with the USSR.

All of this information is from Afghanistan The Bear Trap.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 18 May 2005, 19:05
Well? The invincible Red Army wasnt able to defeat resistance fighters.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 May 2005, 13:18
Quote:
Well? The invincible Red Army wasnt able to defeat resistance fighters.


==The USSR id not commit enough troops to fight a guerilla war, so the Afghani mountains weren't sweeped properly, and the "resistance fighters" were supported by the US and Chinese government. And technically, the Soviet Army wasn't defeated as it did not suffered heavy casualties, and still controled all major cities when it withdrew in 1989.
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 May 2005, 13:29
US and China supported the resistance fighters by sending trainers and weapons to country, but not troops.
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 20 May 2005, 17:33
A bunch of Afghani's walking around with stinger missiles.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 21 May 2005, 02:24
Point?

Those were Afghans who used the missiles, not American.
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 21 May 2005, 02:41
Quote:
Those were Afghans who used the missiles, not American.

Would it have made a difference? it's a point and shoot weapon. A mere teenager could use it with efficiency.
Quote:
US and China supported the resistance fighters by sending trainers and weapons to country, but not troops.

And that still wasn't enough.

The USSR won every skirmish which it encountered, the only time the rebels scored victories was when they ambushed convoys. I know you'll disagree with this point, if so, I suggest you try and look for a battle in which the Soivets suffered a 'defeat'.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jun 2004, 19:28
Party Member
Post 21 May 2005, 03:02
Roy wrote:
==The USSR id not commit enough troops to fight a guerilla war, so the Afghani mountains weren't sweeped properly, and the "resistance fighters" were supported by the US and Chinese government. And technically, the Soviet Army wasn't defeated as it did not suffered heavy casualties, and still controled all major cities when it withdrew in 1989.


Here, let me change a few words in there for you:

The USA did not commit enough troops to fight a guerilla war, so the Vietnamese jungles weren't swept properly, and the "resistance fighters" were supported by the Soviet and Chinese governments. And technically, the US Army wasn't defeated as it did not suffer heavy casualties, and still controled all major cities when it withdrew in 1973.

Can you notice how you almost exactly mirrored the American arguement against a defeat in the Vietnam War?

If we're going to call the Vietnam War a defeat for the United States, it merely makes sense that the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. Admittedly, their casualties WERE low, and it really had virtually no effect on their military strength, but it was still a defeat, if only an extremely minor defeat that nobody cares about anyway.
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 23 May 2005, 15:24
osama bin laden wrote:
then ... people lost their faith in the regime ... politicians also lost credit ... and finally the CCCP was devoured by their enemies (capitalistic forces, islam, catholics, etc )


No. The Soviet Union fell apart because of a failed idea.

Btw, I hope you burn in hell for your name choice.

Quote:

USSR ocuppied Afghanistan in 1979 ... and in 1989 they retired and the Berlin Wall breakdown they definitely collapsed...
USA will collapse definetely in 2011 ...(ten years from september eleven 2001)


Maybe in the wet dreams of the ignorant...

In other words, no, it won't.
Soviet cogitations: 1236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2005, 05:12
Unperson
Post 24 May 2005, 23:19
Quote:
No. The Soviet Union fell apart because of a failed idea.


You are speculating, which is generally not a good idea, I hope for your sake you are a lot smarter than you are sounding to be.

Quote:
Btw, I hope you burn in hell for your name choice.


With that logic, George W. Bush should "burn in hell" as he had as much to do with the Sept 11 attacks as Osama.

Watch Farehnheit 9/11 and get back to me
.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 24 May 2005, 23:24
Sure...

Soon people will start talking crap that " September 11th was staged! Its part of evil conspircary of US! "

...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 May 2005, 03:11
Quote:
The USA did not commit enough troops to fight a guerilla war, so the Vietnamese jungles weren't swept properly, and the "resistance fighters" were supported by the Soviet and Chinese governments. And technically, the US Army wasn't defeated as it did not suffer heavy casualties, and still controled all major cities when it withdrew in 1973.


==It appears that you have very little knowledge of the Vietnam war. Firstly, the guerrilla warfare is only part of the Vietnam war, North Vietnamese army were regualrs armed with tanks and artillery pieces, Secondly, the US army never stepped over the 17th Parallel due to the fear of an other Chinese intervention, so the US only controled South Vietnam i.e half of the country. And, US lost over 50000 men in Vietnam, double what Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan.
[/quote]
Soviet cogitations: 1675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jun 2004, 19:28
Party Member
Post 25 May 2005, 20:56
Quote:
==It appears that you have very little knowledge of the Vietnam war. Firstly, the guerrilla warfare is only part of the Vietnam war, North Vietnamese army were regualrs armed with tanks and artillery pieces, Secondly, the US army never stepped over the 17th Parallel due to the fear of an other Chinese intervention, so the US only controled South Vietnam i.e half of the country. And, US lost over 50000 men in Vietnam, double what Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan.


Yes, I know that guerilla warfare was not all of the war, but it is what the United States mainly had to deal with. American troops were generally fighting in southern Viet Nam against the Viet Cong guerillas, and it's not as though the North Vietnamese Army never used guerilla tactics. They may have had tanks and artillery, but they didn't have enough to engage US forces in constant large-scale combat.

Also, I didn't suggest that the United States controlled South AND North Viet Nam. I only said that it controlled "all major cities" in the country it was fighting in, and it and its allies DID control all major cities in that country(South Viet Nam). I should also mention that the US did, indeed, cross the 17th Parallel, though generally only with small groups of soldiers.

As for the amount of troops lost, 50,000 is NOT heavy casualties, unless you're talking about, let's say, Luxembourg. Millions of American soldiers fought in the war, 50,000 doesn't make a hell of a dent.

P.S. I'm half Vietnamese, Roy. I'm not that ignorant about the country.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron