Soviet Military Maps of North America and UK
sovietmaps.com
sovietmaps.com
All in all the Soviets did a really excellent job. I suspect they had their inside sources in the Romanian State map-making department (a military-run department at the time, most of its work was a State-secret), because they're as detailed as the "official" Romanian military maps that were to be released about 10 years later (these Soviets maps are approximately from the 1960s, the Romanian military maps were released in the mid 1970s)
This doesn't surprise me and it shouldn't anyone else either. It's obvious these weren't meant for invasion or occupation of North America, which were never part of Soviet planning or policy.
A nuclear exchange with the US? Maybe. War in Europe? Sure. But invasion of North America? No, why would they? It would be costly and likely to end in defeat, and for what end goal?
Most Soviet war plans that we know of where either defensive in nature (arguably; preemptive strikes or even reactive after an attack), reacting to perceived threats to their satellite countries or assets, or corrective actions against their allies when they were perceived to get out of line with the Kremlin. None of these fit invading North America, however cinematic that notion might be.
Not that they would intend to use them, but to have gone to the trouble of mapping the military targets at such a scale, then never spending time to have someone think about how they'd occupy those sites if they had to, seems so foreign to how I expect military brains to work, that I have trouble believing it's true.
A brief Google search doesn't show any (credible) plans, so maybe you're right: but, absence of evidence, especially in a secretive bureaucracy that actively expunged so much of its archives, is not necessarily evidence of absence!
People who were at least slightly aware of military planning in Poland but not necessarily with the "why" of the plan (this included pretty big portion of citizenry, due to conscription) tend to think Warsaw Pact's claims about defensive warfare were just lies.
Meanwhile the defensive warfare concept was to counterattack once the "inevitable NATO strike against communism" happens, to as quickly as possible take logistic routes that America could use to wage war in Europe. Atlantic is pretty big issue for any invasion not just towards America, after all.
Then you hit the next layer of hilarious misunderstandings (YMMV) which is western planners somehow not getting the memo that Soviet decision makers in Moscow actually believed in NATO first strike (honestly, I don't blame them) and in turn often wargaming first strike from warsaw pact side.
Supposedly at one point, early in 1990s, some high rank officers from both sides got to meet and look at unredacted data about capacity of both sides in Europe, with NATO representative going "oh god, with those numbers you could steamroll us, why you didn't?" and Soviet one being "ugh we could have done with much less forces, we didn't actually want to start a war"
Do you have good sources for the claims above? It looks pretty revisionist, and matches Soviet propaganda, to suggest the Soviets weren't aggressive and expansionist.
The propping up of communist states worldwide was an attempt to not get surrounded by American client states / satellites / allies.
Look at China propping up North Korea. Why? Because they see South Korea as an American client state and they do not want to have a border with it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Com... for what made Soviets think maybe NATO is serious about first strike.
The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression.
The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this.
This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things.
Also,
> Not expansionist at all
Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
Most powers are expansionists in some way at any point of time in history. I think a quote from "Seventeen Moments of Spring" is quite appropriate here.
(the dialog is between a soviet spy and a german general while they are on a train. The war is almost over at this point):
General: States are like people. Static makes them sick. Borders suffocate them. They need movement, this is an axiom. Movement is war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk (no english subs)
World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC.
And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?
Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".
Germany invaded because they needed resources that they couldn't get elsewhere. Letting them bootstrap that into the invasion, among all of the mistakes that were made in WWII, seems like it might have been one of the top ones.
None of this detracts from the fact the Soviet Union was ome of the biggest victims in WW2 and that they were traumatized by this.
The Soviet Union was a disaster, and certainly the they did a lot of things to other countries that they shouldn't have. But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. Germany was gearing for war against the Soviet Union, it was the sine qua non of Hitler's plan, which he even detailed in writing years before.
Have you any comments to make about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commerci...
"there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies"
>It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers.
How? As you say, Germany was gearing for war, how does that contradict the Soviet Union supplying them with the means?
Because that's the subthread you're replying to.
The USSR was traumatized by war with Nazi Germany and it definitely informed their following geopolitical decisions, so that their territory would never be invaded again.
It seems you're trying to contest this with some weird tangent.
No, I don't endorse that statement.
The leaders of the USSR, like Stalin, enabled the Nazis to invade and kill millions of people (perhaps millions of non-Russians too) by sending them raw materials prior to the attack. That's not a claim about intent, or victimhood or a personified USSR.
If that is/had been identified as the mistake, it wouldn't seem so logical to build an empire for protection. That's why this is not a tangent.
Good to know!
> The leaders of the USSR, like Stalin, enabled the Nazis to invade and kill millions of people (perhaps millions of non-Russians too) by sending them raw materials prior to the attack.
Agreed. However, context matters: the trade immediately helped Nazi Germany's war effort, which in turn allowed them to execute operation Barbarossa. At the same time, the Soviet Union was desperately in need of modernizing their army and they didn't have many allies in a situation to assist them; out of this collaboration with Nazi Germany came the advanced tank designs they later used to beat the Germans. Still, not losing millions of people to the war would have been better.
The Soviets knew they were playing with fire. Hitler never hid his plans for the Soviet Union; it was the sine qua non of Nazi Germany, where most of its "lebensraum" would be acquired. But what else could they do? We are playing armchair diplomats/generals here. Remember the world was wildly different back then; empires still existed and Churchill still wanted a British Empire. Alliances that make no sense now might have made more sense then.
> If that is/had been identified as the mistake, it wouldn't seem so logical to build an empire for protection.
I disagree. The Soviet Union had more enemies, of which Nazi Germany turned out to be the most immediate one. Let's remember the West initially considered letting Germany and the Soviet Union damage each other, and saw Germany as a valuable assert against communism. They even toyed briefly with allying with the remnants of the Wehrmacht to defeat the Soviet Union after WWII! That this was even considered, albeit briefly and by few people, shows the Soviet Union was at least partly right to be paranoid.
>But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
If I've understood your intent correctly, you probably want "...the amount of their blood that was shed...". My understanding of "blood they shed was absolutely unreal" would be that they were killing others in massive amounts.
If 'IIRC' then you should at least check Wikipedia on events what preceded Molotov-Ribbentrop. It surely wasn't a a great sunny day when Molotov called Ribbentrop and said "Hey, Josha! I have a great idea this morning! Let's split Poland!"
If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm.
Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders).
Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders).
Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland:
From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War:
> "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique"
Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian.
His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way.
I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified.
On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many.
And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941).
Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours).
I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?).
Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)
Why not start counting WWII from the Munich Agreement [0] of September 1938 when Britain and France gave Hitler a go ahead to occupy Czechoslovakia? This capitulation by Western powers greatly expanded hitler's appetite craving for more.
The belief about "western capitalism first strike" was one of the major fuels for the paranoia spiral involved in soviet foreign affairs, combined with experiences starting from western support of "Whites" during revolution, through the rather belligerent actions (especially from USA) once Truman was POTUS (and well, all of Truman doctrine and its long-term effects). A non-trivial issue that shows up from reading as stuff becomes declassified is how both sides constantly misunderstood each other, leading to (in hindsight idiotic) situation where initial ideas about disarmament on Soviet side turn into Berlin airlift. Meanwhile Austrian politicians figure out how to get everyone to leave by making the country neutral. It also didn't help that in Poland we probably didn't finish burying our dead in Warsaw when USA drawn up plans to nuke it as part of nuclear first strike on USSR, plans that I have little doubt were heard in Moscow, further fueling the spiral of cold war.
So the end result is a paranoid regime (and from paranoid to controlling there isn't even a step, it's a blink) that, even when some forces try to reduce said paranoia, they stumble upon evidence that it's warranted, resulting in nobody willing to back off (on USA side, you can probably shift some proportions and replace paranoiacs with "communism must die!" die hard ideologists). In the end it's not even one side playing checkers while the other plays chess - it's two sides playing long-distance play-by-mail chess where they delegate their moves to be done by a pigeon[1].
As for propaganda - consider that both sides, to a certain extent, bought into their own propaganda, sometimes even those that should know that a specific aspect of it was false (like JFK strong arming USSR to take missiles out of Cuba, instead of admitting that the missiles were taken away in exchange for removal of the reason they were placed there - which was USA placing missiles in Turkey).
As much as the books are fiction, John Le Carre summarised it pretty well in The Secret Pilgrim although from the western PoV (but similar take could be probably pretty much taken about soviets on the average):
Smiley muses that the most vulgar thing about the Cold War was that the Western societies learned to "gobble up [their] own propaganda." The West became so convinced of the righteousness of its own cause, and the evil of the Soviets', that it never stopped to examine the ethics of its actions. In the name of expediency, the Circus opened its arms – and its purse – to every petty thug and two-bit con man who called himself an anti-Communist.
[1] Referencing a polish idiom about playing chess with pigeon - not only does it not know how to play, it will push the pieces away and shit on the board.
Which parts? That the Soviets feared a NATO first strike, or at least deemed it a real enough possibility to prepare for it, is true (see: "Seven Days to the River Rhine"). That they Cuban missile crisis was a consequence of the US placing missiles in Turkey is fact. That the Soviets were fearful of the West and paranoid about signs of their interference is fact. That Finland was left alone because of its neutrality is fact. And the list goes on.
PS: Le Carré wrote fiction but also had real insight into the intelligence world, having worked in it. And what his fiction states is absolutely true: the West, in its eagerness to combat communism, supported, aided and propped up all sorts of ruthless murderers and dictators as long as they declared themselves anticommunists.
For example, western germany happily supported the RENAMO in the Mozambican Civil War - and the US at least contemplated support until the sheer scale of atrocities committed was too big to ignore. One million people died in this conflict. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_Civil_War
However understanding the reasoning can help figure out why, what, and how things happened, and it's useful for actually stopping to believe in propaganda and, most importantly, keep seeing the other side as people - even if horrible people (then you might figure out the levers to pull).
As for Carre - I picked it out, because he wrote it better (on basis of his own professional experience, even) than I had the idea for, about believing one's own propaganda.
I guess we are left with two superpowers doing evil just to be evil.
This makes for a good story but seems pretty unlikely. Recognizing the disparity in army sizes available for rapid deployment in Central Europe, the NATO doctrine through the Cold War was to stop any invasion attempt somewhere in Germany with large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons. There were enough NATO forces in the area that invading Soviet forces would have to be concentrated enough to be vulnerable to theatre deployment of nuclear weapons.
But yes, there's a reason why I put "supposedly". It's a nice story and there might be a kernel of truth to it, but the details probably were different.
That said, a lot of the front line units (especially american) in western germany were there to make nice coffins to mobilize public into support for war in europe (and at least some soldiers definitely were aware of the concept).
The famous "Seven Days to the River Rhine" [1], a Soviet designed 7-day scenario of limited nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO presupposed a NATO nuclear first-strike.
It goes against Cold War era propaganda and of course Hollywood paranoid fiction like Red Dawn, but the Warsaw Pact -- as far as NATO was concerned -- was preparing for a defensive war against the West.
Satellite countries and "failing" communist allies are a different matter, and of course the Soviets steamrolled them when they thought it was needed.
----
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
The US "homeland" has not been at play.for a real invasion. Nuclear destruction sure.
Limited bombing like Pearl Harbor or 9/11
Not Germans, Japanese, Soviets, North Koreas, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Loas, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Cambodia, Granada, Haiti, Sudan, Uganda, Nicaragua.
Whereas for Russia it is a near and existential threat, that they have lived through several times.
I think people tend to forget that detail a lot of times because the history of the WW2 Eastern Front is many times only presented as an after-thought in Western historiography. There are some mentions of Stalingrad, the Leningrad siege, maybe the Kursk tank battle on more technically-inclined web forums, and that's about it.
Granted, a lot of the details of the war are either hidden somewhere in some Moscow archives or have been burned to the ground in Germany during the final stages of the war, plus the people who went in that meat-grinder, more exactly through that hell, were not as "interviewed" (for lack of a better term) post-WW2 as compared to the people who had been active in the Pacific or in Western Europe. To say nothing of their (lacking) media presence, in fiction or not (there are countless documentaries about war in Western Europe, less so when it comes to the Eastern Front).
I was fortunate enough to have known a close person who had been a soldier on the Eastern Front (he had been active on the Axis side). He and his comrades went through hell, multiple times. Everything around them was hell. I can only imagine that the view from the other side was pretty much the same one.
With some retrospect I think that on the whole the USSR had more to fear from aggressive US policy more than the US had to fear from aggressive USSR policy. And both were right to fear accidents and miscommunication leading to disaster, which is certainly the most likely cause of conflict between the two.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_intervention
Tell me where things would have stopped if the Whites, Allies, and Czechoslovak Legion had gained the upper hand.
In no way would it involve the UK or US controlling any part of Russia.
Also, the Whites were Russian. The Bolsheviks had no claim on representing Russia any more than the Whites did.
It would be an amazing thing if bolsheviks could be strangled in the cradle. I think only Poles had a chance if they waged their offensive through Ukraine better, western powers had no real say in any of it after the ww1 bloodletting nobody was going to go invade Russia.
The Bolsheviks were absolutely correct to be paranoid about the west’s intent towards them. But that doesn’t mean that American tanks rolling east through the Fulda gap was that likely either. Too bloody, and too likely to fail.
The Cold War with their proxy conflicts and puppet governments was a whole different deal though.
Entire financing of military-industrial sector relied on this myth.
It was intentionally manufactured and promoted.
When USSR collapsed, top people in USA were shocked, dissapointed and unsure of the future. Fortunately terrorists popped up, so militay industrial complex got new easy lease on life by spinng them into existential threat pretty much the same way it did with USSR before.
But now terrorist narrative petered out and USA is in trouble again. China is obvious next narrative target. However China is actually dangerous economically and in military way. USA doesn't want to pick a narrative enemy it will eventually actually loose to irl.
I think recent actions of Putin create a great opportunity for doing business as usual.
Can you back that up with anything? The arms manufacturers were not fans of the War on Terror because it didn't require expensive weapons, and those expensive weapons programs were cut right and left and the defense budget was put on a diet.
But you do with what you have. Business adapts. USA dumped a lot of equipment in various countries over last two decades under the guises of figting terrorists, to make room for purchase of new equipment.
Be glad. Alternative is dumping MRAPs on local police forces in small USA towns.
If you are interested in similar perspectives "Power of nightmares" by Adam Curtis is an interesting watch.
(Pardon the redundancy.)
But fears of a Red Dawn scenario were always delusional. And that’s my point.
It's not like that at all. The US relationship with South American countries was nothing like the Iron Curtain.
> Europe, sure.
And Central Asia, and many others.
> But america only really cared about that because of domino theory and it’s own empire to protect.
That's just an empty claim. How about some facts?
They did prop up or support right wing dictators that murdered our population and sometimes even waged futile war against other NATO allies (whooops!). On one thing we agree: the US didn't dirty their hands directly, they trained murderers in things like the School of the Americas and then sent them to do their dirty work.
What did America do in South America that you think is "the exact same thing" as the USSR's establishment — and four decades of control — of puppet communist governments across central and eastern Europe?
The Soviets were way less subtle and way more direct, but I believe there are geographical reasons for this.
The history of every Latin American country reads very similar, ironically with the exceptions being the strongly soviet aligned countries.
> From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.
(I'm not American nor living there btw, I don't mean it as any sort of political point.)
It is also perhaps dated in the send that it assumes crushing defeat happens on the battlefield.
It case you don't know, he was the president when states did fracture (US civil war).
A foreign state would need to cross the Atlantic ocean, contend with the most powerful Navy on earth several times over, land in either Canada or Mexico, both of which are US allies, and then mount a land invasion on the US homeland. It’s hard to imagine how that would be possible.
You raise a good point when you say crushing defeat does not necessarily happen on the conventional battlefield. Nuclear weapons create the possibility of MAD, and other “battlefields” like the cyberspace or global economic warfare have developed since Lincoln’s time. I still think the essence of what he said is true though: the greatest threat to the US comes from within.
I'm truly surprised Hitler never tried some sort of guerrilla attack with a small force just to cause chaos and terror in the heartland. it's not like the USA was very well defended at all from any sort of coordinated landing back in the early 40's.
Supposedly it was pointed out that their agreement for mutual defense with Japan didn't require them to declare war if Japan was the aggressor. But that was ignored.
I'm thinking of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
almost forgotten, but how different it would be if they were intelligent.
Talk about an amazing coincidence:
"On March 10, 1945, one of the last paper balloons descended in the vicinity of the Manhattan Project's production facility at the Hanford Site. This balloon caused a short circuit in the power lines supplying electricity for the nuclear reactor cooling pumps, but backup safety devices restored power almost immediately."
I haven't gone out of my way to familiarize myself with the perennial rocket launches at Israel, but that's the general sort of thing I'm picturing. Harassment that would demonstrate people are never safe, while not rising to the level where the international community would accept massive retaliation.
And in any case, Israel is used to it and used to having missile defense, and is a very small country. Nobody expects that any part of the country is far away from the borders and enemies. Whereas it would be a sea change for the US, if attacks could occur anywhere, and psychologically it would be like an invasion.
I'm using "invasion" loosely to mean an attack that reaches inner areas that people take for granted are safe, not necessarily boots on the ground.
But I didn't. I merely defined it more loosely than infantry on the ground.
Which us why those which dislike the US's place in the world, focus so much on fanning any flames of discontent, or political differences they can.
Mexico is also about equally protected from foreign invasion. I guess their biggest threat would be us, and not without precedent, but they are not a threat to us. And just as Mexico is not a threat, neither are the nations south of Mexico a threat to Mexico. This was all true even in Lincoln’s time.
So, yeah, suicide it is. That includes any kind of internal fracturing.
You may be interested in the Revolutions podcast though which touches on these events from a couple of different perspectives, but includes an entire part dedicated to Revolution in Mexico.
We have forest fires in the northwest territories that span hundreds of thousands of acres and its a coin flip if they'll even send a plane up to observe them. No one cares because no one lives within 500 km of them.
If you average the number of people per square kilometer, from a statistical perspective, this country is completely empty.
Mauritania: 4.272157756864267
Botswana: 3.8729690721649486
Libya: 3.7956278345476657
Canada: 3.712146921230246
Guyana: 3.6238062232228834
Suriname: 3.5159931632279333
*French Guiana (France): 3.387099863528623
Iceland: 3.2690582524271843
Australia: 3.2368791361025395
Namibia: 2.9702730179990002
Western Sahara [note 10]: 2.13309022556391
Mongolia: 2.0268419989310256
*Falkland Islands (UKOT): 0.2656699252443933
*Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Norway): 0.04253308128544423
*Greenland (Denmark): 0.026113459945726992So yes, Canada has 37 million people and may or may not rank up there with the lowest densities in the world. But if you actually drive around Canada you'll quickly realize that the entire family is packed into one tiny closet when the rest of the house is completely empty.
That's precisely Lincoln's point:
> if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher
An asteroid smashes into Mexico and millions of refugees are rushing to the southern states. What logistical implications to expect?
New factories are being built in Ohio. Why?
Soyuz crash-landed in Arizona. When US will get to it?
US is moving Minutemen rockets from Memphis. Where to?
Los Angeles is in riots. How will it affect SU?
Somebody tasked with analyzing such intel would have to have maps. Maps are important and keeping mapmakers' skills sharp required a constant workload. Teaching fresh intel recruits about the US knowing they are never going to visit the US required maps.
There were gazillion reasons to produce and maintain maps in the Soviet Union. And I am glad they did. I used to use Soviet military maps for hiking back in the day.
Soviet Union had an invasion plan of Western Europe. That's the end of the story.
For example, the "Seven Days to the River Rhine" plan was explicitly a reaction to an hypothetical NATO first strike, which the Soviets believed was a possibility.
> That's the end of the story.
No, discussion doesn't work like that.
Source: "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg
Militaries do all kinds of planning - doesn't mean that anyone has the intention of actually executing them.
e.g. The UK did war planning of invading Eastern Europe after WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Obviously, the conclusion of this planning was that it was a bad idea...
Before WW2 the United States had a plan on how to fight the British Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Around the same time the Canadians had plans for attacking the USA:
Thanks, I've had a good laugh. The maps were declassified in late 1980's/early 1990's and since then are freely available. I, from Russia, have been browsing these maps online for years. I'm still waiting for the KGB to come and take me...
My point is that it's obvious these weren't invasion plans.
[0] I've no intention to single out the US specifically, it's just that this one was easy to come to my mind as an example: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... -- I doubt the US would actually send an invasion force, this is more a political tool. If you cut the context you could claim "US has plans to invade the Netherlands", which would be highly misleading.
For Soviets invading North America was logistically impossible. Soviet Union never possessed a navy large and strong enough for such a feat.
And with some spooky details on San Diego, California (and many other places): https://www.wired.com/2015/07/soviet-militarys-eerily-detail...
https://redatlasbook.com/cityplansus
No Detroit (probably in the top 5-7 in population then, and a major manufacturing center), Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans (control access to the Mississippi River) ... but they do have Worcester, MA.
Edit: Possibly that list is a subset of the Soviet maps selected by the publisher.
I guess we can't be under communist regime if we are dead.
How are those two sentences related?
(right-click, open in new tab to really zoom in)
https://maps.vlasenko.net/soviet-military-topographic-map/
like
https://maps.vlasenko.net/soviet-military-topographic-map/ma...
etc inside domain.
Text is mostly in russian. But there are quite a few maps.. And as a mountain-walker, i found sometimes their maps are better than our own :/
I live in Yeovil, Somerset, UK. Small town ~40,000 people these days.
There's an Italian helicopter factory here - Leonardo. Back in the day it was called Westland Helicopters and before that Westland Aircraft.
During WW2, WA manufactured the Lysander, which was a sneaky aircraft. Quite a lot of other things were made here too and since.
I suspect that the whole set of plans are not available.
All the Americans had were often photogrammetry and after satellite imagery.
For the DDay invasion, It is said the allied planners asked to see tourist maps, snaps, and postcards to help compile planning maps for the invasion and immediate days after. Beach profiles, off beach structures to compare with aerial photography for bunker finding, tide profiles, you name it.
(Like other art college students my mum did map tracing at uni preparing invasion maps and escape maps for the troops)
Not only was getting ahold of Soviet maps something a bit more complex than just going to the local gas station, but the Soviets actually purposely introduced inaccuracies into their civilian-issue maps:
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/03/world/soviet-aide-admits-...
China does the same thing today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...
> GCJ-02 (colloquially Mars Coordinates, officially Chinese: 地形图非线性保密处理算法; lit. 'Topographic map non-linear confidentiality algorithm')[21] is a geodetic datum formulated by the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (Chinese: 国测局; pinyin: guó-cè-jú), and based on WGS-84.[22] It uses an obfuscation algorithm[23] which adds apparently random offsets to both the latitude and longitude, with the alleged goal of improving national security.[
That's just plain not true. IIRC, China is the only country that mandates the use of an obfuscated coordinate system. The US certainly doesn't (and no, selective availability doesn't count, it was an entirely different thing).
There was a Wired article about these maps from years ago that talked a bit about the differences:
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/secret-cold-war-maps/:
> The US military made maps during the Cold War too, of course, but the two superpowers had different mapping strategies that reflected their different military strengths, says Geoff Forbes, who served in the US Army as a Russian voice interceptor during the Cold War and is now director of mapping at Land Info, a Colorado company that stocks Soviet military maps. “The US military’s air superiority made mapping at medium scales adequate for most areas of the globe,” Forbes says. As a result, he says, the US military rarely made maps more detailed than 1:250,000, and generally only did so for areas of special strategic interest. “The Soviets, on the other hand, were the global leaders in tank technology,” Forbes says. After suffering horrific losses during the Nazi ground invasion in WWII, the Soviets had built up the world’s most powerful army. Maneuvering that army required large-scale maps, and lots of them, to cover smaller areas in more detail. “One to 50,000 scale is globally considered among the military to be the tactical scale for ground forces,” Forbes says. “These maps were created so that if and when the Soviet military was on the ground in any given place, they would have the info they needed to get from point A to point B.”
People in marine navigation may know the company Transas - a USSR/Russian company, a digital marine navigation systems pioneer back in 199x and one of the leaders in the industry and which supply digital navigation systems for example even to Sweden and Germany Navies - the company was founded in 1990 by some very entrepreneurial and technical people who kind of "privatized/commercialized" ocean/sea mapping and navigational info collected in USSR.
(Maybe something digital is more in use now, compared to ten years ago—but I sorta doubt it, since neither satellite maps nor vector maps tend to mark useful features in the outbacks. Maybe OSM comes close, since hikers themselves put in the routes and markings there. There's also https://opentopomap.org — dunno how good it is.)
https://mapshow.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/J-10.html https://mapshow.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/J-18-1.html
Interesting to see the place names phoneticised to Cyrillic. Not sure how useful that would have been in an invasion.
Also, I think we can feel somewhat confident that over the years the Soviets intended for special operations to take place on American soil. Few non-nuclear things screw with preparations for a deployment overseas more than transmission power lines for San Diego and/or Norfolk dropping, or an outbreak of a crop disease, or what have you. If you're feeling sporty, assassinate a few people (preferably false flag ops to stoke domestic divisions).
https://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysil...