Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipey
The volunteer quote comes from a Russian movie about the Afghanistan War. Also, I'd like to point out that even if said movie is incorrect, the Red Army never had more than 10 percent in Afghanistan. One out of ten volunteering for glory, for a better wage, for excitement, for heroics, it's not that far fetched.
|
Movies are entertainment and simply cannot be trusted as history sources. Else one could be led to assume that King Tigers look exactly like M47s...
Now I am certainly not an expert about the Soviet/Russian army (I am more interested in their clients) but every source I read
about them describe the 80's era Soviet Army as a conscript Army,
no Kontraktniki back them. You were called up and you showed up and were sent where the higher ups saw fit, which might be Afghanistan. You could volunteer for Spetnaz/VDV duty which might again land you in Afghanistan.
At no point I have ever found mention of ad hoc volunteer units raised for Afghan duty or any other mechanism that would ensure that the bulk (as opposed to some individuals) of the units posted there were manned with volunteers specifically wishing to be there.
I imagine that some officers and soldiers might have requested to go there and perhaps such requests might have been accepted but there is no mention of such a thing being widespread anywhere. Hence I would like to see something on it, if there is any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipey
In other words, it wasn't the devastating losses that made the Red Army withdraw from Afghanistan, and the Red Army could have kept on going. The major problem, the reason why the Red Army lost in Afghanistan, was the Brezhnev-Gorbachev Government. But to Americans, who are crazy about "Gorby Mania" this is hard to understand. The main problem is that Gorbachev was a disaster for the USSR, but only Gorbachev's "sunny side" was shown in the American Press, his treatment of the Red Armed Forces, of the USSR's farmers, of factory workers, of, well pretty much the common man, was rather poor.
|
The soviets got out because while they were not suffering devastating losses they were still suffering losses and using up resources while accomplishing nothing of substance.
As it turned out the DRA security forces were able to hold the line by themselves and the soviets could not do much more than that when they were around anyway.
In regards to Gorbachev, yes in hindsight it was a disaster.
But it was apparent by the early 80's that the system in its current form was going nowhere. Absent changes they would simply be overtaken by the West, with their economy, conventional forces etc. lagging further and further behind. Perhaps they might have managed to shield themselves indefinitively behind the nuclear arsenal and be content with running a stagnating and increasingly less relevant country. Not a pleasant thought unless you are of the Kim Jong-il ilk.
Do you think the rest of the soviet establishment would have let Gorbachev go as far as he did otherwise?