Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[bd1]

I think the Baltic Republics are "defendable" - the question is simply whether enough defensive capability can be put into them and is there the will to use it. That requires political will, primarily on the part of the countries and their populations. I am not impressed with Latvia in particular. Last year they promised to up their defence spending from 1.4% to 1.5%. GDP per capita is $14,259 which is very close to Russia's at $14,611, but the countries are night and day in willingness to defend themselves.$380 million will not buy a country of Latvia's size a lot of defence and they are expecting other countries to carry them. Poland, for example, has a lower GDP at $13,390, but is meeting it's 2% NATO commitment, so people in Poland are enabling Latvians to have a higher standard of living than they have. As to political will, there are about 1000,000 Latvians of military age, so with a budget of $380M a year, they should be able to put together a light version of the former Swiss national defence system. Even if they only armed 1:5 of the people of military age, that would be >200,000 people able to block roads, drop bridges, snipe and generally make a huge nuisance of themselves with a budget of c. $2500 per reservist per year excluding overheads.

 

can´t find personnel for drill instructors so quickly* i guess is the most limiting issue, then having to put the recruits somewhere - barracks, train. areas, but yes, you are correct. they should move their asses quicker

 

* again, failure of all-pro army - that broke the connection with people (that itself was barely created, before latvia and lithuania went all-pro), cut all-pro army´s recruitment pool, and lowered actually the level of new recruits. besides, all-pro army has personnel costs that are eye-watering. even now iirc lithuania´s budget has way high personnel costs compared to acquisition/operations costs.

 

(unofficial opinion of latvian officers, according to est. officers off-record talks over couple beers)

 

 

edited to add-

latvian budget

2015 52% personnel, 45% 2016

http://www.sargs.lv/Zinas/Military_News/2016/02/16-01.aspx#lastcomment

 

 

estonian budget 2015

 

 

• 104 million Euros or 25.4% of the budget is spent on personnel expenses, that are meant for military active duty and civilian officials’ salaries.

• 76 million Euros or 18.4% of the budget goes to logistical elements that support the Defence Forces everyday activities as well as exercises – gas for vehicles, military exercise expenses, meals for military personnel, maintenance and service costs for military bases.

• 118.6 Euros or 28.8% of the budget goes to specialized military equipment procurements. These funds purchase new armaments and equipment for the military.

• 40 million Euros or 9.7% of the defence budget is allotted to investment costs

  of which the lion share goes to the modernization of exercise conditions and the development of training areas.

• 50.7 million or 14% of the defence budget forms allocations of which the Defence League as a open-legal voluntary national defence organization as well as the pensions of retired military personnel and grants to conscripts as well as the membership fees of NATO and other international organizations.

• 15.3 million Euros or 3.7% of the defence budget is other expenses which includes the budget of the security agency.

 

lithuanian 2015 def. budget

 

Distribution of National Defence System appropriations (according to the approved budget estimate) across expenditure sectors in 2015 (EUR 425.0 m - 1.11℅ of GDP)

• For personnel – EUR 195.8m (46.1 ℅)

• For assets maintenance – EUR 92.9 m (21.8 ℅)

• For participation in multinational operations (PMO) – EUR 57.2 m (6.2 ℅)

• For weapons and military equipment – EUR 45.7 m (10.8 ℅)

• For investment and other acquisitions – EUR 71.2 m (16.7 ℅)

• For military pensions –EUR 9.6 m (2.3 ℅)

• Emergency stocks – EUR 1.4 m (0.3 ℅)

• For subsidizing municipalities– EUR 0.5 m (0.1 ℅)

Edited July 17, 2016 by bd1

[bd1]

double

Edited July 17, 2016 by bd1

[bd1]

 

can´t synchronise budgets/personnel so much i guess

Perhaps not. But act least sharing training facilities would be a good step forward, particularly for FIBUA, artillery etc.

 

latvian Adaži training area already is AFAIK the main train. facility of this region.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

can´t synchronise budgets/personnel so much i guess

Perhaps not. But act least sharing training facilities would be a good step forward, particularly for FIBUA, artillery etc.

 

latvian Adaži training area already is AFAIK the main train. facility of this region.

 

They all share that? Thats good.

[Simon Tan]

Let's take the Latvian National Guard as a baseline for the 'nation in arms' idea.

 

The first step is to provide a basic personal equipment to the militiapersons. They currently use G3s and G36s. There probably are enough G3s still in German stocks to provide for militia use but 7.62 NATO is a less than ideal individual weapon for militia due to the powerful cartridge and the overall length. 5.56 is a much better cartridge for militia usage. Unfortunately there really isn't any large stockpile of 5.56 rifles or carbines just waiting to be donated thanks to the current troubles all over so that means buying a rifle. The cheapest 5.56s are either a M4gery or a 5.56 AK like the Polish Beryl, Zastava M85 or Cugir. None of them take STANAG but that is probably the least of your problems.

 

The obvious choice is a M4gery, which will come in at $750 for a set complete with 7 magazines, cleaning kit and sling. Another $250 will buy you a Aimpoint-a-like fit for field use so lets say $1000 for your complete individual weapon. I'll throw in a bayonet for free. This is smoking hot and below commercial foreign government contract pricing.

 

Load bearing equipment:- $50 cheapy Chinese 'Airsoft' chest rig for mags, $30 web belt, $100 patrol pack, $20 canteen and pouch - say $250 with assorted odds and sods.

 

Personal Protective Equipment;- $100 per, cheapy ballistic helmet from China. Level III plate carrier w. steel inserts $200, ballistic eyewear $50.

 

You are already at $1,600 without uniform, boots etc,

 

If you use TN level training, it's 1,200 rounds on rifle alone for 2-3 days and that is with very high training cadre load.

 

Unless Latvians are willing to spend a ton of their own money on their militia commitments, it won't make it.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Simon Tan

[Stuart Galbraith]

Did I read the British Army was considering replacing SA80 in the near future? Just wondering if that might be a contender at least for a militia. Although knowing MOD, they would expect them to pay through the nose for it.

 

Being a bit thick Im a bit vague what nation in arms means, though I would guess you mean partisans. The problem is, at least looking at it from the Balts perspective is, they did that once before and it didnt work. Im reading a very fine book by a Lithuanian whom was part of the forest brothers, and fair go, they were about the best partisan nation in arms you might find. And it was all over by 1956, just because the Soviets could flood the area with soldiers and were willing to take the casualties. That and more alarmingly they were willing to take the concept of strategic hamlet one step further by moving the hamlet to Siberia. None of these states will tolerate JUST a partisan concept. And thats fine. The real problem is generating enough combat power to ensure its unnecessary and quite clearly they cant do that (at least in Latvias case) either. None of these nations even really has an air force. I dont ridicule that, I think anything they bought would likely die on the tarmac anyway, but it illustrates the central problem how do you defend when quite clearly it would be fighting against an opponent thats never been reluctant to use firepower as an alternative to taking casualties.

 

Territorial defence is more practical, and yet to make it work, it means retaining out of date equipment long past its sell by date to make it work. I read Estonia even retains 106mm Recoilless rifles, though I gather they have not been issued for many years. You kind of wonder if they would do better to just not spend money on either of these schemes and just put money into the best equipment and generate a really first class military, even if its just of 1 or 2 Brigades. But politically, certainly in the case of Estonia, that seems to be impossible. Territorial defence is politically popular. Im just not personally convinced in the era of Typhoon and Thermobaric munitions its got much to offer than perhaps speedbumps. it did I guess work in Ukraine, but unlike Georgia, the Russians were fighting that with one hand behind the back.

[Simon Tan]

I mean a widespread militia/Home Guard in the Swiss model.

[carrierlost]

Territorial defence is more practical, and yet to make it work, it means retaining out of date equipment long past its sell by date to make it work. I read Estonia even retains 106mm Recoilless rifles, though I gather they have not been issued for many years. You kind of wonder if they would do better to just not spend money on either of these schemes and just put money into the best equipment and generate a really first class military, even if its just of 1 or 2 Brigades. But politically, certainly in the case of Estonia, that seems to be impossible. Territorial defence is politically popular. Im just not personally convinced in the era of Typhoon and Thermobaric munitions its got much to offer than perhaps speedbumps. it did I guess work in Ukraine, but unlike Georgia, the Russians were fighting that with one hand behind the back.

 

Stuart - Defense League members do not get paid (unlike for example US Nat. Guard). They train out of free will. Other than the equipment and ammo there is very few costs to be "saved". Perhaps you could hire a couple of hundred pros if you scrap the Defense Leaguage, but you will be losing a considerable (15K+10K supporting org) manpower who has trained together for years, who have weapons and ammo ready to use in homes and who are highly motivated and know the terrain.

I really don't see any comparable additional value that could be added to regular army if Defense League would be dismissed and money spent of the army. Plus you will be making it easier for Russia to have all the capability located in much fewer concentrated barracks in case of surprise attack.

 

What comes to 106mm RCL and other obsolete tech. Yes we certainly have them in warehouses. But you have to remember that theoretically we have to equip all the conscripts in reserve (in addition to normal army and Defense Leaguage) with something if things go really bad (currently 60K to be increased to 90K by 2022). Granted in real situation it might not come to that as wars nowadays have faster pace than in independence war years, when we had about 90K in army.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I mean a widespread militia/Home Guard in the Swiss model.

Ok I understand. Well I can only talk of it from the British Context, Ive not read much of the Swiss system (though I notice Rand did a study on the Swiss model as a proposal for Baltic adoption) but I think whatever is done is going to be coming back to a territorial system, and they kind of have done that already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Defence_League

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_National_Guard

 

Probably not as sizeable as it could be clearly in the Latvian case.

 

The issue is really obsolecence of equipment. Its hard enough to get the regular army equipped. With our territorial forces (and the home guard too for that matter) the depended on obsolecent equipment cascading down. For nations that have had only 25 years of life, the opportunity to do that is clearly limited.

 

Really, I think the Western Military states could and should do a lot more of donation of equipment. But strapped for cash as we are, the MOD clearly wants to sweat its assets to fund future projects. Though I do question why we cant do it with UOR which seem to keep for a day and then dispose of as non standard.

 

 

 

Territorial defence is more practical, and yet to make it work, it means retaining out of date equipment long past its sell by date to make it work. I read Estonia even retains 106mm Recoilless rifles, though I gather they have not been issued for many years. You kind of wonder if they would do better to just not spend money on either of these schemes and just put money into the best equipment and generate a really first class military, even if its just of 1 or 2 Brigades. But politically, certainly in the case of Estonia, that seems to be impossible. Territorial defence is politically popular. Im just not personally convinced in the era of Typhoon and Thermobaric munitions its got much to offer than perhaps speedbumps. it did I guess work in Ukraine, but unlike Georgia, the Russians were fighting that with one hand behind the back.

 

Stuart - Defense League members do not get paid (unlike for example US Nat. Guard). They train out of free will. Other than the equipment and ammo there is very few costs to be "saved". Perhaps you could hire a couple of hundred pros if you scrap the Defense Leaguage, but you will be losing a considerable (15K+10K supporting org) manpower who has trained together for years, who have weapons and ammo ready to use in homes and who are highly motivated and know the terrain.

I really don't see any comparable additional value that could be added to regular army if Defense League would be dismissed and money spent of the army. Plus you will be making it easier for Russia to have all the capability located in much fewer concentrated barracks in case of surprise attack.

 

What comes to 106mm RCL and other obsolete tech. Yes we certainly have them in warehouses. But you have to remember that theoretically we have to equip all the conscripts in reserve (in addition to normal army and Defense Leaguage) with something if things go really bad (currently 60K to be increased to 90K by 2022). Granted in real situation it might not come to that as wars nowadays have faster pace than in independence war years, when we had about 90K in army.

 

Thats undoubtedly true in the Estonian case, but is it also true in the Latvian and Lithuanian case? From my cursory study of the others (which is not as apparently well discussed as the Estonian model) they seemed rather more a part of the regular army than volunteer units, which seem to be the case also in some parts of Poland.

 

In your case, you would save money on ammunition and training. But you are probably right, it wouldnt likely add up to big ticket items that can really make a big difference.

[Roman Alymov]

I mean a widespread militia/Home Guard in the Swiss model.

This discussion remind me endless chats on Russian mil-hist forums in late 1990th-early 2000th, when it was common knowledge Russian Army as organized force not able to repel any significant outside attack, aging nuclear arsenal is no more deterrent (as political leadership fully controlled by West and not going to press the button) and the only option was believed "Swiss model" partisan-style army, de-facto armed population. But all this constructions usually lasted only till question "How many days will your amateur unit survive in winter forest?" asked.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I mean a widespread militia/Home Guard in the Swiss model.

This discussion remind me endless chats on Russian mil-hist forums in late 1990th-early 2000th, when it was common knowledge Russian Army as organized force not able to repel any significant outside attack, aging nuclear arsenal is no more deterrent (as political leadership fully controlled by West and not going to press the button) and the only option was believed "Swiss model" partisan-style army, de-facto armed population. But all this constructions usually lasted only till question "How many days will your amateur unit survive in winter forest?" asked.

 

Quite so. Though once again, the Balts have already provided their own model with the Forest Brothers, where they dug their own bunkers and sat out the winter months for fear of leaving tracks in the snow and were sustained by the local population. Though history indicates that is a first rate way of ensuring any rural population suffers first hand as supporters of partisans, as happens in any insurgency.

 

I do have to question whether the rural economy is as remotely developed in the Baltic states as it was back then anyway. You look on Google Earth and there is very considerable amounts of farmland that was cultivated in the Soviet era that nobody seems to be employing. Many of these rural farms that helped the partisans must have died in the act of collectivisation and never been rebuilt. Looks to be a similar problem to Russia finding in the post Soviet era, that many of the rural farms post Collectivsation started to die out as there were greater opportunities in the cities. Same as with Britiain in the industrial revolution really.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

Quite so. Though once again, the Balts have already provided their own model with the Forest Brothers, where they dug their own bunkers and sat out the winter months for fear of leaving tracks in the snow and were sustained by the local population. Though history indicates that is a first rate way of ensuring any rural population suffers first hand as supporters of partisans, as happens in any insurgency.

 

With the same effect they may sit at their houses drinking beer, causing no problems for occupation force anyway. From Soviet point of view, story of "Forrest brothers" was complete failure (unlike Soviet partisans, they were unable to achieve any military effect)

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well I can point to a very decisive effect that was achieved, and that is the ratio of Russian population to indigenous population. For example, whilst Estonia and Latvia fought well, they were besett by not having as rural a population as Lithuania. It was rather more urbanised. The result was, it was harder to maintain large forces in the country supported by helpful farmers. The result was that, though Forest Brothers survived for decades (in fact the last one was only killed by the KGB in 1980) in Estonia and Latvia they did not have as successful a campaign as Lithuania, where through a mixture of ties to the local population, Lithuanians in Poland and even limited ties to the West and the CIA, they were able to keep going slightly longer. And it was this slightly longer that mattered. Stalin died in 1953, the campaign continued to about 1956. Now look at the ratio of Russian immigrants and you can see an important difference, one that has had an effect on Lithuanian security to this day. Even at the time Lithuanians were somewhat more warily treated, its believed as a net result of their partisan campaign.

 

Estonia

• 68.8% Estonians
• 25.1% Russians
• 1.8% Ukrainians

Latvia

• 61.6% Latvians
• 25.8% Russians
• 3.4% Belarusians
• 2.3% Ukrainians

 

 

Lithuania

• 86.7% Lithuanians
• 5.6% Poles
• 4.8% Russians
• 1.3% Belarusians

 

 

Bear in mind it was in the Soviets interest to underplay now many died in the campaign. There are some incidents (its hard to be sure how accurate they are) when Forest Brothers claimed to have acheived over 10 to 1 kill ratios over the Soviets. Admittedly Interior ministry troops didnt have a great rep, but bear in mind the Lithuanians were even in combat with Soviet Paratroops seconded to them. They did well. Doomed to failure from the start perhaps, but its not like it had no effect on a 'folk memory' of resistence that the balts were able to dip into when it came to the independence campaign. There was also the side effect of the armed resistance, the printing presses and propaganda campaign, which continued long after the military component ended, I believe it didnt really end until 1991. It was one more element that illustrated Soviet domination of the region was never complete. I mean look at the hill of crosses in Siauliai. KGB bulldozed it 3 times and STILL those stubborn Lithuanians wouldnt stop putting them up again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_of_Crosses

 

So militarily, you are right. But politically the resistance was important for all these 3 nations, and in ever greater importance as they approached independence. Even to the point of recovering war dead from the campaign, which provided another focal point for disenchantment with the USSR. It avoided the myth that incorporation in the Union was via choice, which seems to be a myth that still exist over Belarus and Ukraine. The Soviets could never claim they were invited into the Baltic states, and one might say that in the end proved a key ingredient for the fracturing of the USSR.

 

For a failed campaign, these are some pretty remarkable results.

[Damian]

Stuart, in Poland the Territorial Defense Forces will be the part of the Polish Armed Forces, made from volunteers, and they will be paid. Weapons and equipment will be provided from the stocks of Polish Armed Forces, so most likely their basic weapons will be AKM/AKMS, PKM, RPG-7, pw wz.64, pw wz.83, and some other older equipment that will or is being phased out.

 

The basic idea was to create two types of TDF brigades, a light infantry type would be tasked with a more stationary defense, while there were also plans to create mechanized type that would use phased out T-72M1's and BMP-1's as soon as these would be avaiable. If these plans changed, I am not aware of new plans.

 

However there was talk that TDF infantry would need also modern ATGM's and MANPADS, in such case they would probably receive the new low cost ATGM currently in development codenamed Pirate which is developed to supplement more expensive and more capable Spike, and standard Polish Armed Forces MANPADS Grom, eventually it's upgraded version Piorun.

[carrierlost]

I'd say if one would compare Defense League to forest brothers it would not be entirely accurate. There are different units within DL and just to give you an overview what the level of training for some of them are.

 

These are Viru district DL members, with their gear and vehicles. Video is from 2006-2008 or so:

 

 

 

Some training from a Tartu DL district:

 

 

[Roman Alymov]

Well I can point to a very decisive effect that was achieved, and that is the ratio of Russian population to indigenous population. For example, whilst Estonia and Latvia fought well, they were besett by not having as rural a population as Lithuania. It was rather more urbanised. The result was, it was harder to maintain large forces in the country supported by helpful farmers. The result was that, though Forest Brothers survived for decades (in fact the last one was only killed by the KGB in 1980) in Estonia and Latvia they did not have as successful a campaign as Lithuania, where through a mixture of ties to the local population, Lithuanians in Poland and even limited ties to the West and the CIA, they were able to keep going slightly longer. And it was this slightly longer that mattered. Stalin died in 1953, the campaign continued to about 1956. Now look at the ratio of Russian immigrants and you can see an important difference, one that has had an effect on Lithuanian security to this day. Even at the time Lithuanians were somewhat more warily treated, its believed as a net result of their partisan campaign.

As for me it is completely wrong conclusion: "Russian" (in fact "Soviet" as it was people from across USSR) moved to places where it were jobs for them - mostly industry. So it is quite logical to expect urbanized areas to get higher % of migrants coming then rural ones. The same in modern Europe: migrants coming mostly to urban areas, not rural - not because of partisan groups in rural Europe

 

With this logic, the best strategy to keep strangers out, is to keep your area rural and poor, making sure migrants would prefer better places

 

Re "in fact the last one was only killed by the KGB in 1980" - Nazis were hunted across the globe for longer, does it indicate very successful global Nazi underground? From Soviet point of view, Nazi collaborators from Baltics where no different from ones from Russia, Ukraine etc - they were hunted and convicted till the last days of USSR, when they suddenly became national heroes fighting evil Stalin etc.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'd say if one would compare Defense League to forest brothers it would not be entirely accurate. There are different units within DL and just to give you an overview what the level of training for some of them are.

 

These are Viru district DL members, with their gear and vehicles. Video is from 2006-2008 or so:

 

 

 

Some training from a Tartu DL district:

 

 

No clearly not. But then its worth illustrating neither were the Forest Brothers. Reading the biography of one of them in Lithuania, many of them were ex Lithuanian Army soldiers that had gone underground years before. At least one of the commanders was a General in the prewar Army IIRC.

 

I take the point they arent trained that way though. They are an auxiliary that supliment the regular Army and provide a territorial defence force. Its a bit like comparing the British Home Guard (or more literally, the territorial army) to British Resistance Forces. Complimentary role but not really comparable even though there was in theory a crossover in personnel and they utilised some of the training facilities.

 

Good vids, thank you for taht Ill have a look later.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Stuart, in Poland the Territorial Defense Forces will be the part of the Polish Armed Forces, made from volunteers, and they will be paid. Weapons and equipment will be provided from the stocks of Polish Armed Forces, so most likely their basic weapons will be AKM/AKMS, PKM, RPG-7, pw wz.64, pw wz.83, and some other older equipment that will or is being phased out.

 

The basic idea was to create two types of TDF brigades, a light infantry type would be tasked with a more stationary defense, while there were also plans to create mechanized type that would use phased out T-72M1's and BMP-1's as soon as these would be avaiable. If these plans changed, I am not aware of new plans.

 

However there was talk that TDF infantry would need also modern ATGM's and MANPADS, in such case they would probably receive the new low cost ATGM currently in development codenamed Pirate which is developed to supplement more expensive and more capable Spike, and standard Polish Armed Forces MANPADS Grom, eventually it's upgraded version Piorun.

Cheers Damian. So you Territorial Defence force is somewhat like our old TA used to be.

 

Is there a list of what units are Territorial Defence anywhere? I cant recall seeing it when looking up the Polish Army before.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Well I can point to a very decisive effect that was achieved, and that is the ratio of Russian population to indigenous population. For example, whilst Estonia and Latvia fought well, they were besett by not having as rural a population as Lithuania. It was rather more urbanised. The result was, it was harder to maintain large forces in the country supported by helpful farmers. The result was that, though Forest Brothers survived for decades (in fact the last one was only killed by the KGB in 1980) in Estonia and Latvia they did not have as successful a campaign as Lithuania, where through a mixture of ties to the local population, Lithuanians in Poland and even limited ties to the West and the CIA, they were able to keep going slightly longer. And it was this slightly longer that mattered. Stalin died in 1953, the campaign continued to about 1956. Now look at the ratio of Russian immigrants and you can see an important difference, one that has had an effect on Lithuanian security to this day. Even at the time Lithuanians were somewhat more warily treated, its believed as a net result of their partisan campaign.

As for me it is completely wrong conclusion: "Russian" (in fact "Soviet" as it was people from across USSR) moved to places where it were jobs for them - mostly industry. So it is quite logical to expect urbanized areas to get higher % of migrants coming then rural ones. The same in modern Europe: migrants coming mostly to urban areas, not rural - not because of partisan groups in rural Europe

 

With this logic, the best strategy to keep strangers out, is to keep your area rural and poor, making sure migrants would prefer better places

 

Re "in fact the last one was only killed by the KGB in 1980" - Nazis were hunted across the globe for longer, does it indicate very successful global Nazi underground? From Soviet point of view, Nazi collaborators from Baltics where no different from ones from Russia, Ukraine etc - they were hunted and convicted till the last days of USSR, when they suddenly became national heroes fighting evil Stalin etc.

 

 

The problem is Roman, these were not migrants in a traditional European sense. They were migrants in much the same way as Russians were settlers in the Ukraine in the 1920s. It still does not explain, why there was a higher degree of settlement in the other 2 Baltic states and not in Lithuania. The only real explanation is the FB campaign against Sovietisation and Collectivisation making it a place they were relucant to colonise till they had gained control. As it was, the only means they had of gaining control was trucking villages out to Siberia, not bringing immigrants in.

 

Worth reading this. A hard read considering how many people they lost, but a rewarding one.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Forest-Brothers-Anti-Soviet-Lthuanian-1944-1948/dp/9639776580/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468844792&sr=8-1&keywords=forest+brothers

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

 

 

The problem is Roman, these were not migrants in a traditional European sense. They were migrants in much the same way as Russians were settlers in the Ukraine in the 1920s. It still does not explain, why there was a higher degree of settlement in the other 2 Baltic states and not in Lithuania. The only real explanation is the FB campaign against Sovietisation and Collectivisation making it a place they were relucant to colonise till they had gained control. As it was, the only means they had of gaining control was trucking villages out to Siberia, not bringing immigrants in.

 

 

Stuart, always nice to see foreigner explaining me my family history My grandfather, youngest child among five in family, born 1915 (the same year his Cossack father was killed on WWI) left his home near Tsymlansk and moved to what is now Ukraine to work in coal mines when he was about 15 yo - but not to " colonize" something -but because his family, originally wealthy, lost all in Revolution and following processes and he was in need to feed himself by this risky work. While working in coal mine, he graduated evening school for working youth, entered university in Dnepropetrovsk (meeting my future grandmother in process) and became mining engineer.

 

Now you could see migrants risking their life in Mediterranian to get into Europe, in Mexican deserts to get into US, Tajiks and Uzbeks going to Russia despite danger from local skinheads etc. Hunger is stronger than fear. After all, history of US frontier is story of unfriendly locals unable to stop migration.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[glenn239]

Chris Werb I think the Baltic Republics are "defendable" - the question is simply whether enough defensive capability can be put into them and is there the will to use it.

 

 

They’re defendable because they’re attached to Poland and the Baltic is a NATO lake, (whereas the Black Sea is accessible according to the whims of Turkey). The trick is to signal the defense without putting in too much 'stuff' that it could look like an offensive buildup. In terms of the will to use it, the more restrained the tactics the better – anything along the lines of air strikes into Russia is where unity would start to fracture.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is Roman, these were not migrants in a traditional European sense. They were migrants in much the same way as Russians were settlers in the Ukraine in the 1920s. It still does not explain, why there was a higher degree of settlement in the other 2 Baltic states and not in Lithuania. The only real explanation is the FB campaign against Sovietisation and Collectivisation making it a place they were relucant to colonise till they had gained control. As it was, the only means they had of gaining control was trucking villages out to Siberia, not bringing immigrants in.

 

 

Stuart, always nice to see foreigner explaining me my family history My grandfather, youngest child among five in family, born 1915 (the same year his Cossack father was killed on WWI) left his home near Tsymlansk and moved to what is now Ukraine to work in coal mines when he was about 15 yo - but not to " colonize" something -but because his family, originally wealthy, lost all in Revolution and following processes and he was in need to feed himself by this risky work. While working in coal mine, he graduated evening school for working youth, entered university in Dnepropetrovsk (meeting my future grandmother in process) and became mining engineer.

 

Now you could see migrants risking their life in Mediterranian to get into Europe, in Mexican deserts to get into US, Tajiks and Uzbeks going to Russia despite danger from local skinheads etc. Hunger is stronger than fear. After all, history of US frontier is story of unfriendly locals unable to stop migration.

 

Yes, the difference being is that there was a clear attempt under Stalin to Russify areas. You can see that trend in the Southern Soviet states in particular, and clearly they did attempt to do exactly this in the Baltic states as well. Was there self interest in some of this? Im sure, Khrushchev's family settled in Ukraine because they couldn't get work elsewhere after the civil war. But clearly behind that was a Soviet effort to homogenize regions. After all, they did exactly the same thing in reverse by trucking people out, of Crimea, and the Baltic states for that matter.

[Damian]

 

Stuart, in Poland the Territorial Defense Forces will be the part of the Polish Armed Forces, made from volunteers, and they will be paid. Weapons and equipment will be provided from the stocks of Polish Armed Forces, so most likely their basic weapons will be AKM/AKMS, PKM, RPG-7, pw wz.64, pw wz.83, and some other older equipment that will or is being phased out.

 

The basic idea was to create two types of TDF brigades, a light infantry type would be tasked with a more stationary defense, while there were also plans to create mechanized type that would use phased out T-72M1's and BMP-1's as soon as these would be avaiable. If these plans changed, I am not aware of new plans.

 

However there was talk that TDF infantry would need also modern ATGM's and MANPADS, in such case they would probably receive the new low cost ATGM currently in development codenamed Pirate which is developed to supplement more expensive and more capable Spike, and standard Polish Armed Forces MANPADS Grom, eventually it's upgraded version Piorun.

Cheers Damian. So you Territorial Defence force is somewhat like our old TA used to be.

 

Is there a list of what units are Territorial Defence anywhere? I cant recall seeing it when looking up the Polish Army before.

 

 

Stuart Territorial Defense functioned in the past but were disband in early 2000's, right now Territorial Defense Forces are being formed again. First 3 brigades are being said to be formed soon in the east of the country, and then eventually more units will be created, also in the center and west.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the difference being is that there was a clear attempt under Stalin to Russify areas. You can see that trend in the Southern Soviet states in particular, and clearly they did attempt to do exactly this in the Baltic states as well. Was there self interest in some of this? Im sure, Khrushchev's family settled in Ukraine because they couldn't get work elsewhere after the civil war. But clearly behind that was a Soviet effort to homogenize regions. After all, they did exactly the same thing in reverse by trucking people out, of Crimea, and the Baltic states for that matter.

 

I think we have already discussed it in other thread my view is different.

[bd1]

 

 

 

Quite so. Though once again, the Balts have already provided their own model with the Forest Brothers, where they dug their own bunkers and sat out the winter months for fear of leaving tracks in the snow and were sustained by the local population. Though history indicates that is a first rate way of ensuring any rural population suffers first hand as supporters of partisans, as happens in any insurgency.

 

With the same effect they may sit at their houses drinking beer, causing no problems for occupation force anyway. From Soviet point of view, story of "Forrest brothers" was complete failure (unlike Soviet partisans, they were unable to achieve any military effect)

 

the same forest brothers liberated some pretty big chunks of southern estonia from soviets in 1941. before germans showed up.

 

and again, lithuanian example shows that certain ,,,,uhmmm... kinetic action....against unwished ....uhmmmm.....newly-arrived sovieto-lihtuanians works.

 

that also includes important waiver - lithuanian communist party was also much more rural and ´´nationalist´´ so they were more succeful fending off soviet industry etc.

Edited July 18, 2016 by bd1