Talk:Seven Days to the River Rhine

Removal of No Sources Cited Text

I have removed the no sources cited text, as sources have been added both throughout the document, and at the end of it. In addition, no notes on the talk page were added as to which sections required additional sources, so I was unable to determine where these additional sources were required. If anyone has further information on this, please feel free to add it.

--Wbd 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No Actual Information At All

After reading this carefully, I am still unable to figure out whether this was an offensive or a counter-offensive plan, what theatre actual land warfare was expected in, and even, despite the extreme focus on France and the UK in the article, what countries were expected to take part in the war, and whether it was expected that France would remain neutral. Hell, the article cannot even seem to decide whether it was a serious contingency plan or just a war games exercise plot to make driving around in tanks and digging ditches more entertaining. What gives?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a fair bit of editing on this article, and it seems to read clearly to me.

It seems obvious to me that in the event of an attack at that time, all NATO members would be expected to participate in the common defense of western Europe. Given the lines of advance into Germany, Denmark and the low countries, it means that the British would be engaged in the north, the Americans and Germans in the centre, and other NATO forces in between. As this was a Polish wargame plan, it does not say much about operations further south. It is safe to say that the theatre of operations would be pretty much all of Europe, given the fact that nukes would be popping off.

In the event of war, we would see NATO nations squaring off against Warsaw Pact ones, basically. They are all obligated by treaty to do so.

Without further information, I can't add more to the article, but the absense of attacks on both France and the UK is very significant, and must be stated. They are both NWS, and as they are rather highly-populated and not overly-large, even a tactical nuclear strike would have significant effects against them, and in France's case, would likely be met by a counter-value strike of all their nuclear assets (if their stated policy is followed).

I think that this absence of Nuclear Strikes on nations outside of the immediate theatre of operations indicates that the Soviet planning at this stage of the battle is that the nuclear exchange can be maintained at a limited level. Their choice of targets are Brussels (Center of Nato and an important communications hub), Cologne (Rhine crossing, important railroad and road hub), Bonn (then capital of West Germany, another important Rhine crossing), Frankfurt am Main (Major industrial and financial center, major rail, road and aviotransport hub, also the location of the command of the US V Corps and the Northern Area Command (NACOM)), Stuttgart (bar from being a major industrial city, it was and still is the headquarters of the US European Command, EUCOM, and there are 3 other major US military bases there), Munchen (another major transportation and industrial hub). This indicates that the targets were chosen to disrupt operations of the NATO forces, but it also indicates that the weapons used would be short to medium range missiles, my guess would be the newly introduced OTR-23 Oka and RSD-10 Pioneer which would enable very precise strikes. Again, I think that the reason that UK and France are left untouched by the Soviet counterattack in this scenario is that the counterattack is planned to deal with gaining advantage in theatre (West Germany), not in beginning a full scale nuclear exchange.

In terms of the offensive/counter-offensive nature of the plan- it represents the standard Warsaw Pact thinking of the time, where the majority of plans pre-supposed a NATO attack on the eastern bloc states. I don't have exact references, so I didn't add that in. I suspect, and this is merely speculation, that in fact it was a wargame exercise around an offensive plan, with the fig-leaf of a NATO attack added for propriety.

I would have to disagree with this. Soviet Union had (I listened to an interview with the former Commander of the Soviet Northern Group of Forces) the plans for both contingencies, one being where the invasion of West Germany would be their first move, and one where it would be a result of the previous NATO invasion of East Germany and/or Czechoslovakia. This plan obviously deals with the second option. Your 'fig-leaf' comment is also pretty nonsential, because this was a covert wargame, not something published on the front page of Pravda or Izvestya, and when planning, the general staff has little need for 'fig-leaves'. They present a problem (NATO invasion of East Germany/Czechoslovakia and a massive first strike aimed at crossing points on river Vistula to slow down Soviet reinforcements) and then work out a solution that is, how to retake the initiative. NATO most certainly had plans based on an identical scenarios (Soviet invasion of West Germany and possibly additional move through northern Austria). It is also my opinion that there's nothing in this plan to indicate anything about specifical military thinkng of the Warsaw Pact, it rather indicates general level of military thinking of the time - not that different from WW2 planning, except for the spectre of the nuclear weapons adding another dimension and problems to it.

--Marko Parabucki

It represents a significant piece of cold war information, as very few Warsaw Pact plans for war have been declassified or released to the general public. It differs in some ways from what we'd normally consider common knowledge (the limited nuclear strikes, for example).

We have to assume that a wargame plan is related at least at some level to actual plans. The assumption rests on the belief that an army will fight the way it trains.

--Wbd (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting the "newly elected conservative government" released these. Any indication as to their actual authenticity? "Conservative governments" (if they are anything similar to what we have in the U.S.) have a long and varied history of fabricating stories (and even documents) out of whole cloth.

Hi Aadieu,

I added a death toll. It's obviose the Poles were doomed!--86.29.142.205 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrections on Oct 28 2009

I have reverted the last edit for a couple reasons: the first is spelling- Trety is not an English word, and in English, we call the Warsaw Trety the Warsaw Pact. The second is the insertion of Pact after NATO- this is because in English we use "NATO" without pact afterwards. --Wbd (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Any actual sources?

I see some secondary journalism around the time the plan was made public but I can't seem to find any actual links to the primary documents (in Polish or in English). Is there any actual documentation of this plan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.87.252 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Preference for nuclear attack on UK?

A couple of reasons are given why the plans did not show nuclear attacks on the UK. Yet the article goes on to say that "though a nuclear strike would be far more effective (and, as the plans show, a preferable option for the Soviet leadership as shown by their strikes in Western Europe)". This is not correct. A plan to use nuclear weapons in Europe does not suggest a preference to use them in the UK - the plans actually suggest quite the opposite.122.59.167.152 (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)