What I was saying was that a typical communist tactic was to ensure that nobody else could pose a threat to whatever communist country was currently the most powerful (in this case Russia). Therefore, pictures showing the Czechoslovak army during communist times as not being very good are relevant to the topic.
Of course, only communists are capable of such behavious… no one else… I am being sarcastic here , in case it not clear… 
By the way!
Guys I have a question. What was the NATO’s war doctrine (I hope it is a right word) in case of a military conflict wit the Warsaw pact countries?
I mean what was the ground army prepared to do in case the hot war breaks out?
F.ex. the evil communists in attempt to free the enslaved West European workers from the decadant capitalists floud accross the peacefull European planes pillaging and raping everything that showes any sign of being alive.
What were the NATO armies supposed to do? Stay or move? What was the rough plan to neutralise the attacker?
That was the Soviet doctrine.
NATO, having learnt from the more ruthless approach of the Soviets during WWII, decided to be even more ruthless if WWIII broke out.
Field instructions were to rape anything, preferably but not necessarily female, with a pulse or, failing that, recently warm.
Consequently, all NATO units were equipped with secret equipment to keep warm, or just warm up in cold weather, communist sheilas.
Since the end of the cold war, these secret items have now been released for general use.
They are commonly known as patio (or in Spanish puta ) heaters.
By the way!
Guys I have a question. What was the NATO’s war doctrine (I hope it is a right word) in case of a military conflict wit the Warsaw pact countries?
I mean what was the ground army prepared to do in case the hot war breaks out?
F.ex. the evil communists in attempt to free the enslaved West European workers from the decadant capitalists flooding accross the peacefull European planes pillaging and raping everything that showes any sign of being alive.
So what were the NATO armies supposed to do? Stay or move? What was the rough plan to neutralise the attacker?
NATO had no “first strike” doctrine (unlike the Soviets…), and one of the key assumptions was that there would be an escalation followed by war (NATO tanks, for instance, were not bombed up with ammunition while the eastern counterparts were).
It was also assumed that tactical nukes would have been deployed relatively early on, and we had these marvellous things called nuclear demolition mines which were to be placed at important locations (many West German bridges were built with a cavity for one) to give the third shock army the good news.
Now, had the Soviets attacked outside of working hours on a weekend they would have been facing only largely British and American units, the Dutch, Danes, and Germans having gone home for the weekend…
It was essentially assumed that the first line of defence would be neutralised by the superior numbers of the Reds…
I am a legend.
I responded to Egorka’s last post ten minutes before he posted it.
Do not trifle with me, for I am the Big Thing of Infinite Knowledge and Power. 
I am a legend.
I responded to your post #44 with my post #43 ten minutes before you posted #44.
Do not trifle with me, for I am the Big Thing of Infinite Knowledge and Power.
A legend for the others and not for the almighty staff:D
Obviously I can see posts deleted by both of you.
Try this thread for an interesting discussion:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=80202/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html
Fair enough, but couldn’t you let Egorka wonder about my supernatural powers for a while.
An alternative view is that the so called Cold War started well before WWII and that WWII (and the Spanish Civil War) merely interrupted it, and allowed the Soviets as the only organised agents of communism to expand much further than they ever could have hoped while ringed by the rabidly anti-communist parties to the Tri-Partite Pact, which foolishly destroyed their anti-communist aims by military adventurism in what became WWII.
NATO’s doctrine went from “defense in depth” to “Air Land Battle 2000” in the late 1980s. The basic overall strategy premise was to quickly cut off and attempt to rout Warsaw Pact thrusts into the West with armor to disrupt the offensive…
Could you, please, elaborate on this or give me some links to read?
and one of the key assumptions was that there would be an escalation followed by war (NATO tanks, for instance, were not bombed up with ammunition while the eastern counterparts were)
…
It was essentially assumed that the first line of defence would be neutralised by the superior numbers of the Reds…
That is not really what I asked about.
Lets say:
[ol]
[li]Reds attack.[/li][li]NATO parries the first blow stopping the Reds advance.[/li][li]Then what? What do NATO land forces do? Stay same place? Counter attack? [/li][/ol]
Rising Sun, read further into that thread and there’s some interesting discussions on nuclear demolition mines and other cold war weaponry
Igor, presumably counter-attack at least until the tactical nuclear wasteland which is now the inner German border.
You are not a legend, unfortunately. But an unescapable reality… and my nemesis.
I asked a serious question and you got to attack it with your humor…
That is parrying the first strike.
Do you mean that after the initial Red’s attack the NATO forces whould just hold the line?
Only until the border? Is it really how the NATO’s counter strike was planned? IThat is what I wanted to find out with my question. Do you have any refferences/links on this matter?
No idea, actually, there must be a book about it somewhere though