Did the Warsaw Pact plan to invade Western Europe in 1986 or around that time?
444960
In November 1983, a NATO manoeuvre code-named Able Archer 83, which simulated a NATO nuclear release, caused panic in the Kremlin. Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov became concerned that US President Ronald Reagan may have been intending to launch a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in Eastern Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by US intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.
1104253
The answer is at the link. My first thought was Ripken and that is correct. It was in 1987.
536171
I believe most of the weapons used in the first desert storm were developed / enhanced during the 80s. This would include the smart bombs and stealth aircraft.
1152894
Bad planning in 03.For some assinine reason our higher-ups thought all of Iraq would be out there tossing flowers and dancing in the streets of every city and village ala occupied Europe when the Allies went through following D-Day, they didin't have a contingency plan for the Baa'th  party members and former Reuplican Guards and others who didn't want us there.\nSo they dispatched 150,000 troops instead of thrice the number needed to stabalize the country and get the Iraqis back on their feet.
37752
I think through time, moving to the Euro is a possibility. It may be an ego blow to red blooded Americans, but not particularly damaging to the economy.\n\nWith regard to invade, I not sure that is a practical necessity, more likely they will attempt to destroy facilities perceived to be active in nuclear work, while applying external pressure through sanctions.
601693
Really just about every country on earth was involved in the Cold war. Either you were pro Soviet or pro West. Most countries were pro West unless they were part of the Soviet bloc or traded oil and weapons with the Soviets. Kind of like the war on terrorism. You are for us or against us.
73984
I believe it was in 1982. Around that time anyway.
874455
Hitler WAS trying to take over the world.  Not just Austria, or Turkey, or Poland, etc...Churchill caught on after about 3 countries were taken by force.  The US caught on much later...I believe the US was the last to enter the war.
327339
October 10, 732... The Battle of Tours,  If not for this battle, Europe would have been dominated by Islam.\n\n1242 AD... The Mongols stop their invasion of Europe. if not for this, all of Europe would have been destroyed, and whoever  was left would have survived in a new stone age.\n\n1963, Cuban Missile Crisis... JFK averts a nuclear war.
703470
It is because of the start of the cold war, Germany is not an occupied country at all, but feared after the war a reprisal invasion by Russia and as the West and East squared off Germany was used as a strategic front for the defence of the West incase there was ever an invasion from the Soviet Union.
685742
My most educated guess is that it was Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930's. There was no opposition to the event by the other European countries.
884813
In his speech to the inaugural session of the Intergovernmental Conference in Luxembourg on 9 September 1985, Delors said: ‘For we must face the fact that in 30 or 40 years Europe will constitute a UPO—a sort of unidentified political object—unless we weld it into an entity enabling each of our countries to benefit from the European dimension and to prosper internally as well as hold its own externally.’ (Bulletin EC 9-1985:8). \n\ncc
290464
Ok.....a full answer to this would take 200 pages minimum.  This is the stuff graduate thesis are made of....but to summarize.........\n\nYou have to change how you view what WW2 was.  It was essentially a late and last ditch effort for a newly resurgant Russian and German empire to expand territory.  Both countries have always had flexible borders (borders that often change) over their histories.  And Russia in particiular has always sought expansion for warm water ports.  If you look at the geography of it......Germany and Russia are natural rivals.  This is why Russia so distrusted any form of a unified Germany following ww2....Russia has always seen invasions from German territory...even before there was a Germany.  In the early-mid-late 30's both countries were already expanding.....but the Germans were bogged down with Yugoslavia and Poland, and the Russian expansion was bogged down in Finland.  Both leaders also distrusted their militaries....and had to consolidate domestic power at various times.  The alliance/non-agression pact was always meant to be a temporary measure.  Hitler rose to power screaming about communism and socialism.  He was always a direct rival of Stalin.  Stalin and the communist party in Russia saw Hitler as an enemy of the proletariat...and historically feared Germany.  In other words both Stalin and Hitler knew that they were going to be fighting at some point.  The non-agression pact was a mutual agreement to take care of other concerns before this happened.  Germany over came it's problems/obstacles before the Soviets did (they had a 70 year advantage on industrialization, and a more centralized/homogenous population) and broke the Warsaw Pact first.  Stalin's reaction was simple disbelief....and when he did find out the invasion was real he hid for days inside of a bunker and Russia was in chaos.  He finally emerged...and ww2 was fought on the the plains of Russia.  To say that ww2 was a land war between Germany and The Soviet Union would not be too far off the mark.  Both sides benefited from the non-agression pact....but Germany was quicker to take advantage.  As far as appeasement.....the initial German expansion was more bluff than anything else.  THe german war machine could quickly have been stopped in places like Czeck.  To understand appeasement you have to understand the Versailles treaty (the treaty/surrender that ended ww1).  The German State lost territory, had to make reparations, etc.  They had limited military production.  The French (who suffered the worst of ww1) were the primary driving force behind the humiliating (to German thinking) Treaty of Versailles.  The English always felt the sanctions on Germany were unfair and unenforcable.  Because of this....when the Germans entered areas like the Sudatland......the British saw it as fair.  The french lacked the strength or will to fight...especially without international support.  By the time that Germany entered Poland (a mutual invasion with Russia actually), their war machine and industry was far greater...and Hitler's domestic power was far more consolidated.  The Germans already had a huge buffer zone.  Appeasement lead to the inevitable and eventual war with a stronger Germany.
1070333
Yes. The USSR & its communist satellite countries in the Warsaw pact such as the then East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc. were either directly or indirectly involved in the Vietnam war. They were either financial supporters, weapon suppliers, & military training providers & advisors for the NVA (North Vietnam Army).
308318
September 25, 1980.\n\nCheck out this link:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.I.
392482
Or maybe 20 years of economic growth will provide them with the strong economy coupled with their strong military to pursue their imperialistic ambitions westward once again into Europe.\n\nTurkey should stay poor and drown in its own vomit, and it is already happening.
757959
Both threats are as real as you are. To the lady that wanted proof of the Commies intent in the 60's, I'm guessing you weren't around at the time. I was. The whole World was scared that both the US and the USSR would destroy the World to destroy each other. The threat was definitely real. You want proof? Do a search on the Bay of Pigs.