Talk:Red Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red Army is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Related task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

	Good Job
	"Comprehensive site, with plenty of good links" — Sunday Times (London)

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Archives
Archive 1 (early 2006)

Contents 1 Polish compaign not a part of WWII 2 Note to Molobo 3 Molotov's Words to Nazis 4 Polish and Finnish cabmpaigns are not parts of WWII 5 Call for Vote -- Put an end to the assertion that the Polish/Finnish campaigns were not part of World War II 6 Polish Revisionism 7 Military history of the Soviet Union 8 POV-table 9 Soviet Army saving Jews as a Result of Invasion of Poland in 1939 10 Women in Red Army 11 Turkic soldiers in Red Army Druing World War 2 12 Split Page to set up page on Soviet Armed Forces 13 Armies of Russie/Ukraine templates 14 Saturating articles with irrelevant stuff to dilute the valid content 15 Point of Revisions 16 Revert warring 17 Paint Job 18 timeframe 19 Vaguely worded statements may be contrary to facts without clarification 20 Name of the formation 21 Compromise Infobox

[edit] Polish compaign not a part of WWII

Please stop vandalazing the article.

Why do you insist that the Polish campaign was not part of WWII? The war was started by Germany's invasion into Poland, and no matter why the USSR entered Poland two weeks after, it was part of the same event. Number 6 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Because USSR entered WWII 22 June 1941.--Nixer 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not an explanation. This is nonsense. Number 6 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is fact.--Nixer 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are becoming unwisely stubborn. The liberation of the Western Ukraine and Byelorussia in 1939 is commonly believed to be part of WWII, for the reasons I mentioned above (there are other reasons, too). If you disagree with this, you will need to explain why this use of force by the USSR was not part of WWII. Having seen your record, I forewarn you: you will be held responsible for any unjustified edits in this article. Number 6 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It never been commonly belived a part of WWII (except Poland).--Nixer 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your changes constructive, so I suggest you to present sources to prove your opinion. I can for example state that USSR underlined its neutrality in this period, did not declare war on Poland and declered the invation to be a measure to save local population (Ukrainians and Belorussians) form Nazis. Any source on WWII says USSR entered the war in 1941, 22 June. Polish, Finnish compaigns, battle on Halhin-Gol and and participating in Spanish civil war are not considered a part of WWII.--Nixer 08:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I wrote at the beginning of this thread. If you need sources, take, for example, Liddell Hart, or Fuller, or just about anyone else (excluding Polish or Russian sources to maintain neutrality). Declaration of war or not, save population or something, the USSR used military force against a sovereign state, and this is all that matters. The USSR was at war with a state that was waging what would later become known as World War II. Pretending that these were two different wars not related in any way is just that, pretending. Then we might also say that Japan never participated in WWII, and Italy’s proceedings in Africa were just small business on the side, and so on. Number 6 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give a link to encyclopedia, not publicists. I cont know about reliability of Hart or Fuller. These seems noncense to me.

This is not nonsense, this is your ignorance. Number 6 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you include Polish compign, then why not Finnish, Halhin Gol or Spanish civil war?

The Finnish campaign is part of WWII. Halhin Gol and Spanish civil war are not, they had happened independently and before Germany attacked Poland. Number 6 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

USSR occupied the territory to protect the population from Nazis, while maintaining neutrality. Polish forces were ordered not to resist.

As I explained above, why they did that and what they said is irrelevant. Number 6 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On 1 October 1939 Chirchil said:

"...Russia has persued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian armies should be standing on their present line as the freinds and allies of Poland instead of as invders. But that the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly nessessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail…”

31 October 1939 Molotov said:

"Советский Союз предпочитает и впредь оставить себе руки свободными, последовательно проводить свою политику нейтралитета и не только не содействовать разжиганию войны, а содействовать укреплению имеющихся стремлений к восстановлению мира".

Actually Chirchill said "Russia is actually an ally of Britain against Germany" and Molotov replied "No, Russia is neutral". --Nixer 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. I am not going to spend any more time on this discussion unless you explain why this act was not linked to WWII. Skip your eloquence involving “neutrality”, “protection against the Nazis”, etc, just explain why it was not related to WWII. Number 6 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say this. It was related to WW2.--Nixer 08:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Further, there was no "victory parade", but the parade was dedicated to German retreatment from the Eastern Polish territories and placing them under Soviet control. This was a parade of removing German forces from the territory.

Could you refer to any source of the information that the parade was not a joint victory parade? If nothing else, Molotov was explicitly triumphant saying “Poland… this ugly creature of Versailles… is no more” (quoting from memory). Number 6 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I dont think it should be underlined that Krivosheev was Jewish.--Nixer 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing that, but it that were the case, I certainly agree with you. However, if he really was in charge of the parade, there is no reason not to mention him, either. Number 6 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Molobo

Molobo, your tactics of silently editing away any information that you disagree with will get you nowhere. Discuss it here if you think your POV is neutral.

[edit] Molotov's Words to Nazis

He also informed German officials that to make Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany'

Why the article presumes what Molotov said to Nazis is true, and what he said to British is lie? What do you expect Molotov should say to Nazis? That the USSR wants to save Polish Jews?--Nixer 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish and Finnish cabmpaigns are not parts of WWII

Please stop inserting this delirium.--Nixer 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign is most definietly a part of IIWW. And on a side note, it is a FA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for Vote -- Put an end to the assertion that the Polish/Finnish campaigns were not part of World War II

This revisionist tripe needs to put to an end. I vote Yes to putting Nixer's campaign to bed. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Open any schoolbook and read when the USSR entered WW2. And please cease useng the term "revisionism" while the only revisionist here is you.--Nixer 05:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's silly. We all know when they were attacked, but they became a player the moment they got involved with any of the parties. Now you're just ignoring common sense. Please, more votes on this subject so that Nixer will stop making these changes? I'm not the only one reverting his edits. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe we simply need to explain in the article what and why is considered part of WWII. Relying solely on common sense, we would not need the encyclopaedia in the first place. I just added a write-up on this. Number 6 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For all that matters: Polish/Finnish campaigns were part of WW2... Dietwald 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Its delirium, not common sence. Filand and the USSR were both neutral to Germany and Britain/France. Yes, Continuation War was a part of WWII, but not the Winter War. Otherwise you should conclude the WWI was started by the USSR, not by Germany. Please stop inserting revisionism and propaganda.--Nixer 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let it go, Nixer. Everyone else is going to keep reverting your edits. Anyhow, who said that World War II must have only two sides? By your suggestion, the Soviet campaign in Manchukuo was not part of World War II, either. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was not part of WWII, I fully agree. And Italian intervence in Ethyopia also was not part of WWII. With Finnish canpaign the situation is much simplier. The both conflicting countries were neutral to the participants of WWII (Germany, Britain and France). Please do not support the revisionism unless you're sure.--Nixer 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The only revisionist here is you. The very argument you’re invoking is absurd: neutrality to Germany, Britain and France. That was a WORLD war, not a limited war of the three countries. But even if we take your argument, Poland certainly was NOT neutral to Germany, Britain and France, so at least one party in the Polish Campaign was an active participant of WWII, which makes the other party also a participant of WWII. And then this participant engages in a war with Finland, thereby making this conflict also part of WWII. And this follows just from your silly argument, in reality it was far more complex: the action of the USSR in Finland gave Britain and France a wonderful pretext for an expedition there, with the actual goal of severing the German ore supplies, which in turn forced Germany to occupy Denmark and Norway, upon which all the hell broke lose between Britain and Germany, for the first time after 1-Sep-1939. This does not mean that the USSR was directly responsible for WWII because of the Polish and Finnish campaigns, but ignoring all this and talking about “neutrality” is beyond revisionism, it is sheer ignorance. Number 6 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The politics about Filand is not comnnected to the status of the USSR. There were many different events that influenced the WWII. I do not say it was inrelated to WWII because all politics interconnected. But any official soure will say you the USSR entered the WWII 22 June 1941. Saying otherwise is pure revisionism.--Nixer 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Any "official source?" So you would have us trust the official Soviet State history on this matter? Why do you feel you need to countermand the wishes of everyone else here on this matter? Let this serve as a warning. If you continue with this methodology, I will take it to arbitration and the record will show that you were acting alone against the wishes of everyone else. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your wishes cannot change the fact. If you dont like the official Soviet version (I can give you a quote from the Soviet Encyclopedia), give any other official source - US, British, CIA etc, but not German and Polish. Your brains washed with Cold War propaganda, but cite an official source - and I then agree that the matter is contraversal.--Nixer 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar, Nixer. In the large article on WWII in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, 3rd edition, 22-Jun-1941 is not said to be the day when the USSR entered WWII, it is said to be the day when the Great Patriotic War began, as a “second period” of WWII. Moreover, that same article mentions the Polish and Finnish campaigns, just like this wiki-article does. Number 6 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are citations from the Lessier Soviet Encyclopedia: "Решающим фактором, определившим превращнение в.м.в. со стороны противников Германии в освободительную, справедливую войну, явилось вступление в неё Советского Союза, подвергшегося вероломному нападению гитлеровской Германии", "В ходе событий всё более сказывалось значение борьбы народов против порабощения. Освободительная борьба народов против Германии и других фашистских государств, возникшая с самого начала в.м.в., усилилась со второй половины 1940, изменяя характер войны. (...) Однако решающим фактором, превратившим в.м.в. освободительную и антифашистскую, явилось вступление в войну Советского Союза, обусловленное нападением гитлеровской Германии на СССР" Translation: "As things were going, the significance of struggle of peoples against enslaving was growing. Liberating struggle of peoples against Germany and other fascist states, existed from the very beginning of the WWII, intensified from the second half of 1940, changing the character of the war. (...) But the crucial factor that transformed the war into liberating and anti-fascist was entering of the USSR into the war, triggered by the German invasion in the USSR".--Nixer 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The amusing thing is that you are guilty of every charge that you have levelled. You're behaving very personally about this. I have my suspicions as to why, but will keep them to myself. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion some time ago, I believe it was at Talk:Katyn massacre, where the question arose whether it one could say that it was a massacre perpetrated on Allied soldiers (and the answer is yes, but it was carried out by the party (Soviets) not involved with the war, although at that time more allied (politically!) with the Nazis then the Allies). For details of that, see that article's talk page, but I'd like to repeat one of the conclusions relevant to the current issue: one can argue that for Soviet Union and Red Army, the Polish campaign was not part of the IIWW. But nobody can seriously argue that for Poles (or Germans) it wasn't the begining of the IIWW; the issue here is that there wasn't an official state of war between Poles and Soviets. Therefore I personally favour the distinction between the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War. Poles and Germans fought in the IIWW since '39. Soviets, although they invaded Poland as Germany's allies, managed to remain aloof of the war (neither Poland, nor the Western Allies declared war on them for their part of the invasion) and so Soviet Union did not joint the IIWW until the GPW begun (Barbarossa and such). One more issue to consider is that both the Soviet invasion of Poland and the Soviet invasion of Finland (and their annexation of the Baltics) took part during the Second World War, but that doesn't mean those conflicts were part of that War. Similalry, the Falklands War took place during the Cold War, but I think it is not considered to be a part of that larger conflict.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Revisionism

A few basic facts.

Poland did want and did try to create a state from sea to sea.

Poland did occupy Western Ukraine and Byelorussia.

The Red Army did liberate these occupied lands.

All the attempts by Piotrus and the other Polish editors (where the nationality could be identified) so far have been to remove each and every of the facts above and present the case as if the Red Army had attacked Poland for no reason at all. This is disgusting. Number 6 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Number 6 ((Number 6 (talk • contribs), no talk page, history of edits limited to reverts in a single artice), I will give you the benefit of the doubt and address your points. 1) Międzymorze is rather irrelevant to Polish September Campaign (it is not even mentioned in that FA level article). 2) And Soviet Union occupied the Eastern Ukraine and Byelorussia. So what? 3) From frying pan into the fire, perhaps. I recommend reading the well referenced Treatment of the Polish citizens by the occupants#Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation for information about that 'liberation'. Although Ukrainian and Byelorussian populations welcomed Soviet at first, their enthusiasm soon faded (as visible in their support for the Germans in the opening stages of the Blitzkrieg). Reading Gross' Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia, (Princeton University Press, 2002, ISBN 0691096031) and other references listed in that article should explain to you why using 'liberation' in this content is good only for Great Soviet Encyclopedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and your history of edits is limited to reverts in a kazillion of articles. And you just completed 3 reverts in one article in 24 hours. Oops. Anyway. (1) The reason Międzymorze is not mentioned in the referenced article is the same reason you keep removing it from this article – the fantastic bias of the likes of yours. (2) I notice how you avoided discussing the fact that Poland annexed the lands in question just twenty years ago. One has to be biased or genuinely stupid to be unable to grasp that a military conflict cannot be presented without any relevant historic background. (3) Rather pointless, the article is about the Red Army, not about the USSR in general. Number 6 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll let my history speak for itself, and don't expect me to feed you any more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I politely disagree with the assertion that being occupied by Soviet forces was "out of the pan, into the fire" for Ukraine and Byelorussia. You see, the Soviet Union allows some degree of sovereignty to each individual state. Ukraine and Byelorussia were popularly supportive of Soviet efforts, and very small portions of these territories deliberately attempted physical resistance to Soviet... Occupation? No. Assimilation. Byellorussia and Ukraine were willing, to some degree eager to become republics within the union. That is my opinion, as a historian of Soviet military and intelligence activities. If these so-called "occupations" were the invasive attacks that this word implies them to be, it would be evident from historical record. MVMosin 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of the Soviet Union

That featured article almost completely overlaps this one. Should they be merged? Balcer 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Red Army deserves it's own article. But it is true that currently this article has too much history and too little info on organization, tactics and equipment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it to be of note that the pre-1776 Continental Army of the United States has its own article, with a seperate article given to the current entity of the US Army. Why can't the same be done here? Within Soviet history, the term Red Army is used for revolutionary armies of Communism. In the context of the Tsarist revolution, the Red Army was no longer an existing entity after the first development of the Soviet Union--that is, 30 December 1922. [[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MVMosin (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] POV-table

Guys, the "Armies of Russia" table in the lead is pushing the Russian imperialistic propaganda regarding the history of Kievan Rus. It wasn't "Russia" in ANY way, and the topic has already been discussed massively. So, anybody wants to discuss and change, or I'll just delete the whole table in a while? Best wishes AlexPU 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Armies of Russia
Kievan Rus' Druzhina (862-1400s) Muscovy Streltsy (1400s-1721) Imperial Russia Army (1721-1917) White Movement White Guard (1917-1921) Soviet Union Red Army (1918-1991) Russian Federation Army (1991-Present)

Kievan Rus' was not Russia but it has as much a historical connection with Russia as it is does with Ukraine. As per the mainstream historiography, Rus' was a precursor of both of these states (Read, e.g. a Columbia Encyclopedia article which uses thesee exact words).

As per this fact, the solution is that Kievan Rus mention belongs to a similar table:Armies in Ukraine which you are welcome to create or not to create because I can imagine you have other plans as well. In no way this justifies purging it from here. --Irpen 00:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it DOES justify purging or, better renaming the table. Per all said here, Kyivan Rus' army is not the "Army of Russia" (which is literally said in the table). Similarly, I don't want it in some "Armies of Ukraine" table either. I don't trade truth, so using such a primitive trick in discussion was unworthy. Anyway, you didn't convince me at all and I'm waiting for other opinions. Your friends like Ghirla won't qulify. Oh, and please keep your "imagination of my plans" away from topical discussionsAlexPU 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable feedback. --Irpen 06:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about you tone down the attack level here, hombre? You don't need to turn the attitude level way up to make your point, which I disagree with, in any event. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, we got two objections: one from established vandal Irpen (see this for reference) and another from normal, but possibly non-qualified editor (which left no ratios for his opinion). So I just delete that table.AlexPU 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about Irpen is no vandal (Deng 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

He is, self-confessed [2], and approved by my observations (see, e.g., history of Soviet partisan). BTW, you're the first to object :). AlexPU 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deng, please remember the "WP:DFTT#Not feeding the trolls rule. The fellow is a good as already blocked by now. :) --Irpen 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a very nice picture but perhaps in this specific case talking more and going the extra mile would have been better then blocking, ahh well life is life (Deng 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree. When he talks issues, better talk with him and I will too. When the fellow talks the kind of stuff above and what he says at my talk, talking back is useless. I don't care whether he is blocked. The point is that those "contributions" are as meaningless as if there are none. That is the same as when he is blocked. Whether there is an entry in his block log conserns me little. It's just that when he makes such entries, his contributions are exactly zero and that what I mean comparing this to being blocked. --Irpen 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I agree with AlexPU but dislike his tiring edit war over this issue. Still, is anyone willing to change the wording of the table and related paragraphs in the articles? Or should I join AlexPU in his worthy attempts here? Ukrained 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, a week passed since my call for compromise... I guess this is the case when edit war is the only way of applying the WP:NPOV. And I'm asking all neutral non-biased users, first of all, in Eastern Europe, to support my attempts in order to comply with the WP:3RR. Ukrained 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to "compromise" are nothing more than original research aimed at pushing a political agenda. Indeed the topic has been discussed, except that all serious authors do not support your POV. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Army saving Jews as a Result of Invasion of Poland in 1939

I think even though this may be a fact, it puts an unpleasant spin on the whole issue. The Soviet Army certainly killed a lot of Poles as a result of the 1939 invasion. It may have contributed to the saving of some Polish Jews, but is that material? The German invasion of the USSR certainly helped to save the lives of some people there... say... anti-communists. Would it really be sensible to include that into an article on Operation Barbarossa in THIS manner? I oppose this entry in this manner. Was there an active policy of saving Jews? if so, then put it in. If not, leave it out. Accidental, immetarial positive effects should not be ascribed w/o proper qualification to a criminal act. Dietwald 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There was the policy to save the local population from Nazis. It was the official reason for the invasion.--Nixer 07:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't and Molotov said it was only a pretext in easly obtained diplomatic documents. He said NOTHING about Jews. In fact Jews were the second largest group of people subjecto to imprisonment and deporations. Also they were deported to Germany as a result of NKVD-Gestapo cooperation.

--Molobo 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article has the room for us to go into the details of the 'official reason' and M-R Pact. But certainly if the fragment about 'saving the Jews' is to remain, we should link the Treatment_of_the_Polish_citizens_by_the_occupants#Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_under_Soviet_occupation article, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They were saved were they not? If the germans would have gotten their hands on them they would most likely all have been worked to death or just exterminated. (Deng 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Instead they were sent to Siberia, some of them were handed over to Gestapo anyway by NKVD. --Molobo 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is speculation, but you are probably right. As I said, if this information is added, then certainly the well documented events from the 'Treatment...' article I listed above should be summarized as well, as they were certainly a direct consequence of the Red Army's invasion of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to say that the Soviet invasion of Poland saved Jews then this should be phrased in a NPOV manner - rather then trying to make it sound like Stalin was doing someone a favor. Furthermore, the eventual fate of these Jews should be pointed out as well - deportation, execution, handing over to the Gestapo.radek 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on Footnote 12, it is interesting to note that in this context, 'saving the Jews' means 'send most of them to Siberia'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Give sources that many or any for that fact were deported (Deng 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Please read the source I cite above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"The "Kievan Rus' army" originated in Novgorod which has always been a Russian city. Even the Mongols failed to capture and hold it, although they did extract tribute from it.

Also, Jews were liberated en masse by the Red Army when they came to Poland in 1939 and again in 1944. It does not matter why they were liberated (most likely not from Stalin's good heart); rather the focus is on the fact that the USSR was the FIRST major power to liberate the Jews from the Holocaust.

Holocaust was a Genocide against Jews, but not the only Genocide by Nazis. Slavic peoples were also brutally killed by Hitler, even those of 'allied' Bulgaria, and had nothing to do with either the strategy of the war, nor the necessity to prevent future fighters development.It fits the definition of Genocide prefectly." 128.200.70.211Zotter

[edit] Women in Red Army

According to the Soviet Constitution all citizens had a honorary duty to serve in the Army if needed, but in reality only males were conscripted (even during the world wars). The only exceptions were females who get military training at their Universities as Medical Doctors (graduates of all medical school) or Military Translators (graduates of language schools). During world wars there were a number of female volunteers in the Army but they were volunteers). abakharev 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so women were not conscripted 2 years as Vess claims it was the case. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is really old, but I'd like to point out that it's a fine example of the way the Soviet Constitution was written. There is a clear distinction between "honorary duty" and "constitutional obligation." Things like that really set the document apart from all the others. MVMosin 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic soldiers in Red Army Druing World War 2

Are there any Turkic soldiers (and/or troops) in Red Army during World War 2?

[edit] Split Page to set up page on Soviet Armed Forces

Unless anyone objects, I will split this page to set up a page on the Soviet armed forces as a whole, or the 'Military of the Soviet Union'. Any comments/thoughts/disagreement Cheers Buckshot06 07:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armies of Russie/Ukraine templates

Since nobody else seems willing to begin discussion, I will do it. What exactly is wrong with these informational templates that makes a few editors insist on deleting them from the article? Please discuss your reasonings and the problems you have with the templates here and perhaps we can reach some kind of common ground. TheQuandry 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. Mr.TheQuandry, you're either lying or mistaken telling that "nobody else seems willing to begin discussion". See Talk:Red Army#POV-table for reference. It was AlexPU who suggested neutralization, then he started revert war, then I suggested compromise one more time (receiving no understanding but a trollish respond from GrafikM). Finally, I joined the revert warring, and I'm going to keep it until the controversial navbox stops appearing on the page.Ukrained 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO these templates are simply ignorant. E.g., druzhina or streltsy were not "armies", but the overall idea makes sense. `'mikka 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss the content of these templates then. And the templates' talk pages is the place for them. It's certain uders' endless revert warring to remove them is what's bugging. --Irpen 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is the Ukrainian for "bugging"? Did you commited a personal attack on somebody here, Irpen? This is the official warning for you Irpen although I don't have any warning tags right now. Ukrained 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saturating articles with irrelevant stuff to dilute the valid content

Now we get it again. Piotrus, will you ever stop this polonocentric WP:TE. This is being done by you left and right to articles whose topics range from culture to geography to biographies to history. Now, the red army. This is not the article about the military campaign. This is not the article about OUN. This is not one of other "Massacres..." article. This is not a "History of..." article. This is an article about the military organization. What does the rizing of OUN against Poles have to do with the red army? Again the long-chain logic? The campaign was the Red Amry campaign, it provoked the uprising, hense the uprising material must be not only in the uprising article AND campaign article (Invasion of Poland) but the article, third in the chain. It took me half a year to convince you to not reinsert OT stuff to Russian Enlightenment. I still have to deal with your OT additions to Soviet partisans and Polonization. You are making this all so difficult to others by carrying the same campaign to the next one. Please give it a break. --Irpen 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say that Piotrus was not the first here. I trimmed the article mercilessly of descriptions of campaigns. I second the opinion that this article is about Army, and the should not be piecemeal forking of the whole military history, described erlsewhe`'mikka 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, the same problem often arises in bios of presidents, monarchs, etc., which simply retell the history of the corresponding country during the rule of the particular ruler. Such things must be recognized and dealt with, but without particular panic. `'mikka 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support the idea. But it would be a pity if the valid referenced content is just lost. We should take an effort to integrate it into other articles and by integrating, I don't mean mere pasting disrupting the text flow. If the author of the purged parts is still around, we can reasonably hope that he will take care of it. If not, I think the purger should take this effort. Just my opinion. --Irpen 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  You are right, but I doubt anything useful is here, These topics (wars with poland, finland, japan) are quite extensively covered by respective nations, who very love red army. `'mikka 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai :Please stop your "slimming" attempts. Please read the rule "wikipedia is not paper". A distinctive feature of wikipedia is that you can find here things you can find nowhere else. Where have I read that before? TheQuandry 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper does not mean an individual article can bloat indefinitely with information not directly relevant to the scope of the article. Not only a huge article is a pain to read, but it also means that certain subjects are covered twice or more in several places, greatly complicating the editing. Consequently, it is important to maintain an accurate scope in each article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Anyway, I was kind of being a jerk there and talking about something from another article, so I'll stop before it truns into a row. TheQuandry 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite sure you see the difference between the two cases: in your case you were deleting information whic was nowhere else in wikipedia. On the other hand I am deleting unnecessary repetition of information. Since you are new, I would like to recommend you to read about the bads of Wikipedia:Content forking, the most serious problem being difficulty to maintain descriptions of the same things in several places in sync. `'mikka 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside Irpen's personal attacks, I agree with Mikka that the article has an overly long section on history. I'd suggest splitting it off to history of the Red Army instead of trimming it - the conflicts with Poland or Finland should be mentioned (ableit without the 'bread and salt' POV that Irpen tries to insert - I mean, 'bread and salt', this is as ridicoulus and POVed as it can get, really ;p). On the second thought, most of this material is duplicated (word to word) in Military of the Soviet Union, so a redirect, and short summary with 'see main artice' here may be all we need.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

History of the Red Army is in Military history of the Soviet Union. `'mikka 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, in other words, yet again we see the same old story: presenting the Red Army in good light is good, mentioning rape, plunder and slaughter of civilians is bad. Why? Because... There are references there? Not a problem, Irpen will delete them too... //Halibutt 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, exactly the same dispute (with similar arguments!) has been going on in German wikipedia. Are we facing co-ordinated efforts by some Neo-Stalinist whitewashers? Constanz - Talk 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words Halibutt cannot miss an occasion to bite a Russian ass. You have to either change your name to user:Piranha02 or to stick to article content discussion. What exaclty is your suggestion to improve the article, please? `'mikka 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, thanks, but I really can't care less about Halibutt's whining about evil Irpen. Besides, for one my ass is not Russian and, for two, I avoid getting too much involved. To repeat why the info war removed: the info Piotrus added was about OUN rising against Poles and slaughtering them in 1939. The info is referenced and encyclopedic. But there are articles for this info. Why did not Piotrus add this to OUN? Why did not he add it as a prelude to the neutrally titled Massacre of Poles in Volhynia, which address 1942 events but could use a short prehistory. Why did he choose to add that stuff to the Red Army of all the articles, where it has no relevance? If you need to know why, check talk:Russian Enlightenment, talk:Russo-Polish War, Talk:Fyodor Tyutchev, talk:Ded Moroz, talk:Soviet partisans, talk:Polonization, etc., etc., etc. --Irpen 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First, Piotrus not only added it, but also removed the 'people welcoming Red Army with flowers, bread and salt' part, straight from Soviet Propaganda 101. Second, if you want to present how locals reacted to Red Army, either give a full picture - which includes, indeed, some people welcoming it, others fleeing, others taking this a chance to 'right some wrongs', ect. - or don't do it at all. You cannot have the just the Soviet propaganda version, I am afraid. And based on the sources I have read, the actions like OUNs massacress were much more prominent than 'welcoming Soviet liberators with bread and salt'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just mention your source is Soviet propaganda and the case is clear. We can discuss institutional problems of the Red Army or things like mass rape/killing/robbing/desertion if there are sources and in case therre are disputes we mentio what kind of sources make what statemets. And Zhukov's campaign in Mongolia is important because it shaped the thinking of later officers. Wandalstouring 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Revisions

To be honest, I am a bit angry. I was working carefully and slowly to bring this article towards featured status, on the model of the United States Marine Corps, and trying to ignore the unhelpful revert war with the Armies of X etc table. Now someone has deleted large chunks of relevant history, in the pre-1939 period. I would like to remind people that discussion of pre 39 history, as it its specifically related to Red Army military operations, is relevant, and that this article is probably not the best place for disagreements about Polish/Russian history, nor the distinction between Muscovy, Russia, and Ukraine. Please cite all sources for any changes that are intended to stay, and hold off making changes that will be controversial. Any sections that extremely controverisal should be crafted on the talk page first with agreement between editors. Buckshot06 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have re-inserted a section including details of the 1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords, which is very little known, as well as mention of Khalkin Gol, which is as notable as WW2, especially as it tested Zhukov as a field commander who would handle the most critical assignments post 1941 (see John Erickson's 'The Road to Stalingrad' for details). Please do not remove this section without consultation on this talk page first. Buckshot06 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this information is bad, I just don't think it all belongs under the Red Army article. Let's face facts, if we wrote everything interesting and/or useful about the Red Army, this article would become hugely bloated and heavy. I think that the Red Army article itself should be a somewhat general history of the Army itself, and that the war related topics should go into new articles (like "Red Army in world War 2", or "Red Army in the Far East"). Does this seem reasonable to everyone? TheQuandry 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, but is anybody writing such an article yet? When someone starts it, thats just fine. Until they do so, no-one else ever has mentioned this little known point. My advice from Kirill L was to include relevant parts of the history - see the old peer review. Until those articles are started, I want to follow the peer review suggestions, because they follow the WPMILHIST assessment process and the procedure for getting things featured. I am trying to get general information in - see the newish 'Organisation' section and the recently added bits on Strategic Directions (=TVDs). Buckshot06 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Battles are described in the corresponding history articles. I see the only possible reason of discusion of separate military conflicts in the article about the army: if they are related to notable changes in the army, and the corresponding section must cover mostly this topic i.e., immediately related to the army, along the following lines: "In the Battle of .. the Red Army for the first time employed a new strategy of ..." or "During the far East conflicts (main article: blabla) the Red Army had the following organization." `'mikka 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget that an army is an instrument of the state, and eg., 1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords is just that: conflict between powers. Are you going to write the section "1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords" in the Maxim gun article as well? (of course I am exaggerrating here, but this is the idea: and article about army must write about army. Still, along my lines, if Maxim gun did help Soviets to kill 90% of Chinese armed mostly with wooden swords, this fact could have been mentioned in Maxim gun article, but of course without long musing: "Russians went first here then there, while chinese...") `'mikka 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We agree that an army is the servant of the state, but we disagree about the level of detail required. You obviously do not agree with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Red Army, but would you mind reviewing the comments there before you respond?

We do not disagree on "level of detail". We disagree about what this article is about. You seem to fail to undertstand that this article is about Red Army per se, not about the Military history of the Soviet Union. The article about a spoon doesn't describe every soup you can eat with it. Please read carefully my previous response, in which I explain that only conflicts that influenced the army itself are reasonable to be included here. `'mikka 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also see you created a considerable fork of Military history of the Soviet Union in Military of the Soviet Union, indicating that you don't understand the difference between writing and encyclopedia and a standalone book. Please remove the overlaps: history must be in "history" article only. Examples from history in another article make sense only to describe the major issues of the topic of another article. `'mikka 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I cited above that Zhukov got his major pre WW2 field command experience at Khalkin Gol, which is more notable than any weapon, and I believe that a one line mention of the 1929 conflict is appropriate. Should we ask for some outside editors for their opinions? Buckshot06 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a notable fact. But it must be described as such along the line of your remark (the influence of the conflict on the Red Army), but not as a description or a summary of the conflict itself, which is just one mouse click away. `'mikka 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are saying you are working "on the model of the United States Marine Corps" But you have to look a bit deeper than the Table of Contents.

For example, look what a small section "WWII" says: "In World War II, the Marines played a central role in the Pacific War; the Corps expanded from two brigades to two corps with six divisions, and five air wings with 132 squadrons. In addition, 20 defense battalions and a parachute battalion were set up." I.e., the section does not describe WWII, it describes what was happening to Marines in WWII.

Next random example: "Post-Vietnam and pre-9/11" section: After Vietnam, the Marines resumed their expeditionary role, participating in the invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) and the invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause). This enumeration of battles makes sense because Marines are part of the whole Military of the United States, and this list (but not descritions of actions) gives a proper credit to this branck of US mil.

To enumerate battles of the Red Army is wars in pointless, but its usage in peaceful times, as a tool for projedcting of the Soviet power, e.g., Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is noteworthy. `'mikka 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment to Buckshot. Please do not get upset and please do not abandon this article. You did a great job here and, in all fairness, I think both Mikka and you partly right in this dispute about oh-so-severe-trimming and think that the solution is in the middle. Before it is not too late, please do crate a new article and post your text on Mongolian campaign there. Otherwise, this may get lost in history. Thanks again for the great work you've done here. --Irpen 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good article. Did the Soviets Army completely abandon it's Warsaw allies in 1989. I went over the border into East Germany from West Berlin in summer of (of how the future of the world seemed so good) 1990 and there were Soviet soldiers everywhere. They also spent the nights prior to Oct 3 (re-unificaiton) firing thousands of tank rounds off they could not use after unification as West German law resitriced military activites close to built up areas, where as Esat German law which about to be history, did not. I know this as I sat up all night watching the fire works from my bedroom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ir5ac (talk • contribs).

There already is one: Soviet-Japanese Border Wars. `'mikka 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus can I mention Soviet-Japanese Border Wars in the article, without getting it reverted? I think a general section at least mentioning the conflicts the Red Army was involved in the Far East in 1919-39 is as notable as World War II. Happily do some drafting on the talk page, but some mention of these war involvements belongs in the article. It'd be like leaving out the Dominican Republic ops out of the USMC article.

Eg- "Between 1899 and 1916, the Marine Corps continued its record of participation in foreign expeditions, including the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion in China (1899–1901), Panama, the Cuban Pacifications, Veracruz (Mexico), Haiti, Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), and in Nicaragua." All I want to do is mention it with a link. Buckshot06 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Buckshot06 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring

I have no more patience for this nonsense. Ukrained, the next time you blindly revert this article, I will report you for disruption. You know the rules on gaining consensus and discussing your edits before making them perfectly well and you're deliberately disregarding them. TheQuandry 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be threatening me. And I know one strict rule of consensus: if one or more editors disagree and provide reasons, no consensus is present. It's that simple. However, I'm getting used to a situation where some users misinterprete WP rules on a daily basis. By the way, Mr.TheQuandry, I wonder how do you "know" what do I know :)) because I'm not very aguainted with you on WP. Afraid even thinking about what did you mean by "knowing me". Thank you, Ukrained 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this Armies of Ukraine/Armies of Russia in-out business is ridiculous. Please come up with a solution between yourselves - a disclaimer on the table, perhaps - and only come back after you've figured it out. Buckshot06 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the lighter side, there's always the prospect of making WP:LAME --Nick Dowling 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for an explanation concerning the Ukrainian military issue? What sort of dispute is there? Many brave Ukrainian men gave their lives amongst their Soviet brethren in The Great Patriotic War. Is this actually being disputed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MVMosin (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Mr.Mosin, the issue is about Russian military, not Ukrainian. You may want to read several relevant talk sections above if you're interested. By the way, some of my fellow editors seem to be deliberately partitioning the discussion on the subject here :(, probably trying to promote a false claim that I'm avoiding consensus attempts. Happy edits, Ukrained 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paint Job

For some reason, in some pictures or video clips of Soviet army vehicles, the vehicles are painted with an unusual paint job. An example of one of these can be seen in this image:

Image:BM-21 Grad Red Army.jpg

My best guess is that these were parade vehicles, but does anyone have any concrete idea about these? Sgt. Bond 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any unusual markings on the vehicle pictured, maybe I'm blind. But I do know that it was not at all uncommon for Soviet artillery gunners (This includes the crews of Katiusha rocket launchers) as well as for tank crews to paint symbols, images, or most commonly (Because us Slavs are inherently awful artists) phrases. These were somewhat of a battle-cry given from crew to crew, much like the similar phenomenon with Yankee combat planes in The Great Patriotic War. MVMosin 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The badge on the door appears to be a standard Russian Guards insignia.Buckshot06 11:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that the "unusual paint" that Sgt Bond was referring to? That is indeed what the symbol is; I don't see what about it is "unusual." Sgt Bond, could you clarify?MVMosin 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the way this truck was painted. I've seen clips of Soviet military parades where the vehicles are painted in those same colors & with that same logo. And Buckshot 06 is right about the organization, because the logo on the truck says "ГВАРДИЯ - СССР" (literal transliteration: "GVARDIYA - SSSR") on it. I figured this out because I have a decal of this logo from a Russian army truck kit, which I closely inspected. Take a look for yourself in the following image (the logo in question is in the top left corner): http://www.internetmodeler.com/1999/november/first-looks/icm_ural4320-decals-lg.jpg Sgt. Bond 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] timeframe

I read in the German article that the Red Army existed from 1918 until 1946. If someone can confirm this all afterwards would be Soviet Army. Wandalstouring 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Its in the first paragraph; from 1946 it was the Soviet Army. Buckshot06 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand sth., but the intro doesn't clearly says that the Red Army existed from 1918 till 1946 and was succeded by the Soviet Army. Could you change this? A clear and correct definition certainly improves every article.Wandalstouring 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaguely worded statements may be contrary to facts without clarification

The argument was challenged at its original location. Bah.

1. You mentioned that it became the Soviet Army in 1922. Then, you seem to directly contradict this by saying that the Red Army became the Soviet Army (Again) in 1946. Note that I say seem to. You did mention the word "officially," but remember that most people don't know as much about this as you do, and will need further information. Go back, and make the distinction between these two events clear to someone that is unfamiliar with the subject. The word "officially" doesn't cut it. Remember that this is the English WP, and a lot of people that will/have see/n this article won't know a thing about the way Soviet bureacracy works, and so they will have a hard time picking up that subtext.
2. Then, immediately after this, you imply that the Red Army existed throughout the USSR's lifetime, which directly contradicts the previous statements. Both of them. This doesn't really belong in an article about the Red Army... This should be taken out, and put in a seperate article for the Soviet Army.
3. You mentioned the significance of the colour red. You neglected to mention, though, that red also became the de facto official colour of the international communist movement.
4. You failed to bring the needed attention to the fact that the name "Red Army" carries a tremendous meaning which "Soviet Army" does not. While they are both, in the context of the USSR, essentially "defenders of the proletariatic revolution," as per the national ideals, it is of critical importance that the Red Army consists of volunteer soldiers fighting for these ideals out of their own faith in them, be it a faith in their morality or effectiveness or both. The Soviet Army fights to defend the United Soviet Socialist Republics and her interests, and fights in the name of her ideals simply because they are her ideals.

The reader needs to be aware that a Red Army soldier is fighting for the revolution whereas a Soviet Army soldier fights for the country. To put it simply, a Red Army soldier is fighting for the Bolshevik party, which is seperate from the country. The name "Soviet Army" does not carry (At least, not rightfully so) any political implications aside from patriotism in regards to an individual soldier, in the case that he is a citizen of the country.

It is also of note that although in the Red Army, commissars were essentially officers with total control over their subordinates, while in the Soviet Army, if they did not carry military rank in addition to their rank in the Communist Party then they carried no authority within the military ranks. All that they had the power to do was to perform administrative duties in place of a willing officer or suggest courses of action to officers within the Communist Party, who in turn gave suggestions to officials in the government, who passed them to military officials, similar to the Yankees' "Joint Chiefs" and they then hand them down through the chain of command. The mythical horseshoe bureacracy.

The Soviet government (and, therefore, Soviet military) had a relationship with the Communist Party which could be loosely compared to that between the Monarchs and the church in Medieval England, except that this relationship was deliberate from the birth of the country, and was also endorsed by the state, rather than by fear of becoming a pariah. The resulting balance of power was all very complicated, and is similar to the manner in which many former Soviet republics now have a Prime Minister and President. MVMosin 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above argument was first raised at Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Utter_falsehoods_of_historic_and_political_nature, and there are some replies to it there; it was suggested to move and continue the discussion here as naming of the Red/Soviet army is a wider issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is my argument(In response to prior arguments at previous location). The Red Army became the Soviet Army much earlier than 1946. The 1922 year is much more accurate, and the logic behind it is simple; it was at or near this point in time that Bolshevist Russia began to change into the United Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus, even if the soldiers themselves were (As many, many must have been) Bolshevist themselves, they represented more than that. They were no longer fighting only for a revolution; they were fighting for their freedom to carry out that revolution. In short, they were, at that point, defending the country that chose to harbour the ideals, rather than fighting for those ideals themselves.

As for the 1946 date? Well, the war with the Wehrmaecht had ended. Do you understand how Soviet legislature operates? Dear God, it's one of the most beastly monstrosities of a bureacracy I've ever seen, and I've been to a US post office. And, once, their Department of Motor Vehicles, just to see if it was really that bad.

Well, they handed out licenses faster than Soviet office-holders get through their "preparatory debate and discussion." The young country was not prepared for a war. She certainly was not prepared to have a domestic body of legislature try to operate during a war, and she most definately was not ready for either or both of those under Stalin's rule.

But, the efficiency of Soviet legislature is not the definitive in this argument. My argument is that the Red Army became the Soviet Army when they started fighting for the interests and decrees of the Soviets themselves and the Soviet Union rather than fighting purely for Bolshevism, regardless of when legislature began to reflect this. I think Buckshot will agree, judging from the article's say on this, badly written as it is.

I understand the idea behind siding with legislature on the principle that to choose which laws to follow defeats the purpose of law. But, this was about defining the military struggles of millions of young men and women, some of whom did not believe in Bolshevism but loved their country all the same. To honour them, we do not have to ignore the "official" ruling, but what we can do is apply it retroactively.MVMosin 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

After the revolution in Russia there was a believe that they should support other revolutions abroad, like China or the republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Wandalstouring 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Supporting" does not mean "raising a specialised volunteer army and fighting for." MVMosin 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of the comments made thus far, and apparent lack of interest, I will begin work on writing an effective revision explaining both the practical change in name and the official change, as well as the relationship between the two events. I will try to include background as well. I will not remove existing content, and will not split the article for lack of sufficient consensus. However, I strongly and urgently implore Wikipedians to make educated judgment on this issue, because, minor as it may seem, it marks an astronomical change within the USSR, and as such is absolutely critical to properly understanding the nation's political and military history.MVMosin 08:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that mentioning something like the changes within the NKVD (later "Stalin's organization") and the fate of Trotzky(important organiser of the Red Army) to give more political background. Wandalstouring 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take this into consideration. MVMosin 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the formation

Southern Group of Forces states the formation disbanded in 1947 and was not recreated until 1956. In that case, what was the official name of the Red Army forces in Romania that stayed there until 1957 according to Soviet occupation of Romania? Btw, I will translate article on Northern Group of Forces (that existed in Poland until 1993) from pl wiki shortly, feel free to expand and link to Soviet forces in Poland stub I just created.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Infobox

Comments invited:

Kievan Rus' Druzhina (862-1400s)
	Medieval Ukraine Zaporozhian Host (1492—1775)	Muscovy Streltsy (1400s-1721)
Imperial Russia Imperial Russian Army (1721-1917)
	Ukrainian People's Republic Sich Riflemen (1917—1919) Ukrainian People's Army (1918—20) Ukrainian Galician Army (1918—19) Black Army (1918—1924)	White Guard (1917-1921)
Soviet Union Red Army (1918-1991)
Military of Belarus	Military of Ukraine (1991—Present)	Russian Ground Forces (1991-Present)

Buckshot06 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good start, but some slight changes may be neccessary because there was more than the Ukrainian Whites and the Red Army. Wandalstouring 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A poor start, sorry. The author seems to be totally mislead about both real history and the opinions on the table. First of all, no common two-nations table is possible (patent nonsense). Second, I object the following:

• the passage from the Russian table speaking of the Kievan Rus. As someone suggested earlier, that table should by any mean include a disclaimer explaining very loose ancestry between Kievan Rus and modern Russia. This is the main disputed claim (commented enough in other articles), unacceptable for me and several other Ukrainian and Belarusian users
• Regardless of any "Ukrainian military" table, none of them may include the Red Army. This army was not only irrelevant to any of Ukrainian states (with very formal post-WWII exception), but also significantly anti-Ukrainian. For instance, Red Army units widely participated in war crimes against Ukrainian population and anti-Soviet guerillas. Creation of the "Ukrainian" table here has been a mere discussion trick not supported by all Ukrainian users. For instance, see earlier AlexPU's passage on "trading the truth"

Given all that, I'd suggest you to delete your first draft and find other ways for compromising. Mr.Buckshot, I thank you, an innocent editor, for your valuable attempts and hope for further cooperation on the issue. Ukrained 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to "compromise" on in the first place. There are two editors who have been revert warrying for months, got blocked for that several times, versus the rest of the community. Basically, they admit themselves they're pushing a nationalist POV. And since Wikipedia is not the soapbox, the conclusion is pretty clear. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Grafikm, could you please name those two editors, preferrably staying in line with WP:NPA and providing diffs about their POV-pushing and their blocks for revertwarring? Cause I can speak of 5 such editors (unless some of them are sockpuppets), pushing Russian POV. Unfortunately, none of them was blocked so far. Happy edits, Ukrained 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)