Talk:Soviet Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is NOT about Soviet Union, it is about Soviet Empire. JJ, your edit put eggs in wrong baskets and lost some of them. Mikkalai 02:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would it, or would it not, be appropriate to list countries, régimes or governments that by Soviet's adversaries rightly or wrongly were seen as too friendly disposed towards the Soviet Union/the Soviet Empire? I think of such entities as pre-coup Greece, pre-coup Chile and plenty of African régimes — and some Arab (Iran at least) too. I realize, however, that such a list would be open-ended and easy to contest. --Johan Magnus 17:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The idea is good, but you are correct in your doubts; it is inherently faulty. There are so many different reasons various countries sought alliance with Soviet Union (or why USA was afraid them to fall under the influence of the Soviet Union). The most striking example is cannibal Bocassa. In any case, the list alone will not do. Every entry must be explained: time period, facts to support the claim, etc. Mikkalai 18:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your change of titles, Mikkalai, I think it is inappropriate because it inserts an inherent POV (from the Soviet side). The title "Allies of the Soviet Union", for example, is neutral. "Countries of developed socialism" would be Soviet POV, and "Communist puppet states of the Soviet Union" would be American POV. Also, I think we can include Laos in the section "Countries friendly towards the Soviet Union for brief periods" after all, because the Soviet Union did not last very long after the Lao People's Democratic Republic was founded. But Chile never had any connection to the Soviet Union. The fact that it "attempted to introduce Marxist-type socialism" is irrelevant, since we're talking about the Soviet Empire here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the talk page. The Tudoreanu arguments fail to convince me. Quotation marks are a good thing. Countries are usually not friendly. As I stated before, régimes and governments may be, like segments of a public opinion. A list of friendly countries could be open-ended, and prone to disputes. --Johan Magnus 10:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a better counter-argument than "I'm not convinced". Also, notice that I've removed the term "friendly", and replaced it with the more clear-cut term "pro-Soviet". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively could you come up with more convincing arguments. --Johan Magnus 13:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Developed socialism" 2 Socialism of Marxist-type 3 Edits by Protos99 4 map 5 soviet-empire.com?

[edit] "Developed socialism"

The term "allies" is bad because USA, GB were allies of USSR suring WWII. Iagree that "developed socialism" could be a poor term, but the section clearly says it is Soviet classification, which is fact, not POV of the authors of the article. You are welcome to add a section, kind of "pro-Soviet states" (and IMO it will be useful), with the explanation who used the term and when.

How about "Cold War Allies of the Soviet Union"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Usage of the term "allies" must be based on the existence of alliance pacts. Soviet Union had plenty of them; some short-living; e.g., with Egypt under Naser. We still need to segregate "allies" somehow. Mikkalai 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very well, then how about "Members of Comecon"? That is what those countries had in common, after all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To explain one of the points where I don't understand you too well, you could consider how many non-native English speakers may get confused by the way native English speakers use the term allies. The idea that "allies" constitute an empire is also somewhat illogical, to me. Basically, I don't understand your sensitiveness against using a term that by itself is clearly located in Soviet lingo and thoughts. To me, it seems very appropriate in this context, in this article, and as headline it gives the best logical structure to this article I've seen so far. --Johan Magnus 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have already agreed that the term "allies" is inaccurate. That's why I proposed "Members of Comecon" instead. And by the way, if you don't understand how allies can be part of an "empire", keep in mind that "Soviet Empire" is a pejorative term used by the opponents of the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Can be parts of" is not the same as "constitutes" an empire. Regarding you "having already agreed", I'm sure you are sufficiently clever to read the time stamps above. --Johan Magnus 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism of Marxist-type

This section is important, since it lists not only actual allies of USSR, but those who were considered potential threat to the "wistern world". Chile: you may claim tha Alliende didn't like USSR, but it did not prevent him to accept economic help. What is more Alliende sided with Cuba, which was enough for USA to go berserk. Again, I ceated the section with paricular meaning. You are welcome to create another one to reflect your category of countries. Please remember, unlike fauna and flora, with all genuses and families, there is no 100% absolute classificaion in politics. Mikkalai 15:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that you are implying that the Soviet definition of "Marxist-type Socialism" is the correct definition - an idea which is highly POV, and hotly disputed by anti-Soviet Marxists (such as, for example, myself). There has to be some better title we can find. What's wrong with "Countries that had pro-Soviet governments for short periods"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This heading rightfully excludes Chile. Please keep in mind that the term "Soviet Empire" itself is a certain Point of View. The article attempts to describe it. Please don't confuse the notions of POV of the wikipedia authors (bad thing) and POV of some political entities (which is necessary to know and a fair game for an encyclopedia article). Chile was percieved as threat, a potential candidate into Soviet Empire. Mikkalai 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why excluding Chile would be a bad thing. After all, I thought it had already been settled that we should only include countries with real ties to the Soviet Union, not countries that were feared by the West to be covertly pro-Soviet, because that would launch us into pure speculation (and we'd have to include countless short-lived African governments). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You convinced me on this item. But a section about such fears definitely makes sense, especially to mention fears that were well-documented. Mikkalai 16:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; however, that would require some serious research into obscure Cold War politics and events, and especially into various Third World governments. Chile is the best known example of American fears, but there were also many others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Controversial, politically-charged, and perjorative." All true, but I don't see why we have to include this kind of description in the intro when it can be shown throughout the article. J. Parker Stone 02:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Protos99

This user adds all possible former states here. They are irrelevant to this article. For example, there was no Soviet Empire in 1918. Other entries require exact description of particular Soviet involvement, not just a bunch of books at the bottom. `'mikkanarxi 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC on this subject. I fully agree with you, the list that the user keeps adding are completely irrelevant to this article. Nevertheless, I have to say that I am confused as to what the scope of this article is. I mean the term that serves as the title for the page was mostly used in a political context and usually in a negative sense, rather than in academic discourse. So it is difficult to define what time periods and what areas this article should encompass. TSO1D 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The lists appear to be well outside the scope of this article. - Francis Tyers · 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is not relevant. Asterion^talk 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

The map needs some kind of academic reference. The UN considers much of Western Europe to be socialist states, so it's suprising that the Soviet Union did not consider them "moving towards socialism"! The term enclosed in quotes - what does it quote? I've added a "citation needed" to the map. This page needs a lot of work though. Deipnosopher 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] soviet-empire.com?

The external link to soviet-empire forums has nothing to do with this topic. the only similarity is the websites name. Opetyan 07:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)