Talk:Soviet Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject
Soviet Union is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
A Wikipedian removed Soviet Union from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: 13 August 2006
Soviet Union is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Soviet Union as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Polish language Wikipedia.
Peer review Soviet Union has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Earlier talk moved to:


Contents

[edit] SOVIET

What is the etymology of the word "Soviet"? I know it comes from the title of the worker's councils, but does it have any other relevance? For example, "America" comes from "Amerigo Vespucci".

Soviet literally means "council" or even "counsel" or "advice".81.211.9.186 12:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


(Comment from visitor): I agree that it would be useful to add this information - I actually came to this page trying to find out what the word 'Soviet' meant, and did not find the answer until I looked at this talk page. Perhaps an explaination that the word 'Soviet' refers to the nature or design of the workers' councils could be added to the article.

[edit] Olympic Medal Counts for USSR/CIS?

I am not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum, but I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for the USSR and its successor organization CIS (among many other things). I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on this: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Thanks a lot in advance! Medalstats 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


In fact, recently someone nominated this table for deletion. Whether it really should be deleted is being discussed here: this article's entry. Medalstats 14:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the table and good work. To delete it would be idiotic.

-G

[edit] Foreign Relations

There is not enough mention of the People's Republic of China, such as tensions during the Khrushchev era, in the foreign relations section of this article. Also no mention of China's Tiananmen Square demonstration in June 1989 (Gorbachev was there when it happened!), which was a major impetus for the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the USSR.

I added the following text:
In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino-Soviet split. This resulted in a break throughout the global Communist movement and Communist regimes in Albania and Cambodia choosing to ally with China in place of the USSR. For a time, war between the former allies appeared to be a possibility; while relations would cool during the 1970s, they would not return to normalcy until the Gorbachev era.
I think that's accurate and relatively complete, but feel free to edit/expand on it. -- Small Profit 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Atheist POV sneaks in again

"For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant."

Citation please, even though half professed themselves atheist, does that mean they found the murder of priests and the closure of churches 'irrelevant'? Atheist POV has been allowed to fester for too long, the Atheist race must come to terms with the fact that Atheists do not OWN wikipedia, and that POV doesn't apply just to Religious pages. So can the Madalyn Murray O'Hair bullshit and deal with the facts.

Thanks for the input, however, I don't know exactly what you mean by "sneaks in again." The quote you're contesting has appeared on this page for over a year. It has been edited hundreds of times since this phrase's original inclusion, and neither you nor anyone else has thought it neccesary to have it removed. In my opinion it's a misnomer to say it was "sneaking."
To answer your question, though: No. I think the citizens cared about murder. I honestly don't see what disliking murder has to do with professing and following a certain faith.
Just to clarify, the definition of "seem" is as follows:
seem (sēm)
intr.v., seemed, seem·ing, seems.
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
[...]
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.
Therefore, if the half the population stated that they did not believe in God, I believe it's reasonable to say that religion seems irrelevant to them. - Small Profit 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have a point of view you want to impose on others. The Soviet Union was not officially atheist like many religious people claim. Stop imposing your beliefs on this article, it needs to represent facts. (Anonymous Users) May 25, 2006
-Why, yes, in fact, it was officially an atheistic nation. Soviet principles wished to instill a sort of "worship of the state" without any competition from religion. Just because you cannot handle the concept of a government expressly banning religion does not mean it didn't happen. Just because a fact is listed as such does not mean the user is approving or disapproving of said fact. It's simply the way things were; trying to say it was a lie would be like trying to claim that the U.S. South didn't really have segregation. Just because one does not approve doesn't mean one can deny historical facts. Also, "Atheist Race"? What the hell does that even mean? Magicflyinlemur 10:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on the Soviet Flag

In hte article it states that we have a picture of the soviet flag being lowered for the first time, further study notes that it is NOT a true picture, but from a movie. Should be noted.

[edit] Peer review

I'm going to put the conclusions of the peer review below:

1. adding references, preferably with the use of Wikipedia:Footnotes.

All the text is from the LOC, so do we really need this? - FrancisTyers 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

2. History section seem POVed: The article states: [after 1945] The Soviet Union aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe. I'd very much like to learn how? SU forbade them to join the Marshall Plan, took (part of?) their part of repatriations from Germany and gave what in return? The communist economy? The history section also makes no reference to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and I see no mention of how it gained control of Eastern Europe, killed of or forced into exile any opposition, and ruled over its satellite states for the next four and a half decades (if you haven't read it, I recommend History of Poland (1945-1989), a Featured Article). Besides the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, such events as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Soviet split should be mentioned as well. Then there is not a single word of those satellites slipping the SU grip (Solidarność) and how that contributed to the eventual fall of the SU.

The Soviet Union DID aid postwar reconstruction in Eastern Union. Tons of supplies and lots of workers were sent to rebuild the economy. You can accuse USSR of political mistakes but not with NOT helping the new created Soviet controlled states. Just the opposite: the Soviet Union strived to build communism in GDR and other republics, therefore investing heavily in their economy. --Davydov 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Existing:
  • Hungarian revolution is mentioned in the Foreign relations section.
  • The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is mentioned in the History section.
  • Prague spring is mentioned in Foreign relations section (I'll make this more explicit).
To do:
  • The Cuban missile crisis should be probably be mentioned in Foreign relations section.
  • The Sino-Soviet split should be probably be mentioned in the Foreign relations section.
  • The fact that the USSR exacted reparations from "aggressor" nations who took part in WWII should be mentioned somewhere (not just Germany, Romania too and possibly other countries).
  • Soviet invasion of Poland should be probably be mentioned somewhere.
I think the aiding of postwar reconstruction would possibly referring to the COMECON. This is unlikely to be as a result of pro-Soviet POV, as User:172 has mentioned the text is from the LOC. - FrancisTyers 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

3. sections like 'Geography' are a stub-sections (expand), 'Culture' is a list (write!).

Any takers? The culture section needs to be written, I think the Geography section just needs a bit of expanding, should we aim to make it roughly the same length as United_States#Geography_and_climate? - FrancisTyers 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Remove see also sections from mainbody, and transform them, as well as some of the main articles, into the proper {{details}}.

I'll do this now. - FrancisTyers 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

5. economics section: 'Soviet citizens of the 1980s had economic parity to the West.' - what?? source please. I wouldn't call the shortage economy parity. And one of the few bright sides of the Soviet economy, its independence of the business cycles and thus depressions (including the Great one and the Oil Depression of the 70's) are glaring omission from this section.

Removed following discussion. - FrancisTyers 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty fitting in the part about war reparations into the article. It just doesn't seem to fit anywhere. I've added the Cuban missile crisis, Sino-soviet split and the invasion of Poland. So its just this and the Geography and Culture sections remaining so far. - FrancisTyers 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I added some info on the Sino-Soviet split into foreign relations (I hope it's okay). I also think it's important to include information on the Comintern in the Foreign Relations section, as it was a fairly important part of Soviet Foreign Policy. Currently, the section focuses almost exclusively on foreign relations since 1945. - Small Profit 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Although Stalin tried to avert war with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact" - POV. Stalin's intentions are still not clear. Maybe he just wanted to secure his part of Poland, who knows.

"Battle of Stalingrad in 1943" - it took part mostly in 1942, with only last month or so in 1943 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.128.182.143 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 December 2005.

You are right regarding the dates. I have altered the article to show this, although the Battle of Stalingrad article gives the dates. Regarding POV, please read this if you haven't already and if you still think that it is POV, please bring it up here. - FrancisTyers 02:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos/Images

I've taken the liberty of adding in some photos/images from commons, I think it improves the article, however feel free to remove/replace some if you can find more appropriate ones, there are thousands to choose from on commons. See WPSU page for links. - FrancisTyers 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Exelent idea ! in that way, I believe that the reader can have an idea about the topic in question :D. Messhermit 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gulag

Should the Gulag system be mentioned somewhere on the page or at least linked off it. I think it could safely come in the history section, the politics section or the economy section. It is definately notable, being one of the things that probably comes to mind (at least in the West) when you hear USSR. Some suggestions would be welcome. - FrancisTyers 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gulags are not worth mentioning in this article, but definately in articles on Stalin or WWII. The Gulag system did not exist past Stalin.

I think that there should be a brief section about the Gulags somewhere in this article with it then linking to the Gulag page for more detail on the subject.--Rhydd Meddwl 16:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"[D]id not exist past Stalin"?!! That will come as a great surprise to the million or so arrested and imprisoned after Stalin's death (and an even greater surprise to the families of those murdered in Gulag during the period). See, for example, Wikip.'s own article on the subject. For a more thorough investigation of Gulag Post-Stalin, see the Gulag Archipelago. Harrowing stuff. Even worse is your suggestion that the apotheosis of the terror systenm that kept Stalin (and yes, his sucessors!) in power is "not worth mentioning." That is as absurd as it is grotesque. (See patent nonsense) Literally tens of millions passed through Gulag's maw, and it was intrumental in underpinning the political and social apparatus of the Soviet state, as well as being directly responsible (through slave labor) such massive projects as the Belomorkanal The suggestion that it is not worth mentioning is an insult to the millions of victims of Soviet State terror. While an editor more expert than I should add the section (the authors of the Gulag article spring to mind) I willl add the necessary passage, if no one else does. Reimelt 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Gulag Arch. is not a "thorough investigation" by any encyclopedia standards; in fact, its author claims it is "fiction-research" ("художественное исследование") whatever that means. He and his co-authors are biased, very bitter about the whole system, and mad at the world, as is any unfair prisoner kept in horrible conditions in any dirt-poor country. This is not to say that eyewitness accounts are not important, or that this horrible thing never happened, but the silly stereotype that the USSR throughout its whole history was nothing but a big Gulag is what I find "absurd and grotesque".
The imaginary army of ruthless "Stalin's successors" that supposedly thrived on Gulag consists of: Nikita Khrushchev, who shut the place down and started a major anti-Stalin campaign.
I don't care if Gulag is mentioned in this article or not, I just don't want emotional people writing Solzhenitsyn-dominated history articles in the encyclopedia. Guinness man 09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First, where did I say an "army" of sucessors? Second, Nikita was not the only sucessor to use prison camps, it continued (but by no means thrived) up to and including Breshnev. Next, where did I say that the CCCP was nothing but a big gulag?

More important, you translate,'"художественное исследование", as "fiction research," implying that G. Arch. is meant to be fiction. This is either a matter of poor translation, or deliberate apology. The phrase in English is "literary investigation;" there is no implication in the phrase that G.A. is anything but his attmpt to give a non-fiction account. If you have evidence that contradicts the book, by all means point to it; please don't use a mistranslation of the phrase that describes the book's style as evidence of the veracity of the contents. Moreover, Solzhenytsyn is "biased" because he lived through it? Of course he's biased against Gulag, what victim would not be One is reminded of Churchill's immortal response when he was accused of bias in his journalism: "I refuse utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire." Additionally, what, pray, is an "unfair prisoner"[sic]? And, yes, S. is angry--why shouldn't he be? How does this invalidate his eye-witness account?

Gulag Arch. aside, If you really believed that Krushchev completely shut down the Gulag, then why on Earth aren't you busy editing the entry on "Gulag" instead of accusing fellow editors of being "emotional" (whatever that means in this context) with no evidence about an issue (the inclusion of Gulag) you concede you don't care about. On reflection, yes, my comments here are emotional--the systematic murder of a million and a half innocent people tends to do that. However, that's why it's here in Talk, and not in the encyclopedia article itself. Sir, as I have not chaged even a commma on the article itself, don't you think it's a bit premature to warn of Solzhenitsyn-dominated anything. More to the point, I do not think (and never suggested) S.'s book is by any means the last word in Gulag research; however, that the Soviet government imprisoned millions post-Stalin is admitted by the Soviet and now Russian goivernment itself. Finally, I note that you comment not at all on the (yes, Post-Stalin) construction projects that relied on gulag slave labor.

I still hope that my OP will garner commments from fellow editors who are able to give a list of Soviet leaders beyond Stalin that consist of more than a single name. Surely, there must be someone more informed than this! I remain convinced that an article about the CCCP that doesn't include GULAG is like an article on Germany without showa. Reimelt 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When the issue boils down to what to include and what not to include, it really is a partial decision. For instance, in the Wikipedia article on the US, I saw nothing about the Japanese internment camps during WWII. What parameters should be set for deciding?

And what does Germany have to do with "showa?" Kozlovesred 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Showa is a less popular transliteration of the hebrew for "calamity." More commonly Sho'ah or shoah. It refers to the holocaust. As to parameters--that's exactly the discussion I'd like us to have. A quick glance at the Wikipedia entry for gulag seems to demand a short section and link here as millions were imprisoned for many years and at least a million were killed. I'm all for a short reference to Japanese interment in the U.S. article (although, of course any equivalence here is, to be blunt, ludicrous.) One caution here, however, even if the U.S. article, or the article on, say, Pol Pot are incomplete, that really has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with an article on the Soviet Union. If you mean that it is inconsistent to include the camps of the S.U. and not the U.S., I agree, let's include both in their respective entries. However, let's tackle the article that this page discusses, without enlarging the problem. Reimelt 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Showa!" You learn something new everyday!

I suppose my only concern has to do with the inclusion serving as a portal to a pathological anti-communism; not the kind that loathes Stalin and his crimes, but the Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest type, which paint the USSR in the worst possible light in all circumstances. The US article is incomplete for a reason. The anti-communist propaganda drilled into people's heads from a young age serves a purpose. Kozlovesred 04:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for balance here. It seems to me the section should be short, link to the real gulag article. and emphasize that the overwhelming impact of Gulag was under Stalin. Still, it should make clear that prison camps did not evaporate with the death of J.S. Telling the truth about Gulag needn't devolve into antii-soviet propaganda, especially if the lion's share of the fault is assigned to Stalin. 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gulag should be mentioned. But there should be no separate section on the Gulag. All topics in Soviet history-- from the Gulag to glasnost-- is supposed to be covered under the single "history" section. So I added content on the subject in the history section. [1] 172 | Talk 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

" Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote the creativity and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy."

I find this to be bious. If the industry lags in quality and efficiency because of heavy bureaucracy of central planning, then individual creativity is not the solution. Creativity would be the means to improve quality and efficiency but not strictly the strategy. It implies that creativity is a value in itself and that everyone should choose the creative worker. It's derived from market economy where this consept is used as a competitive advantage. The correct solution to the bureaucracy of the central planning is to change the bureaucratic form of administration. You can't have creativity if you don't create better conditions for it. On the other hand you shouldn't scrap an entire government system just because it causes insufficient production with quality. The current notion talks about an absolut and a trademark in competition and ignores the past system of the Soviet Union. It is as if we shouldn't even consider other systems than the market economy. This should revised. Teemu Ruskeepää

Interesting point, could you write how you think the section should read here? Note, it took a long time to get to this version so we should be careful about changing it. See above: Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 4#Cite_sources. - FrancisTyers 15:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I find these form of word to be neutral: "Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote flexibility and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy."
or
"Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to respond to the complex demand of industry of a highly developed, modern economy."

[edit] Box too big?

The box seems too big because of the large sized map.


Hi, thanks for noticing that, I must have missed that vandalism. Cleaning up now... - FrancisTyers 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is very bad

It contains mostly biased pro-Soviet description of the SU in 1980ties, but the SU existed 70 years. The Council of Europe about the SU: http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/Eres1481.htm Xx236 14:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is the Council of Europe? Why they not write a similar declaration about the fascism in Spain or Portugal in the second half of the XX century? In Spain there are already a thousands of fascists.

You should probably take that up with the United States Library of Congress. Can you point to any specific biased pieces of prose in the article? - FrancisTyers 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How a text about a non-existing state can describe mostly its last ten years of existence and omit the other 60? Which text has been generated by the USL? The one in the WIkipedia? Where is the border between the Wikipedia and the USL? Xx236 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How is what the Council of Europe saying about the SU NOT biased as well? Kozlovesred 17:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, prove that the SU didn't murder tens of millions, didn't introduce total censorship, didn't destroy the Orthodox church and many other churches. Xx236 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to read Talk:Soviet_Union/Archive_4#Cite_sources. - FrancisTyers 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Katyn crime? 1940. Nothing. You may check if the massacres of prisoners after the German invasion are described under 1941. Xx236 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that for the last comment that you may have polish simplaties, and your lack of respect towards the USSR can show that. Messhermit 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Quoting User:172:
The text is almost entirely adapted from public domain text from the Library of Congress Country Studies/Soviet Union. Each point can be verified by doing searches on relevant key words from the site linked to the bottom part of the article. The LOC text may not be perfect, and it may have somewhat of a slight Cold Warrior bias (though not nearly as overt as anything published by Soviet researchers about the U.S.). But all of it is solidly anchored in the scholarly literature on Russian and Soviet studies and easily verifiable. (Their own list of references is almost always impressive.)
If you think something isn't referenced I'd encourage you to provide a specific example. - FrancisTyers 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm also not exactly a lover of the bureaucracy in the SU, but I am also aware that there is a large Western bias AGAINST it, bordering on the pathological, and that should be considered. There's a huge double standard when it comes to describing anything SU and anything West. Take, for instance, the FDR or Churchill page, which wax elegant about their "personal charm," hardly mentioning anything about Churchill's "butchering at Gallipoli." Did the SU murder millions? Yes, it did, but so did the US, either directly or indirectly, and you don't see anything so general as that in ITS article. Did the SU introduce censorship? Yes, it did, but what about the US during WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and right now? Did the SU destroy the Orthodox Church? It depends on which period you're talking about. I'm not justifying the crimes of the bureaucracy, but a pathological hatred against the SU has no place on Wikipedia. If one is going to apply such general epithets against the Soviet Union, without any contextual basis for their claims, much less an understanding of WHY they happened, (implying simply that the bureaucracy was composed of just a bunch of "evil" "bloodthirsty" tyrants), I will delete it. This is not how history is done. Kozlovesred 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a pro-Soviet bias in many Western texts. Cold war - really. Xx236 14:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And you are gonna make it less bias with pro-polish info? Messhermit 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have several arguments of the same kind for you

  • the foreigners (Stalin, Dzierzynski) were responsible,
  • the Jews were responsible,
  • there is an international anti-Soviet conspiracy, which produces false documents.

Xx236 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


The problem is one of proportion. The US didn't send millions of its own people into forced labour camps. It certainly did NOT censor as consistently as the USSR. Censorship in the US was intermittent and limited; it was a fact of life in the USSR from 1917 until 1991 (and beyond). Kozlovesred, I have a feeling you want to be "fair"; but equating things that are not equal does not make you NPOV. Cvereb 11:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha! It did: during the Great Depression of the 30s thousands of people, most of them "army age" 18-25 were sent to massive labour camps in the 1930s to avoid revolutions and civil unrest. Same years. And censorship in USSR was CANCELED in 1960s by Khrushev ( at least to some extent)--Davydov 23:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

By Jove, Davydov led me to remember! If the projects like the TVA after the Great Depression weren't forced labor camps, then what was? And that was millions we're talking about.. Kozlovesred 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the US did not send millions of its own people into forced labor camps, but then we're talking about the US, not the USSR, a section of the world with its own history and rate of development. Censorship in the US was introduced frequently in the 20th century, and there is every right to believe that it will be again. Besides, I'm sure you're aware of the pervasive socialization process in the US, quite the powerful propaganda machine. Also, the USSR didn't have a progressive liberal past; it had only a feudal one to contend with. The purpose of my above rant was to highlight the double standard behind historical analysis. And this is nothing strange. History is a cooperative affair. Let's try to make it as neutral as possible. Kozlovesred 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this is pov, discuss it in the talk

Am I dreaming? You call the genocide "separation"? Do you understand meaning of words? I can imagine your "pov" version of the Holocaust. Xx236 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edits on Wikipedia are only regarding Poland and the Baltic States. You are far more biased that any other person, trying to portrait the history of those contries as the only ones who suffered WWII. Restrain then, of complaining about Non-existent POV, since the only one that is pushing one is you. Messhermit 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you please not teach me? ~I'll do what I want. Do I understand you correctly that Poles and citizens of Baltic States are people don't have the right to discuss? Xx236 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, do what you want. Somebody would make sure to get rid of your biased information. Messhermit 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole text is biased. There are thousends of books describing Soviet crimes, crazy economy, censorship. How is it possible to ignore everything? Xx236 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And by writing everything that is bad makes it a NPOV article? You are more than welcome to help, but with reliable and unbiased sources of course, not mere nationalism. Messhermit 19:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious groups

What happened to religious people between 1917 and 1980? No word here about the persecutions. Xx236 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

if you have NPOV sources, and being able to discuss them here in the talk page, you are more than welcome to help. Just remember to not push a POV. Messhermit 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Solshenitsin NPOV? I believe he has described the fate of Orthodox clergy in Gulag. What NPOV sources have you got? Soviet laws? Xx236 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Solzenetzyn is far from NPOV. Kozlovesred 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Solzenetzyn is a dissident. Do you think that his opinion about the USSR is NPOV? I believe that he is a good writer and historian, but I would not rely on him that much for political opinions. Messhermit 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

From the section on Religious groups:

Government persecution of Christians continued unabated until the fall of the Communist government.

From the main article Religion in the Soviet Union:

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities have sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime's own purposes; but their ultimate goal has been to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.

I find it hard to believe that there is no mention of persecutions when the article explicitly mentions persecutions. I think a more careful reading of the article would allay some of your worries that some aspects of the Soviet Union aren't covered appropriately. I would encourage you to make specific complaints about sections of the article. - FrancisTyers 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The article Religion in the Soviet Union, but not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union calls extermination - separation. When KGB nominated Orthodox bishops it's not "separation" but styate control over the Orthodox church. Xx236 12:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Rooting out superstition and backwardness required drastic measures, and for that the Bolsheviks under Lenin should be commended, not blamed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kozlovesred (talk • contribs).

[edit] ===========================================

Mr Anonim, do you mean that if special atheistic forces destroy 100 000 churches in the USA and kill one million of religious people, the GNP will radically grow? Xx236 12:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The material conditions have to be addressed first. But there is no doubt that religion should go the way of the dinosaur. We live in the 21st century! Kozlovesred 16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're crazy to think that people should be murdered, exiled, imprisoned, or tortured over something as petty as religion. The only things that should "go the way of the dinosaur" are the anceint and barbaric ideologies of the Soviet Union, which were just shadows of Dark Age rule. --IronMaidenRocks 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is very bad2

It describes in biased pro-Soviet way the SU in the 1980-ties. It's not an article about an existing state, beacuse the SU doesn't exist any more. It's not an historical article, because it concentrates on the 1980-ties. Xx236 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if you've read through the History of the Soviet Union series of articles? - FrancisTyers 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read hundreds of texts, including Russian ones, about the SU and used to live under Soviet occupation. I doubt very much that I can learn something more. The texts your like describe the SU as it was 1989 (or maybe as it was seen in 1989, before the archives were opened. It's a snapshot. You may write your text "Soviet Union in 1989". "Soviet Union" should describe 70+ years.

Xx236 14:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is not very good indeed. With such a subject we are reaching the limits of NPOV. One has to be very cautious when editing. I scrapped a few words saying that Russia invaded the Baltic states before WWII "to prevent Nazi invasion": that seemed not-so-subtly non-neutral. Russia had its own, less disinterested motives such as expanding its own sphere. So, rather than keeping just that one motivation, I remomved these words. Cvereb

Thje article is "very good" the same like "Soviet democracy" was democratic or "Soviet economy" was economic. Xx236 13:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the USSR "aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe" sounds really gross. They didn't send funds for reconstruction (they couldn't possibly have done so) and prevented Eastern European countries from accepting the Marshall plan. I think they exploited Eastern Europe, but don't have facts or sources to back it up. They are known to have dismantled factories in former German territories to rebuild them in the USSR. It would be closer to the truth to say that the USSR "was aided by Eastern Europe". To remain NPOV, let's just say that they "extended their influence on Eastern Europe", or something to that effect. Cvereb 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

but don't have facts or sources to back it up

The Soviet Union DID aid postwar reconstruction in Eastern Union. Tons of supplies and lots of workers were sent to rebuild the economy. You can accuse USSR of political mistakes but not with NOT helping the new created Soviet controlled states. Just the opposite: the Soviet Union strived to build communism in GDR and other republics, therefore investing heavily in their economy. --Davydov 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that it is you versus the Library of Congress, you had better have some very good sources to back you up before you make any changes. - FrancisTyers 15:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the LC supports Soviet propaganda. Maybe they don't have funds to review, what an ignorant wrote in 1989? But they have written: "Instead, the Soviet Union compelled Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe to supply machinery and raw materials." The SU delivered machinery and raw materials to construct ironworks in Communist countries. The technology (and ecology) was obsolete and the quality of the machinery was low. I don't know what the prices were. Poland had to deliver coal, almost free. Even Polish Communists protested in 1956. Xx236 12:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Polish POV for hense, it's non-valid. Messhermit 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Than kyou for you explanation - Soviet bias is O.K., facts about Soviet crimes aren't O.K..

But Wikipedia isn't Gulag. Xx236 08:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The main objective of Wikipedia is to present a fair an accurate NPOV version of historical events. In these article, we are not pointing out that Everything was good in the USSR. That would be a violation of the NPOV policy. However, your clear anti-soviet POV, reaganism and polish/baltic nationalism are clearly a POV. Once you get rid of those feelings, feel free to come and make interesting and reasonable contributions. Messhermit 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Once you learn the Soviet history, feel free to contribute. Xx236 12:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just responding to the point about the USSR dismantling German factories, this happened in the West too. Many politicians in the West wanted to turn Germany into an agricultural country with little industry. in 1945, there were no firm plans what to do with the 4 occupation zones. It was only as the Cold War escalated and the West saw the advantages of having a pro-Western government in(West) Germany that they introduced the currency reform and started helping to rebuild the country.

[edit] Orthodox church

From Libarary of Congress:

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities have sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime's own purposes; but their ultimate goal has been to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.

Xx236 09:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats from the Religion in the Soviet Union article. - FrancisTyers 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious groups vs. Religion in the Soviet Union

The text "Religious groups" describes probably an another country than "Religion in the Soviet Union", because they are so different. Xx236 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad you're discussing this on the talk page. So, please present how you would rewrite the Religion section. I have pasted the original below for reference, please do not alter it. Please bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The state was separated from church by the Decree of Council of People's Comissars 1918 January 23. Official figures on the number of religious believers in the Soviet Union were not available in 1989. But according to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially atheistic state, professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects, the Baptists (Protestants) suffering the most government persecution with children being forbidden to attend home services and church leaders frequently imprisoned. Government persecution of Christians continued unabated until the fall of the Communist government. There were many churches in the country (7500 Russian Orthodox churches in 1974). Although there were many ethnic Jews in the Soviet Union, actual practice of Judaism was rare in Communist times. Jews were the victims of state-sponsored anti-semitism and were one of the few Soviet citizens allowed to emigrate from the country. What you mean - it is rare? Thera are several Judaic sinagogues in SU, e.g. in Moscow. Also, why do you think buddhists number in USSR was less than Jews? Please note, Jews are mainly urban population, more government-controlled and atheistic. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on spiritualism. The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

Proposed version:

[edit] This article is very bad3

Calling Soviet genocide "Separation of the church" is a lie. Stop your Soviet propaganda. Xx236 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you call Soviet Genocide? Messhermit 13:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Messhemit, you asked me to not discuss with you - respect your words. I call "Soviet Genocide" the murders of religious people in the SU, both Soviet citizens and people under Soviet occupation Xx236 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to stop using baseless acussations and written them in my personal page. I asked for your concept of Soviet Genocide, plain and simple. Messhermit 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I know of several Russians that lived under Soviet regime and some of them were very religious and they were respected. They also told me stories about the reconstruction of several Churches in USSR after WWII and Revolution and some of those people and/or their relatives contributed to those reconstructions. In my perspective it's dubious that there was any kind of anti-religious Genocide taking that into consideration. 201.129.240.39 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Sometimes religion was tolerated, at other times it was reprimanded, sometimes both in different parts of the state, but it was never encouraged and there were periods when continous waves of repression against religious institutions and leaders were carried out. Under these circumstances, the policy called "Ну, погоди!" appeared meaning that although people might interpret a lessening of repressions against the Church as a change in policy, soon enough other instances of reprisal would follow, although the wolf usually was defeated at the end of these regular episodes. TSO1D 17:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard comming from these Russians I know is that in school they were taught that Religion was something like a "fable" rather than something true thus meaning Soviet state tried to make religious faith to gradually dissapear. Knowing that, religious leaders could have done "anti-state-policies" movements which could have led to repression of those movements, nonetheless I truly doubt that a person would be repressed just because of believing in any certain religion. 201.129.240.39 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

They were though, especially certain groups like the Baptists. In the case of the dominant Orthodox Church, the vast body of its followers was not repressed but dissuaded from participating in religious activities, while the clergy suffered greatly, even being exterminated in some areas. TSO1D 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The official point of view is: The communistic ideology take the place of the pre-revolution Church. So, the state religion always confront the others. In most cases this leads to some social restrictions - clearly religious citizen cannot afford high social position. This is not any sort of genocide, of course, but some freedom restriction. But is it possible to imagine e.g. US State Secretary - satanist at 50-s?

[edit] Winter War and Finland

Although Stalin tried to cooperate with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, which involved the engagement of Red Army into Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the invasion of Poland in 1939.

Image:Russianairforceinfinland1939.jpg
Red Army fleet over Finland (1939)

In late november of the same year, the Soviet Union demanded Finland strategical islands and ports (Petsamo's convoited nickel stores). The Finnish ministers tried frantic negociations with Stalin, in answer, the latter asked the Finns to move back their border from 30km. President Kallio refused and the negocations failed, ensueing the 1939-1940 Finland Winter War. The five fronts conflict, targeting ports such as Petsamo and the capital, started by the 30th of november in the morning, with the Red Army's bomber fleat attacking Helsinki before the heavy infantry starts its offensive on military and non-military Finnish positions. Commander Mannerheim took the lead of the Finnish army, adopting the guerilla tactics a 4 million people country only can afford to confront a 180 million people superpower and the world's first army. Where the Red Army send modern tanks, Mannerheim's partisans used to hide limited artillery pieces and employ alpine skiing white dressed men, sleds and horses as the only efficient way to transport men and troops by the 40/50-below zero Arctic winter. Applying Mannerheim's words "Nothing but scorched earth cursed by God will fall into Russian hands. The Finland of today will never fail thus we stand for the right in the name of democracy, we'll live in shining light through all of tomorrows of eternity", the Finns adopted the scorched earth policy used before by Russians against Napoleon's Grand Army. They destroyed their own villages thus depriving their enemy of shelter and supplies, forcing him to seek frozen food in junks. [citation needed] The Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. It has been debated that the Soviet Union had the intention of invading Germany once it was strong enough. The Red Army stopped the Nazi offensive, with the Battle of Stalingrad from late 1942 to early 1943 being the major turning point, and drove through Eastern Europe to Berlin before Germany surrendered in 1945 (see Great Patriotic War). Although ravaged by the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as an acknowledged superpower.

There is probably a call for a sentence or two on the Winter War, but not nearly this much information, the article is big enough already and this is probably covered in the History of the Soviet Union series of articles. - FrancisTyers 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I surely need to make it shorter but this historical episode is not mentioned with as much historical details on the history of the Soviet Union article, you should have checked it before removing my work! This article is already too large without this episode. Removing everything about the Russian blitzkrieg is not a lenght problem, but a political problem. Without the Finland War paragraph, there is no mention about the Soviet Union agression in Finland, forgetting the pain, dying, and destruction bring by the Red Army in a peaceful democracy. Only remains the Soviet Union "positive" episode against the Nazis, and this is quite unfair and partisan don't you think?
  • Also what about my reference to a popular movie aka Star Wars someone also removed? Where's the problem? Pop culture is as much important and is part of History. EnthusiastFRANCE 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your first point I agree, the Winter War should be mentioned, as I previously stated, although it should be mentioned in an NPOV manner. Regarding the second point, popular culture does not belong here. Make a new article called References to the Soviet Union in popular US culture or something. Could you condense your paragraph to a sentence here and then we can think about including it. The Winter War certainly was interesting but we do not want to give it undue weight. - FrancisTyers 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you FrancisTyers, it should definately be mentioned but in a much more encyclopaedic manner. I removerd the reference to Star Wars because it is irrelevent to an article on the Soviet Union and I found its placement in the article jarring. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
EnthusiastFRANCE, please make your suggestion here before you include it in the article so we can go about achieving consensus and fixing your spelling and grammatical errors. :) - FrancisTyers 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Repost.

  • Alright then. I made a short sentence about this events. I'm sorry for my English but this is not my native language as my nickname give you an hint. I use the French punctuation which is based on breath with "," for the "incise" (as both linguist and French spoker Francis would understand this). You can freely edit my words as long as you keep the original idea.
  • About pop culture, i'm ok with creating a such sideway article.
  • About the citation request on Mannhereim, i'm not the kind of person to speak without quoting, that's the reason why I've added my sources on the Reference section of this article, same goes for the picture. It was done the same day i've made the Finland section.

EDIT: ok no problem about this. EnthusiastFRANCE 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So here is the sentence: "In late november 1939, unable to obtain strategical Finnish ports control (Petsamo) in a diplomatic way, Staline conducted a blitzkrieg in Finland, known as the Winter War." (mistakes as well)

  • To Scaife, you sure know what you're talking about when speaking about poor language with such magnificent errors such as "porr", "sytaxtical", "Finnland" etc. right? So please keep being polite.EnthusiastFRANCE 23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, sarcasm is lost on you. :) --23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks about that... How about this:
In late November 1939, unable to gain control of the strategic port of Petsamo by diplomatic means, Stalin ordered for the invasion of Finland.
- FrancisTyers 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Das ist gut! (für meinen Freund Scaife), perfect Francis, couldn't have done better myself hehe! (je n'aurai pas mieux fait, faites comme chez vous). Write at your ease. ;) EnthusiastFRANCE 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem :)) (ce n'est pas un problem) I'd write more in French, but my French writing is horrible... there is a reason I only advertise fr-1 :) - FrancisTyers 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So I'll do your English to French translation in the French Wiki... :) By the way I'm planning to build a "Nazi Treachery" page here in the English Wiki. It will document on unbelievable strategy such as Ally uniform dressed SS parachute dropping in Belgium, hospital, primary school and cemetary bombing in The Nederlands, air raid on La Croix Rouge (Red Cross?) convoy in Belgium and Spain etc. EnthusiastFRANCE 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, let me know if you want me to check it over for spelling grammar, I'm always glad to proof read other peoples work :) I've created a few articles on fr.wiki, but I haven't managed to avoid making a mistake yet. fr:Frantz Fanon, fr:Expédition antarctique soviétique and fr:Heyoka are some of the ones I've started - as you can see in quite a bad state :). - FrancisTyers 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population

We've had a little back and forth trying to get an accurate story of population change. It is extremely important to keep the periods (dates) in mind to avoid overgeneralizing about birth and death rates. The BSE (Great Soviet Encyclopedia) is not the most reliable source of information because it seems to avoid some of the blank spots, especially the well documented evidence of mortality increases among working age males and among infants in the 1970s. The previous version of this article that I amended referred to the situation through 1974. That's a bit of an artful choice of years by the BSE, since it was really in 1974 that the infant mortality rates rose sharply, and shortly thereafter the government literally stopped publishing mortality data for several years. When it resumed such publication in the latter 1980s, it did not comment on the reasons for the infant mortality increases. However, with respect to the rise in adult male mortality, certain Russian and French demographers (Shkolnikov and Mesle among them), came up with some convincing analyses that focused on alcoholism as a major culprit.

I would add that just referring to regional differences in geographic terms (north, south) misses the important cultural fact that the high fertility rates in Central Asia were conditioned on values -- and were not simply a result of slow urbanization. Culture/religious traditions shouldn't be masked by more generic "regional" language.

I've tried to be faithful to the efforts of other authors in this section, but have been adding well documented facts based on expert analyses and not relying on an encyclopedia that glosses over the demographic reality and in any case only includes data through 1974. I hope to add more detail and citations in due course.Mack2 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Later: I accept cmapm's advice about the Shkolnikov citation, since it carries the timeframe to post-Soviet Russia. But Shkolnikov along with Vallin, Mesle, and others, have done fundamental (and, I might add, politically dispassionate) work trying to untangle the patterns and causes of the mortality trends in the USSR in general as well as in Russia during the Soviet era and later.

I've supplied alternative citations that refer strictly to the Soviet era, though regional differences within the USSR are important to note and have been slighted throughout the USSR article as a whole.

Another important lacuna in the article is any detailed discussion of the period of collectivation (though it is mentioned briefly). It's an important reference in the context of the population section because collectivation, war, and famines were times of net population declines. Mortality rises and fertility declines in these periods. I note the Wikipedia article on "Ukrainian famine," which, however, tends to focus on this as a case of genocide and doesn't give enough attention to the evidence of famine outside of Ukraine in the same year. But that's a different subject. "Collectivization" deserves a separate article in Wikipedia.Mack2 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dilemma with Soviet losses in WW2

I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. Here are the facts:
1- The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that gave data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males.
2-The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.9 million confirmed dead plus 1.8 million POW and MIA deaths combined. They claim 4.5 million POW & MIA less 2.7 liberated in 1945.
3-The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA.
4-Most western historians( I could make a list) give Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA
5-An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004 a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with decent footnotes) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. His number of POW and MIA seems more credible than 1.8 million. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to war losses of 26.5 million
6-Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate.
7-Please go to my talk page --Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( now he is head of the military archives) who claims there is a card file in Russia with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead.
I really need the help of people in Wikipedia who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right--Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at these figures in some time, but may be able to check and add something. As you may know, for many years the "official" count of war dead (not talking about populatioin deficit but rather about actual number killed -- both civilian and military) was "20 million" -- a nice, round "political number." To my knowledge, in about 1988 or so analysts in Goskomstat itself finally addressed this (e.g., E. Andreyev) and published an estimate of 27 or 28 million (as I recall). There is no true "body count" to work with, partly because it's not always obvious which civilian deaths to label as "war losses," and partly because any reckoning of a counter-factual argument usually relies a lot on evidence that's very trick to use correctly, for example on infant deaths. During the siege, for example, Leningrad had infant mortality rates of over 200 per 1000 live births. But of course fertility was also down, and so these were high rates applied to a small birth cohort. And how many of these deaths should be attributed to civilian "war deaths"? After all, the "normal" infant mortality rate for that population was probably something on the order of 40 or 50 per 1000.

I hope someone can reconcile the POW and other data for you. But I think the estimate of total war dead is probably on the order of what Andreyev came up with.Mack2 00:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] project

Should I use this article as a source for my project?

You could do, make sure you cite it properly though. Alternatively you might like to check out the source of this article which is the very extensive country study by the Library of Congress you can find this by doing a google search for "soviet union" site:loc.gov. Hope this helps! - FrancisTyers 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union - Recognition

This article gives the date of recognition as February 1, 1924; recognition by whom? Recognition is given by different countries in different ways and at different times. I don't think that there was any general act of widespread international recognition on this date. Whom does the 1st Feb refer to?

Xdamr 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Recognition, i.e. establishment of diplomatic relations with the first major world's power. Please, click on the link February 1 to see, that it was recognized by the UK on that date. Italy, Austria, Greece, Norway, Sweden, China, Denmark, Mexico, France established dip. relations with the USSR later in 1924, Japan in 1925, USA - in 1933, I can provide exact dates for all of them, if you want; this inf. is provided in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia for all countries between 1918 and 1977. It's a pity, that even the article Foreign relations of the Soviet Union doesn't have any chronology of the dip. relation establishments, suspensions etc. Cmapm 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense

The large recently added section was word in word taken from MSN Encarta [2], this seems to be copyvio:see copyright notice on that page. I'm removing it. Feel free to revert my changes and give a rationale for this here. Cmapm 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate info

I believe, that the following excerpt should be reworded or removed: "Politically the USSR was divided (from 1940 to 1991) into 15 constituent or union republics — Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Estonian SSR, Georgian SSR, Kazakh SSR, Kirghiz SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Moldavian SSR, Russian SFSR, Tajik SSR, Turkmen SSR, Ukrainian SSR, and Uzbek SSR — joined in a strongly centralized federal union."

USSR contained some republics since its establishment, besides, in 1940-1956 it had 16, not 15 republics. Cmapm 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nukes

Why is the article on the Soviet Union illustrated with the picture of an ATOMIC BOMB exploding? While at the same time the article on the United States has no pictures of atomic bombs exploding! I am in no way siding the Soviet regime here, but I want to point out that the POV is obvious. If any of these articles should be illustrated with the A-bomb it should be the US. The USA was the first country to develop the atomic bomb, and in history, the USA is the only country that has used atomic bombs in war! Bronks 10:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Bronks. Anybody have any ideas over how to change this? Kozlovesred 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist?

AS a communist, I must say that the USSR, though proclaiming itself led by the Communist Party, is essentially a state capitalist nation. I wonder if I'm the only person who would like this changed, as it belittles and soils the name of communists everywhere. Mellesime 12:59, 04 May 2006

I disagree. It wasn't a state capitalist nation, for even though it degenerated into totalitarian dictatorship, the economic foundations established by the October Revolution were preserved until this criminal bureaucracy reintroduced capitalist property relations in 1991. Kozlovesred 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is true, not all forms of economy where the government is in control of distribution is communism. The expressed goal of Soviet leaders was communism, but it was never reached, and many of the leaders were probably insincere. I would support changing this article to describe the soviet economy as something other than communist, which as you can look up is the final stage of Marxism where among other things the government fades away. Obviously not the case for the S.U.

I agree with Mellesime, as a communist I also deny USSR being communist. Not only because a country claims to be something it actually is that. Mexico claims to be a democracy when pollitically only 23% of population governs for example. USSR employed both a market economy as well as money thus implying the establishment of capitalism, the difference with other economies: it was State runned and ATTEMPTED to apply socialist rules contradicting the nature of its economy, leading to its fall and soiling communism's name. USSR was a Capitalism of State nota Communist nor Socialist state. 201.129.240.39 17:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Society without money,how long would the USSR have lasted if it had no money? Capitalism was only allowed on a small scale.

1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R. Article 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsman based on their personal labour and precluding the exploitation of the labour of others. Dudtz 9/7/06 5:31 PM EST

Since this appears to be a somewhat controversial matter, there should probably at least be a mention of the fact that some charge the USSR of not actually being a communist state. Jeff Silvers 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, soviet economic system wasn't communism, only during Civil War was time without money named "War Communism". Offician doctrine of the late-Soviet leaders is the "Developed Socialism". Nobody knows that it is, by the other hand, nobody (at least here) can define soviet economics. May be it was namely "Developed Socialism"?
Gentlemen, the problem is that no country in the world has practiced theoritical communism. First of all, the word was a western title later adopted by these people. Karl Marx called it socialism but less extreem forms emerged and adopted that name. Communism demands that the economy be in teh hands of "the people", but you cannot have a government consisting of everyone. Since all communist countries have become so through revolution, the political party becomes the new government and are already defying their principles. Communism is suppose to be ruled by everyone, everyone is equal and makes a democratic choice, but its not democratic, its totalitarian. So, all communist countries are not truly socialist (where by society is equal) and therefore the answer to the question as to whos commmunist - no one is! Any true socialist government would collapse in anarchy.Tourskin 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union and anti-communist propaganda from a historical perspective

I just want you to read this article explaining why the West gets such a twisted view on the USSR, even after it's collapse: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28616

It's sick how the west carried on propaganda from Nazi Germany (The USSR being Hitlers greatest enemy).

-G

I am afraid you are the one that's sick. This is no different from Holocaust Denial. What are you a member of NBP? TSO1D 00:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Holocaust denial is when you deny the Holocaust. He or she did not deny the Holocaust. You fail 70.72.50.124 00:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of the following facts:
  • Used slave labor extensively on political prisoners
  • Stressed military output when nation could not even feed itself (bread queues, imported grain, Virgin land scheme failed)
  • Brutally crushed attempts by satellite states to be free (Hungayr, Czechoslovakia).
  • Stalin killed millions in the purges. The figure is not known, but its at least hundreds of thousands.
Come on, what tyrannical state enslaves its people? Gulag camps people, Gulag.Tourskin 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In the United States, prisoners are sometimes sentanced to hard labour. In Russia, people were arrested for being not Communist enough, in the states, people are arrested for being Arabs.
  • Russia has never, ever been able to feed itself. It was surrounded on all sides with enemies.
  • Most countries also brutally crush rebels. Throw a few pipe bombs in New York and see what happens. I think you'll find yourself "brutally crushed" as well.
  • To this I have no refute. Stalin was indeed, bad.

[edit] Removed holidays

I've removed Old New Year and Orthodox Christmas from the list. I see their inclusion to be POV. They were not official holidays or non-working days. Besides, they were not specifically Soviet features. Even various Soviet "Days" are not on the list, although some of them were much more widely celebrated, than these two.

If non-official holiday Orthodox Christmas is on the list, then why other Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or non-official Buddhist, Muslim or Judaist holidays are not mentioned? Cmapm 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, those were two very odd subjects that the anonymous user added, especially the text accompanying them. Vox Populi (TSO) 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add, that our family is and was partially Orthodox and perhaps partially atheist and celebrated Orthodox Christmas, but... an inclusion of it here is obviously a POV, which is unfair to other religions. Cmapm 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Old New Year and Orthodox Christmas should be included anew. Even though they weren't official holidays they were celebrated by the main part of population. As for other religions - they were minorities in SU and obviously weren't so widespread. Dreambringer 09:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that these holidays weren't so widespread. More common is the usage of Old New Year as a cause for a small party, especially after the work. AFAIK about Chrismas it is also delegated many of its attributes to official New Year, thats why it is more church than family holiday.
Old New Year and Christmas should deffinitely be included. While not official holidays they are very widely known accross all the republics. To this day the holidays are celebrated, and even mentioned on TV stations. Also vacation for students in all public schools ends after the 14th, which again shows that the holiday, while not official, still is aknowledged by the government.
They are still celebrated, but Old New Year is even not listed in Public holidays in Russia, then why should it be listed here? Furthermore, as I said, there were a lot of mostly professional holidays, widely celebrated in all the republics, but they are not listed here, because they were working days. As to the question, which holiday was the "most widely celebrated", could you, please, provide citations, that holidays mentioned by you were more widespread, than for example, May 19, the day of establishment of the Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union, not speaking about April 22, Lenin's birthday. Both were huge holidays, but working days - how about including them? Cmapm 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Any idea why this article's title is "Soviet Union" and not "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? (Might it be related to the idiotic tendency to use acronyms, i.e. NASA, as article titles?) Paul 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The "idiotic" tendency you are referring to is actually a Wikipedia policy prescribing usage of the "most commonly used name". I personally somewhat dislike it too (I'd rather use official names), but if you study this, it would perhaps give you a better understanding of what it is about. There is actually some very good reasoning there. As for the "Soviet Union", apparently it is a much more commonly used name in English than "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a bad idea, but the right thing to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.124 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Graffiti...

Anybody have a clue why "HEMED MOHAMED IS A LAZY SON OF A BIZNITCH" is under History, and why it's impossible to remove through the edit page?

I don't see it so I guess someone was able to remove it after all. I remember seing that yesterday, but I though someone had reverted the page immediatly.Vox Populi (TSO) 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British/US Invasion of Newborn USSR

Why is this not even mentioned anywhere? This would seem to be the start of tensions between these powers. Practically the very first thing the USSR experiences is a foreign invasion by its future best friends, the United States and United Kingdom. Yet this aggressive act of war, which would cast a pall over the rest of the 20th century, is not even mentioned?? I think that this should be given at least a paragraph, as it is likely one of the defining moments of the last century.

It was no doubt a complicated course of events, but if you can make it into one paragraph decently, then by all means go for it! Kozlovesred 04:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the intervention should be mentioned somewhere, since it is one of the main reasons the USSR became what it was. Also, it would be good to add information regarding Kosygin's reforms, oil prices in 80's and the situation with Brezhnev, maybe some chart with oil prices by the year. This would show perfectly one of the factors why the USSR collapsed.

I agree, the western intervention in the civil war should be mentioned. But my compliments to the author, this is a very good article. Zhukov 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the West are the "good guys" and the mean old Commies are the "bad guys". So hush hush on France, Britian, the U.S. and Japan. Does Poland count?

-G

[edit] date of recognition

soviet sources say the date is July 23, 1923 so is it? sveral countries did recognize the USSR on that date, Finland, Germany, Turkey, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Poland, Iran.

[edit] Reasons for delisting

Hi all,

This article has been removed from the good article list because its references are insufficient for its length. Please consider using inline citations to make clear the source of content. I have added this article to the appropriate project for improvement. If you disagree with this delisting you can seek a review or if you feel the article has changed significantly to address these concerns you can renominate it.

Cedars 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

"22,402,200 km² (1st before collapse)" in the table, concerning the area. "1st before collapse" seems strange to me, because an inexistent state can hardly have a ranking. Moreover, its nominal successor state, Russia, is still 1st after its collapse. How about "22,402,200 km² (1st), before collapse"? Aran|heru|nar 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what...

"On September 4, 2006 Vladimir Putin issued a statement revealing that the Soviet Union had been reunited. All of the 15 countries referred to as the 'former Soviet Union' were once again annexed by Russia, and the Soviet Union was reborn. Wtf?"

XD

Someone has been watching a certain Simpsons episode.

-G

[edit] The Soviet ReUnion Fad

It appears some group of people have started a fad claiming the Soviet Union reformed Sep. 4, 2006 and have been posting this false statement on the History section. I have seen discussion of this on a certain, unnamed message board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vampyur (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Minor vandalism

Under History: "The Soviet Union was established in December 2037 as the union of the Russian (colloquially known as Bolshevist Russia), Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Transcaucasian Soviet republics ruled by Bolshevik parties." Obviously this is incorrect, but I don't know what the actual date for this event was, or even what they're talking about.

I fixed the problem by reverting to the previous version and warning the user. The page history article shows how to tell what the recent changes are and the vandalism article explains how to deal with vandalism when it is identified. JonHarder 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in the Culture section

As if samizdat was the main feature of the Soviet culture. The section should be a short summary of the Soviet culture, not a dissident-POV-article on censorship and a collection of links "for futher reading". Even that section of more ideologically strict DPRK is much better. Also compare it with "Culture" section in Vietnam article. Cmapm 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The main feature of the Soviet culture was censorship, persecution of writers, centralization (Party control).Xx236 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nukes reply

I can tell you why they put a picture of an atomic bomb. Whilst the soviet union was obssesed with nukes, the United States was helping Europe after the war. The Soviets simply replaced the Nazis.

  • What a pointless and stupid (and quite NAZI) affirmation.
What? What country used slave labor like the Nazis? The SOVIETS. The US helped Europe with the Marshal plan. Listen up all you commies, read ur history before you accuse the west!Tourskin 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
One, the Soviets were people, not a country. The USSR was a country. Two, I don't see how building nukes is Nazi-ish, nor do I see why slave labour is Nazi-ish. In fact, the USA did both, and (if I am correct) more so than the USSR, so the USA must be a Nazi haven. And in saying that the Soviets replaced the Nazis, you are obviously taking a clear point of view. They did completly different things. Wheras Hitler killed Jews, gays, Commies, and cetera, Stalin killed priests and people who didn't agree with him. Tourskin, anonymous poster, read your history before you post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.124 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Public holidays

The text from the holidays section was copied-and-pasted into Public holidays in the Soviet Union. I don't care where it will eventually end up, but it shouldn't be in two spots. ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The article is pretty damage by vandalism. Lock and repair the arictle? Tiwonk 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

May be it will be better to separate autonomus territories by republics? Also, there are a lack of Autonomous Okrugs, which are easily mixing with Oblasts.

[edit] Environmental section

EnglishEfternamn, you seem intent on excising this sourced section from the article. We don't need to provide direct links to written material, however they are sometimes given as a convenience. It seems to me as though you are gaming the cite system. However in this case all the material is available online. Criticism of Soviet contamination of the air,[3] water,[4] and land[5]. The quote given by the government minister[6]. Judging from the bibliography this book is well cited[7] and certainly reliable and verifiable.--RWR8189 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement is a little too sweeping to be covered by a single source, esp an objectivist (Randian) one. The source is valid but, in my opinion, the actual asssertion put forth needs to be reworded to address specific instances of eviromental impact, not just "the USSR killed the earth" by an openly anti-collectivist/communist source. NeoFreak 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am more than open to suggestions on how to reword the section without excising it completely.--RWR8189 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Find a specific incident or statistic or point that is backed in the book and then make and source that assertion here. What is/was there now is like someone saying "The Republican Party is the most damaging political institution in the United States" and then just citing a Michael Moore book. It doesn't work that way. As it is the first half of the edit needs to just be throw out. NeoFreak 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Aleksei Yablokov, an environmental advisor to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, once said if we compare the planet with a communal apartment, we occupy the dirtiest room. The Soviet practice of clustering industrial centers resulted in severe levels of air and water pollution. Due to this practice 3.3% of all Soviet land was classified as being in catastrophic condition and has been identified by specialists as irreparable.page 7 The disposal of industrial waste was such a problem that the government attempted to use nuclear weapons in order to create craters in which to dump the waste from the Bashkir metallurgical
centers of Sterlitamak and Salavatpg7 in pdf,pg131 in book The Chernobyl disaster is regarded as the worst accident ever in the history of nuclear power. A plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland and eastern North America.(taken from wiki article)

This is what I have so far, I'm open to any suggestions before putting it in the article.--RWR8189 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox needs to be fixed

The infobox should take the form of a former country infobox, as (obviously) the Soviet Union no longer exists. However, there is a great deal of information in the template which needs to be reformatted so that the Infobox will recognize it as such and post it. I am a bit inept at doing these things, so someone with more experience in fixing poorly-written infoboxes should try to repair it. Lockesdonkey 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Soviet achievement remained remarkable

Yes, especially in censorship, forced labour, propaganda.Xx236 15:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no fan of the Soviet system myself, but your remark strikes me as disingenuous at best. An article which would only describe Soviet "censorship, forced labor" and "propaganda" would not be any better than the said propaganda you are referring to. Just as any other country in the world, Russia (and the Soviet Union) had its ups and downs, times of enlightenment and dark ages. To paint any given period of country's history pitch black and to say nothing about achievements is NPOV violation of the worst degree in my book. You wouldn't say there were no achievements at all, would you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how well your nation does when it's invaded during your civil war, then again twenty years later then when your nation is suffering you're surrounded by enemies who create a military alliance against you (the same ones that invaded during the civil war). Let's see how "democratic" your nation would be after years of that. Remarkable the USSR lasted in such a hot bed of disgust. If imperialists accepted it and promoted it, this world would be a better place.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC). Not to mention being betrayed by Hitler, poor to begin with, and with many millitary officers being corrupt, (as well as many government officers).

Yes, I understand the tragedy of good-natured comrade Stalin, who was betrayed by Adolf Hitler. Confidence is typical during wars, Adolf Hitler for the first time in history attacked without former warning. Poor comrade Stalin...

And the invasion during the civil war, something unbelievable. Millions of imperialists came to stop the revolution. Happily they failed and the Soviet government was able to construct working camps for millions. The big success of the SU was the the biggest Holodomor in Europe during peace time.

I understand the imperialists who opposed the Soviet Union, their nature is imperialistic and evil. But the internal enemies were the worst ones. Such Lithuanian grandmas who conspired to pray in imperialistic roman-catholic churches -no, such crimes are unpardonable. Xx236 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Soviet"

I added a redirect notice so that people who are looking to find out what a Soviet is and so they type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet" into their URL bar have somewhere to go. The phrasing might be improved; please change it if you have a better way to word it.--Atemperman 18:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest attempts of article format changes

It's a pity, that users, who try to replace images and to introduce significant changes into the infobox don't use the talk page first. At least I object to making this article somewhat "outstanding". There is a bunch of articles on states with similar political systems i.e. with a single-party Communist rule, including former ones: SFRY, PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea. I suggest to look through them first to have a hint on which images should be present in them and what the infobox should look like. Cmapm 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government Leaders

Gorbachev isn't showing up on the main page under government leaders, although when I go to edit article everything seems to be correct. Not sure what the problem is. --Meesheek 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The template holds only 6 leaders, God knows why. The initial idea was to have only 4 entries: for first and last leaders and their deputies. What if a former country had 21 king? So I am posting the question in [[8]]. `'mikka 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
While there's no response, I tried to fix the template. Gorbachev seems to has come out of the mist :) Cmapm 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reverted with a suggestion to reduce number of leaders listed. I personally don't object to this as a link to the full list is present in the infobox in any case. Maybe we should expell Chernenko in favor of Gorbachev as the latter ruled longer? Cmapm 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

The following has been removed by Lowi, I think this was part of the LOC text, but don't want to revert until I have a source. I know that NKAO (now NKR) believes their declaration of independence to be inline with Soviet law.

"In the late 1980s, the constituent republics of the Soviet Union started asserting sovereignty over their territories or even declaring independence, citing Article 72 of the USSR Constitution, which stated that any constituent republic wasfree to secede."

- Francis Tyers · 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. I've found the following citation (and will add this into the article in a while) in the National Review of June 25, 1990 [9]:
"Thus, the Lithuanian declaration of independence (under Article 72, which unconditionally guarantees the right "freely to secede") came on March 11, and the law making it illegal was dated April 3. The day before, the Supreme Soviet had banned incitement to ethnic or territorial division, with draconian penalties for separatist agitation."
Also, e. g. in Lithuania legal steps towards independence were made back in 1988, when its Supreme Soviet allowed usage of tricolour in place of the Soviet flag - see Lithuanian flag. I'm not sure whether this is worth inclusion into the article, however. Cmapm 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good find, thanks. I don't think the specifics of Lithuanian independence belong in this article. Perhaps in History of Lithuania and History of the Soviet Union. - Francis Tyers · 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As concerns the flag, alright, this seems specific to me as well. Cmapm 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed image for Coat of Arms

The one used in the Italian language article is much clearer and better-looking, so I switched it to that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErikB (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, this image is a corrected SVG version, and at a first glance it doesn't have significant differences from the sourced version. I'll look at it more closely later (tomorrow perhaps) and update image description page, providing a link to the sourced version. Cmapm 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks very close to the original, thanks to the great work by F l a n k e r, who corrected a plenty of errors of the original uploader, which were discussed here. Cmapm 12:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/v/Talk%7ESoviet_Union_cb69.html"