User talk:Ben-Velvel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Latvia

Can you please state some of your sources, where are you getting that from? What you're adding doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Who are these "international communists bolsheviks"? At that point in time, there were generally only communists in Russia/USSR, you're talking about the 30s here. Saying that Arajs' group shot most Latvian Jews is contradictory to every source I've seen. Yes, the Latvian group under Arajs shot many, but where do your numbers to say "most" come from? Finally, Latvia becoming an industrial country during Soviet times is not correct, Latvia was annexed in 1940, but the VEF factory, most notably, was producing its electronic devices at an earlier time, mostly in the 30s and before World War 2, that is, during independent Latvia. Of course, the Soviet Union did try to industrialize all of its parts, but Latvia had some advanced industry prior to that and parts of it were actually hurt during Soviet times.

Also, are you Latvian by any chance?

I'll aprreciate your comments. Thanks! Solver 15:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about the 10s-20s here. In 1917-1922 among communists there were representatives of many nationalities of Russian empire, of Germany, Austria, Hungary etc. Trotsky is jew, Dzerzhinsky is Pole, Peters is Latvian, the famous bolshevist troops Red Arrows are Latvian. During civil war in Russia 1917-1922 significant part of the Latvian military troops (created during the First world war) battled on the side of bolsheviks (Red Arrows). The bolshevist agencies of state security were headed by Latvians Peters and Latsis. VeF in presoviet time is a workshop, during Soviet time - a huge factory. During Soviet time automobile factories, bulk-oil ports have appeared

Ben-Velvel

There's a difference between nationality and country - национальность and гражданство, if you wish. You can say that the Soviet system had little to do with Russians - Trotsky and Sverdlov are Jews, Stalin was Georgian, and so on. Or, for example, Hitler was actually Austrian. Yes, there were bolsheviks of many nationalities, Russians, Latvians, Jews, Poles, others. Many Latvian Riflemen were on the Red side, that is also correct, but was already mentioned in the article anyway.
The VEF "Workshop" actually created the Minox, which is probably the most important invention, in 1937, before soviet times. During Soviet times many other factories appeared, including those for large machinery (most notably RAF I think), but it is then not correct to say that Latvia became an industrial country then. You could say, though, that Latvia was further industrialized with more factories.
Remember that Wikipedia doesn't really approve of terms such as "Became larger", "became better", "a large part of", etc. Instead, specific numbers or facts should be used, and sources are neccessary. For example, if you want to change some information about the Latvian riflemen fighting on either side, you need a good source with numbers - how many fought on this side, how many fought on that side. I would agree that the article on Latvia needs some more information on the Soviet period (would belong better in History of Latvia and not Latvia) but such information should conform with Wikipedia standards. Solver 15:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
At this time (1917-1920) the word Russian already means not the country, but a nationality (Russian empire has already broken up). You cannot write truthful (neutral) article) about Latvia if have forgotten Arajs group or red riflemen
Ben-Velvel
What's your first language, is it Russian? In English, it's not really obvious what "Russian communists" would refer to - nationality or communists from Russia. Also, Russia is very commonly used to also refer to the Russian part of the USSR in 1917-1991. Anyhow, this point is irrelevant unless you want to start categorizing each person that was of importance in Soviet times by nationality. What is relevant is the Latvian article, which quite clearly says (in History of Latvia) that Latvian riflemen fought on the Russian side. I'd like to ask you to revert your latest changes to Latvia - you say "In civil war in Russia 1917-1922 Latvians battle on both sides of the conflict, but mainly support bolsheviks". To make a statement about "mainly supporting bolsheviks", you need to show a source that shows specific numbers from which it's obvious that mainly bolsheviks were supported. In the absence of that, you can't make such a statement, so please revert then.
Please state what other edits you would like to make to the History of Latvia article. I appreciate your desire to expand on the articles, but again, it has to be neutral and with sources. As for Arajs and red riflemen, the red riflemen are mentioned in History of Latvia, and Arajs is mentioned in the same article (also mentioned in The Holocaust), and both articles do mention what the Arajs group did.
If you disagree with what I say, I guess I will ask another editor with knowledge of the subject and a history of edits about Latvia-related articles to comment. Thanks! Solver 16:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you want, that in article History of Latvia was no mention of red Latvian riflemen at all? Two red divisions were formed from Latvians.

http://www.museum.ru/C6944 http://www.tassphoto.com/?section=3310_0&date=2004-11-09&offset=420&sessid=6a500ce26c083c989fc8ae85a5555bb9 http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/068/938.htm (article of encyclopediae). Vatsetis, Berzin, Latsis, Eideman an other communists generals were Latvians Ben-Velvel 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I never disputed that. Some of the important officers were Latvian, and, in fact, some Latvian Riflemen were even dedicated to protecting Lenin during the war. However, the articles already state that there were red Latvian divisions and there is also mention of Latvian officers. That doesn't mean, though, that the riflemen "mainly supported bolsheviks", for that, you would need a numerical breakdown of riflemen showing that most were on the bolshevik side and not among those who fought elsewhere, including Latvian independence side. So everything you say is already in History of Latvia. Solver 16:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Latvian Division" that took the Crimea consisted of 16 333 men in November 1920, but only 6278 of these men were Latvians (Edgars Andersons, Latvijas vēsture 1914-1920 Stockholm: Daugava, 1967. p. 591). Spekke in The History of Latvia (Stockholm: Zelta Ābele, 1957) gives the following rough numbers (based on the official military estimates, calculated by General Bangerskis) -- of ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000 were killed or wounded, 2000 joined the Troitsk and Imanta regiments, and more than 25 000 were demobilized and later joined the Latvian National Army. 770 or ca. 77% {!) of the officers from the Rifle Regiments took part in the War of Independence. A nation-state is not responsible for people because they are of an ethnicity (and I suspect that Ben-Velvel means "ethnicity" by "nationality") -- the Riflemen who fought for the Bolsheviks were never Latvian citizens (i.e., they were never Latvian nationals but Russian nationals), and the Peace of Rīga explicitly notes that the names retained by the Bolsheviks ("Latvian Division," etc.) are not to be construed as anything other than historical labels -- these people had nothing to do with the nation-state, and the actual number of those who went over to the Reds was quite small; certainly there was considerable support for the Far Left in Latvia (higher than in Russia proper in Southern Livland in 1917, for example), but most of that support melted away under Stučka's rule (in the short-lived Iskolat Republic). It should be noted, too, that the Red Riflemen acquired such a reputation that many people mistook any soldiers who were not native speakers of Russian for Latvians, just as the pejorative Russian slang for Latvians -- gansi -- is literally a reference to Germans ("Hans") (I rather wonder whether Ben-Velvel's "200 000 Germans" at [[1]] weren't also arrived at by a similar misunderstanding...). --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To avoid a dispute (History of Ukraine)

I ask to take into account my amendments.

  • 1) WW1. The Austrian reprisals in Galicia against Ukrainians, sympathizing Russia
  • 2) An antisemitic policy in days of Petlura
  • 3) A policy of Ukrainization in 20s years
  • 4) Famine is result of collectivization not directed particularly against ethnic Ukrainians. 3-6 millions victims of famine.(The number in article "8-12 millions" is overestimated and contradicts even to calculations of Conquest.)
  • 5) Reprisals against Poles in Volhynia in 1942-1943, lead by Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Ben-Velvel 13:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please also take into account:
  • 3) The bloody purge and centralization of power in Moscow that took place when Ukrainization was reversed in 1932–33. The casualties included Ukrainian party members, but also many journalists, scientists, artists, and academics; this was a direct assault against Ukrainian culture and language.
  • 4) Simultaneously, the famine was particularly directed at peasants who had a tradition of working independently-owned khutirs, as in Ukraine, and barely affected many Russian farmers who had traditionally worked collective obshchinas. Stalin himself wrote "after all, the peasant question is the basis, the quintessence of the national question ... In essence, the national question is the peasant question." The Communist paper Proletarska Pravda went further in 1930: "collectivization in Ukraine has a special task ... to destroy the social basis of Ukrainian nationalism — individually-owned peasant agriculture." The first Five-Year Plan states "Ukraine ... was chosen to serve as a colossal laboratory for new forms of socioeconomic and productive-technical reconstruction of the rural economy for the entire Soviet Union."
A belief that millions of unnecessary deaths coincidentally happened in Ukraine due to innocent mismanagement is not supportable by mainstream sources. If you wish to avoid a dispute, don't try to push such a view into Wikipedia articles. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 22:20 Z

Please check your email. --Irpen 17:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ireland - the Great Famine

Apart from its inflamatory expression, your statement is historically inaccurate. The circumstances were far more complex than you say. Please read the Great Famine article before you stick in your polemics. The event is burned in the Irish memory and you devalue the real historical critique by writing patent nonsense about it. --Red King 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article "history of Ireland" has the big blanks. Authors have overlooked, that Oliver Cromvell devastated Ireland in 1649-1651, many towns, such as Drogeda have been destroyed, the third of population was lost, Irish have been compulsorily expelled in the western fruitless areas of island. And causes of famine 1845-1849 is described inaccuratly. Authors have forgotten the "cleansing of manors" from fine tenants. Ben-Velvel 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I presume you have read the explanations another editor gave you in Talk:History of Ireland. Please note that the History of Ireland article is a summary of the most important points, so some details have to be omitted. I'm happy that you want to know about our history, but you really need to understand that it is very complicated! The "Heroes and Villains" version that you see in the movies is very superficial. I think you need to read the Plantations of Ireland and then the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. I've already given you the link to the famine article. I'm not sure what you mean by the "cleansing of manors", but I guess it is the Anglo-Irish War and maybe the Irish Civil War. And then you need to start again with the History of England to understand why they were so afraid that Ireland would provide a base for France or Spain to attack.
Any questions, just leave a note on Red King. --Red King 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
"cleansing of manors". Big English landowners expelled Irish tenants (cottiers) and passed to animal industries, because of falling prices for grain in the English markets. It was one of the important causes of the famine in 1840s Ben-Velvel 16:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok - though I wonder if maybe you mean the Highland clearances in Scotland, which partly contributed to the Highland Potato Famine (1846 - 1857). I have not heard the term "cleansing of manors" before, and neither has Google.
Rich landlords were behaving that way everywhere, even in England (though a bit earlier - see Enclosures). The article Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) covers this quite well, though it could be improved. For a wider context, read History of Ireland (1801-1922) and especially the Irish Land League and the Irish Land Act. Many land-lords suffered badly too, but I wouldn't want over-state this - in one famous case the Duke of Devonshire charged his Irish tenants double the rent of his Devonshire tenants, for land that was half as productive. --Red King 20:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of the so-called English landlords were Irish as were their estate agents; Irish interceine and military activity caused just as much disruption and death at different times; and most of those transplanted to Connacht and elsewhere were members of the aristocracy and gentry. The overwhelming majority of the lower classes stayed put. Fergananim 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article

There is an excellent new article at Ireland 1691-1801 - see especially Ireland 1691-1801#Economic Situation. The particular sentence you wanted is this one "The ... Anglo-Irish absentee landlords drew off some £800,000 in the early part of the [17th] century, rising to £1 million, in an economy that had a GDP of about £4 million." But note which of the series of Famines it was! --Red King 00:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Kipchaks

Ben-Velvel...there are three problems with your edits to this article, which is why I have twice reverted the information out of the article:

  1. The sentence structure of your additions has rendered the sections unreadable--i.e., they simply don't make sense in English. I'd have fixed the sentence structure, but I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were trying to say...which brings me to my second point:
  2. Factually, I haven't been able to independently verify any of your additions to the article (nor even the existence of the "Alta", which I assume is a river somewhere...) This problem could be avoided, but that brings me to the third problem:
  3. None of the content you've added contains citations Please review WP:CITE and WP:N

To avoid future problems with poorly structured English additions to articles, please seek assistance from someone whose English ability is sufficient to help you word things. Thanks! Tomertalk 04:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Citation from your article: "They arrived in the steppes from the northern shore of the Black Sea during the 12th century, under the pressure of the Mongols." It is nonsense and absence of logic.!!! Mongols in 12 century lived in the central Asia, but not of the shore of the Black sea. Kipchaks were nomads and lived in steppes only. At 11-12 centuries Kipchaks moved from the river Irtysh to the river Volga, and then to the Dnieper and to the Danube. The Desht-e-Kipchak is the area from Irtysh to Danube. In 1068 Kipchaks devastated Kievan Rus. Polovtsi are yellowish in old Russian. The Old-Russian dictionary is the source. Citation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. "Polovtsi or Cumans, nomadic East Turkic people, identified with the Kipchaks and known in Russian as Polovtsi. Coming from NW Asian Russia, they conquered S Russia and Walachia in the 11th cent... They founded a nomadic state in the steppes along the Black Sea..." Other sources: Pouchenie by Vladimir Monomakh, medieval Russian Annal (in Russian) and the Tale of Igor's Campaign, medieval Russian Annal (in Russian).

--Ben-Velvel 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kipchaks"

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. There are still a couple problems with the English and the wikimarkup, but I'll take care of them. Tomertalk 19:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chechnya

Dear Ben-Velvel,

Your activities at the "Chechnya" site are far from the neutral point of view. You clearly try to impose Russian PoV and you use unacceptable expressions like "swindler Berezovsky". The facts are that Berezovsky was accused of swindling by Russian authorities, but his criminal activities were never proved. You say that the guilty of bombing apartment blocks in Moscow and other cities were brought to court and sentenced. Unfortunately, there are serious doubts about the fairness of the trial. Many people in history were sentenced and then turnt out to be innocent. You also say that Maskhadov did nothing to prevent terrorist acts. This statement is void, because does not take into account whether he really did not want to do anything or really could not do anything. Please, stick to the neutral point of view. Jasra 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jasra,

Your activities at the "Chechnya" site are far from the neutral point of view too.

"The Russian government immediately blamed Chechen terrorists, but failed to provide any substantial evidence to support its claims."

Nonsense. Do you know about results of litigations? Or such "trifles" do not interest you?

"It has since been alleged by some that FSB agents, rather than Chechen separatists, were behind the attacks"

Who did accuse FSB? Boris Berezovsky was the "prosecutor". In Buinaksk members of families of frontier guards died. The Frontier Guard is a division of FSB. Even Berezovsky did not accuse FSB of explosion of a house in Buinaksk. But you do it... You consider that Berezovsky is not the swindler. Work to prove it...

Your justifications of Maskhadov are ridiculous. If he did not stop terrorism of Chattab and Basayev as supreme official of Ichkeria, he carries the full responsibility for this terrorism.

Figure about "250.000 Chechen victims of the conflict" is a nonsense. This invention has no rational intelligent serious source.

And the last. For you Russians are the race of the second grade. In your opinion "freedom-loving" Chechens have the right to kill and expel Russians. 300.000 Russians have been expelled from the Chechnya where they have lived four hundred years and it does not excite you. Ben-Velvel 00:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s Aleksandra, my real name is Alexander. But I hate fantasy, I like Science-Fiction (Heinlein, Gibson, Stanislav Lem) :)~

Dear Alexander,

'And the last. For you Russians are the race of the second grade. In your opinion "freedom-loving" Chechens have the right to kill and expel Russians.'

Could you provide any evidence that I ever wrote that Russians are "subhumans". In fact I do believe that any nation has right to be independent. Chechens are not exception from this rule. Of course if any violent acts against Russian civillians take place this is condemnable, but this does not change my mind about the right of Chechnya to be independent. For Chechens their survival as nation is at stake. For Russians Chechnya does not have much significance.Even without Chechnya (or even without the whole Caucasus) Russia would remain the biggest country in the world. This is my point of view and I did express it in the article, becouse I know that the article must be neutral. Discussion,of course does not have to be neutral.

All have the right to be independent. However independence should not be realized for the another's account. (1) In modern republic Chechen Republic there are territories, on which Russians (cossacks) have appeared much earlier than Chechens. Russians which lived in the Chechen Republic and have created its industry, have the right to choice, in what country to live. (2) The periods of political independence of the Chechen Republic in 1991-1994 and 1996-1999 have shown that this republic has no real economic independence. Chechens earned money in Russia and quite often in criminal ways, using the Russian chaos of 90s. The Chechen industry has failed after that Russian engineers and workers were expelled from the Chechen Republic Ichkeria. For quickly growing Chechen population there is no work in the Chechen Republic. In all large cities of Russia the Chechen communities quickly grow. If Russia does not control the Chechen Republic, it turns to a zone for "criminal economy". It can be compared to a situation in Afghanistan. (3)Politically independent Chechen Republic was terrible threat for safety of Russia and the Russian citizens. In 1991 an infinite series of the Chechen acts of terrorism began (still in 1991 Basayev hijacked the passenger plane fliing from Ekaterinburg). In 1996-1999 in boundary Russian Stavropol Krai peasants worked in a field under protection of soldiers as in Middle Ages, there were attacks of Chechens which stole cattle. On a regular basis there were kidnappings, kidnapped persons were transported in Chechnya and there they became hostages Ben-Velvel 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually most of the article was written by other people, so some your arguments would refer to them. For example the part about the numbers of people killed was not mine and I can neither confirm it or deny. I think NPoV would be saying that different sources give different numbers. So far it is impossible to say which estimation is correct.

As for apartments bombing - the case in Ryazan - some suspicious individuals in the area, calling the Militia, the Militia not knowing what was going on and then explanation from FSB that everything was excercise allows being suspicious. Usually local Police/Militia are informed about excercises. This is not a strong evidence, but allows suspicions. Another suspicion comes from the Latin saying 'cui bono?' (whose benefit?). Chechnya in those times was a 'de facto' independent country, so terrorists acts would only bring harm to Chechen cause (and they did). For Russia it was a good excuse to restart the war and remove previous sense of defeat.

Russia already had enough reasons for the military retaliatory action against the Chechen Ichkeria Republic. Please do not forget Basayev's and Hattab invasions. Ben-Velvel 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another argument in favour of the thesis that official Russian version is not true is the fact that lawyers who were too inquisitive were put aside from the investigation. This is too weak evidence to say that FSB did the provocation, but strong enough to put in the article the information that there are people who do not believe in the official version and leave it without a comment.

Explosions in September 1999 in Moscow stand in a long chain of acts of terrorism. I repeat, that the reasons for punishment of republic Ichkeria was enough. Ben-Velvel 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as Berezovsky is concerned - it is so that everyone is innocent unless proved guilty. One does not have to prove that Berezovsky (or Alexander/Alexandra ;) or anyone) is not a swindler. Only if you want to call someone "swindler" you have to prove it. The only thing one can include in the article is that Berezovsky was accused by Russian authorities of swindling. AFaIK he was granted political azylum on the ground that he was politically persecuted and some believe that accusing him is a part of these persecussion. He was not sentenced.

For the beginning Berezovsky has a long tail of privatization scandals. For example he privatized the first TV channel (ORT) after mysterious murder of known liberal TV-manager Vlad Listjev. When Berezovsky should appear at court, he has run away to England.Ben-Velvel 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as Maskadov is concerned, we can only stick to facts. The facts are that he condemned the terror. Whether he could or could not prevent it - these are pure speculations. They can be raised in discussion, but not in the article.

Putin or Bush carry the full responsibility for actions of military forces basing on territory of Russia or the USA. Accordingly Maskhadov carried the responsibility for intrusion of the Chechen gangs in Dagestan. Otherwise he was not the president, but the private person or leader of a gang. Ben-Velvel 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regards, 22:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. I also like s-f, some books (e.g. by R. Zelazny) are hard to be classified in s-f or fantasy. In "strict" s-f it gets irritating that the authors sometimes write about things contradicting with the laws of physics. In fantasy or sub-genders between s-f and fantasy there are no such limitations, because we do not have to expect things that are (even theoretically) possible, Jasra 22:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In a fantasy IMO the main thing is internal aesthetic reliability, aesthetic reliability of the world created by the author. In science fiction should be both internal and external reliability. Sometimes laws of physics are not broken at all, for example in the cyberpunk. And if they are broken that is for the sake of creation of even more extensive picture of a universeBen-Velvel 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The postal network and census under Mongols. I ask you again

Your text: "Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its postal road network, census, fiscal system..."

Is that really so? What are your sources? Postal road network, census existed in the own territory of the Golden Horde, in China under Mongols, but what about population censuses and safe communications in territories of vassal Russian princedoms? For example Ivan Kalita, having received a label on grand-ducal reigning in 1328, cleared himself roads of robbers and maked communications safe.

ps. By the way the idea (which you share) about positive influence of Golden Horde was completely unknown during pre-revolutionary time and has appeared only at some Soviet historiansBen-Velvel 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not my text. The article is taken from the Library of Congress Country Studies. I never even edited the phrase you quote here, although I believe it is essentially correct. --Ghirla | talk 13:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for number

Can you please cite your source for 80.000 number on Ninth Fort? Thanks, Renata 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/021/234.htm (According to the book of Kondratas and Kaplanas was 80 thousand victims); http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/photos/ninth4/ninth4.htm (According to the modern Memorial in 9th Fort: "Here the remains of 50,000 people, Russians, Jews, Lithuanians and others killed by the Nazis, are burried." ) Executions were carried out also in 6th and 7th forts. Probably it explains some divergence in numbers. Ben-Velvel 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some advices

Hello. As it concerns more than one article, I thought I would write it here. Those are several advices about Wikipedia; I am not criticising your work of course, I am just taking several notes; these are friendly advices and I hope that you will find them to be helpful.

  • Scope of the articles (regarding your inclusion of the Belarusian World War 2 history in the Khatyn massacre) - please note that we are not writting books or newspaper articles here, but encyclopedia articles. They should stay on the very particular subject described in topic. Of course, those facts are important, but they are important for many places in Belarus, shall we repeat them in many articles? Repeating is not good, this is why in Wikipedia it is usually done so that instead of writting something on different subject a wikilink is given. So, I believe you should start a Nazi occupation of Belarus article with the basic information now at Khatyn massacre, then from every place relating to the occupation of Belarus there could be links to that article. And even if it will be short at first, it will be expanded eventually - if not by you, then by someone else. Similarly, there could be a separate article about that particular nazi operation of village burning in Belarus.
  • Copyright violations - In Wikipedia it is generally assumed to be wrong to copy and paste anything from any other websites (except GFDL and your own), rewrite directly from books and such. Of course, any *information* on itself is free, but not the particular way it is presented in.
  • Naming issues - Generally it is the best to use names for the articles that would be descriptive for English-speaking people (this is an English wikipedia). Therefore, one should not be afraid to apply longer names for articles to remove the ambiguity problems, where the particular name can mean several things. As well, if the article is for example about a massacre (Khatyn massacre) then it should be named so, rather than just Khatyn as it was named at first.
  • Sources, references - A single photograph and such cannot be treated as a source. A source must be describing the particular event with numbers of people killed (in the case of massacres), who participated, etc. While a picture might prove that an event happened (but usually nobody even disputes that anyways), it does not confirm any details; and usually when someone is asking for references, he exactly asks for references about the details; if somebody would think whole article is a hoax and that event had never happened, he would just suggest it for deletion. Similarly, other GFDL websites cannot be a source, because everybody might edit GFDL, and, of course, another Wikipedia article (answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia, it just reproduces everything what is in WIkipedia) cannot be a source. Imagine what would happen if it could be: some person would be able to at first write an article that e.g. Shamil Basayev is not a terrorist, and then use it as a source in every other article to remove references that Shamil Basayev is a terrorist...
  • Neutrality of sources - Just note that it is better to provide undisputable sources if you could (e.g. from politically neutral, respected encyclopedias, newspapers and such), otherwise it might be considered POV by some and start revert wars. You understand, somebody might for example use a neo-nazi website as his source - but, of course, this would just create lots of disputes in Wikipedia.
  • General neutrality - it is the best to list all the viewpoints and historian's accounts relate dto the topic when writting the article, as otherwise it might cause problems, revert warring and such.

Enjoy editing Wikipedia! Burann 11:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Http://www.answers.com/topic/kovnopogrom-jpg.htm is not picture, that is the html-document with picture.
Thank you for general information (but I already knew something earlier :) ).
I do not have problem with a "neutrality", I do not share any ideology. Unfortunately I met here many examples of antiRussian biases (basically on the part of representatives of the Baltic and East Europe countries) and attempts of concealment of the historical truth about crimes carried out by nationalist forces in these countries. So I am afraid, that charges in absence of a neutrality are quite often the weapon of psychological pressure. Nevertheless I hope for good cooperation with you. Ben-Velvel 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
As for the picture, I have seen it. But answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia, it just copies everything from Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias too, but that particular page is from Wikipedia) - both that picture and the HTML document is taken directly from Wikipedia (this is said in that page as well) and thus cannot be a source, as it is the same as using another Wikipedia article as a source. In deed, there have been various doubtful actions, done mainly by Polish wikipedians, as there are many of them since early times of Wikipedia it seems, so they have formed many articles from their start. Anyways, the Wikipedia is constantly improving - if you find some article to be biased, edit it, but one shouldn't create articles for reasons of revenge ("they push their ideas so I will push mine"); I believe that an article can be really neutral only when all the involved sides had checked it. I also hope a nice cooperation with you! Burann 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Left you a small note on Khatyn talk page. Dr. Dan 16:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Ryazan

Ежели Вы считаете необходимым наводнить этот проект ужастиками про злых татар, обратите внимание на то, что в Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions статья Siege of Ryazan помечена красным цветом, то есть ее не существует, как и статьи про Евпатия Коловрата. Печальное упущение, которое никогда не поздно исправить :) --Ghirla -трёп- 10:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Отчего ж ужастики? Противостояние со Степью очень серьезный фактор в русской истории, который, кстати, не с нашествия монголов начался. Тот самый переток населения на северо-восток, который, как вы упоминали, характерен уже для 12 века, был связан с напором половцев. И я не думаю, что надо из соображений политкорректности как-то это ретушировать. Во Франции, скажем, никто не отказывается от реальной истории Столетней войны, и при этом современные отношения англичан и французров практически идеальны. А про "разорение рязани" непременно напишу. Ben-Velvel 22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Captives2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Captives2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I am trying to retag all the Soviet-PD images. Can you identify there the image came from? Alex Bakharev 07:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Источник неясен (откуда-то из Веба). Автор О.Федоров. At the same time I want to ask about pictures of Russian artists of 19 centuries and photos of museum dioramas and panoramas. Have it a open license? PD?

[edit] WP:TE

I saw you engage in one-sided, tendentious editing. Please take a note that Wikipedia should represent all points of view, rather than spawning black legends with a nationalist background. Ivan IV was a cruel tyrant. Your attempts to justify his campaigns of terror against his own people by his having been poisoned or by the separatism of Novgorod are quite naive. You should be aware that there is no evidence that Oprichnina was aimed specifically against the boyars: people of all ranks were targeted and killed. As you see, all your additions are highly controversial. Therefore, I advise you to adopt a more cautious approach to editing. Otherwise, your edits may be viewed as disruption and appropriate consequences will ensue. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 :: Да, он был тиран, но не более чем монархи его времени. Вы не можете все, что происходило, объяснять его тиранством. Помимо его тиранства была борьба за выход к балтийскому морю, набеги крымских татар, походы литовцев, шведов и поляков. Был голод и эпидемии 1560-х. В том же Новгороде. Во время погрома 1570 не погибало 60 тысяч человек, это абсурд, если в городе жило даже в период расцвета 25-30 тыс. А к 1570 осталось гораздо меньше. Вы имеете право исправлять мой материал, но просто так выбрасывать то, что делал несколько часов, не имеете права. Я поставлю статью в диспут, если вы будете запросто уничтожать мой труд Ben-Velvel 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
В настоящее время статья достаточно нейтральна. Передергивать биографию Ивана, представляя его в виде ангела во плоти, не стоит. Довольно нелепо писать, что Иван казнил всех без разбору, от своих ближайших родственников до дворовых, потому что его враги травили. В этом проекте достаточно большой трафик: если не я, так и исправит кто-нибудь другой. Если есть желание распространиться по поводу новгородских событий, лучше сделать это в статье Massacre of Novgorod, представив (с надлежащими ссылками) обе точки зрения на этот предмет. Удачи, Ghirla -трёп- 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Я не представлял его ангелом во плоти, напротив я считаю его с опредленного времени психически болльным человеком. Но меня задели в статье про Грозного, во-первых, сильно завышенные цифры новгородских убийств; объяснение всего того ужаса, голода и эпидемий, которые происходили на Руси, только опричниной; явное игнорирование того, что за Иваном стояли объективные централистские тенденции, которые и в Зап.Европе вели к преодолению феодальной раздробленности и построению абсолютистского государства. Ну, зачем ивана выставлять в роли уникального русского чудища, учитывая сколько крови пролил Генрих VIII английский или Карл IX французский. Посмотрите какая аккуратная статья по Варфоломеевской ночи, какие там взвешенные оценки. Ben-Velvel 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Там было сказано, что официальные цифры были в пределах тысячи жертв. Можно написать, что число жертв могло быть преувеличено недругами царя или что вообще все эти вопросы надо рассматривать cum grano salis. Можно подумать, число жертв от татарских набегов - не преувеличение. Все эти цифры довольно условны. Разумнее всего перенести спорные вопросы из Ивановой биографии в более тихое место, такое как Massacre of Novgorod. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Этот весь пассаж "In a dispute with the wealthy city of Novgorod, Ivan ordered the Oprichniks to murder inhabitants of this city, which was never to regain its former prosperity. Between thirty and forty thousand might have been killed during the infamous Massacre of Novgorod in 1570" содержит просто кучу ошибок.

  • 1) Новгород не был процветающим городом к 1570 после эпидемий и голода 60-х.
  • 2) Иван вряд ли давал задание убить всех жителей города.
  • 3) Количество убитых 30-40 тысяч представляется в виде как бы законченного доказанного утверждения.Хотя эти цифры сильно противоречат даже численности населения города к 1570.
  • 4) официальные данные были достаточно честными. Это "сказка" Малюты Скуратова и поминальные синодики Грозного. Ну разве стал он бы так безбожно врать перед Богом, будучи религиозным человеком? Ben-Velvel 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Old-ryazan2.jpg

Посмотри, пожалуйста. Там нет источника и, видимо, неверная лицензия. Одноимённое изображение в русском разделе сейчас выставлено на удаление. ~ kintup 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Спасибо большое!

Thank you so much for your wonderfully inciteful additions to the Oprichnina page. Keep up the good work! Alexandre-Jérôme 04:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet-Finnish wars of 1918-1922

Hi! Do you have more sources about these wars? should they have their own articles, or are they just Heimosodat in another name? --Whiskey 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Modern Russian historians, for example Alexander Shirokorad, consider military conflicts in Karelia and some other areas as two Sowiet-Finnish wars of 1918-1920 and 1921-1922. During the first war the Finnish troups even crossed the river Svir and interfered in the region of Lodejnoe Pole. The first war 1918-1920 has ended with the Treaty of Tartu and territorial concessions of the Soviet Russia. During the second war the Finnish troups have captured temporarily the East Karelia up to the line Kestenga-Suomusalami-Rugozero-Padany-Porosozero. I want to write the article about it. The Finnish historians consider these conflicts only as "innocent" interventions of the Finnish volunteers in the Russian regions populated by Karelians. However orthodox Karelians and lutheran Finns of Finland cannot be considered as one nation. (As well slavic peoples are not one nation). For example my grandmother was Karelian of those karelian people that have moved in 17 century from the West Karelia, seized by Swedes, in the Tver region of Russia Ben-Velvel 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please, do write about those. I'll try to find out what is written in Finnish about them. I know that Heimosodat and related articles about those expeditions are merely stubs in English Wikipedia, and it would be useful to receive a Russian view to them. But there were a sizable orthodox minority, mostly Karelians, in Finland at that time up to the World War II, of 5-10%, but the war with resulting population transfers proved to be catastrophic to them, and nowadays they form only around 2% of population. --Whiskey 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have written the article Soviet-Finnish conflict 1921—1922 Ben-Velvel 10:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this about the same as Heimosodat? Calling it Finnish-Soviet war seems weird, since they were volunteers, and Finland was in Finnish Civil War, what was the "Finnish" then? I guess you could also argue that Soviet Russia attacked the legimate Finnish conservative government in the Civil War. These expeditions were not accepted by the "Red Finland". I'd rather stick to articles describing the battles itself, such as Viena expedition, Aunus expedition. You could also call those volunteer expeditions interefence in the Russian Civil War. Do you say a Swedish-Soviet war 1939-1940 existed because Swedish volunteers participated in Winter War, thus intereferencing as Finnish volunteers did in Russian Civil War.
They also were fighting the bolsheviks in the Civil War. They are the proper Russian? For these reasons the Soviet-Finnish war or conflict is quite problematic. I have also noted your article in the Russian Wikipedia. Would it be possible to change the article's name there to Finnish [volunteer] expeditions 1918-1922, please. And I guess we have to delete that article you created, as it contains duplicate information with Heimosodat and it's subarticles. Perhaps we could rename it to English term, like Finnish volunteer expedition in Soviet Russia. But please, add your information to the already existing articles. --Pudeo (Talk) 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have connected the first and the second name of the article therefore the intrusion of finnish interventionists into the territory of the Soviet Russia ocurred also. Civil war for this moment (november 1921) in Russia has ended (for exception of the Far East). There was a government controlled all territory of Russia (for exception of the Far East). But even civil war is not the valid reason for foreign intervention and capture of historical territory of the country by foreign troops. The events 1921-1922 were not the internal civil conflict of Russia and they ended with the Agreement between the governments of two countries, the Soviet Russia and Finland. Ben-Velvel 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Compromise variant on Talk:Partitions of Poland? Sorry, but I don't see it.

Anyway, you just broke Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Are you aware of how it works? Balcer 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You broke also. I have made everything, that Piotrus has suggested. And you make the question political. The justification or condemnation is already political question and POV. This article is not the newspaper article. I write about objective historic facts and you should not remove them.Ben-Velvel 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Partitions of Poland. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you wish to request review, you may contact me by email or place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "reason here"

Decline reason: "No reason given for invalid block. — Yamla 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Hi!

I tried to create the compromise variant of the section of the article Partition of Poland and my stuff was relevant (the history of the region till 18th century) and it had good references. But my opponents repeatedly removed my text, basing on political reasons and POV (polish). Sorry for my question. Have Russian users less rights than Polish? Ben-Velvel 17:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Polish people nor Russian people are permitted to violate WP:3RR. --Yamla 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
My opponents violated this rule too. Ben-Velvel 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Russia FAR

History of Russia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Many facts refer to the classical academic works of Russian historians, such as "History of Russia from the Earliest Times", (ISBN 5-17-002142-9) by Sergey Solovyov, "History of the Russian State" (ISBN 5-02-009550-8) by Nikolay Karamzin etc. In these cases the multiple inline citations are absurd and the tag "fact" should be removed. I shall make this work in the near future. Ben-Velvel 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you claim

Poland and Soviet Russia fought only for former parts of Russian Empire. I thought Soviet Russia fought for Lviv and Galicia also, that were part of Austro-Hungary not Russian Empire. Is there some confusion going on ?--Molobo 12:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

not "only". But "most" of the contested territories were former parts of the Russian Empire Ben-Velvel 12:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, how much square kilometers. And the Austrian portion was quite big and populous IIRC. Why ignore it. --Molobo 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want, i can find figures. Galicia is relative small part of contested territories, which included almost all Belarus with Minsk and all right-bank Ukraine with Kiev Ben-Velvel 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ? Poland had neither Minks or Kiev in Peace of Riga to which the sentence referes. As to taking what is more important-seems a POV issue. I would say Galicia is more important because of larger population. Anyway its best to either scrap this POV wording, or mention all circumstances. --Molobo 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Polish troups were in Minsk and Kiev. I presume, the Polish government considered these districts as the future Polish possession or minimum as contested territory... I wrote 'including some former parts of the Russian Empire' Ben-Velvel 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you presume then its OR. --Molobo 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish troops entered in Minsk on August 8, 1919; in Kiev on May 7, 1920. The Facts. Ben-Velvel 15:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are the facts-which say nothing about Polish territorial gains in Peace of Riga. You are free to write Poles entered Kiev-but to claim they wanted to annex Kiev is your OR unless you give reference. --Molobo 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message (West Belarus and West Ukraine. The double standard of the Polish POV)

You should not consider these territories as self-evident possession of Poland. When Russia (Russian Empire, USSR) incorporated these territories, you name it as the aggression, capture, crime. When Poland annexed these territories you consider it as self-evident restoration of the Polish authority in the Polish territory. It's the double standard. Historically and initially these territories were the parts of the old Russian state. In these territories the Orthodox East-slavic population always prevailed. And today Poland does not claim these territories Ben-Velvel 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the purport of this message since I am neither Polish nor Russian. I am merely interested in reducing the size of an article that is unacceptably long (it's now one of the longest on Wikipedia) and making it reasonably neutral. Reducing this article's size inevitably means a major loss of detail (note how some major Russian victories such as Poltava and some major Russian defeats such as Narva have been ignored). The Soviet Union was not the exact equivalent of Russia (hint: where did Stalin come from?) and since the lands the Poles and Soviets fought over in the Soviet-Polish War are mostly in Ukraine and Belarus today, documenting the exact borders of this area has little relevance to what is supposed to be a short general history of Russia. My summary of the "Russian" Civil War (yes, its a misnomer, but I didn't invent it) is highly simplified but reasonably correct: "By 1921, [the Bolsheviks] had defeated their internal enemies and brought most of the newly independent states under their control, with the exception of Finland, the Baltic States, the Moldavian Democratic Republic (which joined Romania), and Poland (with whom they had fought the Polish-Soviet War)". Please note that it says "newly independent states". In other words, the Soviet Union failed to bring those named states under its control and they remained independent. This does not mean they gained every last inch of territory to which they laid claim, because some of it went to the USSR. (And yes, there was such a thing as the Moldavian Democratic Republic and it did join Romania). If I too wanted to document the exact borders of the USSR in the early 1920s, I could easily have given details about other regions such as Armenia, which lost substantial territory to Turkey in the Treaty of Kars which Lenin signed with Atatürk. In fact, now I come to think of it, it's the first part of the sentence which is questionable since the Soviets didn't entirely defeat the Basmachi in Central Asia until the 1930s...But this is meant to be a short history of Russia and it needs to get even shorter. --Folantin 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviet Union was not the exact equivalent of Russia (as a zone of compact settlement of the ethnic Russians). Poland (as a zone of compact settlement of the ethnic Poles) also is not an equivalent of the Polish-Lithuanian state of 1772 or the great Poland of Pilsudski of 1921. It has been recognized by Antanta and Britain (allies of Poland) which has specified the Curzon line as the most suitable border of Poland. Yes, there was chaos and civil war in Russia 1919-1920, however in 1772-1795 Poland was also struck with interethnic clashes and civil war; and by September, 17 1939 Poland has been actually crushed and the government ran to the Romanian border. In any case the crash of a political regime does not mean automatic disappearance of the country and its transformation into nobody's land. In 1921 Soviet Russia and its allied Soviet republics of Belarus and Ukraine were continuers of pre-revolutionary Russian empire. (If the White Russians won the civil war they would have struggled for territorial integrity of Russia, in the borders of the Russian empire, even more.) And the concession of West Ukraine and West Belarus to Poland was the big territorial loss of the Soviet Union. It is the same important fact, as events of September 1939. Ben-Velvel 09:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, no, you can't claim the Soviet Union was the only legitimate successor state to the Russian Empire. In their various ways, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were equally successor states as well as the other republics which failed to survive, such as Menshevik Georgia, Dashnak Armenia, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the Belarusian National Republic, the various independent versions of Ukraine etc. Likewise, you can't say the only successor states to the Austro-Hungarian Empire were Austria and Hungary and omit Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania. Not in an encyclopaedia you can't anyway. --Folantin 10:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
On what basis has Poland inherited the parts of Ukraine and Belarus from Russian empire? As the favourite pupil? :) It was the violent annexation. And other new independent states have taken pieces of the historical territory of Russia (Pechory, Pechenga, Ivangorod, Pytalovo) and its allied Soviet republics (Kars, Northern Bukovina). Ben-Velvel 11:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Russian Empire ceased to exist in late 1917. Poland did not declare independence until late 1918. The Bolsheviks and the Poles subsequently fought over territory in Ukraine and Belarus. The Polish claimed land which had belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until Catherine the Great had taken it in the Partitions of the late 18th century. The Bolsheviks made the pretence (at least) that they were internationalists who were spreading world Communist revolution to those peoples (Lenin was always banging on and on about the need to avoid "Great Russian chauvinism") rather than trying to recreate the Russian Empire. Both the Bolsheviks and the Poles asserted their claims to the disputed territory through military force; neither side showed much concern for the opinions of Ukrainians and Belarusians who wanted their own independent states. (By the way, IIRC the number of ethnic Poles who lived in those regions vastly outweighed the number of ethnic Russians). Likewise, the Bolsheviks used military force to make most of the non-Russian republics join the Soviet Union. --Folantin 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What means "ceased to exist"? During 1917 Russia two times changed the political regime, however even bolshevik government did not declare the termination of the existence of the country. Bolsheviks (under pressure of Germans) have agreed to the independence of Poland, however even Bolsheviks did not give Ukraine and Belarus to Poland. This territories were not only in Russian Empire but also in the old Russian state (Kievan Rus). By the way, you have not wanted even a mention that these territories were contested Ben-Velvel 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia article history

Greetings! I have quite recently finished overhauling the Russia article, but it still lacks inline citations for the history section. Seeing as you are an expert in this field, I am kindly request whether you could add the appropriate inline citations or add/change anything you think relevant? I am keen to see the Russia article be moved up to at least GA status.--Ilya1166 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I shall engage in it within the next few days Ben-Velvel 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent news!--Ilya1166 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian article history refs

This is Ilya1166, great work on adding those refs to the Russia article. I was wondering whether you would be able to add references for these sentences:

  • During the period from fifth century BC to seventh century human settlements are represented by Dyakovo culture of Iron Age which occupies the significant part of the Upper Volga, Valday and Oka River area.
  • Dyakovo culture was formed by Finno-Ugric peoples, ancestors of Merya, Muromian, Meshchera, Veps tribes.
  • All regional Funno-Ugric toponymy and hydronym names go back to those languages, for example Yauza River which is a confluent of the Moskva River, and probably the Moskva River itself too.
  • In the tenth to eleventh centuries this state of Kievan Rus became the largest in Europe and one of the most prosperous, due to diversified trade with both Europe and Asia.
  • The opening of new trade routes with the Orient at the time of the Crusades contributed to the decline and fragmentation of Kievan Rus by the end of the twelfth century.
  • In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the constant incursions of nomadic Turkish tribes, such as the Kipchaks and the Pechenegs, led to the massive migration of Slavic populations from the fertile south to the heavily forested regions of the north, known as Zalesye.
  • The medieval states of Novgorod Republic and Vladimir-Suzdal emerged as successors to Kievan Rus on those territories, while the middle course of the Volga River came to be dominated by the Muslim state of Volga Bulgaria.
  • Similarly to the Balkans, long-lasting nomadic rule retarded the country's economic and social development.
  • However, the Novgorod Republic together with Pskov retained some degree of autonomy during the time of the Mongol yoke and was largely spared the atrocities that affected the rest of the country.
  • In the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Russian state set the national goal to return all Russian territories lost as a result of the Tatar invasion and to protect the southern borderland against attacks of Crimean Tatars (Russo-Crimean Wars) and other Turkic peoples.
  • The noblemen, receiving a manor from the sovereign, were obliged to serve in the military.
  • The manor system became a basis for the nobiliary horse army.
  • In the middle of the seventeenth century there were Russian settlements in Eastern Siberia, on Chukchi Peninsula, along the Amur River, on the Pacific coast, and the strait between North America and Asia was first sighted by a Russian explorer in 1648.
  • The colonisation of the Asian territories was largely peaceful, in sharp contrast to the build-up of other colonial empires of the time.
  • Peter was largely responsible through his reforms for bringing Western European culture to Russia.
  • After his reforms, Russia emerged as a major European power.
  • As a result of the victorious Russian-Turkish wars, Russia's borders expanded to the Black Sea and Russia set its goal on the protection of Balkan Christians against a Turkish yoke.
  • The officers of the Napoleonic wars brought back to Russia the ideas of liberalism and even attempted to curtail the tsar's powers during the abortive Decembrist revolt (1825), which was followed by several decades of political repression.
  • The perseverance of Russian serfdom and the conservative policies of Nicholas I of Russia impeded the development of Imperial Russia in the mid-nineteenth century.
  • Nicholas's successor Alexander II (1855–1881) was forced to undertake a series of comprehensive reforms and issued a decree abolishing serfdom in 1861.
  • The Great Reforms of Alexander's reign spurred increasingly rapid capitalist development and Sergei Witte's attempts at industrialisation.
  • The Slavophile mood was on the rise, spearheaded by Russia's victory in the Russo-Turkish War, which forced the Ottoman Empire to recognise the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and autonomy of Bulgaria.
  • The failure of agrarian reforms and suppression of the growing liberal intelligentsia were continuing problems however, and on the eve of World War I, the position of Tsar Nicholas II and his dynasty appeared precarious.
  • The Soviets extracted heavy war reparations from the areas of Germany under their control, mostly in the form of machinery and industrial equipment.
  • Others have acknowledged that despite its inertia and repression (though very mild relative to the Stalin years), the Brezhnev era did offer a relative prosperity to a populace and leadership battered by decades of war, famine, collectivisation and crash industrialisation, deadly political crises, arbitrary mass murder and arrest, and the volatility of the Khrushchev years.
  • However, the Stalinist system was probably beyond repair, and the Gorbachev reforms started in motion forces of change that demonstrated that meaningful reform would eventually threaten Communist Party hegemony.

--Miyokan 13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I shall continue this work (and already something made). Only it is not so fast, by fits and starts... IMHO last two sentences from the list should be formulated in more moderate tone. (1) "Decades of arbitary mass murders". Strong exaggeration. If it was the truth, people could not go through it. (It is possible to sentence, that the history of British Empire in 17-19 centuries is too a history of famines and massacres: mass murders of native people in Ireland, N.America and Australia, the famines in British India and Ireland, enslaving and slave trade). Such generalizations are too superficial. (2) "the Stalinist system was probably beyond repair". This sentence is doubtful. By 1985 USSR had no stalinist system. By the way, even maoist system in China was repaired and Chinese Com.party kept hegemony despite of meaningful reformsBen-Velvel 16:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you change 'Stalinist' system to and what would you change 'arbitary mass murder' to? Or is it better to just take out the statements altogether?--Miyokan 07:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Those changes you did were good.--Miyokan 11:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorbachev - reform-mined?

Would you say that Gorbachev was "reform-minded"?--Miyokan 11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reform-minded. Certainly. But his lack was, that he (and the majority of soviet intellectuals) lived in the world of illusions and abstractions (many of which have been inspired to him by the western interlocutors). He introduced freedom, destroying the responsibility, discipline and the order (Chinese did not do it). For example, the new laws "about the Enterprises" and "about the Properties in the USSR" (approved by the Supreme Soviet under his initiative in 1990) have destroyed both system of the state control and the control of labour collectives over the enterprises, and gave the beginning to plunder of public properties and assets. Ben-Velvel 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)