Talk:Soviet Union

Education, demographics and information control

Re: this edit. In my previous edit I was referring to a practice of placing education, language, religion etc. as subsections of the Demographics section, found in the article like Russia, United States, France etc. Society is too general upper-level section name to be used, since it also covers politics, which is a different section and should be so.

The one-sentence uncited section Information control does not belong to this article. If ever a substantial section on that is written, it should be placed into the Politics section, obviously. GreyHood ^Talk 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Regarding the Peters' edit summary, I am not sure the structure of the articles devoted to totalitarian and non-totalitarian states should be different.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am, frankly, gobsmacked that anyone would contend that an article regarding totalitarian regimes (in this case, one of the most repressive of all time) require no different structure than, say, typical modern Western democracies. Instead of deleting appropriate mention of information control the appropriate action would be, then, to organize and request expansion at article talk. And information control has only partially to do with "politics." That's hardly an appropriate heading for societal engineering as was practiced in the USSR. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is a bad joke on oh so many levels. There was no planned economy in the USSR, there was a command system, pretending to be planned economy, in the USSR. There were no politics in the USSR, only the masquerade of pretense. No mass deportations of several peoples wholesale is ever mentioned. No state antisemitism (of varying degrees in each sub-epoch, true) is ever mentioned, including severe restrictions on freedom of higher education for Jews in the 70s and 80s. Censorship is only mentioned being lessened in the Kruschev's supposed "thaw" which apparently allowed for freer expression of artists!!! Was this written using the History of CPSU (bolsheviks) as a reliable source?????!!!!!!?!?!!!!??? WTF! -- WillNess (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Leonid Brezhnev's wife, Viktoria Brezhneva, was a jew. He couldn't have been a antisemite as you claim, the fact is that jews had a harder time to get higher education and work because of their stance on Israel and all other things, they held political leanings and views which the Soviet leadership could not accept. But seriously, several ethnic and social groups were repressed in the Soviet Union, the jews were not the only one. A planned economy is by definition the same as a command economy, to say that the Soviet economists did not control the economy through planning is wrong. But i get you're point, the system was centralised, but their were instances were people tried to decentralise the economy (see 1965 Soviet economic reform or the Alexei Kosygin page for instance). Censorship was lessened under Khrushchev, the Khrushchev era was a much much less repressive era then the years under Joseph Stalin, but of course, the country was stil extremely repressive. The only thing you've proven with you're comment is that Stalin's Soviet Union was extremely repressive, even more repressive then his succesors, who were all, with the exception of Gorbachev, also inhumanly repressive. The article is a mess, especially the history section, and yes, a section about the repression of dissidents and information should be included in the article, but a section with only one sentence does not contribute to improving the article! A section with one sentence doesn't do shit, a reader does not learn anything about the Soviet Union's repressive measures and policies in one sentence. --TIAYN (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Brezhnev" "couldn't be" an antisemite "as [I] claim"? Buddy, please do humanity a favor and stay away from editing this article. You have no understanding of what that regime was if you think it's about any individual on top and his wife. Molotov's wife was Jewish, and she was repressed too (that means, sent into "Gulags" FYI). Mythical thinking and guesswork ("because .. of their stance..." etc.) is not a good methodology. Politburo ruled that country, and they didn't explain why they did what they did. They didn't publish minutes of their decisions. It was a state secret. You'd get 5 to 8 years if you'd speak openly about it, in the 70s, it'd be deemed "anti-Soviet propaganda", article 58.

Is it mentioned in the article? Is G.U.L.A.G. ever mentioned in the article? Belomor-kanal ever mentioned? Solovki concentration camp? Is there a section on slave labor? What about persecution of dissidents? What about "spetz-khran"'s (special sections in libraries, with restricted access). Is it mentioned in the article?

If you say that planned economy is same as command economy you don't know squat about USSR. The GOSPLAN pretended to plan, but CPSU gave direct orders, and plans were amended according to orders.

As for repression of several ethnic groups, isn't it what I said? Don't you lecture us who was repressed less or more, buddy. I don't prove nothing with my comments, I point out the gaping holes in this bad joke of an article.

As for one-sentence sections, it is called a stub. Learn about the concept. It at least mentions the phenomenon which is otherwise totally ignored by the article. It provides for a placeholder for others to come in and add more content. Removing valid content, even if still unsourced (after whole half a day of wait), is no way to improve an article. And please, refrain from scatological thesaurus if at all possible. Thanks. WillNess (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As for censorship, if it was lessened under Khrushchev, what was before, then? Where is it discussed in the article????? WillNess (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not discussed, which is a problem. But before Khrushchev there was even more rigid censorship, think present day North Korea - Khrushchev and Brezhnev were never presented as all-knowing people, as Stalin, but mearly as supreme leaders of the state. For example, several foreign written books were allowed into the country in large quantities in post-Stalin USSR, this was not the case under Stalin were most people were not allowed to read capitalist materials. My point is, and the point which modern historians are trying to make, is that Stalin's policies did not come to an end, but were liberalised. Under Khrushchev a liberalisation occured, Brezhnev partially reversed it, but it never returned to the same features as it had under Stalin. The word you are looking for is change.--TIAYN (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah, you're right, Stalin didn't like the Jews, but Stalin didn't really like anybody :P You have a point, but Stalin was a deeply disturbed individual. Under Stalin the Politburo did not excercise any power without Stalin. Stalin did not rule through the party, but through Khrushchev and Brezhnev or their successors were not anti-semite. I seem to know more about the USSR then you! --TIAYN (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@WillNess. TIAYN is a major contributor to this article and the author of a number of good and featured articles on the Soviet Union. Please do not make advices here to "stay away from editing this article".

Remember that this article is quite large and could become a good one in case some additional work is done. One-sentence unreferenced paragraphs (and placed in a wrong section) are better to be avoided. Either write a decent paragraph or incorporate your sentence into some relevant section in the Politics. Remember also that it is a general overview article. It can't tell about every single bit or aspect of criticism of the Soviet state. Only most important and general things. GreyHood ^Talk 15:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So why isn't GULAG even mentioned? And no, passing reference to "gulags" doesn't count, I'm talking about a MAJOR element of life in the USSR that was never mentioned as such in your article. If that's the quality, too bad for the "contributions" of such "quality". Editors that employ personalized mythical thinking in place of rational critical analysis and take USSR propaganda at face value, can not make any meaningful contribution by definition in anything but meaningless trivia at the most. WillNess (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To say that I follow Soviet propaganda is bullshit. I'm guessing you've not read the articles I've contributed with have you? See Leonid Brezhnev and History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982), and yes, I do mention repression, the dissident movement and I even mention the gulags. + the Gulags is mentioned in the article, we should of course expand the article on the subject, but it is mentioned. --TIAYN (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There never was no "gulags" in Soviet Union, there was however the Head Camps Authority, namely GULAG. And there were camps. WP is not a journalistic endeavor. And no, GULAG is not mentioned in this article, the head article about the USSR. WillNess (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As for propaganda, it was a Soviet propaganda line that USSR had a planned economy, when in fact it was a command economy, pretending to be planned economy. There is a big difference. The GOSPLAN was not the final authority on setting out "plans" for the next year or five. Politburo was. WillNess (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's not a planned economy. Do you have sources for this claim? There is no DIFFERENCE between a command and a planned economy. Have you always been so stupid? Yes, GULAG is mentioned in the article; "Famines ensued, causing millions of deaths; surviving kulaks were persecuted and many sent to Gulags to do forced labour." (a sentence from the article, wow, I guess GUlAG is mentioned in the article). Again, Wow, you were wrong again, shit I'm surprised. Why on earth are you trying to convince people about your bullshit claims when you neither have references or sources, but only you're stuborness to depend on! --TIAYN (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Gulags" is not GULAG. First is a journalistic reference to the camps without clearly mentioning them; second is the name of the governmental institution, the Head Camps Authority, Glavnoe Upravlenie LAGerei. There was only one.

If Soviet economy were planned, GOSPLAN would be the sole authority in setting out specific plans to fulfill goals set by the Higher Council. Instead, the CPSU did what they please, and gave orders as they please, and GOSPLAN just wrote them down and invented explanations after the fact. Do you understand this now? Put down the History of the CPSU, it is not a good source, really. Higher Council was not parliament, and Soviet of Ministers was not government. WillNess (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's one example: was the corn affair under Khrushchev planned, or ordered? .......... ?

So to call the Soviet economy "planned" is to repeat the Soviet propaganda line, and to support a Soviet propaganda claim. To call it what it is, is to call it a command economy. This would be a neutral wording. WillNess (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx never says which specific organ should create the economic, he only says a socialist economy should be led by economic plans. The party may have overstepped its mark, but that doesn't make it less of a planned economy. Secondly, the Premier of the Soviet Union was always a member of the Politburo; the Premier was the head of the government (e.g. the Council of Peoples Commissars, the Council of Ministers and the Cabinet of Ministers). The chairman of the state planning organ was a member of the Council of Ministers. While it's true that all decisions were reached at the Politburo, it doesn't mean that the Council of Ministers had no authority. If you knew anything, Stalin, at the end of his life, ruled the Soviet Union through his office as Chairman of the Council of Ministers (e.g. Prime Minister/Premier), and not through the Politburo. Khrushchev recentralised the party's power, but he to also became head of government. At the beginning of the Brezhnev era, the Prime Minister (Alexei Kosygin) and the general secretary (brezhnev) were equal in power. But because of Kosygin's backing of economic reforms, his positioned weakened, but it was still him and the state planning chairman who controlled the most important over the Soviet economy. It was the Premier who controlled the economy, at least de facto. Its also wrong to say that the State Planning organ had no power, it had a lot. Without the State Planning organ it would be plan. And its stupid to think that a nationwide economic plan should not be accepted or altered by the country's leaders. Its not like the current Secretary of State in the United States can create her own foreign policy without consulting Obama; the chairman of the state planning committee could not initiate a plan without the consent of the country's leaders. If you knew anything about the USSR, you would know that the USSR was ruled by a collective leadership from Stalin's death to its demise.

And to reassert my point, the economy was planned. They planned how many rubles they were to spend in one sector, how many car the country was to produce and so on. The planning process was of the many faultlines of the economy. --TIAYN (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Does Federal Reserve Bank report to the President?

As for being ruled by collective leadership, that was my whole opposition to your constant focus on personalities. You still understand it too narrowly, in the confines of the Soviet own narrative (and not coincidentally perhaps, that phrase was also a line of Soviet propaganda). The CPSU's nomenclatura was a collective ruler of that country. It had its own shops. It had its own news bulletin. It had its own transportation law. Is nomenclatura even mentioned in your article? WillNess (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, this article should reflect the reality of the USSR, not what Karl Marx has said in which of his books. From the neutral point of view, not from a point of view of a socialist with vested interest in seeing theories of his chief ideologue be fulfilled. That would be a conflict of interest. To compare the realities of USSR with the Marx's theories is of course fine and worthy endeavor, but not to use it as your own point of reference, or as a looking glass to look through. IOW I don't think a Marxist can write about Marxism objectively, not easily at the very least. WillNess (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In some countries they are, for example, the State Bank of Norway was under direct supervision and control of the Norwegian Government for several years. It should also be noted that the United States ensues a much more right-wing economic policy then Europe (if we forget the UK for a minute). The nomenclatura was not always the collective ruler, not under Stalin. Stalin had supreme command. Even so, the whole nomenclatura never actively co-ruled the country, only members of the Central Committee under Lenin, Politburo under Khrushchev and his successors, and the Council of Ministers had several interludes. Stalin ruled as an autocrat, Brezhnev and Khrushcev tried ruling as autocrats. And yes, I used the term collective leadership - it doesn't matter if that was a Soviet made term, the fact is that the majority of historians use that specific term when analysing the Soviet political system. You're view on the Soviet Union is really simlistic. You can't compare the US economic model with that of the Soviet economic for one reason; the two countries had two very different economic systems; one socialist, one capitalist. And to make myself clear, I'm no marxist, never have never will. However, if you really want to know were I stand politically, I'm a social democrat, and I'm a card-carrying member of the Norwegian Labour Party. Just because I know more about Marx then you do doesn't mean I'm a Marxist! --TIAYN (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What happened exactly to a Politburo chairman (or whatever his title was at the time) Khrushchev, when nomenclatura decided he was contradictory to their interests? Who was the actual ruler there? And of course it is all post-Stalin only, although he wasn't a fearless, confident leader in his late years too, was he.

And I never tried to compare SU and US. I was refuting your point where you said the body responsible for a policy must submit to supreme authority. I gave you a counterexample of a body which really is responsible for a policy and precisely for that reason does not answer to higher authority. Otherwise they would be executing the policy, not setting it. Acting on command of those who were really setting the policy, like the Politburo was, in the USSR, where GOSPLAN acted on the orders it received.

And as long as you're able to separate your ideology from your editing, you can be whomever you chose to be, I think that is the WP take on the issue.

But being foreigner to the USSR, you're at great disadvantage. The most important things were never said out in the open in the USSR. The names were given to stuff not in order to clarify, but in order to obscure their true nature. It was all a sham. You tend to take everything at face value. You do regard Council of Ministers as government just as I suspected. It was no government. You think that having a GOSPLAN chairman seat at the "gov't" table means something. It meant nothing. The party ruled that country, and specifically, the party's nomenclatura ruled that country. The nominal leaders could never go against it, not where it mattered. Beria as it turns out, planned some moves towards liberalization in external politics (namely, cutting Germany loose) after he eliminated the Great Leader, and was promptly executed. Malenkov tried internal liberalization, only to be deposed afterwards. etc. etc.

Here's the key about nomenklatura, and I already told you this. They had their own shops, and special production lines in food factories dedicated to producing the high quality food for them, and nobody else. The existence of special shops was a state secret. To talk about it was to spread anti-Soviet propaganda, and be sent to the camps for it. Think about it.

It was Inner Party, pure and simple. WillNess (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And yes, the existence of nomenklatura was a state secret too. WillNess (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Read that article to understand what the true power structure of the USSR really was. All the "councils" and "committees" were just a sham theater. WillNess (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You do know right that everybody who worked at the middle-top and further up in the Soviet system were nomenklatura right? They worked in different groups.... The Council of Ministers was the Government, even if the party ruled the country, doesn't mean it was not the government. That's like saying modern China doesn't have a government, are you thick? We all know that the party ruled the government apparatus, but that doesn't make the de faco government any less de jure.. There never was any chairman of the politburo, just a General Secretary. I'm wondering how you actually dear to say I don't know shit abou the Soviet Union, it's laughable. You're claiming that I'm somehow ideological linked with Soviet communism, something which is just plain stupid. This is as stupid as claiming that Obama is a socialist (you probably believe this). Malenkov was more for political reform then Khrushchev, but he didn't want to end one-party rule. And no, the party was not the supreme institution. If you had known anything about Stalin's rule, you would know he left his party post in 1934, and abolished in 1952. He ruled the country from 1941 not from his party office, but the head of government office. This is were most meetings were kept, this was the place were most decisions were taken. You didn't know this of course, but that doesn't surprise me.

Just to make it clear, I've never read any Soviet or communist propaganda. I've instead read plenty of books. Seeing how you don't know shit about the political system, you should check out these books: How the Soviet Union is Governed (1991) and Executive Power and Soviet politics (1992), it would straighened up you're views a bit.

What's you're point? A GOSPLAN had of course to take orders from somebody. The GOSPLAN chairman was not the leader of the Soviet Union, he was one of several public figures, who worked for the Soviet state. Of course he had to orders. Even if the politburo said the five-year plan should focus on heavy industry instead of, lets say, agriculture, it doesn't make the five-year plan any less planned because it was still planned. The only thing the Politburo did was to set goals for the plan which the GOSPLAN tried to set motions. Of course, you are right to say that some plans were planned then others, such as the first five-year plan. But it was planned, they planned everything.

You have to be the most arrogant wiki user I've met. You've actually accused me of being both a marxist, a pro-Soviet communist or somebody who symphaties for the Soviet Union. You do understand how biased that sounds right? Considering that I've never been accused of being neither a communist or a marxist my whole life this comes as a suprise. Why are you here on editing on wiki? is it to force you're own views on others??? Is it because you want to be an asshole??? Or is something else??? All I'm asking is this, were are you getting you're information from?? --TIAYN (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Парни что не так с Брежневым и евреями? Кто, блджад, ограничевал евреев в учёбе? И вы так говорите "коммунизм", как будто это что то плохое!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.9.126 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

I would like to edit the date the author wrote, changing it from 1990 to 1991.

Russia98 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →Στc. 01:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Was the USSR a "federation"?

Yes, I think so. First of all, it was technically so by name ("Union of.. Republics") and in its constitution. And as a practical matter, in some ways. For one thing, the constituent republics where often historically distinct nations (e.g Khazakstan, Estonia, etc.) (in the ethnic/historical sense) or distinct regions, and not just random provinces laid out from Moscow. And the party bosses of the republics had a lot of power, they would run their republics as little fiefdoms often enough.

It's true that central control flowed from Moscow in many ways, but that's also true of other federations. The United States is a federation but a lot of things are decided in Washington.

And "Even though the USSR was technically a union of 15 independent republics..." is correct, I think. The passage does say technically. If not "independent republics" then perhaps "autonomous republics" would be best. Herostratus (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For a non-Soviet source, the Library of Congress' country study on the USSR mentions a "Soviet federation" multiple times. →Στc. 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was officially a federation of republics, it was not a federal republic as some have claimed.--R-41 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No. AFAIK, federation does not allow secession. Some members of the USSR (Russia, Georgia, Uzbekistan) were federations, however, the USSR itself wasn't. Membership of UkrSSS and BSSR in UNO is additional formal confirmation of this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the constitution, members of the Soviet Union were sovereign entities participating voluntarily and with the right to secede equally voluntarily. UN membership for Ukraine and Belarus were a ploy to gain more puppet votes. From a practical standpoint the USSR was a federation whose members were neither sovereign as advertised (despite having their own constitutions) nor free to leave as constitutionally guaranteed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We are speaking about a formal side. The power of CPSU, which prevented some republics from secession was informal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of whether the Soviet Union acted as a federation or not can be placed in the article. But formally the Soviet Union was a federation by its constitution and its name officially presented the state as such.--R-41 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Its name officially presented the state as a union, by contrast to Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, hrm. An editor has changed it to "Status = Union" and removed "Federation" from the "Goverment Type" in the infobox, leaving only "Marxist–Leninist single-party socialist state". It's not clear to me that this is correct or agreed upon... also as near as I can tell the "Status" field is not part of {{template infobox country}} and doesn't show anything. Looking at the article Political union, though, maybe "union" is a better description than "federal" or "federation".

How about this: "Union,
Marxist–Leninist single-party centralized socialist state"?

with "Union" devolving to Political union and "centralized" devolving to Centralized government (which is not a very good article actually, but whatever). I have gone ahead and done this, subject to revert and discussion as desired.

Whether "centralized" belongs I'm not sure; it some ways it was very centralized, in other ways, maybe partly because of being so large, a lot of important things were decided on at the level of the republics. So this is arguable. It's also possible that "Union" should read "Union (formally)" or something, not sure. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Union is more accurate than federation. @Herostratus, I'd be satisfied with your (original) proposal. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Centralized is unnecessary, almost all Marxist-Leninist states were centralized.--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but do our readers know that? →Στc. 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia readers are stupid. 74.88.114.249 (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics graph - misleading

The graph currently under "demographics" is misleading. For clarity, the Y axis should start at zero. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

State Succession

The lede says:

The Soviet Union (Russian: Советский Союз, tr. Sovetsky Soyuz), officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR; Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, tr. Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik; IPA: [sɐˈjus sɐˈvʲetskʲɪx sətsɨəlʲɪˈstʲitɕɪskʲɪx rʲɪsˈpublʲɪk] ( listen); abbreviated СССР, SSSR), was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991.

The above clearly suggests that the State no longer exists - but isn't Russia its legal successor? Isn't Russia regarded as a founding member of the UN etc? (not a new State established in 1991/92). Isn't the sentence clearly wrong? 86.45.48.69 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia was a republic within the USSR. --TIAYN (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your comment above TIAYN had to do with my post - I am aware that the territory that now forms the Russian Federation was the terrritory of one of the Republics (the Russian SSR) within the USSR. Of course, it would be entirely wrong to say the Russian Federation was a Republic within the USSR. The Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR (in its legal entirety by virtue of State succession). That is the point I wanted to flag: the USSR's legal existence is not historic - it continues on today through the "Russian Federation". Therfore the lede, as I have pointed out, is inaccurate/misleading. I think some small rewording is needed. Any one any views on this? 86.45.48.69 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt think that is correct; Russia is only considered the successor of the USSR because of its size. Russia was not the Soviet Union, just the leading republic within it. --TIAYN (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TIAYN - From what you have again posted, I can only presume you are not too au fait with international law and state succession and the like. Or simply don't attribute much importance to those things...What you have said has no connection with those topics. Confusing size of a country with State succession rights etc. Given that that is what I am trying to solicit informed input on, I do not think I can have a useful exchange with you (or you could read up...). Does any one else have any views? I know any change needs consensus. 86.45.48.69 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was dissolved by its own republics in 1991; Belarus, Ukraine, Russian and Kazakhstan... Russia is the successor state because of its size; it was the biggest republic, with the biggest economy, with the largest populations. etc. The Soviet Union was dissolved, it didn't collapse, it was dissolved by its own republics. Therefore, the USSR ceased to exist on December 25 1991. --TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The state no longer exists. Russia is the successor state. For instance, Russia took over the permanent Soviet seat on the UN Security Council. So as far as the UN is concerned Russia is a continuation of the Soviet Union. In many other ways large and small Russia has been treated by other states as a continuation of the Soviet Union, both legally (for instance as regards treaties) and de facto. It's not the same state, but it would be arguably worthwhile to include the succession info in the lede. I'm OK with the lede as it is, but "...existed in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991 and was succeeded by the Russian Federation" would be OK also. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying seems clear from the lede already. The sense in which the USSR was succeeded by the Russian Federation is that it assumed its rights and obligations, which is already in the lede. Of course, it was also a successor in the sense that it inherited the same people that compromised the population of its territory, etc., but that's true of every other Soviet republic as well. So there's no need to change any wording about succession in either sense -- it's a non-issue. 24.146.229.212 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion as to the difference between state succession and state continuity. With state succession, previous treaties, debts, assets and memberships to international organisations are not passed on to the succeeding state, however Russia assumed all debts, assets, treaties, diplomatic property, etc, of the USSR. According to this source[1] the Russian Federation is essentially a continuation of the USSR, albeit smaller in geographical size. --Nug (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There was neither state continuity or succession from tsarist Russia to Bolshevik Russia/then Soviet Russia; there was no state continuity but there was state succession from the Soviet Union to today's Russia. That was by treaty agreement which formed the CIS, i.e., the other former constituent republics of the USSR agreed to cede succession of the USSR solely to Russia. The Baltic states did not participate and are considered continuous with their pre-WWII selves. As for citizenship, as I understand it, all citizens of the former USSR had a time window within which to apply for conversion of their USSR citizenship to citizenship in the Russian Federation regardless of their domicile as long as it was within the former Soviet Union. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a change along the lines suggested above (by Herostratus) is needed i.e...."existed in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991 and was succeeded by the Russian Federation". Some Editors (e.g. TIAYN) confuse size of territory etc with State succession but other Editors (e.g. Herostratus and Nug) here are well tuned in to the point in question. The Russian Federation is the sole legal successor to the USSR. Another Editor (24.146.229.2120) was entirely confused and seemed to think the Russian Federation was no more the successor than any of the other ex Soviet states. I do think a change is needed. Any support for the change suggested by Herostratus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.222.104 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: East Germany

A Request for Discussion has been started on whether East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) should be described as a 'satellite state' of the former USSR. Please see: Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Editors are welcome to comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A federal union

The wording "A federal union of 15 subnational Soviet republics, the Soviet state was structured under a highly-centralized national government and economy" should be restored to the lede in place of "Even though the USSR was officially a union of 15 subnational Soviet republics, its government and economy was [sic] highly centralized." [2] Regardless of the centralization of power in Moscow, the Soviet Union was formally a federal union; its constitution and subnational structure (the RSFSR, 14 SSRs, and autonomous republics) clearly reflect that the structure of the Soviet state was designed on the federal principle.

The Encyclopedia of Soviet Law, Second Edition (1985) entry on "Union Republics" (p. 797) begins this way:

The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) is a federal structure made up of two components: the central All-Union level, and the constituent republics (or SSRS).

Needless, to say political power in the Soviet Union was highly-centralized and was disproprtionately exercised by the national government throughout history, as reflected in the proposed wording. On the other hand, without the federal principle as a legal basis of the union, none of the declarations of republican law superceding federal law (see, e.g., War of Laws) in the years preceding the dissolution of the USSR would have been possible. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, secession was declared illegal by the central Soviet state. "Federal principles" with regard to purported (on paper) constitutional rights of the republics did not make the break-up possible. What made the breakup possible was the will of the peoples who could no longer be militarily repressed (not that innocents demonstrating for freedom weren't murdered in an attempt to suppress their voices). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Secession was also declared illegal by the central American state (see Abraham Lincoln). Does this mean the USA is not a federal state? At any rate, I pointed you to War of Laws, and not the various declarations of independence that followed it. I also just provided you with a source on Soviet federalism. Right now you're talking past me about something else. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Secession was completely legal under the Soviet constitution, but when it came time to exercise that "right", it was declared illegal by the central authority, indicating that the "federation" you purport existed and made possible the breakup of the USSR did not facilitate said breakup (and existed only on paper). The U.S. in the mid 19th century is not relevant. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

Whats you're point? Is it that the USSR was not a democracy?? Cause if it is, I must tell you, we all know this. --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The point about the U.S. in the mid 19th century was brought up in response to your assertion that Gorbachev's denial of the right to secede implies that the USSR was not a federal state. My point is that the secession issue is at best tangential. Federalism is a structural division of power between government entities on two or more levels. The USSR had that, in the form of republican governments - each Soviet republic had a seperate governing body. Each Soviet republic had its own Supreme Soviet (legislative body) and even its own foreign minister. They passed their own laws and administered their own courts under their own criminal codes. Homosexual acts between males, for instance, were banned in Soviet Uzbekistan in the 1920s but remained legal in the Russian SFSR for another decade. When the republics engaged in the "war of laws" in the 1980s, they did so through their own Supreme Soviets. The declarations of independence in 1991 were also carried out through those Supreme Soviets. Naturally, such declarations would have been impossible had the Soviet Union been structured as a full-blooded unitary system, since there would have been no Supreme Soviets to sit as legislative bodies at the level of the republics. Admittedly, these subnational republics were neither sovereign nor independent, but that is beside the point. I am not talking about the recognition of the break-up, but the fact that Soviet law explicitly recognized a federal structure, and that this structure had some effect on the political processes in the state. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me this federation thing is nothing but WP:OR it was de jure "unbreakable union of free republics" the words "federal" "federative" etc.... was never mentioned in the national level constitutions of 1924 , 1936 and 1977 the olny official use of federation is the russian rfsr and the russian soviet republic olny , please read evrything you wrote you are synthising arguments to a personal conclusion , as i said the soviet union never officialy de jure called itself federation in any form , and de facto was a unitary state ruled almoust exclusivly by moscow Ami Deutshe (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no OR. Look at the source I provide here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I find both recent edits adequate, and suggest adding them together. Comparison with the U.S. looks awkward. Ukrained (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)