Talk:Leonid Brezhnev

Misc

Do we really need to know about every foreign visit Comrade Brezhnev made? The article is 34kB long. Let's purge some items from the timeline, if it is to be kept at all. --Jiang 07:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the article with the intention of getting rid of the "Timeline." This is an encyclopaedia, not a mediaeval chronicle. Adam 07:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I will not argue in this particular case, but it is wikipedia, not traditional encyclopaedia. According to its rules, you may put any amount of information here as long as it is correct. You may even put the length of Brezhnev's penis here, if you can prove it. Mikkalai

You are referring to medieval chronicle as if it is something bad. But because of these chronicles we know something about medival times today. Mikkalai 20:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a separate article for the timeline, linked to from this article, and from there we could transfer information from the timeline into the article itself without cluttering it in the meantime. I wouldn't want to see the info completely lost. Everyking 20:17, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how a totally separate secion --Timeline-- can "clutter" anything. Mikkalai 23:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I fundamentally differ with Mikkalai about what an encyclopaedia article should look like, and I think anyone looking at biographical articles at this or any other encyclopaedia would agree that they are not just lists of unassimilated factoids, they are essays which place the facts of person's life in its historical context. And this is not even an original list, it has been copied from somewhere else. If people want to read the list they can use the link. I will continue to revert its reinclusion in this article. Adam 02:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, IMO you are a bit overestimating your abilities to know what anyone is looking for. For starters, the keyword is "unassimilated". When you "assimilate", you introduce your judgement of what to assimilate and what to discard. One might think that the record "Meets with Jaruzelski in Crimea. Chernenko there" is unimportant. Do YOU think it is unimportant? How did you "assimilate" it? May be you don't mean it, but the whole your statement above just reeks of arrogance and disrespect to other people's opinions. Mikkalai 02:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The writing of any article, as opposed to a mere list of dates, requires the exercise of judgement. That judgement can be based on professional training, or on experience, or both. Part of that process is deciding what to leave out. Even a 500-page biography of Brezhnev would leave many facts out, and an encyclopaedia article must in large part be an exercise in compression. There is nothing arrogant about exercising such judgements within one's field of competence, as I'm sure Mikkalai does every day. He is of course welcome to disgree with my judgements, just as he is free to corerct my errors of fact, and if I disagree with him we can debate that. But he should refrain from ad hominem attacks where there is no ground for them. As I said, if people really want to know the contents of Brezhnev's engagement calendar, they can go to the link. But the list of itself is unencyclopaedic. Adam 03:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Exscuse me, there was no ad hominem *attacks*. I didn't say that your judgement is about importance is invalid or underqualified. My only point was that you cannot judge for ALL people. Sending them to an external link is a foul play: we all should know by now that external links have to guarantee to live long life. Exactly because of the ephemerity of "external links" I copied the table here. I hope you don't think that I don't know how to create external references. Once again, I have no doubts as to your qualifications. I doubt only your in rights to impose the selection what is important and what is not, especially expressed in a so compromiseless way. Mikkalai 06:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"Exercise of compression": Yes and no. I suggest you re-read the basic wikipedia principles, the part about removing the limitations of paperpedias. We can disagree about correctness of statements, but IMO a postulate is that inclusion of facts directly relevant to the topic is undeniable. Otherwise wikipedia will be in deep shit. Mikkalai 06:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The timeline's not unsalvageable; it just doesn't belong in a biographical entry. Why not see if you can salvage some of the content by starting something like the Timeline of United States history for Soviet history? 172 07:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Every article at Wikipedia is a selection of the unlimited possible facts which could be presented about any subject. In theory I could write a biographical article about Brezhnev which details every minute of his life. It would be a million words long, no-one would read it and it would be useless for practical purposes. All editors, inlude Mikkalai, select which facts they think are useful or relevant for a Wikipedia article, and either omit the rest or relegate them to external links. I agree that we are under fewer restraints than paper encyclopaedias, so that we can write long articles on obscure subjects. That doesn't mean there are no restraints on how detailed an article can be. But if Mikkalai wants to add more detailed material to this article he is free to do so - that it a different matter to attaching a mere catalog of dates. That is unencyclopaedic in any kind of encyclopaedia. Furthermore, many thousands of articles have external links to sources of more information, and if Mikkalai objects to the practice he can take it up at a higher level, but he can't use this argument selectively about this article and not about others. Adam 07:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

It was not "mere" list of dates. It was list of dates with events attached to them. I fail to see why your text (btw in which only years are left from dates) with basically the same events only lumped into paragraphs and some philosophy added is better than a "mere" list of dates where no one's opinion is forced unto the reader.

Of course, I cannot object against a good encyclopedic summary. But there is no guarantee that it it a history is "tailored" to views and interests of the writer. If you read an excellent EB1911 entry for Alexander II of Russia, you will see how nice he was. But you will not find a word how he, e.g., banned Ukrainian language. Every historian knows that a "mere" list of dates is a source of data, and every politician should knows that a "prepared" history, with only 1-2 dates deleted is a nice propaganda tool.

My objection to practice of external links: RTFM. Wikipedia rules themselves, not me, suggest to use them sparingly and not rely on them. There are some reasonable links, like homepages of entities discussed, but the rest is just arbitrary noise. IMO "links for more information" are often an indicator of laziness or of lack of time of the author. If information is important, why not put it here? If it is not, why not let the readers use google themselves? Like I said, external links are ephemeral. I myself culled quite a few ones gone dead. Mikkalai 16:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If that's what you think about encyclopaedias I don't know why you bother participating in writing one, unless it's just to promote your personal agenda, which of course I would never suggest. However I have no time to pursue this argument further. If you think there is useful information missing from the article, feel free to add it, in an encyclopaedia manner. Adam 00:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you suggest? Quite a few people here are not without agenda. Thank you for the discussion. I'll think about it. Mikkalai 01:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Implicit political/economic opinions

I like the article, but I've one quibble. Here's a quote:

"Although the regime promised rising standards of living, it was unable to produce the consumer goods which would provide workers with an incentive to improve productivity and earn higher wages."

This statement seems to imply that the only way to improve productivity is to tempt workers with consumer goods. Is it really the only way? How could we know? I think this statement is a little too strong for a Wikipedia article. Can it be qualified in some way (e.g. "some economists would argue that...") or something.

On a lighter note, how can anyone write an article on Brezhnev without mentioning those eyebrows?

--Malcohol 12:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• On an even lighter note, I only know the man's name from the 1985 film Letter to Brezhnev, [1] although there isn't really space in the article to mention his posthumous role in advancing the careers of Alfred Molina and Margi Clarke.-Ashley Pomeroy 12:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never will I write an article with pathetic expressions like "some economists would argue that...". The experience of the Soviet Union settled the debate about the relationship between material and non-material incentives and productivity pretty conclusively. Adam 14:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not see how the downfall of a single flawed political system can be a conclusive proof of the inviability of one economic system over another. That there has never been a successful experiment in using non-material incentives merely shows how effectively Western capitalistic ideas have established hegemony in economic thought. Additionally, expressions such as "some economists would argue" are certainly not pathetic; using such phrases merely communicates the fact that there isn't any sort of objective "truth" established. As it currently stands, this article exhibits a clear bias for Western capitalism. I am unfortunately not qualified in this area (Brezhnev's biography) to suggest edits, but I would strongly suggest that this article be revised to use more neutral language. Beckism 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Malcohol that it should be qualified, in the spirit of NPOV (not the spirit in which the present version of the article was written, given that the conclusion was originally a lecture about the inevitable failure and fundamental unworkability of the Soviet system.) Everyking 16:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed -- And anyone (Adam) who thinks that economic theories left or right can be definitively resolved as in one of the hard sciences is sadly mistaken. The paragraph in question, if accepted as legitimate, would be like declaring that the collapse of the Argentinian Economy conclusively disproved all of the economic theories informing the IMF and modern neo-liberal economics. In other words, it's taking a complex event and trying to pin it on a single cause. No, not even a single cause -- a single *theory* about a particular cause. Fine for an editorial in the Economist, not fine for an NPOV encyclopedia entry.Dave 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Planned economy

I think the Wikipedia free encyclopeida is very good, but feel that there is something of a contradiction when analysising the stagnation of the 1970s. I have made additions and they have been reversed without explanation. I think this is mistaken.

How did the economy of soviet Russia grow under Stalin in the 1930s? The crude accumilation of steel, heavy engineering, and so on, was possible with no democratic feed back. This was not so for the increasingly complex economy. It became increasingly impossible to plan "top down."

Some reference to the original concept of workers' democracy, which was supposed to control the economy, in this period, is necessary here.

There were for instance still many illusions in the West that the Soviet Union presented an alternative type of society, whilst crisis wracked the West - started by the rising price of oil, which we see again threatening today. The Soviet bureacracy still encouraged these illusions in the 1970s, and continued to make various facile pretences about workers' democracy.

It is insufficient to say that without market forces providing incentive, as the article does, the soviet economy failed. Since market forces were re-introduced they have brought considerable hardship to the people of the former Soviet Union, instability, war, and enormous poverty. So the article seems somewhat simplistic here.

There is a great deal of scepticism about the "free market," world trade, and so on. The recent election of a "left" President in Uruguay, which had until now had been a traditional US ally, shows that the view that market forces have failed is popular amongst large sections of the world's population, for instance in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Venezuela, to mention only Latin America.

Perhaps those watching this page can take this into account. I will not attempt to re-edit the page, but will await a reply.

An alternative view

One difficulty in assessing the performance of a centrally-planned economy is objective measurement - for example, how do you compare an economy measured by profit with one measured by weight (the USSR 5-year plans used this as their baseline, resulting in products massively over-engineered to meet quotas rapidly, after which productive capacity could legally be used for personal benefit, kept religiously separate from the planned economy)? My 1978 thesis into counterpurchase suggested there was, however, another mechanism at work: the general population were doing their own thing (ten million home-knitted bedsock-makers add nothing to GNP until such time as the cottage industry starts selling, which is what happened in the 1990s) while central expenditure was funded by a form of tribute from the Warsaw Pact satellites, asset-stripping them for the prestige projects at home. Once there were no more assets left to strip, the Pact imploded, and the parasite economy experienced real hardship as described while the black market economy filled the gaps resulting.

A market economy presumes free access to the market by both sellers and buyers. Internationalisation has reduced the choice of products and blocks access to the market to newcomers, both by using economies of scale and a larger asset base to undercut the newcomers, and by using intellectual property, the WTO, and taxational policies ostensibly aimed at limiting inflation by capping growth, to freeze them out. The Asian model uses false exchange rates to counterbalance this, at the risk of creating a trade imbalance which may yet destroy the trust between governments which the current stability depends on (when the US defaults on its debt, which is inevitable in the long run).

While the OECD fails to address the question of Planet Zog (the net imbalance in the sum of the national balance of payments), and local hegemonists create their own mythologies (whether capitalist, shariah, or communist) to disinform their populations, there is little likelihood of avoiding armed conflict. Jel 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Arms Race

I deleted the references to the Carter-Reagan military buildup in light of the fact that there is no evidence that the Soviets even attempted to match the American build-up, despite repeated claims that they did.

Check the background to the SALT and tactical weaponry in Europe limitation talks for the data for this: the Russians did pull back a number of divisions East of the Urals as a result.Jel 12:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

POV?

How can the article claim that the Supreme Soviet was "decorative"?

Because it's a fact. "NPOV" doesn't mean that we have to accept every government's and organisation's description of itself. Our job is to tell readers the truth. Adam 04:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brezhnev's Funeral

Hello. The description of Brezhnev's funeral matches almost exactly the description of Andropov's, right down to the effusive description of the funeral as "one of the world's most impressive." Perhaps someone should check into the matter to see if there are any factual discrepancies. Furthermore, the verbiage in one needs to be changed, as they are almost verbatim copies of one another. EcceQuamBonum (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if anyone will be ok with me adding a photo I have found of Brezhnev's funeral. Zscout370 23:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, assuming there are no copyright issues. Everyking 00:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image is located at [2] Zscout370 00:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His birthdate in Gregorian and Julian calendars

Our article shows that he was borned on 19 December (N.S.) or 6 December (O.S.) in 1906, but I just found Russian Wikipedia article showing 1 January 1907 (N.S.) or 19 December 1906 (O.S.). Could any Russian-speaking users please double check this. This is very confusing.--Jusjih 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Brezhnev was born either 1 January 1907 (N.S.) or 19 December 1906 (O.S.). The authors substracted two weeks from the N.S. in spite of adding them. --Wildead 08:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Place of birth

How Dniprodzerzhyns'k could exist in Imperial Russia? -) It is named after Felix Dzerzinsky--Nixer 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

reputation

Brezhnev presided over the Soviet Union longer than any man except Stalin, but his posthumous reputation is very low, both in Russia and among historians.

This is not true. According to a recent poll, most people selected Brezhnev to be most wishable for ruling in Russia from all other Russian rulers from the beginning of XXth century, including Nicholas II, Stalin and Yeltsin.--Nixer 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Order of Victory

Brezhnev also received the Order of Victory, the highest Soviet military award, in 1978, becoming the only recipient not to have participated in World War II.

This is not true. He participated in the war, though not as a military commander but as a political commissar (in the rank of a general). Andres 14:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question: I've heard that he invented a military campaign to give himself battle honours. Is this true?--Crimzon2283 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, but he greatly exaggerated his role in a WWII battle, indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.225.214 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Declining heath

His declining health was rarely — if ever — mentioned in the Soviet newspapers, but it was practically evident with the deteriorating political and economic situation

His declining health was evident not from the situation in the country but from his public appearances. Andres 14:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To elucidate: his robotic performances on the May Day parades in particular left Western analysts convinced that his intellectual capacity was functionally absent - it was even suggested in 1980 that his 1979 stroke had actually left him brain-dead, and that all that was on display was his mindless corpse, surviving with machine support. Some less mechanical reaction in 1982 provided a degree of disproof of this, but his death not long after left the question open. In any case, the open autonomy in decision-making shown by other members of the Politburo in establishing personal power-bases in the regions confirmed an absence of centralised discipline, culminating in a battle between the KGB (Andropov) and Brezhnev's power base (Chernenko, Gorbachev and Yeltsin), finally won by the KGB under Putin.

The decentralisation of the power structure left the USSR fatally exposed when the Warsaw Pact ceased to be able to support the central planning system, which had accidentally subverted its own survival by allowing excess capacity above and beyond the set production quota to be used for private purposes: this then established a thriving black market which supported the breakaway political structures and destroyed the hegemony over the Pact countries.Jel 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Evil daughter

We all know about the circus-crazy one but didn't Brezhnev have a criminal daughter who was responsible for a lot of corruption in Russia during the time of her father's reign?

Anon

Nationality

Why is his nationality listed as Russian? He wasn't Russian. He was born in Ukraine. He was Ukrainian.1.21 jigwatts 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the actual article? It's all in there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed reading that part. Even then, I still think his nationality should read Russian/Ukrainian.1.21 jigwatts 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Do the Ukrainians really want to claim this guy??? 74.251.200.216 08:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Russians/Ukrainian etc have a slightly different view on ethnicity/nationality than Westerners.

Because there is no such thing as an American ethnicity, that is to say that the America population is the result of recent immigration for all over the world, to be "American" you are simply born in America.

In the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union, a country of hundreds of ethnic groups, your ethnicity is not defined by where you live, it's down to actual ethnicity. A Ukrainian in Russian/Ukrainian eyes is not someone simply born in Ukraine. Ukraine has only existed as a country since 1991, before that the border of Ukraine, the Ukrainian SSR changed many times. Ukrainians were the group of people who followed the Ukrainian orthodox church or the Greek Catholic Church and who spoke the Ukrainian vernacular. Therefore just because Brezhnev was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, it doesn't mean he was Ukrainian. Furthermore in the Soviet Union everyone had an official nationality in there internal passports, and I'm pretty sure Brezhnev was "Russian" [Russkii] 82.24.206.219 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

The thing is that he was not an ethnic Russian. Albeit he attempted to conceal his ethnicity due to potentially risky origins (could be part-Jewish), he was registered as Ukrainian. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Malaya Zemlya

How it was possible to write Brezhnev's biography without mentioning Malaya Zemlya? :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)