Talk:Red Army

Archives
Archive 1 (early 2006)
Archive 2
Archive 3

Not very trustful article

Is this article been edited by english speaking russian? Many russians don't believe anything else than the glorious soviet version of the Red Army. One tip: NEVER trust russian studies who are buildt on "facts" from soviet archives or soviet history writing, because the soviet fundament will most likely be wrong. Officers reported false with purpose from the battlefield to avoid punishment, Soviet authorities falsified archive material for political purposes after the war etc, etc. I especially react on this sentence quoted from an russian "study": "300,000 of 3 million German POWs died in Soviet hands". This is totally wrong, many more than 10 percent died in the brutal Soviet hands. How can you explain that 94 percent of whole german 6. armee in Stalingrad never come back from captivity? And what about all the SS personell who went trough ridiculos trials, victims of the strange russian logic, and where sentenced to many years in Siberia? They did not come back either. The "study" this article is reffering to is just another case who builds up around the lies of the violent and drunk rapist army. --Jarao 18:48, 29 July 2009

About "94 percent of whole german 6. armee in Stalingrad never come back from captivity": it is well-known that (1)most soldiers of 6th army starved in Stalingrad pocket, and (2)soviet intelligence made a big mistake about number of troops inside the pocket. Hence after capitulation there were many half-died from starving german soldiers without food far from soviet supply lines. Advancing soviet troops simpply didn't have enough food for them. Many germans POW from Stalingrad died in snow steppes before they could be transported to soviet railway stations and removed from front zone to the POW camps. So, no any "brutal Soviet hands" - a la guerre comme a la guerre. Slb nsk (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

                                                 ****************************

To be honest, i dont know an awful lot about this, and am just starting studying at GSCE, but while i agree with what you say that often files that come out of the Soviet Union have a tilt on them to favour either the Bolsheviks or the USSR, i diagree with the generalisation that all of it is wrong. Equally, most of Russia does not just believe in 'the glorious soviet version of the Red Army', and actually the percentage would probably be similar to, if slightly higher than, those of Germans believing that the SA and SS were for the greater good. Do not forget that the Red Army was, on occasion, used against the Russian peasants and proletariat. And, before you ask, I am not an english speaking Russian, im Welsh. 82.133.119.126 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that some Soviet information might have a pro-Soviet bias. But remember, western sources definitely have an equally strong bias to discredit the Soviet war effort. If you have any doubt about this, study the CIA involvement in anti-Soviet propaganda. They even edited the 1984/Animal farm books and movies to fit their propaganda war! Brutality and POW casualties are classic inventions of disinformation campaigns (atrocity propaganda).

Guidelines: Propaganda works through creating simplified mental images (since Lippman). So if you live in the West, watch out for the following WW2 stereotypes: 1. Disciplined, effective and brutal Nazis. 2. Cyncial communist elites leading inefficient human waves of uneducated, russian barbarians, overwhelming their enemy only by their huge numbers. 3. Morally perfect Allies

The average German soldier was not brutal nor necessarily disciplined and effective. USSR had excellent technology, equipment and tactics, especially towards the end of the war. The Allies were involved in many, many atrocities.

The sometimes painful fact is that all sides were much more similar than we are led to believe through Hollywood. And even if Russian sources on the Red Army are biased, they are on average far superior to Western sources of the same events (but merging and comparing different sources is the superior method).

BTW, I am a Russian speaking ehtnic Swede with an interest in history and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.32.179 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Saturating articles with irrelevant stuff to dilute the valid content

Now we get it again. Piotrus, will you ever stop this polonocentric WP:TE. This is being done by you left and right to articles whose topics range from culture to geography to biographies to history. Now, the red army. This is not the article about the military campaign. This is not the article about OUN. This is not one of other "Massacres..." article. This is not a "History of..." article. This is an article about the military organization. What does the rizing of OUN against Poles have to do with the red army? Again the long-chain logic? The campaign was the Red Amry campaign, it provoked the uprising, hense the uprising material must be not only in the uprising article AND campaign article (Invasion of Poland) but the article, third in the chain. It took me half a year to convince you to not reinsert OT stuff to Russian Enlightenment. I still have to deal with your OT additions to Soviet partisans and Polonization. You are making this all so difficult to others by carrying the same campaign to the next one. Please give it a break. --Irpen 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say that Piotrus was not the first here. I trimmed the article mercilessly of descriptions of campaigns. I second the opinion that this article is about Army, and the should not be piecemeal forking of the whole military history, described erlsewhe`'mikka 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, the same problem often arises in bios of presidents, monarchs, etc., which simply retell the history of the corresponding country during the rule of the particular ruler. Such things must be recognized and dealt with, but without particular panic. `'mikka 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support the idea. But it would be a pity if the valid referenced content is just lost. We should take an effort to integrate it into other articles and by integrating, I don't mean mere pasting disrupting the text flow. If the author of the purged parts is still around, we can reasonably hope that he will take care of it. If not, I think the purger should take this effort. Just my opinion. --Irpen 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  You are right, but I doubt anything useful is here, These topics (wars with poland, finland, japan) are quite extensively covered by respective nations, who very love red army. `'mikka 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai :Please stop your "slimming" attempts. Please read the rule "wikipedia is not paper". A distinctive feature of wikipedia is that you can find here things you can find nowhere else. Where have I read that before? TheQuandry 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper does not mean an individual article can bloat indefinitely with information not directly relevant to the scope of the article. Not only a huge article is a pain to read, but it also means that certain subjects are covered twice or more in several places, greatly complicating the editing. Consequently, it is important to maintain an accurate scope in each article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Anyway, I was kind of being a jerk there and talking about something from another article, so I'll stop before it truns into a row. TheQuandry 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite sure you see the difference between the two cases: in your case you were deleting information whic was nowhere else in wikipedia. On the other hand I am deleting unnecessary repetition of information. Since you are new, I would like to recommend you to read about the bads of Wikipedia:Content forking, the most serious problem being difficulty to maintain descriptions of the same things in several places in sync. `'mikka 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside Irpen's personal attacks, I agree with Mikka that the article has an overly long section on history. I'd suggest splitting it off to history of the Red Army instead of trimming it - the conflicts with Poland or Finland should be mentioned (ableit without the 'bread and salt' POV that Irpen tries to insert - I mean, 'bread and salt', this is as ridicoulus and POVed as it can get, really ;p). On the second thought, most of this material is duplicated (word to word) in Military of the Soviet Union, so a redirect, and short summary with 'see main artice' here may be all we need.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

History of the Red Army is in Military history of the Soviet Union. `'mikka 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, in other words, yet again we see the same old story: presenting the Red Army in good light is good, mentioning rape, plunder and slaughter of civilians is bad. Why? Because... There are references there? Not a problem, Irpen will delete them too... //Halibutt 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, exactly the same dispute (with similar arguments!) has been going on in German wikipedia. Are we facing co-ordinated efforts by some Neo-Stalinist whitewashers? Constanz - Talk 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words Halibutt cannot miss an occasion to bite a Russian ass. You have to either change your name to user:Piranha02 or to stick to article content discussion. What exaclty is your suggestion to improve the article, please? `'mikka 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, thanks, but I really can't care less about Halibutt's whining about evil Irpen. Besides, for one my ass is not Russian and, for two, I avoid getting too much involved. To repeat why the info war removed: the info Piotrus added was about OUN rising against Poles and slaughtering them in 1939. The info is referenced and encyclopedic. But there are articles for this info. Why did not Piotrus add this to OUN? Why did not he add it as a prelude to the neutrally titled Massacre of Poles in Volhynia, which address 1942 events but could use a short prehistory. Why did he choose to add that stuff to the Red Army of all the articles, where it has no relevance? If you need to know why, check talk:Russian Enlightenment, talk:Russo-Polish War, Talk:Fyodor Tyutchev, talk:Ded Moroz, talk:Soviet partisans, talk:Polonization, etc., etc., etc. --Irpen 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First, Piotrus not only added it, but also removed the 'people welcoming Red Army with flowers, bread and salt' part, straight from Soviet Propaganda 101. Second, if you want to present how locals reacted to Red Army, either give a full picture - which includes, indeed, some people welcoming it, others fleeing, others taking this a chance to 'right some wrongs', ect. - or don't do it at all. You cannot have the just the Soviet propaganda version, I am afraid. And based on the sources I have read, the actions like OUNs massacress were much more prominent than 'welcoming Soviet liberators with bread and salt'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just mention your source is Soviet propaganda and the case is clear. We can discuss institutional problems of the Red Army or things like mass rape/killing/robbing/desertion if there are sources and in case therre are disputes we mentio what kind of sources make what statemets. And Zhukov's campaign in Mongolia is important because it shaped the thinking of later officers. Wandalstouring 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of Revisions

To be honest, I am a bit angry. I was working carefully and slowly to bring this article towards featured status, on the model of the United States Marine Corps, and trying to ignore the unhelpful revert war with the Armies of X etc table. Now someone has deleted large chunks of relevant history, in the pre-1939 period. I would like to remind people that discussion of pre 39 history, as it its specifically related to Red Army military operations, is relevant, and that this article is probably not the best place for disagreements about Polish/Russian history, nor the distinction between Muscovy, Russia, and Ukraine. Please cite all sources for any changes that are intended to stay, and hold off making changes that will be controversial. Any sections that extremely controverisal should be crafted on the talk page first with agreement between editors. Buckshot06 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have re-inserted a section including details of the 1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords, which is very little known, as well as mention of Khalkin Gol, which is as notable as WW2, especially as it tested Zhukov as a field commander who would handle the most critical assignments post 1941 (see John Erickson's 'The Road to Stalingrad' for details). Please do not remove this section without consultation on this talk page first. Buckshot06 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this information is bad, I just don't think it all belongs under the Red Army article. Let's face facts, if we wrote everything interesting and/or useful about the Red Army, this article would become hugely bloated and heavy. I think that the Red Army article itself should be a somewhat general history of the Army itself, and that the war related topics should go into new articles (like "Red Army in world War 2", or "Red Army in the Far East"). Does this seem reasonable to everyone? TheQuandry 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, but is anybody writing such an article yet? When someone starts it, thats just fine. Until they do so, no-one else ever has mentioned this little known point. My advice from Kirill L was to include relevant parts of the history - see the old peer review. Until those articles are started, I want to follow the peer review suggestions, because they follow the WPMILHIST assessment process and the procedure for getting things featured. I am trying to get general information in - see the newish 'Organisation' section and the recently added bits on Strategic Directions (=TVDs). Buckshot06 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Battles are described in the corresponding history articles. I see the only possible reason of discusion of separate military conflicts in the article about the army: if they are related to notable changes in the army, and the corresponding section must cover mostly this topic i.e., immediately related to the army, along the following lines: "In the Battle of .. the Red Army for the first time employed a new strategy of ..." or "During the far East conflicts (main article: blabla) the Red Army had the following organization." `'mikka 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget that an army is an instrument of the state, and eg., 1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords is just that: conflict between powers. Are you going to write the section "1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords" in the Maxim gun article as well? (of course I am exaggerrating here, but this is the idea: and article about army must write about army. Still, along my lines, if Maxim gun did help Soviets to kill 90% of Chinese armed mostly with wooden swords, this fact could have been mentioned in Maxim gun article, but of course without long musing: "Russians went first here then there, while chinese...") `'mikka 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We agree that an army is the servant of the state, but we disagree about the level of detail required. You obviously do not agree with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Red Army, but would you mind reviewing the comments there before you respond?

We do not disagree on "level of detail". We disagree about what this article is about. You seem to fail to undertstand that this article is about Red Army per se, not about the Military history of the Soviet Union. The article about a spoon doesn't describe every soup you can eat with it. Please read carefully my previous response, in which I explain that only conflicts that influenced the army itself are reasonable to be included here. `'mikka 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also see you created a considerable fork of Military history of the Soviet Union in Military of the Soviet Union, indicating that you don't understand the difference between writing and encyclopedia and a standalone book. Please remove the overlaps: history must be in "history" article only. Examples from history in another article make sense only to describe the major issues of the topic of another article. `'mikka 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I cited above that Zhukov got his major pre WW2 field command experience at Khalkin Gol, which is more notable than any weapon, and I believe that a one line mention of the 1929 conflict is appropriate. Should we ask for some outside editors for their opinions? Buckshot06 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a notable fact. But it must be described as such along the line of your remark (the influence of the conflict on the Red Army), but not as a description or a summary of the conflict itself, which is just one mouse click away. `'mikka 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are saying you are working "on the model of the United States Marine Corps" But you have to look a bit deeper than the Table of Contents.

For example, look what a small section "WWII" says: "In World War II, the Marines played a central role in the Pacific War; the Corps expanded from two brigades to two corps with six divisions, and five air wings with 132 squadrons. In addition, 20 defense battalions and a parachute battalion were set up." I.e., the section does not describe WWII, it describes what was happening to Marines in WWII.

Next random example: "Post-Vietnam and pre-9/11" section: After Vietnam, the Marines resumed their expeditionary role, participating in the invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) and the invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause). This enumeration of battles makes sense because Marines are part of the whole Military of the United States, and this list (but not descritions of actions) gives a proper credit to this branck of US mil.

To enumerate battles of the Red Army is wars in pointless, but its usage in peaceful times, as a tool for projedcting of the Soviet power, e.g., Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is noteworthy. `'mikka 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment to Buckshot. Please do not get upset and please do not abandon this article. You did a great job here and, in all fairness, I think both Mikka and you partly right in this dispute about oh-so-severe-trimming and think that the solution is in the middle. Before it is not too late, please do crate a new article and post your text on Mongolian campaign there. Otherwise, this may get lost in history. Thanks again for the great work you've done here. --Irpen 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good article. Did the Soviets Army completely abandon it's Warsaw allies in 1989. I went over the border into East Germany from West Berlin in summer of (of how the future of the world seemed so good) 1990 and there were Soviet soldiers everywhere. They also spent the nights prior to Oct 3 (re-unificaiton) firing thousands of tank rounds off they could not use after unification as West German law resitriced military activites close to built up areas, where as Esat German law which about to be history, did not. I know this as I sat up all night watching the fire works from my bedroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir5ac (talk • contribs)

There already is one: Soviet-Japanese Border Wars. `'mikka 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus can I mention Soviet-Japanese Border Wars in the article, without getting it reverted? I think a general section at least mentioning the conflicts the Red Army was involved in the Far East in 1919-39 is as notable as World War II. Happily do some drafting on the talk page, but some mention of these war involvements belongs in the article. It'd be like leaving out the Dominican Republic ops out of the USMC article.

Eg- "Between 1899 and 1916, the Marine Corps continued its record of participation in foreign expeditions, including the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion in China (1899–1901), Panama, the Cuban Pacifications, Veracruz (Mexico), Haiti, Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), and in Nicaragua." All I want to do is mention it with a link. Buckshot06 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Buckshot06 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

I have no more patience for this nonsense. Ukrained, the next time you blindly revert this article, I will report you for disruption. You know the rules on gaining consensus and discussing your edits before making them perfectly well and you're deliberately disregarding them. TheQuandry 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be threatening me. And I know one strict rule of consensus: if one or more editors disagree and provide reasons, no consensus is present. It's that simple. However, I'm getting used to a situation where some users misinterprete WP rules on a daily basis. By the way, Mr.TheQuandry, I wonder how do you "know" what do I know :)) because I'm not very aguainted with you on WP. Afraid even thinking about what did you mean by "knowing me". Thank you, Ukrained 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this Armies of Ukraine/Armies of Russia in-out business is ridiculous. Please come up with a solution between yourselves - a disclaimer on the table, perhaps - and only come back after you've figured it out. Buckshot06 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the lighter side, there's always the prospect of making WP:LAME --Nick Dowling 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for an explanation concerning the Ukrainian military issue? What sort of dispute is there? Many brave Ukrainian men gave their lives amongst their Soviet brethren in The Great Patriotic War. Is this actually being disputed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MVMosin (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Mr.Mosin, the issue is about Russian military, not Ukrainian. You may want to read several relevant talk sections above if you're interested. By the way, some of my fellow editors seem to be deliberately partitioning the discussion on the subject here :(, probably trying to promote a false claim that I'm avoiding consensus attempts. Happy edits, Ukrained 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Paint Job

For some reason, in some pictures or video clips of Soviet army vehicles, the vehicles are painted with an unusual paint job. An example of one of these can be seen in this image:

File:BM-21 Grad Red Army.jpg

My best guess is that these were parade vehicles, but does anyone have any concrete idea about these? Sgt. Bond 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any unusual markings on the vehicle pictured, maybe I'm blind. But I do know that it was not at all uncommon for Soviet artillery gunners (This includes the crews of Katiusha rocket launchers) as well as for tank crews to paint symbols, images, or most commonly (Because us Slavs are inherently awful artists) phrases. These were somewhat of a battle-cry given from crew to crew, much like the similar phenomenon with Yankee combat planes in The Great Patriotic War. MVMosin 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The badge on the door appears to be a standard Russian Guards insignia.Buckshot06 11:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that the "unusual paint" that Sgt Bond was referring to? That is indeed what the symbol is; I don't see what about it is "unusual." Sgt Bond, could you clarify?MVMosin 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the way this truck was painted. I've seen clips of Soviet military parades where the vehicles are painted in those same colors & with that same logo. And Buckshot 06 is right about the organization, because the logo on the truck says "ГВАРДИЯ - СССР" (literal transliteration: "GVARDIYA - SSSR") on it. I figured this out because I have a decal of this logo from a Russian army truck kit, which I closely inspected. Take a look for yourself in the following image (the logo in question is in the top left corner): http://www.internetmodeler.com/1999/november/first-looks/icm_ural4320-decals-lg.jpg Sgt. Bond 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

timeframe

I read in the German article that the Red Army existed from 1918 until 1946. If someone can confirm this all afterwards would be Soviet Army. Wandalstouring 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Its in the first paragraph; from 1946 it was the Soviet Army. Buckshot06 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand sth., but the intro doesn't clearly says that the Red Army existed from 1918 till 1946 and was succeded by the Soviet Army. Could you change this? A clear and correct definition certainly improves every article.Wandalstouring 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely worded statements may be contrary to facts without clarification

The argument was challenged at its original location. Bah.

1. You mentioned that it became the Soviet Army in 1922. Then, you seem to directly contradict this by saying that the Red Army became the Soviet Army (Again) in 1946. Note that I say seem to. You did mention the word "officially," but remember that most people don't know as much about this as you do, and will need further information. Go back, and make the distinction between these two events clear to someone that is unfamiliar with the subject. The word "officially" doesn't cut it. Remember that this is the English WP, and a lot of people that will/have see/n this article won't know a thing about the way Soviet bureacracy works, and so they will have a hard time picking up that subtext.
2. Then, immediately after this, you imply that the Red Army existed throughout the USSR's lifetime, which directly contradicts the previous statements. Both of them. This doesn't really belong in an article about the Red Army... This should be taken out, and put in a seperate article for the Soviet Army.
3. You mentioned the significance of the colour red. You neglected to mention, though, that red also became the de facto official colour of the international communist movement.
4. You failed to bring the needed attention to the fact that the name "Red Army" carries a tremendous meaning which "Soviet Army" does not. While they are both, in the context of the USSR, essentially "defenders of the proletariatic revolution," as per the national ideals, it is of critical importance that the Red Army consists of volunteer soldiers fighting for these ideals out of their own faith in them, be it a faith in their morality or effectiveness or both. The Soviet Army fights to defend the United Soviet Socialist Republics and her interests, and fights in the name of her ideals simply because they are her ideals.

The reader needs to be aware that a Red Army soldier is fighting for the revolution whereas a Soviet Army soldier fights for the country. To put it simply, a Red Army soldier is fighting for the Bolshevik party, which is seperate from the country. The name "Soviet Army" does not carry (At least, not rightfully so) any political implications aside from patriotism in regards to an individual soldier, in the case that he is a citizen of the country.

It is also of note that although in the Red Army, commissars were essentially officers with total control over their subordinates, while in the Soviet Army, if they did not carry military rank in addition to their rank in the Communist Party then they carried no authority within the military ranks. All that they had the power to do was to perform administrative duties in place of a willing officer or suggest courses of action to officers within the Communist Party, who in turn gave suggestions to officials in the government, who passed them to military officials, similar to the Yankees' "Joint Chiefs" and they then hand them down through the chain of command. The mythical horseshoe bureacracy.

The Soviet government (and, therefore, Soviet military) had a relationship with the Communist Party which could be loosely compared to that between the Monarchs and the church in Medieval England, except that this relationship was deliberate from the birth of the country, and was also endorsed by the state, rather than by fear of becoming a pariah. The resulting balance of power was all very complicated, and is similar to the manner in which many former Soviet republics now have a Prime Minister and President. MVMosin 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above argument was first raised at Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Utter_falsehoods_of_historic_and_political_nature, and there are some replies to it there; it was suggested to move and continue the discussion here as naming of the Red/Soviet army is a wider issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is my argument(In response to prior arguments at previous location). The Red Army became the Soviet Army much earlier than 1946. The 1922 year is much more accurate, and the logic behind it is simple; it was at or near this point in time that Bolshevist Russia began to change into the United Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus, even if the soldiers themselves were (As many, many must have been) Bolshevist themselves, they represented more than that. They were no longer fighting only for a revolution; they were fighting for their freedom to carry out that revolution. In short, they were, at that point, defending the country that chose to harbour the ideals, rather than fighting for those ideals themselves.

As for the 1946 date? Well, the war with the Wehrmaecht had ended. Do you understand how Soviet legislature operates? Dear God, it's one of the most beastly monstrosities of a bureacracy I've ever seen, and I've been to a US post office. And, once, their Department of Motor Vehicles, just to see if it was really that bad.

Well, they handed out licenses faster than Soviet office-holders get through their "preparatory debate and discussion." The young country was not prepared for a war. She certainly was not prepared to have a domestic body of legislature try to operate during a war, and she most definately was not ready for either or both of those under Stalin's rule.

But, the efficiency of Soviet legislature is not the definitive in this argument. My argument is that the Red Army became the Soviet Army when they started fighting for the interests and decrees of the Soviets themselves and the Soviet Union rather than fighting purely for Bolshevism, regardless of when legislature began to reflect this. I think Buckshot will agree, judging from the article's say on this, badly written as it is.

I understand the idea behind siding with legislature on the principle that to choose which laws to follow defeats the purpose of law. But, this was about defining the military struggles of millions of young men and women, some of whom did not believe in Bolshevism but loved their country all the same. To honour them, we do not have to ignore the "official" ruling, but what we can do is apply it retroactively.MVMosin 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

After the revolution in Russia there was a believe that they should support other revolutions abroad, like China or the republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Wandalstouring 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Supporting" does not mean "raising a specialised volunteer army and fighting for." MVMosin 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of the comments made thus far, and apparent lack of interest, I will begin work on writing an effective revision explaining both the practical change in name and the official change, as well as the relationship between the two events. I will try to include background as well. I will not remove existing content, and will not split the article for lack of sufficient consensus. However, I strongly and urgently implore Wikipedians to make educated judgment on this issue, because, minor as it may seem, it marks an astronomical change within the USSR, and as such is absolutely critical to properly understanding the nation's political and military history.MVMosin 08:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that mentioning something like the changes within the NKVD (later "Stalin's organization") and the fate of Trotzky(important organiser of the Red Army) to give more political background. Wandalstouring 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take this into consideration. MVMosin 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of the formation

Southern Group of Forces states the formation disbanded in 1947 and was not recreated until 1956. In that case, what was the official name of the Red Army forces in Romania that stayed there until 1957 according to Soviet occupation of Romania? Btw, I will translate article on Northern Group of Forces (that existed in Poland until 1993) from pl wiki shortly, feel free to expand and link to Soviet forces in Poland stub I just created.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For military historical purposes, "Red Army" generally refers to the pre-war professional army of approximately five million men that was destroyed by the German advance in 1941, and "Soviet Army" refers to the wartime raisings that replaced it thereafter. They were very different entities, although the character of the post-41 army changed as the war progressed.212.159.159.42 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise Infobox

Comments invited:

Kievan Rus' Druzhina (862-1400s)
	Medieval Ukraine Zaporozhian Host (1492—1775)	Muscovy Streltsy (1400s-1721)
Imperial Russia Imperial Russian Army (1721-1917)
	Ukrainian People's Republic Sich Riflemen (1917—1919) Ukrainian People's Army (1918—20) Ukrainian Galician Army (1918—19) Black Army (1918—1924)	White Guard (1917-1921)
Soviet Union Red Army (1918-1991)
Military of Belarus	Military of Ukraine (1991—Present)	Russian Ground Forces (1991-Present)

Buckshot06 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good start, but some slight changes may be neccessary because there was more than the Ukrainian Whites and the Red Army. Wandalstouring 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A poor start, sorry. The author seems to be totally mislead about both real history and the opinions on the table. First of all, no common two-nations table is possible (patent nonsense). Second, I object the following:

• the passage from the Russian table speaking of the Kievan Rus. As someone suggested earlier, that table should by any mean include a disclaimer explaining very loose ancestry between Kievan Rus and modern Russia. This is the main disputed claim (commented enough in other articles), unacceptable for me and several other Ukrainian and Belarusian users
• Regardless of any "Ukrainian military" table, none of them may include the Red Army. This army was not only irrelevant to any of Ukrainian states (with very formal post-WWII exception), but also significantly anti-Ukrainian. For instance, Red Army units widely participated in war crimes against Ukrainian population and anti-Soviet guerillas. Creation of the "Ukrainian" table here has been a mere discussion trick not supported by all Ukrainian users. For instance, see earlier AlexPU's passage on "trading the truth"

Given all that, I'd suggest you to delete your first draft and find other ways for compromising. Mr.Buckshot, I thank you, an innocent editor, for your valuable attempts and hope for further cooperation on the issue. Ukrained 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to "compromise" on in the first place. There are two editors who have been revert warrying for months, got blocked for that several times, versus the rest of the community. Basically, they admit themselves they're pushing a nationalist POV. And since Wikipedia is not the soapbox, the conclusion is pretty clear. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Grafikm, could you please name those two editors, preferrably staying in line with WP:NPA and providing diffs about their POV-pushing and their blocks for revertwarring? Cause I can speak of 5 such editors (unless some of them are sockpuppets), pushing Russian POV. Unfortunately, none of them was blocked so far. Happy edits, Ukrained 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Putzger atlas points out that most non-Russian ethnic groups were largely opposed to the Red Army ad preferred indepedence rather than a reformed Russian rule. Within the Russian population there was a split in several factions, some of them were rather dependant on foreign support. Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states were to some extend knocked out during several years of the conflict via the German occupation. Wandalstouring 09:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A question

Reposted from the article; I don't know the answer: How many people were in the red army in 1918? Buckshot06 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On formation, one Corps-worth (if that)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

I proposed this article for GA. Eurocopter tigre 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed; did some corrections in the layout to achieve a more standard wiki appearance. Notes:

• NPOV
• Well written, compelling even
• Covers the subject well
• Looks stable
• Good images
• Longish, consider separating parts of it to other articles

IMO, passing GA status. Listed it now in Wikipedia:Good_articles#Armies_and_military_units. --Drieakko 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the article really deserves that! --Eurocopter tigre 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg

Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Red army edited to be without Crimes and Atrocities(cruelty)????

Red Army atrocities refers to the systemic commission of crimes by Soviet military personnel starting from the Russian Civil War in 1918 and ending by the Soviet war in Afghanistan, First Chechen War, Soviet coup attempt of 1991, particularly murder and rape and supporting Soviet politics of force[citation needed] - deportations, arrests, imprisoning in GULAG. It was estimated recently to be the great part of the total comunism crimes - 100 million people killed and murdered.[citation needed] See more - Red Army atrocities, Red Army atrocities (WWII), Red army crimes in Lithuania and List of Soviet Union perpetrated war crimes in the List of war crimes.

-comment- 100 million victims of comunism were announced recently when opening the monument near White house. Why there was no information about Red army crimes? Add more - from your country. Ttturbo 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

-comment- 100 million victims of Communism? A monument opened by human-rights respecting Bush administration? 100 million? Really? Why not 10 billion? Give me a break. Roobit (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Look on the history summary of the Red Army changes: I said; more appropriate at the whole force summary at Military of the Soviet Union. Buckshot06 07:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes -thanks, but the article abouyt one of the hughest world army - Red Army this is something not realistic, so the knowlidge about their crimes are needed to present here in some way too. This russian student Alex Bakharew is vandal making no explanations! Red Army murdered my grandmother in March 1945 in Marijampole (Lithuania) and they murdered millions, but some young russians trye to hide this.

The Soviet Army (or still Red Army in 1945) did kill a few million Nazis. They also killed off some Lithuanian and Estonian ethno-Nazis and we can thank them for that. If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Kest

Possibly because we have entire articles on it (Red Army atrocities (WWII) and Red Army atrocities). There is minor mention of this in at least one paragraph, though I suppose including a short summary of the main article would not be innapropriate. Someguy1221 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a section in the Military of the United States entry about the atrocities committed in Indochina, about the millions of civilians killed by US troops there? I didn't think so. I doubt there are even remotely objective subarticles that could be linked from there. It's what we call systemic bias. El_C 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So add more about all the crimes of the all armies. but don't hide red crimes. becouse U then - POVTtturbo 07:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Crimes and cruelty" is highly pov, sophomorically so. Author of section is unobjective and overly emotional, as can be seen from the multiple question marks in this section title, too. Suggest that editor reviews this page as the respective edits are well below par. El_C 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You could always be the one to add that section. (it is mentioned way in the bottom of Vietnam War and in Vietnam War casualties. Be bold! but do make sure you can verify your claims with reliable sources. Someguy1221 06:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User El C hides the crimes of the Red Army, so he is supporter of military criminal elements (NPOV). Ttturbo 07:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not support "military criminal elements," but I do support balanced and intelligible, well-sourced content, which your "Crimes and cruelty" addition, and related comments, falls short of. Please observe civilized discourse and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. El_C 07:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ballanced means containing all the sides of Red Army activities history - victories, heroism but crimes, cruelty and atrocities too. You've tried to hide them!

Ttturbo 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why there is nothing written about the war crimes of United States Army such as nucleer bombing in Japan, agent orange or napalm but the Red Army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.15.178 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

POW

This article doesn't describe the treatment of POWs by the Red Army and the fate of Soviet POWs after the war. Both were quite specific.Xx236 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't describe the treatment of POWs by the Red Army. The Red Army transferred the Polish POWs to NKVD, which executed thousands officers. The Red Army was coresoponsible.

This article doesn't inform about the exceptional hostility toward Soviet POWs both during and after the war.

This article doesn't inform about the repressions against handicapped veterans. Xx236 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

whose massive scale was only discovered

Ńot true, Ryszard Kukliński informed about Soviet plans.Xx236 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Purges

The article doesn't quote any name of a victim. Xx236 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bacteriophages used by Red Army

I'm not terribly sure if this is something that should or could be included in the article, but certainly an interesting piece of information: [1] Abandonedhero 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous arms industry

According to one source (Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century pp. 251 & 253), the Soviet arms industry produced 526,600 guns and mortars, plus 109,100 tanks and SP guns in the war against Nazi Germany, and according to another source (not handy right now) they produced something like 5,000 guns and mortars in the entire Civil War. So the indigenous arms industry was on a different scale than before. Jacob Haller 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Please propose them here and state your arguments at the talk page before moving articles single-handedly, especially the high profile ones. --Irpen 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Either the article should be split up into a "Red Army" article and a "Soviet Army" article, with the majority of the information passing to the Soviet Army article.

OR

Article should be moved to Soviet Army because-

• A) The appellation 'Red' was dropped after World War II, when national symbols replaced those connoting the old revolutionary fervour, and was officially renamed the Soviet Army
• B) It was known as the Soviet Army for the majority of its existance
• C) It was known as the Soviet Army at the time of its dissolution

--Miyokan 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we leave it as it is until there is enough structural material available - organisation, personnel, zampolity, doctrine, military industry etc - to split the pages. Please go ahead and fill these sections out... Buckshot06 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

started article on the extermination of the Soviet POWs

Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany - please expand, it's millions of deaths. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment. Issues needing to be address are listed below and are also avaliable there.

• The lead should be tidied and reorganised so that it provides a better and clearer presentation of the article's subject.
• More sourcing is needed, there should be at least one source per paragraphs plus sources on statistics and quotes.
• Some web sources are raw URLs. These should be converted as per WP:CITE to include last access dates and publication information.
• Some book sources lack page numbers. These are required, so that the book matches the information presented.

I think this article is of decent quality but I am not sure if it merits GA standard due to the issues above. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Besides the comments above, I would like to propose that the article be restructured as follows:

• 1 Red Army History

1.1 Russian Civil War

1.2 Stalin's army

1.3 Purges

1.4 Great Patriotic War (include conflicts with the Japanese, and Finland) (separate article)

Red Army during the Great Patriotic War

1.1 The Scope of the War

1.2 The Polish Campaign

1.3 The Finnish Campaigns

1.4 1st period of GPW

1.5 2nd Period of GPW

1.6 3rd Period of GPW

1.7 The Manchurian Campaign

1.4 The Soviet Army (separate article for Cold War)

1.5 The Korean War

1.6 The Vietnam War

1.7 Foreign military assistance

1.8 The limited contingent in Afghanistan

1.9 Transition from Soviet Army to Armed forces of the Russian Federation and former Soviet republics in a separate article

• 2 Military doctrine (as a process of learning from history)

2.1 Deep Operations

2.2 Operational Manoeuvre Groups

• 3 Organization (organising for the doctrines)

3.1 Higher command structure

3.2 Administrative structure and Rear Services

3.3 Arms of Service, Service Corps and command establishments

3.4 Peace and Wartime field structures (links to articles on organisation of formations and units)

3.5 Post-GPW changes

3.6 Post-Stalin changes

3.7 "Nuclear battlefield" impact

• 4 Personnel (developing the personnel to execute the doctrines)

4.1 Ranks and titles

4.2 General Staff

4.3 Military education

4.4 Manpower and enlisted men

4.5 Army culture

• 5 Weapons and equipment (developing the equipment for the personnel)

(Links to equipment articles by Arm of Service)

5.1 Missile troops

5.2 SpetzNaz troops

5.3 All Arms troops

5.4 Tank troops

5.5 Artillery troops

5.6 Rear Services troops

• 6 Notes
• 7 References

Comments?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Update: The Good article reassessment has been closed as delist. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good refs for the article.--71.95.140.176 (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Army as the title?

Why is this article titled "Red Army?" Considering it stopped being called the "Red Army" in 1946. For most of the existence of the Soviet Union it wasn't even called this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.196 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should be {{split}} into the Red Army (pre-1946) and the Soviet Army (post-1947)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll see that under the title 'Page Moves' above I said that this sounds like a good thing, but really should only, in my view, be done when more material has been added overall. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to be split. This is like calling the article on the US Army "Continental Army" then talking about how it became the modern force it is today. I thought this article would have been written from the POV of a 1991 observer at least, focussing on its actual work.

I also agree that there needs to be more content to make the move worthwhile.

To characterise the Soviet Army as being just the continuation of a revolutionary-era (1917-ish) institution is at best misleading and at worst a lie. 118.90.84.3 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION?? why does Real-time strategy on the rush (video game) article redirect here, while communism is great and all, is this really meant to be happening?

Rűdiger Overmans and Axis military dead

In the German military dead, he includes those missing in action and unaccounted for after the war. He writes “It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the missing were killed in action, the other half however in fact died in Soviet custody”, the numbers are therefore approximately 1.8 million too high. EriFr (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor references

I noticed a few of the references include only the author, published year and page number(s). The titles in these are utterly absent. I can hazard a guess that Zaloga refers to Stephen J. Zaloga and Odom to William E. Odom, but the titles are still lost on me (both have authored a multitude of books). If they're from the same book as one previously referenced, they should really be using the ref name="X" tag, or at least a pp note. It makes it very hard to use Wikipedia as a secondary or tertiary source. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 19.02.09 0228 (UTC)

'Zaloga 1984' is referred to in the bibliography ('References'), and 'Odom 1998's title is used at least three times and mentioned in the References as well - 'The Collapse of the Soviet Army'. Does that clear up your question adequately? Buckshot06(prof) 11:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag

The presented here is fictional; the Red Army had no flag. Its units did have regiment banners — red flags with soviet symbols (star and/or hammer and sickle) and names of the units ("158th tank regiment" etc.). The "Red Army flag" pictured here is a "generic" regiment banner without any name on it, such "flags" were commonly depicted on postcard, posters etc. Hellerick (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, needs 2 be changed and replaced with hammer and sickle. Chocokake5057 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm revoing it now. Source флажные мистификации - vexillographia.ru --Kmaster (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdated terminology/innacurate

The article needs to make absolutely clear that the Soviet Army of 1991 has to be considered along with its contemporaries, i.e. in terms of comparison with the USA, funding etc. The revolutionary-era Red Army existed for different reasons (the events of 1917 etc.) Sure, the Soviet Army claims descent from the revolutionaries, but to say that they are the same in terms of their work is not correct.

This is a concern repeatedly raised elsewhere on this talk page. 118.90.87.96 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps change the Soviet Army page from a redirect, to an article about the Soviet Army from 1946 onward? Hohum (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect others have tried to do something along those lines (by making a distinction between the historical Red Army and the army of the USSR of the 1980s/1990s, for example see "Vaguely worded statements may be contrary to facts without clarification" above). Events before 1945 take up most of the article—"Afghanistan" is mentioned only three times on this page! However other editors insist on painting the article in their own colours (e.g. trying to tie Stalin-era atrocities to this article). To actually get an article up on the state of the Soviet Army in 1991 would require a totally blank slate. 118.90.87.96 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you know the subject, and have adequate references; do it yourself. Haranguing on the talk page isn't likely to achieve much by itself. Hohum (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Split?

Would people thinking this page should be split between Red Army (1917-1946) and Soviet Army (1946-91) please indicate what they think: Yes:

1. 118.90.85.8 (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC) In principle yes, but as per Buckshot06's comment below, there should be enough material before such a venture.

No:

1. DMorpheus (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) It is the same entity.

   As it was pointed out above, the US Army and the Continental Army are separately treated on Wikipedia. The two armies played different roles in the USA. 118.90.85.8 (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Buckshot06(prof) 06:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC). Not yet. Right now there is not enough material for two articles.

All opinions welcomed. Buckshot06(prof) 09:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

German losses

How come that the total Axis losses cited in this article by far surpasses the total, all fronts included, European Axis losses cited in the article World War II casualties?

The cause seemes to be a gross misintpretation of Overmans figures. Overmans includes the number of German MIA in the number of German KIA, with the note "It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the missing were killed in action, the other half however in fact died in Soviet custody", but in this article, the numbers are written separately and added to each other, which fabricates German losses 1,800,000 too high.79.136.63.144 (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we got alot of russian revisionists, ultra-nationalists and people equal to that, "contributing" to the article. Contributing, hahaha I´m rather mean : cutting out information --62.154.195.115 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Attack to Poland and Winter war was not part of Great patriotic war

Why attack to Poland and Winter war are under title "Great patriotic war"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.29.138 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Disestablishment?

Didn't Stalin disestablish the Red Army at some point, replacing it with the Soviet Army? When? Why? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

War crimes

My Friends,
The paragraph at the end of the article entitled as "Warcrimes" is poorly referenced, and is shadowing Red-army in extremely negetive light. Please neutralize its wordings.
Secondly russian references(especially a letter by Stalin) is highly misinterpreted. The charges of rape in abscence of any staunch source are highly controversial and seems like POV pushing. Please remove such kind of Personal Vandalized attacks.They are downgrading the quality of article
-Viplovecomm (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the first two paragraphs of the section describe crimes perpetrated by the NKVD, which was not part of the Red Army. Suggest removal as an obvious coatrack. The rest of the section needs references to the corresponding tribunals that have designated the described actions as war crimes. The section is already duplicated word for word in Soviet war crimes#The Red Army and the NKVD anyway. --illythr (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also noted the dubious coatracking. Section removed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:TrotskySlayingtheDragon1918.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TrotskySlayingtheDragon1918.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased in its description.

Far from being a "Good Article," this article is currently a perfect example of a general problem with politically charged topics on wikipedia. Descriptions that are incredibly biased, such as the section titled "Russian Civil War," can be presented as seemingly neutral because of a liberal sprinkling of some citations from ideologically anti-communist historians (see here). Indeed the supposed topic of the section, the Russian Civil War, is the subject of only the first 2, small paragraphs (the "first period," and the "second period"); inexplicably, the entire remainder of the section is devoted to an ideologically distorted representation of the Red Army, which focuses entirely on presenting it negatively as coercive, opportunistic, and generally evil, without a single further element of information about the actual context of the civil war. Instead, it is clear that this particular section is painstakingly written to present the institutions of the Red Army in as negative a light as is possible, through highly selective evidence, while trying to preserve some veneer of neutrality. Instead of presenting the Red Army in the "Russian Civil War" section as simply immoral and essentially vicious, as the authors seem to want to do, it might be better to provide some contextual information about the circumstances the Bolshevik army faced at the time, and what the historical rationale might have been for such extreme measures. As it is, the article currently reads as a historical slander.--Jayfm (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see what Jayfm is talking about. What does he consider the most egregious sentence? Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

HIST 208 Review

This article is really good. There is little to improve on because you go into great detail about the Red Army and stay focused throughout the entire article. The article is very informative and contains a lot of useful information. The only thing that I could see that was not that great was the slight lack of detail and citation errors. There were a few issues with lack of background information. For example, I would like to see a brief bit of information on the term Bolsheviks even though you have a blue link it is more convenient to the reader with little knowledge on the subject. Also there are some citation errors on the page; at the last sentence under the heading "target" the citation is missing and also for citation number 7 and 70 the citation is errored. Though there are a huge number of citations which is awesome that the information can be backed up and proved by many verifiable sources. Other than some places that could have more detail, the article is very well put together and provides a lot of relevant information and the sentence structure is perfect with little to no grammatical errors. This article is very well done.