Talk:Military history of the Soviet Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Military history of the Soviet Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 7, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
March 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 4, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Soviet Union / Russia / History / Military (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.
Version 0.5 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.


Ok, the claim about soviets loosing a million and germans - 300,000 is first of all ridiculous, and second of all contradicts wikipedia's own Stalingrad article. I deleted it. (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

I hope this article doesn't remain a mere collection of a few sentences. It looks like we really wanted to have this article in Wikipedia, but do not know how to proceed with it. It's kind of a rare phenomenon for a COTW. KNewman 12:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why is Vietnam war not mentioned in the outline of events? Every soviet incvasion ius mentioned, but none of US invasions are. Someone wants US to look better? I think there is bias in the outline.

Missing data[edit]

The timeline on the bottom of the article do not include the occupation/annexation of the three baltic states in 1940. Stalin sharply demanded to place soviet military on their ground, the small states did'nt dare to say anything else than yes, and Stalin followed up with a "socialist revolution", fake elections and took over the rule of the three independent states during months. The Soviet Military playd a big role here. (the act was also a part of Molotov-Ribbentroph pact). The person behind the timeline should add this. I was not able too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarao (talkcontribs) 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

This page should be moved back to military history of the Soviet Union since all the other military history articles use that format--Jiang 06:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just moved it. 172 16:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to exclude the military history of RSFSR before the creation of the SU? Mikkalai 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good question. The article should start off with the military history of the Russian SSFSR. Perhaps the title should be the military history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union? 172 22:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the current outline[edit]

I'm a bit troubled by the current outline, which seems a bit more fitting for (say) an article on Soviet foreign relations or Soviet diplomatic history. Instead, an article on this topic should focus on the huge Soviet military-industrial complex, which competed with other sectors of the Soviet economy and society for power and the allocation of resources. First, it should start off tracing the development of the leadership and organization of the Soviet military, its relationship to the Communist Party and the secret police, and how Soviet authorities ensured the political control of the armed forces throughout the Soviet era.

Second, the article should trace the role of the defense sector in the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union's commitment to the Cold War was enormous. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union devoted a quarter of its gross economic output to the defense sector (at the time most Western analysts believed that this figure was 15 percent). The Soviet military-industrial complex employed at least one fifth of the workforce. (The comparable U.S. figures were roughly one-sixteenth of gross national product and about one of every sixteen in the workforce.) Toward the end, the article can touch on the economic devastation suffered by main regions of the former Soviet Union with the end of the Cold War and the cutback in military spending, which hit heavy industrial plants very hard and some regions of Russia entirely dependent on the military-industrial complex.

I tentatively recommend the following outline: (1) Development of the Soviet party, state, military structure (2) National security-- subsections of which can trace the role of the armed forces in the Second World War, Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe, and the Cold War. (3) The Soviet military-industrial complex and the economy (4) The armed forces and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The first two sources I'd recommend are Anders Åslund, "How small is the Soviet National Income?" in Henry S. Rowen and Charles Wolf, Jr., eds., The Impoverished Superpower: Perestroika and the Soviet Military Burden (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1990) for a relatively short survey. William E. Odom The Collapse of the Soviet Military (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1998) is a definitive source. 172 07:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After writing the comments above, I just inserted a new draft outline in the article. Since this is a collaboration of the week, I hope that many other editors will fill it in and/or tweak it. I won't have time to write much of the content, though, in the next couple of weeks. 172 07:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked at a few other military histories, and they appear to be based on a timeline: British_military_history, Military_history_of_Canada, Military_history_of_the_United_States. I think if we split the article according to the timeline, it would be easier for multiple editors to collaborate on it. What you propose would likely produce a better article, but it would be a lot harder to write. Your proposal requires an understanding of the issue as a whole, as opposed to just learning parts of it. I am not opposed to your proposal. I just think it's more than can be realistically done by a loose group of editors. It's a job for one or two dedicated editors working in close collaboration. --Gene s 07:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
True, but the goal of the collaboration of the week process is to produce something worthy of featured article status. While I can't write the whole thing, I can help with the research and outlining if the other editors want to write a scholarly piece that goes deeper than an almanac-like chronicle. 172 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that there doesn't appear to be any section on WWII -- how can we write an article about Soviet Military History and not have substantial content on WWII? ---B- 07:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a subsection of the section on national security. It makes sense to trace the development of how the Soviets structured military, party, and state relations first and then go into the war. 172 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I put in just the very beginnings of the WWII content. It's getting late here, though, and I'm afraid if I go any further I won't make any sense. Hopefully other collaborators can expand and expound as necessary. ---B- 09:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Linking while we work[edit]

While we're all working on the article, we should link items sparingly. Since we're working on bits and pieces of at a time, we don't have a very good idea about where the first mention of a item will appear in the article, and we're only supposed to link an item where it first appears in the article. 172 23:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree. In a long article like this one, a single link is nearly impossible to find, if a question arises somewhere down the text. A link per item per major section would be more reasonable (look at it in this way: a major section is a potential separtate article). Mikkalai 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We can always remove multiple links in the same section later. I'd rather accidentally link too much and remove the extra links than accidentally link too little and not even realise that potentially useful links are missing. Just my $(1/50). Nvinen 04:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page move II[edit]

I thought we moved the page to Soviet military history in order not to exclude the history of Soviet Russia prior to the USSR's creation in 1922. What's the logic behind moving it back?AndyL 23:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Jiang pointed out that this page should be moved back to military history of the Soviet Union since all the other military history articles use that format. I tought about that problem and figured that the page could be moved again to military history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union, but I guess that'll be too length and confusing for some. Please go ahead and move it back. 172 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
IMO it is never too late to move it back. Although it was me who rose the issue now, at the same time I would suggest to wait 1-2 days for other opinions. Mikkalai 01:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, any other opinions? Mikkalai 01:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No objections from me. 172 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"of Soviet Union" was done for consistency. On the other hand, special cases require special treatment. The RSFSR/USSR case is clearly special. "Soviet history" it is then. --Gene s 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russia versus the Sovet Union[edit]

When adding to this article, please refrain from using the word "Russia" as it was not the official name of the country during the period covered on this page. It's akin to referring to the UK as "England". It's used often, but it is NOT correct. --Woohookitty 23:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Eventually the timeline can go in an article organized along the lines of Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War. 172 23:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

U.S. report pasting[edit]

Please be aware that much of the content of this article has been copied and pasted by 172 without modification from a United States government report [1] of 1989. Furthermore, the article's structure is being shaped to match this, with even valid but presently-empty sections that do not have material in the US report being deleted or renamed to match sections that can be pasted. This is hardly acceptable scope, neutrality, or quality. 119 20:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) It is public domain, and better than nothing. (I haven't had time this week to write my own work.) As for quality and neutrality, the LOC handbooks indeed come with their own biases, but they are generally far less biased than the hysterical anticommunism that usually pervades Wikipedia articles, making every single political crisis in the Third World out to be a part of some grand Kremlin conspiracy. (2) I have modified all of the content that I have posted, not taking anything from the LOC sourcebook for granted, posting only stuff that I can personally vouch for with other sources. If anyone has any specific qualms about any of the content that I have posted, I will provide independent sources backing it all up. (3) As for the scope, even if this article were to become as detailed as our largest text-based article found in Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the longest articles (November 2003), given the wealth of literature on this topic, writing at this level of detail only requires when to write from his own general knowledge and from other sourcebooks; such a broad article can only be a most general of surveys. As for the organization, it is not based on that of the LOC handbook. It is based on my own proposal to first trace the origins of the military/party/government structure and the military's relationships with other Soviet institutions, and then to give a brief overview of Soviet national security, ending it with an examination of the nature and size of the Soviet military-industrial complex. This organization is an alternative to one based on a simple timeline, chronicling every single Soviet military intervention (an organization more fitting for an article that takes into account the history of Soviet foreign relations along with military history). 172 23:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Re:172, I have no problem with the text you have added, and personally I love the format, but I do have a couple of things to ask you: 1. Since you have these other souces, and have used them as references already, could you add them to the page's References? 2.though, like I said, I like the form, I think "National security" is too broad a term. Shouldn't it be something like "Practical deployment of Soviet military" or "Soviet theory in practice" or "History of Soviet military activity" or something (I know none of those sound quite right). Do you have any ideas for changes? would you object if I changed it? Also, shouldn't that section be more comprehensive? I don't understand why it shouldn't include all of the events currently relegated to "Timeline". perhaps I misunderstand its purpose. Thanks. Ryan Anderson 00:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(1) Yes, I'll start working on a references section, along with the other unfinished sections. (2) I like "Practical deployment of Soviet military." Please go ahead and change it to that title. The other two proposals are okay, but they may encourage other users to get too chronological. Yes, the section can be more comprehensive, along with all the others. Every section of the article is a work in progress. (3) Nice work on your own contributions, especially the photos. 172 01:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Collapse of the Soviet Union and the military[edit]

Maybe I am nitpicking, but should we really use the term "collapse of the military" in the section title? I would say the transition from Soviet to Russian armed forces was carried out reasonably smoothly and continuity was maintained. There were almost no political purges whatsoever, and the majority of the Russian officers at least continued their careers. Since 1991 Russia still has no difficulty in maintaining an unbroken strategic nuclear parity with the USA. Of course I am not denying that Russia's military has for the most part only a fraction of the Soviet capability before 1991, but collapse it not an appropriate word to describe what happened. Balcer 03:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This had little to do with the military, but rather the unraveling of the Communist Party. 172 05:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see that I misunderstood. I guess then it would be a bit more clear to have: The military and the collapse of the Soviet Union, to avoid the suggestion that the military collapsed along with the USSR Balcer 05:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I could add something about the Russian Navy's 300th anniversary. I'm just not sure it would be what this page was looking for. Some facts I could add: Russia, (of course) US, Chinese, Japanese, N and S Korean ships were all there. The history of these countries speak for themselves, but from my understanding Japan and Russia were still at war at the time, never having signed a peace treaty after ww2. US, Chinese tensions were very high during that time with taiwan having elections later that year. Also directly about the Navy, many sailors reported not having been paid in months, some reported partial payment only. Further, when coming into harbor, it was obvious that the Russian ships were painted only on the side facing the shore. 04:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dividing up "conventional weapons"[edit]

This article was really coming along great when it seemed to lose its steam a few days ago, but I believe that we have the proper start of a featured article. The problem I see is that "Cold War and Conventional Weapons" was too broad a category that covered too many conflicts, so I divided it up into regions. I hope to heavily edit the text in those areas when I have the time later today or tommorrow. This is Ryan Anderson.

Perhaps, but the division was starting out as chronological. Rather than dividing it up into region, period may be better. 172 19:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis[edit]

There should be some reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, particularly the stationing of Soviet missiles on the island and the standoff between Soviet vessels and the US Navy in regards to the quarentine zone. AndyL 23:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Timeline headings[edit]

The date/title/conflict/outcome headings in the timeline chart appear to be covered in black. Can someone fix this? 172

I see bold, black text on a red background? 119 22:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On my browser it appears all in black. 172 23:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was experimenting with adding a red background. Thanks to 119 for reverting my edit. Ryan Anderson 00:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The chart looks very nice now. 172 02:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Red Army and intial expansion of the Soviet Union[edit]

A huge topic is missing here. In particular, the crucial role of the Red Army in establishing of Soviet states in the areas of Caucasus and Central Asia; see, e.g., Democratic Republic of Georgia and Basmachi Revolt articles for some idea. Mikkalai 21:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe I've adressed your concerns. Please tell me if I'm missing anything important. Ryan Anderson 21:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I put an NPOV banner on this page, in the hopes of circumventing the embarrassment of having it as a featured article. I've already corrected some hyperbole and glowing references. Where is the subjugation of the Baltic States, and aiding of the Nazi's in Poland, and the occupation of non-Axis nations in eastern Europe? --Silverback 01:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, this is about the MILITARY history of the Soviet Union, not the political history. I suppose it would be worth mentioning the havoc the Red Army caused to Germany and her allies at the end of WW2, since that was more on a personal level than a political level. I think it's also worth mentioning that the Soviet Union had branches of the military specifically in order to quell unrest (which I suspect is already mentioned but I'd have to check). However, I don't see what the subjugation of the baltic states has to do directly with the military. Surely this is something the Kremlin would decide upon and the army would be more of an instrument than anything else? It's certainly worth mentioning but I fail to see how it affects the point of view (or lack of) of this article. Nvinen 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The invasion of Finland certainly merits mention. Isn't this one of the few times the Red Army was totally defeated? They pulled out of Afghanistan and Chechnya is not going all that well, but my understanding is they were completely repulsed by the Finns, who ended up on the side of the Nazis once Germany invaded the USSR. Nvinen 01:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The subjugation of the Baltic states was a "use" of the military, how is it not part of the military history? I realize this is a broad coverage, but to talk about brilliant campaigns and victories, and to leave out these less glorious uses of the military just seems POV to me. One thing that I think still is missing, is the disregard for the lives of the soldiers during WWII. It is not enough just to cite the losses, divisions that could easily have been saved were not responsibly evacuated, in decisions every bit as callous and stupid as Hitlers throwing away of his troops at Stalingrad. The USSR lost 7 million, not because it was a great sacrifice, but because it didn't care. How many of the 20 million civilians lost were due to the scorched earth "strategy", or the failure to evacuate Leningrad? I'm not sure if the callousness of civilian deaths are part of military strategy or policy that should be included in this article, but it might be.--Silverback 03:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly true that Soviet infantry have been used as cannon fodder more than once, especially in defence of the USSR. I agree, if this article is going to discuss campaigns, it should discuss them all. They were pretty desperate, though. I think we should also mention the chaos the soldiers caused. Nvinen 07:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, the bit which talked about WW2 didn't mention the enormous losses they took in the desperate circumstances, nor the brutality of the Red Army once they went on the offensive. I put in reasonable mentions of both, I think, along with a couple of references. The rapes and murders of the Red Army in Germany and the USSR late in the war seem to be well documented. Nvinen 08:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article was a Collaboration of the Week, was listed on Per Review for over two weeks, and was listed on FAC for an additional two weeks and in all of this time no one objected on the grounds of NPOV until you, just now. This said, I think it is unfair for you to classify this as an "embarrasment" to the Wikipedia community. This is not to say, however, that your specific claims are without merit. However, since these complaints are yours alone, they ought to be very easy to enumerate and satisfy. Would you care to do this? Just make a list of your specific complaints regarding NPOV, note which ones have already been corrected and tell us how we can help correct those still standing. It appears that the ones you have already mentioned on this Talk Page have all been meted out in your own edits and -if this is the case- the NPOV banner should be removed. Ryan Anderson 20:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanx for your assistance. I have remove NPOV. The other changes I'd like to see would take more time to document, and it would be unfair to hold up an article that is fairly neutral. It is unclear to me whether some of the decisions that resulted in so many loss of civilian and military lives were political or military and thus should be documented here vs elsewhere.--Silverback 21:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I may have gotten a little snappy at first, but I do appreciate what are obviously genuine efforts to improve the article, and I do agree that before you got here we had some POV problems still unresolved. Ryan Anderson 17:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Strategic doctrine"[edit]

I do not think "Strategic doctrine" is not appropriate in this context. The article is really just discussing the there-unnammed military doctrine of Deep Battle. Where you see "Strategic doctrine" used is essentially national security plans, or "grand strategy." Military doctrine, such as what this section discusses, is much more limited. I'm so glad you reverted me and told me to explain rather than assuming good faith or asking for clarification. 119 00:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologies. I have not been at Wikipedia for very long, and this is really the first page I've contributed to that has received significant input from other users, so I am rather unfamiliar with rules of decorum. I assumed that since you changed my section header without consulting me that I was justified in doing the same. I understand what you're saying now, and I agree that "Military doctrine" is a more appropriate section heading. What put me off was the word "thought", which seemed nonspecific and unprofessional. At the time I did not understand the distinction between Military and Strategic, and there was no explanation in your edit summary, so I was confused by the relevance of the edit. Ryan Anderson 01:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Section retitled "Military doctrine" as compromise. Does this agree with you? Ryan Anderson 18:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Scorched earth"[edit]

Please explain how rape and murder fit into a "scorched earth" policy. The Wikipedia article on "scorched earth" does not mention either. However the rapes and murders of the advancing Red Army in World War 2 are extremely well documented. Even Russians suffered. I think it's a sick joke that you dismiss it like that. This ends my involvement in Wikipedia. Well established facts are dismissed as "POV" if someone doesn't like them. Well, I'm sick of it. Nvinen 01:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Please feel free to document these rapes and murders yourself, if you would like. The purpose of my edit was not to eliminate content, only to remove "brutal wrath", which is POV. You'll note that no mention of rape or murder is even made in the sentence I editted, so I don't understand why you're accusing me of dismissing facts. All I did was make the sentence more specific. If it is still not adequate to fit your needs, feel free to expand it. I think such information would make a wonderful addition to this article. Ryan Anderson 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American Library of Congress as a good source?[edit]

I see that the article includes a mention that some of the material was sourced from the American library of Congress... surely that is a little biased considering that for most of the Soviet Union's history, the USA was against the USSR (invading it during its birth, and the Cold War later), except for when they allied during WWII. I can't see anyone using a Stalinist source for American military history...

You're right, this could potentially have been a problem. I do not, however, see where it has actually materialised as one. All of the text imported from the LOC has been heavily expanded and editted since its introduction, and if you look further up on this talk page you'll see that quite recently this article was even accused of having a pro-Soviet bias. If you note any specific instances of bias, please amend them appropriately or post them here so that others may edit accordingly. Otherwise I do believe this article represents our policy of NPOV. Ryan Anderson 17:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


beautiful tables 16:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

its army was the major force in the defeat of Nazi Germany?[edit]

I'd feel more comfortable with something on the order of it was "the major army in the defeat of Nazi Germany". Certainly it is difficult to attribute relative credit when one considers the importance of air power in the strategic bombing of the German economy and attrition of the Luftwaft and when one considers the importance of the Navy in securing supply routes across the Altantic to the western front, and lend lease supplies across the Pacific and considerable loss of lives and materials.--Silverback 22:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree and there is no need to resolve the dispute about how to attribute credit in order to find how to say this. Now I changed it to " ... where it (the SU) was the major military force in the defeat of Nazi Germany". Irpen 23:18, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

well, 85-90 % of Wermacht forces were deployed in Eastern front, so, yeah, USSR played a major role in defeat of Nazi Germany. Strategic bombings and air superiority did not hinder Germans as much as Soviet army. Not nearly as much. Strategic bombings in state of war are not that importnat. Land forces are though, and if USSR would not hold 90% of german forces on eastern front, Operation Overlord would not even happen. It does not matter how you would feel. It matters what were the facts.

article is a bit duplicatous[edit]

The section of this article related to the "Cold War and Conventional Forces" is very broad and gives more of a political history of this time period. Most of this information can be found in the series of articles titled "History of the Soviet Union".

I can understand that this article is perhaps being planned as a "parent" or "root" article for many smaller, more focused articles, but military buffs who visit this article will seek more in depth military related info. I suggest more information regarding high level military functions (e.g. locations of military districts, establishment of Soviet bases worldwide, reorganizations of the armed forces).

Also, this page should spark some interest in developing a page about Marshalls of the Soviet Union. I look forward to future edits.

The history of USSR - question for the West.[edit]

This discussion is moved to the Talk:History of the Soviet Union page. Please continue it there if necessary. Irpen 18:38, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


Regarding's edits:

  • his change of "helped partitioning" by "took part in partitioning" of Poland is not reverted.
  • The addition to the article intro: "..but also committed war crimes on a large scale and was instrumental in Soviet ethnic cleansing of many nationalities" was deleted. There were no convictions or admissions of the war crimes during the WW2 by the military, so even if mentioned, it should be presented as allegations. Hatyn Massacre and ethnic cleansings were indeed admitted by the state later but these crimes were conducted by NKVD troops (not the army). Allegations of rape by the military in Germany are indeed documented in recent publications. So, they should be mentioned, but in the atrocities chapter rather than in the lead.
  • From the "atrocities" chapter the massacres of civilians during the WW2 deleted for the same reason as above. Crimes of the state and crimes of the military are not the same thing. Besides, again these where conducted by NKVD which was never part of the military.
  • "being instrumental in the war of aggression" is not an atrocity per se. War of aggression and a war crime (atrocity) are different things and should be presented properly. I agree, the fact that Soviet Union was involved in wars of aggression deserves mention in this article. But not in atrocities section and not in the way so that mention would look odd in the context. Just don't use the article as a grab bag for everything that comes to mind by putting it in the text disregarding its structure.

Please, no flames. Irpen 17:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see articles where German actions during WWII are presented as "allegations". Wikipedia must treat the Soviet Union in the same way as other countries (for instance Germany) are treated. That Stalin didn't convict himself (solely because he won the war) is irrelevant. If Germany had won the war, Stalin and his functionaries had been the one convicted of war crimes. The article is discussing war crimes because they undoubtly took place, which is only denied by some historical revisionists. Massacres committed by Soviet troops in Eastern Germany, notably in East Prussia, Silesia etc., and other places, are well documented by the German government after the war. // Peter

As a matter of interest where any of you relations combatants in WWII?--Jirate 21:06, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
My grandparents fled from Latvia to western Germany shortly before their country was brutally occupied by Stalin for the second time. I never was there before after the liberation. They were Latvian patriots and anticommunists and would most likely have been killed or deported if they stayed. Why do you want to know? // Peter
To make sure I judge response correctly.--Jirate 00:14, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Whether or not Peter's relations were involved in WWII as combatants or as members of civil population suffered from the Soviet or Allied occupation is irrelevant to the points he is making. Allegations of rapes committed by Soviet troops have been discussed in several recent mainstream books written by historians, so they deserved to me mentioned and rapes of civil population by military is a war crime. If Peter is aware of any serious sources (I do mean equally serious as the books quoted above) that document the massacres of civil German population under Soviet occupation and conducted by the army, not NKVD, he should bring them up at this talk page. Peter, please cite your sources. If they are acceptable, we can decide how to include them in the article. And when we do, we should do this properly, by reworking the article so that it retains its good style of the featured article of the day. Do not just paste your thoughts in the text to make a point. Care should be taken to express the material in good academic style. Please, no flames. Irpen 21:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems mentioned is Victors justice, if that's to be properly accounted for then everyone debating has to be aware of the potential partiality of their upbring. A certain amount of disclosure of ones potential bias is necassary in these discussions. I personally don't doubt the claims of Russian atrocities, but the easten front is a long why from here.--Jirate 22:19, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

One can be partial based on personal background of course. But Encyclopedia article, while written by people, are based on established information, not the original research that is more prone to bias. Of course, the sources can also be picked selectively. That's why it is important to quote the sources when bringing non-conventional ideas into the articles.

One more point. The Nazi war crimes are considered to be the crimes of Nazi State, not the crimes of the German military. Atrocities, mass executions, village razing, etc. were conducted by SS troops rather than regular army. Therefore, similar caution should have been applied if one was writing an article on the Military History of Germany, which does not exist. However, the article Nazi Germany is an appropriate place for such crimes. I want to repeat again that the WP articles is not the place to randomly dump some information, even factually accurate, by readers who advance their point of view. The encyclopedic style requires care. At least, when making a significant edit, the editors should read an entire article, decide on the place to include the information and exercise care to make a good article rather than use it to advance his views. Irpen 22:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I personally on read English and a bit of French entire works are closed to me. So even judging the accuracy of the victors documents is not that testable.--Jirate 23:24, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Show me an army that did not commit atrocities against civilians (Does Luxembourg have army?). The issue is not whether they were committed or not, but the topic should not be discussed in one place, with reliable sources, and not smeared in thin layer everywhere. Notorious cases like Evacuation of East Prussia must be presented in separate pages, to localize possible heated discussions. Mikkalai 22:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Show me any large group of armed men that hasn't commited atrocites?--Jirate 23:24, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Main Page Discussion[edit]

Moved from Talk:Main Page. --Fangz 02:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"In the 1940s, the Soviet Union took part in World War II, assisting in the defeat of Nazi Germany"

Guys! Soviet Union did not assist in the defeat of the Nazi Germany, Soviet Union defeated the Nazi Germany having lost 27 mln lives. The West opened the Second Front only 11 months prior to the Victory Day of May 1945 and only assisted in the defeat of Germans. The bulk of the job of bringing the end to the World War II was done by peoples of the former Soviet Union, for which Europe should be thankful. You guys in the West, should know the European history better. BAYRAM

The Stalinists not only "took part" in the Second World War, they started it themselves. It was their war. Just ask the peoples of Eastern Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. // Peter
I have to agree with that when reading that sentence in the article it really disturbed me and I think it will disturb a lot of people especially Russians. It is one of those articles written from a very American perspective I guess. Ben (talk) 07:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think a lot of British and French people will be disturbed if Russia, which began the war as a German ally, gets the credit for defeating Germany. RickK 08:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rick! First of all, not Russia, but Soviet Union, which composed of 15 republcs, now independent states. Second, Soviet Union, was not a German ally at the time, it's useful to read the history carefully. Soviet Union signed a Non-Agression Pact with the Nazi Germany to protect itself from Germany's agression or delay it for as long as possible. This non-agression pact was also signed as a response to the Munich Cospiracy signed by British and French prime-ministers and Hitler himself. According to the Munich Cospiracy Germany was allowed to annex part of Chekhoslovakia, which gave the way for annexing the whole country and other European countries. Rick, just try to imagine one thing: Soviet Union lost 27 MILLION LIVES in the war, so it should get the credit as the main power which defeated the Nazi. BAYRAM

YEAH! The Russian Stalinist Hordes "protected" themselves by attacking and massacring the peoples of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland etc. etc. Tell us another rubbish story, will you? I any event, the Stalinists killed at least 50 Million people and ruined half of the European continent, which they brutally occupied and suppressed for half a century until the liberation in 1990! The Russian hordes are even today occupying Chechnya and mass raping large number of women in "good old Russian tradition". // Peter
I live in Finland and I don't think Soviet troops ever masacred any Finns. What are Russian Stalinist hordes, sound like racism to me. Most Soviet citizens didn't choose Stalin in an election, so it's wrong to blame ordinary Soviet citizens for the attrocities commited by the regime. You don't seem to appreciate that the main victims of any oppressive regime are the citizens of the regime themselves. Stalin killed far more Russians than anyone else. And let's remember that mass murder was being perpetrated on both sides, the Nazis did their fair share of massacring said people. The war was always going to happen when an expansionist like Hitler was appeased. Both regimes were as obnoxious as each other. The Soviet Union almost certainly could have won by themselves, but the Allies probably could have defeated the Nazis as well. Lets remember that it was a joint effort, both the Allies and the Soviet Union contributed to the defeat of the Nazis. I always think it was a great shame that Roosevelt sold the Poles down the river, after all the Brits and the French went to war in the first place because of the invasion of Poland.-- 17:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They lost twenty-seven million lives 'cause they just threw bodies at the Germans. And the Non-Agression Pact was an alliance, they carved up Poland, something allies would do. The Americans and British were far more responsible for the war ending than the Soviets. GreatGatsby
It's factual nonsense. Sorry but extremist opinions seem to become more and more mainstream in America, right down to this kind of falsification. You 'patriots' really hope to re-write history like that, don't you?
In countries with well-functioning democracies in the US and Western Europe, the Putin regime is in no position to spread their russian historical revisionism and Soviet propaganda. // Peter
A good project would be to extend the coverage of American efforts to free the Europeans as well as the Russians from totalitarian ideologies like stalinism, see the National Committee for a Free Europe, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia.
"In countries with well-functioning democracies in the US and Western Europe" (Peter, above). Remember Florida? Democracy for who? For white republicans with revisionistic sense of history. - Nijo
At least you can say what you want in the western world, take part in political and economical life without being persecuted by Comrade Putin like Khodorkovsky was. Russian bandits, hordes and rapists in Putin-occupied Chechnya can in no way be called civilized. The Russians are now building statues of the worst criminal and mass murder in history, Joseph Stalin. They are ignoring the dark side of their history and the many million people they killed in Gulag, they are ignoring their grotesque war crimes in WW2 and after, ethnic cleansing, mass rapes, massacres etc. They are gloryfying Soviet symbols (symbols which are banned as criminal in countries like Hungary and was considered banned in the entire EU by the Justice Commisionary Franco Frattini a few weeks ago). Many people in the western world believe the russians have a problem with historical revisionism which needs to be dealt with before Russia can delevep a really democratic society. The Russians needs to be educated in the crimes of the Stalinists and Soviet Regime. The Sakharov Museum in Moscow har stated that this is a necessity to prevent such crimes from ever happening again and a moral duty. // Peter
"It is frightening that young Russians nearly have no knowledge of the horrible crimes the communist state committed" (Jurij Samodurov, leader of the Sakharov Museum)

so your point is? Russia is evil? Yeah, but then so is the USA, guilty of the most appalling war crimes and genocides, and the most cynical sponsoring, in turn, of war criminals and mass murderers. It's always nice to know how evil people were on the other side of the fence, but it would be ever so much more useful, and honest, to start to cope with your own history. 16:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you presume history of the United States is my history? In any event, the policies of the US cannot be compared to the crimes against humanity committed by the Russians during the Stalinist dictatorship. // Peter

""It is frightening that young Russians nearly have no knowledge of the horrible crimes the communist state committed" - Politically oxymoronic. The Soviet Union wasn't a communist state, it was a socialist state.

"In any event, the policies of the US cannot be compared to the crimes against humanity committed by the Russians during the Stalinist dictatorship." - So wait, the coup of Chile in 1973, planting of Saddam, funding the contras in Nicaragua, the little escapade in Somalia, the massacre in the Philippines in 1899, imperialism in Latin America till WWII, aren't crimes against humanity? -- Natalinasmpf 03:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Why do you presume history of the United States is my history? In any event, the policies of the US cannot be compared to the crimes against humanity committed by the Russians during the Stalinist dictatorship." - Peter! I personally do not want to diminish brutalities against all ethnicities in the Soviet Union committed during Stalin times. Killing and jailing you own people can not be justified. However, my initial comment was with regrad to the phrase that Soviet Union only assisted in the defeat of the Nazi Germany. All people who read books know that this is an outright lie, and effort to enhance the role of the West in WWII by using the pretext of Stalinist brutalities. We also all know very well, that the United States was the only country in history that used the nuclear weapon, which happenned twice in Japan killing many thousands of innocecnt people. The US killed 1 million Vietnamese in the Vietnam war and continuing its stupdid war in Iraq. Peter, if you do not want to compare the US policies with the Stalinist ones, please do not. The peoples of the former Soviet Union have already rejected the Stalinist era crimes. But you, Americans should know your history better and enhance the educational level of your people as this is one of the first steps towards the real democracy. BAYRAM

Posted by in the wrong section of this talk page, 02:45, 2005 Mar 27; inserted here 03:48, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC):

Well, the USSR did sign the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact, which formally made them allies of Nazi Germany. They did so due to a variety of factors, ranging from resentment at the fact that the West (Britain and France) had chosen to ignore them on a number of proposed partnerships in the interwar period to the admiration the Russian culture often expresses for stern leaders of every stripe. They did not join in the fight against Germany until they were attacked. The domestic policies of Stalin's USSR were so oppressive that many Soviets greeted their invaders with open arms, and this combined with a recent humilating defeat at the hands of the Finns caused Stalin to panic and fight the war against Germany with a new found fervor, including shooting any soldier or sailor that looked like he might try to flee the battlefield. The Soviet Union had designs on Poland and had discussed dividing it with Germany before the signing of the Pact, so arguing that the Soviets were altruistic in the war would be difficult. The Soviets committed dark atrocities during the war, like the Katyn Forest Massacre. Instead of 'liberating' Warsaw, they circled it for days while the Germans razed every buiding. Their behaviuor after the War was deplorable. But, however dubious the intent or cruel their approach, they did fight the Germans pretty fiercely, and it's doubtful the West could have defeated the Nazis without them, with the possible exception of using nuclear weapons which hadn't yet been invented. So some credit is due, but with a caveat. An analysis of their delaration of war with Japan and Truman's subsequent decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a causal link should be considered as well. You can't ignore them, but I wouldn't glorify them either. Ignoring Russia seems to be a mistake that Europe makes quite frequently, usually with disastrous results. Tell their story, so long as it's told objectively.
they may be compared, but should not. Each of these tragedies should be looked at for what it is, without succumbing to the temptation to immediately point fingers to what are perceived as even worse monstrosities. Nobody pointed out yet that the "US" had to depopulate a whole continent before they could even get started on their follow-up atrocities. It's too easy to point with fingers, though. Every nation should try to take responsibility for their history as well and as maturely as they can. dab () 13:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, kids. It is undeniable that the leadership of the (early?) Soviet Union, particularly Stalin himself, match pretty much every definition of evil there is. I do not believe anyone can disagree with that. Perhaps it was merely a willingness to sacrifice human decency for some dubious goal. That is irrelevant. It is also undeniable that the Soviet Union had a key role in the defeat of Nazi Germany - that without the actions of millions of Russian soldiers (who are simply people fighting to liberate their country. Most played no part in the atrocities committed by their government.) there is absolutely no way the Second World War could have been won. The same, in fact goes for the rest of the allies. The USA helped supply the survival of the Red Army. Britain gave a vital foothold in western europe. And so on. We should agree on some sort of compromise. I'd be happy with the current wording - as long as The Military History of the United States stated that the US also 'assisted' in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Let's not let our opinions get in the way of the facts.--Fangz 23:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The stalinist hordes committed horrible war crimes, massacres, mass rapes of million of women during the war. In fact every stalinist soldier should have been tried for war crimes. The claim that they were "fighting to liberate their country" is ridiculous. They were waging war of aggression against Poland, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and numerous other countries. They were fighting to conquer, occupy and suppress other peoples. They were fighting for the stalinist regime that killed, deported and enslaved more people than any other regime in world history. Those opposed to stalinism, in fact some 1 million Russians, fought on the German side. // Peter
Prove it. Ie. prove that every single soldier fighting under the banner of the Soviet Union (a) knew about the atrocities that were taking place, (b) were in active support of Stalin's policies in every way, (c) actively engaged in various atrocities. (d) Prove additionally that the Soviet propaganda at the time - advertising 'driving back the nazi invaders' was widely disbelieved by the new recruits. (e) Prove finally that *anyone* against the Stalinist agenda must neccessarily be in support of and fight for the Nazi regime. Know that you are claiming against the historical consensus on that time, and so the onus of proof is on you.--Fangz 12:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't claim that every Russian soldier knew about the crimes, but seriously, even if they were told that they were 'driving back the nazi invaders' when the Soviet Union attacked Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from 1939 on, at a time when Germany was their ally, I don't find it important. It's really just silly. What is an established historical fact is that the Soviet Union was waging wars of aggression and that regular russian troops committed war crimes on a much larger scale than what is usual in a war against many nationalities.
Also, when I said that those opposed to stalinism fought on the German side, I meant those who took part in the war, the only Russians who actively fought Stalin and his terror rule.
I don't believe any of my claims are "against historical concensus". I don't believe historical concensus even exists on this matter. The differences between the view of pro-western historians in the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary and other countries on the first side, and of Stalinist apologists in Russia on the second side, is big. // Peter
Is Wikipedia a discussion forum now then? In the old days it always used to be an encyclopaedia. Please try to direct all this intellectual energy into improving the article (Military history of the Soviet Union) rather than scoring points off each other. GrahamN 23:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've added an Atrocities section. Please all contribute. Just try to keep it NPOV, and not original research.--Fangz 12:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on Fangz. Graham already ended the argument. Now you're going to continue it by making others ask the question, "Why does the Soviet Union get an "Atrocities" section and the other countries don't?" Btr003
I don't this Graham ended the argument - and if he did, I don't think that affects the point that the Soviet Union has indeed a controversial history with many allegations of atrocities. And I do agree with Peter and others that to have an article about the history of the soviet military whilst not mentioning the unsavoury aspects would be a failure of WP's mission as an encyclopedia. If we have a disagreement about the content of the article, then we have to improve the article by sorting out the facts, and adding it so long as it is NPOV. And in any case, other countries do have an atrocities section, or even links to whole articles devoted to discussing their crimes. eg. Holocaust, Human Rights in China, Human rights in the United States, Italian war crimes (This seems to be in an NPOV debate, but it certainly isn't a target for deletion.) Democratic Kampuchea#Revolutionary Terror and so on... We need to at least get the more popular/more proven allegations in.--Fangz 22:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For crying out loud, Military history of the Soviet Union is NO LONGER ON the Main Page! And "//Peter", stop posting messages above the line asking people to stop scoring points off each other!

Anonymous, I don't know which line you are referring to, and I have never asked people to "stop scoring points off each other"! // Peter
"//Peter", the line asking you (and others) to stop is now underlined. You kept posting above that line by GrahamN after 23:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) without putting in the time and date .... (e.g. [2]) Why ? If this discussion about Military history of the Soviet Union has to continue, it should go to Talk: Military history of the Soviet Union, not Talk: Main Page. Please.

You people are all crazy. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. Also, the discussion about Military history of the Soviet Union has already started here, we should continue it here.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)[edit]

Forgive the spam, but I'm trying to round up wikipedians with an interest in international military history to help work out some conventions for the names of military units. If you are interested in that sort of thing, please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) and join the discussions on the talk page. — B.Bryant 17:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Annexed territories in late 30s[edit]

Currently the article says:

In the late 1930s, the Red Army invaded Finland; fought a brief undeclared border war (together with its ally Mongolia) with Japan and its client state Manchukuo; and, in agreement with Nazi Germany, took part in the partition of Poland, annexed the Baltic States, as well as Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (from Romania).

Re the last part ("it annexed.."), this was annexed by the state (USSR) the army was the instrument that made it possible. I would like to changed this by, for example:

"...secured annexing of ... by the Soviet Union".

What do you think? -Irpen 16:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

New round of deletions[edit]

This has been a FA extensively proofread, edited and peer-reviewed. Please don't just go out deleting stuff. A quote from "Be bold! ...but don't be reckless" said this better than ever:

If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, it's a good idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.

--Irpen 18:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

--The battle of Warsaw only saw some 5,000 Soviet casaulties. No way you can call it the biggest defeat of the Red army EVER. (unsigned by anon)

anon one, perhaps the case is being made on political significance to the leaders? Soviet leadership was notorious for not caring about mere casualties civilian or military. So casualties may not be the appropriate criteria of a big defeat. If it were, several "victories" would also have to be classified as defeats.--Silverback 10:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right. Like the Eastern Front (World War II). A very good point! (Sorry, could not resist) --Irpen 15:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Truman's "coercion"[edit]

Can someone tell me when Truman tacly threatened to use nuclear weapons if the Soviets wouldn't grant some concession? CJK 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I added refs to the article to the scholars who said so. I also added tacitly to the phrase. --Irpen 01:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And can you give one example from these scholars? Otherwise, we are just reflecting an opinion. CJK 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly are reflecting an opinion, but not of you or myself, but of the established specialists. What we can do, is to reorganize the refs to be linkable to the appropriate places of the article via footnotes to make clear wich scholars' opinion the passage is based on. --Irpen 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Then a) do not state it as fact and b) provide one example from these scholars showing Truman's coerciveness with nuclear weapons. In addition, "aggressive Truman" is POV. CJK 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Troop withdrawals[edit]

This is slightly beyond the namespace of the article, but the timeline of troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe seems quite pertinent to the scope and resolution of this article. They occurred through the first half of the 1990s, and were an extremely significant event in the denouement of the Soviet Union. Does anyone have the information to add? —thames 16:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


It is a bade idea for many reason 1 The pages have little to do with each other one page is more myth the other is more fact

2 People in wiki often want small articles and this would make an article bigger

3 mixing fiction with fact is never good (Deng 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

23 Feb 1918[edit]

I wonder, why this date is not reflected in the article? This is the official date of the Red Army creation. Well, modern researches didn't find any significant events on the date, but the Day is still here (renamed as "the Day of Protectors of Motherland"). --jno 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Baku January 1990[edit]

... The next major crisis occurred in Azerbaijan, when the Soviet army forcibly entered Baku on January 19-20, 1990, removing the rebellious republic government and allegedly killing hundreds of civilians in the process...

This is the sentence I quoted from the article. The problem is that the government at the time was not rebellious but anything else. In fact most of the civilians were killed because of the demonstrations calling for resignation of the government. I lived those days and I do know that it is true. I would seek for references of the fact. However, could the writer of the above sentence reply where he/she acquired that info.--Araks 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

White army's were not counter-revolutionaries[edit]

Despite a common myth, largely a child of Soviet propaganda, the white army was also revolutionary - they were the child of the February revolution, and of the forces that overthrew the Romanovs; their ideology was liberalism, not monarchism. (V.Kozhinov, Russia XX century) With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Also, there is a whole bunch of myths repeated in this article, like Zhukov falling out of favour after the War because Stalin feared his popularity - in reality he pocketed too much trophees from Germany for it go unpunished, but due to his popularity Stalin couldn've had him repressed. Ko Soi IX 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Soviet invasion of Japan in World War II[edit]

Does anyone know anything about this? We don't seem to have an article on it. Operation Downfall says: "Unbeknownst to the Americans, the Soviets were preparing to follow up their invasions of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with an invasion of the weakly defended island of Hokkaidō by the end of August, which would have put pressure on the Allies to do something sooner than November." No source is given, but there are some mentions of it on the web. Grant | Talk 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet miliatry operations[edit]

Hi there I wold like to let all people viewing this page that I restored The part about the list of soviet milatary action's [the wars between 1917 and 1991] I think these are extremly important because it lets people know the soviet's didnt just fight in the russian civil war, world war 2, the cold war and it's proxe wars. [forgive me i dont care how i spell my words or setences] Protoss99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protos99 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mindful of soviet vulnerability to western invasion."[edit]

I think we should delete this nonsense. As a counter argument, there are two words: "Operaton Unthinkable". Churchill and British intellegence admitted that attack on USSR in 1945 was "militarily unfeasible". It was rather the other way around in terms of vulnerability. Western Europe was vulnerable to soviet invasion. (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Just because YOU are aware of "Unthinkable" NOW, doesn't mean that the Soviet leadership of the period was convinced, having fought off two large scale invasions from the west in the last 25 or so years. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sovits were aware of the size of German military at the time it attacked them, soviets were aware of the size and power of western military in Europe. Of course, German military (not only german actually) was of course much more powerful. What I am saying in a nutshell: The way they fought off last invasion, they (soviets) knew that they had most powerful land army in history and their forces in europe were unmatched by anyone, I am pretty sure sthere are references that state that it was in fact Stalin's plan in 1944 (when it was clear USSR would take Germany in a couple of years by it's own, even americans would not intervene) to attack europe and make it socialist. Even if you are right, you should not right "soviet vulnerability", but rather "soviet vulnerability as perceived by then soviet leadership", because in reality there was none. But first, you should provide some sources that the buffer zone was established because of the reasons you stated and not some other? Please provide sources. (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pavel Goliikov.

Distorted description of the Finnish War[edit]

Why is the following nonsense allowed to remain in this article? It essentially says that in the Winter War, the Finns defeated the Soviets militarily, and then forced peace terms on the vanguished USSR. I tried to edit the passage mildly, to put the facts into perspective, but my edit was immediately reversed.

The resulting war proved disastrous for the Soviet military. The Red Army, which was still feeling the sting of Stalin's purges and finding itself starved of industrial and intellectual resources, and facing a disastrously under-estimated opponent, suffered a series of embarrassing defeats before accepting armistice on March 13, 1940. As a direct result of the Soviet aggression the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on December 14, 1939

The facts are that, after suffering a series of defeats by the Finns, the Soviets reorganized their forces, and mauled the enemy in a final great offensive. Mannerheim, the Finnish commander, then advised his government to negotiate peace on Soviet terms. Recognizing that they had lost the war, the Finns wisely chose to settle early with the Soviets, while there was still potential for a relatively lenient peace treaty. In the end, the Finns retained their independence, but ceded huge tracts of territory, and resources, to the victorious Soviets. Why does this article have to distort historical truth? What is the point?

I tried to edit the passage so that it says the following:

The resulting war proved disastrous for the Soviet military. The Red Army, which was still feeling the sting of Stalin's purges and finding itself starved of industrial and intellectual resources, badly under-estimated its opponent. Consequently, the Soviets suffered a series of defeats before forcing an armistice on the outnumbered Finns on March 13, 1940. As a direct result of the Soviet aggression the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on December 14, 1939

For some reason, my edit was reversed. Pathetic. Kenmore (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the section using your description and removed few other controversial points. GreyHood Talk 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Military support to India[edit]

I fail to understand why the Soviet Military support and supply to the Indian government from independence (1947) upto the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1992) is not even remotely mentioned in thsi article. Soviet Military aid to India was the backbone of India's military superiority to Pakistan during the 3 wars and numerous conflicts during the period (1947-1991). The Indian military was relentlessly equipped with modern aircraft, naval vessels, submarines and tanks in order to ensure the safeguard of the Indian republic and numerous defence and miltary pacts were signed between the Soviet and Indian governments. India's dependency on Soviet aid is not unknown and neither can it be denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)