This is an archive of past discussions about Soviet Union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What is the etymology of the word "Soviet"? I know it comes from the title of the worker's councils, but does it have any other relevance? For example, "America" comes from "Amerigo Vespucci".
(Comment from visitor): I agree that it would be useful to add this information - I actually came to this page trying to find out what the word 'Soviet' meant, and did not find the answer until I looked at this talk page. Perhaps an explaination that the word 'Soviet' refers to the nature or design of the workers' councils could be added to the article.
I think that the world community as a whole would benefit if by searching for the term "Soviet" they would be sent to the disambiguation page instead of the Soviet Union page. I think that the vast majority of people in the world have no clue what the word "Soviet" means, other than a Russian person or an adjective related to a largely Russian Communist government. I'm going to see if I can make the change myself. Rag-time404:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh most of the world dont know what this word means. Soviet-> just another word? Go find a dictionary? NO! People who has these facts and look at the wiki going 'Oh dont write about this bit... Dont write about this bit... Oh bury this one... Oh people dont want to know about this stuff... ' I DO I DO I DO I DO I DO I DO .! Its not the right type of thing to bury RagTime. 'Oh the Soviets hide a lot of info... lets hide all the info about them...' Oh yeah.
I typed in Soviet and got Soviet Union. Its like typing in United and getting United Kingdom... I can work out what a Soviet is but its not as nice as being told where he come from(Soviet Union is only a big place.. . :)
ThisMunkey (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Military Parity: USSR vs US
In the Post-Stalin Soviet Union section, it's mentioned that: "Throughout the period, the Soviet Union maintained parity with or superiority to the United States in the areas of military numbers and formations, but this expansion ultimately crippled the economy."
While I do not have much in the way of doubts that it crippled the economy, isn't it the case that the parity or superiority of the Soviet Union to the US, military-wise, turned out to be a myth promulgated by one part of the US government or intelligence apparatus that was at odds with another part of the US government? I vaguely recall that it was mentioned that, during Gerald Ford's administration, certain elements insisted that we build up defense because the Soviet Union had some sort of secret super-weapons despite the CIA's insistence that the USSR did not even have parity with the US, and despite the fact that those pushing for this defense buildup couldn't produce such evidence either.
Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm trying to remember something I read a while back. I'm thinking that, at the very least, there should be some sort of citation for the statement made in the article.--King V (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Olympic Medal Counts for USSR/CIS?
I am not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum, but I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for the USSR and its successor organization CIS (among many other things). I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on this: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Thanks a lot in advance! Medalstats16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw the table and good work. To delete it would be idiotic.
-G
Foreign Relations
There is not enough mention of the People's Republic of China, such as tensions during the Khrushchev era, in the foreign relations section of this article. Also no mention of China's Tiananmen Square demonstration in June 1989 (Gorbachev was there when it happened!), which was a major impetus for the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the USSR.
I added the following text:
In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino-Soviet split. This resulted in a break throughout the global Communist movement and Communist regimes in Albania and Cambodia choosing to ally with China in place of the USSR. For a time, war between the former allies appeared to be a possibility; while relations would cool during the 1970s, they would not return to normalcy until the Gorbachev era.
"For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant."
Citation please, even though half professed themselves atheist, does that mean they found the murder of priests and the closure of churches 'irrelevant'? Atheist POV has been allowed to fester for too long, the Atheist race must come to terms with the fact that Atheists do not OWN wikipedia, and that POV doesn't apply just to Religious pages. So can the Madalyn Murray O'Hair bullshit and deal with the facts.
Thanks for the input, however, I don't know exactly what you mean by "sneaks in again." The quote you're contesting has appeared on this page for over a year. It has been edited hundreds of times since this phrase's original inclusion, and neither you nor anyone else has thought it neccesary to have it removed. In my opinion it's a misnomer to say it was "sneaking."
To answer your question, though: No. I think the citizens cared about murder. I honestly don't see what disliking murder has to do with professing and following a certain faith.
Just to clarify, the definition of "seem" is as follows:
seem (sēm)
intr.v., seemed, seem·ing, seems.
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
[...]
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.
Therefore, if the half the population stated that they did not believe in God, I believe it's reasonable to say that religion seems irrelevant to them. - Small Profit17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have a point of view you want to impose on others. The Soviet Union was not officially atheist like many religious people claim. Stop imposing your beliefs on this article, it needs to represent facts. (Anonymous Users) May 25, 2006
-Why, yes, in fact, it was officially an atheistic nation. Soviet principles wished to instill a sort of "worship of the state" without any competition from religion. Just because you cannot handle the concept of a government expressly banning religion does not mean it didn't happen. Just because a fact is listed as such does not mean the user is approving or disapproving of said fact. It's simply the way things were; trying to say it was a lie would be like trying to claim that the U.S. South didn't really have segregation. Just because one does not approve doesn't mean one can deny historical facts. Also, "Atheist Race"? What the hell does that even mean? Magicflyinlemur10:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article it states that we have a picture of the soviet flag being lowered for the first time, further study notes that it is NOT a true picture, but from a movie. Should be noted.
its fun to have a wikipedia account!
Peer review
I'm going to put the conclusions of the peer review below:
2. History section seem POVed: The article states: [after 1945] The Soviet Union aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe. I'd very much like to learn how? SU forbade them to join the Marshall Plan, took (part of?) their part of repatriations from Germany and gave what in return? The communist economy? The history section also makes no reference to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and I see no mention of how it gained control of Eastern Europe, killed of or forced into exile any opposition, and ruled over its satellite states for the next four and a half decades (if you haven't read it, I recommend History of Poland (1945-1989), a Featured Article). Besides the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, such events as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Soviet split should be mentioned as well. Then there is not a single word of those satellites slipping the SU grip (Solidarność) and how that contributed to the eventual fall of the SU.
The Soviet Union DID aid postwar reconstruction in Eastern Union. Tons of supplies and lots of workers were sent to rebuild the economy. You can accuse USSR of political mistakes but not with NOT helping the new created Soviet controlled states. Just the opposite: the Soviet Union strived to build communism in GDR and other republics, therefore investing heavily in their economy. --Davydov23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Existing:
Hungarian revolution is mentioned in the Foreign relations section.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is mentioned in the History section.
Prague spring is mentioned in Foreign relations section (I'll make this more explicit).
To do:
The Cuban missile crisis should be probably be mentioned in Foreign relations section.
The Sino-Soviet split should be probably be mentioned in the Foreign relations section.
The fact that the USSR exacted reparations from "aggressor" nations who took part in WWII should be mentioned somewhere (not just Germany, Romania too and possibly other countries).
Soviet invasion of Poland should be probably be mentioned somewhere.
I think the aiding of postwar reconstruction would possibly referring to the COMECON. This is unlikely to be as a result of pro-Soviet POV, as User:172 has mentioned the text is from the LOC. - FrancisTyers15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
3. sections like 'Geography' are a stub-sections (expand), 'Culture' is a list (write!).
5. economics section: 'Soviet citizens of the 1980s had economic parity to the West.' - what?? source please. I wouldn't call the shortage economy parity. And one of the few bright sides of the Soviet economy, its independence of the business cycles and thus depressions (including the Great one and the Oil Depression of the 70's) are glaring omission from this section.
I'm having difficulty fitting in the part about war reparations into the article. It just doesn't seem to fit anywhere. I've added the Cuban missile crisis, Sino-soviet split and the invasion of Poland. So its just this and the Geography and Culture sections remaining so far. - FrancisTyers22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I added some info on the Sino-Soviet split into foreign relations (I hope it's okay). I also think it's important to include information on the Comintern in the Foreign Relations section, as it was a fairly important part of Soviet Foreign Policy. Currently, the section focuses almost exclusively on foreign relations since 1945. - Small Profit19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
POV
"Although Stalin tried to avert war with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact" - POV. Stalin's intentions are still not clear. Maybe he just wanted to secure his part of Poland, who knows.
"Battle of Stalingrad in 1943" - it took part mostly in 1942, with only last month or so in 1943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.182.143 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 December 2005
You are right regarding the dates. I have altered the article to show this, although the Battle of Stalingrad article gives the dates. Regarding POV, please read this if you haven't already and if you still think that it is POV, please bring it up here. - FrancisTyers02:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Photos/Images
I've taken the liberty of adding in some photos/images from commons, I think it improves the article, however feel free to remove/replace some if you can find more appropriate ones, there are thousands to choose from on commons. See WPSU page for links. - FrancisTyers23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Should the Gulag system be mentioned somewhere on the page or at least linked off it. I think it could safely come in the history section, the politics section or the economy section. It is definately notable, being one of the things that probably comes to mind (at least in the West) when you hear USSR. Some suggestions would be welcome. - FrancisTyers20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Gulags are not worth mentioning in this article, but definately in articles on Stalin or WWII. The Gulag system did not exist past Stalin.
I think that there should be a brief section about the Gulags somewhere in this article with it then linking to the Gulag page for more detail on the subject.--Rhydd Meddwl16:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"[D]id not exist past Stalin"?!! That will come as a great surprise to the million or so arrested and imprisoned after Stalin's death (and an even greater surprise to the families of those murdered in Gulag during the period). See, for example, Wikip.'s own article on the subject. For a more thorough investigation of Gulag Post-Stalin, see the Gulag Archipelago. Harrowing stuff. Even worse is your suggestion that the apotheosis of the terror systenm that kept Stalin (and yes, his sucessors!) in power is "not worth mentioning." That is as absurd as it is grotesque. (See patent nonsense) Literally tens of millions passed through Gulag's maw, and it was intrumental in underpinning the political and social apparatus of the Soviet state, as well as being directly responsible (through slave labor) such massive projects as the Belomorkanal
The suggestion that it is not worth mentioning is an insult to the millions of victims of Soviet State terror. While an editor more expert than I should add the section (the authors of the Gulag article spring to mind) I willl add the necessary passage, if no one else does. Reimelt21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Gulag Arch. is not a "thorough investigation" by any encyclopedia standards; in fact, its author claims it is "fiction-research" ("художественное исследование") whatever that means. He and his co-authors are biased, very bitter about the whole system, and mad at the world, as is any unfair prisoner kept in horrible conditions in any dirt-poor country. This is not to say that eyewitness accounts are not important, or that this horrible thing never happened, but the silly stereotype that the USSR throughout its whole history was nothing but a big Gulag is what I find "absurd and grotesque".
The imaginary army of ruthless "Stalin's successors" that supposedly thrived on Gulag consists of: Nikita Khrushchev, who shut the place down and started a major anti-Stalin campaign.
I don't care if Gulag is mentioned in this article or not, I just don't want emotional people writing Solzhenitsyn-dominated history articles in the encyclopedia. Guinness man09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
First, where did I say an "army" of sucessors? Second, Nikita was not the only sucessor to use prison camps, it continued (but by no means thrived) up to and including Breshnev. Next, where did I say that the CCCP was nothing but a big gulag?
More important, you translate,'"художественное исследование", as "fiction research," implying that G. Arch. is meant to be fiction. This is either a matter of poor translation, or deliberate apology. The phrase in English is "literary investigation;" there is no implication in the phrase that G.A. is anything but his attmpt to give a non-fiction account. If you have evidence that contradicts the book, by all means point to it; please don't use a mistranslation of the phrase that describes the book's style as evidence of the veracity of the contents.
Moreover, Solzhenytsyn is "biased" because he lived through it? Of course he's biased against Gulag, what victim would not be One is reminded of Churchill's immortal response when he was accused of bias in his journalism: "I refuse utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire." Additionally, what, pray, is an "unfair prisoner"[sic]? And, yes, S. is angry--why shouldn't he be? How does this invalidate his eye-witness account?
Gulag Arch. aside, If you really believed that Krushchev completely shut down the Gulag, then why on Earth aren't you busy editing the entry on "Gulag" instead of accusing fellow editors of being "emotional" (whatever that means in this context) with no evidence about an issue (the inclusion of Gulag) you concede you don't care about. On reflection, yes, my comments here are emotional--the systematic murder of a million and a half innocent people tends to do that. However, that's why it's here in Talk, and not in the encyclopedia article itself. Sir, as I have not chaged even a commma on the article itself, don't you think it's a bit premature to warn of Solzhenitsyn-dominated anything.
More to the point, I do not think (and never suggested) S.'s book is by any means the last word in Gulag research; however, that the Soviet government imprisoned millions post-Stalin is admitted by the Soviet and now Russian goivernment itself.
Finally, I note that you comment not at all on the (yes, Post-Stalin) construction projects that relied on gulag slave labor.
I still hope that my OP will garner commments from fellow editors who are able to give a list of Soviet leaders beyond Stalin that consist of more than a single name. Surely, there must be someone more informed than this! I remain convinced that an article about the CCCP that doesn't include GULAG is like an article on Germany without showa. Reimelt18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
When the issue boils down to what to include and what not to include, it really is a partial decision. For instance, in the Wikipedia article on the US, I saw nothing about the Japanese internment camps during WWII. What parameters should be set for deciding?
Showa is a less popular transliteration of the hebrew for "calamity." More commonly Sho'ah or shoah. It refers to the holocaust.
As to parameters--that's exactly the discussion I'd like us to have. A quick glance at the Wikipedia entry for gulag seems to demand a short section and link here as millions were imprisoned for many years and at least a million were killed. I'm all for a short reference to Japanese interment in the U.S. article (although, of course any equivalence here is, to be blunt, ludicrous.) One caution here, however, even if the U.S. article, or the article on, say, Pol Pot are incomplete, that really has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with an article on the Soviet Union.
If you mean that it is inconsistent to include the camps of the S.U. and not the U.S., I agree, let's include both in their respective entries. However, let's tackle the article that this page discusses, without enlarging the problem. Reimelt19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Showa!" You learn something new everyday!
I suppose my only concern has to do with the inclusion serving as a portal to a pathological anti-communism; not the kind that loathes Stalin and his crimes, but the Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest type, which paint the USSR in the worst possible light in all circumstances. The US article is incomplete for a reason. The anti-communist propaganda drilled into people's heads from a young age serves a purpose. Kozlovesred04:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for balance here. It seems to me the section should be short, link to the real gulag article. and emphasize that the overwhelming impact of Gulag was under Stalin. Still, it should make clear that prison camps did not evaporate with the death of J.S. Telling the truth about Gulag needn't devolve into antii-soviet propaganda, especially if the lion's share of the fault is assigned to Stalin. 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The Gulag should be mentioned. But there should be no separate section on the Gulag. All topics in Soviet history-- from the Gulag to glasnost-- is supposed to be covered under the single "history" section. So I added content on the subject in the history section. [1]172 | Talk04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
" Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote the creativity and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy."
I find this to be bious. If the industry lags in quality and efficiency because of heavy bureaucracy of central planning, then individual creativity is not the solution. Creativity would be the means to improve quality and efficiency but not strictly the strategy. It implies that creativity is a value in itself and that everyone should choose the creative worker. It's derived from market economy where this consept is used as a competitive advantage. The correct solution to the bureaucracy of the central planning is to change the bureaucratic form of administration. You can't have creativity if you don't create better conditions for it. On the other hand you shouldn't scrap an entire government system just because it causes insufficient production with quality. The current notion talks about an absolut and a trademark in competition and ignores the past system of the Soviet Union. It is as if we shouldn't even consider other systems than the market economy. This should revised. Teemu Ruskeepää
I find these form of word to be neutral: "Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote flexibility and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy."
or
"Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to respond to the complex demand of industry of a highly developed, modern economy."
Box too big?
The box seems too big because of the large sized map.
Who is the Council of Europe? Why they not write a similar declaration about the fascism in Spain or Portugal in the second half of the XX century? In Spain there are already a thousands of fascists.
You should probably take that up with the United States Library of Congress. Can you point to any specific biased pieces of prose in the article? - FrancisTyers16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
How a text about a non-existing state can describe mostly its last ten years of existence and omit the other 60? Which text has been generated by the USL? The one in the WIkipedia? Where is the border between the Wikipedia and the USL?
Xx23613:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, prove that the SU didn't murder tens of millions, didn't introduce total censorship, didn't destroy the Orthodox church and many other churches.
Xx23613:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the Katyn crime?
1940. Nothing.
You may check if the massacres of prisoners after the German invasion are described under 1941.
Xx23615:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I would say that for the last comment that you may have polish simplaties, and your lack of respect towards the USSR can show that. Messhermit15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The text is almost entirely adapted from public domain text from the Library of Congress Country Studies/Soviet Union. Each point can be verified by doing searches on relevant key words from the site linked to the bottom part of the article. The LOC text may not be perfect, and it may have somewhat of a slight Cold Warrior bias (though not nearly as overt as anything published by Soviet researchers about the U.S.). But all of it is solidly anchored in the scholarly literature on Russian and Soviet studies and easily verifiable. (Their own list of references is almost always impressive.)
Now I'm also not exactly a lover of the bureaucracy in the SU, but I am also aware that there is a large Western bias AGAINST it, bordering on the pathological, and that should be considered. There's a huge double standard when it comes to describing anything SU and anything West. Take, for instance, the FDR or Churchill page, which wax elegant about their "personal charm," hardly mentioning anything about Churchill's "butchering at Gallipoli." Did the SU murder millions? Yes, it did, but so did the US, either directly or indirectly, and you don't see anything so general as that in ITS article. Did the SU introduce censorship? Yes, it did, but what about the US during WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and right now? Did the SU destroy the Orthodox Church? It depends on which period you're talking about. I'm not justifying the crimes of the bureaucracy, but a pathological hatred against the SU has no place on Wikipedia. If one is going to apply such general epithets against the Soviet Union, without any contextual basis for their claims, much less an understanding of WHY they happened, (implying simply that the bureaucracy was composed of just a bunch of "evil" "bloodthirsty" tyrants), I will delete it. This is not how history is done. Kozlovesred16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is one of proportion. The US didn't send millions of its own people into forced labour camps. It certainly did NOT censor as consistently as the USSR. Censorship in the US was intermittent and limited; it was a fact of life in the USSR from 1917 until 1991 (and beyond). Kozlovesred, I have a feeling you want to be "fair"; but equating things that are not equal does not make you NPOV.
Cvereb11:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha! It did: during the Great Depression of the 30s thousands of people, most of them "army age" 18-25 were sent to massive labour camps in the 1930s to avoid revolutions and civil unrest. Same years. And censorship in USSR was CANCELED in 1960s by Khrushev ( at least to some extent)--Davydov23:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
By Jove, Davydov led me to remember! If the projects like the TVA after the Great Depression weren't forced labor camps, then what was? And that was millions we're talking about.. Kozlovesred00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the US did not send millions of its own people into forced labor camps, but then we're talking about the US, not the USSR, a section of the world with its own history and rate of development. Censorship in the US was introduced frequently in the 20th century, and there is every right to believe that it will be again. Besides, I'm sure you're aware of the pervasive socialization process in the US, quite the powerful propaganda machine. Also, the USSR didn't have a progressive liberal past; it had only a feudal one to contend with. The purpose of my above rant was to highlight the double standard behind historical analysis. And this is nothing strange. History is a cooperative affair. Let's try to make it as neutral as possible. Kozlovesred16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to mine the topic or anything, but wasn't the complaint that the article focuses too heavily on the end of the USSR instead of the beginning, not that the US did or did not treat its citizens better than the USSR did? How about we just try to get some extra data from pre-Cold War and be done with it? This hogwash about who has polish sympathies and "the Jews" is pretty irrelevant. 129.237.90.22 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
this is pov, discuss it in the talk
Am I dreaming? You call the genocide "separation"? Do you understand meaning of words? I can imagine your "pov" version of the Holocaust.
Xx23614:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Your edits on Wikipedia are only regarding Poland and the Baltic States. You are far more biased that any other person, trying to portrait the history of those contries as the only ones who suffered WWII. Restrain then, of complaining about Non-existent POV, since the only one that is pushing one is you. Messhermit18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you please not teach me? ~I'll do what I want. Do I understand you correctly that Poles and citizens of Baltic States are people don't have the right to discuss?
Xx23614:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole text is biased. There are thousends of books describing Soviet crimes, crazy economy, censorship. How is it possible to ignore everything?
Xx23613:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And by writing everything that is bad makes it a NPOV article? You are more than welcome to help, but with reliable and unbiased sources of course, not mere nationalism. Messhermit19:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is NPOV, irrespective of its depiction of a leader or a régime if it is objective fact without judgment and loaded language. What Messhermit simplifies as "bad" is in practice "what most people consider objectionable. The mass death attributed to Josef Stalin's régime is a documented fact, as is the Holocaust. It is up to the reader of a Wikipedia article to decide on his own whether the mass death linked to Stalin is evil. Saying that Stalin was evil for his culpability in millions is POV even if the common knowledge that he promoted and enforced a forced collectivization that led to the deaths of millions through starvation and coercive methods of enforcement of his vision. Check the article on Adolf Hitler; it documents deeds that most people considers monstrous crimes without directly calling him evil. To state that others considered him fantastically evil, as to cite Sir Winston Churchill's quip that upon the start of Operation Barbarossa, that he would have to say some good words on the behalf of the Devil if Hitler ever invaded Hell, is to make an objective statement that Churchill considered Hitler monstrously evil and that, at least at the time, Stalin was the lesser of two evils. That wartime propaganda of the Third Reich consistently depicted Churchill through word and image as monstrously evil shows so much that Churchill was evil but that the Nazis thought him evil.
It would be non-NPOV to deny the mass deaths, to deny a link to them with Stalin, to state that culpability lies entirely with underlings who went "too far" without the knowledge or consent of Stalin, or to offer an absurdly-small and contrafactual number of deaths as the consequences of the Soviet policies under Stalin (as in, "it was only a few tens of thousands"). It is also non-POV to call Stalin the Antichrist or to use a colorful-but-loaded metaphor such as "butchering", "slaughter", or "carnage". Likewise, the use of the word "crazy" or "mad" to describe the Soviet economy under Josef Stalin and his successors is loaded. Stalin seemed to think that his effort to hasten modernization of the Soviet Union was not only sane, but necessary. Others might think differently -- but that is opinion. Wikipedia is for facts, and not judgment.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to decide ethical issues, even the most basic one that distinguishes good and evil at their most apparent manifestations to most people. Such is for people to do themselves, and those who do what most people consider "evil" risk the consequences of legal judgment (to the extent of capital punishment in the case of serial murderers Ted Bundy and Andrei Chikatilo), a catastrophic personal end (Hitler shooting himself on a sofa as the Red Army closed in on his bunker) or at the least, unflattering depictions in history among those who have the choice to write it (Stalin is vilified almost everywhere these days, including the former Soviet Union and its satellites that he shaped and whose influence upon demographic and economic reality remains extant).
if you have NPOV sources, and being able to discuss them here in the talk page, you are more than welcome to help. Just remember to not push a POV. Messhermit23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is Solshenitsin NPOV? I believe he has described the fate of Orthodox clergy in Gulag.
What NPOV sources have you got? Soviet laws?
Xx23613:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Solzenetzyn is a dissident. Do you think that his opinion about the USSR is NPOV? I believe that he is a good writer and historian, but I would not rely on him that much for political opinions. Messhermit19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
From the section on Religious groups:
Government persecution of Christians continued unabated until the fall of the Communist government.
As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities have sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime's own purposes; but their ultimate goal has been to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.
I find it hard to believe that there is no mention of persecutions when the article explicitly mentions persecutions. I think a more careful reading of the article would allay some of your worries that some aspects of the Soviet Union aren't covered appropriately. I would encourage you to make specific complaints about sections of the article. - FrancisTyers 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The article Religion in the Soviet Union, but not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union calls extermination - separation. When KGB nominated Orthodox bishops it's not "separation" but styate control over the Orthodox church.
Xx23612:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Rooting out superstition and backwardness required drastic measures, and for that the Bolsheviks under Lenin should be commended, not blamed.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozlovesred (talk • contribs)
===========================================
Mr Anonim, do you mean that if special atheistic forces destroy 100 000 churches in the USA and kill one million of religious people, the GNP will radically grow?
Xx23612:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The material conditions have to be addressed first. But there is no doubt that religion should go the way of the dinosaur. We live in the 21st century! Kozlovesred16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You're crazy to think that people should be murdered, exiled, imprisoned, or tortured over something as petty as religion. The only things that should "go the way of the dinosaur" are the anceint and barbaric ideologies of the Soviet Union, which were just shadows of Dark Age rule. --IronMaidenRocks02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is very bad2
It describes in biased pro-Soviet way the SU in the 1980-ties. It's not an article about an existing state, beacuse the SU doesn't exist any more. It's not an historical article, because it concentrates on the 1980-ties.
Xx23614:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have read hundreds of texts, including Russian ones, about the SU and used to live under Soviet occupation. I doubt very much that I can learn something more.
The texts your like describe the SU as it was 1989 (or maybe as it was seen in 1989, before the archives were opened. It's a snapshot. You may write your text "Soviet Union in 1989". "Soviet Union" should describe 70+ years.
The article is not very good indeed. With such a subject we are reaching the limits of NPOV. One has to be very cautious when editing. I scrapped a few words saying that Russia invaded the Baltic states before WWII "to prevent Nazi invasion": that seemed not-so-subtly non-neutral. Russia had its own, less disinterested motives such as expanding its own sphere. So, rather than keeping just that one motivation, I remomved these words.
Cvereb
Thje article is "very good" the same like "Soviet democracy" was democratic or "Soviet economy" was economic.
Xx23613:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the USSR "aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe" sounds really gross. They didn't send funds for reconstruction (they couldn't possibly have done so) and prevented Eastern European countries from accepting the Marshall plan. I think they exploited Eastern Europe, but don't have facts or sources to back it up. They are known to have dismantled factories in former German territories to rebuild them in the USSR. It would be closer to the truth to say that the USSR "was aided by Eastern Europe". To remain NPOV, let's just say that they "extended their influence on Eastern Europe", or something to that effect.
Cvereb11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
but don't have facts or sources to back it up
The Soviet Union DID aid postwar reconstruction in Eastern Union. Tons of supplies and lots of workers were sent to rebuild the economy. You can accuse USSR of political mistakes but not with NOT helping the new created Soviet controlled states. Just the opposite: the Soviet Union strived to build communism in GDR and other republics, therefore investing heavily in their economy. --Davydov 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why the LC supports Soviet propaganda. Maybe they don't have funds to review, what an ignorant wrote in 1989?
But they have written:
"Instead, the Soviet Union compelled Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe to supply machinery and raw materials."
The SU delivered machinery and raw materials to construct ironworks in Communist countries. The technology (and ecology) was obsolete and the quality of the machinery was low. I don't know what the prices were. Poland had to deliver coal, almost free. Even Polish Communists protested in 1956.
Xx23612:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The main objective of Wikipedia is to present a fair an accurate NPOV version of historical events. In these article, we are not pointing out that Everything was good in the USSR. That would be a violation of the NPOV policy. However, your clear anti-soviet POV, reaganism and polish/baltic nationalism are clearly a POV. Once you get rid of those feelings, feel free to come and make interesting and reasonable contributions. Messhermit 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Once you learn the Soviet history, feel free to contribute.
Xx23612:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just responding to the point about the USSR dismantling German factories, this happened in the West too. Many politicians in the West wanted to turn Germany into an agricultural country with little industry. in 1945, there were no firm plans what to do with the 4 occupation zones. It was only as the Cold War escalated and the West saw the advantages of having a pro-Western government in(West) Germany that they introduced the currency reform and started helping to rebuild the country.
Orthodox church
From Libarary of Congress:
As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities have sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime's own purposes; but their ultimate goal has been to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.
The text "Religious groups" describes probably an another country than "Religion in the Soviet Union", because they are so different.
Xx23613:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm glad you're discussing this on the talk page. So, please present how you would rewrite the Religion section. I have pasted the original below for reference, please do not alter it. Please bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The state was separated from church by the Decree of Council of People's Comissars 1918January 23. Official figures on the number of religious believers in the Soviet Union were not available in 1989.
But according to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially atheistic state, professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers.
Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects, the Baptists (Protestants) suffering the most government persecution with children being forbidden to attend home services and church leaders frequently imprisoned.
Government persecution of Christians continued unabated until the fall of the Communist government. There were many churches in the country (7500 Russian Orthodox churches in 1974).
Although there were many ethnic Jews in the Soviet Union, actual practice of Judaism was rare in Communist times. Jews were the victims of state-sponsored anti-semitism and were one of the few Soviet citizens allowed to emigrate from the country.
What you mean - it is rare? Thera are several Judaic sinagogues in SU, e.g. in Moscow. Also, why do you think buddhists number in USSR was less than Jews? Please note, Jews are mainly urban population, more government-controlled and atheistic.
Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on spiritualism. The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly.
The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers.
Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.
Proposed version:
This article is very bad3
Calling Soviet genocide "Separation of the church" is a lie. Stop your Soviet propaganda.
Xx23610:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Messhemit, you asked me to not discuss with you - respect your words. I call "Soviet Genocide" the murders of religious people in the SU, both Soviet citizens and people under Soviet occupation
Xx23615:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I asked you to stop using baseless acussations and written them in my personal page. I asked for your concept of Soviet Genocide, plain and simple. Messhermit17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I know of several Russians that lived under Soviet regime and some of them were very religious and they were respected. They also told me stories about the reconstruction of several Churches in USSR after WWII and Revolution and some of those people and/or their relatives contributed to those reconstructions. In my perspective it's dubious that there was any kind of anti-religious Genocide taking that into consideration. 201.129.240.3917:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma
Sometimes religion was tolerated, at other times it was reprimanded, sometimes both in different parts of the state, but it was never encouraged and there were periods when continous waves of repression against religious institutions and leaders were carried out. Under these circumstances, the policy called "Ну, погоди!" appeared meaning that although people might interpret a lessening of repressions against the Church as a change in policy, soon enough other instances of reprisal would follow, although the wolf usually was defeated at the end of these regular episodes. TSO1D17:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I've heard comming from these Russians I know is that in school they were taught that Religion was something like a "fable" rather than something true thus meaning Soviet state tried to make religious faith to gradually dissapear. Knowing that, religious leaders could have done "anti-state-policies" movements which could have led to repression of those movements, nonetheless I truly doubt that a person would be repressed just because of believing in any certain religion. 201.129.240.3915:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma
They were though, especially certain groups like the Baptists. In the case of the dominant Orthodox Church, the vast body of its followers was not repressed but dissuaded from participating in religious activities, while the clergy suffered greatly, even being exterminated in some areas. TSO1D16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The official point of view is: The communistic ideology take the place of the pre-revolution Church. So, the state religion always confront the others. In most cases this leads to some social restrictions - clearly religious citizen cannot afford high social position. This is not any sort of genocide, of course, but some freedom restriction. But is it possible to imagine e.g. US State Secretary - satanist at 50-s?
In late november of the same year, the Soviet Union demanded Finland strategical islands and ports (Petsamo's convoited nickel stores). The Finnish ministers tried frantic negociations with Stalin, in answer, the latter asked the Finns to move back their border from 30km. President Kallio refused and the negocations failed, ensueing the 1939-1940 Finland Winter War. The five fronts conflict, targeting ports such as Petsamo and the capital, started by the 30th of november in the morning, with the Red Army's bomber fleat attacking Helsinki before the heavy infantry starts its offensive on military and non-military Finnish positions. Commander Mannerheim took the lead of the Finnish army, adopting the guerilla tactics a 4 million people country only can afford to confront a 180 million people superpower and the world's first army. Where the Red Army send modern tanks, Mannerheim's partisans used to hide limited artillery pieces and employ alpine skiing white dressed men, sleds and horses as the only efficient way to transport men and troops by the 40/50-below zero Arctic winter. Applying Mannerheim's words "Nothing but scorched earth cursed by God will fall into Russian hands. The Finland of today will never fail thus we stand for the right in the name of democracy, we'll live in shining light through all of tomorrows of eternity", the Finns adopted the scorched earth policy used before by Russians against Napoleon's Grand Army. They destroyed their own villages thus depriving their enemy of shelter and supplies, forcing him to seek frozen food in junks. ‹The templateTalkfact is being considered for merging.›[citation needed] The Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. It has been debated that the Soviet Union had the intention of invading Germany once it was strong enough. The Red Army stopped the Nazi offensive, with the Battle of Stalingrad from late 1942 to early 1943 being the major turning point, and drove through Eastern Europe to Berlin before Germany surrendered in 1945 (seeGreat Patriotic War). Although ravaged by the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as an acknowledged superpower.
I surely need to make it shorter but this historical episode is not mentioned with as much historical details on the history of the Soviet Union article, you should have checked it before removing my work! This article is already too large without this episode. Removing everything about the Russian blitzkrieg is not a lenght problem, but a political problem. Without the Finland War paragraph, there is no mention about the Soviet Union agression in Finland, forgetting the pain, dying, and destruction bring by the Red Army in a peaceful democracy. Only remains the Soviet Union "positive" episode against the Nazis, and this is quite unfair and partisan don't you think?
Also what about my reference to a popular movie aka Star Wars someone also removed? Where's the problem? Pop culture is as much important and is part of History. EnthusiastFRANCE21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your first point I agree, the Winter War should be mentioned, as I previously stated, although it should be mentioned in an NPOV manner. Regarding the second point, popular culture does not belong here. Make a new article called References to the Soviet Union in popular US culture or something. Could you condense your paragraph to a sentence here and then we can think about including it. The Winter War certainly was interesting but we do not want to give it undue weight. - FrancisTyers22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you FrancisTyers, it should definately be mentioned but in a much more encyclopaedic manner. I removerd the reference to Star Wars because it is irrelevent to an article on the Soviet Union and I found its placement in the article jarring. --Scaife(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor22:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
EnthusiastFRANCE, please make your suggestion here before you include it in the article so we can go about achieving consensus and fixing your spelling and grammatical errors. :) - FrancisTyers23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Repost.
Alright then. I made a short sentence about this events. I'm sorry for my English but this is not my native language as my nickname give you an hint. I use the French punctuation which is based on breath with "," for the "incise" (as both linguist and French spoker Francis would understand this). You can freely edit my words as long as you keep the original idea.
About pop culture, i'm ok with creating a such sideway article.
About the citation request on Mannhereim, i'm not the kind of person to speak without quoting, that's the reason why I've added my sources on the Reference section of this article, same goes for the picture. It was done the same day i've made the Finland section.
So here is the sentence: "In late november 1939, unable to obtain strategical Finnish ports control (Petsamo) in a diplomatic way, Staline conducted a blitzkrieg in Finland, known as the Winter War." (mistakes as well)
To Scaife, you sure know what you're talking about when speaking about poor language with such magnificent errors such as "porr", "sytaxtical", "Finnland" etc. right? So please keep being polite.EnthusiastFRANCE23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, sarcasm is lost on you. :) --23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Das ist gut! (für meinen Freund Scaife), perfect Francis, couldn't have done better myself hehe! (je n'aurai pas mieux fait, faites comme chez vous). Write at your ease. ;) EnthusiastFRANCE23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem :)) (ce n'est pas un problem) I'd write more in French, but my French writing is horrible... there is a reason I only advertise fr-1 :) - FrancisTyers23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
So I'll do your English to French translation in the French Wiki... :) By the way I'm planning to build a "Nazi Treachery" page here in the English Wiki. It will document on unbelievable strategy such as Ally uniform dressed SS parachute dropping in Belgium, hospital, primary school and cemetary bombing in The Nederlands, air raid on La Croix Rouge (Red Cross?) convoy in Belgium and Spain etc. EnthusiastFRANCE00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, let me know if you want me to check it over for spelling grammar, I'm always glad to proof read other peoples work :) I've created a few articles on fr.wiki, but I haven't managed to avoid making a mistake yet. fr:Frantz Fanon, fr:Expédition antarctique soviétique and fr:Heyoka are some of the ones I've started - as you can see in quite a bad state :). - FrancisTyers00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Population
We've had a little back and forth trying to get an accurate story of population change. It is extremely important to keep the periods (dates) in mind to avoid overgeneralizing about birth and death rates. The BSE (Great Soviet Encyclopedia) is not the most reliable source of information because it seems to avoid some of the blank spots, especially the well documented evidence of mortality increases among working age males and among infants in the 1970s. The previous version of this article that I amended referred to the situation through 1974. That's a bit of an artful choice of years by the BSE, since it was really in 1974 that the infant mortality rates rose sharply, and shortly thereafter the government literally stopped publishing mortality data for several years. When it resumed such publication in the latter 1980s, it did not comment on the reasons for the infant mortality increases. However, with respect to the rise in adult male mortality, certain Russian and French demographers (Shkolnikov and Mesle among them), came up with some convincing analyses that focused on alcoholism as a major culprit.
I would add that just referring to regional differences in geographic terms (north, south) misses the important cultural fact that the high fertility rates in Central Asia were conditioned on values -- and were not simply a result of slow urbanization. Culture/religious traditions shouldn't be masked by more generic "regional" language.
I've tried to be faithful to the efforts of other authors in this section, but have been adding well documented facts based on expert analyses and not relying on an encyclopedia that glosses over the demographic reality and in any case only includes data through 1974. I hope to add more detail and citations in due course.Mack200:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Later: I accept cmapm's advice about the Shkolnikov citation, since it carries the timeframe to post-Soviet Russia. But Shkolnikov along with Vallin, Mesle, and others, have done fundamental (and, I might add, politically dispassionate) work trying to untangle the patterns and causes of the mortality trends in the USSR in general as well as in Russia during the Soviet era and later.
I've supplied alternative citations that refer strictly to the Soviet era, though regional differences within the USSR are important to note and have been slighted throughout the USSR article as a whole.
Another important lacuna in the article is any detailed discussion of the period of collectivation (though it is mentioned briefly). It's an important reference in the context of the population section because collectivation, war, and famines were times of net population declines. Mortality rises and fertility declines in these periods. I note the Wikipedia article on "Ukrainian famine," which, however, tends to focus on this as a case of genocide and doesn't give enough attention to the evidence of famine outside of Ukraine in the same year. But that's a different subject. "Collectivization" deserves a separate article in Wikipedia.Mack218:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
dilemma with Soviet losses in WW2
I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. Here are the facts:
1- The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that gave data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males.
2-The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.9 million confirmed dead plus 1.8 million POW and MIA deaths combined. They claim 4.5 million POW & MIA less 2.7 liberated in 1945.
3-The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA.
4-Most western historians( I could make a list) give Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA
5-An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004 a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with decent footnotes) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. His number of POW and MIA seems more credible than 1.8 million. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to war losses of 26.5 million
6-Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate.
7-Please go to my talk page --Woogie10w00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( now he is head of the military archives) who claims there is a card file in Russia with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead.
I really need the help of people in Wikipedia who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right--Woogie10w00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at these figures in some time, but may be able to check and add something. As you may know, for many years the "official" count of war dead (not talking about populatioin deficit but rather about actual number killed -- both civilian and military) was "20 million" -- a nice, round "political number." To my knowledge, in about 1988 or so analysts in Goskomstat itself finally addressed this (e.g., E. Andreyev) and published an estimate of 27 or 28 million (as I recall). There is no true "body count" to work with, partly because it's not always obvious which civilian deaths to label as "war losses," and partly because any reckoning of a counter-factual argument usually relies a lot on evidence that's very trick to use correctly, for example on infant deaths. During the siege, for example, Leningrad had infant mortality rates of over 200 per 1000 live births. But of course fertility was also down, and so these were high rates applied to a small birth cohort. And how many of these deaths should be attributed to civilian "war deaths"? After all, the "normal" infant mortality rate for that population was probably something on the order of 40 or 50 per 1000.
I hope someone can reconcile the POW and other data for you. But I think the estimate of total war dead is probably on the order of what Andreyev came up with.Mack200:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
project
Should I use this article as a source for my project?
You could do, make sure you cite it properly though. Alternatively you might like to check out the source of this article which is the very extensive country study by the Library of Congress you can find this by doing a google search for "soviet union" site:loc.gov. Hope this helps! - FrancisTyers14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Soviet Union - Recognition
This article gives the date of recognition as February 1, 1924; recognition by whom? Recognition is given by different countries in different ways and at different times. I don't think that there was any general act of widespread international recognition on this date. Whom does the 1st Feb refer to?
Recognition, i.e. establishment of diplomatic relations with the first major world's power. Please, click on the link February 1 to see, that it was recognized by the UK on that date. Italy, Austria, Greece, Norway, Sweden, China, Denmark, Mexico, France established dip. relations with the USSR later in 1924, Japan in 1925, USA - in 1933, I can provide exact dates for all of them, if you want; this inf. is provided in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia for all countries between 1918 and 1977. It's a pity, that even the article Foreign relations of the Soviet Union doesn't have any chronology of the dip. relation establishments, suspensions etc.Cmapm23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Defense
The large recently added section was word in word taken from MSN Encarta [2], this seems to be copyvio:see copyright notice on that page. I'm removing it. Feel free to revert my changes and give a rationale for this here. Cmapm22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Inaccurate info
I believe, that the following excerpt should be reworded or removed:
"Politically the USSR was divided (from 1940 to 1991) into 15 constituent or union republics — Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Estonian SSR, Georgian SSR, Kazakh SSR, Kirghiz SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Moldavian SSR, Russian SFSR, Tajik SSR, Turkmen SSR, Ukrainian SSR, and Uzbek SSR — joined in a strongly centralized federal union."
USSR contained some republics since its establishment, besides, in 1940-1956 it had 16, not 15 republics. Cmapm23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Nukes
Why is the article on the Soviet Union illustrated with the picture of an ATOMIC BOMB exploding? While at the same time the article on the United States has no pictures of atomic bombs exploding! I am in no way siding the Soviet regime here, but I want to point out that the POV is obvious. If any of these articles should be illustrated with the A-bomb it should be the US. The USA was the first country to develop the atomic bomb, and in history, the USA is the only country that has used atomic bombs in war! Bronks10:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
AS a communist, I must say that the USSR, though proclaiming itself led by the Communist Party, is essentially a state capitalist nation. I wonder if I'm the only person who would like this changed, as it belittles and soils the name of communists everywhere. Mellesime 12:59, 04 May 2006
I disagree. It wasn't a state capitalist nation, for even though it degenerated into totalitarian dictatorship, the economic foundations established by the October Revolution were preserved until this criminal bureaucracy reintroduced capitalist property relations in 1991. Kozlovesred17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This is true, not all forms of economy where the government is in control of distribution is communism. The expressed goal of Soviet leaders was communism, but it was never reached, and many of the leaders were probably insincere. I would support changing this article to describe the soviet economy as something other than communist, which as you can look up is the final stage of Marxism where among other things the government fades away. Obviously not the case for the S.U.
I agree with Mellesime, as a communist I also deny USSR being communist. Not only because a country claims to be something it actually is that. Mexico claims to be a democracy when pollitically only 23% of population governs for example. USSR employed both a market economy as well as money thus implying the establishment of capitalism, the difference with other economies: it was State runned and ATTEMPTED to apply socialist rules contradicting the nature of its economy, leading to its fall and soiling communism's name. USSR was a Capitalism of State nota Communist nor Socialist state. 201.129.240.3917:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma
Society without money,how long would the USSR have lasted if it had no money?
Capitalism was only allowed on a small scale.
1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R.
Article 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsman based on their personal labour and precluding the exploitation of the labour of others.
Dudtz 9/7/06 5:31 PM EST
Since this appears to be a somewhat controversial matter, there should probably at least be a mention of the fact that some charge the USSR of not actually being a communist state. Jeff Silvers13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, soviet economic system wasn't communism, only during Civil War was time without money named "War Communism". Offician doctrine of the late-Soviet leaders is the "Developed Socialism". Nobody knows that it is, by the other hand, nobody (at least here) can define soviet economics. May be it was namely "Developed Socialism"?
Gentlemen, the problem is that no country in the world has practiced theoritical communism. First of all, the word was a western title later adopted by these people. Karl Marx called it socialism but less extreem forms emerged and adopted that name. Communism demands that the economy be in teh hands of "the people", but you cannot have a government consisting of everyone. Since all communist countries have become so through revolution, the political party becomes the new government and are already defying their principles. Communism is suppose to be ruled by everyone, everyone is equal and makes a democratic choice, but its not democratic, its totalitarian. So, all communist countries are not truly socialist (where by society is equal) and therefore the answer to the question as to whos commmunist - no one is! Any true socialist government would collapse in anarchy.Tourskin00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is that the USSR was a communist state, however imperfect. If you're a communist and you have an idealised view of what communism should resemble, it's very difficult for you to say that "the USSR was not communist". Most communists still stand true to the Marxist-Leninist principles of the USSR and most would have to admit that socialism is necessarily a top-down system. Put simply, the USSR was a communist state - just not the communist state you'd want to live in.
Commies have always come out with it wasn't true communism, but unfortunately only after communist experiments failed. Colchicum 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Maybe that means that the glorious true communism doesn't exist? Or that it is not that glorious? Colchicum14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's my point ;)
Whenever "Christianity fails", so to say, a bunch of Christians will always rush to declare that the person involved was no true Scotsman. After all, the very failure being discussed is the very evidence of that. Digwuren14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In the United States, prisoners are sometimes sentanced to hard labour. In Russia, people were arrested for being not Communist enough, in the states, people are arrested for being Arabs.
Russia has never, ever been able to feed itself. It was surrounded on all sides with enemies.
Most countries also brutally crush rebels. Throw a few pipe bombs in New York and see what happens. I think you'll find yourself "brutally crushed" as well.
To this I have no refute. Stalin was indeed, bad.
Are you trying to be funny? Don't even think about comparing the US to the USSR. US is a democracy, USSR is not. No freedom of speech,religion etc. Russia surrounded by enemies? yes, because back in 1953, the North Pole was a major anti-Commie and Iran was making nukes to nuke Russia right?
Prisoners in the US are sentenced to hard labor? Hmm. How many of these laborers get less than what they need to eat and die of work? None. When I mean by crushing rebels, the term rebel refers to protestor because in all communist countries today yes all of them, if you protest like in Tiananmen square, tanks will soon roll over you.
I understand that you are presenting yoru points clearly and apologise if I seem to be personal about this but come on people. Tourskin02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Stressed military output when nation could not even feed itself (bread queues, imported grain, Virgin land scheme failed)
Well I guess the US also can't feed itself since it imports meat...
You don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you ask ordinary Russians, not to mention the people of the other republics, how well they ate back then compared to now. Or at least look at some data on food consumption in the USSR. 74.73.57.108 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed holidays
I've removed Old New Year and Orthodox Christmas from the list. I see their inclusion to be POV. They were not official holidays or non-working days. Besides, they were not specifically Soviet features. Even various Soviet "Days" are not on the list, although some of them were much more widely celebrated, than these two.
If non-official holiday Orthodox Christmas is on the list, then why other Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or non-official Buddhist, Muslim or Judaist holidays are not mentioned? Cmapm18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I should add, that our family is and was partially Orthodox and perhaps partially atheist and celebrated Orthodox Christmas, but... an inclusion of it here is obviously a POV, which is unfair to other religions. Cmapm19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Old New Year and Orthodox Christmas should be included anew. Even though they weren't official holidays they were celebrated by the main part of population. As for other religions - they were minorities in SU and obviously weren't so widespread. Dreambringer09:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that these holidays weren't so widespread. More common is the usage of Old New Year as a cause for a small party, especially after the work. AFAIK about Chrismas it is also delegated many of its attributes to official New Year, thats why it is more church than family holiday.
Old New Year and Christmas should deffinitely be included. While not official holidays they are very widely known accross all the republics. To this day the holidays are celebrated, and even mentioned on TV stations. Also vacation for students in all public schools ends after the 14th, which again shows that the holiday, while not official, still is aknowledged by the government.
They are still celebrated, but Old New Year is even not listed in Public holidays in Russia, then why should it be listed here? Furthermore, as I said, there were a lot of mostly professional holidays, widely celebrated in all the republics, but they are not listed here, because they were working days. As to the question, which holiday was the "most widely celebrated", could you, please, provide citations, that holidays mentioned by you were more widespread, than for example, May 19, the day of establishment of the Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union, not speaking about April 22, Lenin's birthday. Both were huge holidays, but working days - how about including them? Cmapm03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Title
Any idea why this article's title is "Soviet Union" and not "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? (Might it be related to the idiotic tendency to use acronyms, i.e. NASA, as article titles?) Paul19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The "idiotic" tendency you are referring to is actually a Wikipedia policy prescribing usage of the "most commonly used name". I personally somewhat dislike it too (I'd rather use official names), but if you study this, it would perhaps give you a better understanding of what it is about. There is actually some very good reasoning there. As for the "Soviet Union", apparently it is a much more commonly used name in English than "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Although wiki wants the most common name to be used the nation was known globally and officially as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Wouldn't the name used primarily by official records count as "most commonly used" since its prefered that information come from official sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbiter099 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Graffiti...
Anybody have a clue why "HEMED MOHAMED IS A LAZY SON OF A BIZNITCH" is under History, and why it's impossible to remove through the edit page?
I don't see it so I guess someone was able to remove it after all. I remember seing that yesterday, but I though someone had reverted the page immediatly.Vox Populi (TSO)15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
British/US Invasion of Newborn USSR
Why is this not even mentioned anywhere? This would seem to be the start of tensions between these powers. Practically the very first thing the USSR experiences is a foreign invasion by its future best friends, the United States and United Kingdom. Yet this aggressive act of war, which would cast a pall over the rest of the 20th century, is not even mentioned?? I think that this should be given at least a paragraph, as it is likely one of the defining moments of the last century.
It was no doubt a complicated course of events, but if you can make it into one paragraph decently, then by all means go for it! Kozlovesred04:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the intervention should be mentioned somewhere, since it is one of the main reasons the USSR became what it was.
Also, it would be good to add information regarding Kosygin's reforms, oil prices in 80's and the situation with Brezhnev, maybe some chart with oil prices by the year. This would show perfectly one of the factors why the USSR collapsed.
I agree, the western intervention in the civil war should be mentioned. But my compliments to the author, this is a very good article. Zhukov22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the West are the "good guys" and the mean old Commies are the "bad guys". So hush hush on France, Britian, the U.S. and Japan. Does Poland count?
-G
date of recognition
soviet sources say the date is July 23, 1923 so is it? sveral countries did recognize the USSR on that date, Finland, Germany, Turkey, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Poland, Iran.
Reasons for delisting
Hi all,
This article has been removed from the good article list because its references are insufficient for its length. Please consider using inline citations to make clear the source of content. I have added this article to the appropriate project for improvement. If you disagree with this delisting you can seek a review or if you feel the article has changed significantly to address these concerns you can renominate it.
"22,402,200 km² (1st before collapse)" in the table, concerning the area. "1st before collapse" seems strange to me, because an inexistent state can hardly have a ranking. Moreover, its nominal successor state, Russia, is still 1st after its collapse. How about "22,402,200 km² (1st), before collapse"? Aran|heru|nar15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
what...
"On September 4, 2006 Vladimir Putin issued a statement revealing that the Soviet Union had been reunited. All of the 15 countries referred to as the 'former Soviet Union' were once again annexed by Russia, and the Soviet Union was reborn. Wtf?"
XD
Someone has been watching a certain Simpsons episode.
-G
The Soviet ReUnion Fad
It appears some group of people have started a fad claiming the Soviet Union reformed Sep. 4, 2006 and have been posting this false statement on the History section. I have seen discussion of this on a certain, unnamed message board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vampyur (talk • contribs) .
Minor vandalism
Under History: "The Soviet Union was established in December 2037 as the union of the Russian (colloquially known as Bolshevist Russia), Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Transcaucasian Soviet republics ruled by Bolshevik parties."
Obviously this is incorrect, but I don't know what the actual date for this event was, or even what they're talking about.
I fixed the problem by reverting to the previous version and warning the user. The page history article shows how to tell what the recent changes are and the vandalism article explains how to deal with vandalism when it is identified. JonHarder20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As if samizdat was the main feature of the Soviet culture. The section should be a short summary of the Soviet culture, not a dissident-POV-article on censorship and a collection of links "for futher reading". Even that section of more ideologically strict DPRK is much better. Also compare it with "Culture" section in Vietnam article. Cmapm00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The main feature of the Soviet culture was censorship, persecution of writers, centralization (Party control).Xx23615:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nukes reply
I can tell you why they put a picture of an atomic bomb. Whilst the soviet union was obssesed with nukes, the United States was helping Europe after the war. The Soviets simply replaced the Nazis.
What a pointless and stupid (and quite NAZI) affirmation.
What? What country used slave labor like the Nazis? The SOVIETS. The US helped Europe with the Marshal plan. Listen up all you commies, read ur history before you accuse the west!Tourskin00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
One, the Soviets were people, not a country. The USSR was a country. Two, I don't see how building nukes is Nazi-ish, nor do I see why slave labour is Nazi-ish. In fact, the USA did both, and (if I am correct) more so than the USSR, so the USA must be a Nazi haven. And in saying that the Soviets replaced the Nazis, you are obviously taking a clear point of view. They did completly different things. Wheras Hitler killed Jews, gays, Commies, and cetera, Stalin killed priests and people who didn't agree with him. Tourskin, anonymous poster, read your history before you post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.124 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, picture of nuke exploding would be definitely POV, because SU never used nukes in action - they stockpiled them just for protection. Whatever SU was bad or not (for example, U.S. saw it as certain threat just because of "nuts" like Stalin) is not a point here. Claiming that only SU was obsessed with nukes is typical US Reagan time propaganda (Yes, US had it's own lies about enemy as SU had, I say both were equally bad in this game), because it was US who pressed creating bigger and bigger bombs to destroy enemy. See movies like "The Trinity and Beyond" and "Power of Nightmares" for more objective POV about Cold War and Mutual Destruction - and what kind of persons drove them. Pecisk15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh its okay to kill priests and people who don't agree with you right? Why don't you read your history and find out that Stalin also persecuted Jews (hence he was unable to reach his dotor who was a jew at the time of his death). It is well known that Stalin killed just as many if not more than Hitler . World War 2 isn't usually counted because thats got so many different causes as well as hitler. Tourskin02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Western liberals and conservatives say that Stalin persecuted Jews, while nationalists/nazis say the Soviet government was a band of Jews that killed Christians. Both support this with their evidence. So which accusation is true? Neither one is...
May be it will be better to separate autonomus territories by republics?
Also, there are a lack of Autonomous Okrugs, which are easily mixing with Oblasts.
Environmental section
EnglishEfternamn, you seem intent on excising this sourced section from the article. We don't need to provide direct links to written material, however they are sometimes given as a convenience. It seems to me as though you are gaming the cite system. However in this case all the material is available online. Criticism of Soviet contamination of the air,[3] water,[4] and land[5]. The quote given by the government minister[6]. Judging from the bibliography this book is well cited[7] and certainly reliable and verifiable.--RWR818921:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement is a little too sweeping to be covered by a single source, esp an objectivist (Randian) one. The source is valid but, in my opinion, the actual asssertion put forth needs to be reworded to address specific instances of eviromental impact, not just "the USSR killed the earth" by an openly anti-collectivist/communist source. NeoFreak22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Find a specific incident or statistic or point that is backed in the book and then make and source that assertion here. What is/was there now is like someone saying "The Republican Party is the most damaging political institution in the United States" and then just citing a Michael Moore book. It doesn't work that way. As it is the first half of the edit needs to just be throw out. NeoFreak22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Aleksei Yablokov, an environmental advisor to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, once said if we compare the planet with a communal apartment, we occupy the dirtiest room. The Soviet practice of clustering industrial centers resulted in severe levels of air and water pollution. Due to this practice 3.3% of all Soviet land was classified as being in catastrophic condition and has been identified by specialists as irreparable.page 7 The disposal of industrial waste was such a problem that the government attempted to use nuclear weapons in order to create craters in which to dump the waste from the Bashkir metallurgical
The infobox should take the form of a former country infobox, as (obviously) the Soviet Union no longer exists. However, there is a great deal of information in the template which needs to be reformatted so that the Infobox will recognize it as such and post it. I am a bit inept at doing these things, so someone with more experience in fixing poorly-written infoboxes should try to repair it. Lockesdonkey03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am no fan of the Soviet system myself, but your remark strikes me as disingenuous at best. An article which would only describe Soviet "censorship, forced labor" and "propaganda" would not be any better than the said propaganda you are referring to. Just as any other country in the world, Russia (and the Soviet Union) had its ups and downs, times of enlightenment and dark ages. To paint any given period of country's history pitch black and to say nothing about achievements is NPOV violation of the worst degree in my book. You wouldn't say there were no achievements at all, would you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how well your nation does when it's invaded during your civil war, then again twenty years later then when your nation is suffering you're surrounded by enemies who create a military alliance against you (the same ones that invaded during the civil war). Let's see how "democratic" your nation would be after years of that. Remarkable the USSR lasted in such a hot bed of disgust. If imperialists accepted it and promoted it, this world would be a better place.
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Not to mention being betrayed by Hitler, poor to begin with, and with many millitary officers being corrupt, (as well as many government officers).
Yes, I understand the tragedy of good-natured comrade Stalin, who was betrayed by Adolf Hitler. Confidence is typical during wars, Adolf Hitler for the first time in history attacked without former warning. Poor comrade Stalin...
And the invasion during the civil war, something unbelievable. Millions of imperialists came to stop the revolution. Happily they failed and the Soviet government was able to construct working camps for millions. The big success of the SU was the the biggest Holodomor in Europe during peace time.
I understand the imperialists who opposed the Soviet Union, their nature is imperialistic and evil. But the internal enemies were the worst ones. Such Lithuanian grandmas who conspired to pray in imperialistic roman-catholic churches -no, such crimes are unpardonable.
Xx23613:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to fuel further tensions, I would like to explain why native people of the Baltic states and Poland sometimes hold such POV - it is simply of Russia and Russians' lack of will to accept that SU was found on very harsh and violent basis, it was very murderous, and it was very hostile to it's neighborhoods and closest nations. Also problem is that most of people and their relatives suffered from actions of SU see Russia recent actions as Historical revisionism to get claim that:
Soviet regime weren't violent in it's first 40 years
SU were good for many of it's citizens (I know, many Russians where happy, but at what price? Price of freedom? Most of minor nations suffered rather strongly)
Refusal to investigate crimes of Stalin era (like Katyn massacre), like mass killings in freshly occupied territories in the Baltic States and also in SU itself. It would be wise to remind that Soviet Union officially accepted blame and it was proved with secret orders issued by Stalin. It is strange, because now what is happening is totally opposite - there are serious emotional clashes with total denial of lot of former Soviet people, especially soldiers and older people; it is quite understandable, because they weren't told. They only now have to face with harsh reality that they supported very murderous regime. What is very sad that lot of new people - students, pupils - are brainwashed into "glorious past of Russia". They are living in such refusal that everything against SU or Russia is one big propaganda, arranged by "enemies from West", that everyone around it hates them.
Russians, we have nothing against you as a nation - lot of people listen to Russian music, read Russian literature, poetry, watch excellent Russian movies (which, thanks God, doesn't hold lot of pro-bias for Soviet regime). Problem is that they fear of the past repeating itself. You are quite violent and accept it as natural, however people of Eastern Europe yearns more towards liberalism and equality, something Russia feels now is "unnatural" and "anti-Russian" (See Putin triads about Russians version of democracy). You see your "victory" against Hitler as main selling point why we should love you. Well, maybe it will be news for you, but most people remember both regimes with nightmares. Both. Not only Nazis. And also stop call everyone who oppose you in slightlest detail Nazi. It is silly and just make you look very childish.
Problem is that you see no other way to "rule" people minds as with fear (how about kindness, how about forgiving and asking forgiveness, how about economical prosperity together?). Most nations have big problems with that. You just blankly refuse to accept that your nation have been a little bit savage in a past - and still fighting it with that today. There is nothing glorious about that. But I hope you should understand that no one will attack you, no one will refuse to talk with you, if you just won't be arrogant. We are not your enemies. But we fear you, because you hurt us very seriously in the past. Pecisk
"Soviet"
I added a redirect notice so that people who are looking to find out what a Soviet is and so they type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet" into their URL bar have somewhere to go. The phrasing might be improved; please change it if you have a better way to word it.--Atemperman18:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the world community as a whole would benefit if by searching for the term "Soviet" they would be sent to the disambiguation page instead of the Soviet Union page. I think that the vast majority of people in the world have no clue what the word "Soviet" means, other than a Russian person or an adjective related to a largely Russian Communist government. I'm going to see if I can make the change myself. Rag-time404:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest attempts of article format changes
It's a pity, that users, who try to replace images and to introduce significant changes into the infobox don't use the talk page first. At least I object to making this article somewhat "outstanding". There is a bunch of articles on states with similar political systems i.e. with a single-party Communist rule, including former ones: SFRY, PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea. I suggest to look through them first to have a hint on which images should be present in them and what the infobox should look like. Cmapm18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Government Leaders
Gorbachev isn't showing up on the main page under government leaders, although when I go to edit article everything seems to be correct. Not sure what the problem is. --Meesheek22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The template holds only 6 leaders, God knows why. The initial idea was to have only 4 entries: for first and last leaders and their deputies. What if a former country had 21 king? So I am posting the question in [[8]]. `'mikka00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
While there's no response, I tried to fix the template. Gorbachev seems to has come out of the mist :) Cmapm11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reverted with a suggestion to reduce number of leaders listed. I personally don't object to this as a link to the full list is present in the infobox in any case. Maybe we should expell Chernenko in favor of Gorbachev as the latter ruled longer? Cmapm23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The Former Country infobox is not designed to list every single leader. That could make the infobox way too long. This is why the number of leader slots is deliberately limited. Don't forget: before the Former Country infobox was used here, only the last office-holders were given. If a former country had 21 kings, there is no way that any infobox would list them all. As correctly pointed out, there is a link to the full list in the infobox. I've cleaned things up a little, but if you have any more problems with how to use the infobox, see the instructions or PM me. - 52 Pickup08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed text
The following has been removed by Lowi, I think this was part of the LOC text, but don't want to revert until I have a source. I know that NKAO (now NKR) believes their declaration of independence to be inline with Soviet law.
"In the late 1980s, the constituent republics of the Soviet Union started asserting sovereignty over their territories or even declaring independence, citing Article 72 of the USSR Constitution, which stated that any constituent republic wasfree to secede."
Thank you, Francis. I've found the following citation (and will add this into the article in a while) in the National Review of June 251990[9]:
"Thus, the Lithuanian declaration of independence (under Article 72, which unconditionally guarantees the right "freely to secede") came on March 11, and the law making it illegal was dated April 3. The day before, the Supreme Soviet had banned incitement to ethnic or territorial division, with draconian penalties for separatist agitation."
Also, e. g. in Lithuania legal steps towards independence were made back in 1988, when its Supreme Soviet allowed usage of tricolour in place of the Soviet flag - see Lithuanian flag. I'm not sure whether this is worth inclusion into the article, however. Cmapm10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this image is a corrected SVG version, and at a first glance it doesn't have significant differences from the sourced version. I'll look at it more closely later (tomorrow perhaps) and update image description page, providing a link to the sourced version. Cmapm19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks very close to the original, thanks to the great work by F l a n k e r, who corrected a plenty of errors of the original uploader, which were discussed here. Cmapm12:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Cite requests are of course unnecessary when they are demanded of something that is patently uncontroversial. Does anyone really contest the statement that people deliberately referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia?" A little common sense is called for, sometimes. --SECurtisTX | talk17:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very true. But, maybe an explanation for why some people deliberately called it that (for the folks who don't know) could still be helpful? - Otebig02:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Rich Peasants, aka Kulaks.
This appears in the article:
"...in agriculture collective farms were established all over the country. It met widespread resistance from wealthy peasants who withheld grain, resulting in a bitter struggle against the authorities and famine, causing millions of deaths."
If you simply follow the link associated with the rich peasants words, you will arrive at the page on Kulaks, which gives a more accurate description. This line however, is unfairly biased against the "rich peasants". In reality the peasants are not to blame, as I feel this quote suggests.
As is stated in the Kulak article:
"Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following characteristics defined a kulak:
* regular usage of hired labour;
* ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), or other complex equipment, or a complex machine with mechanical motor;
* systematic letting of agricultural equipment or facilities for rent;
* involving in commerce, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or 'other types of non-labour occupation'."
Any one of these made you elgible for persecution if Savnarkom saw fit.
Again to quote the Kulak article:
"Often local officials were assigned minimum quotas of kulaks to identify, and were forced to use their discretionary powers to find kulaks wherever they could. This led to many cases where a farmer who only employed his sons, or any family with a metal roof on their house, being labelled kulaks and deported.
The same fate met those labelled "kulak helpers" (подкулачник), those who sided with kulaks in their opposition to collectivisation."
It was not peasants withholding grain, no matter how punative the quotas that caused death and famine. Nor even was it the refusal to pass on livestock to collectives (a sentiment far from unique to the 'kulak' class). It was the persecution of a largely fictional class, the Kulaks, created by Stalin as a propaganda puppet that caused most of the conflict, as well as the violent shutting down of all of the most efficient farms, that caused the famine and death.
Stalin and the bureaucracy that supported him, assisted in the extermination of the left in the thirties, and ultimately returned the country to capitalism. If you want to blame an ethic group, he and Gorbachev were both Georgians I believe. I also removed the comments about the USSR redirect. Lycurgus00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
this article has too little mentioned SU-s crimes against humanity for example silent genocide against native nations etc. Also the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that was the fundament of WW2 has not been mentioned. The whole text gives a image, that SU was just another superpower and that is it.
See my points above, if you will. The thing is, we will never really know the extent of these crimes. Unlike Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union was never invaded and no one could search for evidence of these crimes, no one still can coz Putin was a former KGB and doesn't exactly wanna search for evidence to be used against him. Tourskin02:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people really are intent on turning this article into one big piece of anti-communist propaganda. Every single country in the world has performed crimes of humanity, if you think about it. Why don't we just go all the way and replace the intro with something like 'the soviet union was an evil twisted empire ruled by voda drinking commies' or something like that? Loyh17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to go that far, then how about the slaughter of the indigenous populations in the Americas? I would dare to suggest that NO country in the world has an entirely blameless past, least of all Western civilisations (that last word really should be in inverted commas). You cannot be selective in your examples if you are not prepared to take what your country and state has committed Koshmar90.242.24.240 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Tourskin, your perception of Soviet Union is somewhat clouded by the pre-supposition that it was "evil" because it was not "like us" in the West.
The UK had used force on many occasions to keep occupied and its own population in line. The US also, though it was a more recent entity. However, need I say the American Civil War?
Hungarians failed to accept the political reality in Europe, which was their problem in thinking that anyone is "free".
As for the use of a border barrier to prevent illegal border crossing, that is the choice and right of any state. Have you seen the measures being taken by the USA to keep Mexicans out?
Gulag may be seen as evil, but the Communist Party simply wanted to remove opposition, and it had the means to do so. Any government in the World would love to remove all opposition to itself, but has to do so surreptitiously through other means, like lying to the electorate. Consider that in the USA during 2004 elections the Voter turnout was 59%, that is 40% of the population were opposed to voting, and did not support either candidate. That is 122,295,345 from a population of 221,285,099. Interesting that...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, mass deportations to Siberia and bodies left frozen out in the open until the summer frost softens the ground ehough to bury the dead are no more offensive than the lack of voter turnout in the U.S.?
Waiting for your "contextualizing" explanation of how infants are enemies of the state deserving death in Siberia. —PētersV (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your examples are flawed regarding the US and the UK in that they are not in the same temporal context - in the 19th century the US was having a civil war, yes, but the government was right in suppressing slavery. The UK's actions - are you referring to the Peterloo massacre perhaps? These are old lessons learnt. I retract my previous statements that the Soviet Union was "evil" but its worse than the US and UK and its unquestionable who has the better human rights record. Furthermoore, no the US is doing shit all to keep Mexicans out, I live on the border at San Diego and the border is defensless, hell we're stupid enough to imprison our own guards (who were of Latino origin) yet we release illegl aliens who kill American citizens (I'm talking about what happened in Los Angeles). I would also like to point out that I have nothing against Russians, Mexicans, Americans, Britons or any nationality. But the gov of the Soviet Union had a worse human rights record than the US and UK. Tourskin (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I speak as an Iraqi, being of Assyrian ethnicity and I am not Western, nor am I a Soviet. Having looked at both systems frm an educational point of view I have come to my conclusions with the greatest level of impartiality. In fact, I once believed in Socialism, before reviewing my stance when I was still in High School. Now that you know this, you can't accuse me of having been biased in any way. Tourskin (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, both the US Federal and state governments, and the FBI have made plenty of statements on border controls with Mexico. I know its lax, but the point is, keeping people out is just as much a denial of freedom as keeping people in (as a matter of fact one can't leave the USA without a passport ether).
The American Civil War was not about slavery ;o)
"These are old lessons learnt"? In 1940 the UK government refused to send the territorial units to fight in France because they were needed in UK to keep order :o)
The record of human rights in US and UK is largely written by the US and UK. Have you heard of the Great Depression? Only very socialistic policies by the US government averted a revolution. Do you have any conception of the quality of life for much of the working class in the UK in 1939? Boys from state schools had a marked difference in physique to boys in public (i.e. private) schools due to vastly different quality of nutrition (noticed by Australians and New Zealanders during First World War), so could not enter flying schools, to which they were in any case largely denied entry due to not having the right "background". Churchill had to personally intervene to allow three applicants to apply for naval officer entry because they were denied, their fathers being from "lower deck", etc.
I don't really care what your political views are. Socialism can not be understood, as anything, without contextual perspective. If you have any conception of the Russian Empire before the Revolution, you would appreciate the need for socialism. Understand only that socialism and capitalism are not political systems, but economic systems that politics live off.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You assume too much (that I know not about these matters?), I know what the Russian people wanted, thats irrelevant. They weren't so better of from being serfs, though serfdom was aolished before 1917. The point is the Soviets did more than the US. Again ur examples are flawed. Keeping people out of a country is a right of security that all nations practice to some extent. For the sake of the US citizens' standard of living, the border must be controlled, or else competition will be too intense and security might be compromised amongst many other things. Yes I know that the Capitalistic societies were not perfect. They were often not good. But my point is, that they were better than the Soviet Union's rights record. I've heard from professors their experience of East Germany, how communism allowed people to live better off with jobs and freedom and how capitalism isn't always bliss. Thats besides the point. I've read the Communist Manifesto and understand that its also about the economics. UK witholding territorials from France is again a right to defend itself. What has that got to do with having a bad human rights record, you must preserve your army to defend your country. You talk about poverty in the UK; what about the millions of Ukranians and Kulaks, priests and political prisoners killed in Colectivisation? The Soviet Union did not follow the Geneva convention in world war 2 (the US and UK did). Let me repeat my main emphasis: I retract my statement that the Union was evil, but that it had a worse human rights record'. The US civil war is not about slavery; yes its about economics, politics etc. But theres a difference between political dissidence and rebellion. The civil war was truly a rebellion or cessation by the south. In the Soviet Union, even close friends of Stalin were "enemies of the state". In the Soviet Union, many Marxist philosophers were sent to the Gulags so that no one would know how anti-socialist Stalin's iron rule was. Tourskin (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw you retract your evil statement, no need to repeat ;O)
The idea of "human rights" is a fairly recent one, and certainly did not exist before 1917.That the Russian Empire had to change was evident from 1824, but it could not change enough without force, that force was the German Army, and not the Bolsheviks
UK withheld territorials not to defend itself, but to keep order among its population.
"what about the millions of Ukrainians and Kulaks, priests and political prisoners killed in Collectivisation"? Have you never heard of nationalisation of industry? They were not happy about it. It was a national policy and not just one targeting Ukraine though.
Geneva Convention was not followed by anyone uniformly.
I'm not sure if I can explain it, but had Stalin not consolidated power, Soviet Union would not have survived the assault by Germany similarly controlled by Hitler. I know its a hind-sight argument, but it takes a tyrant to defeat a tyrant. Its a difficult concept to grasp, particularly in the USA and if you are unaware of the wartime policies of the UK government which were as dictatorial as those of USSR. Had the USA fought a war on its territory for 5 years, I'm not sure it would be very different.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
At last... something I can agree to. I agree that Stalin may have been an necessary evil. We don't know for sure if he was a necessary evil, because we don't know if an alternative government could have won but probably not. Nationalisation of industry is a different, but related, topic from collectivisation, though still part of the general centralization of the means of production in the "hands of the proletariat" (sure, whatever u say Stalin). Geneva convention was followed better by Allies than by Soviets, thats a fact. Rights to freedom of speech, freedom from fear and freedom to pray existed better in the Allied states than in the Soviet states. True, the Soviet people cannot be blamed for having Nazi Germany so close, so perhaps having the freedom from fear of the Cheka and NKVD had to be sacrificed in order to preserve the people, and arguably the world from Nazidom. But during peace time, do you really still gotta kill priests and people who talk too much? The US wasn't much better with McCarthyism I agree. The idea of Human rights is a very old one my friend; look at John Locke and his rights to Life, Liberty and Property. My conclusion is that perhaps the Soviets had to sacrifice the right to liberty and property for life in World War 2, but they sacrificed more people's rights to these then the Allies did. I am not saying that the Allies were perfect either; just that they were better. Perhaps the Nazi war had such a devastating effect that totalitarianism continued even after ww2? I beg to disagree but I can't see why else the Allies were better other than that the Soviets bore 90% of the Nazi war machine.Tourskin (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Soviet Union was totalitarian way before Nazi Germany existed, if not for Stalin there wouldn't be any WW2 at all, as Germany would be crippled by economic blockade just as in WW1. The Allies didn't pursue planned mass murder like Katyn so I think that might led people to believe they were better then Soviets, also till 1941 both SU and Nazi Reich were allied and even formulated it in treaties.--Molobo (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with Katyn, the Soviets allied with the Nazis is at least partly excusable because the Allies were such dicks when it came to an alliance with the Soviets. In all negotiations, the Allied response was slower and often without authorization to strike a deal. Tourskin (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, Eden was already handing the Baltics to Stalin in 1942 and contrary to some popular tales, negotiations between Britain, France and the USSR did not break down because of Allied refusals/stalling/slowness. Progress in negotiations forced Hitler to act and reach an agreement with Stalin (first). How quickly you forget the American "dicks" for example, saving the USSR from starvation during their first famine in the 20's. I'm sorry, but it's quite tiring listening to prattle that the Allies were dicks and that Stalin's murderous reign was somehow justified. —PētersV (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly the Katyn massacre was a heinous crime against humanity by any measure and in every way it is considered.
However, linking that to national foreign policies is seemingly tenuous.
I very much doubt that Germany could have been crippled by an economic blockade. In the first instance the worst blow to its economy was dealt in 1924 by the US demands for repayment of the post-war loans to the tune of 10 billion (to fuel the "roaring 20s"), which were all invested in new capital projects in Germany and therefore could not be converted to liquid assets, hence the Great Depression. Since Soviet Union was also under an economic blockade for much of the 20s, it had no choice but to trade with Germany, decisions that were not taken by Stalin alone. Besides that there was Japan, Sweden, Spain, Italy, etc. so the "Allies" who were non-existent until the 1940-41 US election results were known, could do nothing. So, given most economies of the 1930s were already crippled, how were they expected to further cripple the booming nationalised German economy after 1933? In fact one of the first acts of US government in 1941 was to confiscate the German investments in US industry and commerce that amounted to billions of dollars, and some major US manufacturers found this so painful they continued trading with Germany, like Ford (best known) via third party neutral countries, like Sweden, so even during a war an economic blockade was not possible to institute, and German production actually rose in 1944!
As for agricultural economics in USSR during the 20s and 30s, it has to be realised that they were 1920s and 1930s, and the orthodox thinking on agriculture was quite different from what it is today. Starvation was not unknown in the Russian Empire, and elsewhere, including Poland before it was incorporated, and Germany, and UK, and the USA due to a variety of factors. That collectivisation failed is not a simple conclusion based on simplistic "Communism was bad" argument. Rather it was a combination of political policy using the "scientific method" in a completely unpredictable environment of seasonal change while stripping the production process of its most experienced managers for the same political expediency. Just so this is not seen as a uniquely Soviet experience, the same occurred in Germany with the Todd organisation that failed to produce the production levels required, and in the UK where aircraft production was only successfully managed by application of completely unorthodox methods due to failure of established process, and in the USA where seemingly beneficial resettlement of the former slave population from the South created ghettos of the 20th century that are still a festering problem for many US cities.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You twisted my words PētersV. I never said any particular country was a dick. Look at the Allied negotiations with Stalin before 1939 if you will. Tourskin (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tourskin, negotiations were going quite well for Stalin pre-1939, actually, if you actually read through dispatches, memos, and accounts by those present. Have you done so?
Re: "excusable because the Allies were such dicks", please explain exactly how I "twisted" your comment, that it in fact did not refer to Britain and France in particular and by extension to the U.S. —PētersV (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Do u consider having a slower response than the Soviets and sending "negotiators" with no power to negotiate as going well? Tourskin (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC) In the early half of 1939 the Allies were not as active as they should have been. Forget about America, USA is not even an ally until 1941. Tourskin (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be confusing the Soviet style of negotiation (dictator, Stalin) versus governments where decisions are arrived at by consensus? I really don't know what "slower response" you are talking about. By July, 1939, Stalin had all the concessions he wanted, including the "right" to occupy the Baltics. From my POV, more "dickless" than "dick" where the Allies were concerned. You haven't answered my "twisting" of your words. —PētersV (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In that I never called the Americans dicks and you implied that I did. In that I never turned a blind eye to Allied contributions (perhaps you should look at my above pro-Allied, anti-Soviet stance, way above) and yet you assume I do with your example of how America gives food aid to a communist enemy she fought in the 1920's. Tourskin (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the French and British, then. As I've indicated, you put too much onus on the Allies for Stalin signing up with Hitler instead. I appreciated your stance, so all the more reason that you understand that Stalin already had everything he wanted from the Allies in July and wasn't somehow driven to deal with Hitler instead. Unfortunately, the widely reported "resistance" of France and Britain to Stalin's demands (especially around the Baltics) is a romantic fiction which does not reflect facts. —PētersV (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, for I am unable to find sources to support that viewpoint, then I stand corrected... and embarrased. Tourskin (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In telling the story of the annexation of the Baltics not being recognized, part of that story has been the portrayal of consistency resisting Stalin's aims in the Baltics, so, including British and French resistance to Stalin's demands during negotiations with the Allies. Finland and the Baltics weren't even mentioned in later British instructions to their Military Commission negotiating--that already having been decided in April-June. In all fairness, I had heard the tale of British and French resistance against Stalin for years, that is, until I decided to do more research to really try to piece together the events leading up to 1939 and 1940. —PētersV (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Vilnis Šveics, a professor of political science and sociology at Jersey State College, published a concise, but superbly annotated (referencing original communications or sources which reference original communications) book in 1991 on how the Baltics fell to Stalin. We (lobh.org/latvians.com) will be republishing it online. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is somewhat of a word-twisting on the part of the usual Vecrumba.
The Baltic states had been a part of the Russian Empire for centuries. When the Bolsheviks withdrew Russia (no longer Empire, not yet a Soviet Union) from the First World War, and the Empire succumbed to a Civil War, large parts of the Western Russian Empire were occupied by German troops shortly before the German Empire itself surrendered. The Western Allies had no policy to deal with the break-up of the Russian Empire, so many former parts of the Russian Empire took the opportunity to proclaim independence.
Now, assume for a moment that the Bolsheviks were defeated, and the Romanov's reinstalled on the throne. Does anyone imagine that France or Britain would have objected in the Russian Empire reclaiming its old territories back, particularly where strategic access to the Baltic was concerned?
So you can claim Stalin being evil, but the reality was that he just viewed the Baltic states as standing in the way of Soviet strategic necessities just like the other empires, including the USA. Why can you not accept the political, economic and military realities of the 1930s Europe? If the Soviet Union did not re-occupy the Baltic states, Germany would have, and did, and would not have accepted their independence or at best would have allowed puppet Nazi states that could be used to contribute to armed forces, which they did.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Baltic states had been a part of the Russian Empire for centuries - Lithuania wasn't one for centuries. Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Name
Last I checked, did not every most every official document identify itself as produced by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? If so, the page should identify itself likewise; Encyclopedia Americana, circa 1988, called it that. --Chr.K.11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I should add Britannica and Encarta. I see, that folks here in Wikipedia disregard many highly reliable sources in this respect. Another recent example was a strange objection to the IOC-preferred usage of "USSR" and pushing "Soviet Union" names to all Olympics-related items (even in result tables inside articles). I have no idea why they do so, but can we have at least the main article featuring the full name of the country in its title? Cmapm13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As noticed above, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is the most common in encyclopedias and is official name. Google searches cannot be considered serious arguments. BTW, my Google search for Soviet Union returned 20,500,000 results, for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1,150,000 and for USSR 22,100,000. Cmapm14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Second that. Note that google tests should never be used as the sole argument deciding what's common and what's not. They are only good for getting estimates, or as a starting point. If there are better ways to figure out usage frequency (and looking at academic sources as Cmapm did is definitely one of such ways), we should be using those instead of blindly following to where almighty google leads us. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for why google tests aren't always the best choice when one needs guidance on "common use".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
ok guys i'm going to go change "North Korea" to "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Libya" to "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" 72.12.163.23005:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the article should have retained the name "Soviet Union," since that's what it's usually called for short. For example, the UK article is titled just "United Kingdom," not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," etc. Josh13:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
And I suppose, that "USSR" is the common form of the name. Who of us is true? Once again, well-known encyclopedic sources pointed out above use "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" for the title of the main article. I believe, Wikipedia should not introduce its own standards on unclear basis. Cmapm21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, it was also frequently called "USSR" for short. I believe, it's not clear by far which of them was more common. Cmapm21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not just because I see no reasons for inclusions of different versions of Soviet insignia here (COA had much more significant differences throughout its history, BTW), but also because the statement:
"Flag of the Soviet Union, from 1923 to 1980. Hammer and sickle slightly altered in the 1980 to 1991 flag." is wrong at least in respect of the flag version pictured. Here is the image from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which was published in the 1970s, note the difference. Hence I'm removing it from the article. Cmapm00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Population citation
I don't know how to add a reference for the population figure in the infobox, if anyone does please add: <ref>Andreev, E.M., ''et al.'', ''Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991''. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1</ref>. Thanks!--68.239.70.7202:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
About calling the USSR as Russia "incorrect"
It's not that incorrect. Russia controlled the USSR, the capital was Moscow, and pretty much the main language of the USSR was Russian. That sentence should be changed in some way to reflect this.1.21 jigwatts01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Namely: common alternative name for USSR. I'd support inclusion of this much clear phrase into the article. Because while it is obvious, that both "USSR" and "Soviet Union" were commonly used, it is not clear, which of them was more common. Cmapm00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have put in a request to move this article to "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". It can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Don't mean to get into the middle of something, but I tend to think it should be titled "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Soviet Union". Squad5122:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree That is its official (translated) name, so the article should be there. If we were going by the most common name convention, the article would probably be at USSR. I see no compelling reason for "Soviet Union." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I always support the use of official names but only is they are in favour of moving from an incorrect name. "Soviet Union" is not incorrect. It is just a shortened version. Reginmund19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Sovet Union is the common usage; it has a unique meaning which everyone understands. We do not always use official names, though the official name should be included in the article. EdJohnston21:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Name change
I don't see why its the soviet union since that was its common name along with the USSr.
i always call it the USSR or its offical name.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should be tyhe article name with a soviet union redirect page to this, jsut to make this offical and not just public names.--68.106.210.20501:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. What's the difference. Both Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and USSR work aswell. But while we are at it, let's change the wikipedia domain name to: en.wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia.org aswell... Suva06:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's actually what a Soviet is. Zazaban 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I get the point that people refer to things related to the Soivet Union as "soviet," But as do people use American to refer to things related to the Unted StatesZazaban19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Most anglophones know what the Soviet Union is and are familiar with the adjective Soviet, but many have probably never heard of the Russian noun soviet. That, and 3,500 wikilinks to Soviet would be broken if the redirect were changed—only under 150 links go to soviet. —MichaelZ. 2007-08-28 22:23 Z
Minor Edit - Leader info box
I have changed the First General Secretary to Iosif Stalin from Vladimir Lenin, as Lenin was never actually General Secretary of the Communist Party. The post of the GenSec was created relatively late in the party's history and the first person to ever hold it was Stalin, not Lenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korakious (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"Growth of Soviet Union" Pic Needed
A .gif file would be nice showing the progress of the growth of the Soviet Union as it aquired more members up to the aquisition of Afghanistan.--Keerllston19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No -- the Soviet Union never formally annexed Afghanistan any more than it "annexed" Czechoslovakia or Romania. In Afghanistan, Soviet black ops arranged for a coup that put a toady in charge in Afghanistan and sponsored internal coups when he and his successors proved either incompetent or inadequately obedient. Formal annexation describes what happened in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, where stooge governments enacted legislation (however suspect in legitimacy) that "requested" incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940. No such event occurred in Mongolia or in any of the postwar satellites of the Soviet Union. Such was apparently contrary to Soviet interests after World War II. Just imagine what would have happened had the Cuban legislature under Fidel Castro "requested" that Cuba become a Constituent Republic of the USSR (Monroe Doctrine) or had Mongolia or North Korea done such during the Sino-Soviet hostility. It never happened in Afghanistan, either, which the Soviet Union wished to claim was an independent and sovereign "People's state".
All Soviet puppet states were generally recognized even in countries hostile to the Soviet Union as independent, if tainted -- which is very different from the situation with any "constituent republic". The "growth" stage of the Soviet Union as a political entity (if not as a power) is best described as a few years between the establishment of de facto Soviet power and formal ratification by treaties by countries "ceding" territory, rigged referenda "demonstrating local support" often intervening. That took at most three years for completion. A map showing the boundaries of the Soviet Union in 1948 was good for that purpose (one little border adjustment with Poland being the exception) was useful as late as 1990.
Spread of Soviet political influence? That, in contrast, would take a world map to encompass such countries as Vietnam, Cuba, and Ethiopia as well as central and Balkan Europe.--Paul from Michigan10:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Succession to Imperial Russia?
It may be picky on my part, but Lenin's régime took over from the Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky -- and not from the then-defunct Russian Empire. By November 1917 (Western style), practically every country not at war with Russia recognized the overthrow of the Empire and the establishment of the Russian Republic, and in turn the Kerensky government until the "October" or Bolshevik Revolution. By then the former imperial family was effectively under arrest, even if incarcerated in a "gilded cage" in which the Bolsheviks would eventually murder them. The execution of the Romanov family was not essential to the Bolshevik seizure of power.
But the execution of the Imperial family was important to the consolidation of communism in russia. Hence their murder in the civil war. Tourskin (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The article
As the Soviet Union no longer exists this article can and should represent a general overview of the period with the benefit of hind sight. See articles on any of the former manifestations of Germany.
At the moment it does not. It focuses on details with one word links to separate pages concerning such as deportations and concentration camps. It mentions successes such as rapid industrialisation and then quietly much further down the page mentions famines, agricultural problems and rising mortality. Nominal freedoms are mentioned but well away from the sections that describe how the rulers closest comrades were killed. For most of us freedom to do something is not worth much with the real risk we will be killed or sent to live in terrible conditions with a high probability of death. It reads like a newspaper rather than a brief history of the Soviet Union. There has been a huge amount of information made available since the fall of the Soviet Union sorely it should be used.
As regarding the past of countries such as the UK and US which have been involved in ignoble acts. Britain; Slavery, Concentration camps (Boar War). US; Great number of CIA activities. These obviously don't belong in the counties main articles but should be mentioned perhaps by creating pages for history periods, for instance Prussia and other German states pages deals with the periods of the time for these regions, there are fantastic boxes showing predecessor and successor states. Similarly this could be done at Milestones in countries Histories, France could have one for each Republic and US/UK for periods eg After Cold War/End WW2 to End Cold War/WW2/End WW1 to WW2/WW1/US independence to WW1/Agricultral revolution to US independence/Frankish expansion-Feudalism to Agricultural revolution and so on. This way historical actions of countries could be dealt with reasonably and consistently.
Charleskenyon (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What the? This is nonesense
Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers.
The reason why Islam had a "greater influence... than either Christians or other believers" is not because the Christians of Russia are not zealous - its because the Muslims lived in the rural and far away regions of Russia - regions were Soviet centralized rule was nominal or not considered worth the effort destroying religion in these strategically unimportant areas. Tourskin (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is only one legitimate successor. That is clearly Russia. The Baltic states always existed as soviet republics in union with the dominant republic Russia. Tourskin (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The Baltic States are missing from the "succeeded by" list of countries.
Xav71176 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "legitimate" successorship.
Estonia and Lithuania, as well as all the other former republics, are now listed as successors, but not Latvia. However the "succesor states" concept is generally used on wikipedia, this page should at least be internally consistent. Either Latvia is added, or they all go! I can't make the change myself because the page is protected. Oninnaz (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Russia has by far the greatest succession claim, especially with regards to the debt of the Soviet Union and the Permanent seat in the UN. Get rid of all but Russia. Come on, how many of the former republics other than russia claim to be successors?I am a neutral editor (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Technically speaking the only successor states are those that ratified the 1993 agreement in Belarussia...so I think that's about five--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its not appropriate to list any states that refuse to be a successor. I cant think of any slavic state or otherwise that would claim to be a successor. If they don't claim it, then its unfair to label them as such. Tourskin (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Subsequent to the fall of the USSR, the CIS member states recognized Russia as the legal successor to the Soviet Union by treaty. The Baltic states were absent from that. Nor are the Baltic states to be considered as successor states to their respective SSRs. —PētersV (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it can work like that. Neither time nor space are discrete enough to allow such "jumps". Obviously, the Baltic states did not succeed USSR the way Russia did (taking up the debts and all). However, the authority over the land and people of Latvia was held by the Latvian SSR. This has nothing to do with legitimacy - where one country was, now there's another (or rather, the country's the same, but the leadership's different). --Illythr 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
why was my entry deleted?
This is preposterous... the term "Soviet" is to "Russian" as "British" is to "English" so the two are informally interchangeable. This makes it so because before The Russian Empire was carved up, there were never recognied states as, say Kazakhstan or Ukraine before that. Anything "Soviet" can also be referred to as though Russia did it. All the other Former Soviet Republics exist today merely because of the fact that Lenin carved them out of the Russian Empire. Had Lenin not done so, Russia would still be in one piece as it should have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.9.36 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Amandajm (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)made a slight change to make format work here
Well, the term "Soviet" is not to "Russian" as "British" is to "English". British comes from Britain, and in turn from Britanii...one of the Celtic tribes encountered by Romans. English comes from Angli, one of the Germanic tribes that later invaded Roman Britain. Russian comes from Rus, the name generally attributed to the Scandinavian settlers in the Slav lands that later assumed the role of early territorial administration. Soviet is a term that describes a decision-making group, and also means 'advice'. As can be seen none of these words have relationships...but were adopted by convention.
Lenin did not "carve up" the Russian Empire. The gathering of Bolshevik party representatives before the Revolution included Soviets from different regions and nationalities, and true to their dogma, all soviets were given the democratic choice to create their own worker-peasant revolutionary republics, but united in the common goal of bringing about the World revolution. It pretty much says so on the USSR state seal. The division was made according to mostly Russian Empire administrative regions, gubernyas, okrugs, rayons, etc. The carving was done by some parts of Russian Empire that had a long history of wishing to do so, Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states which had been a part of the Empire for hundreds of years--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and don't forget the five pub fights, an insult about the Tzar's favourite horse, and the shooting of a Russian Partridge in a Lithuanian Pear Tree!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lenin na tribune.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Soviet combat forces 1918-1968. 4 kopeks Post USSR. Interestingly the stamp depicts tanks and uniform used during the 1930s, and judging from the civilian, this depicts either operation in Poland 1939 or Bessarabia 1940.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It actually says "Soviet Armed Forces 1918 - 1968" along with "USSR Post" and the stamp price of 4 kopeks. It was part of a set to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Soviet Armed Forces. To introduce typical Western homophobic twaddle like the last poster is tantamount to stating that a picture of an adult greeting a child as paedophiliac. Please!!!81.77.73.24 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It is western taboo for men to kiss each other in the lips if they are not homosexual. If they are hetrosexual this is avoided. Even Middle Eastern men like myself, who find themselves kissing their male relatives on the cheek, do not kiss on the lips at all. That is why. Although point taken that the comment above the one I am responding to was not appropriate. Tourskin (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Post-Stalin Soviet Union: Contributed to what?
The block of text from the main article to which this discussion refers is reproduced below.
Following the ousting of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, lasting until Leonid Brezhnev established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of Détente with the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of Détente in the late 1970s. Another contributing factor was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.
Pardon me for asking, but what exactly did the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan contribute to with regards to the USSR? There is nothing in the article that suggests an answer as it stands. Moreover, this entire sentence seems out of place without a necessary lead-in. If you have any way to fix this problem, please do so or post it in this talk section. Pikalax 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently a vietname of its own. Its well known what happened to America when the Vietnam war was over, but for those who don't, its complicated but the resulting "defeat" was part of a wider cultural revolution. For the Soviet Union, there was limited TV access no doubt so there wasn't as much, nor were there many protests to begin with. Even so, the casualties were high; some 15,000 losses in combt at least. Furthermoore the failure of Afghanistan did result in a dominoe effect; several countries demanded independence when Gorbachev withdrew. To this day, Chechnya seeks independence looking to Afghanistan as an example. Finally, it demonstrated the weakness of Soviet foreign policy, which led to dissatisfaction with Gorbachev and the attempted coup by the Soviet military and civillian involvement leading to the Russian Federation. Tourskin (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Tourskin, you have completely no understanding on the subject! Afghanistan can in no way be compared with Vietnam War. It was the "wider cultural revolution" that led to the US withdrawal from Vietnam. In the Soviet Union, the policies of perestroika and glasnost applied to social economy of the country were unrelated to the withdrawal from Afghanistan, where combat casualties were remarkably low considering the 13 years of the conflict. The dissolution of Soviet Union can not be called Domino Theory because it was Constitutional and not by force. Chechens did not look to Afghanistan for independence, but for Islamic indoctrination from Taliban. You should educate yourself on the effect Taliban had on the Afghanistan population. What led to the attempted coup in Russia was something altogether unrelated to Afghanistan either, except maybe in the perception that the Army was no longer able or willing to make or break Party Councils as they had done at other times, and it didn't.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, but that is no way to respond to a user. I gave a brief answer and I acknowledge this. I never said that it was exactly like a Vietnam. The withdrawl of soviet troops from afghanistan did have to do with glasnost, openess with the west, required removing troops from other countries to be less trigger happy appearing. You are the one with no understanding. I did not say that the attempted coup was directly motivated by afghanistan, but the failure in afghanistan was one of many failing policies of Gorbachev's regime and it angered the conservative elements of the Communists. The Domino theory applies in that it was Soviet doctrine - they would not want the other Muslim regions further south to break away, just like Chechnya. How dare you insult me with such words; if a user is wrong, correct them. Since you seem to be the more knowledable person, you have a responsibility to give that knowledge and not to mock others less fortunate than yourself. Furthermoore, it is not just the Taliban who fought the Russians, you obviously need an education urself. Tourskin (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who you are either, so I only base my analysis on what you wrote.
"Apparently a vietname of its own" - "said that it was exactly like a Vietnam"
"The withdrawl of soviet troops from afghanistan did have to do with glasnost, openess with the west, required removing troops from other countries to be less trigger happy appearing. " - glasnost was not "openness with the West", but disclosure by internal Party and administrative bodies of anything that they would usually hush-up. You could have looked in the article "policy of maximal publicity, openness, and transparency in the activities of all government institutions in the Soviet Union, together with freedom of information".
"I did not say that the attempted coup was directly motivated by afghanistan" - "failure of Afghanistan (it)...demonstrated the weakness of Soviet foreign policy, which led to dissatisfaction with Gorbachev and the attempted coup by the Soviet military and civilian involvement leading to the Russian Federation."
"The Domino theory applies in that it was Soviet doctrine" - from the article "The domino theory was a foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States"
"Chechnya seeks independence looking to Afghanistan" - after Soviet forces left "Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. It was at this time that the Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, eventually seizing Kabul in 1996. By the end of 2000 the Taliban had captured 95% of the country." Afghanistan therefore did not gain independence from Soviet Union.
I did correct you because you failed to even use Wikipedia articles and just wrote a response that was factually wrong in most of its points. If you respond any time, make sure you are not misunderstood, and that your statements are true. When I stated that you have completely no understanding on the subject, it was not a personal insult, but a statement of fact demonstrated above in your own words, and the resources of Wikipedia. I was just more patient then the respondent who's reply you deleted.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Whos reply i deleted what? I did not delete anything in this section of discussion. Point being, if I stand corrected, correct me, and don't use words like "you have no knowledge!" in the history section. You may have had noble intentions, but the wording is otherwise. Everything I said was based on my High School education in England and my own limited research for pleasure. Tourskin (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think High School education and limited research is not enough to summarise bits of Soviet, or any country's history. As you can see, the knowledge you displayed was at complete variance to that accepted by sources used in Wikipedia (which are verified). Sorry if you took it personally.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted wth gratitude. I see I was a little too eager to respond and linked many relatively unliked events. I still strongly believe however, that the Dominoe effect was feared by the Soviets, though perhaps it did not actually occur as you said because of afghanistan. So there was some Soviet paranoia. Furthermoore, I don't know what the Chechens think unless I ask them but you can't say that they do not see the conflict in afghanistan in the 80's in an entirely different light either. At the end of the day, as historians we may make our own interpretations that are not so widely accepted. Tourskin (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you that the Chechen struggle for independence doesn't have anything to do with the Soviet-Afghan war or the Taliban. If there's a champion nation concerning the number of revolts against foreign rule then it's the Chechen republic, they've been fighting for independence for centuries, and not just against the Soviets/Russians. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don;t need people who are superiro to me because of their knowledge of events tell me what to believe. A historian's mind is not swayed by the masses of his contemporaries. Tourskin (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This decision of 26 December 1991 was made by not the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, but by one chamber of this Soviet, namely, Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet. Another chamber in fact already did not exist at that time. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Demonym?
I'm assuming that the demonym would be "Soviet", but it always seemed kind of like a necessarily political designation. As in an American would call someone from Russia "Soviet" and a Russian would call someone from America "Western" or "Capitalist" or something- not "American". Whatever the case may be, I think that the demonym for citizens of the USSR should be included. Chaparral2J (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Um... I was just using "Russian" as an example. I could have said Ukrainian or whatever else. What is the demonym of a person from the Soviet Union? Chaparral2J (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends, what nationality you are; if you're from the Russian Soviet then you are Russian, if you're from the Armenian Soviet you're Armenian. Since Russia dominated the Union, those living in the Soviet Union get wrong labelled as a whole as Russian when of course you have Ukranians etc. Tourskin (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, "Soviet nation" can be considered quite POV, methinks: it represents a political goal of the Soviet leadership rather than how most of us would consider the people of the USSR. Calling someone a Soviet sounds very colloquial to me, but Soviet citizen could be useful. Andd of course Russian is still used in a lot of popular media, but the term should never be used so sloppily in an encyclopedia. —MichaelZ. 2008-06-02 13:40 z
That reminds me of the even worse term "Saudi" - when of course, citizens of Saudi Arabians do not call themselves Saudis, because that is the name of the royal house!Tourskin (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, pressed enter a little too early. The summary was supposed to read: Huh, didn't notice this before. As the United States article is not included into the cat "Empires", I see little reason for adding USSR to such a cat, despite what "critics say" about both countries. See Soviet empire, American empire. --Illythr (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You have to ask to become a state but you have little chance to not become a republic and being slaughtered afterwards. Quite a big difference, isn't it? Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd reply to that if only I knew whether this comment was aimed at something above or just so, in the air. --Illythr (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
American Empire is a metaphor for cultural and economic dominance. In contrast, although the Soviet Union is not usually considered an empire in the classical sense, and so probably does not belong in the category, it was built much like the Russian Empire. —MichaelZ. 2008-06-11 22:50 z
Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
_and_Tanks_in_Western_Ukraine)_cancelled.jpg)
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Armiya_osvobozhdenya.jpg){kind=link}