Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Successor States

South Ossettia, Abhazia, Transdinister and Ngorno Karabah are not listed for some reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

now thats because they aint countries, they these things called "break away barely partialy recognized states".

Get the majority of the other CIS states and the big hitters to recognize em as independant, and as successor states, then we giot something going, but right now, one country recognizes.--Jakezing (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russian Federation is NOT the successor state, it is the continuation state! Note hereby all of the foreign policy as well as national acts and declaration of the Russian federation. (Only people with the appropriate jurisprudential background should answer!) --91.47.180.98 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

I read Soviet page about 5 mins back. Then I accidentaly clicked link, returned and only thing I can see is some religion stuff. What happened? --80.221.82.171 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Warrenpe erased most of the article while fixing a typo - a reversion is necessary Jman939 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed now - an anti-vandalism bot got it. Jman939 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. I got scared for the moment, since I was reading it for the school ^_^* --80.221.82.171 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

False beginning

The SU was allegedly a constitutionally socialist state. It's a false statement. The Soviet constitution was a propaganda leaflet without much influence on legal system. Socialist state article is a disambig, so the link doesn't explain anything. Xx236 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet, thats what it was, a constitutionally socialist state when a constitution that didn't hold much power. its the constitution that allowed the russian, bylarussain, and ukranian SSR's to declare independance. By what you said, they didn't have the right or legal authority to do so.--Jakezing (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot describe 70 years using one moment of weakness. Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Weakness? By the 80's the soviet society was stagnet and when gorby decided "lets free up the country a bit" he opend up all kinds of hell for him, it wasn't a moment; what happend was set in motion the moment stalin destroyed socialism--Jakezing (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the source of your revelations? Trotsky's fiction?Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the well known history and more unknown parts of the soviet regime. im going to be a history major, and i have a big interest in eurasian history.It's true, the socilist state invisionsed by lenin and thje other revolutionaries, and before them, marx and the other formers of communist idea, was ruined by stalin./ And just because it isn't a powerfull const. dosn't mean it isn't that kind of state.--Jakezing (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which university teaches such Communist propaganda? Havana or Berkley 1968 ?Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you don't mention the atrocities commited by Lenin's orders during the civil war. Don't fool yourself by saying "socialism was ruined by Stalin". Socialism in the USSR never truly existed, and Stalin just radicalized the views and actions of Lenin, the madmen who founded a state. Stalin was not Lenin's usurper, he was Lenin's heir. feastguy101

How about we conclude, that, because every communist country has been both an economic and humanitarian disaster at some point or another in its less than 1 century of history, that communism is an absolute failure and can't even produce itself? I may as well thrown in this personal opinion of mine if we're gonna debate who destroyed what; my money is that Karl destroyed communism the moment he put pen to paper in the Manifesto.Tourskin (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear on "C"ommunist versus "c"ommunist. Where the Soviet system is concerned, Lenin was merely a murderer, Stalin refined it into genocide. Where Europe is concerned, no one's managed to create a benieficent "c"ommunist state, though there's a longstanding small crop of European "c"ommunists who might get to it some time in this millenum. "C"ommunists who've converted to "c"ommunists are just apparatchiks continuing their prior Soviet-era "C"areers.

To the topic at hand, the Soviet constitution was a magnificent document. A crying shame it was all for show--so we should NOT be describing the Soviet Union as what it said it was, but instead as what it actually was. (We can of course mention its constitution...) —PētersV (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you love the Soviet Union, I recommend you don't talk about its constitution. When for example, China's constitution talks about freedom of religion, human rights and being a founding member of the UN whilst crushing people with tanks and suppressing organized religion, it makes it look even stupider. Tourskin (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost interest in comining here lol... old but i'll answer.

1: freedom of the religion china WANTS you to practice, they didnt say freedom for any.
2: name any country that actuly takes care of human rights and i;ll give you this, homeless people a great example, africas even better.
3: it wasn't a founding member, the "Republic of China was, The PRC is the successor state to a founding member, and therfor, took its seat ect.--Jakezing (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is. But let me say this. More often than not, when people try to defend the atrocious crimes of the SU and China and how in the past they have treated humans as fertilizer, they reply, "oh which country follows the human rights law exactly, huh?!". Of course, I am not saying that every country in the world but the SU and China are perfect. Furthermore, if another country does violate some human rights to a small degree, that doesn't justify the SU and China's massive rights violation.Gabr-el 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perestroika Image

Someone can please change the image of Mikhail Gorbotsov, because somebody put a channel 7 logo on it and I don't have a wikipedia account.

--211.26.102.181 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the image version, thanks. --Illythr (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Death rate

Even in absolute measurements, Soviet citizens were becoming less healthy between the 1960s and 1985: the crude death rate climbed from 6.9 per 1,000 in 1964 to 10.3 in 1980.

As a measure of declining health, this is quite extreme and hardly credible. Does anyone seriously assert that living standards in the 80s were lower than the 60s? Can this be confirmed from other sources and with other measures?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Living standards is not measured solely by health, but also by consumer good availability, services, job availability, food availability, etc. Gabr-el 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Christ the Saviour cathedral pic in section "Stalin's Rule"

That pic shouldn't be used to show just "religious suppression"---the reason given at the time was to make way for the Palace of Soviets. Perhaps a pic of a church demolished only for the reason of being a church should be used instead. 118.90.22.226 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its showing just how religion was suppressed. I don't see how the reason behind the building's destruction makes any difference; even the most Secular country in the world would not dare demolish a building of such historical, cultural and religious significance, but an Atheistic state like the Communist one would and what gave them the nerve to do such a thing was their already well established suppression of the Church in Russia. Tourskin (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship

The artice does not contain the word dictatorship. Why? Nazi Germany contains it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.240.75 (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Respect your fellow wikipedans and dont use language like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.74.29 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it in at the beginning. Now we must wait for the blood-sucking lefties to complain. Tourskin (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User 74.215.74.29, are you addressing me? Besides, why don't you make me not use language like that - criticizing people's opinions is a very legitimate thing to do. Tourskin (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why is it called a dictatorship? I have a feeling that this is one of those things which needs a cite. The editor who put it in will obviously have a source ready... Reminder: WP:BURDEN. 118.90.66.84 (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because one man owns it all. If you wish to remove something so obvious, the burden of disproof is on youGabr-el 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of Stalin's time, USSR was hardly a dictatorship, certainly not under Gorby or the previous three plants who could barely control their own bodily functions - much less the Soviet state - single-handedly. --Illythr (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A dictatorship is not defined by how much bodily controls one has but much power one has over those governed - whether they need their consent or not. Lenin ruled almost absolutely with the Cheka, Red Terror, dissolution of the elected local governments and crushing of the uprising of the sailors. Then there was Stalin, we know. Interregnum periods I already mentioned in the lead were the exception.

Under Lenin they had this thing Dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin was pretty much a dictator. Khrushchev - ousted by his party colleagues, Brezhnev, especially in his later years was just a puppet of the hardliners, Gorby's period wasn't "interregnum" - he did get to rule for 6 years or so. Chernenko could potentially become a dictator, but turned out to be the most turned on man in the Kremlin. Oh wait, it was Andropov... In short, I don't think this characteristic is fitting as a sweeping description of the entire period of the existence of the USSR. --Illythr (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your points. In truth, the dictatorship of the proletariat was an illusion closest to reality under Lenin but became progressively illusionary. Correct me if I am wrong, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is the idea of direct democracy and similar Rousseau's "bending to the will of the people", no? There is no doubt that the communists enjoyed support from many poor farmers who hated kulaks out of jealousy or the workers in the factories. Should it not be called a dictatorhsip, just because it was so easy to be overthrown? Does not the fact that you have to be overthrown to be ousted from power suggest that it was rather totalitarian?Gabr-el 20:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course it was an illusion - as is true democracy. The Red terror and subsequent purges made sure there was no opposition to the ruling party, and Stalin turned the state into a totalitarian machine. However, after him it was the dictatorship of the Party, especially it's central organ, the Politburo, and not a single man, as a in a true dictatorship. Take a look in there to see what the Soviet "parliament" was like. --Illythr (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So then you and I are in agreement there was some form of dictatorship then? Gabr-el 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, just not the kind described here (more like this), plus, it wasn't constant to warrant such a blanket statement. --Illythr (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this dubious and unsourced claim from the lead.

However, with the exception of a few interregnum periods (notably after the deaths of Lenin in 1924 and Stalin in 1953), the Soviet Union was a de facto dictatorship, with power resting in the hands of the General Secretary, which became a prerequisite for Soviet leadership.

If someone finds a citation for this claim, you are welcome to add it back to the article somewhere, just not in the lead where disputed claims do not belong, only facts there please. (Igny (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Also claims that all the power belongs to one man are in direct contradiction to the article on Soviet democracy. (Igny (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)) Also if you look at General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or Brezhnev or Gorbachev, there is no mention of dictatorship there. You may have confused that with the personality cult which is quite different. What is interesting though is that Brezhnev is listed in dictatorship article. But so is Lenin, which is clearly wrong, I can see dictatorship of proletariat as the source of the confusion.(Igny (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Dictatorship of the proletariat means only, that the workers had the power in the government. In the first years of the Soviet Union, there existed democracy. In the civil-war in Russia had the workers to organize their micro-politics in Soviets, also councils. That is an anarchistic idea, which has worked. By the way, is my english bad?(M_Vilez (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Aid to Eastern Europe after WW II

It is absolutely untrue to say "The Soviet Union aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe while...". In reality it was just the opposite:

The Soviet Union economically exploited decimated and war-torn Eastern Europe (especially occupied Germany) while turning them into Soviet satellite states. The magnitude of the pillage is comparable with the aid given by the USA to the Western Europe by the Marshall Plan.

I will shortly deliver verification. I just need to quote one book.

Since I have no authorisation I can only appeal to someone of competence to please correct this statement. Aktyn4 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you have the sources and the information, add it in but be ready to defend it. Tourskin (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are aware of the COMECON, right? Are you perhaps referring to war reparations extracted by the USSR from the various participating states after the war? --Illythr (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comecon never had much of an effect beyond countering the Marshall plan and fooling these satellite states against applying for such aid. Tourskin (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunno 'bout that, but um, pillage? Unless the comparable Mashall plan was that bad... --Illythr (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pillage does not have to involve Germanic barbarians sacking Roman-Greek libraries. It can involve Soviet engineers dismantling Polish/German infrastructure and moving it and other resources east. Tourskin (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Years? --Illythr (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How about post world war 2? Tourskin (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an anti-Russian, just an anti-Communist, that's all. Tourskin (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to show your friends how much of an anti-communist you are, then go to [1]. Else, please save comments sourced by McCarthy for yourself. --Fixman_{(Praise me)} 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you present an account of dismantling of local infrastructure by Soviet engineers in, say, East Germany 1985? In other words, please provide a more specific time period. Perhaps an instance or two, to denote it.

I know. :-) I consider myself an anti-Communist as well. But on the English Wikipedia, it looks like I'm a rabid KGB-employed Stalinist, at least in USSR-related articles. Go figure. --Illythr (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to me. I know from your Moldavian background that, with all due respect, you may have Russophile tendencies. I myself am an Eastern Christian with typical associated biases. Anyways, I mean between 1945 - 1948 maybe, a year longer or less. I don't, however, have the sources. Tourskin (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's more like imperialist-occupant tendencies, really. For 1945-1949 I ask for no sources, and can direct your attention to the following articles: Potsdam Agreement, History_of_the_German_Democratic_Republic#Reparations (and later sections) and especially this image. BTW, would you mind if I vandalize your user page (+a few subpages) a bit? --Illythr (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What a random request?! Do you wish to show me something or what?Tourskin (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Zodiac

When I open Soviet page, I saw Zodiac stuff cover up, at first I thought it was acutally true, but few moment later I realized it not, possible pranks or something. Someone can remove this creepy page with Zodiac stuff from soviet page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.175.222 (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank to someone for remove this!! It give me creepy O.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.175.222 (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

misleading and inaccurate

"A wide range of death tolls has been suggested, from as many as 60 million kulaks being killed suggested by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to as few as 700 thousand - by Soviet news sources.[7]"

If anyone cares - and I think accurately estimating the death toll is important - this sentence is misleading and at odds with mainstream scholarship. There were far fewer than 60 million kulaks in the USSR, and the insinuation that 1/3 of the population died at the hands of the security services is out of this world. Furthermore the whole peasantry suffered in the 30's, not just kulaks. As for 7-800,000 figure, that comes from the KGB archives cracked open by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, not from the "soviet press", and pertains only to the number of executions, not overall excess deaths. The article cites two estimates of *two different* quantities, one of which bears no relation to reality and another which is misleadingly cited to create the impression that its a propaganda figure. When it comes to Soviet history, fact and reason seem to often fly out the window.

Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.202.6 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Soviet censorship of the material, continuing Russian skepticism in releasing some material coupled with the country's infinite size confounds the issue so that guesstimations become the norm. Gabr-el 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Although a certain level of "guesstimation" is unavoidable, it is completely false to suggest that there is any intellectual content to Solzhenitsyn's ridiculous "66 million" which appears the LETTER TO THE SOVIET LEADERS. Even just reading Solzhenitsyn's own text there, we see that jumps within two lines from claiming "66 million" (repeated with emphasis by him) to suddenly claiming "a hundred million" which he again repeats with deliberate emphasis, citing Dostoyevsky this time. In fact, Dostoyevsky's novel THE POSSESSED does carry several scenes which reference "chopping off a hundred million heads," but the book is a novel. Demographic analyses from the Soviet archives have become available and, whatever the margins of uncertainty at certain points, the demographic data absolutely does not admit any scenario of tens of millions of unnatural peacetime deaths. The charge that the famine of 1932-3 was principally "manmade" has been debunked by Mark Tauger. Although executions and Gulag deaths are large enough to reach up to at least 1.5 million, there is no basis for much higher numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.164.139 (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly your lack of references makes your own guess absolutely correct. I myself hold an agnostic position with regards to the numbers. Gabr-el 02:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For references you can start with Getty & Naumov, THE ROAD TO TERROR. For a specific focus on the Gulag you can pick up Khlevniuk, THE HISTORY OF THE GULAG. For more general demographic data, Haynes & Husan, A CENTURY OF STATE MURDER? is a good place to begin. All of the above is based upon an intense study of previously secret archives, whereas the "66 million" hoax is not. Anyone who has actually read THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO knows that Solzhenitsyn's own description of his personal experiences is woefully inconsistent with the "66 million" fable. When describing his recollections of the purge years Solzhenitsyn tells us of the sense that "the brightest of futures lay ahead." This is consistent with the more rationally documented figures of executions and labor camp imprisonment. Although the numbers of executions were groteque enough in themselves, on a demographic scale the numbers were small enough to fade in so that an honest citizen may be unaware of them and just feel that Russia was marching towards a glorious future (which indeed is how the majority saw it, including Solzhenitsyn at the time). But try murdering one-third of the population and it does seem likely that even someone like Solzhenitsyn might notice something strange happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.134.80 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources other than Solzhenitsyn: Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin. Or Rummel.radek (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rummel's claptrap is not based upon archival data of Soviet demographics. Rummel simply gathers together every possible Cold War rumor and crunches it all into one version of things. The book I had listed, Haynes & Husan, A CENTURY OF STATE MURDER?, contains reproductions of all of the main demographic tables which were assembled from the archives after 1991, as well as data from the Gulag. Rummel's idiotic "56 to 62 million" hoax is not based upon of this. The records of the Gulag do not admit numbers on such a scale, and the general demogrphic record shows that peacetime mortality rates steadily declined when going from 1913 to 1938 to 1958. It is impossible to reconcile claims of up to 56 million abnormal deaths with a demographic record that shows mortality rates and life expectancy steadily improving. Rummel is a silly liar. Get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The passage where Solzhenitsyn tosses out his "66 million" is sufficiently ridiculous to deserve reproduction in any essay on Solzhenitsyn:

In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost, as a result of civil strife and tumult alone--as a result of internal political and economic "class" extermination alone-- 66 (sixty-six) million people!!! That is the calculation of a former Leningrad professor of statistics, I. A. Kurganov, and you can have it brought to you whenever you wish. I am no trained statistician, I cannot undertake to verify it; and anyway all statistics are kept secret in our country and this is an indirect calculation. But it's true: a hundred million are no more (exactly a hundred, just as Dostoyevsky prophesied!), and with and without wars we have lost one-third of the population we could now have had and almost half of the one we in fact have!

--Alexander Solzhenitsyn, LETTER TO THE SOVIET LEADERS, p. 30.

Nothing in any verifiable demographic study of the Soviet Union has ever come to remotely resemble Solzhenitsyn's "66 million" fraud. Notice also how Solzhenitsyn casually jumps from "66 million" to "a hundred million," "exactly a hundred" without indicating that he knows what a hundred minus 66 equals? Then Dostoyevsky becomes the source, and THE POSSESSED does refer to "chopping off a hundred millons heads," except that the book is a novel.

Solzhenitsyn even contradicts the above when describing his experiences in THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO:

Twenty-five years later we could think: Well, yes, we understood the sort of arrests that were being made at the time, and the fact that they were torturing people in prisons, and the slime they were trying to drag us into. But it isn't true! After all, the Black Marias were going through the streets at night, and we were the same young people who were parading with banners during the day. How could we know anything about those arrests and why should we think about them? All the provincial leaders had been removed, but as far as we were concerned it didn't matter. Two or three professors had been arrested, but after all they hadn't been our dancing partners, and it might even be easier to pass our exams as a result. Twenty-year olds, we marched in the ranks of those born the year the Revolution took place, and because we were the same age as the Revolution, the brightest of futures lay ahead.

-- Solzhenitsyn, GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, pp. 160-1.

That sort of talk is perfectly consistent with the reduced documentable figures of executions and labor camp deaths such as appear in Archibald Getty et al. When multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths are distributed across such a large population it is possible for most of them to simply fade in with the details so that an honest person may not really be aware of anything strange happening. But if we tried applying Solzhenitsyn's absurd "66 million" then it would be impossible to explain how he could be so indifferent and unaware while such a major demographic catastrophe occurred.

The demographic data on the Soviet Union has become available since 1991:

Year__________Deaths per thousand among the population

1899__________33.4

1900__________32.3

1901__________33.6

1902__________33.1

1903__________31.1

1904__________31.1

1905__________33.2

1906__________31.6

1907__________30.2

1908__________30.2

1909__________31.6

1910__________33.3

1911__________29.2

1912__________28.7

1913__________30.9

1923__________29.1

1924__________27.6

1925__________28.7

1926__________25.5

1927__________26.5

1928__________25.3

1929__________26.5

1930__________27.0

1934__________21.7

1935__________20.6

1936__________20.0

1937__________21.7

1938__________20.9

1939__________20.1

1940__________21.7

1946__________15.8

1947__________20.3

1948__________13.6

1949__________12.6

1950__________11.7

1951__________11.6

1952__________11.4

1953__________11.0

1954__________10.3

1955___________9.3

1956___________8.7

1957___________9.1

1958___________8.0

1989__________32.0

1990__________32.9

1991__________33.7

1992__________38.1

1993__________47.2

1994__________52.5

1995__________50.5

1996__________45.3

1997__________40.8

1998__________39.6

1999__________43.3

All of the data for this and related matters can be found in:

Frank Lorimer, THE POPULATION OF THE SOVIET UNION; R.W. Davies, Mark Harrison, & Stephen Wheatcroft, THE ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOVIET UNION, 1913-1945; Michael Haynes & Rumy Rusan, A CENTURY OF STATE MURDER?: DEATH AND POLICY IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY RUSSIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Data from the Russian archives prove that anti-communists like Robert Conquest, Charles Maier and Alexander Solzhenitsyn hugely inflated figures for deaths and deportations in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

As Professor Richard Overy, Professor of History at King’s College London, writes, “For years the figures circulating in the West for Soviet repression were greatly inflated. … The archive shows a very different picture.” (The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, Allen Lane, 2004, page 194.) The archive shows that the total executed between 1930 and 1953 was 776,074. (The figure published in 1990 was 786,098.) The number of those sentenced to prison in those years was 3.85 million. Gabor Rittersporn agreed that Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s figures for deportations during the 1930s in the Soviet Union were ‘grossly exaggerated’

Most writers on the subject have relied not on the archives, but on Robert Conquest’s estimates. But Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, has explained how Conquest reached his figures: “Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror Famine (New York, 1986) argues that the ‘dekulakization’ of the early 1930s led to the deaths of 6,500,000 people. But this estimate is arrived at by extremely dubious methods, ranging from reliance on hearsay evidence through double counting to the consistent employment of the highest possible figures in estimates made by other historians.” The true figure for the 1930s is about 300,000 deaths.

Professor R. W. Davies wrote, “The archival data are entirely incompatible with such very high figures, which continue to be cited as firm fact in both the Russian and the Western media.” (Soviet history in the Yeltsin era, Macmillan, 1997, page 172.)

The American historian Charles Maier stated that Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. But Evans observed that Maier could only reach this conclusion by accepting “Conquest’s implausible and inflated estimates without question, while omitting deaths caused by Nazi aggression in the East (which also, apart from military and exterminatory action, led to famines and deportations). The number of deaths caused by Nazism’s eastward drive may itself have been as many as 20 million.” (Richard Evans, In Hitler’s shadow, Tauris, 1989, page 170.) In fact, to reach his judgement of comparative responsibility, Maier simply omitted all the 50 million people killed in the world war that Hitler started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Perestroika.jpg

The image Image:Perestroika.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

File:Castro Khrushchev UN 1960.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

USSR was not communist

I feel I should point this out, useless as it will be. The USSR and China are commonly called Communist, and they even called themselves Communist, but they were not. People just assume that they were without looking at how they violated the basic ideals of communism. They forced labor (violating worker liberation), there were classes (ie ruling and working classes, which is a blatant violation of Communist ideals), the ruling class/state owned everything and the working class owned nothing (which according to Marx is not what Communism is), there was not equality, etc, etc. While that IS what they wanted and tried to create it is not what the USSR was, not even close. It would be a good idea to add that in. --76.20.28.156 (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how frequently religious people violate the Ten Commandments, one might argue that very few people in the world are actually Christian, Muslim or Jewish. See Communist state for the term's accepted meaning. --Illythr (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Following the 10 commandments does not define one as a Muslim, Jew or Christian. To be a Christian, one usually accepts Jesus Christ as the only path to Salvation. To be a Jew is a question so complicated it makes your statement pretty funny. See Who is a Jew, and very little of it has anything to do with the 10 commandments. Being a Muslim requires one to follow the five pillars of Islam, if I am not mistaken. And besides, the 10 commandments are not an unreasonably high moral restraint. Gabr-el 04:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The commandments are at the core of these religions. Following them is not sufficient but necessary. It's unnecessary detail anyway. What I'm saying is that in any philosophical movement you'll find adherents who will consider other adherents of the same movement to be false. The number will inevitably rise with the number of bad things these "others" have committed. It's true that none of the Communist states had achieved Communism (except maybe "Communism within [the ruling circles of] one Party") and that all have in one way or another strayed from the original Marxism. But the article Communist state is not about what such an utopian state would be, but rather the common (Western) perception of the "Second World" countries. PS: Note that I wikilinked the word "Jewish" to "Judaism," to avoid the inherent confusion within the English language. --Illythr (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even the USSR described it self as a "communist" state. It's the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in spite of its name, the Communist Party never claimed that the USSR had reached the development level of communism, i.e., a stateless, classless society.153.90.88.115 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, do take a look at what the article "Communist state" actually describes. --Illythr (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding to what 76.20.28.156, that is simply his opinion. But what is fact is that there is no such thing as a "communist country". Whether or not the Bolsheviks and Communist Party of China where genuine Marxists is a POV. But I'm pretty sure no one in China or the USSR ever claimed they achieved communism as an economic system. But they where "communists", 76.20.28.156 just has a different view of Marxism. So do millions of other Marxists. --Mista-X (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Communist means “espousing communist ideology”. Whether or not these entities “achieved communism” as it is defined in their own ideologies is only relevant within their own frameworks. Heck, they're run by Communist parties, not “Plan to someday achieve Communism parties”. —Michael Z. 2008-11-13 23:50 z

Good grief. Some Marxists will never be satisfied. That said, an article on how the Soviet Union failed to live up to Marxist ideals (or even its own constitution) would be interesting reading. -PētersV (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please make a Sphere of the Soviet Union Territory?

I'm working on a school project and would greatly appreciate something like a sphere of the soviet union, like this united states one. Thanks in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_(orthographic_projection).svg

69.138.209.159 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, at Rice University. -PētersV (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Made one for you, it's vector, but it should work. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics_(orthographic_projection).png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnmazur (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags in right side table

The table on the right has the wrong flag for Kyrgyzstan in the "Succeeded" column. It's using the flag of the Kirghiz Soviet Republic -- not the succeeding autonomous nation. Surely that whole table is missing most of the original republics too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.231.161 (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Russian (de facto), 14 other official languages: AFAIK the official Soviet policy was not to have any official language at all (even though I'm not sure what it was supposed to mean), because official language was seen as a tool of oppression; therefore if Russian was "de facto", then all the rest were "de facto" too. And why "14 other" languages? Only the "titular" languages of the SSR's are counted here, but there were also Austonomous SSR's, Autonomous Oblasts, Autonomous Okrugs... Currently Dagestan alone has 25 official languages (more than EU); how many did the Soviet Union have...? I guess nobody can tell, probably about a hundred. — Hellerick (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the status of official languages in the Soviet Union for most of its existence, but in April 1990 a law was passed establishing that "Russian is accepted as the official language of the USSR on the territory of the USSR", and that the local governments of the autonomous oblasts, autonomous okrugs, and national administrative-territorial units have a right of establishing other official languages on their territories as long as such statutes were compliant with the Union laws. No word on "14 other languages", though. On the territory of Russia, the law was in effect until October 1991, when it was superseded by the language law of the Russian Federation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, March 2, 2009 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the USSR

As it is now rather difficult to find listings of the subdivisions of the Soviet republics, could they be included in the relevant SSR articles (or relevant links added). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't subdivisions already included in the articles of the former USSR republics? If a list were to be made here, it would be a very long list - the RSFSR alone had almost 90! --Ericdn (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The RSFSR only lists the ASSRs: some of the other SSRs are equally limited - and I did say 'relevant SSRs' Might as well get somewhat ahead of the search for information come the 20th anniversary 'end of Communism' discussions and write-ups (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The structure of the modern federal subjects of Russia largely (with the exception of the few mergers that took place in 2005-2008) mirrors the administrative structure of the RSFSR of the 1980s, so you could use that as a starting point if you are looking for a specific division. For other former Soviet republics, you'd be better off requesting this information on the talk pages of the appropriate WikiProjects.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Size of economy

Here's a short interesting piece where based on Soviet announcements, pre-collapse, Soviet output was 1/3 to 1/2 of the U.S.. Today, 1/2 the U.S. (using GNI) would be second place, 1/3 would be third place behind Japan. PetersV TALK 06:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

The word 'façade' is misspelt as 'facade' in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.252.207 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Estonia, Tallinn is written with two n-s not one!

Dictatorship

The artice does not contain the word dictatorship. Why? Nazi Germany article contains it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.240.75 (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the soviet union had some elections. They were however not very fair, therefore, it technically was not a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.138.125 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Union and the UN

Has the Soviets ever did a UN peacekeeping mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.185.110 (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Popular usage of name

Hi, on the ice hockey WP they are using "U.S.S.R." as the name (with full stops) but it seems to me that USSR (without) is more common? That said, what should be used in listings, USSR, or Soviet Union?--Lvivske (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:HOCKEY would be a more appropriate place to ask this question, as it deals with the formatting guidelines used by that WikiProject. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:34, June 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a member there. They've ignored the query twice now so I'm trying to get some outside perspective. Lots of things on the hockey articles are out of wack for russian/soviet related material, so I want to get it cleaned up, but need some outside consensus or reference on some of these matter. --Lvivske (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you then. Have you tried WP:USSR or WT:MOS?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, June 15, 2009 (UTC)

united soviet socialist republic

I think that rarely gives too much weight in the wrong direction. It was not rare to hear this translation in popular usage. That is why Sometimes, as in some of the time, as opposed to rarely as in in rare instances. --Distinct, not Dogmatic! (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what, exactly?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:03, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard it in popular usage, though perhaps a reflection of my personal experiences and research. I'll defer to "sometimes". :-) PetersV TALK 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning that in common everyday usage, and in the usage of non-informed persons, it was not a rareity to hear the USSR referred to as United Soviet, instead of Union... Part of it is the "arrogant" thinking of many Americans that because the USA is United States of Amrica, that USSR must be United Soviet... Part of it comes from the mis-translation of the name by authors, and newspapers that the usage became wide spread on the other side of the pond, and that is why there are over 500 books that refer to the USSR as United... instead of Union... But that is my view on it, as someone who heard it on a adaily bais growing up in Canada, watching American news.--76.226.72.197 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

list of involved soviet republics

{{editsemiprotected}} in the list "succeeded by", the superscript after Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be '3's not '2's

Done, see here. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

Something that needs mentioning someplace, is the effect of the seceding of the Ukraine (failure to sign, as the case may be) on the former USSR. It contained the second largest population of 52 million, 56% of its corn, 25% of its wheat, 47% of its iron and 23% of its coal (in 1991). Robert Leckie, The Wars of America, 1998, Castle Books, page 1187. Student7 (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was dissolved at the same time, so the affected country is not the USSR (which ceased to exist), but the individual former SSRs. --Illythr (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Atheistic ideology

Not sure about the necessity of its being here or its wording, but there is, or has to be an "atheistic ideology" mentioned in recent edits. For starters, there has to be a belief in how the world/universe invented itself (today from quantum foam/m-branes, tomorrow, who knows?). An alternate creation theory, as it were. Student7 (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Union map: the Baltic states

Now I realize maps of the USSR universally include the Baltic republics as part of the union, nevertheless this seems inconsistent with other maps we use on Wikipedia. The map of Israel doesn't include the West Bank or Golan Heights as part of its territory and the maps for Morocco, Argentina, Serbia and the PRC use alternate colouring for their respective disputed territories. I suppose it might be better to have brought this up on the Commons but I figured more people might read it here.--Lairor (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The WWII section

I just removed a "Harmony boys" cartoon from the section because it creates a biased picture. In general, the section pays undue weight to the events before 22 July 1941, creating an impression that the major USSR's contribution into WWII was a pact with Hitler and post-pact expansion. That reflects a Central European POV and should be fixed. Similarly, a mention of a controversy over Soviet intentions in 1941 is not too significant and I doubt it is needed in such a concise section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Political cartoon

While the cartoon showing Hitler and Stalin greeting each other with insults is funny to me and appeals to our current WP:BIAS, I'm not sure that political cartoons belong in a serious article. They reflect WP:POV IMO. They project levity on what is a serious matter. Great in newspapers, but not so great in an encyclopedia. We have a hard enough time with facts now, we don't need cartoons spoiling our aim!

I'm guessing that the only place a cartoon should be used is to illustrate a serious point (without levity/sarcasm or exaggeration) or in an article about propaganda (which is what this is) or political cartoons! Student7 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a funny cartoon, it is meant to be a scathing political commentary regarding the eradication of Poland. I think you may have missed its intent. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I already explained in the previous section, this short section covers the whole period of Soviet history during 1939-45. Giving only one picture, devoted to just one, not the most important WWII aspect (sorry, but history of Poland is not equal to the history of whole WWII), is WP:UNDUE. I already removed one cartoon on that account, and now I see that something of that kind re-appeared. You should either add 5-6 WWII related images to balance this cartoon, or not to add any images at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the history of Poland, it is the conduct of the USSR at the start of WWII, and including it is not WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure what you would be looking to "balance"—perhaps a Soviet post-Operation Barbarossa anti-Fascist poster? "Balance" as (you seem to imply) one anti-Soviet, one pro-Soviet, one... is not numerical (as you seem to imply). I don't have any particular issue with your having removed the other cartoon, one (this one) which paints the USSR as less than noble at the outset of WWII is sufficient (and necessary) for an overall article. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I probably was not accurate enough. I meant "the Soviet history viewed by the Poles' eyes". In any event, it is incorrect to present the Soviet history during 1939-45 as if it consisted of two equally significant periods: pre-June 1941 and after June 1941. In actuality, during the first period the USSR was a secondary role player, it was a local evil (from the point of view of Central European states), whereas during 1941-45 it was a leading power that bore the major brunt of the war against fascism. I fully understand the Eastern European point of view, but I cannot share it (sorry). It is a local POV. However, I agree that it was the dirty Stalin's game (that partially can be explained by deep mutual mistrust between him and British establishment) that had leaded to WWII outbreak. That is why I agree that two major links, one to Eastern Front, another to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, should be in the article, and that is why I support division of this section onto two paragraphs, one about pre-June 1941, another after. However, that is sufficient, and no additional cartoons, not other means to emphasize the Soviet role before Barbarossa are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

category: former slavic country

Soviet Union wasn't a Slavic country, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was. One should think before editing. I removed this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

By what definition do you make this assertion? >75% of the population was Slavic according to the '89 census, which is a mere 8% less than Russia today. LokiiT (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in the box

Vladimir Lenin was never General Secretary of the CPSU, though being its actual leader. The post of General Secretary was created in 1922, with the task of managing the administrative issues of the party, and its first occupant was Stalin, who would use his powers to become the undisputed leader of the USSR in the late 20s. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.20.7.112 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC) It helped us win —Preceding unsigned comment added by People100 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} change "overseen" to "oversaw" in the abstract/intro

155.42.57.195 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Algebraist 18:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm not sure if i'm posting this in the right place, but I want to raise this concern.

"There were 23 cities with more than one million people in the Soviet Union in 1989. The country's largest city and capital was Moscow with nine million inhabitants, while the Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) was the second largest with five million. Among other major cities were Minsk, Kiev, Baku and Tashkent.[31]"

I am no expert, but common sense tells me that there were more than one million people in soviet union in 1989. Furthermore, after further review of the source, I am reading that in 1986, the Soviet Union had 280 million people. data for all cities population is missing from this reference. I suggest all of this be stricken, or the correct data found and entered.

perhaps:

"There were 23 cities with more than 280 million people in the Soviet Union in 1986."

source can be found here: http://healthaff.highwire.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/71.pdf

155.42.57.195 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I read it as saying there were 23 cities, each with 1 million+ people, in the USSR at that time. I am rewording to clarify, though. fetchcomms☛ 20:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Map of the Soviet Union

The map of the Soviet Union should include the boundaries of the republics within it. The map that is there is good but it sahould have lines within it that show the individual republics that were part of the union because it was not a single country like the United States, it was more like the United Kingdom which is the idea of countries within a country. Much appriciated!

P.S. Please leave your responce here! I do not want anything on my talk page on Wikipedia. I am mainly a Wiki-commons contributer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an option if you don't want to add lines to the map already present, File:Soviet Union Map.png, this is the closest thing I found on the Commons to what I am talking about.

Also Instead of saying "The Soviet Union after World War II" I think it would be better to say "The soviet union at its largest extent". Since during 1991-1993 many republics succeeded from the union and I think it would just be more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.212.89 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say "maximum territoral exstent" instead.--P. E. Sonastal (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Communist users

I think it only makes sense that communist users (i.e., openly supportive of communism, or from communist countries like Cuba) should be ip banned from editing this article and related articles. I mean really, cmon. I was a communist for like 10 minutes in high school once because I saw a red star and thought it was cool, but when I found out from my American history class teacher that communism has killed over 300 million people and counting I was like WTF and became a conservative. I ditched the communist stuff back when I was an idealistic 16 year old and these communist Wikipedia users will most likely follow suit, but until then can we please ip ban them from editing this? Srsly.

Thanks,

Matt

=)

The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. We encourage different viewpoints here and do not censor them. Thanks. FlyingToaster 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, who's to say that your chosen ideology is inherently the best in the entire world? If you refuse to allow other viewpoints to post in one article, where does it end? Do you seriously want to read only your "conservative ideology" and nothing else for the rest of your life? Your post mentions no rational reason why people of a certain ideology should be banned and people of other ideologies should be allowed to post. --Ericdn (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Only by posting communist (particularly neo-Soviet) clap-trap and confronting it with facts will it eventually wilt and die. Suppressing it only gives the anti-the-communist-"truth"-consipracy theorists more fodder for their self-centered universe. PetersV TALK 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, I really wonder how you reached this outlandish 300 million figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a bunch of people here with little sense of humour did not smell the troll being obviously a troll. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Old Russian Empire

Question: what exactly is the "Old Russian Empire"? Is the word "old" used here in the sense that one might use the word "former"? If so, why is it capitalized, as if it's a proper noun? As far as I'm aware, the Russian Empire was, and is, simply the Russian Empire, there aren't any descriptive adjectives—"Old"—attached to the name.

This is part of a larger problem: compare the article's current lede to the December 2009 version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&oldid=335133083 It seems much of it has been unnecessarily rewritten in an insultingly dumbed-down manner, something one might expect of the Simple English version.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question! I deleted "old." Thanks for pointing that out. Student7 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.111.179.133, 16 May 2010

Under the heading GEOGRAPHY the following sentence appears: "The Soviet Union also had several large lakes. The world's largest lake, the Caspian Sea, lay mainly in the Soviet Union (bounded on the south coast of Iran). Other large lakes were Lake Baikal, which is also the world's deepest, and the Aral Sea, which was the world's fourth largest lake in 1960, but since almost disappeared.[citation needed]"

"http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1396" should be an acceptable primary source for this statement. It not only has photographs of the lake taken over the last 30 years, but it also has a descriptive narrative of the reasons for and the effects of the disappearance.

"http://www.orexca.com/aral_sea.shtml" or "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36167170/ns/world_news-world_environment/" or "http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140120?cookieSet=1&journalCode=earth" or "http://www.merinews.com/article/aral-sea-shrinking-shockingly-70-90-per-cent-vanished/15803070.shtml" should all be acceptable secondary sources, if required.

Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter. 74.111.179.133 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

74.111.179.133 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your trouble! --Illythr (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

"The lead section is extremely problematic with tendentious talk of "extermination", "20 million killed", and genocide as if these represent a scholarly consensus.Kravavi (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"After the Soviet Union had attacked Poland, Finland and the Baltic countries in 1939-1940 the Soviet Union itself was attacked in 1941 by Germany, a country the Soviet Union had a non-aggression-pact and divided Poland with

Was this statement inserted by some of our nationalistic eastern European editors? This is a totally disputed, controversial account of events, especially the bit about "divided Poland"

The Soviet Union led an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy and attacked a number of countries.

Very polemical, disputed statement. Russian scholars, for example, emphasize peaceful coexistence in characterizing the country's foreign policy.

"The Soviet Union was regarded as a totalitarian state"

That is controversial. Scholars like J.Arch Getty believe that the totalitarian model is not satisfactory in approaching Soviet Russia's political structure.

"Millions were sent to concentration camp, the Gulag, and exterminated."

Mainstream sources do not call it a "concentration camp" where people were "exterminated". Note that most prisoners in the labor camps were found guilty of non-political crimes. The lead sections about other countries have nothing comparable.

"The USSR also conducted genocide and ethnic cleansing in various countries in Europe, especially during and after World War II"

This is not a scholarly consensus. Genocide scholars do not include the Soviet Union when analyzing the history of genocide. Even Ukraine's President rejects claims of genocide.

"Estimates of the death toll during the leadership of Stalin alone are estimated at 20 million people."

This does not represent a consensus. Recall's Zemskov's research in which he shows that about 1 million people died in the labor camps, mostly during the war.

Kravavi (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lead section focuses on the Stalinist Soviet Union and expands the period to encompass all of the USSR's history. I intend to fix it later today. --Illythr (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So Stalin/USSR were basically nice guys/nation, just misunderstood? Student7 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but Stalin did not rule Soviet Union throughout its entire history. Feel free to expand the Stalin's rule section, as well as other relevant major aspects of Soviet history. --Illythr (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely problematic, revisionist history to reduce the experience of the Soviet Union to sensationalistic innuendo about "extermination" in "slave labor camps" and non-existent genocide. Cold War triumphualism and eastern European nationalist-revisionist accounts of the Soviet Union are not very reliable. Kravavi (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, with all due respect, your favorite J. Arch Getty is usually branded revisionist just as well. Words have their meanings, sorry. Colchicum (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, you guys know each other? --Illythr (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised, this is not the first time I see this "nationalist-revisionist" mantra :) Meanwhile, J. Arch Getty was mentioned just a few lines above. Probably I am too quick to jump to conclusions here, though. Colchicum (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, right, didn't notice that part. --Illythr (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "So Stalin/USSR were basically nice guys/nation, just misunderstood?" Stalin was definitely not a nice guy. With regards to the USSR, the question is more complicated. Immediately after Civil war the USSR was rather progressive state: death penalty was reduced to the present days US level and was used only in exceptional cases (such as banditism), penal labour system was explicitly prohibited, women got a right to vote (before similar right was granted to American women), Jews and other smaller nationalities were positively discriminated, etc. With regards to Soviet foreign policy, the USSR was one of the most vehement an advocate of the collective security system in Europe ("Litvinov's policy"), and only after its failure (and Litvinov's dismissal) did Stalin sigh the pact with Hitler. One way or the another, Stalin's USSR and pre-Stalin's USSR were two different countries.

In addition, after reading the sources that analyze Soviet human losses seriously, I found that there were no extermination camps in the USSR (by contrast to Germany), and the number of victims was much smaller than scholars like Rummel (and some political writers) used to say. Note, I do not state there were no mass killings in Stalin's USSR, my point is that the scale of these killings has been reconsidered after opening of the Soviet archives, and if someone wants to call replacement of early estimations with recently discovered exact numbers "revisionism", then every serious scientist is a revisionist.

With regards to the late Soviet Union, it was not as grim as someone thinks: no freedom of movement (any foreign trip were prohibited), no freedom of information (strict censorship) and no private property - these were three major limitations. However, the number of political prisoners was very low (even taking into account punitive psychiatry), repressions were minimal if any, and if someone wants to draw parallelism with some other state, I would say, Franco's Spain was the closes analog of late Soviet Union.

My conclusion is that to describe the USSR as a good/bad guy would be superficial and amateurish. It was neither good or bad, it was a country with very complex and tragic history that committed many bad and good deeds. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Franco's Spain? Unless you mean the last few months of the formal existence of the Soviet Union, are you sure you didn't mix up Franco with Alia or Jaruzelski? In Franco's Spain there were freedom of movement and private property, and it is preposterous to equate the censorship practices in the Soviet Union and in Spain (more similar to those of modern Russia). Thanks, I don't buy this, I had firsthand experience of living in the Soviet Union (not that modern Russia or Franco's Spain are/were not grim, but that's another matter), but let's refrain from original research here.

Much of the early Soviet progress was only de jure (does it really matter much that women got a right to vote when their votes didn't decide a damn thing anyway?), and positive discrimination is hardly something to be proud of. "Progressive", yes. Litvinov's policy, equally "progressive", was doomed long before 1938.

The Soviet archives are still only opened partially. Moreover, the revisionist accounts don't necessarily follow from the documents, otherwise there would be no reputable traditionalists left. At any rate, the archives doesn't bear on the issue whether the Soviet Union was totalitarian.

Now, finally, countries are not guys, they are unable to commit deeds unless this is just a figure of speech. Concerning those individuals who did actually commit the deeds in question, I don't see why one should have any mercy for them or bear any responsibility. Most of them are not even subject to the BLP policy anymore. But please, such lengthy forum-style discussions don't belong here.

To put it briefly, stick to what reliable sources say. If reliable sources disagree between themselves, it is up to our readers to decide which is better and to draw conclusions. Colchicum (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "let's refrain from original research here." Please, familiarize yourself what original research are. Since I do not (and am not intended to) add all of this into the main article (at least until I found some reliable source as a support), your accusations in OR are fully baseless. In addition, with regard to your "I had firsthand experience of living in the Soviet Union", let me point out that personal editor's experience cannot serve as a proof for anything in WP.

Re Spain. I meant no direct analogy, but the overall level of freedom.

Re: "positive discrimination is hardly something to be proud of". Really? So please, explain me what other word can better describe the contemporary American and EU policy towards woman, disabled, ethnic minorities etc? I see no definition for that policy other than positive discrimination, and this idea was first proposed in the Soviet Union.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative action it is called. And yes, it is hardly something to be proud of, or at least there is no consensus on the opposite. California, for one, proudly voted to ban it. That is, by all means put a mention of this fact into the article if you wish, just don't paint it as something good. Comparable overall level of freedom - oh my... Such statements really do a disservice to your credibility. Not that I care though. If you don't consider WP:OR applicable, here is WP:TPG. Colchicum (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative action is sometimes necessary in order to combat the inherent prejudice within society. Something to be proud of? I don't think so, since it poorly reflects on society. But nor is it inherently bad like you seem to be implying, and it's certainly better than a visibly prejudice society that doesn't even attempt to combat the problem. Lay off the Ayn Rand. LokiiT (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So you need this too: WP:TPG. Colchicum (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? I'm debating your attempts to paint affirmative action as a bad thing in this article. You seem to be one of those people who can't accept that the Soviet Union ever did anything good, even when it's something like combating systematic prejudice. I think your efforts are misguided and, if successful, would reduce the quality of the article. LokiiT (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good old straw man arguments, bordering on assumptions of bad faith? Not on. I merely insist that affirmative action, if included, should be painted neutrally, in compliance with the Wikipedia policies, not as something "good". Colchicum (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your accusation in using straw man arguments may be directed against yourself: noone accuses you in bad faith, however, sometimes the quality of articles is being reduced by persons who sincerely desire to improve them. In connection to that, to avoid unneeded edit wars it is always useful to understand each other's points of view before making edits.

Re: "I merely insist that affirmative action, if included, should be painted neutrally in compliance with the Wikipedia policies, not as something "good"" Compare this statement with: "positive discrimination is hardly something to be proud of". In addition, you seem to misunderstand WP neutrality policy: it does not require to refrain from characterizing facts and events as "good" or "bad". WP neutrality policy just requires all major and non-fringe minor points of view to be presented in an article. If all non-fringe sources describe the fact or the event as "bad" (e.g. the Holocaust) it must be described as such, and vice versa.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Direct it as you see fit. Not all modern reliable sources describe affirmative action as something good, depending on the field of study, sometimes hardly even a majority of them does, so much from the non-fringe sources. And this is not really the case that affirmative action was first proposed in the Soviet Union. The idea was probably first proposed in India and implemented in Mysore in 1895. Or maybe even in the Austro-Hungarian empire in the 1870s. But I am afraid I don't quite follow you, what are your proposals? Or was it just in order to chat? Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Colchicum, I did not make a straw man argument. You made your negative views on affirmative action/positive discrimination clear, and made no reference to it being painted neutrally in the article. Second, assumptions of bad faith? Please show me where. I only made observations of consistent bias in your views, which I doubt anyone familiar with you would dispute, yourself included hopefully. (I don't claim to be impartial myself, am I assuming bad faith against myself?)

As for affirmative action being painted neutrally, like I said, you never suggested that in the first place. You only implied it was bad. But the main point is that they were attempting in some way to combat prejudice, which back then was progressive, as even you admit. Who would argue that attempting to combat prejudice while blacks were still being lynched back in America wasn't a positive thing? LokiiT (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And this is relevant to the improvement of the article because? Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I already answered that question. LokiiT (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Um, guys, we're supposed to discuss the lead section here..? Anyone got specific suggestions for that? --Illythr (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically a shortened version of the existing lead Colchicum (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, romanized: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik IPA: [sɐˈjʊs sɐˈvʲeʦkʲɪx səʦɪəlʲɪˈstʲiʨɪskʲɪx rʲɪsˈpʊblʲɪk] ^ⓘ, abbreviated СССР, SSSR), also known as the Soviet Union (Советский Союз), was a constitutionally socialist state that existed on the territory of most of the former Russian Empire in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991.

The Soviet Union had a single-party political system dominated by the Communist Party. Nominally a commonwealth of Soviet republics, of which there were 15 after 1956, with the capital in Moscow, de facto the Soviet Union was a highly centralized state with a planned economy. The security agency KGB actively oversaw much of the Soviet society.

The union was founded in December 1922, when the Russian SFSR, which formed during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and emerged victorious in the ensuing Russian Civil War, unified with the Transcaucasian, Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs. After the death of Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet leader, power was eventually consolidated by Joseph Stalin, who led the country through a large-scale industrialization with command economy and political repression. During World War II, in June 1941, the Soviet Union was attacked by Germany, country it had signed a non-aggression pact with. After four years of warfare, the Soviet Union emerged as one of the world's two superpowers, extending its influence into much of Eastern Europe and beyond. The Cold War, a global ideological and political struggle between the Soviet Union and its satellites from the Eastern Bloc on the one side and the United States and its allies on the other side, which the Soviet bloc, hit by economic standstill, ultimately lost, marked the post-war period. In the late 1980s the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform the state with his policies of perestroika and glasnost, but the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed and was formally dissolved in December 1991 after the abortive August coup attempt. The Russian Federation is considered successor state to the Soviet Union in exercising its rights and fulfilling its obligations.

Looks fine except for the "as well as planned economy." part, that seems kind of like a random slap on. I moved it into the next sentence where it seems more in-place. Hope you don't mind.--Illythr (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of words here.

Did the Soviets kill the czar, czarina and family? Was that "nice?"

Did Stalin allow kulaks to die of starvation after they resisted his reforms. More than just a few actually. Was that "nice?"

Did Stalin purge, by murdering them, ten of thousands of people in the party and the military mostly out of paranoia. Most of these people were intensely loyal to him. Was that "nice?"

Did the Soviets (maybe not Stalin this time), murder ten thousand Polish officers at Katyn Forest? Was that "nice?" Russia recently admitted this. Are they now telling the truth or making this up?

Did the Soviets displace thousands of Eastern Poles to Siberia during the partition of 1939? This is called "genocide" nowdays although he may not have intentionally murdered m/any. Was this "nice?"

Did Stalin/Soviets take over Eastern Europe by (among other things) defenestrating the Czech premier? Was that "nice?"

Did Krushschev send in tanks to defeat Hungarians during their uprising? Were we misinformed?

How about the Prague Springtime and its aftermath when the state head was murdered? Were we misinformed? Was Stalin in charge then?

Were Eastern Germans shot when trying to leave East Germany? Was that nice?

I can understand why the Soviets get a walk, when there was more newsprint and video produced over pictures taken at an Iraqi prison than all of the above put together.

Was the Union then so wonderful that they shouldn't have bothered to replace it? Student7 (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Was that nice?" is not a question a Wikipedia article may answer. It is, however, important to verify that these events are duly mentioned in the article. Let's see:

Murder of Nicholas' II family. Check.
Famines and persecutions of kulaks. Check.
The Great Purge. Check.
The Katyn Massacre. See also section. History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953). By the way, 1) it was approved by Politburo, Stalin too. 2) It was the Soviet Union that admitted it in 1990, not Russia (Yeltsin later pleaded for forgiveness).
Population transfer in the Soviet Union. See also section, History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953), as well as a series of dedicated articles.
Jan Masaryk's death. A controversial subject that is not notable for an overview article. The Eastern Bloc and Comecon are mentioned, though.
Soviet intervention in the Hungarian Revolution and Prague Spring. Check.
Eastern Germany. Mentioned, albeit briefly.

So, of all the issues above, only the population transfers are inadequately covered here. The Katyn massacre is also notable enough to be mentioned in the body of the article. Perhaps add a mention about the establishment of the DDR and Soviet policy towards it in the Foreign Relations section as well. Also, only the abolishment of government censorship is mentioned, adding a sentence about its establismend might be a good idea. --Illythr (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed lede does not attempt to separate Stalin's period of Soviet history from pre- and post-Stalin's eras. It is not correct.

"Nominally a commonwealth of Soviet republics..." The USSR was not a commonwealth, and the source (Britannica) doesn't state that (I realize that that statement came from the present version, hovever...).
"The security agency KGB actively oversaw much of the Soviet society. " Oversimlification. The degree of control was different during different periods of Soviet history. I propose to replace it with the statement that the Soviet economy and the society as whole was under CPSU control (that was the case from 1922 till almost the very end).
Stalin came to power (de facto, not de jure) not immediately after Lenin's death. One sentence about 1920s (1/7 of the Soviet history) is needed in the lede.
"who led the country through a large-scale industrialization with command economy and political repression." I would say, repressions were not a Stalin's goal, but the tool to achieve and maintain power. The way Stalin came to power and maintained it (i.e. by political intrigues and mass repressions) should be mentioned explicitly: Great Purge, de-kulakisation, Moscow trials, etc. This sentence should be placed before the sentence about industrialisation, end of NEP.
No mention of Khruschev era, de-Stalinisation, "thaw", economic reforms, space race etc. It was a very interesting and important period of Soviet history.
"which the Soviet bloc, hit by economic standstill, ultimately lost, marked the post-war period." That happened in Brezhnev's time. Again, during Khruschev's era situation was different.

My conclusion is that the new version of the lede is superficial and needs to be significantly modified before we can place it into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re 3, the word eventually is there for a reason, no? First and foremost, this is WP:LEAD, not the main body of the article, the manual of style is pretty clear on what it should look like. I don't see why we should include everything there. Then again, if it includes everything, it will include not only the NEP, thaw and Gagarin, but also many of the things Student7 mentioned above, starting with the Gulag and Prague Spring, as these were, for better of for worse, things the SU was famous for (not that I think the lead is the correct place to mention most of them, though). And I am sorry if I misread your proposal "to separate Stalin's period of Soviet history from pre- and post-Stalin's eras", but Lenin and Stalin and others being naturally very different, the tall tale about the Leninist-Trotskyite legacy perverted by evil Stalin is by far not the consensus opinion in the academia and thus has no place here. At most one could require that the lead wouldn't claim the opposite, and it doesn't. Colchicum (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say, Paul Siebert's comments are valid suggestions for further improvement. Namely, a sentence about the 20s (NEP, dictatorship of the proletariat) and another one on Khrushchev's period (destalinisation, "developed socialism") are warranted. Otherwise, I think your version is by itself an improvement of the current intro, so, if no one objects, I'll introduce it into the article (where it can be improved further by the above). --Illythr (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. But the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so it is a bit pointless to start discussing the lead when the rest of the article needs some rewrite. Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a start. ;-) Perhaps we can go over the article section by section this way. --Illythr (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

State atheism as a religion?

The source (David Kowalewski. Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences. Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441) that allegedly supports the statement that state atheism was the official Soviet religion does not support it in actuality. The word "atheism" appears there five times.

"The Soviet policy of state atheism (gosateizm), albeit inconsistently applied, remains a major goal of official ideology."
"Moreover, regime atheism is held responsible by believers for an alarming increase in antisocial behavior among the Soviet citizenry. Crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, and similar phenomena are increasingly viewed as stemming in part from official Marxist atheism"
"Although 86.8 percent of the cases are concentrated in three areas, dissent against state atheism is widely distributed across the Soviet Union."
"State atheism remains the predominant policy interrupted only sporadically by minor tactical retreats."

In other words, the source supports the obvious fact that state atheism was the official Soviet policy towards religion, however, the source does not support the (absolutely ridiculous) statement that state atheism was official Soviet religion. I remove the statement as not supported by the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I changed the line to [[State atheism|None]] so that it would make sense and remain informative at the same time. --Illythr (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if we need this line at all. For instance, the USA infobox tells nothing about religion (although American approach to religion is also very specific).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Illythr has the right idea. If somebody wants a quick glance at the USSR, they can look at the infobox and see there was no official religion ("None") and click it for a more informative answer. But hey, leaving it out makes the infobox smaller, which is what this page needs :D —ron2^(talk) 02:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not saying Official Religion. It says Religion. Big difference. If it were "Official Religion:" you would have to put a name of a religion. But it leaves it open to put any information about USSR religion. —ron2^(talk) 02:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

USA, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom articles contain no mention of religion in their infoboxes. As majority of XX century states, the USSR was a secular state, so I see no reason to treat it in a different way other European countries are treated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the infobox line is useful, as the Soviet Union is one of the few states that were/are officially atheist (as opposed to merely secular; a fact that is mentioned rather deep down). An alternative would be to mention this in the intro, but it's somewhat bloated right now.

Ron, note that when you click "religion" in the infobox, it goes to state religion. Because of this, listing any non-religion there would be weird. [[The state's in question policy towards religion|None]] is quite okay, though. --Illythr (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To mention in the lede that the Soviet official ideology was based on Marxism and scientific atheism would be correct. However, if we use the USA as an example (the USA are known to grant freedom to any religion), nothing of this kind is mentioned in the infobox there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet official ideology is much broader (is already partially mentioned, as the ideology of CPSU) - we're talking policy towards religion here. Most Western countries are "uninteresting" in this aspect, because they either proclaim separation of church and state or do something of the sort. State atheism is an unusual feature of a country (thus "interesting"), which is my argument for using the parameter (other than it being merely informative). --Illythr (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Would someone acknowledge Judaism in the snippet about religion? Soviet Jews experienced tremendous persecution by the communist authorities, in excess of that felt by Christians.

14:41, 8 June 2010 64.20.181.82

Successor States

What happened?

False beginning

Perestroika Image

Death rate

Christ the Saviour cathedral pic in section "Stalin's Rule"

Dictatorship

Aid to Eastern Europe after WW II

Zodiac

misleading and inaccurate

Image copyright problem with Image:Perestroika.jpg

USSR was not communist

Can someone please make a Sphere of the Soviet Union Territory?

See also

Flags in right side table

Languages

Subdivisions of the USSR

Size of economy

Spelling

Dictatorship

Soviet Union and the UN

Popular usage of name

united soviet socialist republic

list of involved soviet republics

Ukraine

Atheistic ideology

Soviet Union map: the Baltic states

The WWII section

Political cartoon

category: former slavic country

Mistake in the box

Edit request

Edit request

Map of the Soviet Union

Communist users

Old Russian Empire

Edit request from 74.111.179.133, 16 May 2010

Lead

Section break

State atheism as a religion?

Edit request