Talk:Red Army/Archive 3

This article is extremely biased in its description.
Far from being a "Good Article," this article is currently a perfect example of a general problem with politically charged topics on wikipedia. Descriptions that are incredibly biased, such as the section titled "Russian Civil War," can be presented as seemingly neutral because of a liberal sprinkling of some citations from ideologically anti-communist historians (see here). Indeed the supposed topic of the section, the Russian Civil War, is the subject of only the first 2, small paragraphs (the "first period," and the "second period"); inexplicably, the entire remainder of the section is devoted to an ideologically distorted representation of the Red Army, which focuses entirely on presenting it negatively as coercive, opportunistic, and generally evil, without a single further element of information about the actual context of the civil war. Instead, it is clear that this particular section is painstakingly written to present the institutions of the Red Army in as negative a light as is possible, through highly selective evidence, while trying to preserve some veneer of neutrality. Instead of presenting the Red Army in the "Russian Civil War" section as simply immoral and essentially vicious, as the authors seem to want to do, it might be better to provide some contextual information about the circumstances the Bolshevik army faced at the time, and what the historical rationale might have been for such extreme measures. As it is, the article currently reads as a historical slander.--Jayfm (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see what Jayfm is talking about. What does he consider the most egregious sentence? Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

HIST 208 Review
This article is really good. There is little to improve on because you go into great detail about the Red Army and stay focused throughout the entire article. The article is very informative and contains a lot of useful information. The only thing that I could see that was not that great was the slight lack of detail and citation errors. There were a few issues with lack of background information. For example, I would like to see a brief bit of information on the term Bolsheviks even though you have a blue link it is more convenient to the reader with little knowledge on the subject. Also there are some citation errors on the page; at the last sentence under the heading "target" the citation is missing and also for citation number 7 and 70 the citation is errored. Though there are a huge number of citations which is awesome that the information can be backed up and proved by many verifiable sources. Other than some places that could have more detail, the article is very well put together and provides a lot of relevant information and the sentence structure is perfect with little to no grammatical errors. This article is very well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbourne (talk • contribs) 03:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Women in the Red Army
Why has there not been any mention of the role of Soviet women in the Red Army? Were the female machine-gunners, snipers, medics etc., that served in the Great Patriotic War, in the Red Army officially or not? And if so, there ought to be made mention of their service. 87.254.73.126 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article so biased? Is the modern day Russian government really watchdogging this?
Through this entire article little words here and there pop out to me, they tell me someone who doesn't know the reality of history, or only cares to change it, wrote this article.

Look at this however:

"Those peasants who remained at home were yearning to join the army, men along with some woman flooded the recruitment centres and if they were turned away they would collect scrap metal and prepared care packages. In some cases the money they earned would be put towards tanks to send to army."

As a survivor of a third-world country military I can honestly say no one ever 'yearns' to join an army that could not possibly care less about the individual soldier. Further, if that last part is true, 'hungry peasants living in poverty' saving their money for tanks, we can all rest easy knowing those donations were mandatory and probably taken out of pay before it was even given. 70.197.6.12 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * From looking just at some of the statistics in this article, I would say it's biased. It is no surprise that David Glantz's work is frequently cited since most of his figures come straight from Russian archives.TL36 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dumenko Borys Mokiyovych
If the article on Dumenko Borys Mokiyovych is correct, he deserves far more than a "See also" in this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

From February 1939 the Soviet Army?
So why this article describes WWII? Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

300,000 of 3 million German POWs died in Soviet hands - POV
See German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Barrier troops
Barrier troops are mentioned once, regarding 1918. What about WWII?Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why Red army edited to be without Crimes and Atrocities(cruelty)????
Red Army atrocities refers to the systemic commission of crimes by Soviet military personnel starting from the Russian Civil War in 1918 and ending by the Soviet war in Afghanistan, First Chechen War, Soviet coup attempt of 1991, particularly murder and rape and supporting Soviet politics of force[citation needed] - deportations, arrests, imprisoning in GULAG. It was estimated recently to be the great part of the total comunism crimes - 100 million people killed and murdered.[citation needed] See more - Red Army atrocities, Red Army atrocities (WWII), Red army crimes in Lithuania and List of Soviet Union perpetrated war crimes in the List of war crimes.

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

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

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


 * Yes -thanks, but the article abouyt one of the hughest world army - Red Army this is something not realistic, so the knowlidge about their crimes are needed to present here in some way too. This russian student Alex Bakharew is vandal making no explanations! Red Army murdered my grandmother in March 1945 in Marijampole (Lithuania) and they murdered millions, but some young russians trye to hide this.
 * The Soviet Army (or still Red Army in 1945) did kill a few million Nazis. They also killed off some Lithuanian and Estonian ethno-Nazis and we can thank them for that. If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Is there a section in the Military of the United States entry about the atrocities committed in Indochina, about the millions of civilians killed by US troops there? I didn't think so. I doubt there are even remotely objective subarticles that could be linked from there. It's what we call systemic bias. El_C 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So add more about all the crimes of the all armies. but don't hide red crimes. becouse U then - POVTtturbo 07:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Crimes and cruelty" is highly pov, sophomorically so. Author of section is unobjective and overly emotional, as can be seen from the multiple question marks in this section title, too. Suggest that editor reviews this page as the respective edits are well below par. El_C 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could always be the one to add that section. (it is mentioned way in the bottom of Vietnam War and in Vietnam War casualties. Be bold! but do make sure you can verify your claims with reliable sources.  Someguy1221 06:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User El C hides the crimes of the Red Army, so he is supporter of military criminal elements (NPOV). Ttturbo 07:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not support "military criminal elements," but I do support balanced and intelligible, well-sourced content, which your "Crimes and cruelty" addition, and related comments, falls short of. Please observe civilized discourse and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. El_C 07:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

There've been reams and reams and reams of material written about crimes perpertrated by members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Written by the U.S. press itself. However, this article is about the Red Army and therefore crimes pertaining to the U.S. army is irrelevant in such an article as this one. It would be sort of like writing a guide book to Japan and mentioning all the things you could do in Norway. Wouldn't you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a rather old thread, but it's still here, allow me to revive it. I agree with "Some Guy" about adding a short article relating to the main one about Red Army war crimes. It seems fair and, given that the page on the Wehrmacht has something similar, like the best way to avoid conflict without compromising the article's integrity. Thoughts?71.42.218.131 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Links at bottom
Link at the bottom to equipment goes to a page with modern-era equipment, obviously not the same equipment used during the WW1-WW2 period that the article focuses on. Don't know if there's an article of such equipment, but link should be fixed.2602:301:7733:2000:F45C:6C2A:47DA:5E98 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic composition
The only information is The majority of the losses, excluding POWs, being ethnic Russians (5,756,000), followed by ethnic Ukrainians (1,377,400).[51] However, as many as 8 million of the 34 million mobilized were non-Slavic minority soldiers, and around 45 divisions formed from national minorities served from 1941 to 1943.[53]. Xx234 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

== The origins of Red Army - Civilization of Working Cossack-Christians of Central Eurasia, historical Scythia-Tartaria-Cossackia-Russia, Red Army as Army of free people by the will of God, Army of God and His Eternal Truth ==





This two pictures, which are connected with history of Red Army were aggresively deleted. They show that the Red Flag is ancient symbol of Cossacks-Christians of Eurasia, free people by the will of God and not of some or other king or lord, and among them - Cossacks-Christians of Dnipro area, Kyivan Rus-Ukraine. The Red Flag was the ancient sign of God the Saver, Eternal Life and Truth, the Sun of Truth, the Red Sun. So the Red Flag was known to the bearers of ancient tradition of working Cossack-Christians of Eurasia long long ago before XX century. We need to accentuate this, talking about Russian Revolution, appearance of Red Army and United Soviet States of Central Eurasia, historical Scythia-Tartaria-Cossackia-Rusia, the ancient lands of free people by the will of God and not of some or other king or lord of different faith, language, descendance and name. The concept of Red Army from this point of view can be interpreted as Eternal Army of God, Eternal Army of Truth - the concept familiar to the Russian Cossack-Christian people, who constituted the most part of the Red Army warriors. We need to say about this, about deep worldview-based connections between Red Army and United Soviet States from one side and ancient Cossack-Christian Orthodox Civilization of the region - from another. Serge-kazak (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That is all extremely interesting. However, it seems to me that it may be more appropriate in Red flag (politics). Or, given the scope which there seems to be, have you considered starting a separate article to do it full justice? A summary could then be put under "Origins" with a link to the new, fuller article. This would avoid over burdening the main Red Army article with information which may be tangential to many readers accessing the article, but allow those interested to access the fuller background.  Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS I have had look at your user page and am more convinced that you have enough material for a separate article, or even several. If you decide to go down this route and would like some assistance let me know on my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Copy edited
Generalissimo Suvorov (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Suvorov

1941 desertion
More than one million of Soviet soldiers deserted in 1941. The Red Army lost millions of men as prisoners. - how? Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The unprepared Soviet forces
The Soviet forces were trained as any military forces. What do you mean by unprepared? They didn't obtain German plans? But generally armies don't know enemy plans.Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you read Colonel David Glantz's "Stumbling Collossus" which documents the condition of the Red Army in 1941. In short, about 1/3 of soldiers completely untrained; very poor maintenance standards for (generally pretty good) equipment; units not co-located with their transport; ammunition not dumped forward; fuel unavailable; no unit plans for defensive operations, etc etc. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like inefficient; of poor standard; poorly led... Unprepared has different connotations. A source other than Glantz would be useful.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not married to that exact word but it does seem to cover things pretty well. "Unready" ? "Readiness" is military jargon so may not be quite right. "...of poor standard" doesn't quite cut it; in addition to being a little awkward it isn't strictly true. The Red Army, even in 1941, had an advanced doctrine and was building the force structure to execute it. So their 'standards' weren't the problem. Their appallingly shitty readiness was very much the problem. I'm not sure why Glantz would be an inadequate source on this; 'Stumbling Collossus' is excellent. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Red Army didn't work in 1941 like almost anything in the SU, the agriculture didn't produce food, there was no drug industry to save wounded soldiers. But the Army had soldiers, arms (T-34).
 * Mark Solonin has studied any day of the beginning of the war. I understand his books however differently than the Wikipedia editors, the soldiers didn't fight because of the collectivisation, hunger and terror.
 * The SU secretely mobilised hundreds of thousands soldiers. Does Glantz explain what were the Soviet soldiers doing along the German border? They weren't prepared to defend the SU, the two fortified lines weren't correctly defended, generally Wehrmacht soldiers didn't know they passed the two lines. They weren't trained according to you.
 * I know two academic opinions regarding the extermination of Soviet officers before the war - either it weakened the Red Army or it removed uneducated revolutionists. Xx236 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am honestly sorry but I have no idea what edit you would like to make or what your point is. The record is quite clear that, whatever systemic failures there were in the USSR, the Red Army outfought the Wehrmacht. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My point is the word unprepared. It's an explanation of J. Stalin - we lost in 1941 because we were unprepared. It's the highest time (75 years) to remove the Stalinist propaganda and to explain the reasons.
 * the Red Army outfought the Wehrmacht - how to not win the Wehrmacht having absolute power in the SU and being supported by the US and many small nations? The results of the victory were hunger and terror.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There exist many types of unpreparedness of an army:


 * resources - Red Army was stronger than the agressor and a defender has always an adavntage. The invider should be stronger.
 * training - low
 * psychical - hatred to Soviet government
 * distribution of forces - incomprehensible
 * tactics - poor.

The main reason of the Soviet weaknes was psychology/politics (Soviet terror, colectivisation, Holodomor) rather than the alleged unpreparedness. Stalin explained his errors this way and some people still believe Stalin. The Red Army was incorrectly deployed along the German border instead along the two defence lines. It wasn't deployed to deter the Germans, because the deployment was secret. The Soviets should have invited Wehrmacht officers to inspect Soviet fortifications.

The Soviet failed to destroy bridges, but they murdered at least 10 000 prisoners (Bloodlands by Snyder). Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Two red references
Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (It took me a bit that this wasn't about references to "red", which would be expected in the Red Army article. To clarify, this is about errors for references used in the article, which are displayed in alarming bold red for all readers to see.)


 * The ref errors were from template's auto-generation of ref tag names.  In both of the two error cases, there were two sfn's that each had the exact same reference (source and page), except for the postscript parameter.  According to the sfn template, the postscript must be exactly repeated in each such ref, even if it only makes sense in the first of the uses.  So, I duplicated them.  Looks dumb, hard to maintain, but so it goes.


 * Meanwhile, I noticed that are references for this article are a mix of styles -- ugh. Fixing that is a much bigger job; I'll have to leave that for others.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The page needs editing
Some parts of the text seem to be obsolete, some internal links are absent Order No. 227.Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Should be Red Army
not Red army.Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you mean the article name, it already is Red Army, and Red army has redirected here since 2004. ( Hohum  @ ) 11:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, I believed I saw army in the text.Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Red Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604130022/http://fstanitsa.ru/2/41_11.shtml to http://fstanitsa.ru/2/41_11.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720090022/http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/photo/winterwar/wwar1.htm to http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/photo/winterwar/wwar1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011120611/http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2003/06/13/48180.html to http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2003/06/13/48180.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041015092534/http://www.redarmystudies.net/0411030.htm to http://www.redarmystudies.net/0411030.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Great Patriotic War" (term)
Data/numbers covers more than 22 June 1941-9 May 1945 (National Socialist Germany war against ex-ally,Soviet Union), allot of those "numbers"(i.e. soldiers) fought in WW2, not just a subjectively selected period or front. --82.11.206.181 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. This article does not misuses the term "Great Patriotic War." In the places where the term is used, it is appropriate in context of time. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Army of the USSR
It is correct that the Red Army "was the army and the air force of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic"? Was it not in fact the army of the Communist Party?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it was the government's army. the Party selected its leaders and closely monitored its decisions. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227183235/http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917army&Year=1917 to http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917army&Year=1917
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227183235/http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917army&Year=1917 to http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917army&Year=1917
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101013612/http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/house.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/house.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Pickelhaube
That's the word Krylenko actually used, see the source. He may have been factually wrong, or speaking for effect, or using black humour but the quote has been correctly copied into the article. The use of out dated stereotypes is common in political speeches.

You may want to add something after the quote explaining this, but I am not sure that it is necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I should've checked the source. I had simply figured it was a mistake on the part of whoever had added it. Thank you for the correction. Italia2006 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 19290000-bljukher stalin wseobukh.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Roza Shanina.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 19290000-bljukher stalin wseobukh.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 19290000-bljukher stalin wseobukh.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bt7 3.jpg

BRD on Ukrainians in lede
This has been recently added as the 2nd paragraph in the lede, bringing the total paragraphs in the lede to 3.

During 1943-1944, the Red Army recruited, more than 3 million people or 10% of the total population of Ukraine (in the Volyn region, this figure was 16%). In the troops of 1–4 Ukrainian fronts (mainly in infantry units and other formations), Ukrainians accounted for 60–80%

This has been reverted and re-reverted since May. Let's follow WP:BRD.

I don't see how this paragraph is significant enough in any way for our terse lede. Nothing in this paragraph establishes that Ukraine's contributions were extremely notable, given the paragraph claims only "more than 3 million", where the infobox lists 34 million as the Red Army total. High percentages are listed for "1-4" Ukrainian fronts, which is a little vague, gives no time period, and says nothing about how this might be significant for the Red Army total. Also, information in the lede is supposed to summarize information in the body, and this info isn't in the body. Nothing about the manpower supplied by any other regions/SSRs is given.

The source being cited is in Ukrainian, which I'm unfamiliar with. I do not see where the source has gotten its own information from; it must do so to qualify as a WP:RS.

If you look at the article's edit history, you may find some edit summaries involving this paragraph that make claims of notability, primarily that Ukrainians made up most of the Red Army. This claim isn't clearly supported by the paragraph itself, so appears to be WP:SYNTH.

Pinging those that have edited concerning this paragraph,, , and. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 20:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * reinserted text with edit summary "... Keith D did not see anything wrong with this." My edit in no way supported the text as the change was just fixing a cite error that had been introduced. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously, this does not belong to the lead. And I am not sure if this belongs anywhere on this page per comments above. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I did find the appropriate page to put it (1st Ukrainian Front) did not mean to come off as pushing my Ukrainian pov.Thelostone41 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed per consensus -- issue closed (for this article). Good to see BRD working.  Thanks, all.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)-A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Introduction army revolution organization
Tell Introduction 2409:4040:E86:A2DA:A2AE:A894:A808:5E9B (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)