Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 4

Summary of previous discussion
The question of whether the USSR should be described as "totalitarian" was broached, as the article currently does not use that term. The question of how the scale of the deaths during the USSR's history should be represented was broached. The suggestion was to quantify it as "millions" of people. Further, whether this should be called "murder" or "killings", or some other term, was discussed. Whether there should be more details about the agricultural failure was broached. The purpose of this article was broached (as you see above). The article was claimed to currently be a summary of the USSR so that it could act as a gateway to other, more detailed and specific, articles on the USSR. The counter claim was that the USSR is directly comparable to Nazi Germany, and this article should be about the USSR as a regime, and so mirror the article Nazi Germany in structure.
 * Arguments for:
 * The USSR is commonly considered totalitarian.
 * The article Nazi Germany uses the term to describe that regime, and Soviet Union is a comparable article.
 * Arguments against:
 * Scholars disagree on the proper application of the term "totalitarian", so in light of that uncertainty it should be avoided as being POV.
 * Soviet Union, being a summary article, is not directly comparable to Nazi Germany, it being part of the History of Germany series.
 * Arguments for "millions":
 * Millions did, in fact, die.
 * Arguments against "millions": (none) ''(though I may be misremembering: correct me if wrong &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742;)
 * Arguments for "murder":
 * Murder is a legal term, so it's neutral and appropriate.
 * Arguments against "murder":
 * Murder, in the context of lawmaker-sanctioned killings, is a moral term, so it's not neutral and is inappropriate.
 * Arguments for:
 * It represents a significant aspect of the collapse of the USSR.
 * It was, at least in part, engineered as part of the campaign of killings.
 * The failure to manage agriculture, being a significant purpose of civilisation, and the land in question being adequate for the needs of the population, is a significant indicator of the general failure of communism.
 * Arguments against:
 * It's covered adequately for the purpose of the article, which is a summary and gateway to other USSR articles.
 * Wikipedia is not in the business of doing original research on "why" things happened, only presenting what did happen and what respected experts think about "why". Further, saying why is inappropriate for the purpose of the article, being summary, as in the above point.
 * Arguments for similar structure to N.G.:
 * The USSR was not a legitimate country, but was a regime. Therefore, it is directly comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany. Q.E.D.
 * Arguments for it being summary/gateway article:
 * The USSR was a country with a history of several distinct regimes. Further, Soviet Union is not a part of the History of the USSR series, while Nazi Germany is a part of the History of Germany series. The article directly comparable to Soviet Union would instead be Germany. (or perhaps "East Germany" was intended? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742;)

Please avoid editing the summary. This summary is for new people entering the discussion to be aware of the unresolved issued that can be found in the last archive&mdash;it is not supposed to satisfy any of the original participants that their arguments have been presented strongly enough, convincingly enough, or in enough detail. Most disagreement with the summary can be done by just re-opening the issues anew below this summary. Only omissions of entire arguments should be grounds for changing the summary.
 * (Summary written by &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC))

Rewrite
Here's a rewrite of the article based on LOC handbook text at Soviet Union/temp. I favor the article as it is as a more concise and condensed directory of Soviet-related topics. But I can accept basing a new one on one the LOC if it can put an end to this dispute. 172 15:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was the LOC text written in 1989? In my opinion, the Soviet Union article must at its core reflect that it no longer exists. Libertas
 * Some parts are, other parts where nececessary are more up-to-date. The history section is taken from the background section in the handbook on Russia. Hence the references to the collapse of the Soviet Union. 172 03:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, this is the standard template followed, irrespective of whether or not the nation is defunct or existing. See Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and East Germany. 172 03:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its isn't negative enough about collectivization, soviet agriculture and general inefficiency. It should also point out that economic growth was also impressive under the Tsars, it is quite possible that its simply not the Soviet Union who is to thank for Russia's (for a time) impressive technological and military industrial capabilities. From the article it sounds as if the soviet economy was very rosy, its agriculture was blood red. --CJWilly 20:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Are the facts not negative enough (or not enough of them) or is the tone not negative enough? The first is relevant, the second is not permitted. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are insufficient facts about these matters, CJ Willy is quite right. Libertas
 * Considering that mass starvation was also an issue under the Czars, to give the Soviets credit for the bad and the Czars credit for the good is not NPOV Libertas. I like this article, and I think it makes a much cleaner basis for collective writing than what we have right now. As for reflecting at its core that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, that isn't exactly a complex issue now is it? Or does it need to be mentioned in every paragraph?--Che y Marijuana 00:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comparing the USSR with what preceded it will indeed make it look good indeed, at least in some respects. Comparing it with places where freedom, the market mechanism and the rule of law prevailed may give different results. However, this article, as I understand it is not meant to be comparative.
 * And yes, when talking about a former country, such as the Roman Empire or Austro-Hungary or South Vietnam or whatever then I think that it needs a quite different treatment than to a nation that currently exists. In all the cases of former, it is appropriate - at length in my view - to consider why it collapsed or dissolved. I think we can work towards that.Libertas
 * For information on the collapse, see History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991). Additional info on trends underpinning the collapse can be found at History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985). 172 03:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My main beef with the article is that it doesn't make clear that agriculture was a persistent problem for the soviets from 1917 to 1991. During the civil war peasants witheld grain, collectivization crippled soviet livestock production (not to mention starving millions of people, immoral AND inefficient!), but even after Stalin Russia had to import its food. It should read: "The Soviets turned Russia from an industrially bankrupt agricultural Great Power to an agriculturally bankrupt industrial Superpower." Or something similar, the failure of Soviet agriculture is not stressed enough in the article, nevermind that they make the engineered starvation of the 30s sound like an accident (when it was clearly done intentionally, unlike starvation under Mao).

--CJWilly 00:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Because these subjects reflect poorly on the Soviet Union, I know that they are the favored topics of many people who want to make this into a Cold Warrior's article. Some may be interested in the economic planning process. Some may be interested in the reforms under Gorbachev. Some may be interested in the NEP. Some may be interested in the Cold War. Some may be interested in the Second World War. And so forth. Depending on where your interests lie, you can technically make the case that just about any area is deficient. After all, any article of this size on a topic such as the Soviet Union is inherently incapable of saying much. An article of this size and scope will just be able to offer the broadest brush survey picture. Nevertheless, poor agricultural productivity and the famine in the 1930s are covered. See under history: ...in agriculture the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms (see Collectivization in the USSR). The plan's implementation produced widespread misery, including the deaths of millions of peasants by starvation or directly at the hands of the government during forced collectivization. See also under economy: Production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of casualties, particularly in Ukraine. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas. Further details on agriculture are found in Economy of the Soviet Union, Agriculture of the Soviet Union, Collectivisation in the USSR, and History of the Soviet Union. Also, the industrially bankrupt/agriculturally bankrupt idea makes no sense. Bankrupt is an economic term and we should use it precisely. The said usage is not precise or accurate. 172 03:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 172 03:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For now can CJWilly and Libertas at least agree that they find the LOC text an improvement over the article that is currently protected? Would they mind replacing it with the current article at least for the time being? No matter which article is up, they can still demand on the talk pages that the article be made more and more anti-Soviet for them. 172 03:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Include totalitarian dictatorship and a small reference to Soviet colonial power in the first para and you have a deal. Otherwise, no I don't agree. The LOC is an (15 years old) outdated article that is seriously flawed in many respects, even structurally, which I am slowly attempting to correct. I believe it would be welcomed by most if that process was allowed to evolve without reversion. Libertas

Wikipedia articles avoid terms like "totalitarian dictatorship" because of the NPOV policy, and lacking a set of standard editorial policies, such terms would be applied inconsistently given the lack of policy guidelines for applying them. Also, many reject the description of the USSR as totalitarian after Stalin's death. Instead, a link to Communist state is more informative and specific. 172 04:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian and dictatorship are two words with meaning and indeed are defined at length on Wikipedia with their own articles. Perhaps we should delete the articles, because no regime could ever qualify. That is not what neutrality means. The USSR qualifies under those definitions, under the vast majority of non-Marxist scholarship (we have already dealt with the sources issue at length), as reflected in Britannica and Encarta which both deal with the former USSR at length and very adequately synthesize that scholarship into long articles. Also, earlier versions of this article included the terms and were edited out. I encourage those interested to go back and see what went on previously.

The issue is whether "totalitarian dictatorships" are non-neutral language. I don't think they are non-neutral at all. The words have meaning, I think Fred has written at length on how the USSR qualified and I defer to his effort. Perhaps someone should post it up here. Now is the time to resolve it. Libertas


 * Re: The USSR qualifies under those definitions, under the vast majority of non-Marxist scholarship... This probably does not need to be said, given the deal that was just made. But the debate on totalitarianism has little correlation with a debate pitting Marxist scholars against non-Marxist scholars. Victor Serge, a Marxist, e.g., was the one who first applied the term to the Soviet Union. When you premise the debate on totalitarianism as one pitting Marxists against non-Marxists, you should be careful to distinguish Marxist scholars from the official Marxist-Leninist propagandists of the Soviet regime. Marxism as one of the three founding school of thought in social theory (along with work drawing on Weber and Durkheim) is a distinct tradition from the official regime ideology of Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union. On one hand, Soviet Marxist-Leninist propaganda denies Soviet totalitarianism for political reasons. On the other hand, Marxist scholarship is not even equipped to deal with this debate. Lacking an adequate theory of the state, Marx's work is not equipped for dealing with the question of totalitarianism; so the "Marxist scholars" aren't really participants in the debate that you are bringing up. Marx had concluded that socialist revolution would break up the state bureaucracy of the regime as it resolved the contractions of capitalism and advanced human emancipation; and his predictions concerning the establishment of a new socialist order were consistently vague throughout his life. When he dealt with this most thoroughly, in The Civil War in France (1871), he argued that the failed Paris Commune of 1871 highlighted the ways in which the new socialist society would act to make the state apparatus an agent of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoisie. He predicted that following a successful socialist revolution, Marx envisaged the "withering away of the state," as the role of the state to suppress forces challenging the contractions of capitalism would disappear. Refuting Marx, Weber argued that even in the case of revolution by force or of occupation by an enemy, the bureaucratic machinery will normally continue to function just as it has for the previous legal government. All careful historical studies confirm this, showing that when it actually came to creating structures of power in the Soviet Union, Lenin almost immediately marginalized the "Soviets" or any form of Paris Commune-like democracy and built instead the hyperstatism of the centralized party-state. Thus, all respected Marxist scholarship (e.g., Barrington Moore and Theda Skocpol) concedes that the state is not a mere "executive committee of the ruling class" and that Marx did not develop a framework envisaging the state emerging as a structure, a potential autonomous actor in history with interests of its own. So even scholars who use Marxian analyses to provide a powerful method of explaining the basic inequalities in capitalist society concede that Marxism is not equipped to deal with the question of state power in the Soviet Union. 172 06:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 172, my point was not that Marxist sources (whether official or unofficial or whatever) have no validity, or even always agree, but that relying on them as sources in a discussion of whether the USSR was totalitarian was unlikely to help resolve the matter. Especially in circumstances where the vast majority of non-Marxists disagreed.
 * This was particularly the case when those seeking to rely on a scholars' work expressly and emphatically denied they were Marxist when in fact they were. Attempting to win an argument is fine, but hopefully we are all here to contribute something, to learn something and to create neutral articles. Without any hyperbole or excitement and well after the event, I think it would be great if we could advance our positions totally openly and properly.
 * Several users challenged me to find a Marxist source among any of those referred to, denying that any of them were Marxist. The fact that the very first one I checked was characterized as Marxist by multiple sources did not give me much faith in the process we had been going through. I wondered why we'd bothered if the whole thing was just posturing. I am a cynical right-winger, and even I felt a bit let down.
 * As it happens, in the end you advanced a perfectly reasonable compromise entirely consistent with NPOV principles, and I really commend you for that. You restored my faith and took all the heat out of this brushfire.

Libertas

Personal remarks
"Because these subjects reflect poorly on the Soviet Union, I know that they are the favored topics of many people who want to make this into a Cold Warrior's article."

I believe most would welcome a permanent cessation of this sort of commentary. From me included. Libertas

Deal?
Include totalitarian dictatorship and a small reference to Soviet colonial power in the first para and you have a deal.

How about adding this in the intro:

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, general secretary of the ruling Communist Party from 1922 to his death in 1953 molded the features that characterized the new Soviet regime. Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by outside observers with effective political opposition eliminated. World War II laid the groundwork for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the creation of the Warsaw Pact.

172 04:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. I think that is fine. Libertas


 * Great. Would you mind if I unprotect the article and replace Soviet Union with Soviet Union/temp? 172 05:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No objection at all. Libertas
 * Done. 172 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tag Team Reverting of 172's compromise
I believe two editors (one of whom is guilty of trolling, by following every single article I edit and making troll-like statements) are acting in concert to avoid the 3RR rule in their attempt to subvert a difficult-to-achieve compromise. I believe their stated desire for "clarity" is no such thing. 172's version should stand, but if not then I believe my most recent edit retains all of the balance, neutrality and clarity of 172's original. Libertas


 * I am sad to see that Libertas has returned to making personal attacks on this page instead of discussing the issue at hand. Saxifrage merely moved the phrase "by outside observers" for clarity, a change which clearly had no impact on the sentence's meaning. Libertas reverted him without explanation. I reverted that, and Libertas offered a completely different configuration which significantly changes the meaning of the original compromise version by suggesting that the totalitarian criticism extends to the entire history of the Soviet Union. RadicalSubversiv E 02:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Some Facts:


 * 172 devised a compromise
 * I accepted it
 * Saxifrage unilaterally changed it claiming "clarity" was the reason
 * I reverted it back to the compromise, explaining why on Talk
 * Radical immediately reverted to Saxifrage's text
 * Because I don't like reverting, I crafted some new words, not as good as 172's compromise but unambiguous

I will gladly accept reverting to 172's compromise.

I will not accept those of similar political agendas acting in concert to once again unilaterally impose their POV into the article.

I am sad to see that a carefully arrived at and difficult to achieve compromise has been ignored. What possessed the editor to make that change can only be speculated about, but he was privy to the entire discussion, so cannot claim he was not aware of it.

Relating to its content, I also totally reject the assertion that it was only Stalin's vicious rule that constituted totalitarianism. The whole thing was, from Lenin's gun-toting power grab to the last dismal gasp of the corrupt regime. The gulags, the repression, the arbitrary rule, the fascism using workers of the world labels was there from the beginning til near the end when Gorbachev had unintentionally weakened central control beyond repair. Perhaps we could have some more "clarity" on that. Libertas

First, the three revert rule applies to individuals, not to groups. While, in some primitive way, a person can "win" using reversions it is not good for the project. Focus needs to be on content of the edits. That several people may work together with a POV agenda is a commonplace of Wikipedia, but nevertheless the wrong is the POV agenda not several people reverting together.

As to what portions of Soviet history can be described as totalitarian, a case can be made that the Soviet Union was first a revolutionary regime, then totalitarian, then authoritarian, then reformist; or it can fairly be described as totalitarian in two phases, stalinist and post-Stalinist. Plenty of authority can be found for both viewpoints. Fred Bauder 15:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rationale for my edit
I don't care much to argue about this, so I will simply explain why I did the copy edit I did and leave it for the rest to argue over it. The English construction "characterized as A by B with C" associates C with B. What the sentence is trying to convey is that C is associated with A. My edit moved B out from between A and C, thus making the sentence flow more naturally and conform better to English standards of grammar. Libertas would be well advised to avoid jumping to conclusions about the motives of other editors and assume good faith. I will not be back to revert this particular edit to the form I used, as improving the English of Wikipedia is not worth dealing with the insanity of "going back into the breach." Good day. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I support Saxifrage's conclusion and little else. Let's leave it as it is and hope unilateral controversial changes are coming to an end. Where's 172 when you need him? Libertas

1. Saxifrage's edit changes nothing but making the sentence flow better. 2. the compromise is not a permanent version. Wikipedia always grows, and the compromise was for a good basis on which to have future collective writing. That's all. It can be tweaked, as all articles will be. No article will ever be totally stagnant, and we wouldn't want that.

Now can we move on and not make a revert war out of grammar tweaking?--Che y Marijuana 06:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Comparing it with places where freedom, the market mechanism and the rule of law prevailed may give different results."
Please name at least one country with freedom, market mechanism and the rule of law that performed better than the USSR(industrialization within 10 years, victory over the most developed capitalist country(Germany) in Europe in WW2, first man in space, first permanent space station, free health care and education, strongest army in history etc.).

Socialist industrialization An economic miracle

Um its quite simple, the Soviet Union couldn't feed itself. Yes at first they did OK, competing with the US quite well in geopolitical terms but not in actual wealth. The only way their economic system could hope to compete with the US's was by abandoning any attempts at actually making their people wealthier (in fact, that wasn't enough either).
 * Um it is quite brain damaged logic of double standard. Here in California shops are stuffed with Chinese dress, toys, etc. But this doesn't mean that "California cannot dress itself." Just the same, Soviet Union fed itself, by imported food. And fed itself better that Russia now (as of 2005). Of course, Soviet economy was skewed, but United States with its cold war pretty well helped to skew it. Mikkalai 08:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also don't need to point out that even under the Tsars Russia was booming economically. --CJWilly 21:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? backward, agrarian, with backward agriculture, with slave labor (slaves (serfs) 85% of population) until the end of 19th century, boomed? If you start poking me with the numbers of grain export from Russia, don't forget to count the territory. The productivity was miserable. It also exported lots of timber and hemp (for ropes, not for hashish). Mikkalai 09:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The industrial development achieved in the USSR was merit of the USSR, not of Tsarist Russia. For most time, the USSR could in fact feed itself, and its agricultural problems don't discredit all the giant progress that took place.


 * You can't take the US as the unique example of Capitalism, because it's power is based on the weakness of other countries. Look how much "freedom" and market mechanism is in most Third Word nations, like Argentina, and millions are starving below poverty line. Look how much "freedom" is now there in Iraq, how well feed is the country.


 * The anonymous user is right, the US is not unique, perhaps superlative but not unique. Market capitalism has been exported throughout the world, people have embraced freedom, embraced economic freedom in some of the most unlikely places. In Africa, which struggled under the yoke of Soviet colonialism for so long, one by one, governments are facing the facts that they must end gangsterism and communism. It's working. Capital is slowly but surely finding its way to nations previously regarded as untouchable. Mining, tourism, construction, it's all happening. It's a start. It's uneven. For every Gabon rushing forward there's a South Africa slipping backwards but there is real progress being made. It's excitng!
 * Yes, now people are embracing an "exciting" mix of increasing poverty with social injustice... BTW, what do you mean with "freedom"?
 * The fact is that the people of the "Third World" as it's patronizingly put don't want Bono's handouts and Kofi's peacekeepers. They want a level playing field to sell their goods and servics. It's happening, freedom works.
 * Better to ask Third Word inhabitants that US-POVing, don't you think?. Thir Word inhabitants don't want to sell goods or services, they want to eat, be able to study and have a decent life, what in most cases isn't possible due to this invasion of what you call "freedom".
 * the USSR's heavy industry was substantial, but was hopelessly managed, terrible at innovating, accountability, reinvesting or adapting. Technological change made it a millstone around the neck of the nation. Environmental vandalism scarred the beautiful nations within the USSR, they are still recovering.
 * Argentina "third world"? I don't think so. Many problems but quite devloped.
 * Developed=Capitalist? Yes, it is quite Capitalist, but children are starving and millions live below poverty line. The industry is destroyed, unemployement is giant. It is a Third Word country.
 * Starvation, yes it's despicable but it's being battled by freedom and markets. Look at the excellent work of Wolfensohn at the World Bank. He deserves a medal.
 * A medal for what? Leaning money with enormous interests on the condition of applying neoliberal policies? Markets don't care about the society, but about the Jungle Law.
 * Iraq has serious challenges ahead but there is no starvation there whatsoever, perhaps except for the occasional visiting supermodel (sick joke sorry)
 * No starvation, just food shortage... come on. Sorry, food shortage if they are still alive at dining time.
 * Freedom not only works, it is winning. From Shanghai to Havana and Pyongpang to Paris, even those who notionally oppose freedom's greatest advocate, are in truth embracing the market as their own morally and economically bankrupt system ail and fail.
 * Hopefully Havana will never succumb to neoliberal opression. North Korea is much more strict than Cuba, but at least people work and eat, unlike in the non-G7 Capitalist countries.

Libertas Fair & Balanced

"Um its quite simple, the Soviet Union couldn't feed itself."

Sure it could feed itself. The USSR even supported many third world countries(Cuba for example), instead of looting them like the USA did and does.

By the way: Homelessness and Hunger in the USA

"Yes at first they did OK, competing with the US quite well in geopolitical terms but not in actual wealth. The only way their economic system could hope to compete with the US's was by abandoning any attempts at actually making their people wealthier (in fact, that wasn't enough either)."

The Soviet people were wealthier than they are today after the destruction of ~50% of thier economy through the perfidious policy of Gorbatschev/Yeltsin and its looting through oligarchs and the West. You also have to differ between the period of Lenin and Stalin and the period after 1953 when revisionists like Chrustchev came to power. As long as the USSR followed the path of Marxism-Leninism, it developed very well.

Also keep in mind that the Nazi aggressors destroyed and burnt 1,710 cities and towns and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets, leaving 25 million people without shelter. -kirow

Libertas RFC
Radical RFC== I have just opened a Request for comment regarding Libertas's chronic and habitual personal attacks and other disruptive behavior, much of which was related to disagreements over this article. If you feel that you attempted to resolve disputes about her behavior here or on her talk page, you may provide evidence of that and co-certify the RFC if you wish. Other input is of course also welcome -- the procedure is described fairly well on the page. I apologize for putting this on an article talk page, but it seemed like the best way to reach everyone concerned. RadicalSubversiv E 04:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with is placement here but I assume you therefore won't object when I put for RFC up here when completed. Your behavior is getting more and more aggresive radical which I think is a shame. Look within and find humility. You are beautiful. Libertas


 * I have just opened a Request for comment regarding Radicalsubveriv's chronic and habitual personal attacks and other disruptive behavior, much of which was related to disagreements over this article. If you feel that you attempted to resolve disputes about his behavior here or on his talk page, you may provide evidence of that and co-certify the RFC if you wish. Other input is of course also welcome -- the procedure is described fairly well on the page. I apologize for putting this on an article talk page, but it seemed like the best way to reach everyone concerned. LibertasFair & Balanced 04:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro: Warsaw pact

 * World War II laid the groundwork for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the creation of the Warsaw Pact.
 * It was not WWII that led to creation the WP, but NATO. Please check the dates.Mikkalai 09:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Both were necessary, the WP was a reaction to NATO, but I don't see how the WP would have been possible without WW2. --CJWilly 13:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's just a polite way of saying they had troops in Eastern Europe because of WWII so they used them to impose communist rule which they formalized into a mutual defense pact. I guess the troops wouldn't have been there without WWII so it makes sense. Libertas Fair and Balanced
 * The troops were there before the WPact. The whole history is the chain of events stemming from each other. Just the same, one could say that WPact wouldn't be there but for WWI: if Germany didn't lose it miserably, there would be no WWII. So there is a natural sense in listing only immediate dependencies, otherwise our articles would have resembled the chaining rhymes "The House that Jack Built" or "But for the Nail the Battle was Lost" (or wat's their proper names). Mikkalai 16:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, you might argue some of states of western europe were puppets (especially after Italy's first election, which was very US influenced). However, I really don't think the Warsaw pact and NATO are comparable... NATO was accepted by the (mostly) democratically elected govs of western Europe (and some, France, didn't quite accept NATO, showing their independance) whereas the WP was accepted by the Red Army installed govs of eastern Europe. And whenever a Commie state wavered from the Soviet line they systematically met destruction at the hands of the Red Army (Hungary/Poland) --CJWilly 10:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yugoslavia was as Communist as the USSR and even though wasn't unser Soviet influence nor was a WP member. Albania retired from it (as France from NATO) withouth any Red Army invassion. NATO countries had/have NATO troops and U.S. military bases, WP had WP troops and Soviet military bases.

I made a few changes in order to integreate the important Decembrist Revolt, kulak, Great Patriotic War, Soviet Union and the United Nations, Détente, SALT I, SALT II, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and Non-Aligned Movement links into the article. 172 21:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
Look, I think that after all the discussion, the article is now clearly POVed. As a little thing to NPOV it, the sentence "Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by outside observers" can be changed to, "Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by some/many outside observers". Agree?
 * I don't object. Make any changes you deem necessary. Anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time. 172 16:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Make it many. Because, it was many. --CJWilly 09:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Post-Soviet States
A new article called "Post-Soviet States" is up for vote in "Collaboration of the Week." That means we Soviet Union buffs would, in Soviet Communist tradition, pool our resources to develop a new article detailing the contrasts and similarities the various republics faced on their respective roads to democracy. Anyway, we need 4 more votes by March 15, 2005 and your vote would be appreciated. Use this url:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Post-Soviet_states_.28March_15.29

Juppiter 20:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Defacement
FOund this, removed immediately.

- In the cold war there were a lot of gay men. However the United States got over that and bombed Cuba for evidence of Russian nuclear missles. The U.S then bombed Russia starting World War three.Nolan Gaige a russian spy helped russia with the whereabouts of the U.S nuclear warheads However people still made light houses to help them with cover if a nuclear balloon hit them. WW3 was really a bad time. Blacks controlled the Nation and whites were treated disrespectfuly. WW1 WW2 WW3 The World only hopes ther will never be another Worled war. Written by Mike Oaks. Associated with Murcus DumbFurt. complected of the United States Government. FBI warning 101 of the United States Government urges you not to copy or reinstate any thing in this confidential article cincealed with Russia, Cuba, And the United States. -

I didn't see anything else. Be on the lookout anyways.


 * Someone put "*** Ass Pus ***" on and I can't remove it, can someone fix it!?!?!

Jesus can

Is it just me or was the 'History' taken from

http://workmall.com/wfb2001/russia/russia_history_historical_setting_1917_to_1991.html

??? Shouldn't it be sourced?

Info box is missing
Does someone known what happened to it? The info box detailling info about the U.S.S.R is no longer available in any version of the article. Messhermit 18:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The infobox template was vandalized (blanked). I restored it, so it should show up as usual.  I can't believe no one actually had this template in their watchlist, though!  I'll definitely be watching it from now on.  Thanks for catching this.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Archives
After the collapse of the USSR the official archives of the Union were opened for the public. Consideration of these archives would make some questionable things much clearer (e. g. the correct number of prisoners in the Gulag camps or the deaths in these camps). When they are open to the public, there has to be an adresse in the internet. Does anybody know such an URL? 62.46.180.116
 * Yes, I do know an URL with very detailed statistics for 1921-1953. I've just found it in 5 minutes (although partially because I'm a native Russian speaker). All such activites were coordinated by KGB (NKVD/NKGB/... in that time) and obviously are fixed in its archives. I simply went to the official website of its successor - FSB - and found the following document: There are no any "clarifications" stating that "these and these were wrong imprisonments and these and these were right ones", just official reasons (or "pretexts" - very popular term among modern "historians") and numbers. In this sense it looks solid for me, as most "historians" tend to call all repressive activities wrong and just sum them into one large large number. I hope it will be helpful for you (although, to read in Russian pretty well is necessary to understand this document). Cmapm 01:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Great! Do you happen to know what is the copyright status of Russian government information? mikka (t) 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No,I don't, therefore, I'm far from suggesting to incorporate/use it inside Wikipedia ;).Cmapm 01:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe I've seen somewhere in wikipedia mentioned that Russian governmant source materials are copyright-free, but cannot find where. mikka (t) 01:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I practically didn't (and don't plan to) deal with politics/Russia-as-a-country-related topics here for a long time and I even hadn't seen/search for similar mention anywhere. Just wanted to help a person, not to start some mini-wikiproject. As I said, earlier, dealing with these topics in Wiki requires iron nerves. Sorry, I'm finally going to sleep now. Good day/night/morning/evening for you. Cmapm 02:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've finally found it, in wikisource, in Russian: & (1993). I will read it. So far I see that offical docs (laws, court decisions, decrees, etc.) are copyright-free. The rest requires inspection of the law. mikka (t) 03:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * URL of what? You don't expect millions of archive documents online, do you? As for data about Soviet represions, I suggest you to learn Russian language and start reading data compiled by local chapters of Memorial. Mikkalai 18:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't want to see all the documents of the former Soviet Union to be accessible that easily. But I suppose it should be possible to look into the relevant documents, that is documents about the correct number of Gulag inmates, executions, deads in Gulags etc. Most of the data that can be seen in the internet or (western) school books are based on the works of Robert Conquest, which I don't consider really objective. Many left-wing sources quote "the Soviet archives" to prove their presumption of a comparatively low number of victims of the Gulags, purges etc. Because I don't know how much this quotations are really from official Soviet archives or not I would like to see these recordings for my own.


 * PS. Memorial isn't a really neutral source too. Their charter and intentions show a anti-Soviet position. 62.46.183.92
 * I am speaking about the raw data it amassed, not about possible interpretations. Still, with your attitude you will probably be surprized to learn that Memorial's articles present numbers much lower that these of Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, not to say about Black Book of Communism. mikka (t) 15:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So you would only accept figures from an academic who says that totalitarianism is as good as democracy, or who states no opinion? I don't mean to start a flame war, but how do we define NPOV when dealing with things that are widely held repugnant, like totalitarianism or genocide?  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-05-25 17:55 Z 


 * I would only accept figures from an academic who can prove his figures plausibly. The opionion of an historian must not influence her or his display of facts. She or he has to study the sources in order to show facts and not to circumstantiate her or his opinion. Conquest didn't do so. The state of democracy in a country has no relevance to the question after the number of executions etc.
 * I think NPOV should be neutral in every question, irrespective to the opinion of the majority of people (additionally, only the majority of people in Northern America and Western Europe have such a negative attitude towards the USSR, I do not know if that is the same in other countries [especially the former Soviet Union]). Wikipedia mustn't take any position in any way, especially with controversial topics. It's function is to inform, not to judge. The objective facts have to be enough for the reader to form her or his own opinion. 62.46.180.220
 * I cannot help but admire your naivety. I sggest you to read Propaganda article to learn a bit how "objective facts" may form a really unusual opinion and how an expert may plausibly prove any figures. Still other issues how would you know that you know all facts? That you have seen all Soviet archives? That archives store "objective facts"? Or you have read all relevant articles in wikipedia. If you are not a trained historian, you may form yourself a pretty weird opinion. mikka (t) 15:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And what are we going to do now? Writing "There's no way to evaluate the number of victims of the deaths the Soviet government caused, because any figures can proved" ist not a really good solution. I suggested basing our article on the Soviet archives, which I considered the most objective of unobjective sources (because in they could write the real number in their documents which weren't open for the public). The other way is to quote both the historians with the lowest number and the historians with the highest number. A bit laborious, but it's a more accurate way to inform. 62.46.180.120
 * Basing on archives is called original research, which is inadmissible in wikipedia for a simple reason: absence of peer review of what you have found in these archives and how you are presenting these facts. Only secondary sources are admissible as a basis for wikipedia articles. Of course, you may quote archives to a reasonable extent, but again, proper interpretation of raw historical data is not the business of a wikipedia author.
 * Quoting historians is what should normally be done. Also, these historians must have their bio articles in wikipedia that discuss their credibility. mikka (t) 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * PS. For personal attacks are not a very good way of discussing, I will ignore that remark about naïvety.62.46.180.120
 * Apologies. Personal. I hope you did not ignore the subsequent suggestions. mikka (t) 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so let's go it on. The lowest numbers of victims are quoted by Ludo Martens or an similar historian. The highest should be Robert Conquest or the Black Book of Communism. 62.46.180.220
 * The problem with both is that these are wild guesses and must be discussed in a specific article, about Soviet repressions, not in this one. A specialized article may go into detail explaining the context of guesses of particular authors, which would be inappropriate for a general overview like this one. mikka (t) 07:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So which author are we going to quote then? 62.46.180.220
 * None. In this article a general vague number will do. For detailed estimates we are going to quote our own overview article, Soviet political repressions; we don't have such an overview yet, although we already have the category:Soviet political repressions. mikka (t) 18:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The dissolution of the Soviet Union
I wonder why there isn't a section about the dissolution of the Soviet Union? After all, it is one of the most significant event in history. --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 04:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Who Dissolved The USSR
Gorbachev or Yeltsin can't dissolve the USSR alone It needs to be ratified by the Supreme Soviet any republic can leave the USSR but it has to be done by that republic's gov. so who dissolved it is it officially dissolved Dudtz 6/30/05 4:18 PM EST

Title
Wouldnt it be located at Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ie the official name rather than here? Super Saiyan Plough 04:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, we always use the common name as the title (unless it's ambiguous, like Congo). Zundark 20:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Infobox?
Am I the only one that sees the motto translations are switched in the info box, or something? “(Russian: Workers of the world, unite!)”
 * I agree, it looks confusing, even though this same style is used on the infoboxes for other countries (England, France, Germany for example). Following the style which is used on the List of state mottos page, I edited the Soviet Union infobox to read, "Russian, " (was: Russian: , but I thought that'd be a tad too long.)  Hope this makes better sense?  -  Introvert   talk  21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I makes since to me now, but the whole thing (on other nation’s infoboxes also) seems confusing to people that may not know. --Bky1701 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It’s perfect now. If no one minds, I will do the same to other country’s infoboxes. --Bky1701 06:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious Groups
I've removed the final few lines of this section, which read: "[...] however once the USSR collapsed a huge resurgence of religion and it's institutions (Orthodox churches and Mosques)occured, so one can assume that this non-religiousness was just a facade."

Aside from the awkward writing and typos, the piece isn't included in the more comprehensive Religion in the Soviet Union article, which makes me question its legitimacy.

Furthermore, the assertion that we can assume the non-religiousness was a facade doesn't seem grounded. It's a sociological POV. Returning to Christianity following the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't necessarily imply that the newly converted were being intentionally deceitful beforehand, as there could be a number of other explanations; it's common for people to adhere faithfully to the espoused religion of their state because it is the espoused religion of their state. That doesn't mean it's a facade.

The CIA world fact book doesn't contain any estimations in regards to religious adherents in Russia. The article on the Russian orthodox church states that, "over 90% of ethnic Russians identify themselves as Russian Orthodox", which is a large resurgence, though it doesn't speak for the entire Soviet Union.

Keeping in mind that the article is about the S.U., not the post-Soviet nations, I'm not sure if any mention of religious revival is important. I've edited the piece back to how it appears in Religion in the Soviet Union. A line about about the resurgence would definitely put things in perspective, but unless there's a direct indication that this was brewing under the Godless front of the state, it's not exactly relevant to the topic. --Small Profit 12:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Karelia
I didn't know where to place this, but the page should mention that Karelia was, albeit briefly, a constituent republic of the Union: The Karelian-Finnish SSR lasted between 1940 and 1956.

There are articles on other short lived SSRs, and they arent included in this --ThrashedParanoid 00:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that calling the USSR a 'socialist' state is NPOV. Communism, and particularly Soviet communism, when compared with many socialist systems is completely different. It is insulting to many socialists to compare them to a tyrannical empire that actually was closer to statist capitalism. Just because something calls itself socialist, doesn't make it socialist. Look at Nazi Germany.

And also, isn't this a bit NPOV?

"The foreign wing of the KGB was used to influence politics in countries around the globe, including the peace movement in the United States."

Who wrote this article, a Republican?


 * From the references section: This article incorporates public domain text from the Library of Congress Country Studies. - Soviet Union, so maybe :) Please feel free to NPOV it by expanding/clarifying, or if you can't find a source for the allegations remove it. - FrancisTyers 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Verify and FAC
I've added the verify tag, as it seems that there are not nearly enough sources for the article to be peer-reviewed yet. I intend to add references so we can get it peer reviewed. Please feel free to assist :) - FrancisTyers 00:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for stuff like this:

''The concessions granted national cultures and the limited autonomy tolerated in the union republics in the 1920s led to the development of national elites and a heightened sense of national identity. Subsequent repression and Russianization fostered resentment against domination by Moscow and promoted further growth of national consciousness. National feelings were also exacerbated in the Soviet multinational state by increased competition for resources, services, and jobs.''

I can see that its probably correct, just I can't find any decent sources. - FrancisTyers 01:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

FAC maybe too soon for this, but PR should help - I commented on the PR page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources
I've gone ahead and added to the pieces I think need sources citing. Some of it appears to be opinion. When I have more time I will try and find sources, or remove the pieces if I can't. If people disagree, please note on the talk page and not revert. - FrancisTyers 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This comment of mine has nothing to do with the article; I am merely curious if there is a fail/safe mechanism against subtle vandalism&mdash;it seems all too easy to add the tag to statements one merely wants to see as such.  How is this kind of behavior tracked?&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The text is almost entirely adapted from public domain text from the Library of Congress Country Studies/Soviet Union. Each point can be verified by doing searches on relevant key words from the site linked to the bottom part of the article. The LOC text may not be perfect, and it may have somewhat of a slight Cold Warrior bias (though not nearly as overt as anything published by Soviet researchers about the U.S.). But all of it is solidly anchored in the scholarly literature on Russian and Soviet studies and easily verifiable. (Their own list of references is almost always impressive.) Further, the LOC text is a good, trusted standard needed to buttress this article against POV-pushers like User:Libertas. Libertas, for example, came to the article before it was based on LOC text demanding the removal of just about all the content that wasn't a shrill, loud condemnation of the Soviet regime made in the most possible terms on grounds that such material is "Marxist." Now that the article is based on LOC text, it is much more difficult for a troublemaker to come along and replace factual content with fiction, as that would require attacking the credibility of the LOC publications against their solid reputation among professional researchers. 172 | Talk 20:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the reply :) The slight "Cold Warrior" bias is most of what I was asking citation for. I'm interested in bringing this article up to FA standard, and after consultations on irc with people, they suggested that before peer-review more sources should be given. From your explanation I think it might be possible to just peer-review this as it is? Would you agree? - FrancisTyers 21:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Aided Eastern Europe?
History section seem POVed: The article states: [after 1945] The Soviet Union aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe. I'd very much like to learn how? SU forbade them to join the Marshall Plan, took (part of?) their part of repatriations from Germany and gave what in return? The communist economy? The history section also makes no reference to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and I see no mention of how it gained control of Eastern Europe, killed of or forced into exile any opposition, and ruled over its satellite states for the next four and a half decades (if you haven't read it, I recommend History of Poland (1945-1989), a Featured Article). Besides the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, such events as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Soviet split should be mentioned as well. Then there is not a single word of those satellites slipping the SU grip (Solidarność) and how that contributed to the eventual fall of the SU. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's U.S. Library of Congress Text, so I doubt that POV is much of a problem one way or another. A lot of information is excluded here, which is to be exepected in a very general article on the Soviet Union. Some of the information excluded here is going to be unfavorable, such as what you are pointing out above. Other examples of information excluded in this article are going to be favorable, such as the mountains of evidence that highest levels of public health and welfare in Russian hisotry were recorded in the 1970s. I agree, though, that this article falls short of FA standards. 172 03:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think that those ilinks should be present in text. What about the first part of my question - Soviet aid to EE? Do you have any sources on that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Economics
Soviet citizens of the 1980s had economic parity to the West - what?? source please. I wouldn't call the shortage economy parity. Besides, what is economic parity? This needs to be changed - did the author mean purchasing power parity? And one of the few bright sides of the Soviet economy, its independence of the business cycles and thus depressions (including the Great one and the Oil Depression of the 70's) are glaring omission from this section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I hadn't noticed the addition of that line. (That was not LOC text! Instead, it was a Wikipedia editor's insertion that should have been reverted right upon its posting.) The assertion is flat wrong in many cases, so I went ahead and removed it. 172 03:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)