Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

To state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact delayed war between Germany and the Soviet Union is POV. Without the pact Hitler could not have invaded western Poland in 1939. The pact made war between Germany and the USSR much more likely. (CharltonR (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC))

Yes, certainly. That was a pact to commit aggression. Hence it is generally regarded as an example of a

crime against peace. My very best wishes (talk

) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The point of the pact was to delay the war. Why? Because it is obvious that Stalin had everything to lose by fighting Hitler in 1939, and little to gain. So he didn't want to fight him in 1939. So it's not a mystery why he signed the pact. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The pact was only a temporary measure until Germany and the Soviet Union were ready to go to war with each other. It certainly did not delay war as neither side was ready to attack the other in 1939. (CharltonR (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC))

The point is that these debates should not be held in the lead of the article. As I said, feel free to add a brief mention to the appropriate section. I don't mind just saying "the USSR signed the pact in an effort to delay war with Germany"—but it would help if you offered at least one source to show that it failed to do so. How do you know Germany was not ready to go to war with the Soviets earlier than 1941? Indeed, Germany's position to attack in 1941 was arguably weaker, because it was by then committed to fighting on two fronts , had allowed Stalin extend his borders, and given the USSR nearly 2 more years to arm itself . Considering that the USSR lacked any serious military technology in 1929, two years was not a trifling matter. So I guess I don't know how you are so sure about this. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If Hitler had been able to attack the USSR in 1939 he would have done so. Destroying the Soviet Union was always his main priority, as outlined in "Mein Kampf". (CharltonR (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC))

Well it's a theory. But he could have also miscalculated, based on megalomania. But anyway I advise you to move the details out of the

WP:LEAD, based on what I said earlier. Guccisamsclub (talk

) 22:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• You guys discuss something irrelevant. Here is edit in question. It does not tell the war was (or was not) delayed. It simply tells about the invasion of Poland and Baltic states, which is simply a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There are many facts about the pact. One could also write: "Stalin signed the pact with Hitler, and then went on to orchestrate mass deportations and the massacre Polish officers." Relevant fact? Yes.

WP:LEAD? Hell no. Guccisamsclub (talk

) 03:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The intention to attack other countries was explicitly stipulated in the agreement and noted in all RS on the subject. The massacre of Polish officers was not. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I already did a compromise version and invited the original editor to move the details to the appropriate sections. So what you're trying to do aside from

WP:WIN is unclear. Can you push your POV about the pact into the WP:LEDE without consensus? The answer is no. Guccisamsclub (talk

) 15:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, "in effort to delay war" is speculation unsupported by sources and POV by Soviet propaganda. Just remove it and you have a compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The propaganda is all yours. I'm tired—write whatever you want. But I'll drop some quotes here before I go: "What is the second event of this first month? It is, of course, the assertion of the power of Russia. Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. "-- Churchill; "In the course of two meetings in the Kremlin, on the evening of 23 August and late the same night, the partners thrashed out the main issues of "common interest" and signed a pact of non-aggression and a "secret additional protocol". Stalin could not have had the slightest doubt that the pact at once relieved Hitler of the nightmare of a war on two fronts, and that to that extent it unleashed the Second World War. Yet he, Stalin, had no qualms. To his mind the war was inevitable anyhow; if he had made no deal with Hitler, war wound still have broken out either now or somewhat later, under conditions incomparably less favourable to his country. His purpose now was to win time, time, and once again time, to get on with his economic plans, to build up Russia's might and then throw that might into the scales when the other belligerents were on their last legs."--Isaac Deutscher ...Soviet propaganda. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how this quotation above disproves that my edit. According to your quote, "Stalin could not have had the slightest doubt that the pact at once relieved Hitler of the nightmare of a war on two fronts, and that to that extent it unleashed the Second World War". OK. According to this source, the pact "unleashed the Second World War". Yes, that certainly could be added. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To "that extent". Well done hearing only what you want to hear. You'd make a great fit for Channel One Russia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You said above: "The point of the pact was to delay the war. Why? Because it is obvious that Stalin had everything to lose by fighting Hitler in 1939, and little to gain". Well, but this is simply ridiculous. He could not fight Hitler at the moment of signing the agreement because the Soviet Union and the Nazi-occupied territories were separated by Poland at this time, as of course was noted by historians. I am not sure you know this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Poland would have definitely stopped the Wehrmacht's eastward march. It's a fact. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are ironic, you are wrong. Germany wasn't able to attack Poland and Soviet Union in September 1939, with French Army in the West. Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, we can play alternative history all day, but I wouldn't count on people like Daladier and Chamberlain saving the day by opening a second front to save the Soviet Union. If Japan and Nazi Germany had concentrated on the Soviet Union, history might have been quite different...though I'm glad we'll never know.Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Roosevelt administration would still have given the USSR Lend-Lease, resulting in war between the United States and the Axis Powers. (81.159.6.203 (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC))

Hitler could not have got very far in 1939 with just 60 tank divisions. (109.159.10.84 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

Not saving the SU but getting pieces of German cake. Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hitler had 60 divisions, not tank divisions.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that the Pact was not "a pact of non-aggression" even though it was called "a pact of non-aggression". To the contrary, that was a Pact about conducting aggression with respect to other countries, and that is exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union actually did after concluding this pact. This is something indisputable, a matter of fact. As about Stalin's intentions to delay the war until he can prepare and suddenly attack Nazi Germany from the rear, yes, sure, but this is a little more suggestive. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The Devils' Alliance is the title of a serious book.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The page you linked to suggests it was both. It had both central planning and high level of public ownership, so it definitely qualifies. Is that what you meant? Flanker235 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I put in both, since I've heard several scholars say that the Soviet economy, especially under Stalin, was not all that "planned". Regardless of what Wiki articles say, describing a command economy as "planned" is in some ways a stretch, a formulation very much encouraged by Soviet propaganda. A manager can give ad hoc orders, many of them unrealizable, but it does not automatically imply any genuine business planning. I'm sure everyone who's had a job is familiar with this phenomenon. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Millions of people have their opoinion about the end of the SU. Why Zubok?

• He is Russian, which influences his opinion.
• The page
  Vladislav Zubok
  is surprisingly short.
• Liberated (Baltic states, Poland Romania) experts have another opinions.Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"*He is Russian, which influences his opinion." So what? So does being American, British or any other nationality you care to name who might have had a vested interest in what was going on. Does being Russian disqualify him from the right to an opinion or are you discounting him because you are afraid he might be biased? His view might also provide a level of insight we don't otherwise have. There are few enough Russian scholars who have written anything in English as it is. All the more reason to include him.

"*The page

Vladislav Zubok is surprisingly short." I'm not sure why that is a problem. By the way, his book "A Failed Empire" was edited by John Lewis Gaddis

who, for better or worse, is certainly a recognised scholar in the field. Just hob-nobbing with people like Gaddis tends to put Zubok in a higher echelon of recognised historians.

"*Liberated (Baltic states, Poland Romania) experts have another opinions." All the more reason to include him. I would also welcome the opinions of those experts should they choose to comment. Flanker235 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki prefers published reliable secondary sources--and Zubok qualifies easily. For example, Google scholar lists over 300 scholarly books and articles that have cited his 2009 book. See the list at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7444573961434067496&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=1,27&hl=en If X, Y and Z are reliable who get cited a lot & have different views, we should include them. For example if they think the collapse of the USSR was not a big deal let's hear from them. Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is WP:RS. However, this is a cherry picked and almost irrelevant quotation. Here is it. First phrase is about SU, but it is trivial and meaningless (yes, that was a significant event). Second and 3rd phrases are about US, not the SU, and are not really relevant and disputable. This should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No it was not "cherry picked" --it was picked by Flanker235 who thought falsely that it did not mention collapse. He said (above) suggest you look at "A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War From Stalin to Gorbachev" by

Vladislav Zubok. No mention of "collapse" in there. User:Flanker235 I invite "My very best wishes" to list his cherry-picked sources that he is depending upon. Rjensen (talk

) 17:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You're quoting me out of context. The point was made that Zubok uses the word X times. Fascinating statistic but irrelevant without context. He certainly refers to the collapse of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe but makes other points which tend to invalidate other claims of economic or political "collapse". The Soviet economy did not experience hyperinflation - a hallmark of economic collapse - nor did it dissolve into anarchy or outright civil war, as would be expected with political and administrative collapse. So how about we figure out what an agreeable definition might be before someone decides that Zubok is not a worthy reference? We might also consider what areas - social, political or economic - we are talking about. I'm open to suggestion on this but I'm completely opposed to discounting Zubok. He's very credible even if some are less than happy with his position. Flanker235 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, if I have misrepresented Zubok in any way then I humbly apologise, particularly to him. But this is a discussion page and it's where things like this need to be sorted out. To read and misunderstand is one thing (if, indeed that is what has happened) but to attempt to discount him because he's Russian and might have a point of view is quite another thing altogether. In fact, I would suggest it's the last thing we would want, not simply because of his nationality but because it smacks of a less-than neutral point of view. Flanker235 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"less-than neutral point of view" is not a problem for a reliable source--it is only a problem for Wiki editors. the rule is Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

wp:BIASED

01:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree (mostly). My reservations relate to what is or is not included in the article, rather than the source. If we're going to include both - or many - sides in the debate, invariably most, if not all, will have their own biases, which is what you are saying. Flanker235 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think
  Vladislav Zubok is notable enough to warrant quoting him in this article. Heck, the article doesn't even quote Vladimir Putin's "The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century". --Nug (talk
  ) 08:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Putin can indeed be added but he's a primary source not a leading scholar. Odd Arne Westad says this book is "An excellent overview of Soviet foreign policy and a forceful explanation of why Communism collapsed, centering on Gorbachev's mistakes and misjudgments." William Taubman says "This book is the best history we have of the Soviet side of the Cold War." This book by Zubok has been cited by over 300 scholarly books and articles, according to https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7444573961434067496&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=1,27&hl=en it and his six other books have been published by the leading university presses which carefully vet their authors (eg North Carolina UP, Harvard, Oxford etc). That = top recognition in the field. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a RS that states that Zubok is a "leading scholar", or is that your own original research? Scholars reviewing other scholars books isn't all that remarkable. There are probably hundreds of other scholars that have have been cited more often and have had more books published by leading university presses for all we know, can you cite a source that ranks Zubok above the others? As it stands, it is arguable that Zubok's notability meets

WP:SCHOLAR. --Nug (talk

) 09:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Look at his Wiki page. That will give you enough information to see that he's highly regarded. Flanker235 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Not only that, but his work that is being quoted here was published by a university press, making it

WP:RS. I say include the entire quote.--C.J. Griffin (talk

) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, except all the quote tells us is that "major historical events are highly important". There was a non-trivial bit about geopolitics, but a user has already removed it because because they found it ideologically unpalatable. That roses are red is not a valuable piece of info, regardless who says it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In the first section, the overthrow of the "provisional government" is mentioned, all in lower case. To this first-time reader, it looks like a link to a relatively useless generic article, when in reality is a link to a perfectly suitable article about the Russian Provisional Government.

I'd like that "provisional government" to look like "Russian Provisional Government". I would have just done it, but, you know, semi-protected.

Likewise, I'd like "the Tsar" to actually point to the Tsar that was overthrown. Thanks. The real dan (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Tsar wasn't overthrown. He abdicated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II_of_Russia#Abdication_.281917.29 . Flanker235 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

He was overthrown by the February Revolution. He was forced to abdicate because the armed forces would not support him. (AdmRad (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC))

Not the same as overthrown. Flanker235 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How about linking to specific the Tsar that was "replaced" directly? Likewise, "Russian Provisional Government", as a proper noun, is more immediately descriptive and more specific than "provisional government", and I'd still like to see that.

Why do you want to argue about whether or not I used the right word to describe how he was replaced? The real dan (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Once in the text and once in a (trivia) caption.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The state security police (the KGB and its predecessor agencies) - the predecessor agencies should be explained/linked.

The phrase is to be found in government, so a reader may not understanf a text till he come to the section.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

THe Cheka isn't mentioned, the same Felix Dzerzhinsky, one of the founders of the Soviet state.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdfCHrBhiu8

You must be out of your mind if you believe that you can hide this. Doru001 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Famines ensued", a masterpiece of bias. Were the capitalists responsible?Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

First Lenin had appointed Stalin the head of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate and later Stalin was named the General Secretary. Is it obvious from the text?Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably only people who were politically correct. I hardly can imagine a pre-revolutionary officer or landowner allowed to teach.Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The cureent text doesn't say anything.

[1] says that Soviet law was irrrelevant, that the system acted in extra-legal ways.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The four quoted sources say Marxist-Leninist, none says socialist.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The page should be linked from the text, perhaps under different name Bezprizornikis or Street Children in USSR.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soviet Union. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://region.adm.nov.ru/pressa.nsf/0c7534916fcf6028c3256b3700243eac/4302e4941fb6a6bfc3256c99004faea5%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529132218/http://www.hronos.km.ru/sobyt/cccp.html to http://www.hronos.km.ru/sobyt/cccp.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v42/ai_9119705

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This word is used a lot in reference to the end of the Soviet Union but I can find nothing which backs it up, other than that someone calls it a collapse. Calling a dog a turtle does not make it one. The economy of the USSR was in a pretty poor state, with vastly reduced income and too many outgoings but it had not actually collapsed, even if it was only a matter of time. It had certainly not collapsed in the sense of the collapse of the German economy in the 1920s, the Zimbabwean economy of the 1990s or the Yugoslav economy in the 1980s and 1990s. Secondly, the Soviet Union itself did not collapse either. It was broken up. This was done mostly by Boris Yeltsin and a number of leaders of the 15 Soviet republics and without the involvement of Gorbachev. Sounds more like connivance than collapse. I know we talk of the collapse of the Soviet Union but that does not make it an accurate description. Flanker235 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a term used by sources, and we follow sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a recommendation for maintaining the status quo for no other reason than someone else says so. As I pointed out earlier, the Soviet Union did not collapse, not in the same way that others have with runaway inflation (see previous for examples). Nor did it collapse politically. It was broken up. Flanker235 (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

look for collapse "Soviet Union" at google scholar. over 17,000 different cites in scholarly books and articles in last two years. see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=collapse+%22Soviet+Union%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27 A "slow fading away" does not tell the story. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, another vote for maintenance of the status quo with reference to Google Scholar but nothing specific. Why should I look for something to prove myself wrong? From what I can see, it does not qualify as a "collapse". Well, suggest you look at "A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War From Stalin to Gorbachev" by

Vladislav Zubok. No mention of "collapse" in there. Flanker235 (talk

) 05:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

out job is to report on what the RS say--and many thousands of them use the term 'collapse'. For the record, Zubok uses "collapse" 48 times in the book you mention--eg p xi The collapse of the Soviet empire was an event of epochal geopolitical, military, ideological, and economic significance. The United States, the last superpower, became the hub of the international order. Triumphalism surged in the West. Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember that passage well. However, "collapse of the Soviet Empire" is not the same as "collapse of the Soviet Union". Secondly, whatever the others say, without the appropriate metrics explained, it is merely a personal judgement. *EDIT* That Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe collapsed is not contested. Since, even at a facile level, the Soviet Union no longer existed, it would be pointless to contest it. The result was the end of the Cold War. What I'm challenging is the structural and economic events. Flanker235 (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One can call this whatever, but the cherry-picked quotation does not belong to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can also use "dissolution", which has no shortage of references in EL sources, though still less than "collapse." And consider this: the term in Russian is "Распад Советского Союза" which means .... the "dissolution of the the Soviet Union." It also has the merit of being more factual/formal and less POV-soaked. The term "collapse" implies that the economy and the political system "collapsed." However, the economic collapse came largely after the dissolution (and almost entirely after 1990), while the political "collapse" is sort of a mystification. Political systems never "collapse" without human intervention, a priori. So the term either begs the question, or suggests an POV-ish answer that's not exactly warranted. As far as I know "collapse" is used only for the USSR in EL sources, and not for any other historical case. It may be partly understandable, given that the USSR's case was pretty unique in that fell victim neither to a revolution, nor to an invasion. But it's not necessarily excusable. What does it tell us exactly? That it just "collapsed", just because it "didn't work"? Wait, that doesn't tell us anything—it just gives us a cute tautology. So it may be a better idea to use "dissolution," at least in an encyclopedia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what's this even about? Collapse is used in further reading only. The main section is titled "Dissolution". So I don't even see the problem. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a whole section of Further Reading which implies the "collapse of the Soviet Union". You and I agree with the mechanism but I'm pointing out that, in the context of what this article is about, it is misleading. Furthermore, as you rightly pointed out, the economic collapses happened after the dissolution. Flanker235 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a recommendation for maintaining the status quo for no other reason than someone else says so. - That is exactly what it is. Because this "someone else" is "reliable sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

See

Then you provide some specific references. Flanker235 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Flanker235 cites n=1 book (Zubok) and says it does not say collapse. Zubok says "collapse" on 48 different pages. Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a fascinating statistic to have at your fingertips but without a context it's not very important. What "collapse" does it refer to? Flanker235 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Soviet Union itself collapsed, not it's economy. The country was there, then it fell apart and the parts fell in influence. --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the Soviet Union did not collapse. It was broken up by agreement with the republics. It started with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and from that emerged the CIS. No matter how many times you call a horse a duck, it remains a horse. Flanker235 (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating but sounds like OR if you ask me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you read about it you will see that what I'm saying is right at all the levels I have explained. I didn't write that stuff. There is no conclusive evidence about a collapse, an argument which sounds like NPOV to me. Flanker235 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And how is that not a collapse? --Khajidha (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize what the RS (Reliable secondary sources) say--so look at the titles: 1) Dallin and Lapidus (ed.), The Soviet System: From Crisis to Collapse (1995); 2) "Causes of the Collapse of the USSR" A Dallin (1992); 2) Coercion, compliance, and the collapse of the Soviet command economy by Harrison in The Economic History Review 2002; 3) Politics, paradigms, and intelligence failures: why so few predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union by O Seliktar - 2004; 4) "The collapse of Soviet communism: a class dynamics interpretation" by T Mayer Social Forces, 2002; 5) Suny, Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1993); 6) Strayer, Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change (1998). 7) Zhores Medvedev, ‘What Caused the Collapse of the USSR’ in International Affairs (Moscow) 44.2, 1998, pp. 84-91; etc etc Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine but if you call a banana an apple it's still a banana. I can see the unstated point about the term being agreed upon but unless you can quote directly, all it is is a list of books. Does any of them say that the USSR collapsed economically or socially? If so, how? The "collapse of communism" is a little easier. It's vague and there are no obvious metrics. Politically, the Soviet Union was broken up by Yeltsin and the relevant presidents of the republics. Flanker235 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are factually right, but the term "collapse" is widely used and what happened could loosely be called a collapse. Gorbachev was left without a country. But, no, the economy and society did not collapse, that is clearly true.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Flanker235. The Soviet empire collapsed because Russian domination by its military and security apparatus was no longer feasible. The parts of the empire which were already called nations became more autonomous. The parts of the empire which formed part of the USSR became independent. It was a collapse of empire, a collapse of the 'Union'. The UNION word in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had dropped off its perch, kicked the bucket- it was an ex-parrot. Sorry, ex-Union. You've had a load of references above. Please take the point that there are no grounds to limit the word collapse only to financial or social collapse, and that simply Soviet imperialists had built an empire, which collapsed.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@

No one has real understanding of the Union or its dissolution without understanding how the national question was handled (and not handled). Good summary information on this aspect was added to the article in recent months, but I see it has been gutted. Congratulations, you have dragged Wikipedia's coverage of this important topic down to your own level of ignorance. Great job. Karmanatory (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and about how it's probably pointless to try to set this right in the parent article on the Soviet Union until a dedicated spinoff article, like National sovereignty in the Soviet Union, is developed. One would have to keep watching all new edits to the parent article and then laboriously explain why they are inaccurate, which one might not have time to do (and forever keep redoing). Some knowledge-challenged user wrote in an edit summary about the more accurate version being "clearly inaccurate" but yet thinks that the Union was a nominal federation (it was no more a nominal federation than the United Kingdom is) and doesn't have any clear understanding about the difference between de jure and de facto with regard to the de facto unitary aspects of the Union state and government (including, obviously, foreign policy and defense, as well as economic central planning by the Center that had veto power and detail-interdictory power over that of the national republics). Without mature understanding of the difference between de jure and de facto, one is completely incompetent even to grasp the true nature of the topic of supranational union as applied and pretended (by turns) in the USSR, let alone lecture others about it in misguided edit summaries while busily breaking the Wikipedia coverage of it. Therefore, I am considering building the main article National sovereignty in the Soviet Union. But I don't know when I will find the time to build it full of reference citations. In the meantime I may find some time at least to revert a few of the more ignorant errors (re)introduced here in recent months. Karmanatory (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Karmanatory: I disagree it should be kept in the main article, please do try and set it right and I will endeavor to ensure it is not removed(I have only recently begun watching this article). As long as it is cited they should not remove it and if they have a counter claim or question the validity they will need to bring their own sources. One of the principles of wikipedia is to add more information rather than deleting and it is a shame so many users I have come across are hellbent on removing stuff rather than adding. Keep up the good work and thank you for helping to make this article better. EvilxFish (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Must be a way to fix the first lead sentence....as of now it's a garbled non-understandable mess.--Moxy (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, it seems to read fine to me. I do understand where you are coming from though, there is a lot of material in brackets. EvilxFish (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• First sentence means nothing to English readers and will turn them away need to fix as per
  WP:LEADCLUTTER

Сове́тский Сою́з, tr. Sovetsky Soyuz; IPA: [sɐˈvʲɛt͡skʲɪj sɐˈjus]), officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR; Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик (СССР), tr. Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (SSSR); IPA: [sɐˈjus sɐˈvʲɛtskʲɪx sətsɨəlʲɪsˈtʲitɕɪskʲɪx rʲɪˈspublʲɪk]

--Moxy (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This was a reasonable request, as explored in a a recent Signpost discussion. I fixed it by moving the extensive transliterations and IPA for Russian pronunciations down to the "Name" section. They are still available for those who want them, but they are no longer standing in the way of parsing the opening sentence's syntax. Besides that, the Russian name and transliteration also appears at top of infobox. Karmanatory (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"He shortly aftwerward denounced Stalin's use of repression"

Should be "afterward."

Thanks for the heads up. Btw, you should sign your messages on talk pages by writing ~~~~ at the end, so others can see which user wrote it. Cheers, Uglemat (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Soviet Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The lead claims that the Soviet Union was a member of the WTO. Which is false. The WTO was created in 1995. And with regards to its successor, GATT, the Soviet Union was only an observer (since 1990). 81.204.120.137 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Soviet Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

TALLGUY56 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Nicholas was outsed on march 15

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk

15:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

104.231.250.148 (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)October 15, 2017

You will need to provide a reference that identifies either of the two people on the left as Putin, since the original caption only says: "President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev greet a young child ...". (I'm unsure if the child or the adult standing behind is supposedly Putin.) In either case, please provide a

reliable source to substantiate this identification. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See

WP:RUS, Wikipedia generally uses modified BGN/PCGN romanization. Brandmeister^talk

13:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the government section of the infobox include the time from 1924 to 1953 when the Soviet Union was a Stalinist one-party totalitarian dictatorship? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

How is that not covered by this: "Federal Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist state (1922–1990)". --Khajidha (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

After

Marxism-Leninism. (24.205.83.199 (talk

) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC))

Can someone please tell me why the map of the Soviet Union in the infobox has a large white splotch in the Soviet Far East (just to the west of Sakhalin) like there's some giant lake there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.87 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Those are lakes and rivers. That particular splotch is Lake Baikal, unless I'm not mistaken. Brandmeister^talk 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, Lake Baikal is much farther to the west, above central Mongolia. I'm talking about the splotch directly north of Vladivostok and west of Sakhalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's some body of water, all others are also depicted as white splotches and lines. Brandmeister^talk 14:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that's definitely not a real body of water. It takes up the space where the

Amur river should flow into the Strait of Tartary. Pagliaccious (talk

) 16:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

When playing the soviet anthem, the lyrics showed are not correspondent, they are instead the lyrics of the current Russian anthem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.133.33.31 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Aren't all the countries succeeded by the Commonwealth of Independent States technically? Right now it has all of their modern day states. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No. The CIS is an intergovernmental organization. It has very little real power. The EU has a much greater legal status and effective power but we do not say that its member states have been succeeded by it. Also, several of the republics did not join CIS at all. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a disjointedness in this article that could be resolved by cutting up the article into a few different articles. Instead of putting every known fact about the USSR in this one page you could put the eras of the USSR into its own article and then go into cultural aspects in another article. I think that this article does what it can to make everything as concise as possible, but there are just too wide a range of topics being covered in this one article.NevaRios (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Across Wikipedia, annoyingly, dozens of estimates for the death toll of the Holodomor famine appear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor The page itself cites 7-10 million, 2.4-12 million deaths later, and later a very exact estimate of 3.9. This page, nearing the end of the second paragraph, says 3-7 million. Additionally, many of the sources are highly dubious. The black book of Communism as the most infamously exaggerated example. I have [citation needed] seen estimates ranging from 250,000 to 30 million, luckily Wikipedia keeps a relative amount of consistency. It still feels odd that the site is not uniform in its claims, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnadeus (talk • contribs) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The system of government should be more elaborated. In infobox it is shown simply as Leninist-Marxist one party state. In reality, there were number of transformations. With rise of Stalin, his political post was not significant, but later became the leading post of government. After the complete establishment of Stalin at the power, there was no one-party state of government, but rather a total one-man dictatorship fully supported by the communist Political Bureau. After the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union was not same as it was under Stalin or during the Leninist communists. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that political system has changed is reflected at the Wikipedia article General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union where it talks about how Stalin became the General Secretary. Also, it could be spotted in a transition from the system of congresses of Soviets to the system of supreme Soviets throughout the Soviet Union, and after the World War II when Sovnarkoms were replaced with Sovmins as well as the Workers-Peasants Red Army was replaced with the Soviet Army, and many other changes. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely false information is scratched in the article about some partially recognized states and states without any recognition. Transnistria and Nagorny-Karabakh is not recognized, yet Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was recognized by Afghanistan. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This article appears to be somewhat lacking in several areas, specifically - an in depth explanation of the relationship between Hitler and Stalin & the role that relationship played in their governments and policies (ex. The iron curtain), as well as a detailing of the Soviet Union's role in World War II, the losses they suffered and how it affected the country. All of the these topics are only vaguely addressed, if at all and are key elements to the development of the Soviet Union during and post-World War II. Given the gravity of these topics there should be a far more in depth section dedicated World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelhumbert (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Difficult issues. Stalin’s fanboys think that only the unkindness of the West drove him into bed with Hitler, and that Joe’s murderous incompetence should allow the Soviet Union to be credited with defeating Hitler as the Soviet casualty lists were so long. Meantime, the West supplied the tinned food and the trucks to allow Stalin to continue despite having killed half his officers, and despite massive resources committed to killing class enemies.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia, I've noticed a couple of very false information on this page. I will start with the following:

After the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, Stalin tried repeatedly to form an anti-fascist alliance with other European countries. However, finding no support, shortly before World War II, the Soviet Union became the last major country to sign a treaty with Germany with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, after which the two countries invaded Poland in September 1939. In June 1941, the pact collapsed as Germany invaded the Soviet Union, opening the largest and bloodiest theatre of war in history. Soviet war casualties accounted for the highest proportion of the conflict in the effort of acquiring the upper hand over Axis forces at intense battles such as Stalingrad and Kursk. The territories overtaken by the Red Army became satellite states of the Soviet Union; the postwar division of Europe into capitalist and communist halves would lead to increased tensions with the West, led by the United States.

Now, I'm unsure how this un-sourced pile of crap got through the admins/moderators. It is very specific, while I have it on good authority that Stalin, very much liked and respected Hitler. Germany also did not technically initiate war with the USSR, the USSR invading the newest member of Axis forces in Europe, Finland, was what started war with the Soviet Union. Now, admins, I ask that you fix this piece of horsedung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectingYourFalseFacts (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please compare you "good authority" on this matter with what is required here under our

reliable sourcing policy. If you think it passes muster, please share it with us all. HiLo48 (talk

) 00:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you joking me? You are focusing on that rather than everything else I said? Okay, download and read this this PDF:[[2]]

Classic ignorant pro-Stalinism Wikipedia... Nevermind, just read up on this user: HiLo48, seems to be a cry-baby complaining about 'illogical thinking', while promoting Communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectingYourFalseFacts (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear if the pdf you provided is a peer-reviewed source, and if it is reliable. If you want to learn more about the subject, read Roberts, Haslam, Watson. Just do google.scholar search like this: [[3]]. Most sources listed there are reliable, and the article is generally saying what they say.

The only incorrect thing here is that not Stalin, but Litvinov was perecistently trying to create anti-Nazi alliance (actually, a collective security system, a.k.a. "Litvinov line" (google it if you want)). Molotov was more prone to rapprochement with Germany. Stalin was busy with killing his opponents. In 1939, he dismissed Litvinov, and Molotov, after a failed attempt to make an alliance with Britain and France (all parties were equally responsible for that) signed a pact with Ribbentrop. Everything else is correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read this
https://prezi.com/9wxj2mr2dhfk/stalins-position-as-general-secretary/
Stalin was appointed "General Secretary" sometime after the October Revolution (in November 1917, Gregorian; but Russia still used Julian Calendar).
Please note the quote towards the end, "The role of General Secretary was considered dull and boring."
After the Bolchevists came to power, Lenin was the leader of the Russian Communist Party. Lenin was not "General Secretary". The title and office "General Secretary" was invented or imposed rather soon after the October Revolution. At that time it wasn't more than what's described in the article (and this has been expressed by plenty of authors, and in several TV-documentaries too). But after Lenin's death, Trotsky was "number two" and head of the Red Army. But Communist Party top-dogs like

I am not sure Lenin was a party leader (only informally). What was the official name of his position in the party? There was a Central Committee, and Lenin was its member, along with others. Lenin was a head of the government (Soviet of People's Commissars), and Stalin was the to Party bureaucract (which didn't mean he had any real power, so you are right).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You may very well be correct on Lenin here. Formal or unformal leader of the Communist Party in Russia ?? Formal or unformal leader of the new Soviet Union ?? But leader of the October Revolution at least. He also had some international titles, I think. But it's really a good question !

But about Stalin, I would (still) say, that as he rose to become the undisputed leader of both party and nation, but he kept the General Secretary title. Although the office as such changed with him over the years. Also worth knowing, although considered "boring" and less fancy than other early appointments, Stalin got a position which allowed him to gather information on others (as I've understood it, info on "good Bolchevists" rather than "contra-revolutionary" enemies.) So Stalin got a very good post, for someone with his huge appetite for power. Boeing720 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

He made it good. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't get the last comment. Have I made a grammatical mistake or are you saying Stalin made the title good ? The latter could be a way to express what Stalin did with the General Secretary title/office, I suppose. My point here, is solely that "General Secretary" wasn't the highest office in the Soviet Union before 1924, and only gradually between 1924 and 1929. And aside of the title/office, there was a struggle for power 1924-29, in which Stalin first played Trotsky, but later also Zinoviev and Kamenev. Simon Sebag Montefiore has, in my humble opinion, written several good works on Stalin, including "Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar" (I've only got the Swedish ISBN 91-518-4280-7), some 650 pages + 130 pages with references. Boeing720 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

By writing "good" I meant "good for him". It was a totally technical position when Stalin took it, and it became a supreme position after he took a full power. That what I wanted to say: instead of taking the highest position, he made his position highest.

That has no relation to whether Stalin did anything good. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly ! He made his position highest. Well put! Boeing720 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Soviet Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change government type to Dictatorship Milchsnuck (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please supply reliable sources verifying that it is a dictatorship. Jim1138 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved the Russia words for "Soviet Union" and "USSR" into footnotes. My reasoning is that most readers cannot read this information and are not interested in it, so it's best to hide away this clutter. For those who are interested in it, they can read the footnotes or the infobox material. It's important to include, of course, but let's keep the clutter down for smoother, more efficient reading. Kurzon (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this -Stalinist one-party totalitarian dictatorship- included within the infobox for government type? To me at least it seems unnecessary mainly due to two reasons: If

the Rs all downplay the formal constitutions as irrelevant. they focus on personalities who all shaped different modes of governance. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what do you mean by the R's, I have no understanding of what you mean. Anyway, an infobox is not supposed to give detailed information on the article, it is there to provide basic context to people, I would argue that the inclusion of Stalin makes no sense without the inclusion of Lenin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, &c. I understand the inclusion of Gorbachev's reforms, which basically ended CPSU rule and created a more liberal democratic state, but Stalin and his legacy resonated throughout the nation until it's downfall, so excluding his policies and creating it as a separate government type is nonsensical.

talk

) 21:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Stalinism in this case covers both the ideologies and the policies enacted while Joseph Stalin was in office (1922-1953). As an ideology it is compared and contrasted to Leninism ("vanguard-party revolution") and Trotskyism (which rejected Stalin's "socialism in one country" theory in favor of internationalism). Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I think I should firstly clear up my proposal to this, we leave the Infobox how it was before this contribution. Secondly, I understand the idea that

talk

) 12:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Soviet Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Demonym should just be soviet (remove Russian from demonym and leave Soviet). USSR was union of republics with multiple nationalities. Every republic of the USSR was a titular nation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titular_nation). For example an ethnic Latvian who resides in Latvian SSR wont call themselves russian even though they live in the soviet union. The citation used to cite "Russian" in demonym is also not credible, and it states that russian is simply a national of the soviet union, like I've said before USSR comprised of multiple nationalities. This wiki page even confirms that the denonym should be simply soviet and that Russians were not the only nationality of the USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union.

Not done: The demonym is sourced, so please provide a better source or get consensus here before requesting it be changed. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe a page from encyclopedia britannica should suffice for a source:

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the

 Partly done: I added the content with some minor changes to the links and citations.

talk

) 19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Marie Gulleya, User:Chewings72: I have attempted to determine whether it was conventional or correct to use "the Soviet Union" or "Soviet Union" in the common_name field of the Infobox, but I could not see how to come to a definite conclusion. I looked at Template:Infobox country, but did not see any guidance. I looked at comparable articles, such as United States, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and two of them used "the", and two of them did not. I would be grateful if either of you could explain the rationale for your choice. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Bruce leverett Marie Gulleya I am no expert in this matter, but based on Wikipedia practices I work on the basis that when it comes to the names of things (including countries) when listing these objects or places or using the names as headings the "the" is dropped. The "the" should be used in the actual wording of the article, but not in the heading for the article or the heading for a infobox as it is used to determine the ordering and indexing of the articles. To support this view I note that the Wikipedia help page on Article Titles specifically states:-

"Avoid definite and indefinite articles. Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). They needlessly lengthen article titles, and interfere with sorting and searching. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)." --Chewings72 (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add a section about sovietism - movement for the restoration of the Soviet Union. Sovietist is a member of this movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:700C:EB00:1CB9:D5BD:1905:35EF (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article, Neo-Sovietism, about that topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There are (at least) three important things wrong with the new subsection:

1. There are now two places in the article at which the legal treatment of homosexuality starting in the 1930's is described. Two is not better than one.
2. The new subsection is part of the section, "Women and Fertility". Recall that the 1931 law did not make female homosexuality a crime, or even mention it. And homosexuality is not directly connected with fertility. So this is the last place to put a discussion of this topic -- no one would look for it there.
3. The new subsection is copied word-for-word from another Wikipedia article,
   WP:COPYWITHIN
   . As editors, we cannot blithely ignore the Wikipedia licensing terms.

If you think you can improve on the treatment of this topic, I still encourage you. But it is necessary to use some common sense.

I was also taken aback by your edit summary, in which you characterized the readership as including "pro-Russian idiots" and "many dumb people". Wikipedia is not some wild online forum, in which we do battle with "dumb pro-Russian idiots". May I recommend that you read what's at this link:

Bruce leverett I was going to get to this was at work they were a Sock to a Banned user pre BMB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing,_good_or_bad

A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if such editors only make good edits, they will be rebanned for evasion

I'll be darned. I could have saved myself a lot of hemming and hawing. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bruce leverett it happens now we know what to watch out for.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This sentence: "Compared to countries with similar per-capita GDP in 1928, the Soviet Union experienced significant growth."

Is supported only by an archive of a now-deleted personal blog published in 2013. There's no indication of any editorial process, and the blog's writing is nakedly activist in tone and word choice. I'm not even sure the blogger's real name is available. This is not a reliable source by standard Wiki policy and this sentence should be removed, along with the source. 70.36.51.121 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this section to the end of the talk page, which is the customary place to add new sections to talk pages.

Your objections are noted. But the author claims to be roughly summarizing a book: Robert C. Allen’s Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution. It would be reasonable to look through this book and try to make one's own summary, before removing the one that is there. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg
• Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Congress of Soviets and Congress of Soviets of the Soviet Union refer to the same body? If so, shouldn't these articles be merged? Bruce leverett (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Age20035, User:Akshay888777: It would be very useful and helpful if you would explain, on this talk page, your reasons for including Malenkov in the list of leaders, or your reasons for not including Malenkov. Also, don't be shy about discussing any other principles or rules you use for deciding what names and dates appear in this list, and in other lists. As you may be aware, this list has been modified several times, just in the last few months. It would be good to bring some order to this chaos. Thank you! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the reason I added

Gregory Malenkov to the “Leaders” section in the infobox is because, in case you didn’t know, he did count as a leader of the nation despite serving a short term. However, I accidentally didn’t put: “Gregory Malenkov: (de facto)”. Malenkov spent most of his term fighting for power with Nikita Khrushchev. Akshay888777 (talk

) 16:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Akshay888777