Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Pre-World-War-II

User:Michaelwuzthere: You added, "... and after unsuccessful efforts to form an anti-fascist alliance with Western powers ..." to the leading paragraphs. But this is not supported by the main text, or by a Wikilink, or by a footnote. Could you add the appropriate sourcing? I looked around on the Web but couldn't find it. I dimly recall something like that from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but I no longer have a copy of that book. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

it's not controversial--all historians agree that UK & France tried & failed to form an alliance with USSR in 1939. see the Shaw book. I added this text: "In 1939 France and Britain tried to form an anti-Nazi alliance with the USSR, but no agreement was reached. ( Louise Grace Shaw (2003). The British Political Elite and the Soviet Union, 1937-1939. p. 103. Then Hitler proposed a better deal, which would give the USSR control over much of Eastern Europe through the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In September Germany invaded Poland, and later that month Stalin also invaded, and they divided Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany and World War II began.( D.C. Watt, How War Came: the Immediate Origins of the Second World War 1938–1939 (1989). Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Whereas I am not sure if references are needed in the lede, I added a couple of them. By the way, according to these articles, the initiative to sign a military anti-German alliance came from the USSR, not Britain or France, so it would be more correct to say "In 1939 the USSR tried to form an anti-Nazi alliance with France and Britain...". I also removed the mention of invasion of Poland. The reason in obvious: to mention invasion of Poland without mentioning of the start of WWII is a pure Polonocentrism. IMO, it would be more correct to explain that that pact is believed to provoke a start of WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I Changed it to match it @Paul Siebert:Jack90s15 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert and am not satisfied by the current wording, which omits the German invasion of Poland completely. The consensus of academic RS is, in fact, that the Soviet Union was forced to move west in response to Germany's movement east, and that it made an accommodation with its arch-rival Germany after Britain and France proved to be unreliable partners, having previously facilitated the German takeover of Czechoslovakia through the Munich Agreement. There are many Wikipedians that have distorted what RS say on this matter, falsely characterizing the Soviet Union (but not Britain or France) as Hitler's "wartime ally" or even an "honorary member" of the Axis Powers (an alliance that, as Paul Siebert has pointed out before, originated with the Anti-Comintern Pact), but that agitprop needs to be resisted in favor of the RS. On a related note, I consider the infobox listing the Soviet Union on both sides of the European theatre of World War II to be pretty outrageous, and I doubt that any such nonsense would be tolerated at the main World War II article. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

the Page is focused on the USSR so for Opening it shows the reader The Soviets invaded on September 17th. And also shows there were two separate Invasions so the reader does not think they invaded at the same time.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• examples for the wording

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin/Archive_21#signed_a_non-aggression_pact_with_Nazi_Germany,_resulting_in_their_joint_invasion_of_Poland._was_not_a_joint_invasion_they_invaded_On_the_17th_of_SeptemberJack90s15 (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not fully correct. Neither the pact nor its secret protocol stipulated Nazi or Soviet invasion of Poland. According to Roberts, Stalin didn't take any obligation to invade Poland. In reality, the pact just outlined spheres of influence (the line Germany was not supposed to cross during its eastern expansion). It could be quite possible that, had Britain or France provided ma real support to Poland, and had Polish resistance not been broken so quickly, the Soviet Union would abstain from any actions. During then first half of September, Stalin was definitely waiting, and his actions strongly depended on the course of the events. He started preparation for invasion only when it became clear that Poland had been essentially defeated, and Britain and France provide no real support for it; in his telegram on Sept 8, Ribbentrop requested Stalin to invade Poland and threatened that if there would be no actions from the Soviet side, Germany would invade the "Soviet" part of Poland.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, the invasion and partition of Poland was decided much earlier, during signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin just waited a couple of weeks to make sure that everything goes according to his plan and that even 80 years later, after his attack on Poland together with Hitler, some people will blame ... Britain and France. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because (regardless of the intent) Jack90s15's edits are extremely careless and sloppy, it should be noted that everything that he posted above is copied (without full attribution) from Paul Siebert's comment of 2 December 2018; also, the current lede, as edited by Jack90s15, jumps straight from the pact to the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland, thereby omitting crucial context (including the start of World War II!).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: That is why I put links to them. And for the opening its Focusing on the Soviet Invasion that was on the 17th it all ready is hyper linked to molotov–ribbentrop pact and soviet invasion of Poland both mention the German Invasion which was the start of World War IIJack90s15 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: And I added the German Invasion inJack90s15 (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The present wording looks OK to me, but you have removed a citation that was added by User:Paul Siebert. Was that intentional? Bruce leverett (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: it was not I put it back the citation Jack90s15 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This is from @Paul Siebert: a Experienced user on the subject on may 9th seems relevant to this @My very best wishes: Jack90s15 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   The only example of Nazi-Soviet cooperation in warfare was in Poland. However, it is hard to say if it was close enough to call them de facto allies. At least, for contemporaries it didn't look close: just read what Churchill wrote about that. Only after the secret protocol was discovered some people started to speak, retrospectively, about an alliance, however, if something didn't look like an alliance in 1939, how can a discovery of some paper make it a de facto alliance? Ok, I could agree that, had some secret document been discovered that was a secret military alliance between Nazi and Soviets, we could speak about a de jure secret allians, however, "de facto allies that didn't look like allies according to the contemporary observers" sounds odd. Moreover, on Sept 9 Ribbentrop sent a telegram to Stalin asking if the USSR was going to invade Poland, and threatening that if it would not invade, Germany would have to occupy Eastern Poland. By no means that can be interpreted as "close cooperation".
   Furthermore, there was no Axis in September 1939, however, if we assume there was some informal Axis by that time (which actually developed from the Anti-Comintern pact, an alliance directed against the USSR (sic!)), we have to keep in mind that there was a de facto state of war between another future Axis member, Japan, and the USSR, which ended with an armistice (not a peace treaty) only on September 15. How could be the USSR a de facto member of some de facto alliance in a situation when it was still having a military conflict with one member of this alliance?
   Next, there is a fraction of historians who believe that all USSR's territorial gains in 1939-40 were the result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, this view is shared only by a significant minority of authors, mostly political journalists. Actually, only Eastern Poland was obtained in accordance with the pact, all other territories were not. German and Soviet interpretation of "spheres of interest" were different, and, whereas "mutual assistance treaties the Baltic states were forced to sign with the USSR were in accordance with the pact, a complete occupation and subsequent annexation were considered as a hostile act by Hitler. It was annexation of the Baltic states which triggered a start of preparations for Barbarossa planning. Moreover, Geoffrey Roberts writes (in "Stalin's War") that the decision about annexation was made by Stalin after he saw how easily and quickly was France, the strongest military power in Europe, was defeated by Hitler. Stalin realized that, from that moment on, the USSR is vis-a-vis with the extremely strong and efficient military machine, and he decided to move the border of the USSR westward as far as possible. In other words, occupation of the Baltic states was a part of preparations to the future war with Germany, according to Roberts. And, again, Hitler correctly interpreted that as a hostile step. If these relationships were de facto alliance, then I even don't know what to say.
   Finland. If you remember, the whole Winter war started because Finland refused to cede territories around Leningrad, as well as the Hanko military base. What was the reason for that request? A military threat from which power forced Stalin to do that? Obviously, neither Finland nor any other power except Germany was incapable of posing any serious threat to Leningrad, therefore, the goal was, again, to prepare for was with Germany. And, by the way, Germany unofficially supported Finland in this war, at least, German public opinion was on Finnish side.
   Bessarabia. In contrast to Eastern Poland, Finland, or Baltic states, the USSR had never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (it occurred according to the scenario that was very close to the recent annexation of Crimea by Russia), moreover, if I remember correct, some other states, including the US, didn't recognize it too. Therefore, this case is a separate story, and, again, annexation of Bessarabia was seen as unfriendly act by Germany, because it threatened to the strategically important Romanian oil fields. With regard to Bukovina, it was a direct violation of the pact.
   To summarize, despite the fact that the USSR made some territorial acquisitions during 1939-40 (I am not aware of any acquisitions in 1941), there is no consensus in scholarly community on whether they were made in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet pact, and whether they can serve as a demonstration of de facto allied relationship. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II/Archive_56#Since_1939_and_until_1941_Soviet_Union_was_in_Axis_de_facto_and_is_trying_to_hide_this.Jack90s15 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The only example of Nazi-Soviet cooperation in warfare was in Poland." Meaning Poland was the only country they attacked together. But the collaboration was enormous, and not only in politics (the "Pact"), but in economy, when Soviet Union supplied resources for the Nazi war machine. You should check Gestapo–NKVD conferences, Nazi–Soviet population transfers, Category:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, German–Soviet Axis talks, German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement, German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940), German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939), Soviet-Nazi collaboration, etc. Hey, there was even infamous Nikolai Skoblin who contacted Reinhard Heydrich for manufacturing "documents" about Tukhachevsky being a German spy, which were then transferred to the Soviet leadership. Why Stalin did it? Read the Icebreaker (Suvorov). My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• A noteworthy rebuttal of Suvorov's thesis is contained in Colonel David Glantz's work Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War. Glantz views Suvorov's argument as "incredible" on a variety of fronts: first, Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. Glantz points to this as a serious methodological flaw. Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov's thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[2] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz's conclusion is that "Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic."

• Author(s): David M. Glantz. Reviewed work(s): "Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?" by Viktor Suvorov. The Journal of Military History, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 263-264 Published by: Society for Military History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)#Historians'_views

@My very best wishes: No one Denies troughs things I don't This was about the Pact that is why I referenced a another Conversation by a Experienced user I don't want to Fight over this I want to learn Jack90s15 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. I responded because you pinged me. "I want to learn". Great words! That's why I provided several links on WP pages on the subject (please check them) and suggested you read an excellent book by Suvorov. The book is provocative and probably the most interesting book I have read on the history of WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

On the third paragraph, the title "World War II" is misspelled as "Word War II" (second sentence). Crs1000 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

1932-33 famine

Drought was negligible to a man-made famine which resulted in up to 7.5 million deaths. The hyperlink to Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union states that "One of the most serious crises before 1900 was the famine of 1891–92, which killed between 375,000 and 500,000 people", i.e. merely around 5-10% of the 1932 famine. Moreover, the page states that drought "was not severe in the affected areas at this time" of 1932. Even scholars who have denied that it was an intentional genocide, such as Mark Tauger (1991), still conclude that it was the direct fault of the regime and not drought! So where is this information coming from?

Further, "There is still debate over whether or not Holodomor was a massive failure of policy or a deliberate act of genocide" i.e. drought is NOT considered a primary factor; rather, those who disagree it was genocide, instead claim it was due to Stalin's prioritisation of the regime rather than saving lives.CMFante (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Labtopbox Your comment that "It said agricultural collectivization contributed to a major famine in 1932-33, causing millions of deaths so it was not downplaying it at all" is clearly wrong. It is downplaying Stalin's role to start the sentence in such a biased way: "In addition to drought, which was a primary factor in a long history of regularly occurring famines in the region". No, the drought was in addition to the primary factor of the forced collectivisation, not the other way around. There is not a single scholar who puts drought first! This is an obvious attempt to put the focus on the drought and directly contradicts all the other Wiki pages on the famine, which show that the majority of scholars place the majority of the blame on the Soviet leadership for their crime against humanity or genocide, however you want to define it. Anne Applebaum (the Pulitzer Prize winner for Gulag: A History) concludes accordingly:

The accumulation of evidence means that it matters less, nowadays, whether the 1932-3 famine is called a genocide, a crime against humanity, or simply an act of mass terror. Whatever the definition, it was a horrific assault, carried out by a government against its own people ... That the famine happened, that it was deliberate, and that it was part of a political plan to undermine Ukrainian identity is becoming more widely accepted, in Ukraine as well as in the West, whether or not an international court confirms it.

There is absolutely no justification for having the emphasis on the drought - this is pure bias. As we have each reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period, I will not revert again. Most likely we will have to resolve via a third opinion.CMFante (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your change in the emphasis, but I suggest that the sentence "Ukraine officially condemns this famine as an act of genocide, and attempts to diminish the scale (or even existence) of the famine is known as Holodomor denial" is out of place in the lead paragraph of this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's true Bruce leverett, I agree. Perhaps a good compromise is to reverse the sentence so the drought is "in addition to" the collectivization, as well as the deletion (or adjustment) of its being a "primary factor in a long history of regularly occurring famines in the region" which is misleading and gives the impression that this famine was merely a regular incidence, one of many other similar famines and an expected event in a long and inevitable chain of natural famines, rather than a deliberate, very irregular and unprecedented crime against humanity with a 20x higher death toll as a means to political and cultural domination of Ukraine. The difference is stark next to prior famines but the lead paragraph makes it seem otherwise with that line.CMFante (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change on neutrality grounds and the inclusion of wikilinks that appeared to be inappropriate (i.e, Holodomor denial). Regardless, I think Tauger's position is being mischaracterized here. This from his review of Applebaum's book Red Famine:

While this review article does not allow for a full discussion of the issue of genocide and Stalin’s responsibility, we can at least note certain conclusions from the sources presented here. Stalin and other leaders made concessions to Ukraine in procurements and were clearly trying to balance the subsistence needs of Ukraine and other regions, especially people in towns and industrial sites who could not access the surrogate foods that some peasants relied on to survive (see for example Applebaum ch.12). Soviet leaders did not understand the 1932 crop failure: they thought that peasants were withholding food to drive up prices on the private market, as some of them had in 1928. They worried about the Japanese take-over of Manchuria in 1931-1932 and the Nazi victory in Germany in early 1933, and feared nationalist groups in Poland and Austria could inspire a nationalist rebellion in Ukraine. Faced with these “threats,” Soviet leaders were reluctant to make the USSR appear weak by admitting the famine and importing a lot of food, both of which they had done repeatedly earlier. The famine and the Soviets’ insufficient relief can be attributed to crop failure, and to leaders’ incompetence and paranoia regarding foreign threats and peasant speculators: a retaliatory version of the moral economy.

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it is neutral now. Your reply does not address the main issues - a) No-one, including Tauger, is able to show how a drought can suddenly go from causing a peak of 500k deaths (in the first major famine) to 7.5 million deaths in 1932-33. What accounts for the difference? Clearly the ruthless economic policies by the leadership. and b) that no justification has been given for the drought being emphasised at the beginning of the sentence in the Wiki article, which is also purposely misleading ("primary factor in a long history of regularly occurring famines"), with the collectivization relegated to an "addition" of the drought. This is clearly backwards according to the majority of current scholarship, not to mention the linked article on Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union directly contradicts the drought emphasis - it's not even mentioned in the 1932-33 section as a factor, let alone a primary one!

Tauger himself does not say that the drought was a primary factor, and whenever he summarises the causes he always vaguely adds "failed economic policies" or "leaders’ incompetence", as in that review you quoted. But that is begging the question; the central debate is about whether Stalin is morally responsible and the nature of his intentions. If a leader's economic policies cause starvation or if he fails to act when he knows millions are presently starving to death and refuses aid due to "paranoia regarding foreign threats" then clearly this is a crime against humanity when he is the leader making decisions that simultaneously exacerbate said deaths with forced collectivisation, raids of grains, trade bans, deportations, executions, etc. as a means of treating humans as raw materials for his Utopian end at any cost to lives. Hence why David Marples replies: "Dr. Tauger and other scholars fail to distinguish between shortages, droughts and outright famine. There is no such thing as a 'natural' famine, no matter the size of the harvest. A famine requires some form of state or human input." Appealing to leaders' "incompetence" and "failures" does not answer the question, it merely asks it.

But we don't need to debate whether it was genocide or not. You need to provide justification for why droughts are being emphasised in that sentence. It is heavily biased towards natural causes rather than the regime. If neutrality and objectivity are the aim, then why would Mark Tauger be the benchmark? The vast majority of scholars are critical of him - as can clearly be seen in the Holodomor genocide question article, and thus scholarly consensus should be adhered to.

The sentence needs to be reversed, at the very least. CMFante (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the primary reason I even referenced Tauger was I wanted to demonstrate that the OP misrepresented his views with this statement: "Even scholars who have denied that it was an intentional genocide, such as Mark Tauger (1991), still conclude that it was the direct fault of the regime and not drought! So where is this information coming from?" Other historians besides Tauger also partly attribute the famine to drought and poor weather, although to varying degrees. For example, the groundbreaking work by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies on the famine, The Years of Hunger, utilizes archival data and other direct evidence and concludes that poor weather and drought were a factor in the famine, although to a lesser extent than asserted by Tauger. Nevertheless, both dispute that the famine was intentional murder or genocide (interestingly enough, Michael Ellman in a 2002 paper was also reluctant to classify famine victims as murder/repression victims, stating: "While there is plenty of evidence to justify a charge of manslaughter or criminal negligence, there seems to the present author to be little evidence for murder.") This is why I believe the version as it exists is indeed neutral. It only partly attributes the famine to drought, while emphasizing the role of collectivization in the catastrophe. The version I reverted which contained the biased language "Ukraine officially condemns this famine as an act of genocide, and attempts to diminish the scale (or even existence) of the famine is known as Holodomor denial." is unacceptable, IMO. The current text also distinguishes between the 1932-33 famine and previous famines, in which drought was a more significant factor. Let me quote the text in question for reference:

In addition to drought, which was a primary factor in a long history of regularly occurring famines in the region, agricultural collectivization contributed to a major famine in 1932-33, causing millions of deaths.

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we might be talking past each other. As I said, let's leave aside intention - the leaders' responsibility, whether they intended to cause genocide or not, is the central question, so I agree with your removal of my hyperlink. I'm asking why the sentence should begin with drought, to which collectivisation is merely an "addition", and which misleadingly emphasises drought as a "primary factor in a long history of regularly occurring famines", thus obscuring the fact that these prior famines had a death toll of 5-10% of the 1932 famine. I'm particularly confused how you describe the sentence as "emphasizing the role of collectivization in the catastrophe." The emphasis is quite clearly on the drought - there is an absurdly long hyperlink to the history of the famines with the words of the hyperlink describing drought as a primary factor! The meaning of that sentence is obviously biased and reads as if the 1932 famine was merely yet one more famine like the rest in history. Your references show that the scholarship does not agree with this emphasis. Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies list 'poor weather' only as point (4), and their study's emphasis is on the direct fault of the leadership, either by their incompetent actions or their inaction in not focusing on saving the starving millions. They conclude:

Our work has confirmed - if confirmation were needed - that the grain campaign in 1932/33 was unprecedentedly harsh and repressive. Within this dominant context, state policy was more ambiguous and confused than is generally believed.

The weather is just in addition to this. So they are arguing it wasn't intentional genocide (because they are using a one-dimensional and unphilosophic analysis of "intention", but this is irrelevant) — but they are not arguing that it wasn't primarily the leaders' fault, nor that drought is the emphasis, as this Wiki article does.CMFante (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The hyperlinked page to Wheatcroft/Davies clearly states that weather was a major factor in the bad harvests of these years:

A further major factor in the poor harvests in 1931 and 1932 was the weather . . . But in 1930-34 the weather was poorer than usual over the last five years, with particularly bad conditions in 1931 and 1932. This was a factor over which the Soviet government had no immediate control.

The text as it exists now emphasizes the role of collectivization by distinguishing this famine from the previous famines in which weather was clearly the dominant factor; in the 1932-33 famine collectivization was a major contributor in addition to the weather. That's how I read it anyway. In any case, I am fine with a rewrite but would oppose removing weather/drought as a factor in the famine, which appears to be what some here want, and it indeed was purged in the version I reverted. At least we both agree that intentionality should not be included, as there is no consensus in scholarship on that issue, and since the opening of the archives appears to be going in the opposite direction of the narrative Conquest popularized during the tail end off the Cold War in Harvest of Sorrow, although governments are still pushing it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Technology

Lenin believed that the USSR would never overtake the developed world if it remained as technologically backward as it was upon its founding.

This is a truism, and has no citation. I think it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

Change Date of WW2 Victory to May 8th instead of May 9th 2601:1C2:5280:BB40:60B9:E96B:ECB1:3912 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done; a change like this requires justification. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2019

The link to the National Anthem Of Soviet Union is link to the current anthem of Russian Federation. Its not link to the Soviet Anthem Šimon Palenčár (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear which link you're talking about and how it should be fixed. Edit requests need to be precise. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Help for Soviet Union article infobox on Sindhi Wikipedia

Hi, I have inserted Infobox on Soviet Union سوويت يونين article on Sindhi Wikipedia but due to the large size of this image File:Soviet Union on the globe (Soviet Union centered).svg which is used in that article's Infobox, Article Infobox has become extra large, I resized its size at (| image_map = Soviet Union on the globe (Soviet Union centered).svg | image_map_size = 10) image map size from 220 to 10 but this infobox is still too large may be because of that file size, Its requested, please help fixing this issue on the mentioned Soviet Union سوويت يونين page on Sindhi Wikipedia. Thanks JogiAsad  ^Talk 10:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Soviet Union Muslim Population 1979 (full).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Small text in infobox

@CapLiber: @Davide King: The use of small text in the infobox, for example "de jure" and "de facto", makes it hard to read on a mobile device. I notice that this is explicitly mentioned in MOS:SMALLTEXT, which strongly discourages editors from the practice. I will fix this, unless there are objections. Thanks for your attention. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett @CapLiber: I agree. What's the point of using Template small? I've seen too much use of it in Infoboxes. For de jure and de facto, we can just use br (or even just put a note) but what's the point of small? I checked on my phone and it's not necessary; only is needed is the br, it doesn't split in normal characters. Same thing for the English translation for motto and anthem, what's the point? The text doesn't split either on desktop or phone, so why? In this specific case, Nowrap and small should be used only once to make sure the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic name doesn't split up.--Davide King (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this article skims over the history also when talking about the famine in Ukraine I think go into more detail since it is a very confusing topic and can easily be misinterpreted and probably has, another thing is that the U.S.S.R was too influential to let anyone edit the article after all it’s very recent history so it has a lasting impact and Captain James Cook was special enough to get special editing access so defiantly the Soviet Union should receive such treatment.14.200.36.51 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading HDI figures

The HDI figure cited for the Soviet Union is from the 1990 version of HDI. This used a method so old that the Wikipedia article on HDI does not even cover it. To be specific, here are the notable differences in the 1990 method:

• The Life Expectancy max and min was not 85 and 25, but was instead the highest and lowest from that year, 78.4 and 41.8
• Education just used the adult literacy rate. Similar method for selecting max and min, 100 and 12.3 respectively.
• Similar for GDP per capita log max and min, which were 3.68 and 2.34.

The inclusion of a 1990 HDI figure here is clearly going to mislead people, as it's not clear that a 1990 HDI figure represents not only a different date but also a totally different methodology. To give you an idea of how big the difference is, the US 2018 HDI figure is 0.920. This may lead someone to think that the HDI of the USSR in 1990 and the US today is comparable. However, if you calculated the US HDI using the 1990 method, you'd get somewhere between 1.200 and 1.300. Yes, over 1.

For now, I have removed the HDI from the infobox. It could be replaced with a 1990 figure calculated using the current method, if such data could be found.Tophattingson (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an HDI value for 1990 using current methods in Human Development Report 2019. They describe the issues you mention in this report on Russia and present an HDI value of 0.734 for 1990. I've added this value to the infobox. Subvisser5 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Might it not be a good idea to cite the source? Also, mention (in the footnote) that the source's figure of 0.734 is for Russia only, not for the whole Soviet Union. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

The short description for this article lists the Soviet Union's active years as 1992 to 1991.

Can we correct this to "1922 to 1991"? Rmuzzey (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 23:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

A troika and brief power struggle needs to be changed to "after a troika and brief power struggle" ItsAHooman (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsAHooman Done, thanks for the small edit. It makes much more grammatical sense to have "after a troika and brief power struggle". Vallee01 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

On discussion for inclusion of leftist perspective.

Jack Upland What's wrong with the the leftist section in you're opinion? You said it's wrong, how so. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not enough sourcing. I suppose that the paper by Howard and King may be a reliable source, but you cited it without giving the reader any way to find it, e.g. no journal title, date, etc. The rest of the section has no reliable sources at all. The "ABC of Anarchism" is not a reliable source (I don't even know who the author is, other than Berkman), and is generally unhelpful and marginally relevant. If you don't provide sources, the reader is left to assume that you are making it all up. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't think Howard and King actually support the assertions made in the article. Their conclusion is: "Thus the state capitalist hypothesis is unpersuasive... It is more appropriate to see the Soviet Union as a challenger to all forms of capitalism. Not a genuine socialist challenge, certainly, but a real menace which for several decades was regarded as the principal threat to their power by the ruling classes of all actual capitalisms". As far as I know (and as indicated by Howard and King), the main supporters of the state capitalist hypothesis are the followers of Tony Cliff, who are by no means the majority of leftists. Overall, the section refers to the opinions of some leftists, but doesn't establish that these are the main opinions held by leftists. And what timeframe are you talking about? The ABC of Anarchism was written in 1928 (when the USSR was only 6 years old). This doesn't really fit under "Legacy".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, Jack Upland, I agree. I am very interested in a left-wing view of the Soviet Union, but it needs to be properly sourced and give proper weight to each viewpoint. It has been re-added, so what should be added? Should a tag be added to improve it? Should it be removed until we have a discussion and establish a consensus on how to properly word it and source it? Davide King (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Until recently, the "Legacy" section was blank, and Vallee01 has made an attempt to start one, which is normally a valiant thing to do. But in Wikipedia, the quality of an article or a section of an article depends very much on the sources it uses, and how it uses them. It looks to me like the sources are of highly varying quality and usefulness, but perhaps serious students of the Soviet Union would be able to incrementally improve this to acceptable quality. It would be unfortunate if it were necessary to start over from scratch, but that would have to be considered. With the "leftists" section in particular, there is at this point only one plausible source. One might perhaps start this section over with just that source and one or two sentences that cite it. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think having nothing would be better than something that is unrepresentative of the subject. It would be better to collect a few sources here before attempting to compose this section.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, yeah, that makes sense. Especially if it is added that "the KDVD actively suppressed and tortured any suspected or actual anarchists" which is unsourced, even if true, and weasely. Davide King (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am no longer able to find the whole article by Howard and King online. The original citation gave a link that has gone bad. I have found a website from which one can get the article at [1]. Basic information about the article: Authors, M.C. Howard and J.E. King; Title, 'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union; Journal, History of Economics Review; Volume 34, Issue 1, 2001. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

About the lead section length

The lead section is too long per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Perhaps the paragraphs that talk about WW2 and the Cold War are better suited for the (currently empty) sections within the body of the article, while keeping a more summarised version of its foundation and dissolution Oqwert (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's too long and detailed. And, I agree that it would be good to have more stuff in those two empty sections. But those two sections are subsections of the "Foreign Relations" section. Not all the material in the lead would belong in them. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Be bold then, go and change the article see: Wikipedia:DO IT YOURSELF. I however think that the length is justified however. Vallee01 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over flags

The question of whether there are to be flags in the infobox should be settled here rather than by edit war.

For comparison, I went to Yugoslavia and Austria-Hungary, which have the flags. I can't think of other former countries to compare, though perhaps there are some. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess we have the rules that we should follow, don't we? Namely WP:INFOBOXFLAG and WP:XMASTREE.

As for comparison, please compare your reason with WP:OTHERSTUFF: just because some similar stuff exists doesn't necessarily mean it's legitimate, it may well deserve removal too. — Mike Novikoff 23:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not easy to discourage people from adding the flags, when the infobox template has the flag parameters. Perhaps the thing to do is to modify the infobox template? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The first big fiasco for the USSR was the landing on the moon by the Americans, when the Russians were not able to respond to the Americans in time with the same project" under the Space Program subsection sounds like it could be better without the comma and broken up into two pieces. Also, I feel like the N1 should be briefly mentioned. Jackson1953 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Compromise: Make a collage of the historical flags of the USSR. Vallee01 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Pro-Soviet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pro-Soviet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#Pro-Soviet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Was" vs. "Is a defunct"

Use of the present tense in "The Soviet Union is a defunct ... state" is simply wrong. It is not equivalent to "The Soviet Union was a ... state", because it implies that the state still exists. Indeed, the second half of the sentence uses the past tense, so now they don't match. MOS:TENSE gives comparable examples. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please edit.

In 1924 to 1953 the Soviet Union was led by a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.145.210 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of the section entitled "Stalin era (1927-1953)". Bruce leverett (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, in addition, the parameter is supposed to be used for whether it is a republic or monarchy, as given in the example at the infobox template. I suppose adding federal, constitutional, parliamentary, presidential, etc. is fine but adding authoritarian or totalitarian (the later a Cold War concept that is no longer accepted by academics) gets pointy or tedious, and is much better explained in the article. The infobox is supposed to be about key facts. Davide King (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, this has been changed again here. It is not clear what information should be in the infobox according to the parameter. Davide King (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar in "Post-Soviet states" section

In the "Post-Soviet states" section under "History", many sentences are grammatically incorrect and lack the word "the". Zyncox (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• World War II military deaths in Europe by theater and by year.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

which led to significant economic growth, but also led to a ____man-made___ famine in 1932–1933

It should be (allegedly a man-made famine), as this is disputed. StalinAlwaysBallin (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ok 2409:4042:4E84:4FB2:0:0:F78A:E813 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Add that. At the time of the collapse, the USSR occupied almost 1⁄6 of the inhabited land area of the Earth with a population of 294 million people, as well as the 2nd place in the world in terms of industrial production - 16.5% of the world volume and 7th place in the world in terms of national income (3.4%). It was formed on the territory that by 1917 was occupied by the Russian Empire without Finland, part of the Polish kingdom and some other territories. It is text adding from the russian version. Meilcont (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the USSR had the second leading economy, there is really no way to gauge its economic output since it had a closed economy, and the currency was worthless outside their borders, but when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was ranked in the 10th to 11th range, so that is probably what it was before the collapse. I do know that the USSR had to import a great portion of their food from United States, Canada and Australia (see link), so that alone would suggest Soviet was essentially a failed state, that couldn't even produce enough food. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/10/04/huge-grain-sale-to-soviet-union-approved-by-us/41b3bc1d-8f75-4ed6-98db-77556322a3d9/ RomanGrandpa (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Lysenkoism

@RomanGrandpa: You added a sentence about pseudoscience in the lead, this was reverted by another user, then restored it with a source about Lysenkoism, however where in that source is the subject referred to as "great propagaters of pseudoscience"? Did you just make that conclusion from the source? And your edit referred to pseudoscience in general, while like I said, the source is only about Lysenkoism. So can you explain this? I trust you not to edit war over this, you cannot tell me to build consensus on removing this when you just added this and it was removed by not just me. Mellk (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Visioncurve: Do you think that edit is still questionable?

You have to click the link to Bourgeois pseudoscience . Lysenkoism is just the best example.

It says... Bourgeois pseudoscience (Russian: Буржуазная лженаука) was a term of condemnation in the Soviet Union for certain scientific disciplines that were deemed unacceptable from an ideological point of view[1][2] due to their incompatibility with Marxism-Leninism. For example, genetics was not acceptable due to the role of random mutations of an individual organism in evolution, which was perceived as incompatible with the "universal laws of history" that applied to masses universally, as postulated by the Marxist ideology.[3] At various times pronounced "bourgeois pseudosciences" were: genetics,[notes 1] cybernetics, quantum physics, theory of relativity, sociology and particular directions in comparative linguistics (Japhetic theory). This attitude was most prevalent during the rule of Joseph Stalin.

The Soviet Union was actually a society based on a belief system and communistic dogma , it was not particularly a population geared toward reason nor science. They did not even believe in supply=demand....this has to be profiled in the lede....and while the USSR did make some innovations in the space race, they lacked in many other areas....especially agriculture. The Soviet Union was the largest country in the world, yet they still had to import a good proportion of their food. RomanGrandpa (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@RomanGrandpa: Everything needs to be sourced, and the sourcing needs to fully support what is written; providing links to other articles is not good enough (and WP itself is not a RS). So unless you can find RS which explicitly support what you wrote (that the Soviet Union was a "great propagator" of pseudoscience, this should not be restored. Ideally you should use the talk page to get feedback first with sources before restoring it. The other question is whether this should belong in the lead and is due weight (WP:DUE), since there is no other mention of pseudoscience or Lysenkoism in the entirety of the article. Mellk (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk.....if killing people and destroying all their scientific research , as Stalin did, in order to propagate a false narrative, isn't a "great propagator"...then honestly all arguments are lost with you, I prefer to have others weigh in. RomanGrandpa (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps make yourself more familiar with WP policies first. Mellk (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

"* 1927–1953:
Federal Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist state under a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship" should be removed for being extremely inaccurate as "stalinism" isnt a real thing and it sure wasnt totalitarian under his rule. Beanboi64 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is well cited and links to the article to explain Stalinism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I added a link to Eastern Bloc

I added a link to the Eastern Block just in case someone visits USSR article thinking of Yugoslavia/Bulgaria/East Berlin and DDR in general while confusing USSR and E.Bloc. Uchyot (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I added some info on Soviet lunar program

I added some info on Soviet Lunar program. It was comme ci, comme ca; over 50% of spacecraft failed; no attempts to launch a person were made; so it was a loss of the lead in Space Race (or Moon Race if one wishes); rather than a particular fiasco resulting a drama or tragedy. Uchyot (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

I shall please be allowed to edit this Page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.90.243 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

HDI

Do you think we should put a notice next to the USSR's 1990 value of HDI to note that the values in 1990 were calculated differently than they are now and so you shouldn't compare them with today's values. For example, in 1990 (using the provided source on page 121 of http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf) japan had an HDI of 0.996, no country has anything close to that now (because they changed how it is calculated). (also the same thing applies to the east germany article) Bwmdjeff (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

The phrase ".. Soviet forces eventually captured Berlin and won World War II in Europe on 9 May 1945. .." seems to state that the Soviet Union was the prime/only protagonist that was responsible for Germany losing WW II in the European theatre

Please clarify 2600:6C64:4F3F:D3AC:703E:6351:B2D2:9E (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

The Cold War was a war starting in 1947 to 1991 between the United States and the Soviet Union. RedCaptainAmerica (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◎ | melecie | t 07:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

there was no Cold War in 1991. Cold War ended on October 3, 1990.(started on September 3, 1945)84.54.94.144 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Biome description in first Paragraph

Are we really going to let it like this? It's not exactly correct from a scientific point of view. It seems written by a 14 years old minecraft player. --SamZane (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

got rid of it—blindlynx (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2021

Just a typo: In the "Geography" section, there is a space missing after the comma between "Czechoslovakia,Hungary" that should be added. HelloHamster (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

The USSR was a Communist State, not a Socialist State. The intellectuals and leaders of the USSR state that socialism is a tool towards communism. 207.107.138.62 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Soviet flag

Guys i am engaged in a content dispute with אברהסה בו over the Soviet Union flag. The Soviet Union changed its flag in 1980 to a lighter red, from the 1955 one. So that hence is a flag change. would you not agree? aaron106 (talk)

Can you stop with the edit war its still red. The Flag was First used in 1955. אברהסה בו (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

They changed there flag in 1980 to a lighter red. Its a Flag Change! That was their last change Not in 1955 with the dark red aaron106 (talk)

Can you provide some documentation for this claim? Preferably a link to someplace on the Web where the sequence of Soviet flags is given. Wikipedia can't just take your word for it, you know? Bruce leverett (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure you can go here https://historyplex.com/soviet-union-flag-history-meaning "In 1980, a final was made, in which the red color was changed into a lighter shade. This flag remained the official national flag till the breakup of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991" aaron106 (talk)

The final version of the Soviet flag was adopted in 1980. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) aaron106 (talk)

I understand your intentions on creating good faith edits towards this particular subject, but you have not cited any concrete sources. What you did instead was source some random YouTube video and website, both of which are not acceptable when it comes to the legality of flags. The particular Wikimedia file in question incorrectly states 1980 as the creation date and this file was created due to a misunderstanding. There are many flags on the Wikimedia Commons which are considered "unofficial" because they were either invented, altered, or depicted incorrectly. Just because a file appears on Wikimedia Commons, does not mean it is appropriate for use. When it comes to flags of any respected country, former or current, you should be citing legal documents or decrees approved by said government. The source for the flag of the Soviet Union stems from the legal document "REGULATIONS ON THE STATE FLAG OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS" approved on the 19th August, 1955 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. There was no other legal decree after 1955 which created a new flag for the USSR, this decree remained in use until the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. However, it should be noted that in 1980, an amendment was added to this law, but it did not change the legal description of the flag. Instead, it simply removed the Hammer and Sickle of the reverse side of the flag, nothing else. No where in the 1980 amendment did it state a different shade of red, the same word from the 1955 law ("красное") was still in the description. I hope this cleared up a bit of confusion. --Rustycaddy17 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You can see the use of the light shade of red in play here https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/lMWLAVLeo_RQz12hcPbTydH9haM/diocontent/137309815/_fill/1353/900/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9 with Bush and Gorbachev in 1991. They did officially change their flag in 1980 to a lighter shade of red. It is a official flag of the Soviet Union they used it until it ceased to exist in '91. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a source, flag manufacturers have historically produced flags with different materials and even designs, there also photos of the Soviet Flag in dark red colors. You have not specified any changes in the legal description of the flag. Any Soviet flag which appears differently than what is stated in law is not considered official. Rustycaddy17 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Category:Totalitarian states

Looks like my edit summary didn't parse correctly. I am adding Soviet Union to Category:Totalitarian states. This is not a change to the status quo. Category:Communist states was formerly a subcat of C:Totalitarian states, but this is no longer the case per this related discussion. I am using List of totalitarian regimes as a sort of objective way to re-sort what goes back into the parent category C:Totalitarian states. This is not a value judgement about Communism. I am just restoring the status quo. Feel free to revert, but please don't eat me. Schierbecker (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union was not a totalitarian state as there exist some kind of Democracy known as Soviet Democracy which is a form of direct Democracy where people directly elect their leader from Soviets i.e. Councils Mr. Arya Chandra (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

And they could only vote for one candidate approved by the communist party, just because you can vote does not make something democratic at all. Pyromilke (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking

@SuperSkaterDude45: Why isn't it overlinking to make a link to United States in the paragraph in question? MOS:OVERLINK says,

Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked:

...

The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:

...

countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)

Do you think that this reference to the United States is somehow an exception to that?

Earlier in MOS:OVERLINK, the general principle is enunciated: links compete for attention with each other; and if there are too many links that no one will need to click on, such as to United States, it is harder for the reader to find or to notice the links that he might want to click on. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: The reason why it isn't overlinking is that the United States is not even linked in the article at all. The specific MOS only applies to linking to more superfluous words and multiple links to the same article. And even if that's the isssue then move the linking to another body paragraph as the United States is not linked at all within the article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ussr was not socialist

socialism is when the workers control the means of production and is democratic in the ussr the workers controlled nothing and it was extremely authoritarian

No true Scotsman -Pyromilke (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

not true Person1662626271717 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"All-union" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect All-union. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 7#All-union until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaioa (T C L) 14:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was the first major accident at a civilian nuclear power plant. Unparalleled in the world, it resulted in a large number of radioactive isotopes being released into the atmosphere. Radioactive doses have scattered relatively far. 4,000 new cases of thyroid cancer were reported after the incident, but this led to a relatively low number of deaths. Looking to add this citation to data: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident Martystlouis21 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

Can I change the 1944-1991 anthem from instrumental to vocal? The file is at high risk of being deleted. SaberingSidewinder (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @SaberingSidewinder: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for taking the time to contribute. I'm afraid an edit request is for users to specifically tell other editors with sufficient permissions what exactly they want edited. Preferably, this is in X to Y format. This isn't used to request user rights. As this page is semi-protected, you will automatically gain the ability to edit this page once your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits. It appears you are already capable of editing this page, and so I've gone ahead and closed this request.

All of that said, I'm not following why the file is at high risk of deletion? The copyright status seems fine according to commons, though I do see the worrying number of countries that outlaw the file in whole. Regardless, I would alert your fellow editors here on the talk page about your concerns and discuss what the resolution should be. Whether it be changing to the vocal track, doing nothing if there is no cause for concern, or something else. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Finland hasn't been a part of Soviet Union, and it definitely wasn't part of Soviet Union until 1940.

Finland became independent in 1917. For some reason the article mentions Finland as part of the Soviet Union until 1940 at the list of former parts of Soviet Union.

Are you referring to the "Preceded by" list in the Infobox? My guess is that this refers to some territory that the Soviet Union gained from Finland as a result of the Winter War. But, I agree, this part of the infobox is confusing . Bruce leverett (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It is other countries there too, like Poland and Romania, that lost territory to USSR in WWII.--PRL Dreams (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC) sock

It says that in 1940, Parts of Finland were absorbed into the USSR (which are part of the Russian Federation today). --Havsjö (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of the preceded by list in the infobox, why are the constituent republics in there? Shouldn't we list the actual preceding entities, not things that were formed as part of teh cccp?—blindlynx (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blindlynx:The "predecessors" shows the original states which united into the USSR, followed by states which were absorbed, fully or partially, at later dates. The "successors" list shows the states which declared independnce from the USSR (some self-declared "post-Soviet states" which are not listed declared independence from other post-Soviet states and not from the USSR itself)

Typo

There should be a period after the first sentence of the second paragraph. Instead there is a comma: "The Soviet Union had its roots in the October Revolution of 1917 when the Bolsheviks, headed by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Provisional Government that had earlier replaced the house of Romanov of the Russian Empire, They established the Russian Soviet Republic, the world's first constitutionally guaranteed socialist state" Portmain (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Portmain: You should fix it --Aaron106 (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Portmain: Fixed. Next time, feel free to do it yourself. Also, I think this article can use some copy editing for style. MxWondrous (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@MxWondrous: Thanks, will do. I am a new user, so I didn't know about edit requests.

Map caption

@Sgweirdo: Could you explain what you do not like about the caption of the map in the Infobox? It looks rather conventional, i.e. it looks like analogous captions of Infobox maps for other former countries such as Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia. And, it has been there for a while. Thus, removing it altogether requires consensus. You have also attempted to edit it to be more verbose, but you have not explained why. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect HDI For the USSR

According to this page, the USSR had a HDI of 0.920, but this is fairly misleading because of how methods of calculating HDI have changed since the publication of the UNDP's report in 1990. A HDI of 0.920 would make the USSR roughly equivalent in quality of life to Israel today - despite the USSR having a life expectancy over a decade lower, and a GDP per capita of around a quarter. Thus I would suggest adding either a disclaimer, or removing this stat entirely (I have seen several people cite this page as evidence for how good it was to live in the USSR).

I've fixed this. The modern approximate of the HDI for the USSR recorded in 1990 is 0.720, taken down 0.2 points. I calculated this equivalence by comparing the HDI for the UK at the same time (0.970, citation: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf) to a study found here, which records it as 0.770 or 0.775. https://www.statista.com/statistics/876249/human-development-index-of-the-uk/ --Aubernas (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading HDI

This article currently uses a modern calculation of the Soviet Union’s HDI based on this report, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf, however, I feel that this inappropriate. There is no precedent for this, no other article which uses the same report uses a modern calculation of a former nations HDI, for example, the article for Zaire. Using a modem calculation to me specifically for this article seems to intentionally be trying to skew the perception of the reader in one direction. I think that the HDI should be reverted back to what it was on the report, but perhaps, add the ranking of the country, so that is less misleading? 69.126.201.182 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was revised to the former HDI, however, it has the same problem that caused it to be changed in the first place. There was no "very high" category in 1990, only high, so the HDI should be edited to reflect that. Again, I would like to suggest adding the ranking of the country on the report so as to avoid misleading anyone in either direction.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

the cold war wasn't really a war, but more of a spying, racing, and trying to show off the true super power! USA'S allies, would not ally the USSR, Most of Europe would not ally the ussr. thats why some of USSR'S allies were Asian nations because they would accept their alliance, some famous allies were china and Vietnam. it was kind of a war, but USA would only declare war on their allies, probably most famous to be declared war on is Vietnam The USSR did launch people to space first, but USA got a man to the moon! The USSR fell before they could even start war with Europe or USA. but if they never fell people on YouTube predicted that the USSR would of won. Both sides had plans and inventions incase they were gonna go to war, which probably would happen sooner or later! but looks like USA won the cold war The chance of USSR returning is low but NOT zero -- 04:42, 23 November 2021 67.14.231.223

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 04:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Stalin as leader in 1924

Calling Stalin the "leader" of the Soviet Union in 1924 (as is done in the listing at the top of the article) is rather misleading. He certainly was one of those who had a strong position after Lenin's death, but he was not yet overall "leader". The position of Communist Party General Secretary was not proclaimed to be the highest office in the party when it was first created (According to our article: "In 1922, the office of General Secretary [was] a purely administrative and disciplinary position, whose role was to do no more than determine party membership composition"). And Alexei Rykov seems to have held the highest government offices. It was not until 1929 that Stalin fully consolidated sole power in his own hands. I'm afraid that from 1924 until at least 1927, there was a "polycentric" competition for power in the Soviet Union, with no one overall leader. AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No reply for over a week, so changed it. AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The article later says that the Stalin era began in 1927. 1927 or 1929? I think this is hard to define, and people give different answers. General Secretary was a party administrative office. Our article General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union traces the office (under various names) back to 1917, when it was first held by Elena Stasova. It was not a position in government. It was never a position in government. Stalin didn't become officially head of government (Premier/Chairman of the Sovnarkom) until 1941. (Rykov was Premier till 1930.) Stalin was never president. Mikhail Kalinin was president. I'm not aware that General Secretary was ever proclaimed the "highest office in the party", and if it was, that still wouldn't have made Stalin the leader of the government. Because Stalin didn't officially take power and assume a particular office (until 1941), it is hard to pinpoint when he became leader. When "Stalin fully consolidated sole power in his own hands" is really a matter of opinion. What happened in 1927 or 1929 to make Stalin leader? Unfortunately, due to the nature of Wikipedia, we are pushed to nominate a date. I also note that in 1953 we list Malenkov as leader (because he was Premier after Stalin's death), even though he had certainly not consolidated power. He was in a similar position to Rykov. I don't really agree with the phrase "'polycentric' competition for power". A lot of people were content with a collective leadership. I don't think many people expected Stalin to take over. It wasn't a given that anyone would become sole leader. I'm not sure that "no single leader" is the best phrase to use. Rykov was Premier, so there wasn't a leadership vacuum in that sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not too strongly object to 1928 or even 1927 (though 1929 was when his power became fully consolidated, and many in the Soviet Union outside the party became aware that Stalin was now the sole leader), but 1924 clearly seems to be wrong... Nothing happened in 1929 with respect to Stalin being given new formal titles, but more or less starting in 1929 no-one could hold any position if Stalin didn't want him in that position, and there was no longer any opposition to his rule that had any significance in the Soviet system, and no meaningful independent power centers. (Issac Deutscher on 1929: "Stalin's ascendancy was now complete. The contest for power was at an end. All his rivals had been eliminated. None of the members of the Politbureau would dream of challenging his authority.") Stalin was given a state title in 1941 because Party titles had no weight in formal international diplomacy. (Stalin had many defects, but a desire to accumulate grandiose-sounding titles was not one of them.) Malenkov in 1953 may have been unsteady on the throne, but he held the highest positions in the system -- which was not the case for Stalin in 1924. AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Deutscher actually met Stalin (or close to it), so he ought to know. But perhaps we could use circa.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the serious Stalin public cult of personality apparently started to set in when Stalin received numerous widely-reported messages of congratulation for his 50th birthday, which according to him was in 1929.

I have no problem with recognizing a blurry boundary with "circa", but "ca. 1929" wouldn't work. What's needed is an expression which conveys "maybe a year or two earlier than 1929, but not later than 1929". I didn't think of anything short and snappy with that meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Ukraine

@A.h. king: Timeline of national flags says that the flag of Ukraine changed (change in dimensions) around 1991 to 1992. I don't know what source that article is using (there are sources but not inline citations). What is your source for the claim that the flag has not changed since independence? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Moscow is largest city

@Izzet sabrie: Before posting a notice to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I am obliged to make an attempt to remonstrate with you about your bogus edits on this talk page.

Moscow was the largest city of the Soviet Union. I do not think it should be necessary to cite a source for this. I should ask if you have some source that claims that Moscow was not the largest city.

If you have no source, I ask that you desist from edit-warring in this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izzet sabrie: Dude, I'm not sure if you're aware or you simply don't care, but you're THIS close to being banned. I logged in here for the first time in years specifically to tell you how infuriating your edits are. I don't understand why you're so insistent on claiming that Alma-Ata is the largest city in the former Soviet Union (not to forget Yekaterinburg as the largest city in modern Russia) when this is clearly and abundantly NOT the case.

Are you aware how citations work? (Good luck anyway finding a credible source for Alma-Ata being the largest city in the USSR.) Are you aware how talk pages work? Seems like you don't since you wholesale blanked out this entire section when people called you out on your disruptive editing. And finally, judging by your scarcely legible comments and insults thrown at other users on the edit summaries, do you even have any proper grasp of English?

I note Bruce leverett has reported you to the admins for edit warring. Again, I'm not even sure if you're aware what this means. You've posted no proper responses either here or on your own user talk page, where other editors have likewise warned you about your persistent vandalism.

Stop. Now. Be a productive user and add value to the encyclopaedia. Otherwise, we'll be more than happy to kick out yet another vandal out of the building. Argentsky (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

...And he's blocked. Tried to warn you, buddy. 🤷🏿‍♂️ Argentsky (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: I believe there was a previous person who changed the largest city of the Soviet Union from Moscow to Saint Petersburg, but that appears to have been fixed. Karl Malone the Mailman (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The World War II section under "Foreign relations" is a mess

"Up until his death in 1953, Joseph Stalin controlled all foreign relations of the Soviet Union during the interwar period." This is not specific to his policies in the Second World War. "As for ideological goals, the Soviets regarded moderate socialists as its most hated enemies, but eventually co-operated with them during the Spanish Civil War." This is also ridiculous, as the Spanish Civil War ended before World War 2. This section needs a major cleanup. Fijipedia (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The limited detente with socialists was the Popular front of 1934 (though it didn't much restrain the NKVD in Spain during some of the later phases of the Spanish Civil War). After Barbarossa, in WW2, there was a military alliance with "capitalist" Western powers against Fascism. In between, of course, was the Hitler-Stalin Pact (technically Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit required

Under Space Program, this sentence appears "He once flew around the Earth and successfully landed in the Kazakh steppe."

That should be changed to "He flew once around the Earth and successfully landed in the Kazakh steppe."

I would change it, but there is not "edit" button — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.155.18 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

UdSSR

In the "Etymology" section, where it says "UdSSR in German", please insert "(Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken)" by way of explanation. I saw the abbreviation somewhere, and had to look it up in the German wikipedia. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea -- if I saw the letters "UdSSR" in isolation (with no context), I would have guessed the Udmurt ASSR... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Unrecognized successors

An edit war is starting over the "Succeeded by" list in the infobox. One editor wants to include Transnistria and Chechnya in the list, though they are generally unrecognized. What about South Ossetia, Artsakh, and Abkhazia? Has this question been the subject of earlier discussions in this talk page (or elsewhere)? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The only entities which had a legal right to secede from the USSR according to the Constitution of the USSR were the Union Republics. If something was not a full SSR in the Soviet Union, then it would seem that it seceded from something which seceded from the USSR, rather than directly seceding from the USSR itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

a couple of passing comments

1. There's some more info at Dissolution of the Soviet Union#Fall: August to December and, probably, Belovezh Accords.
2. Secession and Succession differ.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

But Chechnya has been included. Should we remove Chechnya (as per AnonMoos's comment, it wasn't an SSR to fully break away) or should we include Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Gagauzia, and Tatarstan? Scratchinghead (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)