Talk:Red Army/Archive 2

message: He also informed German officials that to make Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany' 
Why the article presumes what Molotov said to Nazis is true, and what he said to British is lie? What do you expect Molotov should say to Nazis? That the USSR wants to save Polish Jews?--Nixer 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molotov's Words to Nazis 

message: Please stop inserting this delirium.--Nixer 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish September Campaign is most definietly a part of IIWW. And on a side note, it is a FA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish and Finnish cabmpaigns are not parts of WWII 

message: This revisionist tripe needs to put to an end. I vote Yes to putting Nixer's campaign to bed. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Open any schoolbook and read when the USSR entered WW2. And please cease useng the term "revisionism" while the only revisionist here is you.--Nixer 05:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we simply need to explain in the article what and why is considered part of WWII. Relying solely on common sense, we would not need the encyclopaedia in the first place. I just added a write-up on this. Number 6 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For all that matters: Polish/Finnish campaigns were part of WW2... Dietwald 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Its delirium, not common sence. Filand and the USSR were both neutral to Germany and Britain/France. Yes, Continuation War was a part of WWII, but not the Winter War. Otherwise you should conclude the WWI was started by the USSR, not by Germany. Please stop inserting revisionism and propaganda.--Nixer 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was not part of WWII, I fully agree. And Italian intervence in Ethyopia also was not part of WWII. With Finnish canpaign the situation is much simplier. The both conflicting countries were neutral to the participants of WWII (Germany, Britain and France). Please do not support the revisionism unless you're sure.--Nixer 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only revisionist here is you. The very argument you’re invoking is absurd: neutrality to Germany, Britain and France. That was a WORLD war, not a limited war of the three countries. But even if we take your argument, Poland certainly was NOT neutral to Germany, Britain and France, so at least one party in the Polish Campaign was an active participant of WWII, which makes the other party also a participant of WWII. And then this participant engages in a war with Finland, thereby making this conflict also part of WWII. And this follows just from your silly argument, in reality it was far more complex: the action of the USSR in Finland gave Britain and France a wonderful pretext for an expedition there, with the actual goal of severing the German ore supplies, which in turn forced Germany to occupy Denmark and Norway, upon which all the hell broke lose between Britain and Germany, for the first time after 1-Sep-1939. This does not mean that the USSR was directly responsible for WWII because of the Polish and Finnish campaigns, but ignoring all this and talking about “neutrality” is beyond revisionism, it is sheer ignorance. Number 6 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The politics about Filand is not comnnected to the status of the USSR. There were many different events that influenced the WWII. I do not say it was inrelated to WWII because all politics interconnected. But any official soure will say you the USSR entered the WWII 22 June 1941. Saying otherwise is pure revisionism.--Nixer 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wishes cannot change the fact. If you dont like the official Soviet version (I can give you a quote from the Soviet Encyclopedia), give any other official source - US, British, CIA etc, but not German and Polish. Your brains washed with Cold War propaganda, but cite an official source - and I then agree that the matter is contraversal.--Nixer 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are a liar, Nixer. In the large article on WWII in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, 3rd edition, 22-Jun-1941 is not said to be the day when the USSR entered WWII, it is said to be the day when the Great Patriotic War began, as a “second period” of WWII. Moreover, that same article mentions the Polish and Finnish campaigns, just like this wiki-article does. Number 6 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are citations from the Lessier Soviet Encyclopedia: "Решающим фактором, определившим превращнение в.м.в. со стороны противников Германии в освободительную, справедливую войну, явилось вступление в неё Советского Союза, подвергшегося вероломному нападению гитлеровской Германии", "В ходе событий всё более сказывалось значение борьбы народов против порабощения. Освободительная борьба народов против Германии и других фашистских государств, возникшая с самого начала в.м.в., усилилась со второй половины 1940, изменяя характер войны. (...) Однако решающим фактором, превратившим в.м.в. освободительную и антифашистскую, явилось вступление в войну Советского Союза, обусловленное нападением гитлеровской Германии на СССР" Translation: "As things were going, the significance of struggle of peoples against enslaving was growing. Liberating struggle of peoples against Germany and other fascist states, existed from the very beginning of the WWII, intensified from the second half of 1940, changing the character of the war. (...) But the crucial factor that transformed the war into liberating and anti-fascist was entering of the USSR into the war, triggered by the German invasion in the USSR".--Nixer 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for Vote -- Put an end to the assertion that the Polish/Finnish campaigns were not part of World War II 

message: A few basic facts.
Poland did want and did try to create a state from sea to sea.
Poland did occupy Western Ukraine and Byelorussia.
The Red Army did liberate these occupied lands.
All the attempts by Piotrus and the other Polish editors (where the nationality could be identified) so far have been to remove each and every of the facts above and present the case as if the Red Army had attacked Poland for no reason at all. This is disgusting. Number 6 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Number 6 ((, no talk page, history of edits limited to reverts in a single artice), I will give you the benefit of the doubt and address your points. 1) Międzymorze is rather irrelevant to Polish September Campaign (it is not even mentioned in that FA level article). 2) And Soviet Union occupied the Eastern Ukraine and Byelorussia. So what? 3) From frying pan into the fire, perhaps. I recommend reading the well referenced Treatment of the Polish citizens by the occupants#Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation for information about that 'liberation'. Although Ukrainian and Byelorussian populations welcomed Soviet at first, their enthusiasm soon faded (as visible in their support for the Germans in the opening stages of the Blitzkrieg). Reading Gross' Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia, (Princeton University Press, 2002, ) and other references listed in that article should explain to you why using 'liberation' in this content is good only for Great Soviet Encyclopedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, and your history of edits is limited to reverts in a kazillion of articles. And you just completed 3 reverts in one article in 24 hours. Oops. Anyway. (1) The reason Międzymorze is not mentioned in the referenced article is the same reason you keep removing it from this article – the fantastic bias of the likes of yours. (2) I notice how you avoided discussing the fact that Poland annexed the lands in question just twenty years ago. One has to be biased or genuinely stupid to be unable to grasp that a military conflict cannot be presented without any relevant historic background. (3) Rather pointless, the article is about the Red Army, not about the USSR in general. Number 6 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll let my history speak for itself, and don't expect me to feed you any more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I politely disagree with the assertion that being occupied by Soviet forces was "out of the pan, into the fire" for Ukraine and Byelorussia. You see, the Soviet Union allows some degree of sovereignty to each individual state. Ukraine and Byelorussia were popularly supportive of Soviet efforts, and very small portions of these territories deliberately attempted physical resistance to Soviet... Occupation? No.  Assimilation. Byellorussia and Ukraine were willing, to some degree eager to become republics within the union. That is my opinion, as a historian of Soviet military and intelligence activities. If these so-called "occupations" were the invasive attacks that this word implies them to be, it would be evident from historical record. MVMosin 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Revisionism 

message: That featured article almost completely overlaps this one.  Should they be merged? Balcer 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly Red Army deserves it's own article. But it is true that currently this article has too much history and too little info on organization, tactics and equipment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it to be of note that the pre-1776 Continental Army of the United States has its own article, with a seperate article given to the current entity of the US Army. Why can't the same be done here? Within Soviet history, the term Red Army is used for revolutionary armies of Communism. In the context of the Tsarist revolution, the Red Army was no longer an existing entity after the first development of the Soviet Union--that is, 30 December 1922. [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MVMosin (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Military history of the Soviet Union]]

message: I think even though this may be a fact, it puts an unpleasant spin on the whole issue. The Soviet Army certainly killed a lot of Poles as a result of the 1939 invasion. It may have contributed to the saving of some Polish Jews, but is that material? The German invasion of the USSR certainly helped to save the lives of some people there... say... anti-communists. Would it really be sensible to include that into an article on Operation Barbarossa in THIS manner? I oppose this entry in this manner. Was there an active policy of saving Jews? if so, then put it in. If not, leave it out. Accidental, immetarial positive effects should not be ascribed w/o proper qualification to a criminal act. Dietwald 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was the policy to save the local population from Nazis. It was the official reason for the invasion.--Nixer 07:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't and Molotov said it was only a pretext in easly obtained diplomatic documents. He said NOTHING about Jews. In fact Jews were the second largest group of people subjecto to imprisonment and deporations. Also they were deported to Germany as a result of NKVD-Gestapo cooperation.
--Molobo 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this article has the room for us to go into the details of the 'official reason' and M-R Pact. But certainly if the fragment about 'saving the Jews' is to remain, we should link the Treatment_of_the_Polish_citizens_by_the_occupants#Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_under_Soviet_occupation article, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They were saved were they not? If the germans would have gotten their hands on them they would most likely all have been worked to death or just exterminated. (Deng 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is speculation, but you are probably right. As I said, if this information is added, then certainly the well documented events from the 'Treatment...' article I listed above should be summarized as well, as they were certainly a direct consequence of the Red Army's invasion of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on Footnote 12, it is interesting to note that in this context, 'saving the Jews' means 'send most of them to Siberia'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Give sources that many or any for that fact were deported (Deng 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the source I cite above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Army saving Jews as a Result of Invasion of Poland in 1939 

message: According to the Soviet Constitution all citizens had a honorary duty to serve in the Army if needed, but in reality only males were conscripted (even during the world wars). The only exceptions were females who get military training at their Universities as Medical Doctors (graduates of all medical school) or Military Translators (graduates of language schools). During world wars there were a number of female volunteers in the Army but they were volunteers). abakharev 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so women were not conscripted 2 years as Vess claims it was the case. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in Red Army 

message: Unless anyone objects, I will split this page to set up a page on the Soviet armed forces as a whole, or the 'Military of the Soviet Union'. Any comments/thoughts/disagreement
Cheers
Buckshot06 07:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Page to set up page on Soviet Armed Forces

message: Since nobody else seems willing to begin discussion, I will do it. What exactly is wrong with these informational templates that makes a few editors insist on deleting them from the article? Please discuss your reasonings and the problems you have with the templates here and perhaps we can reach some kind of common ground. TheQuandry 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. Mr.TheQuandry, you're either lying or mistaken telling that "nobody else seems willing to begin discussion". See Talk:Red Army#POV-table for reference. It was AlexPU who suggested neutralization, then he started revert war, then I suggested compromise one more time (receiving no understanding but a trollish respond from GrafikM). Finally, I joined the revert warring, and I'm going to keep it until the controversial navbox stops appearing on the page.Ukrained 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO these templates are simply ignorant. E.g., druzhina or streltsy were not "armies", but the overall idea makes sense. `'mikka 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can discuss the content of these templates then. And the templates' talk pages is the place for them. It's certain uders' endless revert warring to remove them is what's bugging. --Irpen 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armies of Russie/Ukraine templates 

message: Now we get it again. Piotrus, will you ever stop this polonocentric WP:TE. This is being done by you left and right to articles whose topics range from culture to geography to biographies to history. Now, the red army. This is not the article about the military campaign. This is not the article about OUN. This is not one of other "Massacres..." article. This is not a "History of..." article. This is an article about the military organization. What does the rizing of OUN against Poles have to do with the red army? Again the long-chain logic? The campaign was the Red Amry campaign, it provoked the uprising, hense the uprising material must be not only in the uprising article AND campaign article (Invasion of Poland) but the article, third in the chain. It took me half a year to convince you to not reinsert OT stuff to Russian Enlightenment. I still have to deal with your OT additions to Soviet partisans and Polonization. You are making this all so difficult to others by carrying the same campaign to the next one. Please give it a break. --Irpen 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, the same problem often arises in bios of presidents, monarchs, etc., which simply retell the history of the corresponding country during the rule of the particular ruler. Such things must be recognized and dealt with, but without particular panic.  `'mikka 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support the idea. But it would be a pity if the valid referenced content is just lost. We should take an effort to integrate it into other articles and by integrating, I don't mean mere pasting disrupting the text flow. If the author of the purged parts is still around, we can reasonably hope that he will take care of it. If not, I think the purger should take this effort. Just my opinion. --Irpen 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *: You are right, but I doubt anything useful is here, These topics (wars with poland, finland, japan) are quite extensively covered by respective nations, who very love red army. `'mikka 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mikkalai :Please stop your "slimming" attempts. Please read the rule "wikipedia is not paper". A distinctive feature of wikipedia is that you can find here things you can find nowhere else. Where have I read that before? TheQuandry 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not paper does not mean an individual article can bloat indefinitely with information not directly relevant to the scope of the article. Not only a huge article is a pain to read, but it also means that certain subjects are covered twice or more in several places, greatly complicating the editing. Consequently, it is important to maintain an accurate scope in each article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't have said it better myself. Anyway, I was kind of being a jerk there and talking about something from another article, so I'll stop before it truns into a row. TheQuandry 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't quite sure you see the difference between the two cases: in your case you were deleting information whic was nowhere else in wikipedia. On the other hand I am deleting unnecessary repetition of information. Since you are new, I would like to recommend you to read about the bads of Wikipedia:Content forking, the most serious problem being difficulty to maintain descriptions of the same things in several places in sync. `'mikka 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: History of the Red Army is in Military history of the Soviet Union. `'mikka 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, in other words, yet again we see the same old story: presenting the Red Army in good light is good, mentioning rape, plunder and slaughter of civilians is bad. Why? Because... There are references there? Not a problem, Irpen will delete them too... //Halibutt 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are, exactly the same dispute (with similar arguments!) has been going on in German wikipedia. Are we facing co-ordinated efforts by some Neo-Stalinist whitewashers? Constanz - Talk 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words Halibutt cannot miss an occasion to bite a Russian ass. You have to either change your name to user:Piranha02 or to stick to article content discussion. What exaclty is your suggestion to improve the article, please? `'mikka 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First, Piotrus not only added it, but also removed the 'people welcoming Red Army with flowers, bread and salt' part, straight from Soviet Propaganda 101. Second, if you want to present how locals reacted to Red Army, either give a full picture - which includes, indeed, some people welcoming it, others fleeing, others taking this a chance to 'right some wrongs', ect. - or don't do it at all. You cannot have the just the Soviet propaganda version, I am afraid. And based on the sources I have read, the actions like OUNs massacress were much more prominent than 'welcoming Soviet liberators with bread and salt'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just mention your source is Soviet propaganda and the case is clear. We can discuss institutional problems of the Red Army or things like mass rape/killing/robbing/desertion if there are sources and in case therre are disputes we mentio what kind of sources make what statemets. And Zhukov's campaign in Mongolia is important because it shaped the thinking of later officers. Wandalstouring 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturating articles with irrelevant stuff to dilute the valid content

message: I read in the German article that the Red Army existed from 1918 until 1946. If someone can confirm this all afterwards would be Soviet Army. Wandalstouring 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Its in the first paragraph; from 1946 it was the Soviet Army. Buckshot06 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I misunderstand sth., but the intro doesn't clearly says that the Red Army existed from 1918 till 1946 and was succeded by the Soviet Army. Could you change this? A clear and correct definition certainly improves every article.Wandalstouring 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeframe 

message: For some reason, in some pictures or video clips of Soviet army vehicles, the vehicles are painted with an unusual paint job. An example of one of these can be seen in this image:
My best guess is that these were parade vehicles, but does anyone have any concrete idea about these? Sgt. Bond 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The badge on the door appears to be a standard Russian Guards insignia.Buckshot06 11:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the "unusual paint" that Sgt Bond was referring to? That is indeed what the symbol is; I don't see what about it is "unusual." Sgt Bond, could you clarify?MVMosin 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was referring to the way this truck was painted. I've seen clips of Soviet military parades where the vehicles are painted in those same colors & with that same logo. And Buckshot 06 is right about the organization, because the logo on the truck says "ГВАРДИЯ - СССР" (literal transliteration: "GVARDIYA - SSSR") on it. I figured this out because I have a decal of this logo from a Russian army truck kit, which I closely inspected. Take a look for yourself in the following image (the logo in question is in the top left corner): http://www.internetmodeler.com/1999/november/first-looks/icm_ural4320-decals-lg.jpg Sgt. Bond 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paint Job

message: The argument was challenged at its original location. Bah.
# You mentioned that it became the Soviet Army in 1922. Then, you seem to directly contradict this by saying that the Red Army became the Soviet Army (Again) in 1946. Note that I say seem to. You did mention the word "officially," but remember that most people don't know as much about this as you do, and will need further information. Go back, and make the distinction between these two events clear to someone that is unfamiliar with the subject. The word "officially" doesn't cut it. Remember that this is the English WP, and a lot of people that will/have see/n this article won't know a thing about the way Soviet bureacracy works, and so they will have a hard time picking up that subtext. 
# Then, immediately after this, you imply that the Red Army existed throughout the USSR's lifetime, which directly contradicts the previous statements. Both of them. This doesn't really belong in an article about the Red Army... This should be taken out, and put in a seperate article for the Soviet Army.
# You mentioned the significance of the colour red. You neglected to mention, though, that red also became the de facto official colour of the international communist movement. 
# You failed to bring the needed attention to the fact that the name "Red Army" carries a tremendous meaning which "Soviet Army" does not. While they are both, in the context of the USSR, essentially "defenders of the proletariatic revolution," as per the national ideals, it is of critical importance that the Red Army consists of volunteer soldiers fighting for these ideals out of their own faith in them, be it a faith in their morality or effectiveness or both. The Soviet Army fights to defend the United Soviet Socialist Republics and her interests, and fights in the name of her ideals simply because they are her ideals. 
The reader needs to be aware that a Red Army soldier is fighting for the revolution whereas a Soviet Army soldier fights for the country. To put it simply, a Red Army soldier is fighting for the Bolshevik party, which is seperate from the country. The name "Soviet Army" does not carry (At least, not rightfully so) any political implications aside from patriotism in regards to an individual soldier, in the case that he is a citizen of the country.
It is also of note that although in the Red Army, commissars were essentially officers with total control over their subordinates, while in the Soviet Army, if they did not carry military rank in addition to their rank in the Communist Party then they carried no authority within the military ranks. All that they had the power to do was to perform administrative duties in place of a willing officer or suggest courses of action to officers within the Communist Party, who in turn gave suggestions to officials in the government, who passed them to military officials, similar to the Yankees' "Joint Chiefs" and they then hand them down through the chain of command. The mythical horseshoe bureacracy. 
The Soviet government (and, therefore, Soviet military) had a relationship with the Communist Party which could be loosely compared to that between the Monarchs and the church in Medieval England, except that this relationship was deliberate from the birth of the country, and was also endorsed by the state, rather than by fear of becoming a pariah. The resulting balance of power was all very complicated, and is similar to the manner in which many former Soviet republics now have a Prime Minister and President. MVMosin 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the above argument was first raised at Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29#Utter_falsehoods_of_historic_and_political_nature, and there are some replies to it there; it was suggested to move and continue the discussion here as naming of the Red/Soviet army is a wider issue.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is my argument(In response to prior arguments at previous location). The Red Army became the Soviet Army much earlier than 1946. The 1922 year is much more accurate, and the logic behind it is simple; it was at or near this point in time that Bolshevist Russia began to change into the United Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus, even if the soldiers themselves were (As many, many must have been) Bolshevist themselves, they represented more than that. They were no longer fighting only for a revolution; they were fighting for their freedom to carry out that revolution.  In short, they were, at that point, defending the country that chose to harbour the ideals, rather than fighting for those ideals themselves. 
As for the 1946 date? Well, the war with the Wehrmaecht had ended. Do you understand how Soviet legislature operates? Dear God, it's one of the most beastly monstrosities of a bureacracy I've ever seen, and I've been to a US post office. And, once, their Department of Motor Vehicles, just to see if it was really that bad.
Well, they handed out licenses faster than Soviet office-holders get through their "preparatory debate and discussion." The young country was not prepared for a war. She certainly was not prepared to have a domestic body of legislature try to operate during a war, and she most definately was not ready for either or both of those under Stalin's rule.
But, the efficiency of Soviet legislature is not the definitive in this argument. My argument is that the Red Army became the Soviet Army when they started fighting for the interests and decrees of the Soviets themselves and the Soviet Union rather than fighting purely for Bolshevism, regardless of when legislature began to reflect this. I think Buckshot will agree, judging from the article's say on this, badly written as it is. 
I understand the idea behind siding with legislature on the principle that to choose which laws to follow defeats the purpose of law. But, this was about defining the military struggles of millions of young men and women, some of whom did not believe in Bolshevism but loved their country all the same. To honour them, we do not have to ignore the "official" ruling, but what we can do is apply it retroactively.MVMosin 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After the revolution in Russia there was a believe that they should support other revolutions abroad, like China or the republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Wandalstouring 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Supporting" does not mean "raising a specialised volunteer army and fighting for." MVMosin 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest that mentioning something like the changes within the NKVD (later "Stalin's organization") and the fate of Trotzky(important organiser of the Red Army) to give more political background. Wandalstouring 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaguely worded statements may be contrary to facts without clarification 

message: I have no more patience for this nonsense. Ukrained, the next time you blindly revert this article, I will report you for disruption. You know the rules on gaining consensus and discussing your edits before making them perfectly well and you're deliberately disregarding them. TheQuandry 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be threatening me. And I know one strict rule of consensus: if one or more editors disagree and provide reasons, no consensus is present. It's that simple. However, I'm getting used to a situation where some users misinterprete WP rules on a daily basis. By the way, Mr.TheQuandry, I wonder how do you "know" what do I know :)) because I'm not very aguainted with you on WP. Afraid even thinking about what did you mean by "knowing me". Thank you, Ukrained 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this Armies of Ukraine/Armies of Russia in-out business is ridiculous. Please come up with a solution between yourselves - a disclaimer on the table, perhaps - and only come back after you've figured it out. Buckshot06 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the lighter side, there's always the prospect of making WP:LAME --Nick Dowling 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask for an explanation concerning the Ukrainian military issue? What sort of dispute is there? Many brave Ukrainian men gave their lives amongst their Soviet brethren in The Great Patriotic War. Is this actually being disputed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MVMosin (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warring 

message: :Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg

message: Ńot true, Ryszard Kukliński informed about Soviet plans.Xx236 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  whose massive scale was only discovered  

message: The article doesn't quote any name of a victim. Xx236 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purges 

message: This article doesn't describe the treatment of POWs by the Red Army and the fate of Soviet POWs after the war. Both were quite specific.Xx236 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POW 

message: I'm not terribly sure if this is something that should or could be included in the article, but certainly an interesting piece of information: 
Abandonedhero 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacteriophages used by Red Army 

message: According to one source (Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century pp. 251 & 253), the Soviet arms industry produced 526,600 guns and mortars, plus 109,100 tanks and SP guns in the war against Nazi Germany, and according to another source (not handy right now) they produced something like 5,000 guns and mortars in the entire Civil War. So the indigenous arms industry was on a different scale than before. Jacob Haller 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous arms industry

message: Please propose them here and state your arguments at the talk page before moving articles single-handedly, especially the high profile ones. --Irpen 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we leave it as it is until there is enough structural material available - organisation, personnel, zampolity, doctrine, military industry etc - to split the pages. Please go ahead and fill these sections out... Buckshot06 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany - please expand, it's millions of deaths. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  started article on the extermination of the Soviet POWs 

message: Reposted from the article; I don't know the answer: How many people were in the red army in 1918?
Buckshot06 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On formation, one Corps-worth (if that)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: In the German military dead, he includes those missing in action and unaccounted for after the war. He writes “It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the missing were killed in action, the other half however in fact died in Soviet custody”, the numbers are therefore approximately 1.8 million too high. EriFr (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rűdiger Overmans and Axis military dead 

message: I noticed a few of the references include only the author, published year and page number(s). The titles in these are utterly absent. I can hazard a guess that Zaloga refers to Stephen J. Zaloga and Odom to William E. Odom, but the titles are still lost on me (both have authored a multitude of books). If they're from the same book as one previously referenced, they should really be using the ref name="X" tag, or at least a pp note. It makes it very hard to use Wikipedia as a secondary or tertiary source. Octane [improve me?]  19.02.09 0228 (UTC)
:'Zaloga 1984' is referred to in the bibliography ('References'), and 'Odom 1998's title is used at least three times and mentioned in the References as well - 'The Collapse of the Soviet Army'. Does that clear up your question adequately? Buckshot06(prof) 11:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor references 

message: The article needs to make absolutely clear that the Soviet Army of 1991 has to be considered along with its contemporaries, i.e. in terms of comparison with the USA, funding etc. The revolutionary-era Red Army existed for different reasons (the events of 1917 etc.) Sure, the Soviet Army claims descent from the revolutionaries, but to say that they are the same in terms of their work is not correct.
This is a concern repeatedly raised elsewhere on this talk page. 118.90.87.96 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps change the Soviet Army page from a redirect, to an article about the Soviet Army from 1946 onward? Hohum (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect others have tried to do something along those lines (by making a distinction between the historical Red Army and the army of the USSR of the 1980s/1990s, for example see "Vaguely worded statements may be contrary to facts without clarification" above). Events before 1945 take up most of the article—"Afghanistan" is mentioned only three times on this page! However other editors insist on painting the article in their own colours (e.g. trying to tie Stalin-era atrocities to this article). To actually get an article up on the state of the Soviet Army in 1991 would require a totally blank slate. 118.90.87.96 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know the subject, and have adequate references; do it yourself. Haranguing on the talk page isn't likely to achieve much by itself. Hohum (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated terminology/innacurate 

message: Would people thinking this page should be split between Red Army (1917-1946) and Soviet Army (1946-91) please indicate what they think:
Yes:
# 118.90.85.8 (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: Southern Group of Forces states the formation disbanded in 1947 and was not recreated until 1956. In that case, what was the official name of the Red Army forces in Romania that stayed there until 1957 according to Soviet occupation of Romania? Btw, I will translate article on Northern Group of Forces (that existed in Poland until 1993) from pl wiki shortly, feel free to expand and link to Soviet forces in Poland stub I just created.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the formation

message: Why attack to Poland and Winter war are under title "Great patriotic war"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.29.138 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack to Poland and Winter war was not part of Great patriotic war 

message: The presented here is fictional; the Red Army had no flag. Its units did have regiment banners — red flags with soviet symbols (star and/or hammer and sickle) and names of the units ("158th tank regiment" etc.). The "Red Army flag" pictured here is a "generic" regiment banner without any name on it, such "flags" were commonly depicted on postcard, posters etc. Hellerick (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, needs 2 be changed and replaced with hammer and sickle. Chocokake5057 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm revoing it now. Source флажные мистификации - vexillographia.ru --Kmaster (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Didn't Stalin disestablish the Red Army at some point, replacing it with the Soviet Army? When? Why? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disestablishment?

message: My Friends,
The paragraph at the end of the article entitled as "Warcrimes" is poorly referenced, and is shadowing Red-army in extremely negetive light. Please neutralize its wordings. 
Secondly russian references(especially a letter by Stalin) is highly misinterpreted. The charges of rape in abscence of any staunch source are highly controversial and seems like POV pushing. Please remove such kind of Personal Vandalized attacks.They are downgrading the quality of article
-Viplovecomm (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the first two paragraphs of the section describe crimes perpetrated by the NKVD, which was not part of the Red Army. Suggest removal as an obvious coatrack. The rest of the section needs references to the corresponding tribunals that have designated the described actions as war crimes. The section is already duplicated word for word in Soviet war crimes#The Red Army and the NKVD anyway. --illythr (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also noted the dubious coatracking. Section removed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes 

message: How come that the total Axis losses cited in this article by far surpasses the total, all fronts included, European Axis losses cited in the article World War II casualties? 
The cause seemes to be a gross misintpretation of Overmans figures. Overmans includes the number of German MIA in the number of German KIA, with the note "It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the missing were killed in action, the other half however in fact died in Soviet custody", but in this article, the numbers are written separately and added to each other, which fabricates German losses 1,800,000 too high.79.136.63.144 (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: German losses

message: An image used in this article, File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TrotskySlayingtheDragon1918.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Is this article been edited by english speaking russian? Many russians don't believe anything else than the glorious soviet version of the Red Army. One tip: NEVER trust russian studies who are buildt on "facts" from soviet archives or soviet history writing, because the soviet fundament will most likely be wrong. Officers reported false with purpose from the battlefield to avoid punishment, Soviet authorities falsified archive material for political purposes after the war etc, etc. 
I especially react on this sentence quoted from an russian "study": "300,000 of 3 million German POWs died in Soviet hands". 
This is totally wrong, many more than 10 percent died in the brutal Soviet hands. How can you explain that 94 percent of whole german 6. armee in Stalingrad never come back from captivity? And what about all the SS personell who went trough ridiculos trials, victims of the strange russian logic, and where sentenced to many years in Siberia? They did not come back either. The "study" this article is reffering to is just another case who builds up around the lies of the violent and drunk rapist army.  --Jarao 18:48, 29 July 2009
If you require facts, please provide those yourself as well instead of resorting to fallacies. Phrases like "I am sure" and "I believe" do not belong here. Just because you don't trust Russian sources doesn't mean that they are exclusively lies.
By the sound of it you are familiar with Red Army through computer games and information for kids on the backs of cereal boxes...
: About "94 percent of whole german 6. armee in Stalingrad never come back from captivity": it is well-known that (1)most soldiers of 6th army starved in Stalingrad pocket, and (2)soviet intelligence made a big mistake about number of troops inside the pocket. Hence after capitulation there were many half-died from starving german soldiers without food far from soviet supply lines. Advancing soviet troops simpply didn't have enough food for them. Many germans POW from Stalingrad died in snow steppes before they could be transported to soviet railway stations and removed from front zone to the POW camps. So, no any "brutal Soviet hands" - a la guerre comme a la guerre.  Slb nsk (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not very trustful article