Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991)

message: Maybe you should mention the official date and the meeting of the three leaders Yeltsin (Russia), Kravchuk (Ukraine) and Shushkevich (Belarus) in the Bielaviezha forest (Belarus) and them signing the agreement that USSR ceases to exist. rydel 17:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article is not informative, in that it is written with a pronounced bias and opinionation as seen in American cold war propaganda. That is hardly in line with Wikipedia's policy, at least as I understand it - unless of course, Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for US propaganda, which I don't think it is. It should be flagged as disputed, until someone re-edits it properly. Meanwhile devilish ruses such as the "righteous" American propaganda, churned out especially during the Ronald Reagan years and by the Reader's Digest don't hold water anymore - not at least for properly informed people. It is far too late in the day for such deceptions to work anymore... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.30.129 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naked Bias

message: :::: You should say what exactly is wrong here in your opinion. Just saying that it's "biased" and "propaganda" is just bla bla until you point to specific statements that you believe to be biased. So far -- I've browsed the article and it seems good to me. Lebatsnok 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the night of July 31, 1991 Russian OMON from Riga, the Soviet military headquarters in the Baltics, assaulted the Lithuanian border post in Medininkai and killed seven Lithuanian servicemen. This further weakened the Soviet Union's position, internationally and domestically. Here is the bias. First of all the Lithuanian "border posts" were illegal. The article fails to mention that. Plus that part of the article is not even logical. It implies that the majority of Soviet population supported Lithuanian secession. Where's the evidence of that? In the article about the American Civil War it doesn't say "President Lincoln's decision to use force against the seceding Southern States weakened the U.S. position internationally and domestically". So what's the deal here?--Auspx (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't be still mention more about the Baltics? Although Gorbachev was much democratic and competent than past leaders, things such as https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/while-rest-eu-mourns-baltics-recall-gorbachev-agent-repression-2022-08-31/ happened 2603:6011:9600:52C0:44ED:76A4:97AA:A7D3 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the bias???

message: "Additionally, economic and military pressures of fighting the Cold War, particularly in matching Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, bankrupted the inherently weak Communist system."
I'm not a communist, by any means, an anarchist, actually, but that seems very biased and I bet a communist would oppose that skewed attack. Lockeownzj00 00:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what a communist would think, but it's a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policies, and that matters. Please go ahead and remove it. 172 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I think that the article implies - or I think it does - that Gorbachev's reforms were anti-Soviet to an extent. Far from it, it appears that he was trying to reform the Soviet Union, and preserve Communism, by introducing modernisation which would improve the state, and actually keep it going... In fact, in an international context, I can see parallels between his reforms and those of Reagan and Thatcher, which occurred at the same time, which were partially to preserve different political systems, but which also had disastrous economic consequences. --MacRusgail 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. Strangely, but it seems that no one remembers now how Gorbachev's "reforms" started. In his first major speech given at '85 Victory day (May 9), he praised Stalin's leadership like no one had since the XX CPSU Congress of 1956. It was rather startling. Then, there were half-hearted measures on "speeding up" the economy ("ускорение"), combined with campaing against alcoholism, which actually turned to destruction of vineyards, halting of production but by no means of consumption of alcoholic beverages, though it nearly paralyzed Soviet finances (when school I worked for then had no cash to pay teachers' salary; no wonder: workers spent their money not on vodka bought in a store but on illegal samogon). ... He definitely tried to save the system, and collapse of the Soviet empires was uninteded consequence of his "reforms." --Barbatus 16:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. --Mrdie (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, read Gorbachev's memoirs. Gorbachev was a communist who thought that communism failed in the Soviet Union because the USSR never went through a truly capitalist industrial period (like it was supposed to according to Marx). His reforms were focused on building this period...then, much later, communism--or so the theory goes--would eventually break out and it would be smiles all around. Actually, this is the exact same logic why the Chinese Communist Party is allowing so much laissez-faire marketeering in China today.99.96.38.208 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really a reliable source? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's a fraud.99.96.38.208 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gorbachev was a Commie...

message: As the Soviet Union was unraveling, Gorbachev and U.S. President George H.W. Bush declared a U.S.-Soviet strategic partnership at the summit of July 1991, decisively marking the end of the Cold War. President Bush declared that U.S.-Soviet cooperation during the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991 had laid the groundwork for a partnership in resolving bilateral and world problems. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation claimed to be the legal successor to the USSR on the international stage.--anon
:The article's current statement, referring to Dec. 1991, "The dissolution of the Soviet Union also ended the longtime Cold War" is inaccurate.  The media, Gorbachev, Bush, and most others contemporaries regarded "the end of the Cold War" to have transpired by the end of the Malta summit in Dec. 1989.  By the time of the May-June, 1990, summit in D.C. there was a virtually universal consensus that the Cold War had ended.  Contemporary journalists, politicians, etc., did not describe the Dec. 1991 dissolution of the Soviet state as "ending the Cold War" because, for them, the Cold War was already over.  The article's current statement is based on the misconception that the "end of the Cold War" was coterminous with the end of the Soviet Union.--12/01/07 BW
::Exactly, remember that the Gulf War was described as "the first post-Cold War crisis".Auspx (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see your point. You are correct. Parsecboy (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the Cold War

message: "Hidden inflation" (in para on introduction of perestroika) is by its nature limited, so why foreground this among economic problems? Unless someone can give evidence to the contrary, I think this should be deleted.--Jack Upland 05:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden inflation 

message: The following sentences taken from the section, 'The August Coup' makes no sense to me. It looks like the two sentences should be joined together with a comma after 'emergency', but as I have no knowledge on this subject I thought I'd bring it to more knowledgeable peoples' attention, rather than blindly try to fix it myself:
"On August 19, 1991, to prevent the signing of the union treaty by forming the "State Committee on the State Emergency." The "Committee" put Gorbachev (vacationing in the Crimea) under house arrest and attempted to restore the union state."
--Phileas 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentences 

message: The following section deleted:
:The first reform under Gorbachev was the 1985 alcohol reform, which was designed to fight wide-spread alcoholism in the Soviet Union. Prices on vodka, wine and beer were lifted, and their sales were restricted. People who were caught drunk at work or in public were prosecuted. Drinking on long-distance trains and in public places was banned. Economically it was a serious blow to the state budget (a loss of approximately 100 billion rubles according to Alexander Yakovlev) after alcohol production migrated to black market economy.
It is an erroneous attribution. Antialcohol campaigns and price rising for vodka started already during  Brezhnev. A a seasoned "alcoholic" from these times, I cannot stand this historical  falsehood :-). People like me remember "Dazhe yesliu budet vosem, Vsyo ravno yeyo ne brosim! Peredajte Ilyichu, Nam i 10 po plechu!" ("pass over to Ilyich (i.e., leonid Ilyich): se can handle even 10 (roubles per bottle"). The numbers 2.87->3.62->5.12, well known to male population and were source a large number of jokes. But the real assault was by Andropov. I used to be a proud member of the All-Union Abstinence Society, created at these times, and I reverently keep the membership card, but no longer pay dues :-) mikka (t) 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol 

message: I feel like this one is too long and should be split into several different articles, including the Fall of the Soviet Union.  This is my first comment to an article, but I feel it's worth mentioning.Nashaii 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. The article is not long at all, considering the importance and complexity of the subject. 172 | Talk 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: I'm no professor but i found this article informative i learned quite a few things from it. Travis Robinson 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm no professor... 

message: I don't know about anyone else, but this article was confusing in its time spans. For example, Yeltsin took office on July 12, 1991, and yet Gorbachev was still in power for the August coup? Is anyone else even slightly confused here? 66.31.230.27 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeltsin was the Russian SSR president, while Gorby was the the head of the Soviet Union, two different things. Parsecboy 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Warps 

message: All this talk about 'economic problems' is just awful. What kind of problems? The article is just pap.WolfKeeper 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must remember, American conservatives do in fact edit wikipedia, and we all know the Soviet Union was defeated by Ronald Reagan, all by himself. Nothing to do with inefficiencies of the Soviet system. Nope. It was Ronald Reagan, telling Gorbechev to tear down that wall. And Star Wars. Parsecboy 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they can sustain such an argument in the face of WP:NPOV then hey, it probably really happened; but I doubt that they can. This article is strangely empty of real references.WolfKeeper 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Reagan did support Afghan mujahideen by giving them stinger missiles which cost the US only 1 billion per year but cost the USSR 8 billion per year in losses.  Additionally his reversal of past policies and new economic policies helped keep gas prices low which decreased the oil price and, ergo, reduced the amount of hard currency the USSR was able to bring in.  I realize that some people want to attribute the fall of the USSR to "Reagan and Star Wars" only, but there are others who actively deny he had any roll in the USSR's final days which is to ignore a large amount of the historical reality.  I would prefer to see some balanced viewpoints rather than the "Reagan-hate" or "Reagan-love."Millenium King (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think this article is in dire need of some drastic revision. Let's start by culling the unreferenced Cold-War mythos, eh? Parsecboy 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I substantially edited the intro paragraph. Does that seem a little better? Feel free to edit away if you think it needs improvement. It's a rough draft anyways. Parsecboy 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy? 

message: It barely says anything about the Soviet Union. Please someone fix it. 90% of this article is about Gorbachev.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.104.78 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The worst article ever. 

message: In the section 'Aftermath of the failed coup' there is this phrase: "After the coup, the Soviet republics accelerated their process towards independence and racial extermination..."
Racial extermination?
What was an earlier version of that sentence? Perhaps replace 'racial extermination' with 'self-determination'?
I found the malicious edit from 24.63.20.125 on June 15, so removed the words 'and racial extermination'.
Stanistani (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky Vandalism? 

message: The image :Image:Perestroika.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Perestroika.jpg

message: American bias, Pro-Democrat bias: The way this article reads, one might believe that Jimmy Carter defeated the USSR singlehandedly.  He gets a full paragraph while Ronald Reagan only gets one sentence about how he "escalated tensions."
Reagan fought the Soviet Union by ending the policy of "containment," issued stinger missiles to the fighters in Afghanistan turning Afghanistan into what some historians refer to as a "Soviet Viet Nam."  He reduced the USSRs ability to export oil into Europe, he fought rising oil prices (which began in the Carter administration, some might say, because of his policies).  A decline in oil prices choked off the influx of money to the USSR.  He raised US military spending to 7% of US GDP while, to keep pace, the USSR raised their spending to 27% of their GDP - also forcing them to freeze production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.
I am not trying to show a "pro-America bias" but these things are facts.  If Carter gets a whole paragraph for his "efforts" at combating the USSR, Reagan should at least get a mention.
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm  Millenium King (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Jimmy Carter defeated the USSR? 

message: I came here looking for information, but sadly this article is unusable. It almost completely lacking in references (just 6 for the entire article), and thus I don't know what information here is reliable. There are plenty of words in there (eg. stagnation) that might be accurate descriptors, or might not, but they need citations. I'm not an expert in Soviet history, but those who are should work on this article to bring it up to scratch. 
I know it's hard work, so wish the editors the best of luck. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Wouldn't a name like "The collapse of the Soviet Union" be more fitting? Because this is what the article focuses on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.124.236 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: This article doesn't mention the Berlin Wall once. Or Germany even. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The role of the SU during the November Revolution is explained (to some extend) in the articles about the Berlin wall, the 2+4-Treaty and others. But I agree, it should at least be mentioned. We should also think about merging some of the information into one article about this topic since the reaction (or non-reaction) to the protests in eastern europe is somewhat the main difference to prague in the 50s. --84.177.46.177 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin Wall 

message: "Barricade in Riga to prevent the Red Army from reaching Latvian Parliament, July 1991"
I changed this to "Soviet Army" considering it hadn't been called the "Red Army" since 1946.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.80.69 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption Change 

message: Just as specified in the lead section, the said period refers to collapse of the soviet union. This is widely used around the world, and more suggestive title. The "Soviet Union" ceased to exist thenceforth, and the word "collapse" should not offend anybody. The title change is limited to just the word change from history to collapse, even period 1985-1991 is retained. Doorvery far (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your move.  This is controversial as seen in previous discussions and should be formally proposed at WP:Requested moves to gain wider input.  —  AjaxSmack  03:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change in title 

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) 21:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Soviet Union (1982–91). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722091512/http://www.aei.org/issue/25991 to http://www.aei.org/issue/25991
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722091512/http://www.aei.org/issue/25991 to http://www.aei.org/issue/25991
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Soviet Union (1982–91). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104215255/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/sadat-and-nasser-13023 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/sadat-and-nasser-13023
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227214102/http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/people/?pid=226 to http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/people/?pid=226
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion