Talk:Foreign relations of the Soviet Union

message: Please do some genuine research before accusing copyvio; this is a public domain country study from the United State's Library of Congress.  119 20:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sorry, it just seems you missed out a fair bit of Soviet Foreign Policy. This is a real summary or starting point. I'm sure they're mentioned in other sections to a fuller extent but maybe you could mention that these were part of SFP so they can be explored?
Vietnam War
--> aided Ho Chi minh and sent supplies to Vietnam until even after the war that helped the Vietnamese economy to survive
Korean War
--> walked out of secutiry council of UN, of which they were co-founders
--> sent troops to Korea as well
Cuban Missile Crisis
--> Castro didn't really even play an important role in the crisis, Khrushchev helped bring the Cold War to the brink of hot war
Sino-Soviet Realtions
Shattered unity of Communist Bloc
Cause:
•	1956: Khrushchev denounced Stalinism without Mao
•	1958: Mao bombs islands without Khrushchev
•	1960: China attacks ‘peaceful co-existence’ saying it undermines world revolution
Results:
•	Soviet experts withdraw from China
•	USSR doesn’t help during 1961 famine
•	In a border dispute between China and India, USSR backs India
•	Almost a war between China and USSR, to the extent that troops lined up at the borders, as the Chinese claimed land the Tsars had taken.
•	Can see that USSR was not dominating the world through this example
•	1962: Mao criticises Khrushchev for Cuban Missile crisis
•	Moscow began to pursue a policy of containment of China, isolating it by improving relations with Laos, Cambodia, Japan, etc.
This article is so positive. "The Soviets no longer sought collective but individual security, and the Pact with Hitler was signed, giving Soviets protection from the most aggressive European power and increasing Soviet sphere of influence." So increasing your sphere of influence and later occupying other states is not agression?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.135.136.67 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vietnam War, The Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Sino-Soviet Relations 

message: This article has good information on the relations in the middle east, seriously very detailed and very informative. However, this article doesn't mention anything about Soviet-African relations (Angola, Libya would be strong topics) or Soviet-South American relations (Cuba, el Salvador, Venezuela). I'm not very good at doing research and editing so I just want to propose that someone with the skills and the time try to find some good encyclopaedic articles and maybe start a topic on some of these. Udachi, ¬¬¬¬  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ5788 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information available 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304025623/http://eufunding.org.uk/terror/FundingEvil.pdf to http://eufunding.org.uk/terror/FundingEvil.pdf
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) 22:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since I'm getting attacked by apparent Soviet apologists who want to conceal Soviet crimes and expunge them from the lead despite the fact that they are very, very well sourced, I just want to ask one question: why? 
First rvt
Second rvt
First editor seemed to demand sources, disregarding the fact that all listed events were linked to their respective articles which in turn contain all the necessary sources. But I made a decision to comply and added tons of sources that support my argument. Then the second editor came and again simply reverted because he didn't like the truth about Soviet crimes. 
If Wikipedia wants to become a platform for all sorts of Soviet/totalitarian communist apologetics, then go ahead, tell that openly, don't hide under the mask of reliability and fairness. 185.213.212.250 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to add that I decided to create an account because unregistered IP editors are routinely abused on this platform and, generally, their contributions and opinions are utterly disrespected. To be clear, 185.213.212.250 (talk) is my IP. Vesorax1939 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The secret protocol is not supported by sources? Soviet invasion of Finland and Poland, occupation of the Baltics is not supported by sources? Maybe you read the articles about those events first? Vesorax1939 (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Two editors objected because they of their pro-Soviet, pro-totalitarian bias. And to be honest with you, the second editor Bcoto is really suspicious and might turn out to be someone's sock puppet. Vesorax1939 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet apologetics in full force 

message: I think the lead section of this article is far too long and should be rewritten to be more concise and better conform to MOS:LEAD. I suggest the following for discussion: 
* The first paragraph should summarize the main phases of Soviet foreign policy as outlined in the article: 1917-1939, World War II, and Cold War. Eliminate detail that is covered in the article.
* Next three paragraphs can summarize the main points in each of the three phases above.
* The information is correct, but it needs to be more concise with less unneeded detail. Remove statements such as "However, the Soviet Union proved strong enough to defeat Nazi Germany, with help from its key allies.", and information best covered in the article body such as "By signing a treaty with Germany in 1939 the Soviet Union hoped to create a buffer zone between them and Germany."
If there is a consensus that the lead could be rewritten in a more concise way that conforms to MOS:LEAD, I'll put some time into it and propose the changes for review. 
If there is a consensus to leave it alone or another proposal, please comment.   // Timothy :: talk  00:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lead section rewrite