Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)

message: "In response, the United States sustained a massive anticommunist ideological offensive. How the efforts to contain communism through aggressive diplomacy and interventionist policies varies. Some maintain that Washington brandished its role as the leader of the "free world" at least as effectively as the Moscow brandished its position as the leader of the "progressive" and "anti-imperialist" camp; others believe that the United States was meddling in other nation's internal affairs under the banner of "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights." Still others have some combination of these two views." Neutrality 22:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no real contradiction between the two, so the "compromise" should be the merge, rather than the opposition. Mikkalai 22:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

text: "Others believe": there is nothing to "believe": when US congress approves money for dissidents in a country it is meddling big time. Imagine a Belarus sheds some pitiful money for the American rat race, which is accepted by, say, <put your favorite runner-up here>. Mikkalai 22:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

text: And don'd forget $$ Soviet Union pumped into U.S. Commies. Mikkalai 22:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

text: This article about SU, not US, hence one has to be concise when speaking of US. Mikkalai 23:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

text: These aren't really scare quotes. In the context of where this paragraph is situated in the article, it's in reference to the ideological offensive that both superpowers launched following the unveiling of the containment doctrine. It's referencing the ways both blocs characterized themselves. 172 23:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

text: IMO the "scare quotes" are relevant as they stand here: they say exactly what is intended: during the cold war some cliches were used as a weapon of demagogy (by both sides), rather than in their direct meaning. Mikkalai 23:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

text: That's because you share 172's ideological perspective.  To others "172's work" looks almost like propaganda.  Let's work towards language all can agree on. VV 23:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think I cut out anything of substance, or indeed much at all.  I did take out the list of buzzwords, an unhelpful detail.  And I replaced, e.g., a loaded term like "advance its will" with "aggressive diplomacy", which I think is a substantial improvement.  (His text implies/states that "freedom" et al. was a cover for other ambitions.)  This is not anything close to "censorship". VV 00:03, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality's preposed compromise between VeryVerily and 172

message: Genyo:
More recent Soviet specialists have called into question what they see as the excessive voluntarism of Conquest's thesis and Ukrainian émigré historians, which you seem to be articulating in your edits.  
Now it is essentially a matter of consensus that the famine in the Ukraine was an outgrowth of collectivization more than anything else-- that is a requisite for development strategy of the first Five Year Plan, allowing the state to control the distribution of grain, and garner a cheap and steady supply. The following is a list of leading sources in this area of study:
Getty's book review of Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow is helpful: 
* Getty, "Starving the Ukraine: Review of Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-famine, by Robert Conquest", London Review of Books, 7 January, 1987.
Could you cite some concensus among Ukrainian historians, because if such a consensus exists, I am unaware of it!
Genyo 01:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're referring to. There is a question as to what extent the famine was deliberate and meant to crush the support of the Ukrainian nationalists. Western Soviet specialists see the famine as essentially an outgrowth of collectivization and Stalinist industrialization strategies. 172 02:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I already gave you a list of scholars who have done more recent work. Please see above. 172 17:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The historians I listed above do specialize in Ukraine. 172 02:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  172, at least one "scholar" on your list is a known Soviet revisionist.  Gabor Rittersporn has stated that Stalin's fears of conspiracy during the Great Terror "were not groundless" and that most of the people killed during the purges were "elites."  The numbers and pathology behind the terror-famine are well accepted at this point.  Conquest is not the only one, but he is certainly the most respected. Marlowe 21:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with all of Rittersporn's work, but you're not characterizing Rittersporn but rather a straw man. No one seriously denies that the terror-famine happened; nor can anyone seriously deny its horrendous nature. The question is to what extent it was deliberate or whether it was more of an outcome of collectivization. 172 21:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suppose that this argument depends on whose scholarship one is willing to stand behind.  Rittersporn's or Conquest's.  I accept the scholarship of Conquest and you accept the scholarship of Rittersporn.  Maybe for the sake of the article, insert both points of view with references to each work.Marlowe 15:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: This article places the Katyn massacre in 1944-5, during the Soviet advance into Nazi-held territory.  It happened in 1939 or 40, after the Soviet takeover of eastern Poland.  The Katyn massacre page says it right.
:Thank you very much for pointing this out, I've fixed it now. Everyking 00:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katyn massacre at wrong time 

message: *In addition, the Soviets never forgot their requests that the United States and Britain open a second front on the European continent; but the Allied invasion did not occur until June 1944, more than two years after the Soviets had demanded it. In the meantime, the Russians suffered horrendous casualties, as high as twenty million dead, and the Soviets were forced to withstand the brunt of German strength. 
Was this a real Soviet complaint? Were the Soviets truly "upset" that a second European front was no opened till D-Day (when in actuality it was Italy, but Whatever)? Surely the Soviets relaized that in order for the Allies to assault the European continent, years of planning and logisitics would have to be arranged, especialy when one considers what happened at Dieppe. Where is the source for this, it stirkes me a bit odd. DTC 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  In 1942, the Soviets were desperate for help and very worried about the military situation.  In 1943, the were also upset, not then entirely due to their military situation, which by that time was improving, but because the war was so costly; they wanted the Allies to share the load.  Stalin (my source here is Churchill's memoirs) was most upset the Second Front wasn't going to happen, but he seemed pretty happy with Italy as an alternative. Toby Douglass 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with text as is

message: I've just begun reading the document, and I've only really read the "Changes in Soviet Society" section, where I've added some realism and information about the costs and injustice of the improvements in Soviet society.  My view is that this text is extremely pro-Stalin.  It turns a completely blind eye to the terrible crimes he committed, the atrocities and death which fueled these improvements.  Toby Douglass 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text is pro-Stalin 

message: citations are needed, esp:
*War and Stalinist Development (3rd Paragraph)  6 Million forced laborers 1930-1940, 7 million deaths 1933 -1945
*Wartime Developments P1, first 2 sentences
*Wartime Development P5 (the Victor Sorge stuff)
*Wartime Developments P6 (in entirety) 
*Wartime Developments P7 (the Moscow stuff - might be easier to cut the speculation than to cite iffy material - not necy to make the points well anyhow)
Wartime Developments P9 is just ugly and should be rewritten. The second front discussion is interesting, but it is undoubtedly not correct that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war because of the late opening of the second front. This was just a secondary contributing factor. 
I started to tag, but no need to create a mess if we can dig up the sources Jd2718 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No rush on these. Most exist in related articles; I will cross them off as I find them. Anyone else is welcome, of course, to help. Jd2718 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many cases in which citations really are needed because the author chose to represent a particular POV often without citation or acknowledgment of what the opposing POV's were.  The fact tht sources may be available in other articles does not justify so many lapses in this one, especially with regard to disputed interpretations or facts. I have worked through several sections of the article inserting citation requests because no reader should assume that the rendering in the text has been settled or documented until the citations are brought forward.  Furhter, the fact that this problem was mentioned two years ago but nobody took on the necessary assignment suggests the need to tag the questionable or undocumented assertions now.--Mack2 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: The section on the "Great Patriotic War" (what a corny name) needs some shuffling and adding to. After an opening on general stuff, it goes into "wartime developments" and talks about the level of preparation of the Red Army. ... But then it shifts into 1939-40 stuff, before the USSR was invaded! Basically, I think a new section needs to be added before this Great Patriotic War section, discussing Soviet-Nazi diplomacy in the '30s and Soviet aggression in the early stages of World War II. Then a new section starts with Operation Barbarossa and how prepared the Soviets were. I guess I'll start this tomorrow. Brutannica 07:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., I did the necessary shuffling. I did it in the fashion that made the most sense to me; if someone else thinks differently, let 'em do it, but at least the page now is an improvement. The biggest gap is the "foreign relations before 1941" I created. The USSR was part of the strenuous diplomatic efforts of the '30s and a few paragraphs on its negotiations with Nazi Germany and France would be essential. Brutannica 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War section needs some reorganisation

message: This section is pure rubbish - whoever wrote it has NO idea WHATSOEVER of Sovet policy with regard to non-communist States.
The Soviets were thinking in terms of communism; the struggle between the working class and the rich.  Their entire policy was to encourage conflict between these two classes with the goal of encouraging war as a mean to achieve social change.
I quote from the article;
The wherewithal of the United States to advance a different vision of the postwar world conflicted with Soviet interests. National security had been the real cornerstone of Soviet policy since the 1920s, when the Communist Party adopted Stalin's "socialism in one country" and rejected Trotsky's ideas of "world revolution." Before the war, Stalin did not attempt to push Soviet boundaries beyond their full Tsarist extent.
National security in the Western sense was never the cornerstone of Soviet policy, EVER.  Soviet policy was about the pursuit and support of the class struggle.  This means *war*.  Soviet armies were always massive - far, far greater than would ever have been required for national security.
In this sense, the aims of the Soviet Union may not have been aggressive expansionism but rather consolidation, i.e. attempting to secure the war−torn country's western borders.
Complete and utter bilge.  Whoever wrote this is Western, thinking in Western terms and trying to put a gloss onto Soviet actions because they want the Soviets to look acceptable.  The Soviets *simply did not think in Western terms*.  Like most Western Soviet apologists, there is here a fundamental failure to comprehend the Soviet worldview.
Disagreements over postwar plans first centered on Eastern and Central Europe. Having lost 20 million dead in the war, suffered German and Nazi German invasion, and suffered tens of millions of casualties due to onslaughts from the West three times in the preceding 150 years, first with Napoleon, the Soviet Union was determined to destroy Germany's capacity for another war by keeping it under tight control. U.S. aims were quite opposed, since they would require a democratic restored Germany as a trade and perhaps military partner.
Actually, for the first two years after the war, US aims were to entirely subjugate Germany.  This stopped because it was realised as entirely impractical and because the Soviets were becoming a danger.
Russia's historic lack of warm water maritime access, a perennial concern of Russian foreign policy well before the Bolshevik Revolution, was also a focus for Russia, yet another area where interests diverged between East and West. Stalin pressed the Turks for improved access out of the Black Sea through Turkey's Dardanelles Strait, which would allow Soviet passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Churchill had earlier recognized Stalin's claims, but now the British and Americans forced the Soviet Union to pull back.
Churchill always was absolutely in favour of warm water access for the USSR - "a country the size of Russia must have a warm water port".  Unfortunately, the British were incredibly stupid and voted him out of office just as the war ended, so he was not involved in post-war negotiations.
But when the Soviet leadership did not perceive the country's security was at stake, the policies were more measured: the Soviet Union eventually withdrew from Northern Iran, at Anglo−American behest; Stalin did observe his 1944 agreement with Churchill and did not aid the communists in the struggle against government in Greece; in Finland he accepted a friendly, non−communist government; and Russian troops were withdrawn from Czechoslovakia by the end of 1945.  However, a pro−Soviet government seized power in Czechoslovakia three years later.
The Greek agreement was never an agreement.  Churchill made it clear that post-war influence must be settled properly once the fighting was over.  However, in the interim, as these countries were over-run, there had to be a temporary agreement for spheres of influence.  This was duly done - and Greece was 90% Allied, 10% Russian.  Stalin adhered to this agreement, which wasn't the agreement at all.
Toby Douglass 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The beginning of the Cold War

message: Someone has vandalized the article ("hi" at the top of the page). I can't yet edit articles, I'm new here. Can someone remove it ? Thanks. Vadim from Russia Stalker 1986 (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The image :Image:German Soviet.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. --01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg

message: Regarding the 18th Party Congress, I believe it was Litvinov that praised Stalin and criticized the Western Powers for their failure to adopt "collective security". I have so edited the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.86.68 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor contribution in one section

message: Not sure what the issue is with the originally statement saying “They sent hundreds of thousands (estimates vary)” which I felt summarized the general thinking i.e. why any citation is needed.  Anyway I have replaced it with a longer version complete with references. Jniech (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Estimates about Polish deportations

message: The article deosn't inform about starvation of millions. The title "The Soviet state's development" is POV, kind of "The Nazi state development".Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) It does. 2) Why POV? GreyHood Talk 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't proprtionally inform about drawbacks of the Soviet policy, wchich make the article POV. Generally people don't call an extermination "development". Only fanatics do.Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunger 

message: It wasn't rational industrialization but construction of war industry and militarization of the Soviet society. The Red Army was the biggest and best armed army of the world in 1941.Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  development of industrial power 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Smoke of chimneys is the breath of Soviet Russia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I'm by no means an active editor, so I won't make any edits for fear they're unwarranted, but I don't see this addressed anywhere on this talk page. The current text under "Planning" says: "Despite approximately 1,000,000 deaths...", referring to the First Five Year Plan. Given that the first Plan was revised to include collectivization, which caused around six million deaths alone, should this figure not be updated? A number of citations can be easily found on other related pages. Xensity (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths caused by First Five Year Plan 

message: "He also promoted a secret police and a mass mobilization party, which led to millions of deaths as a result of purges and policies of starvation to force farmers to submit."
Specifically the part about policies of starvation to force farmers to submit. You need to supply sources to back up that claim; MANY scholars reject it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.163.211 (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: let's name these mystery scholars. Compare: Miron Dolot (2011) says "Seven million people in the 'breadbasket of Europe' were deliberately starved to death at Stalin's command." Gunn, says: "Ukraine catastrophe November 1932: A terror famine in the old Soviet Union killed more than ten million people....the kulaks, opposed the plan for collective farming, so Stalin decided to starve them into submission." see  for elaborate detail and biliog on p 330. Also see The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine by Robert Conquest (1987) Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very inappropriate beginning introduction sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953). 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/20120720142708/http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_1.html to http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_1.html
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) 16:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953). 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  tag to http://www.historyebook.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121085401/http://deweytextsonline.area501.net/ImpressionsOfSovietRussia.htm to http://deweytextsonline.area501.net/ImpressionsOfSovietRussia.htm
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: This article is a WP:CFORK of our main page on the history of the Soviet Union during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and should be merged accordingly. It appears to be an educational assignment, which may be why it is a content fork. Izno (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[The 1930's in Soviet Russia]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The claim that "Contrary to popular belief, the USSR's high casualties was not the result of poor Red Army performance, but due to poor treatment of Red Army POWs in German camps" should be removed as I had try to do earlier as it is not directly stated in Glantz's works; it is WP:OR.  Glantz said on a podcast that Stalin and Zhukov "ruthlessly expend[ed] manpower" to defeat the "more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht", crediting this as one of the main reasons why the USSR took such high losses. In his other works, he also notes failures on both sides and different phases of the war where the initiative switches between the combatants. He doesn't make the claim that the Red Army only took high casualties because of POW deaths. Furthermore, POW deaths are disputed with estimates varying such as in Krivosheev's works that are referenced by Glantz. Originalcola (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Patriotic War 

message: IP, could you please explain why you are repeatedly inserting a link to a Wikipedia diff? This isn't an appropriate use of the external links section. signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links