Talk:Warsaw Pact

message: I would like to draw attention to the fact that Yugoslavia was never ever a member of the Warsaw Pact. Never at all. Before making any edits, I suggest more research, but this is an undisputed fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.164.230 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yugoslavia was never member of Eastern Bloc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia in Warsaw Pact? No way, never happened! 

message: "The Warsaw Pact was dominated by the Soviet Union." is POV.  Just take a look at the NATO page, no one would ever put such a thing on the NATO page.  Things are not going to be held to a different standard for communist countries.  And don't give me any nonsense over changing the NATO pages, if you feel that way, you do it, I'm editing here.  
:So, the Warsaw Pact wasn't dominated by the USSR? Ask yourself this: would the countries of eastern europe have joined the Warsaw Pact, or even had communist dictatorships, if it wasn't for being occupied by Soviet troops at the end of WWII? What happened when Gorbachev removed those troops and let those governments have free elections--what happened to the Warsaw Pact and to all those communist governments? Why did all those countries join NATO--voluntarily--afterwards??? Sorry, but communists like you may like to delude yourself into thinking that everybody in eastern europe volunteered to live in nations dominated by Moscow-led dictatorships, but that's utter nonsense (and can be attested to by anybody who lived in eastern europe during that time). To say that the Warsaw Pact is the equivalent of NATO, especially today after the Wall has come down and all is now known about what the USSR had done to those nations, is just pure ignorance.108.66.55.128 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the Warsaw Pact wasn't dominated by the USSR, why then did Erich Honecker have to ask Gorbachev permission (permission that Gorbachev, to his great credit, did not give) to have east german troops crack down before and after the Berlin Wall came down in order to stop the changes that were taking place? Why did Ceaucescu ask for the same as well? I mean, if East Germany was truly independent, why couldn't Honecker just order in the troops?108.69.175.247 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm sure the planners in the Pentagon and War College have all sorts of plans to invade countries for all contingencies (if only to give the planners actual experience in "planning"). I'm even willing to bet that somewhere in the Pentagon is a plan to invade Canada. Is this proof that we would've actually invaded? Sorry, but just because the US/NATO had a plan to invade Italy if the communists took over and set up a communist, Moscow-friendly dictatorship in Italy isn't proof that NATO was just as bad as the Warsaw Pact, for plenty of other evidence suggests otherwise.108.69.175.247 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: : The pact came to an end on 1991 March 31 and was officially dissolved at a meeting in Prague on 1991 July 1. ...
It's not clear in the article what exactly happened on March 31, 1991 to say that the Warsaw Pact "came to an end". Would anyone experts care to elaborate, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:45, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
:: There has been a conference of Warsaw treaty memer countries delegates in Moscow on that day, but I do not have any closer information about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.213.138.3 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seems to be conflicting information on this page concerning exactly when the pact came to an end.  I've seen dates ranging from March to December of 1991.  Will check for more reliable information.  ASU557 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly happened on March 31, 1991 to say that the Warsaw Pact came to an end ? 

message: What is missing from the article is info about Central command for all armies, about standardization of armament and amunition, about centralized planning for armament production, about bases of Soviet Union in WP countries.
Current text covers only global politics and trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info on most important facets of WP 

message: With Germany being reunited, East Germany's membership with the Warsaw Pact ended. (source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Warschauer_Vertrag, http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/1990/) The previous version of the article contained an error by stating that Germany was a member both of NATO and the Warsaw Pact (no, we were not, but we still had Soviet Troops stationed in East Germany after reunification)
: I found some info, saying that East German 7th tank division and 11th armored division were prepared but not given orders to enter Czechoslovakia (Rudiger Wenzke in "Prager Fruhling - Prager Herbst", 1990). However I remember that one eyewitness saw German tank mistakenly crossing the border - this was source of confusion. Pavel Vozenilek 19:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does the picture "NATO_vs_Warsaw_(1949-1990).png" display East Germany beeing a member of the Warsaw Treaty since 1956???
As I know, it signed along with all other founding countries on May 14 1955...
I only have a czech version (of the treaty text) link (http://referaty.atlas.sk/vseobecne-humanitne/dejepis/4695/varsavska-zmluva---uplne-znenie), but I am shure there must be translations on web somewhere... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.213.138.3 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this funny poster "35 years Warsaw Pact" (that would mean spring 1990) ever published? I mean, it talks of "invincible" and sports East Germany as proud member, at a time when the GDR was collapsing and ready to be absorbed by West Germany...can´t imagine that somebody would take this poster serious. Hansi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.211.143 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Germany 

message: Should the fact that by creating the Warsaw Pact, the USSR violated various treaties, including, for e.g., the YYA Treaty, be mentioned in this article? --HJV 20:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was likely the least of concerns of WP countries. Pavel Vozenilek 12:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of the W Pact 

message: I believe the official name was the "Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance." There is another Treaty called the "Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" (FCMA) but that seems to have been signed on April 6, 1948, between Finland and the Sowjet Union (check http://countrystudies.us/finland/24.htm). 
Oh, and one more: Could it be that the "Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" is not the official name of the Warsaw Pact but rather (as the name suggests) the treaty establishing the military organization called the Warsaw Pact? 
Maybe somebody more familiar with this entry could have a look at this. Thanks :-)
:If that were the real name it'd be quite ironic. I mean, the USSR broke the YYA Treaty(ie. the Soviet-Finnish Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance) when signing the Warsaw pact. The YYA treaty stated that none of the signatories was allowed to ally themselves with Germany, and USSR formed an alliance with East Germany ^_^--HJV 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The YYA treaty states that none of the signing parties would join any coallition threatening any of each. Since the TFCMA didn't threatten Findland USSR did nort break the YYA treaty by signing the Warsaw Pact. 189.141.62.84 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Name 

message: This template got so huge that it made the article joke. I§d removed it, it is less then useless, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monstrous Cold War template 

message: I think the word "pact" should not be used because it is a pejorative word. I also think that the threat from the point of view of the USSR and the other Warsaw Treaty members from NATO was quit real, I am not sure how militarization of the Warsaw treaty countries violated any conventions since the UN charter stated that the regional aliances are permited, I think that the statement that the Warsaw treaty countries up to 1980 were concerned only with attacking the "western" countries should be removed because we don't have all necessary archival information to make this judgement.
It was generally and colloquially known as the Warsaw Pact - look in books of the time: therefore a relavant name.
----
I checked in a 'reference book of 1989' which used the heading 'Warsaw Treaty Organisation or Warsaw Pact' (and equivalents occur elsewhere)
I think this settles the question by 'whomosoever' (though not necessarily an invalid question) Jackiespeel 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the prob is that Wikipedia isn't about giving points to both sides. It's an encyclopedia that is about telling--or attempting to tell--the truth. The fact of the matter is that, NATO was not designed to repress or threaten invasion of its own members to protect capitalist hegemony (indeed, many NATO members throughout the Cold War were closer to being socialist than capitalist), just to protect from invasion against the Soviet Union. How many times did NATO invade its fellow members? How many times did the Warsaw Pact (under orders from Moscow) invade other Warsaw Pact countries? I count twice (and would've been more if Gorbachev was a hard liner). I'm sorry if this fact offends those who still find the USSR/Warsaw Pact to be a divine inspiration, but it is true. The vast majority of ppl in the occupied eastern european nations never wanted to be part of the Soviet bloc or the Warsaw Pact. They were forced into doing so at the point of a gun...and when Gorbachev, a great man, took that gun away and gave those nations self-determination, ALL those nations LEFT the Warsaw Pact. And yet today, no democratic, self-determining country in NATO has ever fully left NATO. And when the Warsaw Pact was no more, did evil NATO invade eastern europe? No...indeed, those same Warsaw Pact nations volunteered to join NATO.108.69.162.208 (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias article? 

message: How and why did Albania secede from the Warsaw Pact and ally with China without the USSR invading them like they did to Hungary in 1956 and Czechslovakia in 1968? I read it's because no Warsaw Pact member shared a border with Albania and to invade Albania they would have to go through Yugoslavia which was not in the Soviet sphere of influence. I've also read that the USSR decided not to invade Albania because they simply had no economic interest in that country. Anyone here know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.103.81.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Albania's withdrawal was legal. Simple as that. 184.96.238.72 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania's secession 

message: Can someone adjust the boxes at the end - as the last line of the linked topics section is partially obscured. Jackiespeel 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Little boxes

message: Shouldn't it be noted that Hungarian withdrawal from the Warsaw pact in 1956 (declared by Nágy, withdrawn few days later by Kádár) and Albanian withdrawal in 1968 were both against the Article 11 of the treaty which prohibited the member states to withdraw from the treaty for at least 20 years after acceding and were therefore illegal? Brunislav 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal withdrawals 

message: It might be just me, but does this
"Distinguish from the Warsaw Convention, which is an agreement about airlines' financial liability and the Treaty of Warsaw (1970) between West Germany and the People's Republic of Poland."
make sense as an intro to the article?  Or is it meant to be instructions improperly tagged, or what? Darquis 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening explanation? 

message: While reading, I was confused and beffudled to see an odd, seemingly foreign term in the opening paragraph. "In actuality, however, the organization served as a de facto tool for keeping control over ("cows") which had been taken over by the Soviets after the Second World War and to permit military intervention against any attempts these other states took to free themselves of the political hegemony of their own Communist Parties."
The word Cow. I don't know if this has any significance at all to the Warsaw Pact. If it does belong, could someone write a possible explanation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.231.142 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cows?

message: I have a small issue with the names of the members of the WP. I believe that they should be called by their official names (People's...) to distinguish the past government from current existing political entities. I think this should be done in order to be correct since when we say "Hungary" today we mean the Republic of Hungary and not the People's Republic of Hungary. There is quite obviously a huge difference between those two entities. Just as the list doesn't contain Czech Republic and Slovakia but rather Czechoslovakia, the other countries should also be properly named. What do you think? JRWalko 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official names of countries

message: Why do we give the Russian title of the treaty in the intro, but not the Polish, Czech, and German ones? The treaty was concluded in Warsaw, which is not in the Soviet Union, and it seems that copies of the treaty in either language were prepared, "all texts being equally authentic" . The article on the comparably important Treaty of Rome does not even give any title except the english one, although this treaty also was originally not in English. Yaan (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the russian title? 

message: The "Encarta", Microsoft's encyclopedia does not include Finland on the list of member countries!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.188.237 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Finland a member? 

message: This article makes the Claim that The Hungarian Revolutionaries didnt want to/didnt withdraw from the Warsaw pact.  This is untrue.  They did a day before the Soviet Invasion.  
71.183.43.47 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Information 

message: This reads like it was written by a pro-Soviet 9th grade history student trying to write about how things werent "all that bad" in the warsaw pact.  
Look at the statements about Hungary Revolution and Prague Spring!?!! In both situations the Soviets end up invading and suppressing both movements.  
Needs SERIOUS REVISION to be brought in line with the articles that deal with the individual events that make up th ecold war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.43.47 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides those two things you mentioned life in the Warsaw Pact was fine. 70.59.6.195 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? So life with the Stasi in East Germany was a rollicking good time? Life in Romania was fine? having your friend and family members killed by trying to climb the Berlin Wall to leave "Utopia" is "fine"? It's "fine" to live in a police state where you go to jail for saying anything negative against the government is "fine"? My father lived in Poland until he was finally able to leave in 1976. He didn't think life there was "fine"--in fact he never met a single person there, including a couple of party officials he knew(most of whom were just going through the motions of serving their system), who thought the system was "fine" or "decent" or anything but absolutely "immoral". Being called in to give up dirt on his neighbor who was suspected of not being down with the wonderful communist system there was not "fine. Knowing a kid in high school who was arrested and sentenced to jail for spray painting on the High School wall "Stalin is the architect of our doom" is not the sign of a "fine" system. Why is it that the only idiots who still like to white wash the Soviet side of the Cold War are far leftwing Westerners who have no personal knowledge of what life in the Eastern Bloc was like? You ignoranti give the left a bad name (and I'm a liberal). Well, guess what guys, if you are angered by the things like the Patriot Act, I'd love to see the look on your face if you were sent back in time to permanently live in a Warsaw Pact country and see firsthand just how "fine" those wonderful communist governments that you are so keen to apologize for actually were.108.66.53.6 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  F*cking terrible article 

message: I agree that this article comes no where near Wikipedia standards. I read this article a year or so ago, and don't remember it being anywhere near this bad. Many of the statements made appear to be no more than uneducated speculation at best. The article comes across as a pro-soviet biased piece. Opinion cited in Wikipedia articles should be cited as the opinion of historical or relevant figures, cite the general consensus of educated people (experts) or if no consensus exists, then opposing views should be included as such. Many of the uncited statements made in the article seem to be nothing more than personal opinion of a recent editor For example:
1.) "The Warsaw Pact nations cooperated much better than NATO ever has, and most historians say the Warsaw Pact could have defeated NATO in a war."
What should have followed this sentence is additional info explaining WHY this is true or why "most historians" believe it to be true. Nothing followed this statement. Its most glaring omission was a citation. I have read extensively on the Cold War and have rarely gotten the impression from even a few experts (much less "most") that the statement being made here can be substantiated. As a matter of fact, in some cases, I have read the exact opposite. This statement comes off as a personal wish of the person that wrote it.
2.) "In 1991, many Eastern European citizens were tired of communist rule, and they overthrew their governments. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, East Germany, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria all overthrew their governments."
Aside from the fact those statements are misleading or utterly untrue in the case of some nations, I find it hard to believe that In an article about the Warsaw pact that this is ALL that's mentioned on this topic. They all just simultaneously quit communism with nothing more to it than that? This sentence reads like it is being explained (incorrectly) to a fourth grade student. I love it when history is that neat and tidy. How bout in the American history article we write: " In the 1770's Americans unanimously decided the English were bad and kicked them out of the colonies." and just leave it at that. OR how bout: "The Great Schism occurred due to the fact that Christians of the East and West didn't see eye-to eye." and include no further explanation.
3.) "Benefitting from the wealth of data and lessons learned by the Red Army in WW2 the Warsaw Pact forces enjoyed significant advantage over their NATO opposite numbers.. All countries designed their own military hardware and had strong industry and economies. Their militaries were well-led and well-organized."
This is the entirety of the "MILITARY DOCTRINE" heading. Military doctrine of the Warsaw pact could probably be an entire series of books in it's own right, but instead we are again reading uncited, uneducated personal opinion that in at least one instance is completely untrue: ("All countries designed their own military hardware and had strong industry and economies") All of the Warsaw pact nations did not design their own military hardware and not all had strong or even healthy economies. This sounds like an entry into the "All Hail  the Soviet-Bloc in 50 words or less" contest. And apparently, no other nation that was victorious in WWII learned any "lessons".
4.) "Warsaw Pact forces cooperated well together, much better than NATO forces could..[citation needed] This caused alarm to several NATO leaders.[4]."
Here is another gem from the article. The first part is devoid of citation. The second part actually has a citation attached to it. I read the article being cited and the citation is being blatantly misused. The article is about the instability along the Soviet-Polish border caused by the Polish Solidarity Crisis. The only mention of NATO in the article is a couple of sentences describing how they monitored the situation. The quote from the article attempts to make the reader believe that NATO was alarmed at how Warsaw Pact nations "cooperated well together", when in fact the article states (briefly) that NATO merely monitored a situation in Poland caused by internal strife. Not even on Mars are these 2 situations remotely the same.
5.) There are only 4 citations in this ENTIRE article.
I could go on and on...
There appear to be remnants of the original article which was more professionally written, but many sections of the article read like my 8th grade report on the Soviet Union and should be treated as such.
UnHinged (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs help. 

message: This article makes it seems as if the Eastern bloc countries completely lacked any technology or food until the fall of communism in the late 80's/early 90's. When in actuality the Eastern bloc countries rivaled and were sometimes superior economically and militarily to NATO. Also the Red Army was invited by the legitimate governments of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to surpress the rebellions. They were not illegal invasions.71.33.224.73 (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, people.  Information in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, which is typically accomplished by citing a reliable source.  If anyone can do so, that would help the article along.  Thanks.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatelly information is mostly in Czech. Let me cite the official statement of ÚV KSČ (rough translation of 1st and 3rd paragraph): Yesterday, August 20 1968 about 11 pm, the army of USSR, PPR, DDR, HPR and BPR crossed the border of CSSR. This happend without the awareness of the president of the republic, the chairman of the parliament, the prime minister and the first secretary of ÚV KSČ and their agencies. … The presidium of ÚV KSČ consider this act as a denial of all principles in relationship among socialist states and also as a violation of basic standards of an international law. Hopefully this oficial statement clearly shows that Warwaw-pact troops weren't invited by legitimate Czechoslovakian government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.40.20 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life under the Warsaw Pact was wonderful! 

message: How can the title "Warsaw Pact" be be justified if, as claimed in the article, it was an unofficial term used by the west? Surely "Warsaw Pact" should redirect to something like "Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (1955)" -- Fursday 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The unofficial term Warsaw Pact has been also widely used in eastern block. For example I would consider the unofficial term far more prevailing and known in the Czech Republic. Please look at Rusian, Polish, Czech, Slovak… version of this artical – all used the term Warsaw Pact as a title. 86.49.40.20 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: In the English-speaking world, "Warsaw Pact" is far more common, and Wikipedia generally favors using the most common term for an article title.  If (hypothetically) "Treaty of Friendship..." is more common in the Russian-speaking world, then the Russian-language Wikipedia should probably use that title there.  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions for details.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV title 

message: currently
"It was established on May 14, 1955 in Warsaw, Poland. The treaty was signed in Warsaw on May 14, 1955 and official copies were made in Russian, Polish, Czech and German."
suggest revision to "It was established by a treaty signed on May 14, 1955, in Warsaw, Poland, and official copies were made in Russian, Polish, Czech and 
German."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge organizing sentences. 

message: "Despite the fact there were two branches in charge of the armed forces they still reported to the party."
what is the "party" referenced?
68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure - reference to "party" 

message: It needs to be somehow made clear that the Warsaw Pact wasn't really a really a coalition of independent states.  Warsaw Pact countries were de facto parts of the USSR. They were forced to join after being occupied at the end of WWII and subsequently forfeited all autonomy, think of the response to Prague Spring for example.  Conversely, NATO members were free to conduct their internal and to a large extent external affairs (France left the unified command structure for instance).  I don't know how to say it, but the article needs to reflect the fact that the Warsaw Pact wasn't an "alliance" any more than Vichy France and Germany were an "alliance"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.130.184 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mixing stuff up. It was a coalition of states. Some independent, some dependent. At least Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania were so. had they not been, there would be no need to invade the former two when they strayed (HU) or there was a threat of them straying (CS) from the Soviet orbit. Actually, the second militarily strongest member - Czechoslovakia - retained at least as much independance as France did from the US at the time. That is also why Brezhnev got so scared from the Prague spring events in the first place ... 46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: There were no Soviet troops in CS until after the 1968 invasion full 13 years later. CS was listed as victorious country after WW2 so there was not even any left-over Soviet troops by 1946. Unlike HU and RO which were considered defeated countries post WW2. Not that there was a need for them, post Munich CS was overwhelmingly pro-Soviet, including the non-communist parties. Starting with their pre-war president's relationship with Stalin established during the war.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Debatable only when speaking to ignorant communist dupes that is. Somehow I doubt that Poland, whom was invaded by both the Nazi's AND the USSR in 1939, and had thousands of their military/political/intellectual elite murdered by the USSR (something that even Russia recently admitted to), didn't "invite" Soviet troops to stay. Maybe a handful of Polish communists may have "invited" them in, just as a tiny minority of Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian communists invited in the Soviets to their countries, but it's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain and half an education that the vast majority of ppl in eastern europe (and the Baltic nations) didn't want the Soviets in their countries (or the communists running their governments--which is exactly why, suprise, suprise, Stalin never let those nations have free elections or a bona fide referendum after the war like he fooled FDR into thinking he would).99.96.38.179 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually, Romania and Bulgaria did have Soviet troops stationed there right after the war--and those troops stuck around just long enough for the communist regimes there to take root, stabilize and round up and imprison/kill anybody who might pose a problem to the new leadership.99.96.38.179 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so, they were to handle security until the post-WW2 trieties can be sorted out. Sames as US in Germany and Italy. What you are mentioning was just a secondary "bonus". Same as US forces support for Greek pogroms in the 50's.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: True, but at least both West and East Germany deserved to be occupied because of what Germany had done in starting two wars that killed around 80 million people. So West Germany was a satellite state of the US/UK/France (and at the time deserved to be so). The other nations of eastern europe did not deserve the same treatment (especialy Poland that was invaded by both Germany and the USSR).99.96.38.179 (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian occupation 

message: Hi there, I can call myself an expert on the domain since I am writing my paper about the cold war. I did a lot of research and read a lot of books. First of all: it looks like the cold war is still going on on this page! Second: I have my doubts with Albania leaving the WP. I believe that Albania was trwon out. Let me clear things up:
# Communist China isn't happy about the fact that the USSR is 'making friends' with the imperialist west and they tell them.
# Nikita Chroesjtsjov (sry, I don't know the English transliteration since my mother tongue is Dutch) answers Máo Zédōng that his politics are reckless and dogmatic and refuses to help him in the construction of an atomic weapon.
# A cenference is held in 1960 in Moscow to restore the relations. 81 communist parties were represented. The relationships were (officially) restored.
# Since Albania supported China too much during the conference, the Soviet-Union withdraws all its advisors from the country and the country got troxn out of the WP.
Can anyone confirm that? Or were there really big mistakes in my paper? (Anonymus)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.117.155 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania's secession (2) 

message: Warsaw Pact CoA
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Warpac1.GIF  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.130 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoA 

message: The map concerning the juxtaposition of the various European countries during the "Cold War" needs to be either re-labeled or removed. Wlochy, Wegry, NRD, Wielka Brytania, etc. are meaningless to a English speaker or reader. This is English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The section Nomenclature provides translations of Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. What's the purpose in that? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In my opinion, this should be deleted. Quarconi (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: Why is this article written in an American view of the world?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.18.241 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov 

message: The otherwise accurate emblem displayed in the infobox displays the incorrect post-communist flags of Bulgaria, (East) Germany, and Romania, as these flags are missing their Soviet-era emblems. (It should also use a typeface other than Arial, which only became popular after the release of Windows 3 in 1990.) As I have no talent editing svg graphics, I would urge someone who can do this to please fix this. ProhibitOnions (T) 14:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Emblem shows incorrect flags

message: re: . I agree with the tiny edit shortening strategy, but I am not sure if the larger removal that follows is indeed helpful. @User:Esetzeko - could you explain it more? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content 

message: The opening paragraph of the article contains the following sentence (with the part I'm questioning in bold): 
'The Warsaw Pact was in part a Soviet military reaction to the integration of West Germany[2] into NATO in 1955 per the Paris Pacts of 1954,[3][4][5] but was primarily motivated by Soviet desires to maintain control over military forces in Central and Eastern Europe;[6] in turn (according to The Warsaw Pact's preamble) meant to maintain peace in Europe, guided by the objective points and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (1945).'
Is this actually factually verifiable or is it just the accepted opinion in Western countries?  The source cited to support the information (http://wilsoncenter.org/event/warsaw-pact-wartime-statutes%E2%80%94instruments-soviet-control) gives a summary of the assessments by CIA analysts and modern historians of information gathered by the CIA during the 1980s; while they are undoubtedly very knowledgeable people they're simply giving their opinions on the most likely conclusions to be drawn from the information they have which, for the sake of neutrality, shouldn't be presented as the facts of the situation. In fact I can't actually see anything in the source that suggests military control as a motivation for the pact, simply that they believe it was something the USSR wanted once the pact was in place (likely but hardly provable). 
Could someone more knowledgeable than me about the time period either re-word or remove the text as required, or otherwise state why it should remain? I realise this is a sensitive topic for some and that (based on what I've read in the talk page) the article was apparently skewed in the direction of Soviet sympathy previously, however it now seems to have gone (if only slightly and in only a few places) the other way. Cdfbrown (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet military motivation - is this fact? 

message: 1. 'Am restoring stable version of this article's intro.  This is a relatively well-sourced article, and the stable version of intro REFLECTS what the body says.   What one leftist journalistic editorial says in the Sunday NYT does not a body of source material replace.  The reason a WP intro is often or even typically unsourced is that it summarizes what is to come next.  That's not to say you can't place sources in the intro, but they need to NOT contradict the sourced body.
 
2. AFAICT user mymoloboloaccount and apparently others are skipping the part of actually editing the article proper and going right to the intro.  
 
3. It's obviously not for me, at least alone, to say that the leftist editorial from a journalist has no place at all in article if stated as a minority view.  But the placing of this content and the m.o. is all wrong.  An editor wishing to place content in an already heavily sourced article can't logically or by WP convention just ignore the content already there.  You need to carefully read and understand what is already there and fit your new material in.  And as in this case, if the content is controversial, minority, or fringe, you need to seek consensus for your proposed additions.
 
4. In fact the m.o. reminds me of an editor I came across who over a long period of time tried very frontally and stubbornly to Sovietize/Bolshevize several English WP articles--that were already well-stocked with mainstream English-language sources--using Sovietist and other arcane sources.  (I'm not talking mainstream Russian sources.)  Over the course of several years, this user was blocked seven separate times and was finally the last time for a good while.  
 
5. That anyone can edit WP, it is said, is one of the project's great strengths, but IMO also its great weakness.  If you want to push a fringe or even minority POV, the way to do it is to 1. understand you cannot state fringe or minority views as fact, 2. find some credible scholarly sources, and 3. seek consensus at talk for placing your material instead of starting an edit war which will lead nowhere good for you.  It would be worthwhile to read and comprehend WP:Bold, especially the "... but please be careful!" Paavo273 (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring stable version of intro.  Intro is not the place to begin re-writing article.  Dubious source is out of place in intro if it's even WP-citeable at all. 

message: Only the Soviet Union fought Hungarians, no other country participated.Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hungarian security forces loyal to the government of Kadar participated, side by side with Soviet forces, in quelling the uprising.  By saying "no other country participated" overlooks the internal nature of the conflict, and overlooks Hungary's own participation in the crackdown. CarlsonC (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the intervention was precipitated by the Hungarian desire to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. Volunteer Marek  16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hungarian Revolution of 1956]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Warsaw Pact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150924111802/http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=home.browse&sort=collection&item=Warsaw%20Pact to http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=home.browse&sort=collection&item=Warsaw%20Pact
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is an article on European history and to spell the word as defense doesn't look right to me as it implies this is an American viewpoint.
I am not changing the spelling to the English version but the Wiki advice seems to suggest that the English spelling would be more appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling
80.44.155.162 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially given European Defence Community. General practice (though not policy) on WP for countries which do not have English as a primary language is to use US English for the Western Hemisphere and Commonwealth English for the Eastern hemisphere, and given the article European Defence Community, it makes good sense to follow that here. I've changed all the spellings except for the direct uote (which was by an American speaker, and therefore "defense" is appropriate there). Grutness...wha? 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  American spelling of the word defence 

message: Could the possessive apostrophe be added to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox correction 

message: The photos in this section are, to say the least, confusing. These seem to be the leaders at the time the pact split up, though there's no indication of that in the (lack of) text of the section. In the case of the Albanian leader, it is a leader who never presided over the country during its time in the Warsaw Pact. I'd suggest this should be changed into a table, listing all the leaders for each country during their membership of the Pact, with either greatly reduced images or no images at all. It looks bizarre to have Ramiz Alia listed but not the likes of Novotny, Stalin, Hoxha, or Brezhnev. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup required on "Heads of State and Government of the Warsaw Pact member states" section

message: The map in the wiki shows Spain being blue and a member of nato in 1973.  The wiki on member states of nato says that it only joined in 1983.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.180 (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain in NATO in 1973 

message: I've just come across this article for another reason, as it was a link that I used to see what was said, and barely any of this is factually accurate....there are truths in the article, but they get lost amongst the 'claptrap'. The obvious bias is clear, not that I think it's opposite number on NATO is any better in certain regards, but this is much worse. I'm going to dig up my military history books and find some Secondary and Tertiary sources for a much needed 'de-Soviet-isation' (coulnd't think of anything better...) of the content. One clear point in case is the Map used to designate the Warsaw Pact countries in 1973, which unlike the article, doesn't include Czechoslovakia....and as stated above incorrectly includes Spain as part of NATO, and having a Slovakian mother in law who escaped in the late 70s would be horrified about the obvious slant. Nürö  G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see what the book you got. Feel free to discuss changes. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire page is full of mistakes..... 

message: The sections of this article, like the article for 7 Days to The River Rhine, have very poor citations which both do not support the statements made and are not from reliable sources on the matters. I would suggest referencing Soviet statements about Nuclear Weapons use in John Hines et al.'s 1994 'Soviet Intentions 1965-85' Vols. 1 and 2. If memory serves Makhut Gareev, in charge of Warsaw Pact planning at the time, makes statements relevant to the discussion, though not directly to the 7DTRR exercise as it was not declassified at the time. The general supposition that it is some kind of bible to Soviet/Warsaw Pact War Planning in the 1970's-1980's is not supported by the evidence available. In fact a faction within the Soviet General Staff felt that a war with NATO could be kept completely conventional as far as the Pyrenees by 1981, per Hines Vol.1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.142 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Central and Eastern Europe after the Warsaw Treaty */ brought attention to poor citations regarding 7 Days to River Rhine 

message: The term geostratic needs a link to a wiki on the subject or an in-line definition TheArcane03 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geostratic needs link or definition 

message: The NYT source which mentions 1 July also states that the dissolution became official when ratified by each individual country's Parliament. As such, isn't the end of the Pact on the date when the very last country ratified this? Transylvania1916 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the end date for the Pact really correct?  

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) 10:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Post-Warsaw Pacts: the wording "after a supposed NATO first strike" needs to be corrected. Removal of the word 'supposed' will be necessary in order for the article to be one of facts and not opinions, as is required by WikipediaStill-Learning-19 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   Bias 

message: - «‎End of the Cold War:  add a small clarification from the source; tag for a better source ‎References / Notes:  Add subsection Notes»
: In the edit above I've requested a better source than one given in the article and which is a dictionary. I would like to see a tertiary source discussing the matter of collapse. Probably in 3 or 3 languages that come to the same conclusion over the source of economical and political disintegration. Probably best to find these in glasnost and perestroika articles themselves. My best.
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Glasnost and Perestroika 

message: Compare these two maps, bottom right.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Warsaw_Pact_in_1990_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg 24.35.93.245 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map missing part of USSR