Soviet Union

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) ( (СССР) ; Transliteration of Russian into English: ''Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (SSSR))'', also called the Soviet Union (Сове́тский Сою́з; tr.: ''Sovetsky Soyuz''), was a state in much of the northern region of Eurasia that existed from 1922 until its dissolution in 1991. The Russia is widely accepted as the Soviet Union's successor state in diplomatic affairs. Its formation was the culmination of the 1917 October Revolution, which overthrew Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. The political organization of the country was defined by the only permitted political party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The territory of the Soviet Union varied, and in its most recent times approximately corresponded to that of the late Imperial Russia, with notable exclusions of Poland and Finland. ==History == The USSR is generally considered to be the successor of the Russian Empire, whose last monarch, Nicholas_II_of_Russia, ruled until 1917. He was later taken to Yekaterinburg and executed by the Ural Soviet. The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 as the union of the Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Belarusian SSR, and Transcaucasian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic Soviet republics ruled by Bolshevik parties. Revolutionary activity in Russia began with the Decembrist Revolt, uncovered in 1825, and although Russian serfdom was abolished in 1861, its abolition was achieved on terms unfavorable to the peasants and served to encourage revolutionaries. A parliament, the Duma, was established in 1906, after the 1905 Revolution but political and social unrest continued and was aggravated during World War I by military defeat and food shortages. A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd, in response to the wartime decay of Russia's physical well-being and morale, culminated in the toppling of the imperial government in March 1917 (''see'' February Revolution). The autocracy was replaced by the Russian Provisional Government, 1917, whose leaders intended to establish democracy in Russia and to continue participating on the side of the Allies in World War I. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils, known as soviet (council)s, sprang up across the country. The radical Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, agitated for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets. They seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917 (''see'' October Revolution). Only after the long and bloody Russian Civil War of (1918-1921), which included combat between government forces and foreign troops in several parts of Russia, was the new communist regime secure. In a related conflict, the "Peace of Riga" in early 1921 split disputed territory in Belarus and Ukraine between Poland and Soviet Russia. From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning in March 1918. After the extraordinary economic policy of war communism during the Civil War the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s and total food requisition in the countryside was replaced by a food tax (''see'' New Economic Policy). Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating his influence and isolating his rivals within the party, notably Lenin's more obvious heir Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s. In 1928 Stalin introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In industry the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms (''see'' Collectivisation in the USSR). The Soviet Union became a major industrial power; but the plan's implementation produced widespread misery for some segments of the population. Collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of casualties, particularly in Ukraine. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s, when Stalin began a purge of the party (''see'' Great Purges); out of this process grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions from all walks of life (''see'' Gulag). Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II. Although Stalin tried to avert war with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in 1939, in 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. It has been debated that the Soviet Union had the intention of invading Germany once they were sufficiently strong enough. The Red Army stopped the Nazi Germany offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943 and drove through Eastern Europe to Berlin before Germany surrendered in 1945 (''see'' Eastern Front (WWII)). Although ravaged by the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as an acknowledged great power. During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, with control always exerted exclusively from Moscow. The Soviet Union consolidated its hold on Eastern Europe, supplied aid to the eventually victorious communists in the People's Republic of China, and sought to expand its influence elsewhere in the world. This active foreign policy helped bring about the Cold War, which turned the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, into foes (''see'' Cold War). Within the Soviet Union, repressive measures continued in force; Stalin apparently was about to launch a new purge when he died in 1953. In the absence of an acceptable successor, Stalin's closest associates opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly, although a struggle for power took place behind the facade of collective leadership. Nikita Khrushchev, who won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of terror and eased repressive controls over party and society (''see'' History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985)#De-Stalinization and the Khrushchev era). During this period the Soviet Union managed the global propaganda coups of launching the first satellite Sputnik 1 and man Yuri Gagarin into orbit. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive, and foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered reverses. Khrushchev's colleagues in the leadership removed him from power in 1964. Following the ouster of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, lasting until Leonid Brezhnev established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of ''Cold War (1962-1991)#Détente'' with the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of détente in the late 1970s. Another contributing factor was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. Through out the period the USSR attempted to maintain parity with the United States in the areas of military technology but this expansion ultimately crippled the economy. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of aversion to change. Two developments dominated the decade that followed: the increasingly apparent crumbling of the Soviet Union's economic and political structures, and the patchwork attempts at reforms to reverse that process. After the rapid succession of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, transitional figures with deep roots in Brezhnevite tradition, the energetic Mikhail Gorbachev made significant changes in the economy and the party leadership. His policy of ''glasnost'' freed public access to information after decades of government repression. But Gorbachev failed to address the fundamental flaws of the Soviet system; by 1991, when a plot by government insiders revealed the weakness of Gorbachev's political position, the end of the Soviet Union was in sight. On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR and turned the powers of his office over to Boris Yeltsin. The next day, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved and by the end of the year all official Soviet institutions had ceased operations. == Politics == The government of the Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society. It implemented decisions made by the leading political institution in the country, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics in common with Western, democratic political systems. For instance, a constitution established all organs of government and granted to citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state, oversaw the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which acted as the executive branch of the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, that was responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government bodies. According to the 1977 Soviet Constitution, the government had a federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of participation in the management of their own affairs. In practice, however, the government differed markedly from Western systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its ''nomenklatura'' authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of democratic centralism. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs. The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical Western constitutions. It generally described existing political relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed, giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals, and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU could radically change the constitution or remake it completely, as it has done several times in the past. The Council of Ministers acted as the executive body of the government. Its most important duties lay in the administration of the economy. The council was thoroughly under the control of the CPSU, and its chairman - the Premier of the Soviet Union--was always a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. The council, which in 1989 included more than 100 members, is too large and unwieldy to act as a unified executive body. The council's Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, made up of the leading economic administrators and led by the chairman, exercised dominant power within the Council of Ministers. According to the Constitution, as amended in 1988, the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union was the Congress of People's Deputies, which convened for the first time in May 1989. The main tasks of the congress were the election of the standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, and the election of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, who acted as head of state. Theoretically, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet wielded enormous legislative power. In practice, however, the Congress of People's Deputies met only a few days in 1989 to approve decisions made by the party, the Council of Ministers, and its own Supreme Soviet. The Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and the Council of Ministers had substantial authority to enact laws, decrees, resolutions, and orders binding on the population. The Congress of People's Deputies had the authority to ratify these decisions. The judiciary was not independent. The Supreme Court supervised the lower courts and applied the law, as established by the Constitution or as interpreted by the Supreme Soviet. The Constitutional Oversight Committee reviewed the constitutionality of laws and acts. The Soviet Union lacked an adversary court procedure. Under Soviet law, which derived from Roman law, a procurator worked together with a judge and a defense attorney to ensure that civil and criminal trials uncovered the truth of the case, rather than having advocates for and against the accused. The Soviet Union was a federal state made up of fifteen republics joined together in a theoretically voluntary union. In turn, a series of territorial units made up the republics. The republics also contained jurisdictions intended to protect the interests of national minorities. The republics had their own constitutions, which, along with the all-union Constitution, provide the theoretical division of power in the Soviet Union. In 1989, however, the CPSU and the central government retained all significant authority, setting policies that were executed by republic, provincial, oblast, and district governments. *''see also: Soviet law'' == Foreign relations == Once a pariah denied diplomatic recognition by most countries, the Soviet Union had official relations with the majority of the nations of the world by the late 1980s. The Soviet Union also had progressed from being an outsider in international organizations and negotiations to being one of the arbiters of Europe's fate after World War II. A member of the United Nations at its foundation in 1945, the Soviet Union became one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council which gave it the right to veto any of its resolutions (''see'' Soviet Union and the United Nations). The USSR emerged as one of the two major world powers, a position maintained for four decades through its hegemony in Eastern Europe (''see'' Eastern Bloc), military strength, aid to developing countries, and scientific research, especially into space technology and weaponry. The Soviet Union's effort to extend its influence or control over many states and peoples resulted in the formation of a world socialist system of states. Established in 1949 as an economic bloc of communist countries led by Moscow, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) served as a framework for cooperation among the planned economies of the Soviet Union, its allies in Eastern Europe, and, later, Soviet allies in the Third World. The military counterpart to the Comecon was the Warsaw Pact. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union achieved rough nuclear parity with the United States, and surpassed it by the end of that decade with the deployment of the SS-18 missile. It perceived its own involvement as essential to the solution of any major international problem. Meanwhile, the Cold War gave way to ''Cold War (1962-1991)#D�tente'' and a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer clearly split into two clearly opposed blocs. Less powerful countries had more room to assert their independence, and the two superpowers were partially able to recognize their common interest in trying to check the further spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons (''see'' SALT I, SALT II, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). By the early 1970s, the Soviet Union had concluded friendship and cooperation treaties with a number of states in the non-communist world, especially among Third World and Non-Aligned Movement states. Notwithstanding some ideological obstacles, Moscow advanced state interests by gaining military footholds in strategically important areas throughout the Third World. Furthermore, the USSR continued to provide military aid for revolutionary movements in the Third World. For all these reasons, Soviet foreign policy was of major importance to the non-communist world and helped determine the tenor of international relations. Although myriad bureaucracies were involved in the formation and execution of Soviet foreign policy, the major policy guidelines were determined by the Politburo of the Communist Party. The foremost objectives of Soviet foreign policy had been the maintenance and enhancement of national security and the maintenance of hegemony over Eastern Europe. Relations with the United States and Western Europe were also of major concern to Soviet foreign policy makers, and relations with individual Third World states were at least partly determined by the proximity of each state to the Soviet border and to Soviet estimates of its strategic significance. When Mikhail Gorbachev succeeded Konstantin Chernenko as General Secretary of the CPSU in 1985, it signalled a dramatic change in Soviet foreign policy. Gorbachev pursued conciliatory policies toward the West instead of maintaining the Cold War status quo. The USSR ended its military occupation of Afghanistan, signed strategic arms reduction treaties with the United States, and allowed its satellite states in Eastern Europe to determine their own affairs. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Federation claimed to be the legal successor to the Soviet Union on the international stage despite its loss of superpower status. Russian foreign policy repudiated Marxism-Leninism as a guide to action, soliciting Western support for capitalist reforms in post-Soviet Russia. ''See'' Military history of the Soviet Union == Republics == The Soviet Union was a federation of Soviet Socialist Republics (SSR). The first Republics were established shortly after the October Revolution of 1917. At that time, republics were technically independent one from another but their governments acted in close coordination, as directed by the CPSU leadership. In 1922, four Republics (Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Belarusian SSR, and Transcaucasian SFSR) joined into the Soviet Union. Between 1922 and 1940, the number of Republics grew to sixteen. Some of the new Republics were formed from territories acquired, or reacquired by the Soviet Union, others by splitting existing Republics into several parts. The criteria for establishing new republics were as follows: # to be located on the periphery of the Soviet Union so as to be able to exercise their alleged right to secession, # be economically strong enough to survive on their own upon secession and # be named after the dominant ethnic group which should consist of at least one million people. The system remained almost unchanged after 1940. No new Republics were established. One republic, Karelo-Finnish SSR, was disbanded in 1956. The remaining 15 republics lasted until 1991. Secession remained theoretical, and very unlikely, given Soviet centralism, until the 1991 collapse of the Union. At that time, the republics became independent countries, with some still loosely organized under the heading Commonwealth of Independent States. Some republics had common history and geographical regions, and were referred by group names. These were Baltic Republics, Transcaucasian Federative Soviet Socialist Republic, and Central Asian Republics. {| border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;" |- ! Soviet Republics ! Independent states |- |Armenian SSR |Armenia |- |Azerbaijan SSR |Azerbaijan |- |Byelorussian SSR |Belarus |- |Estonian SSR |Estonia |- |Georgian SSR |Georgia (country) |- |Kazakh SSR |Kazakhstan |- |Kirghiz SSR |Kyrgyzstan |- |Latvian SSR |Latvia |- |Lithuanian SSR |Lithuania |- |Moldavian SSR |Moldova |- |Russian SFSR |Russian Federation |- |Tajik SSR |Tajikistan |- |Turkmen SSR |Turkmenistan |- |Ukrainian SSR |Ukraine |- |Uzbek SSR |Uzbekistan |} ==Economy== Prior to its collapse, the Soviet Union had the largest centrally directed economy in the world. The regime established its economic priorities through planned economy, a system under which administrative decisions rather than the market determined resource allocation and prices. Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the country grew from a largely underdeveloped peasant society with minimal industry to become the second largest industrial power in the world. According to Soviet statistics, the country's share in world industrial production grew from 4 percent to 20 percent between 1913 and 1980. Although many Western analysts considered these claims to be inflated, the Soviet achievement remained remarkable. Recovering from the calamitous events of World War II, the country's economy had maintained a continuous though uneven rate of growth. Living standards, although still modest for most inhabitants by Western standards, had improved, and Soviet citizens of the late 1980s had a measure of economic security. Although these past achievements were impressive, in the mid-1980s Soviet leaders faced many problems. Production in the consumer goods in the Soviet Union and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (''see'' Agriculture of the Soviet Union). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and between 5-10 millions of deaths, particularly in Ukraine, but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas. In addition, since the 1970s, the growth rate had slowed substantially. Extensive economic development, based on vast inputs of materials and labor, was no longer possible; yet the productivity of Soviet assets remained low compared with other major industrialized countries. Product quality needed improvement. Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote the creativity and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy. Conceding the weaknesses of their past approaches in solving new problems, the leaders of the late 1980s were seeking to mold a program of economic reform to galvanize the economy. The leadership, headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, was experimenting with solutions to economic problems with an openness (''glasnost'') never before seen in the history of the economy. One method for improving productivity appeared to be a strengthening of the role of market forces. Yet reforms in which market forces assumed a greater role would signify a lessening of authority and control by the planning hierarchy. Assessing developments in the economy was difficult for Western observers. The country contained enormous economic and regional disparities. Yet analyzing statistical data broken down by region was a cumbersome process. Furthermore, Soviet statistics themselves might have been of limited use to Western analysts because they are not directly comparable with those used in Western countries. The differing statistical concepts, valuations, and procedures used by communist and noncommunist economists made even the most basic data, such as the relative productivity of various sectors, difficult to assess. Most Western analysts, and some Soviet economists, doubted the accuracy of the published statistics, recognizing that the industrial growth figures tend to be inflated. == Geography == The Soviet Union occupied the eastern portion of the European continent and the northern portion of the Asian continent. Most of the country was north of 50° north latitude and covered a total area of approximately 22,402,200 square kilometres. Due to the sheer size of the state, the climate varied greatly from Subtropical climate and Continental climate to Subarctic climate and Polar climate. 11 percent of the land was arable land, 16 percent was meadows and pasture, 41 percent was forest and woodland, and 32 percent was declared "other" (including tundra). == Demographics and society== The Soviet Union was one of the world's most ethnically diverse countries, with more than 100 distinct national ethnicities living within its borders. The total population was estimated at 293 million in 1991. The major proportion of the population were Russians (about 53.4 percent, 1970 census); there were also Ukrainians (16.9 percent), Uzbeks (3.8 percent) and many other nationalities. The Soviet Union was so large, in fact, that even after all associated republics gained independence, Russia remained the largest country by area, and still remains quite ethnically diverse, including, e.g., minorities of Tatar, Udmurt, and many other non-Russian ethnicities. ===Nationalities=== The extensive multinational empire that the Bolsheviks inherited after their revolution was created by Tsarist expansion over some four centuries. Some nationality groups came into the empire voluntarily, but most were brought in by force. Generally, the Russians and most of the non-Russian subjects of the empire shared little in common—culture, religion, or language. More often than not, two or more diverse nationalities were collocated on the same territory. Therefore, national antagonisms built up over the years not only against the Russians but often between some of the subject nations as well. For close to seventy years, Soviet leaders had maintained that frictions between the many nationalities of the Soviet Union had been eliminated and that the Soviet Union consisted of a family of nations living harmoniously together. However, the national ferment that shook almost every corner of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s proved that seventy years of communist rule had failed to obliterate national and ethnic differences and that traditional cultures and religions would reemerge given the slightest opportunity. This reality facing Gorbachev and his colleagues meant that, short of relying on the traditional use of force, they had to find alternative solutions in order to prevent the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The concessions granted national cultures and the limited autonomy tolerated in the union republics in the 1920s led to the development of national elites and a heightened sense of national identity. Subsequent repression and Russianization fostered resentment against domination by Moscow and promoted further growth of national consciousness. National feelings were also exacerbated in the Soviet multinational state by increased competition for resources, services, and jobs. ===Religious groups=== The Separation of church and state by the Decree of Council of People's Comissars 1918 January 23. Official figures on the number of religious believers in the Soviet Union were not available in 1989. But according to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially atheistic state, professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Eastern Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholicism; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. There were many churches in the country (7500 Russian Orthodox churches in 1974). The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on primitive spiritualism. The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant. ==Culture== ''See'' Culture of the Soviet Union *Soviet education *Cinema of Russia *Soviet Television *USSR at the Summer Olympics *USSR at the Winter Olympics *USSR Chess Championship *Palace of Culture *Research in the Soviet Union *Soviet Ballroom dances *Soviet Student Olympiads *''Great Soviet Encyclopedia'' == Holidays == {| border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;" |- style=background:#efefef; ! Date !! English Name !! Local Name !! Remarks |- | January 1 || New Year's Day || Новый Год || |- | January 7 || Christmas || Рождество || Orthodox Christmas |- |- valign=top | February 23 || Red Army Day || День Советской Армии и Военно-Морского Флота || February Revolution, 1917,
Formation of the Red Army, 1918 Is currently called День Защитника Отечества |- | March 8 || International Women's Day || Международный Женский День || |- | April 12 || Cosmonauts Day || День Космонавтики ||День Космонавтики - The Day Yuri Gagarin became the first man in Space, in 1961. |- | May 1 || May Day || Первое Мая - День Солидарности Трудящихся || |- | May 9 || Victory Day || День Победы || End of Great Patriotic War, marked by capitulation of Nazi Germany, 1945 |- | October 7 || 1977 Soviet Constitution || День Конституции СССР ||1977 Constitution of the USSR accepted |- | November 7 || Great October Socialist Revolution || Седьмое Ноября || October Revolution 1917; it is currently called День Примирения и Согласия; |} ==Related articles== * Post-Soviet states ==Further reading== *Brown, Archie, et al, eds., ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union'' (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982). *Gilbert, Martin, ''The Routledge Atlas of Russian History'' (London: Routledge, 2002). *Goldman, Minton, ''The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe'' (Connecticut: Global Studies, Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1986). *Howe, G. Melvyn, ''The Soviet Union: A Geographical Survey'' 2nd. edn. (Estover, UK: MacDonald and Evans, 1983). *Katz, Zev, ed., ''Handbook of Major Soviet Nationalities'' (New York: Free Press, 1975). *Bruno Rizzi, "The bureaucratization of the world : the first English ed. of the underground marxist classic that analyzed class exploitation in the USSR" , New York, NY : Free Press, 1985 ==External links== * [http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/art/photography/index.htm Images of the Soviet Union] - a collection of photos showing everyday life in the Soviet Union * [http://geocities.com/deweytextsonline/isr.htm Impressions of Soviet Russia, by John Dewey] * [http://plakat.artmam.com/ Soviet Union Time Posters / Plakat /] == References == * - [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Soviet Union] Communism Former countries Russian history Soviet Union la:Unio Rerum Publicarum Socialisticarum Sovieticarum lv:Padomju Savienība scn:Unioni suvietica simple:Soviet Union th:สหภาพโซเวียต

Soviet Union

''See also :category:Russia, since the histories of the two overlap heavily.'' Russian history Former countries Communist states

Soviet Union

Note that this is subordinate to :Category:Russian history, which is subordinate to :Category:Russia. I don't necessarily object to that, since the Russian SSR so dominated the Soviet Union, but it is a little problematic. It means that subordinate categories (such as :Category:Leaders of the Soviet Union) are indirectly under Russia, even though the people in question are not all Russians (Stalin being an obvious example to the contrary: he was Georgian). Should we have a note about this in the category itself? -- User:Jmabel 21:25, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Earlier talk moved to Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 1, Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 2, Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 3 ==Summary of previous discussion== The question of whether the USSR should be described as "totalitarian" was broached, as the article currently does not use that term. *Arguments for: **The USSR is commonly considered totalitarian. **The article Nazi Germany uses the term to describe that regime, and Soviet Union is a comparable article. *Arguments against: **Scholars disagree on the proper application of the term "totalitarian", so in light of that uncertainty it should be avoided as being POV. **Soviet Union, being a summary article, is not directly comparable to Nazi Germany, it being part of the History of Germany series. The question of how the scale of the deaths during the USSR's history should be represented was broached. The suggestion was to quantify it as "millions" of people. Further, whether this should be called "murder" or "killings", or some other term, was discussed. *Arguments for "millions": **Millions did, in fact, die. *Arguments against "millions": (none) ''(though I may be misremembering: correct me if wrong — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage) *Arguments for "murder": **Murder is a legal term, so it's neutral and appropriate. *Arguments against "murder": **Murder, in the context of lawmaker-sanctioned killings, is a moral term, so it's not neutral and is inappropriate. Whether there should be more details about the agricultural failure was broached. *Arguments for: **It represents a significant aspect of the collapse of the USSR. **It was, at least in part, engineered as part of the campaign of killings. **The failure to manage agriculture, being a significant purpose of civilisation, and the land in question being adequate for the needs of the population, is a significant indicator of the general failure of communism. *Arguments against: **It's covered adequately for the purpose of the article, which is a summary and gateway to other USSR articles. **Wikipedia is not in the business of doing Wikipedia:No original research on "why" things happened, only presenting what did happen and what respected experts think about "why". Further, saying why is inappropriate for the purpose of the article, being summary, as in the above point. The purpose of this article was broached (as you see above). The article was claimed to currently be a summary of the USSR so that it could act as a gateway to other, more detailed and specific, articles on the USSR. The counter claim was that the USSR is directly comparable to Nazi Germany, and this article should be about the USSR as a regime, and so mirror the article Nazi Germany in structure. *Arguments for similar structure to Nazi Germany: **The USSR was not a legitimate country, but was a regime. Therefore, it is directly comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany. Q.E.D. *Arguments for it being summary/gateway article: **The USSR was a country with a history of several distinct regimes. Further, Soviet Union is not a part of the History of the USSR series, while Nazi Germany is a part of the History of Germany series. The article directly comparable to Soviet Union would instead be Germany. ''(or perhaps "East Germany" was intended? — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage)'' ---- Please avoid editing the summary. This summary is for new people entering the discussion to be aware of the unresolved issued that can be found in the Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 3—it is not supposed to satisfy any of the original participants that their arguments have been presented strongly enough, convincingly enough, or in enough detail. Most disagreement with the summary can be done by just re-opening the issues anew below this summary. Only ''omissions of entire arguments'' should be grounds for changing the summary. :(Summary written by — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 22:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)) ==Rewrite== Here's a rewrite of the article based on LOC handbook text at Soviet Union/temp. I favor the article as it is as a more concise and condensed directory of Soviet-related topics. But I can accept basing a new one on one the LOC if it can put an end to this dispute. User:172 15:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Was the LOC text written in 1989? In my opinion, the Soviet Union article must at its core reflect that it no longer exists. User:Libertas ::Some parts are, other parts where nececessary are more up-to-date. The history section is taken from the background section in the handbook on Russia. Hence the references to the collapse of the Soviet Union. User:172 03:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::Also, this is the standard template followed, irrespective of whether or not the nation is defunct or existing. See Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and East Germany. User:172 03:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Its isn't negative enough about collectivization, soviet agriculture and general inefficiency. It should also point out that economic growth was also impressive under the Tsars, it is quite possible that its simply not the Soviet Union who is to thank for Russia's (for a time) impressive technological and military industrial capabilities. From the article it sounds as if the soviet economy was very rosy, its agriculture was blood red. --User:CJWilly 20:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Are the facts not negative enough (or not enough of them) or is the tone not negative enough? The first is relevant, the second is not permitted. — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 21:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) ::There are insufficient facts about these matters, CJ Willy is quite right. User:Libertas :::Considering that mass starvation was also an issue under the Czars, to give the Soviets credit for the bad and the Czars credit for the good is not NPOV Libertas. I like this article, and I think it makes a much cleaner basis for collective writing than what we have right now. As for reflecting at its core that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, that isn't exactly a complex issue now is it? Or does it need to be mentioned in every paragraph?--User:Che y Marijuana 00:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) :::Comparing the USSR with what preceded it will indeed make it look good indeed, at least in some respects. Comparing it with places where freedom, the market mechanism and the rule of law prevailed may give different results. However, this article, as I understand it is not meant to be comparative. :::And yes, when talking about a former country, such as the Roman Empire or Austro-Hungary or South Vietnam or whatever then I think that it needs a quite different treatment than to a nation that currently exists. In all the cases of former, it is appropriate - at length in my view - to consider why it collapsed or dissolved. I think we can work towards that.User:Libertas ::::For information on the collapse, see History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991). Additional info on trends underpinning the collapse can be found at History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985). User:172 03:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::My main beef with the article is that it doesn't make clear that agriculture was a persistent problem for the soviets from 1917 to 1991. During the civil war peasants witheld grain, collectivization crippled soviet livestock production (not to mention starving millions of people, immoral AND inefficient!), but even after Stalin Russia had to import its food. It should read: "The Soviets turned Russia from an industrially bankrupt agricultural Great Power to an agriculturally bankrupt industrial Superpower." Or something similar, the failure of Soviet agriculture is not stressed enough in the article, nevermind that they make the engineered starvation of the 30s sound like an accident (when it was clearly done intentionally, unlike starvation under Mao). --User:CJWilly 00:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::::Because these subjects reflect poorly on the Soviet Union, I know that they are the favored topics of many people who want to make this into a Cold Warrior's article. Some may be interested in the economic planning process. Some may be interested in the reforms under Gorbachev. Some may be interested in the NEP. Some may be interested in the Cold War. Some may be interested in the Second World War. And so forth. Depending on where your interests lie, you can technically make the case that just about any area is deficient. After all, any article of this size on a topic such as the Soviet Union is inherently incapable of saying much. An article of this size and scope will just be able to offer the broadest brush survey picture. Nevertheless, poor agricultural productivity and the famine in the 1930s are covered. See under history: ''...in agriculture the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms (see Collectivization in the USSR). The plan's implementation produced widespread misery, including the deaths of millions of peasants by starvation or directly at the hands of the government during forced collectivization.'' See also under economy: ''Production in the consumer goods in the Soviet Union and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of casualties, particularly in Ukraine. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas.'' Further details on agriculture are found in Economy of the Soviet Union, Agriculture of the Soviet Union, Collectivisation in the USSR, and History of the Soviet Union. Also, the industrially bankrupt/agriculturally bankrupt idea makes no sense. Bankrupt is an economic term and we should use it precisely. The said usage is not precise or accurate. User:172 03:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) User:172 03:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) For now can CJWilly and Libertas at least agree that they find the LOC text an improvement over the article that is currently protected? Would they mind replacing it with the current article at least for the time being? No matter which article is up, they can still demand on the talk pages that the article be made more and more anti-Soviet for them. User:172 03:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Include totalitarian dictatorship and a small reference to Soviet colonial power in the first para and you have a deal. Otherwise, no I don't agree. The LOC is an (15 years old) outdated article that is seriously flawed in many respects, even structurally, which I am slowly attempting to correct. I believe it would be welcomed by most if that process was allowed to evolve without reversion. User:Libertas Wikipedia articles avoid terms like "totalitarian dictatorship" because of the NPOV policy, and lacking a set of standard editorial policies, such terms would be applied inconsistently given the lack of policy guidelines for applying them. Also, many reject the description of the USSR as totalitarian after Stalin's death. Instead, a link to Communist state is more informative and specific. User:172 04:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Totalitarian and dictatorship are two words with meaning and indeed are defined at length on Wikipedia with their own articles. Perhaps we should delete the articles, because no regime could ever qualify. That is not what neutrality means. The USSR qualifies under those definitions, under the vast majority of non-Marxist scholarship (we have already dealt with the sources issue at length), as reflected in Britannica and Encarta which both deal with the former USSR at length and very adequately synthesize that scholarship into long articles. Also, earlier versions of this article included the terms and were edited out. I encourage those interested to go back and see what went on previously. The issue is whether "totalitarian dictatorships" are non-neutral language. I don't think they are non-neutral at all. The words have meaning, I think Fred has written at length on how the USSR qualified and I defer to his effort. Perhaps someone should post it up here. Now is the time to resolve it. User:Libertas :Re: ''The USSR qualifies under those definitions, under the vast majority of non-Marxist scholarship...'' This probably does not need to be said, given the deal that was just made. But the debate on totalitarianism has little correlation with a debate pitting Marxist scholars against non-Marxist scholars. Victor Serge, a Marxist, e.g., was the one who first applied the term to the Soviet Union. When you premise the debate on totalitarianism as one pitting Marxists against non-Marxists, you should be careful to distinguish Marxist scholars from the official Marxist-Leninist propagandists of the Soviet regime. Marxism as one of the three founding school of thought in social theory (along with work drawing on Weber and Durkheim) is a distinct tradition from the official regime ideology of Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union. On one hand, Soviet Marxist-Leninist propaganda denies Soviet totalitarianism for political reasons. On the other hand, Marxist scholarship is not even equipped to deal with this debate. Lacking an adequate theory of the state, Marx's work is not equipped for dealing with the question of totalitarianism; so the "Marxist scholars" aren't really participants in the debate that you are bringing up. Marx had concluded that socialist revolution would break up the state bureaucracy of the regime as it resolved the contractions of capitalism and advanced human emancipation; and his predictions concerning the establishment of a new socialist order were consistently vague throughout his life. When he dealt with this most thoroughly, in ''The Civil War in France'' (1871), he argued that the failed Paris Commune of 1871 highlighted the ways in which the new socialist society would act to make the state apparatus an agent of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoisie. He predicted that following a successful socialist revolution, Marx envisaged the "withering away of the state," as the role of the state to suppress forces challenging the contractions of capitalism would disappear. Refuting Marx, Weber argued that even in the case of revolution by force or of occupation by an enemy, the bureaucratic machinery will normally continue to function just as it has for the previous legal government. All careful historical studies confirm this, showing that when it actually came to creating structures of power in the Soviet Union, Lenin almost immediately marginalized the "Soviets" or any form of Paris Commune-like democracy and built instead the hyperstatism of the centralized party-state. Thus, all respected Marxist scholarship (e.g., Barrington Moore and Theda Skocpol) concedes that the state is not a mere "executive committee of the ruling class" and that Marx did not develop a framework envisaging the state emerging as a structure, a potential autonomous actor in history with interests of its own. So even scholars who use Marxian analyses to provide a powerful method of explaining the basic inequalities in capitalist society concede that Marxism is not equipped to deal with the question of state power in the Soviet Union. User:172 06:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) :172, my point was not that Marxist sources (whether official or unofficial or whatever) have no validity, or even always agree, but that relying on them as sources in a discussion of whether the USSR was totalitarian was unlikely to help resolve the matter. Especially in circumstances where the vast majority of non-Marxists disagreed. :This was particularly the case when those seeking to rely on a scholars' work expressly and emphatically denied they were Marxist when in fact they were. Attempting to win an argument is fine, but hopefully we are all here to contribute something, to learn something and to create neutral articles. Without any hyperbole or excitement and well after the event, I think it would be great if we could advance our positions totally openly and properly. :Several users challenged me to find a Marxist source among any of those referred to, denying that any of them were Marxist. The fact that the very first one I checked was characterized as Marxist by multiple sources did not give me much faith in the process we had been going through. I wondered why we'd bothered if the whole thing was just posturing. I am a cynical right-winger, and even I felt a bit let down. :As it happens, in the end you advanced a perfectly reasonable compromise entirely consistent with NPOV principles, and I really commend you for that. You restored my faith and took all the heat out of this brushfire. User:Libertas ==Personal remarks== '''"Because these subjects reflect poorly on the Soviet Union, I know that they are the favored topics of many people who want to make this into a Cold Warrior's article."''' I believe most would welcome a permanent cessation of this sort of commentary. From me included. User:Libertas ==Deal?== ''Include totalitarian dictatorship and a small reference to Soviet colonial power in the first para and you have a deal.'' How about adding this in the intro: Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1922 to his death in 1953 molded the features that characterized the new Soviet regime. Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarianism regime by outside observers with effective political opposition eliminated. World War II laid the groundwork for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the creation of the Warsaw Pact. User:172 04:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Done. I think that is fine. User:Libertas :Great. Would you mind if I unprotect the article and replace Soviet Union with Soviet Union/temp? User:172 05:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) No objection at all. User:Libertas :Done. User:172 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Tag Team Reverting of 172's compromise== I believe two editors (one of whom is guilty of trolling, by following every single article I edit and making troll-like statements) are acting in concert to avoid the 3RR rule in their attempt to subvert a difficult-to-achieve compromise. I believe their stated desire for "clarity" is no such thing. 172's version should stand, but if not then I believe my most recent edit retains all of the balance, neutrality and clarity of 172's original. User:Libertas :I am sad to see that Libertas has returned to making personal attacks on this page instead of discussing the issue at hand. Saxifrage merely moved the phrase "by outside observers" for clarity, a change which clearly had no impact on the sentence's meaning. Libertas reverted him without explanation. I reverted that, and Libertas offered a completely different configuration which significantly changes the meaning of the original compromise version by suggesting that the totalitarian criticism extends to the entire history of the Soviet Union. User:Radicalsubversiv User talk:Radicalsubversiv 02:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Some Facts: *172 devised a compromise *I accepted it *Saxifrage unilaterally changed it claiming "clarity" was the reason *I reverted it back to the compromise, explaining why on Talk *Radical immediately reverted to Saxifrage's text *Because I don't like reverting, I crafted some new words, not as good as 172's compromise but unambiguous I will gladly accept reverting to 172's compromise. I will not accept those of similar political agendas acting in concert to once again unilaterally impose their POV into the article. I am sad to see that a carefully arrived at and difficult to achieve compromise has been ignored. What possessed the editor to make that change can only be speculated about, but he was privy to the entire discussion, so cannot claim he was not aware of it. Relating to its content, I also totally reject the assertion that it was only Stalin's vicious rule that constituted totalitarianism. The whole thing was, from Lenin's gun-toting power grab to the last dismal gasp of the corrupt regime. The gulags, the repression, the arbitrary rule, the fascism using workers of the world labels was there from the beginning til near the end when Gorbachev had unintentionally weakened central control beyond repair. Perhaps we could have some more "clarity" on that. User:Libertas First, the three revert rule applies to individuals, not to groups. While, in some primitive way, a person can "win" using reversions it is not good for the project. Focus needs to be on content of the edits. That several people may work together with a POV agenda is a commonplace of Wikipedia, but nevertheless the wrong is the POV agenda not several people reverting together. As to what portions of Soviet history can be described as totalitarian, a case can be made that the Soviet Union was first a revolutionary regime, then totalitarian, then authoritarian, then reformist; or it can fairly be described as totalitarian in two phases, stalinist and post-Stalinist. Plenty of authority can be found for both viewpoints. User:Fred Bauder 15:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) ===Rationale for my edit=== I don't care much to argue about this, so I will simply explain why I did the copy edit I did and leave it for the rest to argue over it. The English construction "characterized as ''A'' by ''B'' with ''C''" associates ''C'' with ''B''. What the sentence is trying to convey is that ''C'' is associated with ''A''. My edit moved ''B'' out from between ''A'' and ''C'', thus making the sentence flow more naturally and conform better to English standards of grammar. Libertas would be well advised to avoid jumping to conclusions about the motives of other editors and Assume good faith. I will not be back to revert this particular edit to the form I used, as improving the English of Wikipedia is not worth dealing with the insanity of "going back into the breach." Good day. — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 04:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) I support Saxifrage's conclusion and little else. Let's leave it as it is and hope unilateral controversial changes are coming to an end. Where's 172 when you need him? User:Libertas 1. Saxifrage's edit changes nothing but making the sentence flow better. 2. the compromise is not a permanent version. Wikipedia always grows, and the compromise was for a good basis on which to have future collective writing. That's all. It can be tweaked, as all articles will be. No article will ever be totally stagnant, and we wouldn't want that. Now can we move on and not make a revert war out of grammar tweaking?--User:Che y Marijuana 06:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) =="Comparing it with places where freedom, the market mechanism and the rule of law prevailed may give different results."== Please name at least one country with freedom, market mechanism and the rule of law that performed better than the USSR(industrialization within 10 years, victory over the most developed capitalist country(Germany) in Europe in WW2, first man in space, first permanent space station, free health care and education, strongest army in history etc.). [http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node15.html Socialist industrialization] [http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node18.html An economic miracle] Um its quite simple, the Soviet Union couldn't feed itself. Yes at first they did OK, competing with the US quite well in geopolitical terms but not in actual wealth. The only way their economic system could hope to compete with the US's was by abandoning any attempts at actually making their people wealthier (in fact, that wasn't enough either). :Um it is quite brain damaged logic of double standard. Here in California shops are stuffed with Chinese dress, toys, etc. But this doesn't mean that "California cannot dress itself." Just the same, Soviet Union fed itself, by imported food. And fed itself better that Russia now (as of 2005). Of course, Soviet economy was skewed, but United States with its cold war pretty well helped to skew it. User:Mikkalai 08:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) I also don't need to point out that even under the Tsars Russia was booming economically. --User:CJWilly 21:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Really? backward, agrarian, with backward agriculture, with slave labor (slaves (serfs) 85% of population) until the end of 19th century, boomed? If you start poking me with the numbers of grain export from Russia, don't forget to count the territory. The productivity was miserable. It also exported lots of timber and hemp (for ropes, not for hashish). User:Mikkalai 09:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) :The industrial development achieved in the USSR was merit of the USSR, not of Tsarist Russia. For most time, the USSR could in fact feed itself, and its agricultural problems don't discredit all the giant progress that took place. :You can't take the US as the unique example of Capitalism, because it's power is based on the weakness of other countries. Look how much "freedom" and market mechanism is in most Third Word nations, like Argentina, and millions are starving below poverty line. Look how much "freedom" is now there in Iraq, how well feed is the country. :: The anonymous user is right, the US is not unique, perhaps superlative but not unique. Market capitalism has been exported throughout the world, people have embraced freedom, embraced economic freedom in some of the most unlikely places. In Africa, which struggled under the yoke of Soviet colonialism for so long, one by one, governments are facing the facts that they must end gangsterism and communism. It's working. Capital is slowly but surely finding its way to nations previously regarded as untouchable. Mining, tourism, construction, it's all happening. It's a start. It's uneven. For every Gabon rushing forward there's a South Africa slipping backwards but there is real progress being made. It's excitng! ::: Yes, now people are embracing an "exciting" mix of increasing poverty with social injustice... BTW, what do you mean with "freedom"? :: The fact is that the people of the "Third World" as it's patronizingly put don't want Bono's handouts and Kofi's peacekeepers. They want a level playing field to sell their goods and servics. It's happening, freedom works. ::: Better to ask Third Word inhabitants that US-POVing, don't you think?. Thir Word inhabitants don't want to sell goods or services, they want to eat, be able to study and have a decent life, what in most cases isn't possible due to this invasion of what you call "freedom". :: the USSR's heavy industry was substantial, but was hopelessly managed, terrible at innovating, accountability, reinvesting or adapting. Technological change made it a millstone around the neck of the nation. Environmental vandalism scarred the beautiful nations within the USSR, they are still recovering. :: Argentina "third world"? I don't think so. Many problems but quite devloped. ::: Developed=Capitalist? Yes, it is quite Capitalist, but children are starving and millions live below poverty line. The industry is destroyed, unemployement is giant. It is a Third Word country. :: Starvation, yes it's despicable but it's being battled by freedom and markets. Look at the excellent work of Wolfensohn at the World Bank. He deserves a medal. ::: A medal for what? Leaning money with enormous interests on the condition of applying neoliberal policies? Markets don't care about the society, but about the Jungle Law. :: Iraq has serious challenges ahead but there is no starvation there whatsoever, perhaps except for the occasional visiting supermodel (sick joke sorry) ::: No starvation, just food shortage... come on. Sorry, food shortage if they are still alive at dining time. :: Freedom not only works, it is winning. From Shanghai to Havana and Pyongpang to Paris, even those who notionally oppose freedom's greatest advocate, are in truth embracing the market as their own morally and economically bankrupt system ail and fail. ::: Hopefully Havana will never succumb to neoliberal opression. North Korea is much more strict than Cuba, but at least people work and eat, unlike in the non-G7 Capitalist countries. User:Libertas Fair & Balanced "Um its quite simple, the Soviet Union couldn't feed itself." Sure it could feed itself. The USSR even supported many third world countries(Cuba for example), instead of looting them like the USA did and does. By the way: [http://www.socialistappeal.org/usa/homelessness_and_hunger_in_the_u.html Homelessness and Hunger in the USA] "Yes at first they did OK, competing with the US quite well in geopolitical terms but not in actual wealth. The only way their economic system could hope to compete with the US's was by abandoning any attempts at actually making their people wealthier (in fact, that wasn't enough either)." The Soviet people were wealthier than they are today after the destruction of ~50% of thier economy through the perfidious policy of Gorbatschev/Yeltsin and its looting through oligarchs and the West. You also have to differ between the period of Lenin and Stalin and the period after 1953 when revisionists like Chrustchev came to power. As long as the USSR followed the path of Marxism-Leninism, it developed very well. Also keep in mind that the Nazi aggressors destroyed and burnt 1,710 cities and towns and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets, leaving 25 million people without shelter. -kirow ==Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas==Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radicalsubversiv== I have just opened a Request for comment regarding Libertas's chronic and habitual personal attacks and other disruptive behavior, much of which was related to disagreements over this article. If you feel that you attempted to resolve disputes about her behavior here or on her talk page, you may provide evidence of that and co-certify the RFC if you wish. Other input is of course also welcome -- the procedure is described fairly well on the page. I apologize for putting this on an article talk page, but it seemed like the best way to reach everyone concerned. User:Radicalsubversiv User talk:Radicalsubversiv 04:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I don't agree with is placement here but I assume you therefore won't object when I put for RFC up here when completed. Your behavior is getting more and more aggresive radical which I think is a shame. Look within and find humility. You are beautiful. User:Libertas :I have just opened a Request for comment regarding Radicalsubveriv's chronic and habitual personal attacks and other disruptive behavior, much of which was related to disagreements over this article. If you feel that you attempted to resolve disputes about his behavior here or on his talk page, you may provide evidence of that and co-certify the RFC if you wish. Other input is of course also welcome -- the procedure is described fairly well on the page. I apologize for putting this on an article talk page, but it seemed like the best way to reach everyone concerned. User:LibertasUser talk:Libertas 04:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Intro: Warsaw pact== :''World War II laid the groundwork for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the creation of the Warsaw Pact''. : It was not WWII that led to creation the WP, but NATO. Please check the dates.User:Mikkalai 09:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Both were necessary, the WP was a reaction to NATO, but I don't see how the WP would have been possible without WW2. --User:CJWilly 13:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) It's just a polite way of saying they had troops in Eastern Europe because of WWII so they used them to impose communist rule which they formalized into a mutual defense pact. I guess the troops wouldn't have been there without WWII so it makes sense. User:Libertas :The troops were there before the WPact. The whole history is the chain of events stemming from each other. Just the same, one could say that WPact wouldn't be there but for WWI: if Germany didn't lose it miserably, there would be no WWII. So there is a natural sense in listing only immediate dependencies, otherwise our articles would have resembled the chaining rhymes "The House that Jack Built" or "But for the Nail the Battle was Lost" (or wat's their proper names). User:Mikkalai 16:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Mind you, you might argue some of states of western europe were puppets (especially after Italy's first election, which was very US influenced). However, I really don't think the Warsaw pact and NATO are comparable... NATO was accepted by the (mostly) democratically elected govs of western Europe (and some, France, didn't quite accept NATO, showing their independance) whereas the WP was accepted by the Red Army installed govs of eastern Europe. And whenever a Commie state wavered from the Soviet line they systematically met destruction at the hands of the Red Army (Hungary/Poland) --User:CJWilly 10:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Yugoslavia was as Communist as the USSR and even though wasn't unser Soviet influence nor was a WP member. Albania retired from it (as France from NATO) withouth any Red Army invassion. NATO countries had/have NATO troops and U.S. military bases, WP had WP troops and Soviet military bases. I made a few changes in order to integreate the important Decembrist Revolt, kulak, Eastern Front (WWII), Soviet Union and the United Nations, Cold War (1962-1991)#D�tente, SALT I, SALT II, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and Non-Aligned Movement links into the article. User:172 21:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Suggestion == Look, I think that after all the discussion, the article is now clearly POVed. As a little thing to NPOV it, the sentence "Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by outside observers" can be changed to, "Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by some/many outside observers". Agree? :I don't object. Make any changes you deem necessary. Anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time. User:172 16:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Make it many. Because, it was many. --User:CJWilly 09:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Post-Soviet States == A new article called "Post-Soviet States" is up for vote in "Collaboration of the Week." That means we Soviet Union buffs would, in Soviet Communist tradition, pool our resources to develop a new article detailing the contrasts and similarities the various republics faced on their respective roads to democracy. Anyway, we need 4 more votes by March 15, 2005 and your vote would be appreciated. Use this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Post-Soviet_states_.28March_15.29 User:Juppiter 20:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Defacement == FOund this, removed immediately. ------------- In the cold war there were a lot of gay men. However the United States got over that and bombed Cuba for evidence of Russian nuclear missles. The U.S then bombed Russia starting World War three.Nolan Gaige a russian spy helped russia with the whereabouts of the U.S nuclear warheads However people still made light houses to help them with cover if a nuclear balloon hit them. WW3 was really a bad time. Blacks controlled the Nation and whites were treated disrespectfuly. WW1 WW2 WW3 The World only hopes ther will never be another Worled war. Written by Mike Oaks. Associated with Murcus DumbFurt. complected of the United States Government. FBI warning 101 of the United States Government urges you not to copy or reinstate any thing in this confidential article cincealed with Russia, Cuba , And the United States. ------------- I didn't see anything else. Be on the lookout anyways. *Someone put "*** Ass Pus ***" on and I can't remove it, can someone fix it!?!?! Is it just me or was the 'History' taken from http://workmall.com/wfb2001/russia/russia_history_historical_setting_1917_to_1991.html ??? Shouldn't it be sourced? ==Info box is missing== Does someone known what happened to it? The info box detailling info about the U.S.S.R is no longer available in any version of the article. User:Messhermit 18:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :The infobox template was vandalized (blanked). I restored it, so it should show up as usual. I can't believe no one actually had this template in their watchlist, though! I'll definitely be watching it from now on. Thanks for catching this.—User:Ezhiki 18:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) ==Soviet Archives== After the collapse of the USSR the official archives of the Union were opened for the public. Consideration of these archives would make some questionable things much clearer (e. g. the correct number of prisoners in the Gulag camps or the deaths in these camps). When they are open to the public, there has to be an adresse in the internet. Does anybody know such an URL? User:62.46.180.116 :Yes, I do know an URL with very detailed statistics for 1921-1953. I've just found it in 5 minutes (although partially because I'm a native Russian speaker). All such activites were coordinated by KGB (NKVD/NKGB/... in that time) and obviously are fixed in its archives. I simply went to the official website of its successor - FSB - and found the following document: [http://www.fsb.ru/new/mozohin.html] There are no any "clarifications" stating that "these and these were wrong imprisonments and these and these were right ones", just official reasons (or "pretexts" - very popular term among modern "historians") and numbers. In this sense it looks solid for me, as most "historians" tend to call all repressive activities wrong and just sum them into one large large number. I hope it will be helpful for you (although, to read in Russian pretty well is necessary to understand this document). User:Cmapm 01:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Great! Do you happen to know what is the copyright status of Russian government information? user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::No,I don't, therefore, I'm far from suggesting to incorporate/use it inside Wikipedia ;).User:Cmapm 01:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Actually, I believe I've seen somewhere in wikipedia mentioned that Russian governmant source materials are copyright-free, but cannot find where. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 01:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::I practically didn't (and don't plan to) deal with politics/Russia-as-a-country-related topics here for a long time and I even hadn't seen/search for similar mention anywhere. Just wanted to help a person, not to start some mini-wikiproject. As I said, earlier, dealing with these topics in Wiki requires iron nerves. Sorry, I'm finally going to sleep now. Good day/night/morning/evening for you. User:Cmapm 02:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::: I've finally found it, in wikisource, in Russian: Wikisource:Закон об авторском праве и смежных правах (1993). I will read it. So far I see that offical docs (laws, court decisions, decrees, etc.) are copyright-free. The rest requires inspection of the law. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 03:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :URL of what? You don't expect millions of archive documents online, do you? As for data about Soviet represions, I suggest you to learn Russian language and start reading data compiled by local chapters of Memorial (society). User:Mikkalai 18:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC) ::I don't want to see ''all'' the documents of the former Soviet Union to be accessible that easily. But I suppose it should be possible to look into the relevant documents, that is documents about the correct number of Gulag inmates, executions, deads in Gulags etc. Most of the data that can be seen in the internet or (western) school books are based on the works of Robert Conquest, which I don't consider really objective. Many left-wing sources quote "the Soviet archives" to prove their presumption of a comparatively low number of victims of the Gulags, purges etc. Because I don't know how much this quotations are really from official Soviet archives or not I would like to see these recordings for my own. ::PS. Memorial isn't a really neutral source too. Their charter and intentions show a anti-Soviet position. User:62.46.183.92 :::I am speaking about the raw data it amassed, not about possible interpretations. Still, with your attitude you will probably be surprized to learn that Memorial's articles present numbers much lower that these of Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, not to say about Black Book of Communism. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 15:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) : So you would only accept figures from an academic who says that totalitarianism is as good as democracy, or who states no opinion? I don't mean to start a flame war, but how do we define NPOV when dealing with things that are widely held repugnant, like totalitarianism or genocide? ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-05-25 17:55 Z'' ::I would only accept figures from an academic who can ''prove'' his figures plausibly. The opionion of an historian must not influence her or his display of facts. She or he has to study the sources in order to show facts and not to circumstantiate her or his opinion. Conquest didn't do so. The state of democracy in a country has no relevance to the question after the number of executions etc. ::I think NPOV should be neutral in every question, irrespective to the opinion of the majority of people (additionally, only the majority of people in Northern America and Western Europe have such a negative attitude towards the USSR, I do not know if that is the same in other countries [especially the former Soviet Union]). Wikipedia mustn't take any position in any way, especially with controversial topics. It's function is to ''inform'', not to ''judge''. The objective facts have to be enough for the reader to form her or his own opinion. User:62.46.180.220 :::I cannot help but admire your naivety. I sggest you to read Propaganda article to learn a bit how "objective facts" may form a really unusual opinion and how an expert may plausibly ''prove'' any figures. Still other issues how would you know that you know all facts? That you have seen ''all'' Soviet archives? That archives store "objective facts"? Or you have read all relevant articles in wikipedia. If you are not a trained historian, you may form yourself a pretty weird opinion. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 15:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) ::::And what are we going to do now? Writing "There's no way to evaluate the number of victims of the deaths the Soviet government caused, because any figures can proved" ist not a really good solution. I suggested basing our article on the Soviet archives, which I considered the most objective of unobjective sources (because in they could write the real number in their documents which weren't open for the public). The other way is to quote both the historians with the lowest number and the historians with the highest number. A bit laborious, but it's a more accurate way to inform. User:62.46.180.120 :::::Basing on archives is called original research, which is inadmissible in wikipedia for a simple reason: absence of peer review of what you have found in these archives and how you are presenting these facts. Only secondary sources are admissible as a basis for wikipedia articles. Of course, you may quote archives to a reasonable extent, but again, proper interpretation of raw historical data is not the business of a wikipedia author. :::::Quoting historians is what should normally be done. Also, these historians must have their bio articles in wikipedia that discuss their credibility. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ::::PS. For personal attacks are not a very good way of discussing, I will ignore that remark about na�vety.User:62.46.180.120 ::::: Apologies. Personal. I hope you did not ignore the subsequent suggestions. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Okay, so let's go it on. The lowest numbers of victims are quoted by Ludo Martens or an similar historian. The highest should be Robert Conquest or the Black Book of Communism. User:62.46.180.220 :The problem with both is that these are wild guesses and must be discussed in a specific article, about Soviet repressions, not in this one. A specialized article may go into detail explaining the context of guesses of particular authors, which would be inappropriate for a general overview like this one. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 07:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC) :So which author are we going to quote then? User:62.46.180.220 ::None. In this article a general vague number will do. For detailed estimates we are going to quote our own overview article, Soviet political repressions; we don't have such an overview yet, although we already have the :category:Soviet political repressions. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 18:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Soviet union

#REDIRECTSoviet Union

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

S

SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |

Words begining with Soviet_Union:

Soviet_Union
Soviet_Union
Soviet_Union
Soviet_Union
Soviet_union
Soviet_Union/Archive_1
Soviet_Union/Archive_2
Soviet_Union/Archive_3
Soviet_Union/Leaders
Soviet_Union/Temp
Soviet_Union_and_the_United_Nations
Soviet_Union_Anthem
Soviet_Union_Attack_on_Afghanistan
Soviet_Union_at_the_1972_Summer_Olympics
Soviet_Union_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics
Soviet_Union_at_the_1980_Summer_Olympics
Soviet_Union_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics
Soviet_Union_cosmonauts
Soviet_Union_freedom
Soviet_Union_infobox
Soviet_Union_invades_Afghanistan
Soviet_Union_Invasion_of_Afghanistan
Soviet_Union_invasion_of_Afghanistan
Soviet_Union_mathematicians
Soviet_Union_national_football_team
Soviet_Union_stubs