Talk:Military history of the Soviet Union

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Military history of the Soviet Union received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I hope this article doesn't remain a mere collection of a few sentences. It looks like we really wanted to have this article in Wikipedia, but do not know how to proceed with it. It's kind of a rare phenomenon for a COTW. KNewman 12:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page should be moved back to military history of the Soviet Union since all the other military history articles use that format--Jiang 06:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just moved it. 172 16:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to exclude the military history of RSFSR before the creation of the SU? Mikkalai 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good question. The article should start off with the military history of the Russian SSFSR. Perhaps the title should be the military history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union? 172 22:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by the current outline, which seems a bit more fitting for (say) an article on Soviet foreign relations or Soviet diplomatic history. Instead, an article on this topic should focus on the huge Soviet military-industrial complex, which competed with other sectors of the Soviet economy and society for power and the allocation of resources. First, it should start off tracing the development of the leadership and organization of the Soviet military, its relationship to the Communist Party and the secret police, and how Soviet authorities ensured the political control of the armed forces throughout the Soviet era.

Second, the article should trace the role of the defense sector in the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union's commitment to the Cold War was enormous. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union devoted a quarter of its gross economic output to the defense sector (at the time most Western analysts believed that this figure was 15 percent). The Soviet military-industrial complex employed at least one fifth of the workforce. (The comparable U.S. figures were roughly one-sixteenth of gross national product and about one of every sixteen in the workforce.) Toward the end, the article can touch on the economic devastation suffered by main regions of the former Soviet Union with the end of the Cold War and the cutback in military spending, which hit heavy industrial plants very hard and some regions of Russia entirely dependent on the military-industrial complex.

I tentatively recommend the following outline: (1) Development of the Soviet party, state, military structure (2) National security-- subsections of which can trace the role of the armed forces in the Second World War, Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe, and the Cold War. (3) The Soviet military-industrial complex and the economy (4) The armed forces and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The first two sources I'd recommend are Anders Åslund, "How small is the Soviet National Income?" in Henry S. Rowen and Charles Wolf, Jr., eds., The Impoverished Superpower: Perestroika and the Soviet Military Burden (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1990) for a relatively short survey. William E. Odom The Collapse of the Soviet Military (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1998) is a definitive source. 172 07:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After writing the comments above, I just inserted a new draft outline in the article. Since this is a collaboration of the week, I hope that many other editors will fill it in and/or tweak it. I won't have time to write much of the content, though, in the next couple of weeks. 172 07:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked at a few other military histories, and they appear to be based on a timeline: British_military_history, Military_history_of_Canada, Military_history_of_the_United_States. I think if we split the article according to the timeline, it would be easier for multiple editors to collaborate on it. What you propose would likely produce a better article, but it would be a lot harder to write. Your proposal requires an understanding of the issue as a whole, as opposed to just learning parts of it. I am not opposed to your proposal. I just think it's more than can be realistically done by a loose group of editors. It's a job for one or two dedicated editors working in close collaboration. --Gene s 07:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, but the goal of the collaboration of the week process is to produce something worthy of featured article status. While I can't write the whole thing, I can help with the research and outlining if the other editors want to write a scholarly piece that goes deeper than an almanac-like chronicle. 172 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that there doesn't appear to be any section on WWII -- how can we write an article about Soviet Military History and not have substantial content on WWII? ---B- 07:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a subsection of the section on national security. It makes sense to trace the development of how the Soviets structured military, party, and state relations first and then go into the war. 172 08:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put in just the very beginnings of the WWII content. It's getting late here, though, and I'm afraid if I go any further I won't make any sense. Hopefully other collaborators can expand and expound as necessary. ---B- 09:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While we're all working on the article, we should link items sparingly. Since we're working on bits and pieces of at a time, we don't have a very good idea about where the first mention of a item will appear in the article, and we're only supposed to link an item where it first appears in the article. 172 23:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree. In a long article like this one, a single link is nearly impossible to find, if a question arises somewhere down the text. A link per item per major section would be more reasonable (look at it in this way: a major section is a potential separtate article). Mikkalai 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can always remove multiple links in the same section later. I'd rather accidentally link too much and remove the extra links than accidentally link too little and not even realise that potentially useful links are missing. Just my $(1/50). Nvinen 04:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought we moved the page to Soviet military history in order not to exclude the history of Soviet Russia prior to the USSR's creation in 1922. What's the logic behind moving it back?AndyL 23:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Jiang pointed out that this page should be moved back to military history of the Soviet Union since all the other military history articles use that format. I tought about that problem and figured that the page could be moved again to military history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union, but I guess that'll be too lengthy and confusing for some. Please go ahead and move it back. 172 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO it is never too late to move it back. Although it was me who rose the issue now, at the same time I would suggest to wait 1-2 days for other opinions. Mikkalai 01:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, any other opinions? Mikkalai 01:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No objections from me. 172 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"of Soviet Union" was done for consistency. On the other hand, special cases require special treatment. The RSFSR/USSR case is clearly special. "Soviet history" it is then. --Gene s 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When adding to this article, please refrain from using the word "Russia" as it was not the official name of the country during the period covered on this page. It's akin to referring to the UK as "England". It's used often, but it is NOT correct. --Woohookitty 23:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eventually the timeline can go in an article organized along the lines of Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War. 172 23:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware that much of the content of this article has been copied and pasted by 172 without modification from a United States government report [1] of 1989. Furthermore, the article's structure is being shaped to match this, with even valid but presently-empty sections that do not have material in the US report being deleted or renamed to match sections that can be pasted. This is hardly acceptable scope, neutrality, or quality. 119 20:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) It is public domain, and better than nothing. (I haven't had time this week to write my own work.) As for quality and neutrality, the LOC handbooks indeed come with their own biases, but they are generally far less biased than the hysterical anticommunism that usually pervades Wikipedia articles, making every single political crisis in the Third World out to be a part of some grand Kremlin conspiracy. (2) I have modified all of the content that I have posted, not taking anything from the LOC sourcebook for granted, posting only stuff that I can personally vouch for with other sources. If anyone has any specific qualms about any of the content that I have posted, I will provide independent sources backing it all up. (3) As for the scope, even if this article were to become as detailed as our largest text-based article found in Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the longest articles (November 2003), given the wealth of literature on this topic, writing at this level of detail only requires when to write from his own general knowledge and from other sourcebooks; such a broad article can only be a most general of surveys. As for the organization, it is not based on that of the LOC handbook. It is based on my own proposal to first trace the origins of the military/party/government structure and the military's relationships with other Soviet institutions, and then to give a brief overview of Soviet national security, ending it with an examination of the nature and size of the Soviet military-industrial complex. This organization is an alternative to one based on a simple timeline, chronicling every single Soviet military intervention (an organization more fitting for an article that takes into account the history of Soviet foreign relations along with military history). 172 23:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Re:172, I have no problem with the text you have added, and personally I love the format, but I do have a couple of things to ask you: 1. Since you have these other souces, and have used them as references already, could you add them to the page's References? 2.though, like I said, I like the form, I think "National security" is too broad a term. Shouldn't it be something like "Practical deployment of Soviet military" or "Soviet theory in practice" or "History of Soviet military activity" or something (I know none of those sound quite right). Do you have any ideas for changes? would you object if I changed it? Also, shouldn't that section be more comprehensive? I don't understand why it shouldn't include all of the events currently relegated to "Timeline". perhaps I misunderstand its purpose. Thanks. Ryan Anderson 00:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) Yes, I'll start working on a references section, along with the other unfinished sections. (2) I like "Practical deployment of Soviet military." Please go ahead and change it to that title. The other two proposals are okay, but they may encourage other users to get too chronological. Yes, the section can be more comprehensive, along with all the others. Every section of the article is a work in progress. (3) Nice work on your own contributions, especially the photos. 172 01:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am nitpicking, but should we really use the term "collapse of the military" in the section title? I would say the transition from Soviet to Russian armed forces was carried out reasonably smoothly and continuity was maintained. There were almost no political purges whatsoever, and the majority of the Russian officers at least continued their careers. Since 1991 Russia still has no difficulty in maintaining an unbroken strategic nuclear parity with the USA. Of course I am not denying that Russia's military has for the most part only a fraction of the Soviet capability before 1991, but collapse it not an appropriate word to describe what happened. Balcer 03:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This had little to do with the military, but rather the unraveling of the Communist Party. 172 05:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see that I misunderstood. I guess then it would be a bit more clear to have: The military and the collapse of the Soviet Union, to avoid the suggestion that the military collapsed along with the USSR Balcer 05:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article was really coming along great when it seemed to lose its steam a few days ago, but I believe that we have the proper start of a featured article. The problem I see is that "Cold War and Conventional Weapons" was too broad a category that covered too many conflicts, so I divided it up into regions. I hope to heavily edit the text in those areas when I have the time later today or tommorrow. This is Ryan Anderson.

Perhaps, but the division was starting out as chronological. Rather than dividing it up into region, period may be better. 172 19:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There should be some reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, particularly the stationing of Soviet missiles on the island and the standoff between Soviet vessels and the US Navy in regards to the quarentine zone. AndyL 23:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The date/title/conflict/outcome headings in the timeline chart appear to be covered in black. Can someone fix this? 172

I see bold, black text on a red background? 119 22:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On my browser it appears all in black. 172 23:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was experimenting with adding a red background. Thanks to 119 for reverting my edit. Ryan Anderson 00:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The chart looks very nice now. 172 02:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A huge topic is missing here. In particular, the crucial role of the Red Army in establishing of Soviet states in the areas of Caucasus and Central Asia; see, e.g., Democratic Republic of Georgia and Basmachi Revolt articles for some idea. Mikkalai 21:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I believe I've adressed your concerns. Please tell me if I'm missing anything important. Ryan Anderson 21:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put an NPOV banner on this page, in the hopes of circumventing the embarrassment of having it as a featured article. I've already corrected some hyperbole and glowing references. Where is the subjugation of the Baltic States, and aiding of the Nazi's in Poland, and the occupation of non-Axis nations in eastern Europe? --Silverback 01:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, this is about the MILITARY history of the Soviet Union, not the political history. I suppose it would be worth mentioning the havoc the Red Army caused to Germany and her allies at the end of WW2, since that was more on a personal level than a political level. I think it's also worth mentioning that the Soviet Union had branches of the military specifically in order to quell unrest (which I suspect is already mentioned but I'd have to check). However, I don't see what the subjugation of the baltic states has to do directly with the military. Surely this is something the Kremlin would decide upon and the army would be more of an instrument than anything else? It's certainly worth mentioning but I fail to see how it affects the point of view (or lack of) of this article. Nvinen 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The invasion of Finland certainly merits mention. Isn't this one of the few times the Red Army was totally defeated? They pulled out of Afghanistan and Chechnya is not going all that well, but my understanding is they were completely repulsed by the Finns, who ended up on the side of the Nazis once Germany invaded the USSR. Nvinen 01:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The subjugation of the Baltic states was a "use" of the military, how is it not part of the military history? I realize this is a broad coverage, but to talk about brilliant campaigns and victories, and to leave out these less glorious uses of the military just seems POV to me. One thing that I think still is missing, is the disregard for the lives of the soldiers during WWII. It is not enough just to cite the losses, divisions that could easily have been saved were not responsibly evacuated, in decisions every bit as callous and stupid as Hitlers throwing away of his troops at Stalingrad. The USSR lost 7 million, not because it was a great sacrifice, but because it didn't care. How many of the 20 million civilians lost were due to the scorched earth "strategy", or the failure to evacuate Leningrad? I'm not sure if the callousness of civilian deaths are part of military strategy or policy that should be included in this article, but it might be.--Silverback 03:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Soviet infantry have been used as cannon fodder more than once, especially in defence of the USSR. I agree, if this article is going to discuss campaigns, it should discuss them all. They were pretty desperate, though. I think we should also mention the chaos the soldiers caused. Nvinen 07:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, the bit which talked about WW2 didn't mention the enormous losses they took in the desperate circumstances, nor the brutality of the Red Army once they went on the offensive. I put in reasonable mentions of both, I think, along with a couple of references. The rapes and murders of the Red Army in Germany and the USSR late in the war seem to be well documented. Nvinen 08:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article was a Collaboration of the Week, was listed on Per Review for over two weeks, and was listed on FAC for an additional two weeks and in all of this time no one objected on the grounds of NPOV until you, just now. This said, I think it is unfair for you to classify this as an "embarrasment" to the Wikipedia community. This is not to say, however, that your specific claims are without merit. However, since these complaints are yours alone, they ought to be very easy to enumerate and satisfy. Would you care to do this? Just make a list of your specific complaints regarding NPOV, note which ones have already been corrected and tell us how we can help correct those still standing. It appears that the ones you have already mentioned on this Talk Page have all been meted out in your own edits and -if this is the case- the NPOV banner should be removed. Ryan Anderson 20:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not think "Strategic doctrine" is not appropriate in this context. The article is really just discussing the there-unnammed military doctrine of Deep Battle. Where you see "Strategic doctrine" used is essentially national security plans, or "grand strategy." Military doctrine, such as what this section discusses, is much more limited. I'm so glad you reverted me and told me to explain rather than assuming good faith or asking for clarification. 119 00:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how rape and murder fit into a "scorched earth" policy. The Wikipedia article on "scorched earth" does not mention either. However the rapes and murders of the advancing Red Army in World War 2 are extremely well documented. Even Russians suffered. I think it's a sick joke that you dismiss it like that. This ends my involvement in Wikipedia. Well established facts are dismissed as "POV" if someone doesn't like them. Well, I'm sick of it. Nvinen 01:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)