| Revision as of 13:54, 12 March 2007 editTheQuandry (talk | contribs)1,931 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:37, 14 August 2024 edit undoAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers217,358 edits →Unofficial Red Army Flag |
| (309 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russian History}} |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|B-Class-1=yes |
|
|
|
|action1=WPR |
|
|B-Class-2=yes |
|
|
|
|action1date=18:01, 13 December 2006 |
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Red Army |
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=93795275 |
|
|Russian-task-force=yes |
|
|
|old-peer-review=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Good Job|"Comprehensive site, with plenty of good links" — '''Sunday Times''' (London)}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{| class="infobox" width="250" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center" colspan="1"|]<br/>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] (early 2006) |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
== Polish compaign not a part of WWII == |
|
|
|
|action2date=19:46, 22 May 2007 |
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=132755462 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAR |
|
Please stop vandalazing the article. |
|
|
|
|action3date=15:28, 03 april 2008 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/Red_Army/1 |
|
|
|action3result=Delisted |
|
|
|action3oldid=202694864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
: Why do you insist that the Polish campaign was not part of WWII? The war was started by Germany's invasion into Poland, and no matter why the USSR entered Poland two weeks after, it was part of the same event. ] 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|topic=History |
|
::Because USSR entered WWII 22 June 1941.--] 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2005-02-23|otd1oldid=11117637 |
|
:::This is not an explanation. This is nonsense. ] 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2date=2006-02-23|otd2oldid=40830430 |
|
::::This is fact.--] 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::You are becoming unwisely stubborn. The liberation of the Western Ukraine and Byelorussia in 1939 is commonly believed to be part of WWII, for the reasons I mentioned above (there are other reasons, too). If you disagree with this, you will need to explain why this use of force by the USSR was not part of WWII. Having seen your record, I forewarn you: you will be held responsible for any unjustified edits in this article. ] 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
::::It '''never''' been commonly belived a part of WWII (except Poland).--] 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|National=yes|Russian=yes|Asian=yes|European=yes|WWII=yes}} |
|
::::Ok, I see your changes constructive, so I suggest you to present sources to prove your opinion. I can for example state that USSR underlined its neutrality in this period, did not declare war on Poland and declered the invation to be a measure to save local population (Ukrainians and Belorussians) form Nazis. Any source on WWII says USSR entered the war in 1941, 22 June. Polish, Finnish compaigns, battle on Halhin-Gol and and participating in Spanish civil war are not considered a part of WWII.--] 08:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Top|mil=yes|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=Top}} |
|
:::::I can only repeat what I wrote at the beginning of this thread. If you need sources, take, for example, Liddell Hart, or Fuller, or just about anyone else (excluding Polish or Russian sources to maintain neutrality). Declaration of war or not, save population or something, the USSR used military force against a sovereign state, and this is all that matters. The USSR was at war with a state that was waging what would later become known as World War II. Pretending that these were two different wars not related in any way is just that, pretending. Then we might also say that Japan never participated in WWII, and Italy’s proceedings in Africa were just small business on the side, and so on. ] 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=mid}} |
|
::::::Please give a link to encyclopedia, not publicists. I cont know about reliability of Hart or Fuller. These seems noncense to me. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::::::This is not nonsense, this is your ignorance. ] 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If you include Polish compign, then why not Finnish, Halhin Gol or Spanish civil war? |
|
|
:::::::The Finnish campaign is part of WWII. Halhin Gol and Spanish civil war are not, they had happened independently and before Germany attacked Poland. ] 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::USSR occupied the territory to protect the population from Nazis, while maintaining neutrality. Polish forces were ordered not to resist. |
|
|
:::::::As I explained above, why they did that and what they said is irrelevant. ] 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
On 1 October 1939 Chirchil said: |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 95K |
|
"...Russia has persued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian armies should be standing on their present line as the freinds and allies of Poland instead of as invders. But that the Russian armies should stand on this line was''' clearly nessessary for the safety of Russia''' against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an '''Eastern front has been created''' which Nazi Germany does not dare assail…” |
|
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
31 October 1939 Molotov said: |
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Red Army/Archive %(counter)d |
|
"Советский Союз предпочитает и впредь оставить себе '''руки свободными''', последовательно проводить свою политику '''нейтралитета''' и не только не содействовать разжиганию войны, а содействовать укреплению имеющихся стремлений к восстановлению мира". |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archivebox|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=90|search=yes}} |
|
Actually Chirchill said "Russia is actually an ally of Britain against Germany" and Molotov replied "No, Russia is neutral". |
|
|
--] 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: This is all irrelevant. I am not going to spend any more time on this discussion unless you explain why this act was not linked to WWII. Skip your eloquence involving “neutrality”, “protection against the Nazis”, etc, just explain '''why it was not related to WWII'''. ] 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I did not say this. It was related to WW2.--] 08:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
Further, there was no "victory parade", but the parade was dedicated to German retreatment from the Eastern Polish territories and placing them under Soviet control. This was a parade of removing German forces from the territory. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Could you refer to any source of the information that the parade was not a joint victory parade? If nothing else, Molotov was explicitly triumphant saying “Poland… this ugly creature of Versailles… is no more” (quoting from memory). ] 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, I dont think it should be underlined that Krivosheev was Jewish.--] 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I don't remember seeing that, but it that were the case, I certainly agree with you. However, if he really was in charge of the parade, there is no reason not to mention him, either. ] 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Note to Molobo == |
|
|
|
|
|
Molobo, your tactics of silently editing away any information that you disagree with will get you nowhere. Discuss it here if you think your POV is neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Molotov's Words to Nazis == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''He also informed German officials that to make Soviet involvment plausible, Soviet authorities would issue a declaration about coming ''to the aid of the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians "threatened" by Germany'''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Why the article presumes what Molotov said to Nazis is true, and what he said to British is lie? What do you expect Molotov should say to Nazis? That the USSR wants to save Polish Jews?--] 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Polish and Finnish cabmpaigns are not parts of WWII == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please stop inserting this delirium.--] 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] is most definietly a part of IIWW. And on a side note, it is a FA.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Call for Vote -- Put an end to the assertion that the Polish/Finnish campaigns were not part of World War II == |
|
|
|
|
|
This revisionist tripe needs to put to an end. I vote '''Yes''' to putting ]'s campaign to bed. —] ] 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Open any schoolbook and read when the USSR entered WW2. And please cease useng the term "revisionism" while the only revisionist here is you.--] 05:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
That's silly. We all know when they were attacked, but they became a player the moment they got involved with any of the parties. Now you're just ignoring common sense. Please, more votes on this subject so that Nixer will stop making these changes? I'm not the only one reverting his edits. —] ] 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I believe we simply need to explain in the article what and why is considered part of WWII. Relying solely on common sense, we would not need the encyclopaedia in the first place. I just added a write-up on this. ] 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::For all that matters: Polish/Finnish campaigns were part of WW2... ] 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Its delirium, not common sence. Filand and the USSR were both neutral to Germany and Britain/France. Yes, Continuation War was a part of WWII, but not the Winter War. Otherwise you should conclude the WWI was started by the USSR, not by Germany. Please stop inserting revisionism and propaganda.--] 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Let it go, Nixer. Everyone else is going to keep reverting your edits. Anyhow, who said that World War II must have only two sides? By your suggestion, the Soviet campaign in Manchukuo was not part of World War II, either. —] ] 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, it was not part of WWII, I fully agree. And Italian intervence in Ethyopia also was not part of WWII. With Finnish canpaign the situation is much simplier. The '''both''' conflicting countries were neutral to the participants of WWII (Germany, Britain and France). Please do not support the revisionism unless you're sure.--] 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The only revisionist here is you. The very argument you’re invoking is absurd: neutrality to Germany, Britain and France. That was a WORLD war, not a limited war of the three countries. But even if we take your argument, Poland certainly was NOT neutral to Germany, Britain and France, so at least one party in the Polish Campaign was an active participant of WWII, which makes the other party also a participant of WWII. And then this participant engages in a war with Finland, thereby making this conflict also part of WWII. And this follows just from your silly argument, in reality it was far more complex: the action of the USSR in Finland gave Britain and France a wonderful pretext for an expedition there, with the actual goal of severing the German ore supplies, which in turn forced Germany to occupy Denmark and Norway, upon which all the hell broke lose between Britain and Germany, for the first time after 1-Sep-1939. This does not mean that the USSR was directly responsible for WWII because of the Polish and Finnish campaigns, but ignoring all this and talking about “neutrality” is beyond revisionism, it is sheer ignorance. ] 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The politics about Filand is not comnnected to the status of the USSR. There were many different events that influenced the WWII. I do not say it was inrelated to WWII because all politics interconnected. But any official soure will say you the USSR entered the WWII 22 June 1941. Saying otherwise is pure revisionism.--] 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Any "official source?" So you would have us trust the official Soviet State history on this matter? Why do you feel you need to countermand the wishes of ''everyone else here'' on this matter? Let this serve as a warning. If you continue with this methodology, I will take it to arbitration and the record will show that you were acting alone against the wishes of everyone else. —] ] 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your wishes cannot change the fact. If you dont like the official Soviet version (I can give you a quote from the Soviet Encyclopedia), give any other official source - US, British, CIA etc, but not German and Polish. Your brains washed with Cold War propaganda, but cite an official source - and I then agree that the matter is contraversal.--] 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: You are a liar, Nixer. In the large article on WWII in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, 3rd edition, 22-Jun-1941 is not said to be the day when the USSR entered WWII, it is said to be the day when the Great Patriotic War began, as a “second period” of WWII. Moreover, that same article mentions the Polish and Finnish campaigns, just like this wiki-article does. ] 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Here are citations from the Lessier Soviet Encyclopedia: ''"Решающим фактором, определившим превращнение в.м.в. со стороны противников Германии в освободительную, справедливую войну, явилось вступление в неё Советского Союза, подвергшегося вероломному нападению гитлеровской Германии"'', ''"В ходе событий всё более сказывалось значение борьбы народов против порабощения. Освободительная борьба народов против Германии и других фашистских государств, возникшая с самого начала в.м.в., усилилась со второй половины 1940, изменяя характер войны. (...) Однако решающим фактором, превратившим в.м.в. освободительную и антифашистскую, явилось вступление в войну Советского Союза, обусловленное нападением гитлеровской Германии на СССР"'' Translation: "As things were going, the significance of struggle of peoples against enslaving was growing. Liberating struggle of peoples against Germany and other fascist states, existed from the very beginning of the WWII, intensified from the second half of 1940, changing the character of the war. (...) But the crucial factor that transformed the war into liberating and anti-fascist was '''entering of the USSR into the war, triggered by the German invasion in the USSR'''".--] 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The amusing thing is that you are guilty of every charge that you have levelled. You're behaving very personally about this. I have my suspicions as to why, but will keep them to myself. —] ] 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We had a similar discussion some time ago, I believe it was at ], where the question arose whether it one could say that it was a massacre perpetrated on Allied soldiers (and the answer is yes, but it was carried out by the party (Soviets) not involved with the war, although at that time more allied (politically!) with the Nazis then the Allies). For details of that, see that article's talk page, but I'd like to repeat one of the conclusions relevant to the current issue: one can argue that for Soviet Union and Red Army, the Polish campaign was not part of the IIWW. But nobody can seriously argue that for Poles (or Germans) it wasn't the begining of the IIWW; the issue here is that there wasn't an official state of war between Poles and Soviets. Therefore I personally favour the distinction between the Second World War and the ]. Poles and Germans fought in the IIWW since '39. Soviets, although they invaded Poland as Germany's allies, managed to remain aloof of the war (neither Poland, nor the Western Allies declared war on them for their part of the invasion) and so Soviet Union did not joint the IIWW until the GPW begun (Barbarossa and such). One more issue to consider is that both the Soviet invasion of Poland and the Soviet invasion of Finland (and their annexation of the Baltics) took part during the Second World War, but that doesn't mean those conflicts were part of that War. Similalry, the ] took place during the ], but I think it is not considered to be a part of that larger conflict.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Polish Revisionism == |
|
|
|
|
|
A few basic facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poland did want and did try to create a state from sea to sea. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poland did occupy Western Ukraine and Byelorussia. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Red Army did liberate these occupied lands. |
|
|
|
|
|
All the attempts by Piotrus and the other Polish editors (where the nationality could be identified) so far have been to remove each and every of the facts above and present the case as if the Red Army had attacked Poland for no reason at all. This is disgusting. ] 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear Number 6 (({{user|Number 6}}, no talk page, history of edits limited to reverts in a single artice), I will give you the benefit of the doubt and address your points. 1) ] is rather irrelevant to Polish September Campaign (it is not even mentioned in that FA level article). 2) And Soviet Union occupied the Eastern Ukraine and Byelorussia. So what? 3) From frying pan into the fire, perhaps. I recommend reading the well referenced ] for information about that 'liberation'. Although Ukrainian and Byelorussian populations welcomed Soviet at first, their enthusiasm soon faded (as visible in their support for the Germans in the opening stages of the Blitzkrieg). Reading Gross' ''Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia'', (Princeton University Press, 2002, ISBN 0691096031) and other references listed in that article should explain to you why using 'liberation' in this content is good only for ].--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yep, and your history of edits is limited to reverts in a kazillion of articles. And you just completed 3 reverts in one article in 24 hours. Oops. Anyway. (1) The reason Międzymorze is not mentioned in the referenced article is the same reason you keep removing it from this article – the fantastic bias of the likes of yours. (2) I notice how you avoided discussing the fact that Poland annexed the lands in question just twenty years ago. One has to be biased or genuinely stupid to be unable to grasp that a military conflict cannot be presented without any relevant historic background. (3) Rather pointless, the article is about the Red Army, not about the USSR in general. ] 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I'll let my history speak for itself, and don't expect me to feed you any more.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
That featured article almost completely overlaps this one. Should they be merged? ] 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Certainly Red Army deserves it's own article. But it is true that currently this article has too much history and too little info on organization, tactics and equipment.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV-table == |
|
|
Guys, the "Armies of Russia" table in the lead is pushing the Russian imperialistic propaganda regarding the history of ]. It wasn't "Russia" in ANY way, and the topic has already been discussed '''massively'''. So, anybody wants to discuss and change, or I'll just delete the whole table in a while? Best wishes ] 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Armies of Russia}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:Kievan Rus' was not Russia but it has as much a historical connection with Russia as it is does with Ukraine. As per the mainstream historiography, Rus' was a precursor of both of these states (Read, e.g. a Columbia Encyclopedia article which uses thesee exact words). |
|
|
|
|
|
:As per this ''fact'', the solution is that Kievan Rus mention belongs to a similar table:Armies in Ukraine which you are welcome to create or not to create because I can imagine you have other plans as well. In no way this justifies purging it from here. --] 00:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes, it DOES justify purging or, better renaming the table. Per all said here, Kyivan Rus' army is not the "Army of Russia" (which is literally said in the table). Similarly, I don't want it in some "Armies of Ukraine" table either. I don't trade truth, so using such a primitive trick in discussion was unworthy. Anyway, '''you didn't convince me at all''' and I'm waiting for other opinions. Your friends like Ghirla won't qulify. Oh, and please keep your "imagination of my plans" away from topical discussions] 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thanks for your valuable feedback. --] 06:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How about you tone down the attack level here, hombre? You don't need to turn the attitude level way up to make your point, which I disagree with, in any event. —] ] 06:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK, we got two objections: one from established vandal Irpen (see ] for reference) and another from normal, but possibly non-qualified editor (which left no ratios for his opinion). So I just delete that table.] 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What are you talking about Irpen is no vandal (] 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::He is, self-confessed , and approved by my observations (see, e.g., history of ]). BTW, you're the first to object :). ] 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Deng, please remember the "] rule. The fellow is a good as already blocked by now. :) --] 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is a very nice picture but perhaps in this specific case talking more and going the extra mile would have been better then blocking, ahh well life is life (] 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. When he talks issues, better talk with him and I will too. When the fellow talks the kind of stuff above and ], talking back is useless. I don't care whether he is blocked. The point is that those "contributions" are as meaningless as if there are none. That is the same as when he is blocked. Whether there is an entry in his block log conserns me little. It's just that when he makes such entries, his contributions are exactly zero and that what I mean comparing this to being blocked. --] 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Gentlemen, I agree with AlexPU but dislike his tiring edit war over this issue. Still, is anyone willing to change the wording of the table and related paragraphs in the articles? Or should I join AlexPU in his worthy attempts here? ] 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, a week passed since my call for compromise... I guess this is the case when edit war is the only way of applying the ]. And I'm asking all neutral non-biased users, first of all, in Eastern Europe, to support my attempts in order to comply with the ]. ] 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Your attempts to "compromise" are nothing more than ] aimed at pushing a political agenda. Indeed the topic has been discussed, except that all serious authors do not support your POV. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Soviet Army saving Jews as a Result of Invasion of Poland in 1939 == |
|
|
I think even though this may be a fact, it puts an unpleasant spin on the whole issue. The Soviet Army certainly killed a lot of Poles as a result of the 1939 invasion. It may have contributed to the saving of some Polish Jews, but is that material? The German invasion of the USSR certainly helped to save the lives of some people there... say... anti-communists. Would it really be sensible to include that into an article on Operation Barbarossa in THIS manner? I oppose this entry in this manner. Was there an active policy of saving Jews? if so, then put it in. If not, leave it out. Accidental, immetarial positive effects should not be ascribed w/o proper qualification to a criminal act. ] 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:There was the policy to save the local population from Nazis. It was the official reason for the invasion.--] 07:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No it wasn't and Molotov said it was only a pretext in easly obtained diplomatic documents. He said NOTHING about Jews. In fact Jews were the second largest group of people subjecto to imprisonment and deporations. Also they were deported to Germany as a result of NKVD-Gestapo cooperation. |
|
|
--] 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think this article has the room for us to go into the details of the 'official reason' and M-R Pact. But certainly if the fragment about 'saving the Jews' is to remain, we should link the ] article, too.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::They were saved were they not? If the germans would have gotten their hands on them they would most likely all have been worked to death or just exterminated. (] 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
Instead they were sent to Siberia, some of them were handed over to Gestapo anyway by NKVD. |
|
|
--] 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is speculation, but you are probably right. As I said, if this information is added, then certainly the well documented events from the 'Treatment...' article I listed above should be summarized as well, as they were certainly a direct consequence of the Red Army's invasion of Poland.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you're going to say that the Soviet invasion of Poland saved Jews then this should be phrased in a NPOV manner - rather then trying to make it sound like Stalin was doing someone a favor. Furthermore, the eventual fate of these Jews should be pointed out as well - deportation, execution, handing over to the Gestapo.] 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Based on , it is interesting to note that in this context, 'saving the Jews' means 'send most of them to Siberia'.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Give sources that many or any for that fact were deported (] 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
::Please read the source I cite above.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The "Kievan Rus' army" originated in Novgorod which has always been a Russian city. Even the Mongols failed to capture and hold it, although they did extract tribute from it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, Jews were liberated en masse by the Red Army when they came to Poland in 1939 and again in 1944. It does not matter why they were liberated (most likely not from Stalin's good heart); rather the focus is on the fact that the USSR was the FIRST major power to liberate the Jews from the Holocaust. |
|
|
|
|
|
Holocaust was a Genocide against Jews, but not the only Genocide by Nazis. Slavic peoples were also brutally killed by Hitler, even those of 'allied' Bulgaria, and had nothing to do with either the strategy of the war, nor the necessity to prevent future fighters development.It fits the definition of Genocide prefectly." ]Zotter |
|
|
|
|
|
== Women in Red Army == |
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Soviet Constitution all citizens had a honorary duty to serve in the Army if needed, but in reality only males were conscripted (even during the world wars). The only exceptions were females who get military training at their Universities as Medical Doctors (graduates of all medical school) or Military Translators (graduates of language schools). During world wars there were a number of female volunteers in the Army but they were volunteers). ] 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Yes, so women were not conscripted 2 years as Vess claims it was the case. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Turkic soldiers in Red Army Druing World War 2 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any Turkic soldiers (and/or troops) in Red Army during World War 2? |
|
|
|
|
|
==Split Page to set up page on Soviet Armed Forces== |
|
|
Unless anyone objects, I will split this page to set up a page on the Soviet armed forces as a whole, or the ']'. Any comments/thoughts/disagreement |
|
|
Cheers |
|
|
] 07:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Armies of Russie/Ukraine templates == |
|
|
Since nobody else seems willing to begin discussion, I will do it. What exactly is wrong with these informational templates that makes a few editors insist on deleting them from the article? Please discuss your reasonings and the problems you have with the templates here and perhaps we can reach some kind of common ground. ] 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well. Mr.TheQuandry, you're either lying or mistaken telling that "nobody else seems willing to begin discussion". See ] for reference. It was AlexPU who suggested neutralization, then he started revert war, then I suggested compromise one more time (receiving no understanding but a trollish respond from GrafikM). Finally, I joined the revert warring, and I'm going to keep it until the controversial navbox stops appearing on the page.] 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:IMO these templates are simply ignorant. E.g., '']'' or '']'' were not "armies", but the overall idea makes sense. `'] 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::We can discuss the content of these templates then. And the templates' talk pages is the place for them. It's certain uders' endless revert warring to remove them is what's bugging. --] 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, what is the Ukrainian for "bugging"? Did you commited a personal attack on somebody here, Irpen? '''This is the official warning for you Irpen''' although I don't have any warning tags right now. ] 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Saturating articles with irrelevant stuff to dilute the valid content== |
|
|
Now . Piotrus, will you ever stop this polonocentric ]. This is being done by you left and right to articles whose topics range from culture to geography to biographies to history. Now, the red army. This is not the article about the military campaign. This is not the article about OUN. This is not one of other "Massacres..." article. This is not a "History of..." article. This is an article about the military organization. What does the rizing of OUN against Poles have to do with the red army? Again the long-chain logic? The campaign was the Red Amry campaign, it provoked the uprising, hense the uprising material must be not only in the uprising article AND campaign article (Invasion of Poland) but the article, third in the chain. It took me half a year to convince you to not reinsert OT stuff to ]. I still have to deal with your OT additions to ] and ]. You are making this all so difficult to others by carrying the same campaign to the next one. Please give it a break. --] 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I must say that Piotrus was not the first here. I trimmed the article mercilessly of descriptions of campaigns. I second the opinion that this article is about Army, and the should not be piecemeal forking of the whole military history, described erlsewhe`'] 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:As a side note, the same problem often arises in bios of presidents, monarchs, etc., which simply retell the history of the corresponding country during the rule of the particular ruler. Such things must be recognized and dealt with, but without particular panic. `'] 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::*'''Support''' the idea. But it would be a pity if the valid referenced content is just lost. We should take an effort to integrate it into other articles and by integrating, I don't mean mere pasting disrupting the text flow. If the author of the purged parts is still around, we can reasonably hope that he will take care of it. If not, I think the purger should take this effort. Just my opinion. --] 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::*: You are right, but I doubt anything useful is here, These topics (wars with poland, finland, japan) are quite extensively covered by respective nations, who very love red army. `'] 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Mikkalai :''Please stop your "slimming" attempts. Please read the rule ]. A distinctive feature of wikipedia is that you can find here things you can find nowhere else.'' Where have I read that before? ] 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Misplaced Pages is not paper does not mean an individual article can bloat indefinitely with information not directly relevant to the scope of the article. Not only a huge article is a pain to read, but it also means that certain subjects are covered twice or more in several places, greatly complicating the editing. Consequently, it is important to maintain an accurate scope in each article. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I couldn't have said it better myself. Anyway, I was kind of being a jerk there and talking about something from another article, so I'll stop before it truns into a row. ] 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: I don't quite sure you see the difference between the two cases: in your case you were deleting information whic was '''nowhere else''' in wikipedia. On the other hand I am deleting unnecessary repetition of information. Since you are new, I would like to recommend you to read about the bads of ], the most serious problem being difficulty to maintain descriptions of the same things in several places in sync. `'] 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Putting aside Irpen's personal attacks, I agree with Mikka that the article has an overly long section on history. I'd suggest splitting it off to ] instead of trimming it - the conflicts with Poland or Finland should be mentioned (ableit without the 'bread and salt' POV that Irpen tries to insert - I mean, 'bread and salt', this is as ridicoulus and POVed as it can get, really ;p). On the second thought, most of this material is duplicated (word to word) in ], so a redirect, and short summary with 'see main artice' here may be all we need.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is in ]. `'] 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:So, in other words, yet again we see the same old story: presenting the Red Army in good light is good, mentioning rape, plunder and slaughter of civilians is bad. Why? Because... There are references there? Not a problem, Irpen will delete them too... ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Right you are, exactly the same dispute (with similar arguments!) has been going on in German wikipedia. Are we facing co-ordinated efforts by some Neo-Stalinist whitewashers? ] - ] 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So in other words Halibutt cannot miss an occasion to bite a Russian ass. You have to either change your name to ] or to stick to article content discussion. What exaclty is your suggestion to improve the article, please? `'] 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mikka, thanks, but I really can't care less about Halibutt's whining about evil Irpen. Besides, for one my ass is not Russian and, for two, I avoid getting too much involved. To repeat why the info war removed: the info Piotrus added was about OUN rising against Poles and slaughtering them in 1939. The info is referenced and encyclopedic. But there are articles for this info. Why did not Piotrus add this to ]? Why did not he add it as a prelude to the neutrally titled ], which address 1942 events but could use a short prehistory. Why did he choose to add that stuff to the Red Army of all the articles, where it has no relevance? If you need to know why, check ], ], ], ], ], ], etc., etc., etc. --] 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:First, Piotrus not only added it, but also removed the 'people welcoming Red Army with flowers, bread and salt' part, straight from Soviet Propaganda 101. Second, if you want to present how locals reacted to Red Army, either give a full picture - which includes, indeed, some people welcoming it, others fleeing, others taking this a chance to 'right some wrongs', ect. - or don't do it at all. You cannot have the just the Soviet propaganda version, I am afraid. And based on the sources I have read, the actions like OUNs massacress were much more prominent than 'welcoming Soviet liberators with bread and salt'.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Point of Revisions== |
|
|
:To be honest, I am a bit angry. I was working carefully and slowly to bring this article towards featured status, on the model of the ], and trying to ignore the unhelpful revert war with the Armies of X etc table. Now someone has deleted large chunks of relevant history, in the pre-1939 period. I would like to remind people that discussion of pre 39 history, as it its specifically related to Red Army military operations, is relevant, and that this article is probably not the best place for disagreements about Polish/Russian history, nor the distinction between Muscovy, Russia, and Ukraine. Please cite all sources for any changes that are intended to stay, and hold off making changes that will be controversial. Any sections that extremely controverisal should be crafted on the talk page first with agreement between editors. ] 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have re-inserted a section including details of the 1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords, which is very little known, as well as mention of Khalkin Gol, which is as notable as WW2, especially as it tested Zhukov as a field commander who would handle the most critical assignments post 1941 (see John Erickson's 'The Road to Stalingrad' for details). Please do not remove this section without consultation on this talk page first. ] 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think this information is bad, I just don't think it all belongs under the Red Army article. Let's face facts, if we wrote everything interesting and/or useful about the Red Army, this article would become hugely bloated and heavy. I think that the Red Army article itself should be a somewhat general history of the Army itself, and that the war related topics should go into new articles (like "Red Army in world War 2", or "Red Army in the Far East"). Does this seem reasonable to everyone? ] 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No problem at all, but is anybody writing such an article yet? When someone starts it, thats just fine. Until they do so, no-one else ever has mentioned this little known point. My advice from Kirill L was to include relevant parts of the history - see the old peer review. Until those articles are started, I want to follow the peer review suggestions, because they follow the WPMILHIST assessment process and the procedure for getting things featured. I am trying to get general information in - see the newish 'Organisation' section and the recently added bits on Strategic Directions (=TVDs). ] 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Battles are described in the corresponding history articles. I see the only possible reason of discusion of separate military conflicts in the article about the army: if they are related to notable changes in the army, and the corresponding section must cover mostly this topic i.e., immediately related to the army, along the following lines: ''"In the ] the Red Army for the first time employed a new strategy of ..." or "During the far East conflicts (main article: ]) the Red Army had the following organization."'' `'] 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please don't forget that an army is an instrument of the state, and eg., 1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords is just that: conflict between powers. Are you going to write the section "1929 conflict between the Soviets and Chinese warlords" in the ] article as well? (of course I am exaggerrating here, but this is the idea: and article about army must write about army. Still, along my lines, if Maxim gun did help Soviets to kill 90% of Chinese armed mostly with wooden swords, this fact could have been mentioned in ] article, but of course without long musing: "Russians went first here then there, while chinese...") `'] 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:We agree that an army is the servant of the state, but we disagree about the level of detail required. You obviously do not agree with the ], but would you mind reviewing the comments there before you respond? |
|
|
::We do not disagree on "level of detail". We disagree about what this article is about. You seem to fail to undertstand that this article is '''about Red Army''' ''per se'', not about the ''']'''. The article about a ] doesn't describe every ] you can eat with it. Please read carefully my previous response, in which I explain that only conflicts that influenced '''the army itself''' are reasonable to be included here. `'] 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::P.S. I also see you created a considerable fork of ] in ], indicating that you don't understand the difference between writing and ] and a standalone ]. Please remove the overlaps: history must be in "history" article only. Examples from history in another article make sense only to describe the major issues of the topic of another article. `'] 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I cited above that Zhukov got his major pre WW2 field command experience at Khalkin Gol, which is more notable than any weapon, and I believe that a one line mention of the 1929 conflict is appropriate. Should we ask for some outside editors for their opinions? ] 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, this is a notable fact. But it must be described '''as such''' along the line of your remark (the influence of the conflict on the Red Army), but not as a description or a summary of the conflict itself, which is just one mouse click away. `'] 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Origins of Polish-Russian War == |
|
You are saying you are working "on the model of the ]" But you have to look a bit deeper than the Table of Contents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may be a good idea to start gathering sources on this important but little known conflict so we can describe it better. Right now the subject is one sided and does not even factor the movements of Polish forces into Ukraine. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
For example, look what a '''small''' section "WWII" says: ''"In World War II, the Marines played a central role in the Pacific War; the Corps expanded from two brigades to two corps with six divisions, and five air wings with 132 squadrons. In addition, 20 defense battalions and a parachute battalion were set up."'' I.e., the section does '''not''' describe WWII, it describes '''what was happening to Marines''' in WWII. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Emphasis on Red Army's contribution to European theatre of World War II in lede == |
|
Next random example: ''"Post-Vietnam and pre-9/11"'' section: ''After Vietnam, the Marines resumed their expeditionary role, participating in the ] (Operation Urgent Fury) and the ] (Operation Just Cause).'' This enumeration of battles makes sense because Marines are part of the whole ], and this list (but not descritions of actions) gives a proper credit to this branck of US mil. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lede seems to place a lot of emphasis on the Red Army's contribution to the European theatre of World War II, but as this page shows they were involved in numerous conflicts from their inception until their eventual dissolution. I feel like such information would be more appropriate in the section that specifically pertains to the European theatre of World War II, instead of in the lede. ] (]) 01:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
To enumerate battles of the ] is wars in pointless, but its usage in peaceful times, as a tool for projedcting of the Soviet power, e.g., ] is noteworthy. `'] 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unofficial Red Army Flag == |
|
:Just a general comment to Buckshot. Please do not get upset and please do not abandon this article. You did a great job here and, in all fairness, I think both Mikka and you partly right in this dispute about oh-so-severe-trimming and think that the solution is in the middle. Before it is not too late, please do crate a new article and post your text on Mongolian campaign there. Otherwise, this may get lost in history. Thanks again for the great work you've done here. --] 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article states that a flag with a yellow star on a red background was the unofficial flag, but when checking the source its actually stating that it was a myth with no basis. This implies that it never was an unofficial flag in any sense, and it makes me feel like the article should not include it since it has no historical usage according to the source. ] (]) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
Very good article. Did the Soviets Army completely abandon it's Warsaw allies in 1989. I went over the border into East Germany from West Berlin in summer of (of how the future of the world seemed so good) 1990 and there were Soviet soldiers everywhere. They also spent the nights prior to Oct 3 (re-unificaiton) firing thousands of tank rounds off they could not use after unification as West German law resitriced military activites close to built up areas, where as Esat German law which about to be history, did not. I know this as I sat up all night watching the fire works from my bedroom. {{unsigned|Ir5ac}} |
|
|
|
:Correct. Removed everywhere. - ] ] 00:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Banner == |
|
::There already is one: ]. `'] 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== Revert warring == |
|
|
|
Unlike marines and air force, Soviet ground forces did not have official banner . Various army units did have their banners, such as the one in the image. - ] ] 00:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have no more patience for this nonsense. Ukrained, the next time you blindly revert this article, I will report you for disruption. You know the rules on gaining consensus and discussing your edits before making them perfectly well and you're deliberately disregarding them. ] 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
It may be a good idea to start gathering sources on this important but little known conflict so we can describe it better. Right now the subject is one sided and does not even factor the movements of Polish forces into Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centurion216 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The lede seems to place a lot of emphasis on the Red Army's contribution to the European theatre of World War II, but as this page shows they were involved in numerous conflicts from their inception until their eventual dissolution. I feel like such information would be more appropriate in the section that specifically pertains to the European theatre of World War II, instead of in the lede. Tjohns35 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The article states that a flag with a yellow star on a red background was the unofficial flag, but when checking the source its actually stating that it was a myth with no basis. This implies that it never was an unofficial flag in any sense, and it makes me feel like the article should not include it since it has no historical usage according to the source. 75.235.201.216 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
