Talk:Internal troops: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:10, 16 August 2011 editBuckshot06 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users132,748 edits →Merge proposal with Internal Troops (Russia): oppose← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:04, 23 December 2012 edit undo176.102.192.10 (talk) →What about GULAG?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:
	I oppose. A resulting article would be too large and inconsistent. ] (]) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)		I oppose. A resulting article would be too large and inconsistent. ] (]) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
	:I also oppose. This has a nice split between Soviet internal troops and post-Soviet internal troops. ] ] 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)		:I also oppose. This has a nice split between Soviet internal troops and post-Soviet internal troops. ] ] 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

			== What about GULAG? ==

			The article as it is seems to be omitting the notorius ]-guarding role for purpose. Unacceptable.] (]) 15:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:04, 23 December 2012

Military history: Russian & Soviet Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Law Enforcement Start‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Russia: Military / Politics and law B‑class Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Discussion copied from User talk:AlexPU:

Legal status: I suspect that the Internal Troops are indeed legally Gendarmies, which means that they are subject to the same treatment as any other internal force. For example, American Police officers oath, is identical to that of soldiers, except for the "juridiction of". So, I "X" do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, agaisnt all enemies, foreign and domestic, in the jurisdiction "Y." In the unlikely case of an invasion, US police/sheriffs would act as the "light infantry. So Internal Troops would be treated as troops, rather than civillians. I am not 100% sure, but pretty sure. Other than that, i don't think they rate any official status as "soldiers," but again, I suspect they have the same status as the local border patrol/ coast guard. That they are civillian in peace, soldiers in war... --V. Joe 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see... OK, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Let's keep in touch.AlexPU 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU: Hey again

Reviewing over, I have additional thoughts about the status of the Internal Troops. If you have a gun and fight in an uniform, you are probably soldiers according to the laws of war. Therefore, gendarmes are closer in status to the United States Coast Guard (which assists the Navy during times of war). Most prominently, many of the bosun's at Normandy were Coastguardsmen, and not sailors. Additionally, part of the chain of command during John Kerry's stay in Viet Nam were USCG officers. If they are indeed deeply involved in the Chechen conflict/war/revolution/whatever, it doesn't surprise me that the international media has mislabeled them as "Russian Soldiers/ Russian Army". Especially as very few reporters outside of the US or UK have any expierence in millitary matters, and even in the US media, reporters are often dreadfully confused about the most basic "Army stuff." and occasionally mistake soldiers, airmen and Marines with each other, and even American and British troops at a distance. (They wear different variations of camoflauge and carry slightly different weapons. Also, the Union Jack on the sleeve is a dead giveaway :)). I'm going to do a minor edit for grammar, etc in this new addition. Thanks: V. Joe 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Performed minor edits and fixed English useage

V. Joe 05:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

National guard

Changed gendarmerie reference to that of a national guard, which see.--209.213.220.227 (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Internal Troops (Russia)

I oppose. A resulting article would be too large and inconsistent. 95.132.116.243 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose. This has a nice split between Soviet internal troops and post-Soviet internal troops. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What about GULAG?

The article as it is seems to be omitting the notorius GULAG-guarding role for purpose. Unacceptable.176.102.192.10 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories: