Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 17 March 2006

Good Job! "Comprehensive site, with plenty of good links" — Sunday Times (London)

institute vs institution

The article says:

The institute of professional officers, abandoned as a "heritage of tsarism", was restored in 1935.

If the institute is a military organization, it almost certainly needs capitalization.

If not, the word is probably "institution".

--Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Your right, the word is "institution." I also wish to point out that the Red Army did not have a flag. The image that is in the article now was used mainly in postcards and poproganada. Zscout370 21:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Red Army/Soviet Aemy

It seems to me that if we want to have a single article devoted to the Russian/Soviet armed forces of 1918-91, the article should be called "Soviet army" with information about the name changes it went through in the intro to the article. The article "Red Army" would then redirect to the "Soviet Army" article. Or we can have two articles that cover the respective period with the "see also" link in each. Any objections? Irpen 05:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

In My opinion Red Army should be an article of it own and have a link to Soviet Armed Forces article. To put it bluntly

• Red Army=GPW
• Soviet Army=Afgan.

Very crude reasoning I understand it but they are very different to a Russian Reader and should be portraded as such to a non Russian reader for better understanding of a subject in general.

Scorched Earth

I am a bit concerned about the change from "never practiced" to "never since WWII". In WWII, the Red Army practiced "scorched earth" on its territory, while in the context of Afghanistan I actually meant the opposite. I changed that again, hopefully it should clarify the difference. Number 6 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Vodka

Is there anyone willing to write an article about the vodka entitled "Red Army"? VarunRajendran

It will be deleted on sight. All what I've seen is a wild promotioal fantasy of American manufacturers. mikka (t) 19:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign

I expanded the section and removed various inaccuaracies - now the content confirms with Polish September Campaign, a FA-level article. What is the reference for the numbers used? They differ from the ones used in PSC article (Soviet army strenght and losses are larger here then in PSW article, where all the numbers are clearly sourced to PWN Encyclopedia).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Red Army numbers are based on "Soviet casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century" edited by Colonel-General Krivosheev, ISBN 1-85367-280-7 Number 6 18:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I do believe the reference to the Curzon Line must be restored, as well as to the annexation by Poland. Otherwise the background is too shallow and not NPOV. Number 6 18:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted a reference to the Krivosheev book, but perhaps it can be done more elegantly. I have removed all the PWN numbers except the POW count; this is because I find Krivosheev more veritable with regards to the Red Army numbers. I have restored the original paragraph I wrote on the campaign, for the reasons given above; this is absolutely crucial to understand the attitudes of the parties involved (little resistance, low casualties and huge prisoner bag). I have removed the discussion on the diplomatic canvas of the event, because it has nothing to do with the Red Army and is (hopefully) better illuminated in the main article or elsewhere. I have also removed the bit on the Polish officers; whatever happened after the campaign was over is not related to the Red Army, and, again, there are better places for that discussion. Number 6 21:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this text rather specific. Nothing about the Polish defence. Nothing about Soviet crimes (murders of the P.O.W.s, eg. General Olszyna-Wilczynski. Nothing about Red Army problesm, described in Soviet reports. Nothing about Red militias robbing and murdering.

Xx236 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no defence because the Polish Army was ordered to run for life. It was basically a cake-walk for the Red Army, so there is no point in mentioning whatever slight problems the Red Army might have. It is not clear what you mean by "Red militias" but that's probably not the Red Army so it is irrelevant. The brave general Olszyna-Wilczynski, when he was shot, had deserted his troops, so he did not qualify for a POW. I suggest you stick with the real history rather than anecdotal evidence. Number 6 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical part

Historical sections are growing dangerously huge. Please remember, there are whole separate articles about history. This article is about Soviet Army, and history should be cross-sectioned in what it is immediately relevant to Soviet Army in more detail than an ordinary history article would avoid, the altter one concentrating on the general course of events and motivations. I am going to trim these sections accordingly. mikka (t) 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest first moving the long section to subarticle (History of Red Army), then trimming to your heart content (this way, we want lose anything).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Halhin Gol

I restored the old estimate of the Japanese casualties. The new ~17K just does not make sense. The Japanese had a 75K force, which was defeated. To defeat a Japanese force (at least back in that historical period) means to destroy it almost entirely; such was the morale of the Japanese army (and society) that the soldiers would fight to a bitter end but never retreat of surrender (amply demonstrated a few years later). Even if they had wanted to retreat, they could not, because they were encircled. I would very much like to see the documents “after the collapse of the USSR” supportive of the 17K estimate.Number 6 18:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Purges

The Army purge was central to Stalin's solidification of control over the Party apperatus at all levels. Recall the proportions of high ranking, talented officers murdered and replaced with crones such as Vyshinsky and Voroshilov.

This is simply wrong, because Vyshinsky had been and remained a civilian servant, and Voroshilov already was at the very top. This inaccuracy invalidates your argument, which may otherwise be sound (but then you need hard facts). Number 6 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is replete with unsubstantiated assertion,

The Purges had the objective of cleansing the Red Army of the “politically unreliable element”, mainly among the higher-ranking officers.

Odd Numbers

The German losses at the Eastern Front are estimated at 3,604,800 KIA/MIA (most killed) and 3,576,300 captured ... 3,572,600 were released from captivity after the war...

One of these 2 numbers is clearly wrong, not even in paradise less than 0,1% of population would die over a period of some year, let alone in prison camps! Where are the sources?

The numbers seem wrong because you neglected another one, hopefully not deliberately. The 3,572,600 released were Axis prisoners, while the 3,576,300 captured where German prisoners. The number you ignored was the additional 799,982 satellite prisoners, thus giving the grand total of Axis prisoners at 4,376,282. Which means that 803,682 did not make it, a "respectable" 18% of the total prisoner bag.

The sources are referenced in the text, this is the Krivosheev book. The numbers of POWs, captured and released, are the NKVD statistics – the most accurate source on the subject. Number 6 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

those numbers are inacurate - the kia/mia obviously includes POW's that died in Soviet captivity. There were also more prisoners. i'll look for the real number and post... if it's credible

The real number is the above-mentioned NKVD number. It does not get any more real than that. Number 6 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Land-Lease

I have removed the detailed information on how many of what kind of tank did the USSR recieve from US and UK because it didn't seem to be fitting into the article (ie. why tell how many valentine tanks did the USSR get, if one doesn't mention how many tank the USSR produced? and, actually, this detailed info is for lend-lease page).

However, someone keeps rebuilding it. Since I don't know how to stop this, I ask for help.

Who ever wrote the part about ww2 look here

We are haveing a big problem about the eastern front of ww2 and who ever wrote the part of ww2 in this article could greatly help us with our problem

Go here Eastern Front and to the discussion page and help out now, because you must!

Deng 11-02-06 13.10 CET

Incorrect Information

A comparison of the losses demonstrates the cruel treatment of the Soviet POWs by the Nazis. Most of the Axis POWs were released from captivity after the war, but the fate of the Soviet POWs was quite different. Nazi troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps and executed them as a part of the Holocaust. Hitler's notorious Commissar Order implicated all the German armed forces in the policy of war crimes.

The idea that the Soviets just released their German POWs after the war is simply wrong, and this slant shows a pro-Soviet bias inherant in this article.

The Holocaust has nothing to do with the killing of Soviet soldiers, rather it has to do with the intentional extermination of the Jews.

You dont like this sentence --->as a part of the Holocaust<--- right?

Then what would you want it to say?

(Deng 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I figure something like "part of their extensive war crimes." would fit better

Great Patriotic War vs. Eastern Front

"Eastern Front" simply does not make sense in an article on the Red Army, because it was western at all times from its point of view. "Great Patriotic War" is much better, since this is how it was known to the Red Army, and this term is very specific.

Polish compaign not a part of WWII

Please stop vandalazing the article.

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. Number 6 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Because USSR entered WWII 22 June 1941.--Nixer 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not an explanation. This is nonsense. Number 6 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is fact.--Nixer 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. Number 6 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It never been commonly belived a part of WWII (except Poland).--Nixer 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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.--Nixer 08:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Number 6 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Number 6 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. Number 6 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. Number 6 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On 1 October 1939 Chirchil said:

"...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…”

31 October 1939 Molotov said:

"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".

Actually Chirchill said "Russia is actually an ally of Britain against Germany" and Molotov replied "No, Russia is neutral". --Nixer 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. Number 6 12:23, 17 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). Number 6 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I dont think it should be underlined that Krivosheev was Jewish.--Nixer 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. Number 6 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.