Misplaced Pages

Talk:Internal troops

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EMT1871 (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 31 January 2007 (start class). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:16, 31 January 2007 by EMT1871 (talk | contribs) (start class)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Russian & Soviet Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
StartThis 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.
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)
Categories: