Talk:Soviet empire

The nature of the article is propaganda

With that entails is a biased nature. To truly explain the "Soviet Empire" the article must revolve around the central NPOV theme titled "Theory for the Soviet Empire". Change the article now.

-G

I don't generally interact on Wikipedia articles, but this entire article is rightwing propaganda and should be flagged for removal.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is NOT about Soviet Union, it is about Soviet Empire. JJ, your edit put eggs in wrong baskets and lost some of them. Mikkalai 02:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would it, or would it not, be appropriate to list countries, régimes or governments that by Soviet's adversaries rightly or wrongly were seen as too friendly disposed towards the Soviet Union/the Soviet Empire? I think of such entities as pre-coup Greece, pre-coup Chile and plenty of African régimes — and some Arab (Iran at least) too. I realize, however, that such a list would be open-ended and easy to contest. --Johan Magnus 17:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The idea is good, but you are correct in your doubts; it is inherently faulty. There are so many different reasons various countries sought alliance with Soviet Union (or why USA was afraid them to fall under the influence of the Soviet Union). The most striking example is cannibal Bocassa. In any case, the list alone will not do. Every entry must be explained: time period, facts to support the claim, etc. Mikkalai 18:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your change of titles, Mikkalai, I think it is inappropriate because it inserts an inherent POV (from the Soviet side). The title "Allies of the Soviet Union", for example, is neutral. "Countries of developed socialism" would be Soviet POV, and "Communist puppet states of the Soviet Union" would be American POV. Also, I think we can include Laos in the section "Countries friendly towards the Soviet Union for brief periods" after all, because the Soviet Union did not last very long after the Lao People's Democratic Republic was founded. But Chile never had any connection to the Soviet Union. The fact that it "attempted to introduce Marxist-type socialism" is irrelevant, since we're talking about the Soviet Empire here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the talk page. The Tudoreanu arguments fail to convince me. Quotation marks are a good thing. Countries are usually not friendly. As I stated before, régimes and governments may be, like segments of a public opinion. A list of friendly countries could be open-ended, and prone to disputes. --Johan Magnus 10:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a better counter-argument than "I'm not convinced". Also, notice that I've removed the term "friendly", and replaced it with the more clear-cut term "pro-Soviet". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively could you come up with more convincing arguments. --Johan Magnus 13:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Soviet Union WAS an empire. What about Reagan's quote about the "evil empire?" The Soviet Union was composed of the lands that did not secede from the Russian Empire, or rather some did, and were brutally crushed by the Soviets, aka Ukraine. The Soviet Union was imperialist and it made many of the nations around it communist, against their will. The Soviet Union was an empire, ruled by Moscow. It's not a pejorative term. The Soviet Empire was a real thing. It wasn't "propaganda" as this Pravda article suggests. I call it "Pravda" because you're just uttering communist propaganda about how they're not "imperialist" when they were.

I suggest that this article be merged with the Soviet Union article and added onto it. Patchman123 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Developed socialism"

The term "allies" is bad because USA, GB were allies of USSR suring WWII. Iagree that "developed socialism" could be a poor term, but the section clearly says it is Soviet classification, which is fact, not POV of the authors of the article. You are welcome to add a section, kind of "pro-Soviet states" (and IMO it will be useful), with the explanation who used the term and when.

How about "Cold War Allies of the Soviet Union"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Usage of the term "allies" must be based on the existence of alliance pacts. Soviet Union had plenty of them; some short-living; e.g., with Egypt under Naser. We still need to segregate "allies" somehow. Mikkalai 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very well, then how about "Members of Comecon"? That is what those countries had in common, after all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To explain one of the points where I don't understand you too well, you could consider how many non-native English speakers may get confused by the way native English speakers use the term allies. The idea that "allies" constitute an empire is also somewhat illogical, to me. Basically, I don't understand your sensitiveness against using a term that by itself is clearly located in Soviet lingo and thoughts. To me, it seems very appropriate in this context, in this article, and as headline it gives the best logical structure to this article I've seen so far. --Johan Magnus 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have already agreed that the term "allies" is inaccurate. That's why I proposed "Members of Comecon" instead. And by the way, if you don't understand how allies can be part of an "empire", keep in mind that "Soviet Empire" is a pejorative term used by the opponents of the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Can be parts of" is not the same as "constitutes" an empire. Regarding you "having already agreed", I'm sure you are sufficiently clever to read the time stamps above. --Johan Magnus 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this should be "List of pro-Soviet and former pro-Soviet countries". -- User:Plarq Jul 25 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.217.162.8 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism of Marxist-type

This section is important, since it lists not only actual allies of USSR, but those who were considered potential threat to the "wistern world". Chile: you may claim tha Alliende didn't like USSR, but it did not prevent him to accept economic help. What is more Alliende sided with Cuba, which was enough for USA to go berserk. Again, I ceated the section with paricular meaning. You are welcome to create another one to reflect your category of countries. Please remember, unlike fauna and flora, with all genuses and families, there is no 100% absolute classificaion in politics. Mikkalai 15:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that you are implying that the Soviet definition of "Marxist-type Socialism" is the correct definition - an idea which is highly POV, and hotly disputed by anti-Soviet Marxists (such as, for example, myself). There has to be some better title we can find. What's wrong with "Countries that had pro-Soviet governments for short periods"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This heading rightfully excludes Chile. Please keep in mind that the term "Soviet Empire" itself is a certain Point of View. The article attempts to describe it. Please don't confuse the notions of POV of the wikipedia authors (bad thing) and POV of some political entities (which is necessary to know and a fair game for an encyclopedia article). Chile was percieved as threat, a potential candidate into Soviet Empire. Mikkalai 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why excluding Chile would be a bad thing. After all, I thought it had already been settled that we should only include countries with real ties to the Soviet Union, not countries that were feared by the West to be covertly pro-Soviet, because that would launch us into pure speculation (and we'd have to include countless short-lived African governments). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You convinced me on this item. But a section about such fears definitely makes sense, especially to mention fears that were well-documented. Mikkalai 16:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; however, that would require some serious research into obscure Cold War politics and events, and especially into various Third World governments. Chile is the best known example of American fears, but there were also many others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Controversial, politically-charged, and perjorative." All true, but I don't see why we have to include this kind of description in the intro when it can be shown throughout the article. J. Parker Stone 02:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Protos99

This user adds all possible former states here. They are irrelevant to this article. For example, there was no Soviet Empire in 1918. Other entries require exact description of particular Soviet involvement, not just a bunch of books at the bottom. `'mikkanarxi 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC on this subject. I fully agree with you, the list that the user keeps adding are completely irrelevant to this article. Nevertheless, I have to say that I am confused as to what the scope of this article is. I mean the term that serves as the title for the page was mostly used in a political context and usually in a negative sense, rather than in academic discourse. So it is difficult to define what time periods and what areas this article should encompass. TSO1D 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The lists appear to be well outside the scope of this article. - Francis Tyers · 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is not relevant. Asterion^talk 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

map

The map needs some kind of academic reference. The UN considers much of Western Europe to be socialist states, so it's suprising that the Soviet Union did not consider them "moving towards socialism"! The term enclosed in quotes - what does it quote? I've added a "citation needed" to the map. This page needs a lot of work though. Deipnosopher 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

soviet-empire.com?

The external link to soviet-empire forums has nothing to do with this topic. the only similarity is the websites name. Opetyan 07:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The map on the top of the article

I wouldn't even be bringing this up, if it weren't for a discussion over at American Empire and the consequent moving of a similar map to a lower point in that article. The story in a nutshell: the map at American Empire shows countries with American military bases, and it was moved from the top of the article for the concern that a brief reading of the article title accompanied by the map glaring from the top of the article might bring about the false impression that the countries on the map were somehow members of a phantom "American Empire". As the concern is the same here (not all communist countries were directly influenced by the Soviet Union, i.e. were not members of the counterpart phantom "Soviet Empire", although a brief glance at the article title and the map might suggest so), I'm changing the position of the two maps in the article. TomorrowTime 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History Section

Shouldn't the Soviet Empire have a history index, along with the details of its happenings during its regain, like the articals of the more formal empires? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.0.177 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

needs much more

the Soviet Union and its worldwide satellite states are commonly thought to be empire. This article needs seriously expansion, considering the American Empire one is huge. Also, its colonial instincts in the states friendly to it should be known.

2008 Map

While it is debatable as to whether Vietnam and Laos should be considered pro-China (Cuba is closer to the PRC politically than either of them), it should probably be noted that Cambodia is not even Communist anymore (multi-party constitutional monarchy) so is clearly not within the PRC sphere of influence.

Modern

Judging from the leftover post-Cold War Communist States, the Soviet Empire still exists to an extent, basically as some sort of Soviet "Imperial Remnant". 74.78.89.243 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirected

I've redirected it for the following reasons:

1. There is no empire. The USSR was a socialist state.
2. The Soviet Union article covers it, and much more.

Anyone who disagrees is free to revert. →Στc. 07:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many aspects of the soviet union that constituted an empire, calling themselves anti-impreialist, did not make them anti-imperialist, I will search for further references. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed mergeal of Red Empire into this article

Any reason why the two can not be combined? They are essentially the same idea, this article contains more hard facts, a new section could be formed for common terms, such as Red Empire, Evil Empire etc. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be pointless since it isnt just about the soviet union, as it says in the article it refers to many other nations and with a bit of work (which as usual will probably end up being me) it will be a pretty decent article. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point, perhaps I will withdraw nomination,but I would like to see a few more responces first

If it refers to several completely different things, should "Red Empire" link to a disambiguation page that allows readers to select between the "Red Empires" of either USSR, British Empire, or Japanese Empire? Zujua (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn, yeah I didn't think all that through, we'll keep things as is. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Member Republics?

A section on member states of the union has been a part of this article for years (seen below), has been deleted and reinserted by multiple users over a period of 2 days, Most of these users, myself included are in favor of keeping the segment as part of the article, the only person against it is a continuously changing ip address, last edited as 90.235.112.153. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Member states of the Soviet Union

Over time the number of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union varied. After 1956 the Soviet Union included the following 15 republics.

• Russian SFSR (which in turn included several autonomous republics)
• Ukrainian SSR
• Byelorussian SSR
• Uzbek SSR
• Kazakh SSR
• Georgian SSR
• Azerbaijan SSR
• Lithuanian SSR
• Moldavian SSR
• Latvian SSR
• Kirghiz SSR
• Tajik SSR
• Armenian SSR
• Turkmen SSR
• Estonian SSR

– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

what "multiple users" are you referring to other than Mewulwe and yourself ?! and where are the sources for your pov personal opinions ?! 95.199.0.38 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

When did it become an empire?

We have documents to when Russia and other countries became and ceased to be communist which includes the fall of the empire but what was the exact date to when communism was considered to be an empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it became an empire after the annexation of the Baltic states and the beginning of the military occupation of 6 eastern European states. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So it was on June 14 1940? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.188.91 (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "Soviet Empire" is an informal term of criticism. It is not a precise term, it is not meant to refer to a specific period in Soviet history with a clear beginning and end. It refers to Soviet actions during the Cold War in general. User1961914 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia was an empire before the Bolshevik Revolution. None of the nations conquered by the Czars became free, and the Soviets had expansion plans of their own, ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Afghanistan?

Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR back in 1980 at which time they set up a communist government I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.124.30 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your question? - Altenmann >t 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the anonymous IP wanted to know why the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan wasn't included in the list of countries under Soviet imperialism. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian imperialism

I propose the creation of a broader article about the history of Russian imperialism (not just Soviet imperialism). After all, Russia has been involved in empire building throughout most of it's history (including today). Charles Essie (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Soviet imperialism → Soviet Empire – This was the previous title of the page, and it's a much more widely used term. It should be moved back. Charles Essie (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support A cursory google books search produced 51K hits of "Soviet imperialism " -wikipedia but 214K for "soviet empire" -wikipedia.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME Red Slash 02:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a more accurate reflection of the article's contents. As the nominator noted above, the topic of Russian/Soviet imperialism is for another article. —  AjaxSmack  02:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

map

Portugal is yellow in the map but it never was a socialist country!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Was it never?

--OPAZL (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhh yeah, quite objectively it was never a socialist state, OPAZL. Fasscass (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hi Rauisuchian. Most of your recent changes virtually resulted in reverting mine, so I'll see that I justify some or most of my edits here, especially since not every one of them had to do with achieving a NPOV and was instead something less complex such as changing the 'façade' rare spelling to the more usual 'facade'.

I understand the article you sent and thus I'll avoid using such terms, and would add 'allegedly' and 'accused' to wherever I could use 'critics say [...]', or simply use quotation marks, just to avoid repetition.

Because the term 'Soviet Empire' is merely a scare-word meant for propaganda purposes, it cannot be used objectively to the same degree or hierarchy as simply 'Soviet Union'. As such, it should always be presented as "Soviet Empire". This is consistent with the fact that I intend to "mark" every claim, accusation, and such sentences that are either unverifiable or unnecessary to verify for the purposes of the article, so as to mantain the neutral point of view of everything that is claimed here as being, well, done so by critics of a specific POV. The article should acknowledge this constantly.

'Soviet Empire' refers to multiple criticisms revolving around imperialism. What constitutes imperialism, colonialism, dictatorship and such, all things the Soviet Union is accused of in the article, has always been subject of interpretation for propaganda purposes. This means that whatever citation is given to each claim, it will only remain a claim rather than fact as it is merely an interpretation of the original information. As such, to simply state "The Soviets pursued internal colonialism in Central Asia" for example, is not unbiased and neutral as it blatantly pertains to a specific POV, that of the people who make these claims and criticisms of course. With the new article you sent however, we should end up in "The Soviets allegedly pursued internal colonialism in Central Asia", so as to achieve "objectivity" or neutrality.

Finally I'd like to make a request of you, and potentially anyone else who reads talk before editing the article. Whenever you interest yourself in a country, culture, government or such that is unusual to you for whatever reason, assume that it is normal. This way we avoid sentences such as:

The nations which were part of the Soviet Empire were nominally independent countries with separate governments that set their own policies, but those policies had to remain within certain limits decided by the Soviet Union and enforced by threat of intervention by the Soviet forces, and then the Warsaw Pact

This sentence, the unjustified removal of 'nominal republic' from it aside, essentially says that if a local government within the Soviet Union were to rebel or corrupt its own system, that the national government would intervene. It quite literally means nothing more than that. It is no different to, well, any other country in the world, and thus to have this sentence present despite every country's article having none, suggests that the Soviet Union was somehow different in this aspect, and, given the scope of the article, worse than other countries.

Another case for this last thing would simply be consistency within this Wiki project, which is of upmost importance. When it comes to a state defending and preserving its systems and status quo, no articles go out of their way to say something like 'the central government dominates the local nations and limits their powers through the threat of military intervention' which is true for every nation on Earth, so why should this article feature such a sentence?

And that's about it.

Fasscass (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing much evidence that ‘Soviet empire’ is a “scare-word for propaganda purposes”. There is no existing Soviet Union to offend, and its discussion is historical in nature. An article about an instance of imperialism will include negative aspects of that imperialism.

In a general survey of reliable sources, the term ‘Soviet empire’ is used relatively widely, try site-specific Google searches. For example, here's all the mentions on The Guardian, ResearchGate, and Al Jazeera English.

The term is rarely even quoted, just used directly, and in non-opinion articles. Additionally, a search on Google Scholar shows a multitude of published academic sources that discuss Soviet empire as a concept.

The bulk or all of the citations in the article are reliable sources. The web and news sources are nearly all in the Perennial sources list and marked reliable after discussions. The book sources are academic in nature, so it can be seen that they are reliable references.

On the issue of wording such as “allegedly”, “accused”, etc. This is not any better than “so-called” and is mentioned in the same Manual of Style section MOS:ALLEGED. This is discouraged, except when the original source makes clear it is only an allegation, as it casts doubt on a statement when there may not be a reason to.

Making an attribution more direct is usually welcome, however the edits you made were making reliably sourced statements more indirect, as well as removing sourced content. If you'd like to use more direct quotes from the sources, that is welcome. Note that some of these quotes are more specific in stating negative aspects of the Soviet Union than the summarized versions in wikitext.

The conclusion drawn in the lead from the sources is, if anything, understated and the relatively soft version of a summary.

Feel free to find additional reliable sources to cover spots you think may be missing in the article. Rauisuchian (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rauisuchian. To be fair, I think the whole claim that this term was supposedly used as "scare-word for propaganda purposes" has never been sourced by any kind of reliable source in the years this article existed.

Fasscass must provide reliable sources to support that this term was used as "scare-word for propaganda purposes". He can't just say "it's like that, because it's like that". While we can agree that "Soviet Empire" is mostly a term used to not define "an empire" in the classic sense, "Soviet Empire" is not the same as "Evil Empire" which carries much more political weight. Fasscass also removed some sourced content apparently for no reason.

Also, as noted by Rauisuchian, it must be said that the article uses a fairly neutral approach: it is by no means an anti-Soviet propaganda leaflet. It merely tells the fact that a good number of scholars agree on the matter and specifically why and about this, there is clearly a consensus among scholars to define the Soviet Union as "an empire with dominant role in other countries" to various degrees. There's a good amount of sources and further reading below. If Fasscass has reliable sources that question this fact, he should share and use them if they are worth.

If not, there's basically no ground for Fasscass' edits. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I noticed that last November, an IP tried to change the scope of this article which is about the term "Soviet Empire" to also include today's Russia for some reason and also include apparent "allies" of Russia. Quite clearly by the article name, this is about the Soviet Union specifically, not Russian imperialism in general, so I have no idea why this was still included in the article, especially when the first sentence specifically states pre-1989, when there are other articles that make much more sense to include this kind of information. I have removed this part but if someone wants to keep this, please tell me why it should be in this article called "Soviet Empire" which should be about the Soviet Union. Mellk (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Post-Soviet reactions section

This section seems to talk about decommunization in general and the legacy of the Soviet Union in a few countries, rather than being about the term Soviet Empire specifically, so to me, it seems like this is out of the scope of the article. Perhaps these belong in a more relevant article if there is any? Mellk (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't appear off topic to me. Many of the news and academic articles about decommunization have included the phrase "Soviet empire" to describe the role/perception of said symbols, in the context of past Soviet military presence. When you search for both "decommunisation" and "decommunization" spellings with "Soviet empire" it's an obvious include for article scope. Rauisuchian (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is about the legacy of the Soviet Union, would it not make more sense to include it in Soviet Union#Legacy instead? Or at least it could be written in a way that relates to the term more. Mentioning a diplomatic dispute in 2020 about the removal of a statue of Ivan Konev and nothing else looks odd here in my view. Mellk (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I could see it being on the Soviet Union#Legacy subsection but that doesn't mean it isn't also relevant in Soviet empire, which specifically addresses the legacy in countries that were formerly Warsaw Pact members or formerly Soviet republics which is more in the area referred to as "Soviet empire". In that sense I am not seeing the off-topic part of it. Though, I can agree with "Or at least it could be written in a way that relates to the term more". The decommunization subsection could potentially include more 1980's and 1990's developments and focus on those. Rauisuchian (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was obviously off topic. I moved it to page Decommunization. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel as a Soviet Ally

Israel is listed as a Soviet ally during the years 1948–1953, and 1991. While I agree that Israel could be considered a Soviet ally from 1948-1953, I don't know what is meant by the year 1991, other than that Israel restored diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in that year. By that logic, the USA was a Soviet ally.

There is also a problem with the source: it was published in the 1970s. How can a source from the 1970s be used as evidence as an event from the 1990s? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Pax Sovietica?

Can we please get the citation added for this or have it removed from the page? Never in my years of study have I heard the term "Pax Sovietica" used interchangeably with "Soviet Empire." Wateredplant (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 16:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Soviet Empire → Soviet imperialism – Whereas "Soviet Empire" is a concept, Soviet imperialism was a real thing. WP:COMMONNAME of today does not go in favor of 'Soviet imperialism', but it was prevalent during nearly entirety of its lifespan. It is comparable to American imperialism, which is nowadays struggling to keep its prevalence to the concept of 'American Empire', as well as modern-day Russian imperialism. We're talking about actual imperialism in these articles, hence WP:PRECISE needing to apply. –Vipz (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand the point about American imperialism, but the chart used to demonstrate something is wrong because lettercase counts. Turn on “case-insensitive” to compare apples to apples.[1]  —Michael Z. 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I don’t really understand the rationale to move. The only relation to the guidelines refers to the common name, which is clearly Soviet empire today and in the last four decades,[2] accounting for over 90% usage.[3] Why would we talk about a subject today by an archaic name from the 1950s?  —Michael Z. 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, empire should be lowercased.[4]  —Michael Z. 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: what's not clear about the rationale? Which of these two existed: Soviet imperialism or Soviet empire? –Vipz (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Soviet empire is a very common name for the USSR, because of its imperialism. They both did, obviously.  —Michael Z. 15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Soviet Union has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Socialism has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Both terms are far from devoid of problems, but I think the original term is slightly less controversial. PatGallacher (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Soviet Empire → Soviet empire – Lowercase “empire,” because this is not a formal title but a description or nickname. This is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, according to recorded usage in reliable sources.[5]  —Michael Z. 19:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Seems straightforward. Walrasiad (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom—blindlynx 00:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - per nom. Probably could've been moved WP:BOLDly or at least listed at WP:RM/TR estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. –Vipz (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per ngram evidence and WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Was going to suggest this earlier, glad to see somebody else did. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Would have supported the move above to "imperialism" as well, but that got closed before I had the chance to. Regardless, should be sentence case, as this was not a proper name of a state. --Jayron32 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What kind of nonsense article is this?

The Soviet Union was not Russia. Stalin was Georgian, not Russian, and suggestions that he was some kind of Russian chauvinist are nonsense. See Marxism and the National Question.

The first source is WP:RECENTISM and falsely equivocates between the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. It also falsely claims that "Stalin embraced Russian nationalism". It is therefore of questionable reliability. I decided to be WP:BOLD and removed it on this basis.

The second "source", which I have also removed, is written by the president of Poland and pushes Polish Holocaust denialism.

The text says that member nations were "nominally" independent, but at the same time that these parts of the "empire" depended on "subsidies from Moscow", so the text of the article isn't even coherent, which is to be expected when a bunch of editors try to make a hen out of a feather.

Richard Pipes was a CIA asset, that is a tool of US imperialism, and therefore nothing that he has written on the Soviet Union can be regarded as reliable.

The fact that Soviet member nations engaged in industrial specialization was in part necessary for the survival of a union beset by reactionary forces, most notably the genocide of Soviet peoples carried out by Nazi Germany. To call specialization imperialism is laughable, partly because no surplus value extraction took place. It is very much a result of the entire Soviet Union being one big workplace.

Characterizing the suppression of kulaks as imperialism is particularly egregious. A reader coming across this article is led to believe that liberating the peasantry from a parasitical class is equivalent to say the hecking Belgian Congo.

The entire article is also so full of loaded language that mentioning it all would take up as much space as the article itself.

I will finish off by noting that early versions of this article tacitly praise Ronald Reagan, because of course they hecking do. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please remove any incivility (WP:UNCIVIL) from your comment. Try not to make derogatory references to groups such as social classes, it's a direct violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:IUC). Try also to avoid any form of profanity and express your opinion in civil and neutral manner. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me answer a bit; my skin is thick:

liberating the peasantry from a parasitical class is equivalent to say the <..> Belgian Congo

You know what? It was. I am not sure you want to hear why, but if you ask politely... - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

to call specialization imperialism is laughable

no it is not. This was the same kind of "specialization" as in colonial Africa: extraction of natural resources for nothing. The best example for such comparison is Uzbek SSR, which was essentially turned into a cotton monoculture state. The life of Uzbek dehkans was directly comparable with that of Africans in nickel mines. - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This was the same kind of "specialization" as in colonial Africa No. There is no valorization of capital going on for a start. Did the USSR consider Uzbek farmers to be expendable? Did they forego investment in Uzbek labour power such as was done in the African colonies? Did they cut off the hands of insufficiently productive workers as was done in the Belgian Congo? Did they forego developing the productive forces so as to attain a high rate of profit? The CIA doesn't seem to think so, though the process was somewhat slow. Did they raise taxes and conscripts by surrounding and entering villages, binding the "volunteers" in rope and, in case of resistance, take women and children and kill them with spears to set examples, as was done by the French in Sudan? Did they rip out insubordinate slaves' intestines through the anus as was done in (if I remember correctly) the French rubber plantations? KetchupSalt (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

these parts of the "empire" depended on "subsidies from Moscow"

and that was precisely because of Soviet colonialism: resources were sucked out for cheap and then some benefits were trickled back. There was no cost accounting nor market in the USSR so we never know how in fact Uzbek SSR was ripped off by Moscow, rather than given subsidies. - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

resources were sucked out for cheap and then some benefits were trickled back The lowering of the value of goods is a primary goal of socialist economics, indeed the primary motivator for the heavy investment in productive forces carried out especially under Stalin. But if the produce is cheap then chances are high that goods received in return, for example cars and computers, embody more labour time than Uzbek workers contribute to the system as a whole. In that case it would be the Uzbek SSR exploiting the rest of the union, not the other way around. I don't have the relevant literature on hand at the moment with the necessary statistics to check whether this was the case or not, but from your wording I presume that you do?

There was no cost accounting This is incorrect. While the Soviet economy certainly had systemic biases that caused labour power to be squandered (indirect taxation being one) to say that costs were not accounted for is very wrong. Gossnab would have noticed at the very least. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Pipes

Being a CIA asset does not automatically disqualify the author. Well, his bio has little criticism of him. You are welcome to add it there, basing on reliable sources. - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

All that said, Wikipedia is not perfect, and as I came out of my hiatus, I see many things deteriorated and editing activity appear to me worsened: 95% of edits in my watchlist come from wikignomes. If you have specific suggestions, we can discuss item by item. - Altenmann >talk 18:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Regarding the lead

I see my edits are being reverted, and rather than warring I am going to create a section here specifically for it rather than the article as a whole (which has many many problems). There are two major problems with the lead at the moment:

• opinion pieces are presented as scholarly consensus, in violation of WP:RSOPINION
• the Duda article is a form of Holocaust denialism, or "Holocaust distortion" as Jan Grabowski calls it

At the very least the RSOPINION needs to be fixed. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I again ask you to remove every profanity and incivility from this t/p Marcelus (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I cannot remove what isn't there, especially not when you don't explicitly point it out. Moreover it has nothing to do with the topic of this section. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, see this for what Holocaust denialism is. You also complain about an opinion piece being used in this page, while using an opinion piece to support what you consider to be "holocaust denial". Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)