Difference between revisions of "Talk:Soviet Union"

Revision as of 08:39, June 16, 2009

Why do we have 2 pages for the Soviet Union?--Elamdri 16:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Successor State(s)

Thjazi and I have differing opinions on which nation(s) should be viewed as successor states to the USSR. Would it just be Russia, or all 14-odd nations in the CIS? GodlessLiberal 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Socialist State

Communist state is an oxymoron, and even the formal name is "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Stop changing this back. Thjazi 22:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I would think the Soviet Union was a communist state. The fact that it was called socialist is irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise all states with the epithet 'democratic' should be considered to be democratic, which is of course a rather ludicrous statement. Arctic Nation 12:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I am in complete agreement with Arctic Nation. What's in a name anyway? Truth of the matter is, the USSR was much, much more extreme than all of the nations in existence that are closer to real Socialism (like most of Scandanavia), so to say it was simply socialism is a bit naive and academically irresponsible. Jros83 01:04, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

One must make the distinction between social democracy and pure socialism. Countries like Sweden are social democracies, employing elements of socialism but not all of them. It's a contradiction to call the Soviet Union a 'communist state' since communism can only exist worldwide. Calling the Soviet Union 'communist' goes strictly against the way the word 'communism' is defined. Just because a country is ruled by a Communist Party does not make the country communist. Communist Parties work towards communism. Never do they themselves claim their countries to be 'communist countries' or 'communist states'. Thjazi 15:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Well it's common knowledge the USSR was not pure communism anyway, but it was far, far closer along that track from "plain ol'" socialism... Jros83 19:14, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Nazi connection?

hey why is Nazi Germany in the see also section? those countries were polar opposites and hated each other. Gailim 17:25, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The fact that the USSR with the help of the allies defeated Nazi Germany means that they shared an important history together. It only makes sense to include it in the section. -Abanamat 12:49, 17 March 2009 (EST)

Why do we have 2 pagesfor the soviet union?--Elamdri 16:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Got a link for the other one? RobS 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Inserted redirect to other page (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), since that page has the offical name of the soviet union GodlessLiberal 22:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a little too simplistic

What about the Provisional Government? I fear they are forgotten to history. --Horace 19:57, 3 March 2007 (EST)

• Was that Kerensky? Dpbsmith 21:23, 3 March 2007 (EST)

The Kerrensky Provisional regime is extremely important (see February Revolution because the CPSU takes credit for overthrowing the Czar, which they did not. As Solzhenitsyn said, the Communists robbed Russia of its Revolution. RobS 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The article seems to suggest that Gorbachev purposely brought down the Soviet government. The better statement would be that the government had lost so much credibility among its own people that he hoped that his policies of 'glastnost' and 'perestroika' would restore such credibilty. Instead, the greater openness let loose forces that undermined the government.Alloco1 17:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

An important factor totally ignored in the United States is that the new Russian Federation came into existence on Christmas Day--Christmas Day--the birth of Russian democracy after the death of athiest, Soviet Communism occured on the most celebrated of Christian Holidays. This is not a coincidence. This has a symbolic meaning. And the meaning is only lost on American journalist who do not understand what News is even when they see happening before thier very eyes. RobS 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, this rationale makes little sense when looked at from the Russian side-- most of the Russians who are Christians are Russian Orthodox, which uses the Julian Calendar to organize its holidays. Thus, Christmas Day for the Russian Orthodox Church is January 7th on all Gregorian (read, the world's) calendars. So it really would only have a contrived significance for Western Christians, not for Russian Christians, of whom at the time there were few of, anyway. Mevl00

In progress

Sorry I only added part 1 of a multiple-part history section. I've taken it down while I work on the rest of the sub-sections, and then I will add it once more.

MEvL