Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Maybe you should mention the official date and the meeting of the three leaders Yeltsin (Russia), Kravchuk (Ukraine) and Shushkevich (Belarus) in the Bielaviezha forest (Belarus) and them signing the agreement that USSR ceases to exist. rydel 17:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When did USSRs/Russias GDP start falling?[edit]

I checked that since the fall of the USSR Russias GDP (real) had fallen to 1/5 then rebounded to about 4/5. It's still hasn't recovered after 20 odd years. I checked some statistics and Russias GDP was falling since 1988 or so. So can anyone tell me when Russia or the entrie Union hit is peak real GDP? I have a feeling it may have been just before Gorbi took his place as head.

-G

Naked Bias[edit]

This article is not informative, in that it is written with a pronounced bias and opinionation as seen in American cold war propaganda. That is hardly in line with Wikipedia's policy, at least as I understand it - unless of course, Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for US propaganda, which I don't think it is. It should be flagged as disputed, until someone re-edits it properly. Meanwhile devilish ruses such as the "righteous" American propaganda, churned out especially during the Ronald Reagan years and by the Reader's Digest don't hold water anymore - not at least for properly informed people. It is far too late in the day for such deceptions to work anymore... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.30.129 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have to say that I agree with the first entry here, yet not solely on this page but on every one of the WikiProjetct Soviet Union pages that I have seen so far. On all of them there are hints of American superiority and patriotism, and also those of Russian degradation. As stated, Wikipedia is not a “mouthpiece for American propaganda” nor should such bias be allowed. Most every page under the Wikiproject Soviet Union needs to be marked for clean-up and have the major opinionating articles extricated from them before they are marked as viable sources, or placed in an encyclopedia, for goodness’ sake, which is, by definition, utterly unbiased. Sec'qr-euin 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Where's the bias???[edit]

You should say what exactly is wrong here in your opinion. Just saying that it's "biased" and "propaganda" is just bla bla until you point to specific statements that you believe to be biased. So far -- I've browsed the article and it seems good to me. Lebatsnok 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the night of July 31, 1991 Russian OMON from Riga, the Soviet military headquarters in the Baltics, assaulted the Lithuanian border post in Medininkai and killed seven Lithuanian servicemen. This further weakened the Soviet Union's position, internationally and domestically. Here is the bias. First of all the Lithuanian "border posts" were illegal. The article fails to mention that. Plus that part of the article is not even logical. It implies that the majority of Soviet population supported Lithuanian secession. Where's the evidence of that? In the article about the American Civil War it doesn't say "President Lincoln's decision to use force against the seceding Southern States weakened the U.S. position internationally and domestically". So what's the deal here?--Auspx (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Does the fact, that young country, which has recently regained independence after occupation, has not yet defined borders with the neighbours in official treaties with them (although there were official borders between USSR members, but no formal border control) and therefore used official former border between USSR members, allows someone the right to come and kill people in the border post? I would like to see your reaction if some neighbour of yours would come and kill you because he disputes the fence you have built in your backyard. Even the statement that border post was illegal is questionable. And it is the fact that USSR - a union of countries, of which at least some were included to it against their own will - deteriorated its image in the international community by demonstrating inability to provide fair ground for democratic developments - by applying brutal force to the supposed citizens of the union which it tries to save itself. Pardon, but I do not see any bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.98.54 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be still mention more about the Baltics? Although Gorbachev was much democratic and competent than past leaders, things such as https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/while-rest-eu-mourns-baltics-recall-gorbachev-agent-repression-2022-08-31/ happened 2603:6011:9600:52C0:44ED:76A4:97AA:A7D3 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV?[edit]

"Additionally, economic and military pressures of fighting the Cold War, particularly in matching Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, bankrupted the inherently weak Communist system."

I'm not a communist, by any means, an anarchist, actually, but that seems very biased and I bet a communist would oppose that skewed attack. Lockeownzj00 00:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what a communist would think, but it's a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policies, and that matters. Please go ahead and remove it. 172 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is so funny to read that about the country were I lived almost 40 years before move to USA. The author repeats propaganda stamps spreading over the government controlled mass media and developed to wash the brains of young Americans to keep them believe in what they want them believe until kids learn the other language. It's so shocking funny. Wow!

l noticed the same NPOV problem before I came to this talk page. I agree the communist system was inherently weak but to mention it in the article is not respecting NPOV. Martin-C 17:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gorbachev was a Commie...[edit]

I think that the article implies - or I think it does - that Gorbachev's reforms were anti-Soviet to an extent. Far from it, it appears that he was trying to reform the Soviet Union, and preserve Communism, by introducing modernisation which would improve the state, and actually keep it going... In fact, in an international context, I can see parallels between his reforms and those of Reagan and Thatcher, which occurred at the same time, which were partially to preserve different political systems, but which also had disastrous economic consequences. --MacRusgail 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Strangely, but it seems that no one remembers now how Gorbachev's "reforms" started. In his first major speech given at '85 Victory day (May 9), he praised Stalin's leadership like no one had since the XX CPSU Congress of 1956. It was rather startling. Then, there were half-hearted measures on "speeding up" the economy ("ускорение"), combined with campaing against alcoholism, which actually turned to destruction of vineyards, halting of production but by no means of consumption of alcoholic beverages, though it nearly paralyzed Soviet finances (when school I worked for then had no cash to pay teachers' salary; no wonder: workers spent their money not on vodka bought in a store but on illegal samogon). ... He definitely tried to save the system, and collapse of the Soviet empires was uninteded consequence of his "reforms." --Barbatus 16:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. --Mrdie (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, read Gorbachev's memoirs. Gorbachev was a communist who thought that communism failed in the Soviet Union because the USSR never went through a truly capitalist industrial period (like it was supposed to according to Marx). His reforms were focused on building this period...then, much later, communism--or so the theory goes--would eventually break out and it would be smiles all around. Actually, this is the exact same logic why the Chinese Communist Party is allowing so much laissez-faire marketeering in China today.99.96.38.208 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really a reliable source? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's a fraud.99.96.38.208 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beggar photo[edit]

IMHO, the image is highly POV, unencyclopedic and unrepresentative. Perhaps out of hundreds images representing various facets of life in Russia of the period that one would be OK. But here we have only half-a-dozen, 4 of them of Gorbachev. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't been to Russia or Ukraine for more than 10 years now, so I can't judge about the current state of affairs, but in the first half of 1990's, right after collapse of the USSR and its social services, it was a terrible sight everywhere ... not only your usual beggars, but clean-dressed elderly women looking for food in garbage. May be it is not relevant to the History of the Soviet Union per se, but it certainly was among very visible results of its downfall. --Barbatus 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the image of "post-Soviet Russia" falls beyound the scope of this article: 1985-91. Secondly, begging in Russia is less common than in some of the European countries, I think. Thirdly, there are shadowy commercial eneterprises who earn more by begging than private individuals. Fourthly, the begging used to be most widespread in downtown Moscow, where foreigners crowd the most. Fifthly, Russia is better off than other CIS members, so "begging in post-Soviet Ukraine" would make as apposite a title. --Ghirlandajo 07:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Non-sequiter from the front page:

End of the Cold War[edit]

As the Soviet Union was unraveling, Gorbachev and U.S. President George H.W. Bush declared a U.S.-Soviet strategic partnership at the summit of July 1991, decisively marking the end of the Cold War. President Bush declared that U.S.-Soviet cooperation during the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991 had laid the groundwork for a partnership in resolving bilateral and world problems. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation claimed to be the legal successor to the USSR on the international stage.--anon

The article's current statement, referring to Dec. 1991, "The dissolution of the Soviet Union also ended the longtime Cold War" is inaccurate. The media, Gorbachev, Bush, and most others contemporaries regarded "the end of the Cold War" to have transpired by the end of the Malta summit in Dec. 1989. By the time of the May-June, 1990, summit in D.C. there was a virtually universal consensus that the Cold War had ended. Contemporary journalists, politicians, etc., did not describe the Dec. 1991 dissolution of the Soviet state as "ending the Cold War" because, for them, the Cold War was already over. The article's current statement is based on the misconception that the "end of the Cold War" was coterminous with the end of the Soviet Union.--12/01/07 BW
Exactly, remember that the Gulf War was described as "the first post-Cold War crisis".Auspx (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. You are correct. Parsecboy (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden inflation[edit]

"Hidden inflation" (in para on introduction of perestroika) is by its nature limited, so why foreground this among economic problems? Unless someone can give evidence to the contrary, I think this should be deleted.--Jack Upland 05:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political instability in the Warsaw Pact countries[edit]

"Fraying amongst the members of the Warsaw Pact nations and instability of its western allies, first indicated by Lech Wałęsa's 1980 rise to leadership of the trade union Solidarity, along the western border accelerated, leaving the Soviet Union unable to depend upon its satellite states for protection of its borders."

While there can be no doubt that Poland was plagued by political instablity during the 1980s, the other Warsaw Pact nations remained largely stable and firmly in the grip of "normalization." The GDR remained under Honecker's control, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria were stable, reform was emerging in Hungary but at a caucious pace, and renegade Romania continued its emulation of North Korea. Political instability in these countries only publicly emerged after Gorbachev began advocating reform throughout the Eastern bloc. In addition to the Gorbachev-inspired waves of political reform, the USSR's renouncement of the Brezhnev Doctrine in 1988 signalled that Moscow would no longer support the Eastern European old guard. This pre-empted the rapid upheavals of 1989.

I disagree. Starting with Hungary in the mid-1980s, there was a definite resurgence in independent action on the part of the Warsaw Pact nations such that intervention that had marked previous uprisings were fundamentally unthinkable. By the time the Berlin Wall fell, there was no Warsaw Pact any longer, with the various European states evolving past totalitarian regimes. The first signs that Eastern Europe could have anything other than a communist future were seen in the Gdansk shipyards. Jtmichcock 02:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The resurgence of independent action in these states only occured because Moscow not only tolerated it, but, in fact, encouraged such reform. By the late 1980s, the USSR had even gone as far as abandoning long-time slavish allies like East Germany's Honecker and Bulgaria's Zhivkov. Gorbachev's tacit approval made it possible for regime change in these countries. See below.

Gorbachev and Eastern Europe

Charles Gati

From Foreign Affairs, Summer 1987

Extract:

The spirit of Mikhail Gorbachev?s "Moscow Spring" haunts Eastern Europe. While most people in the region?including members of various opposition groups?welcome the changes made and the changes promised in the Soviet Union, and hope for similar changes in Eastern Europe as well, most leaders worry about the likely repercussions.

After all, it happened before that when Moscow sneezed Eastern Europe caught pneumonia. In the aftermath of the 1956 de-Stalinization campaign in the Soviet Union, reformist elements gained the upper hand in Poland and Hungary. Czechoslovakia?s 1968 "Prague Spring" followed Soviet economic reforms in the mid-1960s. But in no case did these Soviet-inspired changes last long. In 1956 reformism in Hungary turned into a popular revolution that prompted Soviet intervention, while the initial gains of the 1956 "Polish October" gradually disappeared. In 1968, another military intervention?"justified" by the Brezhnev Doctrine?put an end to Czechoslovakia?s economic and political reform movement.

In the past, then, while reforms in the Soviet Union proved to be manageable or even reversible, the pressure for change in Eastern Europe proved to be uncontrollable. Will history repeat itself? Will the winds of Gorbachev?s glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) reach Eastern Europe?and with what consequences?

With East European officials showing signs of aversion to starting Gorbachev-style reforms or accelerating existing ones, most of the region is out of step with the Soviet Union. While in Moscow criticism and self-criticism are in vogue, in East Berlin the party leadership reaffirms its own "correct course," past and present. In Moscow the rehabilitation of Nikolai Bukharin, an early proponent of more tolerant communist rule, is under way; in Prague Alexander Dubcek, leader of the 1968 Prague Spring, remains a nonperson under virtual house arrest. In Moscow the self-management of enterprises is under consideration; in Bucharest President Nicolae Ceausescu asserts that "real socialism" has nothing to do with self-management. In Moscow intellectuals are beginning to be allowed to give voice to their concerns; in Budapest-even in Budapest-the authorities threaten to close down the Writers' Union for having elected a leadership not to the party's liking.

True, the Polish and the Hungarian regimes can see in Gorbachev's initiatives an implicit approval of their own policies and ambitions. Yet even these two regimes, and certainly all the others, except Romania, prefer to praise "promising developments" in the Soviet Union without necessarily seeing them as a guide for their own course or undertaking similar initiatives themselves.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19870601faessay7850/charles-gati/gorbachev-and-eastern-europe.html

Confusing sentences[edit]

The following sentences taken from the section, 'The August Coup' makes no sense to me. It looks like the two sentences should be joined together with a comma after 'emergency', but as I have no knowledge on this subject I thought I'd bring it to more knowledgeable peoples' attention, rather than blindly try to fix it myself:

"On August 19, 1991, to prevent the signing of the union treaty by forming the "State Committee on the State Emergency." The "Committee" put Gorbachev (vacationing in the Crimea) under house arrest and attempted to restore the union state."

--Phileas 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol[edit]

The following section deleted:

The first reform under Gorbachev was the 1985 alcohol reform, which was designed to fight wide-spread alcoholism in the Soviet Union. Prices on vodka, wine and beer were lifted, and their sales were restricted. People who were caught drunk at work or in public were prosecuted. Drinking on long-distance trains and in public places was banned. Economically it was a serious blow to the state budget (a loss of approximately 100 billion rubles according to Alexander Yakovlev) after alcohol production migrated to black market economy.

It is an erroneous attribution. Antialcohol campaigns and price rising for vodka started already during Brezhnev. A a seasoned "alcoholic" from these times, I cannot stand this historical falsehood :-). People like me remember "Dazhe yesliu budet vosem, Vsyo ravno yeyo ne brosim! Peredajte Ilyichu, Nam i 10 po plechu!" ("pass over to Ilyich (i.e., leonid Ilyich): se can handle even 10 (roubles per bottle"). The numbers 2.87->3.62->5.12, well known to male population and were source a large number of jokes. But the real assault was by Andropov. I used to be a proud member of the All-Union Abstinence Society, created at these times, and I reverently keep the membership card, but no longer pay dues :-) mikka (t) 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title change needed?[edit]

It seems that a better suited title to fit this page would be the one that many links use: The Collapse of the Soviet Union. This page is generally about the cause, effect, and affects of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Afterall, that is almost exclusively what this page is about. All links and chart names could stay the same, but I think it would be a more fittinf page title: 'The collapse of the Soviet Union'. That, or perhaps another page may be in need.

Too long?[edit]

I feel like this one is too long and should be split into several different articles, including the Fall of the Soviet Union. This is my first comment to an article, but I feel it's worth mentioning.Nashaii 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. The article is not long at all, considering the importance and complexity of the subject. 172 | Talk 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no professor...[edit]

I'm no professor but i found this article informative i learned quite a few things from it. Travis Robinson 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warps[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but this article was confusing in its time spans. For example, Yeltsin took office on July 12, 1991, and yet Gorbachev was still in power for the August coup? Is anyone else even slightly confused here? 66.31.230.27 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeltsin was the Russian SSR president, while Gorby was the the head of the Soviet Union, two different things. Parsecboy 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information.[edit]

The Soviet Union's collapse into its original independent nations began in earnest in 1985.

That's wrong. Many of the Soviet Republics were never independent nations. Before the creation of the Soviet Union they were provinces in Imperial Russia. For example most of the present-day Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan were parts of Imperial Russia for centuries.

To break Gorbachev's opposition, Yeltsin decided to disband the Soviet Union in accordance with the Treaty of the Union of 1922 and therefore to remove Gorbachev and the government of the USSR from power. This was seen as a forced measure to save the country from a complete economic collapse and was at the time widely supported by Russia's population.

Totally wrong. Most of the people were shocked and surprised by the collapse of the USSR. It's true that by December 1991 Gorbachev's approval rating was very low, but this doesn't mean that the majority of the population in Russian SSR or the rest of the Union for that matter wanted the Union to be disbanded. --Auspx 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been part of Imperial Russia for centuries, but were they not independent after World War I? And, if we want to get technical, at various points before being conquered by Russia?
I don't mind your second argument though. I'm sure most people didn't think the USSR would ever collapse when it did. Parsecboy 09:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After WWI some of the provinces (the Baltic States, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Finland, Eastern Poland) did become independent nations. However what the article here is implying is that all of the former Imperial Russia's provinces (which later became Soviet Republics) became independent nations before the creation of the Soviet Union. That's incorrect. I don't have the map of post-WWI Soviet Russia but I'm sure there never was a country called Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan before the Soviet Union was created in 1922. --Auspx 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion might be a little stale, but I'd like to point out the articles Ukraine after the Russian Revolution and Ukrainian War of Independence. There was, however short-lived, a Ukrainian political entity between the Russian Revolution and the creation of the USSR. Parsecboy (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I saw the post-WWI map of Soviet Russia and it looks like for a few years Ukraine and Belarus were independent. The Central Asian states that later became Soviet Republics are the ones that were never idependent nations before December 26th, 1991.--Auspx (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old conversation, but the above comment is wrong. See Alash Orda, Khorezm People's Soviet Republic and Bukharan People's Soviet Republic. 209.235.2.8 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy?[edit]

All this talk about 'economic problems' is just awful. What kind of problems? The article is just pap.WolfKeeper 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that this article doesn't mention the fact that the Soviet Union went bankrupt, due to low grain/food production and a burgeoning population and an inability to export goods due to poor quality and not producing anything that other countries wanted to buy?WolfKeeper 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the primary actual reason according to the guy that was the prime minister (forget his name) after the breakup that the union broke up isn't actually mentioned anywhere? WolfKeeper 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember, American conservatives do in fact edit wikipedia, and we all know the Soviet Union was defeated by Ronald Reagan, all by himself. Nothing to do with inefficiencies of the Soviet system. Nope. It was Ronald Reagan, telling Gorbechev to tear down that wall. And Star Wars. Parsecboy 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they can sustain such an argument in the face of WP:NPOV then hey, it probably really happened; but I doubt that they can. This article is strangely empty of real references.WolfKeeper 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Reagan did support Afghan mujahideen by giving them stinger missiles which cost the US only 1 billion per year but cost the USSR 8 billion per year in losses. Additionally his reversal of past policies and new economic policies helped keep gas prices low which decreased the oil price and, ergo, reduced the amount of hard currency the USSR was able to bring in. I realize that some people want to attribute the fall of the USSR to "Reagan and Star Wars" only, but there are others who actively deny he had any roll in the USSR's final days which is to ignore a large amount of the historical reality. I would prefer to see some balanced viewpoints rather than the "Reagan-hate" or "Reagan-love."Millenium King (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is in dire need of some drastic revision. Let's start by culling the unreferenced Cold-War mythos, eh? Parsecboy 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I substantially edited the intro paragraph. Does that seem a little better? Feel free to edit away if you think it needs improvement. It's a rough draft anyways. Parsecboy 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst article ever.[edit]

It barely says anything about the Soviet Union. Please someone fix it. 90% of this article is about Gorbachev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.104.78 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky Vandalism?[edit]

In the section 'Aftermath of the failed coup' there is this phrase: "After the coup, the Soviet republics accelerated their process towards independence and racial extermination..."

Racial extermination?

What was an earlier version of that sentence? Perhaps replace 'racial extermination' with 'self-determination'?

I found the malicious edit from 24.63.20.125 on June 15, so removed the words 'and racial extermination'. Stanistani (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Perestroika.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Perestroika.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Jimmy Carter defeated the USSR?[edit]

American bias, Pro-Democrat bias: The way this article reads, one might believe that Jimmy Carter defeated the USSR singlehandedly. He gets a full paragraph while Ronald Reagan only gets one sentence about how he "escalated tensions."

Reagan fought the Soviet Union by ending the policy of "containment," issued stinger missiles to the fighters in Afghanistan turning Afghanistan into what some historians refer to as a "Soviet Viet Nam." He reduced the USSRs ability to export oil into Europe, he fought rising oil prices (which began in the Carter administration, some might say, because of his policies). A decline in oil prices choked off the influx of money to the USSR. He raised US military spending to 7% of US GDP while, to keep pace, the USSR raised their spending to 27% of their GDP - also forcing them to freeze production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.

I am not trying to show a "pro-America bias" but these things are facts. If Carter gets a whole paragraph for his "efforts" at combating the USSR, Reagan should at least get a mention.

http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm Millenium King (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main things putting stress on the Soviet economy was that, due to Reagan persuading the Saudi's to sell their oil at a cheaper price, the Soviets, due to the inefficiency of their production/distribution system, were unable to bolster their economy--or at least find the revenue to buy food on their own--by exporting Soviet oil at a profitable price. Why isn't this mentioned? BTW, I'm a liberal democrat, but that doesn't mean I don't think Reagan should get his due here, for trying to understand history through a partisan lens does a disservice to both the field and all humanity. This whole article is, quite honestly, more than a little bit amateurish. There are many factors in the fall of the Soviet Union, and, since history isn't mathematics where there is only one answer, shouldn't all the factors be mentioned? This article is a perfect example of why I tell my 7th grade students to only use Wikipedia for straightforward, nondebatable information, but for partisan issues like this, to stay far, far away (or, if they must, use a legitimate encyclopedia)!99.96.38.208 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I came here looking for information, but sadly this article is unusable. It almost completely lacking in references (just 6 for the entire article), and thus I don't know what information here is reliable. There are plenty of words in there (eg. stagnation) that might be accurate descriptors, or might not, but they need citations. I'm not an expert in Soviet history, but those who are should work on this article to bring it up to scratch.

I know it's hard work, so wish the editors the best of luck. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Wouldn't a name like "The collapse of the Soviet Union" be more fitting? Because this is what the article focuses on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.124.236 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991) → Dissolution of the Soviet Union — Hopefully, this will be a fairly straightforward move. This article's subject is the period (1985-91) in which the Soviet Union broke apart, out of which the contemparary post-Soviet states emerged. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The old name was more neutral, the new proposed name seems to be anti-Soviet, as it empathises that the CCCP came to an end. Ijanderson (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got nothing against the USSR or Communism in general; but the USSR did disolve in that period, and the proposed title is a much more likely search title than the current name. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ijanderson, in what universe is it "anti-Soviet" to "empathise" [sic] the fact that the Soviet Union did actually meet an inglorious and justly-deserved end? And YeshuaDavid, there's really no need to be polite toward that particular tyranny, one that murdered 20 million people, including plenty of your co-religionists. - Biruitorul Talk 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the article obviously surrounds the dissolution of the USSR, not just a generic history of the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1991. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More likely search term. Jafeluv (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Already a redirect, and dissolution of would be too specific a title and exclude other history of the period that was not related to the dissolution, I would think. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and dispute first sentence. The breakup of the Soviet Empire may have begun in 1985 (although the events of 1989 were unexpected as late as the Rekjavik conference); the breakup of the Union itself did not begin until that year. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no involvement in the writing of this article; I agree it needs to better written and better sourced. But this article does cover the decline and breakup of the USSR as evidenced by the article's content (see the Summary section's general tone). It's not a generic history - if you have a look at Template:Fall of Communism, the breakup of the USSR links here. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, leaving that pattern would significantly improve this series of articles. I'm aware that these pages originally split from History of the Soviet Union, and dividing the content by year is a good if basic method of achieving that goal. But as these articles grow more sophisticated they have to be allowed to develop more naturally. Compare History of the Soviet Union with History of the United Kingdom: rather than just holding a series of links, the UK article talks about different periods in British history. The article on the Victorian era could be titled "History of the United Kingdom (1837–1901)", the article History of the United Kingdom during World War I could be titled "History of the United Kingdom (1914–1918)"; however, the articles would be much weaker as a result.YeshuaDavid • Talk • 12:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victorian era works only because of Anglo-centric Western history, it was a uniquely long period of reign of a particular monarch, and it is used to refer to a time period even outside of the British context. We could rename all Soviet history articles to Leninist era Stalinist era et al., here the articles would be weaker as after Lenin and Stalin I'd venture people are less clear on who was on top when, nor were these periods long enough to be called eras. You can't take examples outside the norm and apply them to situations which do not correspond. In fact, Disintegration of the Soviet Union would be the name of the era, "dissolution" is what occurred when the treaty creating the CIS was ratified. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mistake me - I'm not trying to see every Soviet history article named after a particular person arbatarily, I'm requesting that this article be renamed "Dissolution of the Soviet Union", not "Gorbachev era" or something like that. You say this period is too short to be a named era, but the proposed article style would be similar to other articles about the decline of Communism; see Breakup of Yugoslavia for example. Also, I would be happy to see "disintegration" being used instead of "dissolution". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Soviet Union was not dissolving until 1990-91. It may have been declining, decaying, or degenerating from 1985-1990, but not quite dissolving. I would expect an article on "Dissolution of the Soviet Union" to include only the material in the section with that title. — AjaxSmack 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response to Biruitorul. Ideally, as I sort of hinted at, I would like to see the other articles in this series reorganised and some of the content on this page relocated to a more appropriate article. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 12:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This period was not long enough to be a named era, and "Dissolution" is the wrong word in any event. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. The Soviet Union was not dissolving until 1990-1991. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Berlin Wall[edit]

This article doesn't mention the Berlin Wall once. Or Germany even. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The role of the SU during the November Revolution is explained (to some extend) in the articles about the Berlin wall, the 2+4-Treaty and others. But I agree, it should at least be mentioned. We should also think about merging some of the information into one article about this topic since the reaction (or non-reaction) to the protests in eastern europe is somewhat the main difference to prague in the 50s. --84.177.46.177 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption Change[edit]

"Barricade in Riga to prevent the Red Army from reaching Latvian Parliament, July 1991"

I changed this to "Soviet Army" considering it hadn't been called the "Red Army" since 1946. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.80.69 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change in title[edit]

Just as specified in the lead section, the said period refers to collapse of the soviet union. This is widely used around the world, and more suggestive title. The "Soviet Union" ceased to exist thenceforth, and the word "collapse" should not offend anybody. The title change is limited to just the word change from history to collapse, even period 1985-1991 is retained. Doorvery far (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your move. This is controversial as seen in previous discussions and should be formally proposed at WP:Requested moves to gain wider input. — AjaxSmack 03:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Soviet Union (1982–91). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Soviet Union (1982–91). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1982–1991)&oldid=1207558472"