Talk:Soviet Union

The last edit

Ikan Kekek's reversion of Nathan's edit invites discussion on talk page and I feel compelled to start it. The Stallingrad battle was indeed "infamously bloody" and I'd like to see this bit kept, as well as the reference on the Olympics and doping. Otherwise, this prose indeed feels somewhat reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's view of the "Evil Empire", and the toning down of this would not be unwelcome on this historical travel article IMHO, per WV:Avoid negative reviews in the least, but the really sensitive nature of the subject merits discussion and consensus, indeed. Ibaman (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think WV:Avoid negative reviews applies to historical accounts of Stalin, Hitler and the like. I did think some of the changes in that edit were good. Here are the ones I object to:

• (1) Substituting "famine" for "starvation, most infamously the Holodomor in Ukraine" amounts to denying a genocide through omission.
• (2) The Soviets "liberating much of Central Europe and the Balkans from the Nazis", rather than "managing to capture" them, is OK, but that depends on what context we put it in.
• (3) "Socialist regimes also began appearing in other parts of the world" instead of "Socialist regimes were also installed in other parts of the world" is worth a discussion. I don't think we can say they just started appearing, because that makes it sound like it took no human effort; however, we should find a better verb than "were installed". How about "were established"? That seems appropriately neutral to me, keeping in mind that the context was very different in North Korea than in Cuba or Mozambique.
• (4) Why was this deleted? "During the era of official amateurism the Soviet Union dominated even some sports that Western European nations usually excel at due to officially not having professional athletes. In general the Soviets and many of their satellites also engaged in large scale systematic doping."
• (5) Here, I think the new version is better than the old one, with the caveat that "the increasing penetration of Western propaganda" suggests that the popular revolutions happened because of Western lying and manipulation, not popular opposition to communism, so I object to the use of the word "propaganda" by itself, although it's technically accurate (e.g., the Voice of America is quite admittedly propaganda) and the equivalent term in Russian doesn't have a bad connotation. How about "the increasing penetration of information, culture and propaganda from the West", which I think puts things in more perspective?

The old version:

The failed war in Afghanistan, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reform programs, as well as dwindling prices of oil and other raw materials (which make up much of the Soviet economy) brought a wave of revolutions in Soviet satellite states from 1989. During 1991, the Soviet Republics seceded from the Union one after another, marking the end of the Soviet Union.

The new version:

The failed war in Afghanistan, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reform programs, as well as dwindling prices of oil and other raw materials (which make up much of the Soviet economy) and the increasing penetration of Western propaganda brought a wave of revolutions across the Eastern Bloc from 1989. In 1991, a referendum was held on whether to preserve the Soviet Union. The Baltic states, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia boycotted the referendum, as they were holding their own independence referendums around the same time. Every other participating republic voted to remain, but despite this the USSR was officially dissolved on December 26 1991.

• (6) In discussing Crimea, "grabbed" is much more accurate than "annexed", which ignores the fact that the Russian Army had to wrest control of the peninsula before Russia could effectively annex it. However, if "grabbed" is considered an unnecessarily antagonistic term, I think "occupied" is a good alternative wording. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

On point (1) I disagree that removing references to a starvation campaign amounts to genocide denial. While the famine is universally considered a tragedy, it's description as a deliberate genocide is extremely contentious. I would support a reference to it as it is a painful memory in Ukraine's history, but to explicitly call it an extermination or anything similar is unduly negative. On point (3) perhaps "socialist revolutions following in the wake of the Soviets occurred around parts of the developing world"? On point (4) it seemed relatively unimportant but I have no other objections to it. On point (6) I would suggest "occupied and then annexed". Everything else I haven't mentioned I agree with and would consider improvements on my edits.--Nathan868 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, on the famine, would you agree to this form of words? "famine, especially in Ukraine where it's known as the Holodomor" - this way, we don't express an opinion about whether it was an intentional genocide but merely state what it's called in Ukraine.

On socialist revolutions, that applies to most of the mentioned countries (every one, I think) except for North Korea, which to my understanding no more had a socialist revolution than East Germany but was merely in the Soviet Occupation Zone following World War II.

Totally agreed on point 6. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate to me. Including my statement about socialist revolutions, but adding "while North Korea and East Germany came under Soviet influence in opposition to the US-backed South Korea and West Germany" should address everything. --Nathan868 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

about point 6, as this is a historical travel article, I believe that Nikita Khruschev's autocratic decision of making Crimea part of Ukraine, which happened on this precise timeframe, and is a direct cause of our difficulty of choosing the proper words to describe the present situation, would be worth mentioning somewhere, if only to show what a tremendous pickle is to tell the long story of this spot of the planet. As for the rest of the discussion, nothing to add. Ibaman (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the further context about Crimea belongs in the Crimea article. It's not there and should be added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems like we're good. If no-one objects within 24 hours or so, let's revert my reversion and make the agreed-upon changes to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• yeah, and I just took care of Crimea#History. Ibaman (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I made one slight followup edit. I don't have time to edit this article until later tonight, when I'll take care of it unless someone beats me to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. I'll now see if anything should be copy edited. Thanks, guys! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

@Nathan868: Regarding my edits that you reverted, isn't the Ukraine conflict primarily an ethnic conflict between the Russians and the Ukrainians? My understanding is that most ethnic Ukrainians seek to join the EU and NATO, while ethnic Russians are against that and instead seek closer ties with Russia. And as for Central Asia, my understanding is that Kazakhstan is one of the main centres of the pan-Turkic movement along with Turkey. And in fact, most of the Uyghur separatist groups not based in Western countries are based in Turkey or Kazakhstan. And of course, there is a campaign by the Kazakh government to get the ethnic Kazakhs in China to move to Kazakhstan and obtain Kazakh citizenship, but I'm not sure how successful it has been . The dog2 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of information that would be very interesting in a Wikipedia article, if it can be backed up by reliable sources. It's not needed in a travel guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with Granger, and I think your statements might be broadly true to some extent, they are mostly generalisations that aren't very helpful for travelers. For example, in the eastern breakaway regions of Ukraine, I believe the local Russians do want to remain close to Russia, but for ethnic Russians in the rest of Ukraine I don't know, and I think the generalisation following ethnic lines might not be true. The relations between Turkic countries might be true, but again it's basically unsourced and not useful information. While the politics of a country are of note, I'd avoid making statements about ethnic groups that could possibly do more harm than good. Nathan868 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Disapointment

I was hoping this page would have a sort of detailled list of Soviet-related things to see and do included in it, explaining the relationship these things have with the Soviet Union (wether it'd be about the history or the society of the Soviet Union). So for anyone wanting to know what could be the next step for this page has a good inspiration now. I'd love to see something like that, just an idea. --166.62.226.25 01:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to add any that you know? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see the reader's point. There is a whole lot of history and context, and a very little travel information tucked away at the bottom. I think we should cut back on the history for the sake of balance in the article. Ground Zero (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

And finally we now have a piece of evidence why historical travel topics with no to little travel content only disappoint the reader. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added a few sites that travellers can visit. I would like to cut back the history in this article to give the traveller an overview of the key concepts, and provide better balance with the travel content here. Any comments before I try editing this? Ground Zero (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comments on this before I start editting? Ground Zero (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you need to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have trimmed the article by less than 20% to improve the focus on the Soviet era, and to reduce the weight of historical and context information in the article so that it doesn't overwhelm the travel information so much. I encourage future editors to remember that this is not a "history of the USSR" article, but an article about travelling to see places related to the history of the USSR. Ground Zero (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To prevent your message from being forgotten, I've added an edit notice on MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Soviet Union. Please copyedit if needed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I sure didn't expect that my post would create a mini-revolution (I'd even forgotten about me writting it). Thank you all for improving the article --166.62.226.25 01:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Choice of image

I was disappointed about the boat being the main preview picture so I thought I would add one good photography and I did. However, I found one that also could work great and I'm not sure anymore, which one is the best?

• 
  Current one
• 
  Challenger

Which one wins? We should vote, guys! --166.62.226.25 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Neither. This is a travel guide. The pictures we use should be of places that people can visit that are related to the Soviet Union, not historical images. Unless you can tell us how to travel through time. If you can do that, then I'll drop my objections to historical photos (and give you my life savings, too ;-) ).Ground Zero (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are three suggestions for places that people can visit that evoke the USSR Ground Zero (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Statue of Lenin in VDNKh

Red Square

Lenin's Tomb

But the second one is of a real statue that's still there I think, the picture I found was in black and white. The statue is really a whole encapsulation of everything soviet and is so emblematic i think, so a colour version of it is the fourth suggestion! But the Red Square is the 2nd best. --166.62.226.25 23:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest other images from the Wikimedia Commons. Ground Zero (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer either one of the Red Square or the Statue of Lenin. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I just couldn't find a good colour picture where the statue is at a good angle, a good resolution and the clear focus of the picture at the same time. I can't stand the idea of a Lenin statue and I want something that is not that stereotypical and well encompassing of the whole soviet union, not just in a specific point in time. I tried the Gagarin monument in Moscow or something related to the space race too, to no avail. So I guess it's ok for Red Square to win out this vote...unless...unless I actually got the most soviet photo ever! It's in Chernobyl and it combines almost everything Soviet Union : Cyrillic, hammer and sickle, nuclear Energy, industry, metalwork, the flow of water, a rural setting, athleticism, soviet buildings and a disaster all at once, truly a glorious enough soviet combination for the post, don't you think?

• 
  Tadaa
• 
  A closer shot

--166.62.226.25 06:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those convince me and they don't seem attractive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the statue of Lenin. Red Square was associated with the Soviet Union but precedes its existence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I like having the statue of Lenin too. The dog2 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well i give up, Red Square is my choice then. the red star is just too iconic, just look at the anthem they played at the end of every day, its prominent. It's not a question of "preceding its existence" but how much of a representative icon it was. --166.62.226.25 19:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I intentionally chose an image of Red Square that includes Lenin's Tomb to be representative of the Soviet era. Ground Zero (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Point taken. But it's not immediate obvious that it is Lenin's mausoleum unless you have been there or actually looked it up. One the other hand, the statue of Lenin would be instantly recognisable to anybody who knows at least basic history. The dog2 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Why should it matter? The Red Square is more beautiful and is close to encapsulating the soviet union given how much it is in its imagery and mythos, contrary to this specific statue of a single man representing only the beginning of the union. The statue is too obvious, too obnoxious. The TV signoff soviet anthem prove US (soviet joke) right.

--166.62.226.25 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we just disagree with you. I don't find that banner ugly at all, regardless of what I think of Lenin himself. Besides, you were advocating photos that look ugly to me. As they say, there's no accounting for taste, to each their own, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

But this vote will never be over if we don't agree on something, relativism won't help. So, I think its fair to say in things regarding the soviet union, nothing encapsulate the country better than what the soviet government showed to be, righ? And what it would choose to present itself in the form of its TV signoff anthem that would play every night on tv for patriotism, to remind the nation of what distinguishes their country. It's how it perceived itself and, would you know it, the red square is featured prominently and the VDNK not ONCE. And since it countains Lenin's mausoleum, something every tourist and their grandma visit when they go to Moscow (so not relatively unknown like you portrayed it was), I'd say it is the best compromise of everyone's ideas. I'll put it here, but fair warning, it has a real loud annoying beep sound in the beginning, so lower your volume at first. Lenin is temporal, a certain part of soviet universe, but red square is featured and representative of across every time period and side you could focus on, the center of the soviet union, a symbol of an entire ideology and of the country extreme centralization, a hub where world history would be played and decided. It is as prominent as communism eternal ideals :D ! And not to forget a UNESCO site. For comparing, I didn't even knew this NKVD building even existed when Red Square is universally iconic.

For real, it seems like the entire history of the soviet union can be summerized to this place from the beginning to its end, it shocked me away. It started with the russian revolution that transfered power away from St-Petursburg to Moscow. Its huge grand square being where the showplay of a new revolutionnary world would march through in parades, a role model for soviet urban design where grand public squares would be exported everywhere in the communist world, from Ulanbataar, to Pyongyang to Beijing. It's where Lenin, Stalin and the communist party would speak to the crowd of workers. Where the unbuild Palace of the Soviets was supposed to be built. The target of Nazi advances that would condemn them to their doom. Where victory would be paraded to after 1945. Where the Cold War would be played and a symbol in "the west" of the other side in this war. It's finally where its cracks would appear, with airplane pilots landing there and where the mass protests that would bring the Union down would happen.

I compromized a lot to get to a consensus, by rejecting my initial pictures and thoses I later submitted. I endorse a picture I wasn't immediately fond of but grow accustomed to, partly because it also takes on account your desire to have something Lenin-related. You didn't do the same, not one iota. Please do some compromises too, it would be nice.

--166.62.226.25 00:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a video as a pagebanner? We don't use videos on this site. See Wikivoyage:Image policy. Anyway, the usual way to vote on pagebanners is just for everyone to vote as they like and normally for the pagebanner that gets most votes to win. But that's not what we're voting for, and I'm not really sure what we are voting for. The main preview picture? In other words, the image that appears when you mouse over a link to this page? I don't normally pay attention to that, and I feel like it's just something on Wikidata? But keep in mind, this is a travel article, and no-one is travelling to the USSR TV signoff. And a photo of Red Square should certainly be among the images on the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just used the tv signoff as an exemple to prove my point that red square was the best image of the bunch to be the preview picture because I think the boat is not a good one and the top upper part of the article is a bit bland without a picture next to it. I'm sorry about the confusion : heres how it went. I put a picture of the Soviet Union flag because I thought it made the section prettier. I afterward saw how it made the preview picture change (the one you see when putting the mouse over a link, not the banner on top of the page, which currently is the soviet flag upon the sky). But it was removed because flags are not authorized as preview pictures, it was recommanded to me to put a photograph instead and that's what I did, putting a photo of the ww2 soldier holding a soviet flag in berlin because I thought it was emblematic and looked great. Next I had an even better idea : replacing it with a picture of the soviet statue of the worker and kholkoze(?) woman. But I wanted to make sure the change was ok with more people, so I asked for a vote to see which one of the two was the best, the soldier or the statue? Next thing I learn is that neither of the two are ok because they are "historical photos" and thus against the rules. So the user Ground Zero gives three proposals to replace all previous pictures : the NVDK building with Lenin statue, Red Square or the Lenin's mausoleum. I didn't like any of the three at first, so I proposed yet not another picture, the chernobyl panel. No one liked it so I finally accepted Red Square as my vote. But since you didn't approve red square, the voting turned into a debate so a consensus could be found, and among the arguments I used the TV signoff as part of my argument why Red Square was better fit because of its official endorsement as a soviet symbol.

Anyway, since you seem to be ok with Red Square being put as the preview url picture on top-right of the page, I think we have a winner, here! Also, yeah, I moved so my IP is different. Also yeah, it should be called a debate instead of a vote, but I didn't knew it was not going to be straightforward.

--96.22.228.193 01:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ossetes

There is a page on Wikipedia about the East Prigorodny conflict, where they mentioned about how the ethnic tensions date back to Tsarist times, when the Ossetes were among the few people who were friendly with the Russians in a region that was otherwise largely hostile to them. The dog2 (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

But how do you know enmities are widely shared now? Things change. Do most Vietnamese people hate Americans? What about Germans and Japanese? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Things can certainly change, but in the case of the Caucasus, the terrorist attack on the school in Beslan, North Ossetia was actually not that long ago. And emnity between the Ossetes and Russians on one side, and the Ingush and Chechens on the other, certainly played a role in that attack.

And I see your point about the Vietnamese and Americans. But I will also point out that there is still some lingering suspicion of the U.S. among the Vietnamese political elites. Vietnam has in fact chosen to pursue a policy of equidistance between the U.S. and China, instead of joining a U.S.-led anti-China alliance, despite all the historical baggage between Vietnam and China. The dog2 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a formal alliance, but the Vietnamese know which country is their biggest threat. Anyway, you love to generalize about ethnic groups, and I think it's important for you to stop doing that in Wikivoyage articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, no ethnic group is monolithic, and there will inevitably be a diversity of political views within each ethnic group. But ethnic tensions are unfortunately a significant issue in many post-colonial countries. Singapore was lucky to have someone like LKY who, despite some of his authoritarian tendencies, was very committed to opposing racism, and thus managed to heal the divisions between Singapore's different ethnic groups over time. But not too far away, Myanmar is a classic example of a country that has been ravaged by ethnic tensions that have at least partly resulted from the legacy of colonial rule. Back in school in Singapore, we had to commemorate the 1964 racial riots between the Malays and Chinese every year to remind us not to take the peace we have for granted.

And with regard to Vietnam, when Kamala Harris visited last year, the prime minister of Vietnam actually spoke with the Chinese ambassador to reassure him that Vietnam would not be joining an anti-China alliance: [1]. Make of this what you will. The dog2 (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I figure they want to keep China at arm's length but not too antagonized. And since no-one knows when the Republicans are going to get into the White House again and whether they'll be any more reliable than Trump, they have to hedge their bets. But that's all speculation that I wouldn't remotely consider putting in a Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Night Witches?

The w:Night Witches were WW II Soviet aviators; the aircrew & I think ground crew were all women. They flew biplanes that were basically obsolete, used for crop dusting before the war, slow and without either armour or guns, so sitting ducks for German fighters. Despite that, they had considerable success harassing the Germans.

If there are any monuments or museums in the former Soviet Union, they should be mentioned here and/or in World War II in Europe. I've done some web searches & not found any, just articles at other museums [2] [3] [4] [5]. Pashley (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The war on Ukraine

I don't think the war on Ukraine can be seen as a result of a simmering ethnic or religious conflict:

"The fall of the Soviet Union brought many simmering ethnic and religious conflicts to the surface, resulting in civil wars, ethnic cleansings, genocides, terrorism and disputed borders that have never been resolved – [...] and Ukraine."

There were conflicts in Ukraine, but they had little to do with ethnicity or religion that I can see, and one cannot blame the fall of the Soviet Union for somebody coming decades later, wanting to restore the glory of the imperium and using rhetoric about oppressed Russians.

–LPfi (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was referring more to the war in the Donbass that started after Euromaidan in 2014. That one had more of an ethnic conflict dimension to it, because the post-Euromaidan government's decision to make Ukrainian the sole official language pissed off the ethnic Russians in the Donbass, whose anger Putin was able to exploit. If you listen to this speech here by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, he goes into it somewhat, and you can see that prior to Euromaidan, the ethnic Russians wanted closer ties with Russia, while the ethnic Ukrainians wanted closer ties with the U.S. and the EU. And you can see that there is a bit of a religious element too, because even among the ethnic Ukrainian regions, the Catholic areas have always been more anti-Russia than the Eastern Orthodox areas, which has been the case even since Soviet times. The dog2 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I recognise it didn't start in 2022, that's why I said "the conflicts". There was an ethnic dimension (and perhaps a religious one, but I think that's a stretch), but the dividing line was not between ethnicities and, as you say, "that Putin was able to exploit" – I suspect there wouldn't have been a civil war without Russia's interventions (but I know too little about the covered operations to really tell). The wishes to get closer to Russia or the West wasn't an ethnic conflict. I assume it had much more to do with economics. Those in the east, be they whatever ethnically, had more to lose by lost connections to Russia (exporting coal to the EU doesn't seem like the brightest plan for the future). Anyway, the conflicts arose from politics of the 2000s, there weren't (to my knowledge) tensions between the ethnic groups in the early days of the independence. (I was very frustrated by EU's pressure on west-friendly presidents to cut ties to Russia.) –LPfi (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Because this is a contentious issue, and Wikivoyage doesn't require references to reliable sources for edits, it us better to say less and avoid getting into political arguments over the the text. Readers should not be getting their information about the war from a travel guide anyway. Ground Zero (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

GZ is correct. Moreover, the little background information on the war that does belong in a travel guide should go in the Ukraine or Russia articles, not this one. Pashley (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Raising a flag over the Reichstag.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Destinations outside the borders of the former Soviet Union

Would it be appropriate to list Stalinist buildings outside the borders of the Soviet Union in this article? There are a number of prominent Stalinist buildings in the former Eastern Bloc countries such as the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw that was built as a "gift" by the Soviet Union, as well as the Hotel International in Prague, and Largo in Sofia. And Dalian in China has the Dalian People's Culture Club that was built by the Soviets during their occupation of the city after reclaiming it from Japan at the end of World War II, while Beijing also has the Beijing Exhibition Center that was built by the Soviets. The dog2 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)