Talk:Red Army/Archive 1

Where are the references??

Is it just me or is nothing in this article referenced?

The meaning of "Red" in Red army

Don't you think it is too simple to give a single reason, the blood of the soliders and workers, as the significance of "Red" in "Red Army" (Paragraph one.) Red was also a traditional Slavic color for good luck and joy and holds a socio-linguistic property of its own as evidenced by it being the root word in such Russian vocabulary as "beautiful" and "paint." ALso it seems more plausible that the Red Army was called so because of its sponsorship by the Bolshevik party.

Red is simply the color traditionally associated with communism, just as black is traditonally associated with anarchism. The basis has nothing to do with any Russian or slavic language issues. DMorpheus 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinas Red Army

Why is there no mention of this? Or did I miss it? -G Do you mean the PLA (People's Libaration army)?Mcspiff 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I have never heard of the PLA being referred to as the "Red Army" of China, the terms "Red China" and "Red Chinese" were popular in the West especially durng the Korean War and early Cold War period. Not sure if the Chinese themselves used such a term. J.A. 195.49.1.50 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

institute vs institution

The article says:

The institute of professional officers, abandoned as a "heritage of tsarism", was restored in 1935.

If the institute is a military organization, it almost certainly needs capitalization. If not, the word is probably "institution". --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Your right, the word is "institution." I also wish to point out that the Red Army did not have a flag. The image that is in the article now was used mainly in postcards and poproganada. Zscout370 21:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Red Army/Soviet Aemy

It seems to me that if we want to have a single article devoted to the Russian/Soviet armed forces of 1918-91, the article should be called "Soviet army" with information about the name changes it went through in the intro to the article. The article "Red Army" would then redirect to the "Soviet Army" article. Or we can have two articles that cover the respective period with the "see also" link in each. Any objections? Irpen 05:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

In My opinion Red Army should be an article of it own and have a link to Soviet Armed Forces article. To put it bluntly

• Red Army=GPW
• Soviet Army=Afgan.

Very crude reasoning I understand it but they are very different to a Russian Reader and should be portraded as such to a non Russian reader for better understanding of a subject in general.

I agree.--Nixer 05:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Scorched Earth

I am a bit concerned about the change from "never practiced" to "never since WWII". In WWII, the Red Army practiced "scorched earth" on its territory, while in the context of Afghanistan I actually meant the opposite. I changed that again, hopefully it should clarify the difference. Number 6 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Vodka

Is there anyone willing to write an article about the vodka entitled "Red Army"? VarunRajendran

It will be deleted on sight. All what I've seen is a wild promotioal fantasy of American manufacturers. mikka (t) 19:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign

I expanded the section and removed various inaccuaracies - now the content confirms with Polish September Campaign, a FA-level article. What is the reference for the numbers used? They differ from the ones used in PSC article (Soviet army strenght and losses are larger here then in PSW article, where all the numbers are clearly sourced to PWN Encyclopedia).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Red Army numbers are based on "Soviet casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century" edited by Colonel-General Krivosheev, ISBN 1-85367-280-7 Number 6 18:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I do believe the reference to the Curzon Line must be restored, as well as to the annexation by Poland. Otherwise the background is too shallow and not NPOV. Number 6 18:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted a reference to the Krivosheev book, but perhaps it can be done more elegantly. I have removed all the PWN numbers except the POW count; this is because I find Krivosheev more veritable with regards to the Red Army numbers. I have restored the original paragraph I wrote on the campaign, for the reasons given above; this is absolutely crucial to understand the attitudes of the parties involved (little resistance, low casualties and huge prisoner bag). I have removed the discussion on the diplomatic canvas of the event, because it has nothing to do with the Red Army and is (hopefully) better illuminated in the main article or elsewhere. I have also removed the bit on the Polish officers; whatever happened after the campaign was over is not related to the Red Army, and, again, there are better places for that discussion. Number 6 21:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this text rather specific. Nothing about the Polish defence. Nothing about Soviet crimes (murders of the P.O.W.s, eg. General Olszyna-Wilczynski. Nothing about Red Army problesm, described in Soviet reports. Nothing about Red militias robbing and murdering.

Xx236 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no defence because the Polish Army was ordered to run for life. It was basically a cake-walk for the Red Army, so there is no point in mentioning whatever slight problems the Red Army might have. It is not clear what you mean by "Red militias" but that's probably not the Red Army so it is irrelevant. The brave general Olszyna-Wilczynski, when he was shot, had deserted his troops, so he did not qualify for a POW. I suggest you stick with the real history rather than anecdotal evidence. Number 6 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical part

Historical sections are growing dangerously huge. Please remember, there are whole separate articles about history. This article is about Soviet Army, and history should be cross-sectioned in what it is immediately relevant to Soviet Army in more detail than an ordinary history article would avoid, the altter one concentrating on the general course of events and motivations. I am going to trim these sections accordingly. mikka (t) 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest first moving the long section to subarticle (History of Red Army), then trimming to your heart content (this way, we want lose anything).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Halhin Gol

I restored the old estimate of the Japanese casualties. The new ~17K just does not make sense. The Japanese had a 75K force, which was defeated. To defeat a Japanese force (at least back in that historical period) means to destroy it almost entirely; such was the morale of the Japanese army (and society) that the soldiers would fight to a bitter end but never retreat of surrender (amply demonstrated a few years later). Even if they had wanted to retreat, they could not, because they were encircled. I would very much like to see the documents “after the collapse of the USSR” supportive of the 17K estimate.Number 6 18:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the estimates currently in this article disagree dramatically with those in Battle of Khalkhin Gol itself, I've put up a {contradict-other} tag and am leaving messages on both talk pages asking for expert advice. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Contrib 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Purges

The Army purge was central to Stalin's solidification of control over the Party apperatus at all levels. Recall the proportions of high ranking, talented officers murdered and replaced with crones such as Vyshinsky and Voroshilov.

This is simply wrong, because Vyshinsky had been and remained a civilian servant, and Voroshilov already was at the very top. This inaccuracy invalidates your argument, which may otherwise be sound (but then you need hard facts). Number 6 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is replete with unsubstantiated assertion,

The Purges had the objective of cleansing the Red Army of the “politically unreliable element”, mainly among the higher-ranking officers.

Odd Numbers

The German losses at the Eastern Front are estimated at 3,604,800 KIA/MIA (most killed) and 3,576,300 captured ... 3,572,600 were released from captivity after the war...

One of these 2 numbers is clearly wrong, not even in paradise less than 0,1% of population would die over a period of some year, let alone in prison camps! Where are the sources?

The numbers seem wrong because you neglected another one, hopefully not deliberately. The 3,572,600 released were Axis prisoners, while the 3,576,300 captured where German prisoners. The number you ignored was the additional 799,982 satellite prisoners, thus giving the grand total of Axis prisoners at 4,376,282. Which means that 803,682 did not make it, a "respectable" 18% of the total prisoner bag.

The sources are referenced in the text, this is the Krivosheev book. The numbers of POWs, captured and released, are the NKVD statistics – the most accurate source on the subject. Number 6 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

those numbers are inacurate - the kia/mia obviously includes POW's that died in Soviet captivity. There were also more prisoners. i'll look for the real number and post... if it's credible

The real number is the above-mentioned NKVD number. It does not get any more real than that. Number 6 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Land-Lease

I have removed the detailed information on how many of what kind of tank did the USSR recieve from US and UK because it didn't seem to be fitting into the article (ie. why tell how many valentine tanks did the USSR get, if one doesn't mention how many tank the USSR produced? and, actually, this detailed info is for lend-lease page).

However, someone keeps rebuilding it. Since I don't know how to stop this, I ask for help.

Who ever wrote the part about ww2 look here

We are haveing a big problem about the eastern front of ww2 and who ever wrote the part of ww2 in this article could greatly help us with our problem

Go here Eastern Front and to the discussion page and help out now, because you must!

Deng 11-02-06 13.10 CET

Incorrect Information

A comparison of the losses demonstrates the cruel treatment of the Soviet POWs by the Nazis. Most of the Axis POWs were released from captivity after the war, but the fate of the Soviet POWs was quite different. Nazi troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps and executed them as a part of the Holocaust. Hitler's notorious Commissar Order implicated all the German armed forces in the policy of war crimes.

The idea that the Soviets just released their German POWs after the war is simply wrong, and this slant shows a pro-Soviet bias inherant in this article.

The Holocaust has nothing to do with the killing of Soviet soldiers, rather it has to do with the intentional extermination of the Jews.

You dont like this sentence --->as a part of the Holocaust<--- right?

Then what would you want it to say?

(Deng 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I figure something like "part of their extensive war crimes." would fit better

Soviets:

POWs: 5 500 000 Died in captivity: 3 700 000

Both numbers are bogus. Number 6 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

3.7 millions out of 5.5 millions is a german wikipedia source, (death rate: 67%) 2.764 millions out of 4.6 millions is an english wikipedia source, (death rate: 60%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POW

The English numbers are correct, the German are bogus. Number 6 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

German POWs

Germans:

POWs: 3 500 000 Died in captivity: 1 500 000

The "died in captivity" number is bogus. Number 6 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

http://home.arcor.de/kriegsgefangene/russia/russia.html

This does not qualify as a veritable source. Number 6 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

NKVD is a paramilitary unit and is directly responsible for Katyn massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

I do not see why we should be discussing NKVD in an article on the Red Army. Please do that elsewhere. Number 6 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We should discuss it, because serious historians wouldn`t trust an institution, which is

All the serious historians have already accepted the internal NKVD statistics. It is only in the cold war propaganda where these numbers are sucked from all kinds of thumbs. I will not continue this discussion further, it's pointless. Number 6

1. responsible for massacres

2. convicted to give wrong information ( "[...]Polish prisoners-of-war who in 1941 were engaged in construction work west of Smolensk and who [...] fell into the hands of the German-Fascist hangmen[...]".[3])

As I said, discuss it elsewhere. Number 6 16:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You qualify NKVD sources as veritable sources. Why would you do that? - user from pd95b2569.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.37.105].

This is the only truly authoritative source of the statistics on the POW detained in the USSR. And we’re quite lucky that the data have been declassified. Number 6 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article says "More than 1 million German prisoners of war died in soviet captivity (Gulag)." This is different from the NKVD statistics. Who wrote that? Any sources?

The aricle does not say this. The source is cited, too. Stop making things up. Number 6

Great Patriotic War vs. Eastern Front

"Eastern Front" simply does not make sense in an article on the Red Army, because it was western at all times from its point of view. "Great Patriotic War" is much better, since this is how it was known to the Red Army, and this term is very specific.