User talk:CJK/Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe

First comments

Dear CJK, I support the idea for this as a separate article which, IMO, is a worthy topic. I would move it from your space to a Wikispace as an article of its own, maybe under a slightly different name. Once it is worked at by several editors with different backgrounds for some time (perhaps a couple of weeks), a summary can be written that would go, as a chapter, top the "History of the USSR" article. Now, some preliminary thoughts.

Currently, the article mixes up several things. Firstly, this started before the WW2. Soviets and Nazi Germany divided the E. Europe for themselves and that's how the SU got the control of Baltic states and other territories. OTOH, this started even earlier since, this whole affair was mostly about taking back what fell off from the RU empire, that is the Soviets were trying to restore the state mostly to the borders of the Empire at its most expansionist times. This strategy played a role in a war with Finland too (though it's doubtful to be the main reason). OTOH, in all honesty one must say, that the area cut off from the interwar Poland and Romania, was to a large degree populated by the Ukrainian and Belorussian Slavic population, which was not treated particularly well by their host countries (not that the Stalin regime was an example of a good treatment of minorities or anyone for that matter). So, domination of E. Europe in a sense of installing the communist govs in PL, RO, BG, CS, etc. should not be mixed with takeover from Hitler-Stalin pact, and pre-WWI context is also relevant.

Actually, I would like to see a specialist to look at the issue first, but because of the nature of WP, this will happen sooner or later. If you want, I can bring this article to attention of the editors at several notice boards. Regards, --Irpen 05:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your main concern seems to be the inclusion of Soviet incorporation of areas they had already annexed. I'll try to fix this. CJK 15:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "separate article" I do not think that would be a good idea. I had no intention of expanding this to scrutinizing detail about the Soviet takeover. Simply put, this really belongs in the Soviet Union history. It would be like not mentioning the Louisiana Purchase in an article about American history. CJK 00:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's just make sure it is clear what exactly you want. You want to write about the Soviet role in installing the communist governments in Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and East Germany (some of them mentioned in the article but only briefly) and not about the Soviet territorial gains after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, right? I just want to make sure, before we discuss the rest.

Also, in your writing please consider many articles about these events already existing in WP, just a few examples are the Warsaw Uprising (and even Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising), National Front (Czechoslovakia), Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Bulgarian Communist Party, histories of any of these countries and articles linked from there.

I think, for now, you are basing this article on your own impressions of general readings you made in the due course of time and it also seems disconnected from the article you want to place it in. For example the Baltic takeover and division of Poland are already discussed in the history article. Also, your text may become comparable in length with the entire coverage of the WW2 combat in History article (for that, there is an Eastern Front (WWII) separate article). Not that those things don't deserve space, but they have articles on their own and summaries goes into History. I still suggest to make it a separate article for now since Wikipedia's scrutiny helps the articles to reach sometimes near perfection. This topic is relatively narrow and it should be possible. Actually, should take less time, than country history article's.

Whatever you decide, please consider my suggestions about length, material, other articles and the current structure of the History of the SU article. --Irpen 02:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in Soviet History, I don't see a problem with tracing back to the late WWII period considering the issue was of vital importance to the Cold War. CJK 19:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. You "don't see a problem..." Should or should not it be traced to pre-war years? Anyway, I don't have anything more to say for now. Fine, do as you please. I would just repeat, perhaps, my recommendation to take into account the info in WP articles I referred to you above as well as the other ones in WP to make sure there are no contradictions (unless of course you are sure that those other articles contain BS). You will actually score some points for an article if you put in on a more solid basis and it would be easier to defend it, once you put it where you want. As I said, it seems to be written not based on specific sources but on your general impressions of what you've heard and seen over the years of your general interest in politics. This is a borderline of original research (see Wikipedia:No original research), and I am not sure on which side of the borderline to place it. Anyway, you made some effort and it should not be wasted. You can either improve the article further, building on your efforts, taking or not into account my advices, or, if you think it's not necessary or you don't have time/don't want to, you can publish it. If you are interested in working on this together, I will try to give you a hand. If you think, it's already good enough, I am not going to interfere right now. Of course everyone, myself included, might be editing this and other material, once you publish it. In any case, I hope you did not consider my suggestions annoying. --Irpen 00:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I you have any doubts of the factual accuracy, please be specific. CJK 17:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E. Europe meaning changes in time

My problem is with the context, not the accuracy. I will repeat again. You are talking about "Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe ". What exactly events you mean by that. The title may seem misleading. The meaning of the term "E. Europe" evolves with time. During the cold war it didn't include Baltics, now it does. Besides, it includes now Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus'. Do you mean only to speak about sattelite states of the cold-war time, which is non-Soviet countries that called themselves "People's" or "Socialist", but not Soviet republics?

If yes, the title should be about creation of Sattelite states. If, as your title suggests, you DO want to speak about other territories (Baltics, Moldavia, Western UA and BE), you should give a proper context, that is these territories being in the sphere of influence of the former RU Empire or under its direct control. The history article does exactly this, when mentioning about expansion to the borders of the former Ru empire. It didn't start with Hitler-Stalin pact. Also, it is noteworthy, that parts the SU cut from PL, Slovakia and Romania were territories with Ukrainian/Belarussian majority, culturally oppressed by their host countries (for this, I suggest you read, for example, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Bukovina, History of Ukraine, Wisla Action, etc).

You can do it either way (Warsaw treaty countries only or an entire E. Europe), but you have to be consistent either way and the title should reflect what you are talking about.

Besides, Ruthenia, in modern usage means the territories of Kievan Rus that didn't fall under Muscovy, but were ruled by Lithuania and/or Poland. The modern political term for Carpathian Ruthenia is Transcarpathia.

I have other specific suggestions, but without understanding of what you really want here, I am not sure what to bring up. Regards, --Irpen 19:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

All that means is that IN ADDITION to those areas previously aquired the Soviets gained other territories as well. The idea that the Ukranian/White Russian would rather be under Stalin's (a Russian) rule than the repressive Polish government strikes me odd. CJK 19:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians and Belorussians would not have been asked anyway. I mean that a well know fact of their oppression was used as another arguments to justify the action and reduced the opposition of the native population (at least initially) when the territories changed hands. But that's, actually, a small point. Let me repeat the main question. Do you want your article or section to talk about both the expansion AND communist takeover of governments that became sattelitle states or just the about takeover? This defines the title and what to do next. --Irpen 20:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Another suggested article for you: Polish_September_Campaign#Phase_2:_Soviet_aggression. Take a note of the debate, still ongoing on the issue discussed there. --Irpen 20:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, Soviet acquisitions in 1945 which had NOT been annexed between 1939-41 are relevant (i.e. Ruthenia and Kalingrad).

OK, so you want two write a section about the following:

post-war expansion of the Soviet territory in Europe (Kaliningrad +Transcarpathia +Northen Bukovina]];
the expansion of Soviet influence further westward via sponsoring the takeover by the local communist parties in what became the Soviet Satellite states.

This, and not the other events, would be the primary topic of the chapter you propose. I agree, this is a worthy addition. Did I understand you correctly? --Irpen 00:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I want this to cover. CJK 14:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]