Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 27 November 2005

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.

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 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)

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 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)