Talk:Leonid Brezhnev/Archive 1
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Do we really need to know about every foreign visit Comrade Brezhnev made? The article is 34kB long. Let's purge some items from the timeline, if it is to be kept at all. --Jiang 07:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I rewrote the article with the intention of getting rid of the "Timeline." This is an encyclopaedia, not a mediaeval chronicle. Adam 07:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I fundamentally differ with Mikkalai about what an encyclopaedia article should look like, and I think anyone looking at biographical articles at this or any other encyclopaedia would agree that they are not just lists of unassimilated factoids, they are essays which place the facts of person's life in its historical context. And this is not even an original list, it has been copied from somewhere else. If people want to read the list they can use the link. I will continue to revert its reinclusion in this article. Adam 02:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
The writing of any article, as opposed to a mere list of dates, requires the exercise of judgement. That judgement can be based on professional training, or on experience, or both. Part of that process is deciding what to leave out. Even a 500-page biography of Brezhnev would leave many facts out, and an encyclopaedia article must in large part be an exercise in compression. There is nothing arrogant about exercising such judgements within one's field of competence, as I'm sure Mikkalai does every day. He is of course welcome to disgree with my judgements, just as he is free to corerct my errors of fact, and if I disagree with him we can debate that. But he should refrain from ad hominem attacks where there is no ground for them. As I said, if people really want to know the contents of Brezhnev's engagement calendar, they can go to the link. But the list of itself is unencyclopaedic. Adam 03:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Every article at Wikipedia is a selection of the unlimited possible facts which could be presented about any subject. In theory I could write a biographical article about Brezhnev which details every minute of his life. It would be a million words long, no-one would read it and it would be useless for practical purposes. All editors, inlude Mikkalai, select which facts they think are useful or relevant for a Wikipedia article, and either omit the rest or relegate them to external links. I agree that we are under fewer restraints than paper encyclopaedias, so that we can write long articles on obscure subjects. That doesn't mean there are no restraints on how detailed an article can be. But if Mikkalai wants to add more detailed material to this article he is free to do so - that it a different matter to attaching a mere catalog of dates. That is unencyclopaedic in any kind of encyclopaedia. Furthermore, many thousands of articles have external links to sources of more information, and if Mikkalai objects to the practice he can take it up at a higher level, but he can't use this argument selectively about this article and not about others. Adam 07:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
If that's what you think about encyclopaedias I don't know why you bother participating in writing one, unless it's just to promote your personal agenda, which of course I would never suggest. However I have no time to pursue this argument further. If you think there is useful information missing from the article, feel free to add it, in an encyclopaedia manner. Adam 00:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I like the article, but I've one quibble. Here's a quote:
"Although the regime promised rising standards of living, it was unable to produce the consumer goods which would provide workers with an incentive to improve productivity and earn higher wages."
This statement seems to imply that the only way to improve productivity is to tempt workers with consumer goods. Is it really the only way? How could we know? I think this statement is a little too strong for a Wikipedia article. Can it be qualified in some way (e.g. "some economists would argue that...") or something.
On a lighter note, how can anyone write an article on Brezhnev without mentioning those eyebrows?
--Malcohol 12:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Never will I write an article with pathetic expressions like "some economists would argue that...". The experience of the Soviet Union settled the debate about the relationship between material and non-material incentives and productivity pretty conclusively. Adam 14:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Malcohol that it should be qualified, in the spirit of NPOV (not the spirit in which the present version of the article was written, given that the conclusion was originally a lecture about the inevitable failure and fundamental unworkability of the Soviet system.) Everyking 16:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Should the article mention how Bresnev handled the crop failures in the USSR in the Mid 1970's?I know this was bad for the Soviet Union but very good for U.S. Farmers (high crop prices.) 71.38.174.228 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia free encyclopeida is very good, but feel that there is something of a contradiction when analysising the stagnation of the 1970s. I have made additions and they have been reversed without explanation. I think this is mistaken.
How did the economy of soviet Russia grow under Stalin in the 1930s? The crude accumilation of steel, heavy engineering, and so on, was possible with no democratic feed back. This was not so for the increasingly complex economy. It became increasingly impossible to plan "top down."
Some reference to the original concept of workers' democracy, which was supposed to control the economy, in this period, is necessary here.
There were for instance still many illusions in the West that the Soviet Union presented an alternative type of society, whilst crisis wracked the West - started by the rising price of oil, which we see again threatening today. The Soviet bureacracy still encouraged these illusions in the 1970s, and continued to make various facile pretences about workers' democracy.
It is insufficient to say that without market forces providing incentive, as the article does, the soviet economy failed. Since market forces were re-introduced they have brought considerable hardship to the people of the former Soviet Union, instability, war, and enormous poverty. So the article seems somewhat simplistic here.
There is a great deal of scepticism about the "free market," world trade, and so on. The recent election of a "left" President in Uruguay, which had until now had been a traditional US ally, shows that the view that market forces have failed is popular amongst large sections of the world's population, for instance in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Venezuela, to mention only Latin America.
Perhaps those watching this page can take this into account. I will not attempt to re-edit the page, but will await a reply.
I deleted the references to the Carter-Reagan military buildup in light of the fact that there is no evidence that the Soviets even attempted to match the American build-up, despite repeated claims that they did.
How can the article claim that the Supreme Soviet was "decorative"?
Because it's a fact. "NPOV" doesn't mean that we have to accept every government's and organisation's description of itself. Our job is to tell readers the truth. Adam 04:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello. The description of Brezhnev's funeral matches almost exactly the description of Andropov's, right down to the effusive description of the funeral as "one of the world's most impressive." Perhaps someone should check into the matter to see if there are any factual discrepancies. Furthermore, the verbiage in one needs to be changed, as they are almost verbatim copies of one another.EcceQuamBonum (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone will be ok with me adding a photo I have found of Brezhnev's funeral. Zscout370 23:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Our article shows that he was borned on 19 December (N.S.) or 6 December (O.S.) in 1906, but I just found Russian Wikipedia article showing 1 January 1907 (N.S.) or 19 December 1906 (O.S.). Could any Russian-speaking users please double check this. This is very confusing.--Jusjih 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Brezhnev was born either 1 January 1907 (N.S.) or 19 December 1906 (O.S.). The authors substracted two weeks from the N.S. in spite of adding them. --Wildead 08:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
How Dniprodzerzhyns'k could exist in Imperial Russia? -) It is named after Felix Dzerzinsky--Nixer 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Brezhnev presided over the Soviet Union longer than any man except Stalin, but his posthumous reputation is very low, both in Russia and among historians.
This is not true. According to a recent poll, most people selected Brezhnev to be most wishable for ruling in Russia from all other Russian rulers from the beginning of XXth century, including Nicholas II, Stalin and Yeltsin.--Nixer 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Brezhnev also received the Order of Victory, the highest Soviet military award, in 1978, becoming the only recipient not to have participated in World War II.
Just a quick question: I've heard that he invented a military campaign to give himself battle honours. Is this true?--Crimzon2283 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
His declining health was rarely — if ever — mentioned in the Soviet newspapers, but it was practically evident with the deteriorating political and economic situation
We all know about the circus-crazy one but didn't Brezhnev have a criminal daughter who was responsible for a lot of corruption in Russia during the time of her father's reign?
Why is his nationality listed as Russian? He wasn't Russian. He was born in Ukraine. He was Ukrainian.1.21 jigwatts 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed reading that part. Even then, I still think his nationality should read Russian/Ukrainian.1.21 jigwatts 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's dosn't matter wether they 'want him' or not, it's which ever is true, there are plenty of people like david parker ray who americans would not want to 'claim' but the fact is he is american like it or not. The same for Brezhnev. Thannad (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Russians/Ukrainian etc have a slightly different view on ethnicity/nationality than Westerners.
Because there is no such thing as an American ethnicity, that is to say that the America population is the result of recent immigration for all over the world, to be "American" you are simply born in America.
In the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union, a country of hundreds of ethnic groups, your ethnicity is not defined by where you live, it's down to actual ethnicity. A Ukrainian in Russian/Ukrainian eyes is not someone simply born in Ukraine. Ukraine has only existed as a country since 1991, before that the border of Ukraine, the Ukrainian SSR changed many times. Ukrainians were the group of people who followed the Ukrainian orthodox church or the Greek Catholic Church and who spoke the Ukrainian vernacular. Therefore just because Brezhnev was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, it doesn't mean he was Ukrainian. Furthermore in the Soviet Union everyone had an official nationality in there internal passports, and I'm pretty sure Brezhnev was "Russian" [Russkii] 82.24.206.219 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
How it was possible to write Brezhnev's biography without mentioning Malaya Zemlya? :) --Ghirla-трёп- 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
But his Wikiquote article says "God won't forgive us if we fail." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.95.30 (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This bit of the article is pretty bad: "Unlike the cult of Stalin, however, the Brezhnev cult was widely seen[by whom?] as hollow and cynical[citation needed], and, in the absence of the purge, could command neither respect nor fear, resulting in apathy and lack of reception[citation needed]."
Three issues with it:
Brezhnev's cult could never grow too large. After Stalin the Soviet Government stressed the need for "collective leadership" and I doubt his cult was intended to be anything like Stalin's, who had such memorable titles as "Gardner of the Human Soul." Of course one could source this if I am mistaken, but of course this has no sources as it stands.
I don't see the point in keeping it in the article (it's a bit redundant and misleading) when there's already a discussion on the main aspect of his rather limited cult: Malaya Zemlya and how the Government played it up to improve Brezhnev's public perception, just a paragraph above. --Mrdie (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix these but got an edit conflict when I was trying to fix my original mistake. I mistook one Olympics for another. So I'll let others do it. Not worth getting in edit conflicts over!
There are quite a few pages that need disambiguation. See [3]. I would fix them but I will be reverted. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph in this section is in atrocious shape. I don't know how to fix it; I'm not even sure what it's trying to talk about. Could someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject either fix it, if it is important, or delete it, if it's not? Tyrannophobe (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Hi, I will be reviewing this article and have already done some copy editing. Generally, I think it is a well written, well referenced article but suffers from some copy editing issues, such as the use of contractions, overly casual language (language that is not encyclopedic in tone) and overlinking. I alphabetized the references and corrected other errors as I came across them. Please feel free to revert any of my errors. I will continue through the article in the next few days. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Xtzou (Talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
ReplyAlthough I consider the lead to be very good, it does not reflect the article per WP:Lead. Please ensure that there is a summary section in the lead for each of the major sections of the article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgive a layman for making a comment unasked, but when one reads the opening paragraph of this otherwise excellent article one could be led to believe that the collapse of the USSR was due entirely to the war in Afghanistan. It just seems like poor syntax - perhaps someone who wont get all their changes automatically reversed could change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.142.128 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Reading about Brezhnev in the past, I remember that Russians frequently referred to him by pointing to their eyebrows. I can't remember where I read this; any idea if there are reliable sources for this? It might be appropriate to include such a thing in the "Legacy" section. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I would rewrite the first sentence of the following paragraph, but I cannot figure out what the author(s) meant by "decreasing well-educated Soviet labour force." Can anyone make heads or tails out of this? Or out of how it relates to the rest of the paragraph? Jd2718 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am responding to a request to help improve the readability of this article by copy editing. I am stuck on this sentence: Brezhnev's answer to these problems was to issue two decrees, one in 1977 and one in 1981, which called for the expansion of all plots owned by the Soviet Union to half a hectare. It doesn't make sense to me. Should it read the expansion of all privately owned plots to half a hectare? or something else? Thanks for clarifying. Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
So what is the complete list of awards Brezhnev had?
72.79.138.81 (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we hash this out here, rather than that constant reversions on the article page? Was he Ukrainian, Russian or both? What sources are there supporting any of these options? freshacconci talktalk 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Repeat. I started with an elementary fact:
The Brezhnev's 1947 passport (41 years old) N637805, city of Zaporizhia clearly identifies him as Ukrainian. There is no need for foul language and heritage tracing. There is a big ambiguity when defining Russian nationality such as Россиянин (Rossiyanin) и Русский (Russkiy). In English Russian means native of Rus, not necessarily of Russia (Rhossia). There no references that identifies Brezhnev as Rossiyanin therefore no need to express your discontent in such manner. And just because the Kursk Oblast is a region of the Russian Federation, it does not mean that all people of the region were or are Russians. The 1897 Russian Census shows that Ukrainianphone speakers lived way beyond the borders of contemporary Ukraine. I carry a Russian last name Grigoryev and I am the third generations of Russians in Ukraine. But I consider myself a Ukrainian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
After Khrushchev's fall from power,Stain got some praises by Leonid Brezhnev.[3][4]In May 1965, Leonid Brezhnev publicly praised Stalin as a war leader. And in September, the secret police arrested the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel for "the crime" of publishing their novels abroad under pseudonyms. Suddenly, hundreds of leading Soviet intellectuals, writers,artists, and scientists began to send petitions to the party leadership with appeals to free the arrested writers and to stop the backslide to neo-Stalinism. A new movement was born, which demanded public trials and constitutional rights."Dissidents," as the members of this movement came to be called, began to appeal to the world via the foreign media.The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 substantiated the fears of the Soviet anti-Stalinist intelligentsia that the post-Khrushchev leadership might take the country in a neo-Stalinist direction. The crushing of the Prague Spring and its "socialism with a human face" dashed the hopes ofmany educated Soviet patriots that the existing system could be reformed. This produced a remarkable rise of antigovernment sentiment, even among some who were establish in the Soviet elites.[5]Brezhnev praised Joseph Stalin's reign, but refrained from the brutality that Stalin was known for.Brezhnev admissioned "Stalin's serious mistakes about the Cult of personality to himself in his old ages".[6]People's Republic of China (under Mao Zedong) and Albania (under Enver Hoxha) still condemned Brezhnev as Khrushchev as a revisionist,until Deng Xiaoping and Ramiz Alia wield power in the 1980s.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVRENGUANNANREN (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Good grief! Is "Brezhnev in 1970s" the best photo available of someone who was Mr. Big for 17 years? Sca (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
@ User:Trust Is All You Need , As per the last edit, Even a bad man is popular, but that's not even the point, he is voted as the greatest russian as per this source[7]. I am no way removing the sourced information, but inserting the much more needed one. So once read it, and revert your edit back. OwnDealers (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
This story that is reflected in the sections Leonid_Brezhnev#Economics seems quite unlikely. No (fully-)socialist country/planned economy has ever outperformed developed capitalist countries. There are estimates available for comparisons East Germany/West Germany (there's this study e.g. [8], I can't access it but perhaps a fellow contributor can). The conclusion is that the gap between the Socialist East Germany and the capitalist West Germany was GROWING, not evening out. Similar studies are available as to Cuban GDP, with the similar result: that the experiment has been a total disaster GDPwise. CIA Wordl Factbook was known to have inflated figures for socialist countries, e.g. 1990 USSR GNP per capita per capita $9,211 compared with $6,900 for Portugal (GDP) [9]. Unless it can be clearly demostrated that the socialist bloc was REALLY outperforming capitalist countries until 1970s, such speculation/minority views should be omitted. I'd be glad if anyone with a background in economics or similar would comment on this. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Western specialists believe that that the net material product (NMP; Soviet version of gross national product (GNP)) contained distortions and could not accurately determine a country's economic growth; according to some, it greatly exaggerated growth. Because of this, several specialists created GNP figures to estimate Soviet growth rates and to compare Soviet growth rates with the growth rates of capitalist countries.[31] Grigorii Khanin published his growth rates in the 1980s as a "translation" of NMP to GNP. His growth rates were (as seen above) much lower than the official figures, and lower than some Western estimates. His estimates was widely publicised by conservative think tanks as, for instance, the Heritage Foundation of Washington, D.C.. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Khanin's estimates led several agencies to criticise the estimates made by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Since then the CIA has often been accused over overestimating Soviet growth. In response to the criticism of CIA's work, a panel led by economist James R. Millar was established to check out if this was in fact true. The panel concluded that the CIA were based on facts, and that "Methodologically, Khanin's approach was is naive, and it has not been possible for others to reproduce his results.[32] Michael Boretsky, a Department of Commerce economist, criticised the CIA estimates to be too low. He used the same CIA methodology to estimate West German and American growth rates. The results were 32 percent below the official GNP growth for West Germany, and 13 below the official GNP growth for the United States. In the end, the conclusion is the same, the Soviet Union grew rapidly economically until the mid-1970s, when a systematic crisis began.[33]</blockquote">
. For comparison, the US GNP per capita was $19,800 in 1989. If we use the estimate suggested by Kukk, the GNP of the USSR was % 8.99 (!) that of the USA's. So the figures assumed by some authors for the USSR were pretty much worthless for the reasons explained by the author on previous pages. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Assessments of Estonia and the then USSR were as erroneous as those of the German Democratic Republic made under the spell of reunification of Germany. According to approximate assessments, the per capita GNP of Estonia in the end of the 1980s was USD 2200—2300, which can be compared with the corresponding figures for Hungary (USD 2450 and 2560 in 1988 and 1989, respectively).53 This assessment is further supported by the figure USD 1780 for the USSR in 1989, proposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.54
Soviet Economic Growth since 1928. The Alternative Statistics of G.I. Khanin. See Table I. Personally I'm of the opinion that Khanin's numbers are probably the best there are (not all would agree). Maddison's numbers are roughly the same as CIA's numbers. I've also already created an image based on that data:
As can be seen, the official Soviet statistics *always* exaggerated growth, sometimes by a buttload. The CIA generally overestimated actual growth (because 1) they based their estimates on official data and 2) they also wanted to justify higher budgets for themselves and making the Soviet economy a bigger threat served that purpose) but not as much. However, for the purposes of this discussion, it turns out that for the 1950-1960 period, the CIA actually *underestimated* Soviet growth. At the end of the day, it is true that between 1950 (probably a little earlier) and 1970 Soviet economic growth was pretty high. This had three causes. One, it was the rebuilding of the capital stock destroyed in WWII. This almost always happens after wars if political stability is present. Two, high rates of saving and capital accumulation. In a market economy the national saving rate is determined by individuals. In a planned economy it is determined by the state (you just pay people less). So it's much easier to raise savings rate (and hence, temporarily, the growth rate) in a planned economy, at the cost of consumption. Three, there was a substantial reallocation of labor from the low productivity agriculture to higher productivity urban sector. This is a general "one time payoff" that one frequently observes in many developing countries. Volunteer Marek 20:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In this sentence,
I unlinked voluntarism. Wikipedia's voluntarism page is a disambiguation page with four entries: Voluntarism (action), Voluntarism (metaphysics), Voluntaryism, and Volunteering, none of which have any reasonable connection to the complaint against Krushchev. The Russian Wikipedia article on Brezhnev, ru:Брежнев, Леонид Ильич, does not seem to mention voluntarism. There is no Russian Wikipedia article corresponding to Voluntarism (action). There is a Russian Wikipedia article corresponding to Voluntarism (metaphysics): ru:Волюнтаризм, which does not mention Brezhnev or Krushchev and does not seem to have any reasonable connection to the complaint against Krushchev. I found one useful Internet reference to voluntarism in this context:
References from "Ozhegov" are translated from S.I. Ozhegov, Slovar' Russkogo Yazyka ("Dictionary of the Russian Language"), Russkij Yazyk, Moscow, 1988.... voluntarism: Term used by N.S. Khrushchev's opponents to justify his overthrow in 1964. From Ozhegov (1988) -- "1. Reactionary tendency in idealistic philosophy, ascribing to divine or human will the basic role in the development of nature and society, denying objective reality and necessity. 2. In politics and social life: subjective and arbitrary decisions, ignoring objectively existing conditions and reality."—Hugo S. Cunningham. "Insults".
There is a Wikipedia article on Sergey Ozhegov. I was not able to find Ozhegov's 1988 definition online, but I am illiterate in Russian and I had to rely clumsily on Google Translate.
Recommendation: We could modify this article near the sentence mentioning voluntarism to explain this meaning, quoting from Cunningham's website or an Ozhegov source. Or, we could add a new disambiguation item to voluntarism, e.g. something like
create the redlinked page, and link to it in the above sentence in this article. I leave this task for someone more knowledgeable in Russian.
Anomalocaris (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Nikita Khrushchev#Legacy says "According to a major Russian pollster, the only eras of the 20th century that Russians evaluate positively are those under Nicholas II, and under Khrushchev.[273] A poll of young Russians found that they felt Nicholas II had done more good than harm, and all other 20th-century Russian leaders more harm than good — except Khrushchev, about whom they were evenly divided.[273]" Polling tends to get a wide variety of numbers, and hence is problematic for the start of the article, so I'd recommend the opening section of this article doesn't mention any polls. The legacy sections of both Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev should mention some of the same polls; assuming the sources are good, neither Legacy section should be as unquestioningly positive as they are and should reflect the more complex nature of the modern Russian public opinion about them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Brezhnev self-identified himself both Ukrainian and Russian.http://nekropole.info/ru/Leonid-Brezhnev Viktor Š 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This could be innapropriate for this page, but I would just like to say that the Note mentioned above was, to be frank, quite wonderful; concise, clear, communicative, well-sourced, and overall a credit and a standard to be met in ensuring the fulfillment of the encyplodeic mission of Wikipedia. 80.41.123.229 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Some parts of this seem rather POV:
This article says: "Galina in her later life became an alcoholic who together with a circus director started a gold-bullion fraud gang in the later years of the Soviet Union". However, the gold bullion fraud is not mentioned in her article. It mentions jewelry smuggling, but says that she was never convicted.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leonid Brezhnev. 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.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I have updated this article with important (and fascinating) info about an assassination attempt at President Brezhnev. It has been reverted twice. I have no time for an edit war, pursuing WP:ANI or drafting a fuller section therein, so I leave it to one of the more experienced editors (Iryna Harpy?) to step in, rescue it and develop it further:
See also the discussion on the other Wikipedian's Talk Page about it for more context: the WP:GA status, etc. My take on this specious argument: imagine a GA WP article about e.g. Reagan NOT mentioning the assassination attempt on his life. Why should Brezhnev be treated differently?
@Iryna Harpy - thank you! We are in no hurry. @The other (reverting) Wikipedian(s), please read WP:NPA and WP:PASSIVE before such further comments.
Off to the (Eastern European) mountains and away from the bytes and archives. Без отдыха и конь не скачет - as Brezhnev used to say ;).
Zezen (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not under Repression, by far. By the same token, e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald was even more 'repressed' - as he was extrajudicially terminated with extreme prejudice ;).
If anything, Brezhnev's assassin was practically pardoned, given the USSR mores and the legal practice of the day. That is what struck me most here.
Привіт з Бескиди to all! Zezen (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy - so, after almost two weeks: shall you or shall I? Very busy now again, but can (re)take a dig at it. Zezen (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear SteveStrummer - thank you so much for advising us of Attempted assassination of Leonid Brezhnev. Procrastination is useful sometimes ;), as otherwise we'd have engaged in an edit war here if I was to gradually develop this section on my own. I wonder how Leonid Brezhnev had gained its GA status without mentioning it or at least linking it at all.Zezen (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
In the Repression section, it says "By the mid-1970s, there were an estimated 1,000 [35] to 10,000 political and religious prisoners across the Soviet Union" Really? The maximum number in the gulag at that time was only 10,000? This is hard to believe. NB. the citation for 1,000 is dead.Boscaswell talk 09:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
political and religious prisonersanyway, since prisoners included petty criminals. I have removed the 1,000 estimate, since the link is not archived and looks dubious anyway. In any case, if there is any reliable source pointing to different numbers, we can review it. --MarioGom (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
By the mid-1970s there were reckoned to be about 10,000 political and religious prisoners across the Soviet Union.Best, --MarioGom (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This is repeated twice in the lead as a characteristic of the Brezhnev era. This is really a misstatement. It implies that the USSR had previously been closer to the West, which is false. According to the text problems developed from 1973, which is towards the end of the Brezhnev era, and I don't see the "rapidly growing technological gaps" mentioned in the text and cited. It is hard to say that in space technology or in military technology, the USSR was rapidly falling behind.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
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) 22:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
What exactly is meant in the lead of this article by "legitimised his country's hegemony over Eastern Europe". Legitimized?! The undemocratic and brutal dictatorship was democratic? Just asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
I propose replacing the current infobox image with this higher quality portrait. Thoughts? Excommunicato (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Many sections of the article which cite the Robert Service book A History of Modern Russia don't glean information from that book so much as they copy it outright, word for word. This is problematic because the Service source was published under a WP:COPYRIGHT.
I understand that the entire text from the Service source is available online. This might account for the large use of that source here in the article.[a] However, the text being available online does not mean that Service's book is in the public domain and can be used here w/o proper WP:PARAPHRASING.
I've listed the problematic sections of text in the table below, showing what the text from the article says compared to the text from the Service source. I'd very much like to hear feedback from local editors about these sections.
If there are no dissenting opinions or discussion, it's my intention to remove these 17 sections of text from the Brezhnev Wikipedia article after 14 days. Spintendo 09:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The text as it now reads in the Brezhnev Wikipedia article | The text as it's written in the Source material | Proposed action |
---|---|---|
"After returning from Scandinavia and Czechoslovakia in October 1964, Khrushchev, unaware of the plot, went on holiday in Pitsunda resort on the Black Sea. Upon his return, his Presidium officers congratulated him for his work in office. Vladimir Semichastny, head of the KGB, was a crucial part of the conspiracy, as it was his duty to inform Khrushchev if anyone was plotting against his leadership. Nikolay Ignatov, whom Khrushchev had sacked, discreetly requested the opinion of several Central Committee members." | "Khrushchev returned from trips to Scandinavia and Czechoslovakia in summer. Sensing nothing afoot, he took a break in Pitsunda by the Black Sea in October. His Presidium colleagues had recently congratulated him at his birthday celebrations and wished him well in political office. KGB chief Semichastny's betrayal was crucial since it was properly his duty to inform Khrushchev of any such conspiracy. The plotters had also used former Central Committee secretary Ignatov, who had been sacked by Khrushchev, to take discreet soundings among CC members."[1]: 376 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"After some false starts, fellow conspirator Mikhail Suslov phoned Khrushchev on 12 October and requested that he return to Moscow to discuss the state of Soviet agriculture. Finally, Khrushchev understood what was happening, and said to Mikoyan, "If it's me who is the question, I will not make a fight of it." | "After several false starts, Suslov made a phone call to Khrushchev on 12 October 1964 and requested that he fly to Moscow for an unscheduled Presidium discussion of agriculture. At last Khrushchev guessed what was in store, for he said to Mikoyan: "If it's me who is the question, I won't make a fight of it."[1]: 377 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"While a minority headed by Mikoyan wanted to remove Khrushchev from the office of First Secretary but retain him as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the majority, headed by Brezhnev, wanted to remove him from active politics altogether." | "Initially Mikoyan worked for a compromise whereby Khrushchev would lose the First Secretaryship but remain Chairman of the Council of Ministers. But the rest of the Presidium wanted Khrushchev completely retired."[1]: 377 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
”Some members of the Central Committee wanted him to undergo punishment of some kind, but Brezhnev, who had already been assured the office of the General Secretary, saw little reason to punish Khrushchev further.” | ”Emotions in the audience were highly charged and several CC members shouted out that Khrushchev should undergo punishment of some sorts. But Brezhnev was already assured of victory, and ignored such demands.”[1]: 378 | Borderline Structure is essentially identical to the source text |
”In early 1965, Shelepin began calling for the restoration of "obedience and order" within the Soviet Union as part of his own bid to seize power.” | "Shelepin, who was made Presidium member after helping to organize Khrushchev’s dismissal, made a bid for the supreme leadership in February 1965 by calling for a restoration of obedience and order."[1]: 379 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"Brezhnev's stabilization policy included ending the liberalizing reforms of Khrushchev, and clamping down on cultural freedom." | "Brezhnev’s stabilization of politics and administration after the upsets of Khrushchev also led him to clamp down on cultural freedom."[1]: 380 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"Between 1960 and 1970, Soviet agriculture output increased by 3% annually. Industry also improved: during the Eighth Five-Year Plan (1966–1970), the output of factories and mines increased by 138% compared to 1960." | "Between 1960 and 1970 the Soviet agricultural output increased at an annual average of three per cent. Industry, too, enhanced its performance. At the end of the Eighth Five-Year Plan period of 1966-70 the output of factories and mines was 138 per cent greater than in 1960."[1]: 385 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"While the Politburo became aggressively anti-reformist, Kosygin was able to convince both Brezhnev and the politburo to leave the reformist communist leader János Kádár of the Hungarian People's Republic alone because of an economic reform entitled New Economic Mechanism (NEM), which granted limited permission for the establishment of retail markets." | "Hungarian party leader Janos Kadar had introduced measures similar to those advocated by Kosygin in the USSR."[1]: 385 "By 1968 a New Economic Mechanism which included limited permission for the creation of retail markets had been introduced."[1]: 385 | Misleading See notes below[b] |
"The Ninth Five-Year Plan delivered a change: for the first time industrial consumer products out-produced industrial capital goods. Consumer goods such as watches, furniture and radios were produced in abundance. The plan still left the bulk of the state's investment in industrial capital-goods production. By 1975 consumer goods were expanding 9% slower than industrial capital-goods." | "The Ninth Five-Year Plan was the first to project a slightly higher rate of increase in the output of industrial consumer products than of industrial capital goods. Watches, furniture and radios were at last meant to be manufactured to abundance. Yet the Plan still left the predominant bulk of investment at the disposal of capital-goods production. By 1975, for example, consumer goods had expanded at a rate nine per cent slower than capital goods."[1]: 407 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"By the early 1970s, the Soviet Union had the world's second largest industrial capacity, and produced more steel, oil, pig-iron, cement and tractors than any other country." | "The USSR had nearly reached military parity with the United States and the Soviet economy had the world's second greatest industrial capacity and already produced more steel, oil, pig-iron, cement, and even tractors than any other country."[1]: 397 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed[c] |
"Khrushchev's policy of amalgamating farms was continued by Brezhnev, because he shared Khrushchev's belief that bigger kolkhozes would increase productivity. Brezhnev pushed for an increase in state investments in farming, which mounted to an all-time high in the 1970s of 27% of all state investment – this figure did not include investments in farm equipment. In 1981 alone, 33 billion U.S. dollars (by contemporary exchange rate) was invested into agriculture. " | "The policy of amalgamating farms was prolonged by Brezhnev, who shared with Khrushchev a belief that bigger kolkhozes would increase productivity. At the same time Brezhnev insisted that agriculture should have a massive increase in the governments financial support. Collective farms in the 1970s received twenty-seven per cent of all state investment - and even this figure did not include the revenues being channeled into the production of tractors, chemical fertilizers and other farm equipment. In 1981 the budgetary allocation constituted the 'highest food and agriculture subsidy known in human history', amounting to 33,000 million dollars at the contemporary official exchange rate."[1]: 401 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"In the Soviet Union the criterion for assessing agricultural output was the grain harvest. The import of cereal, which began under Khrushchev, had in fact become a normal phenomenon by Soviet standards. When Brezhnev had difficulties sealing commercial trade agreements with the United States, he went elsewhere, such as to Argentina. Trade was necessary because the Soviet Union's domestic production of fodder crops was severely deficient." | "The usual criterion for assessing the effectiveness of Soviet agriculture had been and still was the grain harvest. In fact the imports of cereals which had been started by Khrushchev had become a regular phenomenon. When it became difficult to seal commercial deals with the USA in 1974, the USSR's foreign trade officials began to make hole-in-the-corner purchases in Argentina and elsewhere. This was necessary because Soviet domestic production was severely deficient in fodder crops."[1]: 401 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"Brezhnev's way of resolving these issues was to increase state investment. Politburo member Gennady Voronov advocated for the division of each farm's work-force into what he called "links". These "links" would be entrusted with specific functions, such as to run a farm's dairy unit. His argument was that the larger the work force, the less responsible they felt. This program had been proposed to Joseph Stalin by Andrey Andreyev in the 1940s, and had been opposed by Khrushchev before and after Stalin's death. Voronov was also unsuccessful; Brezhnev turned him down, and in 1973 he was removed from the Politburo." | "Brezhnev’s attempted solution was to increase state investment. For years, Voronov had advocated the division of each farm work force into "links" or teams which would be invested with specific functions. A link might, for instance, run a farm's dairy unit. Voronov's argument was that work forces were so vast, that individual kolkhozniki felt little sense of responsibility for the work on the farm. Accordingly, the link system, accompanied by suitable material incentives, would introduce conscientiousness and lead to an expansion of output. This proposal had been put to Stalin unsuccessfully by A.A. Andreyev in the 1940s and had been opposed by Khrushchev both before and after Stalin's death. Voronov was equally ineffective in trying to convince Brezhnev about the need for such a reform. Indeed, Brezhnev removed Voronov from the Politburo in April 1973."[1]: 401–402 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"Brezhnev's answer to these problems was to issue two decrees, one in 1977 and one in 1981, which called for an increase in the maximum size of privately owned plots within the Soviet Union to half a hectare. These measures removed important obstacles for the expansion of agricultural output, but did not solve the problem. Under Brezhnev, private plots yielded 30% of the national agricultural production when they only cultivated 4% of the land. This was seen by some as proof that de-collectivization was necessary to prevent Soviet agriculture from collapsing, but leading Soviet politicians shrank from supporting such drastic measures due to ideological and political interests." | "Brezhnev was not so misguided, but instead, in 1977 and 1981, issued two decrees to expand the maximum size of each plot to half a hectare. These measures removed a large obstacle to the expansion of agricultural output under Brezhnev. The private plots yielded 30% of total production while constituting only 4% of the USSR's cultivated area. Both ideological tradition and political interests impeded Politburo members from recognizing this as proof that de-collectivization was essential to an expansion of agricultural production."[1]: 402 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed[d] |
"The underlying problems were the growing shortage of skilled workers, a wrecked rural culture, the payment of workers in proportion to the quantity rather than the quality of their work, and too large farm machinery for the small collective farms and the roadless countryside." | "The underlying problems therefore lay unresolved: the shortage of skilled labor, the wrecked rural culture, the payment of farm workers by quantity of work without regard to its quality, the roadless countryside, the central imposition of quotas for planting harvesting and procurement, the technology and machinery too large for their functions on Soviet farms, the memory of the horrors of collectivization from the late 1920s."[1]: 402–403 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed |
"While some areas improved during the Brezhnev era, the majority of civilian services deteriorated and living conditions for Soviet citizens fell rapidly. Diseases were on the rise because of the decaying healthcare system. The living space remained rather small by First World standards, with the average Soviet person living on 13.4 square metres. Thousands of Moscow inhabitants became homeless, most of them living in shacks, doorways and parked trams. Nutrition ceased to improve in the late 1970s, while rationing of staple food products returned to Sverdlovsk for instance." | "The deterioration of the physical environment continued. Diseases were on the increase and hospital services worsened. The living space accorded to the normal urban family remained cramped, just 13.4 m² per person in 1980. Thousands of Moscow inhabitants had no resident permits and many of them inhabited shacks, doorways, and parked trams. Rationing of staple food products returned to Sverdlovsk and several other large cities."[1]: 417–418 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed[e] |
"The choice of the successor would have been influenced by Suslov, but he died at the age of 79 in January 1982. Andropov took Suslov's seat in the Central Committee Secretariat; by May, it became obvious that Andropov would make a bid for the office of the General Secretary. He, with the help of fellow KGB associates, started circulating rumors that political corruption had become worse during Brezhnev's tenure as leader, in an attempt to create an environment hostile to Brezhnev in the Politburo. Andropov's actions showed that he was not afraid of Brezhnev's wrath." | "The choice would have been influenced by Suslov, who was a senior CC Secretary. But Suslov died aged seventy-nine in January 1982. KGB chairman Andropov was given Suslov's place in the CC Secretariat in May, and quickly it became obvious that he would make a strong bid to succeed Brezhnev. Stories about corrupt practices in Brezhnev's family and entourage started to circulate. The stories came from Andropov's associates in the KGB. Evidently Andropov was trying to create a mood in the Politburo that would ruin the chances of one of Brezhnev's boon companions emerging as a serious rival to his own candidature. By his actions Andropov showed that he no longer feared incurring Brezhnev's hostility."[1]: 426 | NPlagiarized Text should be removed[f] |
Notes
For instance, when Moscow City Party Secretary Nikolay Yegorychev refused to sing his praises, he was shunned, forced out of local politics and given only an obscure ambassadorship. - "sing bis praises" is surely meant metaphorically, but what does it actually refer to? When and how did Yegorychev not hail Brezhnev in the way he wanted him to? Does this refer to a single event or to a general stance Yegorychev took on the cult of personality? And which ambassadorship was he given? Even the most "obscure" countries have a name. 194.29.99.50 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems very odd to have a politicians profession listed as engineer. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:7054:6577:3AB3:76 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)