Talk:Soviet Union

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Vertical flag of the USSR.

• ... that Source: Boris Yeltsin came into power on July 10, 1991?
  • Reviewed:

Created by 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk). Self-nominated at 18:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Soviet Union; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Unfortunately the article is not eligible for DYK as it is not newly-created, it was not expanded at least five times, and it wasn't promoted to Good Article status within the last seven days. In addition, no hook has actually been proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Successor?

Was the Soviet Union legal successor to the Russian Empire? Marquis05 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was not the legal successor to the Russian Empire in a straightforward legal sense, but it was its de facto successor AlasdarVan (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain? Marquis05 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they could, but Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. Ask the question on a forum like Reddit instead. Yue🌙 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So we should add two words "de facto" at the beginning of the article to avoid misunderstanding. Marquis05 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Internationally, it was indeed recognized that the SU was the legal successor to the RE, due to the acquisition of all RE assets, and it did assume many of the Empire's responsibilities and positions both domestically and internationally. But, the Soviet Union implemented a new legal and political framework, distinct from that of the Russian Empire, which could be an argument for the succession not being LEGAL. While the SU itself did not recognize (did not claim) the legality of their succession, it was de-facto.

It is also hard to say if int.community officially recognized the SU as the LEGAL successor of the RE. They did recognize the legality of establishment of the SU, though not succession. An example would be a mention from the US History Governmental website on USSR, where it states:

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

No mention of neither de jure nor de facto. AlasdarVan (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Forget about the example. I did not notice it was about the Russian Federation and USSR, not USSR and the RE. Sorry AlasdarVan (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Russian Republic succeeded Russian Empire. Mellk (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is a difficult question. And this is a much more complex issue than in the case of the Soviet Union with its 12 successors and 1 continuator (I invite everyone to expand the article Succession, continuity and legacy of the Soviet Union). It looks like this is a partial succession by choice in the case of the Russian Empire and the USSR. "The General Treaty between the USSR and the United Kingdom was signed on 18 August 1924. It announced that 17 treaties between the Russian Empire and the United Kingdom were not in force, but at the same time there was a list of treaties between the Russian Empire and the United Kingdom that remained in force between the USSR and United Kingdom." [1]
  During Gorbachev's visit to the UK in 1986, an Agreement was signed between the Government of the USSR and the Government of the UK on the settlement of mutual financial and property claims that arose before 1939. Under it, the UK renounced all claims that arose before 1 January 1939, in particular claims in relation to any bonds issued or guaranteed before 7 November 1917 by the former Government of the Russian Empire or any part of the Russian Empire, or the authorities administering such part, and belonging to the Government or citizens of the United Kingdom. [2]
  In 1996, Paris and Moscow signed an accord for Russia to partly repay czarist bonds. "In France, lawsuits were also filed against the Russian government, demanding repayment of the loan (in full). However, the court (in France) refused to recognize the Russian Federation as a guarantor for the issuance of the tsarist loans. According to the court's position, the actions of the Russian Empire are covered by diplomatic immunity, which the Russian Federation inherited as the legal successor of the Russian Empire and which neutralizes lawsuits directed against the Russian Federation." [3] The same article says “In 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev signed an agreement in which the USSR recognized itself as the legal successor of the Russian Empire and all regimes that existed on its territory in 1917–1922.” But it is necessary to find the text of this agreement. _ruASG⁺¹  04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were NEVER part of the Soviet Union

Why does the article insist on naming these three sovereign states as having preceded the USSR and succeeded it when they were never legally a part of it, but rather illegally occupied by it? Basically only criminal Russia today claims that they were legitimately part of it. At the very least, the infobox should make it VERY clear that these three are considered to have been illegally occupied by the USSR and don't consider themselves as neither predecessors, nor successors of the USSR.

Also, the sentence "In August 1991, Latvia and Estonia immediately declared the restoration of their full independence (following Lithuania's 1990 example)." is rather simplistic history and makes it look as if Estonia and Latvia truly followed Lithuania's example when getting rid of the Soviet rule. The real timeline of events was far more complicated and all three had declared Soviet rule to have been legally null and void from the start in early 1990, in a rather short timeframe. Estonia had even been the first to declare sovereignty from the occupying USSR. I suggest this sentence be revised - the word "example" should be changed to "declaration". 146.255.183.23 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

None of which changes the fact that by any practical definition they were part and parcel of the Soviet Union. I understand that that is distasteful to them, but it is a simple fact. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

GDP placement is wrong, I think.

Can someone fix this, I do not have access. Japan was the second largest economy in the world in 1990, after the US. Why does it say 2nd after the Soviet Unions GDP? It should say third. Northside95 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• The Soviet Union had fixed exchange rate of the Soviet ruble (and didn't allow free movement of capital) therefore in 1990 its nominal GDP was the second largest according to CIA, see List of countries by past and projected GDP (nominal)#CIA estimates in 1990. _ruASG⁺¹  02:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"CCCP\" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect CCCP\ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30 § CCCP\ until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)