This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing dispute over whether citations should be included in the lede to support the claim that "numerous observers argued the Soviet Union had surpassed the United States to become the world's strongest military power." Should citations be included in the lede to support this claim? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. As long as material is referenced in the body of the article, citations in the lead section are superfluous. That is the style I generally prefer, and, per WP:LEAD, is entirely valid. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (coming from WP:RFC/A) Per exactly what has been said above. The lead does not require citations which are provided in the body of the article. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not even like this is a controversial statement. Per MOS:LEADCITE leaving the phrase uncited is a valid option, and I don't see why this phrase has been singled out. There are many claims that are made in Wikivoice which I feel would be far better candidates for citations. Cessaune[talk]20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No — I agree with the comments already made in support of this position, but I will add that the inclusion of citations can be justified if the content is likely to be scrutinised by readers because it is controversial. I do not think this is the case here, however, as most of what is written in the lead could be perceived with the same level of caution. Yue🌙18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because the lead does not need sources if its information has been properly sourced on the article body. I would also add that this particular information is accurately described and sourced on the article body. I don't see any issue here. Dympies (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00 insists on having the lede's third paragraph reflect that the Soviet Union's high military spending under Brezhnev did not strain the Soviet economy until after Brezhnev's death. However, in the section entitled "Economic stagnation until 1982", the article explicitly states "Beginning around 1975, economic growth began to decline at least in part due to the regime's sustained prioritization of heavy industry and military spending over consumer goods." In light of this information, shouldn't the lede's third paragraph reflect that "Brezhnev's preoccupation with strengthening the armed forces as well as supporting Moscow's allies abroad badly strained the Soviet economy during the later years of his rule and long after his death" instead?Emiya1980 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Era of Stagnation" was a term coined by Gorbachev. The section says that it started due to "ignoring changes occurring in Western societies; increased authoritarianism in Soviet society; the invasion of Afghanistan; the bureaucracy's transformation into an undynamic gerontocracy; lack of economic reform; pervasive political corruption, and other structural problems within the country".
The part you are pointing only says that it "began to decline at least in part due to the regime's sustained prioritization of heavy industry and military spending". We cannot single out what appears to be "in part" on lead. The section continues "stagnation of the Soviet economy was fueled even further by the Soviet Union's ever-widening technological gap with the West."
There is no reason to relate these things with the outright economic decline that started only after the death of Brezhnev. Capitals00 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading the scholarly studies. There is easy access to "Structural Analysis of the Economic Decline and Collapse of the Soviet Union," a 2016 paper by Numa Mazat published in the Proceedings of the 43rd Brazilian Economics Meeting. it is online here and lists many other studies Here are some quotes: from the abstract: "After a long period of sustained fast growth of output, the USSR began experiencing in the Mid-1970s an economic stagnation." page 3: "From 1975 to 1984, Soviet economic growth slowed down markedly, leading to a period of relative economic stagnation in the USSR. The average per Capita GDP growth was less than 1% during this period." Page 5: "By the 1970s Soviet leadership identified the problem already and tried to move to a regime of intensive accumulation, with minimization of the costs and increase of ‘efficiency’ (Hewett, 1988; CIA, 1986). But, the attempt to change the composition of the investment and to raise the productivity into improving the ‘efficiency’ failed. This failure was due to the inability to change the attitude toward retirement and replacement of the installed fixed capital, the difficulty in the incorporation of technological innovation in civilian industry, the militarization of the economy, the deterioration of the ‘discipline’ of Soviet workers and the high cost of the industrialization in Siberia." Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As you said, it notes that the "average per Capita GDP growth was less than 1% during this period," the economic growth slowed from 1975 - 1984 but there was still some increase. This is obviously not the same as the economic downfall that started years after the death of Brezhnev.[1]Capitals00 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Brezhnev's military policies badly strained the economy does not require proof that the Soviet economy went into complete free-fall under his leadership. The fact that the the mid-to-late 1970s saw diminishing returns in Soviet economic growth as well as a significant widening of the Soviet technological gap with the West shows that Brezhnev's policies were already having a detrimental impact on the country well before his death. Therefore, there should be at least some mention in the lede how Brezhnev's spending on the armed forces and support for military interventionism abroad negatively effected the Soviet economy during his lifetime.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•"[In the early 1980s,] Brezhnev still believed he could resuscitate detente in Europe and abhorred the prospect of invasion of Poland. In addition, he and other Soviet leaders were deterred by the economic dimensions of the Polish crisis. Fighting with the Poles would be disastrous enough, but equally calamitous would be the economic costs of invasion and occupation. Chernyaev commented in his journal in August 1981:'Brezhnev's approach is the only wise approach. We simply cannot afford to keep Poland as our economic dependent.' Indeed, the Kremlin did not have the surplus resources to pay for its rapidly expanding commitments. By the 1980s, the Soviet Union assisted or maintained sixty-nine Soviet satellites and clients around the world. Beginning in the second half of the 1960s, over a quarter of the Soviet GDP was spent every year on financing the military buildup. The regime routinely filled holes in the budget by borrowing from people's savings, selling vodka, and secretly amassing a budget deficit. Another crucial source of revenue was the export of oil and gas: from 1971 to 1980, the Soviet Union increased its oil and gas production sevenfold and eightfold, respectively, a rate matched by the ever-increasing Soviet deliveries of heavily subsidized oil and gas to Warsaw Pact countries. After 1974, when world prices of oil quadrupled, Moscow was forced to double the price of Soviet oil delivered to its Warsaw Pact allies, compensating them through ten-year, low-interest loans. Soviet economic interests demanded reductions of such generous aid to Central European regimes, but the interests of the 'socialist empire' and bloc commitments dictated instead further increases in this aid."[1]
•"Russians now call the Brezhnev years 'the period of stagnation.' The description is misleading. Brezhnev did a lot worse than simply leave the economy in neutral. He saw salvation in raw military force. So Brezhnev conducted the biggest arms buildup in the history of the world. Under him, the U.S.S.R. grew from a junior member of the nuclear club, forced into a shameful backdown in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, to the world's most heavily armed superpower, at parity with or ahead of the United States in key nuclear and conventional weapons.[¶] The cost to Moscow was a military procurement program spiraling crazily out of control. Some 30 percent of GNP went to defense, robbing funds that should have gone into farms and consumer goods, roads, housing, schools, and health care to name but a few needy areas. In the end, he did more damage to the Soviet system than the dissidents he jailed. [¶] Workers outside the privileged defense sector were underpaid, with little prospect of improved living standards in their lifetimes. Not surprisingly, they underproduced. Absenteeism and alcohol ran rampant. Cynical Soviet workers soon coined this description of their bargain with the state: 'We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.' It was a formula for disaster. Sure enough, Brezhnev's legacy was just that—a collapsing Third World economy, with nuclear missiles that no sane leader could fire"[2]
•"Even official statistics accept that defense spending in the USSR rose 40 per cent between 1965 and 1970, and annual increases continued thereafter at rates which never fell below 2 per cent in real terms. As a percentage of GDP, military spending rose by approximately 3 percent over the period rising to at least 15 percent of GDP by the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982. Despite the constrains such levels of spending placed on the civilian economy, it appeared to be a price the Soviet leadership felt was worth paying."[3]
•"...an inexorable decline set in, as the annual growth rate slipped to 3.7 percent between 1971 and 1975 and then to 2.7 percent between 1976 and 1980. Innovation lagged; much of the Soviet Union's equipment was obsolete. Also, the Soviet Union did not produce many of the finished industrial goods that in Japan, Western Europe, and the United States formed the basis for increased productivity and a far higher standard of living than Soviet citizens knew. Even when the Soviet planners committed additional resources to producing consumer goods, as in the Ninth Five-Year Plan covering 1971—1975, a variety of complications and the continued investment priority enjoyed by heavy industry and the military derailed their intentions." [4]
•"From the point of view of Communist rulers, the Brezhnev era was in many ways successful. This was the period when the USSR achieved a rough parity with the United States – by the early 1970s – as a military power, although the basis of its 'superpower' status depended very heavily on the disproportionately large resources it devoted to military expenditure. Although no economic superpower, the Soviet Union contained some of the world's richest mineral deposits. It was, however, a sign of the weakness of the economy that Soviet exports depended so heavily on the sale of natural resources, especially oil and gas. Yet what was termed the 'oil crisis' in Western Europe – the sharp rise in price of 1973 – turned out to be an energy bonanza for the Soviet Union. The Brezhnev leadership's ability to keep various elites content owed much to the sale at advantageous prices of its natural resources. Keeping them satisfied was, however, harder at the end of the Brezhnev era than earlier. The rate of economic growth was in long-term decline and in Brezhnev's last years had virtually ground to a halt."[5]
Sources
•Bowker, Mike (2002). "Brezhnev and Superpower Relations". In Edwin, Bacon; Sandle, Mark (eds.). Brezhnev Reconsidered. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. pp. 90–109. ISBN978-1-349-42024-7.
•Brown, Archie (2009). The Rise and Fall of Communism. HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN978-0-06-113882-9.
•Coleman, Fred (1996). The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Empire: Forty Years That Shook The World. St. Martin's Press. ISBN0-312-16816-0.
•Zubok, Vladislav M. (2009) [2007]. A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War From Stalin to Gorbachev. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-0-8078-5958-2.
I don't have enough expertise on this, but from what I read it looks like Brezhnev's military buildup was to a certain extent offset by his policy of détente with the West (in contrast to his predecessors and current Putin's sabre-rattling). It's probably one of the reasons some favor the description of civilian stagnation rather than Napoleonic military initiatives. Brandmeistertalk18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:V. It is wrong to say; "Brezhnev's military policies badly strained the economy does not require proof that the Soviet economy went into complete free-fall under his leadership".
Your sources agree that the growth of the USSR economy slowed during the last years of Brezhnev and the economic decline started only years after this death. This confirms that the lead is not inaccurate. Capitals00 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 What part of the sources I cited gave you that conclusion? Did you utterly overlook (if not outright ignore) all references to how Brezhnev's regime ran a budget deficit while depriving the consumer sector and other sectors of the economy of badly needed funds in order to fuel the Soviet military-industrial complex? According to Zubok, the Soviet budget was so short on cash in the early 1980s that Moscow was reluctant to militarily intervene against Solidarity in Poland for fear of the costs. Even if such actions did not cause the Soviet economy to collapse immediately, they nonetheless served to undermine its performance throughout Brezhnev's leadership. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spent time in USSR in 1980s as a visiting professor at Moscow State University--the economic conditions were bad and getting worse --and the psychology that "we are soon catching up with the West" had collapsed as the professors I knew realized that that dream was dead. Likewise the satellites esp Poland and East Germany realized that western Europe was booming rich and they were sinking economically dragged down by USSR stagnation. Academics blamed Brezhnev (and his two bedridden successors) for the failures. Academics desperately hoped that Gorbachev would save the USSR, somehow. So I would say that the Russian elite considered Brezhnev a failure in economic terms. I also visited Georgia (part of USSR) where the mood was even more pessimistic. Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00 is trying to argue an extremely pedantic phrasing. His point, if I might sum up, seems to be that a decline in growth to the point of stagnation (which is strongly supported by your sources), does not count as "badly straining" the Soviet economy because there is not outright economic decline.
However such a conclusion is not justified either in colloquial language or by any of the random WP:WL going on (I have no idea what WP:V has to do with the appropriateness of word "strain"). It is correct and appropriate to describe an economy driven from growth into stagnation as "strained", or with similar negative verbiage.
I'm unsure on what exactly is being debated with regards to the status quo of the lead section. If anything I believe it is still weirdly sympathetic to Brezhnev in a way not broadly supported by non-propagandist commentaries, but I have no specific suggestions for things to fix. If there is a specific paragraph or phrase under contention up for change I'm happy to 3rd-opinion on it. If the question is whether the "strained" language should be changed to something more neutral, I'm opposed.
A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A)"in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y was inclined to say B, because the CIA says so: read the part starting with "CIA reported that...". . Of course, much is to be added on the issue, E.g., from here, p.13: "By engaging Moscow in a prohibitively expensive arms race <..snip..> the United States forced the Soviet Union into a competition, which exhausted their economic capacity". Feel free to add my find to the article (or I shall do this later myself).... but...:
None The lede must be a summary of the article, and the article poorly addresses the issue. I am surprized why people are wasting time her instead of expanding the article to make this discussion moot. Therefore as of now the whole sentence must be deleted for now. - Altenmann>talk00:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove that whole sentence "However, these endeavors, particularly the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, proved to be highly costly and badly strained the Soviet economy in later years following Brezhnev's death." It does not concern the actual biography of Brezhnev but apparent mishandling by his successors. It is WP:UNDUE for the lead as Altenmann puts. Capitals00 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B in spirit, but I agree with the above that it is irrelevant what happened after his death and "following his death" or "and long after his death" should be removed. Brezhnev's policies during his tenure cratered Soviet economic growth and drove the USSR into a period of stagnation. That is undisputed, and it is sufficient to leave it at that in the lede. Nickelpro (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. As the lede currently reads, one is left with the impression that Brezhnev's policies were not to blame for the economic stagnation which occurred during and after his rule; an interpretation simply not supported by most historians on the subject. However, while I would prefer to have the lede rewritten to reflect this, I think just striking the sentence in question altogether is a reasonable alternative.Emiya1980 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None I agree with the editors above that the sentence as a whole is problematic because it reflects the performance of his successors, thus it is not relevant for the lead. Dympies (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None I also agree with removing that sentence from the lead paragraph. It would be more appropriate under a section discussing his policies.Coalcity58 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably none, but B might also be acceptable. The sentence as it currently reads is somewhat reductive even for the lead: it suggests that military spending and foreign interventionism was the sole or proximate cause of the alleged economic stagnation, when there were a number of causes. Also, since the USSR ceased to exist roughly a decade after Brezhnev died, it's a bit of an odd fit to say that his policies strained the Soviet economy "long after" his death. WillowCity(talk)18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lately, I have noticed a concerning editing trend on the Leonid Brezhnev that seems designed to play up Brezhnev's successes as a statesman while significantly playing down his failures. For this reason,I have added the NPOV tag. Does anybody have any opposition to this? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that he was viewed as a statesman when he was alive and his reputation saw a decline only after his death. His reputation has seen a boost in the recent decades because his successors were not as influential as he was. On the contrary, look at George Herbert Walker Bush who was outshined by his successor Bill Clinton. Adding an NPOV template at the top of this GA article is obviously unwarranted. Capitals00 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the article currently states Brezhnev ”…is remembered for donning the mantle of a peacemaker and a common-sense statesman” and ”it can be said that the Soviet Union reached unprecedented and never-repeated levels of power, prestige, and internal calm under his rule” in Wikipedia’s voice is reason enough to question the article’s neutrality. Absent changes to the article and receiving other editors’ opinions on the matter, it is premature to remove the tag right now. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming nobody but me and Capitals00 is going to add to this discussion, I am going to seek a third opinion sometime in the near future. If someone currently viewing this thread has thoughts on this subject, please take a moment to share them. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least with regards to Brezhnev's record as a "peacemaker", the links I provided are backed up by plenty of secondary sources and are therefore not original research. I have also added a link to the Brezhnev article featuring material challenging the notion that Brezhnev's rule was "period fo internal calm" that are likewise backed up by sources. With regards to Brezhnev's flawed management of the economy, I've already listed plenty of excerpts from sources corroborating my position in a prior discussion thread and frankly do not feel like doing so again. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are certainly not telling anything more than "Leonid Brezhnev made the USSR so powerful and could have caused a lot more destruction but I don't have a lot to cite here". If you are really looking forward to "challenging the notion" that is indeed "backed up by sources" then you are certainly at the wrong place. Wikipedia is not the place for bringing up your dispute over the historiography that concerns any subject. Wikipedia can only publish what has been concluded outside Wikipedia by the reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously stated, the links I provided cite plenty of sources which challenge the characterization of Brezhnev as "peacemaker" and the notion that he oversaw a period of stable prosperity in the Soviet Union. You are free to visit the links and look at them yourself. Seeing as how they're already listed, I am under no obligation to spoon-feed them to you.
In any event, there are too few editors participating in this thread to reach a consensus. Hence why I previously suggested seeking a third opinion. Until then, I am unwilling to consider removing the NPOV tag until the sentences I mentioned are no longer presented in Wikipedia's voice. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're casting aspersions in a tedious manner and frequently assume a borderline-battleground mentality, and this is the attitude you have taken out of the gate here (Lately, I have noticed a concerning editing trend). If I can be brutally honest for a moment, since I do believe you want to reach genuine consensuses: I hesitate to enter conversations on talk pages that you have started or are engaged in, because it often immediately seems like a tiresome proposition. I don't know a less fraught way to pose this, but perhaps a change in rhetorical stance would result in more editors taking the time to engage with your concerns. Remsense ‥ 论03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to you characterization of me as having a "borderline-battleground mentality", I have already indicated a willingness to consider removing the tag if the sentences I pointed out are rewritten so as not to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think that's asking a lot. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm trying to give you some advice that might explain why you don't get the consensus establishing discussions you clearly want. For right now, I also don't feel like pulling any of my own teeth, but thanks for offering. Remsense ‥ 论04:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this to be tedious. The source that the sentence cited quite frankly says, verbatim, He was the first Soviet leader who consciously and with pleasure donned the mantle of a peacemaker and a commonsense statesman, and not of a blustering revolutionary or of a domineering emperor. It doesn't matter if he wasn't a pacifist, one can declare themselves a 'peacemaker' and thus 'don the mantle of peacekeeper' and argue that invading a soverign nation is bringing peace and stability to it. Wikipedia represents what the sources say, not what you believe to be true or what you wish they would say. Likewise, I've removed the mention of "internal calm" because none of what that paragraph says can be found on the cited page. I'm removing the NPOV tag, and in regard to the statement I am unwilling to consider removing the NPOV tag, you improperly tagged the article in the first place. Template:POV#How_to_use which says to only use it when a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view and An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. If you present a source that contests the statement of the source saying he was donning the mantle of peacemaker, you're free to add it. But representing what the sources say in an article is not WP:NPOV violating. Brocade River Poems (She/They)03:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: If you allow me to rewrite the aforementioned sentences as the opinions of certain historians instead of an established fact in Wikipedia's voice, I will remove the NPOV tag. Is that a fair compromise?Emiya1980 (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the heat this discussion has generated as well as the recent content disputes that have happened with regards to this page, I would recommend you to propose your major edits here. Capitals00 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
