Talk:Collapse of the Soviet Union
The phrase "Collapse of the Soviet Union" is highly Point of View, it is looking at issues from one side of the Cold War front line. The fact that it may be widely used in the western media does not make it any more neutral.
-- Petri Krohn 21:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I propose the article be moved to Dissolution of the Soviet Union. -- Petri Krohn 10:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dissolution implies that the politburo and gorbachev willfully chose to just split up the soviet union-they didnt. The anti-communist revolutions in the eastern bloc, yeltsin's rise in political power, and eventually the military's refusal to quash the protests in moscow is what led to the end of the soviet union, which was most definitely a collapse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 December 2006
Edit war: where to redirect?
We are at an edit war on redirecting to History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991) or to History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)#Yeltsin and the dissolution of the USSR. Redirecting to the whole article on the time period 1985-1991 implies that the Soviet Union was deemed to collapse already in 1985, maybe earlier. I disagree with this view. See New Union Treaty. -- Petri Krohn 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was not deeemed. I agree. But various attempts to save it failed. There is a difference between the moment of dissolution and the whole process of gradual collapse. The Soviet collapse was not a momentary event, like 9/11. It was a painful, struggling process. Hence the redirect to the corresponding period. `'mikka 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirecting talk pages?
I have reverted the redirection of this talk page to Talk:Dissolution of the Soviet Union. This discussion is about a redirect, at present it only has historical relevance. There is however no reason to hide it with a redirect. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)