Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Eastern Bloc: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WildBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
142,891 edits
Found broken #section links to Estonia#Soviet Annexation; Found ambiguous links to Fatherland Front, reparation
Hammer of Habsburg (talk | contribs)
622 edits
Line 128: Line 128:


:::::The definition itself, "[[block]]", indicates a separate part, a unit, and the countries that allied with Soviet Union did formed a solid one. The problem comes when Yugoslavia is mentioned. After 1948, it didn´t certainly formed part of that "unit", so whatever sources include it, it is wrong, and missinforms the public (already quite missinformed about history in general unfortunatelly...) [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk:FkpCascais|talk]]) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::The definition itself, "[[block]]", indicates a separate part, a unit, and the countries that allied with Soviet Union did formed a solid one. The problem comes when Yugoslavia is mentioned. After 1948, it didn´t certainly formed part of that "unit", so whatever sources include it, it is wrong, and missinforms the public (already quite missinformed about history in general unfortunatelly...) [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk:FkpCascais|talk]]) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It can not be considered by some to be a part of soviet block and considered by some not to be. With this "scientific approach" wiki is turning into shit (sorry but no better expression is available). Every fact in the world can be considered by some not to be correct. That is not the purpose of wikipedia to state who consideres what but to state the facts.[[User:Hammer of Habsburg|Hammer of Habsburg]] ([[User talk:Hammer of Habsburg|talk]]) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 12 April 2010


Warsaw Pact vs Eastern Bloc

Please see talk:Warsaw Pact#Warsaw Pact vs Eastern Bloc. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 07:17 Z

Yugoslavia??? I can't belive what I am reading here!!!

Please totaly remove Yugoslavia from the introduction sentences and from the map of eastern bloc. This is so naive to be written down. Yugoslavia was never part of soviet union nor of Warschaw pact. It was as much western as it was eastern state during the cold war. Actualy it was neutral, like Switzerland, Austria or Finland. The Yugoslav borders were totaly free to the nato states, not like the borders of east bloc. In the first map provided it is also not true that Yugoslavia was EVER aligned with USSR, even not in the period 1945-1948. Is there any treaty to prove it? No, there isn't.

This is like teaching children the days in the week..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.140.115 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Quantpole If the introductory sentence states that east bloc is a synonim to soviet bloc then I don't see the reason that you ignore that. Yugoslavia was never part of soviet bloc!!Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked German, French, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, Czech and Portugese wikipedia and they ALL exclude Yugoslavia. Why is someone so persistant in english version???Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/eastern-bloc/ http://www.search.com/reference/Eastern_Bloc http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Eastern-blocHammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say I agree with Hammer here. The whole issue is very misleading indeed. The country was a Soviet ally for some three years (1945-1948). When Moscow threatened to turn the country into an Eastern Bloc satellite of the USSR (as opposed to an ally), the country broke away and approached the West (the Tito-Stalin split). The country was the model of neutrality in the Cold War - probably the principal founding state of the Non-Aligned Movement. The SFRY eventually became a relatively liberal socialist country, even a major tourist destination for western tourists :P.
Yugoslavia's neutrality and its non-inclusion in the "Soviet Bloc" needs to be clarified completely, in fact, the country closely evaded military conflict with the Soviet Bloc on several occasions - if anything, the Soviet Bloc was more of an enemy than NATO. We also have Albania. If Yugoslavia is sourced as a part of the "Eastern Bloc", then the term is obviously not synonymous with "Soviet Bloc". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. Yaan (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This matter was previously disputed and discussed at length here. I'll wait a while longer. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia was a member of the Eastern bloc until 1948, but not so afterwards. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should state that clearly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a look at it. Isn't that what it does already ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. In the previous discussions an (illogical) distinction was made between being "aligned with the Soviet Union" and being a part of the Eastern Bloc. The current text merely makes the former clear about Yugoslavia. (I was careful about that when writing up the current text.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia erroneously named in the maps

I think it might be useful to any perfectionist map-maker to point out that the two images, File:EasternBloc BorderChange38-48.svg and File:EasternBloc-legend.svg, both use weird names for Yugoslavia.

  • File:EasternBloc-legend.svg uses "Socialist FR of Yugoslavia". This is almost never used, its like calling the USSR the "Union of Soviet SRs" or "Union of SS Republics". I suggest simply naming the country "SFR Yugoslavia", which is very common, short, perfectly correct, and would fit better in the legend as well.
  • File:EasternBloc BorderChange38-48.svg calls the country "Federal People's Rep. of Yugoslavia", which was a name used for 17 years (1946-1963) instead of SFR Yugoslavia (short for "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"), which was the last and today far more common name that was in use for 30 years (1963-1992). Again, I suggest using "SFR Yugoslavia" for all the aforementioned reasons.

Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with direktor on this. Yugoslavia was not a "Eastern block" country by any mean. The short period the country was in the Soviet block is not reason enough to include it. I support its exclusion from the article maps. FkpCascais (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Eastern bloc is a vague term (by contrast to the Warsaw pact), so Yugoslavia can probably fit the Eastern bloc member's criteria if we define the Eastern bloc loosely (although I personally see no reason to do that).
With regards to these two maps, they were created to push some concrete POV, namely, that Russia was the core of the USSR, as well as the EB as whole, and that formation of the USSR and the EB was a process of gradual swallowing of smaller countries by Russia.
In my opinion this is a minority or even fringe views, so these two maps, which carry no important information, can be easily removed from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do understand that having had a Socialist system, Yugoslavia, in the eyes of many, would qualify as part of the "Eastern block" but, as the word "block" clearly indicates, it was a "closed system", and Yugoslavia was not part of it, and was vastly seen as "enemy" by the Warsaw Pact countries. In Yugoslavia, people travelled, had even more contact with the "west" than with "east" and the economy was working in a different way. For me personally, as I was raised as a Yugoslav, and travelled quite often while young, it was quite annoying having from time to time people wrongly calling Yugolavia an Estern block country... Any contribution by clarifiying that and breaking a common missperception is very welcoming.
Concerning the maps, they are needed, so having them as correct as possible is the best solution. Thanx a lot. FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re maps. Could you please explain me what additional information the map on the right is supposed to carry?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The map on the right is a mess, I'd remove it completely. If not, then I'd certainly fix the "Socialist FR of Yugoslavia" nonsense into "SFR Yugoslavia".
As for the left, I'd simply fix the legend as far as Yugoslavia and Albania are concerned. The left map now uses "USSR-aligned", which is confusing in that the title of the article is not "USSR-aligned states" but "Eastern Bloc". For Yugoslavia, it should read "Eastern Bloc 1945-1948" or some variation or another. Albania, however, is a different story. This may be another issue I'm bringing up, but I'm not sure if the country should be considered part of the Eastern Bloc after Yugoslavia's break, since the country was cut off from soviet coercion and was instead under significant Yugoslav influence. Either way, I'd be fine with "Eastern Bloc 1945-1960". It seems far less ambiguous. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Removed the second map (ie one on the right) from the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede, removed reference

Given recent discussion re Yugoslavia, I've clarified the first paragraph in the lede. I removed the following reference from the lede as checking it via google books showed it to be incorrect, p230 does not refer to eastern bloc, hence false reference.
{{cite book|last1=Hirsch|first1=Donald|first2=Joseph F.|last2=Kett|first3=James S.|last3=Trefil|title=The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|year=2002|isbn=0618226478|page=230}}
--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be cleared up for good. Was Yugoslavia
  • a) an Eastern Bloc country for the duration of the Cold War, just not "aligned with the Soviet Union" or part of the "Soviet Bloc" after 1948?
  • b) an Eastern Bloc country only for three years (1945-1948)?
  • or c) not an Eastern Bloc country at all, since it never signed the Warsaw Pact, and never really became a Soviet satellite state?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a problem, too. I tend to go with "c" in terms of your definitions re Yugoslavia, I think the problem is exaggerated because of the map in the at the beginning of the article which has the title "members" which is misleading since the eastern bloc never had "members", as opposed to the Warsaw Pact, Comecon etc.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "members" nonsense should be amended, obviously, but the problem remains. Is it "a", "b", or "c"? It has to be one of the three. I also lean toward "c", since "a" is kind of absurd and the three years ("b") can be disregarded due to Yugoslavia's non-subservient position towards the USSR and its exclusion from the Warsaw Pact (i.e. "Soviet Bloc"). I don't think a country can be outside the "Soviet Bloc" and yet within the "Eastern Bloc", the two terms are synonymous. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of eastern bloc, yugoslavia redux

Definitions of eastern bloc:
"Eastern bloc: the countries of eastern and central Europe that were under Soviet domination from the end of World War II until the collapse of the Soviet communist system in 1989–91." "Eastern bloc." The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. 2001.[1].

"During the Cold War, the term Eastern Bloc (or Soviet Bloc) was used to refer to the Soviet Union and its allies in Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and - until the early 1960s - Albania). The "Eastern Bloc" is also used as another name for the Warsaw Pact (a Soviet-led military alliance) or the Comecon (an international economic organization of Communist states). Yugoslavia was never part of the Eastern Bloc or the Warsaw Pact." AllExperts [2]

"The processes of change in the Eastern Bloc affected Yugoslavia as well, although this country, having been outside the bloc since 1948, had evolved specific political, economic and federal systems of its own." Encyclopedia of government and politics p. 1244 [3]

"A dictionary of world history" p.193 [4] see "East-West schism" which talks about the break of Yugoslavia.

The single and only reference I can find which includes Yugoslavia in the definition of the Eastern Bloc is this: "The name applied to the former communist states of eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia and Albania, as well as the countries of the Warsaw Pact." [5], the reference which has been reinserted repeatedly into the lede. I see no reason to keep this reference which contradicts the basic understanding and widespread use of the term Eastern Bloc, which does not include Yugoslavia.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitional problems

I've used this as the new first paragraph in the lede:
The term Eastern Bloc was used to refer to the former Communist states of Eastern and Central Europe, generally countries that were members of the Warsaw Pact and Comecon, which were aligned with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yugoslavia and Albania are sometimes included as part of the Eastern Bloc, although both countries severed alignment with the Soviet Union in 1948 and 1960, respectively. The terms Communist Bloc and Soviet Bloc were also used to denote countries aligned with the Soviet Union, although these terms could include countries outside Eastern and Central Europe.

I think one of the problems with the previous first paragraph is the conflation of the terms Eastern Bloc, Soviet Bloc and Communist Bloc. The problem also is that the usage of the term Eastern Bloc can denote political or geographic meaning or both. I think it needs to be reiterated that the "Eastern Bloc" never existed in a formal sense, it was a political term like "Free World" (which also never existed), but the term came to have a use in political and historic discourse. Which is why in a formal sense Yugoslavia was never part of the Eastern Bloc (what is discussed above), if what we mean by the Eastern Bloc is those states, institutions and structures created or dominated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If on the other hand we mean Eastern Bloc in a undifferentiated informal way, as in the non-capitalist countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, then yes, Yugoslavia becomes part of the Eastern Bloc. So we need to be clear what we are talking about. Given that we are talking about countries in relationship to the Soviet Union and the Cold War, then it is the former we should be focussed on.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop improperly deleting countless sources and text in the article. You have been warned before. No one is interested in -- nor is Wikipedia the target of -- what you and I (or the 2-3 other posters in the section above either way) think encompasses the Eastern Bloc. The term has been defined generally by four sources as along the lines of "the former Communist states of Eastern and Central Europe" or "the countries of Eastern Europe under communism". Many sources consider Yugoslavia part of the Eastern Bloc, as listed, while several others consider them not to be part of that Bloc after the 1948 Tito-Stalin split. All of this from both angles is briefly explained WITH SOURCES in the Lede. This has now been described on the maps, as well, with differing legends from when members broke from Soviet alignment.
Honestly, this couldn't be more straight forward. Many sources consider the EB to the be the communist countries of eastern europe regardless of policy alignment, while some appear to consider Yugoslavia leaving the EB with the 1948 split (probably thinking it more akin to "Soviet bloc"). This is an extremely simple deviation easily described in the Lede. And it is. Rather than questioning any odd motive in the continued deletion of large amounts of sourced material on this straight forward concept, please please just stop doing so.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. There is no need to load the lede up with references. There are clearly contradictory usages of the term "Eastern Bloc" as discussed above. The lede I have written above accounts for those contradictions. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than discuss your improper deletions -- I have not time to blow at admin over this incredibly straight forward issue -- I moved the sources to the "Terminology and other countries" section below. The Lede now defines the term generally per the listed general definition sources without reference to Yugoslavia and Albania either way, even though the mass of ref'd sources include Yugoslavia. The next sentence just states that sometimes Yugoslavia is included, and sometimes it is not post-1948 split, which is what the sources in the "Terminology" section describe. Most of the Lede opening paragraph is the language you just inserted.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politically, Yugoslavia was more of an enemy to the soviet bloc and friend to the west than it was other way around. On the other hand, there is no mention of neutral countries in the cold war like Switzerland, Austria and Yugoslavia. I deem that the term non-aligned is the most appropriate since Yugoslavia was the founding member and leading country in non-aligned movement. For that reason, it was as soviet as it was western enemy/friend. For that reasons, Soviet block for Yugoslavia is really a nonsence of its kind.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition itself, "block", indicates a separate part, a unit, and the countries that allied with Soviet Union did formed a solid one. The problem comes when Yugoslavia is mentioned. After 1948, it didn´t certainly formed part of that "unit", so whatever sources include it, it is wrong, and missinforms the public (already quite missinformed about history in general unfortunatelly...) FkpCascais (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can not be considered by some to be a part of soviet block and considered by some not to be. With this "scientific approach" wiki is turning into shit (sorry but no better expression is available). Every fact in the world can be considered by some not to be correct. That is not the purpose of wikipedia to state who consideres what but to state the facts.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F355564724