Talk:Warsaw Pact

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ASU557 (article contribs).

Yugoslavia in Warsaw Pact? No way, never happened!

I would like to draw attention to the fact that Yugoslavia was never ever a member of the Warsaw Pact. Never at all. Before making any edits, I suggest more research, but this is an undisputed fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.164.230 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

---

This is true. Yugoslavia was a member of the Eastern Bloc, but broke defence relations with the USSR in 1948, seven years before the Warsaw pact was signed.

Yugoslavia was never member of Eastern Bloc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

For a good translation of the Warsaw pact, see Yale: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/soviet/warsaw.htm The preamble lists the signing nations, which (of course) does not include Yugoslavia or Finland. I've removed the references to Yugoslavia as a member -- it's still mentioned in the text as ceasing to exist in 1991, in a section that's blatant opinion without any references, but that's a war for others to fight. Mods: That Yugoslavia and Finland were never members of the Warsaw pact is not disputable in any way, shape or form. If anyone disputes this, let them provide references. The Warsaw pact itself was pretty clear about who the members were.

Some facts here are not true.

In 1991, many Eastern European citizens were tired of communist rule, and they overthrew their governments. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, East Germany, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria all overthrew their governments.

Yugoslavia never had overthrew of communist governmens. And in the period from 1948 to 1956 Yugoslavia has reacived a lot weapones from America (300 Patton II tanks, 100 F-84 jets, 600 Sherman tanks....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.74.210 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.16.254 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Warsaw pact fell apart after the communist regimes in Eastern Europe were overthrown in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991."

The article there already says the Soviet Union collapsed in '89. I can't recall for certain and don't have the time to look it up right now.

-I know for sure that the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 25th, 1991. The other eastern European countries pulled out of the Warsaw pact somtime between September 1989 and December 1991. Maybe the pact itself was officially put to rest at some point, but I'm not sure of that.

--- The Russian action in the Hungarian was a unilateral action. I believe the only action was in the Prague Spring.

---

Something needs to be done to stop the vandelism of this page - James Anatidae, Oct. 24, 2003

Flag or official symbol of the Warsaw Pact

Is it true that the Warsaw Pact has no flag or symbol?

I actually read on a site, the the WP doesn't have a flag, but I just can't believe it.

Is there any way to get a clearer image of the unoffical seal of the Pact?

I would like to see a better image, because in it's current state it's almost useless. SovietCanuck 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Russia

"The Warsaw Pact was dominated by the Soviet Union." is POV. Just take a look at the NATO page, no one would ever put such a thing on the NATO page. Things are not going to be held to a different standard for communist countries. And don't give me any nonsense over changing the NATO pages, if you feel that way, you do it, I'm editing here.

So, the Warsaw Pact wasn't dominated by the USSR? Ask yourself this: would the countries of eastern europe have joined the Warsaw Pact, or even had communist dictatorships, if it wasn't for being occupied by Soviet troops at the end of WWII? What happened when Gorbachev removed those troops and let those governments have free elections--what happened to the Warsaw Pact and to all those communist governments? Why did all those countries join NATO--voluntarily--afterwards??? Sorry, but communists like you may like to delude yourself into thinking that everybody in eastern europe volunteered to live in nations dominated by Moscow-led dictatorships, but that's utter nonsense (and can be attested to by anybody who lived in eastern europe during that time). To say that the Warsaw Pact is the equivalent of NATO, especially today after the Wall has come down and all is now known about what the USSR had done to those nations, is just pure ignorance.108.66.55.128 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the Warsaw Pact wasn't dominated by the USSR, why then did Erich Honecker have to ask Gorbachev permission (permission that Gorbachev, to his great credit, did not give) to have east german troops crack down before and after the Berlin Wall came down in order to stop the changes that were taking place? Why did Ceaucescu ask for the same as well? I mean, if East Germany was truly independent, why couldn't Honecker just order in the troops?108.69.175.247 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Countries weren't allowed to leave NATO, as US policy documents spell out clearly, particulary concerning Italy where there were invasion plans if the PCI took over the government (as almost happened in 1948 before massive interference from the US, as well as 1976). And Albania did leave the Warsaw Pact, so the ide athat countries couldn't leave is being removed. "The Soviet Union reserved the right to define "socialism" and "capitalism" as it saw fit" is more POV nonsense.

Any nation that wants to leave NATO can do so by simply having such a declaration passed through its legislature and signed off on by its head of state, nations do not cede their sovereign status to join. Per NATO bylaws, the initial signers were compelled to stay in NATO for the first 20 years *only*, thus they, and any other member, can leave anytime, as NATO has been around longer than 20 years. The nation in question would submit a "notice of denunciation", which would be dispersed to all other member nations, and that nation formally leaves NATO 1 year after that notice is given - to permit time for NATO to remove any property from that nation and adjust its planning. Joining NATO requires all existing members to agree, but no nation can be compelled to remain a member if they opt to leave, provided they abide by the 1 year requirement.

And for some reason Janos Kadar is not mentioned in this article pertaining to Hungary.

Compared to the NATO article this is utter and complete nonsense. I will use that as my guide, and in light of that this article is full of anti-USSR POV. Ruy Lopez 20:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure the planners in the Pentagon and War College have all sorts of plans to invade countries for all contingencies (if only to give the planners actual experience in "planning"). I'm even willing to bet that somewhere in the Pentagon is a plan to invade Canada. Is this proof that we would've actually invaded? Sorry, but just because the US/NATO had a plan to invade Italy if the communists took over and set up a communist, Moscow-friendly dictatorship in Italy isn't proof that NATO was just as bad as the Warsaw Pact, for plenty of other evidence suggests otherwise.108.69.175.247 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course Pentagon planners have war-gamed invasions of Italy...they've probably planned invasions of North Carolina and Kansas, too, along with every nation on Earth, and every state in the US to boot. Planning is what they do, and its not planning if you wait until there's a crisis to do it, that's reacting. There's a big gap between planning, and policy...and authorization. There are probably thousands of different invasion plans maintained in the Pentagon. It would not surprise me if the Pentagon has plans for attacking the Pentagon itself.

This comment strikes me as being rather POV: eg using "nonsense" three times. The Soviet Union did dominate the Warsaw Pact far more than the USA has NATO.

What US policy documents - and was the US intervention in Italy (influencing the election in 1948 etc) done as part of a NATO exercise?

They didn't invade Albania for seceding because they'd have to go through Yugoslavia which wasn't in the Warsaw Pact.

What exactly happened on March 31, 1991 to say that the Warsaw Pact came to an end ?

The pact came to an end on 1991 March 31 and was officially dissolved at a meeting in Prague on 1991 July 1. ...

It's not clear in the article what exactly happened on March 31, 1991 to say that the Warsaw Pact "came to an end". Would anyone experts care to elaborate, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:45, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

There has been a conference of Warsaw treaty memer countries delegates in Moscow on that day, but I do not have any closer information about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.213.138.3 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

More expert insight on this topic needed

I would really like to know what this warsaw pact was all about. What is the relevance of the news rumour to the post warsaw era? If there is one it isn't evident. And what is chea? What in NATO actually made the eastern block massively come together to sign the warsaw pact. The information from the article seems incomplete. This really does seem like POV, even the comments...

Missing info on most important facets of WP

What is missing from the article is info about Central command for all armies, about standardization of armament and amunition, about centralized planning for armament production, about bases of Soviet Union in WP countries.

Current text covers only global politics and trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

East Germany

With Germany being reunited, East Germany's membership with the Warsaw Pact ended. (source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Warschauer_Vertrag, http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/1990/) The previous version of the article contained an error by stating that Germany was a member both of NATO and the Warsaw Pact (no, we were not, but we still had Soviet Troops stationed in East Germany after reunification)

I found some info, saying that East German 7th tank division and 11th armored division were prepared but not given orders to enter Czechoslovakia (Rudiger Wenzke in "Prager Fruhling - Prager Herbst", 1990). However I remember that one eyewitness saw German tank mistakenly crossing the border - this was source of confusion. Pavel Vozenilek 19:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does the picture "NATO_vs_Warsaw_(1949-1990).png" display East Germany beeing a member of the Warsaw Treaty since 1956???

As I know, it signed along with all other founding countries on May 14 1955... I only have a czech version (of the treaty text) link (http://referaty.atlas.sk/vseobecne-humanitne/dejepis/4695/varsavska-zmluva---uplne-znenie), but I am shure there must be translations on web somewhere... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.213.138.3 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Was this funny poster "35 years Warsaw Pact" (that would mean spring 1990) ever published? I mean, it talks of "invincible" and sports East Germany as proud member, at a time when the GDR was collapsing and ready to be absorbed by West Germany...can´t imagine that somebody would take this poster serious. Hansi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.211.143 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the W Pact

Should the fact that by creating the Warsaw Pact, the USSR violated various treaties, including, for e.g., the YYA Treaty, be mentioned in this article? --HJV 20:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This was likely the least of concerns of WP countries. Pavel Vozenilek 12:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Official Name

I believe the official name was the "Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance." There is another Treaty called the "Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" (FCMA) but that seems to have been signed on April 6, 1948, between Finland and the Sowjet Union (check http://countrystudies.us/finland/24.htm). Oh, and one more: Could it be that the "Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" is not the official name of the Warsaw Pact but rather (as the name suggests) the treaty establishing the military organization called the Warsaw Pact? Maybe somebody more familiar with this entry could have a look at this. Thanks :-)

If that were the real name it'd be quite ironic. I mean, the USSR broke the YYA Treaty(ie. the Soviet-Finnish Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance) when signing the Warsaw pact. The YYA treaty stated that none of the signatories was allowed to ally themselves with Germany, and USSR formed an alliance with East Germany ^_^--HJV 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The YYA treaty states that none of the signing parties would join any coallition threatening any of each. Since the TFCMA didn't threatten Findland USSR did nort break the YYA treaty by signing the Warsaw Pact. 189.141.62.84 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Warsaw Pact - Cold war name for Warsaw treaty!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.95.178 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Monstrous Cold War template

This template got so huge that it made the article joke. I§d removed it, it is less then useless, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Text of the Treaty

Can anybody link to an online Russian version of the original Warsaw Pact treaty? If so put it at the list of links at the bottom.

bias article?

I think the word "pact" should not be used because it is a pejorative word. I also think that the threat from the point of view of the USSR and the other Warsaw Treaty members from NATO was quit real, I am not sure how militarization of the Warsaw treaty countries violated any conventions since the UN charter stated that the regional aliances are permited, I think that the statement that the Warsaw treaty countries up to 1980 were concerned only with attacking the "western" countries should be removed because we don't have all necessary archival information to make this judgement.

It was generally and colloquially known as the Warsaw Pact - look in books of the time: therefore a relavant name.

---

I checked in a 'reference book of 1989' which used the heading 'Warsaw Treaty Organisation or Warsaw Pact' (and equivalents occur elsewhere)

I think this settles the question by 'whomosoever' (though not necessarily an invalid question) Jackiespeel 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In actuality, however, the organization served as a de facto tool for keeping control over countries which had been taken over by the Soviets after the Second World War and to permit military intervention against any attempts these other states took to free themselves of the political hegemony of their own Communist Parties. The Pact lasted throughout the Cold War until certain member nations began withdrawing in 1989, following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and political changes in the Soviet Union.

This part shall be removed since it is not written in accordance to the NATO article. We are not interpret the reality however it suits us. The Warsaw Pact was created after the the re-militarization of Western Germany and the Formation of the NATO alliance. Otherwise we will be forced to write that the NATO alliance was established to ensure Capitalist hegemony in its member states.

Well, the prob is that Wikipedia isn't about giving points to both sides. It's an encyclopedia that is about telling--or attempting to tell--the truth. The fact of the matter is that, NATO was not designed to repress or threaten invasion of its own members to protect capitalist hegemony (indeed, many NATO members throughout the Cold War were closer to being socialist than capitalist), just to protect from invasion against the Soviet Union. How many times did NATO invade its fellow members? How many times did the Warsaw Pact (under orders from Moscow) invade other Warsaw Pact countries? I count twice (and would've been more if Gorbachev was a hard liner). I'm sorry if this fact offends those who still find the USSR/Warsaw Pact to be a divine inspiration, but it is true. The vast majority of ppl in the occupied eastern european nations never wanted to be part of the Soviet bloc or the Warsaw Pact. They were forced into doing so at the point of a gun...and when Gorbachev, a great man, took that gun away and gave those nations self-determination, ALL those nations LEFT the Warsaw Pact. And yet today, no democratic, self-determining country in NATO has ever fully left NATO. And when the Warsaw Pact was no more, did evil NATO invade eastern europe? No...indeed, those same Warsaw Pact nations volunteered to join NATO.108.69.162.208 (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant info

'There were no black people...' Is this at all relevant?

Not reverting changes without first citing them.

Unlike you admins us non-users don't have access to a revert button so you people will always win the revert war. Anyway at least cite something you disagree with, thanks.

Albania's secession

How and why did Albania secede from the Warsaw Pact and ally with China without the USSR invading them like they did to Hungary in 1956 and Czechslovakia in 1968? I read it's because no Warsaw Pact member shared a border with Albania and to invade Albania they would have to go through Yugoslavia which was not in the Soviet sphere of influence. I've also read that the USSR decided not to invade Albania because they simply had no economic interest in that country. Anyone here know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.103.81.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, in fact the Soviet Army had no possibility to intervene in the necessary scale. For putting down rebellious civilians (which surely would happen if the Red Army went in) and possible military resistance (which was expected), the Soviet Army considered a supply line overland as absolutely necessary. There was no way to reach Albania (surrounded by neutral and well-armed Yugoslavia and NATO-Member Greece) by land, any Naval invasion would not have been sufficient in scale and would rely on tolerance of NATO maritime forces (which controlled the western Mediterranean and could easily lock up the Adriatic Sea!) and an aerial invasion / air assault was out of question. No chance to invade - no invasion! (please excuse my bad English, I´m not a native speaker...)... Best Regards Hansi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.211.143 (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Albania's withdrawal was legal. Simple as that. 184.96.238.72 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Little boxes

Can someone adjust the boxes at the end - as the last line of the linked topics section is partially obscured. Jackiespeel 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal withdrawals

Shouldn't it be noted that Hungarian withdrawal from the Warsaw pact in 1956 (declared by Nágy, withdrawn few days later by Kádár) and Albanian withdrawal in 1968 were both against the Article 11 of the treaty which prohibited the member states to withdraw from the treaty for at least 20 years after acceding and were therefore illegal? Brunislav 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact vs Eastern Bloc

The articles essentially define "Warsaw Pact" and "Eastern Bloc" as the same thing. My dictionary says that "Warsaw Pact" has two meanings: the treaty or the countries.

Information about the group of countries should be merged with Eastern Bloc. This article should keep material specifically about the treaty. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 07:16 Z

Opening explanation?

It might be just me, but does this

"Distinguish from the Warsaw Convention, which is an agreement about airlines' financial liability and the Treaty of Warsaw (1970) between West Germany and the People's Republic of Poland."

make sense as an intro to the article? Or is it meant to be instructions improperly tagged, or what? Darquis 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cows?

While reading, I was confused and beffudled to see an odd, seemingly foreign term in the opening paragraph. "In actuality, however, the organization served as a de facto tool for keeping control over ("cows") which had been taken over by the Soviets after the Second World War and to permit military intervention against any attempts these other states took to free themselves of the political hegemony of their own Communist Parties." The word Cow. I don't know if this has any significance at all to the Warsaw Pact. If it does belong, could someone write a possible explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.231.142 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Official names of countries

I have a small issue with the names of the members of the WP. I believe that they should be called by their official names (People's...) to distinguish the past government from current existing political entities. I think this should be done in order to be correct since when we say "Hungary" today we mean the Republic of Hungary and not the People's Republic of Hungary. There is quite obviously a huge difference between those two entities. Just as the list doesn't contain Czech Republic and Slovakia but rather Czechoslovakia, the other countries should also be properly named. What do you think? JRWalko 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the russian title?

Why do we give the Russian title of the treaty in the intro, but not the Polish, Czech, and German ones? The treaty was concluded in Warsaw, which is not in the Soviet Union, and it seems that copies of the treaty in either language were prepared, "all texts being equally authentic" [1]. The article on the comparably important Treaty of Rome does not even give any title except the english one, although this treaty also was originally not in English[2]. Yaan (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Finland a member?

The "Encarta", Microsoft's encyclopedia does not include Finland on the list of member countries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.188.237 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

This article makes the Claim that The Hungarian Revolutionaries didnt want to/didnt withdraw from the Warsaw pact. This is untrue. They did a day before the Soviet Invasion.

71.183.43.47 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Finland was never a member of the Warsaw Pact nor aspired to be one. Moreover, Finland has never had a communist government which was supposedly overthrown in 1993 (as the article states). I found the article to be utter nonsense and I would suggested comprehensive checking of the facts for the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.23.220 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

F*cking terrible article

This reads like it was written by a pro-Soviet 9th grade history student trying to write about how things werent "all that bad" in the warsaw pact.

Look at the statements about Hungary Revolution and Prague Spring!?!! In both situations the Soviets end up invading and suppressing both movements.

Needs SERIOUS REVISION to be brought in line with the articles that deal with the individual events that make up th ecold war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.43.47 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. People who are too young to remember the Cold War often spout simplistic statements about how one side was no worse than the other. It's telling though, that although many Easterners defected to the West, not many Westerners moved East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.30.147 (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides those two things you mentioned life in the Warsaw Pact was fine. 70.59.6.195 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? So life with the Stasi in East Germany was a rollicking good time? Life in Romania was fine? having your friend and family members killed by trying to climb the Berlin Wall to leave "Utopia" is "fine"? It's "fine" to live in a police state where you go to jail for saying anything negative against the government is "fine"? My father lived in Poland until he was finally able to leave in 1976. He didn't think life there was "fine"--in fact he never met a single person there, including a couple of party officials he knew(most of whom were just going through the motions of serving their system), who thought the system was "fine" or "decent" or anything but absolutely "immoral". Being called in to give up dirt on his neighbor who was suspected of not being down with the wonderful communist system there was not "fine. Knowing a kid in high school who was arrested and sentenced to jail for spray painting on the High School wall "Stalin is the architect of our doom" is not the sign of a "fine" system. Why is it that the only idiots who still like to white wash the Soviet side of the Cold War are far leftwing Westerners who have no personal knowledge of what life in the Eastern Bloc was like? You ignoranti give the left a bad name (and I'm a liberal). Well, guess what guys, if you are angered by the things like the Patriot Act, I'd love to see the look on your face if you were sent back in time to permanently live in a Warsaw Pact country and see firsthand just how "fine" those wonderful communist governments that you are so keen to apologize for actually were.108.66.53.6 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually communist nostalgia in east Europe is strong, especially in the former u.s.s.r where people voted to keep the nation together! My family is fro the u.s.s.r and people cried when stalin died because they loved him so much. He remains beloved to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Article needs help.

I agree that this article comes no where near Wikipedia standards. I read this article a year or so ago, and don't remember it being anywhere near this bad. Many of the statements made appear to be no more than uneducated speculation at best. The article comes across as a pro-soviet biased piece. Opinion cited in Wikipedia articles should be cited as the opinion of historical or relevant figures, cite the general consensus of educated people (experts) or if no consensus exists, then opposing views should be included as such. Many of the uncited statements made in the article seem to be nothing more than personal opinion of a recent editor For example:

1.) "The Warsaw Pact nations cooperated much better than NATO ever has, and most historians say the Warsaw Pact could have defeated NATO in a war."

What should have followed this sentence is additional info explaining WHY this is true or why "most historians" believe it to be true. Nothing followed this statement. Its most glaring omission was a citation. I have read extensively on the Cold War and have rarely gotten the impression from even a few experts (much less "most") that the statement being made here can be substantiated. As a matter of fact, in some cases, I have read the exact opposite. This statement comes off as a personal wish of the person that wrote it.

2.) "In 1991, many Eastern European citizens were tired of communist rule, and they overthrew their governments. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, East Germany, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria all overthrew their governments."

Aside from the fact those statements are misleading or utterly untrue in the case of some nations, I find it hard to believe that In an article about the Warsaw pact that this is ALL that's mentioned on this topic. They all just simultaneously quit communism with nothing more to it than that? This sentence reads like it is being explained (incorrectly) to a fourth grade student. I love it when history is that neat and tidy. How bout in the American history article we write: " In the 1770's Americans unanimously decided the English were bad and kicked them out of the colonies." and just leave it at that. OR how bout: "The Great Schism occurred due to the fact that Christians of the East and West didn't see eye-to eye." and include no further explanation.

3.) "Benefitting from the wealth of data and lessons learned by the Red Army in WW2 the Warsaw Pact forces enjoyed significant advantage over their NATO opposite numbers.. All countries designed their own military hardware and had strong industry and economies. Their militaries were well-led and well-organized."

This is the entirety of the "MILITARY DOCTRINE" heading. Military doctrine of the Warsaw pact could probably be an entire series of books in it's own right, but instead we are again reading uncited, uneducated personal opinion that in at least one instance is completely untrue: ("All countries designed their own military hardware and had strong industry and economies") All of the Warsaw pact nations did not design their own military hardware and not all had strong or even healthy economies. This sounds like an entry into the "All Hail the Soviet-Bloc in 50 words or less" contest. And apparently, no other nation that was victorious in WWII learned any "lessons".

4.) "Warsaw Pact forces cooperated well together, much better than NATO forces could..[citation needed] This caused alarm to several NATO leaders.[4]."

Here is another gem from the article. The first part is devoid of citation. The second part actually has a citation attached to it. I read the article being cited and the citation is being blatantly misused. The article is about the instability along the Soviet-Polish border caused by the Polish Solidarity Crisis. The only mention of NATO in the article is a couple of sentences describing how they monitored the situation. The quote from the article attempts to make the reader believe that NATO was alarmed at how Warsaw Pact nations "cooperated well together", when in fact the article states (briefly) that NATO merely monitored a situation in Poland caused by internal strife. Not even on Mars are these 2 situations remotely the same.

5.) There are only 4 citations in this ENTIRE article.

I could go on and on...

There appear to be remnants of the original article which was more professionally written, but many sections of the article read like my 8th grade report on the Soviet Union and should be treated as such. UnHinged (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Life under the Warsaw Pact was wonderful!

This article makes it seems as if the Eastern bloc countries completely lacked any technology or food until the fall of communism in the late 80's/early 90's. When in actuality the Eastern bloc countries rivaled and were sometimes superior economically and militarily to NATO. Also the Red Army was invited by the legitimate governments of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to surpress the rebellions. They were not illegal invasions.71.33.224.73 (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Warsaw-pact troops weren't invited to Czechoslovakia by legitimate Czechoslovakian government in 1968. In fact the members of government were surprised when Warsaw-pact troops had crossed the border and meeting of government was called to face the situation. The invasion was undoubtedly a violation of international law. 86.49.40.20 (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, people. Information in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, which is typically accomplished by citing a reliable source. If anyone can do so, that would help the article along. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly information is mostly in Czech. Let me cite the official statement of ÚV KSČ (rough translation of 1st and 3rd paragraph): Yesterday, August 20 1968 about 11 pm, the army of USSR, PPR, DDR, HPR and BPR crossed the border of CSSR. This happend without the awareness of the president of the republic, the chairman of the parliament, the prime minister and the first secretary of ÚV KSČ and their agencies. … The presidium of ÚV KSČ consider this act as a denial of all principles in relationship among socialist states and also as a violation of basic standards of an international law. Hopefully this oficial statement clearly shows that Warwaw-pact troops weren't invited by legitimate Czechoslovakian government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.40.20 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV title

How can the title "Warsaw Pact" be be justified if, as claimed in the article, it was an unofficial term used by the west? Surely "Warsaw Pact" should redirect to something like "Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (1955)" -- Fursday 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The unofficial term Warsaw Pact has been also widely used in eastern block. For example I would consider the unofficial term far more prevailing and known in the Czech Republic. Please look at Rusian, Polish, Czech, Slovak… version of this artical – all used the term Warsaw Pact as a title. 86.49.40.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world, "Warsaw Pact" is far more common, and Wikipedia generally favors using the most common term for an article title. If (hypothetically) "Treaty of Friendship..." is more common in the Russian-speaking world, then the Russian-language Wikipedia should probably use that title there. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions for details. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

merge organizing sentences.

currently

"It was established on May 14, 1955 in Warsaw, Poland. The treaty was signed in Warsaw on May 14, 1955 and official copies were made in Russian, Polish, Czech and German."

suggest revision to "It was established by a treaty signed on May 14, 1955, in Warsaw, Poland, and official copies were made in Russian, Polish, Czech and German." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Structure - reference to "party"

"Despite the fact there were two branches in charge of the armed forces they still reported to the party."

what is the "party" referenced? 68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian occupation

It needs to be somehow made clear that the Warsaw Pact wasn't really a really a coalition of independent states. Warsaw Pact countries were de facto parts of the USSR. They were forced to join after being occupied at the end of WWII and subsequently forfeited all autonomy, think of the response to Prague Spring for example. Conversely, NATO members were free to conduct their internal and to a large extent external affairs (France left the unified command structure for instance). I don't know how to say it, but the article needs to reflect the fact that the Warsaw Pact wasn't an "alliance" any more than Vichy France and Germany were an "alliance" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.130.184 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing stuff up. It was a coalition of states. Some independent, some dependent. At least Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania were so. had they not been, there would be no need to invade the former two when they strayed (HU) or there was a threat of them straying (CS) from the Soviet orbit. Actually, the second militarily strongest member - Czechoslovakia - retained at least as much independance as France did from the US at the time. That is also why Brezhnev got so scared from the Prague spring events in the first place ... 46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, yes, this explains perfectly why countries like Romania condemned the invasion Czechoslovakia despite being part of the Warsaw Pact. The countries in the eastern block were by no means fully independent, but to claim they were de facto part of the USSR is astoundingly foolish and ignores the independent realities of each country.

You're sounding a bit like Gerald Ford. East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia all had Soviet troops stationed. Whether they were invited or they were invaders is debatable I guess. Romania and Bulgaria never had Soviets stationed but would've probably been easily invaded if they abandoned communism in the peak of the Cold War. Also nobody is saying they were an extension of the Soviet Union. But most people agree they were satellite states just like West Germany was a satellite state of USA and UK. 168.103.80.203 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There were no Soviet troops in CS until after the 1968 invasion full 13 years later. CS was listed as victorious country after WW2 so there was not even any left-over Soviet troops by 1946. Unlike HU and RO which were considered defeated countries post WW2. Not that there was a need for them, post Munich CS was overwhelmingly pro-Soviet, including the non-communist parties. Starting with their pre-war president's relationship with Stalin established during the war.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Debatable only when speaking to ignorant communist dupes that is. Somehow I doubt that Poland, whom was invaded by both the Nazi's AND the USSR in 1939, and had thousands of their military/political/intellectual elite murdered by the USSR (something that even Russia recently admitted to), didn't "invite" Soviet troops to stay. Maybe a handful of Polish communists may have "invited" them in, just as a tiny minority of Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian communists invited in the Soviets to their countries, but it's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain and half an education that the vast majority of ppl in eastern europe (and the Baltic nations) didn't want the Soviets in their countries (or the communists running their governments--which is exactly why, suprise, suprise, Stalin never let those nations have free elections or a bona fide referendum after the war like he fooled FDR into thinking he would).99.96.38.179 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Romania and Bulgaria did have Soviet troops stationed there right after the war--and those troops stuck around just long enough for the communist regimes there to take root, stabilize and round up and imprison/kill anybody who might pose a problem to the new leadership.99.96.38.179 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so, they were to handle security until the post-WW2 trieties can be sorted out. Sames as US in Germany and Italy. What you are mentioning was just a secondary "bonus". Same as US forces support for Greek pogroms in the 50's.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but at least both West and East Germany deserved to be occupied because of what Germany had done in starting two wars that killed around 80 million people. So West Germany was a satellite state of the US/UK/France (and at the time deserved to be so). The other nations of eastern europe did not deserve the same treatment (especialy Poland that was invaded by both Germany and the USSR).99.96.38.179 (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Albania's secession (2)

Hi there, I can call myself an expert on the domain since I am writing my paper about the cold war. I did a lot of research and read a lot of books. First of all: it looks like the cold war is still going on on this page! Second: I have my doubts with Albania leaving the WP. I believe that Albania was trwon out. Let me clear things up:

1. Communist China isn't happy about the fact that the USSR is 'making friends' with the imperialist west and they tell them.
2. Nikita Chroesjtsjov (sry, I don't know the English transliteration since my mother tongue is Dutch) answers Máo Zédōng that his politics are reckless and dogmatic and refuses to help him in the construction of an atomic weapon.
3. A cenference is held in 1960 in Moscow to restore the relations. 81 communist parties were represented. The relationships were (officially) restored.
4. Since Albania supported China too much during the conference, the Soviet-Union withdraws all its advisors from the country and the country got troxn out of the WP.

Can anyone confirm that? Or were there really big mistakes in my paper? (Anonymus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.117.155 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty accurate. A good look at this is at the Enver Hoxha article. --Mrdie (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

CoA

Warsaw Pact CoA http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Warpac1.GIF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.130 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map concerning the juxtaposition of the various European countries during the "Cold War" needs to be either re-labeled or removed. Wlochy, Wegry, NRD, Wielka Brytania, etc. are meaningless to a English speaker or reader. This is English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The section Nomenclature provides translations of Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. What's the purpose in that? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In my opinion, this should be deleted. Quarconi (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

pov

Why is this article written in an American view of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.18.241 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Emblem shows incorrect flags

The otherwise accurate emblem displayed in the infobox displays the incorrect post-communist flags of Bulgaria, (East) Germany, and Romania, as these flags are missing their Soviet-era emblems. (It should also use a typeface other than Arial, which only became popular after the release of Windows 3 in 1990.) As I have no talent editing svg graphics, I would urge someone who can do this to please fix this. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

re: [3]. I agree with the tiny edit shortening strategy, but I am not sure if the larger removal that follows is indeed helpful. @User:Esetzeko - could you explain it more? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing the POV tag as there is no discussion in the talk page (see here: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#Adding a tag to a page). As usual some user is looking for the most blatant excuses to delete parts of articles that do not meet their personal point of view. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Soviet military motivation - is this fact?

The opening paragraph of the article contains the following sentence (with the part I'm questioning in bold):

'The Warsaw Pact was in part a Soviet military reaction to the integration of West Germany[2] into NATO in 1955 per the Paris Pacts of 1954,[3][4][5] but was primarily motivated by Soviet desires to maintain control over military forces in Central and Eastern Europe;[6] in turn (according to The Warsaw Pact's preamble) meant to maintain peace in Europe, guided by the objective points and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (1945).'

Is this actually factually verifiable or is it just the accepted opinion in Western countries? The source cited to support the information (http://wilsoncenter.org/event/warsaw-pact-wartime-statutes%E2%80%94instruments-soviet-control) gives a summary of the assessments by CIA analysts and modern historians of information gathered by the CIA during the 1980s; while they are undoubtedly very knowledgeable people they're simply giving their opinions on the most likely conclusions to be drawn from the information they have which, for the sake of neutrality, shouldn't be presented as the facts of the situation. In fact I can't actually see anything in the source that suggests military control as a motivation for the pact, simply that they believe it was something the USSR wanted once the pact was in place (likely but hardly provable).

Could someone more knowledgeable than me about the time period either re-word or remove the text as required, or otherwise state why it should remain? I realise this is a sensitive topic for some and that (based on what I've read in the talk page) the article was apparently skewed in the direction of Soviet sympathy previously, however it now seems to have gone (if only slightly and in only a few places) the other way. Cdfbrown (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

POV in the beginnings section

This whole section is completely non-neutral. It attempts to portray the formation of the pact as a response to Germany joining NATO. With sources being misrepresented and a good amount of original research thrown in. Yes, Germany joining NATO was the official excuse. But this claim is not treated seriously by historians. The fact that sources always qualify this reasoning ("ostensibly" - "perhaps but not actually") shows this. Basically, this whole section just parrots the Stalinist propaganda of the time and takes it at face value. Hence the tag. Volunteer Marek  20:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

History channel itself portrays the Warsaw pact as a response to West Germany joining NATO:

"The formation of the Warsaw Pact was in some ways a response to the creation of NATO, although it did not occur until six years after the Western alliance came into being. It was more directly inspired by the rearming of West Germany and its admission into NATO in 1955. In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, Soviet leaders felt very apprehensive about Germany once again becoming a military power–a concern that was shared by many European nations on both sides of the Cold War divide."[4] and "the decision by the United States and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on May 9, 1955 to make West Germany a member of NATO and allow that nation to remilitarize. The Soviets obviously saw this as a direct threat and responded with the Warsaw Pact." [5]

History channel is internationally, and by general consensus in the wikipedia community, considered as a reliable WP:RS and neutral WP:NPOV source. To name History Channel as "Stalinist propaganda" it seems really ungrounded if not a bad try to push your personal point of view.

I will assume good faith in your behalf, even if it it seems more you reverted just cause you don't like it. However, it is good you asked for more sources in the section. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, the History Channel is not regarded as a reliable source, on Wikipedia or elsewhere (otherwise we'd have to treat theories about aliens building the pyramids seriously). And anyway, the text wasn't sourced to the History channel, and this doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented other sources - the example where you cannily omitted the word "ostensibly" (which means "perhaps, but probably not") from a sentence.

You know, this kind of misrepresentation of sources on this topic looks quite familiar. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Please state where on wikipedia, and provide links accordingly, about History channel being not a reliable source otherwise your statement is of no help. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Stalinist propaganda"? Hardly, especially since Stalin was dead at this point. There are plenty of reliable sources that clearly write that Warsaw Pact was reaction to admission of West Germany into NATO. I can't say for Canadian, US or other western universities, but when I studied in Poland well past 89, even our university books about this aspect of history and international relations described this in cold analysis. Of course I am sure there are engaged historians both pro-Western and pro-Soviet who engage in more politicized description of events, but the mainstream historians interested in realistic description just offer realpolitik analysis.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalin might have been dead but Stalinism wasn't. And of course you're welcome to present these sources (preferably here). But right now what we have in the article is a gross misrepresentation of sources which don't say what the above editor is pretending they say. Volunteer Marek  21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Stalin might have been dead but Stalinism wasn't." If you believe university books in Poland written after 89 were created with Stalinist propaganda in mind please present sources stating so. I would be interested in seeing them(if that is what you are claiming/saying)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no problem with university books written in Poland after 89. There is a problem with the text in this article which is NOT based on such books or which misrepresents its sources. Stop pretending this is something which it isn't. Volunteer Marek  23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek The more you go ahead with your replies the more people can see how highly politiced and non-neutral your intentions are, meaning you are just pushing your personal point of view and beliefs without really checking the sources you cite inappropriately.

• 1) You point out that History channel [6][7] is not reliable, fine, maybe not in all the fields treated by them, but in this particular case they are backed by various secondary academical and scholarly sources. In reality, there is indeed a general consensus about why Warsaw Pact was put in place in first place. However if you don't like History channel, here is a citation from the NATO website [8]:'" In reaction to West Germany's NATO accession, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European client states formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955"' Is also NATO website "stalinist propaganda"?
• 2) USSR feared Restoration of West Germany militarism, it's an historical fact. Regarding this, check also the United States Department of State Office of The Historian [9] from which I cite:"When the Federal Republic of Germany entered NATO in early May 1955, the Soviets feared the consequences of a strengthened NATO and a rearmed West Germany and hoped that the Warsaw Treaty Organization could both contain West Germany and negotiate with NATO as an equal partner." Is also the US state Department "stalinist propaganda"?
• 3) You cite the book of Laurien Crump The Warsaw Pact Reconsidered but it seems to me you are misrepresenting it, I have my copy here of the book so I will cite it too accordingly as it is indeed a good reliable source. Also I have now also an article and another book from university professor Vojtech Mastny, which are other good reliable secondary sources. As we are going to make new edits citing these books, It would be good if we discuss the contents, citing the phrases in the books, first here in the talk, of course if you are willing to do that. That's why I am asking you to point out in which source you find the word "ostensibly" as it seems you are just making an argument over a little detail and, as you are not providing any link in order to initiate a collaborative talk between all the editors involved, it seems just you are pushing excuses in order to do unjustified deletions. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the History Channel, you're welcome to inquire about its reliability over at WP:RSN, but the burden of proof here is on you.,

The Nato website source is fine, you can use that to source the claim when it's present. The issue is not over whether Germany joining NATO played a role in the Warsaw Pact but to what extent, and whether it defined the nature of the Warsaw Pact (it did not). That's where your original research is coming into this. Anyway, if you had started off with these sources, rather than putting in completely different ones which did not support the text, a lot of this disagreement would have been avoided.

The state department source is also fine, but you are checking what you like out of it.

I am not misrepresenting Crump's book. I am pointing out that someone else is. You haven't used it before. I can't comment on things which you haven't done yet.

For the word "ostensibly" being used in the source, check the previous discussion and edit summaries. Volunteer Marek  19:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Link the source please. Sorry but I am not inside your head and I have also a life out of wikipedia. Thanks -- Flushout1999 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't restore blatant misrepresentation of sources

Re [10]. If you want to add "scholarly sources" about something that's fine. But please don't restore text which blatantly misrepresents sources. For example this source says nothing about "USSR, fearing "the restoration of German Militarism" in West Germany". Whoever put that in (guess who) just made that shit up and then tacked on an inline citation at the end to make it look legitimate. Same with other parts of the texts you restored.

Now, maybe you added some useful info in, I don't know, I haven't checked. But if that's your intent, please do so without restoring compromised material. Since it's not my job to separate the wheat from the chaff in your edits - you have been around long enough to know how to do that yourself - I'm going to revert you, and I am asking you not to restore the misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek  21:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek The more you go ahead with your replies the more people can see how highly politicized and non-neutral your intentions are, meaning you are just pushing your personal point of view and beliefs without really checking the sources you cite inappropriately.

• USSR feared Restoration of West Germany militarism, it's an historical fact. Regarding this, check also the United States Department of State Office of The Historian [11] from which I cite:"When the Federal Republic of Germany entered NATO in early May 1955, the Soviets feared the consequences of a strengthened NATO and a rearmed West Germany and hoped that the Warsaw Treaty Organization could both contain West Germany and negotiate with NATO as an equal partner." Is also the US state Department "stalinist propaganda"?

As it is abundantly clear you are just pushing your personal point of view, I will advise you again to be more collaborative and not disruptive towards the other editors. Also remember that WP:3RR apply on this article as well.

Warsaw Pact and USSR are subjects now that now belong solely to History and should be treated in that way, along a neutral WP:NPOV point of view, as most of the present scholar and academic research is doing, I advise you to keep in mind that. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's a "historical fact" as you claim, then provide sources. And by that I mean provide sources which actually make this claim, not a random source (like this one) which say absolutely nothing of the kind. Volunteer Marek  19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Come on, please stop playing games with sources

This text:

"Its creation was especially supported by Eastern Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia, who sought security of their unrecognized borders with Germany"

cited to The Warsaw Pact Reconsidered: International Relations in Eastern Europe by Laurien Crump. The source is fine, reliable. But that's not what it says.

First the source is *very careful* to distinguish between countries like "Poland" and the people running these countries. It does not refert to "Eastern Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia". It does talk about "Polish leadership", "Czechoslovak leadership", "GDR leadership" etc. The interests of the communist parties of these countries were obviously not the same as the interests of the countries themselves and the source is careful about that.

Second, the source does not say that Eastern Germany "sought security of their unrecognized borders with Germany". That would be sort of stupid. It does say that "East German leadership" liked the pact because it created an organization which was "the only international institution which recognized the existence of the GDR". Not the same thing.

Third, it does say that "Polish and Czechoslovak (communist) party leaders" welcomed the guarantee of the borders the pact provided, but it also mentions that this was "to a lesser extent" - i.e. it wasn't a central part or purpose of the pact.

Please don't misrepresent sources. I'm getting tired of asking this. Volunteer Marek  21:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"The interests of the communist parties of these countries were obviously not the same as the interests of the countries" That's a subjective and personal opinion.Who decides if the they had interest of their countries in mind or not ? They were perfectly legally reckognized socialist states led by socialist parties, like or not. Per international law they were governing this countries. In any case you didn't read the source in detail as it clearly writes about unreckognized borders and that fear of re-militarized Germany was major motivation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with the source which is the one that makes the distinction explicit whether you like it or not. You found the source. So at least use it legitimately, not abuse it. Volunteer Marek  22:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are seeing more than there is, there are numerous quotes that say "Poland" instead of "Polish leadership" or "American leadership" instead of USA.In any case I added quotes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The source is very careful on this. You are just misrepresenting it. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid source contradicts your claims. And quotes show there is no misrepresentation. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And I'm afraid you're making stuff up. Let's see those quotes. I provided quotes right above. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"And I'm afraid you're making stuff up." Every quote is in the source."And I'm afraid you're making stuff up." They are already in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the quotes don't support the text you've inserted. And you still haven't explained where this source talks about "Soviet Union fearing German militarism". Volunteer Marek  23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be because I didn't use this source you claim I did, but Indivisible Germany: Illusion or Reality ? by James H. Wolfe--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No. You kept re-adding the CBC source and using it to "support" the claims of "German militarism" here and here. Volunteer Marek  07:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't use the Wolfe source until later and for a completely different part of article. Volunteer Marek  07:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Please stop creating new sections which does not report in the title any reference related to the topics found in the sources. It seems just that your main purpose is to create confusion in order to make not understand to newcomers neither the issue nor the sources' content. Because of this I have again to reply you with what I wrote above.

• USSR feared Restoration of West Germany militarism, it's an historical fact. Regarding this, check also the United States Department of State Office of The Historian [12] from which I cite:"When the Federal Republic of Germany entered NATO in early May 1955, the Soviets feared the consequences of a strengthened NATO and a rearmed West Germany and hoped that the Warsaw Treaty Organization could both contain West Germany and negotiate with NATO as an equal partner." Is also the US state Department "stalinist propaganda"? -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You, and MyMolobo, added this source [13] to cite the claim that the Warsaw Pact was initiated by the Soviet Union because "it feared German militarism". The source says no such thing. It says absolutely NOTHING about "German militarism". It says absolutely NOTHING about motivations behind the formation of the Warsaw Pact. In fact, it says almost nothing about Warsaw Pact itself. So... please explain why you added text and then cited it to a source which doesn't actually say anything at all about the text inserted? It's not a complicated question. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You, and MyMolobo, added this source [14] to cite the claim that the Warsaw Pact was initiated by the Soviet Union The source I added is Indivisible Germany: Illusion or Reality? by James H. Wolfe, not the one in your link. And it does say about German militarism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No. You kept re-adding the CBC source and using it to "support" the claims of "German militarism" here and here. Note that in the text being re-added the phrase "German militarism" is in quotation marks, which suggests to the reader that this is directly from the CBC source. In fact, as pointed out several times already, the source says NOTHING about "German militarism".

Along the same lines in those edits here and here, you did NOT add the Wolfe source. You added the Wolfe source much later here, in another part of the article and also failed to correct the misrepresentation of the CBC source. Volunteer Marek  07:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting sources AND using dishonest edit summaries

Once again this edit, contrary to the false edit summary which claims that it just "add source with quote" (please don't lie) actually restores the misrepresentation of sources as noted above.

You are using false edit summaries to hide the fact that you are doing nothing else but edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources.

If not, please explain to us how, for starters (there's many additional problems) this source actually supports the text.

Please. Volunteer Marek  22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Here is just another example of who is really misrepresenting the sources here. The edit you don't like states at the beginning:

"The Warsaw Pact was in part a Soviet military reaction to the integration of West Germany into NATO in 1955". This is a part you are constantly reverting.

However, the Cbc source [15] you cite states:

"1955 After objecting to Germany's admission into NATO, the Soviet Union joins Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania in forming the Warsaw Pact."

How the first is not consistent with the second it is a mistery you should explain deeply to everybody here.

Even if not cited for that particular sentence, also the Cbc source support the fact that the formation of the Warsaw Pact was a reaction to the Germany's admission into NATO. As Laurien Crump points out in the book The Warsaw Pact Reconsidered [16](pag. 17) "there were already perfectly functioning bilateral treaties between the Soviet Union and its satellites in place, which explains why the WP has often been considered 'superfluous'."

Meaning that USSR really did not need WP, it was just a quick response to Germany's admission into NATO. Only in the years after, the WP was really improved with the active collaboration of the "satellites" which were promoted to "junior allies" (see introduction of Laurien Crump book). Actually this is a great book to improve all the article from top to bottom. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out where the cbc source states that the Warsaw Pact was formed because "Soviet Union feared German militarism"? That is the actual text under dispute.

Second, even the quote from the source you provide does NOT support the text in the article. The CbC source merely mentions the sequence of events. You are the one establishing a casual connection between them and throwing in your own original research.

Third, your claim that "USSR really did not need WP" actually contradicts your other claim that WP was formed because "Soviet Union feared German militarism". Not actually surprising, since this is all WP:OR, but nevermind that. Volunteer Marek  19:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And for funk's sake, this edit is not "minor changes", as it is falsely claimed in the edit summary. It's an obvious and blatant POVing of the article. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know not to misleadingly portray non-minor edits as minor since that's a quick way to get oneself blocked. Volunteer Marek  22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added sources that confirm Solidarity was supported by third foreign party, USA, which at the time was adversary of Poland and its government on international stage. For more information please read [Covert United States foreign regime change actions] article section on Poland(perhaps it should be added as hyperlink).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You used an edit summary "minor changes". These weren't minor changes. Please don't use dishonest edit summaries. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

USA and CIA support for Solidarity movement is well known, and no big revelation. Personally I don't see adding that well known fact as major change to the article.However as USA was an adversary of Warsaw Pact and legitimate Polish government of Poland at the time,and engage in covert hostile action against WP second biggest member it is a notable fact.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You used an edit summary "minor changes". These weren't minor changes. Please don't use dishonest edit summaries. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

These weren't minor changes. Please explain? How is adding simple fact like that a major change.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand why that wasn't a minor change, then perhaps you should refrain from marking ANY of your edits as "minor changes" since that can easily mislead others. Volunteer Marek  23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Can the POV get more ridiculous?

The factual text

"The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed against its own members—in 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia"

was changed to the ridiculously POV

"The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia"

Seriously? The bloody repression of Hungarians in 1956 and the invasion of a sovereign state were matters of "internal security of member states"???? Gimme a fucking break. Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be neutral here?

And note that this isn't a change which is even claimed to be backed up by sources. It's just straight up, unsourced, blatantly biased, POV pushing.

And also note that the edit stupidly leaves the "against Hungary" and "against Czechoslovakia" in there, making the sentence not just completely ungrammatical and nonsensical, but also self-contradictory. Volunteer Marek  22:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, really stop creating new sections: it's now this talk page that is getting more and more ridicoulous and more and more a complete mess. Is your main aim just to create a big non-sense confusion, only because the others' edits do not meet your personal point of view (POV)? I hope not. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there are so many problem with the article and with the recent edits that it makes sense to create separate sections for separate problems. Now, can you (or someone) address the actual issue? Why is the wording being changed to an obviously POV one? Volunteer Marek  19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your section titles did not report any issue related to actual content or events, they are only titles meant to attack personally MyMoloboaccount, and whoever reads your section titles does not understand at all to what you are referring to, neither is clear reading your comments. You have only managed to make a big confusion. Proof that your new sections are redundants is that you are writing all over again the same answer talking about the same CBC old source in order to push your POV and without taking in consideration the new sources brought to you (but neither the old ones).

Before you offended me and others labeling us as "stalinist propagandists", now we have provided you demonstration that the use of word "fear" when writing about German remilitarization in the '50s is legitimate (even used by the US Dept of State website! [17]).

If you want to discuss constructively the best thing you can do is to make a new section with a clear title related to content, so we can go away from all of this mess here. Remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoring stable version of intro. Intro is not the place to begin re-writing article. Dubious source is out of place in intro if it's even WP-citeable at all.

1. 'Am restoring stable version of this article's intro. This is a relatively well-sourced article, and the stable version of intro REFLECTS what the body says. What one leftist journalistic editorial says in the Sunday NYT does not a body of source material replace. The reason a WP intro is often or even typically unsourced is that it summarizes what is to come next. That's not to say you can't place sources in the intro, but they need to NOT contradict the sourced body.

2. AFAICT user mymoloboloaccount and apparently others are skipping the part of actually editing the article proper and going right to the intro.

3. It's obviously not for me, at least alone, to say that the leftist editorial from a journalist has no place at all in article if stated as a minority view. But the placing of this content and the m.o. is all wrong. An editor wishing to place content in an already heavily sourced article can't logically or by WP convention just ignore the content already there. You need to carefully read and understand what is already there and fit your new material in. And as in this case, if the content is controversial, minority, or fringe, you need to seek consensus for your proposed additions.

4. In fact the m.o. reminds me of an editor I came across who over a long period of time tried very frontally and stubbornly to Sovietize/Bolshevize several English WP articles--that were already well-stocked with mainstream English-language sources--using Sovietist and other arcane sources. (I'm not talking mainstream Russian sources.) Over the course of several years, this user was blocked seven separate times and was finally the last time for a good while.

5. That anyone can edit WP, it is said, is one of the project's great strengths, but IMO also its great weakness. If you want to push a fringe or even minority POV, the way to do it is to 1. understand you cannot state fringe or minority views as fact, 2. find some credible scholarly sources, and 3. seek consensus at talk for placing your material instead of starting an edit war which will lead nowhere good for you. It would be worthwhile to read and comprehend WP:Bold, especially the "... but please be careful!" Paavo273 (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Towards a slight elaboration and more nuanced version of the lead.

I have made the lead slightly more neutral and more nuanced based on two more sources in this edit.

• this They had used it as a cover for their invasion of Czechoslovakia...
• this See the paragraph starting from: Although the Warsaw Pact was established a military counterweight.... Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

For me it's good and looks a lot better than before. VM should have done this instead to personally attack MyMoloboaccount. The Routledge book seems good also for some new basic edit on the "During Cold War" section, while "Communism in Transition" book (from those pages) could also source more about the final years of the Pact. If I have time I'll do it during next days! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, yeah, that's good. I was going to suggest changing "at reforms" to "against reforms" to make it clearer but I see somebody already did that.

Flushout1999, MMA was blanket-reverting all my changes and restoring misuse of sources and then pretending like they were not doing that. I did not personally attack them. I criticized their behavior. There's a very important difference. Volunteer Marek  20:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think you have it done in the worst way possible, and I told you before that I have the Laurien Crump book (you can find it on the web) so I don't think he misused that particular source (I can cite you the paragraphs from pag. 21-22 if you want), I only see a problem of proper placing in the article. What you read in the book is that indeed Ulbricht (GDR) saw the Khrushchev’s proposal for the WP as a boost for GDR legitimacy, and Polish and Czechoslovak party leaders saw the WP as a way to secure their unrecognised borders with Germany.

The main problem occuring here is that if you both don't make an effort to understand each other and you don't stop talking like if everything is self-evident (what is self-evident for MMA is not for you, and what is self-evident for you may be not for him) then shit happens. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

first two paragraphs of the "beginnings" section...

...are atrocious. These try so hard to beat the reader over the head with their POV (NATO! German militarism!) that they repeat the same thing several times (else the poor reader might miss the POV!), are ungrammatical, there's no paragraph structure, the order of sentences is not cohesive, there's several punctuation errors, and they are basically unreadable. Volunteer Marek  20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph, in particular, is too much based on a primary source (the memoirs of Molotov). One should use a reliable secondary source for interpretation instead. There are many other problems. I'll try to get to them when I get the time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Volunteer Marek  22:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Marek there is a reason why there was fear of West Germany remilitarization, it's because (ex?) nazis were again being employed inside West Germany, the Soviets presented this as their main concern in their request for admission in the NATO. I mean, if you think about what ment Nazism for the European Peoples (war, violence and death) you may understand why such argument was not baseless (that's why even the US Department write about german remilitarization using the word "fear"). So I don't see nothing wrong about that part you labeled as "off-topic" and I will try to re-insert it in a better way so that it does not sound off-topic, but now I don't have time for it. And of course I am totally open to discussion.

About the Berlin Conference part, indeed I have no other sources in my hand for the moment. I took the informations now in the article from the argumented chronology present in that book, and I think I have been able to report it in a neutral way (I basically took away all added comments aimed at presenting UK, France and USA in a bad light, stating only their refusal). In my opinion there is indeed a main lack (which could be seen as POV): It is not stated 'why' they said No to Molotov's proposals. I personally believe they had concerns about Soviet behavior in the future (like more government takeovers like the one occurred in Czechoslovakia 1948). And that's why I added sentence "neutralization means sovietization" from Adenauer, to give some balance (not sure at this point if it was understood). I think it would be cool if somebody can find some secondary source to write the Berlin conference part in a better way, stating also "western" concerns which lead to "no to German neutrality and re-unification". -- Flushout1999 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Actually I think it's fine you took away the paragraph sourced with Wahl Alfred (the "off topic" one)[18], as there is not a direct link with the Warsaw Pact topic. It's one of my oldest edits and I made a connection with the "Soviet Request to access nato" PDF content and this other wiki page I was reading at the time, then I edited. In any case this particular edit of yours is fine to me. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I also tried to make some order in the first paragraph. I think the informations there are valuable and well sourced. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Volunteer Marek  16:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oh yes, the intro should be fixed. It tells that Warsaw Pact "was a collective defense treaty", which sounds like something similar to NATO, i.e. a voluntarily treaty signed by several independent countries, when in fact that was a milirary organization of several Soviet satellite states, which is something very different and should be said somewhere in the first or second phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

Only the Soviet Union fought Hungarians, no other country participated.Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Hungarian security forces loyal to the government of Kadar participated, side by side with Soviet forces, in quelling the uprising. By saying "no other country participated" overlooks the internal nature of the conflict, and overlooks Hungary's own participation in the crackdown. CarlsonC (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the intervention was precipitated by the Hungarian desire to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. Volunteer Marek  16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

re-militarization of West Germany

West Germany was defended by USA military forces. How many soldiers had Western Germany in 1955?[19] 250 000 in 1959. Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Remember that 1955 is only 10 years after Nazi Germany was barely stopped from exterminating Poles and Czechs. Weimar Republic started with considerably lower number of soldiers. There was certainly a justified worry in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia as the core of Bundeswehr was made from former Wehrmacht soldiers(100% of officer corps were former Wehrmacht officers). See The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture by Ronald Smelser,Edward J. Davies who point this fact as one of the reasons Nazi and German nationalist propaganda was successful in boasting the image of Wehrmacht.One of the former Nazi German generals in charge of Bundeswehr was Hans Speidel who was part of the July 20th Plot which aimed at preserving occupation of Poland post-war. If you read Polish analysis from that time, these facts are often pointed out as dangerous signs of re-facism of Germany. There was justified worry about these events and people reinstated into military service.

Polish analysis of that time means Stalinist propaganda.

West Germany was dominated by the USA.

The SU controlled sattelite armies before the Pact.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Polish analysis of that time means Stalinist propaganda Not really, we both used Polish sources published before 89 IIRC. Publications in 60s or 70s are hardly Stalinist propaganda, of course if you can find reliable sources describing them as such be free to add them. You know very well, that a lot of research on German war crimes from WW2 comes from 60s and 70s and is used to this day.

West Germany was dominated by the USA. And why would this change this fact? USA supported and protected various Nazis after the war, including those involved in atrocities and genocide, and it actively led to creation of "good Wehrmacht myth" as part of propaganda during Cold War. USA protected its interests, not interests of Poland or Czechoslovakia. You will find plenty of voices from that time in USA questioning Polish border and so on. "The SU controlled sattelite armies before the Pact." Partially. Remember that during Czechoslovak crisis, two WP armies(Romania and Albania) refused to follow Soviet demands and were able to do so. Of course there was control, but not total one(as for example the risk of confrontation between Poland and Soviet Union in 1956 showed)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The USA had nuclear weapons and West Germany didn't.

The Soviet Union supported and protected various Nazis.

Russia and Belarus support and protect Soviet criminals.

1955 was different than 1968.Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warsaw Pact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150924111802/http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=home.browse&sort=collection&item=Warsaw%20Pact to http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=home.browse&sort=collection&item=Warsaw%20Pact

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

American spelling of the word defence

This is an article on European history and to spell the word as defense doesn't look right to me as it implies this is an American viewpoint. I am not changing the spelling to the English version but the Wiki advice seems to suggest that the English spelling would be more appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling 80.44.155.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially given European Defence Community. General practice (though not policy) on WP for countries which do not have English as a primary language is to use US English for the Western Hemisphere and Commonwealth English for the Eastern hemisphere, and given the article European Defence Community, it makes good sense to follow that here. I've changed all the spellings except for the direct uote (which was by an American speaker, and therefore "defense" is appropriate there). Grutness...wha? 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox correction

Could the possessive apostrophe be added to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup required on "Heads of State and Government of the Warsaw Pact member states" section

The photos in this section are, to say the least, confusing. These seem to be the leaders at the time the pact split up, though there's no indication of that in the (lack of) text of the section. In the case of the Albanian leader, it is a leader who never presided over the country during its time in the Warsaw Pact. I'd suggest this should be changed into a table, listing all the leaders for each country during their membership of the Pact, with either greatly reduced images or no images at all. It looks bizarre to have Ramiz Alia listed but not the likes of Novotny, Stalin, Hoxha, or Brezhnev. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Spain in NATO in 1973

The map in the wiki shows Spain being blue and a member of nato in 1973. The wiki on member states of nato says that it only joined in 1983. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.180 (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)