Jump to content

Talk:Nikita Khrushchev/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Interwiki

Why is the German version linked to "Hu JintaZemin"? -kwertii

Translation

A famous fact about the UN incident in Russia seems to be less famous in America - apparently, because nobody can translate what he said properly. He promised to show his opponents "Kuzka's mother". Who Kuzka is remains a mystery, at least to me and the author of that article I read (which also said that the people working on the infamous 57-megaton nuke that was blown up in Novaya Zemlya ("New Land") called it "Mama"; apparently, they thought this must be it). I've seen a cartoon where a kid named Kuzka, son to Baba Yaga, made the same threat. That's their guess.

— "To show somebody the Kuzka's mother" is a Russian idiom meaning "to give someone a hot time", or simply "to punish". — Monedula 23:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kuzka is a diminutive of Kosma, I think, but the phrase is indeed a folk idiom. The "We will bury you" thing is a classic mistranslation, though - what was actually said was more "we'll be at your funeral", i.e. "we'll outlast you". JohnKozak

It was not mis-translation. It was literal translation. Mikkalai 19:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Any translation that gets the meaning so wrong is a mistranslation, whether it's "literal" or not. JohnKozak 19 May 2004
Any translation that tries to be smarter than the original is mistranslation as well. In Russian language, "we will bury you" is just as ambiguous as in English. So the real gist is not how it was translated, but what and how he did say. All of us know only pretty well that almost every politician had uttered a couple of blunders. While we probably can readily guess what he really wanted to say, still we laugh or frown. Mikkalai 17:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Currency

I was tempted to add

into the list of his domestic economy actions, but I cannot assess the importance of this. Is it worth mentioning? Mikkalai 03:05, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Kwertii 16:43, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pic

I have replaced the second image of Nikita Khrushchev (the one with the quote), with one that:

  1. Doesn't look similar to the first one
  2. Is higher quality
  3. Has a clearer copyright status.

Yes Kwertii, I do agree that more images is better in larger articles, but only when they are of reasonable quality! I hope that no-one objects to my decision. Marknew 19:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I second your replacement for another reason: the image you removed is aleready used in another USSR article. Mikkalai

Translation

The ISO transliteration looks rather silly. Probably we should not use it at all. — Monedula 23:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine or Russia?

An intro must be standard, but information must not be lost. Intro says he was born in Urkaine of Russian Empire. You simply deleted this. Please fugure out the correct verion of place of birth or revert. Mikkalai 16:39, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect. The second paragraph gives his place of birth, and gives it as being in the Kursk province of Russia. I don't see how any information was lost. Everyking 16:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Don't you see the difference between Ukraine and Russia (or Russia and Russian Empire)? Be more careful, or you eventually end up with something like "in Kalinovka, near the village of Kursk"(!) (Encarta). Once again, please do your research before removing data or you'll be reverted. Mikkalai 19:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I see that difference quite clearly. I don't understand your point at all. I deleted only information that had been entered contrary to the standard style. I do not know if Kalinovka is in the Ukraine or in Russia, only that Kursk, where it is claimed to be, is in Russia. If Kalinovka is really in the Ukraine, make a case for that and change it in the second paragraph. Just don't put it alongside the birth and death dates as Cantus did. As for reverting me, I suggest that instead of wasting time making threats, you should simply act. Everyking 19:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm not threatening you in this particular case. I am telling you that you MUST NOT delete data without explanations. If you see a contradiction, you put it on the talk page. Otherwise someone else will come and revert you, seeing no reasonable explanation of deleting some data. As for Kursk being in Russia, it is in Russia today, but at these times it might as well be in Ukraine. (A little quiz: where were Smolensk and Vilnius these times?) That's my point: you acted a bit carelessly in this case. Of course, I will act, when I'll *learn* what actually was it. But I hope you too will be more careful in future. Mikkalai 21:15, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to be "more careful" in the future. This is ridiculous. As I told you to do before, go ahead and revert my corrections and improvements if you want this article to look absurdly cluttered and contradictory. I won't revert back. But will you really do that? I have my doubts, because I suspect you also recognize that it looked ridiculous before my last edit. Everyking 21:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am not going to revert. I agree it looked clumsily. I am only going to figure out correct geography and put it here. That's how it works in wikipedia anyway: someone cleans up, next one cleans up after the cleanup :-) Sorry for being too didactic. Mikkalai 22:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shoe incident

Just a reference or two to back up the Harold Macmillan/Nikita Krushchev shoe incident:

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=8715

http://www.borderam.com/Prom031023.htm

http://www.civpol.org/portal/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=336

http://www.born-today.com/Today/02-10.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2368397.stm

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=148670

There's even TV footage of it, but I can't reference that here. Jongarrettuk 22:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was none.
Please take a look at what kind of sources you are citing.
What was with McMillan in reality: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/29/newsid_3087000/3087171.stm

Mikkalai 22:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems the whole shoe-banging incident is in dispute. Perhaps something the controversy should be added. See http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/ktmpost/2003/jul/jul27/features1.htm Adamk 20:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

This article seems definitive. It's written by Krushchev's granddaughter. Mintguy (T) 22:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have read your reference to http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/29/newsid_3087000/3087171.stm What I put in the article is entirely consistent with that. The version you reverted to is entirely inconsistent with that. Search Macmillan Krushchev and shoe on google and you'll find lots of references. Where is all the research you refer to - maybe if I read it I'd agree with you. Also, I'm puzzled why you prefer the Nepal Times over the BBC? Jongarrettuk 22:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've seen the bit on the side in the blue. Since the Macmillan incident is notable, I've added it consistent with the sources and left the shoe incident itself as it was. Jongarrettuk 23:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've removed "(Sources do not agree as to whether Khrushchev actually banged his shoe on the table, or merely waved it around.)" because Khrushchev actually banged his shoe on the table and I've seen the film were he banged his shoe on the table. Ericd 19:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since Ericd did not produce any supporting documentation, I reversed his change Kplayer 23:38, 14 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Google Research concluded he did not bang his shoe. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=148670

After a thorough search of the New York Times, Times of London, and Minneapolis Tribune microfilm, I did not find any contemporary sources before October 12, 1960 (the date of Khrushchev's actual shoe-banging at Ambassador Sumulong) that indicate Khrushchev banged his shoe during Macmillan's speech on September 29. All of the sources say only that he pounded his fists and shouted. I suggest that this Macmillan shoe-banging reference be deleted entirely pending any contemporary verification (news sources between 9/28/1960 and 10/13/1960). In the meantime I've edited the article to indicate that the earlier shoe-banging may be apocryphal, with a cite to a New York Times article from 9/30/1960. step_sideways 04:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I find this string of discussion dominantly to be absurd. I also recall seeing television coverage of the shoe banging event contemporaneously. Khrushchev banging his shoe on the work surface in front of him as he sat at the USSR seat at the UN is a FACT that has many eyewitnesses - myself among them.

"Google" does not access the sum total of all knowledge. Failure to find proof by "Googling" does not constitute the absence of information. It may indicate insufficient search, insufficient indexing, and incomplete information available through "Google". Fedoroff (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Khrushchev of Russian or Ukrainian ethnicity?

The Times reported a teenager from UK whom discovered four errors in the latest edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, among them an article on Nikita Khrushchev claimed Khrushchev to be Russian, while he corrected EB by saying he was Ukrainian.

Khrushchev was born in Ukraine, and was a leading Party figure in Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s and 40s. This however, did not necessarily concludes that he was of Ukrainian ethnic origin.

He was not. Mikkalai 06:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Leonid Brezhnev, who was also born in Ukraine, was actually Russian in ethnicity.

Could anyone verify Nikita Khrushchev's ethnicity? Thanks in advance. Sandmann 12:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He was born in the Russia in a peasant family, so I think it's safe to assume he is Russian. Maybe we can find a confirmation in his memoirs? 12:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There had been plenty of resettlement in the Soviet Union, and I believe the Kursk Guberniya is close to Ukraine anyway, so it's not safe to assume anything of the sort. —Michael Z. 2005-03-26 23:27 Z
He was not born in Soviet Union. But I agree that it is not up to guessing based on the place of birth. Mikkalai 06:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Woops; I was thinking of the wrong century altogether. —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 06:41 Z

Khrushchev memoirs

СНОВА НА УКРАИНЕ

1938 год. Вызывает меня Сталин и говорит: "Мы хотим послать Вас на Украину, чтобы Вы возглавили там партийную организацию. Косиор перейдет в Москву к Молотову первым заместителем Председателя Совета Народных Комиссаров и председателем Комиссии советского контроля". Тут Сталин выразил явное недовольство Косиором. Я уже знал со слов Кагановича, что Косиором были недовольны. Каганович по поручению Сталина ездил и "помогал" Косиору и Постышеву "навести порядок". А наведение порядка заключалось в арестах людей. Тогда же распространили слух, что Косиор не справляется со своим делом. Я стал отказываться, так как знал Украину и считал, что не справлюсь: слишком велика шапка, не по мне она. Я просил не посылать меня, потому что не подготовлен к тому, чтобы занять такой пост. Сталин начал меня подбадривать. Тогда я ответил: "Кроме того, существует и национальный вопрос. Я человек русский; хотя и понимаю украинский язык, но не так, как нужно руководителю. Говорить на украинском я совсем не могу,

In his memoirs, quoted above, Khrushchev writes that he said to Stalin that he is Russian. It is surprisingly scarse information about his parents. What were their names? Mikkalai 07:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A translation of the relevant part reads (“Then I answered: " Besides, there is also an ethnic question. I am a Russian man; I understand the Ukrainian language, but not to the level required for leadership. I cannot speak in Ukranian at all.”)

GrahamColm 18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Early days

Nikita Khrushchev's birth-place Kalinovka is situated in Kursk province, Russia - near the ukrainian border (some 10 miles), but not in Ukraine at all ! (see: www.fr.map24.com)

Best regards, Werner

N.S.C.'s birth-place is situated in Kursk province - in fact russian soil then and now ! Never belonged to Ukraine at any time ! WernerE, 17.2.05

Thank you. It is interseting how this blunder survived for so long time. Mikkalai 16:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*ahem* Everyking 16:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He moved to Donetsk in 1908. If you can read Russian, see http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/hrushev.html (note that his birth date and social status are controversial). --DmitryKo 12:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The error was about the location of his birthplace, not about his lifeplace. Mikkalai 20:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khrushchev or Khrushchyov

The family should be properly transliterated with yo, as per Russian ё. It's a post-WWII confusion that's explained in Reforms of Russian orthography. DmitryKo 12:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe Khrushchyov should be mentioned in the intro as primary, with commonly accepted Khrushchev in parentheses, just like Joseph Stalin is correctly named according to Russian Iosif on the first line. The rest of the article is fine to use either Khrushchev or Khrushchyov .DmitryKo 12:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dmitry, I think it all depends on who is writing the name. My aunt is named Надежда, and she writes her name in English as Nadezda (not as Nadezhda, which is more often used). Горбачёв is also written several ways -- Gorbachev, Gorbachov, Gorbachyov, и.т.д. I know some people with your name spell it Dmitriy, and even Dmitrij. For some reason, "chev" is written more than "chyov." (It doesn't mean it's the "right" way to spell, though.) By the way, I know in Russian, there are many cases when "ё" is simply written as "е" anyway. The only difference is pronunciation. 168.103.49.45 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone knows why his name is often written in Roman alphabet with a K, since the letter used in Cyrilic has in fact, the sound of CH (as the german ch)? --Pinnecco 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but most of the Х sounds in cyrillic are written as KH in roman alphabet. The Russian "Х" is just a hard English "H" sound. There are many ways to write the same thing (without relaying the actual pronunciation, oddly enough) but the conventions for transliterating from Russian to English are this way, I guess.

Khrushchev in his military uniform

I found an updated photo of him in his uniform. Can that be used? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Corn

This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 20:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. — Pekinensis 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

I changed this from "He has one of the highest ... reputations...both in Russia and overseas" to "In the west, he has one of the highest ... reputations", deleting "both in Russia and overseas".

Apart from the Russian dissidents mentioned, Khrushchev is pretty much loathed in Russia, either as an ignorant clown, or as a scoundrel to the millions who regard him as the setting in chain the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rise of Mafia-style capitalism. Camillus McElhinney 08:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the sentence altogether. Reputations of Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev are simply incomparable; still, Khrushev is probably #4 here. Of remaining Soviet leaders only Brezhnev left. The remaining ones did not rule enough to speak about their reputation at all. Conclusion: the phrase was total bullshit. mikka (t) 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - the sentence is best left out completely. Camillus McElhinney 17:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Political repression and Human rights abuse

172, note that these categories are to make it easier to find articles where these topics are discussed and not to label individuals or nations as guilty of them. Of course, these topics are more likely to be discussed in the articles of the actual violators. Why make it harder for those interested in these topics to find this article?--Silverback 12:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, note that other individuals are not listed in these categories. As for users being able to find this article, the likelihood that users will be able to find certain articles that are relevant to them over time will improve as editors work to de-stub thousands of articles currently languishing as stubs and work to link hyperlinks where they are not linked and should be linked. Inserting a category in a provocative location to prove a point, however, is not the way. 172 05:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I have put in a template for the infobox, a the previous one was nearly all missing. It needs a photo and infomation. Mindstar 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

hey whats up guys.. honestly ,... i wish more people wouold use wikipedia so i can have a discussion on khrushchev..

Misquote? "We will bury you!"

The famous "We will bury you!" line is translated in its own article from "Мы вас похороним!" For some reason, the section of Krushchev's personality in this article had the line translated from the very different idiom "мы вам покажем кузькину мать" (roughly: we will show you Kuzka's mother), which is apparently a Russian saying for "we will punish you" that was used surrounding their Tsar Bomba. So I made the change and returned the translation to the other Russian phrase. -- Bobak 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Obviously, no one has yet consulted a Russian as to what a Russian phrase means. The Russian slang would be more correctly conveyed as "we will flip you the finger", clearly something that "polite" redactors would soften into quite something else. God forbid that a coarse man's earthy statement actually be translated accurately.

Further, I have read that the original Russian of Khrushchev's mis-rendered phrase actually said "we will overwhelm you", using the Russian words for "piling over", which was more punchilly rendered for English headlines as "we will bury you". The context for the statement was Khrushchev asserting that the Soviet Union would outproduce the West in every possible sphere within 10-15 years. This was yet another bombastic boast that made the use of the word hyperbole appear extremely conservative.Fedoroff (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We all seem to be in the same ballpark. Do you have a source you can link or direct us to?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's better than the blatantly propagandistic use of the word "bury" in some translations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.78.11 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

House arrest?

The article states, twice, that Khruschev spent last seven years of his life under "house arrest." Where on earth does this come from? AFAIK, he spent his last years as a state pensioner: living at his dacha, receiving his pension, writing memoirs. Admittedly, he was closely watched by the KGB and I remember reading about his complaints that KGB has "wired" all his house, including the restroom. But this does not amount to house arrest - officially, his movements were not restricted.

Maybe one should change this to "virtual house arrest" or "close supervision of KGB", but I would dare to say that, to the best of my knowledge, there was in fact (technically) no house arrest. Thanks. ouital77 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Gulag

Some of the material in this section seems questionable. It is also at variance with the account given in the article Gulag#History and also in History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985)#De-Stalinization and the Khrushchev era.

It certainly seem inaccurate to state that: "The Gulag that was started under Stalin continued to grow . . ." whatever about the characterisation of the human rights abuses involved in Soviet penal policy up to 1991. There were indisputably mass releases of Gulag prisoners, politicals included, under Khrushchev's rule. Todowd 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

It would appear in this article that the blame for the Cuban Missile Crisis is being placed squarely on Khruschev's shoulder's. However, this man was also responsible (even though it triggered his own demise) for bringing about a peaceful resolution to the conflict that satisfied both the USA and USSR (Cuba, not so much - but that isn't as big of a deal). Additionally, the decision to place missiles in Cuba to begin with was a reaction to two things: 1) The advanced American ICBM program, which outnumbered the Soviets hundreds to about three (I'll have to try and find the hard numbers, can't remember off the top of my head) and 2) Because of the American Jupiter missiles already placed in Britain, Italy, and most importantly Turkey. This article simply portrays Khruschev as a guy that went nuclear crazy for a few days during the 60s which is hardly the case at all --Trump 13:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true, everyone is encouraged to get references and rewrite some segments. Khrushchev was in fact not nuclear crazy for that time. His resolution was peaceful, and in fact the US actions could have been perceived as more hostile than alot of the soviet ones. Solidusspriggan
Jupiter missiles were never based in the U.K. See Jupiter missile. The U.K. based IRBMs were Thor IRBMs. A small point but one that can be used to challenge the accuracy of apart your article. See PGM-17 Thor and an external reference is RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces, their origins, roles and deployment 1946-1969. The official history. Copyright U.K MoD. Author: Humphrey Wynn. Pub 1994. Pages 340-362 ISBN 0-11-772833-0. Brian.Burnell 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
whether they were Thror or Jupiter the fact remains that they were IRBMs. My comment was written without the facts in front of me, so I was going off of memory from my paper on the matter --Trump 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in Great Patriotic War section

Since I have no clue what was originally there, I did not correct it.

Its the first and second sentences, look for the word joints and party animal. 216.153.166.70 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)chefantwon

Thanks for the heads-up; I've fixed it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine cover

An image of the Time magazine cover recognizing Khrushchev as its 1958 "Man of the Year" has been posted to Wikipedia. This article is well-illustrated, and I am not a regualr editor, so I am not qualified to decide if it would add to this excellent article, but perhaps some of the regular contributors could decide whether to include it or not. Regards, Ryanjo 14:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian image?

"Since he spent much time working in Ukraine, Khrushchev gave off the impression of being Ukrainian. He supported this image by wearing Ukrainian national shirts."

fistly i want to see a reference for this, secoundly if its going to be mentioned, shouldnt there be a reason written with the statement?FabioTalk 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I don't know enough to correct this, but the legacy section is extremely western-bias. It refers to his liberation tactics as "positives" and his crushing of the revolt in Hungary as a "negative." These words are completely POV words and should be removed. The entire section is filled with a western-slant vocabulary. Again, I don't know enough about Khrushchev to be able to rewrite the section, but someone who does should fix this. Bsd987 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

According to snopes.com, Disneyland officials did not refuse admission to Khrushchev, and the only issue was that of adequate security. See http://www.snopes.com/disney/parks/nikita.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.124.252.249 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Former First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

There's a little mistake in history of the Communist Party There were Lenin - than Stalin - then Malenkov - then Khrushchev (you forgot Malenkov)

sorry for my English regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.79.160.202 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Surname

Is it true that Khrushchev's family's original surname was "Perlmutter," as some websites state? Badagnani 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, N. K. was born as "Solomon Perlmutter". Him being jewish should be in the article. 87.97.100.84 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs a massive NPOV clean-up, terms like "lurking", "brawny", "boorish" are weasel words designed to give a certain impression, rather than strictly report the facts. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "hothead buffoon" is also obviously intended more as abuse rather than useful NPOV reporting of fact. It's this kind of thing which gets Wikipedia a bad press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.169 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Two major omissions

There are two major omissions:

1. Khrushchev was a Trotskite, at least Kaganovich claimed this in Chuyev's "Thus spoke Kaganovich" Moscow, 1992
2. Khrushchev cowardly escape from Stalingrad (Chuyanov's Stalingrad diary).

Removal of 3D photograph of bust

I don't think the 3D photograph of Khrushchev's bust in the Nixon library contributes anything and I propose deleting it to make room for other photograph(s) that I have in my collection. GrahamColm 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with Soviet military-industrial complex

Might his relationship with the Soviet military-industrial complex form a separate section?

The article does note: "He sought to lower the burden of defense spending on the Soviet economy by placing a new emphasis on rocket based defense. "

A former Soviet test pilot told me at Monino that Khrushchev's support of the strategic rocket forces came at the expense of aircraft manufacturing, which suffered major R&D funding cuts. Evidently Khrushchev thought the aircraft would go the way of horses in war. Does anyone have specifics to add on this?

Also, 1963-64 was a period of decreased censorship of military and dual use R&D. From 1965 on, secrecy over this information grew steadily. This is clearly seen in Soviet invention data. Perhaps there was opposition to greater information openness within the military. Does anyone have additional information on this relaxation of censorship and any military opposition to it?

Further, somewhere it should be noted that Khrushchev favored more spending on housing, i.e., butter not guns. Russians still refer to the apartments built during his tenure by his name. JMartens (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration of last name

On the internet, most references to "Хрущёв" are spelled this way in English: "Khrushchev," as opposed to "Khruschev." If you put that back into cyrillic, it would read "Хрушчёв," which is an error. I'm wondering, who decided to use "SHCH" for the "Щ" sound? In the German language, I remember, the same sound is written as "SCH." It's kind of a petty mistake (one that's commonly accepted), but it's still a mistake. Would anyone agree? Or am I the only one who sees it this way? 168.103.49.45 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A distinct "SHYEH-CHYEH" was the sound of "Щ" a few decades ago. In the modern register this has been lost. Today Russians say something like "Xhrusshyoff". I remember, (in 1973), asking Russians where I could find his grave at Novodevichy. KhrushCHyov was not understood, (someone told me the time, "Kattorry Chass"??, my accent??). My two cents worths. --GrahamColmTalk 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard transliteration of the Russian letter Щ is shch, it's a convention that's been used for hundreds of years. Your arguement about transliterating back into Russian is pointless, because why would you back transliterate? In German Щ is written with SEVEN letters schtsch. Ш is written sch in German.

Transliteration is not a perfect phonetic rendering of Russian, it's a compromise between how the word is pronounced and a standard representation of the original Russian orthography. For example Путин is phonetically rendered as "Poo-tin" in English,this is how you'd explain how the Russian is pronounced. But we write Putin to represent the original Russian spelling (with an У). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.206.219 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & references

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Does anyone know why the images are not rendering on the article. They look OK on preview, but fail when saved. Some of them have been deleted by editors because they look like broken links. This is happening in both Explorer and FireFox?? --GrahamColmTalk 13:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WW1

Does anyone know, and can they put in, a bit more about what Kruschev was doing in WWI? Wikidea 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination

It should be mentioned because I believe it was one of the reasons for his fall from grace. Kennedy was one of his biggest allies, and when Johnson came to power he lost some confidence. AlexForche (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Canada

does anyone know what happened when he took a walk in a Canadian wheat field with his KGB escorts

burpalley@yahoo.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.254.250 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1929 / 1931

the article says that NSK was transferred to Moscow in 1931 to assume a party post. my recollection from hsi memoirs is that he went to moscow in 1929 to resume his education in the industrial academy (though crankshaw thought this might have part of a stalinist attempt to subdue the academy). I think NSK said he befriended Nadya Allilueva at this time, a link that helped him with Joseph S. In any event, I'm not crazy about the article's current verbiage on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.18.61 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev at Stalingrad

Need more on Khrushchevs' time at Stalingrad. How would this influence on how far Khrushchev would go in dealing with his opponents, such as Kennedy at the Cuban missile crisis. emacsuser (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

LMAO

"...He received a special pension and security detail and was allowed to live in a state-owned residence." Eh? In the USSR everyone lived in a state-owned residence. 32.178.178.60 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably meaning his dacha. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement in progress

It is my plan to improve this article at least to GA and hopefully to FA over the next months. Help appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder about the wisdom of having a separate section on "Personality". IMO, it would be better to give examples of his behavior in other sections to illustrate the points, rather than psychoanalyze him in a separate section. For one thing, there will be no good references for such material, except what lay people hypothesize. He is dead; he can't be evaluated for a psychiatric/psychological evaluation. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. As I grind my way through the article, that section is likely to vanish and the useful bits be inserted in other sections. However, this is an important article, we can't have it looking like a construction zone, so it will be a gradual replacement sort of thing, as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple comments

I'll look at Leonid, but it sounds like a good idea. As for the dates, we had this on Albert Speer and the policy is on non-English speaking countries, you can do what you want so long as you are consistent. Did I get the military details right? Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I was not aware of that. To the extent of my knowledge, everything military-related in that section is accurate, though this is odd: "General Vasily Chuikov, who led the city's defense, mentions Khrushchev only briefly in a memoir published while Khrushchev was premier". Having this inside parenthesis (before) or dashes (what I just changed it to) makes me think that the article uses this to draw the conclusion that Khrushchev did not play a major role in the defense of Stalingrad. I'm pretty sure that he did only play a minor role, I just disagree with how you are presenting it. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm also seeing if Khrush had a role in the cancellation of the Stalingrad-class battlecruisers, though that would be a minor addition to the article. Just as an FYI :-) Apparently I missed his reply, and no he did not. Never mind! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you suggest how you would phrase it using existing material, or should I look back at the references for additional material?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I really can't. :| The problem, as I see it, is that the article asserts this: "His role in the Stalingrad defense was not major" becuase Chuikov only mentioned him briefly. It seems off to me, but I can't rephrase with the info there. By the way, if you disagree, no qualms here. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure, I'll have to go back and review the sources, and I really want to complete the article first, then go back and go through it myself thoroughly. I think Tompson has a bit more to say on the point. You are right, it shouldn't be the lead fact in support. Thanks. If you notice anything else, let me know. I'm going through the domestic policy now, partly because it is vegetables before dessert, if you get my drift, the foreign policy is of course much more interesting, but it also logically follows.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Looking forward to reading through the finished product. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Depending on my internet access on my trip starting Thursday, it could be anywhere from a week to three weeks, I think. It's going better than I expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalin was not a dictator

Stalin did not have absolute control and was elected, so he was NOT a dictator, you all should read "stalin and the struggle for democratic reform". Cary123 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Leader is not a suitable word, do you have a proposed alternative? What about "strongman"?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Castro

According to a book I have, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles without consulting Castro. Castro said he realized that "we had become some type of game token." The trade-off for Castro ultimately was that the United States "shunned" the idea of an invasion of Cuba from then on. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

All that is true. Do I need to add something to the text as it stands?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so as, in the scheme of things, it is not that important to the article. More interesting is the relationship between Khrushchev and Eisenhower, how Khrushchev tried so hard but managed to screw things up, and the two worked at cross purposes. Can't tell how much Eisenhower intentionally played into Khrushchev's behavior and how much was just a fundamental lack of rapport between the two. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I do have in the article about Castro's rage at Khrushchev. And obviously Khrushchev was a very flawed person and a terrible negotiator, but would anyone else have done better? Khrushchev got the Soviet Union through a time when it was at terrible military and diplomatic disadvantages. I'm reading the Zadok book I put into the article, and Brezhnev and Kosygin didn't have a clue when it came to foreign policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why I wonder about Eisenhower. Khrushchev seems fully aware of the arms disparity, and at times, seemed even to betray that secret, Eisenhower apparently didn't have a clue. The fact that they didn't even have a rocket for a missile that could reach the US without a fuel stop—seems like that should have been deduced. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
From my Nixon studies and now my Khrushchev work, Eisenhower was either extremely naive or unpleasantly stupid. I think it was naive, after all how do you become a five star general by being stupid?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you get to be a five star general if you are tactically dense? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
He always seemed good at delegating ... but the whole Checkers speech incident. Nixon just ran rings around him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have a much higher opinion of Nixon than ever before, in part due to your articles. I used to have a very poor opinion, but that no longer is the case, despite all. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Flawed genius ... I regret I never saw or met the man, he lived only a couple of miles from where I grew up, but I was out of the house before he moved to Saddle River. I think my younger brothers saw him at the store there once. I'm considering an article on his post-presidential career.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And his campaign tactics make sense when explained. I grew up as a reflexively liberal democrat, in a family paranoid about Goldwater. My first partial reevaluation of Nixon was when he died, and I saw that my father actually respected Nixon and mourned his death; that my father had these emotions had never crossed my mind. It caused me to rethink. Then, as I became aware of China and its history, I admired what Nixon did in opening China, an act the effect of which continues to be important today. Where would we be if he had not done that! And the Russians seemed to have had a very high opinion of him. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
An amazing man. Although I did have a chuckle at Robert Dole's description of the photographs of Ford, Carter, and Nixon going to Sadat's funeral: "Did you see them? Hear no Evil, See no Evil, and Evil."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha, ha. A good one, although I am a great admirer of Dole, first based on seeing him tell his war story on C-Span, then enlarged upon by his behavior subsequent to attempting to run for president, including his Viagra commercials—his flexiblility in "getting it" regarding the new age of media. Plus, Dole is a very funny man. Great one liners and doesn't take himself too seriously. Can't help but love the guy. Also, I have come to appreciate that Ford "got" the role that he had to play in that drama, and did the right thing. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that he was addressing the Gridiron Club, so the joke was appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC nitpicks

I am posting these here, to avoid undue clutter on the current FAC page. These take us down to the "Education" section, so there will be more. A few slightly meatier concerns are raised on the FAC page itself.

Nitpicks
  • Great Patriotic War
    • I imagine that the "Great Patriotic War" began when Hitler invaded in June 1941. The first paragraph deals with events prior to the War, and could be appropriately subheaded.
    • "As the Germans advanced, he worked with the military..." As the last man mentioned is Stalin, "he" should be specified.
    • What was the reason given for Leonid's widow's arrest and imprisonment?
    • "After the breakout forced the Germans into retreat,..." What military action does this refer to?
    • The letters USSR and SSR are used in this section, (and probably earlier) but I can't actually find in the article where there meaning is explained.
  • Return to Ukraine
    • "Khrushchev sought to reconstruct Ukraine, but also sought..." Reword to avoid close repetition of "sought"
    • "As Ukraine was taken,..." "Taken" is rather vague. Perhaps "retaken", o "liberated" or "recovered"?

Recovered. Liberated would get me shot by the Ukrainians. I was very careful about nationalistic terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    • "He found time..., finding..." Reads a little inelegantly.
    • It would be useful to have more information on the fate of those expelled fot "not pulling their weight". You say they were sent to the eastern parts of the Soviet Union: does this mean labour camps, gulag, salt mines etc?
      • Source just says sent to the East. If I knew, I would put it in, I'm sure there were horrifying death tolls. This was definitely part of Khrushchev's dark side, not the smiling clown.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Stalin's final years
    • "These sessions, which Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev, and Nikolai Bulganin, who comprised Stalin's inner circle, attended, began with showings of cowboy movies favored by Stalin." Overpunctuated, with seven commas, the last two particularly awkward. Suggest: "These sessions, attended by Stalin's inner circle of Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev and Nikolai Bulganin, began with showings of cowboy movies favored by Stalin." AmEng might restore the one after "Khruschev".
    • "...they lacked subtitles" → "the films lacked subtitles" - but, in an article of this length, is such inconsequential detail necessary?
      • I think that detail really captures the boredom of that Stalin put his high officials through. Imagine, the highest executives in the Soviet Union, forced to waste hours staring at incomprehensible movies.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "...five- or six-story apartment buildings which became ubiquitous throughout the Soviet Union, and much of which remains in use today." The object of the secon "which" is ambiguous. Suggest a comma after "apartment buildings" and adjust to read: "...five- or six-story apartment buildings, which became ubiquitous throughout the Soviet Union; many remain in use today."
    • "Khrushchev had prefabricated reinforced concrete used, greatly speeding up construction." Rather tortured phrasing; smoother as "Khrushchev ordered the use of prefabricated reinforced concrete, which greatly speeded up construction." Starting the next sentence "These structures were constructed rapidly" seems to be making the same point again.
    • "to effectively manage" → "to manage effectively"
  • Struggle for control
    • Parenthetical note awkwardly placed after "Presidium"
    • "Khrushchev presented as a down-to-earth activist..." Transitive verb requires an object, e.g. "presented himself"
  • Consolidation of power
    • "Beginning in October 1955, Khrushchev fought to tell the delegates to the upcoming 20th Party Congress about them..." What is "them" referring to in this sentence?
    • "...who could persuade him only to make his remarks in a closed session." Doesn't quite fit. Perhaps "who persuaded him..." etc
    • "...young and well-educated Soviets in his district..." seems odd to refer to "Soviets" (councils) in his way, unless there is another meaning to the word? (Same problem over usage of "Soviet" in first line of next paragraph)
      • A bit confused here. "Soviet" is a perfectly appropriate noun, meaning a national of the Soviet Union. If I were describing a worker's council, I'd italicize.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The final sentence of the section looks to need a "However,..."
  • Liberalization of the arts
    • "catch up to" - "catch up with" is more idiomatic
    • Second paragraph: four "alloweds" in first two lines. Possible synonyms: permitted, agreed, authorized etc
  • Political reform: no nitpicks here
  • Agricultural policy
    • "...the delegation chief was approached by farmer and corn salesman Roswell Garst, who got him to insist on visiting Garst's large farm." The wording is odd - "got him to insist on". Why not "who persuaded the delegation to visit..." etc?
It was a little more dramatic than that. The delegation approached the State Department escort, who refused to take them to Garst's farm. The next morning, the Soviets got in their car and basically insisted on going there. All primed by Garst, of course. Garst was quite the man. Famous photo of him throwing unripe corn ears at the media who were getting too close, with Khrushchev convulsed in laughter.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Next sentence: "Garst in turn visited..." etc, but subsquently a few too many "Garsts". Why not follow with "He and Khrushchev became great friends, and Garst sold the USSR 5,000 tons of seed corn." That gets rid of one, anyway.
    • "By each time one of Lysenko's proposals failed, he was advocating another." Awkward-sounding. Suggest: "As each of Lysenko's proposals failed, he advocated another."
    • "...by repurchasing meat from the state and reselling it back to it." Too many "its" at the end. Do I understand correctly that meat previously sold by farmers to the government was first bought back by the farmers, then sold again to the government? If so, can this be clarified?
    • "Drought struck the Soviet Union again in 1963" - as drought has not been mentioned since 1946, some thousands of words ago, the "again" is perhaps superfluous.
  • Education
    • "While on his 1959 US visit..." This visit has not previously been mentioned, so the section needs to start slightly differently. Perhaps, "When he visited the United States in 1959..." or some such
More nitpicks

(to end of article)

  • Space program and US visit
    • The first two paragraphs do not relate to this subsection heading, and perhaps should be in a subsection of their own.
    • "Khrushchev was invited to visit the United States, and did so that September, spending thirteen days and resulting in an extended media circus." Grammatical awkwardnss in the latter part of that sentence. Perhaps: "...spending thirteen days there that precipitated an extended media circus."
    • "...(which the portly premier took full advantage of)..." A little personal, perhaps, for an encyclopedic article? Also a bit trivial.
  • U2 and Berlin crisis
  • Caribbean crisis etc
  • Eastern Europe
    • "...a Khrushchev-led majority in the Kremlin" Can you be a bit more precise about the nature of this majority, e.g. what body it belonged to?
    • "...decided to obey, deciding..." Suggest rephrase
    • "...Khrushchev persuaded him of the need to intervene." → "Khrushchev persuaded him of the need for intervention."
  • China
    • In 1959, the Soviets cancelled atomic cooperation with China, and destroyed an atomic bomb with complete documentation that they had been planning to provide to Beijing." I don't think you "provide to". It may be permissable English, but I've never seen it in print. "Supply to" would be OK. Also, the sentence needs to reflect that the Soviets intended to supply Beijing with bomb and documentation - it's ambiguous at present.
  • Removal
    • "[Brezhnev] instead spent time persuading members of the Central Committee, remembering how crucial the Committee's support had been..." Persuading members of the council to do what?
  • Life in retirement
    • "He received few visitors, especially since Khrushchev's security guards kept track of all guests." Since the "He" is unequivocally Khrushchev, the sentence should read "He received few visitors, especially since his security guards kept track of all guests." Is the hidden message that they reported these comings and goings?
    • "...while Khrushchev was in the hospital..." No "the" necessary
      • It is in American English, in which this article is written (Chamberlain, on the other hand, I'm writing in British English). I changed it to "hospitalized" which reduces it to a spelling difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "...and his son was transferred to a less desirable job." Could we be told what his former and latter jobs were?
      • Tompson doesn't say. Just that he and Adzhubei "were transferred to new jobs, which were much less desirable than those they then held; Adzhubei was forced to leave Moscow altogether".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Is a blockquote format desirable for the short "Never regret..." quotation? I believe MOS reserves the format for longer quotes.
  • Legacy: no nits to pick

That completes my prose review of the article. More substantial points are raisd on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I caught everything, though you might want to doublecheck. If it doesn't have a specific comment, I addressed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic name

OK, why doea an editor insist on reinserting that cyrillic version into the text? Why isn't it fine in the infobox? And just because other Russian articles use that format doesn't strike me as good enough, how many are FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikita_Khrushchev/Archive_1&oldid=1137046616"