Talk:Semyon Budyonny/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

An apology for reflexively blaming Adam Carr for the article's POV in my edit summary. While he started the article, the most blatant POV was due to a recent addition not made by him. Everyking 07:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I favor Ruy Lopez's version. "Crony" is plainly POV. Anyway, I think the article should mention his poor performance as a commander in the early stage of WWII, but it should also mention his skill as a cavalry commander in the civil war, which explains his rise to high rank. It isn't as if he rose purely because he was politically favored. Everyking 4 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

His rise to high rank was due to Stalin's patronage and nothing else. He may have been a talented cavalry commander, but this was a totally irrelevant talent for holding a major command in a modern war, as was amply shown in the event. That he was a Stalin crony is not a POV, but a well-attested historical fact. Why is a small faction on Wikipedia editors so reflexively hostile to any statement of fact which reflects badly on the Soviet Union or anyone in it? Adam 4 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

"Crony" has a negative connotation attached. That he was strongly loyal to Stalin is true, but that does not need to be characterized as cronyism. There are NPOV ways of stating it. Budyonny was politically reliable at a time when there was a deep concern about disloyalty among the high ranks of the military. Everyking 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

• Of course "crony" has a "negative connotation" - it's a description of a negative phenomenon. It is not the same as being totally loyal. A crony is one who attaches themselves to a powerful person for self-serving or corrupt purposes.
• "Budyonny was politically reliable at a time when there was a deep concern about disloyalty among the high ranks of the military." This is a disgusting misrepresentation of what happened in the 1930s, when Stalin and his cronies wantonly murdered thousands of blameless officers out of sheer paranoia. Blyukher, Yegorov, Yakir etc were also "totally loyal," but they and their families were murdered while incompetent toadies like Budyonny survived, and their survival led to '2 million Soviet soldiers' deaths in 1941-42. Your attitude makes me sick. Adam 4 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Fine, Adam, I'm out of this. You keep a hold on these articles with a Conquest-like POV and a person's got to be more aggressive than me to do anything effective about it. Everyking 4 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

I am honoured to be compared in even a small degree to Robert Conquest, a fine historian and a man of great moral courage, whose professional and personal reputation has emerged unscathed from 35 years of denigration by apologists for totalitarianism. If you want to place yourself in the latter category, that is your choice. Adam 4 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Adam Carr has broken the 3RR on this article, pushed POV in it ("crony") and has been abusive to users ("Your attitude makes me sick"). I think it's fairly clear who is being rational about this (me, Everyking) and who is being POV and abusive about this. Sadly, I somewhat agree with Everyking's sentiments, POV warriors like Adam Carr seem to have the upper hand on this wiki, which is why I spend more time on other ones. Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

• "Crony" is a fact, not POV. I undestand that the term may seem offensive in the given context. If one feels so, they are free to use a more neutral term, but to dismiss it altogether is ridiculous. On the other hand IMO Adam seems to misinterpret the posts Budyonny held: all positions he held in WWII (I added in his article recently) were actually nothing but sinecures: Budyonny did not have any operative command in WWII; at times he was merely transmitter of Stavka's decisions. The positions held are ridiculously vague: "commander-in-chief of troops" in this or that "direction". I guess, Stalin was tyrant, but not idiot, and did not give Budyonny any real job, and in fact since 1942 he held no positions at all, with the exception of that of commander in-chief of Cavalry Corps since 1943, which was a joke, and all his subsequent career was down the slope. He was merely a sample icon of the Russian Civil War. It seems that of civil war legends only he and Voroshilov were left alive. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

• I stand by the use if the word "crony" as a statement of objective fact. There is such as a category as "crony" in the world, Stalin had them, and Budyonny was one.
• I did not break the 3R rule. I think it is a stupid rule and I break it when I feel it necessary to do so, but in this instance I didn't, and I believe the 3R committee has not upheld R Lopez's complaint.
• "Your attitude makes me sick" is not abusive, it is a statement of fact. I'm sorry if descriptions of my emotional state offend R Lopez's delicate sensitivities. He seems very selective in what he finds offensive. He laughs off mass murder by Stalin and Pol Pot but is offended by my criticism of Everyking.
• The more time R Lopez spends on other wikis the better as far as I am concerned.
• I acknowledge Mikka's expertise on Soviet military history. I suggest he amend the article as he sees fit and then we can discuss his changes. Adam 5 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

In Alan Clark's Barbarossa, which I thought was the leading source on the German-Russian conflict in World War II, the author calls Budenny and Voroshilov "those two sly and durable toadies of Stalin's." Compared to that, "crony" seems pretty mild. darwin56 14 July 2005.

More bad and less bad are both bad. Anyway, since Adam has announced a hiatus, I think we should unprotect this article now. Everyking 04:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've only ever seen his name spelt Budenniy... Norgy (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible POV?

Budyonny was considered a courageous and colorful cavalry officer, but displayed an arrogant disdain for innovation and a profound ignorance of modern warfare, particularly the impact of tanks, which he saw as "incapable of ever replacing cavalry". During Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky's Great Purge trial he stated that Tukhachevsky's efforts to create an independent tank corps (which the Germans had already done and the Russians would hastily adopt in 1942) was so inferior to horse cavalry and so illogical that it amounted to deliberate "wrecking". To this denouncement, the doomed Tukhachevsky (now considered a pioneering innovator in tank warfare) blankly replied "I feel I'm dreaming". Tukhachevsky was subsequently sentenced to death. In 1937 Budyonny commanded the Moscow Military District.

This passage must be well sourced because the claims presented would be disputed by many readers in Russia (not nessesarily stalinists). Direct reference must be given, and text must be reworded so as to explicitly show that it expresses an opinion, not an established fact. And it must be shown, whether the source cited explicitly connects words Budyonny allegedly said during Tukhachevsky's trial to his actual opinion on military affairs. I suppose, that there are at least some western researchers, who belive, that what people was saying on Father Joe's Show-Trials not always was what they actually was thinking.

Some explanation: this text sounds like an excerpt from some soviet "historical research" of early 1960-s. "Historical researches" of that period are given now in Russia as much credit as such of 1930-40, i. e. the challenged passage could be written (or borrowed by some unaware western researcher from the work written) by the very same person who before was so busy with renumerating "noble feats", "celestial beatitudes" and "unquestionable talents" of Father Joe (though it must be admitted, of course, that Joe had, indeed, some talents, and not only grim ones).--Эйхер (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I've added the POV template to the relevant section of the article.Эйхер (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had plans to rework this article for a while now, I just haven't had the time it requires. I should be able to over the winter though. I've been reading Budyonny's autobiography and a number of other articles and books about him and although he's not perfect, he's really one of the most misunderstood historical figures of the Soviet era. This article will get better, but I will need time. - John Galt ✉ 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

One should also take into account that amongst many officers of the era there existed a deep distrust of the whole Mechanized/Tank formations. And despite this supposed exchange during Tukhachevsky's secret trial', development of these large mechanized units in USSR continued unimpeded, yet their failure at containing German breakthroughs in 1941. was obvious, many of them suffering mechanical failures and led by officers that simply lacked experience Germans gained in Poland and especially France. It was this that led to temporary abandonment of the tank corps and division, and switch to smaller, more manageable brigade formation. When enough experience was gained, USSR was quick to reintroduce large tank formations (corps and army). Someone mentioned Alan Clark's work on Barbarosa. I would countersuggest John Erickson, who was the first of the myriad of eastern front writers in the west that used Soviet resources, as well as German (which predominated up till then). As for Vorshilov and Budyonny, one often forgets other officers that benefited from the purge, and were far from incompetent - Timoshenko and Zhukov. All four mentioned had one thing in common, and that is they were all members of the 1st Cavalry Army, whose political chief was Stalin. That may be why they got out well from the purge, compared to Trotsky's and Frunze's cadre - Stalin knew them and trusted them.Marko Parabucki (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Other info

Not set up to add this myself: Kremlin Wives, pg 92 onwards https://books.google.com/books?id=cFxBIYW4AMMC especially page 99 where he has an exchange with Stalin about the purges. Also read (I believe Montefiore) a story about the NKVD coming to arrest him--he brings out his own gun and calls Stalin himself to get rid of them. --73.53.101.124 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Misquotation

"He was a notable horse-breeder, who declared that the tank could never replace the horse as an instrument of war." is a infamous misquotation, taken out of the context.

Here's what he really said: «Конское поголовье продолжает всё ещё сокращаться. Где причина, в чём дело? Мне думается, что, помимо вредительской деятельности контрреволюционных элементов на селе, немалая доля вины лежит на работниках системы Наркомзема, одно время благожелательно относившихся к прямо-таки вредительской «теории» о том, что механизация сельского хозяйства, внедрение тракторов и комбайнов заменят лошадь, а в ближайшем будущем и полностью освободят от необходимости использования тягловой силы в сельском хозяйстве. Между тем ясно, что лошадь в нашей стране сейчас и в дальнейшем будет крайне необходима и нужна, как она была нужна и раньше, когда у нас было мало тракторов. Лошадь не только не противостоит трактору, не конкурирует с ним, но, наоборот, его во многом дополняет, ему помогает» (XVII съезд Всесоюзной Коммунистической Партии (б). 26 января — 10 февраля 1934 г. Стенографический отчёт. М., 1934. С.225). «Что это значит? А то, что за лошадь, её сохранение и воспроизводство надо взяться по-настоящему. Необходимо прежде всего раз и навсегда покончить с вредительскими “теориями” о замене лошади машиной, об “отмирании” лошади. Необходимо раз и навсегда покончить с обезличкой в использовании коня. На местах, в передовых колхозах, в МТС накоплено немало ценного опыта, который Наркомзему не мешало бы учесть, обобщить и распространить по всей стране» (Там же. С.226).

Translation: "The horse population continues to shrink. Where is the reason, what's the matter? I think that, in addition to the wrecking activity of counterrevolutionary elements in the countryside, a considerable part of the blame lies with the workers of the Narkomzem system, who at one time favorably treated the wrecking "theory" that mechanization of agriculture, the introduction of tractors and combines would replace the horse, and In the near future and completely free from the need to use draft power in agriculture. Meanwhile, it is clear that a horse in our country now and in the future will be extremely necessary and necessary, as it was needed before, when we had few tractors. The horse not only does not oppose the tractor, does not compete with it, but, on the contrary, it supplements it in many ways, it helps "(XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b)) January 26-February 10, 1934. Verbatim report, M., 1934. C.225). "What does it mean? And what a horse, its preservation and reproduction must be taken for real. It is necessary first and foremost to put an end to the wrecking "theories" about replacing a horse with a machine, about "dying off" a horse. It is necessary to put an end once and for all to the impersonal use of the horse. On the ground, in advanced collective farms, MTS has accumulated a lot of valuable experience, which the Narkomzem would not hurt to take into account, compile and disseminate throughout the country "(ibid., P.226).

So Mr. Budyonny was talking about 1. agricultural use of horses and 2. near future and future in general; that was completely reasonable assumption for the year 1934. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.208.90 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor correction

In the sentence attached to the George Cross listing (immediately under "Honours and Awards"), the correct English is "insubordination", not unsubordination.

Regards,

86.172.29.215 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Rædwulf (non-member)

Speculative

Despite being scapegoated by Stalin for some of the Soviet Union's most catastrophic World War II defeats (although acting on Stalin's specific orders), Stalin had need for popular Civil War heroes: he continued to enjoy Stalin's patronage and suffered no real punishment.

There is no citation for this, and the statement in bold seems speculative and rather dubious. Clearly popularity never saved anyone from Stalin's killing machine. Overall, the sentence is rather contradictory. Was he really scapegoated, or did he just get a long overdue demotion? It seems, in fact, we don't really know why he was treated leniently. Perhaps it would better not to say anything rather than indulge in illogical speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)