Talk:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Soviet Flag
Why was the Soviet flag removed?


 * Because (a) it has been nominated for deletion, and (b) it did not originate from a Trek source and is not really Trek relevant -- as reference to the flag was not verbally or visually described (as the nation flags mentioned on flags and banners were). Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia. Memory Alpha pages are (or should be) based (primarily, and in most cases, solely) on information drawn from Trek sources -- and in (most) cases, images (should be) drawn from screencaps. The incarnation of the Soviet flag shown on this page was not shown in the Star Trek universe (nor was it even mentioned). At most, an external link to flag of the Soviet Union would more than suffice. --Alan del Beccio 08:44, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

contradiction?
I honestly don't remember the episode well enough to make this change on my own, but the article states that:
 * ''In an alternate timeline, Lenin was murdered in 1916, and the Soviet Union was never formed. This led to a dramatically more powerful Nazi Germany, which was able to launch a successful invasion of the USSR and the United States of America.

So "the Soviet Union was never formed", an yet Nazi Germany was "able to launch a successful invasion" into it. If the information is contradictory in the episode, then its my mistake. But otherwise its a typo and I'm not sure which is correct. —  THOR  =/\= 19:32, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It was never formed, but the Krauts invaded Russia.

Tsarist Russias capital was not Moscow it was Saint Petersburg

Soviet Union reborn?
In a discussion page for another article, someone pointed out the dedication plaque for the SS Tsiolkovsky File:Tsiolkovsky plaque.jpg. I noticed something, it claims to have been launched from the USSR sometime in the 24th century. I think it should be noted somewhere in the article, as essentially the canon would seem to state thatthe Soviet Union reformed sometime before the 24th century. --OuroborosCobra 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's god willing ;)

-G


 * Strictly speaking, "USSR" could mean anything. It's just an acronym. Also, dedication plaques don't seem to typically list Earth Nations as a build location.--Hribar 03:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This one does. Follow the image, it states launch location and nation. The fact that it is Baikonur and USSR, I'm sorry, but you have to be intentionally dense not to know that is the Soviet Union. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pure speculation. USSR could be the name of the town (it has changed more than once throughout real history), or some relevant controlling organization (most likely IMO), or perhaps the name of the surrounding province/oblast/region (or whatever they'd be calling it then), or maybe a new name for Kazakhstan, or even a whole new country all together. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to assume that USSR equals Soviet Union reborn.--Hribar 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the town is given, it is Baikonur! Seriously, did you not look at the plaque? Standard naming convention, city followed by country, comma in between. Speculation? No, it is not speculation that USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, especially when used on a plaque for Baikonur! Honestly, this discussion is BENEATH that of intellectual, intelligent people. In addition, I did not "take it upon myself," other editors have included this in the database for three years now. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the town is not directly stated. The facility is called "Baikonur Cosmodrome." Also, there is no standard naming convention for Starfleet dedications plaques that I am aware of. Given the mixed language use (and bad spelling) on this plaque and the apparent lack of a common template among all the plaques we have seen so far I would think that an intelligent person would shy away from arbitrarily deciding what this one says and what it means. Come to think of it, weren't the crewmembers of that ship going all wild and crazy? Some nut could have just replicated the thing and stuck it on the wall. IMO that's a lot more believable than assuming that the Soviet Union was reborn.


 * From a BG standpoint, back in the 1980s when they made this plaque there was still a Soviet Union. The town, BTW, was called Leninsk (Ленинск) until 1995 so we know that even the plaque artist was not using your "standard naming convention." The Baikonur Cosmodrome was still front and center back then and still is still in use today. Interestingly, however, it is not expected to survive the 21st century due lease disputes between Russia and Kazakhstan. The Russians have already initiated projects aimed at its replacement.--Hribar 13:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per MA:NIT, we don't make comparisons to reality, so even if it is being replaced, we still assume it exists in the future because a mention of it was seen. We also use common sense here, so if the USSR or Baikonur was mentioned in canon, we can assume it means what the writers intended it to mean.--31dot 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the nitpick issue and I am not suggesting that a real word comparison be placed in the article. As for common sense, I think I did a good job of offering plausible alternative explanations as to why "USSR" is on the plaque. Given that, as well as the overall ambiguity of the plaque, I think common sense would simply dismiss this as unexplainable- which is what I am advocating (i.e remove it from the article altogether). The problem with "writer intent" is that the writer assumed that the USSR would STILL be around in the 24th century. I don't think the writer assumed Soviet collapse and then inteded to imply its rebirth (which is what the article says).


 * Better, I think, would be to simply state what the plaque says and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. This is already done in the article that concerns the plaque. On that point I would argue that, at best, it should be footnoted (italicized) in this article while linking to the plaque's article.--Hribar 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity on the plaque except what you are making up to ignore common sense. It says Baikonur, it says USSR, that is not ambiguous. Lack of common sense is what you are doing, essentially suggesting that rather than USSR meaning what it has for a hundred years, especially in context with a city in the USSR, and a plaque written in RUSSIAN, that it must now mean "Union of Soda Sipping Realtors." THAT is stretching common sense, and frankly I've seen no evidence that you've actually LOOKED at the plaque. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen the plaque. Let me read it to you.
 * ''"Kah Zeh Tsiopkovski (К. З. ЦИОПКОВСКИЙ)"
 * ...I wonder who that was. It's not the name of the ship. It couldn't possibly be a typo of К. Э. Циолковский? Well I guess it's not worthwhile to question Starfleet's rigorous QA process. And we certainly wouldn't want to question the state of the ship and crew the only day we saw this thing either. Where was I...?
 * "Oberth class, Starfleet registry NCC-53911"
 * ...boy, they've been milking that class for over a hundred years! The registry suggests it was built about mid 24th century. Of course, reading below I see that the ship was commissioned on stardate 40291.7 which would be 2363. So, as of 2364, the ship would have been built sometime in the previous 100 years, registered sometime in the last 25 years, and commissioned sometime the previous year. Wow, I'm sure glad there's no ambiguity around when this ship could have been built. I wonder if 40291.7 is the day they made the plaque.
 * "Baikonur Cosmodrome,"
 * ...excellent place for a shipyard; beats Iowa any day. It already has pads to launch ships into space and just say the word and they'll have an ICBM ready to knock down Breen ships before you know it. The closest I ever got was Omsk but the people there were surprisingly knowledgeable about it. Did you know the Soviets built it? It's true.
 * "USSR, Earth"
 * ...hmmm, this couldn't possibly be..? No...? Yes... YES! IT IS! The SOVIET UNION REBORN!! Well, this poorly written, strangely multilingual plaque found on a ship full of dead drunks is proof enough for me. I'd better get on an MA article fast so I can write all about this bulletproof discovery. Wow, I'm excited, I think while I'm at it I'll also write an article about the giant duck on the Enterprise-D. Oh yeah, and I have been itching to write that one about how the Millennium Falcon fought the Borg in First Contact.


 * Seriously; anybody who uses this plaque to suggest that the Soviet Union was reborn is living in a house with one wall and no roof.--Hribar 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis of the plaque is greatly, well, insane. You are the one living in a house with no roof. There is no ambiguity as to the manufacturing date, it says it right there. You are inserting your own misbelief by claiming that just being an "Oberth" means it must have been manufactured 100 years before, and only registered later. The plaque makes very clear that it wasn't, and in fact makes clear that the Federation simply was producing Oberth's for a very long time. Big deal if you can't accept that. Your junk about ICBMs and Iowa is meaningless dribbel. I'm done with you. I'm sorry if you have to look at "USSR" and think "that doesn't mean USSR," but that is your problem. Just like Praetor looks at "some people are Christian" and says "evolution is not an accepted theory in Star Trek." I don't care if you like the Soviet Union or not, I personally hate it, or what it was. That does not change what the plaque says, or what is canon, or anything. You are the one inserting ambiguity that does not exist, not us. You are the one speculating to the ends of the Earth to make canon fit your image of what you want it to be, not us. You are the one plainly ignoring common sense, not us. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a different analysis Hribar. In Star Trek canon there is no record of the fall of the Soviet Union. However, what does exist is a reference to the USSR. Obviously the writers didn't know the USSR would fall a few short years after the episode aired, however, it did, but nothing in Star Trek, that I can recall, ever referenced the fall. Therefore in the Star Trek universe it still does exist. It's a similar situation with the Eugenics Wars that supposedly occurred in 1996. However, in the real world, it didn't. &mdash; Morder 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I'm wrong about the fall not being mentioned, however, the point still stands that the USSR did exist in canon and has been referenced in the time of TNG and therefore it still exists. &mdash; Morder 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

says the Soviet Union collapsed, but I suppose we should toss that out as ambiguous because it was said by some weird grad student. Good thing I believe in WP:POINT --OuroborosCobra talk 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know where you're coming from OuroborosCobra but my issue here is with the validity of the evidence not with the idea of the USSR being reborn. The idea of it is immaterial to me and your suggestion that it may be otherwise is unfounded.
 * However, after debating the canon policy with myself over the weekend I am reluctantly forced to conclude my arguments can hold not weight. MA seems firm in its statement that it does not allow evidence to be invalidated based on its crudity (production mistakes) or the trustworthiness of its origins (a ship with a crew that had suffered and died from polywater intoxiction). As it stands today the article reads:
 * ''By the 2360s, the USSR re-formed in some capacity. On stardate 40291.7, the SS Tsiolkovsky was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the USSR.
 * I still don't think that the plaque should be used to suggest that the USSR had been reborn into the same entity (in its entirety) that existed in the 20th century, and it seems that the writer of this text had the same thought. I would point out, however, that the line "in some capacity" would seem to violate the omniscient "all knowing" POV policy.--Hribar 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On another note, I seem to remember Past Tense (DS9) Mentioning something about "Neo-Trotskyites" in France. If communism could take a hold there, especially Trotskyism, then perhaps pre-WW3 they could have taken hold in Russia. This would make a re-formed USSR part of the "Eastern Coalition" maybe as a culmination to a second cold war. This is all speculation of course, but still. --The Accountless Avenger.

Future's End
In, when they travel to "our" time, Tom Paris thinks that there was still a USSR. Was this suposed to be a joke on this whole discontinuity with the USSR being mentioned in Trek?--UTS DeLorean 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I think it was merely an attempt at how "out-dated" Paris was by using generic late 20th century references, like his use of the word "groovy" and so on.--Tim Thomason 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Year?
''Around 1916, the Bolsheviks, and their leader Vladimir Lenin gained power over the nation of Russia, and helped form the USSR. (ENT: "Storm Front, Part II")'' This is definitely wrong. The Bolshviks gained power in Russia in 1917 and were not a relevant political power until spring-summer 1917. Was the ENT info wrong? ~ Martin Zuba
 * Are you mad? They were THE leading political party in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the industrial centers of Russia.

-G
 * No, he is not mad, he is correct. The revolution to overthrow the Czar did not even start until February 1917, and the Bolshevik revolution didn't come until October 1917 (hence the name "October Revolution"). ENT making the claim of 1916 is false in the real world. It should be noted, however, that there are many differences between the Trek timeline and the real world, unless I slept through the Eugenics Wars in 1996. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The Bolsheviks (majority, hence the name) was the political force of the cities. They were only out numbered by the parties that were supported by the peasantry. That means the Bolsheviks had the greatest economic and military power. To say they were "obscure" is just propaganda.

-G
 * Yeah, I don't need your propaganda, thank you. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They never said the actual Bolshevik revolution happened in 1916, just that Lenin was assassinated in 1916 which prevented the USSR from forming. - Mitchz95 02:47, October 3, 2011 (UTC)