Talk:Vasily Arkhipov

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): Teaspoontom, Discusandhammer, Jcassidy6147, StevenMadden. Peer reviewers: Colleen1596, JasperBloodsworth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parlamentskaya Gazeta, May 17, 2002[edit]

[copyright violation removed] MER-C 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mikka (t) 08:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to see such a long (and presumably detailed) article on Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, most users of the english-language wiki can't read it. Would anybody happen to be able to translate?192.235.30.80 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that. Also interested in learning why the Captain & co. couldn't communicate with Moscow to verify whether war had begun before making the decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswhowell (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is impossible for submarine while underwater to communicate with anyone outside of its sonar range (a few kilometers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.194.106 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably get someone from the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk to translate it to English, but translation might be considered original research. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parlamentskaya Gazeta, May 17, 2002 - auto-translation with minor edits[edit]

[copyright violation removed MER-C 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Well I hope this helps, I'm not good at Russian and this was a bitch to do. Personally I think this should be taken with a grain of salt, seems to be from some Russian text of some sort. mcnichoj (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obvious mistakes fixed. "died" instead of "rested" was cooool! 85.90.120.180 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Name[edit]

Is is Vasiliy as the title suggests, or is Vasili as in the text?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.57.64 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As every text reference dropped the y, I moved the page--Pennstatephil (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Book[edit]

``Cuban Samba of the Foxtrot Quartet. translates to Kubinskaya Samba Kvarteta Fokstrotov but the ISBN (5773400413) listed for the book is for Istoriya zapadnykh slavyan by M. K. Lyubavskij -- Esemono (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source link[edit]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/asw-II-16.pdf

Cwmagee (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a retaliatory nuclear-tipped torpedo"[edit]

What is this? Is it a nuclear bomb in a torpedo? Who was it aimed at, the pursuing American ships or somewhere else? It's hard to see how firing a torpedo would start full nuclear war, that wouldn't begin until ICBMs were launched? 86.140.136.88 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's exactly what it was, a torpedo with a nuclear warhead in place of a conventional high-explosive warhead. The idea was to take out multiple ships with a single shot. And in all likelihood, any belligerent nuclear detonation, of whatever sort, would probably be enough to tip the US to a full-scale response, given the circumstances of the situation. Kalmbach (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How significant were ICBMs anyway? Wasn't one of the reasons why the Cuban Missile Crisis was so significant because ICBMs at the time were still fairly limited so the Cuban missiles were more significant then they would be later when there were a lot of ICBMs and the US and the SU could basically blow each other to bits many times over? Our article says:
When Kennedy ran for President in 1960 one of his key election issues was an alleged "missile gap" with the Russians leading. In fact, the United States led the Soviets. In 1961, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). By October 1962, they may have had a few dozen, although some intelligence estimates were as high as 75.[6] The United States on the other hand had 170 ICBMs and were quickly building more. It also had eight George Washington and Ethan Allen class ballistic missile submarines with the ability to launch 16 Polaris missiles each with a range of 2,200 kilometres (1,400 mi). Khrushchev unwittingly increased the perception of a missile gap when he loudly boasted that the USSR was building missiles "like sausages" whose numbers and capabilities were nowhere close to reality. However, the Soviets did have medium-range ballistic missiles in quantity, about 700 of them.[6] In his memoirs published in 1970, Khrushchev wrote, “In addition to protecting Cuba, our missiles would have equalized what the West likes to call ‘the balance of power.’”[6]
Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed equalized the balance of power - don't forget that US already had nuclear missiles placed in Turkey. SU was attempting to returning the favor of placing nuclear missiles to their adversary's doorstep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.168.210 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nuclear warhead fitted onto a ballistic missile. Pretty simple. If it were launched it would trigger a massive US retaliatory strike. And we'd likely be dead. And that would be unfortunate. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

practice depth charge[edit]

"started dropping practice depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification." Is it confirmed that it were "practice" depth charges?

  • And what is a "practice" depth charge? Monado (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to a forum: "Normally , it was a hand grenade that was wrapped in toilet paper, with the pin pulled. The TP would disolve and the spoon would float off and boom. The deeper you wanted to go boom, the more toilet paper you wrapped it in. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.94.61 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Tide[edit]

Deleted text:

  • Crimson Tide, a 1995 film depicting a fictional stand-off between officers aboard a submarine relating to the launch of a nuclear salvo, for which Arkhipov's actions during the Cuban missile crisis served as partial inspiration.

The story only really came out after 2001. Of course it's still possible that it inspired the film -- obviously the story had to have been known to some all along -- but I really doubt it. Likely just some Wikipedian noticed the similarity. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note about Crimson Tide connection, but am just now seeing in the talk pages that this has already been addressed. I'll adjust my edit so that it does not imply a causal link. Davearthurs (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are still unreliable; changing the text does not change the reliability of the sources. Please retain the tags unless/until that gets addressed.
And if there's no causal link, there's no link relating to the subject of this article, and the text that it's unlikely that Arkhipov was the inspiration doesn't belong in an article on Arkhipov. TJRC (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the Widomaker, I replaced the two unreliable sources with a citation to the movie's IMDB page (also used on the Soviet submarine K-19 ), and also to a National Geographic article on the subject. I've not been able to find any reliable sources for Crimson Tide connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davearthurs (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death[edit]

Is it reasonable for an encyclopedia to report "The radiation to which he had been exposed in 1961 contributed to his death."?

The only reference for this is an article on guardian.co.uk, where the author claims (without any supporting evidence or even discussion) that "That radiation dose eventually contributed to his death in 1998."

Given that he 37 years after the incident, it should take more than the claim of a single journalist to support this being the cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.199.156 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PBS video states that he "succumbed to radiation poisoning" and died from kidney cancer as did many of the men on K19. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt For Red October[edit]

Is it known if the character of Vasili in Hunt For Red October is based on Vasili Arkhipov? 86.25.7.1 (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor grammar[edit]

The following run on sentence also is poorly constructed and now factually incorrect:

Arknipov, as flotilla commander and second-in-command of the nuclear-weaponized submarine B-59, was the only one of the three officers who had to agree to the use of a nuclear torpedo who refused to do so.

I agree it could have been worded in a better way, but right now it's grammatically and factually incorrect. The sentence requires brackets or commas to indicate which officers agreed to the use, and again who refused to act. As it reads now, it states Arknipov was the only officer who agreed to the use of nuclear torpedoes. Mkdwtalk 19:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did some polishing of the sentence, how does it read now? Thanks Mkdw. Randy Kryn 12:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a lot better. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy should be canonized as a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church. Damn he's awesome. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkhipov ... was a Soviet Navy officer who prevented a nuclear war[edit]

I'm not much of a wikipedian (so don't know all the rules), but surely such absolute predictions of the future are inappropriate? Even a "qualified" opinion couldn't predict the outcome of such a situation. 8dave (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and observation. I've added 'may have' to the lead sentence. Seem okay with that descriptor? Nice work. Randy Kryn 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace[edit]

This article lists two different birth places for Vasili Arkhipov: Staraya Kupavna and Zvorkovo I think the latter is correct, though I have no way to verify this.

68.197.220.64 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) MK Alexander[reply]

External Link[edit]

The first 'external link' is unfortunately now pointing to a site dedicated to pornographic images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.225.87 (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removed. thanks for letting us know. MartinezMD (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chief of Staff, not Commodore[edit]

The NSA translation of the Soviet Navy report (About participation of submarines “B-4,” “B-36,” “B-59,” “B-130” ... Section 3, second paragraph) calls Arkhipov chief of staff of the four submarines, not commander. (The commander of the brigade of four submarines was Agafonov Vasili Naumovich). This same term "chief of staff" (translation of начальник штаба) is used in the Parlamentskaya Gazette excerpt in the talk page, and the Russian version of the Vasily Arkhipov page (which I viewed in translation using DeepL).

Marfinan (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only half of the story[edit]

Arkhipov gets credit for preventing a nuclear war by refusing to agree to the use of a nuclear-tipped torpedo. But who was the American commander (an admiral?) who decided to drop depth charges onto a Soviet submarine in international waters? He surely requires credit for nearly starting a nuclear war. NRPanikker (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parlamentskaya Gazeta, May 17, 2002 -new machine translation[edit]

[copyright violation removed MER-C 10:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)] 70.51.83.211 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All out nuclear war...[edit]

Basically, all of our sources, at least the top results from the google, say that if the torpedo (a tactical weapon, and nuclear not thermonuclear -- article says it was a T-5 not a T-15) was launched then a spasm global thermonuclear war would have followed, 100% certainty. Maybe a few just say probably.

But surely this can't be true. Neither governments wanted war let alone nuclear war. It would extraordinarily stupid and evil for the American High Command (or Kennedy) to have a policy of "They fired a torpedo, one torpedo? The only possible response is that we must destroy the world." And the High Command is not comprised of stupid people. I don't believe it. (And I think -- think -- that we don't have anyone from the High Command, or anyone else who really knew, saying this. The people who are saying it weren't privy the thinking of the High Command, so they must be speculating, altho granted some are experts.)

Sure, even if there wasn't an immediate spasm war, thing could have escalated to that -- nothing's impossible. America would have responded. Maybe tit for tat, or maybe escalated, launching a theatre/tactical nuclear weapon -- or two or three or four -- or even an ICBM or two, against the Soviet fleet off Cuba and/or other Soviet military military targets (not cities). It is very very likely that Kruschev would then back down, as he ultimately did after all. Nor did his top generals want a spasm nuclear war. If not, we can't know what would have happened. But even if he had escalated, then Kennedy would have backed down. Mind you, "backed down" means saying "Whoa this has gone far enough. We will take the high road. Let us pause and have an emergency Soviet-American meeting" which the other side would have gladly accepted. But it could have somehow kept escalating to the end.

So yeah, in theory could have resulted in immediate all-out war, or that things would have escalated to all-out war. I can't prove that that wouldn't have happened, but neither can our sources prove that it would have

But, all our sources say the world would have been destroyed if the torpedo was launched. They have various reasons for saying this, sensationalism sometimes, wanting the emphasize the nuclear tightrope we have, they really believe it in their hearts, whatever. They are wrong pretty sure, but we have to go with them. I get that. But surely we can find contrary sources. I hate to pass on false things to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says The course of events that would have followed such a launch cannot be known, but various speculations have been advanced, up to and including global thermonuclear war. So, there does not appear to be a problem to fix. We're already using collective editorial judgment to tone down the dubious "certainty" expressed by many of the sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it say that in lede cos I just rewrote it. I don't have a source, I just figured it was true. It formerly said "According to several opinions from both military and scholarly figures, such an attack could have caused a major global thermonuclear response and destroyed large parts of the Northern Hemisphere". And that it sourced to Noam Chomsky. But in the body it still says "His persuasion effectively averted a nuclear war that likely would have ensued if the nuclear weapon had been fired", an it's sourced to a book by Blanton, who is a hotshot. I went to change that on the basis of "this is nonsense, and Blanton is just one guy" but as I said I couldn't find a contradicting source. So now the lede doesn't really match the text. In the lede we've got Blanton calling him "the man who saved the world".
Sure we've got "According to..." and "could have" like we always do and all but in real life that doesn't much stop the reader from being led to a conclusion.
And OK Blanton says "... a nuclear war that likely would have ensued". Sure, likely. And sure, a nuclear war could be one torpedo from each side and then peace. But most people don't think of nuclear war like that. The word picture is the globe blowing up.
It's a good belief, a compelling belief, a belief that gives much majesty to the event. I think it's bad history. There was a lot of hysteria at the time. There were and are people including many academics etc. who want to push the narrative that global thermonuclear war is closer than we think. There's herd mentality. So the world seems to have bought it. I could be dead wrong about this but I'd like to see some very good sources to make this quite alarming and emotionally inflammatory assertion. But then so you've got Kenneth O'Donnell who was in the Whit House and in the movie 13 Days he's played by Kevin Costner, and its based on his version, but I think he's just playing up his role and the direness of the situation. What Appointments Secretary wouldn't like to be played by Kevin Costner.
Of course I could have dug up the refs in the time it tool me to write this, but that's me all over, sometimes. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this certainly seems like the kind of topic about which there must be lots more source material (maybe in paywalled journals accessible through WP:TWL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vasily_Arkhipov&oldid=1216889396"