Talk:We will bury you

Old talk

Is it neccessary to have this page present? I propose that it be merged with the Khrushchev article where it most applies. --Zippanova 05:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It will only clutter the main article. It is a very separate topic, and it is normal to keep such things separate, while other articles may have a brief summary instead. Mikkalai 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, please read the welcome notice on your talk page carefully. I see you have already deleted it. If you want to edit here, you must understand how things work. It will take some time. Mikkalai 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

date

Saturday 17th or Sunday 18th? The two sources differ on the date. Bastie 20:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on articles in Time ("We Will Bury You!", Nov. 26, 1956) and The New York Times ("Khrushchev Tirade Again Irks Envoys", Nov. 19, 1956), there were two events that weekend at which Khrushchev made anti-Western remarks to ambassadors, the first on November 17th and the second on November 18th. According to the Time article, the "we will bury you" quote was made at the second event, i.e. on the 18th. --Cam (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A ref addded to the article. You could have done it yrself. Thanks for the hint anyway.`'Míkka>t 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to mention it here in Talk first in case someone knew about better evidence for the other date. Also the Time article doesn't actually give the date, but it describes it enough that we can figure out it was the 18th they are talking about. I'll add the NYT ref to bolster it.--Cam (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I added a reference to Sting song "Russians". I am unsure as the best way to add this reference so I just added a new section. --Triskell 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:

This quote is also used in the SpongeBob Squarepants episode Rock-a-Bye Bivalve. A worm comes out of an apple bringing greetings from "Apple World", and before it is fed to the scallop it says "We will bury you!"

Too trivial. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have cut the trivia from the article. If someone wants to start an "in popular culture" article—possibly on Khrushchev in general, not on this one phrase—that would be a better place for these:

In an episode of the television show NewsRadio, Jimmy James removed his shoe and screamed "I will bury you" to open a negotiation with Beth about Profit Sharing.

In the computer game Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, Soviet Vehicle units frequently use this quote when commanded to attack a target, presumably in its more aggressive sense.

Sting refers to this quote in his song entitled "Russians", in which he apparently uses the meaning of "we will destroy you" as a parallel with a (possible) quote from Ronald Reagan that says "we will protect you".

In the Spongebob episode "rock-a-bye bivalve" a worm is seen shouting "we will bury you!" before being eaten by the baby clam.

On another note about trivia, is the link to Mark Lucovsky really necessary? (Furthermore, is a page dedicated to him necessary also?) --anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.75.88 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perception of the remark in the West

I'm not competent to comment on the precise meaning in Russian idiom of the time, but I do believe that to be largely irrelevant. What matters above all else is what Western politicians and populations THOUGHT IT MEAN'T after making allowances for the fact that the precise quote was unlikely to be communicated to them accurately anyhow. What they thought it mean't (as I myself recollect from that time) was that it was a threat, and a real threat. Secondly, given that it was generally percieved in the West as a threat, it was a factor in defence planning. That's what defence planners are for; to plan ahead on the basis of what they know. And they knew that Khrushchev's threat APPEARED TO THEM to be a real one. In Britain in particular, it was one of a number of factors that led government to the conclusion that the U.K. must accellerate efforts to acquire an independent nuclear force, that at the time of Khruschev's threat barely existed; their first fission bomb was only delivered to the airforce in 1953 and there were no aircraft able to carry it. A U.K. thermonuclear bomb was not tested until two years after Mr K's threat, and was then several more years from deployment. Brian.Burnell 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant? Come on. This is a standard example of a quotation being deliberately misinterpreted and used to fuel public fear. The Western governments were not going to base military strategy on a single comment. That's absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

both of you - WP:FORUM !!!! 104.169.37.99 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's try not to rewrite history here, guys

He took his shoe off, and pounded the table vigorously while shouting 'we will bury you' during the height of the cold war. In what world is that even potentially not a threat? It is a dubious to even imply that there was some subtle underlying miscommunicated subtext involved.

On Planet Earth. You don't need to connect facts the way you're used to. There are other ways as well. - 37.9.29.40 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line: It doesn't matter. Whether the statement was a threat (no matter how obviously), or a miscommunication (no matter how dubiously) neutral tone demands that we only report what he said, and the manner in which he said it. Our interpretations are based on conjecture and speculation.

But you don't know what he said. The most important difference between languages is that people use the “same” words for different reasons, that doesn't just boil down to the meaning of words (which is a lesser difference). English is just too over-concerned with the “Platonic ideas” & it often fails to draw attention to “the mechanics of feeling”, as some other languages do, like Russian & (I think) Italian. Also, the contexts differ. There were two Cold Wars, one in the Soviet Union and the other in the United States.

So, you're the one rewriting history here. - 37.9.29.40 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

" In 1956 a British prime minister was on the receiving end. It was a speech to the United Nations by Harold Macmillan that Soviet President Nikita Kruschev famously interrupted by beating his shoe against his desk before shouting to the US representatives "We will bury you".

Macmillan, in keeping with his reputation for unflappability, responded to the highly irregular shoe-banging with: "I shall have to have that translated!"

"

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2368397.stm

DrAvery 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. He did not say "we will bury you" while banging the shoe; they were separate incidents. Superm401 - Talk 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of Context?

"The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you"—a meaning more akin to "we will attend your funeral" than "we shall cause your funeral"."

The part about "slaves to collectivism" exists just in your imagination, it was not actually said; capitalist and communist economies both lead to collectivist slavery one no less and no more than another, just in different ways. Surely, Khrushchov did not mean a slavery version of communism, so it is strange to interpret his words in the sense "you'll be enslaved". This is just a strange interpretation, not a fact. - 89.110.31.26 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is belligerent either way. If someone told you "(we) will attend your funeral", how would you react? He basically told us that he would destroy our way of life and that our children would be slaves to collectivism. His exact words were: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you. Your children will live under communism". That is a belligerent statement. By the way, if anyone here ever visits his grave, toss a handfull of dirt onto it and ask the first person you see where the closest McDonald's is.70.172.198.145 08:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mike Reason

"visits his grave": ROTLMAO `'Míkka 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The McDuck remark is funny. No, I won't ask that unless I want to destroy my health. The remark is of the kind "made shit, am happy" (please do not take this personally, I do not mean exactly you). ;)

It is clearly a belligerent statement and the offending paragraph in the article quoted above is an effort in excuse making and obscurantism. The article should present the quote in its full context but it should not attempt to engage in original research and speculation about what the phrase "may have been intended to mean" in an effort to obscure the very obvious meaning of a boorish, offensive and belligerent threat at the height of the cold war. I doubt this needs extensive talk page discussion, especially when considered in its true context; diplomatic language that is carefully crafted to convey specific meanings and limitations of a governments foreign policy. The offending section of the article as its stands is not history and it does not inform, is it historical revisionism and playing Khrushchev apologist. 58.173.51.73 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. When heard this sentence, one could possibly take an offence (if he is sure he just cannot be wrong in anything), but no one would ever see this as a physical threat. The sentence simply means "we definitely shall win" in a joking manner. You could say that to your friend safely if the context is some competition. It is no speculation, it is a fact of language. The sentence is "clearly belligrent" in nothing but your imagination. - 89.110.31.26 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets Make this straight

Here is the original text:

"Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем". And this is not what original article states. Literal translation "Мы вас закопаем" is a slang and it means "win over you after long struggle". No, it does not mean "outlast". And of course it does not mean "kill" or "put somebody in the grave".

Source: Gorbachev's

"Перестройка и новое мышление для нашей страны и для всего мира"

Wikisib (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The point that many Americans are missing is that Russian, as a language, is tasked for expressing relations between people greatly more than English is, and it aims a lot of its metaphorical power there. They do not understand that "мы вас закопаем" ("we will dig you") means little more than "we are better than you" (a sentiment that can offend someone only if he has some excessive self-pride); what Gorbachov was going to explain were the causes why Khrusciov might have used this slangy expression rather than the reasons for him to do it; this also is what gets immediately understood by any Russian, but remains hidden for English-speaking people. If Americans claim they know Russian better than Russians themselves, that's entirely their fault... - 89.110.0.120 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

закопаем - outlast - outlive

It seems to me that "outlive" is the closest idiomatic translation of "закопаем" in context. "Bury" is significantly more grave. I wonder if we'll ever know who had supplied this translation and if there was ever a discussion. Alex.K.NY (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and I'm disappointed that this explanation is not included in the article. All he meant was that "your society will collapse before ours will". The irony, given what happened in the subsequent three decades, is rich. --B2C 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• The idiom has only one meaning and I suggest to change the accurate translation in the article to outlast/outlive.--Dignitee (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No. The accurate translation is "bury". "Outlive" is an interpretation of the idiom. You cannot pick Khrushchev's brains to know what he actually meant. The article discusses this at lenghts. - Altenmann >talk 18:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an accurate translation of an idiom is one that conveys its message, not its literal meaning. It is quite clear what Khrushchev meant, because he explained it, and also, because it's obvious to anyone who is able to think logically and wants to do so (although some basic familiarity with Marxist doctrine and the context does help). That's why I find all this talk of mistranslations and idioms ridiculous - and I'm not convinced that there is much of an idiom at play here either. You don't really need any subtle specialist explanations or anything more than basic knowledge of English: 'we will bury you' does not mean the same thing as 'we will kill you' and is not a plausible way of expressing that message. (How would that work - 'we will bury you alive' or something?) 'We will bury you' only presupposes that you will be dead at some point at which we will still be alive. If Khrushchev had meant 'we will kill you', he could have simply said 'we will kill you'. Of course 'you' didn't and couldn't mean all Americans/Westerners, nor did 'we' mean all Russians - the pronouns stood for capitalist system and socialist system/movement, respectively. And of course 'die' meant the disappearance of a system, not the physical death of individuals. It was always quite clear that he didn't mean that he would attack and kill all Americans/Westerners, but that the capitalist system would eventually crumble and communism would be established everywhere. The whole grotesque notion that he was threatening to physically destroy the West with nuclear bombs was always utterly ludicrous and paranoid. And it wasn't due to poor translation missing some subtleties, it was due to Western politicians, journalists and 'analysts' wilfully playing stupid and propagandising their gullible and hysterical populations. The phrase doesn't have to be translated in a non-literal way, because interpreting it incorrectly, as Westerners did, is what takes a special effort or an unbalanced mindset (I don't know, maybe growing up with comic books makes people see comic book villains everywhere?). And as long as these preconditions are present, any wording, no matter how clear, can be twisted.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Did he say Похороним or закопаем?

In the above Gorbachev's quotation Khrushchev said 'закопаем' (zakopaem) in place of 'похороним' (pohoronim), and russian wikipedia also states that the original word was 'zakopaem'. These words are synonyms in russian, and I believe that the quotation in the article should be changed to the latter form.

Also, here are my two cents to the interpretation of his speech: as you might know Khrushchev was not as highly educated as his fellow english and american ambassadors. In fact he had to earn his living instead of school since 14. Actually bad manners were kind of fashionable things amongst Party leaders at that time. So it looks natural to me that he sometimes couldn't see difference between diplomatic meetings and private conversation. In private conversation 'we will bury you' sounds more like profanity or swearing, than military threat.

Offtopic: This is closely connected to the whole problem of perception of Cold War struggle of regimes in the West and USSR: to the westerners it was to the greater extent military struggle and the soviet POV on it was like natural competition. Internal perception. 213.131.7.83 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Pohoronim has more specific grave connotation whereas zakapaem is simply bury. I say it is changed to zakapaem, as that is how the phrase is used in regular speech and it sounds better that way. 109.155.124.222 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible transliteration error?

Could someone look at the transliteration? I'm pretty sure that Мы is not My. Of course, I could be wrong. In that case I would suggest the use of IPA.
173.24.177.179 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's correct. There's no "official" transliteration systems of Russian, but in the most (if not all) of them "ы" transliterated as "y". Also, "we" is "my" in many Slavic languages that using Latin script. 77.35.49.39 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ы is transliterated as Y. Romanization of Russian --Dignitee (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevance?

Not sure I understand the relevance of; "Another famous Khrushchev prediction was made to the then U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon at an American technology exhibit in Moscow: "In 7 years we will reach the level of America. When we catch up and pass you by, we'll wave to you." being placed in this article as the two aren't really related as far as I can tell. I also took out there it said that Khrushchev made a failed prediction or whatever it was because, though it did not happen in his lifetime, and may not happen in mine, who is to say the American Porletariat will not overthrow American capitalism as Khrushchev predicted?

dead link

The "Comments" link to comments by Stephen Pearl (Chief of the English Interpretation Section of the U.N. in New York from _1980 to 1994) in the External Links no longer works. Instead it leads to the message: We're sorry, access to http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.studies.literature.slavic/2220 has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt. I did a very bad internet search and didn't find it, but I'll try digging harder and see if I turn it up. Cloveapple (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks the link's source was a post by Stephen Pearl to a listserv email list that used to have public copies archived by gmane.org under the name culture.studies.literature.slavic, but the original listserv's actual name is "SEELANGS" the "Slavic and East European Languages and Literature" list

There is also a usenet post that quotes the complete text of the original message as part of a debate. (The quote starts with "I was Chief of the English Interpretation Section of the U.N. in New York from 1980 to 1994..." and continues to the end of the post.) Cloveapple (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

was or is?

Re: "We will bury you was (or is?) a phrase famously used by Kruschev...

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar#was or is?. --B2C 20:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If that had been your initial edit there wouldn't have been an issue.--Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no semantic difference in these two sentences, and they are both grammatically correct:

1. "We will bury you!" is a phrase that was famously used by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev.
2. "We will bury you!" is a phrase famously used by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev.

In #1, the "that was" is superfluous.

In #2, the "that was" is implied.

Now that are using #1, we can remove the superfluous "that was" and we have #2, which matches my initial edit. --B2C 01:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Who will dig whom in

What does this mean? Is there a better translation available?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to "agrarian scientists"

The last sentence of the history section has the line "...the image used by Khrushchev was inspired by the acute discussions among Soviet agrarian scientists in the 1930s..." with "agrarian scientists" linking to the article on modern agricultural science. This link does not seem very helpful, so I wonder whether there is a more appropriate target. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

actually, this is the correct link for the term. However one must double-check the Russian original. It is quite possibly that agronomists were actually mentioned. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW Russian google gives the following quote abundantly (copycats, I guess):

У нас один спорный вопрос – земельный: кто кого закопает. (Обращено камериканцам, речь на пленуме ЦК КПСС 21 июня 1963 года.)

Interesting to verify against the source. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually a book gives a longer quote (with the same place/date ref)"

“Как говорили красноармейцы во время гражданской войны: с белыми у нас один спорный вопросs (...) это земельный вопрос (...) Кто кого закопает раньше. (...) У нас с капитализмом такой же вопрос» (речь на пленуме ЦК 21 июня 1965 г.).

- üser:Altenmann >t 05:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In other words, Gorbachev's version about agrarniks is bullshit. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Жестокие удары обрушивались тогда и на ученых, и на поэтов, и на иных выдающихся или простых людей, не говоря уже о партийно-государственных деятелях. Один из них шутил по этому поводу: «У меня со Сталиным разногласия по аграрному вопросу — кто кого закопает».

So, it can be it was a popular joke in these times. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

list of westerners that balked

A list of the NATO members that got up and walked out w/country would be helpful info. 104.169.37.99 (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What happened with the best translation?

“We will outlast you” was clearly the best translation. It was removed. 67.83.101.225 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit by IP. I would support its restoration if reliable sources confirm it. Brandmeister^talk 21:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)