Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Litvinov issue-2

Dear Mosedschurte,
Wonderful! I would say, I got an intellectual orgasm after reading that. I concede, you are among the most interesting opponents.
Before we continue, let me make one comment on you complaints on removal of some pieces of text made by me. The Be bold policy encourages users to "add, revise, and edit the article". If someone opposes the changes, all problems are resolved by a discussion on the talk page. That is a normal WP policy, and you cannot say that I refuse to discuss anything. BTW you are bold too (or too bold).
Let me remind you also, that, after you started to follow the Be bold policy, you thereby agree that any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further.
In addition, on the same page you are, probably, typing your responce right now, you can see the message:"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it". Therefore, I simply cannot understand the reasons for your discontent.

Going back to the subject of the discussion, let me point out that I appreciate your patience, productivity and your ability to work with sources.

Unfortunately, some problems still persist, however. Of course, I believe we resolve them soon, because both you and I have come to consensus about the extreme importance of intellectual honesty. I promise you to adhere to this position in future.

What does intellectual honesty require form us? To my opinion, it requires to concede that:

1. Litvinov ethnicity was an impassable barrier for achieving any agreement between Germany and the USSR. Some quotes provided by me and enormous amount of quotes meticulously collected by you (once again, I really impressed) demonstrate it unequivocally. Initially, I removed the mentioning of Litvinov's ethnicity, because the sources didn't make any stress on that fact, but after you insisted, politely explained and provided additional sources I have no objections against that. Therefore, the only question remains: in which context his ethnicity should be resented?
2. Litvinov's dismissal, for sure, broke the major barrier for the Soviet-German dialog. However, let's return to the major question, namely, what purposes did Stalin pursue by this step, and, concretely, was the desire to please Germany his major, or, even important motif? In other words, do we have to make so big stress on that and, therefore can we present it chiefly in the Soviet-German context? I wouldn't say so. Only part of the sources provided by you allow us to do such an assertion. They are (i) Nekrich, (ii) Israeli? (although indirectly), (iii) Herf, (iv) Osborn, (v) Childs (directly), (vi) Jeffers, (vii) Lumans, (viii) Weeks, (ix) Moss, (x) Stackelberg, (xi) Fest, and (xxii) Mann. Twelve out of 25 sources state that Litvinov's dismissal was primarily a signal to Germany. Other sources note that Germany was pleased, that the dismissal removed a barrier etc. - the statements no one argue about. Once again, only half of your sources state that the rapprochement with Germany was among primary reasons for Litvinov's dismissal and connect it to his ethnicity.
3. In connection to that, let's ask ourselves: how many sources do not take into account Jewish ethnicity of Litvinov? If you go to http://www.scholar.google.com you will get 266 results for "litvinov dismissal -jew -jewish", and 195 for "litvinov dismissal jew OR jewish". In other words, greater amount of sources discuss his dismissal out of the context of his ethnicity.
   Jstor.org gives 87, 39, accordingly.
   Your lovely books.google.com - 625 and 257.
   Intellectual honesty tells me that majority scholarly articles and books tell nothing about Litvinov's ethnicity in a context of his dismissal.
   One more point. When I did the search, Google Scholar proposed me (as it usually does) five names of the authors who seem to be the most relevant to the subject of the search. These names were: "G Roberts - J Haslam - D Bishop - G Gorodetsky - R Donaldson. Based on that, none of them could be named a "fringe theorist", therefore, both you and I can refer to the Roberts' as a mainstream researcher.
   I'll continue tomorrow.
   Good night,
   --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Initially, I removed the mentioning of Litvinov's ethnicity, because the sources didn't make any stress on that fact, but after you insisted, politely explained and provided additional sources I have no objections against that.

->And all I had to do was blow an hour and a half on 20+ sources, complete with sites and block quotes for one sentence deep in an article on Wikipedia that couldn't have been more obvious in the first place.
->To be serious for a moment, when -- as in this case -- you don't know what the sources on a subject say, don't just assume they don't say what they purport to and delete the point.

Re: The Be bold policy encourages users to "add, revise, and edit the article".

-> One problem was that this section of the article was discussed at length (to understate the matter), and the sources were provided. At no point did anyone indicate some WP:Fringe Theory that the Litvinov-Jew point wasn't real, and yet you still just deleted it and its sources.
->To be honest, I actually had less problem with the fact and source deletions you made than your moving text around so that this entire section was out of chronological order and utterly impossible to follow. Neither were merited, but that's already been discussed.

Re: Intellectual honesty tells me that majority scholarly articles and books tell nothing about Litvinov's ethnicity in a context of his dismissal.

->I'm not going to berate you, but doing a books.google.com and JSTOR search for the word "dismissal" related for the terms is about as scientific as buying a mood ring. As just one example, who knows whether the actual term "dismissal" was even used for the Litvinov, and what other event in the work might use that word. Or if the word "Jew" is used (ethnicity maybe or reference to Nazi antipathy for his ethnicity are just two examples) or even contained on the same page, or if the term "Jew" is used for other reasons like, for example, because one of the parties is Nazi Germany, etc. Or, here's another: what if many cursory mentions didn't explain the reasons for it at all? I
-> Moreover, to demonstrate the comic absurdity of that exercise, if you do a random such search for Hitler, auschwitz and anti-Semitism together, you likely would come up with under half of the hits as just Hitler and auschwitz. Guess we can rule out anti-Semitism.

Re: In connection to that, let's ask ourselves: how many sources do not take into account Jewish ethnicity of Litvinov?

->Honestly, you've got to be kidding. Besides the obvious total impossibility of knowing what all sources say, can you imagine the implications were anything that crazy applied to Wikipedia overall. People would have to cite (or at least account for), for example over 500 of 1,000 sources (if that were even enough) just to pass muster under such a wacky standard. Along with judging the quality and comprehensiveness when the topic was notc covered for each. It would probably take a cool six months for every fact added, along with a team of researchers to pour through libraries and analyze the results.
-> I probably cited 20+ sources (didn't count), complete with quotes not just mentioning he was Jewish but the reasons for that in that context. Many of them with all of the text on the firing in the quote. How many other editors seriously do this for a single fact added in a Wikipedia article? I'm guessing under 0.01%. Perhaps you can google it.
->Moreover, there are actual other events to back it up. Like Stalin immediately ordered the purge of the rest of the Jews from the Ministry, Hitler stated he was happy a non-Jew was appointed and, Germany had also actually repeatedly berated Litvinov's Jewish ethnicity in media accounts and oh yeah almost forgot, rumor has it that Adolph Hitler was kind of an anti-semite.
->By the way, lest this be forgotten, this is for ONE SENTENCE buried deep in a Wikipedia article.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me start form the end. Agree. This is just one sentence (in actuality, one paragraph, because the position of this sentence affects the whole para). It is really not too important. However, as I already said above, the discussion about this sentence will help us to understand each other and to elaborate a common approach for future. Therefore, I propose to try to reach a consensus (that doesn't seem to be hard) about this paragraph. If we will be able to create a paragraph that satisfy both of us (I started to feel that is not impossible), we can hope that other problems will also be resolved. Let me know if you accept my proposal, and, if yes, I'll continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If we will be able to create a paragraph that satisfy both of us (I started to feel that is not impossible)"

->I think you need to review what has happened with this paragraph already as an example.
->Both the first and last sentence of this very paragraph were already inserted by you, and were not reverted by any editor, though I added a page number to the source of the last sentence and added a few words to reflect the actual quote. I don't think we need either, especially the British official quote, but my objection isn't large, you appeared to feel some great need for their inclusion, so I haven't made an issue of it.

I really think it's both accurate and pretty representative of the sources. For everything I've read, it usually breaks down like this:

1. . Most sources that spend only 1-2 sentences on the Litvinov/Molotov switch usually just note that he was Jewish and supported collective security.
   
2. . Ones that spend a little more space 1-2 paragraphs usually elaborate a bit on those two (pro-Western), drop that Stalin purged the Ministry of Jews, discuss him being part of the anti-fascist coalition or discuss Germany's Litvinov beratement for his ethnicity.
   
3. . The, sources that spend a great deal of time also go into a wide variety of other facts around it (the various meetings about the switch, commentary by Hitler, the British, Molotov and others, etc.)

You at first attempted to delete Litvinov's ethnicity altogether, deleted that he promoted an anti-fascist coalition and took the section completed out of Chron order.

I'm really not sure what argument is about regarding the paragraph.

Re: "I really think it's both accurate and pretty representative of the sources." Almost agree. To my opinion, some (not considerable) change of emphases is needed. I'll write more concretely in a couple of days.

Re: "I think you need to review what has happened with this paragraph already as an example." You, probably, will be very surprised, but I have already done that. And I came to the interesting conclusion: the section that was a subject of our outrageous quarrel looks much better (both in terms of sources and style), than many others. And, whereas your contribution to the improvement of the narrative's style (that is brilliant now) in indisputable, my humble 2 cents (I mean starting and maintenance of the dispute) also seem to be essential.
Therefore, to my opinion, continuation of our cold edit war seems to be very useful (not for us, but for the article).
Let me take a little break, and I will continue.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Stalin's Motives" Historian Battle Section

This is a multi-paragraph, mostly unsourced (first sentence broken English nonsensical too) section that seems to be a battle amongst historian defenders and critics of Soviet policy containing their clashing speculations regarding Stalin's purportedly larger benevolent or malevolent motivations for entering into a Pact. It contains a lot of broad criticism of Stalin, but much of it is not sourced (or not properly sourced). It's really just Soviet critics Maser and Survivov and pro-Soviet Carr.

This should be summarized into a couple of sentences and added to the bottom of the Pact section. The good news is that the sourced sentences are easily condensed. I think we should summarize Carr in one sentence, summarize and combine Maser and Survivov in their own critics sentence and put something like this in the Pact signing section above, like this:

---

Historians defending the Soviet position argue that the Pact secured breathing space for the Soviet Union and a line of military defense against an eventual German attack. Histiorians critical of the position argue that Stalin created the legend that Germany or Japan were prepared to invade the Soviet Union in 1939 and that Stalin intended the Pact to result in war between European capitalist countries.

---

[1]: Carr, Edward H., German–Soviet Relations between the Two World Wars, 1919–1939, Oxford 1952, p. 136

[2]: Maser, Werner, Treachery: Hitler, Stalin and the Second World War, Olzog, 1994, ISBN 378928260X, page 64

[3]: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II (Military Controversies), Potomac Books Inc., 2007, ISBN 1597971146

Mosedschurte (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree that the section is poorly written. However, to my opinion, we cannot merge it into the previous section. It makes sense to rename it to "Stalin's and Hitler's motives" and, after that, it deserves to be a separate section. Both Stalin's and Hitler's motives are not obvious, and we do have a lot to tell about that in the article. For Hitler, who came to power as Communist's antagonist, and for whom ideology meant much more that we used to think, it was also not too easy to pact with Soviet "Jewish-Communist" regime, so some explanations are definitely needed. As regards to Stalin, it makes sense to tell about three POWs. First is a traditional mainstream historiography (Carr, Beloff etc). The second is a revisionist historians like Suvorov (I remember that some other authors wrote in a similar vein, but I need some time to find references). And third, Western and contemporary Russian historians who debunk Suvorov's claims. They are:

1. David M. Glantz
Reviewed work(s):
Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?. by Viktor Suvorov
Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 263-264
Published by: Society for Military History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1985920

Author(s): Robin Edmonds

2. Robin Edmonds Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? by Viktor Suvorov ;
Source: International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 66, No. 4,
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2620392

In his review, Edmonds argues that Suvorov's conclusions are wrong, because "the Red Army's planning staff would not have been doing his job if it had not devoted some time between 1939 and 1941 to the possibility, at some future date, of a pre-emptive strike against Wehrmach". (Off the top of my head, similar plans, of a pre-emptive strike against Germany, existed in pre-war Poland and France, but that couldn't serve an evidence for their aggressive intentions.)

3. Teddy J. Uldricks The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler? Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2697571
I'll provide other references (both supporting and refuting Suvorov's ideas) soon.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS As regards to Maser, I found no review of his book in peer-reviewed scholar journals (therefore, it seems not among reputable scientific historical publications). I don't know if Olzog fit a standards of university publishers, therefore I don't know if the book is trustworthy. I also found no citation to this book in Google Scholar. Therefore, I don't think we have to pay attention to this book. I'll better provide similar references form peer-reviewed sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To my opinion, "Historians defending the Soviet position" is not a good style. It is a kind of Manichaeism. Carr didn't defend anybody. He just described historical events as he understood them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In the re-chroning of the article (and I added material as well), I didn't change this, but did re-title it "Post-war commentary regarding the motives of Stalin and Hitler." Though there is nothing on Hitler there yet.

It's still the same jumbled text as before.

I'd rather spend less than more time on historian fights speculating on motives. If we do stick with battling historian analyses -- and I think it should be dropped altogether, or a quick mention of "historians disagree about . . . " -- I'd rather just go with the critics and defenders than engage in the wide variety of speculations regarding the matter.

Re: As regards to Stalin, it makes sense to tell about three POWs"

->Definitely not. That casts one as a "middle", and there are about 100 different historian claims that would purport to be in the middle on speculating what they think are motives.
->There are many of both "POWs" and "POVs."
->Two POVs of historians speculating on broad reasons for mass action (here, critics and defenders) is frankly two more than I think the article needs. With two, it already starts to read more like a bulletin board discussion than encyclopedic text.

Re: For Hitler, who came to power as Communist's antagonist"

->That's about as oversimplified an assertion on the matter as I've seen. He was certainly a communist antagonist, but he came to power for a very wide variety of reasons.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "That's about as oversimplified" This is not my oversimplification of a very wide variety of reasons, by your misinterpretation of my words. I never stated that that was the only reason, I just pointed at its significance (along with the others). I will not, and don't have to give a full analysis of the subject when I want to discuss something on the talk page (assuming your intellectual abilities and your good faith).
Re: "Definitely not." I, probably, didn't make myself clear, or didn't understand your point. To my opinion, your version represents a situation as if two historical schools existed that had approximately equal weight. It is not the case. The fact is that I found no positive review of Suvorov's book, in westernn scholarly journals, whereas, at least two many negative ones are presented above. In addition, several scholarly articles and books of Suvorov's opponetns have been published recently that completely debunk his theory. As a result, I conclude that these two POV's have absolutely different weight, so, as soon as you propose to mention only these two, it should be done in another way.
Feel free to modify it, taking into account my comments when possible, and let's discuss a new version after that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Histiorians critical of the position argue that Stalin created the legend that Germany or Japan were prepared to invade the Soviet Union in 1939 and that Stalin intended the Pact to result in war between European capitalist countries." It is also an oversimplification. The idea that Stalin signed a pact to provoke a war is not new. Many authors note that Stalin (correctly) concluded that the war is inevitable, and his intentions were to enter the war after France and Britain declared a war on Germany, not before that. Otherwise, a probability existed that the UK/France would be neutral observers of Germany's and the USSR's mutual wearing down in the attrition warfare. I don't think such a positions to be a subject of support or criticism, it is just an explanation of Stalin's motives, that (in contrast to his domestic policy) was consonant with those of other European leaders.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "To my opinion, your version represents a situation as if two historical schools existed that had approximately equal weight."

->No, it just gives two speculating on reasons why things were done. There probably isn't a major historical event where even as low as only two such historian speculations occur regarding various actions, and most of Wikipedia doesn't bother with going into them -- it's simply understood that this is one thing that historians do. Stating just two doesn't imply that only two exist, just like stating none doesn't imply that historians (in fact, many) aren't speculating about the same thing.

Re: ""Historians defending the Soviet position" is not a good style. It is a kind of Manichaeism. Carr didn't defend anybody. He just described historical events as he understood them."

->I'm not even sure what this could possibly be getting at. Every historian (all three of those above) claims that. E.H. Carr is so pro-Soviet that that's literally almost what he's best known for. In fact, not only is it littered throughout his Wikipedia article, but the first known for clause in E.H. Carr's actual info box on him states "Known for: For pro-Soviet studies in Soviet history . . . "

Re: "It is also an oversimplification. The idea that Stalin signed a pact to provoke a war is not new. Many authors note that Stalin (correctly) concluded that the war is inevitable, and his intentions were to enter the war after France and Britain declared a war on Germany, not before that."

->Survivov was probably not oversimplifying. My guess is that his argument was different -- that Stalin did this to provoke a war between what Stalin viewed as capitalist countries (of course, I'm not saying I hold that views or Carrs or any of these grand speculators). I think this could go without saying, but I off course didn't add any of these battling historian speculations (Carr, Maser or Survivov).

But I like your point better for these two sentences that I don't even really want in this encyclopedic article. How about for the two sentences:

---

Historians defending the Soviet position argue that the Pact secured breathing space for the Soviet Union and a line of military defense against an eventual German attack. Histiorians critical of the position argue that Stalin created the legend that Germany or Japan were prepared to invade the Soviet Union in 1939 and that Stalin intended the Pact to result in an initial war between Germany and western European countries followed by the Soviet entry into the war.("many authors" you mentioned here).

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Preparations for Soviet preemptive strike

That was not only described in books by Victor Suvorov. Historian Edvard Radzinsky noted that a document about the Soviet surprise attack on Nazi Germany was actually found and preserved in the Military-Memorial Center of the Soviet General Staff. That was a draft drawn up by Georgy Zhukov, dated May 15, 1941, and signed by Aleksandr Vasilevsky and Nikolai Vatutin. The plan of preemptive attack on Germany stated:

"In view of the fact that Germany at present keeps its army fully mobilized with its rear services deployed, it has the capacity of deploying ahead of us and striking a sudden blow. To prevent this I consider it important not to leave the operational initiative to the German command in any circumstances, but to anticipate the enemy and attack the German army at the moment when it is in the process of deploying and before it has time to organize its front and the coordination of its various arms".

The plan drafted by the Soviet command included a secret mobilization of the Soviet forces at the Western frontier. The objective of the offensive operation was to cut Germany off its allies, and especially Romania with its oil required for the Germany to conduct the war. The document about attack on Germany and Romania was also mentioned by Dmitri Volkogonov who however did not consider it as a final proof of the Soviet intentions.Biophys (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Radzinsky's fantastic breadth of interest suggests that he is hardly a specialist in the history of the pre-war period. There is only one review of his book in scholarly historical journals (I mean Western ones, of course). In his review (Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 176-179) David Brandenberger states the following: "Radzinsky's biography of Stalin contains many anecdotes like the one above which spark the imagination and make the book quite engaging. It is written in a lively style in short segments arranged both topically and chronologically. The first sixth of the book concerns Stalin's prerevolutionary career, while the next four hundred pages consider the 1917-41 period; the wartime and immediate postwar environment receive about one hundred pages of commentary. Radzinsky's treatment of various issues, including the gullibility of foreign sympathisers (pp. 350-354) and V. M. Molotov's professional qualities (pp. 255-256), probably offer genuine insight."

He continues:"In fact, Radzinsky's book is essentially a compilation of fact, opinion and gossip already in circulation for decades. Worse, when Radzinsky does deal with newer information, he tends to take credit for other scholars' discoveries. While the author occasionally acknowl- edges his sources, many passages are phrased to implicitly or explicitly credit Radzinsky with 'revelations' already published elsewhere in Russian-language sources including Izvestiya TsK, Istochnik, Istoricheskii arkhiv, Minuvshee, and a variety of newspapers. While Radzinsky probably made some use of publicly accessible state and party archives, his claims about enjoying extensive access to the Presidential Archive (APRF) are less credible, as the latter has remained tightly sealed since 1991."

"Poetic licence might excuse Radzinsky's numerous misstatements, were he not claiming to be an accomplished researcher and historian."

And, finally, he concludes:"While Radzinsky's Stalin is not entirely without merit, it is eclipsed by a number of contentious new works which offer more studied challenges to prevailing views of Stalinism."

I think, no comments are needed.

As regards to the "pre-emptive strike preparations", let me reproduce the fragment of the above text:

In his review, Edmonds argues that Suvorov's conclusions are wrong, because "the Red Army's planning staff would not have been doing his job if it had not devoted some time between 1939 and 1941 to the possibility, at some future date, of a pre-emptive strike against Wehrmach".
In other words, the fact that the preemptive plans existed just meant that the Red Army's staff was doing its job well.
Since you decided that the Russian authors may be considered a reliable source, let me remind you that Isaev pointed out (reasonably, to my opinion) that all major European countries had offiesive plans before WWII.

However, let's see what do the western authors write about that. This is a quote from the Michael Jabara Carley's review of two books: "Stalin and the Inevitable War, 1936-1941 by Silvio Pons" and "Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 by Albert L. Weeks" published in Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 56, No. 7 (Nov., 2004), pp. 1081-1093. In his review, Carley states:

"Weeks contends that Stalin was leaning toward a pre-emptive strike in the spring of 1941 and that he revealed his mind to graduating military cadets in a speech given on 5 May. Ten days later the Soviet high command produced a draft plan for a pre-emptive strike against the German army. This is proof, says Weeks, of Stalin's intentions. Gorodetsky 'ignores' the May speech and gives short shrift to the mid-May draft plan (p. 104). Both of Weeks's statements are inexact. But let Gorodetsky speak for himself: Stalin's speech 'was to act as a deliberate deterrent, discouraging the Germans from launching the war through a brazen show of confidence, while at the same time invigorating the army in case a war did break out'."

My conclusion is that, whereas the existence of the offensive plans cannot be questioned, the interpretation of that fact as an existence of serious aggressive plans in the Soviet Union would be a very superficial. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither Hitler nor Stalin planned a pre-emptive strike in 1941, both were planning to attack the other, without believing the other side might assault them. Hitler turned out to be quicker, as Stalin postponed the start of Red Army offensive, fearing an Anglo-German compromise (Hess affair!). This is the result of Mikhail Meltyukhov's research, who happens to be a pro-Kremlin author and I think has had access to documents that neither Suvorov, nor Radzinsky nor Overy, Erickson & co has had.
As for Gorodetsky, he is simply ridiculous, his inaccuracies and falsifications being no less in number than Viktor Suvorov's. E.g. as soon as the text of Stalin's supposed speech of 19 August 1939 was published, Gorodetsky felt obliged to defend Stalin's reputation and posted an article claiming the text is a falsification of French security services. Gorodetsky could even give the exact date (!) of the 'falsification': December 23, 1939. And with one strike he crashed his own argumentation, since as it is known, Stalin himself had published his own denial in Pravda, on 30. November 1939. There's more of similar nonsense, which you can easily read in Hoffmann's book. But I doubt if we need to discuss this issue in detail. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Communazi Pact" section

Do we really need a whole section detailing Time Magazine's use of a term from 1939 to 1941?

My thought would be definitely not.

If no one objects, I plan on modifying it to a sentence to go right after the worldwide media shock sentence in the article now (now in the signing section) that states:

---

Time Magazine repeatedly referred to the Pact as the "Communazi Pact" and its participants as "communazis" until April of 1941.(cite refs)

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I waited until tonight and made this edit. If anyone objects, they can revert it for discussion. But I really can't see any reason why there should be an entire section devoted to Time Magazine's use of a term.04:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"purge the ministry of Jews."

I've just removed the sentence "Stalin immediately directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews." " from the article. My rationale is as follows.

1. As I already pointed out, the first source, Resis, directly states that this Stalin's order was and element of domestic, nor foreign policy. Therefore, usage of these words in that context is indirect misinterpretation of the source. As regards to the second source, there is no statements about "purging of Jews" on the page 283. In addition, the second source is more general, whereas the first one is more focused on the Litvinov's issue in the context of MRP, and, therefore, has greater weight.
2. I found the statement about the Stalin's order to purge the ministry of Jews on the page 289, although it hasn't been explicitly stated there that such a purge were made in the Germano-Soviet context (Molotov's and Stalin's antisemitism is well known). Moerover, whereas only a short paragraph is devoted to this subject in the Moss's book, Resis gives a more detailed analysis and directly connects a purge of Jews with Stalin's domestic policy.
3. To my opinion, the paragraph is still too focused on Litvinov's ethnicity. Without this sentence it is more balanced.
   --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't delete a sourced (actually, it's in many sources) sentence of Stalin ordering the foreign ministry to be purged of Jews immediately after sacking Litvinov and while conducting trade talks (and soon to discuss the Pact) with Nazi Germany, because "To my opinion, the paragraph is still too focused on Litvinov's ethnicity. Without this sentence it is more balanced", it was part of Stalin's anti-semitism and the term "domestic policy" is used in the paragraph -- of course purging one's own ministry of an race/ethicity is technically domestic policy. Especially in an article directly about a Pact between the two countries. That borders on the comical. Moreover, it's used in almost the identical context of sources on the topic:

Herf, Jeffrey, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust, Harvard University Press, 2006, ISBN 0674021754, pages 97-98

---

Litvinov's dimissal was both part of a dramatic foreign policy shift and the beginning of a purge of Jewish oficials from the Soviet Foreign Ministry and from other positions in the party and government.

---

Moss, Walter, A History of Russia: Since 1855, Anthem Press, 2005, ISBN 1843310341, page 283

---

"Meanwhile, Stalin continued to encourage better Soviet-German relations. In May, he sent a strong new signal tgo Hitler by appointing Molotov as foregin minister in place of Litvinov, who was Jewish and had been the major Soviet proponent of antifascist collective security. Stalin also told Molotov to purge his new ministry of Jews."

---

If there is some legitimate claim that it wasn't ordered (though I can't imagine there is, but maybe I'm wrong), then it should certainly be discussed.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I, probably, didn't understand something. First source directly states that purge of Jews was a part of a domestic policy. Moss doesn't claim it directly, however, his claim can be understood in the foreign policy context (in other words, he supports your vision). However, Herf directly separates a dramatic foreign policy shift from beginning of a purge of Jewish oficials from the Soviet Foreign Ministry, i.e. the second is an element of a domestic policy. Do you really want to discuss Stalin's purges in that paragraph? I wait for a better explanations from you, otherwise I'll delete the sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In connection to that, I propose to re-examine the paragraph. To my opinion (i.e. according to the sources that devoted a special attention to the subject), several reasons behind Litvinov's dismissal and Molotov's appointment should be described.

1. Replacement of the major negotiator who had neither negative nor positive history of contacts with Western leaders (that would give more freedom during future negotiations). This is already there (first sentence). However, the next sentences create wrong impression about the meaning of that freedom.

2. Dismissal of the person whose name is associated with the USSR failures during the Munich crisis and who appeared to be unable to create an anti-fascist alliance (in that sense, the pharse "Given Litvinov's prior creation of an anti-fascist coalition,..." is absolutely ridiculous. Had Litvinov really been successful in creation of an anti-fascist coalition, the Triple Alliance negotiations would be senseless and MRP would be redundant. In reality it was the Litviniv's inability to create "an anti-fascist coalition" that caused his dismissal (or was one of the major factors). We have to speak about Litvinov's failed attempts to create an anti-fascist coalition as one of the reason for his dismissal.

3. Replacement of the person, who cannot contact with Ribbentrop under no circumstances with the person who can do it was a clear signal to Chamberlain (who though that Russia had only two options: either to accept his proposals or to remain in isolation) that one more option had become available for Stalin.

All said above can be interpreted in only one way: Stalin tried to strengthen his positions before the triple negotiations (although, I agree, not all these steps had the effect he wanted), and, therefore, took them seriously. And, you can see, that only the reason #3 can be interpreted in the Germano-Soviet context. Of course, the latter factor should be described separately.

My conclusion is that the para sould be modified. I propose to leave the first sentence unchanged. I agree with you that the last sentence (proposed by me) is redundant. Other sentences should be modified, and something, probably, can be added.

Going back to "purge of Jews", that was the overall tendency during Stalin's era. A considerable part of old Bolsheviks who came to power after the revolution were of Jewish origin. Therefore, Stalin's antisemetism and his constant attempts to get rid of old Bolsheviks are hard to separate from each other. You can either live the mentioning of purge of Jews provided that better explanations are given, or to remove it (my proposal).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "he supports your vision"

->I don't have a "vision". I'm actually just quoting the sources.

Re: "beginning of a purge of Jewish oficials from the Soviet Foreign Ministry, i.e. the second is an element of a domestic policy."

->Of course. A purge of one's own ministry of an ethnicity is a domestic matter, even if it's the foreign ministry. This hardly doesn't make it relevant.

->In fact, all three sources discussing the matter are discussing it along with the USSR-Germany negotiations. I've actually quoted it nearly exactly as they have. In that regard, I'm still waiting for an even remotely arguable reason why this fact must be purged from article.

Regarding the various other points:
1. Re: "However, the next sentences create wrong impression about the meaning of that freedom " -> First, the entire paragraph discussing the additional freedom. Second, with regard to the next sentence in particular, of course getting rid of their Jewish foreign minister also gave the Soviets more freedom to maneuver regarding Nazi Germany. Is there is a serious argument to be made by ANYONE that this is not the case?
2. Yes, that sentence had gotten mangled in edits to the point where one expected Litvinov to storm the Reichstag himself with a Mosin Nagant. I changed the sentence.
3. Re: "Replacement of the person, who cannot contact with Ribbentrop under no circumstances with the person who can do it was a clear signal to Chamberlain (who though that Russia had only two options: either to accept his proposals or to remain in isolation) that one more option had become available for Stalin. " ->The signal to the British is already in the paragraph. Regarding a specific separate signal to the British regarding Litvinov's ethnicity, I'm not sure it's in the sources, but the article already states in more general terms it "removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany."

Re: "Going back to "purge of Jews", that was the overall tendency during Stalin's era. A considerable part of old Bolsheviks who came to power after the revolution were of Jewish origin. Therefore, Stalin's antisemetism and his constant attempts to get rid of old Bolsheviks are hard to separate from each other. "
->I don't disagree with that, though some people would disagree with the old Bolsheviks being Jewish (or at least disproportionately so) argument, and say that that was a Nazi-supported myth. Or at least funny business playing with statistics.
->Of importance here, the sources mention it alongside Litvinov's dismissal, exactly as is it done in the article. And, regardless of Stalin's intentions -- and we'll never know regarding that potential order -- it's obviously relevant in dealing with Nazi Germany.

Re: "You can either live the mentioning of purge of Jews provided that better explanations are given, or to remove it (my proposal)."

->I don't think it's necessary to include a clause in the sentence about Stalin's anti-semitic purges overall or Molotov's gleeful response that oddly claims by the way that the purge wasn't even anti-semitic (which I had deleted), but I wouldn't be totally opposed to such a clause in that sentence if it's kept short. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sections' name changes.

I changed the names of some sections to bring them into accordance with the sections' content. If this change is accepted, it would resolve most major problems with the article. If not, some considerable changes of the text will be needed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I kept them all, except the one completely inaccurate one (that section covers both UK-France-USSR and USSR-Germany -- not just one side).Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't WP:Edit War over not every one of your changes being accepted. If you want to change the first title to something else, please discuss. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot agree. During that period, the USSR, France and Britain were exchanging with concrete proposals. By that moment the sides agreed that signing of some political agreement is needed, so the discussion was about concrete basic principles of this agreement, and this discussion took place both in written and oral forms. In parallel, Germany and the USSR were doing (occasionally) unilateral vague declarations about the need to give a new impetus to the Soviet-German relations. Webster gives two definitions of the word "discussion": 1. An extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic, and 2. An exchange of views on some topic. Germano-Soviet contacts during that time do not fit into neither of these two definitions.
I don't mind to complement a story about the Anglo-Franco-Soviet discussions with German and Soviet declarations, however, the proposed name gives undue weight to the latters, and, therefore, is incorrect.
If you disagree, we can choose another way to describe these events, because the description in a strict chronological order is only one of possible ways to do this.
Once again, I have no major objections regarding that section, however, the subsection's name should be changed.
I wait for your comments. Tomorrow morning I'll change the subsection's name back, and, after that most problems with this section will be resolved.
The last one will be Litvionv.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As regards to WP:Edit War, I fully agree with your opinion on that account, because you seem to have more expertise in that business.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is why the section title just states "discussions" instead of " concrete proposals", without specifying a side or attempting to categorize the various level of talks.

The idea that the title simply stating "Initial discussions" (without reference to either side) gives "undue weight" to the latter is not only bizarre, but it reveals POV pushing on your prior discussed WP:Fringe theory.

Re: "Tomorrow morning I'll change the subsection's name back"

Please don't promise to engage in more WP:Edit Wars.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit war never starts with the words: "I wait for your comments." You are smart man and you do understand that. In addition, I made much more concessions than you did. When your arguments seem reasonable for me, I accept them.
However, in this concrete case your arguments are a pure demagogy.
Nevertheless I accept them. However, this requires some changes to be done in the section.
First, I don't understand why so much space is devoted to the Germano-Soviet contacts. The space is definirely incomparable with the relative scales of the talks. The German section must be shrinked considerably. Concretely, the words of German official about the statement of Soviet ambassador look simply ridiculous. German diplomats were instructed to improve relations with Russia. And the "German Deputy Foreign Minister's account" meant that he just reported to his chief that he is doing his job well. I see no reason why a simple polite phrase of the Soviet ambassador in Berlin deserves mentioning at all. As regards to "lower level officials working under the cover of a Soviet trade mission", do you mean the alleged talks that believed to start after the Merekalov-Weizsacker meeting?
Second. Litvinov's issue has to be resolved. The para still looks like his dismissal was more a reverence towards Germany rather than preparations to hard talks with France and Britain (a wrong step, to my opinion, BTW).
And, finally, could you please describe in few words my alleged WP:Fringe theory as you can see it? You mention it so frequently that you intrigued me.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "In addition, I made much more concessions than you did."

->Reality: you edited four section titles. I changed one back. You then reverted that.
->There aren't "concessions" and this isn't a contest. This is just editing a Wikipedia article.

Re: "However, in this concrete case your arguments are a pure demagogy."

->The only change I made to your four section title edits was tochange one section title back to "Initial discussions".
->I did so because the title "Initial Soviet-Anglo-Franco discussions" was plainly inaccurate where the section described both Soviet-German and Soviet-UK-France discussions. It was literally that simple and straight-forward.

Re: "First, I don't understand why so much space is devoted to the Germano-Soviet contacts. The space is definirely incomparable with the relative scales of the talks."

1. That has zero to do with the section titles.
2. While this has nothing to do with the section title, after reading more on the topic, I was going to add anyway that the German-Soviet talks were in the context of long ongoing economic discussions that were intimately related with the final deal. The sources discuss the negotiations in this context, it's not in the article, and to the extent that it's currently misleading, it should be changed.
Mosedschurte (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just notice another inaccuracy. You had changed the "Final Negotiations in Moscow" title to "Tripartite talks cessation and signing of the German-Soviet Pact", which not only clearly doesn't cover the section, but also is inaccurate as the signing is covered in the next section of the article.

The old title "Final negotiation is Moscow", which I had used, also was a bit too narrow.

I changed it to the more accurate and shorter "Final Negotiations".Mosedschurte (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Reality: you edited four section titles. I changed one back. You then reverted that." And you reverted again and I didn't revert it, but explained my point instead. Therefore, I see no reason for you for your complaints.
My previous experience tells me that I have to be less polite than I usually am to force you to take my opinion into account. Re: "the section described both Soviet-German and Soviet-UK-France discussions..." In actuality, the section described both Soviet-UK-France discussions and Soviet and German unilateral declarations (sometimes, alleged declarations). By the way, you simply ignored my argument (probably, because you have nothing to answer). Re: "That has zero to do with the section titles." It does have. See the previous Re. I have almost nothing against the section if it is clear from the title that the section tells about Soviet-UK-France discussions along with minor signs of prospective Germano-Soviet rapprochement. Re: "While this has nothing to do with the section title, etc."Good. When you will do that, please don't forget to mention that on 17 April 1939 the Soviet Union expressed a diplomatic protest is connection with German actions that prevented Skoda to fulfill their contracts with Russia that had been signed before Czechoslovakia was occupied. Do you think that the polite formula you quoted has been taken from this note? I decided to check it. The full text of the WEIZSACKER's account (mentioned by Biskupski, Mieczysław B, ref No 25) is below:

The Russian Ambassador visited me today—for the first time since he took up his post here (1) for a conversation on practical matters. He dwelt at length on a subject which he said was of particular interest to him: namely, the fulfillment of certain contracts for war materiel by the Skoda Works. Although the items involved are manifestly rather insignificant, the Ambassador regarded the fulfillment of the contracts as a test, to determine whether, in accordance with a recent statement by Director Wiehl (2) to him, we were really willing to cultivate and expand our economic relations with Russia. The matter of these supply contracts is being looked into elsewhere.
Toward the end of the discussion, I casually mentioned to the Ambassador that even granted goodwill on our part, a favorable atmosphere for the delivery of war materials to Soviet Russia was not exactly being created at present by reports of a Russian-British-French air pact and the like. Herr Merekalov seized on these words to take up political matters. He inquired as to the opinion here regarding the present situation in Central Europe. When I told him that as far as I knew Germany was the only country not participating in the present saber-rattling in Europe, he asked me about our relations with Poland and about the alleged military clashes on the German-Polish frontier. After I had denied the latter-and made some rather restrained comments on German-Polish relations, the Russian asked me frankly [unverblumt] what I thought of German-Russian relations.
I replied to Herr Merekalov that, as everybody knew, we had always had the desire for mutually satisfactory commercial relations with Russia. It had appeared to me that the Russian press lately was not fully participating in the anti-German tone of the American and some of the English papers. As to the German press, Herr Merekalov could form his own opinion, since he surely followed it very closely.
The Ambassador thereupon stated approximately as follows:
Russian policy had always moved in a straight line. Ideological differences of opinion had hardly influenced the Russian-Italian relationship, and they did not have to prove a stumbling block with regard to Germany either. Soviet Russia had not exploited the present friction between Germany and the Western democracies against us, nor did she desire to do so. There exists for Russia no reason why she should not live with us on a normal footing. And from normal, the relations might become better and better.
With this remark, to which the Russian had led the conversation, Herr Merekalov ended the interview. He intends to go to Moscow in the next few days for a visit.
WEIZSACKER

You see I was right. The purpose of the Merekalov's visit was to resolve a problem with Skoda. According to Weizsacker, it was a conversation on practical matters. The last words were just a politeness formula. Therefore, the statement sould be removed, because it is a wrong, or deliberately false interpretation of the source (that seems to be a book of some Polish nationalist).

This my conclusion is pretty consonant with the Goberts' vision (Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939 Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 921-926 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639445):

"The view that the Merekalov-Weizsacker meeting marked the beginning of determined Soviet efforts to secure a political detente with Nazi Germany was born of a cold war polemic designed to demonstrate Soviet double-dealing and skullduggery during the diplomatic prelude to the Second World War. It is fitting that the opening of Soviet archives in the post-cold war era should finally enable this historical myth to be laid to rest."

Therefore, I don't think we can spend the article's space for polite phrases required by diplomatic etiquette (that in actuality mean nothing). Since there are quite different opinions about this meeting, I propose to live this statement beyond the scope.

Finally, I appreciate you decision to disagree with the subsection's title proposed by me. Otherwise, I would never find this blatantly stupid error.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You see I was right. The purpose of the Merekalov's visit was to resolve a problem with Skoda."

->You've got to be kidding me. I used to cite this exact same text in the article (I yanked it so it wouldn't be called "Primary Sources").

->Of course that was the purpose stated in the text for the meeting.

Re: "Therefore, I don't think we can spend the article's space for polite phrases required by diplomatic etiquette"

->Diplmatic etiquette? Maybe you can write your own book.

->The main source of disagreement about the meeting is whether the Soviet statement was exaggerated or inaccurate.

->By the way, the so-called "that seems to be a book of some Polish nationalist" book is the one I cited for the proposition IN THE ARTICLE NOW that "though this could be an exaggeration or inaccurate recounting of the Soviet officials' statement."

Mosedschurte (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some more modifications, and after that I am satisfied. No subsection's name change is needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Molotov's telegram

Dear Mosedschurte,
You are not attentive. Please, read the text below.

Roberts (The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152247)writes:

"Moscow's reply was transmitted to Astakhov in two stages. On 28 July Molotov telegraphed Astakhov that 'in restricting yourself to hearing out Schnurre's statements and promising to pass them on to Moscow you did the right thing'. This one-line telegram was, apparently, the first political instruction that Molotov sent to Astakhov in the summer of 1939. The next day, in a further telegram to Astakhov, Molotov stated Moscow's position. The full text reads:

Political relations between the USSR and Germany may improve, of course, with an improvement in economic relations. In this regard Schnurre is, generally speaking, right. But only the Germans can say concretely how political relations should improve. Until recently the Germans did nothing but curse the USSR, did not want any improvement in political relations with it and refused to participate in any conferences where the USSR was represented. If the Germans are now sincerely changing course and really want to improve political relations with the USSR, they are obliged to state what this improve- ment represents in concrete terms. Not long ago I was with Schulenburg who also spoke about improving relations, but did not want to propose anything concrete or intelligible. Here the matter depends entirely on the Germans. We would, of course, welcome any improvement in political relations between the two countries.

With this grudging response Moscow had finally opened the door to political detente with Berlin. It was not so much a decision to negotiate as the first real sign of a readiness to listen to and consider what the Germans had to say."

To correctly reflect the source, and, especially the bold text, the sentence "On July 28, Molotov sent a political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany." should be changed to: "On July 29, Molotov sent a first political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that was a first real sign of a readiness to listen German proposals and finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany."
This version more correctly translate the Roberts' vision. Unfortunately, it is too long, therefore, I propose to discuss (on the talk page) the possible modifications of this sentence that would satisfy both of us.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Dear Mosedschurte, You are not attentive."

->Yet another Wikipedia violation. Not that that's that's new.
->By the way, regarding who's "attentive", check up out cleanup I had to do on your last edit on article

Re: "Please, read the text below"

->Not only have a I read it, I've cited it. Numerous times.

Re: ""On July 29, Molotov sent a first political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that was a first real sign of a readiness to listen German proposals and finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany."

->Because that would, for one, be inaccurate. You know, I've always chalked this up to English language differences rather than dishonesty, but many more of these in various articles and that excuse is going to fade.

1. I wasn't the "first political instruction" regarding dealings with Germany, it was the "the first political instruction that Molotov sent to Astakhov in the summer of 1939."

2. It wasn't "a first real sign of a readiness to listen German proposals", but rather if you read the article, the first real sign they were willing to listen to the German proposals started in late July after the economic talks were rejoined (which had been on an off literally since the mid-1930s, by the way).

3. Re: "finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany," this is almost literally word for word what I'd edited the sentence to in the article already: "that finally opened the door to a political detente with Germany."

Mosedschurte (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mosedschurte,

I got a feeling that we are wasting our time in futile discussions. Frankly, I completely understand that you want to represent a situation as if extensive secret Soviet-German negotiations took place during spring and summer of 1939.
According to what I read and according to my understanding of the situation that never took place. However, it is not impossible for me to accept your POV (fully or partially) if you explain me what it is based on. I mean facts, sources and your comments.
Sincerely,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As regards to me, I'll try to refrain from editing of this section, as well as corresponding section in JS, until I understand your vision of the MRP history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Frankly, I completely understand that you want to represent a situation as if extensive secret Soviet-German negotiations took place during spring and summer of 1939."

->Unlike your frank admissions of your own POV in the past on this issue, I really don't have one. I find the topic interesting, largely because of the kind of world changing events and interesting characters involved.
->The two sides secretly talked in some instances, some of which is already contained in the article. What is not stated in the article is that these were some sort of extensive negotiations, because as far as I've seen, they weren't. This is why they are carefully phrased as such. Rather, most of them took place in the context of regular meetings regarding the parties ongoing economic discussions, which had been fairly extensive since December of 1938 (which, interestingly, Stalin thought were more important than the political talks). I'm actually eventually going to add a few notes about that latter as it relates to these negotiations that should make that more clear (which I'm guessing you'll greatly enjoy). Mosedschurte (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannot understand the connection between economical negotiations and MRP. Would you be so kind to explain it to me in more details, otherwise I'll have to remove it from the article as irrelevant.
Going back to political talks, could you please list any events that can be considered as secret political negotiations before August 1939? I already asked but you didn't answer so far. At present time, only indirect hints and unilateral statements are mentioned in the article. If nothing else happened, that means that no negotiations took place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Cannot understand the connection between economical negotiations and MRP"

->If you honestly don't know, you've really got to do more reading on this topic. Like pretty much any book on the topic.

Re: "otherwise I'll have to remove it from the article as irrelevant."

->Yet another threat. You've got a book full of Wikipedia policy violations on this page and others.

New article: Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations

The negotiations section (and background) took up up about 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire article on the Pact, which is now huge as well.

Moreover, the negotiations and post-WWI background themselves are the subject of hundreds of books, journals and other scholarly works -- more than most even largest World War II battles. Thus, these sections have, not surprisingly, quickly expanded, to the point where important negotiator names and events were deleted or summarily mentioned in a clause just to keep the size from becoming outrageous. And those sections will surely expand considerably more in the future.

As mentioned by another editor above, the negotiations should be their own sub-article (they certainly pass muster under all Wikipedia requirements for notability and importance). And they now are. Ladies and gentlemen, comrades and comradettes, I give you The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article, which contains an expanded collection of those negotiations -- both Tripartite and German -- and background. This will permit a discussion of the negotiations in this article that doesn't take up large sections of the article with the (very interesting, I should add) details. Instead, a more summary form can take place, with "main" and "see" tags.

Everything -- all of the text and gory day-by-day details-- in this article regarding negotiations is now in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article, along with even more details.

It will also permit an expanded recounting of the notable events in the negotiations to take place in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article without worrying about lengthening the already monstrously long Molotov-Ribbentrop article. Another editor and I had been adding more and more details here, and this section of the article had ballooned.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. It would be probably the best solution. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

and specifically addressed a potential military agreement?

This statement in the " "Indirect aggression" and German-Soviet political talks" section looks odd: did Germany and the USSR ever signed any military agreement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant political. I just changed it.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FA?

The two of you seem to be doing a great job with this article. Think you can get it up to FA status? (If nothing else, this should be featured as the proper way to resolve disputes and work with others that one might not agree with).radek (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe getting a little closer, but we're probably not very close to FA. Maybe GA after some work.

Focusing this article on the Pact itself and the operations thereunder may help some in that regard.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is quite possible. Mosedschurte is a brilliant writer, his productivity and ability to work with sources is fantastic.
However, one major problem exists that prevents this, as well as some other articles Mosedschurte edits or writes, to become FA or GA. I can describe this issue on the following example.
The text telling about Triple and German-Soviet negotiations is being constantly modified in such a way that it creates an impression that secret Soviet-German negotiations started on April 17. And this is being done via wrong interpretation of the sources, and it completely ignores the conclusions made by the scholars after the analysis of de-classified Soviet archives.
Briefly, during the Cold war, when no Soviet archives were available for scholars, the major source of information on the subject were the document seized by the Allies in occupied Germany. The major document is a report of German State Secretary on his meeting with the Soviet ambassador Merekalov[1]. According to this document, Mekekalov made such a statement during this meeting:"Russian policy had always moved in a straight line. Ideological differences of opinion had hardly influenced the Russian-Italian relationship, and they did not have to prove a stumbling block with regard to Germany either. Soviet Russia had not exploited the present friction between Germany and the Western democracies against us, nor did she desire to do so. There exists for Russia no reason why she should not live with us on a normal footing. And from normal, the relations might become better and better."
However, the Merekalov's telegram (that become available after 1991) about this meeting was completely different. The text, translated by Roberts, states that Merekalov met German State Secretary regarding the Czech military contracts signed before Czechoscovakia was occupied by Germany. He presented him a note, requesting speedy removal of "the restriction, applying only in relation to orders made by Soviet organisations". According to him, that was a "direct discrimination". Merekalov didn't mention his alleged statement (presented in the German documents) at all. Probably, it was just a polite phrase at the very end of the meeting. Based on that, as well as on other similar evidences Roberts concludes that secret negotiations is just "a cold war myth".
However, although Mosedschurte is familiar with that source, and despite my numerous attempts to introduce this, as well as other similar facts into the article, this text is constantly being either removed or re-grouped in order to give it lesser weight, and the statement about secret negotiations appears again and again. I strongly suspect that is a result of his strong bias towards a single POW (although I would be happy if the explanation is different).
Unfortunatelly, similar problem exists with the representation of many other events in this, as well as some other articles, although, in many cases the Mosedschurte's writing seems balanced and neutral.
My conclusion is that after some neutrality issues will be resolved, Mosedschurte's brilliant work (+ my 2 cents) can easily rise this article's level up to FA. However, the issue of neutrality is serious. Until this issue exists I can and I will persuasively demonstrate that this article can be neither GA nor FA.
One more comment. The article is plagued with the texts like that:"permitting the Soviets more latitude in discussions with Germany. " This is definitely has been done to give undue weight to one opinion (in this case, to the Litvinov's Jewish ethnicity as a major factor of this dismissal). It contrdicts to the WP policy that states:
"Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." In other words, if some reputable source describes the event in one phrase (sometimes, without references), whereas another reputable source devotes a whole chapter to it (with numerous references), then the precedence should be given to the latter. In that concrete case, most sources that were added to give a weight to the above statement, just mention the fact. Therefore, precedence should be given to Roberts' and Resis' articles that devote tens of pages to the subject. Their articles give only minor weight to the Jewish ethnicity of Litvinov, and name several more important reasons for his dismissal.
Summarising all said above, I strongly believe that a better collaboration is possible between Mosedschurte and me that could resolve a problem of the article bias. Otherwise, no FA or GA nomination is possibe. Moreover, in its present form the article still deserves a neutrality tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The text telling about Triple and German-Soviet negotiations is being constantly modified in such a way that it creates an impression that secret Soviet-German negotiations started on April 17."

->Reality: the following text -- without even mentioning a date -- is the entirety of the remaining text on German-Soviet non-economic talks in that time frame (note: zero mention of actual negotiations), that is currently jammed at the end of a paragraph:

---

German and Soviet officials made various statements regarding the potential for the beginning of negotiations for a political deal.

---

1.Not a single mention of the April 17 discussion remains. In fact, not a single implication that political negotiations themselves during that time period exists in the article.
2.The only thing that remains is that they were making statements regarding the potential for political negotiations.

Re: "The article is plagued with the texts like that:"permitting the Soviets more latitude in discussions with Germany. "

->I'm so glad you said that. To be perfectly frank, the only reason I left the large number of old cites in this article while summarizing the negotiations section was because I was afraid that you would go into revert mode on any changes.
->I'm deleting some of the long lists of cites now.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that after long and hard discussion (and mutual reversions of the text) the article became better. Frankly, you would save both your and my time if you agreed to elaborate a common concept, that would allow us to be collaborators, not opponents. After that, we would follow this concept without hidden edit warring. Going back to the subject, let me point out that the statement:"German and Soviet officials made various statements regarding the potential for the beginning of negotiations for a political deal." is also not completely correct. After reading many sources, I got an impression that most political statements Soviet diplomats did during April-July were aimed to bring the level of the political relations in the accordance to the level of desirable economic collaboration. For instance, famous Molotov's statement in May meant that the political relations between Germany and the USSR were so bad that they would make impossible further improvement of the economic collaboration. In other words, the Soviet leaders just wanted to improve relations with Germany from very bad to normal. I don't know what did Stalin keep in mind in reality, but the statements Molotov or Stalin did before August were not about the beginning of negotiations for a political deal.

Re: ""To be perfectly frank, the only reason I left the large number of old cites". Incorrect. These references were added to give more weight to the Jewish ethnicity issue as opposed to other reasons that were described in details in the Resis', Roberts' and, partially, Watson's articles. Unfortunately, even now the sentence is not good:"in May, the Soviet Union replaced Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, who was pro-western and Jewish, with Vyacheslav Molotov, permitting the Soviets more latitude in discussions with Germany.". I would say that the sentence became even worse: now it presents a situation form fully Germanocentric POV, whereas most articles that payed a special attention to that question directly state that replacement of Litvinov with Molotov was the attempt to strengthen Stalin's positions during Triple negotiations rather than the signal of rapprochement with Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I'm deleting some of the long lists of cites now" Another option may be just to combine them within a single footnote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "you would go into revert mode on any changes". I used to go in such a mode when you live me no other options. I always try to explain first. Frankly, reciprocal modifications are just waisting of time and a source of many technical errors. To my opition, the best way to work with a disputable fragment of the article is to discuss it on the talk page. If I am not satisfied with your text, I would prefer to move this piece to the talk page and modify it. If you disagree, you can change it, then I either accept this change or do some modifications, and so on. When we came to consensus, we put this text into the article. Believe me, that it is much easier than constant edit wars. However, you neither accept such a cooperation, nor propose any other ways to collaborate.

PS. For future, I propose stop comparing apples and oranges. A book that just mentioned some subject in a single sentence weighs much less than the scholarly article that devotes tens pages to it. Therefore attempts to add sources of the first type looks like a not-completely-honest trick to give more weight to some POV than it deserves. When we disagree with something, and when our discussion achieved a level of specialized books and articles, providing more sources that contains just a couple phrases on the subject of the dispute seems incorrect.
In addition, let me point out that I try not to choose sources that push my POV. Conversely, my POV is formed based on the sources I read. Using jstor, I look for the sources that describe the MRP in details. These articles were: Roberts, Resis, Watson and Carley. In addition to these articles I found some others that proposed another point of view. However, I didn't use them so far for two reasons: (i) they look less trustworthy (more speculations, less references and quotes, e.g. in a Raak's article). (ii) I simply have no time for that, because I involved in a constant edit war with you...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hi guys. When I was reading the article, I came up with several suggestions:

1. The article needs a thorough copyedit. The prose is very awkward & clunky in some cases. You like run-on sentences. Sometimes it's not even entirely clear what you tries to say. I am non-native speaker myself so I cannot help you much in this area.
2. I added some {{fact}} and {{clarifyme}} templates where I thought specifically citation/clarification is needed.
3. Section ==Implementing the division of Eastern Europe== really needs to be cut down as it simply re-tells early history of WWII. Condense it leaving only main brush strokes and leave all details to sub-articles. (I think I will start trimming right now).
4. Citations need to be normalized. Now it's all over the place. I understand some of them were "inherited" from previous versions.
5. The ==Aftermath== section is rather weak. You probably did not get that far spending most time on negotiations, etc. I think this is an impossible section of the article... there literal thousand of book about that. So my suggestion would be to take divide the section into three major parts (Western, Russian, and Nazi point of view) and then progress chronologically if possible. I am talking something like Cold_war#Historiography. The article there gives overview of general "trends" in historiography instead of dwelling on specific authors and specific events (i.e. currently article spends too much time discussing Litvinov's dismissal and Carr's views).
6. Introduction also needs to be re-written (I know most of it was inherited from previous versions).

I mean this is amazing job, the article is lightyears from where it was before, and I would love to see it FA. I would love to help, but I am not sure how much time I would have. Renata (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed a chunk of text which I found rather irrelevant, and I think it should be cut even more. This article is about global European politics and atrocities in one or other country had little impact on what was going on in Hitler's or Stalin's heads. Let me know if you disagree. Renata (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Renata, for your kind proposal. Unfortunately, before starting copyedit the article has to be checked for factual accuracy and neutrality. For a while, your contribution as a third participant of our dispute with Mosedschurte would be very helpful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a Cliff notes version of the dispute (ie no more than 5 sentences?) I see abve something about April 17. Is that the only thing you disagree on? Renata (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Renata, although our dispute seems to be about minor issues, the difference in our concepts is profound. I asked Mosedschurte to summarize his concept in few words, but he stated that he has no concept and prefers to stick to facts. Therefore, I'll try to summarise it by myself, and I beg a Mosedschurte's pardon if I my understanding was wrong.
It seems to me that Mosedschurte tries to overemphasize the role of economy in the Nazi-Soviet rapprochement. In addition, he tries to present the events in such a way as if during long time the USSR and, especially Germany were trying to complement these relation with some long term political treaty. In contrast, I believe, that the USSR and Nazi Germany were ideological enemies and this fact was extremely important taking into account the essential role ideology played in both these states (and, accordingly, economic considerations played a subordinate role). These countries were natural rivals and both Hitler and Stalin realized that.
As a result, Mosedschurte pays exaggerated attention to those facts that can be interpreted as a faint signs of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement, whereas much more important facts that testify about anti-Nazist steps of the Soviet government are being constantly removed by him from the article, or changed to understate its importance.
The problem is that I will never stop to re-introduce these facts and to re-write article back. Therefore, if we don't elaborate a common concept the article will never assume a good shape.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive deletion of text

This massive deletion of text should be debated prior to making it. It basically removes most information about the initial occupation of Poland, which resulted from this Pact. One should ask Polish editors what they think about this.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not owned by Polish editors, I am afraid :) Neither this article is about Poland, persecution of Poles, etc. It's about Russia, Germany and everything in between. It's about international politics, negotiations, treaties, Stalin's & Hitler's motives, and not about massacres. The version that I left still had a good chunk on Poland and the invasion: approx 550 out of 6600 words (which is more than 440 words of background or 150 words on Finland; down from 1150 words about Poland & invasion). In any event, this article would benefit from cutting down (it's even hard to edit when it's so large) and condensing per WP:Summary. Renata (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No one tells it belongs to Polish editors. The occupation of Poland resulted directly from this Pact. Hence some information about this belongs here. I asked an opinion of an editor familiar with this subject. Let's wait for some response.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The pact resulted in many things: invasion of Poland, Phony War, Winter War, occupation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Besarabia, Baltic Way, not to mention World War II. I think 550 words is quite "some information" regarding Poland. Renata (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. In addition, since the article's name is "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact", all events after Aug 24 belong to the "Aftermath" section. In addition, if some editors from Poland (by the way, why only Poland? What about the Baltic states, Finland, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine?) are really interested by this subject, they will respond. One more thing. For everyone who read about MRP is clear that occupation of Poland was not a direct consequence of it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought of the emphasis on Poland until this Talk topic was just raised. Most sources do focus on the division of Poland and operations therein. I'm not sure if that's because it is much larger than the other Pact territory countries -- Poland had a greater population than Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania combined. The Soviets also didn't really take the Baltics until June of 1940, and obviously had problems with the Winter War in Finland, getting only 10% in the interim peace.

In any event, the summaries of what occurred in other Pact territories (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, etc.) during the Pact's operation may need to be expanded in some other areas if there is more notable material, but I would say only in summary format with some main and see tags as it is now for the countries' actions in Poland during the Pact. We can't just delete everything that happened in Poland (one of the Pact territories) and pretend it didn't happen (e.g., Auschwitz, deportations, Katyn massacre, Germanization, Sovietization, etc.)

By the way, for clarification, I'm definitely not one of the "Polish editors" referred to above (I don't live, and am not from, any of the Pact countries). Mosedschurte (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's where I disagree. I left a couple sentences on both Germanization & Sovietization and I think that's more than enough. I do not think these deserve their own separate 500-word section. If you start listing all bad deeds by Germans/Soviets in Poland, then you need to list all their bad deeds elsewhere... (to balance it out) and this article would never end... Renata (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with the sentiment, and frankly, I don't think there is a magic formula for what to include, but I'm pretty sure that deletion of all atrocities in the pact territories isn't the answer either.

The article obviously summarizes these things on a very high level -- e.g., one line to the start of Auschwitz, probably the most famous atrocity locale in world history, which occurred in Pact territories (in fact, smack dab in the middle) during operations.

To take the Auschwitz example, I don't think it should be expanded, but I definitely think that it deserves mention. Same with the Warsaw ghettos, etc. Not an expanded talk, but one line with a wikilink if they have their own articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You missed one important thing. The pact was not a military alliance but a non-aggression treaty. The sides agreed that everyone got a free hand east and, accordingly, west of the Bug river, but neither side took any obligation to attack or occupy any countries in these spheres. Probably, the opposite took place. For instance, as the article correctly states "The Finnish and Baltic invasions began a deterioration of relations between the Soviets and Germany." In other words, Hitler understood these actions as an indirect violation of the pact. Therefore, it is probably incorrect to consider occupation of most Easter European territories by the USSR as an implementation of the pact.
In addition, if we consider the Stalin's attack of Finland as an aftermath of MRP, then the Hitler's attack of France should be also discussed. In that sense, the greatest countries affected by MRP was not Poland, but France and, probably, Britain.
MRP effect was much more profound, it pre-determined the course of whole WWII, not only in Europe. Therefore, I don't understand why much more attention is given to the secret protocol than to the pact itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the secret protocols with the "In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas" preamble, just like Poland. I'm not even going to get into a debate about the division, etc., none of it being relevant to the this topic point anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Let me remind you, however, that the similar preamble was present in the Article I. "In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party." Nevertheless, Hitler was displeased when the USSR attacked Finland and annexed the Baltic states. Some scholars even argue that it was a formal reason for Barbarossa.
In addition, you forgot one more clause: "In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement." In other words, no such agreement had been signed in Moscow by that moment.
And, finally, despite no concrete country was named in the pact itself, it is clear that the article II ("Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.") meant that the USSR gave Hitler a free hand to wage a war against France and Britain in the case when the latters declare a war on him (that eventually happened). I don't understand why the article payed almost no attention to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. In any case, I support the recent removal of the text about the initial occupation of Poland, because the article's name is "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact", not "Implementation of the secret protocol and subsequent agreements"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We've strayed entirely away from the topic, but what else is new. Part of the reason there was so much uproar in Germany over the Finland invasion was because no one outside of Hitler, Ribbentrop and some German officials knew about the secret protocols. Germans were angry about ethnic Germans not being able to migrate to Germany from the Baltics (a points solved later by the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement) and that the Soviets were invading a country like Finland with "Nordic" peoples (part of German racial ideology) and that the Baltic countries had been consistent German trading and political allies (or at least in many Germans' minds). Nobody in Germany knew that Hitler had ceded those territories to the Russians with the secret protocols, and he even later used the Soviet invasion of the territories he had secretly ceded to them as a pretext to attack Russia (since the secret protocols were still secret in June of 1941). I'm starting to think this Hitler fellow isn't such an honest guy! Mosedschurte (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the removal entirely of the text, but if people want, I'll take a crack at summarizing it down even further, like I did with the negotiations section. I'm not a "polish editor" as was referred to above, nor Russian or German or any of that -- not that it matters. I just find the topic fascinating.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I don't support the removal entirely of the text". I meant the removal that has already been done (to my understanding, by you). I can tell more concretely in few days, but for now it seems reasonable to remove most details about Poland (probably, the present version is optimal) and to tell about the global effect of MRP.
Re: "We've strayed entirely away from the topic" etc. Not only Nordic people were the ussue. If you look at the Europe under Hitler, you probably notice that not all Europe was occupied by Germany. Hitler prefered non-formal occupation. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania were his allies. Czhechoslovakia was divided "peacefully": Slovakia declared an independence under Hitler pressure and became the Axis member, Czhech part became a protectorate, Yugoslavia has been split onto allied Croatia and other parts occupied by Hitler. Probably, Hitler expected that Stalin would do the same, and for him the secret protocol was just an obligation not to penetrate (mostly politically, remember "indirect aggression" story) to the Baltics. In contrast to that, Stalin decided to create a monolith in his "sphere of influence" via annexation of all territories and granting Soviet citizenship to all peoples living there (the other question that such a gift meant Gulag and exile for many of them...). Nevertheless, I generally agree. The only thing I cannot understand is why do you think that we stray away from the topic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Huge 1934 Quote at the top of the article

A huge 1934 blockquote from Hitler was placed at the top of the article -- before even the World War I background material, obviously entirely out of chron order (not just by years, but a decade and a half and in the wrong German era). Also, when I say huge, I don't mean a long sentence -- this block quote must have been in excess of 100 words.

By the way, I have no problem with adding a sentence about Nazi racial ideology with regards to Slavs. In fact, I was about to do that myself in another article. I should be placed in the proper spot, and not some huge block quote. An explanation of their ideology (the reasoning is quite twisted) would be much better.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I added this paragraph to the article:

---

Tensions had already grown between Germany, the Soviet Union and other countries with ethnic [[Slavs]], which were considered "[[Untermensch|untermenschen]]" according to [[Racial policy of Nazi Germany|Nazi racial ideology]].<ref>Bendersky,Joseph W., ''A History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945'', Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 083041567X, page 177</ref> In 1934, Hitler himself had spoken of an inescapable battle against "pan-Slav ideals", the victory in which would lead to "permanent mastery of the world", though he stated that they would "walk part of the road with the Russians, if that will help us."<ref>Rauschning, Hermann, ''Hitler Speaks: A Series of Political Conversations With Adolf Hitler on His Real Aims'', Kessinger Publishing, 2006,ISBN 142860034, pages 136-7</ref>

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, although Hitler was better an orator that you are a writer :). I don't think that your proposal is better, although it seems not principally worse. My rationale for the quote was as follows:
1. This quote has a direct relation to the article as whole.
2. This quote is chronologically close to the described events (5 years before the pact)
3. This quote belongs to the historical person who was a key participant of the described events.
4. This quote describes long term strategic goals of this person.
5. This quote gives quite accurate description of the events that happened five years later, therefore such an amazingly accurate prediction deserves to be reproduced literally.
By the way, I don't think any historian would be able to describe Hitler's thoughts, plans and ideas better than he himself did it in such a short quote.

I propose to look at the problem broader. I still am not satisfied with some parts of the article and I had no time to analyse others in details (I cannot work as fast as you do, although, it seems to me I make lesser factual errors). I haven't abandon the idea to modify the sections I am not satisfied with and, I think, you will continue to modify them back. As a result, both you and I will continue to waste enormous time. In connection to that I propose to elabotare a common concepts for the disputable sections. After that I promis to follow this concept and, after agreement is achieved, to do no modifications without discussion. I hope, by doing so we will finish the work very fast.
I propose to start with Background and then with Triple negotiations sections.
I plan to describe my point to Renata (who acked me to do so). I you do the same, this can probably lead to consensus in few days. Agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have any problems with quoting Hitler on the issue, or the issue in general. I've been trying to add more of German intentions and actions to the article (e.g., their economic frights, Germanization, atrocities in Poland, etc.).

In fact, more specifically, Hitler's odd Slav racial views needed to be in an article re Soviet-German relations. In addition to explaining his views of a war with Russia (after walking with them, of course -- what a guy!) it's also helpful to put into context the German attrocities in Poland later in the article.

The problem was that (i) it was a HUGE (like 100+ words) quote (ii) from the Nazi-era (1934) slapped at the top of the section which had not yet even addressed the end of World War I that (iii) wasn't even in the context of Nazi racial ideology's crazed views of the Slavs as inferiors (it was confusing in isolation).Mosedschurte (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I propose to discuss the Background section and I am intended to finish this discussion only after we agreed about the section's concept. After that I propose to move further.
The problem with the quote seems to be quite different. Ironically, the quote describes the history of MRP much better than the article does. Therefore, not the quote should be removed, but the article should be brought into accordance with it.
In the introduction, exaggerated attention is given to economy. Economy never played essential role for Hitler and for Stalin. Their political steps were never being dictated by economic considerations. In contrast, ideological rivalry were important. Political differences were important. National differences (Germans vs Slaws/Jews) were extermely important (I start to think that, although I myself respect Marx, you seem to be even greated Marxist:-) ) . Hitler and Nazi were primarily an anti-Communist force. It is weird that almost nothing about political rivalry is said in the section.
To my understanding, the section has to tell about sharp change of German-Soviet relations in 1933, about the "the eternal abyss" between these two regimes. About anti-Communist and, accordingly, anti-Nazi rhetorics in these two countries, about Litvinov's anti-Fascist policy, about Soviet efforts during Munich, and, afert that, in few words the economic considerations should be mentioned.
The section should end with dissolution of Czechoslovakia. For some reason, you mix that with Munich agreement, although these are two quite different things. The Czechoslovakia had been seized in 1939, and it was a final impetus that forced Britain to turn towards the alliance with the USSR. Although Litvinov's proposal used to be considered as a start of the triple talks, the first step was made by Britain.
And finally, the Poles and the Baltic states also should be mentioned in the intro, because these countries's behaviour also had a considerable effect on the MRP signing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC):Re:

Re:"In the introduction, exaggerated attention is given to economy. Economy never played essential role for Hitler and for Stalin."

->This take is so off-base, I'm honestly not even going to waste time getting into one of these extended arguments about it. By the way, somewhat randomly, on Wikipedia's main page TODAY, three articles were listed in the, ironically, "do you know?" column: this one, this one and this one. As a beginning exercise, read the emergency German planning assessments contained therein, and the fact that this was essentially a massive military exchange -- raw materials to power the Nazi war machine for weapons and technology for the Soviets' military buildup. Moreover, the entire political deal had to come from the economic talks, because those were the only ones that were going on, and the Soviet demanded that the economic deal be reached FIRST. I'm not even going to go into the rest of it (or the rest of World War II with the Nazi war machine grinding to a halt without oil later, etc.).

Re: "Ironically, the quote describes the history of MRP much better than the article does."

->Again, not only is this take about a 100 word quote from Hitler bizarre, but it is obviously inaccurate as it doesn't even describe the Pact at all back in 1934, though it contains his prescient statement about being willing to walk with the untermenchen Slav Russians for a while if they had to. By the way, if you want to know one thing (there were many) about which the quote was directed, they were talking about doing -- wait for it -- large economic deals at the time. They never panned out, but they actually did continue economic treaties during the period. In the long run, especially with an expected expanded Reich, they absolutely had to have Soviet goods, or they would grind to a halt. It was embarrassing that they had to continue the relationship with the Soviets.

Re: "Hitler and Nazi were primarily an anti-Communist force. It is weird that almost nothing about political rivalry is said in the section."

->I agree. This is obviously just a summary of relations (main tags to other articles with more elaborate descriptions), but it still should be addressed. This all wrapped into their larger racial ideology with, of course, the Jews being the fault of all problems. There's a new one. The following two paragraphs are now in:

---

The [[Adolf Hitler's rise to power|rise to power]] of the [[Nazi Party]] increased tensions between Germany, the Soviet Union and other countries with ethnic [[Slavs]], which were considered "[[Untermensch|untermenschen]]" according to [[Racial policy of Nazi Germany|Nazi racial ideology]].<ref>Bendersky,Joseph W., ''A History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945'', Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 083041567X, page 177</ref> Moreover, the [[anti-semitic]] Nazis associated ethnic Jews with both [[communism]] and [[capitalism]], [[Third Position|both of which they opposed]].<ref>Lee, Stephen J. and Paul Shuter, ''Weimar and Nazi Germany'', Heinemann, 1996, ISBN 043530920X, page 33</ref><ref>Bendersky, Joseph W., ''A History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945'', Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 083041567X, page 159</ref> Consequently, Nazis believed that Soviet untermenschen Slavs were being ruled by "''[[Jewish Bolshevism|Jewish Bolshevik]]''" masters.<ref>Müller, Rolf-Dieter, Gerd R. Ueberschär, ''Hitler's War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment'', Berghahn Books, 2002, ISBN 157181293, page 244</ref> In 1934, Hitler himself had spoken of an inescapable battle against "pan-Slav ideals", the victory in which would lead to "permanent mastery of the world", though he stated that they would "walk part of the road with the Russians, if that will help us."<ref>Rauschning, Hermann, ''Hitler Speaks: A Series of Political Conversations With Adolf Hitler on His Real Aims'', Kessinger Publishing, 2006,ISBN 142860034, pages 136-7</ref><br><br> In 1936, Germany and [[Italian Fascism|Fascist Italy]] supported the [[Fascist]] [[Spain under Franco|Spanish Nationalists]] in the [[Spanish Civil War]], while the Soviets supported the partially socialist-led [[Second Spanish Republic|Spanish Republic]] opposition.<ref> Jurado, Carlos Caballero and Ramiro Bujeiro, ''The Condor Legion: German Troops in the Spanish Civil War'', Osprey Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1841768995, page 5-6</ref> That same year, Germany and Japan entered the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]],<ref name="weinberg">Gerhard Weinberg: ''The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe 1933-36'', Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, pages 346.</ref> and were joined a year later by [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italy]].<ref>Robert Melvin Spector. ''World Without Civilization: Mass Murder and the Holocaust, History, and Analysis'', pg. 257</ref>

---

I'll add a sentence about the concurrent Soviet anti-fascist and anti-capitalist propaganda later to the initial paragraph.

Even more weird, and not really addressed in the article, was their setting aside these differences and explaining them away as they approached the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact and 1939 Soviet-German Commercial Agreement. The discussions during the finalizing of the economic deal the Soviet demanded before inking a political deal in early August were somewhat odd, to say the least. The Ribbentrop and Stalin comments on the matter about how each side really just wanted to rankle the capitalist Brits on the day of the signing were flat out wacky. They are barely touched upon with one quote in the Stalin article, but they are pretty nutty given the history of Nazi and Soviet propaganda throughout the 1930s.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This was lacking from the article -- mostly because it hadn't really addressed their prior 1930s hostilities -- so I added a clause addressing it, and the Ribbentrop-Stalin conversation addressing it.

It's very brief (just a clause in a sentence earlier and small description of the signing), with the details in the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations article. More details of the countries' prior political-racial hostilities are also contained in that article (they are in a summary format in this article).

Both the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations and Soviet–German relations before 1941 articles obviously contain much more detailed discussions of the background between the countries than this article, which addresses it in summary fashion, with see tags to the main articles on the topic.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)