Talk:German–Soviet Axis talks

Image copyright problem with File:Germans and Soviets demarcation BT.jpg
The image File:Germans and Soviets demarcation BT.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image Issue
The image that's being used now is too big and it doesn't fit well with the text. I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.146.11 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint #1
this article is wrong

they are saying at the beggining of the article that ussr would entry as a "fourth axis power" the axis power by that time was made only of italy and germany japan would only enter at the war in 1941 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.12.158 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaint #2
Your sources are despicable. They are a bunch of Glen Becks. This article has no point,it's just nazi propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus Marat (talk • contribs) 08:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the material cited in the reference works come directly from the Soviet and Nazi archives... just because we don't like something doesn't mean it isn't true.  Is it really that far-fetched to imagine Stalin aligning with the Axis?  If he'd successfully joined, there is a pretty good chance we'd have sections of our history books on Soviet India and Soviet Persia.  It was honestly just about the smartest thing he could have done if he was interested in expansion which had been the stated goal of the Soviet government until the late 1930s. --    Alyas Grey   : talk 07:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Entering Axis was never Stalins intention
Stalin behavior towards germany was a behaviour of duplicity. he made pacts and pretended sympathies while secretly plotting to attack the axis powers once they got weaker. Stalin never intended to be a permanent ally of germany. once the red army was ready and germany showed signs of weakeness, stalin had planned to attack. there are multiple sources that confirm stalins duplicity toward the axis, and the falsehood of the pacts stalin did with hitler. there is also, an wiki article which contains stalins plan of a soviet offensive against germany. the "stalin" article is not being honest in showing stalin agressive stance towards the axis, instead presenting a view that stalin was friendly towards the axis while in reality, stalin intended to betray the pacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.248.145 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor English issues aside in your statement, it serves absolutely no purpose on any TP - you personal opinion is useless. You need to cite Reliable Sources to back up your claim, with page numbers. 98.67.187.126 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

there is an entire wiki article regarding stalin making preparations for a surprise attack on germany, with multiple sources and books, is called "Soviet offensive plans controversy". this article is in contradiction with the other article and is presenting book sources as fact. are these book sources really proven to be true (regarding the ussr entering the axis powers) and based on real documents? or are they based on theories by historians? thats the question. notice that there is a lot of difference between joining the axis and cooperating while on a non-aggression pact, is there any soviet document that support the ussr entering as fourth axis power ? another important point is the fact that the ussr suggested to england and france sending 1 million soviet troops to make a combined attack to germany. this should possibly be in the article as well.

"Germany had not defeated Britain"

 * Owain, I would suggest "..convinced that Germany could not defeat Britain, which weakened Germany's grandiose proposals in the eyes of the pragmatic Molotov.." or something similar. Simon Irondome (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Convinced that Germany's power in the military and diplomatic sphere had been exposed as weaker than claimed by it's inability to defeat Britain". Where is this claim stated? This interpretation is not in the source. - Owain Knight (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the strongest source to be honest. We could find better, if you wish to help improve the section. However I would suggest that "weakened" in the article means just this. The idea that Germany had been militarily "weakened" by Britain in November 1940 is absurb, as I am sure you would agree. Regards Simon Irondome (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's your suggestion that Germany claimed this, it is nowhere in the source. You haven't provided any source for this claim, so I am removing it. - Owain Knight (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didnt say Germany claimed this. I don't know where you get that from. I am saying Molotov (encouraged by Stalin) believed Germany to be less than invincible and this encouraged Molotov's hard line on Bulgaria during the talks. We need to find better material. It is a rubbish source and you are paraphrasing way too closely for comfort. I will find a better source and remove the absurd concept that Germany was militarily weakened. They were weakened prestige wise. I assume that is what that source you are deploying is very poorly trying to say. Irondome (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is obvious in your wording that Germany purportedely claimed to be greater militarily and diplomatically which had been exposed as false. It is you who is interpreting and writing stuff not in the source, which is surely wrong. What is this new source you have cited and how did you get it at all? There is no such book "Wienberg 1972" that I could find. - Owain Knight (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you are obviously not looking very hard. Germany and the Soviet Union 1939-1941. Gerhard Weinberg originally published 1954. Reprinted 1972. Page 144. Its on google books. Seriously hope you are not claiming I am making up a source. Obviously WP:AGF at this point with you. Its a proper source, not a dumbed down website. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

in contradiction with 2 wiki articles
the anti-comintern pact is very relevant to the article and should be mentioned. there is also an entire wiki article regarding stalin making preparations for a surprise attack on germany, with multiple sources and books, is called "Soviet offensive plans controversy". this article is in contradiction with the other article and is presenting book sources as fact. are these book sources really proven to be true (regarding the ussr entering the axis powers) and based on real documents? or are they based on theories by historians? thats the question. notice that there is a lot of difference between joining the axis and cooperating while on a non-aggression pact, is there any soviet document that support the ussr entering as fourth axis power? another important point is the fact that the ussr suggested to england and france sending 1 million soviet troops to make a combined attack to germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.237.215.29 (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the summary
To include the post-war book "Falsifiers".Fell free to revert me if you think I am wrong. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)