Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact/Archive 2

Where is the evidence for Soviet resistance before the pact was signed
There is a general theme made several times in the article that the Soviets had sought to undermine Germany for years, and signed the pact because Britain and France and other powers would not act against Germany. It is also mentioned that the Soviets needed to sign the pact as a way to prepare against a German invasion. Is there any real evidence to support this? If not, I would really like to take this Stalinist apology out. TDC 17:30, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union and the Comintern supported the popular front strategy, which basically said "we'll ally and work together with anyone who wants to fight against fascism". Furthermore, the Spanish Civil War was in its later stages a proxy war between the Nazi-backed nationalists and the Soviet-backed republicans. In Germany itself, the pro-Soviet KPD fought bitterly (both politically in elections, and physically on the streets) against the Nazis before 1933. In 1933, the KPD became the very FIRST victims of Nazi terror (before the Nazi's got around to the Jews). Finally, Hitler created the infamous Anti-Comintern Pact for the purpose of fighting communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular. The Anti-comintern pact later gave birth to the Axis.


 * Proof enough for ya? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It proves that two extremely similar rival groups were engaged in a battle over street turf. When two groups of fanatics are bent on conquering the world, what's going to happen? It doesn't make the Soviets any more noble than the Nazi's. After all, they're both socialist groups. Look at their goals and their methods. Also, according to Karl Marx, the enemy of the masses is the bourgeiousie, or middle class, NOT "fascism." The fascists were merely communist rivals, like Al Capone fighting Mugsy Malone.

Soviet apologecy and propaganda are not at all irrelevant, as it influenced the public opinion (and official propaganda) as far away as in France, Britain and the United States. However, the article might well be served by a more careful wording. --Johan Magnus 17:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Soviets did resist the Nazi's in Spain, they did offer complete support to the Czechs (the western powers actively kept them out of the 4 power discussion prior to Munich - the 4th country being Italy which gave diplomatic support to Germany), they even proposed joint action to save what was left of the Czechs when Hitler violated Munich, the Soviets proposed alliance over Poland (the UK & France but mainly the UK refused). On all these points the USSR opposed the Nazis when the westrn powers can barely be described as neutral. On this point I would also like to see removal of the sentence "Furthermore, the Soviet Union pursued a policy of encouraging capitalist countries to fight each other, in order to stimulate World Revolution" & the paragraph further down about the Soviets not being interested in the status quo. The Soviet economy was growing so fast that the status quo was very much in their interest & they did not engage in adventurism either in Europe or against the Japanese or Turks. This might be arguable for the 20s. When Hitler came to power the Soviets very actively sought a Popular Front against him, including subordinating the revolutionary instincts of western communist parties to a joint alliance. Stalin can be attacked for cynically selling out communism in the interests of western friendship but not vice versa. The Hitler Stalin Pact only took place after the attempt to achieve such an alliance had repeatedly failed. Neil Craig


 * Hitler claimed that the Soviets had sought to undermine Germany for years, so it is not just a "Stalinist apology". The USSR did seek to undermine capitalism in Germany for years, which would be obvious to anyone who read the Comintern archives of relations between the VKP and KPD.  And of course Britain and France didn't act against Germany - is that a Stalinist apology, because I hear right-wing hacks talking about how Chamberlain appeased Nazi Germany all the time.  I don't think any of this is controversial.  As far as signing to stave off invasion for a while (and to industrialize and prepare), what is your counter-argument to this, that Stalin was a naive, good-hearted rube who just fell off the turnip truck and trusted Hitler? Ruy Lopez 13:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would have an easier time swallowing this had it not been for Stalin's willingess to help Germany fuel its war machine via trade and acting as an intermediate to circumvent the Allied blockade. This might be explained by Stalin's secret August 19, 1939 speech to the Politburo. TDC 14:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We should be careful, in light of subsequent events, to take Stalin's offer of "help" for the Czechs in 1938 at face value; the western allies' rejection of alliance with Stalin was due, at least in part, to their suspicions of his ulterior motives. --ProhibitOnions 12:33, 2005 May 20 (UTC)


 * Didn't Vladimir Lenin say that "Treaties are like pie crusts; made to be broken."? How are you going to trust someone with a philosophy such as that? Similarly, didn't Hitler call the Munich agreement "a worthless scrap of paper"?


 *  Furthermore, the Soviet Union pursued a policy of encouraging capitalist countries to fight each other, in order to stimulate World Revolution.

Speculation. Facts, please. Mikkalai 18:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, more speculation: Stalin's "Secret speech" to Politbyro Aug 19, 1939. Classified document released after Soviet collapse and published by T.S. Bushuyeva:


 * "The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western powers. War would be avoided, but down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal and conclude a nonaggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that war would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. Under those conditions, we would have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war."


 * "The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war."


 * "Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia ..."


 * This is in concert with Second (Socialist) International Basel resolution which called proletariat to rise against warring capitalist, but what do you think? Whiskey 00:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Didn't Karl Marx write that the reactionary systems such as capitalism would either "give way, or be destroyed?" Weren't Karl Marx's writings based on the theory of class warfare?


 * Guys, this is ridiculois. ANY pragmatic leader would prefer to watch his enemies fight it out, waiting to join in the end to rip the benefits. It is what USA did in WW1, it is what UK tried to do in 1938 and what USSR tried to do in 1939. Truman said to a journalist on June 23 in regards to war in Russia - "If the Germans will be winning we should be helping the Soviets, and if the Soviets will be winning, we should be helping the Germans, and let them kill more and more". With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Stalin conclude a 'defensive pact'?
It is an accepted truth among the historians that Stalin's primary motif for signing the treaty with his arch-enemy was to gain time in order to prepare his country for an inevitable German invasion. It is astonishing, though, that such a theory has been almost universally accepted, albeit it doesn't hold any criticism.

To begin with, we have following premises: Soviet military was weak in 1939, German military was strong, Germany was planning to invade Soviet Union in the near future. From such premises people try to conclude that Stalin signed the pact so as to 'postpone' the unavoidable German agression and to stregthen the Soviet army and defences to meet the aggression.

But every exploring mind would necessarily ask at least two questions:
 * (1)What kind of defence did this pact really offer to the Soviets?
 * (2)What would have happened if there would have been no non-aggression pact?

It is almost unanimously claimed that Hitler was to attack Soviet Union at the first possible moment and provided that the German military was much stronger than the Red army (in 1939), it would have been logical for Hitler to invade Soviets as soon as gaining a common border (which the pact did enable).

From the Soviet point of view, how was this pact going to prevent the Germans from atttacking the Soviet Union immediately (without allowing weak Soviet Union any additional time to strengthen its defences)? Was Stalin such a lunatic as to believe that on August 23 there was a peril of immediate German attack but a piece of paper would hinder the enemy? Had there been no pact, had Germany conquered Poland (although that country would have endured longer without Soviet 'stab in the back'...) and then immediately invaded the still weak Soviet Union?

It might be claimed the Soviets feared an alliance of Germany and the Anglo-French allies. But the effect of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was rather giving Hitler a means to pressurise the Western leaders for the latter two couldn't account on any kind of Soviet assistance assistance from that time on!? Constanz 13:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, Soviet cooperation with the Germans that followed the pact also proves the idiocy of arguments as if Stalin's motif was German threat. Had he been afraid of Germany, helping its war effort can hardly be justified.

Also noteworthy is the pro-German job done by Comintern. At first, Anglo-French commies retained the anti-Nazi position (yet another change in Comintern direction was not easy to comprehend for them), but were soon pressurised by 'International Communist Movement' to accept revolutionary defeatism, which in the case of France, where PCF was a rather influential force, definitely contributed to French defeat. After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the PCF was declared a proscribed organisation. The PCF pursued an anti-war course during the early part of the Second World War. Thorez deserted from the French Army and fled to the Soviet Union. When the Germans invaded France, the PCF took a "neutralist" position, and initially collaborated with the German occupiers.1 It is not easy to explain, how, in the view of Stalin, Soviet and Western communists' active contribution to the Anglo-French defeat in 1940 could have stregthened the USSR, anxiously waiting for allmighty Hitler to invade it!? Constanz - Talk 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am suprised that the fact that the USSR was fighting a war with Japan in the Far East at that time is not mentioned in the article. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ensured that the USSR will not be fighting a war on two fronts as the Japanese were shocked that their ally Germany signed such a pact with their enemies. After the pact and the defeated at Khalhin Gol (Nommonhan) Japan abandoned plans for a northern expansion in favor of expanding south. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 April 2006  (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ensured that the USSR will not be fighting a war on two fronts -- that reflects the very same thesis which I have been disputing here: how did this pact exclude the possibility of a German invasion (war at 2 fronts)???--Constanz - Talk 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By no means did the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ensure that Germany will not invade. However, for the Japanese this pact was a stab in the back. This, coupled with japanese defeats at lake Hasan (1938) and Khalhin Gol (Nomonhan) in 1939 ensured that the Japanese will not attack the USSR and instead focus on southern expansion. Ultimately, a non-agression pact was signed with Japan, only to be breached by the Soviets in August 1945.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 April 2006  (UTC)

To prove that i'm not writing original research here, citations by Carl Nordling who seems to have reached similar conclusions:

''Most established historians argue that in such a situation Stalin had no alternative but to enter into a pact with Hitler instead. By way of example, A. J. P. Taylor (1906-90), the well-known English Professor of History, wrote: "It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed." He thinks the Ribbentrop-Pact was in the last resort anti-German: "It limited the German advance eastwards in case of war." Apparently Taylor thinks that the Germans would have taken Moscow if not the Pact had limited their penetration.The actual result of the Pact was, however, that Poland ceased to function as buffer in case of a German assault. A professorial chair at Oxford seems to be tantamount to a license to write sheer rubbish.''

And also: ''Even so, according to Carr, the Pact gave Stalin another and more important advantage. It granted that "if Soviet Russia had eventually to fight Hitler, the Western Powers would already be involved." Here Carr conveniently disregards the fact that both treaty parties were notorious breakers of treaties. None of them attached any importance to signatures on a piece of paper. Carr himself knew that the Pact did not prevent Hitler from attacking the Soviet Union in June 1941. [...] Also the guarantee (through the Pact) that the Western Powers would be at war before a possible attack on the Soviet Union did not exist. Such a guarantee would have required a Soviet pact with the Western Powers instead; something Stalin had declined. With such a pact no German troops could have reached Soviet territory before the outbreak of a German war against Poland and her two allies.''

''Every serious historian certainly realizes that neither Stalin nor Hitler felt himself bound to pacts, vows or other commitments. All accept that at least Hitler entered into the Pact with the intention to break it at the first suitable moment. Still they cling to the thought that the Ribbentrop Pact prevented Hitler from breaking it during precisely 22 months. What if Hitler had seen a suitable moment turning up after 22 days? Certainly, Hitler could have attacked the Soviet Union at any moment between October 1939 and June 1941 if he had seen fit to do so, pact or no pact. It is obvious that the strategic possibility for an attack did not appear at any time before May 1941. The Pact did not protect the Soviet Union in the least.'' I'd like to use similar material in the article.

The former Russian provinces ?
I'm concerned about the wording used in the article: "the former Russian provinces incorporated in Poland in 1920" which might suggest to an unaware reader that these territories were historically Russian, while they were merely occupied by Russia in course of the Partitions of Poland. Any idea how this could be rephrased in a less POV way ? --Lysy (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point. The entire Poland was once a Russian province (Kraj Nadwiślański etc.). We can always write a para with the explanation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Partitions of Poland and Polish-Soviet War and their revelance to those territories. For now, I chaged the text to read the Soviet government sought to annex the disputed territories of Kresy incorporated in Poland in 1920 after the Polish-Soviet war - hopefully this will clear the confusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Disputed" is fine with me as it does not imply any POV conclusions. Thanks. --Lysy (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, let's completely neglect the fact that Poland and Lithuania had stolen ancient substantial Russian territory after the Tatar invasion of Kievan Rus in 1237. The majority of this territory in concern was occupied by Ukrainians and Byelorussians. This territory had been a part of Russia from 862 until after the Tatar invasion which was followed by Polish and Lithuanian aggression. Subsequently, Galicia, Volhnyia, Smolensk, and others were stolen.
 * Go back to school and learn some history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.89.86 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

About the signature picture
It is authentic and was found from www.histdoc.net/history/history.html. Scroll down the page. --Thorri 11:18, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Munich Agreement and Soviet foreign policy
The text is biased, concentrates on Stalin's SU isolation caused by Soviet policy. There is a long tradition of Stalinist historiography, in the East and in the West. The beloved thesis - 300 km (?) of Eastern Poland saved Moscow. Another one - Poland was a German ally, divided Chechoslovakia together with Germany in 1938 (but not with Hungary, Hungary is a good guy), so the SU had moral right to divide Poland. Xx236 12:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The one-way analysis of the text can only suggest its bias. Talking about the pact, you may want to mention something 'little' like there is no original of it available anywhere. Only a copy. I can hardly believe Stalin burnt it himself on 22/06/41. On the following day, if I'm not mistaken, the following day "Pravda" newspaper published the pact's map which showed the USSR's border by the line French foreign minister drew in 1913 as Russian Empire's historical border. This is not the one from "secret protocol". In addition, there is still a posibility of the secret protocol be added to the pact by Khrushev's people. The last one is not the fact, but something to think about. Please, let's not go into the discussion of Poland's borders here. It can be done elsewhere.


 * ...there is still a posibility of the secret protocol be added to the pact by Khrushev's people. Is it also possible that victims of Moscow show trials really committed those terrible crimes? May-be the whole story of Gulag Archipelago is a rotten disinformation forged by class enemy? (Winter war was provoked by Finland who was plotting to invade Soviet Union, needless to say...) I'm afraid, though, that concerning the general consensus, you should discuss those themes in a proper place -- e.g Renminribao online Constanz - Talk 12:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, mate, I didn't want to offend or push point regardless of anything onto you. What I said is there is an alternative theory. You like it or not, but it must be also shown. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article. If there is a reason why to restrict some information from being published, then please say so. Especially accounting for the relevance of this particular one. With Moscow trials, please also mention the fact foreign journalists were present and their opinions at that time. Any theory, including historical, is valuably on its predictive explanation, not ad hoc one. This statement may be rephrased to match this particular case if you wish. With Finland, please tell other readers about German troops present in it and their claims for Karelia and their governmental debates. But, let's leave it at USSR-Germany Pact's discussion board and carry on on a relevant one.
 * WOW! German troops in Finland before Winter War? Could you please give your sources? What German units were then in Finland? What governmental debates are you referring?--Whiskey 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * foreign journalists were present and their opinions at that time -- Are you recalling us Andrei Vyshinsky, famous exponent of Soviet Law, who used to say "Confession is a queen over all sorts of evidence"? Yes, they all confessed but actually it speaks against Soviet system and not for. As pointed out by Solzhenitsyn, George Dimitrov turned his trial in Leipzig into public humiliation of Nazi regime, but former members of Leninist Guard appeared in court, 'smelling of urine' and confessing all the unbelievable crimes allocated by Soviet 'law specialists'. Constanz - Talk


 * Solzhenitsyn is a known liar and falsificator, which is only amplified by his literary talent. (ps. even though this is no argument, but even his last name means "One who lies" in Russian)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 April 2006  (UTC)


 * Solzhenitsyn is a known liar and falsificator -- could you recall one of his great lies and falsifications (invention of Constanz - Talk 16:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not invention, but rather interpretation. While his stories like "One Day of Ivan Denisovich" are truthfull and with an attention to detail, his major work "Archipelag Gulag" is innacurate and proposterous. Simple analysis of what is possible and what is not will reveal that many things in it he just pulled out of his ass (pardon the expression). He was a propaganda soldier on the american side.


 * Lies by Solzhenitsyn - for example, an obsolutely baseless claim that 60 million soviet citizens died in Gulag administered camps. WIth respect, Ko Soi IX 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here I bring the excepts from Stalin's speech on 10 March 1939, which explain his point after the Munich agreement (that has been signed on September 30, 1938). (this piece has been removed today from the article by 82.131.26.47 for unknown reasons) I have translated a piece of Stalin's speech from the "Report of Josef Stalin, the Secretary General of the Communist Party Central Committee to the eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", on 10 March 1939 (Отчетный доклад Генерального секретаря ЦК ВКП(б) И. В. Сталина на XVIII съезде ВКП(б) 10 марта 1939 г.): http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/193_dok/19390310stal.html http://www.hrono.ru/libris/stalin/14-27.html (the complete text of Stalin's report)

''"How to explain such one-sided and strange nature of new imperialistic war? How could it happen, that the non-aggressive countries that have such enormous possibilities, have found it so easy to leave without any repulse all their positions and obligations in order to please the aggressors? Doesn’t it speak of the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Certainly not! Non-aggressive democratic states, if taken together, are undoubtedly stronger than the fascist states both in economic and military respect. Than how to explain in this case these systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors? It would be possible to explain it, for example, by the feeling of fear before the revolution which could rise if the non-aggressive states would enter war and the war would lead to a war of a world scale. Bourgeois politicians, of course, know that the first world imperialistic war has given a revolution victory for one of the greatest countries. They are afraid that the second world imperialistic war can also lead to a revolution victory in one or several countries. But even this is not the main reason now. The main reason lies within the fact that the majority of non-aggressive countries, and first of all England and France, has abandoned the policy of collective security, has abandoned the policy of collective repulse to the aggressors, shifting to the position of non-interference, to the position of'' “neutrality”. ''Formally, the policy of non-interference could be characterized thus: «let each country defend itself from the aggressors, as it wants and as it can, it doesn't concern us, we will trade both with aggressors and with their victims». In practice, however, the policy of non-interference means policy of appeasement to the aggression, unleashing the war, hence, its transformation into world war. Or, for example, take the example of Germany. They have Austria conceded to it, despite of the obligation to protect its independence, they have conceded Sudetsky area, have left Czechoslovakia to the mercy of fate, having infringed upon all and any obligations, and then began to lie loudly in the press about «the weakness of Russian army», about «decomposition of Russian aircraft industry», about "disorders" in the Soviet Union, pushing Germans further towards the East, promising them an easy loot and saying: you should only begin the war with Bolsheviks, and further all will go just well. It is necessary to recognize that it too is very similar to pushing, encouraging the aggressor. [...] What is even more characteristic, is that some politicians and figures of the press in Europe and in the USA, having lost patience pending «a campaign to the Soviet Ukraine», start to expose themselves the actual underlying reason of the non-interference policy. They directly speak and write in black and white that Germans severely "have disappointed" them, as instead of moving further on the East, against the Soviet Union, they, have you seen, turned on the West and require the colonies to itself. It is possible to think that to Germans were given the areas of Czechoslovakia as the price for the obligation to begin war with the Soviet Union, and Germans refuse to settle the bill now, sending them somewhere far away."'' Victor V V (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are the editors here? I think that the citation from Stalin himself here is more relevant than using Paul Flewers' opinion about the same Stalin's speech:

According to Paul Flewers, Stalin’s address to the eighteenth congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on 10 March 1939 discounted any idea of German designs on the Soviet Union. Stalin had intended: "To be cautious and not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them." This was intended to warn the Western powers that they could not necessarily rely upon the support of the Soviet Union. As Flewers put it, “Stalin was publicly making the none-too-subtle implication that some form of deal between the Soviet Union and Germany could not be ruled out.”[10]

The abstract that I give, reveals much more argumentation by Stalin, because in here he directly points at the proposition of the Munich agreement (They have Austria conceded to it, despite of the obligation to protect its independence, they have conceded Sudetsky area, have left Czechoslovakia to the mercy of fate, having ). The direct citation from Stalin ("To be cautious and not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them") can be leaved, and additional citation should be added.--Victor V V (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, no matter what is the problem, quoting whole speech in article is definitely not an option. Article needs to stay readable and readers shouldn't be forced to dig through long speeches. So no suprize it was removed.--Staberinde (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we add those pictures ?
I think the pictures of those friendly meetings and handshakes between soldiers of SU and Nazi Reich would demonstrate the climate of their relationship in 1939-1941. http://www.videofact.com/images/sov_germ11.jpg http://www.videofact.com/images/sov_germ12.jpg http://www.videofact.com/images/sov_germ13.jpg http://www.videofact.com/images/sov_germ14.jpg http://www.ska.pl/biorytm/tankista.jpg --Molobo 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfect pictures to depict the 'friendly meetings of our sentries in that shabby Poland' and 'those brave men fighting against Anglo-French bankers' as Pravda headlines told in 1939 (reported by Solzhenitsyn). In case copyright allows us, it should be done. Constanz - Talk 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * These pictures are only nice as an additional multimedia material, but not historical. Would you be kind enough to explain what historical conclusions can you make from these photos? If it is the fact soviet soldiers were shaking germans' hands upon meeting, rather than shoot each other, then it is a very serious non-historical discussion. Signing a pact with Japan in April 1941, you could see Stalin shake Japanese foreign minister's hand and even smile. What follows from it? That they loved each other and Japanese were willing to join their Soviet, communist brothers? Sadly, looking back it was pretty contrary. So, I can see absolutely no historical argumentation to present these pictures in this sensitive historcial issue. But, yes, I enjoy looking at all historical photos myself to includes these 5. Thanks Xiaoxiong
 * these pictures in this sensitive historcial issue -- that's precisely why we shouldn't deny the Soviet active participation in the aggressive war against Poland. I don't claim Stalin was a disguised Nazi (regarding his cheers to leaders of nazi-block states), but I claim he was no lesser evil than Hitler. Why referring to 'Pravda' headlines of the day? -- just to uncover the very essence of Stalinist regime, its complete lack of any principles and Machiavellianism par excellence. Constanz - Talk 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * first of all, let's call it an aggression or an intervention. it is a war as long as there is a government on the other side. as you may know/guess it wasn't quite the case after the 3rd of september onwards. also, you may refer to polish ambassador's reply to soviet note before going into the "aggressive war". But, let's leave it here. Coming back to the photos. You still haven't specified the historical meaning of them. May I also publish photos from Munich 1938 and claim this is the clear proof of British and French government's trying to join the facist axis? A photo from 1942 where a Russian soldier is fighting for SS division and claim there was still nearly sexual love between Russians and Germans at the time and, moreover, Stalin personally supported this as it helped him to kill Soviet people? I'm glad you are smiling at these ideas, but sadly it is not greatly different from the above 5. In the end, I really appreciate your historical couriosity and you will to discuss something 'untouchable', but all I am up for is to put your personal feelings to a side. History is history and it is the most interesting to look at it from different angles rather than try to use it for one's personal satisfaction. I guess you are also not Russian, so this is something both of us, hopefully, have no prejudement. Xiaoxiong


 * Why do you find the 'friendly venues of Soviet and German soldiers' irrelevant to history? And the smiling Stalin and Ribbentrop (it's a pity Stalin and Hitler didn't have any time for friendly meetings)? Really, as Stalin hoped to maintain (--- you claim it) this grand alliance of two Great Dictators as long as possible, why not showing the photographs of such touching scenes? Constanz - Talk 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Interest spheres known before - what is purpose of secret protocol?
I used to think the purpose of the secret protocol was to agree on the spheres of interest, until I saw a map collection printed in 1938, which already contained the border between the German and the Soviet sphere of interest. This makes me wonder, is the version of history I learned in highschool in Germany wrong? And what was the purpose of the secret protocol? Is it widely known that such maps existed or not? CuriousOliver 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the discussion about pictures, just above. There, my attempt to get some people to agree on dubious nature of historical reality of the protocol and the map. Anyway, which maps exactly are you talking about? User:XiaoXiong
 * Yes, if you have the maps, you should really bring them here. Can you say where, when and who have printed them, how the borderlines are presented and named and how the border goes in Lithuania and Poland? (Well, I'm a little bit sceptic with those maps, really. I wonder if they are printed later but contain the situation of 1938 or if the border is not about spheres of interest but Russian and German empires of 1914.) And XiaoXiong, could you please answer my previous question about the German troops in Finland? --Whiskey 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen myself printed in a magazine a Soviet map from pre-MRP time, where the Baltic States are shown as already part of the USSR. Constanz - Talk 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty
Is this the alternate name for THIS treaty? If so, a redirect should be created and the name added to the main article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty was signed after the Nazi-Soviet allies had conquered Poland. It defined the border, minor changes were made and Lituahia was given to Soviet sphere (pripr to this, Lithuania was regarded part of German sphere of interest.) --Constanz - Talk 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Soviet forces only entered Poland AFTER Nazi and Nazi allies invaded Poland and AFTER Polish troops and government escaped Nazi occupied Poland.

-G

El Jigue to be banned again
I just inserted ""After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the PCF (French Communist Party) was declared a proscribed organisation. The PCF pursued an anti-war course during the early part of the Second World War." Maurice Thorez head of PCF "deserted from the French Army and fled to the Soviet Union. " " into Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact entry. It (within three minutes) was deleted and I expect to be banned again soon. Will be back after ban ends. El Jigue 3-24-06

Participation of the French Communists in the fall of France
If it can be documented that the French Communists sabotaged the war effort I would say that it belongs here because presumably they would not have done so unless so directed by the Soviets. However any evidence of such an order from Moscow would be helpful as well. If it’s true I don’t see any justification from omitting that information here.Lenbrazil 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again the participation of the French Communists in the fall of France to the Nazis has been deleted by Curps again by Mikkalai. However, so far these two have not repeated their previous false accusation of vandalism and colluded to get me banned. One notes that although I appreciate the mild mannered correction of Constanz, this correction does not cover communist sabotage of the Renout Tank Factory and aircraft. El Jigue 3-24-06


 * And it will be deleted again. This article is about the Pact. If you want to include anything else, please demonstrate the immediate relevance. mikka (t) 05:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about the influence of the pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact), then let us also mention its influence on Commieintern and latter's yet another U-Turn. This subversive organization had its influence on the West, the Western public opinion (let us not forget ardent communist intellectuals!), and according to Soviet sources (i'm citing Soviet-era biography of Ch.de Gaulle), 1/10 of the French army soldiers (in 1940) were communists! --Constanz - Talk 12:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunno who died and left you G-d of Wikipedia. The pact was "immediately" acted upon by French and English Communists who were directed to reverse gears and help the Nazi's in the expectation of a chaotic circumstance in France which was believed would favor the advance of communism. To the credit of the bemused French communists this was not terrible effective but it did exist and at that point did have some effect despite what all the communist apologists say. Of course as soon as Hitler invaded Russia this was immediately reversed, and the French communists were then directed to attack German forces. Go ahead and try to ban me again and try to delete any remarks I may make, that will not work. You already been rebuked by others and too many people are watching. El Jigue 3-24-06

Mikkalai lay off Constanz and stop deleting his stuff it gives the impression, surely false, that you are just a stalinist apologist El Jigue 3-24-06
 * Reputable references, please, and no one will delete it. I know plenty of smart theories myself. The current version is OK. mikka (t) 19:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can one cite any reputable sources which claim that Communist behavior played any major role in the French defeat in 1940? I am doubtful - I have read a fair amount on the subject, and have never come across this argument.  And even if it were accurate, its application to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article is highly dubious. john k 04:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In what wauy is it dubious to the article? The pro-nazi stance in Commieintern policies is an effect; also, as I've mentioned before, 1/10 of the French soldiers were said to be communists. --Constanz - Talk 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article should be about the pact. Noting briefly that it had the effect of making the various western communist parties oppose the war until the invasion of the Soviet Union is one thing.  But going into detail about it supposedly bringing about the fall of France would, even if it could be supported, belong in the Comintern and French Communist Party articles.  Beyond that, we need an actual source that says that the PCF's position had any significant effect on the French war effort.  My understanding is that the PCF's position did a lot more damage to it than it did to the French army.  Even many communists were disillusioned by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. john k 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
This redirects from "Nazi-Soviet Alliance". How is this different from what Plisudski and co. pulled off in 1934? Can we delete the "alliance" redirect and just keep the M-R pact page?
 * Did Pilsudski in 1934 ally himself with France to annex Germany? Or perhaps did he ally himself with Uganda to dismantle Burundi? I'm not sure how is it related to this article.  // Halibutt 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I made a mistake. It wasn't Plisudski, after all.

But Poland did partition parts of Czecholovakia with the Nazis in 1938. Smaller parts, naturally, but this was an identical situation, overall. ~=========== It would be nice to see opions signed by the autor. Or is the author ashamed of his simplification?

1. Hungary partitioned Czechoslovakia much intensiver than Poland but Poland seems to be the bad guy. 2. Poland didn't cooperate with the Nazis but executed the will of France, GB, Italy and Germany. 3. Czechoslovakia took the disputed area when the Soviets invided Poland. Was it more "ethical" than the unfortunate Polish action of 1938? Did the division of the city of Cieszyn between two states 1920 represent the opinions of the local people? 4. The Czech Wikipedia is interested 100 times less in the subject,than pro-Soviet and anti-Polish activists in other Wikipedias. Poland didn't exterminate the local population and didn't deport thousands to Siberia.

I would like to know what is the source of this stereotypes. Are they spread at schools, by media, by biased historians? Xx236 07:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1920 Poland was the aggressor; and the lands that got partitioned in 1939 were snatched from Ukraine and SU by Poland, just like Cieczyn was taken by the Czechs at that time. In both cases, the reversal came in 1938/9 as a result of a pact with the Germans. The situation is very similar in all but scale. And you know what, I don't want to sign anything. Signing in Wikipedia only means opening yourself to be flamed in every article you ever work on.

Where do your views come from? Are they spread by the entrenched and convenient view of Poland as a perpetual victim of these and those and thus guiltless? Are they driven by some kind of, I don't know, irrational dislike of Soviets and Russians in particular? A tendency to scapegoat? Instilled by media, schools, or biased historians?

You tell me.

Background
The Background repeats the same informations twice. The same informations are repeated in other paragraphs. An English speaking editor is needed. Xx236 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was necessary
Such statement makes the Soviet Union a little object of the world policy. It's Soviet propaganda, made by an anonynous contributor. The Soviet Union had one of the biggest armies of the world and no common border with Germany. It wasn't necessery to help the Nazi to destroy Poland, making basis for 1941 aggression. Xx236 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The Pact was an aid for Germany and the SU to rehabilitate and stabilize the regions in question if it fell apart or into turmoil. It wasn’t a intention for war or occupation. The SU found out to late that it was an excuse for Nazi Germany.
 * This is not supported by the evidence. The Soviets had suggested a fourth partition of Poland several times to the Germans from 1920 on. The Soviet invasion was made as a result of a direct request from Ribbentrop. These dictators were in it together. Prezen 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

German Communist prisoners
How come the treaty appeard to do little for German communists many of whom were being persecuted and/or imprison in concentration at the time. As part of the treaty ethnic Germans in the Soviet union were allowed/encouraged/forced to emigrate to the German annexed territories in Poland but little seems to have been done to either end the persecution of German political prisoners or to allow them to emigrate to the USSR.


 * I've also read that some German emigré commmies were actually handed over to Nazis. For Stalin, ends always justified the means. --Constanz - Talk 07:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember Montefiore correctly he points out that the communists Stalin handed over to Hitler in 1937 had a lower mortality rate than the ones Stalin kept. So the pact obviously did something for German communists. Prezen 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard of the fact as well. have to look up sources.Constanz - Talk 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have one example, the physicist Fritz Hautermans.:Dc76 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pact of Mutual Assistance with Poland
However, Chamberlain, who already on March 24 had, with France, guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, now on April 25 signed a Pact of Mutual Assistance with Poland. Shouldn't this be reffering to the Polish-British Common Defence Pact of August 25 instead?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Secret Protocol
I did not found in this article that additional secret protocol (СЕКРЕТНЫЙ ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ ПРОТОКОЛ К ДОГОВОРУ О НЕНАПАДЕНИИ МЕЖДУ ГЕРМАНИЕЙ И СОВЕТСКИМ СОЮЗОМ) with its corrections was first published in 1992, and sometimes stated false (Юрий Мухин etc.). The most strange thing in the protocol is that the boundary between Russian and German spheres of interest has a big gap in it. Alone Coder 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Secret Protocol
I don't recall seeing the maps the last time I visited here, kudos on those. They do point out a rather gaping ommission of the second secret protocol which, in fact, did give Lithuania to Stalin as well, quite closely aligning with the post-war results. (I see the banned "Jacob Peters" has come and gone here as well...)  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That protocol, amending the protocol to M-R Pact, was attached to another Nazi-Soviet treaty, - German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty. It is mentioned under "Effects" section. So technically the map, titled "Planned division .. according to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" is still correct, although you, too, are right - including into map changes planned in the second treaty would complete the picture. Doc15071969 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

M-R vs. R-M
I see that the page name is Molotov-Ribbentrop and not the reverse. What's the rationale for this? Is there some definitive source that determined the order? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably just alphabetical when the pact is referred to (as it is, primarily) with Molotov's and Ribbentrop's names. While the reverse order looks to be in fair use (search engines), I can say that it does not appear in any published academic materials I have (primarily related to the Baltics, and a wide variety of both Baltic and non-Baltic sources, so Molotov-Ribbentrop is not a Balto-centric term). &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a new (used) book came in the mail yesterday and it's the first source written by someone of Baltic background which uses the reverse (Ribbentrop-Molotov). "M-V" remains (by a vast margin) in the lead. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further: Noting your consideration that local or regional usage might play a role in the determination, I note that the page in the German Wikipedia is called "German-Soviet" ("also Hitler-Stalin, also Molotov-Ribbentrop"), and in the Russian Wikipedia, "Molotov-Ribbentrop." My clarification actually pertains to the usage in Hebrew (whose Wikipedia page is titled "Ribbentrop-Molotov," contrary to alphabetical order), so I'll take the query over there. Thanks, Pēters, for your helpful input. -- Deborahjay 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The implications of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement
Shouldn't it be mentioned, in the background perhaps, that the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 18th 1935 played a role in the USSR foreign policy? I believe this move (part of the British Appeasement policy) didn't only break the Stresa front with France and Italy but proved to Stalin that Britain is self-centered and weak already in 1935. Perhaps this should be looked into. 83.143.40.218 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)hcaulfield

Problems of Hindsight and Russia's foreign policy motives
Both an interesting article and a stimulating series of discussions. I can't help but think though, that there is an undestandable tendency to try to make sense of Russian foreign policy pre-WWII from their triumph after WWII, rather than the position in 1939.

It may be simpler to accept that the Russians jumped at this opportunity because they saw it as a way of buying time and opportunistically also giving them the additional chance to extend their influence through Eastern and Central Europe in the meantime as a secondary factor. Fear and the desire o extend power aren't necessarily incompatible.

As several people mention the USSR had no reason to believe a deal with France and Britain against Hitler was ever in the offing, based on the various failed attempt to make one, and in any case western capitalist countries were traditionally antipathetic to the USSR, so the pact seems more like a way to buy time on Russia's part. Hitler and the Nazi's dislike of the USSR and communism, the obsession with Lebensraum in the East, the belief Slavs were barbarians etc. , was well known, (Mein Kampf), but it is worth saying that from the Russian POV, so was Germany's liking for Western Europe. Hitler's extreme Anglophilia was no secret and what German has ever failed to admire and adore France? So in that respect the Russians would always have been worried that a deal between Germany and western Europe depended on just what Britain and France wished to do, while any deal Russia made was always just provisional, so this was an opportunity the Russians would only get one crack at. From the Russian point of view there was always the possibility that France and Britain would forget about Poland and leave Russia to face Germany on its own.

The idea that the non agression pact would lead to war between the capitalist countries does fit with Marxist theory on capitalism and imperialism as developed by Lenin about WW1, but it was more a Russian hope than a real policy aim. After all, what exactly did Britain or France have to do with Germany's war aims and vice versa? Why would they defend Poland and not the Sudetenland? The second point about hindsight is that no one apart from Hitler and the Wermacht generals would have believed that any conflict between Germany and the Western powers if it happened would be anything more than a repetition of World War I. France's army was larger and technically superior to Germany's, the Maginot line was considered impregnable and the British Empire had huge resources to draw on. So if there was conflict then Russia prob assumed it would keep Germany busy for years, if there wasn't conflict then at least Russia's deal with Germany might buy them a few more years for their own economoy to pick up and rearm.

Of course nothing turned out like that. To Germany's incredulity the 'kindred' races of Britain and France went to war over what the Nazi's perecived as the 'inferior' Slavic race, even in the face of Russia not being involved in the war effort due to the non-agression pact. Hitler's generals delivered an astonishing victory over France, Britain refused to make a deal with Germany to Hitler's amazement. But this was all hindsight in 1939, whereas the alternative for Russia to not doing a deal with Germany was probably just Russia being first in the firing line, or so Stalin and the Russian leadership feared. It's worth asking what would have happened if Russia hadn't gone for the non agression pact on offer? Could Germnay have made a deal in Eastern Europe that allowed them to attack the USSR and if so would France and Britain hve gone to the USSR's aid?

81.131.55.135 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Steven Barfield

I partially agree with your assessment "that the Russians Soviets jumped at this opportunity because they saw it as a way of buying time and opportunistically also giving them the additional chance to extend their influence through Eastern and Central Europe in the meantime". But I disagree when you bring such details as:
 * "Why would they defend Poland and not the Sudetenland?" Because Britain had a treaty obligation with Poland, but not with Czechoslovakia.
 * "Hitler's generals delivered an astonishing victory over France, Britain refused to make a deal with Germany to Hitler's amazement." I don't think one was "astonishing" and I don't think the other was "amazing". I believe both were very natural, but that many were missled by wrong impressions they have formed.
 * "It's worth asking what would have happened if Russia hadn't gone for the non agression pact on offer? Could Germnay have made a deal in Eastern Europe that allowed them to attack the USSR" The conditions of such a deal would have been humiliating for Hitler's Germany, especially in the public eye. I believe, even without any treaty with USSR, Germany would have attacked Poland. The difference would have been that then Germany would have occupied all of Poland. Soviets wanted to start a war with Germany as west as possible.
 * "and if so would France and Britain hve gone to the USSR's aid?" Absolutely not. Untill 22 June 1941, USSR was universally regarded as an agressor and a major threat. USSR wanted to attack (German-occupied) Poland and (German-allied) Romania, and had ready and very specific plans to deliever a blow to Wermacht, humiliate the regime, and thus, they hopped, to provoke a new communist revolution in Germany. USSR's chance of long time peace lied in a communist state in Europe, and that could only be centered in the land of Marx and Engels. USSR's actions were totally determined by idiology, just as Germany's.

England and France on the contrary opposed both of them, and hoped to make them clash in order to weaken each other. Only when Germany's victory in 1941 seemed almost certain, and given the fact that it already defeated France and was keeping bombing Britain, the latter had to bet on helping USSR fight longer and drag German troups, allowing itself (Britain) to reorganize and resupply.

Eastern Europe (those that were not already occupied) also opposed both idiologies, they saw clearly that fascism and communism were too far gone, too warmonger not to clash in the immediate future, but they hoped to keep quiet and allow the storm pass them. They did not want to upset any of the two idiologies, since they feared events simmilar to what latter became reality in 1944 in Warsaw: one idiological side distroying the rebeleous locals, while the other waits for the destruction to attack and distroy both locals and the weaken other idiological side.:Dc76 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the primary motivation was buying time.
 * Likewise, looking at it as Hitler vs. Stalin also does no justice to Stalin masterfully playing both sides of the court.
 * Let's look at the (failed) Anglo-Franco pact and (successful) German pact. One of the bones of contention in negotiating with Britain and France was that part of what Stalin wanted was to be able to preemptively "protect" the Baltics even if they desired no such protection. Stalin knew when it came down to it, the western powers would not protect the Baltics via armed intervention (but did not want to be overt about it).
 * With that angle stalled, Stalin played the other side, which gave him what he wanted. With the conclusion of the M-R pact, Stalin had his green light for his territorial acquisition, and Hitler his green light for the acquisition of (his half of) Poland. Just as Stalin correctly determined that France/Britain would have no appetite to intervene in the Baltics, Hitler correctly determined that France/Britain would have no appetite for armed intervention to protect Poland.
 * Upon the Nazi's request, the Soviets transmitted coded messages for the Nazi air force invading Poland in direct support of that invasion. And when word spread in Moscow (premature, actually) that the Nazis had taken Warsaw, Molotov sent Berlin a telegram of congratulations. Stalin launched his own campaign shortly thereafter--while it's been characterized as Stalin insuring Hitler went no further than the agreed-upon boundary, it was Stalin putting his plan of Eastern European conquest in motion, starting with Poland (invading after various denouncements, reporting a spontaneous "revolution" of the "oppressed" Ukraininans and Belarussians, and publishing a false report of Poland invading Soviet airspace).
 * The M-R pact was all about dividing up Eastern Europe safely, that is, no German/Soviet military confrontation, fueled by the correct assessments on the parts of both Stalin and Hitler that France/Britain would, in the end, do nothing more than protest. Whether or not they were in a position to do more than protest, is, of course, a separate discussion--but Poland's expectation, at least, had been that protection would in fact be forthcoming, a fatal miscalculation. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Date
I have a newspaper clipping that says that this pact was signed on June 26, 1940. Is there a source for the alternate date provided in the article?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, see for example here. — Turgidson 03:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, the negotiations lasted until after midnight, thus the pact was actually signed at 2:00 a.m. on August 24, 1939 Moscow time, just nobody bothered to change the date. --Dodo19 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read it described as being signed after talks "late into the night" (so that matches up with the 2:00am Moscow time), but the negotiations are still ascribed to the 23rd. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bolshevik sovereignty?
"In 1918, by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the new Bolshevik Russian state accepted the loss of sovereignty and influence over Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and parts of Armenia and Georgia as a concession to the Central Powers"

Most of these countries like Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had no loyalty to the Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks had no sovereignty over these countries, in fact some of them war with them. Tsarist Russians had to accept the loss of the influence.. What would be a better sentence in that section? Not all these countries even were part of the area in Brest-Litovks treaty. --Pudeo⺮ 09:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The territories which had been part of Russia were still part of Bolshevik Russia until ceded by the Treaty, so Duchy of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,... (don't have a reference handy for the full list). While the treaty is often portrayed as emasculating Russia's influence, it actually gave Lenin breathing room to regroup his forces and momentum.
 * The question of "loyalty" is quite a separate one--the "disloyal" pretty much encompassing all the territory west of Russia proper, as you observe. Unless the statement specifically names a territory not affected by Brest-Litovsk, it can probably pretty much stay as is.
 * That said, I'm a bit less clear on "concession" to the Central Powers--perhaps we can name specifically? As I recall there was some Brest-Litovsk "backlash" when it appeared that Germany, which had lost in the west, was being rewarded in the east. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to sheed the light on one such example: Bessarabia. The timeline is as follows:
 * 8 November 1917 - Bolsheviks and Left Esers take power in St. Peteresburg
 * 15 November 1917 - Declaration by the new government of the rights of peoples of Russia, where it is explicitely recognized the right to sovereignty and self-determination
 * 4 December 1918 - the locally elected counsil Sfatul Ţării meats for the first time, and the general-governor of Bessarabia formally relinquishes his powers to it
 * 15 December 1918 - Bessarabia is proclaimed as "Moldavian Democratic Republic" inside "Russian Federative Republic"
 * 15 January 1918 - Ukraine declares independence from Russia
 * 6 February 1918 - Bessarabia (Moldavian Depocrtic Republic) declares independence from Russia
 * 9 April 1918 - Bessarabia (MDR) declared re-union with Romania
 * So, from 8.11.1917 till 6.2.1918, Bessarabia was part of the Russian Federative Republic (proclaimed in the summer of 1917 by Kerenski government), which had a Bolshevik-dominated government. :Dc76\talk 13:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Sorge
I would think that Richard Sorge's espionage in Toukyou is essential background for this article. In fact, I would add it myself, except I'm not totally sure that the spy involved was definitely Sorge. Brutannica 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is espionage reliably reported as materially affecting Stalin's decision to enter into the pact, the specific person reporting it is not material. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what kind of reporting is considered reliable, but my source is this segment from William Keylor's The Twentieth-Century World (pages 172-3):


 * [...]Stalin had decided, for a number of reasons to be summarized presently, that the best hope for Russia to protect the security of its western frontier lay with rapprochement with rather than resistance to Germany.

The first of these reasons was the Kremlin's discovery of evidence that Hitler's plans for the destruction of Poland were preparatory to a war not against Russia but rather against the Western powers. This conclusion emerged from intelligence reports from a well-placed Soviet spy in Tokyo, which detailed the acrimonious dispute between Germany and Japan during secret negotiations to transform the Anti-Comintern Pact into a triparte military alliance of the Axis powers. As we have seen, the Japanese steadfastly insisted that any such association be directed specifically and exclusively at the Soviet Union (their primary antagonist on the mainland of Asia), while Berlin had tried and failed to lure Tokyo into a military alliance aimed solely at France and Great Britain. Had the impending assault against Poland represented merely the first stage of a German invasion of Russia, a Germano-Japanese alliance against the Soviet Union would have obviously represented the most effective means of diluting Moscow's military strength by forcing it to fight a war on two fronts. Yet this was precisely the alignment that Hitler, in spite of unmistakable indications of Japanese interest, was unprepared to contemplate at this time. The announcement of the "Pact of Steel" between Germany and Italy on May 22 confirmed the breakdown of the German-Japanese negotiations and signaled Hitler's intention to direct his aggressive policies against France and Great Britain (the only powers against which Italian assistance would count).


 * Now I know that might not be the best source, since it's so broad, but I couldn't find a source specifically dealing with Nazi-Soviet diplomacy in Keylor's bibliography. Brutannica 03:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be quite important, as Stalin's entry into the Pact and subsequent invasion of Poland after the launch of the Nazi offensive are often attributed by assumption to Stalin panicking over Hitler's aggression--when in fact Moscow supported the Nazi invasion of Poland and prematurely congratulated Hitler on the fall of Warsaw to the Nazis. Hitler's invasion also gave the Soviets the excuse needed, however they wished to portray it propaganda-wise as an act of protection and/or necessity, to then violate Poland's eastern frontier. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., I did it, but I'm still uncomfortable with leaving out the spy's name. Keylor, as you can see, leaves it out, but it smacks of incompleteness. Brutannica 05:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits by 4.242.xx.xx
[re: original wholesale edit] Unfortunately, anonymous AND unsourced. Since, however, a number of grammatical corrections were done that are useful, a wholesale revert may be too much of a blunt instrument. Unfortunately, there are basic errors, for example, changing calling the 1917 Russian state to "Soviet" (did not exist) instead of "Bolshevist Russia" (which was correct--and how it was called in treaties of the time). It's also been imbued with Soviet historiology inserted as historical fact. If no one (else) takes up the mantle, I'll try to get to a "mostly" revert in the next day or two. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. That there were Baltic SS units is not a secret. That they were supporting the Nazis and their cause is not contended by any reputable source whatsoever. I have books on the Waffen SS (written by a-nationalistic scholars) also. Your characterization is a monumental (and unsupported) leap of interpretation based only on your personal opinion.
 * Balts fought for both sides and were imprisoned by both sides for fighting for the other, just to get them out. All the Latvian SS wore Latvian flags under their uniforms (for which they would be shot) for the day they could drive the Nazis after they drove the Soviets out. If your opinion is that Balts were Nazis, you are entitled to it. But not in an encyclopedia article. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. It's also worth mentioning your complete inaccuracy regarding the Nazi invasion. Your last edit indicated the Baltics joining in the Nazi crusade as the Soviets lost their M-R gains. The Eastern European Waffen SS units were only formed when the Soviets were preparing to reinvade. You're only off by a number of years.
 * One should read sources simply for what they say, not for what you might want to contend they say, and certainly not for constructing historical continuities which do not exist. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. It would be helpful (in general, not just here) if you registered and logged in under a Wiki username. Please consider doing so. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Terms
I've checked multiple sources. The whole thing about choosing names to denigrate the Soviet Union is WP:OR. Contentions about various Hitler/Nazi/Stalin/Soviet combinations and their use by nationalists certainly doesn't fit any patterns I've observed, and I've collected more than your average share of so-called "nationalist" sources, virtually all of which, BTW, use Molotov-Ribbentrop (not what has been contended here). That whole discussion just appears to be another way to get air time to complain nationalists snipe at the dead-and-can't-defend-itself-anymore Soviet Union just to be ugly. What you call a treaty doesn't change its contents. Nor was there any real evidence for preferences in different countries, Germany and the Netherlands having been mentioned. And even if there appeared to be, unless a scholar has studied and written about the "phenomenon" of multiple terms for the pact by country/nationality, it's all WP:OR anyway that's interesting for article talk, but doesn't belong in the article itself. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the difference is not as much in scholarship as in public discourse. In Baltic States, the name 'Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact' is common; because Molotov and Ribbentrop are considerably less known than Stalin and Hitler in Western Europe, Western writers writing for wide audiences have some preference for 'Hitler-Stalin pact'.  It doesn't indicate inherent biases; it's just a matter of name recognition.


 * I am positive that I've seen a high school history textbook that stated there is a usage frequence difference, although it didn't explain the reason. Unfortunately, I don't recall which textbook it was. :-( Digwuren 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we just had 4.242.177.133 (re)fill in all sorts of suggestions for possible reasons for different names and possible agendas... I'll let it sit, but it adds no value and has no sources at all (and any personally conducted popularity contest is WP:OR). If no sources appear in the next couple of days, I'll put back as it was. (Please!) get yourself a Wiki user name and cite a source. There's no solid scholarly evidence that's been produced that indicates one term pushes one POV more than another. (Can't tell if they've done any other edits, it's a dial-up line therefore rotating IP address somewhere in Seattle.) If we only had that textbook!
 * And a generic (unsourced) "some people contend that..." wouldn't cut it either--I wasn't intending to delete the prior alternate terms section, but by the time I edited it down to something which represented things for which one could try to find sources (like the name frequency in German and Dutch), it looked silly with tags all over everything left (and still 99.9% likely to be subject to WP:OR). &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, another (dialup) 4.242.xx.xx address and; "Due to various political agendas, be they anti- or pro-Communist or simply nationalist in nature, the Pact (controversial at its core) is known by a number of different titles." I invite that editor to share their source for this contention. I have not seen any analysis demonstrating particular terms being more associated with particular "agendas", nor do I understand "controversial at its core ," nor is it even mentioned exactly what the controversy is. Heading for removal.  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, "4.242.xx.xx"... What is "controversial at its core?" Which titles push which POVs? (I removed the last "examples" because they were (a) unsourced and (b) ran completely opposite to all reputable "nationalist" sources I have, which would be allegedly pushing a POV). Please bring sources, otherwise it is only your personal contention = not encyclopedic.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, again, "4.242.xx.xx"... You keep making an unsupported edit (no evidence, no sources). If there is a reputable scholarly study or academic text that indictates there are political <-> terminology correlations, it can be noted and added. But nothing has been produced to date. And your originally added unsourced contentions certainly were not borne out in examination of internet sources, and ran counter to all my "nationalist" sources (not only Latvian) which would be ascribed in your description as having a certain POV. And if this is your own research, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I'd really prefer not to ask to have the article protected against newbie editors. Your change has been removed now by 3 different editors.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw everybody's attention that the same IP is active on the Soviet-German relations before 1941 and to urge Wikipedians to scrutinize the edits. However, please, correct the updates rather than revert them indiscriminately. Parts of the contributions are worthy. Colchicum 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since 4.242.xx.xx is branching out (and is clearly bright enough to have figured out there is a talk page, which they continue to avoid) I have requested semi-protection for both pages to prevent anonymous edits and promote editor registration. I don't think I'm being unreasonable.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Motives and deterioration/disintegration
I went back and undid most of the interpretive aspects of 4.242.xx.xx's first mass edit which towed the Soviet historioraphy line a bit too closely. Where information and references were simply added, I left them. I also subsequently went through the Stalin's motives section (which also talked about disintegration of the Pact) and cleaned that up, also with additional information and references. Unfortunately, to Colchicum's above, it's a lot of work to leave in the few good bits while having to undo most of the edits--putting in that kind of effort assumes that 4.242.xx.xx's edits are done in good faith, and I am slowly coming to the conclusion they are not.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

National reactions
Can we add a section for the reactions each nation had to the pact? For example Mussolini and Italy points out that Italy was considerably offended, influencing it to stay neutral in the early part of the war. War and Nationalism in China, 1925-1945 states that the Japanese were bewildered by the agreement, and that it (along with their defeat at Nomonhan) was one of the reasons they launched their attack on Changsha. Oberiko 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Western Ukraine
Please add topic about Occupation of the Western Ukraine into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleh Kernytskyi (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazi-Soviet Alliance
"Nazi-Soviet Alliance" is hardly a fringe title, with 268 hits in google books, compared with Removing it from the article is un-encyclopedic and thus unacceptable, particularly since it qualified as "sometimes called". Martintg (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact" 620 hits
 * "Hitler-Stalin Pact" 799 hits
 * "Nazi-Soviet Pact" 1012 hits
 * I agree, although I'd suggest creating a note explaining the relative incorrectness (=unofficial name) of this term. We could also discuss how this was and how this wasn't an alliance in practice. Nine times out of ten it is better to stick to the official name, if the popular but not exclusive unofficial name is controversial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if someone will think about it as an alliance, which is in my opinion (as well as many other researchers) surely not, we better use only well known names like pact and agreement. There is a problem with the use of this term here, because one editor start to use this quite controversial and unnofficial name listed here without any additional explanation. It's not good thing that going through 5 other more often used names of pact to the alliance some people sees only latter name :), so i suggest that we will call pact as it is.  Names Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact along with official "Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" will be enough.Astrz (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Yugoslavia
What was the role of the Soviet Union in the coup d'etat launched on March 27, 1941 by anti-Axis Serbian military officers and the signature of treaty of military assistance was contrary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact spheres of influence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.113.233 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Davidlowrendezvous.png
The image Image:Davidlowrendezvous.png 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.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG


 * Image:German Soviet.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

...West was trying to divert Germany to the East
Does it really require a source? There's an entire article about it. And another one demonstrating that this suspicion was not unreasonable. Finally, this picture highlights the Soviet position quite succinctly. --Illythr (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, like anything else, it requires a source, otherwise some may think it could be Illythr's personal theory. Martintg (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture by Kukryniksy ain't my personal theory (kinda hard to realize that without some means of time-travel), but ok, here's an English (pages 56 and 66) and a Russian source about that. Besides, there's plain old common sense - France had the same mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia it had with the Soviet Union. After France fed its supposed ally to its supposed enemy like that, it had demonstrated how much both treaties were worth. --Illythr (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Best page title
Er, oops! I intended to move the page to Hitler-Stalin Pact but I left out the hyphen. Is this a problem for anybody?

For that matter, is it better to use the colloquial term "Hitler-Stalin Pact", which may be more familiar to non-historians? I think hardly any readers would recognize the names of Molotov or Ribbentrop; and would have no idea why they would make a pact. But most readers interested in history would know who Hitler and Stalin were.

In any case, I meant no harm. Revert the move if it was just another one of my dumb ideas. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Making this move without discussing it was jumping the gun. It should be reverted. —Zalktis (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am surprised the dispute would be between Molotov-Ribbentrop and Hitler-Stalin. I would have thought the alternative could have been Nazi-Soviet pact.  However as all these names are in the introduction I would keep the original name as it is.  For what it is worth, Norman Davies in "Europe at War" describes the pact exclusively as the Nazi-Soviet Pact (p149-150), as does AJP Taylor in "The Origins of the Second World War" p317 and in the index of both books, no reference can be found to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, though Nazi-Soviet Pact is there.Dje123 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in the majority of sources I have (and not just of Baltic origin). To the point, the discussion of naming was gone through in detail quite some time ago and the current title was the product of consensus. (Sorry in a bit of a rush, else I'd find some diffs for you...) —PētersV (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't doubt that, I was just a little surprised that "Hitler-Stalin pact" was thought of as I'd never heard of it.--Dje123 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Article should be called "Nazi-Soviet Pact" since that is its most popular name. -- Vision Thing -- 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we could refrain from descriptions such as "popular" (and stay away from the inevitable, in such conversations, Google searches et al.) and deal with sources that are expert on the territories affected, we could stick with the current title. Perhaps I need more coffee this morning, but I wish editors would spend more time on content and less time on changing titles when it adds no value. (General comment!) There's more than one agreement between the Nazis and Soviets. "Molotov-Ribbentrop" is clear, unambiguous, and the most appropriate. Please let's consider leaving it as is and look for more worthy Wikidragons to slay! :-) —PētersV (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. The defenders of the Soviet Union will attack "Nazi-Soviet" because it makes the Soviets look bad by association with the Nazis. Based on prior experience. So let's not open the can of worms, please, no one from any Wiki editorial camp has actively disputed the current title. —PētersV (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad--Dje123 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find any requests for move or extensive discussions about name in talk archive. Can you direct me to them? -- Vision Thing -- 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They're buried in past edits and reverts of what are, and aren't, appropriate primary and alternate names for the pact. Most of my sources are packed away at the moment, however, as I've mentioned, the ones that focus on the Baltics (whether by Baltic historians or other), do use Molotov-Rbbentrop, much less rarely Ribbentrop-Molotov. I do sincerely apologize I'm not in a position at the moment to give you a more definitive answer citing specific examples. —PētersV (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, there was extensive move-warring back in 2006, and a consensus developed at that time that "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" was the most common name. However these things always get revisited in Wikipedia, and having just done a Google book search, "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" gets 736 hits, "Hitler-Stalin Pact" gets 852 hits and "Nazi-Soviet Pact" gets 1109 hits. So "Nazi Soviet Pact" seems marginally more common, and I would support a rename on that basis, but many Russian nationalists would object to the equation of "Nazi" with "Soviet" in the title and and thus "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" is deemed more neutral. However if we can find a new concensus here on talk for "Nazi-Soviet Pact", I would support it. Martintg (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Khrushchev called it the "Ribbentrop-Molotov" pact in his memoirs. If we're going to discuss what the pact is called, let's use concrete examples and not Google. There's no context for whether the books matched are general texts or ones by authors expert on the affected territories and therefore to be considered more authoritative. —PētersV (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well for all we know, Khrushchev, calling it the "Ribbentrop-Molotov" pact, could have been attempting to diminish the significance of the pact to one merely between foreign ministers. For all of Google's flaws, it does give an indication what is the common usage, and WP:COMMONNAME does say we should pick names that are more likely to be used as a search term by the average user, regardless of what the underlying scholarship tells us it should be called. However, that being said, the counts of the different permutations are fairly close, and given that all permutations are covered by redirects anyway, discussion of a name change is not that productive. Martintg (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could it perhaps been named thus because Molotov and Ribbentrop were the ones to sign it (see the photo)? Just a thought. (BTW, does anybody know why Molotov's signature is in German on that document?).
 * On topic: as Martintg notes above, "Nazi-Soviet" would be indeed rather POV, because it seems to be used primarily in anti-Soviet discourse (judging by a quick look at the searches below) unlike M-R, which appears to be its historic name. Interestingly, all the other wikis (I can read) use the current version (except for a few that use the official name). --Illythr (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the argument that term "Nazi-Soviet Pact" is POV. If anything "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" is POV because it implies that the deal was made between two ministers, not two countries or leaders. "Molotov-Ribbentrop" is misleading because it lessens the importance of the deal. 99% of the people never heard for either Molotov or Ribbentrop. -- Vision Thing -- 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "M-R Pact" implies absolutely nothing, other than that the two were its signatories - that's the NPOV of it. The most neutral version would be the official name, but I guess it's more known under the other one, internationally. The importance of the pact lies not in its name, but contents, which requires no further advertising. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Google search (English pages, -wikipedia) "Nazi-Soviet Pact" returns 43,200 results and "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" 36,900 results. However, I think it is even more important that search by Google Scholar for "Nazi-Soviet Pact" returns 3,140 results and search for "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" 1,510 results. That shows that name "Nazi-Soviet Pact" is used overwhelmingly more in scholarly literature. -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I also support the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact just because it is internationally better known name, especially in the countries who had to suffer the direct consequences of the Pact. --Whiskey (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, as I said, please let's use the name used by the most sources which deal specifically with the topic and the countries affected as opposed to popularity searches. For example, anyone reading a book specifically on the Baltics (and I have a large collection of Baltic and  non-Baltic  authors) will 99.99% of the time see "Molotov-Ribbentrop" as they were the agents and signatories of the deal. I would ask Vision Thing that you please consider the editorial advice of those who have read lots of real books by real experts as opposed to equating a Google search on a URL that begins with "scholar." as being a definitive indicator of "scholarly" literature. —PētersV (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. I find the evidence of scholarly treatment rather persuasive given that the sheer number argument doesn't show overwhelming disparity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I'm requesting the retitling of this article to  Nazi-Soviet Pact per Wikipedia's naming conventions.

1) According to Google search (English pages, -wikipedia) "Nazi-Soviet Pact" returns 43,200 results and "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" 36,900 results. However, I think it is even more important that search by Google Scholar for "Nazi-Soviet Pact" returns 3,140 results and search for "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" 1,510 results. That shows that "Nazi-Soviet Pact" is the most common English name of this pact.

2) Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. Title "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" leaves 99% of the people without a clue on what is article about. On the other hand, "Nazi-Soviet Pact" immediately gives readers information about topic of the article.

3) Article naming should making linking easy and second nature. Spelling and linking "Nazi-Soviet Pact" is easier than spelling and linking "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact". -- Vision Thing -- 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support -- Vision Thing -- 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, my first preference, "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" my second preference. Search of usage in book titles returns 10 titles (37 hits indicated) with "Nazi-Soviet Pact" in the title and 6 hits with "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" in the title. Martintg (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the whole. These differences in usage seem small, and it is preferable to use the more precise name. There were other pacts between the two states during 1939-41; this article links to one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And there were other pacts that were signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop, this article links to one. -- Vision Thing -- 09:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Although Nazi-Soviet is not much more common than Molotov-Ribbentrop, the "Molotov-Ribbentrop" title is actually misleading. The pact was not really between the Molotov and Ribbentrop. It was between Stalin and Hitler, or indeed between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Molotov and Ribbentrop signed the thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the agreement was decided personally by Stalin and Hitler. "Soviet-Nazi" would be fine in my opinion, whereas "Molotov-Ribbentrop" is misleading.Biophys (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are other precedents for naming an agreement after its signatories, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact. —Zalktis (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kellogg-Briand Pact" is the most common name for that pact, all other names are less popular. -- Vision Thing -- 10:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Same reasons as Pmanderson. --Whiskey (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My assessment is that recent scholarship increasingly favours "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" over formulations such as "Nazi-Soviet Pact" or "Hitler-Stalin Pact", precisely for the reasons that PManderson states. An example is Valdis O. Lumans's Latvia in World War II (Fordham UP, 2006; ISBN 0823226271). —Zalktis (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Ever Wikipedia reader knows who the Nazis and the Soviets were. I bet less than 5% could identify either Molotov or Ribbentrop. And we can mention "Molotov-Ribbentrop" as close to the top of the page as we want. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Vecrumba's ans my own arguments above. This treaty is known to historians as well as all affected parties under its current name and needs no further advertising in form of name "popularisation". (I'm actually agreeing with Vecrumba here. The sky should come crashing down on my head right about now...) --Illythr (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not true. In Russian Wikipedia this article is called Договор о ненападении между Германией и Советским Союзом - The nonaggression pact between Germany and Soviet Union. And in German Wikipedia Deutsch-sowjetischer Nichtangriffspakt - German Soviet nonaggression treaty. -- Vision Thing -- 09:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Illythr meant the affected parties, not the signatories. Cf. Pakt Ribbentrop-Mołotow; Molotovin–Ribbentropin sopimus; Molotovi-Ribbentropi pakt; Molotova-Ribentropa pakts; Molotovo-Ribentropo paktas; Pactul Ribbentrop-Molotov; even Пакт Молатава-Рыбэнтропа and Пакт Молотова-Ріббентропа ... —Zalktis (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, I don't see how is that relevant. Wikipedia has official policy on naming articles and "Nazi-Soviet Pact" satisfies it, while "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" doesn't. -- Vision Thing -- 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing de and ru Wikipedias to back your argument is relevant, while citing a slew of other languages (all where the M-R Pact had historical consequences) is not, 'cause it don't serve your point. Interesting. Please tell, Vision Thing: is it, in your opinion, actually wrong (factually or otherwise) to leave the article title as it is? The statistics you yourself cited show thousands of cases of its usage in both general and scholarly use. Furthermore, a simple (and already existing) redirect from Nazi-Soviet Pact more than adequately solves your keystroke-based line of argument. —Zalktis (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but arguments such as at the outset that "Nazi" and "Soviet" are easier to type than "Molotov" and "Ribbentrop" are blatantly un-encyclopedic. Why don't we then all put in redirects for all mobile phone text messaging shortcuts? Those are "easier" too. Google searches are, frankly, garbage when it comes to scholarship . I'm not defending "M-R Pact" because of any POV, I'm defending it because, and only because, in every SCHOLARLY REAL PRINTED BOOK BY REAL SCHOLAR(S) source I have that discusses the M-R Pact to a significant degree (as opposed to the typical paragraph/page of dividing up... yada... yada... yada..), whether Baltic/Eastern European or western European/U.S. authored, uses Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact except one, which uses "Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact." All this arguing over what some OTHER pact is called and who signed what OTHER pact is 100% immaterial WP:OR. —PētersV (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal preference lies with the official name used in ru and de wikis (and in fr and greek, sort of), because it solves the ambiguity problem best of all the other names (there was only one Soviet-German non-aggression treaty). Unfortunately, Google and Google Scholar hits on it are insignificant, although a Google Books search on "German-Soviet non aggression pact" does yield a solid result of 628 hits. So, while I would support a rename to an unambiguous well-accepted alternative (per COMMONNAME), "M-R P" remains my primary choice, for the reasons I gave above. --Illythr (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just weighing in officially, there's more than one pact between Nazis and Soviets, WP is an encyclopedia whose standard should be scholarship--not popularity, not opinions on the likelihood that someone has heard of Molotov or Ribbentrop. Our purpose is to inform and educate, no? Anyone doing further reading on the topic will need to look for the pact by M-R. (As I see more than one case of votes crossing party lines, I think we can dispense with Illythr's sky falling and go directly to the Earth stopping spinning and our inertia carrying us all into orbit. I do confess not doing the math, we might not reach escape velocity and simply fall back after a few orbits. Ouch.) —PētersV (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What other Nazi-Soviet pacts do you mean? Biophys (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are thinking about the German-Soviet Trade Agreement? But that was also signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop at the same time the MR Pact was signed. While the standard for article content must be scholarship, the standard for article names is common usage, that's just Wikipedia policy. Martintg (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Martintg, if you can read Russian, you should probably look ru:Советско-германское сотрудничество в период до Великой Отечественной войны and ru:Советско-германские договоры 1939 and links there. Someone made good job in Russian WP.Biophys (talk) a referenceBiophys (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The most obvious other "Nazi-Soviet" or "Hitler-Stalin" pact of 1939 is the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939. —Zalktis (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your objection is groundless because that treaty was also signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop, so that makes it Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact just as this one. -- Vision Thing -- 09:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Pmanderson and Zalktis.--Miyokan (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A compromise?. See Soviet-German relations before 1941. Three Soviet-Nazi treaties have been concluded in 1939: the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the borders agreement, and the trade agreement. In addition, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany concluded three other secret agreements in 1926: about joint chemical weapons development (Томка), joint military aircraft design and training center (Липецкий авиацентр); and joint tank school (Кама (танковый центр)). We could make a disambig. page Soviet-Nazi pacts with links to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and other articles on this subject.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Wow, it tells that Guderian studied in the Russian tank school !Biophys (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All three treaties concluded in 1939 were signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop so all three have equal claim on the name "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact". As for agreements in 1926, in 1926 there was no Nazi Germany. -- Vision Thing -- 16:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that was Germany not "Nazi" in 1926... Of course all three 1939 treaties are related and might be described as such in main article Nazi-Soviet Pact. I personally do not have any hard convictions here and voted support above.Biophys (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, only ONE is called the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" in scholarly texts. The contention that everything signed in 1939 has "equal claim" to the title crosses over into sheer personal speculation. —PētersV (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the absence of consensus, we have to keep the present title and make Nazi-Soviet pacts a disambig. page, which would refer to all three 1939 agreements.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Google is irrelevant
Firstly...

+"Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" +1939 +August = 28,100 +"Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" +1939 -August = 13,200

So, 28,100/(28,100+13,200=41,300) of sources, 68%, explicitly including August (month signed) use Molotov-Ribbentrop. Whereas

+"Nazi-Soviet Pact" +1939 +August = 25,200 +"Nazi-Soviet Pact" +1939 -August = 19,600

So, 25,200/(19,600+25,200=44,800) of sources, 56%, explicitly including August use "Nazi-Soviet," meaning that across the two comparisons, of sources that bother to even care about the month the pact was signed (ergo more "in depth"), a larger percentage of sources use "Molotov-Ribbentrop." Secondly...

+"Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" +August +23 +1939 = 9,660 +"Nazi-Soviet Pact" +August +23 +1939 = 4,730

Ergo, sources that bother to mention the actual date prefer Molotov-Ribbentrop to Nazi-Soviet by a factor of two to one. So let's stop turning everything into a useless and utterly vapid popularity contest argument. I'm not here to argue "my Google" is more "representative" than someone else's Google. I'm here to argue Google gives you any results you want and is therefore c**p when it comes to these discussions and is why we should stick to usage in expert texts covering the topic in depth. —PētersV (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at my reasons in favor of name change, you will see that I gave more weight to results by search made by Google Scholar. Google Scholar, unlike regular Google, provides "a search of scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources, including theses, books, abstracts and articles." And this search, even when we include your limitations (August 23 1939) indicates that "Nazi-Soviet" is used more in scholarly literature (1,840 vs. 851). -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shrug, obviously COMMONNAME, (which tells us to pick names for English Wikipedia based upon popularity, not the underlying scholarship) is not applicable here. Since there is no consensus, may as well wrap this up, rather than continue flogging this. Martintg (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deterioration of the Pact
The last sentence in this section isn't grammatically correct. "If so, then Stalin's invasion of Finland and the Baltics was a misstep: the Pact was only useful to Germany as long as it was a simply definition of spheres of influence and kept Soviet forces away from the borders of the Reich." I'm not sure exactly what was intended so I didn't make a change.

72.221.96.76 (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What it means is that Hitler did not intend the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as a mutual invasion plan, but as true spheres of influence. Where Finland and the Baltics in particular were concerned, Hitler wanted the Baltics as buffer territories, not as Soviet-occupied territories meaning Soviet forces right on the frontiers of the Reich. Popularly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is described as abrogated by Hitler when he invaded the Soviet Union. However, if you actually review Hitler's declaration for "why" the attack on the USSR, as well as historical records prior to the invasion, Hitler considered the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact abrogated when Stalin invaded the Baltics.
 * The case can be made that had Stalin not invaded the Baltics, Hitler might not have been so eager to invade the USSR. —PētersV (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous
The (unsourced) paragraph:

looks completely ridiculous, taking into account the preceding (Munich and occupation of Czechoslovakia) and subsequent (absolute British inability to provide any substantial help to Poland after 1 Sept 1939) events. In addition, during 1941 Western allies did leave the Soviet Union to fight Hitler alone (not because they were evil, but because they were weak). Therefore, the paragraph reflects a marginal theory, and, in addition, is unsourced. If no one improve it in close future I'll delete it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322)
 * The whole section is a bit out of sequence in terms of who did what when and reacted how. Quite honestly, I had not paid much attention to this section. I do have some good sources and should be able to get to it some time this week. Thanks for pointing this out. -PētersV (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. I believe the two pieces of text below would be helpful for understanding Stalin's and Molotov's motives during failed Triple Alliance negotiations:
 * (Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939
 * (Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 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 Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939
 * Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939

Secret protocol?
I've just read the secret protocol again and found something interesting. The full text is here:

Secret Additional Protocol

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.

Article II In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.

Article IV This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

Note, the protocol clearly states that no decision had been made so far on the maintenance of an independent Polish State and how such a state should be bounded, and that the additional agreement on this account is needed.

In connection to that, my question is following. Where the sentence: "Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement"—the areas east of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San going to the Soviet Union while the Germans would occupy the west." came from and what was the source? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC) In connection to that, and taking into account that the protocol is very short, maybe in makes sense to include it into the article as whole (instead of its inaccurate rendering)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the article (and, frankly, according to my own understanding) the secret protocol contained the agreement to split Poland between Germany and the USSR. However, since I've recently found one article stating that no concrete agreement on that account had been achieved between Nazi and the Soviet during Moscow negotiations, I decided to check it. When I read the protocol again I found neither direct statement about joint invasion of Poland, nor any mentioning of the coordinated action against her. Moreover, the sentence: "In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement" may serve a direct evidence that any decision on occupation or annexation of any part of Poland had not been achieved during these negotiations. I absolutely agree that that agreement gave Hitler a free hand west from the Narev, Vistula and San line, and Stalin got the same in his "sphere of influence". However, there is a big difference between that and the statement: "Poland was to be partitioned ... etc". Therefore, my question is: what scholarly article states that Molotov and Ribbentrop agreed to invade and occupy Poland during Moscow negotiations? I am asking because that statement contains no reference. I think, you understand that providing a reference on some political web site would not be satisfactory, because when I see that some website contradicts to the historical document I will trust to the latter rather to the former. I do not question the fact that some coordination between Germany and the USSR took place during the invasion of Poland. My point is that the secret protocol contained no mentioning of such coordinated actions. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on your question about the division of Poland. Are you asking where that text came from (as in, confirmation it's in the secret protocol)?
 * Also I would disagree with your statement that additional agreement would be needed regarding the disposition of Poland as the clause states "in the course of further political developments". When the Soviets transmitted radio signals to help guide the Luftwaffe invading Poland, I believe those "political developments" had developed and come to fruition; and if not then, then certainly at the moment that Britain and France (shamed into it by Britain) honored their treaty obligations to Poland by declaring war on Germany and then demonstrated lack of resolve by not intervening with military support on Poland's behalf. (France had balked regarding declaring war on the basis that it would be easiest/nearest for Germany to bomb should war be declared.) PetersV    TALK 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean the September 28, 1939 German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty, the logical follow up of the ...both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement. clause? --Illythr (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear PetersV. I don't question the fact that Poland had eventually been divided between Germany and the Soviet Union. I thought my question was clear enough. If not, let me try to rephrase it.
 * OK, now I understand. Unfortunately my likeliest good source where Poland is concerned (Karski's The Great Powers & Poland, 1919-1945) is boxed somewhere. Perhaps someone else has it available? The question is, what additional diplomatic contacts/understandings/agreements were made regarding Poland and when/if there was an actual agreement to proceed with partitioning. (Clearly, the Soviets were fully aware of and supported Hitler's invasion plans but that doesn't specifically indicate a formal agreement.) PetersV    TALK 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)