Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact/Archive 3

Independent democracy?
I noticed a tendency among some editors to call pre-war Poland, Latvia, Finland, etc. western democraties. It is not completely correct. Many textbook characterize these countries as nationalistic, or even semi-Fascist. To my opinion, it is not fully correct to project the present situation onto the past. Therefore I fully support the last modification made by Lacrimosus. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, what textbooks are you referring to specifically? None of these countries was fascist or even semi fascist and they did have some (though by 1939, limited) democracy. Finland was certainly democratic during this period. Note also that a country can be both 'nationalistic' and 'democratic' at the same time. I see the reverts by Lacrimosus as unfounded and slightly misinformed (as to the correct time period) as the other editor pointed out in the edit summary.radek (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you that there is some difference between fascism and nazism. "Semi-fascist" means the conservative nationalistic regime with some elements of democracy. Most East European countries fit into this definition. As regards to Finland, I agree that she was one of the most democratic countries in Cetnral Europe. However, strictly speacing, it wasn't a Western democracy. In addition, the word "democracy" is misleading and redundant here, because it implies that all other countries affected by MRP were democratic too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One way or the another, I don't want to initiate long discussion on that subject. The introduction in its present form is satisfactory (although non optimal).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I agree that the word "Western" used as an adjective probably isn't correct. This why when restoring, I left it out (I'm also not exactly sure what differentiates a "western democracy" from a "non-western democracy" other than geography). Then, if you mean that some of the governments were conservative-nationalistic with limited democracy then they were conservative-nationalistic with limited democracy. Calling them semi-fascist is POV in this context. Third, in addition some kind of absolute measurement of 'democraticness' it's pretty straight forward that these countries political systems are being compared to what came after WWII. And, for all their shortcomings most (not sure about Romania) of the countries were a lot more democratic pre-WWII then after the Soviet take over. In fact one could even argue that Finland was more democratic than it was independent in the post WWII period, since its foreign policy was not independent of Moscow. I think leaving "Western", and keeping "independent democracy" for Finland is fine for the lead though perhaps more details can be given in the text (though as is noted below there's too much 'background' in the article already).radek (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially, the word fascist bore no negative connotation. For instance, Churchill highly commended Mussolini and consider his alliance with Hitler his only mistake. I use this word in that sense, and I follow some text-books that directly name pre-war Poland, Latvia, Hungary and Romania semi-fascist states.
 * Hmmm... Let's check Finnish government right before the signing of the M-R Pact: Prime Minister: Aimo Cajander, Progressive Party (Liberals). Majority government consisting ministers from Progressive Party (Liberals), Agrarian League (Centrist), Swedish Party (Centrist-Liberal) and Social Democrats ("Labour"). Yes, it really looks like conservative-nationalistic or even semi-fascist.--Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew this article on a treaty signed in 1939 was in trouble when . ..
(1) The first words not in the lead were "Early in 1918 . . . " (2) Outside of the lead in this Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article, the word "Ribbentrop" did not actually appear in the first 2,700 words of the article (3) The article seriously attempts to recap most of European history between 1918 and 1942. With only one "see" or "main" tag. And it's probably in the wrong place. (4) The article text actually describing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact takes up less than 3% of the words of this Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article. (5) Vast swaths of the article lack sources. (6) Much of it appears to be the result of piecemeal battles adding various historians' takes, opinions and analyses, including having several lines such as "some historians", "some critics". At one point in this encyclopedic article, a sentence actually began "For the Soviet Union, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a much-needed response . . . " Even more silly was that it was jammed deep in the background section.

I added some sources and attempted baby steps in slimming down the now massive Tome of European History that is the "Background" -- note that the article actually has multiple background sections -- but it still needs a lot of work. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The article has to be rewritten. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about "re-writing", but a lot of the article is just a jumbled disorganized mess, with material out of chron order and in entirely the wrong section (e.g., talk of the 1941 German invasion in the background, etc.). For much of it, just a simple reorganization of the disparate paragraphs into some kind of Chron Order by topic needs to take place.

A lot of piecemeal adding of entirely unsourced material appears to have taken place. Some of it is probably accurate. A little of it is frankly sort of silly just as phrased (without even getting into the merits).Mosedschurte (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased
I've just realized that the article in actuality is a story how the Soviet Union signed the pact with Germany and what happened in the territories occupied and annexed by the USSR. The MRP article should tell about MRP itself, not about the Soviet Union, and, taking into account that the initiative to sign MRP came from the German side, it is necessary to tell why and how did Nazis decided to pact with the Soviets and what was happening on the German side. It is necessary to take into account that Communists and Nazi were ideological enemies (it was a fortiori important, taking into account the role ideology played both in Moscow and Berlin), and few years before the described events were involved in the indirect war (in Spain). In addition, "The Hitler's motifs" section is equally necessary, because his decision for pact with his sworn enemy needs in an explanation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the lack of German focus part, but honestly, the article has many larger problems now, like a complete lack of sources and mass disorganization. I'll also add more to it later, much more German material.  Like, for instance, the little matter of the German addition of death camps in Poland after the treaty (and pre-Barbarossa).  Somehow, Auschwitz's 1940 establshment in the MRP territories by Germany isn't mentioned.  Little overlooked detail I guess.  It's not in great shape.


 * Where's the "The Hitler's motifs" section? I don't see anything by that title.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant creation of this section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the "For Months" Text
Is right out Roberts (the source you cited saying there was a dispute) here: "For months the Germans had been hinting that they could offer better terms than the British and French." (Roberts 2006)

This isn't secret negotiations, its a German hints of doing better.

And its right out of the source.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am re-reading the source right now to check if it is true.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's at the bottom of page 31 leading to page 32.


 * I can't believe you've been reverting this when I've been practically directly quoting the source, and you're doing so by citing the same guy's old 1992 source discussing some other "secret negotiation" issue (about which this doesn't even go into).


 * I've patiently explained this is right from Roberts 2006, and directly provided the quote. And then you wouldn't even believe the quote, unilaterally reverting it yet again.  I'm about to go to ANI if this keeps up.  Mosedschurte (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Before threatening with ANI, could you please try to be more attentive? In actuality, the source 15 is :Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78, and it contains no such a statement. This is not a major book you use for most your edits, but the journal article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In actuality, although this statement is absent in the source, the overall idea in the last version seems generally correct, and this sentence fits into the narrative. So I don't mind to leave it there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I don't think going to ANI would be the best choice, taking into account warnings received by you on possible edit wars. I am very prone to accept arguments from others, and I believe that everything can be resolved during friendly discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not "absent in the source", it was origiinally Roberts 2006.

The exact quote on the bottom of page 31 leading to page 32 is, as I stated directly above: ""For months the Germans had been hinting that they could offer better terms than the British and French." (Roberts 2006)

I also apologize for going off the handle about it. I've been on the line with Dell Tech Support for the last hour. For the third night in a row on a motherboard on my computer. You can imagine the contortions and annoyances.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC) --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I realized afterwards that the quote came form the book, not the article. In addition, I didn't notice that the disputable sentence tells about German proposals, not secret negotiations. However, as a result, we found and fixed the wrong reference...

No Battling Historian block quotes to lead sections
An attempt was made to add yet a full block quote from a historian to lead a section, this one critical of one of the countries involved.

Not only is this unnecessary and improper as a block quote lead (it was entirely without context there), but as an attack quote from an avowed "Pro-Soviet" historian on the other parties, it would no doubt lead to others leading with, oh, say, 10,000 such nasty quotes about Stalin. At a minimum. The page could easily turn into a block quote fest from every anti-Stalin and anti-Hitler historian (there are probably 10,000).

In short, absolutely wrong direction for an encyclopedic article, and that's an understatement. Let's stick to the facts, and minimize argument or rhetoric in the article. This isn't the pace for a historical debate -- there are many bulletin boards for such arguments.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for your removal of the bolded official name of the pact, twice? --Illythr (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I removed that once along with the bolding of several others terms in the lead, but it might have gotten caught in a second edit.


 * I don't really care either way. I don't object it if you bold an official name for the document.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-bolded the official name of the treaty.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just that you reverted my re-bolding of it twice without explanation. I guess it got caught up in the, mh, active consensus-seeking process. --Illythr (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to you, the quote from one of the most prominent British historian about the UK herself is too critical to be included. I see, you want to write a balanced article, where all facts are represented in an unbiased way. Ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it wasn't even presented within the article in context, it was a block quote from a later historian isolated directly under the title of the section with no description.


 * Second, even getting beyond this obvious problem, it was a historical opinion attacking one of the parties involved -- in fact, from a self-avowed "pro-Russian" historian in that case. In short, exactly the opposite sort of battling historian opinion quote as should be the focus of the article anyway, from any of the parties. The sort of thing that could lead to virtually thousands of battling historian quotes, and even worse, such quotes could be added as out-of-context block quotes jammed to float directly under the title.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are so concerned about neutrality, why don't you pay any attention to the quite obvious fact that the article as whole is anti-Soviet--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)?


 * First, it's not "anti-Soviet", which seems to be a recrurring theme with you in talk pages, but I don't even want to get into that.


 * Second, I stated above that I AGREE that it lacks German information, especially after the Pact invasions on the German side of the of divide. I'm actually working on adding some right now. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: First. Our "recrurring theme" is not about anti- or pro-Sovitism, but about truth, sources and logics. It is very bad that you "don't even want to get into that"...
 * Re: Second. Good.

Soviet negotiations with France, Britain and Germany
To my opinion the Soviet negotiations with France, Britain and Germany section is confusing and misleading. Even the name itself implies that Soviet Union conducted simultaneous talks with France, Britain and Germany. Since a number of reliable sources suggest that wasn't a case such an section's name is hardly acceptable. Therefore, I propose to split this section on three:


 * 1) Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations
 * 2) Germano-Soviet negotiations
 * 3) Controversies (or other appropriate name)

Below is a first section as I see it. I removed repetitions (as well as outrageous errors, e.g. French and Germans instead of French and British) and the details that had a little relations to the talks themselves.

The German-Soviet negotiation will be moved to the second part.

I propose to discuss all controversial details in the third subsection (Controversies). To my opinion, this should include the real intentions of the USSR (expansionist vs defensive) and the question of the secret negotiations between the USSR and Nazi Germany (that, according to some sources probably started with Merekalov-Weizsacker meeting, although evidences exist that this talk concerned economical cooperation only)

To my opinion, this version better discloses the negotiation's course and the reasons for their failure. In addition, it gives preference to neither Baltic (fear of occupation) nor Soviet (fear of German invasion via Baltic states) POVs.

Modifications are welcome.

Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations

On 17 April, Soviet foreign minister Litvinov outlined a French–British–Soviet a mutual assistance pact between the three powers for five to 10 years, including military support, if any of the powers were the subject of aggression. Although informal French–British–Soviet consultations started immediately after that, the main negotiations began in May. By that time Stalin replaced Litinov, who was considered pro-Western by the standards of the Kremlin, with Molotov as Foreign Minister, thereby significantly increasing his freedom of manoeuvre in foreign policy. Litvinov's dismissal served as a warning to London and Paris that Moscow had a third option—rapprochement with Germany. Litvinov's disappearance meant chiefly the loss of an admirable technician or perhaps shock-absorber, so, as a result, French and British negotiators faced with a more truly Bolshevik as opposed to diplomatic or cosmopolitan modus operandi.

The two sides approached the negotiations differently: the Western powers believed that war could still be avoided and, if it came, the USSR, could hardly be a main military participant. In contrast, the USSR, had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play, along with France, an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany. The British government, was unduly pessimistic about the USSR's military capability following the purges and failed to understand the USSR's fear of being forced to fight a war alone against Germany. The French, as a continental power, were more anxious for an agreement with the USSR than the British, were more willing to make concessions, more anxious to conclude an agreement quickly, and more aware of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany.

Although on 31 May, Molotov pointed at the need to sing an immediate and wide-ranging military agreement, his western colleagues refrained 'to talk military secrets with the Soviet government' before there was a political understanding. On June 2, 1939, the Soviet Union submitted a proposal to France and Britain suggesting tripartite military action if (i) a European Power (i.e., Germany) attacked a contracting party; (ii) Germany acted aggressively against Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland (all of whom the contracting parties had promised to defend); (iii) a participant became involved in the in a war due to rendering assistance to a European country which has pled for aid.

On 15 June, after William Strang, head of the Central Department at the British Foreign Office and former counsellor in Moscow, arrived in Moscow the main political negotiations started. The key talks' issues were over guarantees of the Baltic states, since the Soviet Union, that was increasingly afraid of German economic and political influence in the Baltic states, feared German aggression through the Baltic with or without consent. Meanwhile, the Baltic anxiety and anti-Soviet hostility increased, and their ambassadors made regular inquiries at the Foreign Office. In early June Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany.

On 8 July the talks reached the high point. The major sticky point was, the definition of "indirect aggression", the formula that, according to Molotov, would prevent the use of the territory of Baltic countries by Germany for the attack of the USSR. However, the British government objected to this formula, fearing that this permitted the USSR to interfere in the domestic affairs of Estonia, Latvia and Finland and even to start a direct intervention under legal pretext.

After unsuccessful attempts to elaborate a satisfactory definition of the "indirect aggression" and because of the deteriorating European situation, the British turned to military agreement, insisting that this should be signed simultaneously with the political one. The British military delegation was send via chartering a merchant ship rather than using a fast naval cruiser, the missions arrive in Moscow only on 11 August. The delegations' members were not front-ranking military personages of the seniority of Voroshilov. In addition, the British government withdrew Strang, making the excuse that with attention focused on the military negotiations his presence in Moscow was no longer necessary, thereby further undermining the Soviet side's confidence in the seriousness of the British negotiators.

On August 21, 1939, the military negotiations stalled on the question of Soviet forces passing through Romanian and Polish territory in the event of war, to which the Polish government would not give agreement in advance. Voroshilov proposed to postpone the military talks on a formal excuse, in fact, it was because of the progress being made in the USSR-German negotiations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:  Even the name itself implies that Soviet Union conducted simultaneous talks with France, Britain and Germany. Since a number of reliable sources suggest that wasn't a case such an section's name is hardly acceptable.

->There is not a single source that denies that Germany and the Soviets weren't negotiating at the same time the allies were. The sticking point was over some old German-USSR negotations, such as the old 1992 Roberts quote you dug up was referring to alleged earlier secret German-Soviet negotiations (which aren't even addressed in this article), but he himself discusses concurrent negotiations.

No historian denies the months of hints by Germany it can offer a better deal that the British & French, and extensive discussions starting in the beginning of August for Germany (in fact, the notes regarding the August 3 communications are online, and that is when the now famous Baltics to Black Sea quote even happened), before even the Allied military negotiations and three weeks before those talks broke off.

In fact, your own proposed text above states (again, separate point, how confusing to the reader this would be at that point): "Voroshilov proposed to postpone the military talks on a formal excuse, in fact, it was because of the progress being made in the USSR-German negotiations."


 * 1) . At the outset, that would be incredible confusing because it would require a separate German-USSR talks page, with the reader having to intermingle the dates in his own head.
 * 2) . Which also clearly makes not sense from a topical viewpoint as the two concurrent negotiations were clearly related, and one would have to go back through and match dates to figure out when statemets were made between two very oddly divided sections.
 * 3) . Not only that, but this odd topically divided version goes light on facts and heavy on historian analysis.
 * 4) . In short, not only is the concept -- dividing two concurrent and related events into separate sections -- a seriously flawed idea, but the re-written oddly topically divided section isn't good.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:"There is not a single source that denies that Germany and the Soviets weren't negotiating". There are sources that claim that there were negotiations and sources claiming that there were no negotiations. That is why it is necessary to move this question to the separate section.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: 1. I see no confusion. In contrast, it is incredibly confusing now.
 * Re: 2. Don't think so. Many sources discuss these two negotiations separately.
 * Re: 3. I see no ground for such a statement. In addition, WP policy requires that priority should be given to the secondary sources (i.e. "historian analysis") over primary sources (i.e. facts). You are not allowed to give your own interpretation of facts, or perform their synthesis that push one or the another POV.
 * Re: 4. "dividing two concurrent and related events into separate sections" There is no single opinion on that account. Many sources claim that there were no concurrent negotiations until August.
 * In addition, please, refrain from serious editions of this version until the consensus is achieved.


 * Re: "There are sources that claim that there were negotiations and sources claiming that there were no negotiations."

As just one incredibly obvious example of the inaccuracy here, what source actually denies the August 3 talks, including the famous Baltic to Black Sea quote? The original documents have been online for years and used by historians repeatedly?

You incorrectly originally cited Roberts 1992, but he was referring to earlier alleged USSR-German negotiations not even addressed in this article. Roberts HIMSELF goes through these concurrent neogtiations and is a source for them in the article.

Seriously, even YOUR OWN TEXT STATES: "Voroshilov proposed to postpone the military talks on a formal excuse, in fact, it was because of the progress being made in the USSR-German negotiations."


 * Re: " In addition, WP policy requires that priority should be given to the secondary sources (i.e. "historian analysis") over primary sources "


 * 1) . There is not a single primary source cited in this section.  There are, of course, boatloads of books (secondary sources) citing the primary sources that are used.
 * 2) . And of course, secondary sources aren't necessarily "historian analysis".  They can be, and are best when they are, descriptions of primary sources that they've vetted for credibility.  This is much of what historians do -- describe and summarize the credible primary sources detailing historical events in an accurate, concise and well-written (hopefully) form.
 * 3) . This is what is contained in the article.

Re: "Voroshilov" These negotiation started few days ago.
 * Note: I've actually added some of the information and facts in your text above to the article.  Mosedschurte (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I've actually added some" etc. Not information, but a concept is a subject of the discussion. Nevertheless, I am glad that you put forward a concrete argument instead of general insults. That is a step in right direction. As I already pointed out, I am always ready to discuss concrete modifications. Let's assume my version as iteration number 0. According to my previous WP experience, consensus is usually reached after iteration 2 or 3. It is your turn. Good luck. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I would be grateful if you present you version at the talk page (as I did) instead doing direct modifications. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "I would be grateful if you present you version at the talk page (as I did) instead doing direct modifications."

I don't have a "version" of my own. That's not how Wikipedia works.

This is the situation boiled to its facts: Mosedschurte (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) . There is an article right now. In it, there is a section on the Soviets Negotiation with Britain, France and Germany prior to the Pact signing.
 * 2) . You are proposing a wholesale section replacement with a section based upon the odd interpretation that no concurrent German-Soviet negotiations took place during the UK-France-USSR talks-- a point not only not supported by the majority of historians but, as far as I can see, not supported by a single historian (the only dispute before was whether very early 1939 USSR-Nazi economic talks also constituted such political negotiations). On top of that initial fatal error in its very inception, one also containing fewer facts and more broad historian analysis, I should add.
 * 3) . On a Wikipedia Talk page, I have pointed out the total lack of historical support for such an inherent starting point (never mind majority support) and the other problems.
 * 4) . In terms of "direct modifications", I'm actually mostly adding sources to unsourced sentences (some of the sources I'm adding are ones you've pointed out) and further detail.  I'm happy to discuss any proposed changes, but that doesn't mean that all source adding and improvements must stop.

Re: " You are proposing a wholesale section replacement with a section based upon the odd interpretation t" etc. AND "In short, not only is the concept -- dividing two concurrent and related events into separate sections -- a seriously flawed idea, but the re-written oddly topically divided section isn't good." Let me point out at the very obvious fact that the article's history is available to everybody. In the 20 January version of the article two triple negotiations and Soviet-German negotiations are separate. I request you to stop editing this section until consensus is reached. It was you who did absolutely odd modifications. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, even the old version to which you just pointed had "secret" Soviet-German talks mixed in (belying the title), though it was a chronological mess.


 * It also had virtual no sources, and was essentially just broad sweeping conclusory sentences about all of the parties involved without the slightest hint of a cite for most sentences (I think there were three sources in the whole thing).Mosedschurte (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you realise yourself that there is not a problem for me to add sources (and I did it in the proposed version). The much greater problem is to elaborate a good article's structure. Although your contribution is generally positive, your habit to refuse any collaboration is untolerable. You either agree to collaborate, or I take other actions.


 * Re: " Although your contribution is generally positive, your habit to refuse any collaboration is untolerable."

I have worked with every editor on this page, don't reverse most edits and have added probably 50%+ (maybe not, I haven't counted) of the sources in this article.

I have also engaged in long conversations with you on the Talk page about various edits. You then put forth a section to entirely replace the current accurate, fact-focused, well-sourced section on a theory supported by ZERO historians (that no concurrent negotiations took place) as far as I can tell, much less the majority view. Aside from its base factual error in topic division, the proposed section would delete many of the numerous sources, present far less factual material and contain broad assertions about the parties involved.

When these comments were made, you then asked my "your[my] version" for some kind of comparison or merger or who knows what. I don't have a "version". That's not how Wikipedia works. There's an article now that included text from many editors going back to its inception.

Moreover, instead of ignoring or being combative, I have actually included several pieces of information and sources that you suggested in the current article.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it is strange for me to read that you are concerned about the previous editors' text. You have already modified the article dramatically, therefore your statement is somewhat hypocritical.
 * Re: "That's not how Wikipedia works." Let me tell you that it is the way WP works. I successfully used this tactics during productive collaboration with other editors, and never had such problems before. You just take a copy of concrete section (that contains previous editors' text), modify it as you want and place in the talk page. I do my modifications and wait for your response. And so on. Believe me, this works.
 * Re: "instead of ignoring or being combative..." I appreciate it. However, more work is needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Section Title "Soviet negotiations with France, Britain and Germany"
This was briefly changed to the far longer and more confusing "Anglo-Franco-Soviet tripartite alliance negotiations and Soviet-German rapprochement".

The section obviously discusses negotiations of the Soviets with all parties.

To break them out (its already obvious, but if there is some insistence) and keep it less confusing: "Soviet-Anglo-Franco and Soviet-German negotiations".Mosedschurte (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a better idea. I disclosed it above. The section must be split onto two or three separate sections, thus restoring an old structure. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be a language issue here rapprochement is just an "an establishment or reestablishment of harmonious relations."

The section describes more than this, including individual negotiations among the parties.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good start. I still see several major issues, however. In particular,
 * 1. Your focus on the chronological order of events is still misleading. No concrete actions has been done before late July 1939 that could be unequivocally interpreted as Nazi-Soviet raprochement. Until that time triple negotiations should be considered separately.
 * 2. Dismissal of Litvinov is wrongly placed exclusivelly to the Germano-Soviet context. You wrongly interpreted the sources presenting his dismissal exclusivelly as a signal to Germany. In actuality it was (i) replacement of soft Litvinov with stubborn Molotov before hard negotiation started (ii) signal to the UK that the possibility of the Soviet alliance with Germany cannot be ruled out completely to give an additional impetus to negotiations (iii) signal to Germany (the latter should be included into my version). My version desrcibes it more adequately. You may re-phrase it without changing the major point.
 * 3 As regards to triple negotiations, no attempt has been made to describe the sides' fears and their vision of the situation (I did it in my version), moreover, all major points are missing, namely, why do the Baltic countries became a sticky point: (i) the USSR feared that the German invasion is possible through Baltic countries, so she requested a free hand there (ii) Britain didn't agree with that, because she expected that Soviet invasion of these countries may be possible. (Once again, my version describes the problem in full, your version tells only a half of the story). (iii) The sentence "The June 2 proposal was discussed for the next two months, with the French and British agreeing with much of it. Molotov suggested signing the (political) alliance treaty together with the military treaty, for which Western delegations were sent to Moscow." is simply wrong, because a) the date when the talks themselves started on July 15. b) the high point was reached on July 8 and after that the talks virtually stalled. c) the major problem (I name it in my version) has not been resolved, therefore agreeing with much of it, although formally correct, is misleading. d) military delegation was send to Moscow following the British, not Molotov's, proposal (similar Molotov's proposal was made on May 31, and it was rejected). (iv) The para:"On July 26, German and Soviet officials... etc" is wrongly placed. It belongs to the separate section and has no relation to the problem discussed. (v) The pivotal role of 8 July has not been mentioned. (vi) the Strang's withdrawal, that, in actuality, meant suspension of the political talks, has not been mentioned. BTW his arrival, al well as he himself has not been mentioned either. (vii) the fact that British military delegation couldn't sign any agreement until political agreement is signed is missing. (viii) Voroshilov didn't break the negotiations. He suspended them. If you really read the source [15] you should be aware of that.
 * 4. The sentence: "From the beginning of the negotiations with France and Britain it was clear that Soviet position required agreeing to their occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in the event of a war. [19] Finland was to be included in Soviet sphere of influence as well.[20]" is ridiculous: if it was true, then the question of indirect aggression had never been rised.
 * 5. Soviet leaders' speaches or newspaper articles were cited only when they fit into the Nazi-Soviet context. They should be either removed or complemented with speaches or articles that demonstrate the adherence of Soviet leaders to the alliance with western democraties (the sources you cite do mention them. If you really have read these sources, you should know at least one example).
 * I believe, I was able to demonstrate that considerable modification of the section is needed. I also believe that our collaboration will be more fruitfull than before. I expect to get a polite and detailed agruments that support your point of view. You are free to make a reasonable modification of my version of the section (on that talk page).

1. A chronological approach is hardly misleading. In fact, not only is it the way most Wikipedia historical sections are organized, it's the way this particular topic is organized in nearly every historical text on this subject. Chronologically, going through both the German and British-French discussions. I have to say, this anti-chronological bent seems rather bizarre. Especially with the claim that not concurrent talks took place, which as far as I can tell, is supported by exactly zero historians.

2. :Re: In actuality it was ->Let's stick with the actual history and sources


 * Agreed - on the June 2/2 months negotiating that doc inaccuracy. I hadn't originally added it and hadn't seen it in sources for it and was going to delete it.  Gone now.


 * Agreed - on "has not been resolved, therefore agreeing with much of it," -> this was part of the inaccurate two June 2 sentences. Gone now.


 * Agree - on July 8 - now in UK/France Proposal & Molotov Supp with "indirect agression" (before it was wrongly an extension of the June 2 proposal).


 * Reluctantly Added - Your additional point of Russia fearing that Germany could invade the Soviets through the Baltics -> Yes.  This is obvious geography.  I don't think it needs to be added, but I added it anyway.


 * Wrong ->I didn't "wrongly interpret" anything regarding Litinov's dismissal. The sentences are from the sources describing what happened.  And it wasn't just merely a "signal" to Germany, nor does the article state that.


 * Sort of Agree - on the UK problems with "indirect aggression". It actually was very close to your suggestion already, so I don't know the issue would be.  This is it now:  "Five days later, Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany,[30] creating suspicions that Germany had ambitions in a region through which it could attack the Soviet Union.[31] On July 8, the British and French submitted a proposed agreement, to which Molotov added a supplementary letter.[32] Talks in late July between the Soviets, Britain and France stalled over an issue in Molotov's supplementary letter whether a political turn to Germany by the Baltic states constituted "indirect aggression",[15] which Britain feared might justify Soviet intervention in Finland and the Baltic states or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany."


 * Not entirely correct - "military delegation was send to Moscow following the British, not Molotov's, proposal (similar Molotov's proposal was made on May 31, and it was rejected)." -> Molotov demanded an accompanying military agreement to go with any mutual assistance pact.  But I think you may have been referring to a temporal relationship with the last party to make a proposal.  In any event, it is accurate now.


 * Wrong -> The para:"On July 26, German and Soviet officials... etc" is wrongly placed.  - It's perfectly placed as is, and the Germans had heard about the military assistance negotation mission and were already skeptical of a deal.


 * Added-> The Strang mention.  Frankly, mentioning him by name wasn't important in the article and it already stated that they had not sent their highest officials, but it's been added anyway, along with Germany's use of it in negotiations.

3. Re: "No attempt has been made to describe the sides' fears and their vision of the situation." -> You've got to be kidding. This is the very first paragraph:

" Britain and France believed that war could still be avoided and the Soviet Union, weakened by purges, could not serve as a main military participant.[15] The Soviet Union feared Western powers and the possibility of a 'capitalist encirclements', had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army, and wanted guaranteed support for a two-pronged attack on Germany"

By the way, that's pretty much word-for-word from the source you provided, Derek Watson.

Re: "the USSR feared that the German invasion is possible through Baltic countries" ->Of course. This was inflamed by the non-aggression pacts (Estonia/Latvia) which is already in the article

4. Agreed.  Agree completely with your deletion. I hadn't added it and I was waiting to discuss nuking it, but you just got rid of it and I certainly don't object.

5. Re: "Soviet leaders' speaches or newspaper articles were cited only when they fit into the Nazi-Soviet context" -> I think the only speech left in this section now in there now is the famous alleged Stalin August 19 speech, and -- by the way -- I was the one who added the cautionary text that it might not even be real and source at the end of that sentence. I hadn't added the speech originally, but it's now famous and obviously directly on point in this article, and probably should be retained in some fashion.


 * Re: "I believe, I was able to demonstrate that considerable modification of the section is needed."

Changes, yes, but considerable, no. In fact, not even close (and certainly not this idea of changing the entire section over theory with exactly zero historical support).

However, for a few small issues, I agree. They have already been changed, with sources in fact, as detailed above.

Mosedschurte (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I appreciate you much more constructive modus operandi. Nevertheless, let me point out that those few small issues completely change a picture. In addition, I have to return to other "small issues" that aslo are critical.
 * 1. Molotov. Unfortunately, you did "wrongly interpret" everything regarding Litinov's dismissal. More concretely, you gave one sided view, and your statement about the sources is incorrect. Watson point out at the Stalin's need to change a negotiator as the primary reason for Litvinov's dismissal. Resis writes directly: "Litvinov's dismissal served as a warning to London and Paris that Moscow had a third option-rapprochement with Germany. After Litvinov's dismissal, the pace of Soviet-German contacts quickened. But that did not mean that Moscow had abandoned the search for collective security, now exemplified by the Soviet draft triple alliance. Meanwhile, Molotov's appointment served as an additional signal to Berlin that Moscow was open to offers. The signal worked; the warning did not." Both sourced don't mention ethnicity at all. In other words, all three reasons must be presented, and it has to be done in the general context of Soviet preparations for the triple negotiations, not in a German context. I'll do these changes and we will discuss the details.
 * 2. Re: "This is obvious geography." I we accept your vision, than everything else is obvious geography too. And the article is not needed. Hovewer, this "obvious geography" does matter, because it explains the sides' motifs. BTW, all triple negotiations were about "obvious geography". In connection to that we come to:
 * 3. Re: I am grateful that you didn't remove the fragment introduced by me. However, it is insufficient. A separate para is needed that, along with that, states the following:
 * Before the negotiations, the UK was reluctant to join the alliance with the USSR, because (i) she believed the war can be avoided (already in the text), (ii) didn't believe in the USSR's capabilities (already there), (iii) thought that the Poland, that recently signed a pact with the UK/France) can serve more or less reliable barrier between the USSR and Germany.
 * France as a continental power, was more anxious for an agreement with the USSR than the British, were more willing to make concessions, more anxious to conclude an agreement quickly, and more aware of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany.
 * The USSR (i) was afraid of the war even more that France did (that is why these two sides were the most active during negotiations) (ii)didn't believe in the Poland as a barrier (although two not very reliable sources state a reverse, however, I would propose to discuss it separately) and (iii) expected that Germans may launch invasion via Baltic countries. In addition, the fear of German invasion prompted the USSR to take special steps to inform the sides about her intentions and to prompt them to more active actions (Molotov-Litvinov should be there)
 * This would explain the sides' positions.
 * In addition, the position of Baltic states, that clearly preferred the absorption by Germany rather that occupation by the USSR must be mentioned.
 * Finally, the position of Germany, that took enormous effort to discupt a possibility of the tripple alliance must me shown.
 * All said above should be presented in the first subsection, that, obviously, should have a different name, because no talks started by that moment.
 * I'll present my vision of the second subsection later.

1. Re: "Both sourced don't mention ethnicity at all." -> Neither of those sources were cited for his ethnicity mattering. BOTH sources cited for it speak of it explicity: (i) On the Battlefields of the Cold War and (ii) Stalin: The Man and His Era
 * Re: Resis saying "Litvinov's dismissal served as a warning to London and Paris that Moscow had a third option-rapprochement with Germany"

-> the article actually states "removing a major obstacle for negotiations with Nazi Germany[Ulam][Israel], which possibly also meant to send a signal to France and Britain regarding that potential.[Resis]" Literally a complete non-issue. ->Just to clarify this beyond all doubt, I just changed the last line to which possibly also meant to send a signal to France and Britain regarding a potential German option for the Soviets.

2. If you don't think that's not obvious geography then I don't know what to tell you. It doesn't matter as it was already changed to explain what you wanted anyway.

3. Re: ":Before the negotiations, the UK was reluctant to join the alliance with the USSR, because (i) she believed the war can be avoided (already in the text), (ii) didn't believe in the USSR's capabilities (already there), (iii) thought that the Poland, that recently signed a pact with the UK/France) can serve more or less reliable barrier between the USSR and Germany." ->You should have just said (iii). since you said (i) and (ii) are "already there." ->Point three isn't even entirely correct.  In fact,  many British officials thought the Poles were idiots to turn down the alliance because they would be run over easily, especially by August.  That's the problem with these broad global pronouncements -- not only are they usually wrong, but they can change from person-to-person within a government from week-to-week through history.

->Same for the broad "France as a continental power as more anxious for an agreement. . . " line, as they changed from issue to issue as well. Such broad pronouncements are generally a bad idea to make, and that's a good example why. ->Specificity on the various issues and times are better. For example, it is true that France was less resistant than Britain to the proposed Molotov supplemental letter to the July 8 proposal. Thus, I just added: "(while France was less resistant to the supplement)" on the


 * Re: The USSR (i) was afraid of the war even more that France did

->Let's stick at least within the realm of potential reality and specificity for an encyclopedic article.


 * Re: ":Finally, the position of Germany, that took enormous effort to discupt a possibility of the tripple alliance must me shown. "

->Practically the whole section can be seen that way. ->Rather than speak in generalities, there are already THREE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES in the article: (i) sending Molotov to Moscow and chiding (to the Soviets) the British for not sending Strang; (ii) Germany told the Soviets that, unlike Britain, Germany could permit the Soviets to continue their developments unmolested and (iii) Germany told the Soviets "there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies of the West." Mosedschurte (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: First of all, I appreciate you much more constructive modus operandi.

->Same "modus operandi." You just included some factual errors with a few lines in the article, so I included those in the new sources and changes I'd been making to the article. I always want to improve the article. ->I'd been doing this before in response to a few issues you pointed out earlier. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To my opinion, despite becoming much better, the section still indirectly overemphasises one of two POVs, namely, that the USSR seriously kept in mind the pact with Germany from the very beginning of the triple talks. That is in direct contradiction with the majority sources you use. To resolve a problem, I propose the following: regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably didn't make myself clear. I see the problem not only in mentioning, or not mentioning some facts, but also in the way and the order they are presented. The logically consistent narrative is shattered onto small pieces, and closely related facts are scattered over the section, thus creating a confusing and misleading picture. That may fit the WP:synthesis criteria, although I don't blame you in doing that intentionally.
 * 1. The positions of all four parties (the UK/France, the USSR, Germany and Poland/Baltics) before triple alliance negotiations started should be described in one-two paragraphs. It probably may be moved to the Background section afterwards (although I am not sure. BTW, the present Backgound section also needs a serious modification). I already described the major points of this/these para (see above). In addition, the Merekalov-Wizesacker issue (with both interpretations), and, probably, the Schnurre mission, should be mentioned in the context of early German efforts to disrupt the possibility for the triple alliance. It could be added tp the "For months ... etc" para, that should go there.
 * 2. After that, before we start our work on the section itself, the list has to be created that enumerated the events (in a chronological order) that, to our opinion, deserve mentioning in the section. My (preliminary) version of the list is below.
 * (i) 17 April. Litvinov's proposal
 * (ii) 20 May Molotov's reverence towards Germany (conditionally relevant)
 * (iii) May. Triple consultations (not negotiations) began. Litvinov's dismissal with needed comments.
 * (iv) 31 May. Molotov's speech. Political + military proposal. Western reaction.
 * (v) 15 June. Strang's arrival and start of main political negotiations.
 * (vi) 8 July. "Indirect aggression" issue.
 * (vii) 8 July - late July. Stalemate.
 * (viii) 25 July. Informal Soviet German talks. Start of rapprocement.
 * (ix)British proposal for military negotiations, Isvestiya's article.
 * (x)First half of August. Military mission's arrival and Strang's departure. Political negotiations paused indefinitely, military negotiations are slow.
 * (xi)12 August. Molotov send a concrete signal that he is ready to negotiate with Germany.
 * (xii)19 August. Stalin's speech.
 * (xiii)21 August. Voroshilov's proposal to postpone military talks. Stalin's decision for a pact with Germany.
 * I probably missed something because I have no sources before me right now. Feel free to add something here and let's follow this plan in our future work.


 * Re: "Same "modus operandi."" I wouldn't say so. You became much more polite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you deleted some garbage. Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "There may be a language issue here There may be a language issue here rapprochement is just an "an establishment or reestablishment of harmonious relations."" Although English is not my mother tongue I have no problem with understanding of the word "rapprochement". It is obvious (for me, at least), that Soviet-German relations, that were badly hostile in 1930th, had to pass through the rapprochement phase. And this should be reflected in the sections' names, namely, "Triple alliance negotiations and Nazi-Soviet rapprochement" and "Soviet-German negotiations and signing tha pact".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: In addition, the Merekalov-Wizesacker issue (with both interpretations), and, probably, the Schnurre mission, should be mentioned in the context of early German efforts to disrupt the possibility for the triple alliance. It could be added tp the "For months ... etc" para, that should go there. 

->Done-> The Merekalov-Weizsacke (Wizesacker would be a better name for him though) issue was already moved to the "For Months" paragraph, along with the clause that it could be an exaggeration or inaccurate. It's the very next sentence after the "For months" sentence. ->If you're referring to the late June mission, it should stay in chron order without a doubt, and it's actually in the next section.


 * Re: "the list has to be created that enumerated the events"

->Done -> already in the article
 * (i) 17 April. Litvinov's proposal -> Done: already in
 * (ii) 20 May Molotov's reverence towards Germany (conditionally relevant) -> Done: already in
 * (iii) Litvinov's dismissal with needed comments. -> Done: already in
 * (iv) 31 May. Molotov's speech. Political + military proposal. Western reaction. -> Done: just added
 * (v) 15 June. Strang's arrival and start of main political negotiations -> Done: just added (I see no point, but whatever, it's in)
 * (vi) 8 July. "Indirect aggression" issue. -> Done: already in
 * (vii) 8 July - late July. Stalemate. -> Done: already in
 * (viii) 25 July. Informal Soviet German talks. Start of rapprocement. -> Done: already in (though it starts at July 26)
 * (ix)British proposal for military negotiations, Isvestiya's article. -> Done: military negotiations already in; Izvestiya see below 
 * (x)First half of August. Military mission's arrival and Strang's departure. Political negotiations paused indefinitely, military negotiations are slow. -> Done: already in (and added much more yesterday)
 * (xi)12 August. Molotov send a concrete signal that he is ready to negotiate with Germany. -> Done: already in
 * (xii)19 August. Stalin's speech. -> Done: already in (with cautionary language that may not be real)
 * (xiii)21 August. Voroshilov's proposal to postpone military talks. Stalin's decision for a pact with Germany. -> Done: already in (with cautionary language that 8/19 Speech may not be real)

''May. Triple consultations (not negotiations) began. '' -> To which ones specifically are you referring?

Isvestiya's article ->Do you mean the May 30 article on Lithuania?


 * Re: "To my opinion, despite becoming much better, the section still indirectly overemphasises one of two POVs, namely, that the USSR seriously kept in mind the pact with Germany from the very beginning of the triple talks. That is in direct contradiction with the majority sources you use."

->That's way off base. First, it doesn't overemphasize any POV. The British-French-Soviet talks were openly conducted. Re any German-Soviet discussions, it lists the ones that did occur, mostly German overtures and hints early.


 * Re: The positions of all four parties (the UK/France, the USSR, Germany and Poland/Baltics) before triple alliance negotiations started should be described in one-two paragraphs.

->Done->The UK/France and USSR positions are already described. In fact, in the first paragraph. In fact, with the very source and language you earlier described. ->Germany/Poland/Baltics positions change, and Germany's position is not well-formed early. For example, in this middle of this, Schnurre, Hilger and others had to lobby to Hitler to attempt closer Soviet relations. In short, there really isn't a set spot from which they're dealing. Frankly, there really isn't one for the UK/France and the Soviets either (the UK/France changed seemingly month-to-month and sometimes week to week), but I just became worn down and went with the one historian (Derek Watson) summary version, and thus his version of such analysis is now stuck as the opening paragraph of the article. Many others vastly differ, but it became not worth fighting about.


 * Re: The logically consistent narrative is shattered onto small pieces

->To be blunt on this particular issue, you've been making this assertion with zero support repeatedly. The narrative couldn't be any more straight forward. It's chronological, like virtually every historical section on Wikipedia. Most of it deals with the Soviets talking to two factions: Germany and UK/France. ->Moreover, not that we need this overkill but we have it: this is also the way that it is presented in sources. ->Finally, this is really also the way it has to be presented (especially in a format like Wikipedia), because all of the parties talks have an effect on each other, as is quite apparent from the sources. This is why it's presented this way. The Germans are closely watching the UK-France-USSR talks in the newspapers (and with their own intelligence). The Poles and Finns are watching the UK-France-Soviets. Everyone is watching Litinov/Molotov, etc. ->Earlier, you attempted to argue that it shouldn't be presented this way because you stated that the majority of sources don't chronicle concurrent talks Germany-USSR and USSR-UK-France talks. As it turned out, not only did a majority of sources NOT say this, but I haven't seen a single source yet that denies the USSR-Germany talks of at least late July and early August, and most not even the earlier ones.

Re: "To be blunt on this particular issue, you've been making this assertion with zero support repeatedly." To demonstrate a validity of my statement about the logical inconsistency of the previous version, it is sufficient to look at the section. The recent changes are dramatic, and they really improved the article. You are reasonable enough to agree with some of my proposals, although, honestly, it would be incorrect to say that they were minor. BTW, I concede that some of your points (probably, majority) have a solid ground, therefore, you cannot say that I am not flexible enough. To move further, could you please let me know if you have any objections on the changes I did. After that, we will continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop Disorganizing the Article Out of Chron Order And Deleting Sources
As if the above talk weren't enough, ZERO historian support the approach upon which that is based (see long long talk above) for writing a Wikipedia article out of Chron order.

Moreover, the deletion of sources and events without discussion -- especially those already discussed -- should not be done unless some very good reason is given.

In addition, I've probably made literally DOZENS of edits to accomodate your wishes on this article, many of which I frankly didn't think were necessary but added them just to accomodate other editors, many also requiring me to track down sources.

Please stop deleting sources and disorganizing the entire section without further discussion. I have painstakingly provided sources in every account and discussed these issues at length.

I honestly don't know what else to say at this point. Mosedschurte (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 possible ways to resolve a problem: (i) 3RR, (ii) formal mediation, or (iii) polite discussion on the talk page. My choice is (iii). I am waiting for your proposals. Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, let me know how many sources and events did I deleted after my last replacement? Taking into account that majority of huge changes were made by you, your accusations sound very odd. In addition, I don't see how could the transfer of the para starting with the words "for months.." disrupt the section's chronology.

Mine has been (iii) all along. Honestly, I don't get why you want to delete facts and sources and disorganize the article out of Chron order, but it's not going to win you any points in a mediation, and why would you want to get in an edit war anyway?

Lots of people edit these articles without doing that.

Even to just get to basics: What fact is not in the article now that should be? (and, by the way, I've probably added 20+ you've suggested over the course of the Talk page the last few days alone) What fact does it lack? Are any current facts inaccurate? Why is it necessary to take it out of Chron Order?

Mosedschurte (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Once again, you reference to others is funny, taking into account your refusal to cooperate. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What concrete facts did I removed that caused your objections. How did I disrupted a chron order. And why do the facts introduced by me deserve lesser respect?
 * In addition, let me remind you again that you are not a page owner. You take facts proposed by me, but you put them into a wrong context, or place in a ridiculous order. I almost agreed with the section's structure proposed by you, however, you refuse to accept even minor changes (actually, improvements) of the article's logics. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding, you deleted and disorganied the entire section: (1) The Intermediary discussion (2) Threw the May 31 speech way in the opening paragraph ahead of all of the other May activities. (3) Moved a long description of a June 2 Soviet Proposal -- without a cite I should add -- into the initial discussions section despite, that the demand for such an agreement -- on that exact same date -- is in the next section. (4) Humorously, you deleted the entire discussion of Litvinov's Jewish ethnicity regarding his dismissal -- can't say I'm surprised. (5) You deleted the possible Litvinov signal to Britain/France (6) You deleted the possible opening of negotiations to Germany by Litvinov's dismissal (7) Some of sentences were a writing disaster as well. (8) Another of your unsourced statements: a quote thrown in after the May 31 Molotov speech: "his western colleagues refrained 'to talk military secrets with the Soviet government' before there was a political understanding." Not suprisingly, it was bogus (I knew it when I saw it and just checked on it)
 * That quote was (i) one guy (Strang) not "western powers" as you've gone on about; (ii) it was nearly two months later, in Late July; and (iii) it was an internal memo, not to Molotov.

It was, to be blunt, pretty terrible. Not only the deletions, but the disorganization as well.

I actually kept a lot of this in my last edit (including the non-sourced material), and moved some items around in chron order.

PLEASE DISCUSS MASSIVE DELETES AND NON-CHRON RE-ORGS BEFORE MAKING THEM.

About order
I think we can all agree that presenting event in chronological order is critical for this article, as the sequence of events prior and subsequent to the signing is critical to the understanding of its formation and consequences. (Comment not directed at anyone in particular, just for guidance for organization.) Apologies I haven't had a chance to follow the latest sequence of changes more closely to comment in more detail at the moment. PetersV     TALK 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: I think we can all agree that presenting event in chronological order is critical for this article

->Agree completely.


 * Re:  Apologies I haven't had a chance to follow the latest sequence of changes more closely to comment in more detail at the moment.

->I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but you're going to laugh when you see the reason. Do a ctrl-F and look for the word "concurrent".

Real real close to going to ANI with this editor.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:"I think we can all agree that presenting event" Could you please comment on the chronological order of the events presented by me on that talk page? What concrete modifications do you propose? Could someone explain how the modifications made by me violate the order?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't propose any modifications of the article. It's actually IN CHRON ORDER NOW and I actually kept a bunch of the unsourced language you put in (and kept all sourced material). I've probably stated this 10 times.

You also keep asking me for "My Version" of the article. I don't have one. This is Wikipedia. There is an existing article. I've added some of it, as have many other editors. You suggested changes -- including taking a large part of the article out of Chron order -- and I went through all of the problems with that above.

In fact, in addition to expending significant amounts of my time doing that, I also probably have added 20+ various facts based on your complaints (many of which I didn't even want to add), frankly, just to stave off some disastrous reorganization and deletion.

In just about the oddest twist yet, YOU actually went to an editor assitance board. And you did so without even giving me a courtesy notice that I was being discussed on a Wikipedia board, which is the sort of thing about which I am no longer surprised.

Not surprisingly, the lone editor that chimed in to your complaint, despite that you misrepresented what was happening, agreed that I was doing what we're supposed to do -- sticking to the sources and Wikipedia policy:"(Reply to Paul Siebert) 'It seems to me that the other editor has engaged in debate and is arguing from the sources, although you were not specific on what exactly you have taken exception to. You have been asked several times during the discussion to provide sources backing up your case. Concentrate on doing that, rather than the tone of other editors, and see if there is still a problem after you have done that.' Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)"

Mosedschurte (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unimportant details
I notices a tendency to introduce into the article a number of details of marginal importance, thus giving undue weight to the minor events. This directly fits WP:synthesis criterion. Among these examples are: A paragraph is devoted to the the statement of unnamed German official's about the statement of some Soviet official. A paragraph is devoted to one Molotov's phrase to the German ambassador. The whole sentence devoted to the unofficial talks with some "Bulgarian diplomat serving as an unofficial intermediary". If these, as well as other similar pieces of text will not be removed or briefly summarized in one (very short) sentence, I will fill the article with numerous equally (or even much more) important details regarding Triple Alliance negotiations (with all needed references). The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above. Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a single one of those is an "unimportant detail", and all are in the sources, most in many sources.


 * In fatt, you keep continually deleting all mention of Litinov's Jewish ethnicity in his dismissal, though it's in several sources, including the one you most cite (without page numbers), Derek Watson.


 * Re: A paragraph is devoted to the the statement of unnamed German official's about the statement of some Soviet official."

->This can't be serious: YOU'RE THE ONE WHO JUST PUT IT IN ITS OWN PARAGRAPH. It used to be in a paragraph with other similar items until you moved it. ->Moreover, the Merkelov-Astakhov conversation has probably been written about in 20 or more sources.


 * Re: If these, as well as other similar pieces of text will not be removed or briefly summarized in one (very short) sentence, I will fill the article with numerous equally (or even much more) important details regarding Triple Alliance negotiations (with all needed references). The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above.

->Unbelievable. Please cease all such threats. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Not a single one of those is an "unimportant detail", and all are in the sources, most in many sources." Not so important to affect the section's structure. I think, you realize yourself that in its present form the section quite deserves a neutrality tag.
 * Let's forget about sources: I think you realise that I am able to overflow the article with sourced facts. The problem is that not every sourced material deserves to be included into the article. These un- or semi-official talks and hints can be summarized in one sentence. The major idea of this sentence will be: Germany tried to establish a dialog, but couldn't do anything substantial until 26 July, whereas the Soviets neither opened the door nor closed it completely. By 26 July, when it became clear that the triple political talks had stalled and the military agreement would not be signed until political understanding is reached, the situation changed. Therefore, the section's structure should be changed: it has to be split onto two sections (not sub-sections). The first section will be devoted to the triple talks exclusively until the moment when they stalled. The second section starts with 26 July meeting, and everything related to the triple talks will be discussed there in the "background mode" (as minor details). The first section's name should be "Triple alliance negotiations", the second "Soviet-German negotiations". This will allow to represent the events in "chronological" order.
 * Re: "In fatt, you keep continually deleting all mention of Litinov's Jewish ethnicity" I didn't, just moved slightly.
 * Re: "This can't be serious: YOU'RE THE ONE WHO JUST PUT IT IN ITS OWN PARAGRAPH. It used to be in a paragraph with other similar items until you moved it." Did you mean Merekalov-Wiezsacker? It has been written is so vague way that I simply didn't understand what did you mean. Definitely, it belongs to introduction and should be described as a meeting devoted to economical cooperation, although some authors believe that they, probably, were a starting point for secret negotiations.

Recent editorial dispute
Guys, thanks for the discussion regarding the better presentation of the material over the talks before M-RP. Try to keep discussing on the talk page rather than edit war. You seems to go into some consensus. Maybe we should have a formal article RFC? Also I have noticed that not all the edit summaries were entirely civil. It is easy to vent frustration over some editing gridlock but then you have an aggravated fellow editor for the rest of your wikilife. I would suggest to forgive each other their occasional slips of tongues and go ahead.

Regarding the dispute. Both approaches have their merit. It is very difficult to follow the complicated story of the tripartite talks and the complicated story of the Soviet-German talks mixed together, on the other hand the chronology obviously matter and in the article of possible POV conflicts chronology is much preferable to anything else as it is objective.

I suggest to keep chronological order for the main events during the negotiations and put minor details into daughter articles Soviet-Anglo-Franco talks (1939) and Soviet-German talks (1939) Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alex. I see no obstacles for productive collaboration. However, to my opinion, if non-formal consensus is not achieved in few days (which seems unlikely, though), RFC would be the best option.

Recent Threats on this Talk Page

 * Re Paul Siebert's threat:  "If these, as well as other similar pieces of text will not be removed or briefly summarized in one (very short) sentence, I will fill the article with numerous equally (or even much more) important details regarding Triple Alliance negotiations (with all needed references). The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above." 

Such threats to "inflate" an article are overtly and explicitly a threat to edit not in good faith, and thus, constitute WP:Vandalism. That admission is also quite telling.

That is not the way Wikipedia pages or edited.

I have also very patiently REPEATEDLY discussed virtually every single issue you've raised on this page (unlike others), added probably 20+ edits you've suggested on my own (even though I didn't agree with many), including finding sites for them, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report about my attempt to balance minuscule details that push a single POV with additional sourced material. (Although I would prefer a direct dialog).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is already very large. Inflating it further is not a good idea. More content should be placed to new sub-articles. Everyone is welcome to create them. I looked at the last version - prior to the revert by Paul. This is not a good/justified revert. The version was sourced and better written, although it mostly different in wording.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There actually already are some pretty good and quite long sub-articles for a lot of the material in the article, especially during the Pact's operation, such as: Invasion_of_Poland_(1939), Soviet_invasion_of_Poland, Winter War, etc.  The material here needs to remain in summary format.


 * One could theoretically do a large sub-article on the Soviets' negotiation with France, Britain and Germany. Many books and articles cover these extensive talks, because of their obvious importance to world history. They went on for months and whole books have spent much of their focus on them.  Like the many sources (books, articles, etc.) that cover the topic, it would have to be one big subarticle (all parties), because all of their negotiations were inter-related.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just re-worded the paragraph describing the reasons for Litvinov's dismissal. The problem is that the proposed wording pushes a single POV, namely, it represent the Soviet behaviour as more germanocentric than it was in actuality (according to the sources I read. By the way I use the same sources as Mosedschurte does). In addition, the minuscule facts are added to the text to create an impression that Nazi-German rapprocement started earlier than that happened in actuality, and to present triple alliance negotiations and Nazi-Soviet talks as concurrent. In actuality (I mean, according to the sources), Nazi-Soviet talks started when the triple talks stalled. Summarizing all said above I conclude that the attempt, most probably, unintentional, has been made to perform a synthesis of materials that pushes a single POV, that fits WP:Synthesis criterion. I have no intentions to inflate the article, but I don't know what else can I do to establish a productive dialog. Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I agree with the other editor's reversion of your changes (Biophys).


 * That said, when you just reversed them back a few minutes ago (which, frankly, I expected at this point), I didn't revert them. I added back some deleted material, but kept most of your changes.


 * Also, because you continually engage in the practice of just wiping out the prior paragraphs by copying and pasting your old text into these edits (which has happened countless times), you do things like wipe out the page number cites that I've added for your own sources and new cites in many cases. I've attempted to add back the page numbers.


 * Finally, the Watson sentence you added is actually just pulled from a block quote in Watson from one British official. Rather than deleting it (I agree with the above editor that it's not needed), I kept it in for the moment, but fixed the inaccuracy by noting it was from one British official.


 * Again, after your various threats, insistence upon fringe theories (see up the Talk Page) and flat out reverts of even just helpful edits (like adding page numbers), I'm still willing to work with you rather than go through the hassle of dragging you and this to ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mosedschurte,
 * Frankly, my understanding of the collaboration differs dramatically from what we have here. It is a hidden edit war, and I am very sorry about that. I never had such wars before. I think, Biophys will confirm, that, although our vision differs dramatically, we never initiated such wars, trying to resolve disputes on the talk page before modification of the article are done.
 * As regards to "wiping out", it will be clear for everyone who look through the page history, who does more un-discussed modifications, who prefers to discuss, and who refuses it.
 * In addition, I need in you advise. As I already pointed out, you seem to perform WP:synthesis and give undue weight to some events, probably, to push you POV. You avoid any direct discussion of this my concern. In connection to that, my question is: what should I do in that situation?

You continually make these assertions about me, yet none are true. I would rather keep this less personal -- and the threats to a minimum (actually, eliminated).


 * Re: "who does more un-discussed modifications, who prefers to discuss, and who refuses it."

->Let's be clear. NO ONE who examines this Talk page could possibly come to the conclusion that I don't discuss these matters with you. At length. Repeatedly. For days. For seemingly hundreds of thousands of text bytes.

After this seemingly endless discussion, including by the way me adding probably 20+ edits based on your complaints, many of which I thought were entirely unnecessary, YOU then oddly actually complained on a Wikipedia editor assistance board about me. Not surprisingly, the editor who replied to you informed you that I was doing what we're supposed to do -- sticking to the sources and Wikipedia policy. By the way, you did that without giving me the slightest hint of a courtesy notice on my Talk Page that you were openly stating things about me on a Wikipedia editors board, including misrepresentations, but that's a minor detail at this point.

You've asked me to submit "you(my) version" of the article -- some kind of odd competing version to yours. Followed by the even more odd proclamation "It is your turn. Good luck." That's not how Wikipedia works. I don't have a "version" of my own. There is an article that has been the subject of edits by numerous editors. We don't submit competing versions.

You've also shown a repeated attempt for a POV steering with comments such as "why don't you pay any attention to the quite obvious fact that the article as whole is anti-Soviet". Which was wrong, though I actually agreed that it lacked information on the German operations during the Pact and I myself, by the way, added significant text in this regard, and sources, much of which concentrated on the German atrocities during in the territory while the Pact was operating. Check the history on the article for this, and look down at the relevant sections of this article.

You then stated that you wanted to completeley take a large part of the article out of chronological order based on the WP:Fringe theory that the Soviets were not concurrently talking with the Germans, French and British -- a fringe theory which not a single source supports. In fact, as the simplest matter, the article itself contains multiple examples of concurrent negotiations, including from Roberts. Moreover, the competing sides actually made reference to the other parties and had fears of the competing negotiations -- the subject of literally countless books by the way -- so on top of being a fringe theory, the entire idea was simply bizarre.

Then your threat came along: '' "If these, as well as other similar pieces of text will not be removed or briefly summarized in one (very short) sentence, I will fill the article with numerous equally (or even much more) important details regarding Triple Alliance negotiations (with all needed references). The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above." '' As well as just generally being highly disruptive, such threats to "inflate" an article are overtly and explicitly a threat to edit not in good faith, and thus, constitute WP:Vandalism.

Regarding your repeated deletion of Litvinov's Jewish ethnicity regarding his dismissal along with completely taking the section out of chron order, not only is it the subject of discussion in a huge number of sources, but Germany actually constantly harrassed him about his Jewish ethnicity on their own mass public radio, and even Winston Churchill wrote about that ethnicity regarding his dismissal. This is now in a ref footnote (also making the matter clear), though I don't intend to add the German radio addresses or Churchill quotes in the article itself. Again, the entire mention is currently in a whopping SINGLE SENTENCE in the article right now, so it's hardly undue weight. Moreover, Stalin commanded a purge of Jews from the Foreign Ministry immediately upon Molotov's arrival, which is discussed in a source YOU PROVIDED (Resis). Moreover, even if you want to ignore all of the sources, just think about how incredibly basic the facts are: the USSR actually had a Jewish Foreign Minister attempting to negotiate with Adolph freaking Hitler and Nazi Germany, so canning him helped to foster negotiations with the most notorious Jew-haters on planet Earth. In addition to all of the sources on the matter, it doesn't get any more simple than that.

In short, the assertion that this is WP:synthesis is entirely without merit.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you argument might be simply dismissed on that ground, that during my more recent modifications I always kept the mentioning of Litvinov's ethnicity. Therefore, your argument is simply obsolete. I wait until tomorrow. Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've already waken up. Good morning...
 * First of all, I wouldn't say the word "threat" to be appropriate in that case. To my opinion, the word "warning" better characterises my actions.
 * I wouldn't agree with your assertion regarding my "repeated deletion of Litvinov's Jewish ethnicity regarding his dismissal along with completely taking the section out of chron order". First of all, let me remind you that that modification was accompanied with the following comment: "Let's keep this version until consensus is achieved". I believe that by that phrase I clearly let you know that I am open for a dialog and I am ready to discuss all changes. However, you preferred direct modifications with no, or minimal, explanations.
 * As regards to your comments on WP:synthesis, they are hardly satisfactory. Let's stick to the facts: during April-July 1939 the USSR was conducting the negotiations with the UK/France and was making some indirect signals to Germany. That is the facts everybody agrees with. Therefore, by mixing these things together and by giving approximately equal weight to these two things you undermine one of the WP's pillar. We either discuss the problem assuming each other's good faith, or I place a neutrality tag in the section and wait for a formal article RFC.

Litvinov's issue
Dear Mosedschurte, To demonstrate how biased the present version is, let's come back to the sources available to both of us. Since you are focused on the Litvinov's issue (superfluously, to my opinion, BTW) let's take this case as am example. I reproduce the paragraph in its present form: ""On May 3, Stalin replaced Litinov, with Vyacheslav Molotov as Foreign Minister, thereby significantly increasing his freedom of manoeuvre in foreign policy. The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, thereby removed a major obstacle for negotiations with Germany, which possibly was also meant to send a signal to France and Britain regarding a potential option of negotiation with Germany. Stalin immediately directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews", to which Molotov replied "thank God for these words!" Given Litvinov's prior creation of an anti-fascist coalition and pro-Western orientation by the standards of the Kremlin, his dismissal signaled a Soviet option of rapprochement with Germany, while Molotov's appointment served as a signal to Germany that the USSR was open to offers. One British official wrote that Litvinov's disappearance also meant chiefly the loss of an admirable technician or perhaps shock-absorber, so, as a result, French and British negotiators faced with a more truly Bolshevik as opposed to diplomatic or cosmopolitan modus operandi. ""

In this para, although accepting (after several reverts) that freedom of manoevre should go first, you devote up to 50% of the text to the Litvinov ethnicity and to the Soviet-German context. However, I wouldn't say it to be a correct interpretation of the source cited. Resis mentions Litvinov's ethnicity two times: (i)in a context of "domestic politics": ""There is, however, another element of domestic politics in the dismissal of Litvinov and many of his colleagues. Decades later, Molotov recounted that when he had taken over the foreign affairs commissariat, Stalin had said to him: 'Purge the ministry of Jews'. Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented: 'Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good. Latvians and Jews .... And each one drew a whole crowd of his people along with him. Moreover, they regarded my arrival in office with condescension and jeered at the measures I began to implement ...'. Absurdly denying any anti-semitism on the part of Stalin, Molotov held that this purge was designed to bring more ethnic Russians into top positions.""

- Resis

and (ii) in the context of Chamberlain: ""The sources available at this time show that the immediate cause of the dismissal of Litvinov was the disagreement between him and the chetverka over how to deal with Britain and France. The security systems proposed by London and Paris generally relegated the USSR to a subordinate, unequal status and absolutely refused to include a guarantee of Estonia, Latvia and Finland. Compounded by Britain's dilatory response to the Soviet counterproposal of 17 April, all this indicated that London felt free to treat negotiations with Moscow in cavalier fashion. So long as Litvinov, the personification of collective security, represented Moscow, London acted as if it could take the USSR for granted; Soviet diplomacy seemingly had only two options: either association with Britain and France on their terms or isolation. To Chamberlain, it was inconceivable that Soviet Russia, the ideological antipode of Nazi Germany, could ever negotiate rapprochement with Berlin, a possibility all the more remote so long as Litvinov, of Jewish origin, and the epitome of collective security, headed Narkomindel. As for Stalin, he could not credibly use Litvinov to play, or even threaten to play, the German card.""

- Resis

I point your attention at the sentence in bold. I think this sentence allows no equivocal interpretation. Interestingly, in his conclusion, Resis tells nothing about Litvinov's ethnicity: ""By replacing Litvinov with Molotov, Stalin significantly increased his freedom of manoeuvre in foreign policy. Litvinov's dismissal served as a warning to London and Paris that Moscow had a third option-rapprochement with Germany. After Litvinov's dismissal, the pace of Soviet-German contacts quickened. But that did not mean that Moscow had abandoned the search for collective security, now exemplified by the Soviet draft triple alliance. Meanwhile, Molotov's appointment served as an additional signal to Berlin that Moscow was open to offers. The signal worked the warning did not. The denouement came in the Kremlin on the night of 23-24 August 1939, when Ribbentrop and Molotov signed the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact and the Secret Additional Protocol.""

- Resis

My conclusion is, the current para wrongly interpret sources giving a biased view of Soviet-German relations during the first half of 1939.

What other sources tell us? Resis quites Uldricks (ref 1), who proposes six reasons for Litvinov's dismissal: "(1) the removal of Litvinov was a signal designed to warn the Western powers that the policy of collective security was in danger; (2) it released from his post a man whose foreign policy conceptualisation had not proved true and in any case a man who, unlike Molotov, did not belong to Stalin's inner circle; (3) in Molotov Stalin appointed a foreign commissar who pursued no ideas of his own but was a competent executant of Stalin's will; (4) the change at the top of Narkomindel gave the Soviet Government full freedom of action at a time of acute international crisis; (5) with Litvinov and his appointees the pro-Western faction of Narkomindel was removed, if only temporarily (Litvinov was not subjected to the Purge but could in honour await a return to favour); (6) the elimination of the Jew Litvinov cleared the way for further rapprochement of the USSR with Germany"

Again, Jewish ethnicity is one of six reasons for dismissal.

Let's see what Watson says: ""Whether the reasons for Molotov's appointment as head of Narkomindel were internal rather than foreign policy factors is still subject to debate, but foreign powers saw it as a clear signal that alternative foreign policy options were to be explored. Litvinov's attempt to negotiate a collective security agreement with the Western powers had failed even with the extreme pressure created by Hitler's occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. To protect the USSR, alternative policies had to be considered. The choice of Molotov reflected not only the appointment of a nationalist and one of Stalin's leading lieutenants, a Russian who was not a Jew and who could negotiate with Nazi Germany, but also someone unencumbered with the baggage of collective security who could obtain the best deal with Britain and France, if they could be forced into an agreement""

Again, the ethnicity just briefly mentioned among other reasons.

Despite that, you intentionally changed accents to give undue weight to the minor factor: ""The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, thereby removed a major obstacle for negotiations with Germany[2][3][4], which possibly was also meant to send a signal to France and Britain regarding a potential option of negotiation with Germany""

In other words Jewish ethnicity is presented in an affirmative mood, whereas signals to France and Britain — in subjunctive mood. My English allows me to see the difference. (I believe you don't mind me to do corresponding changes.)

One more important point. The sources are equally focused on both Linvinov and Molotov. In other words, Stalin got rid of Litvonov not only and not mainly because he wanted to purge Narkomindel of Jews, but because he needed in a new person as a Minister. Nevertheless, you preferred to concentrate on the Litvinov's person.

Even more interestingly, Roberts directly rejects any linkage between Litvinov's ethnicity and his dismissal: ""Perhaps the only thing that can be salvaged from the wreckage of the orthodox interpretation of Litvinov's dismissal is some notion that, by appointing Molotov foreign minister, Stalin was preparing for the contingency of a possible deal with Hitler. In view of Litvinov's Jewish heritage and his militant anti-nazism, that is not an unreasonable supposition. But it is a hypothesis for which there is as yet no evidence. Moreover, we shall see that what evidence there is suggests that Stalin's decision was determined by a quite different set of circumstances and calculations.""

- Geoffrey Roberts. The Fall of Litvinov: A Revisionist View Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 639-657 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260946

I believe, you don't mind me to introduce the latter source into the para. I believe that, using Litvinov's issue as an example, I was able to persuasively demonstrate the profound difference between our approaches to the sources' interpretations. Therefore, I again ask you to propose the way to resolve this disagreement (the most convenient for you). Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

As an intial matter, let's be clear, at first following yet another [WP:Fringe] theory on this page, you actually improperly '''deleted all mention of Litvinov's Jewish ethnicity regarding his dismissal, along with completely taking the section out of chron order, before another editor and I had to add some of the sources and information back in. '''

Now, you're claiming it's given "undue weight", and that based on sentence in the introduction of a 1992 paper, there is no connection.


 * Re: you devote up to 50% of the text to the Litvinov ethnicity and to the Soviet-German context.

->20.2%. 29.1% if you count the Molotov-purge sentence (which is different). ->Somewhat humorously, that kind of inaccuracy is actually the most accurate thing about this odd Talk page section. At least you were 58% correct there.


 * Re: Again, the ethnicity just briefly mentioned among other reasons.

-> Yes, of course. This is why it's 20.2% of the text of the paragraph by characters. ->In fact, one more bit of oddness, I actually crafted much of the other 78.2% of that paragraph covering the other reasons.


 * Re: Your perfect writer's style warrants that you proficient in English and, therefore, you do understand what does Resis mean.

->No comment. I'll let that sentence stand.


 * Re: Even more interestingly, Roberts directly rejects any linkage between Litvinov's ethnicity and his dismissal

->Let's be intellecutally honest about this fringe theory: (1) This entire fringe theory is based on a single sentence of the INTRODUCTION of Roberts a 1992 paper. (2) It doesn't even say that there is no connection (nor would it) but just stated "Stalin's decision was determined by a quite different set of circumstances and calculations." (3) I hope this isn't soul crushing to you, but Roberts is NOT saying that he wasn't sacked because he was Jewish. He's saying that he Stalin wasn't necessarily planning to do a deal with Hitler at the time of his firing. Re-read the paragraph. (4) Hammering this home, Roberts actually spends exactly ZERO words of the paper itself on Litvinov's ethnicity. In fact, he doesn't even utter the word "jew" in the article after the intro. (5) Even Roberts, who is often described as pro-Stalin (not that I mind Roberts and I have probably cited him more than anyone else on Wikipedia), does not at all dispute anything regarding Litinov's ethinicity in his 2002 and 2006 works broadly on such topics.


 * Re: "What other sources tell us?"

-> You don't really want to see that. ->Yet another fringe theory is about to to hit the ocean bottom.

Not only was it important, but nearly every single historical source -- even the ones with only a cursory summary of the firing -- mention it. Sometimes they mention the Jewish ethnicity point by itself, but usually with the addition of Litvinov's pro-Western collective security stance being a reason, too.

In fact, Germany had specifically, openly and repeatedly attacked Litvinov for being Jewish, his firing was likely meant to foster negotiations, and Hitler was happy that a non-Jew replaced him.

Levin, Nora, The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917: Paradox of Survival, NYU Press, 1988, ISBN 0814750516, page 330.

"'Then on May 3, 1938, Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister -- a Jew who favored cooperation with the West against Hitler, and whowas referred to by the German radio as 'Litvinov-Finkelstein'-- was dropped in favor of Vyascheslav Molotov. 'The emininent Jew', as Churchill put it, 'the target of German antagonism was flung aside . . . like a broken tool . . . The Jew Litvinov was gone and Hitler's dominant prejudice placated.''"

Nekrich, Aleksandr Moiseevich, Adam Bruno Ulam, Gregory L. Freeze, Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations, 1922-1941,  Columbia University Press, 1997, ISBN 0231106769, page 109-110

"'Whether Stalin grasped the Fuhrer's psychological state or not, he took a step no doubt calculated to influence his eventual partner: on May 3, 1939, he replaced Maksim Litvinov, a Jew, with Viacheslav Molotov, as commissar of foreign affairs. . . . Stalin certainly recognized the political importance of removing Litvinov because of his Jewish origins. Much later, Molotov recounted the following: 'In 939, when Litvinov was dismissed and I took over international affairs, Stalin told me: Remove all the Jews from th commissirat.''"

Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, Simon and Schuster, 1990 ISBN 0671728687, page 480-1

"The fact that Litvinov, a Jew, was replaced by Molotov who, as tghe German Embassy had empahsized in its dispatch to Berlin, was not, might be expected to have a certain impact in high Nazi circles. "

. ..

"The German charge d'affaires reported the change to Berlin the next day . . . 'Molotov, who is not a Jew, has the reputation of being the 'most intimate freing and closes collaborator' of Stalin.' "

Brackman, Roman, The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, London and Portland, Frank Cass Publishers, 2001, ISBN 0714650501, page 333-4

"'(Soviet Chargé) Astakhov reported that Hitler was very pleased by the fact this his replacement, Molotov, was not Jewish. (Shulenbuerg, an argend supporter of improvement in Soviet-German relations, knew about Hitler's distast for Jews and did not report to him that Molotov's wife Polina Zhemchuzhina was Jewish). Hitler said that the dismissal of Litvinov was the 'decisive factor n his decision to start negotiations with Stalin.' '"

Israeli?, Viktor Levonovich, On the Battlefields of the Cold War: A Soviet Ambassador's Confession, Penn State Press, 2003, ISBN 0271022973, page 10

"'Stalin, for his part, knew that Litvinov, a Jew, was the wrong man for implementing a policy of rapprochement with Hitler, and therefore, he chose Molotov, with whom he was close. During a meeting with Litvivnov in teh summer of 1946 one of the our fellow Diplomatic Academicy graduates asked for the former people's commissar for foreign affairs why he had resigned his post in the spring of 1939. Litvinov answered bitterly: 'Do you really think that I was the right person to sign a treaty with Hitler'  . . .  'When Litvinov was discharged and I became the head of the foreign service,'Molotov recalled, 'Stalin told me 'Get the Jews out of the Narkomat (foreign ministry).' Following Stalin's instructins, Molotov with considerable relish and dilligence, had many Jews dismissed and arrested.'"

Churchill, Winston, The Second World War: The Gathering Storm, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1986 ISBN 039541055X, page 328

"(Litvnivov) '(Litinov) The emininent Jew, the target of German antagonism, was flung aside for the time being like a broken tool, and without being allowed a word of explanation, was bundled off the world stage to obscurity, a pittance, and police supervision.'"

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

"Stalin agreed to sign a nonaggression pact only eight months after Hitler had uttered his murderous anti-Jewish prophecy for the first time in public. Signing the pact was stunning confirmation of the lack of Jewish influence within the Soviet government and Communist party.  The turning point was clear for all to see in Stalin's decision to replace his Jewish foreign minister, an advocate of the popular front against fascism, Maxim Litvinov, with Vyacheslave Molotov.  

'''As Churchill put it, Litvinov, 'the eminient Jews, the target of German antagonism, was flung aside like a broken tool. . . the dismissal of Litvinov marked the end of an epoch. It registered the abandonment of the Kremlin in all faith in a security pact with the Western Powers and in the possibility of organizing an Eastern Frong against Germany. . . The Jew Litvnov was gone, and Hitler's dominant prejudice was placated.

Litvinov's dimissal was both part of a dramatic foreign policy shift and the beginning of a purge of Jewish oficials from the Soviet Foreign Ministry and from other positions in the party and government." (Page 56)

"After 1939, it continued, the German government expected a reduction in Jewish influence in the the leadership of the Soviet Union, but the Soviets were not willing to "break or limit the absolute Jewish domination of the Soviet Union." To make sure that Jews could not avoid scrutiny, the Press Office set out clear rules about how Jews were to be name.  The name Finkelstein was to be added before the last name of Jewish leaders in the Soviet Union.  Hence Maxim Litvniov became "Finkelstein-Litvinov."  The directive used this protocol when it claimed that the removal of "Finkelstein-Litvniov" as a foreiggn minister in 1939 was not a change in policy, because he continued to work in the Foreign Affairs Division of the Central Committee." (pages 97-98)

Davidson, Eugene, The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler, University of Missouri Press, 2004, ISBN 0826215297, page 376

"Molotov was chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and, more important, unlike Litvinov, was not a Jew." Note: earlier, the author notes that one Hitler speech was notable because: "for the first time in a speech on foreign policy he (Hitler) had made no mention of Soviet Russia whose foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov, had been born Wallach-Finkelstein and most of whose founders Hitler had repeatedly and errenously identified as Jews."

Bayme, Steven, Understanding Jewish History: Texts and Commentaries, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1997 ISBN 0881255548, page 374

"'Maxim Litvinov, th Jewish foreign minister, was removed from office, signalling the sensitivity to Hitler's racialism.'"

Osborn, Patrick R., Operation Pike: Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000, ISBN 0313313687, page xix

"'On May 4, the Kremlin announced the replacement of the pro western and Jewish Litvinov by the stern and ruthless Vyacheslav Molotov, a close associate of Stalin. This was an indication that the Kremilin was tiring of Western prevaraction, and a hint to the anti-Semitic Nazi regime in Berlin that Stalin might be willing to do business.'"

Killham, Edward L., Nordic Way: A Path to Baltic Equilibrium, Howells House, 1993, ISBN 0929590120

"'Not only was Litnivov a Jews, and therefore an interlocutor difficult for the Nazi regime to even contemplate, he was also closely identified with the Soviet regime's public quest for collective security.'"

Childs, James Rives, Jamie H. Cockfield, Black Lebeda: The Russian Famine Diary of ARA Kazan District Supervisor J. Rives Childs, 1921-1923, Mercer University Press, 2006, ISBN 088146015X, page 32

"'As the Russians became desirous of an accord with Germany in 1939, Litvinov, who was Jewish, was removed in March of that year becaue the Soviets knew that Hitler would never negoitate with a Jew.'"

Waller, John H., The Unseen War in Europe: Espionage and Conspiracy in the Second World War, I.B.Tauris, 1996, ISBN 1860640923, page 475

"'The Soviet Union would now ally itself with Germany rather than risk war with Hitler, in the bigoted world of nazism it would not do to have such critical negotiations conductd with Germans by Litinov, a jew.'"

Jeffers, H. Paul, History's Greatest Conspiracies: One Hundred Plots, Real and Suspected, That Have Shocked, Fascinated, and Sometimes Changed the World, Globe Pequot, 2004, ISBN 159228325X,  Page 85

"'But Stalin knew that in order to bargain with Hitler, he would have to replace his top Jewish diplomat. To replace Litvinov, Stalin chose Vyacheslav Molotov. Having survived by cunning and discretio through the decades of gteh intrigues of the Soviet system by aligning himself with Stalin, he was the perfectg choice to deal with Hitler's top diplamtic henchman, Joachim von Ribbentrop.  Germany's charge d' affairs in Moscow informed Berline on May 3, 1939, that the new Commissar of Foreign affairs was 'of of Stalin's closest and most intimate advisors, and not a Jew.'"

Black, Conrad, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, PublicAffairs, 2005, ISBN 1586482823, page 521

"'Stalin, identifying the Jewish Litvinov with what he by then considerd the failed policy of approching the British and French, fired Litvinov on May 3 and replaced hm with V.M. Molotov, his stone-faced, almost robotor Old Bolshevic lackey. Under pressure from the war minister, Leslie Hore-Belisha, who was also a Jew (a fact mentioned here only because of the German habit of imputing discreditable otives and excessive influence to Jewish officials) . . . '"

Lumans, Valdis O., Latvia in World War II, Fordham Univ Press, 2006, ISBN 0823226271, Page 64

"'The fact that Litvinov was a Jew was of vital significance, since the officially anti-semitic Nazi regime in Berlin would be more willing to talk with a non-Jew.'"

Chamberlin, William Henry, Russia's Iron Age, Read Books, 2007, ISBN 1406768200, page 121

"'Stalin discarded his faithful retainer on allying himself with Hitler. Litvinov was the last Jews, with the single exception of Lazr Kaganovich, who remained in the upper ranks of the Soviet Government at that time.'"

Weeks, Albert L., Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941< Rowman & Littlefield, 2003 ISBN 0742521923, page 70

"'Stalin even removed him from the Central Committee. In Litvivonv's palce he appointed his closest aide, Vlyacheslave Molotov (real name Scriabin), a Grean Russian, who was untained in Nazi eyes because he was as Litvinov was, Jewish; that Mololtov was married to a Jewish woman was of little concern.'"

Murphy, David E., What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa,  Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 030011981X, page 15

"'Litvinov was Jewish and had favored an agreement with England and France to curb Nazi aggression. Thus, Stalin's action was a signal to Hitler of the possibility of an agreement between their two countries.'"

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

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

Nation, Craig, Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991, Cornell University Press, 1992, ISBN 0801480078, Page 99

"'The writing on the wall became visible when on May 4, Litvinov was replace as commsar of foreign affairs by his long-time nemesis Molotov. Litvinov was the living symbol of collective security and, as a Jew he could be presumed to be unpopular wit the rabidly anti-Semitic Hitlerites.'"

Chaney, Otto Preston, Zhukov, University of Oklahoma Press, 1996, ISBN 0806128070, Page 78

"'A week later Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maksim Litvinov, who being of Jewish descent had been verbally abused by the Germans for years, was replaced by V.M. Molotov in a move fully appreciated by teh German dicataor. Hitler later declared to his generals: '' Litvinov's dismissal was decisive. It came to me like a cannon shot, like a sign that the attitude of Moscow towards the Western Powers had changed.'""

Stackelberg, Roderick and Sally A. Winkle, The Nazi Germany Sourcebook: An Anthology of Texts< Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0415222133, page 246

"'The replacement of Litvinov, who was Jewish, by Vyacheslav Molotov on May 3 1939 sent th German a clear signoal that Stalin was interested in coming to somekind of agreement to avoid war.'"

Fest, Joachim C., Hitler, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002, ISBN 015602754, page 584

"'The Soviet Union replaced her Foreign Minister of many years' standing, Maxim Litvinov -- a man of Western orientatio and Jewish descent who figured invaraibly in Nazi polemics as 'the Jew Finelstein' -- by Vyaccheslave Molotov, and inquired in Berlin whether ths shift might favorably influence the German attitude.'"

Mann, Chris, Christer Jorgensen, Hitler's Arctic War: The German Campaigns in Norway, Finland, and the USSR, 1940-1945, Macmillan, 2003, ISBN 0312311001, Page 25

"'The Soviets, meanwhile, were disappointed in their efforts to secure close military links with Great Britain and France. So Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov was replaced by Vyacheslav Molotov, Stalin's right hand man and importantly given the Nazi's rabid anti-semitism, not Jewish like his predecessor. Stalin was sending a signal to the Germans that having failed to find security in conjunction with the Western powers, he was willing to deal with the Nazis.'"

Craig, Gordon A. and Felix Gilbert, The Diplomats, 1919-1939: 1919-1939, Princeton University Press, 1994, ISBN 069103660, Page 374

"'Nevertheless, it can be concluded that Litvinov's retirement was a very important step in teh German-Soviet rapprochement, if only because he was a Jew and had come to symbolize the effort at collective secruity against German aggression.'"

Rayfield, Donald,Stalin and His Hangmen, by Random House, Inc., ISBN 0375757716, 2004,  Page 1943

"'Litvinov lived, but he was replaced by Molotov in May 1939; the Nazi Ribbentrop woudl not have signed a pact with so prominent a Jew as Litvinov.'"

It's pretty clearly a major reason, and thus, is about 20% of the text of the paragraph. Stalin actually ordered a purge of the Ministry of Jews thereafter.

Of course, so is Litvinov's embrace of collective security, which is mentioned along side his ethnicity in many sources. Other (though fewer) also detail his pro-Western and anti-fascist stances.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That was impressive! I think the citations of Molotov and Hitler, as well as multiple secondary sources, clarify this matter. You are a very knowlegeable contributor.Biophys (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a slam dunk issue, so it wasn't that hard. Crack open most books that cover the Pact (and even some TV shows) and you'll see it.


 * Maybe the issue will go away with the book sources making blatantly clear both its existence and its importance. That's what I'm hoping.  That was hardly even an exhaustive list I gave.  There are loads more.


 * Or maybe we'll get something totally superfluous, like a bunch of cites with other issues around the dismissal -- the article cites three additional ones already (Litvinov pro-Western, collective security UK/France and antifascist coalition), so who knows why except just to try to make some failing point. I'm sure, like any other historical issue, you could dig up 50 additional causes in various texts here and there if you scrounged hard enough. That would be sort of par for the course.  Maybe to lots of articles and website, too.


 * Or maybe we'll get a bunch of adds of additional causes in the article -- i.e., a repeat of the threat of inflating the article with every other source one can find unless this is deletted/minimized.


 * I think one issue is reading Roberts too literally. Though Roberts is sort of known as the most stalwart pro-Stalin historian of the respected ones, he's a very enjoyable read and does a nice job grabbing interesting specifics. I've cited him many many times on Wikipedia. But in terms of large analyses or broad statements (especially in his intros and abstracts), his style many times is to come across as if he's challenging the mainstream, and he does so in rather broad and terse language (especially in his younger days).  It makes a name and sells name books and gets people reading.  But if read too literally, you'd think he was saying there were no concurrent UK-Soviet and Germany-Soviet talks -- there obviously were and Roberts himself even details them in his works.  Or that Litvinov's firing had nothing to do with him being Jewish -- Roberts wouldn't ever go that far (and he doesn't), for the obvious reason of the immediate Jewish purge in the Ministry that followed and the documents on the subject.  Instead, he never really addresses it.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)