Talk:World War II/Archive 33

North Africa Campaign
I have added a much needed image from the North Africa campaign to The war becomes global section as this was one of the most important theatres in World War II but it is not as represented in this article as much as other campaigns. Usergreatpower (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was it so important? Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, it had never been one of the most important theatres. However, during that time it was the only land theatre of war Western Allies fought against the European Axis members, therefore, at least one picture is needed to demonstrate that fact. One has to remember, however, that the African picture is already present in the collage. In addition, the picture of African campaign seems to be more relevant to the next section (El-Alamein).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice image of a tank in the North African desert—very appropriate. There's no need rattle the hornet's nest in saying "one of the most important theatres" in order to place this image. It's quite enough that it portrays the action and fits in the article flow. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is easy to find a lot of pictures that portrays the action and fits in the article flow, however only the most appropriate of them can be introduced into the article. To my opinion, we need to choose between a picture for Crusader and for El-Alamein. To my opinion, the second is much more appropriate. In that case in the "the Tide Turns" section we will have one picture for three pivotal WWII battles: Midway, El-Alamein and Stalingrad. I propose to remove the Crusader picture when someone find a good picture for El-Alamein.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That photo looks good to me, and thanks for posting the notification. It would have been better to discuss the image here before adding it rather than after, however. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Extra italic quotes
Towards the bottom


 * Battlefield (documentary series) is a television documentary series initially issued in 1994–1995 that explores many of the most important battles fought during the Second World War''

Has extra italic quotes at the end. (I have a picky parser...)

Broken link - reference 58
Can anyone find a valid source for this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a reference which supports the use of the word 'sustained', but I can reference the rest of the sentence. How about we change it to "As a result, Germany and the United States found themselves engaged in naval warfare in the North Atlantic by October 1941, even though the United States remained officially neutral"? and reference this to page 52 of the Oxford Companion to World War II? Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress companion also mentions it, although I can't remember the page at the moment. Cam (Chat) 07:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost of WW2
I see a fair amount of reference in the media to the cost of WW2 either as 2008 adjusted US$ or as a percent of GDP, usually compared to the cost of the current bailout. It would be nice to have a page branching out from the WW2 page that summarizes these costs in an impartial way, but I'm not expert enough to write it. I assume this is the place for such a page request?

Baron ridiculous (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be cost for all combatants (not only the US) and include damages (e.g. costs of damages to people and buildings, infrastructure etc. in London, Hiroshima and Dresden). I think no such figure can be given. I would hazard that the cost for Germany including all damages (Dresden, Berlin) destruction of civilian life (including Jews), etc. will be many, many times the GDP. Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that the article might want to do more than just count up the monetary cost, and certainly would want to have a world-wide scope, but I don't agree that no figures could be given. There was a cost in money, in human life, in damage, etc, I don't see any reason why historians' best estimates of those things can't be listed.  Regarding US monetary expenditures, people are throwing around all sorts of comparisons in the media.  If there's an amount agreed upon by historians it would be nice to have it listed.

98.194.79.167 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are going to get a very large range of cost figures. Certain figures put the US as having the highest total expenditure, while others put Nazi Germany's expenditure of significantly outdoing those of its competitors, while others put the USSR as having spent the most (and certainly losing the most).  I'll look into it.  If three or four sources agree, then we'll have to triple-cite to ensure accuracy. Cam (Chat) 07:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

World_War_II
regarding the section World_War_II, we have a total of 3 pictures, one about China's Unit 143, but two about the holocaust, I think it should be balanced by removing or replacing one of the holocaust with one about gulag or something?, which one? discuss? -- Andersmusician  NO  03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What concretely? Gulag is hardly relevant: the maximal total Gulag population (including usual criminals) during WWII never exceeded 1,5 million (the USSR population was 150 million). For comparison, the present day prisoner population in the USA (300 million) is about 2.5 million. Mortality never exceeded 412,100 (in 1942, in other years much lower). So it wasn't something extraordinary as compared to Bengal famine, or extermination of the Belorussians or the Poles, for instance. Killing of Chinese civilians is already in the collage. To my opinion, there is no need to change pictures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that Paul, and am curious as to what your source for those statistics is. The Oxford Companion to World War II states that 'up to' 10% of the USSR's population were in the GULAG system in March 1939 and that Robert Conquest has estimated that one million people died in the camps during each year of World War II. Millions of Soviet civilians were also forcibly sent into exile to Siberia or the southern deserts and a high proportion of these died. Norman Davies argues, persuasively in my view, that the USSR's prison system wasn't much less murderous than Nazi Germany's. As such, a photo seems very apt. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As another comment, this section of the article needs to be re-worked. It doesn't explicitly state that the USSR killed millions of its own citizens for internal political reasons (it only mentions citizens of occupied countries and "Soviet citizens themselves who had been or were thought to be supporters of the Nazis") and the inclusion of almost a whole paragraph on the relatively minor mistreatment of POWs in Canadian camps seems both unjustified and POV given that the Geneva (owned by Mcdonadls) Convention allowed POWs to be used for non-military labour. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding to your second comment, the statement "the USSR killed millions of its own citizens for internal political reasons", although generally correct, is hardly relevant to the WWII period. Before doing such a statement, it makes sense to take into account the following: (i) majority of Gulag deaths during the war were a result of simple food and medical help shortage that, BTW, was common not only for Gulag, but for the USSR as whole. The home front life and labour conditions were also extremely hard, otherwise the USSR would never survive. The regime simply had no resources for the prisoners. I agree that liberation of them with subsequent conscriprion would be, probably, a better option, however, I know no evidence of deliberate mass killing, or starvation of the Gulag inmates, or other categories of the USSR population during WWII (by the Soviet authorities, of course). (ii) Deportations had the same reason as the notorious deportation of the Japanese Americans (in other words, not political, but military), although in both cases the Stalin's and Roosevelt's fears had lesser ground than they thought. In addition, the adjustment to the dramatic difference in the economical and military situation in the US and the USSR should be made: in the latter, such deportations had to be more brutal because of much greater overall brutality of the war there. It is well known, by the way, that Japan didn't and couldn't plan any invasion of the continental USA, whereas the Soviet Union had already been invaded, and the areas affected by deportations (Volga German Republic, North Caucasus or Crimea) were either directly adjacent to or few hundred kilometers from the front line. As regards to "mistreatment of POWs in Canadian camps" etc, I have a dual feeling: on the one hand, I agree that such an incident is hardly a military crime at all, as compared with terrible war crimes in Europe and Asia; on the another hand, at least one example is needed to demonstrate that even those countries only indirectly affected by the WWII brutality also committed war crimes. Mentioning of Japanese deportation in America would be sufficient, though. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC) In addition, let me remind you that Conquest is one of the most anti-Soviet authors. Others, like his constant opponent Wheatcroft, give lower numbers. Therefore, the Conquest's data and conclusions are the upper estimate rather than the ultimate truth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Nick-D, could you please familiarize yourself with the Gulag talk page? You can find there a direct quote from the Robert Conquest himself who conceded that the source I used (the Zemskov's works) was a reliable source: "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures." (Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Author(s): Robert Conquest Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319). It worths mentioning that after Soviet archives became available in 1990th Conquest, along with many other scholars, corrected his earlier estimates considerably. Note, please, the number of 14 million, Conquest agreed with, is a total number of Gulag intake during 1932-1953, not during the war. "Colonies" were something else, conditions there were much milder and the terms never exceeded 1-3 years, their inmates were just ordinary criminals, and such a number is normal for every large country.


 * I think that we've going to have to agree to disagree there Paul as I have no intention of being sucked into the various eastern-European edit wars. I'll draft an alternate version of this section as I think that it really needs work and invite comments and changes in the usual way. I agree that the deportation of Japanese-Americans should be covered alongside Soviet deportations and thinks that the entire topic of western Allied abuse of Axis prisoners deserves only brief coverage given that it was fairly rare. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't understand what war do you mean taking into account that I hate edit wars and always try to achieve a consensus.
 * 2. I see no reasons for disagreement: I've just pointed your attention at the fact that the sources you used were obsolete. Gulag population didn't increase during the war, and never exceeded 2.5 million. Most western scholars agree with that.
 * 3. I also have no data that confirms that "the USSR killed millions of its own citizens for internal political reasons" during the war. According to Wheatcroft, "Stalin by contrast can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people." Note, these numbers relate to the 1932-1953 period. Of course, the actual population losses, including excessive mortality in Gulag camps or famines were much higher, however, one has to separate it from deliberate killing for political reasons. I also unaware of any mass repressions in the USSR during WWII.
 * 4. I already agreed that "relatively minor mistreatment of POWs in Canadian camps" hardly deserves mentioning taking into accont that the story about Japanese Americans has already been included into the article. I also agreed that the latter should be just mentioned.
 * In additiion, after looking again at the section (I didn't read it for a long time) I have to agree that it is really terrible. Giving so negligible details is such an article is simply ridiculous. Therefore, I fully agree that the section should be rewritten. Since I paid a special attention to Gulag and POWs, I can provide modern reliable sources for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

there is a misplaced comma in the line stating how many dutch POWs were inprizoned "from the UK, 28,500 from the, Netherlands and" 04-01-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.41.141 (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Paul. I didn't intend to imply that you're an edit warrior - your actions on this page clearly demonstrate that you're not. Sorry about that. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing some causes behind the facts
Shouldn't be some causes listed behind the facts in this article? It's like a list of dates and places and nothing else. I added that the German invasion was halted, due to the heavy Russian winter but this was removed for some reason. I think this is important, because this is why Napoleon failed, too, during his campaign...thus histroy repeats itself... Hitler didn't realize that thx --Bizso (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was discussed when this article was re-written last year, and the consensus view was that as this has to be a very high-level summary article it should simply describe the main events of the war. Attempting to discuss causal relationships is unmanageable as Wikipedia rules require that all reputable theories would have to be discussed. Using this example, it means that the article would need to acknowledge that the German failure in 1941 has been variously attributed to bad weather at the start of the campaign, stubborn Soviet resistance, Hitler's decision to direct the German armies away from Moscow, bad weather during the drive on Moscow, better Soviet clothing equipment, the presence of fresh Soviet reserves, the German tank fleet requiring maintainence, and various other reasons. This obviously isn't managable for an article which covers the whole war, and should be discussed in the articles on the individual battles. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. There are entire books written about World war 2 so this article is just a very concise extract.--Bizso (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If we went even a little more in-depth everywhere, we'd be staring at a 150-200 kb article...which would be verrrry bad. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Images
I am concerned about the use of the historic photograph "Holocaust123.JPG‎" which depicts the graphic image of the dead victims of the holocaust piled upon each other in the section of this article "Concentration camps and slave work". I know such images are nessessary in displaying the terrible horror of WWII, and to help prevent this happening again, but i believe this image is potentially scaring for children who may be researching WWII or the holocaust for a school project, etc, and undermines Wikipedia as a "safe" website for kids. I suggest that either the image is removed, or a banner is added at the top of the page stating that this article contains disturbing images. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3atc3 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, a dramatic difference exists between scaring children with staged pictures from action movies and presenting a real evidences of the war crimes. The first is harmful and redundant, the second is useful and even desirable. If the child is educated enough to open a WP article, he/she is mature enough to know about the horror of the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I understand the sentiment, I think this motivation to remove material is fairly close to censoring Wikipedia; which we decided should not be done. Also note that Wikipedia does not intend to be safe for kids, and that (as Paul Siebert says) when a kid is old and educated enough to use WP articles, he/she should be mature enough to learn something about the horror of war. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Paul and Arnoutf point out, Wikipedia is not censored and is not specifically written to be suitable for children. All material is covered by the content disclaimer and it is against current policy to add disclaimers to any articles. See also No disclaimers in articles and Options to not see an image. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, nobody just can't argue in favor of putting a picture depicting a pile of dead bodies in order to make people aware of the horrors of war. fyi -- Andersmusician  NO  00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your points, they are entirely valid. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and was unaware of some of the facts stated above. I was merely trying to raise the point, but I now understand that Wikipedia is, after all, a chronicle of time and therefore can not be edited for the approval of any single minority or majority. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3atc3 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Andersmusician's point somewhat confused me. While I support the fact that Wikipedia is a NPOV and non-censored encyclopedia, I did not understand this phrase: "nobody just can't argue in favor of putting a picture depicting... blah de blah." Is the double negative being used in a grammatical way that I have never seen before? Or is it trying to say that it is acceptable to censor Wikipedia? (Notice he said: "nobody...can't...argue in favor of...blah blah blah." So, nobody, can not argue in favor ... blah. Or if I were to reverse the whole thing, per simple Algebra, anybody can argue against... blah.) Sorry for the meandering post, but Jeeminey those victims are thin. Cheers, indeed! Sorry, that made me sound like a heartless freak. Luna Rain HowLCry 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, consider looking through the archives or the photo's talk page, as this photo has been on Wikipedia for well over two years. I believe this debate can be found here Luna Rain HowLCry 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

overcats
I think this page has too many categories. Do we should put this article in Category:Wars involving ?--Kwj2772 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look some 4,000 edits ago, in the history, you will see the exact same concern being brought up. I agree that it is absolutely unnecessary to say "| Wars involving Mexico | Wars involving the Netherlands | Wars involving New Zealand | Wars involving Norway | Wars involving the Philippines | Wars involving Poland | Wars involving Romania | Wars involving South Africa | Wars involving Thailand | " But wait, there's more! "| Wars involving Bulgaria | Wars involving Burma | Wars involving the Balkans | Wars involving Hungary | Wars involving Indonesia | Wars involving Iran | Wars involving Iraq |" could all be removed as excessive categories. Luna Rain HowLCry 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heck, this talk page is overCatted. Luna Rain HowLCry 03:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
I'd missed reading this article and just ran across a somewhat odd (okay, it was sort of comical actually) representation of the Pact's signing contained therein.

It happened to leave out a minor detail, to put it mildly. Like the that the Tripartite talks actually broke down as the Soviets agreed with Germany to do a deal, with whom they had also been talking. Actually, for those interested in the rather dramatic history surrounding this, it included a desperate telegram from Hitler personally to Stalin two days before to confirm the final deal as Allied military negotiators were talking to Soviet negotiators in Moscow -- with no idea of the Soviet-German negotiations going on -- though I didn't include that in this article.

That's all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article which includes details of the dual discussions not needed in this summary article.

Also, only one reason was given for signing the Pact (historians have discussed 20 or more). Even worse, it was actually from an admittedly non-neutral pro-Soviet historian E.H. Carr -- not exactly "NPOV". Mosedschurte (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I was just passed a comment by an editor that apparently this article has gone through such turmoil that all edits of any sort must be discussed on the Talk Page. No problem, but maybe some sort of banner should be placed at the top of the article so that people adding sources or correcting errors will know about it.

Anyway, here are the suggested corrections to the paragraph with cites: "In April, 193 8 9, the USSR launched the tripartite alliance negotiations with Britain and France,(ref)Michael Jabara Carley (1993). End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies 45 (2), 303-341.(/ref) while thereafter it began discussions with Germany regarding a potential agreement.(ref name='fest589')Fest, Joachim C., Hitler, Harcourt Brace Publishing, 2002 ISBN 0156027542, page 589-90 (ref)Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, Simon and Schuster, 1990 ISBN 0671728687, page 501-505(/ref) However, T t he tripartite negotiations failed when the Soviet Union agreed to enter a pact with Germany(ref name='dwatson715')Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322(/ref)(ref name='shirer528')Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, Simon and Schuster, 1990 ISBN 0671728687, pages 528, and due to mutual mistrust(ref)Derek Watson. Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722 and because the collective security system in Europe was severely undermined by the Munich agreement and the subsequent events.(ref)Max Beloff. The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, vol. II, 1936–41. Issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Oxford University Press, 1949. (/ref) Apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler(ref) E. H. Carr., From Munich to Moscow. I. Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3-17. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.(/ref), t T he Soviet Union signed the non-aggression pact with Germany, including a secret agreement to split Poland and Eastern Europe between them.(ref)Day, Alan J.; East, Roger; Thomas, Richard. A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe, pg. 405(/ref) (ref name='mrtext')Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, executed August 23, 1939(/ref)"Most of the addition (underlined above) is source text. It would actually probably decrease the readable text size of the paragraph (I'm sure length is an issue with this article) with Carr's take gone.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I support the change. Despite Munich, there was little good will towards the Nazis in the French and British governments by 1939 and the current text needs to be fixed - Chamberlain's willingness to go to war in 1939 is often under-stated. There's a comment at the top of the article when you edit it asking that significant changes be discussed first, but it does tend to get lost. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Chamberlain history is kind of interesting and more complex than we all (or at least I) learned in school. The details of the competing negotiations for a Soviet deal in August are pretty fascinating.  Hitler watched carefully for months as the Britain/France talks were chronicled in the press and political speeches, while Germany quietly had talks with the Soviets about their own deal.  While the Allied Military talks were going on in mid-August, Germany wwas desperately working to finalize the Pact, and the Soviets knew the Germans were in a hurry and let them hang a bit.  Hitler and Ribbentrop desperately waited together twice for replies back from Stalin on two occasions in mid-August, including the final deal.  When the Germany-Soviet deal was announced, world leaders and media were shocked beyond belief after covering the UK-France-USSR talks for months.  Floored UK/French negotiators still in Moscow desperately requested a meeting and were thereafter told face-to-face "In view of the changed political situation, no useful purpose can be served in continuing the conversation."

In addition, let me reproduce the quote from Taylor: "If British diplomacy seriously aspired to alliance with Soviet Russia in 1939, then the negotiations towards this end were the most incompetent transactions since Lord North lost the American colonies ...". No matter how little good will Chamberlain had towards the Nazis, his strategy during the triple alliance negotiations was one of the major reasons for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Summarizing all said above I strongly oppose to the proposed changes, although I agree that the paragraph can be improved. Let's discuss possible changes taking into account all said above. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC) To my opinion, the good way to determine if some book is good or bad is to look for a review of this book in peer-reviewed historical journals. (BTW, it is close to what WP gudelines propose).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a heads up, re the note on the edit page, I'm not seeing that.  I just get the "protected" note: "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. "
 * It's the first lines of text in the editing field. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I missed that. Thanks.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed why I missed it the first time. The note doesn't appear in the edit field when you just try to edit a section.  Like this one.  It's only at the top of the article. If a general edit page warning (including for section edit links) can't be added, maybe some kind of banner at the top of the article regarding edits could be added.  Just a suggestion.  It's not a huge deal.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mosedschurte. It is a big surprise for me to read this: "Like the that the Tripartite talks actually broke down as the Soviets agreed with Germany to do a deal, with whom they had also been talking. " During our extensive discussion on the MRP talk page I got the impression (based on the sources both you and I rely upon) that the chronology of the events was the following:
 * 1. In April 1939 the Soviet Union proposed the UK/France to sigh a tripartite alliance, whereas Germany "hinted to Soviet diplomats that it could offer better terms for a political agreement".
 * 2. In May 1939 Stalin replaced Litvinov (a Jew, a proponent of anti-fascist coalition, a person prone to compromisses and a man whose failures during Munich crisis demontrated his inefficiency) with a stubborn Molotov, who had no diplomatic experience but could be (according to Stalin) a better negotiator. By this step, Stalin demonstrated that one more option became available for him, namely, the rapprochement with Germany. This was the message to both Chamberlain, who thought that only two option were available for Stalin (to accept British proposal, or to remain in isolation) and to Hitler (that the rapprochement cannot be ruled out.
 * 3. However, no decisive diplomatic steps towards Germany were taken by the USSR until the political triple alliance negotiations had stalled in July 1939. On 3 August 1939 Germany proposed the USSR to improve relations via defining spheres of interests in the Eastern Europe, but recieved no concrete answer. On that same day Britain proposed Germany to sign a non-aggression treaty (sic!). Only after Strang's departure on 7 August, that meant a suspension of the triple negotiations, did the Nazi-Soviet negotiations started.
 * 4. The fact that military part of triple talks still continued during the secret Nazi-Soviet talks means almost nothing because this agreement couldn't be signed until the political agreement had been achieved. Therefore, in the absence of the political agreement the military negotiations were just a visibility of talks.
 * My conclusion is:
 * a) The words:"while thereafter it began discussions with Germany regarding a potential agreement" are incorrect.
 * b) In the sentence:"the tripartite negotiations failed when the Soviet Union agreed to enter a pact with Germany" the casual linkage has been reversed. In actuality, "the Soviet Union agreed to enter a pact with Germany when the triple negotiation stalled and were suspended indefinitely".
 * As regards to "Apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler", it is an almost direct quite from Carr. This quote tells nothing about Chamberlain's real intentions, it just describe the Soviet's vision. To my opinion, it should remain in the article, because many other sources agree that Stalin had many reasons to think so.
 * Dear Nick-D, I wouldn't agree with your statement: "Despite Munich, there was little good will towards the Nazis in the French and British governments by 1939 and the current text needs to be fixed". Munich related to the Sudetes only. However, after that the Western democracies did nothing to prevent a full occupation of Czechoslovakia. Once again, these two events are absolute different things. No matter what real Chamberlain's intentions were, the western power's actions really created an impression summarized by Carr.
 * PS. To my opinion, there are no pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet historians, like there are no pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet chemists. Like chemists, historians can be good (in that case they try to reveal truth and treat the facts in a logically consistent way) and bad (in that case they interpret facts in a wrong way in attempt to push their POV). Since a huge amount of books and peer-reviewed articles has been written about WWII, we can afford to choose only those written by good historians. In that case we have to leave accusations in pro- or anti- position.


 * I can't even believe this is a topic of discussion after the Molotov-Ribbentrop article. The paragraph as it stands now is simply ridiculous from a neutral historical perspective, not that any of this detail need be in this summary article:
 * 1. First, regarding the chronology, the allied negotiations had not failed before Germany and the Soviets began talks. The entire sentence is currently absurd.   The reason they didn't yet do a deal yet on their last round (July) of face-to-face talks was that they currently had disagreed on language in a supplemental Molotov's letter (one of many proposals and counter-proposals that had been made since March), but they actually had sent military negotiators to Moscow to continue those talks.
 * 2. In fact, not only had Berlin and Moscow been quietly discussing a deal potential since at least May (and perhaps even April 17), but they were discussing it at the highest levels in late July and early August. The unilateral "hints" you referred to were in the months before.
 * 3. Allied military negotiators were literally sitting in Moscow face-to-face with Russian negotiators discussing the Sviets' demand to put military troops in Poland (about which the sides disagreed) for a week as Hitler, Ribbentrop, Stalin and Molotov were finalizing both the non-aggression pact and secret protocols from August 15-19, along with a commercial agreement of aid and support. In fact, even as that had occurred, the Russians didn't even suspend the Allied talks until August 21, but even then this was just a suspension and the Allied negotiators remained in Moscow for that round of talks to potentially continue them while Poland was being pressured more.
 * 4. The Allied negotiators learned like everyone else about the deal when it was publicly announced, shocking almost everyone on the planet, who had no idea discussions with Hitler were taking place, much less that Stalin would actually join a Pact with Hitler.


 * Re: "PS. To my opinion, there are no pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet historians,"
 * ->To highlight the particularly glaring nature of E.H. Carr, he is so pro-Soviet that that's literally almost what he's best known for. In fact, not only is it littered throughout his Wikipedia article, but the first known for clause in E.H. Carr's actual info box on him states  "Known for: For pro-Soviet studies in Soviet history . . . "
 * ->There are literally hundreds of opinions on why Stalin entered the Pact, to select merely one -- especially with that one being from one of the most noted pro-Soviet historians in history -- is about as far as possible from Wikipedia WP:NPOV. That's that's even there as we're discussing it is somewhat embarrassing.
 * -> Even more silly, this is actual quote from the article (with the Carr cite): "Apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler"


 * ->Rather than replace it with one, or -- as Wikipedia policy says regarding including such opinions, including them all -- no historian's speculation on Stalin's motive should be included in the sentence.
 * ->Especially in a summary article like this. Even were it within Wikipedia policy to include merely one POV historian speculation, there would really no need for it in a summary anyway.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with NickD. And there's no way it can stand remotely close to the way it is now and pass muster under Wikipedia policy. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mosedschurte. First of all, I will appreciate if you avoid using the word "silly" on WP talk pages. There are not many silly persons among Wikipedians and they do silly statements very unfrequently. Otherwise, WP would make no sense.
 * Re: "I can't even believe this is a topic of discussion" I am not completely satisfied with the MRP article  either (although generally your contribution is positive), so my comments have a relation to both articles.
 * Re: 1. If my entire sentence is currently absurd feel free to write your own article and send it to the Europe-Asia Studies journal. In your article you may criticise the Derek Watson's vision of the Triple Alliance negotiation's history. I think, you should know that the sentence you so brilliantly criticised was a brief summary of the Watson's article.
 * Re: 2. When the first highest level meeting took place and who were the negotiators?
 * Re: 3. Fully agree. The only thing that remains unclear for me is: what relation does your statement have to the subject of our discussion? The fact (not historians' interpretations) is that military agreement couldn't be signed before the political one. Political negotiation stalled indefinitely, Strang left, and no one knew when these talks would continue (this is also a fact). Therefore, even the achievement of military agreement would mean nothing. You didn't refute that, and I don't understand how could you do that.
 * Re: 4. This is pure emotions. In addition, no one knew about Hitler's cannibalic nature bythat moment. Auschwitz had not been built yet. Mass murders didn't start. Hitler's plans were unknown, even for Hitler himself. Moreover, few years before that many sportsmen (including those from the US) came to the Berlin Olympiad, and people enjoyed the "Triumph of the Will" movies. To many people, Gremany was a normal European country, although somewhat ambitious and more aggressive. I am not sure who was considered as more terrible dictator in 1939: Hitler or Stalin (the Poles, the Hungarians and the Baltic nations definitely knew the answer). Your emotions seems to be a projection of your present day's knowledge on past.
 * I have nothing against removal of all historian speculations, provided that the fact are presented in a proper way. Unfortunatelly, in some cases it seems problematic, because it may lead to inflation of the article, in that case historian speculations, or, more correctly a summary made by a professional historian are preferrable. However, if you can propose a version that allowed us to avoid such speculations and created a correst picture, it would be great.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're not


 * Re: "I think, you should know that the sentence you so brilliantly criticised was a brief summary of the Watson's article."

->Here is a word-for-word quote from Derek Watson (the historian you keep quoting) on the reasons that the Soviets suspended the military talks on August 21:"When it became clear that the British and French could not solve this problem, Voroshilov (note: the chief Soviet negotiator) proposed adjournment on the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks was interfering with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces. In fact it was because of the progress being made in the USSR–German negotiations: the talks with Britain and France were overtaken by the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact.  (Watson, 715)"


 * Re: "Re: 4. This is pure emotions."

->No it wasn't. As stated, the Allied parties learned about the Pact through the media, like everyone else. Here's again in fact the one historian you keep quoting, Derek Watson, on the topic:"On 22 August, however, the British government learned from the German press that Germany and the USSR proposed to conclude a non-aggression pact. (Watson, page 715)"


 * Re: "The fact (not historians' interpretations) is that military agreement couldn't be signed before the political one."

->No one has said that both weren't necessary, and this is a complete red herring you keep throwing out on this WP:Fringe argument that no concurrent talks were taking place. ->You seem to be hanging part of your entire theory (not that this part matters) on some fiction that because they didn't do the deal while disagreeing on the Molotov supplement letter in the first week of August, that all negotiations had failed such that a deal could never be done -- a notion so preposterous, I'm not even sure what to say. ->It was Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov that demanded on August 2 that a military deal be struck first before political talks could continue. ->Moreover, the notion that that UK-France deal couldn't be done is completely obliterated yet again by the historian you yourself continue to bring up (Watson). Not in July, but EVEN AS LATE AS AUGUST 20, Molotov still thought they could do the deal with the UK & Britain:"'As late as 20 August he (note: Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov) spoke enthusiastically to the new Turkish ambassador about a positive and speedy result, and his stalling on the date of Ribbentrop’s visit to Moscow indicates that there were still hopes of a successful outcome of the Triple Alliance negotiations. ' (Watson, 715)"

Here is the briefest of chronologies (sources all in Molotov-Ribbentrop article (and its obviously not complete as that would take up 3 pages):
 * Mid-March of 1939 - UK-France trade flurry of proposals and counters with USSR
 * Months before - Germany and the Soviet Union had been discussing a potential broad economic aid agreement, with Germany hinting that it could offer a better political deal than UK-France
 * April 17 - Soviet ambassador tells the German German Deputy Foreign Minister"there exists for Russia no reason why she should not live with us on a normal footing" and "from normal, the relations might become better and better"
 * April 17 - Soviets outline a proposal for a UK-France-USSR alliance. It was turned down.
 * May 3 - Litvnionv (Jewish-Pro-Western) making negotiations with Germany easier
 * Mid-May - Allies make counter-proposals
 * May 20 - Soviet Foreign Minsiter Molotov tells the German ambassador je no longer wanted to discuss only economic matters, and that it was necessary to establish a "political basis."
 * May 30 - Germany directed its diplomats in Moscow that "we have now decided to undertake definite negotiations with the Soviet Union."
 * May 31 - Soviets criticize UK-France counterproposals on numerous sticking points.
 * Early June - Molotov told a an unofficial intermediary to Germany that a deal with Germany was a better than a UK-France deal
 * June 2 - Soviets make a counterproposal, which the Allies have problems with
 * July 8 - In face to face talks, Allies make a proposal which the Germans have problems with
 * mid-July - Soviets give a counterproposal with a supplementary letter on Baltic States indirect aggression, with which the Allies disagree
 * July 23 - the parties agree to conduct military talks in August in Moscow
 * July 26 - (actually this began on July 25) - German-Soviet talks of political rapproachment, including a key Schnurre-Astakhov meeting
 * August 2 - Molotov demands that a military deal must first be reached before political talks can continue
 * August 3 - German Foreign Minister tells Soviets that "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us."
 * August 12 - Soviets tell Germany that Foreign Minister wants talks on issues, including Poland, to start in Moscow
 * August 12 - UK-France-USSR face-to-face military talks begin in Moscow, including Soviets demand to station troops in Poland, with the Poles disagreeing, and waiting for Polish foreign office answer
 * August 15-16 - Germany and the USSR come close to finalizing a complete 25 year non-aggression Pact deal
 * August 18 - Poles won't bow to UK-France pressure to put Soviet troops in Poland as part of deal
 * August 19 - Hitler becomes nervous that Stalin won't approve the deal and telegrams him that he must received Molotov by August 23 because Poland is becoming "intolerable".
 * August 21 - Soviets suspend talks with UK-France while Poland won't come to the table (real reason to come that same day)
 * August 21 - Stalin confirms to Hitler they'll do a deal, including secret protocols diving up Poland and Eastern Europe. Hitler & Ribbentrop ecstatic.
 * August 22 - Revealed in press that a deal is about to be done.
 * August 23 - Absolutely shocked Allies beg for meeting with Soviet negotiators
 * August 23-24 (night) - Deal inked in Moscow while Stalin makes a toast to Hitler with Ribbentrop, joking about "British shopkeepers"
 * August 25 - Allies get their meeting. They are told "[i]n view of the changed political situation, no useful purpose can be served in continuing the conversation."

Again, none of this need go in this World War II summary article. But the WP:Fringe theory that there weren't concurrent talks and that the German talks/deal weren't the reason no UK-France deal was struck can't remain in a Wikipedia article. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um guys, I think that WP:TLDR applies to this discussion! Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I got dragged into minutiae on what should be a summary issue for this article because the idea that there weren't concurrent negotiations and that Allied Talks had failed before the Germa talks began was just ridiculous.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MRP continued
Dear Mosedschurte. Since both you and I read the same sources, could you please avoid taking small pieces of the text out of context. I believe that it is clear for everyone who read the Watson's article that the piece reproduced by you described a technical end of the already stalled negotiations. As regards to the comprehensive summary of the triple negotiations' time course (thanks for presenting them, by the way), it is also clear for everyone that no serious contacts took place between Germany and the USSR before the sticking point has been achieved on the triple negotiations (mid July). This has been summarized by Michael Jabara Carley (you read this source): "The key issues were over guarantees of the Baltic states, a definition of 'indirect aggression', and negotiations for a military convention tied to the political agreement." --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

German-Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940)
I noticed that the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940) was not in the article. This was much larger than the 1939 deal and allowed the Germans to circumvent the British blockade for millions of tons of vital raw materials and food (which happened) while (according to the agreement anyway) the Germans would provide the Soviets with much needed German military and industrial equipment, including ME-109s and 110s, Ju-88s, naval guns, a cruiser and plans for the Bismarck.

While the details are interesting, they probably have no place in a summary article like this. I suggest the following short sentence for the "War breaks out in Europe" section."The Soviet Union and Germany also entered a trade pact, pursuant to which the Soviets received German military and industrial equipment in exchange for supplying raw materials to Germany to help circumvent a British blockade."Mosedschurte (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. It definitely has place even in such a summary article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support including this, though the wording could be changed to 'The Soviet Union and Germany also entered a trade pact, in which the Germans exchanged military and industrial equipment for Soviet raw materials needed to circumvent the Allied blockade.' - this is a bit clearer and the French were also enforcing the blockade at the time the agreement was signed (not to mention the British Commonwealth countries, which accounted for quite a few German blockade runners during the war). Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Less awkward, more clear and others were supporting the British blockade.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the process under the mediation/arbitration/whatever settlement happened for this being entered into the article now that it's been discussed? Can anyone do it, or does it require some approval?Mosedschurte (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't a formal/agreed process. I'd say that we give this another 24 hours (so that it's been available for comment for about 48 hours) and then anyone can add it. OTOH, I see no reason why anyone would object to including it now. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Molotov-Robbentrop pact-II
Thanks to Mosedschurte I read a lot of sources related to MRP and triple alliance. As a result, I think that the para can and should be improved. Here is my version.

In April, 1938, the USSR launched the tripartite alliance negotiations with the UK and France in an attempt to contain Germany and to revive a collecitve security system undermined by preceeding events. In July, these negotiations stalled over guarantees of the Baltic states. The negotiations for a military convention, that were tied to the political agreement, were terminated in August when the Soviet Union agreed to enter a non-aggression pact with Germany that included a secret agreement to split Poland and Eastern Europe onto spheres of influence.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the very high level nature of this article it both shouldn't cover disputed versions of events and doesn't need to go into that much detail. Can't this be summarised as 'In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact. This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence. which this being placed at the end of the para which begins 'Alarmed, and with Hitler making further demands...'. The article generally doesn't include other things which didn't happen, so there's no real need to include the failed Allied negotiations. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with Nick D, with maybe the only change to use the word "protocols" instead of "agreement" (it was actually part of the M-R agreement). Regardless of terminology, your simplified sentence is, by far, the best way to deal with it and solves the problems in a summary article like this. Better than my proposal and the above text.


 * In addition, the above paragraph had numerous other huge problems (wrong year, wasn't just to revive a collective security system, left out that little matter of the German-USSR talks, didn't just stall over the Baltic states, "spheres of influence" language used without explaining that this was to split those countries, etc.). In short, it was a factual disaster.


 * Accordingly, that's two agreeing on your simplified summary sentence, NickD: "In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact. This treaty included secret protocols to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence. (cite Oxford Companion)"

Mosedschurte (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Protocols' is definetly an improvement, and I've just made this change to the above text. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One more comment. Only one secret protocol had been signed that defined the spheres of influence. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Nick-D, you probably are right. Since many sources directly state that there were no reason to charge any party in playing a double game in 1939, the best way would be just to leave this question beyond the scope.
 * PS. To my opinion, the references to Carley's and Watson's articles should be included. The dictionary is too general, whereas the articles, to my opinion, give a detailed explanation of the events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I used the Oxford Companion because it's widely available (both in hardcopy form and online via the Oxford databases which many public libraries make available to all their borrowers via the internet) and is a very highly regarded reference directed at a general audience. I think that it's better to use these kinds of sources for this article than specialist papers which aren't easily accessible (it's almost impossible for people without access to university libraries and the like to access these kind of journals) and may not be suitable for general readers. The Oxford Companion devotes a bit more than a page to this treaty, provides references for further reading and can be assumed to cover the most common views (it acknowledges that historians views on the treaty differ and not all records from the Soviet Achieves have been released to historians) so it's a high-quality source, especially as it's only being used to verify a bland statement of fact. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose to use the specialist papers instead of the Companion. All three references complement each other. The Watson's article is focused on the curcumstances that lead to signing the pact, Carley is more general, whereas the Companion seems to be more tertiary than a secondary source. Both articles can be purchased by anyone and contain nothing that the person with a high school level of historical education couldn't understand.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that more than one general reference is needed to verify that this very well-known treaty existed and its key features, which is all that this article covers. Alternate references to highly regarded and commonplace secondary sources are: Keegan, John. The Second World War, pg 33 or Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, pg. 34–35. Links to specialised articles would be better placed in the article on the treaty and I don't think that I could purchase either article without first spending hundreds of dollars on a subscription to an academic journal service. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, it is not correct. Journals used to sell articles separately. For instance, you can buy a separate article from the Journal of modern history for $10 per article, or get an electronic subscription for $44.
 * As regards to the books you recommended, I don't think they are completely satisfactory. Keegan wrote his book before several interesting Soviet archival documents had been de-classified. Weinberg pays not much attention to the MRP, and, to my opinion, gives oversimplified and inaccurate picture. Therefore I would propose a reference to another book: (Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108) that gives more detailed and correct description of the events. I already introduced this reference instead of Carley and Watson, so, if no one mind, we can introduce this piece of the text into the article.


 * You just edited Nick-D's Talk page comments, replacing the source. That's a Wikipedia no-no, to put it mildly.


 * That said, with the actual two sentences agreed upon by all now for several days, it can be added, and the non-visible ref cite for the first sentence can be replace with Shore if that's determined to be a better source for the sentence. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I cannot understand the reason for your disappointment. I proposed to include two specialized articles and added them to the draft, you argued that the references to more general books should be included instead (although, if I understood correctly, you didn't insist on these two concrete books). I found your rationale to be reasonabe, however, I proposed another book, and I explained the reasons for that. I was waiting for the response from you when I found that, to my big surprise, the changes had been already made in the article, and the piece of the text, along with the refs to Carley and Watson, was moved there. Since these two refs have been proposed by me, and since there were no response from you, I decided to replace them with the reference to the book (that, to my and, I hope, to your understanding, better fits accessibility criteria than scholarly articles do). I see no problem to replace it with another ref. Let's discuss what book it could be. As regards to "straightforward statements the article makes", I fully agree with that. Unfortunately, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact doesn't belong to simple and straightforward things (I can provide detailed explanations, but I don't think they are needed on that talk page). Therefore, although generally you are right, in this concrete case a reference to a more specialized (although widely available) book is desirable. Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit disappointed that you added that ref Paul despite there not being an agreement on this. I'm not about to die in the ditch or revert you though, but it seems to be bad form. Given that the article is presenting a very simple and high-level summary of the war for general readers, I think that we should only use highly accessible references to verify the straightforward statements the article makes. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Nick-D,


 * I didn't agree with the Shore replacement for the high level soruce either, but I'm not going to get draw into an edit war with you about it. Editinh Nick-D's Talk page comments, replacing the source in his own suggested quote was particularly odd. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

article needs to be downsized
I would take some of the "fat" out.
 * Fat? Which are the fat parts?   Will Beback    talk    08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact?
The sentence "The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal" is controversal. Roberts (Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 By Geoffrey Roberts Published by Yale University Press, 2006 ISBN 0300112041, 9780300112047) states (pp 57-59) directly opposite, namely, that Hitler instructed Ribbentrop "to try to involve Soviet Union in a 'continental bloc' " against Britain and the USA. Although Stalin's preliminary answer was positive, he utilised the negotiations mostly to "probe German intentions", and finally the negotiation stalled. Therefore, the sentence should be either re-written, or removed. Since the question is controversal the latter option seems more reasonable. In addition, we cannot afford discussion of the events that never happened in such a high level article...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removal sounds good to me on the grounds of low importance. I just checked my copy of Weinberg, and the book does contain this material and I've seen it elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think a sentence about something would have (had it happened) surely meant an Allied (UK-Britain-France-Western Europe, everyone else) loss in Europe is that out of wack, but it's certainly rock solid and it's been reported many places, including Roberts 2006, who goes so far as to say that Stalin hadn't even given up as late as the November 25 letter (which was, by the way, never returned):

Roberts 2006: "Stalin's instructions to Molotov indicate that he was prepared to negotiate a wide-ranging deal with the Germans and still thought a partnership with Hitler was possible. Molotov arrived in Berlin on 12 November and attempted to fulfil Stalin's brief. But he found himself faced not with negotiations about a new spheres of influence deal but with the offer of a junior partnership in a German-led global alliance, in which Soviet expansion was to be directed towards India and a clash with Britain." (page 58}

"According to Yakov Chadaev, a senior administrator in the Council of People's Commissars, when Molotov gave his report to the Politburo on the discussions in Berlin, Stalin was convinced that Hitler was intent on war. However, the formal Soviet response to the Berlin negotiations suggests that Stalin had not given up completely on a deal with Hitler. On 25 November Molotov presented Schulenburg with a memorandum setting out the conditions of Soviet adherence to the tripartite pact: ( I) the withdrawal of German troops from Finland; (2) a Soviet-Bulgarian mutual assistance pact, including the establishment of Soviet military bases; (3) recognition of Soviet aspirations in the direction of the Persian Gulf; (4) an agreement with Turkey providing for Soviet military bases on the Black Sea Strait5; and (5) Japanese renunciation of rights 10 coal and oil concessions in North Sakhalin." (Page 59 Brackman: "In September 1940 the Tripartite Pact of Germany, Italy and Japan was signed. Stalin intended to join this victorious coalition in order to participate in the distribution of the spoils. The purpose of Molotov's visit to Berlin in November 1940 was to reach an agreement with Hitler on the conditions under which the Soviet Union would join the Berlin-Rome- Tokyo 'Axis'. Hitler greeted Molotov warmly on his arrival in Berlin on 12 November 1940. After a few words of welcome, he went into a long presentation of his grandiose plans for the division of the world between Germany and its allies. Molotov listened with great attention and replied that he agreed in principle, though some terns would have to be clarified.· On the same day Ribbentrop told Molotov what he thought were Hitler's terns for the division of the world." (Page 341)

Ribbentrop asked Molotov to sign another secret protocol with the statement: 'The focal point of the territorial aspirations of the Soviet Union would presumably be centered south of the territory of the Soviet Union in the direction of the Indian Ocean." Molotov said that he could not take a 'definite stand on this without Stalin's agreement."

. ..

On 25 November 1940 Stalin sent Hitler a note stating that 'The Soviet Union is prepared to accept the dntt of the Four Powers Pact' with a modification (the Four Powers being Gernany, Italy, Japan. and the Soviet Union). The main modification was the point that 'the area south of Batum and Baku in the general direction of the Persian Gulf is recognized as the center of aspirations of the Soviet Union'. In his note, Stalin repeated this idea twice. He also demanded the establishment of a Soviet rural bast' on the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, and stated that, in the case of Turkish resistance, 'the Soviet Union agrees to work out and carry through the required military and diplomatic measures'." (page 343)
 * By the way, the old line that Stalin wasn't really serious with all of that while probing Hitler & the Nazis about Axis entry, humorously, originates with Stalin's desperate response to the documents being release on the matter Falsifiers of History. That whole line was actually taught in Soviet schools right up until 1990 and, I don't think has been repeated since, except on this Talk Page.


 * Roberts -- the same guy you see quoted above (that Paul claimed didn't say this) also wrote an article on Stalin's claims in Falsifiers, specifically breaking down Stalin's statements that he was never really going to join the Axis, and Stalin's claim that his offers to join the Axis (his "probing tactics") were never serious regarding Axis membership:

Roberts 2002, breaking down Falsifiers of History: Although it is true that these Soviet proposals can be interpreted as an extension of the probing tactic, it was Molotov, not von Ribbentrop, who took the initiative to reach some kind of agreement after he returned to Moscow. Crucially, had these terms been acceptable to the Germans—admittedly a very big if—there is no reason to suppose that Stalin would have refused to sign the four-power pact proposed by Hitler (involving Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union). Mosedschurte (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Same sentence, different issue. I noticed that the sentence also referred to an "economic deal", with no link. I wikilinked that clause to the deal to which it referred. Didn't change the sentence. I assume that just the wikilink (no text change) was minor enough to do without opening up a vote about it. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How many people participated in World War II?
Just curious. All I see is the number of people the war killed - at least 62 million, a good-sized country's worth. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look in the lede. "Over 100 million military personnel" - which doesn't include civilians and others who might've contributed to war shenanigans. Easily history's biggest war by far. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 05:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact? II.
Mosedschurte provided detailed arguments that proved Stalin's intentions to discuss a possibility of joining the Axis. However, those evidences are quite irrelevant to the subject of the discussion. No one can question that some negotiations, or, at least, some discussion took place between Ribbentrop and Molotov regarding joining the Axis. However, my point was quite different. The sentence: "The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal; while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter." is false for three reasons:

All three statements are false. This reference On the page 57 Roberts writes "While German war planners began mapping out an invasion of Russia, Hitler gave the go-ahead to Ribbentrop to try to involve the Soviet Union in a 'continental bloc' of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR that would range itself against the United States as well as Britain. It is difficult to judge how seriously Hitler hook this pet project of the anti-British Ribbentrop, but he seems to have been prepared to give it a chance. Certainly, it was only after the collapse of the proposed continental bloc that Hitler issued a formal directive to prepare for an invasion of Russia. Ribbentrop's continental bloc required Russia to join the three-power pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan on 27 september 1940. Under the terms of this tripartite pact the signatories pledged to assist one another should they be attacked by the power not involved in the war. In addition, Ribbentrop envisaged the signing of a secret protocol in which each state would specify the direction of their future expansion."
 * 1) It states that the initiative to start the negotiations belonged to the USSR
 * 2) It states that the USSR was more interested in the success of the negotiations than Germany did.
 * 3) It states that the decision to break negotiations was made by Germany.

"On 13 October Ribbentrop wrote to Stalin, inviting Molotov to Berlin for negotiations: I should like to state that in the opinion of the Fuhrer ... it appears to be the historic mission of the four powers - the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Germany - to adopt a long-range policy and to direct the future development of their peoples into right channels by delimitation of their interests on world-wide scale.
 * The page 57 ends, and the page 58 starts with the words:

Stalin replied positively on 22 October: I agree with you that a further improvement in the relations between our two countries is entirely possible on the permanent basis of long-range delimitation of mutual interests.

''But behind the friendly tones the tension in Soviet-German relations was rising. On 31 August '' contains a full fragment of the Roberts' book Mosedschurte so arbitrarily cited. On these two pages Roberts describes the events as follows:

On the second half of the page 58, as well as on pages 59-60 Roberts describes deterioration of Soviet-German relations. According to him, the possibility of Stalin's joining the Axis could not be ruled out completely in 1940. However, Stalin didn't agree with the role the USSR was proposed to play in that prospective alliance. Therefore, despite attempts to join the alliance had definitely been made by Stalin, two things are obvious: 1. Roberts never stated that the initiative to start negotiations belonged to Stalin. Moreover, he directly states the opposite. 2. Roberts never stated that the decision to stop negotiations was made by Hitler. Rather, both sides were disappointed with each other. The USSR was not ready to accept a role of a junior partner (Roberts writes on that account (p. 58):"Stalin had no interest in such an arrangement and an impasse was quickly reached"), whereas Germany didn't want to see the USSR as another senior member of the coalition. In addition, according to many sources (e.g. ), Germany was much more interested in Soviet-German economic collaboration than the USSR did. Therefore, the statement "The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal; while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter." tells only a small part of true, and, therefore, is false. It must be removed as soon as possible, and I'll do that. (I fully realize that such a behaviour is against the previously achieved consensus, however, one of major WP rules states that any rule can be ignored if it is necessary to improve WP). After that, we can discuss a possibility to introduce a corrected version of that sentence into the article, although I personally think that such a sentence is not more relevant than the sentence about failed tripatrite Alliance talks (already removed from the article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Hitler "gave the go-ahead to Ribbentrop to try to involve the Soviet Union in a 'continental bloc' of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR that would range itself against the United States as well as Britain." (page 57)
 * 2) "On 13 October Ribbentrop wrote to Stalin, inviting Molotov to Berlin for negotiations" (page 58)
 * 3) On 22 October, after 9 days (sic!) Stalin sent a positive response (page 58)
 * 4) The tensions in Soviet-German relations started to rise immediately after that


 * First, I didn't add anything to the page (besides wikilinking text).


 * You just deleted an already existing sentence dealing with the Axis pact talks and more without first discussing it, which is not the policy of this page:"(From the top of the edit page) As this is a high-profile and high-traffic article, all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made. Changes which are not supported by a consensus on the talk page will probably be removed until there is a consensus to include them. Please note that this article describes the war at a very high level, and there will probably not be support to include detailed information on individual elements of the war (eg, battles, individual countries experiences and notable people) in the article."


 * Re: 1. It states that the initiative to start the negotiations belonged to the USSR .2 It states that the USSR was more interested in the success of the negotiations than Germany did. 3. It states that the decision to break negotiations was made by Germany."
 * ->The sentence actually doesn't state any of that. It just said the Soviets had interest in joining the Pact, which they of course did, without referring to which party initiated talks.  And by the way, not that it matters because the sentence doesn't even get into this, but it was Stalin that first requested that Molotov go to Berlin.
 * ->Perhaps this is an English issue (not faulting anyone), but it states absolutely nothing about the Soviets being more interested in the Four Power Pact. It just says Germany remained silent about the November offer, which is exactly what happened.
 * ->Regarding the decision to break, it doesn't even discuss any decision to break. It actually says EXACTLY what happened re the negotiations "Germany remained silent".  I.e., they never responded to the November 25 Soviet Four Power Pact offer.


 * By the way, all of this is actually described in great detail in the article link that you deleted German–Soviet Axis talks. You are raising two pages in a Roberts book (or article), but I don't even think that's the source this article cites, so I'm not sure what your point is.


 * In short, if you don't like an existing sentence, discuss it rather than deleting it. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First. I already discussed the sentence, and another editor agreed that the sentence should be removed at least for two reasons. If you want to re-insert the modified version of the sentence, feel free to discuss it. The sentence in its present form cannot be in the article.
 * Second. The sentence is relevant for longer article specially dealing with the subject. In the present article the sentence is a phrase taken out of context and therefore is simply false.
 * Third. The policy you refer to is relevant to the normal editing procedure. It doesn't work for extraordinary cases (for instance, false statements should be removed immediately).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "The policy you refer to is relevant to the normal editing procedure. It doesn't work for extraordinary cases (for instance, false statements should be removed immediately)"
 * ->That's pretty much it. There is ZERO extraordinary about this situation, and that sentence has probably been in the article for a year or more.
 * ->One more time brazen violation of page policy, by changing the article without a discussion and consensus, and we're going to ANI, and the rest of your threats and Wikipedia policy violations on a variety of pages are coming into it, as well. At some point, this has got to stop.


 * If you think it's wrong, per the rules for this article, JUST PROPOSE SOME CHANGES on the talk page. It's that simple.  I followed the rules and did it.  Others follow the rules.  Just follow the rules and discuss it first so a consensus can be reached.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You supported blatantly incorrect and badly sourced statement, and you couldn't refute none of my arguments. You provided no reasonable explanation why this false and redundant statement should be in the article. You restored this false statement twice, under a pretext of alleged violation of the editing strategy. I see no other explanation for that behaviour (as well as for your editing strategy as whole) than your extreme bias. However, I would be happy if this my conclusion appeared to be wrong, so I will appreciate your comments on that account. I wait until tomorrow. Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two kinds of lie are possible: direct lie and telling only a part of truth. This sentence is lie of the second type, and that is absolutely obvious thing for any honest and unbiased editor.
 * I am sorry that I didn't found this false statement before. Now, when I've done that, it should be removed. If you want to introduce a correct version of Germano-Soviet talks (1940), feel free to discuss changes.
 * Re: "I followed the rules and did it". I have a long history of participation in polite and correct discussions, so your comment seems redundant. I would say, the WWII article is the only article where you follow rules.


 * Are you going to propose a change? I still haven't read one.


 * Re:"You supported blatantly incorrect and badly sourced statement"
 * 1. As an initial matter, before even "supporting" anything, I oppose blatantly violating the article rules -- i.e., deleting a sentence from the article without discussing it first.
 * 2. You deleted both the 1941 border and commercial agreement and Axis Power negotiation sentence without providing a single reason why they were incorrect. In fact, you claimed that they stated three things they don't even say.
 * 3. As it turns out, not only was your editing procedure a blatant violation of page rules, but you were wrong: the statement was correct, and your own sources listed above even confirm it.


 * I actually don't even know what the one source listed in this article states (probably exactly what's in the article), but the statement is CLEARLY correct, per nearly every other sources listed in other articles -- like German–Soviet Axis talks -- directly addressing the topic in great detail.  The last thing between the two was the Soviets' November 25 written proposed agreement, and the Germans never answered it.


 * Read these, come back and propose a change under the rules, as everyone else does, and maybe you'll actually get the change you want playing by the rules.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the many many sources in the other article clearly point out that the Soviets made the November offer, the Germans never answered it, and that they did eventually agree on the 1941 economic deal". You never answered why these facts deserve mentioning, whereas Hitler's initiatives do not. This is your style of writing: to tell truth, but only a part of it. This your manner, in combination with your impressive productivity, poses a severe threat for Wikipedia. My proposal was to remove the sentence. However, now I started to think that it may deserve to be in the article along with description of other failed talks, especially Anglo-Franko-Soviet negotiations (1939). Let's discuss that possibility. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, don't teach me how to achieve a consensus. For weeks I have been trying to convince you to follow this way on other talk pages, and it is the first time when you accepted that.


 * Re:""the many many sources in the other article clearly point out that the Soviets made the November offer, the Germans never answered it, and that they did eventually agree on the 1941 economic deal".  ''You never answered why these facts deserve mentioning, whereas Hitler's initiatives do not.'""

1. You never asked, but instead before claimed they were false. 2. Now that that's out of the way, I didn't write the sentence. But I assume that the writer didn't want to go into the various letters, visit to Berlin (with four rounds of conversation thereat) and oounter-letters, and just left it with the famous last offer (November 25) to form a Four Power Pact and the Germans' refusal to respond. This is a summary article only. As for the 1941 border and commercial deal, it obviously stands on its own as just one thing it did was ramp up the oil production, without which, Germany was dead in the water by October of 1941 (the downside being this would be a much shorter article) and solved the parties dispute over Lithuania. 3. If you wanted to change it to just say something like "Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements for a Soviet entry as a fourth power in the Axis Pact but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement" that would be fine with me. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anyway, the sentence can be present in the article only if triple talks are there, because the importance of triple talks was greater. In that case I see no problem to re-insert the sentence, although this version: "Germany made an attempt to try to involve the Soviet Union in the Axis Pact but an agreement had never been reached, while the economic and border agreement was signed later between these two powers" would be more correct. I see no problem to re-insert triple talks, because I just realized that chronology was broken in the Czech crisis description. There was a gap between Munich (1938) and dissolution of Czechoslovakia. The latter caused immediate start of triple talks. By the way, one the oil issue is one more exaggeration you made. Germany had extremely developed synthetic oil industry, so even the loss of Ploesti oil fields in 1944 had no significant impact on the course of the war...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: 1. Definitely false. For instance, the statement "The Americans killed hundreds thousand civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is false (although factually correct) if you take it out of the WWII context. Similarly, the sentence we discuss is equally false. After reading the quotes I provided any unbiased editor would come to that conclusion. I didn't explain it in more details because I thought it was obvious.
 * Re: 2. I didn't blame you in writing this sentence. I just was surprised with the enthusiasm you supported it with. That means that you see no problem in telling only a minor part of truth if it would support your concept (although you refuse to acknowledge you have a concept, it is quite easy to formulate it based on your editor's style).


 * Re: "Anyway, the sentence can be present in the article only if triple talks are there,"
 * This is so bizarre, I'm not even sure what to think of it. The triple alliance talks involving different parties two years before were discussed above last month, with a resolution then implemented after a consensus was reached.
 * Re "what can be present in the article", if that's another threat, it's not working. I'm not linking some threat to delete portions based on some other section of the article.


 * Just so we're clear, because you never came up with a proposal, but you wanted to de-emphasize that the Soviets made the final proposal and the Germans didn't respond -- which by the way is 100% correct -- so this is what I proposed not emphasizing either party's proposed written agreements, along with the 1941 agreement:"Current (which you claim wrongly emphasizes the the lat offer):'The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter.' Proposed (to address that concern):'Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement.'"And some better cites for the proposed (Nekrich, Ericson, etc.). That's about as factual and neutral as it gets.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2 As regards to the neutrality, my version is equally neutral and correct. Did Germany invited Molotov for negotiations? Yes she did. Did the talks stalled due to disagreements on the parties' roles in the prospective alliance? Yes, they did. Was the economic treaty signed? Yes, it was. By the way, since the economic agreement has been mentioned once in the article, one more reference to the Nazi-Soviet economic collaboration seems redundant in such a high level article. In any case, the item 2 can be discussed only after the consensus has been achieved on item 1.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Failed Soviet-German negotiations deserve no more attention than failed Aglo-Franco-Soviet talks. Period.


 * I've just posted a notification of this discussion and a request for other editors' views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. As a comment, it seems highly unproductive and uncivil to use language such as 'lies' and 'bizarre' about other editors' views. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nick. I would add that Paul's charge about the "lies" turned out to be inaccurate and he's since just claims that it emphasizes that the Soviets made the last offer (with the Germsns never responding) instead of that both sides made offers.  My statement about "bizarre" arguments wasn't about the view on the article, but the demand to go back to overturn old resolved dispute after a consensus was reached.


 * Regarding, the current sentence, which just mentions and links the the German–Soviet Axis talks and the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement‎, it's been in the article for at least 1,000 edits since early last year. Note: I didn't add it.


 * I see zero reason to delete it now. In terms of importance:


 * 1. It goes without saying that a Soviet entry as a fourth power into the Axis would have meant an Axis victory (I'm not even sure the US/UK would have even tried an amphibious landing in Europe). The list of more important happenings in terms of overall outcome is not long and certainly includes many other items in the article.


 * 2.It is covered extensively by numerous sources describing the events (probably 100+), and this is a tiny number of them:
 * - over 10 pages
 * - 10 pages
 * The source quoted in the article now: - 2-3 pages
 * - 20 pages - Moreover just to show the extensive detail to which this has been covered, Gorodetsky notes regarding just one part of it that: "Molotov's forty-eight-hour stay in Berlin has been reconstructed by historians in minute detail, and there is little need to recapitulate it here."
 * - several pages


 * 3. In terms of length, it is one clause of one sentence right now -- with potentially 100+ sources if one wanted to hunt them down -- and I see no reason to delete it.


 * 4. The German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement differs from the 1940 agreement (mentioned above), settled border and other disputes and was key in the larger Nazi–Soviet economic relations that were vital to giving Germany the raw materials (in particuolar, oil, food and rubber) to even start Barbarossa.


 * 5. Without getting too far into recriminations, the above editor deleted the existing sentence without consensus violating the article rules.   Moreover, the reason he gave for the edit was "False statement removed", which was clearly inaccurate per every source.  He's made threats on other pages promising to vandalize the page if statements he did not like were not deleted and repeatedly complained of articles being "anti-Soviet".


 * 6. I actually proposed an alternative sentence (see block quote above) that doesn't emphasize that the Soviets were the last ones to offer an Axis Pact deal and Germany was silent. Mosedschurte (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact? III.
Dear Nick-D, I fully realise that the use of the word lie is unproductive and uncivil. It is easy to establish that I never used it before on the WP pages. However, this word seems appropriate in some specific cases, for instance, when the sources are systematically being used to extract information that support only one point of view. That poses a severe threat to WP as whole, so ignoring all rules is justifiable in that case. Briefly, I would say that Mosedschurte's concept coincides with that of Nekrich, and, therefore, belongs to the 'German school' of thought on Nazi-Soviet relations (a Roberts' definition ). According to Roberts, "This is the view that, despite appearances to the contrary, Soviet foreign policy remained oriented to an alliance with Germany even after Hitler came to power." However, the actual spectrum of historical judgments on that account "have ranged from seeing the Soviets as far-sighted anti-Nazis (e.g. Beloff, Carr), to seeing them as reluctant appeasers (e.g. Bianka Pietrow, Geoffry Roberts), as cautious expansionists (e.g. James McSherry, Gerhard Weinberg) or as active aggressors and blackmailers (Viktor Suvorov)." I have nothing against Mosedschurte's adherence to the 'German school' tradition, provided that he tried to represent other points of view equally, or, at least respected the point of view of others. Instead of that, Mosedschurte uses a wide range of sources (written by scholars belonging to all four schools), but he extracts only those facts from these sources that support his ideas. Although I warned him many times about the mistakes he is doing, he continues to do that. Moreover, he deliberately removes or rephrases statements that contradict to his vision, thereby eliminating or understating other points of view. I see no other explanation for that than a direct attempt of falsification, therefore I know no other word than lie that would describe a situation better. I would be happy if someone provided other explanation for that and, therefore, allowed the discussion to return to the realm of politeness and mutual respect. To demonstrate my point let me analyze the Mosedschurte's statement #1 ("It goes without saying that a Soviet entry..." etc): Although the statement itself is quite correct, the same argument can be applied to the triple talks equally. Moreover, had triple talks been successful the WWII would probably never started. In that sense I cannot understand why did Mosedschurte supported removal of triple talks and opposed to do the same in that case. I see no other explanations for that than his extreme bias. Going back to the topic, I already wrote that I have nothing against telling about both those talks in the article, because both of them pre-determined a fate of the world as whole. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: ''"I would say that Mosedschurte's concept coincides with . . . I have nothing against Mosedschurte's adherence to the 'German school' tradition."
 * --I have no personal view on the talks. You characterizing me as having a view is improper.
 * --Every single source that has covered this simply cites the conversations and trading of proposals. Talks about entering the Axis occurred.  It's that simple.


 * Re:"therefore, belongs to the 'German school' of thought on Nazi-Soviet relations"
 * --To show you how far off base this is, EVERY source states what the proposed sentence states about the November 25 offer and silence -- Roberts, Shirer, every general World War II book, everyone. Without exception.
 * --There is no "school of thought" on whether the trading of proposals occurred. It happened.
 * --You may be wondering why is there agreement by every historian on the existence on the meetings occurring and the trading of proposals. Answer: It's because Historians (all of them) actually have all of the written proposals (recovered), the German notes of the meetings (recovered from Foreign ministry), as well as the Soviet telegrams from Stalin to Molotov (released after the dissolution).  And photos of Molotov in Berlin Nov. 12-14 talking about it taken by a bevy of photographers. Most of them are actually on-line.  This is why every single source agrees on their occurrence.


 * Re:"Mosedschurte uses a wide range of sources (written by scholars belonging to all four schools), but he extracts only those facts from these sources that support his ideas. . . .  Moreover, he deliberately removes or rephrases statements that contradict to his vision, thereby eliminating or understating other points of view. I see no other explanation for that than a direct attempt of falsification, therefore I know no other word than lie that would describe a situation better "
 * --And that ridiculous personal attack pretty much does it on the Wikipedia violations front between us.
 * --Next time you violate Wikipedia policy, I'm going straight to ANI, probably with no warning. You've probably had 20+ over the last two months.  This has become RIDICULOUS to put up with personal attacks like this.  Simply beyond the pale, especially after you  deleted the existing sentence without consensus violating the article rules and gave the reason "False statement removed", which was clearly inaccurate per every source. Including the source properly cited in the ref you unilaterally deleted.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to tell a full story, namely, that (i) Hitler instructed Ribbentrop to initiate the talks; (ii) Stalin send a counter-proposal, in which he requested four concessions from Germany (Finland, Bulgaria, Turkey and Persian Guls) PLUS one more concession from Japan; (iii) Hitler ignored it; (iv) talks stalled. This story wouldn't take much space, something like: "Germany tried to involve the Soviet Union in the Axis Pact, but the USSR requested concessions neither Germany nor Japan could agree with, so the talks stalled in November 1940." In contrast to economic talks, that was really important. In addition, as I already pointed out, since the major Soviet-German economic agreement is already mentioned in the article, additional mentioning of other economic deals are definitely redundant. Of course, if you propose another satisfactory way to resolve a problem, I will gladly accept them, because between a cold collaboration and a hot edit war I always choose the former...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I have no personal view on the talks." By systematical removal of all facts demonstrating anti-Nazism of the Soviet leadership and by overemphasising even faint signs of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement you have already written several articles that are perfectly consonant with the German school's views. Your refusal to accept any major modifications tells about your strong adherence to this school.
 * Re: "November 25 offer etc." It is a straw man fallacy. I didn't state that the exchange with proposals never took place. Another question is how this fact has to be represented. For instance, you may tell about this fact alone throwing away both pre-history of that and the subsequent events. In that case it will look like the mutual sides' desire to make a deal with subsequent German refusal. This would be only a small part of truth and, therefore it is an indirect lie (although, once again, the fact itself is unquestionable). For some reason, that is the way you propose (if I understand you correct).
 * Interestingly, you seem to avoid the discussion of the most important point, namely, why these talks deserve more attention than the triple talks do. Comment, please...
 * Re: "I'm going straight to ANI". Good idea. I fully support it. I also came to the conclusion that all articles and all editings you have made has to be carefully checked for neutrality and factual accuracy. Feel free to consider that as one more threat and, please, do go to ANI, because I have no time to do such an analysis alone.


 * Re: "By systematical removal of all facts demonstrating anti-Nazism of the Soviet leadership"
 * I didn't even change the article regarding the Axis talks. You did, and without consensus.


 * Re: "Your refusal to accept any major modifications tells about your strong adherence to this school."
 * Let me get this straight: by opposing your deletion of material from a Wikipedia article violating article rules -- material which is also covered in probably 100+ sources -- I am now "adhering to the German school of thought"?


 * Re: "November 25 offer etc." It is a straw man fallacy. I didn't state that the exchange with proposals never took place. "
 * Actually, before the discussion of the historical reality on the Talk page, you deleted the reference referring precisely to the November 25 Soviet offer and German silence with the edit summary "False statement removed".


 * Re:" In that case it will look like the mutual sides' desire to make a deal with subsequent German refusal. This would be only a small part of truth and, therefore it is an indirect lie (although, once again, the fact itself is unquestionable). For some reason, that is the way you propose (if I understand you correct)."
 * Actually, not even close. This was my proposed change, which gave no preference to either side:"Current:'The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter.' Proposed change to address your concern of weight on the November Soviet Axis Pact offer and silence (it's also shorter):  'Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement.'"


 * Re: "Feel free to consider that as one more threat and, please, do go to ANI, "
 * Believe me, you're not going to like that.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of discussing the modified version you re-inserted the old (wrong) version demonstrating that it was your first choice. Under my pressure, you proposed the modified version, however, you seem to refuse to discuss neither my last counter-proposal nor the re-insertion of the triple talk. Your comments are welcome...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Under my pressure, you proposed"
 * Reality: I'm under absolutely zero pressure from you to do anything.  You deleted the existing sentence without consensus violating the article rules, falsely claiming "false statement removed"}.
 * I actually proposed the new sentence myself -- as the first person to do so -- in order to suggest some potential change to the article addressing your concern. Actually, you should have first done this under thearticle rules, but did not.  Unlike the existing article or the change you later proposed, this one makes no implication regarding one side or other wanting the deal done.
 * If you want to get the article changed, discussing the proposal would be the way to do it. Attacking me personally and making hilarious claims of others bending to your "pressure" isn't going to get anything beyond belly laughs, and is not the way to go about a discussion.


 * Re: "nor the re-insertion of the triple talk"
 * This was resolved after a long discussion and has nothing to do with the topic.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is funny. The discussion you refer to took place between you, me and Nick-D. We agreed that the unsuccessful talks do not deserve mentioning in the article. Now you disagreed with that decision, so our previous agreement is void now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS. You probably meant "the Axis-'40 deal"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:"Now you disagreed with that decision, so our previous agreement is void now."
 * It used to be when a statement regarding a prior agreement that perplexing was made, I made the mistake of inquiring further. I no longer care enough to waste time on it.
 * If you want to discuss the proposed change to the Axis-'41 deal sentence, great. If not, great.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. I propose following changes:
 * If you disagree to re-insert triple negotiations, the German-Soviet talks sentence should be removed.
 * If you agree, your comments on the last version I proposed are welcome.


 * No, I meant the 1941 deal, the one that is linked.
 * The other issue is already resolved]. If you want to discuss the proposed change to the Axis-'41 deal sentence to get a consensus for change, great.  If not, great.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the 1940 deal is already in the article, the 1941 deal is redundant.
 * It was resolved. Since you disagree with the general rule (failed talks should not be in the article), the problem re-appeared. Let's wait what other editors say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:"the problem re-appeared"
 * Reality: that sentence has been in the article for at least 1,000 edits since early last year and there is no "general rule".
 * If you want to discuss the proposed change to the Axis-'41 deal sentence to get a consensus for change, great. If not, great.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick-D' noticed: "The article generally doesn't include other things which didn't happen, so there's no real need to include the failed Allied negotiations." That was one of key things we agreed about. If you refuse to discuss removal of the Axis-Soviet negotiation, we probably can request for a formal mediation. And to restore the old version of the triple talks for a while...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

However, we can try to demonstrate that I was wrong. The first step to do that would be the following: if you really never refused to discuss anything, could you please do the thing I already asked about: 1. Comment on the reasons why the Nazi-Soviet talks deserve mentioning in the article, whereas the triple talks do not? 2. Comment on my version of the Nazi-Soviet talks:"Germany tried to involve the Soviet Union in the Axis Pact, however the the sides failed to come to agreement upon the conditions for the Soviet adherence to the pact, so the talks stalled in November 1940." Thank you in advance,--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:"If you refuse to discuss removal of the Axis-Soviet negotiation"
 * --"Refuse to discuss?" I haven't refused to discuss anything. The only that occurred so far is that you deleted the existing sentence without consensus violating the article rules, complaining that the sentence that existed in the article was "false" re the November Soviet Axis Pact offer, so I actually proposed a modification.  For doing merely this -- without making a single change in the article -- I was falsely called someone who spreads lies and purposefully manipulated articles.
 * --99% of the rest of Wikipedia would be done with you right there and at ANI. I've grown so used to to this brand of commentary from you, I actually somehow tolerate it, and I can usually work out some kind of compromise that avoids the hassle of getting you blocked at ANI.
 * --I already elaborated extensively above on the importance and numerous sources for Nazi-Soviet Axis Power talks. In fact, you didn't even deny their importance, but instead claimed (inaccurately) that the statement about them "false"  The other issue has been resolved.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if someone proved my accusations to be false. In that case I will gladly beg your pardon. Unfortunately, I have no reason for that so far, because I see no flaw in my arguments.


 * I've also just posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. I don't see any need for mediation yet; it would be better to seek other editors' views (you both may with to post neutrally-worded notifications elsewhere) and take a break before going into a process which takes a long time and a fair amount of resources over a single fairly uncontroversial and cited sentence. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nick-D. I am really interested to involve as many editors as possible into that discussion, because I see no other possibility to resolve the issue. I see no significant difference between mediation and third opinion so far, therefore both are ok with me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Could you please advise me on the other appropriate WP pages where the notification on this dispute may be posted? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact? IV (and hopefully final)

 * Re:"Comment on the reasons why the Nazi-Soviet talks deserve mentioning in the article, whereas the triple talks do not?"

--Hey, a request for discussion, as opposed to a falsely claiming lies baseless personal attack on another editor. Now we're getting somewhere.

 RESOLVED 1939 DEAL ISSUE --As mentioned before, the 1939 Deal Issue was resolved and I hestitate to even get back into resolved issues given the long irrelevant meandering discussion preceding its resolution. --The prior discussion was whether to modify a large three sentence paragraph including the lead-up to the 1939 deal. The paragraph itself wasn't particularly well-written, and included a lengthy analysis of why deals were struck or not struck, "mistrust", "apprehension", "collective security", etc. But getting beyond that, the discussion included whether to address earlier both (i) the 1939 Soviet-German talks and (ii) 1939 UK-France-USSR talks, along with the final deal. The decision was made that, because this is a very high level summary for which limited space is available, only the final deal, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would be mentioned in a two sentence description stating the both a deal was reached and its secret protocols, with a link to the article on the deal which includes a description of the negotiations. --Not only was this two-sentence description including only the final deal far shorter, but the the reader could examine the discussions of all parties in the linked Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article. --Incidentally, even after this deal was reached, you improperly unilaterally changed the sources without obtaining Talk page consensus and also improperly edited another editors' talk page comments on the matter, for which you drew negative commentary, and still haven't fixed it, much less apologized.

 1940 POTENTIAL SOVIET AXIS ENTRY ISSUE --The issue now regards one sentence in a different section of the article involving two separate issues that occurred over a year later, the October-November 1940 Potential Soviet Axis Power Entry and a separate Commercial and Border Agreement signed six weeks later. This differs in a wide variety of regards, including, just to begin with:
 * 1. foremost in this high level summary article, it is only one sentence.  Far shorter than the three sentence full paragraph of the 1939 deal leadup and descriptions before.
 * 2. Moreover, as no final deal was struck, there is no way to direct the reader with a link to an article describing the potential Soviet Axis Pact entry without a short linked mention.  In addition, the sentence also describes the separate Commercial and Border Agreement signed six weeks later, and links to that article.
 * 3. Perhaps more importantly, it does not contain a lengthy analysis of why deals were struck or not struck, "mistrust", "apprehension", "collective security", etc. like the long old 1939 deal paragraph did. Rather, it just mentions the potential Soviet Axis Power entry in one sentence.
 * 4. Finally, with regard to the obvious importance, as discussed above, the potential Soviet Axis Pact entry has probably been addressed in virtually every source on World War II, many in very lengthy fashion, and no one disputes that it clearly would have meant an Axis victory in World War II had it been inked. It doesn't get much more important than that, while it only is addressed in one half of one sentence now, with a link to the article.


 * Re: "Comment on my version of the Nazi-Soviet talks"

--Your version actually suffers from the same narrow focus problem as the sentence in the article, but in an even greater regard. --The article sentence focuses on the fact that the Soviets presented the last draft proposal for Axis Power entry with no response for the Germans, while the sentence you later proposed focuses on the fact that "Germany tried to involve the Soviet Union in the Axis Pact." I'll refrain from a long retort regarding you making the argument against the narrow original sentence focus while simultaneously actually presenting something even more slanted, and just get to the bottom line: I actually presented a shorter proposal than any of them that addresses both issues (Soviet Axis entry and B-C deal):"Current (stresses Soviet last offer and silence):'The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter.' (36 words)  Your proposal (stresses initial German offer, with some humorously biased language to boot):'Germany tried to involve the Soviet Union in the Axis Pact, however the the sides failed to come to agreement upon the conditions for the Soviet adherence to the pact, so the talks stalled in November 1940.' (37 words)   My proposal stressing neither :'Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement.' (33 words)"Both the potential Soviet Axis Power entry and B-C Agreement definitely deserve mention and a link for the reader to learn more, but I don't see more than half a sentence each in a high level summary article like this.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated boxes
I think the pre-written boxes just below the Table of contents should be removed. These boxes are already present at the end of the page; putting them in the middle of the article is distracting (breaking the flow of the article) and is apparently non-standard. I am talking about the "History of World War II by region or sovereign state" and "World War II" boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic.Wiki (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think only one of the templates (World War II) is repeated. I don't view it as problematic because they appear off to the right (at least in my browser, Firefox). In a very high level summary article like this, it is convenient to have the boxes accessible at the top.  For me, the boxes appearing off to the right don't break up the article flow.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's weird, I only see the "Campaigns of World War II" box as repeated. Since it's repeated right below itself, I think it's safe to remove. --Zarel (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)