Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 8

USSR as co-belligerent redux
95.52.86.203 (or close, haven't checked if the digits are all the same) has invited me to take a look here at "proof" that the USSR and Nazi Germany were not co-belligerents at the beginning of the war, and what do I find? Someone who does not appear to be part of any "nationalist" cadre asking an honest question and getting an immediate derogatory retort from, say, isn't that 95.52.86.203? I am disappointed by the quality of the dialog above, for example, the question is asked by our anon IP:
 * "So - where was COOPERATION between Wehrmacht and Red Army?"

It's common knowledge to those who have studied the inception of WWII with regard to Poland that the USSR transmitted radio signals to help guide the invading Luftwaffe. Nor should one forget the telegram of hearty congratulations from Satlin to Hitler on the fall of Warsaw (a bit premature, it turned out). There are a plethora of scholarly sources which state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact gave Hitler the "green light" to invade; Stalin assisted and congratulated Hitler, then invaded to take the majority of Polish territory for the USSR. I'll respond more here when I have a chance. Short version, I see no "proof" in the painful conversation above that Nazi Germany and the USSR were not co-belligerents with respect to Poland. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, be more careful in making such posts. As I already explained to you elsewhere, the Germans asked the Soviet minister of foreign affair to order one radio station in Minsk to transmit a two word phrase when the station is idle, and to repeat the word "Minsk" as frequently as possible. The request was passed before the German invasion, and the real purpose of that had not been explained to the Soviets (it had been explained in the request that the signals were needed for aeronautical experiments). Molotov refused to order to transmit the key phrase, although authorised the frequent usage of the word "Minsk" (the radio station's name).
 * Re telegram, yes, I agree. However, congratulation is not collaboration.
 * Re plethora, yes, that is obvious. However, whereas the Munich agreement (the USSR vehemently opposed to) gave to Hitler (and to Poland, btw) the similar "green light" to invade Czechoslovakia, noone claims that Britain and France "collaborated" with Hitler.
 * Re "I see no "proof"" You will never see it, because you don't want to. And this is not necessary, because noone has to present the proof of the opposite. However, I can present a proof that your viewpoint is not the mainstream (or not the sole mainstream) viewpoint. This is a viewpoint of the so called "German school" whose proponents (Raack, Nekrich, et all) believe that Stalin was a proponent of Hitler from the very beginning of Nazism. However, once again, that is just one of viewpoint. Other authors (such as Roberts, Gorodetsky, et all) believe the USSR was an opponent of Nazi, whereas others (e.g. Haslam, Ericksson) believe that the Stalin's policy was opportunistic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are taking a viewpoint of the start of WWII, that is, Hitler and Stalin agreeing beforehand to carve up Eastern Europe, Hitler and Stalin then partitioning Poland = collaboration with each other in the annihilation and partition of the sovereign Polish state, and pigeon-holing it into a "German school" that blames Stalin for supporting Hitler from the very start. The "German school" is all very interesting, but it has no relevance to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Hitler and Stalin shortly thereafter mutually partitioning Poland. If there had been no agreement beforehand—subsequently geopolitically optimized (!!!)—between parties about who was going to take which piece of Eastern Europe, you could make an argument for no "collaboration." I'm afraid that's not the case here, however. Let's not forget Hitler's "call home", which while generally described as resettling Germans into occupied Poland et al., was also getting them out of harm's way in the Baltic shortly after the initial partition of Poland, the "call home" pact being concluded with Latvia, for example, on October 30, 1939, after the Baltic states had been coerced into agreeing to the Soviet pacts of "mutual assistance."
 * I will also thank you to desist from speculating on what I "want". Your interpretation of signals sent is "oops, duh, duped by Hitler" whereas it's just as readily interpreted as Molotov insuring that the signal be broadcast with plausible deniability (with the request for signal broadcast equally suited to plausible deniability, i.e., duped). Molotov "refused"? Sounds more like Soviet archival propaganda to me. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When two powers coordinate each others actions, that it called "coordination" not "collaboration". "German school" is not my invention, I found that term in reliable and mainstream sources. The Hitler's "call home" had nothing in common with the occupation of the Baltic states: this Soviet action was totally unexpected for the Germans, and they treated it as a non-friendly act. With regard to the rest, I appreciate your decision to refrain from speculations about what I meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS The idea that the Soviet archives lid when they do not prove your allegation is not fresh. However, since the only source of information about the alleged guidance of German bombers by Soviet radio signals is the single letter found in the "God krizisa" collection of archival documents (and have no independent confirmation for that, other than the Molotov's resolution), your interpretation is just your interpretation. This is not a forum though.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, really, what is "collaboration" if not coordinated action against a single victim? I did not say you invented the "German school", I said it was a complete red herring with regard to the aforementioned "collaboration." Of course Hitler's call home was related to the eventual occupation of the Baltic states coming after the signing of the mutual assistance pacts. Whether or not the pacts themselves were viewed as aggressive by Berlin, one of the factors sealing Hitler's invasion of the USSR was Stalin overstepping what Hitler considered the bounds were of "spheres" with the subsequent invasion and occupation of the Baltics, but a conversation for another time.
 * As the radio signals continue to be a bone of contention, I'll get back to you on your contentions in that regard. Meanwhile I must observe that your postulation that it's alleged and unproven, after all, it's just one sheet of paper, is what is your interpretation here. Same observation on forum. I trust my "restraint" will be rewarded by your ceasing to speculate on my wants and motivations in the future. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Soviet archival propaganda - yeah, hellish Soviet diplomats liked to lie each other in the secret documents. That sounds very funny.
 * We have a letter exchange between USSR and Germany. Soviet decision may be treated differently, we can't find out 100% truth, we can only suppose. And how can we consider one of possible treatments as an undisputable proof that USSR and Germany were co-belligerents? By the way, nobody cancelled presumption of innocence or Hanlon's razor. --Sambian kitten (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Paul, I see, we need an cleanup in all articles with the mentions of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. There are a lot of factual mistakes: sometimes USSR and Germany are called co-belligerents. Sometimes Soviet action with Poland, Baltic states, Finland and Romania are described as "according to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact", while neither pact nor secret protocol obligated any party to invasions or annexations (it's correctly to say, for example, "USSR invade Finland secured by MRP and secret protocol"). And, at last, crazy redirect "Nazi-Soviet Alliance". How this cleanup can be made and how will we be sure that nobody revert this edits? --Sambian kitten (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cutting to the chase: What WP:RELIABLE source(s) describe them as co belligerents, and which ones describe them otherwise. That is all we should be concerned with for inclusion in the article. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better to say "prove", not "describe". Thanks. --Sambian kitten (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting quotation of Churchill. I have only Russian translation, so I apologize that my re-translation wouldn't coincide completely with original. However, the sense will be same. His book "Second World War", volume 1, chapter 21: "It's imposible to say, for whom it [signing the non-aggression pact] was more disgusting. Both of them [Stalin and Hitler] understood that it could be only temporary measure dictated by circumstances. Antagonism between two empires and system was deadly. With no doubt, Stalin thought Hitler would be less dangerous enemy for Soviet Russia after one war year against Western powers. Hitler followed his principe "one by one"."

We see, prominent Anti-Communist politician Churchill not only denied any possibility of alliance between USSR and Germany, but explained his words. Yes, one time he called Soviet and German armies "partners" (without proofs), but then he, in fact, denied himself: Churchill described Soviet actions as anti-German in their sense and explained it. We see, Churchill never called USSR and Germany "co-belligerents" and often repeated that USSR and Germany during MRP had continued to be enemies, and MRP was just a truce within the giant standoff. --Sambian kitten (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe, noone minds me to add the "round in circle" template to this talk page. I suggest all new participants to read old discussions, where all these arguments have been raised and addressed.
 * Re Martin's edit and Kitten's revert, let me point out that, whereas the former was completely unjustified (and non-discussed, btw), the latter was completely correct. In particular, it is interesting to note that, according to Martin's edit, neutral Finland, along with the UK and France, was fighting against both Germany and the USSR. In actuality, during the Winter war Finland got equal moral support both from Germany and the Western Allies, and the USSR was never at war with France and the UK. These are not only stupid mistakes made by Martin, and SK was absolutely right by correcting him.
 * @ SK. Yes, the articles about MRP need in some work, although it is necessary to note that the idea that MRP stipulated occupation of the Baltic states is rather popular in the Baltic countries and among some Western scholars. Therefore, we cannot ignore it completely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you should try to stop marginalizing majority scholarship accounts on the MRP. @Sambian Kitten, Churchill is a politician, not a scholar, and a mind-reader of neither Hitler nor Stalin. And Churchill had his own cross of guilt to bear, so let's not even touch on Churchill's contemplations regarding dictatorial personal relationships. That said, on the radio signals and collaboration, per Karski's "The Great Powers and Poland, 1919-1945":
 * The final and unexpected blow [the prior blow being 110 British and French divisions to the west of Germany taking no action following Germany's invasion of Poland] came from the east.
 * On September 1 Schulenberg asked the Soviet governnment to include in its broadcasts from Minsk certain codes for German air force use. The request was granted. On September 3 Ribbentrop instructed Schulenberg to to ask for the Red Army to move into the areas as defined in the secret protocols of the nonaggression pact. Molotov "agreed," although he considered the moment not yet opportune.
 * (sourced to U.S., Documents on German Foreign Policy, Series D, VII, pp. 480; 540-541; also VIII, p. 4)

"Agreed," quoted, would mean that was Molotov's response. It all certainly looks and smells like collaboration between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to carve up Eastern Europe starting with the partition of Poland. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Vecrumba: Giving promises never was "waging war in cooperation". Besides, there was no military cooperation that is necessary for definition of co-belligerence. --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * USSR proposed Lithuania to take Vilnius. Lithuania agreed. Was Lithuania the ally of Soviet Union in 1939? Did it collaborate with USSR in the partition of Poland? --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Paul Siebert: I'm newbie, so let me ask one question. Why did you add "round in circle" to talk page, not to template one? --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the template is a part of a content that is visible to ordinary readers, whereas the RiC template addresses only to those who edit the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * *"It's better to say "prove", not "describe".*
 * Actually no. The source needs to state it specifically, otherwise it it synthesis. So find reliable sources and end the argument, anything else is pointless. ( Hohum   @ ) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not so simple. Although it is quite possible to find such a source (for instance, many Central European writers make such a claim), it is necessary to prove that this is a sole mainstream viewpoint. That is impossible to do, however, because other (majority) sources say otherwise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Vecrumba: Churchill was politician, yes. And he was eye-witness. His strong Anti-Communism makes his neutral speeches about USSR quite reliable. It's obvious that "anti-communist eye-witness speaking neutral about communists" is more reliable than "anti-communist post-war authors speaking very unfriendly about communists". In first case it's guaranteed that author beliefs haven't reflect his estimations. In second case, it's not. By the way, direct participant of so called "Alliance", Adolf Hitler always repeated in his inner circle that USSR was main enemy and every Hitler's action served high goal of the destruction of USSR. What is it - Hitler didn't know that his sworn enemy had been in fact his ally? --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Sambian kitten: in short, you advocate to judge men by their words, not their deeds. Let's not represent political rhetoric and personal accounts for anything other than they are. Whether or not Hitler and Stalin hated each other or each others' regimes or engaged in mutual demonizing is a big red herring. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Paul: So, you would say that a conspiracy signed on paper to divide Eastern Europe and communications between the two conspiring powers at the inception of WWII confirming the drive to partition Poland along prior conspired-to boundaries, followed by conspirator #2 invading 16 days after conspirator #1, conspirator #1 invading a week after the conspiratorial plan is approved and signed, is some sort of vague cooperation but in no way collaboration? 18:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Peters. You should try to stop misinterpreting my words. By saying that different alternative views exist I do not marginalise anything. By contrast, by rejecting everything but your own POV you do marginalise the sources you dislike. Therefore, you simply blame me in your own sins. Instead of doing that you should read literature. For instance, it will be useful for you read the Jonathan Haslam's review on two books written by the authors who saw the subject from two different positions. One of them, Raack, insists that Stalin was an aggressor, who planned a conquest of Europe since early 1930s. By contrast, another author, Roberts, believes that the Soviet genuine desire was to establish a system of collective security in Europe. Haslam concludes:
 * "Collective security could stop Hitler from striking west or east. If collective security proved inoperable, and Hitler remained an aggressor, then he would strike in either direction, though most probably not both at once. The failure of the collective security strategy thus created a zero-sum game. And if Stalin came to believe that Chamberlain was driving Hitler east, as Munich and the foot-dragging through 1939 seemed to indicate, then Stalin might drive him west. Chamberlain and Stalin had mirrori mages of one another's policies. In these circumstances Roberts's attempt to portray the Russians as merely passive and virtuous recipients of German overtures does not appear plausible. The attempts to try an alternative line behind Litvinov's back through the 1930s found eventual success with the signature of the pacts with Germany in August and September 1939. There are too many unanswered questions, such as the soundings made by Astakhov, the charge d'affaires in Berlin, toward the Bulgarian minister Dragonov, to be satisfied with Roberts's contention that Stalin merely waited upon events. It does not, however, prove Raack's contention that Stalin wanted a war. It is not to be ruled out that Stalin looked nervously on the outside world, that his native suspicion was so deeply rooted and his mistrust of everyone so profound, that acceptance of a consistent line in any direction proved difficult, and only the onward march of events finally forced him to a decision. Taken together, the works of Raack and Roberts show that we are still far from having resolved the key issues in this contentious dispute. Neither has directly consulted the archives in Moscow-Raack relies on secondary sources and other archives, and Roberts relies too heavily on edited Soviet documents and secondary sources-but archives are open on the period through 1939. Let us hope therefore that further research will bring us closer to the answers before too long." (Review: Soviet-German Relations and the Origins of the Second World War: The Jury Is Still Out Author(s): Jonathan Haslam Reviewed work(s): Stalin's Drive to the West, 1938-1945: The Origins of the Cold War. by R. Raack The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War: Russo-German Relations and the Road to War, 1933-1941. by G. Roberts Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 785-797)
 * Re Churchill, I agree that the words of a politician (who noted that history would be favourable to him, because he is going to right it) have not much weight. In connection to that, it would be useful to read the opinion of contemporary western scholars on that account:
 * "British policy towards the USSR from the beginning of September to the end of November 1939 rested on a fundamental ambivalence. British leaders had few fond memories of their dealings with the Soviets in the interwar period, especially after the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and could easily have given up on the Soviets. Yet British leaders appreciated the serious strategic weakness that Britain and France faced. Some form of friendship with the USSR simply had to be salvaged." ('Frigid but Unprovocative': British Policy towards the USSR from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to the Winter War, 1939. Author(s): Paul W. Doerr Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439)
 * It is clear from this source, that, although the USSR was not considered as a totally neutral power by Britain, it was not a German ally either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Paul: British policy is a red herring given the full extent of MRP was not known until after WWII. As for authors who believe Stalin just wanted peace, then why would he have instigated an attempted Communist putsch of Estonia in the 1920's? You can't quote (A) says "X" and (B) says "Y" therefore both are equally valid. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a red herring, because the edit proposed by Martin suggests that in 1939-41 there was a war between the USSR and Britain, or at least that the latter considered the former as a military opponent.
 * Re Communist putsch, as you probably know, Stalin seriously feared that Estonia and Latvia could be used as a bridgehead for the attack of the USSR by Germany, and a refusal of Britain and France to recognise this threat seriously was a primary reason for failure of the tripartite negotiations in 1939 (for sources, see the works of Carley, Haslam, Watson and Roberts). Therefore, the attempted putsch, an subsequent annexation of the Baltic states was just a continuation of the policy aimed to eliminate a threat of German invasion. Was such a threat real or just perceived, is another question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not represent political rhetoric and personal accounts for anything other than they are. It's interesting: Molotov's diplomatic answer (it wasn't even written, therefore it was just "rhetoric" there was no obligation) is proof, but Hitler's confessions in inner circle were "rhetoric". We're still waiting for the sources of military cooperation. By this moment, we can see only contradictions to it: Germany didn't know date of Soviet invasion, Germany broke the demarcation line.
 * First of all, "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? Second, may you quote the place of pact or secret protocol, where both sides obligated to invade Poland? Where are any of these obligations? There was no obligation "Side A will invade, and side B will follow A in 16 days". --Sambian kitten (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sambian kitten: Neither was "obliged" to invade by MRP yet both did less than a month after its signing. You would postulate that was mere unrelated coincidence, in no way conspiratorial or collaborative, indeed to contend so is a logical fallacy? (Appreciate the Latin, though, nice touch.) P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No obligation means no conspiracy and no planning of war in cooperation. Fall Weiss was planned since April 1939, and it has no suppositions: "We can attack only if USSR would be obliged to attack". --Sambian kitten (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, when reliable sources disagree, wikipedia should reflect all non fringe ones. I still don't see *any* sources being presented without synthesis anyway. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. Therefore, even if the source that states that in 1939-41 the USSR and Germany were fighting together against the Allies would be presented, we cannot modify the infobox in the way Martin suggested, because other, mainstream sources say otherwise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it that an infobox cannot represent Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as belligerents against Poland = ally of Britain = ally of France, clearly, it's a lie to represent the Soviet Union was only ever one of the "Allies" = ally of Britain = ally of France = et al. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was neutral in 1939-41, and the infobox says that clearly. With regard to "ally", neither France nor the UK were Polish allies speaking broadly. The provisions of French and British guaranties would come into operation only in a case of the attack from Germany, as was specifically stipulated in the Anglo-Franco-Polish pact. And, therefore, the hostile actions against Poland could not, and were not interpreted as hostile actions by France and Britain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait. We'll start to discuss template editing only after we see undisputable proofs of Soviet-German military cooperation that's necessary for co-belligerence. Not suppositions "Invasion was after pact therefore because of it therefore they were allies". Not talks about non-military actions. Just undisputable proof of military cooperation by reliable sources. --Sambian kitten (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Paul, clearly you and I read different accounts of WWII. The British and French declared war on Poland because of their treaties in effect. As of the German attack, that confirmed them as allies. Anything else is another red herring. Of course the actions were taken as hostile, that is why the British and French declared war. In fact, the records show the British declared war first and then were then in the position of shaming the French into honoring their commitment, which they were reluctant to do so since they bordered Germany. That one might argue the British and French did not act honorably at that moment is a separate issue. "Not hostile?" I'm sorry, but such a contention has no basis in fact. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Missed the one about the USSR being "neutral." So, invading your neighbors and occupying their territory and murdering and deporting their citizens (and most of their governments) is what, saving those citizens from their fascist bourgeoisie Hitlerian leaders and not an act of war? Oh, wait, yes, that's the Soviet account of history. I regret that the last time I checked, English Wikipedia was not subtitled "The world according to a dead totalitarian empire where history served politics" which, at least at face value, appears to be what you are advocating for here. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainstream viewpoint states: USSR didn't participate in WWII before 22 June 1941. Its previous actions may (and even must) be described in section "Prelude to WWII/Prelude to open entry of USSR". But not in infobox. Infobox describes only wartime participation. According for mainstream viewpoint, wartime participation of USSR began on 22 June 1941. That's all. --Sambian kitten (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, yes, that's the Soviet account of history. It's British-American account. Soviet one was very different, in root different. --Sambian kitten (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point me to the sources that confirm that invasion and annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR and the partition of Poland between Nazi Germany and the USSR are events strictly outside of WWII. That the USSR technically had declared itself neutral (while the exact terms of the division of Eastern Europe remained secret until after the war) was rendered mull and void by its aggression against its sovereign neighbors. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the viewpoint that "USSR didn't participate in WWII before 22 June 1941" gives an extremely nice loophole to portray USSR as defender in WWII while ignoring that during WWII USSR waged wars of aggression. While it is true that USSR did not take part to the 'main' WWII struggle prior to 22 June 1941 it seems highly biased to claim that it did not take part in WWII before 22 June 1941. In general WWII is seen as having begun in 1 September 1939 after which USSR attacked Poland while being co-belligerent with Germany (or what ever you wish to state the relationship as having been), event - Invasion of Poland - which is clearly part of WWII, and attacked Finland, event - Winter War - which is yet again viewed as part of the WWII. So you are saying that USSR took part in two (aggressive) campaigns generally included to the World War II prior to USSR's (defensive) participation to the World War II? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of the argument, let's assume the Soviet Union was not a Nazi co-belligerent
So, what was it, between 1939 and 1941?

and how do we treat it in this infobox?

Mr. Siebert indicates there is no consensus in calling the Soviet Union a co-belligerent. He is right. However, I see no consensus either in letting the Soviet Union have the honor to head the list of the Allied countries without a deserved mark of shame, when it went much beyond "aid and comfort" to Nazi Germany, and against a bona fide Allied country, the one that actually made that definition necessary, Poland, starting in 1939 and not letting go until recent times...

This is a matter of POV. Soviet POV is that WW2 began in June 1941. Western Powers POV is that it began in Sept 1939, and that the Soviet Union was one of the aggressors. Out of the 68 month of war for France, during the first 22 the communists had no participation in the struggle against the Nazis, some sources even indicate their fraternization with the enemy.

NPOV requires we do something. We cannot just pretend the invasion of Poland and nowadays know atrocities were some sort of marginal issue. WW2 began in 1939. The Soviet Union was one of the belligerents, since that date. OK, maybe it was not a co-belligerent (I respectfully submit that it was), so, what do we do to keep the infobox not be a belated agitprop POV operation, but actually an accurate, complete and NPOV part of Wikipedia? Just reverting attempts to deal with this is not something that has consensus! Yama Plos  talk  03:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Soviet POV is that WW2 began in June 1941. Soviet POV claims that USSR began to fight with Nazi Germany in 1936. It is Western POV that USSR entered war in June 1941.
 * Out of the 68 month of war for France, during the first 22 the communists had no participation in the struggle against the Nazis. First 29 monthes Americans had no participation in war :) Maybe, will we throw away heroic and giant contribution of USA? By the way, Soviet Union fought another fascist power - Empire of Japan - for the first 19 monthes of WWII. --Sambian kitten (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If Poland was a participant in WWII (having been invaded by Germany and the USSR), then so was the USSR. Obviously.  This is not a matter of POV, it is simple fact.  I've restored the deleted entry for the USSR as an Axis co-belligerent.  NCdave (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is your original research. Please find support among reliable sources source that says the USSR was a co-belligerent (or per your recent edit, part of the Axis - which I am about to revert), and read the rest of this talk page before making contentious changes. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you denying that the USSR and Germany both attacked and divided Poland, in September, 1939? Seriously?  Believe me, this is not OR.  Here, for example, is a reference from the U.S. Holocaust Museum:  awurl.com/OXYPMkSu5   NCdave (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the USSR invaded and annexed the eastern part of Poland (a territory populated by predominantly non-Polish population, which, by the way, was conquered by Poland twenty years earlier after the Soviet Russia was defeated in the Polish-Soviet war) is hard to deny. However, that has already been discussed in details on this talk page, and that does not serve as an argument in favour of placement of the UK on the top. Or you deny the fact that during more than a half of the WWII Britain was no involved in major land hostilities in the European theatre of WWII, which was the major and decisive theatre of this war? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I was unclear. The fact that the USSR and Germany both invaded in Poland is not the reason for placing Britain on the top of the list of Allies, it is the reason for listing the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis powers.  The chronology (from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, a Reliable Source) was:
 * 8/1939: "The German-Soviet Pact of August 1939, which stated that Poland was to be partitioned between the two powers, enabled Germany to attack Poland without the fear of Soviet intervention."
 * 9/1/1939: "On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland."
 * 9/3/1939: "Britain and France... declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939."
 * 9/17/1939: "The Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland on September 17, 1939.
 * 9/27/1939: "Warsaw surrendered to the Germans on September 27, 1939."


 * The reasons for listing Britain first among the Allies are:
 * 1. The British Empire fought the Axis powers to a standstill in Western Europe before the USSR even became an Ally.
 * 2. The British Empire was a major participant in both land and sea war, the USSR only on land.
 * 3. The British Empire was a major player in all major theaters of the war, the USSR only in the European theater. The USSR either did not participate or had no presence at all in Africa, Asia (other than the territory it already held), the Atlantic, the Pacific, or the Mediterranean. In fact, the USSR didn't even go to war with Japan until Japan's surrender was imminent, and then only to seize territory, not to assist in winning the war for the Allies.
 * 4. The British Empire was at war on the Allied side starting in 1939, and continuing until the end of the war. The USSR fought on the Axis side with Germany in 1939, and only joined the Allied side in 1941.


 * I think the USSR should be listed third, behind Britain and the USA.
 * Both the USA and the USSR joined the allies late (in 1941), but the USSR had many more troops fighting in Europe. That's one reason to list the USSR second, behind Britain.  But there are many more reasons to list the USA second, ahead of the USSR:
 * 1. The USA was the leading ally in the Pacific theater, where the USSR didn't participate at all (until Japan's surrender was imminent).
 * 2. The USA fought all three major Axis powers, the USSR fought only against Germany.
 * 3. The USA was a major combatant in the African theater, where the USSR didn't participate at all.
 * 4. The USA was a major naval combatant, and made many major naval landings, both by itself and with the British and other allies. The USSR had essentially no navy, participated in no naval landings, and fought only on land.
 * 5. The USA worked as a full and close partner with Britain, and in all theaters of the war, often fighting where American interests were not directly at stake. The USSR fought only where its own national interests were at stake, never as a supportive partner with the other Allies, and was distrusted by the British, who were the leading Allied power.
 * 6. The USA invented and deployed the A-bomb, which was the decisive weapon that ended the war. NCdave (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the chronology, it is correct, however, it does not support the POV you are advocating.
 * Re the reasons for listing Britain first, etc., I again advise you to read the archives. You simply reproduce the arguments that had already been put forward (and addressed). Briefly,
 * Re "The British Empire fought the Axis powers to a standstill in Western Europe before the USSR even became an Ally." A major part of this period is called "Phoney war" (for obvious reason); after that, the British military activity was a series of defeats. The only British success was the repulsion of German air assault during the BoB;
 * Re "The British Empire was a major participant in both land and sea war, the USSR only on land." The land theatre of war the USSR was the primary participant of constituted (by the amount of troops involved, losses sustained, and by its strategic implications) more than a half of the WWII as whole, so this your argument is totally articifial;
 * Re "The British Empire was a major player in all major theaters of the war, the USSR only in the European theater." European theater was a primary theatre of war, and the key role of this theatre makes the power involved in this theatre a primary participant. Britain had virtually not been involved in this theatre from 1940 to 1944 (except the bombing campaign, which had no decisive impact during this period, according to the American strategic bombing survey, and some minor hostilities in Mediterranean region), and it played much more modest role that the US did after the Allied invasion of Normandy;
 * Re "The British Empire was at war on the Allied side starting in 1939, and continuing until the end of the war. The USSR fought on the Axis side with Germany in 1939, and only joined the Allied side in 1941." This statement is composed of three false statements. Firstly, since there were no Allies in 1939 (the "Allies", or the "Grand Alliance" was formed in 1942), Britain could not be on the "Allied" side. Secondly, the USSR didn't fought on the Axis side for two reasons: the Axis was formed only in late 1940, and the USSR did not fight along with any Axis power against any future Ally (except, probably, Poland, however, this case is very controversial). Moreover, the USSR had fought against the second major future Axis power, Japan, even before Britain joined the war. And, finally, the USSR hadn't joined the Allies: the USSR was among the founding members of this alliance (the Allies), along with the USA and the UK, and this alliance had been formed after the USSR had been invaded by Germany.
 * Re "The USA was the leading ally in the Pacific theater, where the USSR didn't participate at all (until Japan's surrender was imminent)." The USSR did not participate in the Pacific because, as Churchill noted, its participation in this (less important) theatre would be possible only if that would not distract the USSR from its extremely important war effort in the primary theatre of war (i.e. in Europe). In addition, according to the literature available for me, e.g. Robert A. Pape. "Why Japan Surrendered," International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall 1993), 154–201, Soviet intervention extremely accelerated Japanese surrender, and was among the primary factors leading to it.
 * Re "The USA fought all three major Axis powers, the USSR fought only against Germany. " False. All European Axis powers, including Italy, fought in the Eastern Front. In addition, you underestimate the contribution of the minor Axis powers that fought against the USSR only: these countries, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, along with co-belligerent Finland, deployed more than million size troops to the Eastern Front (for instance, only Romanian KIA amounted to 300,000, more than French KIA, and close to American or British losses), and would not be an exaggeration to say that the USSR fought against the combined forces of the continental United Europe (close to its present days borders: even Spain, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania send substantial amount of volunteers to the EF), and it was fighting alone while Britain and the US had been engaged in peripherial hostilities outside Europe. You also forget that during the whole WWII the USSR kept three quarter million troops and one thousand tanks along the Amur river to neutralise the best Japanese land army (a million sized Kwantung Army). By doing that, the USSR was tying down the best Japanese land troops, which would be instrumental elsewhere in Pacific.
 * Re "The USA was a major combatant in the African theater, where the USSR didn't participate at all." The African theatre was insignificant as compared with the Eastern front; the scales of these two theatres are hard to compare (just look at two pairs of battles, each of which occurred concurrently: El-Alamein and Stalingrad, or Hasky and Zitadelle). In addition, the pivotal African battle (El-Alamein) was fought and won by British (+Commonwealth) troops without American participation.
 * Re "The USA was a major naval combatant, and made many major naval landings, both by itself and with the British and other allies." Yes, however, since the WWII was primarily a land war, this argument also doesn't work;
 * Re "The USA worked as a full and close partner with Britain, and in all theaters of the war, often fighting where American interests were not directly at stake. The USSR fought only where its own national interests were at stake, never as a supportive partner with the other Allies, and was distrusted by the British, who were the leading Allied power." Totally irrelevant. The USA and Britain abstained from launching the invasion of Europe in 1942-43, although that would save millions and millions of Eastern European peoples, and they decided not to do that because heavy losses would be not in national interests. By contrast, the USSR, who had no choice, continued to fight virtually alone, and, by 1944, when the Wehrmacht, whose best troops had been essentially ground up in the Eastern front, represented just a pale shadow of former self, they decided to invade France. By this delay, both the US and Britain saved millions of their soldiers at cost of lives of millions of Soviet citizens. In that situation, to speak about any American sacrifice is simply hypocritical.
 * Re "The USA invented and deployed the A-bomb, which was the decisive weapon that ended the war." This idea is popular in Western public opinion, however, serious contemporary scholars agree that the role of the A-bomb in the end of war has been dramatically exaggerated. See Pape (op. cit.), or United States Strategic Bombing Survey. You also forget that the A-bomb helped to end just the Pacific war, which was not a primary WWII theathre.
 * In any event, I will appreciate if before responding you will read the talk page archive where this issue had been discussed in details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Listing order of the Allies
The general approach in the listing order of the Allies is chronological, but with unexplained anomalies. (I also agree with Chumchum's statement above that the term 'Axis' is misleading, although I think 'Allies' is broad enough for it to be used for the whole of the war.) I re-ordered the list yesterday at this edit, and CuboneKing reverted this with the comment "Start a talk page discussion before making such a major change". I'm happy to do that. The order I propose is a strictly chronological one, with Poland first (as it was the unannounced German invasion of Poland on 31 August which began the War) and France and Britain next, as they declared war in support of Poland, in line with their commitments. I'm with Vercrumba|P ЄTЄRS on the Soviet Union and see no reason for it to head the list of Allies: at the beginning of the War, Stalin had a secret agreement with Hitler for the partitioning of Poland and in effect they were colluding together for mutual advantages. The Soviets came into the War only when attacked, so should be in the correct chronological position. While China was indeed at war with Japan long before the beginning of this World War, the fighting was not as part of this war and China did not declare war on the Axis powers until 1941. Indeed, from 1937 to 1941 China had some help from Germany in fighting Japan (see Sino-German cooperation). What I suggest is that China should be treated here as a combatant in the Second World War, and that instead of saying "(at war 1937–45)" in the main text, which is likely to mislead, I am suggesting a new wording, "1941–45; at war with Japan 1937–45", indicating that this was a different war. As the countries of the British Empire declared war speedily together (including India, which at the moment is not in the list at all) I suggest it makes sense to indent them into a group, arranged in the order of their declarations of war. I should like to invite comments on the new order as set out below. Moonraker (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Allies

🇵🇱 Poland (1939–45)

🇫🇷 France (1939–40; and Free French, 1940-45)

British Empire (1939–45)


 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom


 * 🇦🇺 Australia


 * British India


 * 🇳🇿 New Zealand


 * undefined


 * 🇨🇦 Canada

undefined (1941–45)

🇳🇴 Norway (1940–45)

🇳🇱 Netherlands (1940–45)

🇧🇪 Belgium (1940–45)

undefined (1940–45)

Soviet Union (1941–45)

🇺🇸 United States (1941–45)

Republic of China (1941–45; at war with Japan 1937–45)

🇧🇷 brazil (1942–45)


 * Combatants, as a rule, are listed by the military contribution. Since USSR destroyed more than 75% of German army and around 30% of Japanese one and since Germany and Japan were main Axis countries, so USSR is in first place. Since USA eliminated most of Japanese armed forces and it was main rival of Germany on the West, so USA is in second place. British Empire didn't reach level of USSR or USA, but it clearly contributed to Allies victory more than remained countries. China kept giant front. And so on. By the way, I just saw that somebody rearranged Allies order in World War I, but I fixed it. --Sambian kitten (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, I forgot. I propose to move Greece up. Greece was famous by its Resistance, and cruel Nazi punishments only confirmed it. I propose that Greece should be placed right after another "great Resistance" country - Yugoslavia. --Sambian kitten (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: The general approach in the listing order of the Allies is chronological, but with unexplained anomalies - we're trying to keep order by military contribution.

___________________________ Re China. As far as I know, ROC didn't declare a war on Japan because the US and Britain requested it not to do so. A declaration of war on Japan could trigger a wider conflict in Pacific, which Britain and the US would like to avoid. However, that does not mean that no full scale hostilities took place between Japan and China in 1937-41. Re the chronological order vs military contribution, I would say, no general approach exist in actuality, and the decision is made separately in each particular case. In my opinion, chronological order is preferable when we have several combatants whose military contribution is more or less similar. However, the situation with the WWII is different: this war in actuality was waged between just few countries who made a major contribution into it, and the contribution of the vast majority of other Allies, or Axis satellites was rater symbolic. Consequently, to list the participants in chronological, alphabetical, or ither "neutral" way would be a great sin against neutrality. Nevertheless, theoretically, such an approach is not totally unacceptable. The only thing we need to do to accept the Moonraker's proposal is to modify the article in such a way that the military contribution of each country be easily seen. We already made some steps in that direction, however, the proposed modification of the infobox will require us to do more. Indeed, if we take the "Axis advance stalls" section as an example, we find that the space devoted to the Battle of Stalingrad, which by the scale of the troops involved, and by the casualties sustained (circa 2 million) dwarfed all other hostilities in all theatres or war taken together (I mean the period from Aug 1942 to May 1943), is equal to the space devoted to the Second Battle of El Alamein. Do you find that correct? In summary, theoretically, I have no objection against the chronological or other neutral way to list the participants in the infobox, provided, but only provided, that the neutrality principle will be observed in the article itself, and the events will be covered proportionally to the real scale of hostilities, and to their strategic implications. Until that have been done, any attempt to discuss chronological order are premature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My main concern with adjusting the country order is the placement of the United States in a chronological listing. There could possibly (actually, there is likely to be) signifigant vandalism where users will simply place the US somewhere else in the template and use the excuse that "Poland is on top and the US did a lot more than that!" to justify it, not to mention the fact that, while the US, UK and USSR will be all over the flag listing, the leaders will still be Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. I think that the flag order itself is rather insignificant compared to the flags included - as long as no flags are removed, I wouldn't oppose a change. Just be aware there is likely to be an increase in vandalism. -- Plasma Twa  2  22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And for what is is worth, I oppose the inclusion of India on the template as it was not a fully independant country. -- Plasma Twa  2  22:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it was the Brits who stopped the German advance, and the Soviets were allied with Germany until after the Brits had stopped the German advance, and the USA only entered the war after the Brits had stopped the German advance, clearly the British Empire belongs at the top of the list of Allies, and I've moved it there. NCdave (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When and where did Britain stopped the major German advance?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Union, axis co-belligerent, 1939-1941
Prior to Barbarossa, the Soviet Union's behavior was that of a co-belligerent of the Axis, as per
 * a clear treaty that committed it to attack Poland, an Allied nation, and to take over its territory, partitioning it with other Axis powers.
 * actual action as aggressor, carrying out the attack and occupation of territory, some of which has never been returned.
 * There was some degree of cooperation between Soviet and German armies, very limited, as has been usual of Soviet forces and policy. If actual continuous and shared-command is a requirement to consider alliance, or even co-belligerence, it would not be entirely easy to indicate the Soviets acted as part of the Allies either: different from most of those we consider Allies, the Soviets comparatively seldom if ever shared command, and, while quite happy to receive support, seldom gave it, and often did not even give permission to use their territory for Allied operations (for example, Warsaw Uprising).
 * while it can be argued, together with Churchill, that the Soviets were merely extending a safety buffer zone, the many atrocities committed by the Soviets and their behaviour toward Poland clearly sets them as enemies of the Allies, at the time, and their change of camp in 1941 is more a response to the German attack than a true commitment to fight together with France, Britain, Poland, and other victims of Nazism.
 * failure to count the Soviets as aggressors of Poland, Finland and the Baltics is a biased POV that goes against any NPOV reading of history. Yama Plos   talk  20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yamaplos, the problem is our infobox, which ought to be scrapped in favour of a cloud diagram or other more sophisticated representation (note my issues with China and Japan above). But yes, one way or another, the infobox certainly ought not to contradict the Soviet invasion of Poland (including the Battle of Lwów (1939), which saw the same Polish battlegroup under fire from both the Soviets and the Nazis who did in fact cooperate on a tactical as well as strategic level). We also have to accommodate this quote from Molotov to the Polish ambassador in Moscow in September 1939: "...the Soviet Government, who has hitherto been neutral, cannot any longer preserve a neutral attitude" But this said, for the time being I remain undecided about the Soviet flag being on the right, because the USSR also fought Japan in September 1939. Perhaps some kind of third column would be the solution, per Warsaw Uprising. Not sure. I'll give your ideas some more thought. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Chumchum, your proposal to accommodate the Molotov's quote is the proposal to interpret primary sources, which is not allowed per our policy. In addition, during the same time Molotov declared that Soviet-German pact by no means is an alignment of the USSR to the German policy.
 * Paul, I doubt Chumchum was present when Molotov said that. Most likely he does source that quote from some printed source, and thus be A-OK in terms of policies. Then, there is what was published at the time, what was Soviet dogma until it broke apart, and what we are finding out the last 20 years were true documents, kept secret. Among those we learn more about the R-M pact, Katin, etc. ANd we seldom see those a "primary sources", but published somewhere.66.68.132.253 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, if we introduce a third column specifically for the Soviet invasion of Poland (other Soviet actions had never been directed against actual of future Allies), how do you propose to treat the Nomonhan (Khalkhin Gol)? Thai war against Vichy France (and France as whole)? Finland? In my opinion, the attempts to include minor details into the infobox that is supposed to give an overview of the WWII (the greates war in history) are hardly productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Soviet aggression is certainly not a minor detail, except of course to the published Soviet POV. 66.68.132.253 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yamaplos, first of all, before making your changes, I would recommend you to read and address the arguments that had been put forward previously. To make your task easier, I'll briefly reproduce some major points.
 * Firstly, it is hard to speak about the Axis co-belligerence of the USSR in 1939-early 1940, because the Axis, as a full military alliance had been created only in late September 1940, and before that date the treaty between Japan and Germany (Anti-Comintern Pact) was clearly anti-Soviet.
 * Secondly, before the Tripartite Pact had been signed, the USSR
 * Waged a defensive border war against the future Axis power, Japan;
 * Invaded, without a declaration of war, a future Ally, Poland;
 * Attacked and invaded future Axis co-belligerent, Finland;
 * Forcefully absorbed (not militarily invaded) three neutral Baltic states;
 * Annexed a territory of a future Axis power, Romania.
 * Thirdly, the Allies also did not exist by that moment, because the Anglo-French alliance was a successor of the Triple Entente (minus Russia), and Poland was not a full member of this alliance, because the British and French guaranties for Poland explicitly stipulated that they had strictly anti-German nature, and that they did not come in force in the case if Poland would be attacked by any other power. This alliance ceased to exist when France surrendered, and a new alliance was formed between Britain and the USSR (and later the US) in 1941.
 * Neither did the Axis until the Tripartite Pact of 1940. A pact that was explicit not against the Soviets... The worst thing about the flags infobox is that it is utter simplification, dangerous when it can be seen by less informed people as accurate, and insulting to better informed ones :-). At the very least we need good footnotes! Yama Plos   talk  17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking into account all said above, please, explain me how placement of the USSR into the right part of the infobox would clarify the issue.
 * I am afraid that merely placing it on the Axis side would carry on another oversimplification, thus I agree with some of your reserves. There are good historic reasons to see the USSR as a specific, very self-centered power whose track record of alliances suits its conveniences of the moment much more than many other countries, rather than actually a team player on any team. The two-column infobox does not suit the USSR at all. Yama Plos   talk  17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it is correct that the USSR had been involved in some hostilities during 1939-40, only the #3 was a war de jure. #1, the conflict with Japan, which officially ended after September 1, 1939, allows us to speak about (informal) co-belligerence on the anti-Axis side. #2 is the only example of the Axis co-belligerence, however, that was not officially the war, and it was not considered as such by contemporary states. #3 is an example of Soviet belligerence, however, it would be a stretch to claim that that was a co-belligerence with the Axis: before 1944 Finland had never been an Ally, so, following your logic, Peru and Equador should be listed in this infobox since July 5, 1941 (the start of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War). #4 is an example of unfriendly action against the neutral states, however, there were no hostilities between the USSR and the Baltic states, so we have no ground to speak about any belligerence here. And, finally, #5 is an unfriendly act against the future Axis power, so do not see how can it serve as an argument supporting your point: wrongdoing is per se not a reason for being listed among the Axis co-belligerents.
 * 2 was not a war only for the Soviet POV, forced upon Poland after the war, so yes, under those constraints of limited and biased POV, you are correct. I wonder what they call it? the sacrificial advance of Red forces to protect the Poles, under dire attack by the Nazis? I guess the pictures of fraternization with the Germans, and details of Lodz were not common knowledge to what you mention as "contemporary states", and of course they insisted Katin was made up by the Germans. Yama Plos   talk  17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the footnote, this issue deserves a separate discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, though laborious. I will start a thread for that. Yama Plos   talk  17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS In future, try to avoid unilateral changes referring to a consensus that has never been achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, I agree that unilateral changes are bad. However, I do not see consensus to let the Soviet Union's actions 1939-1941 be left out of this infobox.  I somewhat might allow to let the co-belligerence status be passed over, as long as we find something better that does not end up with the impression that the Soviet Union did not attack an Allied power.  BTW, further complication, both Finland and Italy eventually became co-belligerents on the Allied side.  Maybe we need to add another section for "other belligerents against countries at war"? I cannot think right now of any other case of someone else taking advantage besides the Soviets, thought I remember reading something about Lithuania...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yamaplos, if you have found something better, go ahead. Meanwhile, I find the footnote you added neither correct nor neutral.
 * Re "other belligerents against countries at war", I do not think that will work for purely technical reasons: how do you propose to reflect the fact that the USSR was a belligerent against both Japan and Poland almost simultaneously (in Sept 39)? In addition, the Winter war would be beyond the scope in this case, because Finland (a future Axis co-belligerent) was not at war by that moment.
 * The Tripartite Pact did not exist until 1940 Yama Plos   talk  17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "that does not end up with the impression that the Soviet Union did not attack an Allied power". Yes, it didn't. There were no full scale alliance between Poland and the Franco-British alliance. British and French guarantees to Poland were exclusively anti-German, so Poland was not an ally of the UK and France in the case of Soviet attack. By refusal to declare a war on the USSR, France and the UK fully observed the provisions of their treaties with Poland.
 * hmmm. Interesting point.  But somehow plays aside actual event in favor of actual agreements.  Ribbentrop-Molotov did include a certain level of cooperation, that was followed in the field, to attack another country.  Your argument places the USSR straight as on the side of the Germans! Yama Plos   talk  17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "both Finland and Italy eventually became co-belligerents on the Allied side." ...and Romania and Bulgaria. However, that was a result of their military defeat, so they were forced to do so, and they could not be considered as full Allies. For instance, despite being an Ally in late 1944, Finland had to disarm.
 * Yet you allow Slovakia to be counted as co-belligerent, when its status was exactly that of having a puppet government after being occupied. Being on one side or the other under duress is a different matter than being under treaty, which is different as being under circumstances or convenience. You cannot chose one or another way of counting as it suits a particular POV, please  Yama Plos   talk  17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, finally, I noticed you repeatedly refer to Soviet atrocities as an argument for listing the USSR on the Axis side. That is a manichean vision: not all bad guys were on the Axis side, and, as I have already pointed out, the very fact of wrongdoing is not an argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We should have a Goodwin's law about bringing Mani into a Nazi dispute :-) I( apologize if I was not clear: Soviet organized, planned and well hidden atrocities do not only prove its evil nature, but in this case are meant to indicate that something was going on between 1939 and 1941. The occupation of Poland was not a stroll in the park, or coming in to help defend the Polish nation: it was a planned, brutal, designed occupation of territory and aggression to the population, done in concert with the government and military forces of Nazi Germany. Only from the POV of the Soviets and its forced allies could it be anything but. We do not count the Anschluss or the occupation of the Sudetes as part of WW2, because they were pre 1939, OK.  Why would the occupation of Poland not be counted as part of WW2? Only because it makes the USSR look bad? Well, I'm sorry, we call'em as they are  Yama Plos   talk  17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear YamaPlos, I would be grateful if in future you avoided to wedge your comments into the posts of others, because it is very difficult to the sequence of posts, and even for me is not easy to understand where my text ends and your responses start. Regarding your last post, yes, such a viewpoint does exist, but it is not shared by many mainstream scholars, so we cannot present it as an ultimate truth. For instance, as the data of declassified Soviet archives show, the degree of cooperation stipulated by the MRP was very limited, and this pact hadn't lead the USSR to join the war on the German side. We do not include Anschluss, or Sudetes, or Spanish Civil war into the WWII not because they took place before 1939, but because these events did not triggered declaration of war on any future WWII participants. Soviet invasion of Poland was not seen as entering a war by the USSR on the Axis side (and joining the war at all), therefore, whereas it should be (and have been) mentioned in the WWII article, it is not the reason for inclusion of the USSR into the infobox in its present form.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Paul, I actually thought "wedging" made following specific arguments easier. Regarding "mainstream scholars", I am afraid I have a hard time taking Soviet racconteurs as reliable or "mainstream" in this day and age, though certainly I can understand that even Churchill and Roosevelt would want their decisions and governments to be seen as well balanced in the eyes of history, though we well know, as in the case of the Jews, and Katyn, and many other instances, they saw fit to close their eyes and let things pass.  Would you care to share with us what "mainstream scholars" you mention?

As a former History teacher, I am very chagrined by one-dimensional, simplified versions of history, made to suit the designer or printer (or worse, political interests) rather than attempting to better present the complexities and nuances many events were imbued with. There seldom is a day I don't learn something new through Wikipedia, stuff that "better minds" didn't see it necessary for me or my charges to have to deal with... In this particular instance, and due to most governments, especially the Soviets, would not have wanted to take these 1939-41 Easter Europe events seriously, it is even more important that the Wikipedia community be able to navigate through authors and documents and put forth an interpretation that then can be used by those who want to learn more. If I may mention Norman Davies, a "leading authority" if ever was one on this area, characterizing these events as a "moral dilemma", when, "...in order to defeat Nazi Germany, the Western Powers joined forces with the Soviet Union". Historically, to make it look, as the present infobox does, that the Soviet Union is the first among the Allies, is inaccurate, and I can see no NPOV way to let things stand as they are. Yama Plos  talk  21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, as those events in history prove, inaction is bad... The USSR was the largest belligerent at war with any other WW2 power in 1939. You have used that argument of size successfully so far, despite controversy, to have the USSR head the count of the Allies. But then, it would not seem that argument holds to refer to the USSR 1939-41 ??? I believe the "other countries at war" might be a compromise.  Yama Plos   talk  04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your "The USSR was the largest belligerent at war with any other WW2 power in 1939." I am not sure I understand you. If you mean the largest in terms of population, China was the largest one. If you speak in terms of army size, probably, although only a minor part of the Red Army had participated in hostilities in Finland or Poland. If you speak in terms of military contribution, it was hardly impressive, and it is hard to tell what the contribution of the USSR was, and on which side: on the side of (non existing yet) Tripartite Axis, on the side of (also non-existing) Allies, or on its own side. For example, how do you propose to describe the Winter War, the Khalkhin Gol and Poland by placement of a single flag into some single field in the infobox?
 * Re "other countries at war", I am open for compromise, unless it is a compromise with truth and common sense. The major weakness of your proposal is that I absolutely do not understand how can it be technically implemented without committing a sine against historical truth, factual correctness and neutrality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought you had used the "largest" in your arguments yourself. As to sin against historical truth, facts, correctness, etc, I merely have to point out that any Soviet POV is the extreme of such, alas...  As to Khalkhin Gol, Finland, etc, that is one more, good argument to do away with the 2-team infobox altogether, or at least use footnotes meanwhile. Yama Plos   talk  21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we cannot have two periods represented in the infobox, one for the period up to 1941, and another from 1941. Paul Doerr's paper gives a concrete view of the public sentiment of where the Soviet Union sat :
 * "The reaction of the British public and press to the Soviet invasion of Finland was overwhelmingly hostile. Sympathy for Finland was strong. The Finns were seen as a small, embattled liberal state defying a totalitarian power. As the Finns battled against increasingly long odds, pressure grew on the British government to do something. Military supplies were sent to Finland along with some British volunteers. By March 1940 public pressure and pressure from the French forced the British government to agree to a wild plan to send British troops to Finland." (Paul W. Doerr. 'Frigid but Unprovocative': British Policy towards the USSR from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to the Winter War, 1939. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439)
 * Clearly the SU was seen as an aggressive totalitarian power (the other being Nazi Germany) fighting against liberal democracies like Finland, France and Britain up until 1941. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, there appears to be documentation establishing that the UK and France were ready to help Finland, even with troops, and it was Sweden's refusal to let them cross their territory that blocked this from happening in the Talvisota, see Foreign_support_in_the_Winter_War Yama Plos   talk  21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is clear for you is not clear for the scholars. Whereas the USSR attacked democratic Finland, it also invaded authoritarian Poland, and had never been at war against liberal France or Britain during the period of 1939-41. For details about France and Britain, see the articles cited by me on the WWII talk page: for instance, instead of doing something by herself, France "pressured" Britain to organize an invasion (a very good indication of how serious French intentions were), who received the news about surrender of Finland "with huge sigh of relief".
 * The fact that the UK or France considered the USSR as a potential enemy is just an indication that strategic planning was organised well in these countries, and they were trying to take into account all possible ways of development of the events. In future, please, try to read the sources more carefully. For instance, the continuation of the quote provided by you is:
 * "By March 1940 public pressure and pressure from the French forced the British government to agree to a wild plan to send British troops to Finland. In fact, the real purpose of this expedition was to have British and French troops occupy northern Norway and Sweden in order to deprive Germany of Swedish iron ore supplies. Only one brigade of British troops would cross the border into northern Finland, where they would have absolutely no impact on the fighting in the south."
 * In other words, a real goal of Anglo-French intervention was Norway and Sweden, and the whole enterprise wad clearly anti-German, not anti-Soviet. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see you mentioning this, Paul. So, according to your sources, this whole thing about supporting Finland was not true?  In that case, several sections in the Winter War articles are bogus? While possible, I find that somewhat unlikely, and in all probability they are as well sourced, or better, than the vision that the Soviet Union was something more than an ally of convenience, and vice-versa. The more I read about this, the least apparent it becomes that the Soviet union should be the first the listing of the allies, except maybe by some measure related to bulk (and as you have pointed out, the Chinese are even more of that). Not to disparage the sacrifices in defense of the Rodyna, but, in historical senses and seen 60 years after, this matter does not allow for a Yalta-era interpretation.  Yama Plos   talk  21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have protected the template from editing for three days or until this dispute can be resolved. Note that although I would not normally revert to the 'right' version, there were clear problems with the added footnote, and in the spirit of WP:BRD I removed the addition until a consensus is reached. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. Note this content / NPOV discussion on the Nazi-Soviet relationship was already underway at Talk:World War II, section, where I have expressed reservations about our article's editorializing on the Nazi-Soviet relationship, to downplay it without using references that downplay it. Depicting Nazi-Soviet prior to 1941 ties as weak is ok if a references says it; but that is not what the section does - it actually stacks one thesis against another with an insinuation about which is the truer thesis. The troublesome section of content is relevant to this Tempate discussion. It reads:
 * Whereas the increased cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany, which included broad economic cooperation, limited military assistance, population exchange and border agreements made the former a de facto German ally,[68][69] Soviet takeover of the Baltic states, Bessarabia and North Bukovina had been seen with dismay and disquiet by Germany.[70][71] This, as well as growing tensions over spheres of influence demonstrated the impossibility of further expansion of Nazi-Soviet cooperation, and both states had begun the countdown to war.[72]
 * This is unacceptable, especially (i) the breaching of MOS:OPED with the use of "Whereas" as a qualification not found in references 68 and 69, and then (ii) the narrator's insinuation breaching WP:OR that because the Nazis 'felt upset' about the Soviets taking over the Baltics, then the Soviets couldn't really have been in much of a cooperative relationship with the Nazis after all! The qualifications and insinuations would be fine if they could be found in the references, but it is not what the references say (for this sentence to be anywhere close to acceptable, we would need to see a quote, which probably could be found somewhere, that overtly states the Nazi-Soviet relationship was not an alliance but merely a non-aggression treaty or a sophisticated bluff by both powers). As such, the article's narrative spin on the Nazi-Soviet pact comes across as an effort by the narrator to defend the good name of the Soviet Union, but such defence ought to be unnecessary: We can root out this pro-Soviet POV pushing from the phrasing around the Nazi-Soviet pact, and instead more prominently demonstrate how after the Nazi-Soviet pact the USSR went on to carry the vast majority of the war effort against Nazi Germany in 1942-1945 (with illustrative, verifiable data on how e.g. US losses in WWII represent less than 1.5% of Soviet losses in WWII). Yes, the USSR was a co-combatant with the Nazis in 1939 and went on to strike deals with the Nazis across the following year in what many scholars describe as an 'alliance'; at the same time data indicates that the USSR went on to make the lion's share of the sacrifices to defeat Nazi Germany. Some indication of all this can go into a Template footnote. Yamaplos has brought important ideas to the discussion: a footnote, at the very least, is a very good idea. The rudimentary infobox diagram causes the trouble with the flag. As Martin says, we need to improve the diagram layout some how. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to that, here's a working draft of the footnote, partially borrowed from the article text:
 * In the first phase of the war cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany included joint participation in the invasion of Poland, broad economic cooperation, limited military assistance, population exchange and border agreements that made two powers de facto allies.[68][69] Tension grew over spheres of influence,[70][71] and by early 1941 both states were preparing for war.[72] From summer 1941 through to the end of the conflict, the Soviet Union conducted the vast majority of Allied fighting against Nazi Germany, bearing 27 million casualties compared to the US and Britain's 400,000 each. Thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Chumchum, this your post is hardly relevant to the infobox talk page, let's not split the discussion between two talk pages, otherwise it is hard to follow. In addition, I see that your new text again totally ignores some of my arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Footnote for Soviet flag
I personally believe the two-team metaphor existing in the infobox is inherently flawed for something as complex as WW2. No country acted in a monolithic fashion, and several had a government-in-exile, sometimes even two, drawing up assorted alliances and commitments in paper, with assorted results in cooperation or aggression in the ground.

However, and in the interest to build a better solution, I opened this subsection in the talk page as per an idea by Paul Siebert, merely until something better can be agreed to. To this end, allow me to note:
 * there is no consensus regarding the present state of things, where the Soviet Union flag is head of the list of Allied powers, with a mere (1941-1945) mention.
 * there appears to be consensus that we should find something better
 * we agree it is not easy
 * a footnote might be an interim alternative.

I would concur with Chumchum's proposal, maybe shortening it to "1939 - 1941, cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany included joint participation in the invasion of Poland, broad economic cooperation, limited military assistance, population exchange and border agreements that made the two powers de facto allies".

I do not quite like the sense it gives about cooperation between the SU and DE, above the Soviet Union pursuing its own interests and joining up with however, in this case, Nazi Germany, to further its aims, but it is something I could agree to as text for a footnote, until we can act for a better metaphor than the two-team one.

I find the idea of a "cloud" metaphor intriguing, or some variation of the French parliamentary lineup rather than the British two-sided one... At the very least, clear footnotes that deal with exceptions. Yama Plos  talk  20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, although there is no consensus that the Soviet flag should be on the top, there is no consensus about what other state can be on the top.
 * The consensus that we should find something better is applied to Wikipedia as whole, because it is in a state of constant improvement. Of course, if some better approach will be developed we can and should accept it, the question is what it would be.
 * Yes, and to demonstrate how difficult it is, let me remind you that more than 50% of the WWII as whole (in terms of manpower involved and losses sustained) was the Nazi-Soviet war. The article in its present form does not make that clear enough. By placement of the USSR on the top in the infobox we simply restore the balance, otherwise the structure of the article will have to be modified to devote 50% of its space to the Eastern Front. Are we ready to do that?
 * Regarding the footnote as an interim alternative, I do not see why that is so obvious.
 * The text proposed by you based on the Cumchum's proposal is unsatisfactory, because there is no consensus in the reliable sources about the degree of cooperation, about the coordination during the invasion of Poland (see, e.g., Roberts' works), about the role of economic cooperation (for instance, the US did the same with Japan until 1941). In addition, as I already pointed out (several times), the population exchange is not a sign of the cooperation, that is more common for the nations on the brink of war. This argument is being repeatedly ignored. The same is true for the border agreement.
 * In summary, please, familiarise yourself with the archives of this and WWII talk pages, because you seem to reiterate the arguments that has been already put forward (and addressed).
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree, Paul, that these matters might "have been addressed", but I am afraid they have not been not been solved, and I doubt they ever will be. The best we can hope maybe is to find a suitable momentary NPOV compromise. What we have now is not NPOV, it reflects clearly Soviet POV, where 1939-41 was not part of WW2, and the Soviet Union was the most important Allied power.
 * as to what to do, I respectfully submit we try a footnote. I cannot see any other easy to implement or agree alternative.  I beg you will cooperate in drafting such a footnote, unless you actually do have a better proposal. A footnote is obvious merely because something like a "cloud" or something else might be harder to join together.
 * as to the size of what happened in the Eastern Front to need "balance", there are the conflicting needs of this being the en WP, and thus perfectly allowed to focus mostly with "en" business, and that this is a bit like the Wikipedia of record, worldwide. I doubt this matter suffers of these issues in Poland, say, or in Russia. A given POV there would be overwhelming. I personally see no need to "balance" dominating POVs in preference to the need to seek and reach an NPOV approach. I do not see "size" either as being that relevant, when area and global geopolitics that still provoke conflicts several generations later were not played in East Europe, but more often in the Mediterranean, the Far East, and maybe in those cul-de-sacs nobody cared much about at the time, like the Near East, where a decision like to appoint minor chiefs like the Pahlevis still make the world shake. I see no excuse like "size" or "balance" to need affect NPOV.
 * I was agreeing to Chumchums in an attempt to agree to something, which does not guarantee NPOV but helps build a basis for it. I personally believe the cooperation was rather limited, more in the lines of a co-belligerent, for the simple reason that the Soviet Union has been an uneasy and greedy bedfellow for anyone who has tried. You did not detail why my own earlier version (the one you removed) was inaccurate, I thought it was quite NPOV. Trying hard to avoid an "ad-hominem", I am becoming concerned that you appear to be sustaining, quite successfully, I must say, a biased POV that follows Soviet historiography.
 * I am reading as much of the talk pages as I can. I am noticing that NPOV does not seem to be a priority in several places, and clever WP play happens often. I wish we can do better.
 * Leaving the Soviet Union outside of the conflict 1939-1941 is Soviet POV. As simple as that. NPOV is fitting events within the mess it made for itself with conflicting alliances and covenants that it broke or reinvented at Joe's behest. Yama Plos   talk  21:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you accuse me in pro-Soviet POV pushing? Let me point your attention at the fact that, by contrast to you, I always reveal the sources my edits are based on. These sources are exclusively the works of Western English speaking scholars published by scholarly journals or top universities. In future, I suggest you to be more careful with your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What the footnote should say
Taking into account the opinion that no footnote is necessary, those who believe we need one can, we try to agree on what should go in it? (Paul, be welcome to help, even though we know you rather have no footnote) Yama Plos   talk  21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * also understanding that probably the footnote is not the best solution longterm, but attempting to deal with the fact that the current state of things only recognizes Soviet POV, where the Soviet Union entered WW2 in 1941, while documents, their NPOV interpretation and events indicate the USSR was a combatant party of WW2 by September 1939.

Please feel free to "wedge" if you have opinions about any specific point,
 * 1939-1941,
 * argument:these are the years between the armed aggression of the Soviet Union against Poland and the occupation of the Baltic states, period of time the Soviet Union was at war within what we consider World War 2


 * in agreement with Nazi Germany, in 1939 the Soviet Union attacked and occupied Poland,
 * argument:Ribbentrop-Molotov, actual events of the occupation of Poland, including Łodz, and also German–Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship,_Cooperation_and_Demarcation of Sept. 1939.
 * Notice this bit merely indicates the relevant facts, not falling into details of the -disputable- degrees of cooperation, or whether it was or not an alliance.


 * and annexed the territories of the Baltic states.
 * argument:Ribbentrop-Molotov, actual events. No mention of the bit of land given to Germany, to avoid getting bogged down in detail.


 * After itself being attacked by Nazi Germany in September 1941, the Soviet Union joined the Allied powers
 * argument:it would be interesting to have more details on how this actually came to be. Allies_of_World_War_II has no details. Was it Churchill who invited? Was it Stalin who begged in? Was it just an "accepted thing", better not discussed? At some moment there must have been a document.  Yama Plos   talk  22:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By adding your text to my posts you make the whole discussion unreadable by others. Please, do not do that, because other users simply will be unable to understand who wrote what. in addition, the text in bold is not a good style: it is interpreted as shouting. Try to avoid it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OOC, isn't this what we have the article for? To explain what actually happened? An infobox is supposed to be a barebones summary of what happened, and the article expounds on that with specific details. It's not important for it to be 100% explained; rather, it needs to give a general picture for a surfing reader. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 100% right, Ed, as long as the infobox gives accurate information. This one doesn't... If fails to mention, even in a footnote, the Soviet Union's combatant actions 1939-1941, which were not banal or minor. Outside of the Soviet Union, you would be hard pressed to find a single author that would date the beginning of the Second World War in 1941. The way things are constitutes Soviet POV as the main source for this summary. If Vichy France deserves a footnote, the Soviet Union needs one so much more.  The uninformed, surfing reader, does not know this. In my opinion the Soviet Union was a co-combatant of Nazi Germany, if maybe not of the Axis as a whole. While we figure out how to present that tangled skein, a footnote would help this barebones summary be NPOV, and more accurate. Yama Plos   talk  01:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, then why do we need a full summary? Why not [ref]The Soviet Union was also involved in the war from 1939–1941, including invading Poland; see [link].[ref] The shorter the better for something in an infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we have somewhere that those actions were in agreement with Nazi Germany? That is the whole purpose of the exercise, to find an NPOV way to, in a few words, cover the belligerent status of the USSR as a not-foe of Nazi Germany, without going into the not-yet sufficient consensus to place it in the co-belligerent space on the right?  As a precedent, the Vichy France is about 60 words.  Yama Plos   talk  02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly given the complex nature, a footnote for the Soviet Union cannot be less than 60 words. That said, the proposed footnote above represent 41 words and reasonably clarifies the status of the Soviet Union in a neutral way. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Re "in agreement with Nazi Germany, in 1939 the Soviet Union attacked and occupied Poland" According to Roberts, there were no agreement between the USSR and Germany to attack Poland. See, e.g. (Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78) Conclusion: cannot be added as non-neutral.
 * 2) Re "and annexed the territories of the Baltic states". Whereas the secret protocol of MRP placed the Baltic States into the Soviet sphere of influence, it did not stipulate occupation or annexation of them. Moreover, Hitler was displeased by the annexation, and that was one of immediate reasons of the rift between the USSR and Germany. Source: Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin's wars: from World War to Cold War, 1939-1953. Yale University Press, 2006 ISBN 0300112041, 9780300112047. p. 56. Conclusion: cannot be added as incorrect.
 * 3) Re "After itself being attacked by Nazi Germany in September 1941, the Soviet Union joined the Allied powers" Which Allied powers? France had already surrendered by that moment, so the Anglo-French alliance ceased to exist. Poland existed only as a government in exile. Only Britain and her dominions continued to fight, but this fight was limited with naval and aeral warfare and with the limited hostilities in North Africa. Conclusion: too Britano-centric. It would be more correct to say: "The attack by Nazi Germany triggered a process of rapprochement between Britain and the USSR, which eventually lead to signing the Grand Alliance between the USSR, the UK and USA". Source (Derek Watson. Molotov, the Making of the Grand Alliance and the Second Front 1939-1942. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 51-85). However, I do not see why this info is needed in the footnote to the Soviet flag, in a situation when other flags (e.g. the US) have no footnotes of that king. In summary, the footnote is totally insatisfactory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I noticed you support your viewpoint by the links to other Wikipedia articles. Please, keep in mind that per our policy, Wikipedia is not a source for itself, so I in future expect you to provide the references to the reliable non-fringe secondary sources that support your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "according to Roberts...no agreements", Paul, I am rather familiar with negationists that will deny the Shoah, but someone postmodern considered a valid historian that denies the Rib-Mol. pact? that is new to me. I am not familiar with Roberts, and unlikely to be, if the level of his scholarliness is that... Interestingly, the Wikipedia article puts some Soviet historiography as similar as Holocaust denial --Historical_revisionism_(negationism)--. One such quote gives no conclusion of incorrectness, just one more opinion, albeit likely wrong, and certainly establishes no WP consensus.
 * 2) "Sphere of influence" is an expression, just like "Final Solution" or other such to cover up an uglier thing, in this case evident permission and expectation to occupy, or control. I am surprised you'd bring something like that as evidence. Another, latter example on how those things are understood: the US and Britain did not do much toward the countries that were earmarked as being the Soviet Sphere of Influence after Yalta.
 * Hitler has a tendency to be displeased about many things, so his purported specific displeasure here carries little weight as an argument. There are other sources that indicate he had plans to attack the USSR anyway, much earlier than this. Because of that, the argument that the USSR wanted, needed a buffer zone (Churchill convenient rationalization for Britain's 'laisser faire'' attitude regarding this) does carry some strategic weight, but still does not justify the violent aggression that took place east of the Ribbentrop-Molotov line, but all of it helps understand how it is only now that history can be told as it was. The USSR attacked Poland, in concert with Nazi Germany. That is a documented and interpreted fact of history, which will seldom be found in Soviet historiography, or even some, mostly conservative, western sources that would prefer to forget that embarrassing situation they failed to denounce.
 * 3)At best your third point proves my thesis that the two-teams infobox is no good, and should be sooner or later scrapped and replaced by something better. But I am game, as your exposition is accurate and precise, to change to "Attacked by Nazi Germany in September 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union formed an alliance, later joined by other powers. This became collectively known as the Allies, or United Nations ". I am a bit ignorant about the real chain of events there. Yet, this phrasing would avoid implying that the alliance was at the USSR behest, which comes that way in your phrasing ("the SU joined... "), but I insist I do not know and have no sources to follow this fully. As phrased here, it is NPOV, and places Britain ahead in the pair, as being an 'original' part of the France-Poland-Britain treaties, whose continuation the Allies are seen as being. Will this be more acceptable? Yama Plos   talk  05:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(I just noticed you indicate there is a policy against quoting from Wikipedia. My apologies, I will tray to keep that in mind)
 * There is no policy to avoid quoting from Wikipedia, however, your text must be based not on what WP writes.
 * Re your other points, I see you are simply not familiar with the sources I cited. These sources are top quality mainstream reliable secondary sources, and they have nothing in common with any negationism. If you have any doubts about that, just go to the WP:RSN and ask a question about these sources. I am 100% sure that consensus will be that these sources are top quality reliable mainstream sources. I also recommend you to keep in mind that all my edits are always supported by this type sources, so the attempt to question their reliability would be just wasting of your time.
 * Keeping in mind that you have probably no access to some of these sources, I can explain you that by no means Roberts denies the fact that the MRP and its secret protocol existed. Moreover, he was among the first western scholars who worked with de-classified Soviet archives, and he found that some stereotypes about the MRP were just the Cold war myths. For instance, he demonstrated that, whereas the agreement about the spheres of influence in Poland existed between the USSR and Germany, by September 9 Hitler was not aware of neither the date of the Soviet invasion, nor if the USSR planned to invade Poland at all. That meant that no joint plans of invasion of Poland existed by the moment the war started, and the decision to enter Poland was made by Stalin only in mid September unilaterally. That is an example of how dangerous is to follow propaganda cliches.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evan Mawdsley has reviewed Geoffrey Roberts, (Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 1045-1047) where he describes Roberts' as "self-consciously revisionist" who argues "that Moscow genuinely wanted an alliance with Britain and France, was sincere about collective security, but had no alternative to the 1939 pact with Hitler. This view is contrasted to the 'German school', which argued that Stalin's real orientation throughout the 1930s was towards an alliance with Nazi Germany". Mawdsley goes on to point out that many of the conclusions you cite above are dubious:
 * "Other judgments, however, are more dubious. The suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) that Russia would have gone to war alone to defend Czechoslovakia, had Prague requested it, is certainly helpful for a Taylorite argument and puts the British and French in a bad light, but there is very little evidence to back it up. The attempt to disaggregate the Soviet-German neutrality pact, the Baltic takeover and the Polish partition is interesting, but unconvincing, in the light of Soviet-Polish enmity and the strategic value of the Baltic states. The three-week delay between the pact and the invasion of eastern Poland can be explained as much by the need to mobilise the Red Army as by any political restraint; the Wehrmacht had had at least five months to plan. The idea that Moscow was pushed into annexation of the Baltic states by mass demonstrations in the summer of 1940 is far-fetched."
 * I am not sure how much weight we should be applying on the viewpoint of an acknowledged revisionist historian. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You again appear to use the sources selectively. The starting words of the quote provided by you ("Other judgments, however, are more dubious") suggest that the author conceded that some Roberts' point are valid. Here is the full quote:
 * "Much of what Roberts argues is convincingly supported by newly published archival sources. Especially important are accounts of conversations that have hitherto been described only from the German side. Initiatives do  appear to  have come largely from the Germans. The author demonstrates that the turn to Berlin came very late, at the end of summer 1939, and not in the spring. The analysis of  Soviet policy into summer 1941 is  also penetrating. One of  the most attractive aspects of Roberts' approach is his refusal to be blinded by hindsight. Soviet decision makers could  not  know  what was  going to  happen next, especially in  assessing  Hitler's potential for internal survival and foreign conquest. Other judgments, however, are more dubious. ....."
 * The MAwdsley's conclusion also deserves to be quoted. He says:
 * "This is a very useful survey of Moscow's pre-war foreign policy which is at the same time lively, scholarly and informative. Notwithstanding its  limited scope  and  some  debatable conclusions it  does  much to  demolish the credibility of  the  "German interpretation"".(ibid.)
 * In other words, the review cited by you in actuality supports the point advocated by Roberts. In future, please, do not manipulate with sources.
 * I have no doubt that, having an access to jstor, you are able to provide few negative reviews on the Roberts' books. For instance, Johnathan Haslam is more critical of Roberts, although, he also does not reject his works totally. Nevertheless, it would be quite possible to find several quotes from Haslam, which, taken out of context, would seriously undermine credibility of Roberts as an author. I am myself aware of the weaknesses to this author: he relies too much on the Soviet archival data, which are still fragmentary and do note provide a full picture. However, in general, this scholar is rather reputable, and the quotes below (in addition to the review provided by you) demonstrate that.
 * "Roberts makes a serious historical argument. This is not Cold War revisionist history that whitewashes the pathologies and extreme cruelty of Stalin's leadership."(Robert Legvold Foreign Affairs, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2007), p. 177)
 * "With the support of the new material, Roberts convincingly demonstrates the seriousness of the commitment of the Soviet Union to the policy of collective security from the end of 1933 to August 1939. He rejects the view that the Soviet objective was throughout to seek an agreement with Germany as based on "the flimsiest of evidential bases" " (D. W. Spring The International History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 222-223)
 * "We need much more evidence from the military, NKVD, and presidential archives on these matters. But Roberts's work is a very stimulating and thought-provoking study on the basis of the documentation we have so far."(ibid)
 * "This is a fluently written and stimulating book, accessible and argumentative. There are gaps in the archive record where Roberts speculates; the military and economic side of Soviet policy gets shorter shrift than it deserves; the confrontation between Fascism and Communism in Spain is glossed over. But in less than 200 pages Roberts has succeeded in summing up the arguments and evidence over the critical turning points in Soviet foreign policy towards Germany, for which students, faced with a sea of literature, will be grateful." (Richard Overy. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 358-359)
 * "Operation Weiss was by no means the jointly conducted campaign. The German attack was, however, followed by a Soviet invasion which was neither pre-coordinated with Wehrmacht nor provoked by Poland"(Jürgen Förster. Review: The Russo-German Conflict as Part of the Second World War. Reviewed work(s): Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-1945 by Alan Clark. Hitler's Nemesis. The Red Army, 1930-1943 by Walter S. Dunn Jr. Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 by Joachim Hoffmann. Unternehmen Barbarossa. Deutsche und sowjetische Angriffspläne 1940/41 by Walter Post. Stalin's Drive to the West. The Origins of the Cold War by R. C. Raack. The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War. Russo-German Relations and the Road to War, 1933-1941 by Geoffrey Roberts. Contemporary European History, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 145-148)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in addition to Andrew Bacevich's negative review posted by ChumChum7 below, at best Roberts must be considered controversial and those conclusions that have been disputed by other authors as dubious. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the overall tone, the Bacevich's review is more positive than negative. In addition, we discuss not the scholars, but the concrete points they make. The concrete Roberts' points we are talking about is generally supported by most scholars except those belonging to the "German school", or by Raack, who, judging by reviews, is much more controversial than Roberts. In any event, the statements like "in agreement with Nazi Germany, in 1939 the Soviet Union attacked and occupied Poland" cannot be added to the because, although the views of Roberts and similar scholar (A.P.Taylor, Haslam, Carley, Gorodetsky et al) are not universally accepted, they nevertheless are close to mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, been busy, but I have to interject that regarding: "Re "in agreement with Nazi Germany, in 1939 the Soviet Union attacked and occupied Poland" According to Roberts, there were no agreement between the USSR and Germany to attack Poland. See, e.g. (Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78) Conclusion: cannot be added as non-neutral.", this is either misinformed or wishful thinking (based on systemically biased archives which serve the Soviet account of history). I'll have to dig up the exchange between Berlin and Moscow regarding the timing of the Soviet invasion. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "God krizisa?" If yes, Roberts has already made this job for you. To re-do this job would be an original research, which is strictly prohibited by our policy. Meanwhile, I presented the opinions of some scholars (I can provide more if needed) who believe the Soviet archives are useful source of information. Believe you or not, almost 100% of historical documents present highly biased and fragmentary information, and the ability to restore a full and unbiased picture based on that is a necessary skill of every professional historian. To claim that a source X cannot be relied upon because it is fragmentary and biased is as amateurish as to claim that the elementary particle Y has too short lifetime to be studied, or that the chemical substance Z is to reactive to be characterised. Again, to deal with fragmentary sources, short living elementary particles or very active chemical substances is an absolutely normal for professional historians, physicists or chemists, accordingly, and we, the humble mortals, cannot judge about that. The views of Roberts are accepted by peers (in greater extent that the, e.g. Raack's views), and that is be quite sufficient for us.
 * In addition, whereas I present the views of Roberts, Gorodetsky, Overy, Haslam, Carley, Legvold, Förster, Bacevich (who, by contrast to the Martin's claim seems to more support Roberts than debunk), and others, you guys limit your self with unsupported or inadequately supported assertions. Could you please allow me in future simply ignore your arguments if they have not been supported by a reliable non-fringe (and, desirably, peer-reviewed) English source?
 * That would allow us to save a lot of time and talk page space.
 * Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies also, a very long day. Paul, the more I learn about this matter, the more it is evident to me that the Soviet Union was very much a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany.  A concurrent conflict is not co-belligerence, that is why that Japanese-Russian thing doesn't fit in WW2, and trying to pile them together with the combined attack on Poland by the Germans and the Soviets reminds me of 'ol Willie of Alsace-Lorraine and Schlesswig-Holstein.  It does take a lot of effort, which you have put, to try to prove something that, with all due respect, is rather old-school, i.e., that the USSR entered the war in 1941.  I have no doubt there are authors behind it.  That, in itself, proves little. Then you bring about some Wikipedia regulations, which I congratulate you for being familiar with, but you fail to follow the most important ones: NPOV, and consensus.  You do claim there is lack of consensus.  Right!!!  However, you cannot show consensus for your position.  Actually, there is very little to say for your position, except yourself and some recognised revisionist or pro-Soviet authors.  I am not surprised either that you do not claim your position is NPOV, and you are right in not claiming that, because it is not.  You could pile up a zillion authors, the rest of us could do the same, but that would not end this matter or establish anything except the fact, easy to notice, that there are many different opinions regarding this.
 * The exercise which we have to achieve is to label in a reasonably well-based NPOV on where the Soviet Union was during World War 2. We know and agree on what happened after 1941. Would you care to tell us what it was up to, according to you and your authors, 1939-1941?  Just erasing people's opinions is not quite cricket.  I'd appreciate you add to this particular debate. thank you  Yama Plos   talk  04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked through your post very briefly, and I found no reference to the sources you used. Therefore, we simply have nothing to discuss: you neither reveal your sources nor analyse mine. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so, if you don't mind, I'll leave your arguments unaddressed, because I see nothing to address here. I will gladly resume our discussion if you will come out with some reliable nonfringe secondary sources your opinion is based on.
 * Hope to here from your soon.
 * Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Regarding your reference to consensus, please, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and, since decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised, and since consensus cannot override such a basic policies as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, independently of the length of your arguments, and of the number of users supporting your opinion, no consensus can be achieved unless my legitimate concerns (which are based on the writings of reputable and mainstream western scholars) will be addressed. However, your posts, which are totally unsupported by reliable sources, do not make such an outcome closer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * oh, Paul! Again coming up with one rule and another. You may not be aware that I care little to build discussion about this, just for discussion sake. If I mention consensus, it is because you systematically block other contributors adducing "no consensus". But, yes, I am glad, you do finally mention NPOV! This is no metaphor of the Russian campaign, Paul, where holding on counts.  In Wikipedia, indeed, we care for NPOV, which, whatever arguments and authors you line up that do not live up to NPOV. Yama Plos   talk  03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, never delete the others' posts.
 * Secondly, I am not "coming up with one rule and another", but explaining you the policy you, being a newbie seem to be unaware of. I do not block other contributions because of "no consensus", I revert poorly supported and incorrect edits. You haven't presented even a single reliable source so far, how can I conduct a serious discussion with you? Have you read Glantz, btw?--03:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is me, but I am finding your WP:ALPPHABET SOUP to be getting a bit cloying for my taste. There is no western source by leading scholars on Eastern Europe or the Baltics that does not view the USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany against Eastern Europe. You respect and even lobby for Malksoo elsewhere, despite his being Estonian, what part of "crushing" and "occupying" the Baltics, having the green light of the M-R pact (or so interpreted by Stalin), fails to qualify as co-belligerence? P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, giving/having green light never was co-belligerence. --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "There is no western source by leading scholars on Eastern Europe or the Baltics that does not view the USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany against Eastern Europe." - Vecrumba
 * Please list a few reliable, high quality secondary sources which say the USSR and Nazi Germany were co-belligerents. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Hohum, afaik the term 'co-belligerence' is pretty technical and conventionally used most often to explain the particularities of Finland. Personally I doubt the phrase can be found in reference to the Nazi-Soviet relationship. If you're interested, you could look up on Talk pages what I provided some time ago: umpteen high quality secondary sources which refer to the "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and variations of the phrase. I took the trouble to fully reference them with page numbers and generous transcription. They included The Economist, Niall Ferguson, Timothy Snyder, Laurence Rees and plenty of others. As far as I recall the Talk page discussion, these "Nazi-Soviet alliance" sources were alleged to be inferior to Roberts because they are revisionists, but Roberts is more credible because he is not a revisionist. This was untrue: we now have two sources describing Roberts as a revisionist with a notably pro-Stalin point of view. Roberts is no less of a revisionist, and no more of an authority on WWII, than Snyder and Rees. On that note and fwiw, Laurence Rees, WWII Behind Closed Doors (2009), on p.21: Rees shows that on 3rd Sept 1939 Ribbentrop ordered the German ambassador in Moscow to tell Molotov that Germany asks the USSR to invade eastern Poland up to the demarcation line recently agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Then on p. 23, Rees shows that on 9th Sept, Molotov replied to the German ambassador in Moscow that the Red Army would be shortly invading eastern Poland. That is not the same as the precise phrase "co-belligerence" appearing in the text, just a verifiable depiction of strategic cooperation in wartime. To start with, some footnote to explain this widespread view of Nazi-Soviet relations is merited. I think Martin or Yamaplos were about to finalize their redrafting of my working footnote text above. Maybe you could chime in with that. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Peters, since your post contains no references to reliable sources, I believe you don't mind me to ignore it. Dear Chumchum, thank you for providing a source. That allows me to respond concretely. Firstly, revisionism per se is not a criterion of reliability. All existing historical concepts emerged from the theories that were the revision of previous views. Roberts can be trusted because (i) despite some obvious weaknesses of his works, many conclusion made by him based on new documentary evidences have been recognised as reasonable by others, and (ii) many other scholars essentially agree with that, and develop these views further. However, that does not mean that other interpretations are not possible. For instance, whereas the Ribbentrop telegram (which is reproduced below)
 * "We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the territory that was fixed at Moscow as a German sphere of interest under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would not only be a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well"

serves for Reese as a proof that the invasion of Poland was a jointly conducted campaign, which had been planned before September 1 1939, Roberts concludes that this is a direct indication of the absence of any explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily (Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78). Indeed, Ribbentrop is asking "We want you to occupy the part of Poland that felt into your sphere of interests. Do you plan to do that Poland? If yes, we would like to know when. Please do, because we believe that would good for both of us." This telegram contains no references to the previous Soviet military obligation, which suggests that no such obligations existed. I concede that the Reese book has been published later than the Roberts' article had, so the possibility exists that Rees draws his conclusions based on newer documentary evidences. However, since he provided no references to newer data, I doubt he got any new documents in addition to those used by Roberts. Roberts goes even further, he notes that during the last week of August there was a whole series of messages from Berlin to its Moscow embassy concerning press reports that Red Army units had been  withdrawn  from the Soviet-Polish border, and Schulenburg (a German ambassador) was urgently instructed to approach Molotov with a view to securing a public denial that this was the case. None of these telegrams contained a references to any Soviet military obligations regarding Poland. Roberts concludes that that would be impossible had any (even unwritten) agreement existed on that account. Therefore, we have two scholars drawing different conclusions from the same sources, and, taking into account that Roberts' analysis is more detailed, it seems more convincing not only for me (which is hardly relevant), but also for the scholars, including those cited by me above. For instance, Jürgen Förster states
 * "Operation Weiss was by no means the jointly conducted campaign. The German attack was, however, followed by a Soviet invasion which was neither pre-coordinated with Wehrmacht nor provoked by Poland"(Jürgen Förster, op. cit)

thereby almost verbatim reproducing the Roberts' conclusion. Other scholars also support this analysis, therefore we simply cannot ignore it. Regarding "Nazi-Soviet alliance", let me remind you that to draw conclusions based on these words is very dangerous. For example, noone can deny that there was an alliance between Japan and Germany in 1940-45. There was an alliance between the USSR and the US in 1941-45. However, neither Japan nor the USSR were at war during this period (before August 1945), and cannot be considered as belligerents neither de jure nor de facto.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For all of the hullabaloo about Roberts accessing Soviet Archives, it seems he forgot about the German archive of diplomatic correspondence with the Soviet union:
 * September 3rd: Berlin inviting Moscow to invade Poland up to the pre agreed line
 * September 5th: Moscow to Berlin: "We agree with you that at a suitable time it will be absolutely necessary for us to start concrete action. We are of the view, however, that this time has not yet come. It is possible that we are mistaken, but it seems to us that through excessive haste we might injure our cause and promote unity among our opponents"
 * Along with Robert's claim that Moscow was pushed into annexation of the Baltic states by mass demonstrations in the summer of 1940, make me seriously question this author. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin, have you read my last post? The Sept 3rd telegram you refer to("We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish Army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the area that was established as German sphere of interest at Moscow under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would be not only a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well. In this connection please determine whether we may discuss this matter with the officers who have just arrived here and what the Soviet Government intends their position to be. " The text taken from Avalon) is the same telegram I quoted above, and, accordingly, is the same telegram Roberts built his arguments on. The Soviet response on Sept 5th (a firm promise to start some unspecified "concrete" actions, without providing any concrete date when these actions would start) indicates that the USSR was inclined to attack Poland, but was not inclined to disclose its concrete plans to Germany. Importantly, these telegrams, as well as all other documents, contains no references to prior military obligations, quod erat demonstrandum. Regarding the demonstrations, in his "Stalin's war" Roberts writes:
 * "While opposed by the majority of the population, an urban-based, activist left-wing minority welcomed the Red Army occupation and demanded Soviet power and incorporation into the USSR."(Roberts, op. cit., p. 56)
 * Could you tell me please what is wrong with this statement? Or you insist that by contrast to all other European countries, there were no leftist minority in three Baltic states? If that is what you want to say, then you are advocating one of the most weird nationalist stereotypes. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When Molotov states in the second telegram: "it seems to us that through excessive haste we might injure our cause and promote unity among our opponents" it is clear he is referring to the common nazi-soviet cause and their opponents, is he not? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume all other issues have been resolved, haven't they?
 * Yes, noone (including myself) can deny the fact that the USSR and Germany had some common business, e.g., division of Central Europe onto spheres of influence, and turning a blind eye at each other's wrongdoing in their spheres of influence. However, to interpret the words "common cause" as the euphemism of the full scale alliance would be totally incorrect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You oppose this proposed footnote text in agreement with Nazi Germany, in 1939 the Soviet Union attacked and occupied Poland, claiming "According to Roberts, there were no agreement between the USSR and Germany to attack Poland". But as we have seen, not only do reviewers like Mawdsley find Roberts' "attempt to disaggregate the Soviet-German neutrality pact, the Baltic takeover and the Polish partition is interesting, but unconvincing", but we have direct evidence from diplomatic telegrams that not only did Nazi Germany agree to the Soviet invasion of Poland, but they were positively encouraging it: "Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory". Do you still deny that the Soviet Union attacked and occupied with the full agreement of Nazi Germany and oppose this footnote text? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I proposed my version below. Do you have any comment on it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Poland
Which "Poland"? There were two of them - Stalin broke off diplomatic relations with the Polish government in 1943 and created his own "People's Poland" (a project started in 1918 and hopefully finished in 1989). The Soviet administration murdered and imprisoned Polish people since 1943 and Soviet Polish administration murdered people in occupied/liberated Poland since July 1944. During the Warsaw Uprising the not co-belligerent Soviet Union was quite happy watching the destruction of the Polish capital Warsaw. Soviet spies in Poland helped the Nazis to fight the Polish underground, see Marian Spychalski. Summarizing: Poland and Soviet Union weren't allies 1943-1945.Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If USSR and Poland weren't allies and Soviet Poland was "wrong Poland", then there was no Polish troops in captured Berlin in 1945 and Silesia, Pomerania and Masuria were handed to wrong Poland and therefore today Poland holds these lands unlegitimately. I hope a little number of Poles share your views. --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Vichy France
"Vichy forces refused to surrender or save the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir for the Allies and fought the Allied invasion of French-controlled Syria and Lebanon in June–July 1941" - does "formally neutral" mean the same?Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral countries are permitted to defend themselves, think of the Swiss defence forces. I suppose the issue is since Vichy France was considered collaborationist, whether it was truly neutral. What do the sources say? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why revert?
I just noticed this revert by Paul Siebert. Why? The Soviet-German alliance before the June 22, 1941 is essentially a matter of fact undisputed by any serious modern sources. First of all, they have concluded an agreement about occupying 3rd countries (not disputed by any sources). Second, they actually occupied these countries, as was agreed (also undisputed). I quickly looked at the discussion above and did not find anything disproving this. What's the problem? I suggest to restore. Biophys (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a complex and volatile subject. Yes indeed there are plenty of verifiable sources referring to the 'Nazi-Soviet alliance', e.g. Roberts, Snyder, Rees, Ferguson etc, etc. But the USSR was not a member of the Axis - you'd probably need to remove the 'Axis' and 'Allied' headings first (they shouldn't be there anyway as they are somewhat misleading). Then, we have the pedantic issue that the USSR was a co-belligerent for about 3 weeks of 1939 only (during the Soviet invasion of Poland) - and that would need to be flagged some how. After that, I wouldn't particularly object to you restoring it, because several editors would appear to be concurring with you: Taistelu-Jaska, Martin Tammsalu, Yamaplos and PЄTЄRS J V. As we say, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it certainly isn't a dictatorship either: somehow we've got to find consensus that accommodates what appears to be this majority view that you are reflecting. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roberts never called the MRP an alliance. Your conclusion (made based on the title of his "Stalin's war") is synthesis. And, importantly, noone called MRP a military alliance. To demonstrate my thought, let me remind you that, despite being a full ally of Britain (through NATO), the US were not a co-belligerent of the former during the Falklands war, and similarly, Britain was not a belligerent in the Vietnam war.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While being a member of an alliance does not make one a co-belligerent per your example of the USA, UK and the Falklands war, the USA did covertly provide the UK with military equipment and intelligence during the war. it is also conversely true that one can be a co-belligerent without a formal alliance, so certainly the USSR was a co-belligerent during the invasion of Poland. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, despite their massive aid to Britain, despite their extensive negotiations with the USSR about future aid (during the period from June 22 to Dec 7, 1941), and even despite the undeclared naval warfare in Atlantic against Hitler, the US are not listed among belligerents before Dec 7.
 * Since Biophys presented no fresh sources or arguments, and since Martin has also come out with no new arguments, I simply do not see the reason to renew this discussion. The footnote has already been added to the USSR flag which describe the events during the period o 1939-41 the USSR had been involved in. I believe, that in sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course SU was never described as one of the "Axis" (agree with Chumchum7). But some other countries on the right side of this template were not "Axis" as well. I still believe that SU should appear on the right side of the template (until June 22), but maybe under a different subheading (an "ally" or whatever appropriate), because it actually acted together with Germany during this time and was bound by a formal agreement with Germany about occupation of third countries, as a matter of fact. I think we may have a consensus about this placing SU to the right side, but under a special subheading. Biophys (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I'm inclined to agree with you. Incidentally, for a very long time, the right side of the template was not headed 'Axis' as it is now but 'Axis and Axis-aligned', to accommodate non-Axis powers such as Finland. The word 'aligned' doesn't indicate membership of a mutual security bloc, but affiliation of some kind. The best solution as far as I can see would be to be remove the 'Axis' and 'Allied' headings as artificially simplistic - most war templates on Wikipedia do not use such headings anyway, but simply have two blocks of loosely affiliated powers. Then, either USSR (1939-1941) goes under a sub called Axis-aligned, Germany-aligned or Aligned with Germany; alternatively USSR (1939) goes under a sub saying Co-belligerent. I would support you making any of these changes as an improvement to Taistelu-Jaska's initial edit, and it appears Martin would as well. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand how would it work for several reasons:
 * If the Soviet intervention in Poland (some sources do distinguish between German invasion and Soviet intervention; of course, I speak about Western sources) is a ground for placing the USSR into the right side of the infobox, then how do you propose to reflect the Soviet-Japanese border war? Obviously, just a footnote would be not sufficient in this case.
 * If the Winter war serves as a ground for placement of the USSR in the right side of the infobox, where the second party (Finland) is supposed to be placed? To the Allied side? I anticipate Martin's references to the British and French plans of intervention in the North, however, these plans had never been implemented, and they were directed primarily against Germany, not the USSR. To place Finland in the left side would be original research, and not to place it would be ridiculous: if the USSR was a belligerent in late 1939, then Finland was also. However, by fighting against Finland, which had never been the Allies' ally, the USSR could not be considered as an Axis co-belligerent.
 * If we place the USSR to the right part of the infobox because of the annexation of the Baltic states and Romania, it would be even more ridiculous because that would be a first example of the belligerence without bellum: majority sources do not describe those events as a war neither de jure nor de facto.
 * If we replace the "Allies" and the "Axis" with "loosely affiliated blocs", we thereby replace co-belligerence with political alignment. In that case, we need to list the USA starting form the beginning of the war, because the US were informally politically aligned with Britain from the very beginning. However, that would be understood by the reader as the US declared a war on Germany and Japan in 1939.
 * The mainstream view of the WWII is that it was a conflict between two military blocs, so by placing the USSR into the right side of the WWII infobox we imply that its opponents were the Allies (allies aligned, future allies, etc). However, that is simply false (except for Poland), because these countries had never been the Allies voluntarily (Bulgaria, Romania and Finland had been forced to become the Allies due to the defeat from the Soviets), and most of them would become either Axis members, or de jure (Finland) or de facto (the Baltic states) Axis co-belligerents. In other words, such a proposal would be intrinsically misleading. I oppose to the change of the whole concept of the infobox just to accommodate it to some minor aspect of the WWII history.
 * A possible solution would be to the modified two bloc scheme, which would reflect the fact that before June 22, 1941 the WWII was a conglomerate of multiple unconnected local conflicts, and only after June 1941 the Grand alliance started to form. That would resolve this issue, however, at cost of violation of our neutrality policy: such a scheme would be more in accordance with the Taylor's views, which are hardly mainstream.
 * In other words, we either have to leave the infobox as it is, or to start original research to support the concept that contradicts to the current mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we replace "Axis" with "Axis and Axis-aligned", mixing actual military alliance in the war with some loose political affilations prior to the war, much more countries should be placed to the right side of the template. Poland (1935-1939, German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact), Denmark (1939-1940), Estonia (1939-1940, German–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact), Latvia (1939-1940, German–Latvian Non-Aggression Pact). Yugoslavia (joined Tripartite Pact ("Axis") in March 1941 but it did not last long). Moreover, SU should be placed to the left for the 1935-1939 period (Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance).--DonaldDuck (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-aggression pacts never were "alignment" with any of combatant. --Sambian kitten (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my initial suggestion to keep Allies and Axis, but also indicate Soviet Union separately (not as a part of Axis) in the right side for the following reasons. 1. We are not talking about "non-aggression" pacts here, but about Soviet-German aggression pact to attack third countries (the secret protocol). No one denies that it was an official agreement to attack third countries. 2. The Battles of Khalkhin Gol and Winter war were not wars against Axis, but bilateral conflicts. But I came here only to provide 3rd opinion and help establish consensus. So whatever you decide... Biophys (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You came out with no fresh arguments (except the reference to some "aggression pact" that never existed), so I do not see how could your intervention help to achieve consensus. Khalkhin Gol was a bilateral conflict simply because the Axis had not been formed by that moment. However, I see no difference between Khalkhin Gol and SSJW, which also was a bilateral conflict, however, the latter is a ground for plecement of China to the left side since 1937. And, although the Khalkhin Gol and Winter war were not the wars against the Axis, they were not the wars against the Allies either. What is the reason for placement of the USSR to the right? We already have a footnote that describes all actions of the USSR during 1939-41, and that is sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Secret protocol hadn't any obligation to attack third countries, re-read it. --Sambian kitten (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The protocol is a primary source, so we cannot interpret it. However, we have a good secondary source (Roberts, sited by me above) that states that there were no agreement (written or unwritten) between the USSR and Germany about the coordinated invasion of Poland.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you guys just deny the existence of the secret protocol or claim that it was not an agreement to attack 3rd countries ?! And there was no coordinated invasion of Poland? Biophys (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, noone wants to deny the existence of the secret protocol that divided EE into German and Soviet spheres of influence. However, reliable non-fringe sources exist that claim that, as you correctly pointed out, it was not an agreement to attack 3rd countries, and there was no coordinated invasion of Poland. I have no desire to increase the amount of non-free content on the talk page, so if you want, you will find the quotes above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So they first agreed on paper to separate Poland to the Soviet and German spheres, then actually attacked it and separated, coordinated a lot of actions (like moving troops back to the previously agreed boundary across the Poland), but there was no coordinated invasion? In fact that was a crime against peace per books I was reading... Biophys (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to re-iterate all numerous arguments and to reproduce all sources form the previous discussions. Please, read the talk page archives, and if you still will have to say something new, I will gladly address your criticism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your are exactly correct, Biophys. The notion that the USSR's invasion of Poland was, somehow, not part of WWII, and/or had nothing to do with the USSR's pact with Germany, is obviously ridiculous. NCdave (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, read, for example the books and articles of Geoffrey Roberts (cited on this talk page).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have protected this template from editing until this dispute can be resolved on this talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no new disputes here. A new editor has put forward old and poorly supported arguments without trying to familiarize himself with the arguments and facts that had been put forward previously. I think this editor should carefully read the talk page, and if upon having read that he will have to say something new we can start a new dispute. For a while, I restored the stable version of the template (which appeared to be unprotedted), and I encourage NCdave to read old arguments and join a discussion on the talk page before making any changes to the template.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pity that warning before the template is read by nobody :( --Sambian kitten (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WWII began with the Japanese conquest of much of Asia, continued with the German invasion of Austria & then Czechoslovakia by Germany, and became a truly "world" war with the German and Soviet conquest of Poland. Whether one dates the start of the "world war" phase of WWII from the first European hostilities in Austria and Czechoslovakia, or from the first shots fired against Poland, no honest and reputable historian disputes that the joint conquest of Poland by Germany and the USSR was part of WWII.


 * Here's the chronology, from a Reliable Source, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum:


 * 8/1939: "The German-Soviet Pact of August 1939, which stated that Poland was to be partitioned between the two powers, enabled Germany to attack Poland without the fear of Soviet intervention."
 * 9/1/1939: "On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland."
 * 9/3/1939: "Britain and France... declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939."
 * 9/17/1939: "The Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland on September 17, 1939.
 * 9/27/1939: "Warsaw surrendered to the Germans on September 27, 1939."


 * And, BTW, "The demarcation line for the partition of German- and Soviet-occupied Poland was along the Bug River."


 * The pity is that this Wikipedia template distorts history. NCdave (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I regret I can't join in Paul Siebert's homages to Geoffrey Roberts. While interesting reading, he is ultimately unreliable with regard to any judgement on the role of the USSR in starting WWII with Nazi Germany.


 * "We also know that the Russian originals of the secret protocols, together with associated documents, were transferred out of the archives of the Ministsy of Foreign Affairs in 1946 and placed in the hands of one of Molotov's aides. They have not been found since. In retrospect at least, Stalin and Molotov were plainly embarrassed by the pact. It also appears that the existence and content of the protocols was a secret officially known only by Stalin and Molotov.
 * "On the German side there is also a dearth of documentation on the period from [August] 21-23 There is available some memoir material which provides some clues as to the nature of the deal struck in the Kremlin between Ribbentrop, Molotov and Stalin, but this evidence is fragmentary at best and has to be treated with some caution,
 * "In truth we know very little about the precise motives and intentions of Stalin and Molotov and Hitler and Ribbentrop, save for the obvious fact that in return for staying neutral in the coming German-Polish war the USSR was promised a sphere of influence in the Baltic and in Eastern Poland.
 * " This is not the generally accepted view of the Nazi-Soviet pact, which posits that on 23 August 1939 there was a definite agreement to partition Poland between Germany and the USSR and to allow Soviet subjugation of the Baltic states. The evidence for this view is quite simply that this is what subsequently happened. However, that fact is no proof of any prior commitment. The evidence, at least on the Soviet side, is that there was no such plan, agreement or definite intention.
 * "In truth we know very little about the precise motives and intentions of Stalin and Molotov and Hitler and Ribbentrop, save for the obvious fact that in return for staying neutral in the coming German-Polish war the USSR was promised a sphere of influence in the Baltic and in Eastern Poland.
 * " This is not the generally accepted view of the Nazi-Soviet pact, which posits that on 23 August 1939 there was a definite agreement to partition Poland between Germany and the USSR and to allow Soviet subjugation of the Baltic states. The evidence for this view is quite simply that this is what subsequently happened. However, that fact is no proof of any prior commitment. The evidence, at least on the Soviet side, is that there was no such plan, agreement or definite intention.

Roberts can't have it both ways, that is, state that evidence was not recorded and then based on his personal speculation leap to the conclusion that the lack of evidence means no proof of prior commitment means (positive) evidence of no prior commitment. And in the midst of constructing this unscholarly syllogism Roberts himself admits his view is in the minority. I suggest we rely on more reliable sources. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't consider USSR as German military ally. Nothing new. --Sambian kitten (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Peters. Again, if you think Roberts is unreliable, go to WP:RSN; your persistent refusal to go there is an indication that you expect the result will be different from what you would want. Let me also point out that, per Uldrick (Teddy Uldrick. History & Memory, Volume 21, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2009, pp. 60-82), Roberts, along with Gabriel Gorodetsky, Jonathan Haslam, Derek Watson and Michael Jabara Carley, belong to the orthodox school of Western historians.
 * @NCdave. Your idea that "WWII began with the Japanese conquest of much of Asia, continued with the German invasion of Austria & then Czechoslovakia by Germany, and became a truly "world" war with the German and Soviet conquest of Poland" hardly reflects the mainstream views, and directly contradicts to the result of past mediation]. The chronology provided by you is correct, however, I do not see how it supports the views you advocate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Paul. There is a difference between "reliable" and being on the self-admitted scholarly fringe . With respect to the issue at hand, Roberts himself confirms he is out of the mainstream view, and, quite frankly, his logic is a clear demonstration of exactly why that is the case. That said, that does not mean Roberts is useless. In response to your offensive assertion regarding my motivations and expectations, you will permit me some leeway in responding that your appearing to push me into WP:RSN could be construed as your desire to validate Roberts as a reliable and mainstream source for everything he contends. Lastly, your bringing up (and pattern of doing so) what "school" certain opinions or individuals belong to in order to discredit or enhance credibility by association is utterly irrelevant. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Either of you can take Roberts to WP:RSN to get their opinion and settle the matter. Judging each others motives is unhelpful. RSNs purpose is specifically to help with such matters. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hohum, I do not have to prove opposite. Moreover, I provided a reliable source (Uldrick) that states that not only Roberts is reliable, but it is an orthodox scholar. In that situation, to go to RSN is redundant: Peters is supposed to either demonstrate that the source provided by me is incorrect (by providing another more reliable source that directly refutes what Uldrick says), or to present equally strong evidence. Regarding the Roberts' phrase Peters refers to, it is necessary to keep in mind the context this phrase has been taken from. This statement is from the Roberts' article published in 1992 (Soviet studies, v. 44, no 1, pp 57-78), immediately after the previously de-classified Soviet archives became available. Of course, Roberts' views were a revision of the Cold War views, and were treated as revisionism by him himself, but that is normal in a situation when a large amount of materials is being released, which forces historians to re-consider their old views. In any event, almost 20 years have passed since those times, and what was considered as revisionism in early 1990s has become mainstream views now. As Uldrick has written in 2010, Roberts is among the orthodox writers now, and the phrase written by him 19 years ago adds nothing to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that you have to do anything. I suggested a course of action which should put the matter to rest, whoever does it. Surely this is preferable to continued non-constructive argument. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In a situation when one side presents reliable sources and another side limits himself with just speculations we can safely conclude that the matter has been put to rest. I see nothing to discuss here, unless new concrete evidences (see above) will be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Paul really, your insistence in besmirching editors is trying my patience. Your prior post I would have gladly responded to in further discussion, but not when you follow up your contentions with these sorts of insults. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hohum, There's no train leaving the station that I need to rush to "take out" Roberts with an unreliable source body slam. Regardless, my experience has been that all the same arguments made here will just replay at WP:RSN, so I am not as sanguine as yourself regarding there being any benefit at all to going there. Paul, myself, and others will all show up, make the same arguments, and those editors that tend to agree with our POVs will all chime in and agree with us and we'll be right where we started. While painful and enervating to the outside observer, these debates usually do inch forward over time as long as we don't stoop to insulting each other or ascribing bad faith motives. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Peters, but if the prospective responce you are talking about was supposed to be made in the same vein your previous posts have been, I don't think we missed anything by not seeing it. We have reliable sources that describe Roberts as a reliable and orthodox source, we also have reliable sources that share the Roberts' views on the concrete point we are discussing (I provided full references to these sources earlier on this and other talk pages), and your attempt to represent this Roberts' idea as fringe based on one his statement that had been made 19 years ago is an example of original research. If you have to present something concrete, please do that, if not, please, stop this senseless dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there are plenty of debates with Roberts participating where his scholarly critics clearly point out he has taken a left turn, no pun intended. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. And where Roberts, Gorodetsky, et al. are concerned (re: Uldricks and including Uldricks), at best where Roberts falls in with the rest he can at best be considered to be part of a school of thought, certainly not mainstream "orthodox" as you would paint out to be. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You again restrict yourself only with considerations. Please, show at least a little respect to your opponents and present something more concrete.
 * Regarding debates, the difference between my and your positions is, as usually, as follows: you claim that the authors you disagree with are not good sources and insist on presenting of your POV as the sole existing mainstream viewpoint (which, in this particular case, is that the USSR was a Nazi ally during the first part of WWII, and that participated in the WWII on German side). By contrast, I object against that because, as the sources presented by me demonstrate, at least part of scholars directly disagree with that. However, in contrast to you, I do not propose to write that the USSR was not a German ally, I just insist that the claim that the USSR was an ally should not be in the article, because at least a part of sources disagree with that. In other words, my viewpoint is neutral, and your is not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No serious, respectable source denies that the USSR and NAZI Germany jointly subjugated Poland, nor that their invasion of Poland was part of WWII. NCdave (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends what you select as "respectable sources". "Collected Works" by Joseph Stalin present another opinion.Xx236 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, avoid repeating the same arguments. The USSR was not at war with future Allies in 1939-41. It was a neutral state. See, e.g. Gabriel Gorodetsly (The Impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1990), pp. 27-41):
 * "The pact is still veiled in myth. To prove Soviet connivance in the German aggression, Western historiography has often resorted to anecdotes such as Molotov's toasts to the successes of the Wehrmacht, the joint parade of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in Brest-Litovsk after the division of Poland, the handing over of Polish communists to Germany, the last train loaded with industrial merchandise crossing into Germany on the night of 22 June, etc. However, neither these, nor Molotov's hailing of the pact as "a turning-point in the history of Europe, and not only of Europe", should be taken at face value. Cynical and unscrupulous as Soviet policy may have been at the time, these episodes reflect the difficult position in which the Soviet Union found itself after the conclusion of the pact."
 * "Given the ever-present suspicion of a reconciliation between Britain and Germany, it is indeed doubtful whether Stalin saw in the pact as such a foolproof guarantee for Russia's western borders. Strict neutrality rather than commitment to Germany was regarded by the Russians as the crowning success of their diplomacy. This neutrality, however, remained precarious throughout the interregnum of 1939-1941. It was sapped by the Soviet benign attitude to Germany, by contemplated Allied action against Russia, and by the profound gnawing fear in the Kremlin of an impending reconciliation between Germany and England. The Russians were compelled, therefore, particularly after the fall of France, to walk a tightrope. Ultimately Stalin was forced to resort to such exceedingly subtle dual diplomacy that its meaning was often lost on his partners. His obsessive suspicion of a separate peace hampered his judgment and contributed to the paralysis which struck him as war drew nearer."
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we rally need the template? I don't. The WWII is too complicated to describe it this way. The current template may misinform or be seen as POV.
 * The world has changed since 1990, please quote recent texts.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue here seems to boil around the perception of the World War II. World War II never was a clear cut war between two opposing sides so it should not really be attempted to be handled in such a fashion. However I'm not sure how to resolve such a matter in wiki-friendly manner. Polite (non-POV) way might to be just include list of belligerents regardless of the sides they took (and changed) and then add together their losses in the casualties box. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)