Jump to content

Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact is a misleading name

To call the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a "German–Soviet Non-Aggression Pact" is misleading. A better name would be "German–Soviet Aggression Pact". The pact really meant, that Germany and Soviet did agree on carrying out aggression against neighbouring states, and that they cooperated in aggression, and that they supported each others aggression against others. Hence the name "Aggression Pact" is better. It should not matter what name was used by the Nazis and Communists/Soviets officially (for nazi- and communist internal propaganda purposes). It is better to describe something by what it really was. It was a nazi-communist aggression pact, a nazi-communist pact of aggression against others. Martin Wiss (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Wiss (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Martin Wiss: Do you have a source that uses that name, or is it something that you created? Unless a reliable source uses that name it's not something we can use here. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: I dont intend to change the name of the article. The source of the name "non-aggression pact" comes from the pact itself. The German name was "Nichtangriffsvertrag" wich means "non attack treaty" and the Russian name was "Договор о ненападении между" which means "agreement on non agression". But I think it is reasonable to mention in the text somewhere that the name "non aggression pact" is misleading. It is misleading because the source of this title, is the nazi and communist regimes themselves. And it is important to know that the title of the pact is part of both nazi and communist propaganda, and only represents the nazi and communist perspective. It is reasonable to mention that even though the title says "non aggression pact" the pact did actually mean that the signing parties supported each other in carrying out aggression towards other nations. And hence the pact can be regarded as a "pact of agression".
@Martin Wiss: The 'German–Soviet non-aggression pact' describes how the two signatories would not be aggresive against each other. The consequences of their secret agreement to coordinate aggression against the unfortunate countries and peoples in between them is covered in the subsection Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact#Consequences in Finland, Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. In line with your thinking, that section could aptly be renamed to 'Aggression against Finland, Poland, the Baltic States and Romania'. I would consider that an improvement. Lklundin (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Martin Wiss: I understand you don't want to change the title; you would still need a source to use that name in the article. Unless a source describes how the name is misleading, it isn't our job to tell readers that, they should draw their own conclusions. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: @Lklundin: Here are some of the sources that I refer to: 1) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/information-on-the-history-of-latvia/the-occupation-of-latvia-aspects-of-history-and-international-law (see the text: Historians frequently refer to the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Treaty as a "pact of aggression") 2) The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/gerard-henderson/war-pact-between-the-nazis-and-stalin-left-out-of-history/news-story/1b6787c20363cd7dc1578fd05f2de21c (see the text: At the time, the line out of Berlin and Moscow presented the Nazi-Soviet deal as a “non-­aggression pact”. It was nothing of the kind. On August 23, 1939, Hitler and Stalin agreed to a pact of aggression that divided eastern Europe between the Nazi totalitarian regime in Berlin and the communist totalitarian regime in Moscow. Almost immediately after the signing ceremony Germany invaded Poland from the west while the Soviet Union invaded from the east.) 3) Encyclopaedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/20th-century-international-relations-2085155/The-origins-of-World-War-II-1929-39 (see the text: This nonagression pact was in fact a pact of aggression against Poland, which was to be partitioned). I am not sure how to edit the text so that this perspective (i.e. the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a "pact of aggression") is represented. Is someone willing to help edit the text? I think it is important that not only the nazi- and soviet/communist-perspective is represented in the text. I wonder if it could be possible to start the article like this: "The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Nazi–Soviet Pact[1], the German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact[2][3] or the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Aggression[4][5][6]". The name "Pact of Aggression" could then be explained further down in the text, in the subsection Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact#Consequences in Finland, Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. Martin Wiss (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: @Lklundin: @Denniss: Would be happy if someone could comment the sources mentioned above. Do you think the sources are reliable and OK? I don't mean that the pact should be referred to only as "a pact of aggression". I simply mean that the pact is referred to as a "pact of aggression" by some countries, historians, people. The Latvian source mention that "Historians frequently refer to the Treaty as a "pact of aggression". And following are two examples of sources that refer to the pact as such. What I mean is, that the pact was a "pact of non-aggression" only for the Nazi/German and Soviet/Russian perspective, but it was a "pact of aggression" from the perspective of the countries located between Germany and Soviet union. I think this article can represent many perspectives, not only the German/Nazi and Soviet/Communist perspectives. Martin Wiss (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It's usually called the Nazi-Soviet Pact. It was obviously not a non-aggression pact as it enabled Germany and the Soviet Union to invade Poland in 1939. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:9CCE:9AEA:2A91:1C09 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC))

Yugoslavia was no Soviet satellite state !

Yugoslavia kind of deliberated themselves under Joseph Broz Tito. Here Stalin got nowhere. It became a Socialist non-democratic state, but it was never any kind of satellite-state as the illustration suggests. The degree of Communism also was lower, and smaller (or tiny, at least) companies were encouraged. And Yugoslavia was never a part of the Warsaw Pact. I think the situation in Albania was somewhat different (and very closed), but neither that country was a WP-member or Satellite. Boeing720 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Event leading to WW2

First I doubt that the Spanish Civil war had much to do with the outbreak of WW2 itself. But what I feel to be awkward indeed is Battle of Britain etc. The Battle of Britain was a part of WW2. The Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was the very last part, before the war began. One could possible argue that it didn't became a World War until two days later. Anyways, 99% (or more) of all authors set the date to 1.September.1939. Germany's attack on Poland. This also includes American authors naturally. Boeing720 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Amateur Negationist ?

What does this mean ? What is a 'negationist' ? Is it like a 'holocaust denier', apparently a new and contemporary occupation, with amateur and professional divisions ? David Irving is described on Wikipedia as a 'holocaust denier', even before listing his other occupations, e.g. author, historian etc. Is a 'negationist' some kind of revisionist historian, i.e. someone trying to flog a career and reputation out of a thoroughly dead horse by resurrecting it as a deconstructed onager, or what have you ? And what qualifies one as merely an 'amateur' negationist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:C8EE:E143:9AFE:F861 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Should probably be renamed and linked to Historical negationism --Denniss (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Post-war commentary regarding the motives of Stalin and Hitler section

I think this section is a violation of NPOV. This policy tells that segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. This section present "facts" (i.e. the opinion of Nekrich and similar scholars) in the main part, whereas other opinions are ghettoized in this section. The content of this section should be combined with the main narrative, because our policy directly says: "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." By the way, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, a discussion of whether the pact was an alliance should be discussed too, maybe, in a separate subsection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That does not look like a POV problem for me. Saying that, if anyone wants to use these materials in other sections, they are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a problem of your understanding of NPOV policy, which is crystal-clear about that--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I re-wrote the section as follows. Upon having thought about the question raised by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I came to a conclusion that the overall structure of the article is not neutral. In particular, I think the "Post-war commentary..." section is a violation of NPOV. This policy tells that segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. This section present "facts" (i.e. the opinion of Nekrich and similar scholars) in the main part, whereas other opinions are ghettoized in this section. The content of this section should be combined with the main narrative, because our policy directly says: "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.".

In connection to that, I propose to use the Ericson's article as a good framework for presentation of facts and opinions. In his article "Karl Schnurre and the Evolution of Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1936-1941" (Author(s): Edward E. Ericson, III. Source: German Studies Review, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May, 1998), pp. 263-283. Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the German Studies Association Stable URL: [1] he writes:

"Depending on the historiographical school of thought (Soviets as peace-loving, as reluctant appeasers, as cautious expansionists, or as aggressive ideologues), the Nazi-Soviet relationship during the late thirties has been presented alternately as follows: (1) The Soviet Union as the friend of Collective Security and the League of Nations rebuffed the German advances. (2) The Soviet Union preferred to cooperate with the West in securing peace but was willing to listen to German proposals because of Western appeasement. (3) The Soviet Union preferred to expand its territory in alliance with other dissatisfied powers, such as Nazi Germany, but found itself fitfully cooperating with the West because of Hitler's intransigence. (4) The Soviet Union pressed for an agreement in order to use Nazi Germany to foment war and thereby export revolution and expand the USSR, but was rejected by the Germany."

Ericson notes that ## 1 and 4 are more or less extreme viewpoints, and he himself believes in #3.

He continues:

" Again, historians offer a variety of explanations for the developing Nazi-Soviet alliance in the summer and fall of 1939. The pro-Soviet position is that Stalin, fearful of a German attack and rejected by the West, made a last-minute decision to cooperate with the Nazis in order to buy time before the inevitable showdown. The "reluctant appeaser" approach argues that the Soviets preferred to cooperate with the West, but fell in with the Nazis after it appeared that the Allies were not serious about standing up to Hitler. The "cautious expansionist" school contends that the Nazis had more to offer the Soviets (territory, machines, perhaps even a "capitalist war") and that the ever-opportunistic Stalin was willing to work with France and England but preferred to use the West in order to drive up the price in his on going negotiations with Germany. Finally, the preventive-war theorists believe that Stalin wanted a deal with Hitler in order to use Germany as a stalking horse for war and revolution."

In summary, using the Ericson's summary, all four schools of thought should be described, and ##2&3 should be presented in details, because many authors, including Roberts, Carley, Watson favour #2, whereas Haslam's position seems to be a mixture #2&3. Currently, the narrative relies moctly on Nekrich and similar authors, who believed Stalin sincerely wanted an alliance with Hitler. That should be fixed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

MMP

The disambiguation MMP points here since this edit in 2014. Is that correct? ◄ Sebastian 13:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

the Soviet Union invision was on the 17th of september

That implies Fall Weiss was the joint invasion which is obviously not true. Fall Weiss was an exclusively German plan, and the USSR was not informed about its details (even about the start date). In 8 September, Ribbentrop send a telegram to Stalin where he was asking what the Soviet plan to do with "their" part of Poland. That means no previous agreement existed on that account. Ribbentrop was event threatening that if the USSR would not take Eastern Poland under its control, Germany would have to do that by itself. All of that was a demonstration that no joint invasion occurred.Jack90s15 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


The Polish armed forces hoped to hold out long enough so that an offensive could be mounted against Germany in the west, but on September 17 Soviet forces invaded from the east and all hope was lost. The next day, Poland’s government and military leaders fled the country. On September 28, the Warsaw garrison finally surrendered to a relentless German siege. That day, Germany and the USSR concluded an agreement outlining their zones of occupation. For the fourth time in its history, Poland was partitioned by its more powerful neighbors.Jack90s15 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-invade-poland

We should discuss the word alliance here

Some sources refer to this as alliance. Of course, this is not universally accepted, but I think we should note the fact that the word 'alliance' has been used to describe it (we can of course discuss why this is not fully correct, etc.). For a sample source, just look at the title of this book: Roger Moorhouse (21 August 2014). The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4481-0471-0. (again, the book has generated it's share of controversy, but as a source that uses the term 'alliance' in this context it should not be problematic). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 10 June 2018

(UTC)

I think, the word "alliance" is no less allegory than "devils". If it was an alliance, why Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR after invasion of Poland? Why there were no military support of the USSR by Germany during the Winter war, why Hitler considered occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR as a hostile act?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, I agree, this must be included. It was in fact an alliance, this is the essence of the Pact. And BTW, "Devils' Alliance" does not meant that participants are devils, you are wrong about it, Paul. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
In English, "devils' alliance" means "an alliance of devils". If "devils" refers to an alliance, not to the participants, the alliance is called a "diabolic alliance".
However, I agree that one historical school considers MRP an alliance, and that can and should be discussed. I'll think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... Stalin said: "The Devil's on my side, he's a good Communist." [2]. He said. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you propose us to rely on primary sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not saying the term alliance is correct. My point is, it is a term that is occasionally used, and we should say so. Since I indeed lean towards agreeing with Paul that use is incorrect, I'd also support discussing this term in its own section which would explain why the term alliance is incorrect. Paul, would you like to take a stab at stubbing such a section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am thinking about that, but I am not sure I can do it right now. I need to refresh my memory and to read some sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, I'd like to revisit this. Do you have any thoughts? For now, from our current references: 1) Roger, Moorhouse. The devils' alliance: Hitler's pact with Stalin, 1939-41 - the term is used in the very title 2) "See Secret in Accord: Dr. Harper Says Stalin-Hitler Pact May Prove an Alliance". New York Times - granted, it's 1939 journalism, but it is already cited here. And few other refs: 1) Geoffrey Roberts (1989). The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-127-5. - uncited 2) [3] "not only rapacious Nazi Germany but also Stalin's “peace-loving” empire very much benefited from the alliance with the other Devil" [this is in reference to the MRP 3) [4] "the Russians were prepared to stand by their new alliance with Germany For the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was much" 5) not sure if this is self-published [5] "Soviet-German conflictive alliance (1939–1941)" 6) [6] "(1939−1941) the German-Soviet alliance was politically" 7) [7] "The rather abrupt termination of the Soviet-German alliance in 1941 " 8) [8] " the original Soviet–German alliance recorded in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" 9) [9] " variety of explanations for the developing Nazi-Soviet alliance in the summer and fall of 1939" 10) [10] " 'A cruel romance': the Nazi-Soviet alliance and Soviet expansion...' (chapter or figure title?) 11) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2145392?casa_token=tB0Io1gZevAAAAAA:xhTxCPLbrothYWsCiL9mhuqA4nE5ydJz3ZZKMGx_NKHoDMAeie-A6tMxnRIW_1jez5Q_LfWhskD5vyHJ8xl7g2-G2uUuqPqauw2cletkMRLOPJWc1d0 "from the break of the Nazi-Soviet alliance to 1948 " 12) [11] "the period of the Nazi-Soviet Alliance" 13) [12] " In view of the Nazi-Soviet alliance the resettlement was" 14) [13] "The German-Soviet alliance of 1939 made an impact on Australian political life" . There are more than those. The point is that our article should simply say that such a term is sometimes used. Bonus if we can find sources discussing whether this term is correct or not (I found one that explicitly criticized it: [14] "Gorodetsky shows that there was no Nazi-Soviet "alliance" between 1939 and 1941, only a marriage of convenience based on short term territorial advantages and security.")


The term "alliance" is out of place here -- even if it appears in documents signed by the parties. An alliance involves common purposes, common goals, parties acting in concert, etc. The goal(s) of the two parties here did not involve them acting together in unison. The purpose was to (temporarily) keep the two parties from warring with each other...while each one picked up smaller territories that were available given the collapse of the continental balance of power. Two vultures feasting on carrion at the same time are not "allies" -- even if they have a tacit understanding not to peck each other while doing it. If anything -- this is Nazi Germany offering a payoff for non-action by the USSR. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hermann Rauschning: Hitler Speaks

Hermann Rauschning's book Hitler Speaks, is a fake. See for example Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1889–1936, p. xiv; The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, p. 1162; Henning Köhler, Deutschland auf dem Weg zu sich selbst. Eine Jahrhundertgeschichte., Stuttgart 2002, p. 338. It is not citeable, the sentence quoted in the article is not authentic. Phi (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Added a book by Ian Kershaw to replace it.Driverofknowledge (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad edit and no citation.

Under the 'Soviet–German relations' section, 3rd point "Summer deterioration of relations," the penultimate paragraph is:

In the United States, "The leftists, of course, included the Communist Party, which during the 1939–1941 era of the Nazi-Soviet pact, was slavish in its effort to appease Hitler and sabotage the Allied cause and American preparedness. Their soul mate in Congress was Vito Marcantonio of New York's American Labor Party. Despite opposition from the left and the right, American aid continued to make a short war unlikely.

Not only is this hasty or unfinished, but it lacks a citation, and a quick google search did not find any threads to where this came from. Just wanted to point this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aofp2020 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Soviet war with Finland and Katyn massacre

The subsection 'Soviet war with Finland and Katyn massacre' combines the two subjects as if they're related, although there is little or no thematic or geographic connection between them. Unless anyone objects, I would like to split that subsection into two. (The same goes possibly for other subsections in that section, too.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noah Delgadillo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill

Of high relevance is that US President Theodore Roosevelt died after the Yalta Conference with Winston Churchill (and Joseph Stalin), and we believe the accounts of post World War II are highly inaccurate due to that fact. Documents from that period in Polish history in native language which are startling given Polish lands considered as frontiers in Europe! Julia Centka Bien of Poland WWI immigration to US already had five children as veterans from WWII! 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:359F:B8F0:24A2:9352 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2000:3EF3:359F:B8F0:24A2:9352 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that or something, I am struggling to see the relevance of your statements to the topic of the Pact. Theodore Roosevelt died in 1919, just FYI. As far as FDR (the wheelchair polio duy), how is him dying after the pact lost all relevance supposed to affect this article? AzzAzeL-US (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Soviet - Nazi Germany non-aggression pact time line

The timeline in this page of treaty negotiations starting on 22 August and concluded the day after, after factually incorrect and constitute Russian propaganda. It contradicts other parts of this page. The preparation negotiations were done by Nazi Germany’s Ambassador to Russia Graf Von der Schulenberg and started with a invitation by Molotov to Schulenberg on May 20th 1939 and a draft version exists from August 19th. The treaty was finalized between August 14th - august 23th 1939. Source translated German documents https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/nazsov.asp

During that periode the negotiations with the Allied forces were still ongoing but became pointless after ratification of treaty by the Duma a week later followed the next day by the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. Benji Bloom (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact/Archive_10&oldid=1221478363"