Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Weasel wording

I'm perplexed by this tagging. Negotiations would consist of proposals and counter-proposals. How is this a "weaseling"? And to be so tagged would also imply that's not how the source described events. Is that at issue here? Thanks! (No rush, just asking). VЄСRUМВА  ☎  16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Peters. I wanted to introduce the weasel words not weasel template. Fixed.
With regards to weasel wording, to say that negotiations involved more trading of proposals and counterprosals means to say that negotiations proceeded in usual way, in other words, to say nothing. Meanwhile, these weasel words conceal the fact that during that time very concrete and very important issues were being discussed, and a real opportunity existed to sign a full scale anti-German political alliance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba is correct. In fact, you can't get any more straight forward -- any less "weasel wordy -- than the text "In June and July, the Tripartite negotiations involved more trading of proposals and counterproposals." Given that no description matching WP:Weasel is given above, this tag is unwarranted.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I can. Instead of wasting space for vague phrases I introduced concrete information.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to go light on deleting sources and facts in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't think the phrase " In June and July, the Tripartite negotiations involved more trading of proposals and counterprosals" to bear so specific and controversial information to be supported by three independent sources. Taking into account that the phrase "The Tripartite discussions progressed with offers and counteroffers" is already present in the previous section, the sentence you re-inserted carries virtually no information. Therefore I don't think I deleted anything important. Instead of that, I added concrete facts about the negotiations (that the main negotiations started in June), leaving one of three sources (Watson) there (two others are redundant). In summary, I didn't delete sources or facts, I added them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Re-wording of my awkward English is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the section you were talking, and I am sorry, but I simply could not abstain to edit it. I am afraid that whoever wrote it, first wrote the same thing in another language. The person was relatively unfamiliar with the English article "the", the absence of which made some expressions, IMHO, super-confusing. Also the person preferred to write x's y even in contexts where that is clearly problematic to the reader, while a much more clear y of x was not used. I am afraid that the editor has written that so many times that he became super-familiar with everything, and did not notice his wording was confusing. So my edit consists of 3 things:

• These kinds of English copyedits, and general clarity copyedits
• Split into two sections: Soviet-British-French and Soviet-German negotiations. While reading the section as it was I stumbled upon a sentence that suggested to me that Soviet-German negotiations were Tripartite (when talking about August), and frenetically searched for the mysterious third power :) I am a little bit familiar with the subject, so it was a real frustration to me to search this party in negotiations. Interestingly, all links are written in much more clear English than was the WP text. When I realized that I am not dreaming [indeed the was no third power and the "Tripartite" referred to the other negotiation], it triggered me to edit [I know, I am trigger-edit-happy :) I've always been like that when I see non-sense.] While editing I realized there is a simpler way: do not unnecessarily mix the two negotiations.
• I added one sentence, the very last one in the S-B-F section. It is sourced by one of the refs already present, it is almost word-by-word from that source, and I humbly believe it gives up a nice conclusion to that section.Dc76\^talk 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I did not touch anything you were arguing about. Dc76\^talk 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dc76, I am not a native English speaker and I appreciate any copy edit of what I write. With regards to your proposal to "split into two sections: Soviet-British-French and Soviet-German negotiations." I wholeheartedly support it. The present article text was a result to our long and hard discussion with Mosedschurte who tried to combine these two talks together, whereas I supported the opposite point of view. According to the sources available for me (Watson, Roberts, Carley etc) political rapprochement between Germany and the USSR started only after July 28, whereas full scale political consultations and then political negotiations betweem the UK, France and the USSR started almost immediately after occupation of Czechoslovakia. In addition, to my opinion, the Germano-Soviet economical talks (or even the talks about a possibility of talks) should be excluded from the article (or just mentioned very briefly).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I chron'd the above Dc76 edits (keeping the sections separate) as some of the sections ended up in reverse chron order, and de-duped duplicated events and text -- and decreased confusion by concurrent events discussed separately -- by merging the August events into one section. The text that "to my opinion, the Germano-Soviet economical talks (or even the talks about a possibility of talks) should be excluded from the article" seems beyond bizarre given all of the prior discussions and sources on this event so thoroughly wrapped up in the negotiations (discussed at length above), and if anything it probably should require a more thorough discussion, but that's for another day.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the combined Dc76's and Mosedschurte's work is a considerable improvement. However, some problems still exists.

1. I would propose to fix the para:

"Starting in mid-March 1939, the Soviet Union, Britain and France (the "Tripartite" group) traded a flurry of suggestions and counterplans regarding a potential political and military agreement.[31] Although informal consultations commenced in April, the main negotiations began only in May.[31] Germany and the Soviet Union had discussed entering into an economic deal throughout early 1939.[32] For months, Germany had secretly hinted to Soviet diplomats that it could offer better terms for a political agreement than Britain and France.[33][34][35] The contrasting attitudes towards the negotiation partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement Aimed against the Western democracies."

There are some problems with this para. First, the last sentence is misplaced, so, taken out of context, it creates an impression that the source implies the USSR conducted a double policy. However, the source (Watson) states literally the following:

"The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of 'capitalist encirclement', had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies." Clearly, connecting together the Watson's statement and German hints is WP:OR, so I would propose to re-group the para.

2. In connection to that, the sentence: "The contrasting attitudes towards the negotiation partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement Aimed against the Western democracies" should be complemented with the Robert's statements "that Moscow neither responded to nor made any overtures to the Germans until the end of July 1939 at the earliest". (Geoffrey Roberts Review: On Soviet-German Relations: The Debate Continues. A Review Article. Reviewed work(s): Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations, 1922-1941 by Aleksandr M.Nekrich. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 8 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1471-1475)

3. The sentence: "France, as a continental power, was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than Britain, which was more willing to make concessions and more for of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany." should be probably modified to: "France, as a continental power, was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than Britain, more willing to make concessions and more aware of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany." That would reflect the source (Watson) more correctly (the source states:"The French, as a continental power needing military help on land, rather than at sea and in the air as desired by Britain, were always more anxious for an agreement with the USSR than the British and took the lead in re-establishing contact in the spring of 1939. In the negotiations they let the British make the running, but when discussions reached an impasse they often urged compromise on them. The French were more willing to make concessions, more anxious to conclude an agreement quickly, and more aware of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany") I also would be grateful if one of you reworded the sentence to avoid accusations in plagiarism.

4. The sentence:"The Tripartite discussions progressed with offers and counteroffers" should be modified to something concrete, e.g. to say about the discussions on a simultaneous military convention to come into force at the same time as the political agreement, as well as on a reciprocity of such an agreement (source: Watson, page 698).

5. And, finally, the linkage between the impasse in the triple negotiation and intensification of Soviet-German contacts should be stressed. The date when Molotov authorized Soviet ambassador in Berlin to start open discussion about political rapprochement (28 July) should be stated clearly.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To Dc76. With regards to your comments on the Baltic issue, I explain it as follows: the USSR feared that Estonia and Latvia, who were deeply hostile towards the USSR, could establish closer political relations with Hitler, so the latter would be able to attack Soviet territory via these two Baltic states. The USSR proposed to consider Estonia's and Latvia's political turn towards Germany as "indirect agression". Britain opposed to that, because it could be used by the USSR as a pretext for interference into these to countries' domestic affair. The dispute over indirect aggression lead to de facto cessation of the negotiations in late July, followed by Nazi-Soviet political rapprochement. The quotes are below:

Watson: "At his 11 May interview with the French ambassador Molotov stressed that it was important to the Soviet government that Estonia, Latvia and Finland should be given the same guarantee as Poland and Romania. These three Baltic states had a border with the Soviet Union whilst Lithuania did not. He also raised the issue of assisting states which had made a nominal agreement with Germany, making clear that the USSR was determined to prevent the use of the technique of internal subversion, employed so successfully by Hitler against Austria and Czechoslovakia."

Molotov's definition of "indirect aggression"

"action accepted by any of the [listed] states under threat of force by another Power, or without any such threat, involving the use of territory and forces of the state in question for purposes of aggression against that state or against one of the contracting parties"

British reaction:

"The British government objected to the phrase 'without any such threat', fearing that this permitted the USSR to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Finland; and also 'against that state', which might allow Soviet intervention in the event of a coup d'etat overthrowing an existing government".

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong casual linkage

The sentence "Meanwhile, political discussions in the Tripartite negotiations were suspended, and were to be resumed only after progress was made in the planned military talks." seems to break the casual linkage. According to Watson, on 17 July Molotov "asked whether the French and British were willing to open military negotiations immediately, stressing that the simultaneous entry into force of political and military agreements was the priority of the Soviet government, making agreement on the precise wording of the political treaty a 'technical matter of secondary importance' " (page 710). In other words, not the delay in political negotiations was caused by the need to achieve the military agreement, but the military negotiations started to fill the pause in the political talks. I agree that Shirer's book was excellent, and the Shirer was a brilliant journalist, but this book is 60 years old...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about clarity. (I am passing no judgement about sources.) But 3 lines IMHO is too long. Could you propose a shortening, pls. Feel free to do it directly in the article (I assume we are applying friendly WP:BRD). Dc76\^talk 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As a general guideline (but not any kind of rule), let's attempt to refrain from adding more negotiation material to this article, and instead place it in Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations to the extent it is not already there. That article focuses upon talk details and reasoning therein. The negotiation material in this article previously had ballooned up to a size in relation to the other material that it necessitated the creation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations as is described here. The Negotiations section in this article is already now up to 9.1KB of Wikitext. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem to limit the negotiation materials in this article provided that only the most essential points are given, and they are presented correctly. The above sentence is simply wrong, and I provided the quote from a reliable source (available both to you and me) that states that the situation was inverse: Molotov proposed to start to work on the military agreement to fill the pause in political negotiations. Therefore, we don't speak about addition of more negotiation materials here, we speak about replacement of the wrong statement with the correct one. If you have any ideas about correct and concise wording, feel free to introduce it into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Paul Siebert, I am sorry for my harsh criticism about clarity. My friends always tell me "the worse is to be criticized by you" :)
2. Mosedschurte is right about me mixing chronological order. I am sorry about that, and I am sorry to have put additional effort upon you to redo that section.
3. [1] albeit it can not be seen, because there is too much red, the only changes are 5 added wikilinks and a couple clarifying words, such as "At the same time, throughout the early 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union had discussed entering into an economic deal." (this is the new version)
4. I agree with Mosedschurte about focusing on Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations. This section should be a faithful summary of that article. Let me allow you two to edit and I will watch, and I will only make copyedit changes for more clarity (if there would be the case). I am not so knowledgeable as to the details of who negotiated and how in 1939, and I don't have access to JSTOR at home, so I will refrain from deeper contributions. Dc76\^talk 05:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You "harsh" criticism is a praise as compared with what I sometimes read on WP pages. Don't worry, everything is fine. Your interference really improved the article. With regards to "faithful summary", I fully agree with that. My only point is that the summary must be really faithful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, ok :)

About faithfulness. Perhaps we should start with Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, as Mosedschurte says. I suggest you two to edit there, then ask an outsider to read both the summary here and that article, and say whether in his/her opinion it's ok or not (and if not, what is different). You seem to be raising a lot of issues that once addressed here would necessitate to go back there and change there as well. So, IMHO, Mosedschurte is right, we (you) should concentrate more on what's there. Is that article (close to) perfect? (I don't know, I only started reading it, it wasn't on my watchlis before today.) Dc76\^talk 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. [2] No, the part with Britain and Soviet Union is very clear. The problem is "while France was less resistant to the supplement". What was France's position? Also see a few sentences earlier, where similarly British and French did not have the exact same attitude towards USSR in negotiations. It is also unclear what the difference between B and F's approach was. Dc76\^talk 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

France was a junior member of the Franco-British tandem, so it's position was less pronounced, less important and not completely independent. In other words it belongs to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations.
With regards to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, this article was created by Mosedschurte after our fierce debates over this article. All disputable interpretations have been moved there, so any attempt to start work on that article will renew long and fruitless discussions, and I would prefer to spend my time for something else. To my opinion, it would be better to come to agreement about major points, in other words, to start with this article, and then to bring the daughter Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations in accordance with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fierce debates? wow! over what? You seemed to me to have collaborated just fine today.

From my experience, it is more easy to settle the "daughter" articles first, as there one can lay down all details. Making summaries is more controversial, because something would inevitably be left out, and somebody would want to reinsert that, and with/without something things can easier by pushed towards one or other POV. However, before addressing the daughter articles, IMHO, it is helpful to set the general structure of the main article, so as to understand in which article what info goes. This seems to have been done long ago in this article. Now, coming back to this article, is there anything major that needs to be changed structure-wise, like addition of a new section, etc? If not, then I am more inclined to look into the daughter articles, and as you fix them one by one, make slight edits here. Of course, I am only speaking from my personal view and experience on WP, i.e. related to the articles I edited.Dc76\^talk 06:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can explain. Mosedschurte seems to be a proponent of the theory that the rapprochement between the USSR and Nazi Germany started earlier than many scholars believe, and that this rapprochement was deeper than many think. Since the available sources are not sufficient to support these views unequivocally, he mixedtogether economical talks, and early rumors about a possibility of Nazi-Soviet contacts, with the real information about full scale triple alliance negotiations to create an impression that Soviet-German and Triple negotiations took place concurrently from the very beginning. Since only we two are involved into the work on this article, it is very hard to get a way out of an impasse. That is why I am very interested in any new opinions on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea to set a general structure of the article is excellent. I believe it would be much easier to come to agreement about the details when a consensus is achieved about the major points.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested to argue on the substance of the disagreements between you too just now. :) When discussing individual details I might pass I thought here and there. Unfortunately I am deeply involved in a wiki project at the moment, and do not have yet the adequate physical time to help here to the extent i wish i could. For this reason, it is obvious I can't help you resolve many things. Maybe in the fall, but not in September. To read the article and express a few thoughts on some details is simple, but there is a huge way from that to full scale involvement in such an article. Please, understand.

So what in your opinion needs to be changed in this article structure-wise? Suppose I am intelligent enough to understand (not necessarily also to agree about) an issue once it is explained to me in short, but not knowleadgeable enough to notice something is missing. Dc76\^talk 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Well, I can explain. Mosedschurte seems to be a proponent of the theory that the rapprochement between the USSR and Nazi Germany started earlier than many scholars believe, and that this rapprochement was deeper than many think." (Paul Siebert)

• Not just a flat out lie, but a stunning lie given my very specific statements to the contrary (just when I thought he'd quit), but nothing's new there. I'm not really interested in discussions re mischaracterizations anyway, or being dragged back into some nastiness.
• Dc76, might I suggest you read back through the Talk page archives to take in the WP:Fringe positions, quotes out of context, etc. That's all I'm going to say on the matter at the moment. I haven't really looked through them, but keep in mind dicussions such as these (in the troubling department), these (in the amusing department) and these.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "From my experience, it is more easy to settle the "daughter" articles first, as there one can lay down all details. " (Dc76)

• Dead on instincts here, DC. As an aside, also read through Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, look at all of the information NOT included from there here, and included in virtually every source on the matter discussing these situations, and it's not particularly difficult to realize why this article already lacks much of it if you read through the Talk page discussions herein.
• In short, though this really probably isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, I essentially drafted (or didn't revert edits of) text in this article that now does not summarize much of the most frequently cited information of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations just to avoid more protracted Edit Warring in this article from the above editor. Bluntly, I sort of gave in out of exhaustion in this article, while trying to keep it mildly factual and devoid of fringe theories. If anything, this secton could use some improvement, but the improvements would involve summarizing in a fwe clauses some of the most cited historical facts that, believe me from experience (and it doesn't matter how many sources say it) will draw more edit warring here. It's probably not worth the effort given that the negotiations are really just a sub-issue of the Pact and they are now covered in their own article.
• Much of that is just a roundabout way of adding another reason for agreement with you about focusing additional negotiation material on the daughter/sub-article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To Dc76. You probably misunderstood me. I didn't ask for help, just for a third opinion. In addition, since you yourself asked over what fierce debate took place, so I explained the problem as I see it.

Thanks to Mosedschurte, the article generally is in a quite good shape. However, some problems still exist, so it would be great to have a third opinion if our dispute with Mosedschurte will be resumed.

To Mosedschurte. You problem is that you never explained your position openly and frankly. Sometimes you write what your position is not. However, to conduct a discussion, it is absolutely necessary to understand the opponent's position, and I am trying to restore your position based on what your white in comments and how do you edit the articles. If my conclusions are wrong then it is you to blame: I was repeatedly proposing you to discuss general points (before going into details), but you refused to do so.
With regards to your wording "Not just a flat out lie, but a stunning lie given my very specific statements to the contrary", that is not a big surprise for me, that is your usual, highly uncivil manner to conduct a discussion. However, I propose you to try to remember that we are civilised men, so we can and have to use more polite words, and we can and have to assume each other's good faith. In connection to that, could you please answer my question: if I described your position incorrectly, what is your actual point of view on a timing and the extent of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement and collaboration?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. And, going back to the initial point, one more concrete question. In the beginning of the section I pointed out that casual linkage has been violated in the article and provided a source in support of my statement. Do you mind me to restore the broken casual linkage or you prefer to do it by yourself?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PPS. It seems to me that it would be more productive to discuss the remaining disputable details on the talk page and after that to modify the article accordingly. I don't want to inflate the article or to rearrange it considerably, because, as I already wrote, the article is generally in a good shape. However, some errors should be fixed and some emphases should be shifted. If you are inclined to discuss, let's start.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The rise to power of the Nazi Party increased tensions between Germany...

The phrase: "The rise to power of the Nazi Party increased tensions between Germany" sounds odd.
Before Nazis the relations between Germany and the USSR were good, at least, much better than with other European powers, and only after 1933 a sharp turn took place. See, e.g. E.H.Carr, From Munich to Moscow "The understanding between the U.S.S.R. and Germany lasted till 1934; what finally broke it was Hitler's pact with Poland in January of that year."
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Pre-August Tripartite negotiations

"The Soviet Union feared Western powers and the possibility of a "capitalist encirclements", had little faith either that war could be avoided, or faith in the Polish army, and wanted guaranteed support for a two-pronged attack on Germany."

The sentence sounds ambiguous: it looks like that the war with a "capitalist encirclements" (including France and the UK) could not be avoided.

"Britain and France believed that war could still be avoided, and that the Soviet Union, weakened by the Great Purge, could not be a main military participant."

Repetition: could be avoided (1st sentence) - could be avoided (2nd sentence).

"France was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than was Britain; as a continental power, it was more willing to make concessions, more fearful of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany."

Good.

"There were contrasting attitudes towards the negotiation by the Soviets and the West. From very beginning, the Soviets proposed to sign full political and military tripartite agreements, whereas British insisted on a less comprehensive political treaty that would allow the UK to limit her commitment. Comentators and historians have charged the Soviet Union with playing a double game in 1939: carrying open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France, whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies."

The logical connection between the first and second sentences is unclear. In addition, the Watson's statement is taken out of context: one of his article's point is that in actuality the USSR played no double game until late July (or even later). It should be stated that the deep mistrust between the UK/France and the USSR created an impression that the USSR had been playing a double game. In addition, the Overy's opinion (who blamed Chamberlain's cabinet in the negotiations' failure) should be mentioned.

(In my opinion, the Litinov's dismissal sentence should be moved here, because it equally related to both triple and Soviet-German talks. Molotov was the major negotiator during the tripartite talks, so his appointment is relevant to this section.)

"By the end of May drafts were formally presented. In mid-June the main Tripartite negotiations started. The discussion was focused on "the guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise". The negotiations reached a sticking point. The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an "indirect aggression" towards the Soviet Union. Britain opposed to that, because they feared it could justify the Soviets to intervene in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany."

Not the best wording. In addition, some logical linkage is missing. I would propose the following version:

"By the end of May drafts were formally presented. In mid-June the main Tripartite negotiations started. The discussion was focused on "the guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise". The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an "indirect aggression" towards the Soviet Union. Britain opposed to that, because they feared it could justify the Soviets to intervene in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany. Discussion on indirect aggression became a sticking point, and by mid June political negotiation effectively stalled."

"From the beginning of the negotiations, it became clear that the Soviet position required the West to agree to let Soviets occupy Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania . Finland, as well, was to be included in Soviet sphere of influence."

This sentence came from the old version of the article. It directly contradicts to the previous sentence: if it was clear from the very beginning that the USSR requested from the Western powers to authorize occupation of the Baltic stated, why had they been discussing the "indirect aggression" issue for almost two months? To my opinion, this sentence is just a blatant oversimplification of what Watson says. It should be either deleted or moved to the "Controversy" section.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with about half of what you say. The other half, there are some smaller nuances. So, I just went on to edit those nuances. I guess you can easily follow. Dc76\^talk 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-August Soviet-German negotiations?

Here is a quote form Mosedschurte:

Re: "Well, I can explain. Mosedschurte seems to be a proponent of the theory that the rapprochement between the USSR and Nazi Germany started earlier than many scholars believe, and that this rapprochement was deeper than many think." (Paul Siebert)

• Not just a flat out lie, but a stunning lie given my very specific statements to the contrary (just when I thought he'd quit), but nothing's new there. I'm not really interested in discussions re mischaracterizations anyway, or being dragged back into some nastiness.

As we can see, he refused to recognize that he is a proponent of the theory that the rapprochement between the USSR and Nazi Germany started earlier than many scholars believe.
It is known that no documentary sources exist about pre-August Soviet-German negotiations, and the section in its present form doesn't tell about any political negotiations (we leave economic talks beyond the scope because, although their brief mentioning fully justified here, they belong to another article.) For that reason I replaces negotiations with consultations. However, Mosedschurte reverted my edit.
Similarly, he moved back the sentence on Litvinov's dismissal, although this sentence is equally relevant to both sections. Since the triple sections goes first it is reasonable to put it here. My explanation is that it has been done to artificially inflate the Soviet-Nazi section.
Based on that, I conclude that by his edits Mosedschurte de facto fully confirmed that he is a proponent of the theory that the rapprochement between the USSR and Nazi Germany started earlier than many scholars believe.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to the issue (pre-1941 Nazi-Soviet relations), however. Ericsson outlined four schools of historians. According to these schools, the Soviets were:

1. Sincere anti-Nazists ("a stronghold of peace"), or
2. Reluctant appeacers, or
3. Cautious expansionists, or
4. Aggressors (like Nazi Germany)

Obviously ## 1 and 4 belong to fringe theories now, so we have to be in between #2 (Roberts) and #3 (Haslam). According to Roberts, the USSR made no attempts of rapprochement with Nazi until late July. Haslam generally agrees that existing documents confirms Roberts' ideas, however he argued that Roberts relied mostly on diplomatic documents that cannot show what exactly had been being told in Kremiln and what real Stalin's intentions were during 1938-39. He concluded that, judging by Stalin real steps he was more cautious expansionist rather than appeacer. I personally am inclined to think that truth lies somewhere in between Roberts and Haslam. However, that doesn't change the fact no documentary evidences exist about pre-August Soviet-German political talks, and, accordingly, any attempt to artificially inflate this section by introducing economical issues or discussion of Litvinov's dismissal is WP:OR and civil POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) BTW, even economical negotiations between the USSR and Germany started only on July 21, i.e. when tripple talks had stalled. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mosedschurte, Please, disregard this my post: I realized afterward that this edit [3] was made not by you. I beg your pardon and hope to have fruitful collaboration with you in future. Sincerely--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dc76, you probably noticed that I used no Russian or Soviet sources. The POV you dubbed pro-Soviet was expressed by the Western scholar Jeffrey Roberts. I checked the reviews of his book in scholarly historical journals and I found that they were mostly positive. I agree that his position is probably mildly pro-Soviet, however, other scholars like Haslam of Ericsson also agree that there is no documentary evidences about pre-August Nazi-Soviet political talks. According to available documents, the turning point was a Molotov's telegram to Soviet ambassador Merekalov (july 27 or 28) where he authorized Merekalov not only listen German proposals but to express Soviet opinion on that account. After that we can speak seriously about Nazi-Soviet contacts, and about preparation to full scale negotiaions. And from that point on the relations started to develop really fast.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Call them "secret negotiations" if you like, but "consultations" sounds like "on June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany went into reconnaissance..." I did not blame you for bringing Soviet or Russian sources (no did I say that they are wrong by default), but "consultations" is precisely the word Soviet propaganda used. That is HIGHLY pov. Negotiations do not have to be formal. And we are not bind by diplomatic protocol to say only things only as much as not to damage bilateral relations. I think we should agree to disagree about this word. Dc76\^talk 09:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Consultations" obviously really doesn't fit, as they weren't consulting each other really about anything. I wasn't aware (or probably more accurately didn't remember) that the word was used in Soviet post-war propaganda, but I wouldn't doubt it. Because of prior confusion, battles, etc. The article quite clearly spells out that economic negotiations took place earlier in 1939 while full blown political negotiations did not take place until later. It really doesn't need any more than that.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert: if this is with regard to the "Pre-August Soviet-German negotiations" section title issue, I think the title is referring to the section text therein regarding both to the brief late July negotiations and the economic negotiations. There seems to be some confusion, though the article not only makes this clear, it actually comes flat out and says what happened. There were basically three means of support being discussed by various parties should war break out: political, military and economic. Before July, between the USSR and Germany, there were talks and hints of political negotiations (but not political negotiations themselves) while private economic negotiations regarding potentially supplying Germany with key raw materials had been going since earlier in 1939. Then in late July, political negotiations began to occur. Because of prior confusion (mostly on this Talk page) about the issue, the article spells this out in black and white.

I'm not sure that it can be more clear than it is now with: "From April to July, German and Soviet officials only made statements regarding the potential for the beginning of political negotiations, while no actual negotiations took place during that time period. d.[48] The ensuing discussion of a potential political deal between Germany and the Soviet had to be channeled into the framework of economic negotiations between the two countries, because close military and diplomatic connections, as was the case before mid-1930s, had afterward been largely severed.[49]" This is why the more generalized "negotiations" text fits the title of the section.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I wasn't aware (or probably more accurately didn't remember) that the word was used in Soviet post-war propaganda". AFAIK, Soviet propaganda fully rejected the idea of any negotiations of consultations (neither open nor secret).

I agree that economic negotiations do belong to this article, but only to describe the background of political talks. Obviously, Soviet-german contact before July 27-28 were at even lower level than Anglo-Franco-Soviet contacts before April 17. Therefore, symmetrical sections' names (Pre-August triple negotiations vs Pre-August Soviet-German negotiations) is misleading and contradicts to what the section tells. Let's look at the section again:

"The Soviet Union pursued secret talks with Nazi Germany, while conducting public ones with United Kingdom and France.[39]"

This directly contradicts to what Roberts, Watson, Carley, Haslam, Shore etc. says. Moreover, since this question has been analysed in details in their articles, they are more trustworthy, according to WP:SOURCES. Removed.

"The public nature of talks with France and Britain increased Stalin's pressure on Hitler to heighten his price in reward for alliance with the Soviets. [39]"

Again, this is just the author's speculations. No exchange with political proposals and counter-proposals took place before August between the USSR and Geramny. In addition, these two sentences directly contradict to what the below sentence says. Removed.

"From April to July, German and Soviet officials only made statements regarding the potential for the beginning of political negotiations, while no actual negotiations took place during that time period.[48] The ensuing discussion of a potential political deal between Germany and the Soviet had to be channeled into the framework of economic negotiations between the two countries, because close military and diplomatic connections, as was the case before mid-1930s, had afterward been largely severed.[49]"

Correct. However, this sentence tells nothing about political negotiations, only about the need to start a discussion about pollible political negotiations.

"In May, Stalin replaced his Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, who was regarded as pro-western and was Jewish, with Vyacheslav Molotov, allowing the Soviet Union more latitude in discussions with more parties, not only with Britain and France.[50]"

Again, replacement of Litvinov with Molotov is discussed in triple negotiations' context by many authors, and, taking into account that Molotov was a major negotiator during these talks it belongs to the previous section. However, the phrase that Litvinov's dismissal opened addition opportunities for Nazi-Soviet rapprochement can be introduced here instead.

"In late July and early August 1939, Soviet and German officials agreed on most of the details for a planned economic agreement,[51] and specifically addressed a potential political agreement,[52][53][54] which the Soviets stated could only come after an economic agreement.[55]"

Again, this is just about economical talks.

My conclusion: with except to the first two sentences (that I will remove) the section tells nothing about political negotiations, therefore I propose to discuss other section's name. I propose to name it "Beginning of Soviet-German secret talks", and, since no talks are being discussed in the section now, to add the following sentence at the very end:

"On 28 July Molotov send a first political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that marked a start of secret Soviet-German political negotiations. ref Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78."
(Although, in actuality, Roberts says:"It was not so much a decision to negotiate as the first real sign of a readiness to listen to and consider what the Germans had to say." However, I agree that Roberts is not an ultimate truth, and after that telegram the contacts started to develov really fast. Therefore, although it is an oversimplification, we can say this thelegram triggered a start of secret political talks)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some scholars etc.

I removed the sentence:

"Some scholars believe that from the very beginning of the negotiations, it became clear that the Soviet position required the West to agree to let Soviets occupy Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, [39] as well as for Finland be included in the Soviet sphere of influence.[48]"

My rationale is as follows. It is not clear from this sentence to whom it became clear that the Soviet position required the West to agree to let Soviets occupy Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. If it became clear to the UK/France, the documentary evidences must exist on that account. If they really believe that occupation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is a condition sine qua non, why did they agree to start the Tripartite talks and continued them for more than two months? In addition, occupation of Lithuania was physically impossible because the USSR had no border with it. Moreover, the USSR rose a question about Estonia and Latvia, but not about Lithuania. I am suspicious about this source, and, per WP policy As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. Watson is dissected the question in details and, therefore, in the case when one source contradicts another priority should be given to Watson's article.
The fragment removed by me can be re-introduced into the "Post-war commentary section" where all speculations on that account are collected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That did belong in the commentary section instead.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupation again

In my opinion, this sentence should be removed:

"While Britain refused to allow Soviet Union to occupy countries demanded by Stailn seeing it as immoral and pushing them into the arms of Germany, Nazi German had no such reservations"

There were no direct requests from the USSR to authorise her to occupy any country in 1939. They requested only a right to pass these countries in the event of war. The request was quite reasonable: since they had no border with Germany in 1939, unability to attack Germany at the most convenient moment deprived the Soviets of strategic initiative. In addition, here are mixed the indirect agression issues (already discussed above) with military issues (passage of Soviet troops through Polish territory). With regards to the latters, the sentence is simply wrong and in contradiction with the previous sentence: not only Britain and France supported the Soviet demands, they directly pressed the Poles requesting to open the borders for Soviet troops in the event of war.
One way or the another, this sentence presents the author's speculations, so it belongs to the "Post-war commentary section"--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Western and Soviet historiography

Zvi Y. Gitelman in A century of ambivalence, p.115, clearly states that Soviet historians see the MRP as attempt to gain time to fight the Nazis, but Westerns see it as an attempt to divert Hitler's aggression to the West. Seems like a reliable statement on historiographies to me? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversimplification. There is no CPSU in the West, and western historians have no common position about MRP. Ericson ("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) describes the historians' positions as follows:

"Historical judgments, therefore, have ranged from seeing the Soviets as far-sighted anti-Nazis, to seeing them as reluctant appeasers, as cautious expansionists, or as active aggressors and blackmailers. The Germans, by contrast, have been viewed variously as capitalist aggressors, ideological fanatics, wily opportunists, or defensive practitioners of preventive war."

In my opinion, the Ericson classification cound be a good framework for the "Post-war commentary" section (now it is in a terrible state).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The political discussions in the Tripartite negotiations were suspended, ...

I still cannot understand where the statement:"The political discussions in the Tripartite negotiations were suspended, and were to be resumed only after progress was made in the military talks planned for August." came from. The source (Watson) says (p.712):

"Soviet press reports on 22 July of trade negotiations in Berlin now put pressure on Britain and France,126 and on 23 July Seeds, supported by Payart, told Molotov that the British and French governments were willing to agree to the simultaneous implementation of political and military agreements. Molotov, who was also under pressure because of reports of Goering's economic adviser visiting London, expressed his 'keen satisfaction', saying he did not see that the definition of 'indirect aggression' presented insuperable problems, and it was essential that military conversations should be started immediately because 'the fact that the three countries were ... settling concrete details ... would be of great interest to possible aggressors'."
"After some prevarication, the British and French representatives agreed that military negotiations might commence, providing a joint communique was issued saying that the three governments believed that sufficient agreement had been achieved in the political conversations to permit this. Molotov, who emphasised that the military agreement was more important than the political one, agreed to consider this"

In other words, the source states a directly reverse, not a progress in a military talk limited the signing of the political but the problems during political talks hampered signing of military treaty.
Please, reword accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. A request to station troops on another countries' territory (thus eliminating its sovereignty) or to allow for the passage of another (especially adversarially disposed) country's troops through a country's territory in diplomatic circles is generally seen as a "making an offer one cannot but refuse" - it's a "diplomatic" way of ending negotiations by making unreasonable demands, often as a prelude to war. In this particular instance the context is that one the Soviets became aware that an agreement with the Nazis was possible (and mutually beneficial to both of those parties) they proceeded to torpedo the ongoing talks with Poland, Baltics and the Western Countries. You're flipping the cat on its head here.radek (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your post seems to belong to the previous section. A request of passing (not stationing, according to the sources) was only a small part of the military talks. With regards to the flipping the cat, it is you who do it. The start of any concrete political contacts between Nazi and the Soviets was given by the Molotov telegram on 28 July, when the triple talks had already stalled over the Baltic issue. I quoted the sources that state that so many time on that talk page. If you want, I can do it again.
However, the question is more simple: we see what the source says, and we have the odd sentence in the article. Clearly, the sentence directly contradicts to the source. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Watson and the other sources make clear that the Soviets insisted that the military and political talks be entered into simultaneously, finding the military agreement to be the more important of the two. Rather than get into a debate, consistent with all sources, the political talks stalled and the military talks went forward, with the Soviets insisting that both be entered into simultaneously.

Paul Siebert: Not a huge deal, but note also that the wrong Watson page number was entered here in the text, and no page number was provided on the Roberts cite you added. I hunted down the right page numbers, as I've done many times before for you, but please try to take care of this the first time around when entering a cite. Also, please try to pause and review the grammar of sentences before adding them. A few typos and overlooks are not a big deal, but some edits contained several major errors in one sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the political talks stalled and the military talks went forward, with the Soviets insisting that both be entered into simultaneously". Correct. However, from your wording (perfect, to my opinion) is clear that the military talks weren't a limiting factor.

Re: Fixing my errors is appreciated. I also frequently find (and fix) typos, wrong pages etc in what you write. That is normal, taking into account that we both have to rearrange large pieces of text many times.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Not a big deal, but let me remind you that providing exact page is required for books, not for articles. If the source is the article, the first and the last page numbers are sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union pursued secret talks

The para:

"The Soviet Union pursued secret talks with Nazi Germany, while conducting public ones with United Kingdom and France.[39] The public nature of talks with France and Britain increased Stalin's pressure on Hitler to heighten his price in reward for alliance with the Soviets.[39]"

is sourced and formally meets WP:V criteria. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that a number of sources tell directly the opposite. For instance, Watson, whose words were taken out a context it this article (ref 43) pointed out that the USSR in actuality played no double games before late July. Roberts demonstrated that the conclusions about early Nazi-Soviet contacts derived based on Nazi archives captured by the Americans after WWII are not confirmed by the de-classified Soviet archival data. For instance, Molotov's telegram on July 28 to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin demonstrated clearly that before that moment the Soviets didn't respond German overtures(ref 55 and note 56).
This view is shared by other scholars, e.g. by Michael Gabara Carley(cited in the article)
Watson's and Roberts' articles dissects the issue in details and provide a number of evidences to support the conclusions, whereas Grogin payed no spacial attention to the subject. He just reiterated the old thesis he found in old, Cold-war era studies. Therefore, according to WP policy (as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is) the priority should be given to Roberts.
Based on all said above, I remove the Grogin's statement, however, I don't mind to re-introduce it into the "Post-war commentary" section along with other scholars' opinions on that account.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) PS. In addition, the two above sentences, removed by me, are in direct contradiction with the next sentence telling that "From April to July, German and Soviet officials only made statements regarding the potential for the beginning of political negotiations, while no actual negotiations took place during that time period". You have to agree that combining these two statements ("The Soviet Union pursued secret talks with Nazi Germany", but "no actual negotiations took place during that time period") together creates an impression of schizophrenic delirium...--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to what the source says

I noticed that this fragment:

"There were contrasting attitudes towards the negotiation by the Soviets and the West. From very beginning, the Soviets proposed to sign full political and military tripartite agreements, whereas Britain pushed for a less comprehensive political portion treaty that would allow the UK to limit her commitment.[33] Some commentators and historians have charged the Soviet Union with playing a double game in 1939: carrying open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France, whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies.[43]"

is a result of a series of sequential modifications, and, in its present state, it reflects the editors' vision, not what the source says in actuality.
Below is a direct quote from the original source (Watson, refs 33, 43)

"From the beginning, the two sides approached the negotiations differently. The Western powers believed that war could still be avoided and, if it came, the USSR, much weakened by the purges, could only function as a supply base in a long war of attrition, not as a main military participant. The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of 'capitalist encirclement', had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies."

As we can see, the article refers to Watson, but tells the directly opposite. I will bring these two sentences in accordance to the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the word "passage" is constantly being replaced?

The direct quotes from Shirer, Carley and Watson (see above) clearly demonstrate that the request was "passage of Soviet troops through Poland if Germans attacked". I understand that it may be contrary to someone's belief. I also understand that back-projection of the subsequent events suggests that in actuality "passage" could mean "occupation". However, since the sources clearly tell about "passage", we must reproduce it correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

MRP and WWII

To my opinion, the lede is too focused on Eastern Europe. MRP's major effect was triggering WWII. I think that, not occupation of some countries by the USSR should be the major lede's point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The war at the inception was exclusively about Eastern Europe. Moreover, MRP did not trigger WWII. Hitler and Stalin chose to start WWII, the Soviets transmitting radio signals to support the Luftwaffe invasion of Poland. Do not attribute to the tool the actions of the carpenters. I do not support such an abstraction—and ultimately mischaracterization—of the impact of the MRP pact or of misdirection of responsibility for the inception of WWII. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  20:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strang's opinion about "indirect aggression" issue.

I recently found the following document [4]. This is a letter from the Estonian embassy in London to the Estonian ministry of foreign affairs. The letter quotes the words of a Finnish envoy who had a conversation with Strang, a major negotiator during the Moscow triple talks. The document states the following:

"Финский посланник воспользовался случаем, чтобы переговорить со Стренгом относительно ведущихся переговоров. Стренг подтвердил финскому посланнику тоже самое, о чем я уже писал 10-го августа за № 99. Именно, Стренг предполагает:

1) что интерес СССР к косвенной агрессии - и вообще к обеспечению Прибалтийских стран обусловлен главным образом страхом перед Германией, а не вследствии его злых намерений в отношении балтийских государств, как многие предполагают.

2) что СССР теперь серьезно заинтересован в заключении договора с Великобританией и Францией."

Below is a translation of this quote (as far as my English and Russian allow me):

"A Finnish envoy used this opportunity to discuss with Strang the ongoing negotiations (triple negotiations as far I understood from the context). Strang confirmed the same what I already wrote about that on August 10th (N99). Namely, Strang believes:

1) that the Soviet concern about indirect aggression - and about warranties of the Baltic countries is caused mostly by the fear of Germany, not because of its malicious intentions in relation to the Baltic states, as many believe.

2) that the USSR is seriously interested in signing a treaty with Britain and France"

I fully realise that this document is from the Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia) web site , therefore, theoretically, one can rise a question about its authenticity. From other hand, I am unaware of examples of such forgery committed by FIS.
If this document is authentic, we have a direct testimony from the triple talks' major participant. It confirms that the major Soviet concern in 1939 was the USSR's safety, not territorial expansion. (Of course, when I write that I mean only spring and summer of 1939.)
Interestingly, Strang's opinion fully support the "reluctant appeacers" version, expressed by G. Roberts.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss about this because it's irrelevant from Wikipedia's point of view since our encyclopedia needs to be based on secondary published sources, not on primary sources that the document you mention is all about, and no matter if its a real deal or a forgery. And making any conclusions based on primary sources is what WP:OR is all about. Other than that, there is nothing new in here, the Soviet Union always claimed that the major Soviet concern in 1939 was the USSR's safety and that it felt threatened first by the Baltic Entente that ended up being just an alliance between Latvia and Estonia; later a speculative alliance between the Baltic states and Nazi Germany was considered a threat etc. The bottom line, USSR didn't get what it wanted- the Baltic states from the triple talks' but ended up getting the deal from Nazi Germany instead. Any book on the subject discusses those questions.--Termer (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. As I recall it, we had a discussion about the Soviet Unions role in starting the World War II earlier somewhere. So much is new on it that The parliament of the pan-European security body passed a resolution equating the roles of the USSR and Nazi Germany in starting World War II. Also, the date of signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, 23 August has been declared a day of remembrance for the victims of Stalinism and Nazism in Europe. Have those facts gone into the article already? if not I'll fix it.--Termer (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not correct. WP:PSTS states that "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Therefore, by formal criteria, the source we are discussing has the same status as the documents from the Avalon project [5] (cited in that article, as well as in many others).
The only questions are (i) whether these documents are reliably published, and (ii) how not to misuse them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

...but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them - exactly! + Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. etc. And there is no need to use primary sources because there are plenty of secondary sources out there that also describe the Soviet POV more than well enough.--Termer (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a newly declassified document. No secondary sources use it so far, although this document may serve as additional support for Roberts' books. Anyway, if this document is authentic, it can be used in similar way Avalon documents are used. The words of a high rank British official passed by a Finnish diplomat to the Estonians (both were hostile towards the Soviets) has a significant weight (BTW which "Soviet POV" do you mean? The only POV is that this Estonian document was found in former Soviet archives). My only concern is if it is a forgery...

PS. With regards to the parliament's decision, I am sorry, but it seems to be a primary source, and, accordingly, it should be used with the same care. To verify that, I posted this question on the appropriate noticeboard [6], and I invite you to join a discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PPS. With regards to any interpretations etc... we Wikipedians are not allowed to do any interpretations of neither primary, nor secondary sources...--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If this document is authentic, we have a direct testimony from the triple talks' major participant. It confirms that the major Soviet concern in 1939 was the USSR's safety, not territorial expansion." (Paul Siebert)

(1) I assume this is some kind of an odd joke regarding "confirmation" of "the major Soviet concern in 1939", regardless of authenticity (or primary source issues), regarding a single letter from an Estonian embassy.
(2) This is probably better suited for Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, though it really doesn't rise to the level of discussion in that article either.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: (1) A little bit odd statement. In this article, two major versions of Soviet motives towards the Baltic states are discussed: (i) expansionism was a primary motive and alleged security issues were used as a pretext, and (ii) security concern was the major motive, and occupation was just a mean to provide security of western borders. Strang clearly stated that, in his opinion, (ii) was a real Soviet motive during a summer of 1939. These words were transmitted to the neutral (in actuality, mildly anti-Soviet) country's envoy and written by the anti-Soviet country's official. This lends additional credence to these words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No offence but seems like some serious wisful thinking here. We have buttload of assumptions here:
1) document is authentic
2) Strang told about his opinion honestly to Finnish envoy
3) Finnish envoy honestly told about it to Estonian ambassador
4) Estonian ambassador honestly reported everything in his letter
I can give you 1 and 4 as I dont see much point in falsifying document or for Estonian embassy to lie to its own government. I am not aware what was Finnish view of triple talks and if they should succeed or not so I cant comment 3. Anyway I totally dont think that we can rely on 2 here. Lets look at situation realistically for a moment. UK wants tripple talks to succeed, this may depend on getting Baltic states and Soviets to reach to some sort of agreement. Lets assume that Strang would have told otherwise, that Soviets probably want simple territorial expansion, what would that had resulted? Baltics(and probably also Finns) would had became even more hostile towards Soviets and potentially would had started looking towards German protection, making any agreement even harder. Not to mention that word about Strang's such opinion could had reached to Soviet ears somehow. Frankly Strang had all reasons to say that Soviets probably have good intentions, and no reason at all to say that Soviets probably just want to fuck up their neighbours.--Staberinde (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your points are absolutely clear, however, I believe, some clarification is needed.

Firstly, had Britain wanted triple talks to succeed at all cost, it would be sufficient for her just to agree with the Soviet definition of the "indirect aggression". They refused to do so not because of the Baltic states' position, but because the definition was really too wide. (AFAIK, partially it can be explained by the fact that the Soviets trusted neither in British military capabilities nor in their desire to fight and wanted to have as much free hand in Eastern Europe as possible. In that case that meant a possibility of occupation of Baltic states at any moment). One way or the another, position of the Baltic states in August (this document was written on Aug 22) had a little effect on the course of already stalled negotiations. The Strang's words were just post-factum commentaries about already stalled negotiations. That fact makes them more trustworthy.

Secondly, "Baltics (and probably also Finns) would had became even more hostile towards Soviets" is incorrect, because the Baltic states already were deeply hostile towards Soviets and they even signed treaties with Germany. In other words, they already were at German protection.

Thirdly, "Not to mention that word about Strang's such opinion could had reached...etc" is not an argument. Everything could reach everybody's ear, thanks to perfectly working intelligences. For instance, in late June the fact that Britain conducts secret separate negotiations with Germany reached the Maisky's ear. That significantly affected the Soviet position and partially explained their turn towards Germany. Do you think that was the result Britain expected to get when she started these negotiations?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say that Britain wanted talks to succeed at "all costs", but assuming that they had atleast some interest in succesful outcome, they wouldn't make statements that could directly torpedo progress of talks. Now: Strang's words were just post-factum commentaries about already stalled negotiations, here you are making another assumption that Strang considered triple talks failed already. But if we read that letter again(point 2 specifically), it sounds that Strang considers successful outcome still possible.

Also Baltics had non-agression treaties with Soviets too, just because they signed such treaties with Germany doesn't mean that they were automatically German allies.

And there is pretty massive difference in stuff that you actually try to keep secret from all other parties and stuff that you openly tell to envoys of countries that aren't even directly participating in talks. I am pretty sure that Ribbentrop didn't tell Swedish envoys how "negotiations with Soviets are progressing well, we will erase Poland before winter".--Staberinde (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said that Baltic states already were deeply hostile towards Soviets and...they even signed treaties with Germany. In other words, they already were at German protection.?
Sorry but this is complete nonsense. What Soviet propaganda always has missed while making up such claims was the fact that Estonia, Latvia up to 1940 had always considered Germany the enemy number 1. After all being under the German domination for 700 years since the Livonian crusade should speak for itself, even the reason for declaring the independent states in 1918 was the nearing German occupation during WWI. The second, for example the head of state of Estonia, K.Päts' mother was Russian...the bottom line, up to the Soviet occupation in 1940 that changed everything, Estonia-Latvia never considered Germany an ally. I mean, up to this day the Victory day in Estonia for example celebrates the victory over Germans, not Russians/Soviets in the Estonian war of independence. Again, any serious book discusses those issues in detail. please see for example The history of the Baltic States By Kevin O'Connor] or The Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania By David James Smith.--Termer (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was requested to verify the authenticity of the document. I forwarded the matter to a professional historian in the University of Tartu, asking: "Is this document authentic?" Here is his reply (roughly translated from Estonian): "Yes it is. It is filed in the Estonian Historical Archives under ERA.957.14.708, 300-302 . It has been published in Estonian in the book Sõja ja rahu vahel (Between War and Peace), Volume I, Tallinn, 2004, pp.525-526; probably that's where they got it." I hope this helps. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jaan for your help. Your information is really helpful.
Dear Termer, I apologize for not making myself clear enough when I wrote about the Baltic states' hostility. I meant not actual attitude of the peoples, but the position of their governments from the point of view of an external observer. In other words, leaving the question of actual hostility beyond the scope, what impression the steps of the Baltic govermnent were creating during 1939? I fully realize that one cannot trust those times Soviet propaganda under no circumstances. From other hand, I used to take other nationalistic sources sceptically also. In my opinion, the most neutral sources are western historical journals. The articles I found there (you can find the references in the article) tell that the USSR had all reasons to think that the Baltic states were hostile (and pro-German). Michael Gabara Carley states explicitly, for instance, that after the non-aggression pacts between the Baltic states and Germany were signed German instructors started to supervise construction of fortifications there.

To Staberinde. I agree that we have no reason to think that Strang spoke absolutely frankly. However, this doesn't change my major point: if he concealed truth because he hoped to sign a treaty with the USSR, then he believed that the USSR was interested in signing a treaty. If he believed in that, than he believed that the USSR's primary concern was security, not expansion, because, obviously, the alliance with France and Britain (in the presence of a strong military opponent, Germany) would not allow any considerable territorial expansion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Eero Medijainen, professor of Modern History at the University of Tartu, in his "1939: possibilities and options (the viewpoint of the Baltic States)" in Ajalooline Ajakiri journal (2000) writes: "In 1939, Hitler had no war designs against the Soviet Union [...] Moscow's accusations against Baltic countries to the effect that these might be used as a basis for Germany in its assault upon the Soviet Union were mainly a propaganda speech addressed to western powers and meant to motivate the Soviets' demands." He also argues that the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not change its political concept in 1920-1939, not towards Germany nor to any other nation, it merely took the offer of a non-aggression pact from Germany (which Britain never offered). Still, he sees that the Soviet Union was out of the question as an Estonian ally.
--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My impression of the Baltic historian's position is that, although they are trying to be honest, many of them are too focused on their own countries. They think too locally.
Without any doubts, Germany had no concrete plans to attack the USSR in 1939. However, even before that, in mid 1930s, British analysts in Foreign office discussed possible British steps if German annexed Ukraine. Hitler himself openly proclaimed the Lebensraum concept, as well as an idea of the crusade against "Jewish-Bolshevism". It was obvious for the Soviet establishment that a big war cannot be avoided in Europe, and the USSR would be among its major participants. Majority reputable sources agree about that.
With regards to the Baltic neutrality, again, I don't discuss their actual position, I am telling about the effect their steps had. For instance, they signed the pacts with Germany at the same moment when Britain, France and the USSR were discussing the "indirect aggression" issue. Definitely, such a step just gave addiotional support to the Soviet claims, and, therefore, had very negative effect on the talk's course.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Paul, you make a lot of assumptions toward validation of Soviet claims. Even today, the official Russian position points to, for example, the repatration pacts as cooperation with Germany when in fact it was Hitler evacuating Germans out of a secretly agreed to Soviet sphere of influence. That is: Soviets (now official Russia) blame Baltics for dialog with Germany which was the direct result of a secret pact signed by the Soviets and Germany which the Baltics had no knowledge of. I'll write more on this when I have time. And P.S. what happened to all those pacts signed between the Soviet Union and the Baltics? There was no reason for the Soviet Union to (a) force pacts of mutual assistance or (b) to preemptively attack Finland and subsequently invade the Baltics—other than to restore Russian territorial control. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Peters. It seems to me you are missing one important point: although I can read Russian I deliberately try to avoid using Russian sources (the source above is not a Russian source: it is a letter written by some Estonian official). I use mostly western sources, and before using them I try to find a review on the author's book in some reputable historical journal. Only when the review is generally positive I use these articles or books for my WP activity. (Of course, I do that only when I deal with some sensitive subjects like MRP's history, because I have no intentions to insult anybody by making unsubstantiated claims). Therefore, please, in future refrain from the references to Soviet propaganda. Such references are simply irrelevant in this case.
Re: "Soviets (now official Russia) blame Baltics for dialog with Germany which was the direct result of a secret pact signed by the Soviets and Germany" I am not sure I got your point. The rapprochement between the Baltic states and Germany started in June 1939, whereas the secret Nazi-Soviet talks started only in August.
Re: "to preemptively attack Finland" I am not sure this is a correct wording: Finland had no intentions to attack the USSR, so "preemptively" is absolutely incorrect. With regards to the details of the Soviet attack, I found some western sources that demonstrate that the only thing the USSR needed from Finland was military bases in Baltics and security of Leningrad [7].
I don't claim the sources I found tell ultimate truth, however, they are reliable, neutral sources and we have to take them seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm kind of slow but I'm missing the point of this discussion and how this is related to the article? yes, Baltic states concluded non-aggression treaties with Germany in 1939, like Baltic states had concluded Non-aggression treaties with Soviet Union in 1932. So?--Termer (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment fully demonstrates my point. As a rule (with some exceptions) you Baltic editors are too concentrated on your countries. My initial point was not the role of the Baltic states in the triple talks' failure, but a very simple observation, namely, that the newly discovered document, unavailable for G. Roberts when he was writing his books and articles, fully supports his ideas and his conclusions. That gives additional weight to them. However, the discussion has gradually drifted to the Baltic states' issue... Remember, this is an international WP that should reflect a global POV. If you want to work on English WP you must start to think more globally.
Regarding the connection between the Baltic states' behaviour and MRP, it is simple. The "indirect aggression" issue consisted in the following: the USSR argued (sincerely or not) that one of its major concern was a Baltic states' turn towards Germany, that would give to the latter a kind of a place d'armes for a prospective attack of the USSR. Britain and France tried to convince Molotov that Soviet fears were groundless - and in very that moment Estonia and Latvia, that had no land border with Germany, singed a treaty with the latter demonstrating a start of a political rapprochement. Did that make a Britain's position stronger?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, you come here and talk about the USSR argued that one of its major concern was a Baltic states' turn towards Germany that was caused by the non-aggression treaty the Baltic states had signed with Germany, (like they did with USSR in 1932) and now you're accusing me of "not thinking globally enough" and "too concentrated on your countries"? So please remind me, who brought up the question about the Baltic states again?--Termer (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is the viewpoint which the Russian government wants to present through its selective release of documents via the SVR (will they ever give full and open access to the archives?). The other viewpoint is the Soviet Union wanted to expand its territory westward, the question being who would be first to agree to this expansionism, Chamberlin and Daladier, or Hitler. Stalin first attempted to reach agreement with the former, having shown themselves weak in caving in to Hitler's territorial demands at Munich. However Britain balked at Stalin's proposed "indirect aggression" as giving the Soviet a pretext in intervening in the affairs of the Baltic states, Poland and Romania. Thus Stalin turned to Hitler, who had no difficulty in assigning nations to spheres on influence. --Martintg (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubts, SVR releases the materials selectively. No doubts, Soviet propaganda presented security issue as a sole Soviet motive in 1939. However, when you and other speak about the "other viewpoint" you imply that it is this viewpoint that explains actual Soviet motives.
The most balanced sources, however, tell about both reasons, and, the question is which reason was the major one. In the case of Finland, for instance, the sources (the western sources) tell that the major reason was the Soviet desire to get military bases in the Gulf of Finland - and they wanted to do that peacefully.
Your understanding of the "Chamberlin and Daladier, or Hitler" issue is also an oversimplification: you miss that the USSR had already lost one proxy war in Spain, that Nazis openly proclaimed anti-Communism and anti-Slavism as their major policy, and that they were gradually moving towards the Soviet borders. In July-August of 1939, it became clear for the Soviets that neither Britain nor France are able, or willing to carry their part of a burden in the case of a war with Hitler. BTW, the strange behaviour of the western powers after Sept 1, 1939 fully confirmed that Soviet concern: Poland was one of the major British allies, and the British regarded Polish military capabilities very highly, so they simply had to have some concrete plans of military actions in the case if Poland was attacked. But they did nothing. (This is not my speculations, I just reproduce what I read form reliable western sources. The fact that some, probably selectively released document confirms that point doesn't change the overall picture much.). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well of course Britain and France could do nothing in regard to Poland, Stalin and Hitler had just concluded a pact just some weeks prior to their attack to carve up Poland. This viewpoint (now adopted by the Russian government) that the M-R agreement was a "defensive measure" (not a very effective measure since it resulted in the abandonment of the Stalin Line) to "buy time" has been promoted by the Soviets since the publication of "Falsifiers of History". The question remains, if this viewpoint had any plausibility, why deny the existence of the secret protocols for fifty years? Selectively releasing documents and withholding others to support a viewpoint doesn't really lend weight to that viewpoint. --Martintg (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I am not a MRP's advocate. Definitely, MRP gave Hitler an opportunity to attack Poland and, thereby, triggered WWII. The question is if signing MRP was a Soviet's goal from the very beginning, or they decided to do that at the very last moment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. With regards to a secter protocol, it was not a crime per se. It could be interpreted as a Soviet desire to stop German's drang hach Ost: you may attack Poland, but you shouldn't go beyond the Bug river. A real crime was the Soviet invasion of Poland, Baltics etc. Probably, they denied the existence of the secret protocol to conceal one more evidence of this crime...

PPS. Re: "Selectively releasing documents and withholding others..." This is just a hypothesis. We don't know how many documents were withheld (if any). The only thing we know is that this document (along with some others) supports the theory proposed by several Western scholars. And I don't understand why doesn't this concrete document really lend weight to that viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not hypothesis, we know the Soviets withheld, even denied the existence of, the secret protocols for fifty years, so we can speculate on what other documents have yet to be revealed or why the current government has restricted access to the archives of that period. Would you be skeptical if the CIA to published a book containing documents that indicated the Soviet Union was preparing to join Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan as a fourth Axis Power? Yet we have the SVR doing a similar thing. Until we can get independent historians to examine the Soviet archives of that period without restriction, I remain skeptical. --Martintg (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Not hypothesis, we know the Soviets withheld" Yes, the Soviets withheld. In addition, the Soviets occupied Prague, blockaded Berlin etc etc. However, many things had changed since those times. For instance, in 1970s-1980s, the Soviet government published a wast amount of diplomatic correspondence (a "Dokumenty i materialy" series), that is used by western scholars extensively. The "God krizisa" book, that was published during last Gorbachev's year contains a huge amount of very interesting materials. What are the reason to think that the most important materials are still classified? It sounds like an accusation of someone in being a former secret KGB agent: it is easy to throw such an accusation, but it is virtually impossible to refute it...

Re: "Would you be skeptical if the CIA to published... etc" Why do you use a subjunctive mood? They did that. The Avalon project [8] is a pure example of it. It contains only German documents where the Nazi-Soviet relations were presented from the German's point of view. These documents served as a major source for historians writing about the Nazi-Soviet relation in 1939-41. However, a direct comparison between the "God krizisa"'s and Avalon's documents telling about the same events demonstrates that the Avalon documents produce a very biased picture. For instance, the first document (a report on a Merekalov-Wiezsacker meeting) is focused on the alleged Merekalov's statement about the Soviet's desire to improve Nazi-Soviet relations. By contrast, "God crizisa" tells that the meeting was a brawl where Merekalov requested the Germans to stop creating any obstacles to fulfillment of Soviet military contracts signed with Czech's Skoda company. According to Merekalov, it was a primary and sole reason of his visit. A telegram from Narkomindel, that was sent a week before the meeting fully confirms that. In this telegram Merekalov was instructed to visit Wiezsacker to discuss the Skoda issue. The telegram didn't authorize Merekalov to make any general statement.
Nevertheless, most cold war era and post-cold war era historians used to repeat that the Merekalov-Wiezsacker meeting gave a start to the Nazi-Soviet rapprochement. In that sense, I believe that release of additional classified documents, even if it is a selective release, helps to draw a more balanced picture.
BTW, for me, the letter quoted in the beginning of the section carries no principally new information, because it is fully consistent with the materials from "God krizisa".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Of course, everything I write is not WP:OR. I just retell the Roberts' article "Infamous encounter?..." (a full citation can be found in the MRP article). In addition, I took Avalon documents and God krizisa, compared them by myself, and came to the same conclusions as Roberts did.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

PPS And one more point. History is a science, and every scientific theory must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific theory. The danger of your major thesis ("Not hypothesis, we know the Soviets withheld", therefore "until we can get independent historians to examine the Soviet archives of that period without restriction, I remain skeptical") is that it is not falsifiable. In other words, I cannot imagine a situation when I can be sure that all classified Soviet documents became available for public. Even if a revolution will be in Russia tomorrow, and pro-American democratic forces will come to power there, and all the archives will become open for everybody, can you be sure that the most important documents has not been destroyed by previous authorities?
I am just an amateur historian, however, to my understanding, the specifics of historian's work is that he has to work with fragmented, incomplete sources of information. The thesis that some documents are missing and, therefore, we cannot trust some theory doesn't work here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

However, this doesn't change my major point: if he concealed truth because he hoped to sign a treaty with the USSR, then he believed that the USSR was interested in signing a treaty. If he believed in that, than he believed that the USSR's primary concern was security, not expansion, because, obviously, the alliance with France and Britain (in the presence of a strong military opponent, Germany) would not allow any considerable territorial expansion.
You just made simply another assumption. Do we know if he even considered Nazi-Soviet pact a realistic possibility at that time when this conversation supposedly took place? Strang may have believed that treaty with Britain and France is only realistic way for USSR to get any agreement at all. Also "considerable territorial expansion"? Would Baltics count considerable? Had Czechoslovakia been "considerable"? We can just keep piling up various assumptions but I dont see any point in this. I really dont think that situation we are having with this letter is suitable for wikipedia editors to start interpreting primary sources on their own.--Staberinde (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Do we know if he even considered Nazi-Soviet pact a realistic" It is known that Chamberlain dramatically underestimated a probability of any agreement between the Nazi and the Soviets. However, in 22 August 1939, they already knew that Ribbentrop came to Moscow to discuss something serious. However, if Strang may have believed that treaty with Britain and France is only realistic way for USSR it just gives more weight to the assumption that he was sincere with the Finnish envoy.

Re: :I really dont think that situation we are having with this letter is suitable for wikipedia editors to start interpreting primary sources on their own". Under no circumstances can WP editors interpret primary sources on their own. Again, for everyone who read God krizisa or Roberts' articles, this letter gives not much new information. It just adds a little bit more weight to the already existing theory developed by western scholars. The fact that this theory partially reiterates some Soviet claims doesn't mean the theory is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Before this discussion progresses any further, could you please clarify what kind of change you actually want to make in this article in relation to that letter? I assume that there must be something if this issue was raised on talk page?--Staberinde (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A good question. I propose to tell more about the motives of all sides, Germany, the USSR, the UK, France, the Baltic states and Poland, to demonstrate how mutual mistrust, egoism, stupidity and insolence had eventually lead to the greatest disaster in world history. Instead of that, the article tends to present MRP as a result of the USSR's and Germany's mutual attraction (although I am constantly trying to oppose to that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a reality check, this isn't even the place for such an issue. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations is the closest article discussing issues even approaching this detail. Additionally, setting aside primary source and authenticity issues, even in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article, it's not appropriate to detail the opinion of a single man in a letter back in mid-1939 (pre-Pact, pre-invasions, etc.) re his speculation on the Soviet Union's goals. It's probably even too detailed to include in for the Wikipedia article on William Strang, 1st Baron Strang.

In short, all of this is in an interesting discussion about some letter from Strang in an Estonian embassy, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Wikipedia articles at the levels this project addresses. Alternatively, there are history forums that discuss such details, and one can converse with an author of any book detailing Strang's life.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The more I am thinking about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article the more I realize its creation was a WP:CFORK (a good reason for the article's deletion). The story of negotiations does belong to the main article, whereas the story of the consequences of MRP belongs to the "Consequences" section, a short section in the end.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First, that last statement is amusing given your own agreement for its creation. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations was created after the negotiations and background sections of this article ballooned in size to take up well over 1/3 of this article, and were still growing. But that is becoming secondary at the moment. You agreed, stating "Good idea. I was thinking about doing the same.". That article, upon which many books have been written, etc. now is in excess of 5,500 prose words. The summary of just the "Negotiations" section alone in this article is already nearing 1,000 prose words after additions by yourself and others, and it doesn't even attempt to scratch the surface of the detail -- nor, of course should it -- of the article on that subject. As well, you bungled the definition of Forking. Note: "What content/POV forking is not: Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles - Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example Wikipedia:Summary style, which explains the technique.

Second, this single Strang letter opining on speculation re the Soviets' intent is too detailed for even the far more detailed spinoff Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, much less this article. You've essentially dragged other editors into a topic having no consequence regarding Wikipedia articles.

Third, as a separate note re today's antics, I will move for a block of your editing on this topic if you insert another fabrication of an author cite as you did with Kershaw page 194. Of course, Kershaw did not say that the Czech agreement "affirmed" Soviet concern that the west was trying to encourage German aggression in the east, but that the Soviet leadership believed this encouragement existed.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: First. Yes, I agreed. But since that both articles have evolved in such a way that the daughter article became a fork. That is like moving everything about WWII hostilities to a separate article (e.g. "WWII hostilities") and to devote the main article to the e.g. economy. With regards to symmary style, I am not sure the subject requires that. We have to discuss all the circumstances of MRP signing here. By contrast, later events can be mentioned more briefly, because everything starting from the "Second MRP" took place in accordance with subsequent agreements.

Re: Second. Sorry for dragging other editors into exchange with opinions. I especially beg your pardon, because you are known to avoid to start long and fruitful discussions...

Re: Third. See the bottom section.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you ignored the basic facts regarding article and content length and detail, the direct Wikipedia articles covering spinoff articles, the dead-on application of that policy to create the spinoff article and your own agreement to that application and article creation, instead countering only with the unsupported assertion that "both articles have evolved in such a way that the daughter article became a fork". In the past, I would have let myself be dragged into yet another endless meandering down this line of odd argument.

An no one has stated that you can't state opinions. The issue is again that this this single Strang letter opining on speculation re the Soviets' intent is too detailed for even the far more detailed spinoff Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, much less this article. Thus, you've dragged editors into an incredibly long argument not applicable to the project, or at least these pages. There are other forums for such debates.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(od)WP [policy|[WP:CFORK]] says:

"The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article."

This is exactly what we have. You proposed: let's move the disputable things there, leaving only key facts in the mother article. However, the facts were moved selectively, some important things appeared to be missing in the main article, e.g. the interconnection between the appeasement and MRP (when I tried to put it back you immediately opposed), the position of Eastern European states, etc, whereas some other staff that push "German school's" POV remains here. The balance in the main article must be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You proposed: let's move the disputable things there, leaving only key facts in the mother article." (Paul Siebert)

This sort of out-and-out falsehood used to be surprising. It is no longer. Here is the Origination section word for word from nearly SEVEN MONTHS AGO, after the article's creation and move, which directly addresses LENGTH of the material:

---

Origination

This article was started after the negotiations and background sections of the Molotov-Ribbentrop article approached 1/3 of that article's length, and were rapidly growing.

The negotiations involved numerous key details -- they involved lengthy Foreign Ministry-sized efforts of the Soviet Union, Britain, France and Germany -- many of which had to be truncated or deleted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article, which had already ballooned in size.

Because hundreds of books and journal articles cover a topic of this breadth, its size was expanding greatly in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I was thinking about doing the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia policy directly addressing such spinouts:"What content/POV forking is not: Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles - Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example Wikipedia:Summary style, which explains the technique.

Prose Text size of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations: In excess of 5,500 Prose Text Words.

Last Person to add more than 1,000 bytes to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations: Paul Siebert here

Re: "whereas some other staff that push "German school's" POV remains here." *(Paul Siebert)

And that about does it for this "discussion". Highly illuminating, as usual.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)