Talk:Operation Pike

Single source

Most academic research does not take the Operation Pike plans too seriously, as is said on page X of Osborne's book. Also see these comments by a knowledgeable editor. It would be nice if someone expanded the article to include a wider view, and added more sources. Offliner (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those comments by this knowledgable editor and I had already replied here, but he still hasn't replied, as you are well aware.

I find it ironic that you had to rely upon this single source to assert that "most academic research does not take the Operation Pike plans too seriously". No, p x in Osborn's book does not say that, it says the topic has received "scant attention" which means something else entirely.

In fact Osborn states in the preface of his book on page X: "Allied proposals to undertake military operations against the Soviet Union have received scant attention by scholars of the Second World War. Typically if they are mentioned at all, it is usually in passing and with little or no explanation; or they are dismissed as mere contingency plans that no one, especially those in a position to make important strategic decisions, took seriously. Evidence suggests, however, that this is not the case"

Osborne is saying that typically if the topic is mentioned at all, it usually is in passing with little or no detail, then he mentions the unusual case: its dismissal as a mere contingency plan, so I don't think your characterisation of "most " is entirely accurate.

As I explained here, it would be great to find more sources, but it is a very obscure topic. The source used, Osborn's book Operation Pike. Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941 is very well regarded. For example Keith Neilson (who himself is a Professor of history and author of several books on Anglo-Russian relations[1]) reviewed the book in the academic journal "Diplomacy and Statecraft". He writes: "Osborn, an archivist for the American National Archives and Records Administration, has provided a very useful study of British policy towards the Soviet Union from 1939 to 1941 and, in particular, of the little-known Anglo-french plans to attack the Soviet Union in the period from September 1939 to June 1940." In conclusion, Neilson writes: "This is a very good book on a limited topic. It does not promise more than it deliveres, its documentary base is exemplary and its conclusions are judicious and carefully considered."

So given that this is an obscure topic with scant coverage and virtually impossible to find additional sources, and that a published Professor in History has reviewed the only comprehensive source on the topic as exemplary, judicious and carefully considered, I don't see the point of tagging this article as "single source". --Martin (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I found no reviews on the Osborn's book is jstor, which means that the book has been ignored by scientific community. (Most good history books have at least several reviews there). I knew about the plans to bomb Baku, although I though France played more important role in that. I also know at least three other sources (journal articles) that draw quite different picture: Britain and France didn't see the USSR as a German ally, they expected Soviet-German relations to deteriorate soon and they desperately needed that, so they tried to avoid any provocations, so these plans were just abstract plans, and no concrete decision was made on that account. I have no time right now to work on this article, however, I'll do that in future if the article will not be modified in accordance with mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the Neilson's review, and I agree that it is positive. However, a brief comparison of the source and the article shows some discrepancies which are hardly acceptable. For instance, the lede states:

"British military planning against the Soviet Union occurred during the first two years of the Second World War, from 1939 to 1941, when Soviet Russia was allied with Nazi Germany."

whereas the book says that British and French came to a conclusion that the pact made the USSR de facto a German ally. It is a big difference. I propose to check the article for other mistakes of that type.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Does the book really say "de facto"? My original edit was "it was believed that Soviet Russia was allied with Nazi Germany" which was changed to a neutral third party here. I think "believed" is more factual and neutral. Also JSTOR is just a database of a subset of academic journals, it doesn't cover the whole field, nor is inclusion into JSTOR any kind of endorsement of the journal. As I said above, the book was reviewed in here, the fact no one else felt compelled to review it could be construed as acceptance of Professor Neilson's review as definitive. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no time to read the book, I believe you will be able to fix errors by yourself. I relied on the Neiilson's review. He used the words "British and French came to a conclusion that Nazi-Soviet pact in effect made Moscow the allies of Hitler", which in my understanding means the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is a valid criticism, I've updated the lede to say exactly that. --Martin (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, with regard to your statement: "I also know at least three other sources (journal articles) that draw quite different picture: Britain and France didn't see the USSR as a German ally, they expected Soviet-German relations to deteriorate soon and they desperately needed that, so they tried to avoid any provocations, so these plans were just abstract plans, and no concrete decision was made on that account", as I said elsewhere, attitudes change, particularly during those desperate times of 1940 when Britain even had to attack the fleet of its erstwhile ally. Consider this: Professor Neilson, a scholar on Anglo-Russian relations, brought no such objections to Osborn's conclusions when he reviewed his book, as you have here. --Martin (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The only serious Neilson's criticism was that Osborn used no Soviet sources, which, however, had no significant negative effect on the book. I'll try to add materials from other sources, because in any event the article looks not impressive when it is based mostly on a single source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting to see some other sources, particularly Soviet ones, but it probably is still classified. Osborn makes the suggestion that the Soviet intelligence services may have known about Operation Pike and that Stalin may have ended the Winter War early so that he could redeploy significant forces to protect the oil fields in Baku and Batum, but since Osborn didn't use Soviet sources this is just speculation. What I find really fascinating is Osborn's suggestion (again no Soviet sources) that Operation Pike, particularly after the Germans publicised it after they captured the documents, may have confirmed Stalin's worst impressions about the intentions of Britain and France, and hence that was the reason why he ignored British warnings about the impending German attack, thinking it was just more British anti-Soviet schemings. --Martin (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are sources indicating that Stalin new about these plans and Soviet troops in the Caucasus were reinforced- see ОПЕРАЦИЯ «КАВКАЗСКАЯ НЕФТЬ»(in Russian). It is a very interesting topic for me and sooner or later I will write the respective Russian Wikipedia article (I wonder why nobody has done it yet).

Olegwiki (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

USSR neutrality

Currently, there is some strange denial of the fact that Soviet Union was neutral country before 22 june 1941. I mean statement that "British and French considered USSR a German ally" in the lead section of the article. It seems, Adolf Hitler was completely unaware of this.

The Führer to the German People:

• "The reason was that England still hoped to mobilize a European coalition against Germany that would include the Balkans and Soviet Russia."
• "This, however, is exactly what the British and Soviets had hoped."
• "This was the goal of both British and Soviet Russian policy."
• "If anyone needed final proof of the carefully hidden coalition between England and Soviet Russia, the conflict in Yugoslavia provided it."

--DonaldDuck (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently there is some strange denial of the fact that Soviet Union was working together with Nazi Germany before June 22 1941. As the article (and source) explains very clearly, "British and French considered it as a German ally". Not "Hitler considered Soviets to be his allies", not "Nazis and Soviets were allies", not "Modern historian consider Soviets and Nazis to have been allies", not "Jesus H. Christ wrote extensively on topic of Soviet and Nazi alliances". We have what the source claims - due to the extensive cooperation of Soviets and Nazis (Luftwaffe trained in Soviet Union, joint invasion (and victory parade) of Poland, during which Soviet Union provided radio signals for navigation of German planes, commercial treaties between Hitler and Stalin, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - see Soviet–German relations before 1941 for an extensive review), it was an easy assumption to make. And both French and British made that assumption, according to the source.

Attempts to remove that sourced fact - that the reason for planning of the Operation Pike was extensive cooperation between Soviets and Nazis, for which British and French saw them as allies - is unacceptable censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, so please stop doing so.

--Sander Säde 07:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"British and French considered it as a German ally". There is no reliable sources supporting this claim.

In 1940 Soviet Union had commercial relations with Germany (as well as with Britain and France) like all the other neutral countries: Sweden, Spain, US, Brazil e.t.c. Do not mix commercial relations with military alliances, this is completely different thing.

See Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. USSR had non-aggression agreement with Germany vs. mutual assistance agreement with France. Second treaty was far more important. See also Ribbentrop-Selter Pact. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For a reliable source for British and French coming to a conclusion that Nazi-Soviet pact in effect made Moscow the allies of Hitler, see the book "Operation Pike: Britain versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941" by Patrick Osbourne, published in 2000 by Greenwood Publishing Group. Paul Siebert verified it here --Martin (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG). Single source is not enough for such surprising statement.

You are now violating your topic ban by editing this article. DonaldDuck (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he is not. Please stop these attempts to intimidate people with whom you have disagreements, such behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. And the claim is well sourced - I must say, I find it hard to believe anyone without direct agenda would disagree on something so obvious. --Sander Säde 14:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and when it comes to declarations of neutrality (per your edit summary), you might want to check this for example. --Sander Säde 16:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Strictly speaking "British and French considered it as a German ally" would mean that these two had to declare a war on the USSR, because, as a rule, if a war is declared on one member of some alliance, that almost automatically means declaring a war on other members. However, they did not do that, which means that they didn't treat the USSR as the German ally de jure. However, since they did plan the bomber attack of the Soviet territory, they definitely believed that collaboration between the USSR and Nazi Germany was much more dense than just a collaboration between two neutral states.

The source (Osborn) does not state that "British and French considered it as a German ally". It states that " British and French came to a conclusion that the pact made the USSR de facto a German ally." ("Considered" implies some actions, whereas "came to a conclusion" doesn't. The reservation "de facto" implies that that was not "de jure"). That does not contradict to what other sources tell about the status of the USSR and does not contradict to the official policy of the UK and France towards the USSR. It is necessary to add, however, that during the period of the most dense collaboration between the USSR and Nazi (1939) neither Britain nor France considered the former to be an ally of the latter (Paul W. Doerr. Frigid but Unprovocative': British Policy towards the USSR from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to the Winter War, 1939 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439).

One way or the another, the statement that some British and French leaders believed the USSR was a de facto (but not de jure) ally of Germany during some period after the Winter war seems not to be extraordinary, so the Osborn's book seems to be correct. We simply need to soften this statement, because it may lead to some confusion.

Re topic ban. IMO, if you DonaldDuck believe you are right you will perfectly be able to demonstrate that without resorting to this type arguments. By using such argument you just make your point weaker.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Consider 2 possible situations:

Situation A) 1940. British and French bomb Soviet oil industry in Baku to deprive USSR of oil. (Britain and USSR are enemies.)

Situation B) 1942. Soviet army is defeated and Germans capture Baku. British bomb Soviet oil industry in Baku to deprive Germany of oil. (Britain and USSR are allies.)

Plans for air attack could be used for both situation A (enemies) and situation B (allies). Existence of such plans can not prove that USSR was considered enemy or ally. Osbourne describes both situations A and B, but gives much more weight to A, while this wikipedia article describes only situation A, ignoring B. There are serious neutrality problems with this article.

2)"British and French considered it as a German ally". What is meant by "British" and "French" here? Governments, military strategists, political class, whole nations? Were British and French policies completely identical? Military plans were top secret and had its authors. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. Agreed. What concrete changes do you propose?

Re 2. As I already wrote, the article's wording is "despite the Soviet Union's neutrality, the British and French came to the conclusion that the Nazi-Soviet pact in effect made Moscow the allies of Hitler", not "British and French considered it as a German ally". You have to agree that the difference between these two phrases is considerable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 1. The article does not ignore B: see Operation_Pike#Revival. --Martin (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A propaganda campaign to justify the invasion of France

Since France was at war with Germany from September 1939 it is difficult to imagine that the nazis felt urged to justify their military operations against an enemy country.

CE

Auto-edded, dupe wl scan, tidied citations and references. Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)