Talk:Joseph Stalin

Archives, POV's and Edits

Some of the edits made today (Dec. 7) were fantastic strides toward a NPOV. Valeofruin (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrght I buckled down and redid the intro at least. It will of course be edited over time and I'm sure all views will be expressed sooner rather then later.

I also noted some people claiming that the Soviet Archives 'Prove' several 'Million' died in Gulags. I would like to point out that similar reports exist supporting the pro Stain side of the story as well

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28616

The reality is according to that article, that there exists a report in excess of 9000 pages, available in Russian text only supporting the Thesis that only 425,000 died in the Soviet Gulags, that bases 100% of it's conclusions on Soviet Archives.

Therefore the question of the Soviet Penal system, like that of the famines, and the Purges, STILL lies in dispute, and you can't exactly continue to present 1 side without doing some 'Writing as the enemy' and lending a shred of credibility to the other on the basis that "This side is true, that ones a lie."

In addition I would like to address the other claim on the talk page that seems to go something like, "People don't do this for Hitler, why should Stalin be any different?"

I would like to clarify that if I had in fact read 'The Holocaust Lie' or some such book, and if i felt i had a firm enough grasp on Holocaust denial to make a claim against the Hitler article, there would undoubtably be a dispute tag there as well.

P.S. List or not Webbed toes is off topic, and perhaps coincides with the neutrality dispute. It's a random fact, much like TRIVIA, that seems to imply that Stalin is in fact a sea creature as opposed to a perfectly normal human being of biographical and historical significance. It doesnt NEED to be there, it doesn't contribute anything to the broader scheme of the article, it's just a 'fun fact', therefore I don't feel its deletion is Vandalism.

Valeofruin (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Small Error

Not sure where and how to place this correctly but there is a factual error:

"Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945)"

This should read (1941-45). Until this date, the Soviets were allied with the Nazis. kentish 28 Oct 08

Err Hang on...

Why on earth does wikipedia insist on the sacred 'non pov' approch for people like Stalin? The sad dedication to 'pillars of wikpedia' which is now a cult for some complete losers, means that it is now against 'policy' to critisise mass murderers- great job guys

Stalin was not a "mass murderer". Get off the internet now before you make too much a fool out of yourself Valeofruin (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalin was not a mass murderer- barnstar for the most retarded statement ive ever heard- i guess all those guys in the Gulags just died of old age did they? I guess the militry purges were just fun and games? The massacre of Cossacks at Lienz? You are a seriously misinformed little man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you choose to view Stalin. You can believe that Stalin was simply the only one in power and he was a sadistic lunatic who enjoyed murdering people for no reason OR you can believe that USSR was in a period of turmoil, those individuals were threats and they were executed in order to keep the country in balance. I'm curious how you think the Great Purge was targeted, seeing as how they weren't really random murders...

Unfortunately it becomes clear that the NPOV tag will never be removed, a census will never be met, as the pro-NPOV and the "Death to Stalin!" types will never agree to let the others article go unchallenged.

Perhaps the proper way to solve this would be to have a fair wikiveteren rewrite the article, after reading the pro-Stalinist material, doing things like rewording such words as 'Dictator', and using the NPOV tactic of writing as the enemy, then of course closing this article once and for all.

I mean would it really be so difficult to replace a word like dictator with:

head of state  –noun the person who holds the highest position in a national government: a meeting of heads of state.

??? This article wouldnt be so controversial if you would just do some writing as the enemy, and some really simple re-wording/phrasing. Valeofruin (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to replace the word 'dictator'? That is exactly what he was- I agree that we should present the facts and let them do the talking, but if we follow this absurd nopv idea as gospel then the article would not imply that stalinist atrocities were in any way wrong. It has to be made clear that Stalin, and his actions, are today condemned as brutal and opressive. PS Maybe you would like to change the page on genocide as it seems to be a bit to 'anti', im sure your keen to get a neutral non condeming tone (heavy sarcasm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"It has to be made clear that Stalin, and his actions, are today in the Western countries condemned as brutal and opressive by the liberals." - No, there are plenty of people who disagree with this, and acknowledge Stalin as one of the greatest persons within the communist movement.90.221.232.154 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, so because some group of ill informed, nostalgic, old communist hard liners liked the days of state controlled murder and supression that makes it ok. Those who see Stalin as "a God" aspire to achive his level of bloody control over there own countries. There are plenty of people who agree with the sentiment of the Horst Wessel song in the world, but that does not mean that wikipedia should give equel treatment to such views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Stalin did what was necessary for the survival of his country. Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that Communist leaders would only be allotted four years to rule. Stalin took power, but defied Marx's intentions, therefore making him a dictator. But if we were to examine the rulers around Stalin, many of them were weak kneed proleteriats who couldn't even wipe their own asses, much less those of an entire country. Stalin murdered people to keep the efficiency of the nation up. Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Hitler did what was necessary for his country. Most people who become dictators and brutally crush a portion of their country do it for "stabilization". How many people would do it to purposely destabilize the country they rule? But to be so dizzyingly relativistic to make out like he was simply doing what was necessary instead of being a brutal racketeer, a Statist Thug, --12.28.101.34 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)is to warp reality. So summary executions, gulags, forced famine, brutal suppression of freedom are all a-ok as long as stability is preserved, and your place on top of the heap. Got it. Every tin horn dictator, right and left, has just gotten free license. I would dearly love to see such support over on the Hitler entry. We can all get misty eyed over his appointment by Providence to lead his people. I can agree that elements of the West perhaps have demonized Stalin out of proportion. But one just needs to stick to the dark, thuglike behavior of his rule. It doesn't do us favors to knee-jerk demonize the likes of Hitler and Mao and Stalin. But it stands that they are all brutal mafioso racketeers and purges and massacres are merely sound political tools for such folk. When we excuse any of them we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. If we don't identify them as human in origin, and sadistic brutes refined from the human population, and instead as some supernatural beasts having dropped from the sky, we are bound to have more such figures in our future.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is too anticommunist and “anti-Stalin,” I think we need a more neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubanik (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe a "Neutrality is disputed" banner is heavily warranted by this article sheer bias against Stalin.Metallurgist (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Neutrality dispute is purely POV, is it disputed that Stalin ordered atrocities such as Katyn? Its like saying that theres bias against Hitler or Mao. Bugguyak (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to defend the actions of any of those men, but isn't the fact that they were tyrants makes it actually more likely that there will be bias in what should be a factual article? 129.241.138.157 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

religious talk is POV, your statement about satan does not belong here.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it POV thats the point of the above discussion, but I removed it and replaced it with a similar analogous personality. Bugguyak (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i have not even stated whether i support the PROC or ROC yet you jump to conclusions. comparing satan to a human being is totally wrong, considering the fact that we do not know satan's personality, whether he is evil, or just the absence of good, just as darkness is the abcense of light, and coldness the absence of heat.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

hitler was a christian, and stalin studying to become a priest, i think they learned alot of mass murder and genocide from the bible, as it says god supported the mass murder of innocents, and entire races in the old testament......ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

- Hitler was NOT a Christian; he banned Christianty and persecuted the Church. Kentish 28 Oct 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

and it is also clear that the killings, mass murder, and genocide that stalin, hitler, and god ordered in the old testament of the bible, were deliberate and intentional, while all deaths resulting from mao were a result of failed economic policy.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This article, like most on controversial issues in Wikipedia, is somewhat of a disgrace. Rather than exhibiting a NPOV, it exhibits a POV which oscillates, often sentence by sentence between pro and anti-Stalinist sentiments. For an example of what an encyclopedic entry on Stalin should look like, read the entry in Britannica (or, if you lack access to that, you can search Google for an Encarta entry on Stalin). In the future, I will be avoiding reading Wikipedia articles on dictators (especially those whom ruled countries which still look up to such people: you don't see "controversial" tags on the Wikipedia entry on Hitler, for instance). BFBbrown (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, apparently its too difficult for some people to recognize a NEUTRAL article,so for this reason ive taken the liberty of rewording the entire first section, and posting a draft here: http://pastebin.ca/1213777

I can cite relatively biased sources to show the opinions of "supporters of stalin", for those that will call that point out, but i dont think its nessecary considering people have already psoted them on this talk page.

Really its not that hard to make an article unbiased, you can still mention all the points AGANST stalin that you want, all we ask is that you take into consideration the other side of the story, and at least allow some degree of credibility to the Stalinist support. The article mentions extremely biased facts and figures, and uses incriminating words like "Regime" or "Dictator", and gives opinions of 1 specific group of "historians", without even mentioning, yet alone lending a degree of credibility to another more, "Stalin Friendly" camp.

Just re word the article a bit, water down some of the anti stalin opinions, and stop setting figures such as "millions dead" in stone, when they cant be proven, and anyone who tries can be rebutted with equally sufficient evidence.

Im not asking you make a hero of stalin, or even attempt to remove his "villian" status, just tone down the stalin hate just mabe 1 or 2 notches, and leave some food for thought.Valeofruin (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If anything, this article has a pro-Stalin bias. Compare with Hitler where the number of deaths he was responsible for is stated clearly in the lead (whereas here it's buried deep in the text). Being 'neutral' does not mean ignoring facts which some find uncomfortable or giving equal weight to fringe views. The controversy on the death toll you refer to is one between killing 10 million or 20 million people. Either way the phrase "millions dead" is still appropriate. Similarly the words "regime" and "dictator" are accurate descriptions, accepted by all but a minority of scholars. Seriously, there is a "Hitler Friendly" camp out there but that does not mean that the Wiki article on Hitler needs to present their "side" of the story. The same applies here.radek (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Now correct me if im wrong, but last i checked neutrality did in fact require one to take into account all sides of the story.

Suggesting that somehow ignoring the arguements presented by one party is neutrality is simply ignorant. No offense, but mabe you could use a dose of neutrality yourself.

Also the arguement isnt between 10 and 20 million, the arguement is that you cant prove that millions died under Stalin, noone can. The maximum number of deaths possible is disputed between 10 and 20 million perhaps, but the dispute here, make no mistake is whether or not Stalin even killed half a million, or if he even killed anyone at all!

In addition Regime, and Dictator are accepted by all but a minority of scholars, this is true, however the majority of scholars all stand on the same side of this issue, they always have and always will, the other side so happends to be the minority, its not as though theres been any compromise between parties to draw this conclusion. And to put your suspiscion to rest, i would present the same case if the Hitler article came into question.

The reality is the Wiki community picked 1 side of this issue to stand on, the side of the majority, and COMPLETELY shut out the voice of the minority. Thats not neutrality, its just wrong. Valeofruin (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Stalin was and remains the biggest mass murderer of the 20th Century. That marks him out as one of the most evil characters in history. And thats being neutral. Kentish 28 Oct 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look through the Hopelessly POV section you will find the evidences that contradict to your statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No Stalin was a good guy- I used to muck out his dacha and he was very nice to old ladies and hamsters and rarely killed anyone at all, unless they happened to look at him in a funny way. I think wikipedia needs definitely in order to maintain credibility to give ample space to the views of complete crackpots who view Dzugashvili as benign Uncle Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.55.50 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to challenge the assertion above that Hitler was not a Christian. Here are a few quotations:

On hearing of the declaration of the First World War: ‘I sank down on my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for the favour of having been permitted to live in such a time.’ (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)

‘I know Herr Hitler very well personally and am quite close to him. He is an unusually honourable character, full of profound kindness, is religious, a good Catholic. ’ (Rudolph Hess, letter to Prime Minister of Bavaria, 1920)

‘We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.’ (Adolf Hitler, speech in Berlin, 1933)

‘I shall remain a Catholic for ever. ’ (Adolf Hitler, to his adjutant, General Gerhard Engel, 1941)

Bobshalogadog (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(Copy pasted from above. I'm too lazy to retype.) I would like to point out that Stalin did what was necessary for the survival of his country. Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that Communist leaders would only be allotted four years to rule. Stalin took power, but defied Marx's intentions, therefore making him a dictator. But if we were to examine the rulers around Stalin, many of them were weak kneed proleteriats who couldn't even wipe their own asses, much less those of an entire country. Stalin murdered people to keep the efficiency of the nation up. Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Documentable "Estimates of the Scale of Stalinist Repression"

"Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence"

This contains an extensive and detailed overview of the soviet prison system and its populations, and of course what % of whichever group was imprisoned.

Link: http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html

Its one thing to quote paid western writers and their fantastical lies, its another to actually look at Soviet archives and see, as clear as whats printed, the numbers and/or information regarding these disputed subjects...

I strongly urge anyone with an interested in this subject or the article to take the time and read the information I've linked to, it is very well referenced and based on Soviet sources.

(24.64.86.167 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)) Why complain about neutrality when you could fix it...?

Because it just gets rolled back.

Stalin in the arts

The paragraph is about texts, what about images and movies?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A completely biased article

This article is completely biased. It is just a a bullshit rather than an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celikbilge (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

Under the family section: 'this (as well as...) were' should be replaced by 'this (as well as...) was'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew schaug (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bad Grammar" is actually grammatically incorrect. It should be Poor Grammar.

Removing the dispute tag

Frankly, without anyone caring to discuss why they feel the article is "bullshit" or "anti-Stalin," I'm inclined to remove the dispute tag.  RGTraynor  17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not. We all know Stalin wasn't a bright and shiny happy person, but the emphasis on his crimes is overwhelming the rest of the content about his life. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that parts of it, including the intro, read like a 1950s New York Times article. There is definitely a point of view present, and that is of a western view. The fact of the matter is that in parts of the world, particularly Russia, Stalin is remembered as a man who had many great accomplishments along with the atrocities. He is not viewed as a menace and a mass murderer, he's viewed as a strong, iron fisted leader who transformed a poor peasant nation into a superpower in a relatively short period of time and liberated Europe from the Nazis. His policies, while cruel, were necessary for the future of the great soviet empire. In other words the ends justified the means, in a non-western point of view, something that most people in the west can't seem to come to grips with after living a lifetime around anti-communist "evil empire" propaganda. His accomplishments should be given equal weight, and his wrong doings shouldn't be exaggerated. One example, the section "Number of victims" seems completely unnecessary. A section based entirely on people speculating on how many people died under Stalin's rule is ridiculously POV. It could easily be summed up in one or two sentences citing the minimum and maximum, and the most common average. Sceneshock (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And you can add the Holodomor section to that list of POV portions (though it's already tagged). The idea that it was an engineered famine to wipe out the Ukrainian people is a highly contested claim, it certainly shouldn't be the first sentence of the subject as if that is most accepted scholarly view. I suggest you (anyone reading this actually) reads the holodomor article thoroughly to get a good idea of what to put in that section, because it is quite a controversial subject, yet here we are saying "Stalin did it because Stalin is evil" in his very own biography.

One must wonder about that. Stalin wanted more than anything else to industrialize and further develop the Soviet Union. Why on Earth would he attempt to destroy the so called "bread basket" of the nation in the midst of this transformation? Sceneshock (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a question that deserves a serious answer. What was he thinking? Fred Talk 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Like any complex historical event, it resists simple explanation. Our article on collectivization in the USSR has some background. For the most part, the roots of the Holodomor are thought to lie in the Party's desire to collectivize agriculture, which met with active and passive resistance from the peasantry, resulting in harsh food requisitions and other reprisals by the Bolsheviks against the "bread basket" of the USSR. In this sense, the motivation fits quite snugly with Stalin's desire to industrialize and further develop the Soviet Union, as collectivization was the ends which supposedly justified the means. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In this article, we're given one paragraph in the Holodomor section, and that one paragraph heavily focuses on and seems to favor the genocide theory, displaying it as if it's the most domonant and widely accepted theory, while giving no mention to other more widely accepted theories. Put yourself in the position of someone who has never heard of Holodomor before. You get to that section, and the first thing you read is "The Holodomor famine is sometimes referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide". Then it goes on not to inform the reader of any facts about the famine, but whether or not it's considered a genocide. So that's it, your lesson on Stalin and the holodomor. How..informative? Balanced? Maybe I'm just "clueless" as another editor so maturely suggested, but that doesn't sound very fair or balanced to me, to suggest something highly contested like that and not actually elaborate on the issue. Instead of saying there is a theory that some people believe and some don't, why not give brief mention of the most widely accepted theories in a neutral and balanced mannr (ie. why they do or don't consider it a genocide), and let the readers decide for themselves? Sceneshock (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's rather curious that someone removed the tag because there was "no discussion in a month", but failed to actually make a reply and discuss any of the points brought up by various users on the discussion page. How can we have discussion if the opposing side refuses to discuss? Sceneshock (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps because you're echoing the same pro-Stalinist points that we've been subject to by a long line of sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts on this page? "His policies, while cruel, were necessary for the future of the great soviet empire" - you sound exactly like Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), in fact. And you're a brand-new account. What do you expect us to think? The chance is exactly zero that the article will be rewritten to the pro-Soviet POV. If you have anything else to suggest, please do, otherwise the tag will go again. - Merzbow (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pro-Stalinist. However I do think the pro-Stalinist point of view deserves fair mention considering how widespread it is. That's what NPOV is, all popular point of views should be expressed fairly. The article doesn't need to be re-written, but it needs to be renovated quite badly and the POV tag shouldn't be removed until both sides are satisfied. And I'm not a sock of anybody, you can get an admin to check if you want, but I really don't appreciate the blind and baseless accusations. Sceneshock (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"That's what NPOV is, all popular point of views" - hmm, no, this is what NPOV says: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." We precisely do not write history articles based on "popular point of views", we base them on what academics say. If you have changes to suggest backed by cites from Professors of History, please list them here. - Merzbow (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You just quoted NPOV for me, unless you're suggesting that there are no reliable sources anywhere in the world that are pro-Stalin (or at the very least, not anti-Stalin) then your argument is moot. Sceneshock (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there are, but you as of yet have not presented any. - Merzbow (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if I personally supply links. They exist, and they aren't presented in this article, therefore the POV tag will stay until the article is neutral and presents all relevant points of view. And there are also dozens of other POV issues that I've already pointed out. Sceneshock (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So you assert the existence of reliable pro-Stalinist material, but feel no need to actually prove the existence of such. Good luck with that. - Merzbow (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to prove their existence any more than I need to prove the existence of the sun. The point is that this article is a POV mess, and that's not even entirely related to having pro-Stalin sources. Stop removing the tag, if this article were neutral you wouldn't have a ton of people complaining that it's not. Sceneshock (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Take this advice from someone who actually added a POV tag to a section of this article: you present a credible argument, based on sources, as to which part of this article is slanted in any way. For example, if there are academic views that are not being represented, we will have to accept that the article is unbalanced. Your point about how he is remembered is different - I am perfectly willing to include a few citations on the cult of nostalgia for him in certain sections of the former USSR, particularly in Georgia. But that has nothing to do with NPOV. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about the "good" that Stalin accomplished for the benefit of Russia, then we also need to point out that Hitler restored a sense of German nationalization, sought to correct the absurd and harsh provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, and made the trains run on time.

John Paul Parks (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the Hitler article. Stalin's good and bad decisions are both appropriate for elucidation in this article without having to give equal time to other world leaders.

Tell us about Stalin

Give us helpful information about him not everyting he did wrong.Goblyglook (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Please check out the links I'll post.

The complete works of J.V. Stalin http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/Index.html

Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform, the *extremely* well referenced and indepth look at Stalin's struggle and failure to enforce democratic processes on the Soviet Union. http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

What about Stalin? In defence of Joseph Stalin (detailing the different aspects of Stalin and his contributions to Soviet society - doubled life expectancy, universal education and healthcare for example. http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html

A look at Stalin, and the people who testify to his modesty and simple lifestyle. Basically a debunking of the cult of personality myth. http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

The book titled "Another view of Stalin" again, extremely well referenced. http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

A personal account of one man's feelings towards Stalin, very interesting http://azeri.org/Azeri/az_latin/latin_articles/latin_text/latin_73/eng_73/73_stalin_cult.html

Stalin - An emerging view (note the references at the bottom) http://www.visualstatistics.net/Catastrophe/Golden%20Years/Golden%20Years.htm

An extremely interesting transcript of Stalin and Sergei Eisenstein on the Film Ivan the Terrible http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/ivant.htm

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/110.5/goldman.html http://www.visualstatistics.net/Catastrophe/Stalin%20Biography/Stalin's%20Biography.htm

Chairman Mao on Joseph Stalin's place in history http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-7/mswv7_467.htm

Lies concerning the history of the USSR http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/lies.html

Enver Hoxha's recount of his meetings with Stalin http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/stalin/intro.htm

I sincerely hope that the people interested in the validity and balance of the article will look carefully at the links provided, the absurd suggestions about Stalin 'killing' 'as many as' '50million people' and soforth are beyond laughable. USSR's population was about 170million in the mid 30s considering the break-neck pace of industrialization, shortage of labour, etc the ideas about so-called death tolls are unrealistic at best.

When a nation goes from plowing the fields with it's bare hands to increasing the total size of their industrial base by 450% in under 5 years, from fighting with swords and rifles to mass producing more then 100,000 artillery, 75,000 anti-air units, and more then 170,000 tanks and armoured fighting vehicals while the western half of the nation has already been burned to the ground twice over, and I couldn't even begin to note the social aspect of it, the universities the healthcare, mass literacy efforts...you really need to take a closer look at the reasons beyond these and many other monumental achievements - Stalin is a good place to start. ;)

(24.64.86.167 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Almost all the links/sources provided above come from doctrinaire Marxist and Stalin-apologist sources, of extremely dubious academic rigour or standing. I cannot see how arguing that points of view that one views as ideologically biased are rationally countered by sources that make little or no pretense of objectivity and are driven by their own inflexible ideological standpoint. That is neither rational nor constructive. The ongoing analysis of the newly opened documents from the Soviet Archives by professional historians is providing the opportunity for far less guesswork and supposition than in the past, and respected works that draw on these should be the benchmark to draw from. The picture that is emerging of Stalin (and Soviet society in the period generally) is far more complex than any ahistorical wishfulfilment of the politically engaged of either extreme, the human consequences no less shocking. Lewvalton (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How unbiased. So the sources from the American, and anti-stalinist sources are credible and rational, while soviet and stalinist so-called 'apologists' are untrustworthy? I totally disagree on the fact that the sources above are not to be used. I don't see any reason that Marxist and Stalinist works shouldn't be used. Turtlesoviet (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very unbiased (I hope). Look carefully again at what I wrote. I at no point referred to "American" (though must American academics necessarily be any less objective than others?) or "anti-Stalinist" sources (it is not a historian's job to be dogmatically "anti" or "pro" anything or anyone; I would be no more approving of academically dubious 'sources' from the doctrinaire right). I refer to the overriding importance of the primary sources that have emerged and are still emerging from the Soviet archives, studied by both Russian and international historians. These have cut away large thickets of past claims and supposition. If one's starting point and purpose are ideological (as the majority of the links above quite openly are), then one's overriding aim is to manipulate material and its presentation into conformity with one's views, in other words to act as an apologist or propagandist, rather than attempt to present the source material in as academically rigourous a way as possible. The former is a political and ideological approach, the latter the approach of a historian, which is what Wikipedia demands. You can be a respected historian whose approach is informed by, for example, a lifelong Marxist viewpoint (e.g C.L.R.James and E.P.Thompson) but that is still to be grounded in the the academic disciplines of a historian, disciplines self-evidently not compatible with the aims of a purely political propagandist, driven by a fixed position and set goal. There are no lack of sound academic sources for the undeniable achievements of the Soviet Union specifically attributable to Stalin, just as there are for those areas of his rule that were destructive and retrogressive. Wikipedia was not created to be a political platform of any kind. There are other places for that. Lewvalton (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Belarus a gain from Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

In the 1945-1953, the article refers to the Pact as the "treaty which partitioned Poland (giving the Soviet Union what is now Belarus)", but this is not entirely correct. Firstly, it gave the Soviet Union much of modern Ukraine and Lithuania as well, as secondly, not all of Belarus was previously part of Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AseemShukla (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

None - Position created in 1922?

On the right side of the page where it says General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and where it says Preceeded by, it says None - Position created in 1922. This is not accurate, as Vladimir Lenin was the first leader of the Soviet Union, from 1922 to his death in 1924. Would someone like to change this please? Thanks.

71.116.23.185 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictator

There is not a scholarly consensus concerning the use of this label. Not a single Russian scholar during the USSR described Stalin as such. Nor do present day Russian sources. [1] Some of the historians that are cited to describe Stalin as a dictator do not specialize in the history of Russia and are therefore not competent to analyze such a subject. Needless to say, the history of Russia written by Russian citizens is superior to anything foreigners can write. These[ [2] Russian scholars describe Stalin as:

• politician, Hero of Socialist Labor (1939), the Hero of Soviet Union (1945), Marshal of the Soviet Union (1943), the Generalissimo of Soviet Union (1945).

• Georgian Bolshevik, from the end of 1930s a Russian statesman, military leader of Russian people during Great Patriotic War.

• Soviet party leader and statesman

Krasna (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"the history of Russia written by Russian citizens is superior to anything foreigners can write." I'm not sure you're familiar with fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Perhaps a review is in order? - Merzbow (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a moment to think if something was anti-Stalin then it must've been destroyed, along with its author.

Stalin - Okhrana double agent?

Is there any proof that Stalin was a double agent, beyond the speculation of some historians? Stalin was frequently accused of being a stooge for the Tsar, mostly to discredit him (he had enemies in the Party). These accusations are just conspiracy theories, and there are LOTS of conspiracy theories surrounding Stalin and Communism. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzon (talk • contribs)

Of course hard evidence will be hard to come across. Stalin had thirty years to purge Okhrana archives. He was very conscious of his reputation, and recreated history to his favor, to such an extent that he took credit for starting and leading almost every important strike or uprising, when in fact he did nothing of the sort. In such a situation, the "speculation" of reputable historians such as Edward Smith, is a legitimate source, and should be included if prefaced with 'a number of historians believe", which is exactly as it was written. Therefore, I will contine to insist un including the Okhrana connection.E10ddie (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Birth Date

Ok,so yeah his birth date is wrong it is december 21, 1879. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platsrul (talk • contribs) 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we either get an explanation or I will change it, I see no refs to back the assertion of this different date. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia states that factual date is 18 December, but official (which existed in all his documents, possibly related with delay in birth registration by parents) is 21 December. All Soviet encyclopedias cite 21 December and he was soviet leader... So I think it would be good to include also 21 December with small explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eglekuc (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

His birthday is the 21s December: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/14747_stalin.html / http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E5D8133FF931A15751C1A9659C8B63

I found another source stating that the 21, 1879 is his real birthday. It is in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is a reliable source. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562617/Joseph-Stalin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.240.237 (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hypotheses, rumors, and misconceptions about Stalin

After seeing the previous section in the talk page and recalling some previous discussions and some text for some reason deleted from the article, I decided it is necessary to have the section "Hypotheses, rumors, and misconceptions about Stalin" to present the most popular and well referenced "theories" about Stalin, with the purpose of keeping the bio as streamlined and factual as possible.

By the way, the article has grown enormously long and detailed, especially after recent additions of numerous minute detail, like, about each and every exile and escape of young Stalin (I guess from the book Young Stalin :-). IMO it is time to refactor this page according to wikipedia:Summary style. `'Míkka>t 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To label something as "misconception" you need reliable sources claiming this to be a misconception. So far I do not see any.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we move the biography of Stalin's revolutionary years to a separate article, and replace it with a more concise summary?

NPOV dispute, tags?

My reading above seem to suggest there is a valid concern over NPOV in this article,and I don't like that some editors are using the old "sock" defense to deflect makign a good faith effort to address and discuss the conerns. On the other hand I'd like to editor protesting to prosent some specific and concrete examples of the problems and suggested text to remedy them. If its substantial changes a sand-box might be a good idea. If the editor presents credible concerns the tag should be restored until consensus is clear on it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the editor in question is Peters, it doesn't sound like him at all. The bit Merzbow quotes does a little, but otherwise, Peters wasn't really this articulate - or clueless. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal attack, a well indicator of your own intellectual depth. Sceneshock (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I meant that you didn't appear to have a clue about how things work here, a difference from Peters. That's all. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I didn't file an RFCU after seeing his further responses. (But Moreschi did, so we'll see where that goes). - Merzbow (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you (Giovanni) could articulate what the POV concerns are, as a first step toward addressing them? MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How could I articulate the POV concerns, if those have not been communicated to me? I'm not alleging any POV concerns (there may well be real issues, I don't know without carefully reading through the article). But, apparently someone thinks there is, or they would not be edit warring over the NPOV tag, so I want to hear from them.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

His concerns are stated above in the post stamped 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC). --Relata refero (disp.) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Should not the introduction mention the initial collaboration with the Nazi's, prior to switching sides onced attacked?

(As is mentioned later in the article.)

91.125.24.156 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)TPP

Julian vs Gregorian calender

In my edits to Stalin's years as a revolutionary I gave dates in the old Julian calender, which ran 13 days behind the Gregorian calender. Russia did not adopt the modern Gregorian calender until 1918. This is how Simon Sebag Montefiore chose to list dates in his biography of Stalin, which I have referenced. If anyone has noticed any mistakes here, please correct them.Kurzon (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of last name

Is his last name not spelled "Dzhugashvili", not Jugashvili. I thought "Dzhugashvili" was the more common spelling.

Yes, it like that in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as well. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562617/Joseph-Stalin 142.177.240.237 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A history on a groundbreaking artist of today.

this article may be long but it is very informing. the article should be seperated into Stalin's article and one for Stalinist Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveyouegg (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's Father

There's nothing that proves this picture was Stalin's father. Stalin refused to confirm it.

I'll remove it Seektrue (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This photo is described by Simon Sebag Montefiore as the official photograph of Vissarion Jughashvili.

I have put it back.Kurzon (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Montefiore specifically said that Stalin refused to confirm that this was his father. He never said that this was the official photograph. Seektrue (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurzon, there is nothin that proves that thsi was Stalin's father nor was it the "official photograph"..this photo would be more appropriate in Beso's article not here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seektrue (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Stalin refused to confirm Vissarion was his father, but that does not mean this photo isn't one of Vissarion hismelf. These are two different issues.Kurzon (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; there there's no evidence that confirms this was Beso. Only speculation. if you want to place the photo; you can't say Stalin's father under it.Seektrue (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In Young Stalin, the caption under this photo says:

"Dubious parent: the official image of 'Crazy Beso' Djugashvili, cobbler, alcoholic, wife-and child-beater. Stalin refused to confirms this was his father. Jealousy drove Beso mad."

The wording of this caption clearly states that this is a photograph of Vissarion Jugashvili. Whether or not he is Stalin's biological father is another thing, and indeed Montefiore suggests several possible true fathers.

The wording states that this is the "official" image, which could mean different things. It is not accurate to place the photo and say that this was Stalin's father under it. Another caption should be placed.Seektrue (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is important to indicate that there are doubts about the image. I do not like the clutter it creates but we have to indicate the problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I compromised; how about saying in the caption Seektrue (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep asking that the photo depicting stalin's father be labeled as "Official" since there's no confirmation that this really his photograph, I see it removed everytime Seektrue (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

Isn't his name spelled Josef? This is the first time I have seen it spelled with a "ph". Please do not say there is no difference because I can only assume he would disagree with that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.254.228.242 (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He would disagree? Unless he could read or write English, he would have no basis upon which to disagree. As it is, his name was originally written in Cyrllic text. To be intelligible to us, it needs to be transliterated into English characters, and ultimately, the manner of doing so is up to us. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's name is transliterated from Cyrillic text, so "Josef" is a valid spelling. "Iosif" is actually closer to the Russian pronunciation, but the English-speaking world prefers to call him "Joseph".Kurzon (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to know..Despite of his birth sir name is dugashvilli ...why his sir name is called Stalin..Is it his russian name or he just don't want to know that he is not a russian...? che (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He changed his surname to Stalin, it comes from the word "Stal", which means "Steel" in Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volk2108 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rumours

There are persistent rumours that Stalin was a right-wing secret Police agent. The Tsarist secret Police seem to have arranged Stalin's numerous easy escapes. See Edward Ellis Smith and Solzhenytsin, who both referred to the rumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward Ellis Smith wrote "The Young Stalin" in the late 60s, when the Cold War was still raging and Russia was a closed, secretive country. Today, the Cold War is over and Russia has opened up some of its secret records, and these records revealed that Stalin was never an Okhrana agent.

The world is full of "rumors" and conspiracy theories. An encyclopedia should dedicate itself to verifiable facts.Kurzon (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Smith

See Edward Ellis Smith's "The Young Stalin", 1967 or 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Middle

Stalin's middle name is usually given as "Vissarionovich". Sometimes, it was given as "Vissarionov". This seems to sound more old-fashioned in Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.253.210 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Economic Achievements?

I question the economic achievements claimed for Stalin's rule. Tsarist Russia was in 1914 (I believe, and it could be verified) the 4th-largest European economy and certainly a fairly-developed one. It wasn't a backward agrarian nation; its agriculture wasn't efficient, but the hostile climate would have been one reason. Ukraine was an exception, fertile and agriculturally well-developed, following reforms under Stolypin which unfortunately had not time to take full effect before the Revolution.

In Stalin's economic program, only certain basic industries such as steel were developed. The main (almost the only) sector developed was production of armaments - a questionable achievement on moral grounds. Under Stalin the USSR ceased to be self-sufficient in food in spite of a general lowering of the standard of living. It may or may not be coincidence that PR China went through an almost identical experience under Mao.

Light (?) relief - Q: What is the best known Russian brand name? A: Kalashnikov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.25.200 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to check your "facts"... 74.92.98.73 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mother Name

We've got to mention the mother's surname name Geladze; it has to be known at the childhood part Seektrue (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers do not coordinate with each other...

Holomodor, the official number from previously closed soviet archives is 3.2 to 3.5 million.

One modern calculation that uses demographic data including that available from formerly closed Soviet archives narrows the losses to about 3.2 million or, allowing for the lack of the data precision, 3 million to 3.5 million.[7][72][73][1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Also, official figures from the Soviet Demographics page should be used, and the number of deaths should categorized appropriatly

26.6 million : Deaths from the WW2 10-15 milion : deaths from natural causes, famine and executions. This number is also taken from a calculation based on the numbers from the Soviet demographics page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union

It would also be nice that estimated numbers be cited as estimates and official numbers be cited as official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.30.240 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[3], section "Deportation"

The Romanian (sometimes called Moldovans) people from Basarabia were also deported to Siberia, Kazakhstan, and other areas. Please modify. OIandezu (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Georgian names

In the childhood section of the biography I changed the names of Stalin's parents to their original Georgian pronounciations in lieu of their Russian equivalents. If we choose not to use the English equivalents of their names, I believe we should use their originals. After all, if we choose to refer to Yekaterina II Velikaya as Catherine the Great, we might as well refer to Stalin's mother as "Catherine Geladze".Kurzon (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Appointment as General Secretary

We've got those two paragraphs under rise to power

On April 3, 1922, Stalin was made general secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), a post that he subsequently built up into the most powerful in the country. It has been claimed that he initially attempted to decline accepting the post, but was refused. This position was seen to be a minor one within the party (Stalin was sometimes referred to as "Comrade Card-Index" by fellow party members) but, when combined with personal leadership over the Orgburo and with an ally (Kaganovich) heading the organizational Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee, actually had potential as a power base as it allowed Stalin to fill the party with his allies.

and

In 1922, with the aid of Lenin and Kamenev, Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the Central Committee. This post gave him the power to appoint his supporters to key positions within the government and the Party. It also brought the secret police under his control.

I think merging these two paragraphs is not a bad idea so something like:

In 1922, with the aid of Lenin and Kamenev, Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. This position was seen to be a minor one (Stalin was sometimes referred to as "Comrade Card-Index" by fellow party members). Combined with the leadership over the Orgburo, however, this position had a potential power base as it allowed him to appoint his supporters to key positions within the government and party.

any feedback? Seektrue (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This was my fault. I was reworking this section, but then abandoned my work for a while, so that's why there was redundant text.Kurzon (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Length

This article is over 150k. That's really long. Has there been any consideration in trimming or summary style forking? At the very least, additions of further subsections, as some of the sections are really long, specifically the 'Early years as a Marxist revolutionary, 1899–1917' section. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to move the biographical sections to sub-articles and replace them with summaries. In my experience summaries and expanded sub-articles tend to grown inconsistent with each other over time.Kurzon (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What about adding some additional subheading to at least break up the very long sections, such as the early years. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori (Stalin's birthplace) is in Georgia, not in Tiflis as stated in the article

Tiflis is the capital of Georgia, a distance of about 50 miles from Gori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azalfoldi (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia. It was known as Tiflis from 1847 to 1917, and was the centre of Tiflis Governorate, which was one of the guberniyas of the Russian Empire. In 1918, the Russian Empire became the Democratic Republic of Georgia, then the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921. It was not until 1991 that independence from the Soviet Union was gained, making Georgia and independent country.

Stalin's youth was from 1878 to 1899, thus when it was known as Tiflis Governorate. I have, however, un-piped the link, meaning it was formatted as [[Tiflis Governorate|Tiflis]], leaving it to display as simply "Tiflis". With the pipe (|Tiflis) now removed, the full name is displayed. Hopefully that clears up any confusion. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 86, Stalin's place in a poll of the greatest Russians

It would appear that Alexander Nevsky has passed Stalin and will remain so. Perhaps the sentence leading up to it, Stalin topped a poll of who was the greatest Russian? or words to that effect, needs editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.142.39 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's origin

It states that Stalin's father was an Ossetian, which is just one of several rumours and should not be stated as a fact, but rather moved to the end section. The source Wiki cites, a book by Simon Montefiori also states thats its just one of the theories of Dzhugashvili family roots, Georgians have many surnames with this root i.e Dzhugeli, Dzhugaani etc, so it should state 'born to Georgian father who was a cobbler" and in later sections discuss different theories of his origin, as there are more than just Ossetian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biographyspot (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's more reasons to believe his father was Ossetian, many put forward by writers, so it's not just a "rumour", but I agree that it's not an established fact either. Stalin's ethnicy is unsure. Grey Fox (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What languages did Stalin speak?

Does anybody know? Did he speak Georgian besides Russian? Grey Fox (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes he spoke it and also tried to learn German and English at various points in his life but i don't know if he could understand it or read it, he did ask for regular German and English newspapers while leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.24.18 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Social Services Section, Fake Citations

The Social Services section is made up claims that are contradicted by research, and the sources used say the exact opposite of what is claimed in is written in this section.

And the reasearch is contradicted by more research on the opposite side of the board.

The SOcial services section is perhaps the fairest thing allowed to Stalin thus far on wikipedia. He was twisted into a brutal dictator, but at least someone had the dignity to add some of the positive accomplishments achieved under his command. Valeofruin (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize Consideration

Many historians have remarked that Stalin deserved consideration for the nobel peace prize as he was instrumental in bringing peace during the cold war by delivering missles to Cuba, by sending tanks into Hungary, bring peace to the middle east and for creating restorative justice programs for Ukranian youth in Siberia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswani316 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Name one.75.111.161.156 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above was meant as a sarcastic reflection on the present state of this article.radek (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is there not a number of death's commited by Stalin in his intro?

Look, there has been reports that under his command, 10 to 60 million people died under his name. In Adolf Hitlers intro they state how under his command 6 people Jews and what not have perished, why not discuss the amount of people that Stalin killed? Honeslty give it up, the general consensus on this man is that he was a nut, with the likes of Hitler land what not - an unarguable, ojbjective fact. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How many bodies have eben unearthed? Not 10- 60 million thats for sure.

Also 60 million, come on, honestly?

We KNOW this figure CANT be true, its impossible, look and the census's in the soviet union, and in Ukraine, Stalin killing over 1/3rd of his population just doesnt make sense, the math proves otherwise.

from the demographics of the soviet union article, which included an accurate history of the population of the soviet union:

June 1941: 196,716,000* January 1946: 170,548,000*

that means the only major decline in sovet population in its almost century long history was during world war 2 during which:

at least 26,168,000 citizens were lost.

if you do the math on the growth trends after, were looking at (about) an additional 15 million fatalities in the soviet union.

out of this figure:

1,000,000 or more deaths have been attributed to the Holocaust and more specifically are JEWISH executions.

10,700,000 were Military deaths.

11,400,000 were wartime civilian casualties, most of which died, during the Nazi invasion, and the subsequent bombing and Nazi death raids.

This leaves us with a decline of 3,068,000, and about a maximum (give or take estimate, nothing solid) 18,068,000 unaccounted for casualties.

Now heres where we get a bit theoretical. Assuming the united states is free of its share of purging, the crude death rate in the united states in 2008 is 8.27, so lets call it 8 for good measure, using this as a map we can say about 8 out of every 1000 citizens will die at no direct fault of the government, then that leaves us with at least 1,573,728 deaths that in even the most civilised nation, in modern times with modern medicine, all these years later, would occur at no fault of the government.

albeit a shaky analysis, that cant really be backed by any solid historical figures, it shows that only during a war that claimed 23 million soviet lives, did the soviet population drop, and even during the most questionable and unstable times, the MAXIMUM number of people stalin could have possibly been responsible for is 15 million. Math has also been done to calculate the maximum reasonable number of "Holodomer" deaths.

When you take all this into consideration, and you throw the fact that they have yet to even uncover a smallest fraction of these supposed bodies, we see that mathematically, the possibility of stalin killing up to 60 million people becomes more and more farfetched.

In fact, the possibility of stalin killing even just 30 million, or 20 million becomes more and more farfetched.

td;dr You cant prove he killed that many people, physically or mathematcially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopelessly POV

Number of killed hidden way down in the article (it took me awhile to find a mention), and everytime a statement which could be construed as critical is made it is qualified with "but others think otherwise" or "but he had no choice" or some other weasel-ness. Instead we get irrelevant and npov stuff like:

• "Stalin took part in streetfighting as a child; he was not afraid to challenge opponents who were much stronger than he"
• "Policies and ACCOMPLISHMENTS"
• under "Soviet secret service and intelligence" we get a discussion of what an able organizer Stalin was rather than what these secret services were used for
• The whole "Social Services" section
• "From 1946–1948 coalition governments comprising communists were elected in (Eastern Europe)" - obviously these were "coalition" in name only as it was the communists who had all the power.

And so on. I'm tired of looking at this.radek (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I Absolutly Agree it appears this board is run by communist who wants nothing critical of the man even if they are facts we need mods & administrators in here ASAP to restore order ChesterTheWorm (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

• This "board"? "Mods"? If you have improvements, make them; this is a wiki. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"by communist who wants nothing critical of the man even if they are facts" - Well then, find a reliable source to prove what you are saying about Stalin, and insert them into the article, instead of complaining on the talk page. Also it's difficult to say how many he killed, as the figures range from 4-100 Million. Dzhugashvili (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the "he was a great singer" and a bit of the other fawning in the lead is sourced to the book "Young Stalin" by Montefiore. This is a legitimate source. However I would like to remind the editors that there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a biography. Montefiore, as an author and a biographer can engage in what's essentially interpretation and speculation along the lines of "he earned the admiration of his teachers" and so on. An encyclopedia however should stick to observable and verifiable facts. Hence I've removed some of the more literary language.radek (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not Wikipedias Job to Critique Stalins Policy, Wiki is here to educate, from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia doesnt have a political agenda, and hence should have no interest in smearing Stalin, just explaining what happened, and the history, and yes ESPECIALLY in this case, the controversy surrounding it.

Wikipedia is here to spread interesting facts about stalin, encyclopedias do it all the time, this includes facts about his childhood and other such things. Wikipedia is not here to foreshadow, build any kind of legacy, or attempt to make anyone, look so completely heartless.

Im sorry if you think giving facts about young stalin, is nonsense, and i know you would much rather have a piece on how Stalin drowned kittens or some such thing, or an article that says nothing remotely pleasent about Stalin, but that would just make matter worse, it would just be wrong. By my own analysis though you are correct, that comments about the opinions of stalins teachers and such too should not belong in the article. However we should show some caution when removing such things, especially if they have a viable source attached to them, an example being if Stalin was actually SEEN fighting children larger then himself, and this can be supported by 1 or more Legit sources, why not keep it? It's a fun little tid bit, no harm in that, so long as its presented as a fact, (example: "On at least 4 known occasions Stalin was SEEN participating in school yard fights with children much larger then himself" vs. "As a child Stalin often challenge much larger boys to fistfights after school")

Again im not asking you take out all negative things about Stalin, that would be sheerly ignorant on my part, of course he made mistakes, extremely grave ones at that. What you must try to understand is where im coming from on this. All I ask is that we water down the language a bit, lend that minority some credibility. Can we not be skeptical, like investigators worth their salt? Is it to much to ask to clearly state the popular belief and compare it to the opposition? Is it too much to ask to tone down the wording just a bit?

Is it too much to ask to change things like "under stalins brutal regime millions died of starvation" etc etc. to something a bit more neutral and friendly, perhaps along the lines of "Stalins government is often accused of crimes, including murder. Some estimates place the death toll in the millions, wheras supporters of the Soviet leader have been known to deny the claims. (add further details to a new section dedicated to the arguements in support of stalin)."

Come how we already have articles on holodomer denial, would it really hurt to have a presence of such theories throughout the Stalin article? for neutralities sake?

As a bit of a Post Script I'd like to mention that some users anti- Communist biased in this discussion too is uncalled for. We're people just like you, our personal political beliefs are really detached from what the issue is here, Neutrality. As I said earlier, I would just as easily defend the Nazi's credibility if the Hitler article came into question. Attempting to discredit the challenge on the neutrality of this article because it was probably made by a communist, would be no different then you discrediting ones accountability, because they are say, Jewish, and attempting to challenge an article related to world war 2. It would simply be unfair. Everyone has a voice here, and noone "runs the boards" or any of that such non-sense.

Valeofruin (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Valeofruin it has nothing to do with being communist or not. Stalin was one of the biggest criminals in human history responsable for the deaths of millions and millions of innonect people i therefore agree with the comments of Radeksz. Loosmark (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

First. If someone killed a million people, the NPOW requires to state he was a mass murderer.

Second. Fairy tales about 60 million killed by Stalin comes from the Cold War era when only indirect data were available. All numbers of that kind were produced as estimations, or as instruments in the ideological war. All reputable studies after 1990 give much more reasonable numbers. Even Conquest, who gave astronomical number of Stalin's victims in 1970s, concedes that: "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures."
(Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Author(s): Robert Conquest Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319).
Weathcroft (The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353) concedes:

"The nature of Soviet repression and mass killing was clearly far more complex than normally assumed. Mass purposive killings in terms of executions were probably in the order of one million and probably as large as the total number of recorded deaths in the Gulag. In this narrowest category of purposefully caused deaths, the situation is exactly the opposite to that generally accepted. Hitler caused the murder of at least 5 million innocent people largely, it would appear, because he did not like Jews and communists. Stalin by contrast can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people. Furthermore the purposive deaths caused by Hitler fit more closely into the category of 'murder', while those caused by Stalin fit more closely the category of 'execution'. Stalin undoubtedly caused many innocent people to be executed, but it seems likely that he thought many of them guilty of crimes against the state and felt that the execution of others would act as a deterent to the guilty. He signed the papers and insisted on documentation. Hitler, by contrast, wanted to be rid of the Jews and communists simply because they were Jews and communists. He was not concerned about making any pretence at legality. He was careful not to sign anything on this matter and was equally insistent on no documentation.
It is only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler, but here we have to remember that the USSR was much larger than Germany and that death rates in the best of times had always been significantly higher in Russia than in Germany.
The Gulag was neither as large nor as deadly as it is often presented, it was not a death camp, although in cases of general food shortage (1932-33 and 1942-43) it would suffer significantly more than the population at large. There were not 12 million deaths in the camps as suggested by Maier; and it seems highly unlikely that there were as many as 7 million deaths between 1935 and 1941 as claimed by Conquest citing Mikoyan's son. With a maximum number of inmates of 1.5 million in 1941 the Gulag was nevertheless of demographic significance and more than twenty times as large as the prewar Nazi concentration camp system at its peak following Kristallnacht. But all the same, twenty times as large as pre-war Nazi concentration camps does not make anything like Auschwitz."
My conclusions are. Stalin was a mass murderer. Hi was a criminal. His negative effect on the USSR, Marxism and the leftists movement was immense. However, he was not a biggest criminal.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with the main lines of the remarks above from user Siebert. If you would add the so-called 60 million persons murdered by Stalin with the 28 million of WWII, the 15 million of the civil war, the 4 million of WWI, the three starvations (only the last one is maybe due to Stalin, the others were due to war civil war circumstances and un unintended effect of the NEP), several millions due to Spanish flue, a million deaths caused by the tsar, then you would end up with about 120 million 'unusual' deaths, mostly male adults, in one generation on a population of about 180 million. Such a number would result of a total collapse of a society and streets free of male adults and no fear for a Red Army which no longer could exist by lack of males. The same POV you see in the restoration of the empire of the tsars by Stalin. You can dislike that policy, the peoples in concern in most cases did, but throughout history it was usual. Many other countries grabbed territories back they once lost. And on the other hand many countries refuse the separation of areas inhabited by other peoples, which they once grabbed violently: that is generally accepted, only in the case of Stalin it is suddenly unacceptable. One should separate the real facts from cold war lies and propaganda, the reality is already bad enough. Robvhoorn (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also agree that the 60mil is probably too high. I believe the current historical consensus puts it at around 20-30mil, over a span of 25-30 years. (If you'd like you can compare that to Hitler's 25mil over about 10 years). I think Mao's still believed to hold the record.radek (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I reproduced the fragment from the Conquest's paper because he a) was one of proponents of large numbers mentioned above, and b) he works/ed for Hoover Institute, that is notorious in strong conservative anti-Communist position. Therefore, the Conquest't data/opinion should be interpreted as an upper margin. As regards to 20-30 mil, I would be very cautious because everything here depens on definitions. Most Hitler's victims are the result of his deliberate action: mass murder of camps prisoners, or starvation of Soveid POWs or besieged Leningrad inhabitants, or mass executions of Soviet peoples in occupied areas - all of this was a deliberate action aimed to destroy a certain group of population.
In contrast, most of Stalin's victims are indirect results of his questionable internal policy. He didn't plan majority of death his activity caused. Therefore, I wouldn't call these people Stalin's victims, they were rather the indirect victims of the system Stalin created.
In addition, the border between excessive mortality as a result of Stalin's policy and of others, external factors is very vague, so it can be interpreted in different ways depending on your personal attitude towards Stalin.
I think, neutrality requires to keep that in mind.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And, in addition to that, accusation in brutality sometimes are hypocritical, as soon as we all use the fruits of that. For instance, the notorious orders no. 227 and 270 were brutal without any doubts. However, one has to keep in mind that these two orders, along with other steps, allowed the SU to organize a proper defence and to stop Hitler near Moscow and Stalingrad. Hadn't Hitler been stopped there, nothing would prevent Axis from dominance in Eurasia, Athlantic and Pacific, and, probably, from atomic bombing of New York (taking into account that the atomic project started in Germany earlier and a half of all Nobel prize winners were Germans).
What other steps could Soviet leaders take to stop Hitler? To start democratic elections of Stavka members?
Therefore, we criticise Stalin for taking steps that saved ourselves. As I already told you, that is a hypocricy.
One more point. I think everybody knows that many soldiers returning from Iraq need a psychological rehabilitation to act in a peaceful surroundings. What can you tell about the whole nation that returned from the most brutal war in a history? I would say, the whole nation was a little bit mental after the war, with considerably mangled vision of humanity. However, their cruelty and brutality was a byproduct of what was happening in the Eastern Front, in other words, we are kind and friendly now because they were brutal and cruel then.
Don't forget about that.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Polish invasion in the intro

This should NOT be in the intro (it's too detailed)..it should be mentioned under WWII

"some historians believe Stalin contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. This led to the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland from the east later that same year, following Nazi Germany's invasion of western Poland."

Seektrue (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice how when a minority of Historians mentions a wild conspiracy theory, that works AGAINST Stalin it makes it into the intro, yet we still suffer this brutal neutrality debate because some people still refuse to allow equally accepted, yet pro- Stalin theories to have an influence on the article as well. Why not give Stalin a chance at a fair trial here?

That piece of off topic information being posted, probably under the wrong topic/ title, i can go on to say that i agree, it should be moved to the ww2 section, hopefully when someone finally decides to revamp this article *coughs*. Valeofruin (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in an edit war on this. We've already discussed that it needs to be removed

if someone has a problem then they should state it

Seektrue (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of this piece of information is being discussed below. It can be rewritten but the MRP and its effects should definitely be in the intro.radek (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing articles

I invite anyone sitting at home, wondering exactly HOW this article could become more neutral, to check out the Wikipedia page on Mao Zedong, and compare criticism of his policy, which is viewed by a large following of historians as being just as bloody as Stalins, to the criticism presented in the Stalin article.

I believe this it of comparison will aid some in understanding just why this article has been so disputed for so long now, and what we can do to close this discussion, and have a fair, non-biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to falsify history

The user Radeksz attempts to falsify history by removing faccts which are supported by links to other lemmas inside Wikipedia. In this falsification he refuses to give links to sources that supprot his strange ideas. Falsification of history is the territory of dictators (as Stalin himself). Robvhoorn (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a pretty nasty way to express a difference of opinions. You inserted something starting with, "However, these historians forget to mention that...", which is an insertion of a non-neutral point of view, not supported by sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you bring up "other lemmas inside Wikipedia", please consult the Wiki page on Belarusians and Ukrainians. There was no "White Russians", or any other kind of "Russians", living in those territories at any time, mistranslations into English notwithstanding. Furthermore, prior to the present independence of Ukraine and Belarus the relevant territories passed hands among many countries (many no longer existent) and it is completely pointless to ascribe "ownership" in a modern sense. Finally, please note that this kind of POV pushing, combined with a characteristic rudeness has been seen in many related articles across Wiki and has led to folks being banned for suck puppetry. I only mention this since you are a anonymous user with an unregistered account.radek (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is an unregistered account? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Robvhoorn above.radek (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you confused; User:Robvhoorn is of course a registered account, and has been editing under that username since early 2007. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies then.radek (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "Russians", that is exactly how the ansestors of modern Belarussians and Ukrainians self-identified for most of their history, but I guess that was lost in the Polish translation... Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that got lost in translation from imperialist Russian to Ukrainian and Belorussian. Additionally, this particular dispute is completely irrelevant to the paragraph/statement it is being added to - whether Molotov-Ribbentrop contributed to Hitler's aggression on Poland. Even if your POV is that these lands somehow "belonged" to Soviet Union by divine right or whatever, it's still the case that the pact itself made things easier for Hitler.radek (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. The purpose of this dispute is to undermine your credibility by brining your biases into light. By virtue of common ansestry, the three Eastern Slavic nations shared the same name for most of their history (and yes, of course, the Imperial Russian leadership harnessed that fact for their advantage). For instance, "Wialikaje Kniastwa Litowskaje, Ruskaje, Żamojckaje" - what is the word after "Lithuanian"? In respect to the Molotov-Ribbentrop dealie, this meant that the propagandist claims made by the Soviet leadership about liberating fellow nationals from Polish yoke were not completely baseless. Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not the one inserting pov material into the article, my biases, if I do have them, ARE irrelevant. Argue the content, not the person. Anyway, it's peculiar that those "fellow nationals" weren't exactly thrilled about being "liberated" (small minorities of Bolshevik agents aside). Furthermore your usage of the phrase "fellow nationals" is problematic in at least two ways. First, if the people living in present day Ukraine and Belarus at the time of M-R Pact were nationals of any state they were very obviously "nationals" of the nation of the 2nd Republic of Poland. But ok, perhaps you meant to stress the ethnicity you imagine those people to have had rather than their citizenship status. So second, your use of that term would imply that present day Ukraine and Belarus are also "fellow nationals" of Russians, and hence prolly don't have much of a right to independent statehood. That is a bit of an extremist view. But like I said, all that is irrelevant to whether or not M-R Pact contributed to Hitler's decision to start a war with Poland. So in addition to being POV, OR, and weasely worded, the addition being made is also irrelevant. So shouldn't go in there.radek (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a good portion of the "fellow nationals" were quite happy to be liberated from the Polish opression. However, that changed over time mostly due to unwise and brutal Soviet policies. Basically, I don't contest your removal of that particular change; just couldn't walk by without correcting your factually incorrect statement "There was no "White Russians", or any other kind of "Russians", living in those territories at any time, mistranslations into English notwithstanding." Ko Soi IX (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Molov-Von Ribbentrop treaty is a mix of two more often occurring actions. As non-agression treaty it can be compared with the treaties of Camberlain with Hitler and the non-agression treaty of Poland with Hitler-Germany in 1934. As grabbing of land, without asking the preferences of the population, it can be compared wuth the changing ownership of Elzas-Lorraine area between Germany and France. So, any remark about that subject is POV. The wide-spread denial of the ethnical majority of 'Soviet'-peoples vesrus Polish people should be compared with ethnographic maps from that period as given in http://www.gutenberg-e.org/osc01/images/osc07n.html or http://www.gutenberg-e.org/osc01/images/osc07m.html By the way, I am glad that the (inhumane) dictator Stalin grabbed that area, because it made it impossible for Hitler to reach Moscow in 1941/42 (it was a very narrow escape); in my opinion that shrotened the war with severla years.Robvhoorn (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you were the first person to state that. You almost literally reproduced Churchill's words on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Robvhoorn edited this sentence: "Some historians believe Stalin contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939." by removing words "secret" and the phrase "carve up the nation of Poland" claiming that their inclusion was somehow POV. That's just insane. The fact that MRP contained a secret provision is, well, a fact and it cannot be POV. Similarly, regardless of the ethnicity of the people who inhabited the areas, the pact did carve up the nation of Poland. Again, fact. This isn't de-poving, this is just whitewashing and, well, falsifying history. Oh, and there's an obvious difference with Alsace-Lorraine and France and Germany on one hand, and Soviet Union and Germany on the other. I'm sure you can figure it out if you think about it for a second. And what the heck are "Soviet" peoples? Is that a new ethnicity or something? As far as your last sentence, well, first it's OR, second there are historians of the opposing view - that the carve up of Poland made it easier for Hitler to attack SU, not harder, since it brought his armies that much closer.radek (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• If the difference with Alsace-Lorraine and France and Germany on one hand, and Soviet Union and Germany on the other is quite obvious for you, it is not necessarily obvious for everybody. Could you please be more specific?

Um, because Alsace-Lorraine belonged to either France or Germany, whereas Polish territory - and it was Polish territory regardless of the ethnicity of the people (Ukrainians, Byalo Ruthenians, Poles, Jews, Armenians, Tatars, Lemkas, Germans and various "tutejszy") belonged to neither the Soviet Union nor Germany. It wasn't their to trade or treaty over. Again, this is true regardless of the ethnic composition of those lands.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that so-called "Polish territory" is a very vague caterogy. After 1918 Poland tried to restore the territory within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, that was a union between Polish kingdom and the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the latter, in actuality was a multinational state populated by Lithuanians, Litvins (now Belorussians) and Ukrainians, and the state language there was Russian). It is not easy to establish who started the Polish-Soviet war, but finally the Poles occupied and annexed a considerable part of territories populated by Belorussians and Ukrainians. Therefore, it is quite logical for the Soviets to try to annex these territory to Eastern Belorussia and Ukraine.
Once again, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a multinational state, whereas XX century Poland was the state of the Poles, consequently their attempt to capture the legacy of the former were not completely legitimate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing vague about it since we're talking about internationally recognized borders. Also, let me say it one more time, that who these territories "logically" belonged to is completely irrelevant to the statement that is being removed or altered.radek (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Internationaly recogrnized is vague also. Third Reich border after Munich were internationally recognized also. At least, the UK and France exspected (hoped) these borders would remain unchanged for centuries...--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant here. If you want to write in the Chamberlein article that UK and France let Hitler "carve up" Czechoslovakia, that's perfectly fine by me. Hey, even if you want to add therein that Poland acted opportunitically (i.e. without any prior arrangments with Germany - unlike MRP) and grabbed some small border areas which were in dispute (unlike the Eastern border areas of Poland - which were not disputed by Moscow prior to MRP), then that's fine too. More even, it SHOULD be in there.radek (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that Soviet people really was a new ethnicity in the same extent as the American nation is. This process started after 1917, and there was a huge number of mixed marriages there. In some region of the USSR mixed families were a rule rather an exception.
  This process was interrupted late USSR, but this doesn't meat the process of formation of this new ethnicity had never took place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is OR. And since in 1917 the territories under question were not part of the SU, and stayed not part of the SU until 1939 then the people living in those territories could not have been part of this imagined new ethnicity. And there were/are Polish-Ukrainian marriages, Polish-Jewish marriages, Polish-Mexican marriages and Ukrainian-Ibo marriages. That doesn't mean that the 'old' ethnicities cease to exist.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all statements that do not coincide with your vision are OR. Or you know ALL sources on that subject? And who can discriminate for sure between real and imaginary new ethnicity. I would say, nations have a tendency to emerge and disappear, this is continuous process, and, by analogy with math, every nation is a complex phenomenon (i.e. it has both real and imaginary components)--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but unsourced speculation about some new imagined ethnicity is definitely OR.radek (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Soviet peoples" are peoples that mainly were living inside the Soviet Union of that time; eg. Belo-Russians, Ukrainians and Ruthenians.

Um, no, these people were not living in SU at the time, they were living inside the Republic of Poland, unless somehow Polish territory prior to MRP was part of the Soviet Union. Which it wasn't. Now, maybe, just maybe, you could argue that the members of those ethnic groups caught on the Soviet side of the border (eastern Ukraine in particular) somehow formed this new, imagined, "Soviet" ethnicity - though I think many Ukrainians and others would very strongly object to that characterization. But these were not the lands that MRP concerned.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God, someone tells me that the majority of Belo-Russians and Ukrainians were living in Poland. Complete idiotcy.

No, what someone is telling you is that the Belorussians and Ukrainians living in Poland before 1939 could not be considered "Soviet" since they never lived in that entity. Aside from working on your incivility, would you please read more carefully what other editors actually say since there's no point in having a discussion with someone who is unable or unwilling to make that basic courtesy.radek (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So the Soviet ethnicity is imagined, whereas the Polish ethnicity in the form you proposed (a mixture of Catholic Poles, Orthodox Belorussians and Ukrainians and Judaist Jews), that had been formed after successful Polish offensive (in other words, on the conquered territory) was real?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I make that proposal? If you're referring to my above comment then you're simply confusing the notion of ethnicity with nationality. Are you disputing that prior to Sept 1939 the people we are discussing where living with the borders of the Republic of Poland? Seriously?radek (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrase 'carving up' has a negative connotation and stems from both the cold war and the anti-Soviet propaganda before the war. Therefore, it is propagandistic POV.

But 'carving up' is exactly what happened. Again, this is whitewashing and falsifying history. Maybe it puts the Soviet Union in a bad light, but hey, that's what happens when you sign a deal with Hitler. There's nothing propagandistic or POV about it.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask the Belgians whether they consider the splitting off of Belgium from the Netherlands by the French army would call 'carving up'. They would hang you on the first pole in Brussels. Restoring a situation of shortly before you cannot call 'carving up'.

Alsace-Lorraine was inhabited by a majority of German speaking people that preferred to live under German rule. It was very nasty to live under French rule, because France followed centuries long, and still nowaday continues with it, a policy of annihilating other cultures like German, Breton, Flemish, Bask, Corsican, Occitan etc. So a comparison can easily be made.

No it can't. The people in the lands covered in MRP were not Russian speaking. And see above.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So I understand that you ares stating that the German speaking population of Alsace-Lorraine were just faking, that they in reality spoke French. Strange that many of them still nowadays speak German. Can you give a source of your opinion that they spoke French?????

Well, in that case you don't understand. Again, with the purposeful or ignorant misreading. I never said that Germans in AL spoke French. What I said is that the people in Easter Poland of the time did not speak Russian - they spoke mostly Ukrainian, Belorussian. Last I checked these were NOT mere dialects of Russian.radek (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalin took back what according the customs of that time belonged to the Soviet Union (like many other countries still nowadays keep areas they grabbed in earlier times eg. Texas, California, New Mexico etc.)

"Custom of that time"?!? CUSTOM OF THAT TIME?????? Now what the hell is that? Whose custom? I believe the custom of the time was that Poland was an independent country, with internationally recognized (including by SU and Germany) borders, which included the territories under question. And in point of fact, those territories NEVER belonged to the Soviet Union so Stalin could not have "taken them back".radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

When the USA lost territories to Japan, they grabbed it back. Customs of that time. France grabbed back many times areas they had lost some years before to Germany and Germany did as well with respect to France. Poland grabbed areas from Russia that belonged once to Poland and Russia grabbed it back. All customs of that time. In the second half of the forties Tee Netherlands attempted to grab back Indonesia, all customs of that time. France grabbed back Indo-China and Algeria, all customs of that time.

and according to the newspapers of that time the majority preferred at that time the Stalin rule above the Polish rule (later, when they learned more about the Stalin rule this attitude changed).

Uh, which newspapers? In fact, at least in the Ukraine the majority preferred to have their own independent state - part of the reason they didn't have one was Bolshevik Russia. Now you're just making stuff up.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was written in the newspapers of my country as it was in the newspapers of your country. Just go to a library and read the old newspapers before you make an ignorant statement.

The unsigned sentence above had not been written by me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know Paul. Though I think you're wrong here, unlike the other user you have been polite throughout. Anyway - I want to see links to these (non-Soviet) newspapers.radek (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolshevik is not a nationality, it was a phenomenon common for many Central and Eastern European countries. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Bolshevism was alien to every non-Russian nation. A considerable fraction of Bolsheviks was present in Ukraine, Belorussia, Poland, Georgia etc. It is simply incorrect to make a parallel between Bolsheviks and Russians. I tried to count the amount of Ukrainian born Bolsheviks, and, to my great surprise, more that 1/3 of them were born in Ukraine. I think this fact is sufficient to prove that Communism was very popular in Ukraine, at least in its Eastern and Southern parts. During more than 70% her history the USSR was ruled by non-Russian born leaders, majority of them came form Trans-Caucasus, Poland, Ukraine, Baltic countries. And, finally, the Bolshevik Russia is a jargon. The name of that country was the USSR. It was formed by a joint decision of Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia, and it ceased to exist according to their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The division of Poland should be treated in the lemma of the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact, including all considerations from all sides. In the lemma of Stalin one should mention the offer of Stalin of a common attack on Germany by Great Brittain, France and the Soviet Union, in case Hitler would attack Czechoslovakia; acceptation by the western powers would really have stopped Hitler, but they liked 'gentleman' Hitler more than the dictator of a retarded country. The treaty between Chamberlain and Hitler opened really the pathway to the Second World War. In the western world the mass-murders of Hitler (already known in 1933/34) were accepted and only the murders by Stalin were rejected. Robvhoorn (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

MRP is obviously very relevant to Stalin and should be mentioned here. Since the major provision of the pact was the carving up of Poland that should be mentioned as well. It's not like I'm arguing for including the entire document or something, merely a couple of sentences. Obviously Hitler's aggression had many causes. Chamberlain's appeasement was one of them. Green light from Stalin was another.radek (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection against mentioning that pact, but you are selective in information and you add propaganda by the phrase 'carving up'. In a dictionary one should mention all relevant facts and if you mention MRP you should at least mention the offer of Stalin for a combined attack on Germany, because the MRP was a reaction on both the rejection of that offer and the close relationship between Hitler and Chamberlain. Wikipedia is used worldwide as a so-called neutral source, which of course isn't true. By adding propaganda about grabbing areas you are fueling revanchistic groups, that claim areas in other nations. Nowadays such groups exist in Poland, resulting in a very bad relationship between Poland and Russia, and also in other countries of Europe and sometimes that results in wars and genocides as occurred on the Balkan. Therefore, it is important to keep Wikipedia free from such propaganda.

People, please sign your comments. There is no point in discussion if you dont know with who you are talking to (and no, you shouldn't expect others to search from page's history to see who wrote which comment). Also MRP definitely needs to be mentioned, it would be totally retarded to leave something like that out.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain something. I agree with Radeksz's point that MRP is very relevant to Stalin. However, I don't agree that it was an outstanding crime against humanity or international law. Many reputable historians like E. H. Carr concede that after Munich (to which the USSR was a strong opponent) there were almost no choice for the Soviets other than to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany. Therefore, this would be a logical step for any ordinary state. In contrast to Soviet historians who blamed the UK and France in deliberate attempts to urge Hitler to attack the USSR, most reputable historians point out that the UK and France had no concrete strategy regarding Germany. However, they consider an opportunity of divertion Hitler East (to annex Ukraine) as a possible way to bye a peace in Western Europe. Therefore, the MRP can be considered a symmertical action of the USSR, and, therefore it was not something outstanding.
It is not correct to make a stress on carving up in a context of Poland. It was a normal behaviour during that time. Germany, Hungary and Polang carved up Czhechoslovakia after Munich, Hungary took a considerable part of Romanian territory, and Poland annexed Lithuanian lands before that.
In addition, Britain occupied French Sirya after 1940 and destroyed her fleet in Mediterrain. Nobody consider it to be an aggression against France; that had been done to not allow Hitler to capture them. I think that capturing Eastern Poland to protect local Belarussian, Ukrainian, Polsh and Jewish population from Nazis had been quite a logical step, would the USSR be a democratic state. Therefore, these accusations come not from the fact that occupation of Eastern Poland was something terrible, but form the fact that Stalin was a tyrant, so everything he did was criminal by definition. I am a strong opponent of Stalin, but I don't think you make your anti-Stalinist arguments stronger when you throw futile accusations against him.
Regarding Kresy/(Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine), I would point out that I don't state that lands had to be annexed by the USSR at any circumstances. The criteria for drawing a border there were vague. For instance, Lvov/Lviv was a city with predominant Polish population, although it was surrounded by rural area populated by Urkainians. To my opinion, after half a century of peaceful life under democratic rule all ethnic problems would settle down and noone would question to whom this land has belong to. However, the annexation of these territories by Ukrainians and Belarussians looked also quite logical. My point is that neither Poland of the USSR had exclusive right to Kresy, so realization of one of these scenarios can hardly be represented a triumpf of justice (or an outrageous crime).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discussion above properly belongs to the MRP article not here. Here the only question is whether or not there are historians (and I added refs for at least two) who argue that MRP made it easier for Hitler to attack Poland. But just to address some of your points (which are irrelevant) - if you wanna write in the Munich article that Hitler "carved-up" Czechoslovakia, and that Poland took the opportunity to grab some small pieces of territory, be my guest. Even if "carving-up" was normal behavior of the time, it was still "carving-up". radek (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in actuality both Munich and MRP made the attack of Poland easier. The question is, which one had more deteriorating effect on the European security. I have a strong feeling that the UK and France had every opportunity to avoid Munich, whereas there were almost no other options for the USSR but to sing MRP. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course MRP could be technically justified as normal action, only possible solution, and whatever, Munich can be easily justified same way. Assumption that USSR captured Eastern-Poland to protect local populace does not really fit with Soviet repressions against local populance in all territories (well repressions were also in USSR but thats not the point) which it aquired during MRP. Also MRP was not only about dividing Poland, it included also many other territories, and resulted invasion of Finland. Of course technically all that could be justified as creating buffer zone etc. But 99% of invasions in world history could be justified as creating some sort of buffer zone against something. Its not really any way better justification than lebensraum.--Staberinde (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a great difference between Munich and MRP. Before Munich Germany was weak, and many historians doubt if it would be capabale to take heavily fortified Sudetes had Czhech decided to resist. In other words, it was possible to prevent the war at that point. By the moment MRP had been signed Germany was much more powerfull, and, without MRP the war between Germany and the USSR would be highly probable. That would result in fast defeat of the USSR and nobody could prevent a German world dominance in that case.
I don't advocate neither MRP nor Stalin. My point is that in contrast to my expectations the external policy of the USSR during 1930th appeared to be surprisingly reasonabe and peaceful. Only after invasion of Baltic country and Winter war the USSR sterted to behave as an aggressor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly overrating Germany in 1939. Assumption that Germany would have easily steamrolled USSR in 1939 is unrealistic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. But assupmtion that Germany could do it in 1940 with the UK, France and Poland neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler is far less unrealistic, especially, taking into account that the USSR was much less prepared for the war at that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You cant have neutral Poland and USSR-Germany war. Simply looking at map demonstrates it very well, as in such war going through Poland is only practical way. Poland trusted Hitler and Stalin pretty much equally, that is not at all (for pretty damn good reasons). Also German war capability in any prolonged conflict was seriously limited due lack of resources. German–Soviet Trade Agreement wasn't made because Hitler loved making business with commies, but because those raw materials were desperately needed for German military.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see not much difference between this hypothetical situation and the real situation in 1941. Minus: no direct access to Belorussian border of the USSR, so the offensive starts form East Prussia and Romania only. Plus: France and the UK are neutral. In addition, the anti-Soviet alliance between Poland and Germany was also possible: I see no considerable difference between Poland, Romania and Hungary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Russia was logistical nightmare even then Germany could march through Poland. Directing supply lines over Baltic sea and from south through Hungary and Romania would have made things drastically worse for Germany. Not to mention that Romania aligned with Germany only after Poland had been crushed and both Hungary(backed by Germany) and USSR were pressing territorial demands on it. Also difference between Poland and Romania or Hungary was pretty radical, German territorial claims on Poland were well known, while Germany itsselfly had no claims on Hungary or Romania. Poland refused to allow Soviet troops into its territory during French-UK-Soviet negotiations before war (for good reasons as Baltic States experience proves), and I see no practical reason why it would had acted differently towards Germany.--Staberinde (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• History tells us that Poland was not an impermeable barrier for the Germans. It also tells that the UK and France sometimes were not willing (or capable) to fulfill their obligations. So a non-zero probability existed after Munich that western allies would decide not to declare a war on Germany had the latter decided to invade Poland. It would be too late for the USSR to try to do anything in that case.

Out of sheer curiosity, what "History" are you referring to here? I really hope it's not WWI or something. What's an example of a Germanic (or any Western) state invading Russia with an independent Poland in the way?radek (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoc est simplissimus. During WWII, Germany invaded the USSR with an independent Poland in the way. I think, you agree that by 15 Sept Poland was essentially defeated, so the military role of the USSR (in contrast to political one) was minimal. I mean Poland was incapable to stop German move to East when they decided to do so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Although German territorial claims on Poland were well known, the Nazi's anti-Communist attitude was well known also. If the latter didn't prevent the Soviets from formation of temporary anti-Polish alliance, why can we rule out the possibility of the anti-Soviet alliance between Germany and Poland? By the way, some contemporary Polish historians concede that wasn't absolutely impossible. On other hand, if the territorial demands from Gernamy backed Hungary and the USSR urged Romania to become an Axis member, why couldn't similar territorial demands from Gegmany urge Poland to join Axis?--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets assume hypotetically that UK and France remain neutral. Now tell me what MRP contributes? Are you saying that Stalin believed that this piece of paper quaranteed his security, after Hitler had broken numerous treaties and even people like Chamberlain did not trust him anymore?--Staberinde (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If the UK/France remained neutral after invasion of Poland, then Hitler had to options: to attack the USSR having France and the UK at his backyard (that would be absolutely ridiculous taking into account that Barbarossa took almost all Axis forces, and, eventually failed. Even moderate scale hostilities in the west could cost too much for Hitler in this situation), or to eliminate France first. The latter seemed more safe, because Hitler had nothing like MRP with France. So in any scenario MRP would force France/UK to declare a war on Germany before the latter attack the SU. This would made France/UK a Soviet's ally by the moment Hitler attack the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If France and UK were seriously aiming to direct Hitler's agression to east, then it would had costed nothing for them to make similar non-agression treaty with Hitler. Hitler probably would had happily accepted it, because he had no way to challenge UK due lack of fleet and did his best to guarantee UK's neutrality. While france looks like "easy job" if we look back at it, at that time nobody realized its weakness, even first German plans predicted bloody attrition. Also his most importnant ally Italy was not supposed to be ready for war before 1942.--Staberinde (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's separate real intentions of the UK/France and the impression their behaviour created. After Munich, and after their refusal to support Czhechoslovakian sovereignity they looked like covert Hitler's supporters. You can see that only a couple of weeks were required for Hitler to launch the invasion of Poland after signing MRP. Therefore, the absence of treaty between France and Germany meant nothing. Stalin had many reasons to suspect such a negotiations proceed, and, would the agreement between France/UK and Germany be signed, the invasion of the USSR had been started in a couple of week (plus two weeks to steamroll Poland, that proved to be a quite permeable barrier for German troops). To demonstrate a validity of that, let me remind that MRP was signed 23 Aug and the war started on 1 sept.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some historians" etc.

I removed "Some historians believe Stalin contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.[10][11] This led to the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland from the east later that same year, following Nazi Germany's invasion of western Poland. "
My rationale is as follows.

• I am not sure the sentence started with the words "some historians" is appropriate for the intro.
• Stalin, as well as all other European leaders definitely contributed to starting WWII. All historians agree about that.
• Even without the secret protocol, MRP did affect the course of the world history. "Carving up" Poland (I mean, partitioning between Germany and the USSR) did not add much to that, because the only thing the secret protocol had affected was the starting position of German troops by 22 June, 1941. I know no sources that directly state that signing or not signing a secret agreement would affect a German decision to attack Poland. Therefore, making a stress on Poland in not appropriate.
• The effect of MRP is a subject of a separate analysis, therefore it should be moved into more appropriate place.
  

As regards to sources, the reference to E. H. Carr I introduced into the article contains the opposite opinion. If someone is willing to balance it, he/she is wellcome to put his/her references there.

Nevertheless, this paragraph does not completely satisfy me, because it looks like Stalin had no relation to the outbreak of the WWII, and, on other hand, credited him for the Soviet victory in the war. Neither former or latter is true. Despite surprisingly reasonable Soviet foreign policy, Stalin's (insatisfactory) internal policy, without any doubts, created preconditions for the outbreak of WWII. The devastating Stalin pugres and strategical errors brough his country to the verge of catastrope in 1941. His strategical errors during the war made the victory much more bloody than it would be. Therefore, I would propose to rewrite this paragraph to show that the USSR won the war not due ot Stalin, but, at least partually, in spite of him. Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Sure, we can omit "Some historians believe" which was inserted by other users. The fact that some historians believe this is made explicit, and implied by inclusion of citations to prominent historians.

2) So what's the problem?

3) You're right about the undue focus on Poland. I'll add "and the Baltic states" in.

4) I agree that too much space should not be alloted to MRP and in fact most of what's been said at this talk page belongs on the talk page over there. However MRP is significant enough in Stalin's overall life that it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Furthermore, this is just two sentences and in fact the second one can be taken out. Hence it is not undue weight.

5) The above point also applies to your footnote (61) on Carr. While the reference should definitely be included such a long explanation of what Carr believed is out place here, again, belonging properly in MRP article. It also goes against the spirit of the footnote.

Finally, we're not here to asses whether Stalin had no relation to the outbreak of WWII, credit for victory, had a reasonable foreign policy, insatisfactory internal policy and so on. We're here to document views of historians (and others) on the matter. Having said that, in the relevant section it'd make perfect sense to include the opinions of any number of historians who have criticized Stalin's conduct of the war over the years.radek (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you prefer 3RR, not BRD. I prefer the latter, so I explain.

1) Ok

2) The problem is the it was MRP, not the secret protocol, that pulled a trigger of WWII. Secret protocol, taken separately, has only a marginal relation to the outbreak of WWII, if any.

3) Therefore, mentioning Poland, Estonia or other small country is hardly relevant in this paragraph.

4) I am not sure if it is correct to exaggerate a significance of MRP. It just pulled a trigger. The gun was loaded in Munich. The point is, the foreign policy of the USSR was surprisingly peaceful until 1939, so if we forget the real nature of the pre-war Stalin's regime, the events look like stupid, evil and egoistic Western countries deliberately urged the USSR to sign the agreement with Hitler. In actuality, the problem was that, due to purges and other frightening and stupid things Stalin did in 1930s most European countries were very suspicious about a)good will of Stalin; b)military capabilities of the weakened USSR. So the root of WWII grow from the internal policy of the USSR. Poland, Finland, Romania etc, are absolutely irrelevant. (In contrast to the common attitude in these countries now).

5) Fill free to shorten the footnote (and to remove unreferenced text you added after it. I think you see the place and style of that insert are not the most appropriate)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My conclusion is, your text is not appropriate, although a couple of sentences reflecting a (very) negative Stalin's role have to be inserted there. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC) By the way, the reference 9 (Anna M. Cienciala (2004). The Coming of the War and Eastern Europe in World War II (lecture notes, University of Kansas). Retrieved 15 March 2006) is inappropriate, because it looks like being downloaded from Internet, but no URL was provide. The reference 10 is also unclear, because neither proper name of the book nor ISBN were provided. Therefore, although I do not deny a validity of the facts presented, they are neither relevant nor properly referenced.
regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I 3RRed since the text was edited in various ways and I tried to incorporate some of your suggestions. Anyways. 2) The secret protocol cannot be separated from the overall MRP pact. And again the speculation as to whether this protocol had a significant or marginal relation to the outbreak of WWII is beside the point. The point is whether there are reliable sources, historians and such, who believed that it did have a non-marginal effect. Those sources are provided. 3) An explanation of what the secret protocol contained is needed. 4) Again, this is not about mine or your opinion of the importance of these events but rather the works of notable historians. And you might want to work a bit on your metaphors (I don't mean for that to sound insulting, your phrasing just made me chuckle). Saying that one shouldn't exaggerate the significance of "pulling the trigger" when someone gets shot, doesn't quite make your point. Is this like "guns don't kill people, people who pull the trigger don't kill people, those who load the gun do!"? 5) I added specific names and the refs are coming soon. Feel free to put a cite tag in there for now if you wish. References can be fixed. It's general practice to let other editors know (so thanks for point this out) and give them some time to do it.radek (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC) radek (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2)Why not? Before glassnost nobody knew about it. Had a discovery of it changed something considerably? Before that discovery, we were taught that the USSR launched the invasion spontaneously, to prevent Hitler from occupation of the whole Poland. Now we know Stalin had done it according to the agreement. Is the difference significant?
And two more questions that should be separated: the reliability of the sources and a correctness of its interpretation. MRP was a final step towards the war, and no sources are needed to prove that, because obvious facts need no proof. However, what you wrote is: "Stalin may have contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland and absorb the Baltic States, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939." I think I can read English, and my eyes tell me that it is a direct stress on the secret protocol, not MRP itself. Unfortunately, because of inappropriate referencing I couldn't read your sources, however I doubt they make such a stress.
3) No explanation of the secret protocol is needed, it is not an article about Poland, not a MRP article, it is just an introduction to the JS article. By the way, WP rules do not require references in the introduction because everything is described in details below.
4) Well, I meant a situation when a couple gentlemen loaded a gun and gave it to a maniac who started to run along the street waving with that gun. Sooner or later, one or another wrong move of some person would lead to pulling a trigger... Is that analogy better?
5) See 3).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Ummm, not exactly. It wasn't until glasnost that the secret protocol was ADMITTED to by Soviet authorities which is something different.

3) It would seem to make sense to say why MRP led (or helped to lead or whatever and whoever loaded or shot any guns) to WWII lest some future editor tries to remove the statement based on the lack of connection. As I said before, the second sentence may be omitted. References were provided after a request by some user in an revert/edit summary.

4)Yeah but no one's saying the loader is insignificant. You're saying the shooter is.

If you have a suggestion on the proper phrasing which incorporates your points, but also says what it was about MRP that contributed to WWII then please provide it.radek (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as surprising as it is, Paul may have a point :P We should not separate secret protocol from the rest of pact in lead. Wording in lead should point out that MRP is considered to have contributed to WW II, and it should point out that MRP included secret protocol about carving up Eastern-Europe (it affected enough large area to be notable enough for mentioning in lead). But it should not discuss if secret part was critical for start of war or not. Any such discussion would be pointless anyway, as we should deal with whole MRP when considering its role for starting WW II.--Staberinde (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the general intent here. I think the version as is currently does what you say it should do. Breaking it down into specifics maybe disruptive to flow and style.radek (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let us look again at this text:"Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945). Stalin may have contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland and absorb the Baltic States, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. This led to the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland from the east later that same year, following Nazi Germany's invasion of western Poland. Under Stalin's leadership, after the war, the Soviet Union went on to achieve recognition as one of just two superpowers in the world. That status lasted for nearly four decades after his death until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Stalin's rule had long-lasting effects on the features that characterized the Soviet state from the era of his rule to its collapse in 1991."
What does it tell us?
Without the bold text, the paragraph is unequivocally laudatory: Stalin is credited for the victory over Nazis and for rising the USSR as a superpower.
With this text the paragraph is laudatory too: he was a good guy, his only mistake was the invasion of Poland.
Both these versions are incorrect; in addition, the second one is Polonocentric. I would say the second one is more incorrect, because the first one may create an impression that Stalin's crimes and blunders are beyond the scope, whereas the second one implies that MRP was a) the mistake; b) the only mistake.
The effect of MRP was controversal and its results are disputable, so it is not clear if it was the mistake or not (therefore, a) is not a NPOV). MPR was far not the sole disputable action Stalin had made before WWII, so b) is also incorrect. Therefore, mentioning of carving up Poland is appropriate, however, not in that concrete article. The references do not add much to that.
To my opinion, the text in bold should be replaced with another fragment that states:
However, Stalin can hardly be credited for that because

• During a pre-war period his devastating internal policy had weakened the Soviet society, thus provoking Germany to attack the USSR.
  
• His foreing policy (especially the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) had lead to international isolation of the USSR and made German attack possible.
  
• His strategic blunders during the first period of Great Patriotic War put the country on a verge of catastrophe.
  

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Of course, any rewording is warmly wellcomed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine in general. How about something like

""Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945), despite Stalin's policy mistakes before and during the war. These included a devastating internal policy which weakened the Soviet society and strategic blunders during the first period of Great Patriotic War. Additionally the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and its secret protocol, which agreed to carve up much of Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, cleared the way for Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 and the beginning of the war itself."

Only problem is that it may be a bit too long for lead. Also I omitted adjectives like 'notorious' since that can be taken as POV. In general we do not need references for stuff in the lead, but I just know someone will try to delete this based on POV or lack of citations, so we'd also need references for your first and third bullet point. These also should be wikified.radek (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. The only objection is "which agreed to carve up much of Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union". Do you think (or do you know sources stating that) the probability of the WWII breakout would decrease had Hitler been alowed to occupy whole Poland? Off the top of my head, I recall Churchill stated a reverse, namely, that the occupation of Eastern Poland by the USSR was a reasonable and understandable step. In addition, the MRP article already discuss all aspects of the pact, so the reader can obtain the information in one click.
Remaining text is fine for me. Feel free to introduce it into the article.
I don't worry about the lack of citations, because everything is discussed below (and the sources are provided there).
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Carving up of eastern europe is critical part of MRP. You cant separate it and say that it didnt contribute to war, considering that whole pact most likely would had never been signed without such spheres of influence. Also territory that was carved up is large enough to deserve mentioning even if MRP's role as starter of war is completely ignored. I am completely fine with radek's wording.--Staberinde (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany

Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts

Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78
"Contrary to historical orthodoxy, this turn in Soviet policy was not a planned or automatic consequence of the pact with Nazi Germany. There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland. This assertion cannot be definitively proven but there are a number of documentary clues which support it.
Firstly, there is the fact that the first clause of the secret additional protocol to the pact concerned not Poland but Soviet-German spheres of influence in the Baltic. This was a curious textual order of priorities for two states that had just decided to carve up between them another major state. It makes much more sense to posit that there was no such agreement and to assume that what was agreed on 23 August was an eastern limit of German military expansion into Poland.
Secondly, there is a whole series of messages from Berlin to its Moscow embassy during the last week in August concerning press reports that Red Army units had been withdrawn from the Soviet-Polish border. Schulenburg was urgently in- structed to approach Molotov with a view to securing a public denial that this was the case.(DGFP, series D, vol. 7 docs. 360, 382, 383, 387, 388, 413, 414, 424) On the eve of their planned attack on Poland, Berlin was concerned to keep up the pressure on the Poles. In none of this correspondence was there any hint of a Soviet-German partition agreement concluded on 23 August. Had there been such an agreement then surely Berlin's response to these press reports and its representations in Moscow would have been much stronger?"
My conclusion is: MRP and its secret protocol can and has to be separated. Insisting on explicit mentioning MRP's secret protocol is a Polonocentric POV and, therefore, is not neutral. And, as some archive research suggest, it is simply incorrect.
I can agree with inclusion of secret protocol if someone clearly answer my question (that I asked above): can anybody present an evidence that the probability of the WWII breakout would decrease had Hitler been allowed to occupy whole Poland?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it in the "MRP for dummies" manner. MRP alone tells "USSR does not mind Germany to attack Poland, France or whoever else". The secret protocol states "The USSR would like to annex Eastern Poland after Germany took the Western part".
What especially dangerous did the secret protocol contain that deserved a separate mentioning?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's true, eastern europe was an important part of WWII and yes it's true the Molotov-Rib pact is a significant fact, but this should not be included in an intro...Why isn't the Winter War included in the into as well and how it encouraged Hitler to attack after viewing the weakness of the Red Army? Why not Why not put that Zhukov was planning a preemptive attack and that was what made Hitler invade the USSR. Those are all under debate as well as the carving up of Poland and should all be included where they belong, in a WW II section. That's why the MRP shouldn't be there

I need more feedback

Seektrue (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalin;s poem

He was walking through streets and markets Knocking doors of me and you. He was playing his old panduri And singing his song. He knew, That song of him - it was magic And as pure, as shining ray. It had a truth and wisdom And dream he could not astray. Hearts of stone got softer When listening stranger's song. Spiritual flame was stonger And shining wide and long. But they, who's souls were in darknness Who forgot their duty and faith Gave him a cup of poison Mixing the wine with death. "Drink it" - they said - "God damn you! This was the way you choose... Your song for us is just nonsence And we don't need your truth!"

translated from russian by Mikhail D.Kuznetsov 77.45.240.248 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Bullock

Does anyone have this book used for a quote about Stalin's suspicions about Soviet POWs? The entire quote and more is based on one note in the book, but I don't know where Bullock got the information from, and would like to.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MRP in the lead

Well, first I think it's obviously significant enough - being pretty much the most important diplomatic agreement concluded under Stalin, possibly aside from Keitel's capitulation - to be in the lead. Second, Paul, previously you stated you were ok with the version I proposed, as long as it was without the "carving up" part. The thing about compromises in a repeated interaction with another person is that they have to be observed or the cooperation breaks down. Of course, being compromises, neither side is going to be perfectly happy. Then, you state above that somehow mentioning the secret protocol is "Polonocentric". Actually, you're the one being "Poloncentric" here, since you're, once again, forgetting about the Baltics, Finland and Romania. In fact the secret protocol concerned; Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Romania. So mentioning it is in fact representing a Germano-Soviet-Polano-Lithuaniano-Latviano-Estoniano-Finno-Romanocentric. In other words it involves all the parties concerned. I guess it doesn't quite give the Fijian POV but, hey, undue weight and all that. Finally in reference to the Roberts article you give above; as the author himself admits, his thesis is "contrary to historic orthodoxy", hence not representative of historical consensus (besides the fact that he doesn't even have circumstantial evidence. It's all pure conjecture. This kind of stuff one can get away with in ____-studies departments, as here, but not in serious history departments). If a historical consensus that the part of the protocol concerning Poland didn't exist, emerge at some point in the future... well, so what? The Baltic, Finns and Romanian parts are enough to support inclusion of the contentious phrase. Sorry, I already compromised on this so I'm not giving in any extra feet, after the inches.radek (talk)

I didn't argue about first. MRP triggered the war and pre-determined all other foreign steps of the USSR during 1939-40, therefore it deserves mentioning as soon as we mention other Stalin's questionable steps. Second, I didn't modify your edit. I changed the Seektrue's edit that removed MRP at all, re-introducing MRP back (hoping that it would be a reasonable compromise between you and Seektrue). In actuality, I wasn't fully satisfied with your wording, however, I wouldn't say full omission of MRP (proposed by Seektrue) to be correct either. I also don't think the difference between revision 244420762 and the present version is a serious reason to start an edit war, but if you inclined to do so, feel free to go on. For me, both these versions are satisfactory.
As regards to your arguments on "Polonocentrism", "_____-studies department" etc. I think, your have to agree that they are a kind of straw man style to conduct a discussion. I hope you are educated enough to realise a fallaciousness of them.
By the way, the style you conduct a discussion suggests you take it too personally, therefore, it is difficult for you to be neutral. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fellas,

I keep saying that MRP shouldn't be in the lead 'cause it's not the right place for it. This article is about Stalin and not WWII. It's kind of odd placing something as MRP in a summarized part of Stalin's article.

And who says that MRP allowed Hitler to invade Poland? How easy is it to say that Hitler would have invaded anyway regardless of the pact? Not that I support this claim, but this is a historical argument clearly worth debating. That's another reason why it shouldn't be in the intro. That the Soviet Union under Stalin played a decisive part in defeating Hitler is a given fact hard to refute, and clearly shows the significance of Stalin. That's why it's important to place that in the lead.

But that Stalin, through the MRP, helped trigger the war is not, you'd need an essay to prove that.

This is getting too detailed to place in the intro, personally I'd rather put something there about the XIX party congress where Stalin tries to finish off his likely successors. Isn't that significant? Yes it is, but too detailed.

Let me know your thoughts on this

Seektrue (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

MRP carved up large areas in Eastern-Europe (5 contries completely + part of Romania). Already that fact alone is pretty damn notable. Dividing Poland started war. I would say that Stalin's cooperation with Hitler is definitely notable enough to be mentioned.--Staberinde (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Should this be noted?

Maybe we should mention here that the use of torture by the NKVD was authorized by Central Committee of the Communist Party and ordered personally by Joseph Stalin. For example, during "Doctor's Plot" Stalin requested to torture falsely accused physicians "to death" (see this article: Stalin's torture: "Beat them to death" (Russian) by Novaya Gazeta).Biophys (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, he requested to execute them (hang them up) publicly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing

His son finally shot himself because of Stalin's harshness toward him, but survived. After this, Stalin said "He can't even shoot straight". This phrase reads like a part of a novel or a movie script. Is there a source for this? --TEO64X 14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the article, stalins father wasn't ossetian, yes some scientists think that surname jughashvili may have ossetian roots ,but stalins father was cultural Georgian. In Georgian Stalins surname sounds like Jughashvili and not Dhzugashvili and at the end "shvili" is the ending of Georgian surnames.

Stalin's surname

There is a mistake in the article, stalins father wasn't ossetian, yes some scientists think that surname jughashvili may have ossetian roots ,but stalins father was cultural Georgian. In Georgian Stalins surname sounds like Jughashvili and not Dhzugashvili and at the end "shvili" is the ending of Georgian surnames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.pukha (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong dates on photographs

{{editsemiprotected}} I noticed that some dates concerning the pictures appear to be incorrect. According to Simon Sebag Montefiore's Young Stalin, mentioned under Further Reading, the picture of Stalin wearing a scarf (currently dated 1902) was taken after Stalin was arrested when attending a party conference in March 1906 (p.180). Further, Montefiore claims that the information card from the secret police actually depicts Stalin in 1911, not 1912. --Heburnslikethesun (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the information card date (as there was no visible source for the current date of 1912). I've left the other one for now - the original image source of the picture of him in a scarf seems to assert that its source, the book "Josef Wissarionowitsch Stalin - Kurze Lebensbeschreibung", claims it as 1902. I'm not familiar with either of these books personally, so I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the subject matter. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The date of Stalin's birth in the article is incorrect. Stalin was born on December 21, 1879. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherohlyn (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Burial misconceptions

Can somebody add why people thought he was cremated? Buried without fanfare must be added! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayazidd (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

third most popular russian in history

A russian television station is holding a poll in which stalin is until now the third most popular russian in history. Final results will be released on dec 29. Is this interesting. And where could this be inclueded in the articel. Here are some links: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=DG9rbkSNYAQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbryan (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth in this article is incorrect

Stalin was born on December 21, 1879, not on the 18th of that month and that year, as the article indicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherohlyn (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It also contradicts other wikipedia articles - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dec_21#Births —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.99.141 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Stalin

The sentence "Pro-Stalinist historians such as Ludo Martens and Stefan Merl, estimating meager 300,000 casualties" seems like pure POV to me, in regard to Merl. Martens' communism and sympathy for Stalin is obvious but I've seen no indication the Stefan Merl, a German professor, is sympathetic to Stalin or even a communist. The word "meager" seems inappropriate to me, designed to provoke outrage over Merl's alleged apologia. -Matt

This is just another example of something that does not belong in the intro. what's been left to the content of the article if Ludo Martens and Stefan Merl are mentioned at the beginning. 82.194.62.220 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt belong in the intro, this is true, but unfortunately you have to 'Write as the enemy' on every given point in this article.

There are 2 completely different sides to this story. You have to include both of them, or find a way to write a neutral article that mentions something aside from all the 'horrors' of Stalin, or any progress you want to make on this article will reach a stand still as 'undo' buttons will be furiously pressed. Valeofruin (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Understanding

Me and my whole family live in Eastern Europe (Russia) from ever and I can't understand why some ppl try to show Stalin as a hero and loved leader - in article with Hitler no one have any problems to call him monster, beast and psychopath. Stalin was a same murderer and butcher as Hitler and gloryfing him is a shame for the democracy and "Free Encyclopedia". You don't even know how we suffered under Stalin's regime. Shame on you people. Stalin was a Satan send to Earth. He wasn't worster than Hitler in his sick cruetly against "enemies of the system". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.95.200 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalin and the Spanish Civil War

There should be a section on Russian action in the Spanish Civil War. I know it opens a whole new area of controversy, especially when considering the supression of POUM, but somebody should give it a try.Locospotter (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling boxes

I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Stalin's. JW (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As at the Adolf Hitler page, I will say that I don't like any internal scrolling feature. I prefer to continue scrolling from the outside of the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Scrollboxes are never to be used in an article because of major accessibility issues. I am a little bit surprised that there isn't something in the WP:MOS about this (at least, nothing that I could readily find). See the template documentation at Template:Scroll box for more details; this template is coded to be disabled in the main article namespace. The html workaround is, obviously, also not allowed for the same reasons. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad English

This from the intro is bad English: "Critics argue his rule was typical of a dictator, and refer to his style of leadership as Stalinism[5], whereas others refute these accusations as falsifications or exaggeration.[6] [7]" To refute means to prove wrong - the word should be replaced with deny.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resistance is also spelled wrong: "plenty of resistence from opposition " Lex123 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lex123

estimating meager 300,000 casualties

Let's just go ahead and take out that "meager." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.179.122.109 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?

Can someone tell me what the problem is about neutrality in this article? --69.228.144.226 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the talk page you can easily find the POV conflicts. --69.239.175.29 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheist?

I doubt that he was an atheist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this to be true/false you will need to accompany a reference with it. The signs point towards atheism, however, due in part to political policy. --69.239.175.29 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link

Intro

The intro is now way too long. I'm going to try something shorter.Kurzon (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I cut it down to a fraction of its former size. I also tried to add (and hit the points for) links to the other associated Wikipedia articles on the subject (e.g., Eastern bloc, Population transfer, etc.).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a new, shorter intro which I hope people will find more succint. I realise a lot of referenced information was deleted, but I think those details are best moved into the article itself.Kurzon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I shortened some of that, and added back a few of the most obvious facts that have to be in a Stalin summary intro. Also, there were errors (e.g., "WWII", and the Warsaw Pact wasn't enacted until 1955).Mosedschurte (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WWII in the lead

I noticed a heavy modifications of the lead that seem not completely correct.

During World War II, Stalin first made a pact with Hitler's Nazi Germany to divide Eastern Europe

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been signed before the war started. Factual error.

pact with Hitler's Nazi Germany to divide Eastern Europe

The MRP didn't divide Eastern Europe. The secret protocol defined the "spheres of influence" that is not the same. Oversimplification.

then later fought against Germany on the Eastern Front (World War II) after Germany violated the pact.

Stalin personally had never fought on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Union, that sustained immense losses, partially due to Stalin's grave mistakes, did that. Awkvard wording. In addition, the mentioning of Stalins mistakes, that was present in the lead befor, had disappeared.

After the war, the Soviets under Stalin's rule were accused of committing Soviet war crimes

Accused by whom? Vague.

...purportedly involving the death and rape of millions of Eastern and Central Europeans. Death of millions of Eastern Europeans? Questionable. And, there is no serious evidences that the death and rape had been done "purportedly". Dusputable facts cannot be represented in the lead as well established. I don't think these modifications to improve the lead. I plan to restore the old version in close future.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. M-R now pre-war and a non-aggression pact. The secret protocols are where the agreement to divide the independent Eastern European countries occurred, which is directly from the intro of the M-R pact article. War crimes accusation details are gone.

And I agree with the other editor -- the old lead was terrible, error-filled and far too long.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, the modified paragraph is still non-satisfactoy. Of course, MRP should be mentioned in the lead, however, it is unclear to me why so big emphasis has been done on it whereas other Stalin's blunders or crimes were completely omitted. It is also necessary to mention that, the USSR didn't simply fought, but made a the decisive contrubution into the victory over Nazi Germany, and, unfortunatelly, this contribution is associated with Stalin's name. That statement was present in the old version. I propose to restore the old version of this paragraph with small modifications (BTW, this version was a result of the extensive discussion, see above). In addition, this version of the paragraph isn't longer than the current version.

Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945),, an accomplishment watered down by accusations of questionable foreign policy steps, poor war time policy, and strategic blunders, proving that very few subjects related to Stalin are without controversy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's another example of how terrible the old lead was, making superfluous non-encyclopedic conclusions in the introduction such as "proving that very few subjects related to Stalin are without controversy" and that "an accomplishment watered down." Though all of that superfluous text, it also managed to not even explain the German alliance and pact breaking. The old intro was also filled with all sorts of back and forth argument on figures and the like. It was terrible in too many respects to even address.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mosedschurte. I am also not satisfied with many WP articles. However, I always try avoid using the words like "terrible" to describe the preceeding versions. If the old version was superfluous, the most appropriate definition for the new one would be superficial. I concede that the old version was not optimal either, and these two concrete phrases, that rised your criticizm, are surely not the best ones. (They both were absent in the version proposed by me, BTW). It may be fixed in such a way, for instance:

Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945),, despite Stalin's mistakes and controversal steps before and during the war, including questionable foreign policy steps, poor war time policy, and strategic blunders, that lead to immense military, civilian and material losses during the war.

As regards to MRP, the link to it is present in the proposed version. This is quite sufficient, taking into account that there is no consensus among scholars on its role in the WWII outbreak. Giving too much weight to it, at the cost of other events or factors, is redundant, or superfluorous...
You may rephrase it if you want
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is the seeming attempt to make an argument into a Wikipedia article introduction regarding what "caused" World War II (other than the actual invasion and shooting) and purported "mistakes" by Stalin and foreign policy. In short, this isn't the place for that. There are plenty of bulletin boards and other places for discussion addressing those issues.

Rather, this is the place for summarizing the major facts of Stalin's rule. Regarding WWII, there was a pact. It was broken when Germany invaded the Soviet part of the divided territories, which physically marked the starting of a war between the two by literal shooting. Whether the pact (or its breaking) should be judged a "mistake", whether Stalin's other actions should be judged as "strategic blunders" and judging which of those foreign policy and/or buildup "blunders" "lead to immense military, civilian and material losses during the war" are not the subject for an encyclopedic summary intro.

That's without even addressing all of the other numerous problems with such a paragraph, including that it's one long run on sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the two additional Wikilinks in the text above: (1) I just added the Operation Barbarossa link under the German invasion text, so that's now in and (2) the Case of Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization link, that was part of the 1930s Great Purge, and I added that Wikilink under the appropriate text earlier in the summary about the Great Purge.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is better now. However, indue weight still is given to MRP. If you want to summarise the major facts of Stalin's rule, why didn't you mention Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam? The "invading the countries held by the Soviets" is simply misleading (although formally correct), because you represent Barbarossa as a border conflict, that definitely wasn't the case from the very beginning. Hitler invaded the USSR. Full stop. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Purge Sentence in Intro

Just to be clear, and I don't think any editor is claiming this, not every target (or even close thereto) in the Great Purge was actually susepected of some sort of substantive corruption or treachery, even though those charges were formally brought in mass against hundreds of thousands of people. Large numbers of people, including just political dissidents, were targets.

I'm not saying any editor is making the claim that every victim was actually suspected of genuine corruption or treachery, but there is editing using language which would indicate such a result.

Rather, as part of the mechanics of the purge, they were all accused of such crimes, or of closely related crimes. Not necessarily genuinely suspected of actual criminal acts. I don't think there is disagreement here on edits, but the language is just not clear on a few edits.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MRP again

In the lead, the fragment "Shortly before World War II, the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler's Germany, which included a secret protocol to divide independent countries in Eastern Europe. The pact led to the Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics. After Germany violated the pact the Soviet Union fought against Germany." contained redundant phrases that give undue veight to MRP (taking into account that only few facts on WWII are mentioned). Either which included a secret protocol to divide independent countries in Eastern Europe or The pact led to the Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics should be removed. I removed the first one.
I generally agree with the new lead's style, so I oppose the tendency to inflate a lead.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the editor that added the Soviet Baltic invasion part of that paragraph (some other editor added it yesterday), but I just did correct the most recent edit which made the least sense of all: taking out any mention of the protocols (which were in before any edits yesterday), but leaving in the Soviet invasion of Poland, etc. Then it just appears as a unilateral Soviet mass multi-country invasion without agreement.

I've shortened and merged the sentences, which hopefully clears it up. There shouldn't be an issue anyway -- this all obviously happened, and were some of the most important events in Eastern European history.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still Polonicentric: gives too much attention to the region affected by MRP protocol and omitting more global consequences ot it (BTW, if Poland, Finland and Baltic countries are mentioned explicitly, why Bessarabia is omitted?). The most important consequence of the MRP was the start of WWII. I agree that it was not the sole, and, probably, not the major reason WWII started, but it definitely triggered it, and pre-determined the course of the war (at least, of its first part). Therefore the sentences:"... including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe, leading to a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics." should be replaced with:"...which changed the political map of Central Europe, triggered WWII, and pre-determined its course."
Nothing has been said about Stalin's role in the war. The sentence " After Germany violated the pact the Soviet Union fought against Germany" is about the USSR, not Stalin. As regards to Stalin, two magor things can be credited to him: numerous strategic blunders that lead to the USSR's immense losses and political steps that dramatically increased the influence of the USSR in the post-war world. Nothing has been said about that.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is too broad a subjective statement for an encyclopedic intro: "which changed the political map of Central Europe, triggered WWII, and pre-determined its course." As just one example, WWII had many "triggers". And the "pre-determined its course" judgment is, well, I'm not even going to say it. Just re-read it.

Getting back to facts for an encyclopedic intro: (i) the Pact occurred, (ii) it contained secret protocols effectively dividing Eastern Europe and (iii) the Pact members then invaded their arranged divided portions. Hitler then broke the pact by first invading the Soviet held parts of Poland and Lithuania, directly attacking Soviet troops therein on the first day, starting the Eastern Front portion of the war. Thus, as it stands now:

"Shortly before World War II, the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler's Germany, including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe, followed by a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics."Mosedschurte (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Using your words, I would say that this is too narrow subjective statement for an encyclopedic intro. Since the intro is supposed to mention only the most important facts, your version implies that the only important facts about Stalin in the WWII context are (i) the MRP; (ii) secret protocol (iii) invasion of Cetnral Europe states. I agree that the intro should contain more facts than judgements. Therefore, let's focus on the most important facts.

The most important facts about Stalin's role in WWII are:

• The MRP (the immediate cause of WWII outbreak);
• Stalin's strategic blunders (immense human losses, the USSR at the edge of catastrophe);
• Stalin's alliance with the UK/US (Big three that won the war);
• Stalin's Yalta and Potsdam argeements (that had more profound and long lasting effects than MRP);
• Stalin's promise to enter the war against Japan (otherwise the war in Pacific would last much longer and Mao would never come to power in China).

I am not sure the list is complete. I see you are really intended to improve the intro's style. Let's think together about the most important events that deserve mentioning.
As regards to "followed by a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics" I still think it is too detailed (and, at the same time Bessarabia remains beyond the scope).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in improving the article, but you can't be seriously suggesting that (i) the pact with Hitler to divide Eastern Europe, (ii) the subsequent invasion of much of Eastern Europe (the first of Stalin's then 15 year tenure as leader) and (iii) the invasion then by the Germans of Poland and Lithuania directly attacking occupying Soviet troops to start the fighting between Germany and the Soviets should not be mentioned in a multi-paragraph summary of Stalin. I don't think you are -- these being some of the most well-known events not just of Stalin's tenure, but in European history -- but I just want to clarify.

Regarding what moves of Stalin were judged to be a "strategic blunder" pre and post war, these are subjective decisions to be hashed out by historians. It is not really the subject of an encyclopedic summary of what actually happened. It is more a subject to be placed in the appropriate section of the underlying article. Regarding the specifics of losses, I'll add something. Regarding allied conferences during the war, those seem more a subject for the underlying article than the summary.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a straw man argument. I didn't tell MRP should not be mentioned. My point is that it cannot constitute 50% of the WWII related paragraph. Without any doubts, MRP is among the most well-known events, however, not the sole event associated with Stalin's name. In addition, there is no consensus on the MRP either, therefore, I can use your own terminology and to conclude that it is more a subject to be placed in the appropriate section of the underlying article. My point, however, is that everything mentioned above deserves to be in the summary, although not everything can be mentioned explicitly. Aut Caesar aut nihil.
I wouldn't agree the "the Soviet Union fought against Germany. 10.7 million Soviet military personnel died in the war, the most of any country, along with 12.4 million Soviet civilians. " to be a good style. In addition, it is quite unclear what relation does it have to Stalin. This is the article about Stalin, not the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion regarding an "argument", and even bigger confusion about the meaning of the term straw man, but that's not worth going into. If you're seriously suggesting there would be some sort of consensus against merely mentioning the pact with Germany and subsequent division via mass invasion of Eastern Europe in a summary of Stalin, I guess you can keep on thinking that. Rather odd, and I'm not even sure what the end goal could possibly be, but I'm about done with that.

Regarding other info, I added in the large WWII losses because you suggested its importance above. I do so without the subjective label of calling them the result of "strategic blunders" in the intro. We should keep the intro factual. Frankly, I'm ambivalent about their inclusion in the intro (obviously a huge impact on the Soviet Union during Stalin's tenure, but they might be better left for the article). I'm going to drop in a wikilink reference to Yalta and the statements therein on the post-war Eastern Bloc. That the US and UK fought against Germany in World War II is fairly obvious and probably not worth devoting space to in a Stalin intro.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position - exactly what took place. Probably, the reason was that I didn't make myself clear enough;
• Of course, the consensus on merely mentioning the pact with Germany will be hard to achieve, because the nationalistic Central European editors are very active on that and similar pages. However, majority of them are quite able to accept logical arguments, so I am optimistic about that. If we want to summarize the Stalin's role during WWII in one short paragraph, we definitely can just merely mention MRP and briefly describe its consequence in such words: "was an immediate cause of WWII and lead to long lasting changes of the political map of Central Europe". You can change wording, but I don't think it makes sense to expand the sentence any more.
• Adding large WWII losses makes no sence and deteriorates the summary. For this article it would be enough to say they were immense, however such a statement makes sense if, and only if, the explanations have been done about Stalin's relation to them. Once again, it is not the USSR history article, but the article about Stalin;
• Stalin's blunders during the first period of the German-Soviet war are quite obvious, and most historians, from Western liberals to Soviet nationalists agree about that, therefore, I see no problem to mention them in the context of military, civilian and material losses in one short sentence;
• "That the US and UK fought against Germany in World War II is fairly obvious" (BTW it's another example of a "straw men" fallacy), however, the fact that the USSR under Stalin's leadership was their major ally, that, by the way, bore a major brunt of WWII, has direct relation to the artilce and definitely worth devoting space to in a Stalin intro. I don't think summary can consist of non-obvious things only;
• We don't have to mention Yalta explicitly. I agree that it can be introduced as a wikilink. In connection to that two things have to be pointed out: splitting Europe onto spheres of infuence and Stalin's promise to declare a war on Japan. The latter had probably even more profound effect than MRP, because led to fast (much faster than the US expected) surrender of Japan and tipped a balance to the Mao's side;
• The Stalin's friendship with Mao ("Stalin and Mao listen to us") definitely deserve mentioning, since it affected the fate of 1/6 of the mankind and lead to formation on one more nuclear power (that would never happen without that);
• It is not fully correct to say that "Stalin installed communist governments in most of Eastern Europe", because in some countries (e.g. Yugoslavia) they rose to power simply because they were the most active force opposing Nazis. In Greece, for instance, special efforts of the UK were needed to prevent Communists from coming to power. We need to reword this sentence.
• I wouldn't say that the US/UK were open to post-war collaboration with Stalin. I am not a Stalin's proponent, but it would be incorrect to state that the responsibility for the Cold War lays on Stalin only.
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Of course, the consensus on merely mentioning the pact with Germany will be hard to achieve, because the nationalistic Central European editors" -> First, this characterization of other Wikipedia editors is a gross violation of Wikipedia civility policy. And, bluntly, it's inaccurate, as is usually the case with most gross generalizations. For example, I'm not a "nationalistic Central European editor". Just someone who knows that, say, the '39 Pact with Hitler and subsequent division of the entirety of Eastern Europe (and then the breaking of that pact beginning the Easter Front war) is an important event in Stalin's tenure, to put it about as mildly as possible.

Re: "Adding large WWII losses makes no sence and deteriorates the summary. For this article it would be enough to say they were immense, however such a statement makes sense if, and only if, the explanations have been done about Stalin's relation to them. Once again, it is not the USSR history article, but the article about Stalin" -> After adding the losses only after you suggested it earlier above, I just reduced it to just the aggregate (23 million), but this simply can't be blamed on Stalin in an encyclopedic intro. It was clearly a vitally important part of Stalin's tenure because it meant the loss of over 15% of the entire Soviet population -- one of the largest such losses in world history -- and demonstrated the Soviets bearing the brunt of losses during the War. A discussion about whether they died because of "strategic blunders", as you put it, would be a subject for discussion in the appropriate section of the article dealing with losses.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to address the Soviets' instrumental role (I agree that this has to be in a Stalin summary) and their bearing of the brunt of losses in that defeat without subjective blaming of Stalin or other judgments, this does it in a form proper for an encyclopedic intro with underlying text wikilinks to the specific related articles: "After Germany violated the pact in 1941, the Soviet Union joined the Allies to play an instrumental role in helping to defeat Germany, resulting in the death of over 23 million Soviets, the largest death toll for any country in the war." The promise months before the end of the war to declare war on Japan is one specific part of the instrumental role the Soviets played in the Axis defeat and is best discussed in the appropriate section of the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It is not fully correct to say that "Stalin installed communist governments in most of Eastern Europe", because in some countries (e.g. Yugoslavia) they rose to power simply because they were the most active force opposing Nazis. In Greece, for instance" -> The article actually says "most of Eastern Europe", not all, and Greece is not in Eastern Europe.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the support of Mao, the Soviets were condemned by the U.N. for supporting Mao in 1952, though there is some dispute whether any such Soviet support occurred during the Chinese Civil War.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re1. I don't think characterization of some editors as "nationalist" to be any violation of WP policy, because in this concrete case it bears no negative connotations. It is just a statement of the fact. Some of these editors are too focused on their own nation and, as a result, sometimes give undue weight to the local events in the articles dealing with global subjects. By the way, discussion with this type editors may be very fruitful. I myself changed my vision of some historical events during these discussions. I am trying to be polite but I hate politecorrectness, because it is something that (i) is not polite (ii) is not correct. However, in contrast to many other editors, I have never been engaged in edit war...
Note, I never told the "nationalists" are always wrong. I am just saying that the discussion may be hard; sometimes I am able to convince them, sometimes I have to agree with their arguments. Moreover, I never told that all editors who tend to give undue (to my opinion) weight to MRP are "nationalistic Central European editors". I said what I said, namely that many editors from Central Europe frequently put undue emphasis on MRP. Obviously, they are not internationalists...

Re:Re2. One more straw man fallacy. I never proposed to add the losses. My proposal was to mention that the losses were immense, if, and only if, this is done in the Stalin's blunders context.

"The Soviet's instrumental role" is a humiliation of the whole nation. You probably are unaware that more people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of World War II combined. Note, I mean not only the Allies. The USSR inflicted more human military losses on the Axis (whole Axis, not only European Axis members) than all other Allies taken together. Using your terminology, it would be more correct to say that it was the US/UK/ROC that played instrumental role in the German-Soviet war. Definitely, this phrase is incorrect and insulting. I will cahnge it in close future if you don't do that.

"The promise months before the end of the war to declare war on Japan"... is a little bit illogical. The war ended on Aug 15 (or Sept 2, if you want) due to two major events: strategic bombing of home islands and Soviet invasion of vital Japanese continental possessions in Manchuria (compare the scale of the former with that of SSJW, and you will see that this operation surpassed the whole 1941-45 SSJW campaign). On Feb 1945, the Americans expected the war to last at least one more year...

"...and Greece is not in Eastern Europe." Greece is an example of the country, where significant British efforts were needed to deny Communist's coming to power. This demonstrates that in some European countries Communists were very popular immediatelly after the war, so no special efforts (including Stalin's efforts) were needed to install Communists regime (e.g. in Yugoslavia). Of course, this wasn't true in Poland and some other countries, but, nevertheless, the phrase is a little bit misleading.

As regards to Mao, what was the mechanism, to your opinion, of obtaining nuclear and rocket technologies by Chinese Communists?
Summarizing all said above, I conclude the paragraph needs in a serious modification. (Although I support many changes made by you).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Falsely asserting another editor's bias is a violation of the Wikipedia Civility and Personal Attack policies. Whether such nationalists are "good" or "bad" is beyond the point. It's better to stick the facts without such attacks. As a complete aside, and this isn't important, I don't even live in Eastern or Central Europe, but it wouldn't matter if I did.

Falsely...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re "'The Soviet's instrumental role' is a humiliation of the whole nation. You probably are unaware that more people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of World War II combined.

->First, I was the one that actually added the Soviets lost over 23 million people, more than any other country, to the intro of this article, so your charge about my understanding (again, another statement about me personally) is rather bizarre. And, as as aside, I am most definitely aware of the tremendous casualties on the Eastern Front with relation to the rest of the war.

->Second, how can possibly playing "an instrumental role" be "a humiliation of the whole nation"? This may be a language issue (and there is nothing wrong with that). The term means a cause or agency, and is often used like the following: "Mr. Jenkins, the key witness, played an instrumental role in solving the crime."

->Third, the total number of deaths in World War II was over 72 million (over 25 million military). The Soviets suffered over 23 million of those deaths (10.7 million military). I actually posted the wikilink with the page to all of those figures in the Stalin summary.

->I just changed "instrumental" to "vital". Hopefully, this will clear up any problems with the language.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "As regards to Mao, what was the mechanism, to your opinion, of obtaining nuclear and rocket technologies by Chinese Communists?"

->My opinion isn't important. More importantly, China went nuclear over 10 years after Stalin's death, so I'm not sure about why this point is relevant to a Stalin article, much less the intro of a Stalin article.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm going to significantly expand, with sources, the section of the article discussing Stalin and the Soviets vital role in the defeat of Germany. It's merely one of many sections that is currently sparse and poorly sourced.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we move in right direction. However, the paragraph still needs some optimisation. The most obvious thing are:

1. I still don't understand why invasion of Poland, Finland and annexation if Baltic countries (the latter was annexation rather than invasion) was mentioned in details, but another, more important consequence of the pact, namely, the outbreak of WWII, wasn't mentioned at all. Your rationale seems not satisfactory. In addition, it is still unclear for me why in that case you avoid mentioning annexation of Bessarabia and North Bukovina. If you decided to name all these countries explicitly, the latter should be named too. However, these details seem redundant in this article. To my opinion, it would be sufficient to mention expansion of the USSR territory west at her western neighbours' cost.
2. "Vital role in helping to defeat Germany" is also incorrect: the USSR fought against all Axis members. Moreover, Romania and Hungary fought against the USSR only (leaving Finland, not an Axis member, beyond the scope). The USSR didn't help to defeat Axis: others Allies helped the USSR do that.
3. The USSR's role is not relevant to this article if we leave the Stalin's role beyond the scope.
4. In Yalta, agreement was achieved regarding Poland only, not Central Europe as whole.

Once again, you avoid mentioning obvious facts and opinions on Stalin's rule and introduce obvious facts on the USSR history instead. This is not a USSR history article, however.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The outbreak of the war is, of course, listed in the intro. No subjective judgment is made regarding the reasons for it in the intro. The Bessarabia and north Bukovina invasions were added per your comments (I added sources for the invasions later in the article, as well), and I think it's fairly obvious that the invasion of any bordering country is of a level of importance for possible mention in an intro for a leader.
2. Agreed. Your edit of the Axis was more accurate. Regarding the characterization of who's "helping" who, I think they all helped each other, but our opinion isn't important.
3. Re: "The USSR's role is not relevant to this article if we leave the Stalin's role beyond the scope." Stalin's role is obviously not beyond the scope. Stalin's most important role, of course, was what he directed the USSR -- which he lead -- to do. I think this goes without saying.
4. Actually, at the Yalta Conference, the parties agreed that democracies would be established and all countries would hold free elections and European order restored per this statement: "The establishment of order in Europe, and the rebuilding of national economic life, must be achieved by processes which will enable the liberated peoples to destroy the last vestiges of Nazism and fascism and to create democratic institutions of their own choice."Mosedschurte (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be surprised, but the outbreak of the WWII, as well as the fact that MRP was an immediate cause for that is not listed in the intro (if you do not state seriously that the war started with the Soviet invasion of Poland). In addition, you misinterpreted my words again: I didn't propose to include annexation of Bessarabia into the lead. Quite the contrary, my point was that giving these details is redundant. In addition, you mix invasion and annexation, although these two things are quite different.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ALL reverting done without proper discussion will be met with resistance

The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page. In addition to this removing sections that are fully sited, neutral and meet wikipedia quality standards, and replacing them with material that is widely accepted as biased and anti-NPOV wont be tolerated.

I mean this when I say that being genuine jerks and attempting to put the NPOV discussions back to square 1 will easily start an edit war, something that noone cares for. Seriously guys, don't dick around, ninja edit, or vandalise this article. I don't care how much you hate Stalin, it's just not right.

This is one of the more controversial articles on Wikipedia, treat it with respect, and uphold a degree of formalism when you go about your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that an unregistered anon can legitimately claim to speak for "leftist community of wikipedia", particularly since I'm sure a good part of that leftist community is just as anti-Stalinist as, well, most sane people in this world.radek (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The statements were not only ridiculous and in violation of Wikipedia policy, but frankly bizarre. As was the revision of 100+ edits on Wikipedia weirdly claiming "The leftist community of wikipedia." I suppose it's late on a weekend.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes I forget the 'Leftist' community is more interested in Bashing Stalin and glorifying Trotsky then they are at combatting those they claim to hate. Fixed.

• Your latest claim that "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page" states yet another violation of Wikipedia policy: WP:Ownership of articles. As is made clear in the policy, you cannot stop other people from editing your material by placing constraints on editing. No one owns these articles.

Even more bizarrely, you seems to think you alone speak for the "Marxist-Lenninst community" and that they collectively own this right.

Congratulations for reverting hundreds of edits six times in a row and getting the page locked.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Don't Revert 100+ Edits By Multiple Editors Adding Numerous Sources Without Explanations

A user attempted to revert to a revision 100 edits ago, by numerous editors adding large numbers of cited sources, with no explanation given, in gross violation of Wikipedia policy.

Even worse, an overtly political (and frankly puzzling) reason was given for this violation on the Talk page: "the leftist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits". Along with characterizing all other editors with "I don't care how much you hate Stalin."

I don't like to go to ANI with relatively new and inexperienced editors such as this one, but I will with these gross violations if they continue.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To avoid it in future, please, discuss your edits before doing any serious modification of the article. Although a reversion of 100 edits is not the best option, doing a profound modification of such a high level article without any discussion or even explanation is a good reason to revert these changes.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who deleted well sourced material with little explanation.

Mosedchurte, you are attempting to replace a well sourced introduction, with more material, mroe sources and references, and a better compliance with NPOV standards with your own 'Shortened' and very 1 sided account.Valeofruin (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is both false and ridiculous.

Along with the other editors, I've added literally countless sources to an article with huge sections that were (and still remain in many parts) completely unsourced. There were no well-sourced sections deleted by me. The only part I can remember deleting was a piece of text that was literally word-for-word a copy of another piece of text elsewhere in the article. And the intro was severely decreased in size, and greatly improved over the argumentative back-and-forth style before, by several editors.

I just noticed that you again attempted to revert well over 100 edits made by several editors, including numerous additions of new sourced material, without any explanation, in gross violation of Wikipedia policy, as discussed above. Fortunately, another editor reversed this mass destructive reversion.

As stated, I don't wish to go to ANI, but such blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, especially given the overtly political (and frankly odd) reasoning provided, will leave me and other editors no choice at some point.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Incredible editing

There really is incredible editing going on in this article. Multiple users are re-writing this article on a daily basis. Just in the past 11 days there have been over 170 edits! And sadly that is not unusual for this article if one takes a look at the long history. Has a new groundbreaking book on Uncle Joe just been released or something? I don't think there is. There is no new information that has come out that warrants this type of ferocious editing. Next week someone else will make 100 edits and re-write this whole thing, then he will get reverted the week after and so on. I think we should lock this article from editing from non-admins or at least have an experienced admin come here, take a look at what is going on, and come up with a solution. --Tocino 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the many other editors works, but I'm mostly adding sources right now from books I have. Maybe some other TV show ran on major networks that has raised interest in the article, but I haven't seen it.

The article right now is essentially completely unsourced in huge parts -- a frankly shocking result in 2009 on Wikipedia for such a major figure in World History like Stalin.

Part of that on the English version of Wikipedia is that it seems to have sort of been ignored by a large part of the community for years, with people just copying and pasting in text from internet pages without sources. Much of it appears to be fairly accurate (probably copied and pasted from Encyclopedias), with some exceptions, but it really needs sources. I'm trying to add some, but it's a long process going through books on a Sunday afternoon.

It's a shame that a lot of celebrities' articles on Wikipedia are better sourced right now than an article on such a substantial historical figure as Stalin, but that's the reality of a community based resource. More people pay attention to Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan than World War II. It doesn't really get any sadder than that. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The 100 edits

Occured in a short period of time, and replaced a very important piece of the article with little explanation, few citations, and no reguard for NPOV.

Instead of asking me to justify why i revert them why don't you justify what warranted them in the first place?

They are designed to ensure readers get a negative picture of Stalin right off the bat, it does not acknowledge the existence of an alternative point of view, it's biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works, and is a gross violation of Wikipedia policies, especially for overtly political (and frankly puzzling) reasons such as "the leftist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits" (never mind that you don't speak for us), along with characterizing all other editors with "I don't care how much you hate Stalin." All while attempting to wipe out well over a hundred edits by numerous editors, each made to improve the article for the differing reasons given with each.

Each editor has provided the reasons for each edit with each edit. That's how Wikipedia works. Many have provided additional sources which improved the article.

Simply reverting 100+ edits with no reason other than some overtly political slogan is about as big a violation as it gets.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing perhaps, but I remind you it was you who removed well cited material with little explanation to begin with, not me. Valeofruin (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is that we wanted to make a shorter, more succint intro.Kurzon (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but you did more then just shorten it, you cut out 1 side of the story and removed the NPOV balance yet again. Valeofruin (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

Edit wars are ugly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are, unfortunately they are destined to happen when a group of people gets together and removes a chunk of an article along with about 30 citations and replaces it with a 1 sided, undetailed, and uncited, hunk of material, then complains when someone reverts '100 edits' and ignores the fact that they were all made by a select group of individuals.

Oh and let us not forget that they do all this without keeping the other editors up to date on the talk page.

Shortening the intro is fine, if you can do it without replacing "Stalin was a controversial figure" with "Stalin was a heartless monster who killed millions of people and had a snack"

Valeofruin (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how deleting 30 citations improves the article at all. Also I must keep reminding those who doing hundreds of edits that this article was once a featured article candidate, so it doesn't need a radical overhaul. And finally I am opposed to making this article read as though Joseph Stalin was Satan reincarnated. --Tocino 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

jpgordon: The protection sounds necessary -- completely agree -- but as a heads up, just seconds before you protected it (exact same minute), Valefruin wiped out the 100+ edits by mulitple editors again.

I think that's literally the sixth time he's done that in a day, with multiple editors restoring the 100+ edits over that time period.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To begin with the 100 edits were mostly yours, and to end with you completely leave out the fact that you had wiped out a massive, well cited piece of the article to begin with, without even bothering to ask us first on the talk page, and replaced it with a poorly cited, undetailed section obviously written from an anti-Stalinist viewpoint, without even taking the time to write a single statement 'as the enemy'.

You also called Stalin the 'De facto' head of the soviet union, a fact which amongst many of your other edits is highly disputed and probably not true. Valeofruin (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition Jpgordon or anyone else who Mosed approaches to try to get 'his version' re-instated, I implore you, use your common sense. Read my article without any bias, be a decent judge and make an honest descision as to which intro you feel is better sourced and more neutral. Please, go back, look at the history of the article and my reverts, try to see why the descision to revert was made, and make your choice based on the facts. Valeofruin (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to be uncivil, but not only are those charges about me entirely false, but they are frankly bizarre. When did I call Stalin the "De Facto" head of the Soviet Union, and by the way, as an aside he was obviously both the "de jure" and "de facto" head of the Soviet Union (as are most leaders of their countries), but when did I even say that.

Getting back to the point, multiple editors have edited the article, and each given their very different reasons for each edit. Many have just added sources.

In fact, multiple editors have reversed your mass wipeouts of the article -- which you've now done 6 times, along with troubling comments in violation of Wikipedia policy.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you made that mistake, but there were so many edits by you and a few others that I could not really seperate whos lies were whoms accurately. The page was clearly vandalised at some point, and if you did nothing to cause it you certainly did nothing to fix it.

It is still all beside the point. What I said or didn't say is beside the point. Who edited what is beside the point.

The point it before you (by this I mean the editors that were involved in this whole 'shortening' of the intro, not you specifically) started your mass editing (it was clearly mass editing, people even left comments as to the sudden spike of activity here) of the article, deleting of key information, and citations without discussing it, the intro retained a speck of neutrality, afterwords it contained none. With all this in mind it was reverted.

Did alot of Edits have to be reverted? yes. But the majority of the edits were made without a real reason, other then to just bash Stalin, and the product before them was still a higher quality then the product after them. Valeofruin (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "I assumed you made that mistake, but there were so many edits by you and a few others that I could not really seperate whos lies were whoms accurately."

->This is yet another violation of Wikipedia policy by attacking others as liars.

• Re: "Who edited what is beside the point.:

->You mean beside the point of you, again, wrongly accusing me of something I didn't do?

• Re: "But the majority of the edits were made without a real reason, other then to just bash Stalin."

->This is an overbroad, false and ridiculous portrayal of the editors and edits of this article, and it has no place under WP:Civility.

• Re: "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page"

->This is yet another violation of Wikipedia policy. In addition to being an overtly political motive for edits, it also violates WP:Ownership of articles. As is made clear in the policy, you cannot unilaterally implement a requirement to prevent other people from editing your material by placing constraints on editing. No one owns these articles. Moreover, the idea that one person speaks for the "Marxist-Lenninist" community is incorrect, nor does any community own any article on Wikipedia.

---

Let me remind to everybody that the most optimal way to edit the articles of such a type is:

1. Put the new version of the modified section on the talk page
2. Discuss the proposed changes; explain the reason for the proposed modification;
3. Wait until the consensus is achieved;
4. Modify the article per consensus.

Although the way chosen by Mosedschurte initially seems easier and simpler, it leads to an inevitable conflict.
In addition, one has to be perceptive to other's arguments.

I think, it is a good time for some administrator to put the following text into the very beginning of the article (that has been done in the WWII article):
-- As this is a high-profile and high-traffic article, all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made. Changes which are not supported by a consensus on the talk page will probably be removed until there is a consensus to include them.--
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In no way did I claim ownership of the article, merely warned against vandalism without discussion.

If you choose to spit on someone elses opinions, It won't be tolerated, it shouldn't. Trying to, as another user put it 'Write and article that reads as if Stalin is the reincarnate of Satan', and drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face. Its not claiming ownership, and it's not being uncivil, just a warning against vandalization, and a reminder to stop intentionally (as you must have known after reading the article that there is more then 1 universal opinion on Stalin) ruining the NPOV of the intro. The warning of course being that any edits you make that someone feels is extremely biased, or designed to attack them, their idealology, heros or anything of the like, WILL be reverted, and rightfully so. Valeofruin (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "and drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face."

->Not only is this, again, an overtly political reason for making edits (or reverting) on Wikipedia, but it is flatly false regarding other editors of this article. Most of the edits the rest of the editors of this article made were not made to "drown out those who admire Stalin" (uh, okay) or a "slap in the face". This entire line of reasoning requiring pre-approval of edits is WP:Ownership and includes violations of WP:Civility mischaracterizing others. This is not the way Wikipedia works. In fact, it's the opposite of the way Wikipedia works.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also notice very few of your arguements involve the actual Content of the article. You are just making Character attacks.

If I broke the rules on a talk page I deserve the be removed from the Wikipedia community, but that is hardly a solid arguement as to why your version of the article, complete with all it's bells and whistles (and hopefully some citations) should stand and mine should go.

How is your neutral? What reason did you have to revert mine? Can you think of 1 single reason aside from simple principle, or personal opinion, as to why the actual content of my intro is no good?

It is well cited, it writes as the enemy, expresses NPOV, and it quite detailed.

Is it long for an intro? Oh my yes! But for an article this controversial, with so many conflicting accounts in play I would expect nothing less. Valeofruin (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And P.S. My article is still neutral reguardless of my political beliefs.

If people with alternative points of view are not permitted to have their voices recognized, if I am to be censored because I like Stalin, then what is the point of NPOV? All the things that make this encyclopedia great go out the window and you may as well read Brittanica.

Do I have a political agenda? and Objective? a Mission? On this article?

YES I do! My goal is to ensure it remains fair and balanced. To allow this article, like this encyclopedia to retain its reputation as the fair and non-biased source of knowledge. Believe me if it was Pro-Stalin I wanted I would have refused to write as the enemy, and my original revision immediately undone as vandalism. No, I'm afraid my only goal here is to ensure this wiki is a neutral article, that allows people to approach the question of Stalin with an open mind, and draw their own conclusions, as opposed to being told in the first paragraph that hes a dictator and a psychopath.Valeofruin (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "I also notice very few of your arguements involve the actual Content of the article. You are just making Character attacks."

->I have not made a single character attack.
->Regarding substance, the other editors of this article were the only one discussing substance with each edit. You simply deleted all such edits (luckily, most are back except the intro) with the line "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits".

• Re: "hardly a solid arguement as to why your version of the article, complete with all it's bells and whistles (and hopefully some citations) should stand and mine should go."

->I don't have a "version of the article." Other editors of this article, including me, made a lot of individual edits -- most were just adding various individual sources, some with a sentence or two, in various sections of the article. You kept deleting all of them wholesale. Luckily, the only deletions now are just in the intro (and even that you snuck in seconds before the administrator locked the page) and the other additions to the article remain.
->In fact, almost every piece of new text added by editors that you previously attempted to delete actually included sources, which the article lacks. Other editors have been trying to strengthen the article by providing them.

• Re: "How is your neutral?"

->There is no "your." There were large numbers of individual edits by many editors. This is how Wikipedia works. Editors add information and edit articles.
->More importantly, the prior additions to the article by other editors (including me) were each individual sentences in various parts, along with sources (if not, the few sentences I added without sources were directly from other Wikipedia articles that were wikilinked).

• Re: "it writes as the enemy"

->Huh?

• Re: "Is it long for an intro? Oh my yes! But for an article this controversial, with so many conflicting accounts in play I would expect nothing less."

->As another editor noted, the old intro -- which was the one thing you jammed back in before the protection, had several deficiencies, to put it mildly. It was long, rambling, contained arguments by "critics" and "proponents" back-and-forth best left for the article (not an intro), did not Wikilink many of the underlying Stalin articles on Wikipedia and somehow, even with its huge length, left out vast portions of the underlying article from its summary. And that's just the beginning of addressing it's issues.
->Thus, several editors edited the intro. You then reversed them all -- every single one -- without a single substantive reason given, other than political rants, such as "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page" and the other editors of the page purportedly attempting to "drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face." Mosedschurte (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There was actually no reason to protect this article. User Valeofruin (essentially an anon, and given his style someone should check the IP address) basically violated 3RR policy by reverting about 6 times in less than a few hours. All that was needed was at least a temporary block of this user rather than a protection of the article as whole. Vof's edits were, rightly (per WP:Fringe) reverted by multiple editors who have worked hard on this article in the past. There really was no 'edit war' going on, just reverting of borderline vandalism by an unregistered user. Unfortunately, given the protection now in place, the lead to the article now reads like complete POV whitewashing. It's as if the lead to the article on Hitler meandered about how "Some people Hitler of being responsible for death of six million Jews but others very strongly disagree". The original lead was well referenced and NPOV (just because someone looks bad, because of their actions, that does not make an article POV). Quite simply, the troublesome user in question (who has the temerity to speak for the entire "leftist community of Wikipedia" and insults others when called on this) should be blocked (and again, check for sock puppetry as this isn't a first instance of these kinds of edits), the original lead restored and the article unprotected.radek (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Theres no sock Puppetry involved, nor is there anything wrong with demanding that users abide by WP:NPOV and WP:Writing for the Enemy.

As for Hitler I would see nothing wrong with such an Edit. Though I do note theres alot more 'Stalinists' (Including entire countries such as North Korea), then there are Neo Nazis, wikipedia is not the only demographic in the world. Also I again point out that If my actions on the Talk page warrant me being blocked I see nothing wrong with that. Rules are rules.

But the fact that the content of the article is questionable has nothing to do with me, It is a seperate issue altogether.

bash me and my actions all you like, but you have contributed absolutely nothing to resolving the debate.

Valeofruin (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Radek: Unfortunately, in retrospect, I think you're correct. Also, I know I (and I'm sure other editors) wished to add cites and sources to portions of the article and now can't do so because of Valeofruin's repeated mass reverts. I actually had broken out books and was adding individual source cites to the various large unsourced parts of the article, and I can't do anything now with it locked.

• Re: "Quite simply, the troublesome user in question (who has the temerity to speak for the entire "leftist community of Wikipedia" and insults others when called on this) should be blocked"

->Don't forget that he later changed it to "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page" -- simultaneously both improperly giving an overtly political motive for his mass reverts, along with setting up a unilateral editing permission entirely in violation of WP:Ownership of articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I contributed material with citations which all disappeared when Valofruin reverted the article (although the current revision includes them, only because the article was locked, preventing him from reverting them yet again). The lead as it stands now is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Throwing around names of controversial fringe figures like Douglas Tottle and Ludo Martens is a bit like including David Irving and Ernst Zündel in the lead of the Hitler article, with the assertion that not all agree with the events regarding the Holocaust. This would not be accepted. The debates of historians regarding the famine should be relegated to the Holodomor section of the article, if anything. And I felt the lead prior to his reverts was acceptable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go further and say that mentioning any single historian's name is not appropriate when dealing with a figure on whom so much has been written by so many.Kurzon (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. First of all, valeofruin's massive revert was inappropriate without discussion. We get to do that for vandalism and BLP issues, not for disagreements regarding content. Secondly, if valeofruin believes himself to be representing the "leftist community of Wikipedia", he must step away from the article, and perhaps all others, as we only have one community on Wikipedia: the one dedicated to neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, and Wikipedia's collaborative processes. I'm sure editors working together in good faith can work this out together. I suggest pretending this latest kerfuffle did not happen, returning the article to the state before valeofruin undid the work of many editors, and then discussing what is wrong with the modified article. Does this sound reasonable? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I suggest pretending this latest kerfuffle did not happen, returning the article to the state before valeofruin undid the work of many editors, and then discussing what is wrong with the modified article. Does this sound reasonable?"

->Absolutely. This was the version just before the last mass revert, which happened just a few seconds before you protected the page. Many editors had been adding various sources right up until that point.

->Discussion of any disagreed with changes is definitely the way to go. For example, on the intro, numerous discussions and changes had been made to particular parts of that intro. Sticking to the facts, there is actually quite a lot that isn't controversial and is agreed upon by everyone when a little bit of the editor characterization is pulled back and the substance itself is discussed.

->Also, the vast majority of edits wiped out were just source and detail additions that weren't even controversial.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. However, let me point out again that the Valeofruin's actions would have no formal groung at all if the massive modifications during several preceding days had been discussed on the talk page. Therefore, I propose to come to agreement that any substantial modification of the article may be removed if it hasn't been discussed on the talk page and if the consensus has not been achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well to begin with, I never said I represented the leftist community of wikipedia, what I said is that the leftist community of wikipedia would not stand for such a biased article. I later changed this to 'Marxist-Leninist' as I forget most leftists do not stand by Stalin as imo they should, but this is an entirely political issue.

People have done plenty to put words in my mouth and have me blocked and and otherwise censored. Never once did I claim ownership of the article, I merely pointed out that I am neither the first, nor the last Marxist Wikipedia user who will fight this article if it is obviously biased and does not provide fair representation to the other side (which falls far short of being WP:Fringe imo). Other claims that I had claimed owernership of the article, or made broad sweeping statements about editors are entirely a play on words. 'My version' vs 'your version', suggests only 2 sides of what was obviosuly an edit war. The version to which I had reverted, compared to the other. It had nothing to do with claiming ownership of the actual content of the article. Again I understand where you are coming from, but my intent was entirely lost in the claims against me, words are twisted, context removed, in what seems to me to be an attempt to just get me blocked and not actually help the article.

As for discussion, and a potential reversion to the version prior to my '100 edit revert', I would gladly agree to discussion and compromise, but they never lead anywhere. The article never get's changed.

I would agree to not make any reverts 'unnecessary' [disputed] changes etc. On the condition that GENUINE concerns over the neutrality of the article are addressed.

Believe me, multiple users (look at the history of the talk page) had expressed concerns over neutrality when this article first became disputed.

Genuine sources were provided, and discussion took place, and at the end of the day, a neutrality tag was slapped up, and after several months, absolutely nothing had been done to improve the quality of the article. That is what encouraged me to re-write the intro in the first place.

If there is to be a 'discuss before we change anything' rule, and if the article is to be reverted to the version BEFORE my reverts, then all editors need to agree that valid concerns will be addressed and not just pidgeonholed and their proponents flamed and locked in the closet.

Essentially where I am coming from is simple: The discuss before you edit rule is nice, but if you discuss and everyone tells you to piss off and refuses to edit, why get mad at them when they take matters into their own hands? Valeofruin (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because Wikipedia works by what we somewhat incorrectly call consensus; and we get mad at people who take matters into their own hands when they find they cannot arrive at a consensus. Now, are you going to continue reverting if I unlock and someone else restores the changes you wiped out? Hint: The correct answer is "no". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think all editors recently involved in this article would be quite happy with Jpgordon's suggestions, except Valeofruin who believes that "I would gladly agree to discussion and compromise, but they never lead anywhere.". Given that s/he's violated 3RR twice with a period of few hours, the article should be reverted to the original, unprotected and if Valeofruin repeats the actions s/he should be simply blocked from editing this article.radek (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is not to unlock the article for a while. Let's take some section (e.g. the lead) and try to discuss different versions on the talk page. Achieving a consensus would mean that the article can be unlocked. BTW, such a discussion will show who is prone to a dialogue, and who deserves blocking.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

jpgorgon's suggestion, which the other editors have also asked for above (unlock and place to last version before mass revert by Valeofruin), was much better, and the only real one. The article can't stay locked pending some discussion and approval by an editor who simply reverts every single person's changed en masse, providing overt blunderbuss political reasons and WP:Ownership of articles reasons, and only then can other editors be allowed to make any edits. That's not really how Wikipedia works.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannot agree. Although WP encourages people to be bold, someone is too bold. So my proposal would help someone to pay more attention to the talk page. I myself intended to revert any serious edit if necessary explanation are not given on the talk page and if the editor didn't give a time to others to comment the proposed changes. (What I myself always do)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know full well the concept of consensus. All I ask is that the other editors remain open to it. I will admit it was wrong to take matters into my own hands; sure, however I do not think that other editors can claim that this is a 1 sided affair. It is in the best interest of the article for us to ensure it remains fair an balanced and allots equal representation to all sides involved. Taking matters into my own hands is a bad decision, but flat out refusing to hear the other side of the story, and attempt to write the article from a NPOV does not do much to help either, in fact I would say it only encourages instances like this.

I will not do any more reverts, but I ask the other editors keep an open mind, and at least make SOME effort to neutralize this article.

However I must say Pauls suggestion of Discussion first, unlock later seems most sensible. I would really look forward to hearing some opinions and ideas in reguards to the actual article as opposed to '101 reasons why valeofruin is bad'. Valeofruin (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't you think moving it back to before you wrongly took matters into your own hands would be more in keeping with our way of doing things here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history of the article, before I made my revert, some editors made major changes to the article, without first properly discussing it, this sparked the revert in the first place.

By taking matters into my own hands I am actually speaking of replacing the intro to the article that existed before 'my version' (Im sorry but it has to be labeled somehow), the version from back in september.

You must remember this dispute spans all the way back to last summer, this articles neutrality has been a subject of debate for much longer then just 4 or 5 days and 100 edits. Valeofruin (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "You must remember this dispute spans all the way back to last summer"

->This sounds like you're bringing a lot of baggage to the table regarding every editors edits. Many (including me) likely were not involved in any such dispute. Various editors on every Wikipedia article make edits for differing reasons, and they must be addressed, not all simply destroyed en masse (especially with only a broad political justification indicating article ownership).
->I agree with jpgordon, radeks, CJ Griffin, Kurzon, et al. The article should be unlocked and restored to the point just before before your last mass revert you slipped in seconds before the protection, to this version. And, of course, discussion on Talk pages should freely occur regarding any edit with which another editor disagrees. I encourage, and participate in, many such discussions.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is all good and well but my arguement still stands that between Jan 1 and today, major edits were made without getting any sort of REAL consensus (all that was given was a 'yep it can be shorter') I reverted them on the basis that they were not discussed, were anti- NPOV and were not as well cited as the previous version. In my mass revert I deleted some perfectly fine pieces of Info, and for that I appologize, but I still stand I had a justifiable reason for such an action.

As for baggage again, you assume I point fingers. This debate HAS gone on since last summer, whether you were involved in it or not is no concern to me, whether you made your edits because of it is no concern to me. All I am pointing out is that the article has been under constant scrutiny, and that no consensus is ever reached. It always ends in mud slinging and nothing gets done. This is what encouraged me to take actions into my own hands and make major edits that helped result in the Jan 1st version, the version which later became contested by an editor or group of editors in the last few weeks and resulted in the conflict today. Valeofruin (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "In my mass revert I deleted some perfectly fine pieces of Info, and for that I appologize, but I still stand I had a justifiable reason for such an action."

->We've gone in circles on this, and I'm not sure what to tell you at this point, but such ownership and mass wipeouts of proper edits without explanation is just not how Wikipedia works.
->jpgordon tried to tell you this above, in fact he gave you an explicit "hint" on how to answer the question regarding such mass wipeout reverts, and yet you're still actually claiming they're proper.
->I think most editors on here have been amazingly civil in discussing this with you, despite your characterizations of others, but I'm not sure what else anyone else -- an administrator, other editors or anyone else -- can say at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And I agreed I was done mass editing, hence I got the hint.

My Idea at this point is to discuss the actual content of the article with an open mind. I have been trying to get this point across, but judging by the fact that you still continue to point fingers at me, and shove all the blame over here, as opposed to dropping it and discussing how we can reach a consensus reguarding the articles content, I have failed.

I've said it a number of times, and I will say it again, perhaps more clearly. My ONLY concern is reaching an agreement that sends editors home happy and ensures the article remains fair and balanced.

The debate over what is proper or civil is a seperate issue. It does not resolve the conflict, the conflict gets resolved by discussing content. Valeofruin (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "And I agreed I was done mass editing, hence I got the hint. My Idea at this point is to discuss the actual content of the article with an open mind."

That's great news. I'm willing to discuss anything with an open mind. In the future, if you or anyone else add anything new (information, sources, etc.) and anyone has a problem with them, discussion is the way to address it.

I actually have to correct a few edits I made yesterday because I pointed to the wrong ref name (wrong Geoffrey Roberts piece). I'm waiting for the correction to kick in as suggested by jpgordon, radeks, CJ Griffin, Kurzon, et al, for the article should be unlocked and restored to the point just before before your last mass revert you slipped in seconds before the protection, to this version. Then I can correct my edits.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with it. I appologize and hope no hard feelings are drawn from this.

Basically all I ask is that you read some of the info in the current version that stands, check out some of the works listed (they are all online for free, for example Ludo Martens book is an excellent source of Pro-Stalin info, with info on basically every frequently discussed STalin Topic), and write about Stalin as a skeptic to ensure NPOV. All facts involving the amount of people Stalin killed etc. are in dispute, and so the article should account for this.

And of course a major edit should be discussed on the talk page. Its relatively obvious the sorts of info that makes a pro-Stalin editor cringe when placed in the intro. So if theres something you know will be disputed, discuss it first.

Friendly wording is also important. De Facto 'Ruler' 'Dictator' etc. Such words shouldn't be included if they don't HAVE to be included.

Having exactly what is up at this moment stand was not my goal at all. NPOV is my goal. If that got lost in the conflict I appologize for any confusion. I have no desire to personally claim ownership to any part of the article. I just wish for it to try to get as close to neutrality as possible.

With all this said if 1 thing is certain it's that the proposed versions today are leaps and bounds of progress ahead of the Summer version, which included phrases like: 'Millions of innocent people died to meet Stalins vision of massive Factory Farms.' Valeofruin (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fine, I've unprotected. (It's still semi-protected, as it has been for a long time.) "Friendly wording" is irrelevant; if reliable sources say "dictator" we'll say that those sources say "dictator"; if reliable sources say "sweet and wonderful Uncle Joe", we'll say those sources say that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting with the Intro, What needs to be changed for NPOV

"Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин; born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი; December 18, 1878 – March 5, 1953) was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953. Following Lenin's death in 1924, he consolidated power to become the de facto ruler of the Soviet Union."

To begin with he was a head of state, government or simply a leader, not a 'Ruler'. That is an untechnical term and suggests he is some sort of monarch or overlord. There was no position of 'ruler' in the USSR, so why word it as such?

Also as demonstrated by Grover Furr in a well referenced article (and confirmed by Soviet Archives, minutes etc.) Stalin was not above Soviet Law, now did he hold any position of supreme power, this is atypical of a 'de facto' leader.

"Stalin launched a command economy, replacing the New Economic Policy of the 1920s with Five-Year Plans and launching a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization. The upheaval in the agricultural sector disrupted food production, resulting in widespread famine, such as the Soviet famine of 1932-1933, known in Ukraine as the Holodomor."

A Command Economy is a type of planned or central economy. This is where command economy redirects to, so I think that should be replaced with Planned Economy. Next comes the famine. I believe it is necessary to acknowledge other credible sources here.

There are many theorys as to what sparked the Ukrainian Famine, some say bad weather, some say war vs Kulak Insurgents, some say sheer genocide. Some say it was intentional some say accidental. The reality is we just don't know what is fact and what is fiction with 100% certainty. Therefore to state that 1 theory of the famine is the absolute truth without acknowledging others gives simply 1 theory, 1 side of the story.

"During the late 1930s, Stalin launched the Great Purge (also known as the "Great Terror"), a campaign to purge the Communist Party of people accused of corruption or treachery; he extended it to the military and other sectors of Soviet society. Victims were either executed or exiled to Gulag labor camps. In the years following, millions of ethnic minorities were also deported."

This whole section falls far short of NPOV, to begin with it is not necessary to say its also known as the Great Terror. It's most widespread and common name is the great purges, even amongst communists.

Also note that not all people who were purged were executed or arrested. Only the ones found guilty of a crime. Stalin explained the dynamics of 'purging' in his own words in 'The Foundations of Leninism' (1924) available online at [www.marxists.org]. To purge implies to simply remove from the communist party due to positions that the party deems Reactionary, that is, to be removed for going against the party Line.

This does not mean you must be removed from Soviet Society completely.

In addition to this the claim that ethnic minorities were forcibly resettled (simply because of ethnicity) is entirely false.

It suggests Stalin was a racist, when he was nothing of the sort. To persecute someone based on ethnicity was illegal in the Soviet Union and punishable by death. Make no mistake plenty of Soviet officials were taken to court over this, and many found guilty and faced exactly just that. Again the theory of Deportation by ethnicity is just that, a theory, that has been time and time again refuted by concrete evidence. It has no place in the intro being exhibited as undisputable fact.

"In 1939, the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, followed by a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. After Germany violated the pact in 1941, the Soviet Union joined the Allies to play a vital role in the Axis defeat, at the cost of the largest death toll for any country in the war. Thereafter, contradicting statements at allied conferences, Stalin installed communist governments in most of Eastern Europe, forming the Eastern bloc, behind what was referred to as an "Iron Curtain" of Soviet rule. This launched the long period of antagonism known as the Cold War."

...of Soviet rule. can be removed. the Warsaw pact states had a great deal of independence. They were not Soviet puppet states, or under 'Soviet rule'. This theory was put to the test during the Prague Spring in which the Romanian government of Nikolai Ceasescu clearly went against the Soviet Union, with little consequence.

"Stalin's careful control of the media helped him to foster a cult of personality. However, after his death his successor, Nikita Kruschev, denounced his legacy, initiating the period known as de-Stalinization."

As mentioned later in the article there is dispute over whether he did in fact foster, or help control the cult of personality

That's about all I have for the intro, more citations are needed as well, feel free to refer back to the last version for credible anti-Stalin ones.

Valeofruin (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. I have no problem deleting "de facto", though I think you wrongly think it connotes something negative. It just means he was in effect the ruler then, even though he did not yet hold every high position. There's no negative connotation the way it is used there. But I don't care either way if it goes.
2. He actually was implementing a "command economy", so that has to stay. As the "planned economy" Wikipedia article explains, "command economies" differ from other forms of planned econoices because: "This is further contrasted with a command economy, in which the state allocates its resources as needed, without having to adhere to market principles." This is pretty clearly exactly what Stalin was doing. In fact, the Soviet economy under Stalin is actually usually the example of a command economy taught worldwide when explaining the definition of the word "command economy".
3. There is nothing wrong with noting the other name for the purge "The Great Terror".
4. As a heads up, citing "marxism.org" (or any other political website) as an unbiased source of information on the topic is probably not going to win you any arguments in the NPOV crowd.
5. "In addition to this the claim that ethnic minorities were forcibly resettled (simply because of ethnicity) is entirely false." It doesn't say "simply because of ethnicity", and you need to take it up with the numerous sources on the deportations. The deportations of ethnic minorities quite clearly occurred per numerous sources.
6. "...of Soviet rule. can be removed." -> I don't have a problem with that. Your reasoning is a little humorous (citing only Romanian uprising), to put it mildly, but I don't think the article needs to say "Soviet rule" in the intro to be accurate, so I don't have a problem with that going.
7. "As mentioned later in the article there is dispute over whether he did in fact foster, or help control the cult of personality" -> It used to say he used his control of the media to create a cult of personality and I actually changed it to "help", because it wasn't all just his media control (charisma, winning war, etc. were obviously huge). But I think it's fine with helped to foster -- fine the way it is now -- because that is clearly accurate. No one disputes he provided help and in fact, is often used worldwide as the example of doing so, by altering photos, having state-controlled newspapers write glowing articles, etc. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

www.Marxists.org IS a neutral website. It is a massive online library of transcripts of marxist leaders, Stalin included.

If Stalins own words are considered inappropriate for the Stalin article, then we have some problems.

In addition the deportation of ethnic minorities didn't 'Clearly occur' again you must edit as a skeptic, and give credit to those who disagree.

And lastly you must remember one of the major arguements presented by pro-Stalinists is that what little did happen under him, he was not directly involved in. or at least he didn't PERSONALLY do anything, but rather subordinates who were granted the ability to speak for him did it in his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What credible unbiased scholar today still denies that deportations of ethnic minorities occurred?

And you can't seriously be arguing "www.Marxists.org IS a neutral website." Besides the obvious name, the site openly declares its political allegiance to Marxism. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Names can be decieving. www.Marxists.org doesn't contain commentary or opinions, it is just an archive of transcripts.

Quotes and words by Marxists. No facts not statistics. Mentioning Stalins own words is NOT anti- NPOV. it is highly relevant and contributes vital insight into the article. Valeofruin (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Stalin's words themselves are clearly of interest in a Stalin encyclopedic article. I -- and and think pretty much everyone else on the planet -- would disagree that Stalin's proclamations are a definitive reliable source on what actually happened in the purge. That's best left for neutral sources. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think 1 thing we can recognize is that not EVERYONE purged was a 'victim' and not ALL of those targeted were executed or deported. To say that they ALL suffered the same fate is inaccurate and a statistical impossibility.

In addition Even with a lack of NON BIASED sources on the ethnic minority front, I would argue that the statement is out of place. The goal was to shorten the intro and keep it to basics, so let us do just that. The ethnic minority point seems out of place, as if it was only thrown in there as a tidbit.

If it does stay it needs to be better integrated into the introduction, with a proper citations.

Valeofruin (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The intro is not a place for minority historians publishing on websites, especially with the claim of trying to "shorten the intro". Rather than just delete your unilateral changes citing various webpages, I put actually kept them, and fixed the format errors (and hunted down publication dates and ISBN), but put them in a footnote with some mainstream sources and an explanation.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS a place for it though, Equal representation. The dominant view is still the dominant view, but some indication of the minority, has to be placed in the intro. see WP:NPOV Valeofruin (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The intro is a summary of the article, not an anaysis including minority historical views. Believe me, you don't want to get into tit-for-tat unilateral intro add-ins, because there are probably (literally not exaggerating) 100+ different historical sources -- real historial sources, not website journals -- that contain endless quantities of cites on Stalin's practices killing millions of people in a wide variety of different manners. By opening up such tit-for-tat arguments, you're taking a stance that would allow them to come in and add such material to the intro with FAR FAR wider historical support.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You apparently didn't see the original article. It's a tit for tate arguement that I will open and relentlessly pursue. It is 1 sentence of recognition being requested for a view held by millions of people. According the WP:NPOV while you don't have to give it the same level of recognition as the hundreds of other references, you DO have to acknowledge it in order to ensure the article remains fair and balanced. Valeofruin (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reason you want to come close to this is that many historians also claim far more than is in the intro -- that Stalin purposefully committed genocide with the famines, intentionally killing millions of people. I don't mean website publishers (Martens and Furr), I mean serious historical works. As it is now, neutrally stated, and without the various minority historians views, is the way the intro should be. Unilateral changes adding minority opinions -- especially after what happened yesterday -- are a very very bad idea. Because there are A LOT of minority historical opinions you would blow a gasket over if they were included in the intro.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know full well the claim, as does anyone who clicks on the link Holodomor. You can add whatever you like but people flat out reject the fact that Stalins food policy caused the famine.

In fact you can add whatever you wish around the statement (no gaurantees it wont simply be reverted for NPOV). At this point that one sentence is what I am most inerested in defending, as It is an important fact people need to bear in mind if they are to analyse Stalin. -> There's more then 1 side to the story.

Let this stand and the intro is perfect imo

Valeofruin (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your other Minority views are fine, in fact if you had read the original version of the intro you kept reverting you'll see I gave the exact figures from Conquest and the like.

Valeofruin (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, both minority opinions are in. (1) Ludo/Tottle, and (2) Conquest, Euopean Parliament, et al. There's actually an entire Wikipedia article on the latter. I'm not even sure that it's the minority, but we have to have "balance", I suppose.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the intro will balloon up in size if every minority opinion is included. There are probably 10 different opinions on how many civilians and POWs Stalin murdered in the Great Purge/Terror alone, 50 different ones on how many he killed in World War II, differing numbers for the doctors plot, 20 different estimates on the total number of ethnic minorities deported, along with separate death figures, and whether those deaths were intentional, etc. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you read one of the articles you linked to, the Holodomer Genocide question. It is a disputed bit of ground indeed, so it may require a few lines to address.

This is why the current intro is in fact the shortest I've ever seen it, it's no simple issue, and under WP:NPOV all sides of it have to be represented PROPORTIONATELY. That means yes, since 1 camp is bigger then the other if you wish you can add some more. It's up to your discretion. It just cant entirely block the pro Stalin Camp out.

Valeofruin (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That is flatly NOT the way Wikipedia works. There are not "Pro" and "Anti" Stalin camps with some kind of competing rights to get all of their material in every section in every Wikipedia article.

This is precisely the sort of thing you were warned about in your arguments before.

And the intro is a brief summary, not a recounting of the entire article and all of its various interpretations by historians. We don't need to add to the majority opinion the extreme theories from Ludo Martens webisite or some neo-Nazi at Stormfront.org with the opposite extreme theory. This isn't the place for that. Especially in the intro.

Re: "This is why the current intro is in fact the shortest I've ever seen it" -> That's a good thing. As other editors have discussed, it was far too long, with all sorts of back and forth argumentative text before. It would be going in the WRONG direction now, against the wishes of other editors.

Also, as discussed, there should be no unilateral action on the intro without discussion.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There ARE pro and anti Stalinist camps in the academic world though, do you deny this? And as there are multiple camps they all qualify for fair representation on wikipedia. That IS the way wikipedia works.

Valeofruin (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but your description of the entire world in that manner is, I suppose, telling.

In any event, that view entirely violates the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. It's not a place for pro and Stalin camps to duel with various fringe website publications. Especially in the intro. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want a deul I want a fair balanced intro, 2 different things. In a deul the goal is for their to be a winner and a loser, here It is my desire to simply see neutrality achieved, and an intro in place that encourages readers to be skeptical and draw their own conclusions about Stalin. Valeofruin (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "and an intro in place that encourages readers to be skeptical and draw their own conclusions about Stalin."

->That's not the purpose of the intro. It's not there to "encourage readers to be skeptical." In fact, that's such a bizarre take, it demonstrates I think what much of the problem has been regarding the intro.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's the core of the NPOV dispute in a nutshell. Encourage readers to be skeptical, or tell them which side of the debate the believe. I have yet to see a version of this article that does not focus on one style or the other.

The purpose of the intro is simply to inform readers about Stalin, in fact thats the purpose of the whole article. But when the subject is this controversial we must be carefull how we go about doing this, and maintain a NPOV that does not support 1 theory or another.

This of course is exceptionally difficult in an article such as this, where every statistic, fact and figure is contested.

Valeofruin (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

MRP section

The following sentence looks awkward:"The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is considered by some historians as a direct consequence of the western policy of appeasement while this view is disputed by Werner Maser and Dmitri Volkogonov."
The reservation "considered by some historians" can be added to literally every sentence of the article. Therefore, and because the appeacement is considered to be the major reason for German-Soviet rapprochement by majority historians (AFAIK), I propose to rephrase the sentence: "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is generally considered as a direct consequence of the western policy of appeasement.
If someone decided to introduce an alternative point of view, he can add the (referenced) text afterwards.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

""The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is generally considered as a direct consequence of the western policy of appeasement."

->That would be false, and thus, problematic. Per historical sources, the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact was entered into for a variety of reasons (appeasement by Britain and France was merely one), and is not a direct consequence of any single one of them. That entire paragraph is problematic. I didn't add it so don't blame me.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think false to be appropriate definition; probably, simplistic would be more correct. One way or the another, although, there were several reasons for signing MRP, most mainstream sources I am aware of agree that the appeasement, along with the absence of a distinct policy towards Soviet Russia was a major reason for Soviet-German pact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

False was probably too strong a word. Inaccurate would have been better. Even the Wikipedia article on the Pact describes some of the reasons. There are far too many reasons to go into. The main reason given by many sources was the collapse of the months of talks (which had also been leaked to the press at the time) between Britain, France and the Soviet Union. Much of the blame for that collapse is that Stalin nixed them when Britain and France refused to guarantee him a Polish and Romanian corridor. The announcement of the MRP was then quite shocking to the media, who had reported on the UK-France-USSR talks for months worldwide. As well, the primary substantive strategic reason was that Stalin felt that the Soviet Union's military was just not ready to fight Hitler (with or without UK or French help), which was in part caused by weakenings through the Purge, etc. Thus, they had to buy time to prepare for any war with Germnay, or possibly forestall it indefinitely.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The collapse of the negotiations was only the immediate cause of MRP. As you pointed out, Stalin had a feeling that he wouldn't be able to fight Hitler alone, and, taking into account the sad fate of betrayed Czechoslovakia, he had very serious reasons to suspect that even if the tripartite pact would be signed it didn't warrant any substantial participation of the UK/France in the prospective war with Hitler. We have to concede that in retrospect he appeared to be right. (In that concrete case).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Along with, of course, Stalin's refusal to come to Czechoslovakia's aide as well, seriously exascerbating that situation. And that Stalin himself was a large reason the UK-France-USSR talks were nixed. In any event, all of this demonstrates how poorly that paragraph is constructed. I'll eventually get back to it later with various sourced material (the sources it cites now don't say what it claims, as well, which is another serious problem).Mosedschurte (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for reminding you obvious things, but in this concrete case it was France who was to be blamed, not Stalin. According to Franco-Soviet-Czech treaty, the USSR could provide help only if France would do the same. There is a lot of real crimes and blinders Stalin can (and has to) be accused in. In this concrete case he cannot be blamed.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In reality, NO ONE defended the Sudatenland when Hitler rolled in. And, getting back to the original topic, I know you're not actually somehow arguing that Stalin is not to blame for his own signing of a pact with Adolph Hitler dividing Eastern Europe, and then rolling in Soviet troops to the agreed upon pact borders.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You mix Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. Sudetes were annexed "peacefully" as a result of the Munich agreement, and for a promise of no further territorial demands from the Germany's side. After that, France and the USSR warranted territorial integrity of the remaining Czechoslovakia. It was that obligation what France (and, as a result, the USSR) didn't observe.
Getting back to the original topic, let me remind you that after WWI almost all borders in Central Europe didn't coincide with the ethnic map. Almost all states attempted to annex their neighbours' territories: Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, even Lithuania. As regards to the Soviet-Polish border, it was a result of the Soviet Russia's defeat in the Polish-Soviet war, therefore, the border moved far east from the Curzon line. In other words, although I don't think occupation and subsequent annexation of Eastern Poland was absolutely justified, there was some ground for that.
To my opinion, not the annexation was a crime, but the subsequent events: mass repressions, executions and deportations.
Interestingly, even the effect of deportations wasn't unambiguously negative: I personally knew several Jewish families who survived due to Stalin's deportations. They were deported from Western Belorussia to Ural and, as a result, survived the Holocaust.
The history (as well as the life itself) is more complex then we use to think.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "To my opinion, not the annexation was a crime, but the subsequent events: mass repressions, executions and deportations."

->The invasions of Eastern Europe by both Germany and the Soviet Union were most certainly a crime (the ethnographic justifications were a bit amusing), but all of this is beside the point. And of course, the Sudatenland and other Czech territory invasions were separate matters, with no country acting (treaties or not). And no one ever thought the history wasn't complex. If anything, it looks a bit more straight forward today than it did then, with historical opinions converging more over the last couple of decades.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not more a crime than any other border change: Polish-Soviet war, Franco-Prussian war, World War I etc. From a point of view of Jewsish, Belorussian and Ukrainian population of the Eastern Poland, such a border change would make no difference, provided that the subsequent repressions would never happen. And, as I already pointed out, for Jews it was a chance to survive the Holocaust.

I fully agree that Stalin was a devil. However, taking into account your simplistic view I have to be a devil's advocate. To my opinion, my "devil's advocacy" can complement your editor's zeal, and as a result, to lead to significant melioration of the article.

One more point. I noticed, you tend to use words inaccurately. There were no invasion of Sudetes. This territory had been thansfered to Germany peacefully, and, taking into account British and French approval of that transfer, legally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just the crime of invading another country for no reason. Minor details.

Re: "I fully agree that Stalin was a devil." -> Not that our opinions are important, but I don't really have that view. I think he did many things that we would consider to be war crimes, but it was also a rather brutal era and region. Both the brutality, and the fear of brutality by the other side, I think spurned further brutal actions by both German and Soviet actors. Not that that absolves anyone (obviously), but it's probably difficult to understand now in 2009.

Of course, there was no military war over the Sudatenland (after the agreement, and even without it really). Those great old films of Nazi troops rolling in and ethnic Germans throwing flowers at them. It was obviously an invasion in effect. Hitler was going in, either shooting or waving. He was able to get away with the latter.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Just the crime of invading another country for no reason. Not correct. Stalin provided the reason. According to him, as a result of Hitler's invasion Poland ceased to exist, therefore, the USSR moved west to prevent occupation of disputable territories, populated by Belorussians, Ukrainians and Jews, by Germany. Note, Poland herself got this land as a result of the military invasion of Ukraine and Belorussia (what did the Polish troops do in Kyiv in 1920?), so in actuality these territories were disputable. Frankly, they were had to belong not to Poland and not to Russia, but to Belorussia and Ukraine. Therefore, there was some legal ground to annex it to Belorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR. In other words, there were some reason, although, of course, I never stated the invasion was absolutely justified.
  However, some minor details appear now that changed everything: repressions. In that sense, I absolutely support central european nationalistic editors who state that the Soviet invasion was a beginning of the tragedy.
• Re: I think he did many things that we would consider to be war crimes, but it was also a rather brutal era and region. A rare situation when I almost agree. Minor correction. Some of his action must be considered in a context of the overal brutality ov the era. However, some of them have no excuse.
• Re: It was obviously an invasion in effect. "Invasion" has more or less strict definition. We cannot apply it arbitrarily to everything. This annexation took place as a result of the agreement, signed by Chamberlain and Daladier. Formally, it was not more illegal, than was the prohibition of the formation of the Republic of German Austria in 1918.
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: " 'Re: Just the crime of invading another country for no reason.' Not correct. Stalin provided the reason. According to him, as a result of Hitler's invasion Poland ceased to exist"

->I was referring to an actual justification, not something utterly laughable preceding the wholesale division of Eastern Europe by an explicit signed agreement with Adolph Hitler. By the way, lest there be any doubt, I'm not really debating this point, as it's pretty much cemented in history by every historian on the planet, and was the subject of mass disgust when it happened, followed by even more years later when the secret protocols were published. None of this is even disputed history.

• Re: "It was obviously an invasion in effect. Please, read the books again!"

->This history on this has been long settled in nearly every book. Hitler mobilized troops and prepared for an invasion of the Sudetenland in October. In September, Hitler met with Chamberlain and threatened war. Then Chamberlain, France and Italy, caved and agreed to the Munich Agreement (in a spineless appeasement attempt), ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler. This forced the Czechs on board. Having gained the territory via military threat, Hitler's army then rolled into the Sudetenland, with actually Hitler himself riding in an open car waving to the crowd, to the cheers of ethnic Germans therein -- an invasion by effect in virtually every sense of the word. I don't know what books you're reading, but in virtually every history book ever published, that's what actually happened.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

= Middle Class

Please correct "bourgeois" from "bourgois". Accuracy matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.211.166 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Allan Bullock

To my opinion, the following fragment of the "Questionable tactics" section is obsolete.

"The huge number of Russian troops taken prisoner in the first eighteen months of the war convinced Stalin that many of them must have been traitors who had deserted at the first opportunity. Any soldier who had been a prisoner was henceforth suspect … All such, whether generals, officers, or ordinary soldiers, were sent to special concentration camps where the NKVD investigated them … 20% were sentenced to death or twenty-five years in camps; only 15 to 20% were allowed to return to their homes. The remainder were condemned to shorter sentences (five to ten years), to exile in Siberia, and forced labor – or were killed or died on the way home."

Currently, more detailed data are available that were obtained based on the Soviet de-classified archive data. For instance, the articles of Zemskov() contain well balanced precise numbers. Even such an anti-Soviet scholar as Conquest conceded the numbers produced by Zemskov were generally trustworthy. (See, for instance, Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Author(s): Robert Conquest Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319). Therefore, I propose to remove Bullock's text, because, most probably, the precise data weren't available to Bullock when he wrote it. In addition, the text contradicts to the well known data on the Gulag population after the war: ~2 million totally (including ordinary criminals). Let me remind you that in the present day's US there is about 2.5 million prisoners.

Therefore, I propose to replace the last three paragraphs of the section with the text from the Gulag article:

During and after World War II freed PoWs went to special "filtration" camps. Of these, by 1944, more than 90 per cent were cleared, and about 8 per cent were arrested or condemned to penal battalions. In 1944, they were sent directly to reserve military formations to be cleared by the NKVD. Further, in 1945, about 100 filtration camps were set for repatriated Ostarbeiter, PoWs, and other displaced persons, which processed more than 4,000,000 people. By 1946, 80 per cent civilians and 20 per cent of PoWs were freed, 5 per cent of civilians, and 43 per cent of PoWs re-drafted, 10 per cent of civilians and 22 per cent of PoWs were sent to labor battalions, and 2 per cent of civilians and 15 per cent of the PoWs (226,127 out of 1,539,475 total) transferred to the NKVD, i.e. the Gulag.

By the way, I see nothing questionable in re-drafting of freed POWs. Completely devastated country, which lost a huge part of male's population couldn't afford a luxury to let exPOWs to recover.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to take out that long Bullock quote anyway eventually. It's kind of out of place in an encyclopedic article. So I agree with that: ditch it (and replace with accurate figures of the underlying substance) unless someone vehemently disagrees.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add the reason(s) for the filtration camps in this article because it's not explained (possibly suspected of being traitors).Mosedschurte (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WWII section

I have a strong feeling that Roberts is superficial and sometimes simply wrong when he writes about the war. I conclude he is not a good source for this part of the article. Here are several the examples of fully incorrect representation of that time events:

1. "In 1943, Stalin ceded to his generals' call for the Soviet Union to take a defensive stance because of disappointing losses after Stalingrad, a lack of reserves for offensive measures and a prediction that the German's would likely next attack a bulge in the Soviet front at Kursk such that defensive preparations there would more efficiently use resources." This is simply false. The Soviets did have resources for the summer offensive, and they did plan it. However, sisnce they were aware of the German plans (in contrast to the 1942) they deliberately went into defensive, to wear down German forces and, utilising their strategic reserves, start their own offensive. Of course, they underestimated the strength of German's blow (although almost correctly predicted its direction), so they had to use a part of their reserves prematurely. Nevertheless, the Battle of Kursk proceeded generally according to their plans: "defensive phase" -> "strategic counter-offensive". It is also unclear if the small scale invasion of Sicily had any effect (other than a psychological shock).
2. In 1944, the Soviets launched not only Bagration, but at least four major offensives: Bagration, Lvov–Sandomierz, Jassy–Kishinev and Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensives. As a result of Lvov–Sandomierz and, especially, Jassy–Kishinev offensives, German troops sustained greater losses that the Soviets did.
3. Going back to the losses, let me remind you that during the war the Soviets sustained 10.5 military losses (including died PoWs) whereas the Axis - 4.8 million, taking into account that the mortality among the Axis PoWs in the Soviet captivity was far smaller (only 579,900 PoWs died in Soviet captivity out of 3576,3 Germans plus 799,982 of other Axis prisoners), the casualties ratio at the battle field itself was not greater than 2:1. Nevertheless, the present text creates a (wrong) impression that the Soviets always sustained immense losses, whereas the Axis' losses were relatively moderate even when they retreated.
4. "Other important advances occurred in late 1944, such as the invasion of German-held Romania in August and Bulgaria.[148] The Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria in September of 1944 and invaded the country, installing a communist government." In contrast to Hungary, that was occupied by Germany by the end of the war, Romania had never been occupied. She remained the Hitler's ally until the coup d'etat in 1944. Therefore, German-held is wrong.
   Although the USSR declared a war on Bulgaria, the latter joined the Allies after the coup d'etat few days after that (and even participated in the liberation of Yugoslavia). The Communists were rather popular on Bulgaria, so there were no need to install Communist government forcefully (although some help had been provided). Therefore occupied and installed is also wrong.
   I would propose to use some sources that describes the events more correctly and in more details, for instance, numerous David Glantz's works (a brief summary of his works is available online [www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf]), however, I am not sure if this section has to describe the WWII in details.
   My proposal is to shorten it considerably.
   --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I have no idea what your issue with that sentence since Roberts quite clearly states that they purposefully waited for the surprise German attack at Kursk, which they correctly estimated would occur, instead of making summer offensives. And the lack of resources isn't necessarily that they didn't have resources necessary, but that they lacked having the amount they would like to have -- for example, the resources available in 1944 compared to German figures -- to make major counteroffensives they wanted, so they (correctly in retrospect) concentrated efforts on the defensive at the Kursk salient. By the way, Roberts takes about as favorable a view of Stalin as any modern respected historian.
2. This is clearly not a problem with Roberts, who talked about many different offensives, so I have no idea what you're talking about. The Stalin Wikipedia article doesn't list every battle, nor should it, but Bagration was huge and meant the retaking of large sections of Belorussia and the Ukraine, and it was an example where Stalin himself specifically did something large (the article is about Stalin) -- there, a coordination with the other Allies. Also, Jassy–Kishinev is also in the article, but it's wikilinked under the Romanian invasion. Also, Vyborg–Petrozavodsk was north of the Gulf of Finland and not really part of the drive into Germany.
3. I'm not even sure where that is going because Roberts doesn't dispute any of those numbers as far as I can see. Nowhere in the article does it state that the Soviets always sustained immense losses. Losses are only mentioned when they were large and notable, precisely as one would expect in a Stalin article. I haven't even added in a sentence or two on the Battle of Berlin and related actions yet -- the last major battle -- and Stalin's related actions.
4. "German-held Romania" was mine, which was also not entirely accurate given what happened directly after the Germans were kicked out. I just changed it. Regarding Bulgaria, here is the relevant exact text of the source: "On 5 September. the USSR declared war, pretending that Bulgaria had to be prevented from assisting Germany and allowing the Wehrmacbt to use its territory. On 9 September, the Red Army crossed the border and created the conditions for a communist coup d-etat on the following night. Both the creation of a communist controlled ·Patriotic Front· and the conclusion of an armistice followed." (Wettig)

In terms of changes, anyone can edit, but I would obviously advise not cutting sourced material without some discussion. And, as you yourself noted in (2), the article doesn't describe all battles, in fact it only describes a few battles, and it takes care to usually focus on Stalin's role and the large scale consequences for the country he was leading regarding major conflicts. World War II -- a literal struggle for life and death of both the Soviet Union and Stalin against the most dangerous enemy in history -- is clearly of great importance in an article on Joseph Stalin, especially compared to the literally pages of the article currently devoted to his pre-leader period. World War II was, without a doubt, the most important seven year period in Stalin's life. Had the Soviets been defeated, the entire Soviet Union would have been virtually destroyed, Stalin himself would have been executed and the world would have been in huge trouble facing Hitlerite monster with no contiguous land enemies. It simply gets no bigger than that.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:"In terms of changes, anyone can edit". I appreciate your kind permission to edit this article, although I thought such a right is granted to every WP used by default :). However,I prefer not to do direct massive changes in the article text, but discuss proposed changes on the talk page.
I didn't read this concrete Roberts' book, but, assuming by default that you reproduced his major points correctly, attributed all oversimplifications and factual errors to him. If you can represent this source in a more accurate way, I wiii probably have no problem to use it.

Let's look again at the article. The last paragraph of the Soviets stop the Germans section is: "Feeling dizzy with success, estimating that the Russians were "finished," the Germans then began another southern operation in the fall of 1942, the Battle of Stalingrad, which would end up marking the beginning of a turning point in the war for the Soviet Union. Hitler insisted upon splitting German southern forces in a simultaneous siege of Stalingrad and an offensive against Baku on the Black Sea. Stalin directed his generals to spare no effort or shirk any sacrifice to defend Stalingrad. Although the Soviets suffered in excess of 1.1 million casualties at Stalingrad, the victory over German forces, including the encirclement of 290,000 Axis troops, marked a turning point in the war."

The first para of the Soviet push to victory in the East is: "The Soviets repulsed the important German strategic southern campaign and, although 2.5 million Soviet casualties were suffered in that effort, it permitted to Soviets to take the offensive for most of the rest of the war on the Eastern Front. " In actuality, the two pieces of text describe the same event: Operation Blau. The text in a present form misleads a reader, creating an impression that there were two different German strategic offensives during 1942. Stalingrad was a part of Blau and the battle for the city pursued the same goal: deprive the USSR of oil. That is why the Germans started the two-prong offensive in the South: to the North Caucasus (with its oil fields) with the ultimate goal to seize or, at least, destroy the major Soviet oil fields in Baku (the latter is on the Caspian Sea, not Black, by the way: I recommend you to be more careful, you do a lot of factual errors), and to Stalingrad, a lagre industrial centre (the place where T-34 tanks were being produced) and huge transport hub. Seizure of Stalingrad would close the road from Baku to Central Russia, and severely undermine the Soviet oil supply. Although the dramatic events took place in Caucasus, during the battle of Stalingrad alone the Axis lost about 750,000 KIA/MIA/WIA, plus those captured in the famous cauldron (for some reason, you omited the former).
As regards to the Soviet casualties, you show them twice: 1,1 million in Stalingrad plus 2,5 million during Blau(that, to my understanding, included PoWs taken during the German summer offensive, battle of Caucasus, and Stalingrad itself). Such a way to describe the war is absolutely misleading. Therefore, I propose either to give casualties for both sides, or not to show concrete numbers at all.
My proposal is to combine these two para into the single piece of text.

What is necessary to tell about Blau/Stalingrag?

1. After the Moscow campaign the Germans came to understanding that the blizkrieg phase of the war had ended. Right after that they put their whole economy on the military rails and prepared for the battle of attrition. How can we speak about dizziness with success in this situation? In connection to that:
2. German plan to seize oil (by the way, although the Germans had a highly developed synthetic fuel industry, crude oil was needed to produce disel fuel. The latter was needed primarily for German navy, so seizure of Soviet oil fields could have a direct negative impact to the war of Atlantic) and to capture Stalingrad as a part of this plan.
3. German deception campaign Operation Kremlin that convinced Stalin that during 1942 the main German blow would be directed to Moscow.
4. The disastrously ended Soviet offencives in the south (a direct result of Stalin's dizziness with successes and his intentions to end the war in close future).
5. Initial success of Blau, the battle of Stalingrad as the most bloodiest battle in history (for both sides).
6. Conclusion: after Stalingrad it became clear that Germany cannot win the war.

Kursk.

1. Before 1943 the Soviets (i) never were able to stop major German offensive until the operational goals of the latters are essentially achieved. (ii) They never won any major battle during summer.
2. Although the Soviet industry recovered by the summer of 1943 and the Soviets had sufficient strategic reserves, they decided not to start major offensive. Instead of that they correctly predicted the direction of the major German strike and went to defensive there with the ultimate goal to start the offensive when Germans were exhausted. By the way, the Germans knew that the Russians were aware of major details of their plan (to cut the salient near Kursk).
3. Although the German successes appeared to be higher than Stalin expected, they failed to achieve their major strategic goals, and coudn't stop the subsequent Soviet counter-offencive. I don't think the Sicily invasion deserves mentioning in that context.
4. Conclusion. After Kursk, it became clear that Germany lost WWII.
   --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "In actuality, the two pieces of text describe the same event: Operation Blau."

-> Of course. Well, more accurately, the battle for one city (Stalingrad itself) was part of Operation Blau. By the way, the article actually Wikilinks Operation Blau right now already in the very text you cited (your cite didn't include the wikilink). In fact, the article earlier specifically describes Stalingrad as part of that Southern campaign, which earlier in this same section, is described as being undertaken to capture the oil fields vital to a long-term Germany war effort. What's inaccurate about any of it? Nothing you've described.

Re: What is necessary to tell about Blau/Stalingrag

->This Stalin article isn't going into all of the operational details of Operation Blau. The article already states the Southern Campaign (Blau, which it wikilinks) was to protect oil fields, and the seizure of additional fields could be added. And that the Soviet success at Stalingrad marked a turning point in the war. All of that is already in the Wikipedia article, which is on Stalin, not World War II details.

Re: The disastrously ended Soviet offencives in the south (a direct result of Stalin's dizziness with successes and his intentions to end the war in close future).

->You've got this backward. The victory at Stalingrad (and Blau) ended German (not "Soviet") offensives in the South, and it was the Germans that were earlier incorrectly feeling "dizzy with success" (not "Stalin"). By the way, the "dizzy with success" description of incorrect German attitudes at the time was straight from the source (not my own). The article is more accurate than even your longer Talk page descriptions.

Re: "Although the Soviet industry recovered by the summer of 1943 and the Soviets had sufficient strategic reserves, they decided not to start major offensive. Instead of that they correctly predicted the direction of the major German strike and went to defensive there with the ultimate goal to start the offensive when Germans were exhausted."

->This is all already in the article -- the industrial increases, the manpower increases, the decision to stay defensive at Kursk, along with Stalin's specific interaction with generals -- but with actual specifics and sources.

Re: "Although the German successes appeared to be higher than Stalin expected, they failed to achieve their major strategic goals, and coudn't stop the subsequent Soviet counter-offencive. I don't think the Sicily invasion deserves mentioning in that context."

->That's pretty much laid out in detail in virtually that entire section. There's no way one can move the main the Kursk cancellation reason out (moving of divisions, which by the way, not that this is important for this article but, they couldn't have even gotten to Italy for months anyway -- another stupid Hitler move -- and they never actually left after Hitler cancelled).

Re: Conclusion: after Stalingrad it became clear that Germany cannot win the war

Re: Conclusion. After Kursk, it became clear that Germany lost WWII.

->Oops.Mosedschurte (I think you don't mind me to put your signature here to clarify what has been written by whom--Paul Siebert).

Re: Oops:

While the battle of Stalingrad was the most important "turning point" in the war, the battle of Kursk also represented a vital turn in German fortunes. In addition to being the last major offensive that offered the Germans any prospect of strategic success, the outcome of the battle proved conclusively that Germans would lose the war. After Kursk the only question remained to be answered regarded the duration and final cost of the Red Army's inevitable victory.

— Glantz, [4]Page 65.

It seems to me that your vision of the WWII history is not completely correct. I would recommend to read more on that account (the Glantz's lecture would be a good source to start with) before starting to write.

Re:"You've got this backward. The victory at Stalingrad (and Blau) ended German (not "Soviet") offensives in the South, and it was the Germans that were earlier incorrectly feeling "dizzy with success" (not "Stalin"). By the way, the "dizzy with success" description of incorrect German attitudes at the time was straight from the source (not my own). The article is more accurate than even your longer Talk page descriptions." Not correct. After the failure of Typhoon in late 1941 the Soviets started a series of offensives, part of which were successful. As a result, Stalin overestimated his own strength and underestimated German potential. During spring 1942 he initiated a series of new offensives aimed to push the Germans back and to end the war in close future. Among these offensives were: Second Demiansk offensive, Rzhev-Suchevka offensive, Orel-Bolkhov and Bolkhov offensives, Crimean offensive, Oboyan-Kursk offensive, etc. Almost all of them ended disastrously and led to a catastrophe when Hitler started Blau. Although these battles are not mentioned in most books (because they were dwarfed by more impressive Blau/Uranus), they had a severe negative impact on the events of the second half of 1942. More important, the decision to initiate these offensives was a personal Stalin's mistake, so it is quite appropriate to that article.
Re:This is already in the article. I don't state something significant is missing. My point is that the facts and events are represented in not very clear way plus some obvious mistakes have been done (BTW don't you mind me to fix your outrageous geographical error regarding Baku?).
Re:"the "dizzy with success" description of incorrect German attitudes at the time was straight from the source (not my own)." That is an additional argument against relying on a single source. I can reproduce the following Hitler's words:

"If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must end this war"

— Adolf Hitler,

Noone uses such words when he is "dizzy with successes".
Well, it seems to me that I have to write my own version of this part to discuss it on the talk page. I'll do this in close future.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It seems to me that your vision of the WWII history is not completely correct. I would recommend to read more on that account (the Glantz's lecture would be a good source to start with) before starting to write."

->This is somewhat bizarre given that, not only have a I read the Glantz lecture, but I've been adding cites to it in the article. And of course the Kursk victory was a major turning point in the war, as was Stalingrad. This is why they are BOTH in the article. You yourself stated that after Stalingrad, it was clear that Germany had lost the war. You then humorously stated nearly the exact same thing after Kursk. NONE of that is inconsistent with the article. In fact, it's entirely consistent with the article as it stands now. You keep repeating a practice of reciting various historical facts which are NOT inconsistent with the article, for what seem to be rather odd reasons.

Re:"You've got this backward. The victory at Stalingrad (and Blau) ended German (not "Soviet") offensives in the South, and it was the Germans that were earlier incorrectly feeling "dizzy with success" (not "Stalin"). By the way, the "dizzy with success" description of incorrect German attitudes at the time was straight from the source (not my own). The article is more accurate than even your longer Talk page descriptions." Not correct."

->Yes correct. In fact, they were almost word for word from the source.

Re: "Although these battles are not mentioned in most books (because they were dwarfed by more impressive Blau/Uranus), they had a severe negative impact on the events of the second half of 1942."

->Those (and a number of other smaller battles) aren't in the article, even though they may have been mistakes by Stalin. What is briefly mentioned before Kursk are the "disappointing losses after Stalingrad", but I don't think it's really necessary to go into smaller actions, unless there is a palpable reason for them.

Re: "Noone uses such words when he is "dizzy with successes".

->You've got to be kidding me. Hitler's obsession that he must acquire and protect oil fields is entirely independent of his and German generals' feeling of ridiculous overconfidence at the time.
->Just as one example to obliterate the silliness of this "he said this, so they couldn't have been dizzy with success" argument, here is a quote from Roberts including one such silly Hitler (and even Halder) view regarding the summer of 1942:

---

As in summer 1941, the German High Command was soon dizzy with success. On 6 July Halder noted, 'we have overestimated the enemy's strength and the offensive has completely smashed him up, On 20 July Hitler told Halder: 'The Russian is finished: Halder replied: I must admit that it looks that way.' By the end of August the Germans were on the Volga and Stalingrad was under siege. In the south German forces had reached the foothills of the Caucasus, occupied the Maikop oilfield and were threatening another oilfield at Grozny in Chechnya.(Roberts)

---

Re: "Well, it seems to me that I have to write my own version of this part to discuss it on the talk page."

->Interesting given that you haven't pointed out any factual problems with the article.

Mosedschurte (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Birthdate

Everywhere else says Stalin was born in 1879 not 1878! Jharmer95 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Holodomor in the lead

I've just removed a couple sentences about Holodomor from the article's summary. This article about Stalin, not Holodomor, so brief mentioning of the famine is sufficient for the lead. The article is too long.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. I noted this point with another editor, who insisted that the various historical views of the famine should be included in the lead.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I also had missed the addition of some other editorializing long paragraph someone added at the end of the Lead yesterday. The original short paragraph was restored.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much Soviet Union history?

It is understandable that Stalin's history and that of the Soviet Union are intimately tied together, especially after Stalin's ascent to power, but we must be careful not to accidentally make this an article on Russian history! This is especially true for the introduction.

Agree completely regarding the intro. The addition of the historian debate about the famines and the editorial paragraph snuck in the lead at the end yesterday are gone.

I generally agree about the Soviet history, though much of it is summary, and more focus should be on the decisions and directives of Stalin, with brief summaries of the larger or more controversial and discussed historical points of his rule. For example, given the paramount importance in Stalin's life of his leadership during the key 7 year period between 1939-45 (literally the life and death of both Stalin and the Soviet Union, along with world-changing happenings), I was utterly shocked how unsourced and lacking in Stlain's leadership info this article contained. Frankly, it was embarrassing -- the Britney Spears article was far more sourced and well-written. Shudder. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And until recently the Spears article had a more dedicated editorial body (double shudder).

I think we should just give enough Soviet history to give context to Stalin's personal situation - what his personal life was like, how it affected his political alliances, etc. For instance, we give only a skeletal outline of how he isolated Trotsky - we don't go into the details of post-Lenin Party politics.Kurzon (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cuz I sing better than Stalin, y'all!!"

Generally agree on the Soviet history. I placed sourced material in the WWII (and just before) sections, and tried to go light on battles -- mentioning only the major offensives gaining (or losing) huge swaths of European land-- and focused mostly on Stalin's famous directives and intentions, along with the costs and achievements. Stalin's eight Post-War years should probably be along the same lines, with summary mentions of the country's subjugations along with specific Stalin actions where notable. I have no idea how there is nothing on Stalin's famous "Doctor's Plot" now in a Stalin article, especially with the prominent role around the time of his death, but that'll come.

The "Early Life" sections now before Stalin even came to power are simply massive, like they're directly copied portions of a book, except for the grammar errors. Most also lack sources in large part.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This article should be more focused on Stalin's personality, etc. and the balance spun off. Gonna be tough however, to do a rewrite.Mtsmallwood (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Re Opening Sentence in Pact Section regarding Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks

I noticed this was reversed, with a comment to to the talk page. Changed (I had changed this):

"After failing to reach an agreement for a Soviet alliance with France and Britain,"

Just reversed to:

"After the failure of Soviet and Franco-British talks on a mutual defense pact in Moscow,"

Mosedschurte (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

1. . I don't have a problem cutting out the "talks" language I inserted. It's accurate, but probably superfluous given the paragraph below summarizing Stalin's directives and intentions in the talks.
2. . It wasn't just a mutual defense pact, as it included discussions regarding a proposed "alliance" (the term used by the sources), including the Soviets' desired rights to move through others' territories.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me explain something. I reverted your edits not because the previous one was better. In general, I support your efforts to improve the article. However, there is something here that rise my concern.

1. The statement about direct connection between appeasement and MRP have disappeared from the new version. Since it is impossible to tell the full story in this article, it is incorrect to show only immediate cause for the German-Soviet rapprochement.
2. "Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania vehemently opposed)" also doesn't deserve mentioning, if we do not include the well known fact that Poland vehemently opposed to join any alliance with the UK and France if the USSR would also join it. In other words, Britain had to choose between Poland and the USSR, so Poland herself also responsible for the negotiation's failure. (I'll provide the source soon)
3. "At the same time, Germany -- with whom the Soviets had been conducting secret negotiations through the Spring of 1939" - it is very strange for me that you, who uses Roberts' book so extensively, didn't include the Roberts' own statement:

For more than 50 years the historical interpretation of the Nazi-Soviet pact has been an ideological and political battleground on which two polarised versions of the truth have vied with each other. On the one side, there have been those historians who argued that the operational objective of Soviet foreign policy in 1939 was an alliance with the Western powers against Germany. Only at the last moment, when Moscow had failed, in its own terms, to achieve this goal did Stalin turn to a pact with Hitler. On the other side have been those who argued that a Soviet-Western alliance was, at best, a secondary goal of Moscow's foreign policy. From the spring of 1939 at the very latest the primary trajectory of Soviet foreign policy was towards a pact with the Nazis. In terms of this debate, I have tried to show that the new documentary evidence from the Soviet archives demonstrates the untenability of the latter view. The Soviet turn to Germany did not begin until the end of July 1939 and only began to gather real momentum in the middle of August when the triple alliance negotia- tions with Britain and France finally broke down. The other theme of the article has been Moscow's passivity and indecisiveness in the diplomatic prelude to World War II, not least in the critical days of August and September 1939. The argument has been that the Soviet decision for a pact with Nazi Germany can best be conceptualised in terms of a process of political and diplomatic policy drift. Within this conception the pact appears not so much a dazzlingly bold and cynical stroke but a more mundanely hesitant and ambiguous step towards a strategy of security through cooperation with Nazi Germany. The great turning point in Soviet foreign policy was, arguably, not the pact but the decision in early September 1939 to join in the attack on Poland. With this decision the faltering process of realigning the USSR alongside Germany, which had begun at the end of July, was finally completed.

— Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152247

To my opinion, in the new version of the section these three my comments have to be taken into account.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. . The potential effect appeasement issue regarding the Munich Agreement on the annexation of Czechoslavakia certainly did not disappear. In fact, it is now more specifically stated now more explicitly stated

   ---

   "Some historians argue that Stalin's beliefs about Britain and France were also shaped by the refusal of Britain and France to go to war with Germany over the annexation of part of Czechoslavakia, while this view is disputed by Werner Maser and Dmitri Volkogonov."

   ---

   By the way, I didn't even add in the views of still other historians that Stalin wouldn't have followed through attacking Germany anyway even had Britain and France gone to war, not Stalin's statements about the benefits of destroying the state of Poland, nor the many historians that claim that Stalin was the ultimate appeaser (and those that argue back at them).
   
2. . Re: " 'Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania vehemently opposed)' also doesn't deserve mentioning, if we do not include the well known fact that Poland vehemently opposed to join any alliance with the UK and France if the USSR would also join it. "
   ->Okay. The reason for the breakdown is certainly notable and necessary, but I don't have a problem adding the clause (and cite), "while Poland and Romania refused to enter an alliance which included the Soviet Union." I don't think it's necessary (one might argue that the reasons for the Polish and Romanian refusal to enter an agreement might be necessary too), but I don't have a problem with the clause.
   
3. " 'At the same time, Germany -- with whom the Soviets had been conducting secret negotiations through the Spring of 1939' - it is very strange for me that you, who uses Roberts' book so extensively, didn't include the Roberts' own statement: "
   -> That Roberts statement in no way states that the Soviets had not been conducting secret talks with Germany during this period. In fact, Roberts explicitly discusses these negotiations. In fact, even though that statement above was from Roberts way back in 1992 (before most his recent work including even more extensive Soviet documentation), it actually still comports with the article's description. The Soviet-German pact was entered into after the breakdown of the British-French-Soviet pact. But Roberts never denies that secret German-Soviet discussions were happening before August of 1939. Rather he explicitly states that they were going on "for months."
   
   No source I've ever seen denies the existence of these talks. And I wouldn't include "Roberts statement" in an encyclopedic article. I try to stay away from historian quotes (this was also discussed regarding the historian in the Questionable Tactics section, and I thought that historian quote should go).Mosedschurte (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re 3. It did. In western historiography the meeting between Merekalov and Weizsacker is considered to mark the start of secret negotiations between the USSR and Germany. It his artilce (Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939 The Historical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 921-926) Roberts demonstrated that these negotiations concerned economical cooperation, in particlular, the fate of the Soviet Skoda contract (the latter was a Czech company, so the German invasion of Czecoslovakia had a direct impact on it). Roberts directly states:

This article uses recently released documents from the Soviet diplomatic archives to examine the Merekalov-Weizsacker meeting of April 1939. It argues that these documents show that western historians have been mistaken in assuming that this meeting was the occasion for Soviet signals of a desire for detente with Nazi Germany. The significance attached to the meeting in this respect is part of the cold war myth that the USSR's negotiations for a triple alliance with Great Britain and France in the spring and summer of 1939 were paralleled by secret Soviet-German discussions which eventually lead to the Nazi-Soviet pact of August i939. The article seeks to demolish those elements of the myth that concern the Merekalov- Weizsjcker encounter and to present an alternative interpretation of the provenance and meaning of the so-called political overture by the Soviet ambassador at the meeting.

Re 2. I don't think so. I presented this fact just to demonstrate that the real situation was much more complex than you try to represent. It would be incorrect to present one or two concrete events that lead to the negotiations' failure. I want to blame neither Poland nor the USSR alone in that. It would be also incorrect to accuse (exclisively) western allies also.
That is why more general explanation (instead of naiming a couple of factors) would be more appropriate.

Re 1. The sentence "Some historians argue that Stalin's beliefs about Britain and France were also shaped by the refusal of Britain and France to go to war with Germany over the annexation of part of Czechoslavakia, while this view is disputed by Werner Maser and Dmitri Volkogonov." doesn't satisfy me either. First of all, these some historians are in actuality the mainstream historians, and Volkogonov, Maser (or Suvorov, who has not been mentioned for some reason) belong to marginal science. Therefore, it is unclear for me why the equal weight is given to these two POWs. To my opinion, the previous statement about appeasement (with Wikilink) sould be restored, as well as the references to Carr and Beloff (reputable mainstream historians). I can add some recent references to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. . Re: "doesn't satisfy me either. First of all, these some historians are in actuality the mainstream historians"
   ->I certainly wouldn't say that. Moreover, the more generalized "appeasement" and "western powers" was generalized and WP:Weasel when what is really referred to is the French and British caving to Hitler on the Munich Agreement ceding an annexation of part of Czechoslavakia. Moreover, it even went to the extreme of getting into historians view of what was a "direct consequence." Thus, the improved and more specific sentence. I don't want to jump on the prior sentence too harshly, but it was severely lacking in the specificity and lack of weasel words department for an encyclopedic article.
   
   
2. . Re: "I don't think so. I presented this fact just to demonstrate that the real situation was much more complex than you try to represent."
   ->Even Roberts presents Poland-Romania army runthrough demand by Stalin as the ostensible reason for the attempted World War II alliance breakdown, as do obviously most other sources. This doesn't get dumped merely because it's "complex." If you want to add a sourced clause that Romania and Poland refused to enter an alliance with the Soviet Union, I have no real issue with that.
   
   
3. . Re: "Roberts demonstrated that these negotiations concerned economical cooperation"
   ->In Roberts new book (2006), here are his own discussions of negotiations before the mid-August breakdown in the British-French-Soviet talks:

   ---

   "For months the Germans had been hinting that they could offer better terms than the British and French. In early August these overtures reached a crescendo when Ribbentrop told the Soviet diplomatic representative in Berlin, Georgii Astakhov, that 'there was no problem from the Baltic to the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us.' . . . The Germans were obviously trying to disrupt the triple alliance negotiations"

   ---

Re: 3. Let's re-examine the course of the discussion on that subject again:
(i) I pointed you attention at the fact that the statement:"at the same time, Germany -- with whom the Soviets had been conducting secret negotiations through the Spring of 1939"" contradicts to the opinion of Roberts, the author extensively used by you, and provided the quote from his article.
(ii) You argued that this quote doesn't deny the existence of these talk directly (although, to my opinion, the overall tone of the quote siggested it);
(iii) I provided another quote from the same author that directly stated that western scholars' beliefs that that the USSR's negotiations for a triple alliance with Great Britain and France in the spring and summer of 1939 were paralleled by secret Soviet-German discussion were the cold war myth. In other words, Roberts directly denies the existence of these talks.
(iv) You argue that Germans were obviously trying to disrupt the triple alliance negotiations. (sic!)
To my opinion, it is a pure example of the notorious straw man fallacy. Whether the Germans tried to disrupt negotianions or not - is quite irrelevant. The last quote provided by you confirms only one fact: events described there were unilateral attempts of Germany. It does neither refute nor even question the earlier Roberts' statement: there were no negotiations between Germany and the USSR during spring-early summer of 1939.
I think, the article should be modified taking into account all said above.

Re: 2 In other words, two reasons for the triple alliance failure were: Stalin demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania and Poland refusal to enter any alliance with the Soviets? What about dramatic difference of visions of the prospective war by the USSR and the UK/France? (This is usually named as one of major factor that caused the negotiations' failure)

Re: 1 Agree on substitution of Western powers with the UK/France. However, let me remind you that appeasement ≠ Munich agreement. Appeasement is the western belief that Hitler can be pacified + the absence of any distinct policy towards the USSR and towards the looming German expansion to the east. There were several points of view in the Foreign Office on that account, neither of them prevailed, btw, until Chirchill. Some British politicians had nothing against Hitler's expansion to Ukraine, for instance. Not only Munich, but the whole cource of events created a firm impression that the major aim of the UK/France is to divert Hitler east (although, as we know a posteriori, such an impression wasn't absolutely correct). Let me remind you the Taylor's opinion on that account

If British diplomacy seriously aspired to alliance with Soviet Russia in 1939, then the negotiations towards this end were the most incompetent transactions since Lord North lost the American colonies...

According to Derek Watson

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

— Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322

Another quote:

The war was initiated because of specific territorial demands made by Germany on Poland, reflecting a string of claims coming out of the Versailles settlement that sought to bring all "Germans" under the sovereignty of the Third Reich. These included the militarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, and the absorption of the Sudetenland, all involving sovereign control or transfer of territory.

— John A. Vasquez. The Causes of the Second World War in Europe: A New Scientific Explanation International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 17, No. 2, Crisis, Conflict and War. Crise, conflit et guerre (Apr., 1996), pp. 161-178

Therefore, in the sentence:"Some historians argue that Stalin's beliefs about Britain and France were also shaped by the refusal of Britain and France to go to war with Germany over the annexation of part of Czechoslavakia, while this view is disputed by Werner Maser and Dmitri Volkogonov." I would replace some historians with majority, annexation of Czechoslovakia with appeasement policy and put the unreferenced mentioning of Volkogonov and Maser to the footnote.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1. . Re: "I would replace some historians with majority, annexation of Czechoslovakia with appeasement policy and put the unreferenced mentioning of Volkogonov and Maser to the footnote
   ->I would say absolutely not on "the majority" of historians, as no such poll exists, just to begin with. Nor with the WP:Weasel general words of "appeasement policy" as it isn't even a strictly defined term, nor is there even agreement on all that it would entail. In fact, just to show you silly using such a generalized word would mean here, many consider a large part of that UK "appeasement" also (in addition to the Munich Agreement) not actually attacking Germany immediately after Hitler invaded Poland -- which quite clearly not only happened after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but it was essentially agreed upon by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The comedy of using the word in this particular context is a fantastic illustration of why such generalized weasel words shouldn't be used. The specific facts are much better and really not in dispute.
   -> If there is another major move Hitler made besides the annexation of part of Czechoslovakia to which the UK/France ceded -- i.e, something actually specific for a Wikipedia article -- then I wouldn't have a problem adding that. But again, as an actual reason for Stalin's specific beliefs re the UK/France for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, not some larger reason/debate for "the war" generally.
   ->On that note, this is a section of the article focusing on Stalin and the actual actions occurring around the time of the Pact, and most definitely NOT an article of various historians battling over larger reasons they believe World War II broke out (Treaty of Versailles, Anschluss, etc.). Rest assured there are boatloads of them with horrible things to say about Stalin in such big picture analyses of what "caused" World War II that also aren't worth bringing into this section of a Stalin Wikipedia article regarding the specifics of the negotiation of the August 1939 Pact.
   
   
2. . Re:In other words, two reasons for the triple alliance failure were: Stalin demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania and Poland refusal to enter any alliance with the Soviets?
   ->No. As the sources say, the actual sticking point on the breakdown was that the sides couldn't reach agreement regarding the Soviets' demand to put their armies in Poland and Romania if the alliance fought Germany. You've separately stated that Poland and Romania wouldn't enter an alliance with the Soviets as the reason that the Soviets couldn't get such an agreement.
   
   
3. . Re: "You argue that 'Germans were obviously trying to disrupt the triple alliance negotiations' "
   ->No I didn't. I gave yet another quote from Roberts showing concurrent negotiation with the Germans while talking with France and Germany, which is the only temporal discussion in this article regarding the topic -- not some earlier debate in the 1990s about even earlier negotiations. In fact, as just one example Roberts gives NOW (in 2006, not 1992), the "Baltic to Black Sea" quote was on August 3', a full eighteen days before the British and French broke off negotiations with Soviets. That was, again, from Roberts. Lest there be any doubt that the Soviets discussed such matters concurrently, and there shouldn't given the obvious sources, here is the original document detailing Molotov himself discussing these matters with Germans on August 3. I haven't attempted to dispute any old "western historiography" as you put it regarding allegations of earlier secret negotiations as Roberts' old 1992 quote addressed. Those allegations of older negotiations being economic (or not) aren't even in the article. There isn't any question that the Soviets were negotiating with the Germans over items such as the Baltics before, and while, negotiating with the Brits/French in August. The article doesn't get into any issue with purported earlier negotiations.
   
   
4. . Also, rather than go into some description of battling historians' analyses, it is best in an encyclopedic article to merely state what happened first. Here:
   (1) the Stalin talks with the UK-France broke down just before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed.
   (2) The actual sticking point of their breakdown was Stalin's demand for Soviet Army access in Poland/Romania (I don't think Poland/Romania's reasons for disliking the USSR and machinations of their refusal to ally with the Soviet Union really need be gone into).
   (3) Germany, which had been talking to the USSR, made several specific statements/promises in order to get the pact signed.
   It's pretty straight forward without getting into a battle over historians' analyses of what-ifs and guesses as to what was going on in various parties' heads.

My general concern regarding your style of writing is that you describe immediate cause instead of talking about real reasons. If we accept your vision, we have to agree that WWI started because Russia declared mobilisation, and WWII started because the German battleship started to shell Westerplatte. It is simply misleading.
If you prefer to tell about concrete events, then you have to describe all relevant facts, not only the last event in the chain. Otherwise, it will be a profanation of history. However, since in this cocnrete article there is no space to talk about everything related to MRP, the reason of the talks' failure must be described in general words.
Re: 4.

1."the Stalin talks with the UK-France broke down just before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed." Agree.

2." The actual sticking point of their breakdown was Stalin's demand for Soviet Army access in Poland/Romania (I don't think Poland/Romania's reasons for disliking the USSR and machinations of their refusal to ally with the Soviet Union really need be gone into)." Oppose. It was just the immediate cause. You tell nothing about the real reason for Stalin's request, and for western refusal to accept it. Moreover, you removed my description of these reasons. It is unacceptable. The real reasons for the negotiations' failure must be described.

3."Germany, which had been talking to the USSR, made several specific statements/promises in order to get the pact signed." Partially agree. However, the sentence in the article creates an impression that the triple negotiations went in parallel with secret negotiations with Germany from the very beginning. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3. See Re: 4.3.

Re: 2. The talks failed because the sides didn't trust their counterpart's motifs, intentions, and military capabilities, and because their vision of the future war was quite different. The Stalin's demand was just one of the consequence of that.

Re: 1 "If there is another major move Hitler made besides the annexation of part of Czechoslovakia to which the UK/France ceded -- i.e, something actually specific for a Wikipedia article -- then I wouldn't have a problem adding that." I already named it, however, you removed it without any attempt to think. Note, not only the UK/France ceded Sudetes, France also refused to take any action to prevent occupation of the ramp of Czechoslovakia (although she promised to do so). This was a direct demonstration of the real cost of the treaties signed with western powers.
As regards to the ""appeasement policy" as it isn't even a strictly defined term", just make one click on this wikilink --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1. . Re: "if we accept your vision, we have to agree that WWI started because Russia declared mobilisation, and WWII started because the German battleship started to shell Westerplatte"
   -> The difference is that I would not demand to turn one section of a Stalin article on a 1939 Treaty into a causes of World War I and World War II article. Nor include any editors' "vision" of such broadscale matters in a Wikipedia article.
   
2. . Re: "It was just the immediate cause."
   ->Which is what the article says.
   "You tell nothing about the real reason for Stalin's request"
   ->Actually, I did, from the exact same source in the very next paragraph in that source (Stalin didn't think UK/France serious about fighting Germany and they were using talks to intimidate Hitler for later deal) and it was oddly moved down the paragraph. It is now back up with the specific UK-USSR-France breakdown portion.
   ->The ONE REASON listed for the larger concept of abandoning a collective security doctrine is still shoehorned in this 1939 Treaty section of the article, but has been listed as such. By the way, most historians (like Roberts (2006)) don't even go into the Munich Agreement broadly for Stalin's reasons, much less for this 1939 Pact. Also keep in mind that treading into the various historian analyses territory without specifics on broad reasons for broad events invites a whole lot of other historians' reasons for such broad movements in history, and regarding Stalin, they are certainly not favorable.
   
3. . Re: " Note, not only the UK/France ceded Sudetes, France also refused to take any action to prevent occupation of the ramp of Czechoslovakia (although she promised to do so)."
   ->Both of these are France and the UK permitting Germany to annex Czechoslvakia, which is already in the article -- in fact, now actually specifically stated, without weasel words. The addition of "appeasement" is humorous given that, not only is a huge part of that generalized weasel word Britain/France's failure to defend Poland (which they had agreed to do), which obviously hadn't happened yet, but this Pact actually MAKES A DEAL with Hitler to split Poland, which would make the use of such a non-specific generalized term even more bizarre here. It's a prime example of why using such broad WP:Weasel terms not only doesn't work, but can lead to rather comic results if used in the wrong place, such as here.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Re Opening Sentence in Pact Section regarding Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks. Part II

The sentence:"Stalin also believed that the Franco-Anglo-Soviet talks were really intended to intimidate Hitler in order to foster a later agreement with France and Britain, which Stalin believed were not serious about fighting Germany." directly contradicts to the declaration that "the specific facts are much better and really not in dispute."
The text implies that triple negotiations failed because (i) Stalin's demand (immediate cause) (ii) Stalin's belief.
In other words, the text pretends to disclose not only facts, but also a mechanism of the talks' failure.
However, if you include Stalin's suspicions, then other similar considerations must be icluded too: (i) the western hope that the war still could be avoided (ii) the western doubts about the Soviet capabilities and their vision of the Soviet role in the war (iii) Stalins doubts about French/British intentions to participate in te war (iv) Stalins doubts about Polish ability to resist to Germany for more or less long time, etc.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "directly contradicts to the declaration that "the specific facts are much better and really not in dispute."
->No it doesn't. These are specific to the UK-USS-France agreement itself and are supported by a direct quote from Stalin to Churchill, and the source I might add:

---

reason for Moscow's decision to halt the triple alliance negotiations: Stalin did not believe that the British and French were serious about fighting Hitler; he feared, indeed, that they were manoeuvring to get him to do their fighting for them. As Stalin later told Churchill, he 'had the impression that the talks were insincere and only for the purpose of intimidating Hitler, with whom the Western Powers would later come to terms." (Roberts, 2006)

---

Re: "However, if you include Stalin's suspicions, then other similar considerations must be icluded too"
->No. This is an article on Stalin, not Roosevelt and Churchill. This is why the statement regarding Stalin's specific belief regarding the specific UK-USSR-France concurrent talks is in this section of the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "These are specific to the UK-USS-France agreement itself and are supported by a direct quote from Stalin to Churchill, and the source I might add... etc" Well, it that case, the explanation of the French/British behaviour, that created such an impression(namely, the different vision of the probability and possible course of the future war), is also absolutely specific, as well as the reason for Stalin's request to move the troops (doubts about Polish military capabilities).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "This is an article on Stalin, not Roosevelt and Churchill." Roosevelt is irrelevant in this case. The statement as whole is irrelevant either. It is necessary to tell few words about other participants, or about the talks to explain reasons for Stalin's suspiciousness. Otherwise it is unclear where the impression that the talks were insincere came from. That is why the sentence should be placed in the overall context of the collective sequrity deterioration, appeasement (that, BTW, is rather strictly defined (The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939.) and betrayal of Czechoslovakia.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Well, it that case, the explanation of the French/British behaviour,"

->Definitely not in this article in this section of this treaty. You could probably fill 10 pages of Historian opinion/analyses on that going back to before the Treaty of Versailles -- all different -- and that's not the subject of this article (Joseph Stalin).

Re: "BTW, is rather strictly defined" (appeasement)

->It mostly certainly is not, most oddly here, it also includes the UK/France bailing on their promises to defend Poland, the splitting of which most humorously here was defined in this very treaty with Adolph Hitler by very specific secret protocols doing so. Your quote even states "policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939", and the Stalin-Hitler split and Polish invasion was in 1939.
->That's yet another -- here excellent -- reason that being specific is better than using generalized terms.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "That's yet another -- here excellent -- reason that being specific is better than using generalized terms." Sometimes being specific means being primitive, or even being misleading. So only some degree of generalisation can prevent material from deletion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "So only some degree of generalisation can prevent material from deletion."

->Uh, what? (Honestly, that line being uttered in a discussion of a Joseph Stalin Wikipedia article couldn't get any better).Mosedschurte (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoc est simplicissimus: if I see a blatant oversimplification, I either try to generalize to make it correct, or delete it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Before or after the Show Trial for it? (just kidding)

There's also not an "oversimplification" but just a lack of mass historian analyses on larger issues. There is in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article devoted to this topic (this is a Stalin article), though it's pretty poorly worded and sourced.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some historians

I propose to avoid using the words "some historians" in the article. This reservation can be added to virtually every article's statement. Therefore, I would propose to rephrase the sentence: "Regarding the larger issue of collective security , some historians that one reason that Stalin decided to abandon the doctrine was the shaping by French and British entry into the Munich Agreement and the subsequent failure to prevent German occupation of Czechoslovakia..." to remove the obvious typo there, get rid of "some historians" and mention the existence of the another (revisionist) point of view (without disclosing the details). I can provide a refernce for the latter.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This troubling sentence illustrates yet another problem of going into various widescale historian analyses' on these "larger question" issues like the causes of World War II and the overall reasons collective security did not work -- there are a hundreds of historians with hundreds of different views on these larger analyses. For example, to delve into a few, some think Stalin wanted to destroy the Polish state, backed by Stalin's own quote on the matter by the way. Some think Stalin wanted make "western capitalists" (with which he oddly lumped Hitler) battle it out amongst themselves. Some even think he wanted an eventual Soviet takeover of Europe.

This is why such broader debate/analyses should be avoided, especially in very specific sections such as that describing a 1939 Treaty.

And if one includes such broad event historian analyses, you certainly can't nuke "some historians" out of that quote. In fact, it might just be one or two on that particular point.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:"In fact, it might just be one or two on that particular point". Definitely, not just be one or two. Let's try to count:

1. Edward Hallett Carr
2. Max Beloff
3. Roberts.
4. Derek Watson
5. P. A. Reynolds
6. Donald Lammers directly states:

   Those who criticize British policy on the grounds of its affinity for fascism and its aversion to communism will find reinforcement in Osborne's boldly stated views and their somewhat muted echoes, which reveal that many members of the diplomatic service accepted the need for appeasement at least partly for ideological reasons. Of those who did, a substantial number (in this very limited sample) had had direct experience of life in fascist Italy (Osborne, Perth, Ingram, Grey, Nichols, Jebb); many of them were compara- tively young - it was certainly not only 'decayed serving men' who believed that the appeasement policy best suited the country's needs. Their reasoning was mainly negative. They did not so much prefer fascism to communism as they preferred to seek practical solutions in the short run which would harmonize with their longer views. Military weakness, some unappeased feelings of guilt, and, at least until March 1939, a lingering hope that fascism might respond favourably to concessions, made it seem worthwhile to avoid a decisive step in the direction of Soviet Russia, whose long- range hostility to the West was never in doubt

7. Frank McDonough states:

   In spite of all various attempts to build up a picture of Stalin cold-bloodedly plotting Nazi-Soviet pact, the whole argument is extremely unconvincing. It depends on assumption that the Soviet Union entered negotiations with Britain and France for an alliance under false pretences. It seems much more likely, and more in accordance with the diplomatic evidence, that if Britain and France for had sought a straightforward military alliance, and had agreed the details later, then this agreement could have been signed quickly in the weeks after the Germans attack Prague. It was British delay and Polish intransigence that were the most significant reasons for failure. Atyer all, the Soviets made a definite offer of an alliance in April 1939. It was a full four months before the talks broke down

Should I continue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Let's try to count:"

->Snarky. As an initial matter, let's try to count those that actually claim what you claim they do. I checked out that old 1992 Roberts source at 57-8:
Result: Whiff. Actually, much worse. Roberts himself (1992) obliterates your point of taking out the "some historians" from any such global historian analysis with a few clicks of the keyboard.
->In fact, Roberts 1992 states that there are three schools of thought on the issue: "Watt identified three schools of thought among Western historians as to when Moscow initiated the negotiations which culminated in the Nazi-Soviet pact." One of them, the "Potemkin View", viewed the actions at Munich part of such "appeasement" to lead to the pact.
->Quite differently, in the "Stalin hypoetheis", Roberts 1992 specifically goes on to state that "NUMEROUS WRITERS" actually viewed Stalin's speeches against "Western appeasement" were actually a signal to Berlin that it wanted to do business (not that Roberts agrees): "Numerous writers have interpreted Stalin's attack on Western appeasement policies in a speech to the XVIII party congress in March 1939 as a signal to Berlin that Moscow was ready to do business with it."

Re: "Donald Lammers[23] directly states:"

->Literally not a single shred of support for the sentence in the paragraph you quoted. I actually re-read it three times thinking I'd somehow missed how Western appeasement at Munich had caused the Soviets to abandon their collective security policy -- despite that humorously they negotiated with the UK & France up to TWO DAYS BEFORE THE M-R PACT (I can't even believe I'm in a debate about this silliness) -- but it wasn't there in the block quote you provided.

Re: "Frank McDonough"

->Not only does this block text in no way support your point, it even further obliterates it by stating that Stalin actually entered into the UK-France talks for an alliance against Germany in good faith -- ONE YEAR AFTER Munich.

This is the point when dealing with such wide event historian analyses, like the causes of World War II or the failure of the collective security policy -- you get disparate historians saying disparate things. (And more oddly here, none of them supporting your point).

This is why such things should be avoided, especially in the section of a Joseph Stalin article dealing very specifically with the negotiations in the entry of a 1939 Treaty. Rather, the actual Treaty and negotiations themselves should be the focus.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: In fact, the more I look at that sentence and the lack of support for it by your own sources, the more I think it should be dumped altogether. Not only does it lack support, but the entire point is rather illogical as Stalin was negotiating with Britain and France (and there's no indication he was faking his desire to do a collective security deal -- rather, Roberts thinks he was sincere in his negotiations) literally up to the weeks and days before the M-R Pact -- one year beyond Munich and many months after the events that followed.

I frankly hadn't even thought through how illogical the entire notion of its claim would be, such that the complete lack of supporting material isn't surprising.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should understand that our major problem is misunderstanding of the other's position. As you probably noticed, sometimes I am not sufficiently clear (partly because I am not a native English speaker), but I rarely do mistakes in my conclusions. Let me explain the problem as I see it.
To my opinion, the problem is in the definitions we use. I used the word "appeasement" from the very beginning that, according to my understanding it encompasses the whole european policy of the UK and, in lesser extent, France during late 30th. (Remember, I wrote above:"I would replace "some historians" with "majority", "annexation of Czechoslovakia" with "appeasement" policy...") You argued that the term is vague (your words:"silly using such a generalized word", although, to my opinion this insulting tone seems unacceptable during the discussion between reasonable men) and proposed to go back to annexation of Czechoslovakia instead. As a result, to my understanding, you implicitly concluded that nothing else happened that could affect the Stalin's behaviour considerably before or during the triple alliance negotiations. With this concept in mind, you tried to find direct statements on the connection between Munich and MRP in the sources I provided and, naturally, found nothing (becides, probably Beloff's, who, off the top of my head, stated that explicitly).
However, let me remind you, that I never stated that Munich, anexation of Sudetes and subsequent invasion of Czechoslovakia was the only reason for MRP. My only mistake was that I didn't resist you concretisation (that, to my opinion, was a primitivisation). In other words, we come back to the straw man fallacy, although in that concrete case I don't blame you in that. It was my mistake to agree with such a primitivisation.
So if we come back to the appeasement, or, more precisely, to the inconsistent policy of the UK/France, their reluctance to initiate any decisive actions against Germany and their hidden hostility towards the USSR (that, frankly, had some ground), then we can re-examine the sources I provided (along with some others): 1 Edward Hallett Carr fully support the Western power's responsibility for MRP. 2 Max Beloff states that the UK/France behaviour during invasion of Czechoslovakia dispelled the last belief in the collective security. 3 I agree that Roberts in the article I cited didn't blame the UK/France policy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from it was that the USSR's behaviour during triple negotiations was sincere.

4 However, Derek Watson directly states that the UK policy in 1939 was a direct continuation of the "appeasement":

"In spite of the clear failure of the Munich agreement, as demonstrated by Hitler's occupation of the Czech lands in March 1939, to Soviet politicians there was little evidence of any reappraisal of British or French policy.6 Nor were there major changes in the personnel responsible. In May 1939 the British cabinet was still divided on the question of an alliance with the Soviet Union, and Halifax, the foreign secretary, did not want a mutual assistance pact."

5 A.J.P. Taylor states:

"If British diplomacy seriously aspired to alliance with Soviet Russia in 1939, then the negotiations towards this end were the most incompetent transactions since Lord North lost the American colonies ..."

6 P. A. Reynolds states:"In April 1939 it appeared to the Soviet Government that she was likely soon to be attacked by Hitler, with or without the connivance or assistance of the Western Powers. She could meet this danger with one of two alternative policies : she might conclude some sort of agreement with the Western Powers against Hitler, but this would only be of value if she were assured of effective military support in case of any threat by Hitler to what she considered her vital interests; or she might come to some arrangement with Hitler at best destroying, at worst postponing, any threat to herself, provided that relations between the Western Powers and Germany had reached such a point that the possibility of their co-operation could safely be excluded (for the threat of such an agreement might have been just what was needed to bring Britain and France in on Hitler's side)." He continued:"As late as 4 August Molotov maintained a forthright demeanour to Schulenburg and was strongly critical of German policy; Schulenburg concluded: " From M's whole attitude it was evident that the Soviet Government was in fact more prepared for improvement in German-Soviet relations, but that the old mistrust of Germany persists. My overall impression is that the Soviet Government is at present determined to sign with England and France if they fulfill all Soviet wishes." If the several impressions of these two able German officials were correct, what were the factors that in the first weeks of August brought Stalin down on the side of those favourng a detente with Germany and opposed to an alliance with the West? Contributory factors may have been first, the delay in arrival of the Anglo-French Military Mission (agreed to on 25 July, arrived in Moscow on 11 August), none of whose members approached in status Marshal Voroshilov, who headed the Russian delegation, and, secondly, the departure of Mr. Strang on 7 August, owing to an alleged great accumulation of work in London, without final agreement having been reached on the definition of indirect aggression. The decisive factor favourable to the Germans, however, would seem to have been Ribbentrop's offer to visit Moscow: in the Soviet Government's official reply Molotov formally stated that " the dispatch of such a distinguished public figure and statesman emphasised the earnestness of the intentions of the German Government," and Schulenburg for the first time had the impression that the negotiations might succeed. The decisive factors against the Western Powers would appear to have been the revelations afforded by the military discussions, first, the shock of the Western Powers' military weakness, and secondly their inability to reply to Voroshilov's enquiry on the 14th whether Russian troops would be permitted to pass across Polish territory. Even after Schulenburg's communication of the 15th announcing the Ribbentrop offer, Molotov used every weapon in his diplomatic armoury to delay the visit as long as possible in face of great German urgency; and on the 19th, in response to a pressing telegram from Ribbentrop pointing out that conditions on the Polish frontier were so intolerable that hostilities might break out any day, Molotov would only acknow? ledge the importance of the proposed trip, but would not fix a date even approximately, nor would he discuss the non-aggression pact (of which Ribbentrop had sent a draft) until the economic agreement was " signed and proclaimed and put into effect." But postponement of a decision was no longer possible." Once again, the Soviets seriously aimed for a pact, but the UK didn't. 7 I think, that Donald Lammers' quote also directly confirms the thesis about the role of Western hostility to the Communist USSR in the triple alliance's failure. 8 Frank McDonough directly blames British policy in the negotiation's failure. 9 Haslam supports the same idea. 10 And, Sir Winston Churchill in his famous book (Part II, chapter 2) states the same, namely, that had Chamberlain accept Stalin's proposal in April 1939, the overall course if history would be different.
My conclusion:
"If we return back to the "appeasement" term (with necessary explanations), then all problems disappear. It was the UK/France policy that lead to the Nazi-Soviet rapprochement, and majority of historinas agree upon that."
In connection to that, could you please answer my question: how many reliable sources state the reverse, namely that the real Stalin's intentions were to launch expansion west, so he from the very beginning wasn't inclined to sign any pacts with the UK/France or not to fulfill his obligations? (I know few western sources on that account + some post-Soviet revisionist writers.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Re: "I believe you should understand that our major problem is misunderstanding of the other's position."

->I honestly do, but you've got simply a massive problem: Even your own source before, Geoffrey Roberts (1992), explicitly goes through the "Three Schools Of Thought" on the matter (discussed above), with only one school of thought on the matter (the "Potemkin") even mildly approximating the sentence.
->Based on this along, forget everything else, how could we possibly delete the "some historian" tag? Why is this still even being debated? (in fact, there are way more than even three, but with the issue now dead, it's not worth going into).

Re: "we can re-examine the sources I provided (along with some others)",

->As we go through this, you seem to have a bigger problem: Forget all or most historians (that was already blown apart), as you post the quotes from supposed supporters of this threry, it's starting to look like none of them actually support this view, though maybe famous left-wing historian EH Carr does (haven't read that text).

• In fact, with the "some historians" delete argument now thoroughly dead, not only do these sources in no way state that "western appeasement" of Hitler (Munich, et al.) caused Stalin to enter a pact with Hitler (and why would they, this point being silly after he was actually negotiating with UF/France up to the last second), but they seem to be some kind of odd Talk Page attack on the UK generally (not that I really care about that):
  

--A.J.P. Taylor-> Zero Support. Implies that the British didn't take the A-F-USSR negotiations seriously -- an entirely different issue.
--Frank McDonough" -> Absolutely zero support. In fact, he claims that delay and intransigence in negotiations caused the A-F-USSR talks to fail.
--Donald Lammers' ->Not only no support for the original point, but Lammers even further kills your point by stating that Stalin's engagement of the UK-France was in good faith up to the last second.
--"However, Derek Watson directly states that the UK policy in 1939 was a direct continuation of the "appeasement": -> This statement is bizarre given that the quote that follows says nothing of the sort. It states that the UK Cabinet was divided on whether it wanted an alliance with the Soviets. And that they never took responsibility for the Czech annexation.

• Forget the "some historians" deletion, given the revelation of the "sources", that sentence probably has to be deleted because it doesn't have support.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, could you please describe in few words your point of view on the reasons of the triple alliance failure. And, after that, could you please give the references to the appropriate sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually in the article. With sources. The negotiations broke down over the Soviet army in Poland/Romania point. No one disputes this point because this is actually what happened.

As for any historian analyses of potential larger reasons effecting the mindset and political positions of the parties on a large scale which might have had some underlying effects that potentially later manifested themselves as part of the failure, going back to Chamberlain's election, various cabinet members' positions on Germany, the Bolsheviks, etc; Stalin's statements about wanting to destroy the Polish state, the Russian War with Poland, the Molotov/Litinov viewpoints regarding the effectiveness of military alliances, Munich, Lenin, Versailles, Napolean and probably the Big Bang, there are literally thousands.

Which of these I believe, or you believe, isn't the point. This isn't the place for it.

As a reality check, tis is a Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin, and more specifically, the section of Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin addressing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, with mentions of Stalin's concurrent negotiations with (later) allies.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, do I understand you correct that to your opinion the British/French refusal to accept Stalin's request was the real reason for the negotiations' failure?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Army in Poland/Romania point was the sticking point on the breakdown for Aug 21, which is what the article states. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is dramatically superficial POV. You mix political and military talks. The political talks reached their peak in July and then run into the numerous obstacles. The military negotiations started later, the members of military delegations may have been experts in their fields, but they were not front-ranking military personages of the seniority of Voroshilov. Whilst the French negotiators had been instructed that an agreement was urgent, the British had been told to proceed slowly until there was a political settlement. Therefore, the military part of the negotiations was doomed. The Polish question was just an excuse to break the talks.
Therefore, even from your primitive positions you are wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is zero "dramatically superficial" about it. In fact, it's about as substantive as it gets. It's what actually occurred. No one even disputes that it occurred. Re: "The Polish question was just an excuse to break the talks", that's an interesting opinion but I'm frankly becoming less enthralled with debating these opinions on a Wikipedia Talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I understand correct that you proposed the edit war?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Did I understand correct that you proposed the edit war? -> I have no idea to what this could even possibly be referring. Which is becoming a recurring theme.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The concrete theme is your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
It is hard to establish a reasonable dialog with you. The only reason the edit war hadn't started yet is my policy to discuss significant changes before they are done. However, the discussion with you is veeeeery hard...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue and honestly, just look at this topic:

1. . You wanted the "some historians" clause to be dropped from the sentence that the M-R Pact resulted from "Western Appeasement" at Muninch, et al.
2. . Problematically, your top source (Roberts 1992) alone specifically stated that there were "three schools of thought" on the issue, with only one of them even mildly relating to this argument.
3. . Even worse, forget all historians, every block quote you've provided from your selected historians on these larger issues analyses simply didn't even state this claim, with many citing entirely different (some even contradictory) reasons and facts.
4. . You then switched to asking my opinion on what caused the A-F-USSR talks to break down -- a separate issue than the sentence by the way . I stated that the specific sticking point was the Soviet Army in Poland and Romania point that caused the breakdown, which the sources cite. And no one disagrees with. And that I don't think my opinion is important on the matter.
5. . You called this fact "dramatically superficial", and then proceeded to give your own opinion that "The Polish question was just an excuse to break the talks"
6. . When I stated that I didn't want to debate each others' opinions, you oddly attacked me with "The concrete theme is your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy" and "the discussion with you is veeeeery hard"

Maybe you need to take a step back from this topic for a while. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, you have to read my arguments again, and I will do the same. I am in exactly the same situation: to me, some of your arguments lack any logical connection. Good night (or morning).
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Night of the Murdered Poets X 2?

From the "Doctor's Plot" section of the article:

"The Doctors Plot followed on the heels of the 1952 show trials of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which resulted in twelve of the thirteen defendants being executed,[249] and (emphasis added) the Night of the Murdered Poets, where thirteen prominent Jewish writers, poets, actors and other intellectuals were executed on Stalin's orders.[250]"

Aren't these events one and the same? Unless my history is a little fuzzy, I don't believe there were two trials which resulted in the execution of Jewish intellectuals in the same year (1952). Although the Black Book of Communism does note that ten "engineer saboteurs" from the Stalin automobile factory, all Jewish, were executed on the same night. (p. 248)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. The Night of the Murdered Poets involved JASC members. I just changed it.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Volga Germans

... and Volga Germans were allowed to return en masse to their homelands.

From what I've read, most of the (descendents of) the Volga Germans have emigrated to the West; a few thousand settled in the Kaliningrad Oblast.

Sca (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthday footnote

Birthday 1879 should also be where 1878 is, both birthdays are valid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

triple talks cessation

I added a little bit more detailed explanation for the triple talks failure and removed the mentioning of secret negotiations. Since Watson directly states a reverse, it is better to live it beyond the scope.
Below is a direct quote from Watson's article:
"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."
Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Invalid link. Repost? Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322. Does it work?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That edit is also highly misleading, especially given the complete events described in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.

A change, complete with sources and actual description (by the way, including Watson) is forthcoming.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentroparticle is misleading too. Since reputable sources exist that state that no secret talks took place, you cannot re-insert that. Addition of new references do not change a picture. Watson has at least the same weight that those three. And the science is not a good place to resolve problems by numbers of sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You constantly replace my sources taken from high profile peer reviewed journals (the most reliable sources) with the references to books. It is incorrect. Please try to propose the version that satisfy both of us, or I revert your changes.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "that state that no secret talks took place"

->You've got to be kidding, what source denies, as just one example, the August 3 conversations with Ribbentrop?
->In addition, and this is likely an English problem, you're completely misreading Watson. He explains in your quote above that the Soviet WERE conducting parallel negotiations, but just gives the reason why.

Re: "And the science is not a good place to resolve problems by numbers of sources."

->I have no idea what "the science" is, and there is ZERO disagreement with the sources on what's in the article now. In fact, I made sure not to include any of the controversial points, except by the way the ones you keep demanding in, like the later discussions attempting to bring in Munich in 1938 and the like.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You constantly replace my sources taken from high profile peer reviewed journals (the most reliable sources) with the references to books. It is incorrect."

->Not only is this false, but I cited your source Watson in the article. In fact, I actually cited him more accurately than you did.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Did I understand you correct that you removed Watson by accident? Don't worry, I'll fix it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He's in there TWICE NOW, which you keep deleting while leaving the reasons blank:

---

On August 21, the Soviets ceased military talks with France and Britain over disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(ref name="dwatson715")Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322(/ref)(ref name="roberts30"/) though the primary reason may have been the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(ref name="dwatson715")Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322)/ref)

---

If you delete the sources and facts one more time without explanation, I'm going to ANI and you'll probably get blocked on this article. Frankly, I should have done it weeks ago given all of the policy violations.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is YOUR SOURCE -- the one you keep claiming must be cited -- Watson's quote:

---

"When this problem had been surmounted the negotiations stalled on the fundamental question of Soviet forces passing through Romanian and Polish territory in the event of war, to which the Polish government would not give agreement in advance. When it became clear that the British and French could not solve this problem, Voroshilov (note: the chief Soviet negotiator) proposed adjournment on the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks was interfering with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces. In fact it was because of the progress being made in the USSR–German negotiations: the talks with Britain and France were overtaken by the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. (Derek Watson, p. 715)

---

This is the article quote now:

---

After disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(Watson cite ->), on August 21, the Soviets proposed adjournment of military talks using the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks interfered with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces, though the primary reason was the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(Watson cite ->)

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

More quotes from Watson:
"Strang claimed that Molotov realised the 'impropriety' of his previous definition of 'indirect aggression' when, on 8 July, he suggested defining it as 'the use by a European Power of the territory of one of the undermentioned states for purposes of aggression either against that state or against one of the three contracting countries'. Seeds believed that Molotov put forward this formula spontaneously, in an effort to be helpful." This was a high point in the negotiations; Strang describes Molotov as 'affable and cooperative' and there was now some chance of agreement"
After that the talks stalled, according to Watson.
Carley summarized it in the following words:"The key issues were over guarantees of the Baltic states, a definition of 'indirect aggression', and negotiations for a military convention tied to the political agreement". I give no references you perfectly know them.
regarding the military agreement, Watson writes:
"Molotov was now prepared to accept the Netherlands and Switzerland in the list of countries, on the conditions he had already specified, but he ruled out Luxembourg, perhaps justifiably, as of 'too little importance to merit a special mention'.113 Now, possibly because of the deteriorating European situation, he made the military agreement the priority, insisting that this should be signed simultaneously with the political one, saying the Soviet government was unanimous on this"
More quote:"On 29 July Molotov authorised Astakhov in Berlin to indicate that the USSR would welcome the improvement of political relations with Germany.131 This action is not surprising: he was receiving information from Maisky of Anglo-German negotiations, that discussions with the USSR were becoming a lower priority for the British, and a pessimistic report from the Soviet ambassador in France."
I explained my changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't think your going to ANI would have the effect you expect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

1. . I think you added something like 5-6 ref tags, and every single one had a massive format error -- some even without the source info -- with left a huge red error message across the page in the notes section.
2. . I had to fix all of these.
3. . I kept most of what you added in. In fact, much of it was almost directly out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.
4. . You inexplicably deleted the August 2 political talk suspension/Molotov demand from Shirer, here's the quote:

   ---

   But since the political conversations had been suspended on August 2 and Molotov had made it clear that he would not assent to their being renewed until the military talks had made some progress (Shirer, p. 504)

   ---

   It was added back, in almost exactly the same words, with the cite.
5. . You inexplicably seem to have concluded that because a discussion occurred on July 29 that was mentioned by Watson, that no talks ever occurred before that (which, of course, is absolutely nowhere to be found in Watson). So the date, which wasn't supported by the sources that followed, was deleted.
6. . Other than the above, I have to say that at least this time you didn't wipe out several sources and facts, which was smart, because I was about to go to ANI with your whole line of conduct, threats, admitted POV pushes, etc. on a number pages. I've been about as patient as I can be, laboriously engaging in you in very long discussions about the most simple matters -- most of which about which historians don't even disagree. I'm pretty sure most other editors wouldn't come close to bothering to this disagree, but there's a limit.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I think you added something like 5-6 ref tags, and every single one had a massive format error" That is why I propose to return to the way succesfully used by other editors: take the disputable fragment to the talk page, discuss it untill the consensus is achieved, and then re-inset it into the main article. This would save both your and my time.
Other questions I propose to discuss tomorrow. Good night.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Better idea: just correctly use Wikipedia format for ref tags.

I actually ended up adding all of the sources you tried to, which I had to deduce from the only information you gave, the author's name and a number (with no spaces in between), that I assume must have been meant as a page number.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: 4. I deleted it because that contradicts to other sources. Of course, the question which source takes precedence is a delicate and complicated matter, therefore I am not ready to start a long discussion about 2 Aug. However, the sentence looks awkward now, and I will think about its modification later. Of course, it would be much more convenient to discuss it with you, but you refuse to collaborate...

Re: 5. Take a look at the quote above. Watson directly stated that "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." In other words, the USSR didn't carry secret negotiations in 1939, according to Watson. Roberts (see MRP talk page) directly stated that the first political instruction to Astakhov that authorized him to listen German proposals had been sent on 29 July. Moreover, On 28 July Molotov telegraphed Astakhov that 'in restricting yourself to hearing out Schnurre's statements and promising to pass them on to Moscow you did the right thing'. (ibid). That means that no secret negotiations took place before that.
Carley writes: "The study of Soviet archives, which are beginning to open, may prove or disprove this view, but for now Soviet deceitfulness-though Stalin was certainly proficient in it-appears no worse than that of France and Great Britain." We are smart men, and I don't believe you don't understand what does it mean.
Date restored.

Re: 6. You badly overestimate your politeness and readiness to collaborate. Nevertheless, you are interesting person, and I enjoyed to work with you. Since we have several common points of interest (although dramatically different vision), I expect we will meet many, many times on WP pages, and, I hope, will elaborate more convenient way to collaborate.

Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)