Talk:German–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941)

Picture Gallery

• Junkers Ju 90 40-seat, four-engine airliner
• W. Averell Harriman picture [1]
• German Panzer T-VI factory 1944 [[2]]
• [3] – Me 210 1944
• Calais is a city in France - [[4]]
• Inspection of train with food [5] – 1956 DDR

What all of it are depict here? Jo0doe (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Diagram

Is really strange [6] - while at same time Swedish_iron_ore_during_World_War_II

• Prior to the Second World War, Germany was able to supply itself with only a quarter of its total iron-ore consumption per year, with the rest being imported from other countries. Sweden provided up to almost 60 percent of the iron-ore that was imported into Germany.
  • In 1940, iron-ore imports from Sweden, as well as Norway, constituted 11,550,000 of the 15,000,000 tons Germany consumed that year
• CHROMIUM ORES German Import plan for 1940

from Greece a maximum of ...... 12, 000 tons per year

from Yugoslavia a maximum of ... 12, 000 " " "

from Bulgaria approximately ..... 8, 000 " " "

the 35,000 tons of chromium ore which the Norwegian ferro-chrome works Bjolvefossen purchased in Turkey for the purpose of sending on the ferro-chrome obtained there from to Germany.

Total 67,000

• September 1939 - Rumanian Government was willing to assume a guarantee that Germany would be able to buy 130,000 tons of petroleum a month from Rumania at reasonable terms

1. Grain deliveries. 1,000,000 tons of corn,

400,000 tons of wheat,

200,000 tons of barley.

Furthermore, the delivery of 200,000 hogs and 80,000 cattle is provided for, among other things. etc.etc

It's very look like Inspection of train with food [7] –at1956 DDR :(Jo0doe (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources misused

In article

• Rubber was particularly troublesome, with Germany requiring 80% of its rubber from imports
  • In source (a b c d e f g h i j k Ericson 1999, p. 1–2 )- By 1939 Germany developing synthetic material plants coukd handle about 50 percent of the Reich rubber needsJo0doe (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In article

• It became a major supplier of vital materials to Germany ... grain
  • In source (a b c d e f g h i j k Ericson 1999, p. 1–2 )- Germany's food supply was fairly secure imports made up only 11 percent of the Reich's overall food requarements.
• Manganese ore given as Manganese

same issue with Chromium ores - again it given as raw Chromium - really sad Jo0doe (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oil production and deliveries

It is said that in October 1941, Germany would have exhausted its strategic stocks without Soviet supply. But does Ericson take into account the fact that the Polish oil fields under Soviet control produced 350 000 tons of petrol a year? Therefore without the Nazi-Soviet agreement, this oil would have been German without any counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.4.47 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Russophobia

these idiotic pictures have the only porpoise to convince people that nazism and communism are the same and that Russia and Germany were both evil. They should be removed.

File:Nazi-SovietEcoRelations Six.png

The soviet Union just did what was usual at the the time after almost anyone made pacts with hitler

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Munich_Agreement

UK and the US just let Hitler annex czechoslovakia and austria without doing a damn thing and they had economic relations with nazi germany too. Especially the Bush family did many cooperation.

Here i can do such picture too see

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s666/malaria2000/Nazi-SovietEcoRelations_Quad_1941_zps1fe4509f.png

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s666/malaria2000/1280px-Imperial_Federation_Map_of_the_World_Showing_the_Extent_of_the_British_Empire_in_1886_levelled_zpsb0474162.jpg

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s666/malaria2000/Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave_zps9274d454.jpg

Especially since UK slaved whole africa and america deported million black slaves into america, both countries were worse than nazi germany or communist russia in my opinion.--Quandapanda (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:German–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

In terms of rating: I rated it a B, though I actually think an A is appropriate: 1. It's Factually accurate and verifiable. It provides extensive references to all sources, complete with page numbers for each source. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources in Harvnb format and it contains no original research. 2. It is extremely broad in its coverage and addresses the main aspects of Nazi-Soviet economic relations, while staying focused on the topic in a summary style (the wealth of material out there is pretty overwhelming). 3. It neutrally represents viewpoints of the sources without bias. 4. It is stable -- I don't think it's had an edit war. 5. It is illustrated with images on point, with proper captions and all properly tagged for copyright status. 6. It's fairly well-written. It could use some improvement on a few sentences being clunky, but it complies with MOS.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 01:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) → German–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) – The countries were Germany and USSR, I have no idea why it is using this inconsistent format of 'Nazi' (a political party/regime) in place of a country. Millscrepe (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This type of unofficial slang for a political party should not be used in place of a country's actual name in an article title such as this. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the two countries were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, therefore "Nazi–Soviet" makes sense. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Even assuming the country was called "Nazi Germany" (which it wasn't), "Nazi" would just be a descriptor, like "Communist China". The country wouldn't be called "Communist", it would still be called "China". And the country never called itself "Nazi Germany". It was always "Germany" or the "German Reich". The term "Nazi" was a just a slang term for the German National Socialist Party used by its enemies. It would be like titling China–Japan relations something like "Commie–Japan relations". The title makes no logical sense. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Soviet was official, Nazi is informal. Note that Nazi-Soviet relations redirects to Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941. —Srnec (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Soviet Union & Germany (or the "German Reich") were the official names, Nazi is the informal designation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poorly written and needs a massive revamp

The article relies excessively on Ericson's "Feeding the German Eagle". I have nothing against the book as such, but it is a source with a definite anti-Soviet POV, and using it as the dominant source for this article leaves it sounding like a Cold War-era propaganda job. The article has precious little mention of import substitution or non-Soviet trade, relying blindly on Ericson's arguments of "the Soviets supplied X%, therefore this was an irreplaceable boon to Germany" and so on. Either the entire article needs a rewrite, or it needs to be cut to size by removing all the polemical claims in it. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)