Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Stalin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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)