Talk:Vyacheslav Molotov/achive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could you two please come to some kind of compromise using this talk page? Otherwise, I am going to protect the article →Raul654 21:53, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Cautious, the vulgar stuff about von Ribbentrop has no place in this article about Molotov. And it was not an "obvious lie" that the USSR had not provoked Germany. As far as I know, it is the unanimous verdict of historians that the USSR tried very hard not to provoke the Germans. Everyking 21:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that the "obvious lie" phrase doesn't belong here, the concentration of the Red Army at the border hardly can be evaluated as "trying hard not to". Mikkalai 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Surely you agree that the USSR was trying to avoid a war with Germany? Most historians believe Stalin was very conciliatory in his efforts to avoid or at least postpone a war, almost to the point of absurdity. Everyking 23:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but... Words vs. deeds. Stalin was more than coniciliatory; he was helpful, but Hitler was not an idiot as American movies try to portray. At all times concentration of forces outweighs any other arguments. Mikkalai 23:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But is that a provocation, seriously? Someone points a gun at you for no good reason, and you point one back in an attempt to deter him? I have a lot of trouble with adding material to this article that seeks to mitigate the essential truth that the USSR was a victim of blatant Nazi aggression. Everyking 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Only recently, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, documents start to emerge hinting that Stalin planned a "preventive" strike. Anyway, I am not an expert in military history, neither it is the issue of this article. So let's wait some 5-10 more years. Mikkalai 00:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, the relative strength of the two countries in terms of military power, as demonstrated by the initial success of Barbarossa, makes this seem very unlikely to my mind. But at least we can agree that this has no basis in conventional history and should not be included unless serious evidence comes to light...but even if it did, that still wouldn't be enough to justify "an obvious lie". Everyking 01:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As for fon Ribbetrop part:
  • First sentence: I strongly suspect that he din't use the word "Nazi". In general, any specific comments attributed to a third person if they ar not widely known or easily acceptable are better be quoted literally. Otherwise they are out of encyclopedia on the slightest doubt. Hence, it's gone for now.
  • The second phrase, if it is Ribbentrop's, is obviously irrelevant for this article. Mikkalai 23:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that there must be some verification of the Molotov speach, except description that it was hearthening. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the pact of common aggression and therefore it lead to outbreak of WW2. The actions of Soviets helped Hitler to start and proceed with a war. Therefore, the statement of Molotov, that Soviets did nothing to provoke the war are nonsense. Soviets provoked the war elsewhere and now it reached themselves. By the way, Soviets were deeply enganged in WW2 since 1939: invasion of Poland and Finnish-Soviet war. Cautious 10:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But Molotov's speech was about the German invasion, not Poland. The fact that the USSR made the 1939 pact was the opposite of a provocation: it was an attempt to avoid or postpone war with Germany. You can add what you want to this article when it is unprotected, but it has to be A) about Molotov (Ribbentrop's drunken ramblings are not) and B) stated in a NPOV manner ("an obvious lie" is not). Everyking 13:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We are discussing following paragraph: "Hours after the German invasion on June 22, 1941, he gave a famous and heartening speech to the Soviet people, explaining the situation and emphasizing that the USSR had done nothing to provoke the war, but would fight on until victory now that it had begun. " Soviat Union did a lot of to provoke the war and it was Soviet folly, that lead to German attack. The Molotov speach was the attempt to cover the truth with the lie. This was to be proven Cautious 14:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One more point: German invasion of 1941 was the part of WW2, correct? And WW2 started with Stalin help. So the fact, that SU will take part in WW2 was the question of time. Therefore, saying that SU did not to provoke a war is non sense.

I think that we can add that Molotove missed the truth or something like that.

Why you don't like Ribbentrop appraisal for Molotov? They were just partners.

3rd question: for Poles, it was very important, that Molotov was the one to make chauvinistic speaches against Poles. What you have against adding this information here? Cautious 14:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The pharasing gave an impression that the chauvinistic speech cited belongs to Ribbentrop. Mikkalai 17:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, if Molotov did say that -- sounds very uncharacteristic of him (and very characteristic of Ribbentrop), especially considering the propaganda department was working hard to portray Stalin as the savior of the Polish people -- then just provide some sort of cite, because Google turns up nothing.
The USSR did not help start WWII. Be realistic. If Stalin had not cut that deal in 1939, all of Poland would've fallen immediately under the Nazi yoke, and the Soviet Union would've had less territory to fall back on in 1941, increasing the odds of its defeat.

Everyking 18:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is Soviet propaganda POV. Many historians agree, that Ribentrop-Molotov pact was the direct reason for starting WW2, giving Hitler the free hand to invade Poland. Cautious 08:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't object at all to more information being added to the article on the Nazi-Soviet Pact (it is one of the things for which Molotov is best known), but it should be characterized appropriately.
Anyway, feel free to cite some sources for your claims that the USSR provoked the war. I recall some Nazi claim that the Russians had bombed some Romanian oil fields or something; you might want to try that one. Maybe we could settle on a compromise like:
"Hours after the German invasion on June 22, 1941, he gave a famous and heartening speech to the Soviet people, explaining the situation and emphasizing that the USSR had done nothing to provoke the war, but would fight on until victory now that it had begun. (German propagandists, however, disagreed with this and accused the Soviet Union of instigating the conflict.)" Everyking 18:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hours after the German invasion on June 22, 1941, he gave a famous and heartening speech to the Soviet people, explaining the situation and emphasizing that the USSR had done nothing to provoke the war, but would fight on until victory now that it had begun. What he forgot to mention was the Soviet engagement in the predecessing phase of WW2: invasion of Poland and Finland, delivery of strategic war materials to Germany, help of communist underground in France in undermining French defense. Some historians claim, that Hitler invasion came only few weeks before the one planned by Soviets. Nevertheless, currently there is disagreement when the planned Soviet invasion was planned (1941 or 1942) To me it sounds NPOV. Cautious 08:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you cite some historian who believes that the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Germany in 1941 or 42? Furthermore, none of your examples amount to anything that could be seen as a provocation of Germany, except arguably the attack on Finland. Everyking 17:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Alexander Suvorow in 1941, his oponent Gorodetski thought about 1942. Cautious 14:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Cautious, since I know good and well a politically motivated dispute like this could drag on forever, why don't I just propose this compromise wording: "Hours after the German invasion on June 22, 1941, he gave a famous and heartening speech to the Soviet people, explaining the situation and arguing that the USSR had done nothing to provoke the war, but insisting that it would fight on until victory now that it had begun." Everyking 17:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not political discussion, but historical. Your proposal, doesn't include anything that forms a compromise. First, it must be stated that Molotov pact with Ribbentrop lead to the outbreak of WW2 and his statements about peace loving Soviet Union had nothing to do with reality. If you draw the border lines through neighbouring countries with some gangster, that also known for writing a book, where lebensraum is shown on your territory, would you expect that he would made aggression only against those countries you both agreed on ??

Soviet Union took part already in WW2 as a passive player on the side of Germany, just as US took part as passive player on the side of UK. Cautious 14:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed historical discussion on my side, but it has become plain that it is political discussion on yours. My compromise proposal changed "emphasized" to "argued", and I think everyone can agree that is NPOV language. So what is left to do? You can't simply state as fact that the Soviet Union provoked the war, or was responsible for starting it, when I and so many others believe that is nonsense. The best you can get is a wording that does not cast judgment on the truthfulness of Molotov's speech, a wording that leaves it open to the individual's judgment whether or not the USSR provoked the war, and that is what I offered. Everyking 21:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Everyking, the POV version of history you are trying to smuggle into 2004 encyclopedia, was written by official Soviet historians to reason the moves of Soviet government. Despite the fall of communism and the fact, that all of us have now quite easy access to information, you not only follow the offiical Soviet line, but also deny that this is the opportunity to voice other views.

NPOV version of Molotov's aertcle, should include some other views:

  • a believe that without consensus from Stalin side in the form of pact, Hitler might not start a WW2,
  • Soviet invasion of Poland was performed at inistance of Germany,
  • Molotov made some highly chauvinistic speaches against Poles,
  • according to some historians (Viktor Suvorov, Stalin planned the invasion just few weeks later

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0241126223/002-0267282-0223240?v=glance

  • even historians that tried to repudiate this version, claim that the original plan was about 1942 or 1943

Cautious 08:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) Read this: Stalin speach Aug 1939

One more point: how could possibly Germany invaded SU in 1941, if there were no Molotov-Ribentrop pact? In 1939, there were Poland between them, and Poland was determined not to fight Soviets in alliance with Nazis. Cautious 09:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cite the "chauvinistic speeches". I got not a single hit on Google for "aborted child Versailles Molotov", and I couldn't find anything like that in any of my own history books, either. But if he did say them, of course they have a place here.
The Soviet Union and Germany did not sign the Pact as friends. You say yourself that the Soviet Union was planning an imminent invasion (How was this possible, when the Soviets were so utterly crushed in the first phase of the war? Obviously they had not nearly enough strength to attack Germany then.), and obviously the Germans were planning an imminent invasion, yet at the same time you say that Germany and the Soviet Union were good friends. And what about the attack on Finland, done during the time of the Pact? The Finns received German assistance, and the Soviet objective was plainly to reduce the threat to Leningrad in the event of a German invasion, as happened just a year later.
But I digress. Propose a compromise wording; but it cannot include something so POV as "an obvious lie", and it cannot include the attribution of "chauvinistic speeches" unless you can provide cites for that. Everyking 17:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • How was this possible, when the Soviets were so utterly crushed in the first phase of the war?
    Quite evident for a military man. There is a huge difference to be ready to an offensive and to be ready to a defensive. How did Pearl Harbor happen? Mikkalai 19:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Obviously the Germans had considerably greater military strength than the Russians. I don't see how you can deny that point. Continued industrialization and preparations would've enabled the Soviet Union to possibly manage an attack on Germany by the mid-1940s, but by 1941, they were just not ready. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was successful, but how successful would an invasion of California have been? Everyking 19:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Obviously you are not familiar with pre-war statistics. Let's not discuss the issue here. It is not the point, besides neither me, nor I are experts in military history. But for starters, take a look at Soviet tank production during World War II and German tank production during World War II. Have you ever seen the so-called "medium" tank T3 of Germany? Some used to make a laughing stock of Polish cavalry when writing that they attempted to attack Nazi Panzers (Sabre against tank! Dummy pollocks...). In fact, not once Polish cavalry defeated these Deutsche tin cans. Mikkalai 20:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • As for California, it wouldn't sound so funny, if Japanese managed to mobilize China first, as they did in Europe: there were Bulgaria, Romania, etc. against Russia. Mikkalai

Mikkalai, instead of arguing with me over points that are tangential to the actual dispute, why don't you suggest some sort of compromise, since Cautious is evidentally unwilling to accept mine? Maybe he'll get banned for this sort of thing someday, but I'd like to get this article unprotected sooner rather than later. Everyking 20:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Guys, why an old lazy software Engineer must do a job of a hsitorian for you?
Ann Su Cardwell, Poland and Russia: The Last Quarter Century (Sheed and Ward: New York, 1944), 223-245. Cited at http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_02.htm
In a lengthy report to the Supreme Soviet on 31 October 1939 Molotov made it clear that there was no question of restoring the "old Poland." Germany and Russia, as Molotov put it, had abolished the "ugly offspring of the Versailles treaty.
In fact, Molotov used the Russian word "ubliudok", which fairly corresponds to "bastard". Which, in fact, is used in MSN Encarta article on Molotov.
As to the second issue whether Molotov lied or not, the word "lie" is definitely out. The article is about Molotov. Molotov is politician. Have you ever heard about a politician telling truth, whole truth and nothing but truth? I suggest to use the word "misleading", since he said truth, but not the whole truth. Mikkalai 22:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, a compromise version can include Molotov's comment about Poland as an ugly bastard child. Strike out the "chauvinistic speeches against Poles", though, since he is evidentally referring to the state here, not the people.
I don't like "misleading". It casts judgment on the truthfulness of his speech. "He argued..." seems like fine NPOV wording to me. Everyking 23:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It occurs to me now that I don't see any particular reason to mention his speech. It is almost unknown in Russia, because it was heavily outweighted by Stalin's speech of July 3, 1941, in which he absolutely unusually addressed to the people: Brothers and sisters: ... .
OK. Here is the whole text. As one can see, Molotov took greater lengths to state that Germany cannot present any formal complaints to the USSR, and hence Germany is agressor. A standard political procedure. I see no reason that he attempted to cheat anyone in any larger degree than a first best politician would do in such situation. I see absolutely nothing special in the speech. If you do, I'd suggest to start a Molotov's speech article for explanations in what closet exactly did Molotov hide the corpse. Mikkalai
Mikkalai, I believe all information about a person that passes a minimal threshold of relevance has a place in Wikipedia if someone is willing to write about it. Molotov's speech is very far above that threshold: it was very important as being the Soviet government's initial response to the invasion, and I can't even begin to understand your reasoning here. You seem to think there should be a quota on how much should go into this article, whereas I'd like to see it unprotected so that I and others can add more to it. Everyking 01:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The reasoning is very simple: if the speech is very, important, then it deserves a separate page. Where did you get the idea I am in for quotas? Of course this speech is much more important than, say, clothespin article. I expressed my opinion, nothing else. Since, as I repeatedly claimed, I am not a historian, you may happily disregard my evaluation of its importance; I am not going to go into edit wars because of it. Mikkalai 01:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Let me say for the record that I side with you in that this article is no a place to make a trivial one-sided black-and-white comment on the truthfullness of this speech, and I'm done here. Mikkalai 01:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If someone can please add it:Vyacheslav Molotov. Thanks!

Snowdog 00:17, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done. →Raul654 00:19, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  1. I resign from describing Molotov speech as a lie, on condition that the description will be NPOV: so that he stated unprovoked German aggression.
  2. Regarding Polish speech: (my translation)

"Poles were proud of the strengh of their army. Nevertheless, it required only the onslaught of German army from the West and the onslaught of Red Army from the East and nothing remained from that bastard of Treaty in Versailles, feeding itself by persecution of non-Polish natialities." My proposal is: He publicly stated Soviet-German bortherhood in arms against Poland and expressed his content from the fall of Poland under the join Soviet-German invasion.

  1. It should be also stated, that Molotov was among the Soviet leaders that on March 3, 1940 signed the order to execute 26,500 Polish intelligentsia, including 15,000 Polish POW, known later as Katyn massacre. Cautious 10:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All right, Cautious, a mention of the speech is fine, but I don't think it should be stated in terms of a "brotherhood of arms" with Germany. The speech was in line with a lot of Soviet rhetoric of that time, which blamed the Polish state for oppression of minorities as a way of justifying its breakup. So I think any mention of the speech should be in that context.

The exact context of the speech is:

  1. Molotov signed the partition treaty of Poland
  2. Soviet Union invaded Poland
  3. Molotov expressed his content from both German and Soviet invasions and in highly chauvinistic speech he offended Poland as a country
  4. Molotov signed the order to execute Poles (you hardly call such a murderous speeches rhetoric, do you??)
  5. Germans invade SU and Poles are again an ally against the common enemy. Unfotunately, newly formed Polish army has deficit of officers, since they all were killed 2 years before. Cautious 14:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am not going to accept "brotherhood in arms". Let's just mention the speech for what it is, and let readers draw their own conclusions. And I don't see the sense in omitting the context of 1939 Soviet rhetoric against the Polish state. Orders and speeches are two different things. Everyking 16:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The second part doesn't really make sense: how can 26,000 intelligentsia include 15,000 POWs? Everyking 13:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, Everyking read little bit. Soviets regiestered all retired and reserve officers in Eastern Poland. Reserve officer in the country with conscription, means somebody with university degree, intelligentsia. They gathered them in the camps. The decision, Molotov signed, meant execution of 99% of them. In addition, 11,000 more people were executed, probably family members, but I am not sure. Cautious 14:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, well, that wording is confusing. Clarify it and I'll accept it. Everyking 16:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cautious informed me on my talk page about this compromise. I don't really know the issues or the facts in the case. I got involved merely to stop the edit war. So consider me an impartial 3rd party. I do encourage both of you to compromise though - revert wars are considered harmful. →Raul654 14:00, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Holodomor

This needs clarifying: "Despite the bad harvest and an epidemic of typhoid, he managed to collect 4.2 million metric tons of grain (of planned 4.6 million tons), which resulted in a severe famine in the Ukraine known as Holodomor today." It seems to say that the fact that Molotov collected 4.2 m tons of grain caused the famine, but it also says that there was a bad harvest and an epidemic of typhoid. Could a little more detail be added on this? Everyking 19:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

This is an article about Molotov, not about the Great Famine, where one could go in much more detail. An extremely severe famine along Volga (Povolzhye, Volga region) is a well-known fact as well.
Who/what caused "severe famine": Bad harvest was known: The plan was decreased from regular 7.7 mln ton to 4.6, but even it was not implemented despite Molotov's draconian measures. I am not a historian, just my memories, but I am inclined to believe that if Molotov did not succeed in implementing the plan (and was not punished for that !), then he did really clean Ukrainian stocks for good.
Ukrainian nationalists try to present holodomor as genocide agaist Ukraine. While they are taking it out of context of the whole Great Famine (and tend to forget a coulpe of earlier famines (1891, 1900-3, 1911) that costed Ukrainians another 3-4 millions without any Bolsheviks (not yet extanct)), indeed these events gave Stalin an opportunity to present the bad harvest as anti-Soviet efforts of "bourgeois-nationalists" (there was a decree of Sovnarkom Dec. 16, 1932? about that: "On grain harvesting in Ukraine, Northern Caucasus and Western regions (sic!)"). Mikkalai 20:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] The youth

"After what appears to be an odyssey through the landscape of geographic and political Russia including an important role in the October Revolution and editing the newspaper Pravda for a while, he started working under Joseph Stalin in 1922." And that's all about his revolutionary actions. What odyssey? What important role in Revolution? --Vasile 05:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] molotov

What is this supposed secret protocol? Is this like the secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Where is the proof outside of Cold War propaganda?

Molotov was demoted by Stalin, but what establishes he was "in peril"? This is a contradiction as well, if he was a "staunch Stalinist" if that is code for "agreeing with the majority of the Politburo and Central Committee", he would not have been demoted, never mind supposedly in peril. The last part of it is qualified, so I'll leave it in (the "suspected" thing).

So it's just a coincidence that a friend of Golda Meir and Zionist gets locked up right after Israel turns against the USSR? This fact disappears in the memory hole, it's just a coincidence that this so-called anti-semitic campaign starts in 1948? Please. Ruy Lopez 02:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My main problem with your edit was the removal of the reference to the rootless cosmopolitans campaign, which this issue was clearly a part of. Everyking 10:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The protocol is an appendix of the pact which was secret at that time (1939). It became known to public after the defeat of Nazis in 1945. Soviet Union denied its existence until 1989 when they admitted that the text known in the West was real. One more fact that used to be dismissed as "Cold War propoganda" but has been confirmed by archive documents from Soviet Union now. Andris 22:55, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-offer to Marshall plan

When Marshall plan was announced Czechoslovakia (and Poland) initially accepted the plan. Premier and foreign minister of Czechoslovakia were then asked to come to Moscow and were forbidden (by Stalin, personally) to continue in negotiations (they give up this pressure).

Soviets did promise to send trains with grain (600,000 tons, paid by uranium ore). This was used a lot in pre-election propaganda in Czechoslovakia.

Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting etiquette

I've copied my message to User:198 here:

  1. Reverting edits with nothing more than "rv lol you've GOT to be kidding me :)" or "rv mel's edits" is not acceptable, especially when your reversion turns NPoV into PoV language.
  2. Reverting when someone else has edited in between, thus deleting all their changes (in this case, extensive changes to the inter-Wiki information) is even more unacceptable, not to mention very bad manners.
If you want to discuss this, do so on Talk:Vyacheslav Molotov. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I refuse to comprosmise on this page, and frankly the damn bot was in my way.--198 05:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, the question is POV wording regarding the rejection of the Marshall Plan and joining Comecon? The degree of force/pressure involved? Surely some wording could be changed to find something agreeable? Everyking 11:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, that RV war was misplaced, so take it someplace else or better yet, cite reputable sources. One thing is certain, with Stalin enjoying absolute power, Molotov did not define Soviet policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
True Humus. Although I think Molotov was still important (below Stalin); mind he was one of a few old Bolsheviks to survive--198 03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)