Talk:Maxim Litvinov

message: Did he die of natural causes or was he helped along by Stalin?
:Natural causes. Maybe you can find somebody who thinks otherwise, though. There's always somebody. Everyking 06:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Naturally... ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When Stalin fired him in 1939, he acted in a manner clearly calculated to put fright in Litvinov, as he often did even when he had no intention of actually killing the person. In any case, he had to know any deal with Hitler had a short shelf life, and that he would need Litvinov again when he had to deal with the West. When Litvinov did die, it was as an old man in his bed. There's no evidence Stalin did anything to kill him. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Should information on the Litvinov Assignment be added within this page or on an external page?
It is mentioned within the Bricker Amendment page but not completely explained.
A remark: Bialystok never was part of Congress Poland, but of the so called North-West Territory (северо-западный край) within the Russian Empire. The Bialystok region belonged to the former regions of the Rzeczpospolita annexed by the car after the defeat of the Prussians in 1807 and the treaty of Tilsit (the Prussians got it after the last division of Poland in 1795). And it remained there after the Congress of Vienna. It was neither part of Napoleon's  Duchy of Warsaw, nor of Congress Poland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.205.36 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Litvinov Assignment

message: The photo of "Litvinoff," evidently scanned from a book, is too dark to be used.  Sca (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd photo

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maxim Litvinov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021116100241/http://hronos.km.ru/biograf/litvinov.html to http://hronos.km.ru/biograf/litvinov.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am a casual passerby so I won't edit the article but something struck me as deeply wrong.  The article says that a house was bought in London in which Litvinov lived with Josef Stalin. Really?? Stalin was never in London surely.  82.128.239.250 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they were --in the same house in London in in May 1907. see   Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad to stand corrected.  Thx..82.128.239.250 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In London with Joseph Stalin? 

message: The tone of this article appears biased in favor of Litvinov, omitting as it does unsavory related material, such as the role of The New York Times' fraudulent reporting of Stalin's propaganda from Moscow during the 1930s and its significant positive influence on FDR's diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union. The latter makes the Litvinov entry inconsistent in conveyance of accurate information with the Walter Duranty entry. IntheLongRunItIsBettertoTelltheTruth (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Way to long for anyone who is not Jesus Christ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:B045:DBE4:822E:D56E (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: (At least) the two paragraphs beginning "Litvinov stated that, although Roosevelt was less friendly to the USSR" are seriously in need of editing. 98.27.137.227 (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  in need of editing 

message: CC-BY-SA; text in this section has been removed from the article by me because it's either off-topic, repeated, over-long and waffly. I'm leaving it here for he benefit of future editors, and in case its removal breaks any references. See the article's history for full attribution.
Talking to historian John Holroyd-Doveton, Tanya Litvinov recalled her father telling her that he had a meeting with Stalin set for the afternoon of 3 May.  Tanya gleaned from her father's tone that he was concerned.  Tanya similarly was so uneasy that she continually rang home on the day, but could not obtain an answer. When she arrived back at the Litvinov house, her father had already returned and gone to bed. In the morning, Litvinov's adopted daughter told Tanya, "father has been demoted". Tanya recounted that she went into her father’s bedroom, feeling terribly sympathetic. Maxim reported to have said to her in that moment, "Tanya, there is a new page in your life". Tanya then suggested they call her mother as they should all be together in this difficult time. 
===From "Ambassador to the United States and later " ===
I doubt we need so much minor detail from a single event, and some of this is POV waffle and OR:
As the 1941 campaign had shown the strength of the Red Army, the enthusiasm of the US Army was unbounded. The campaign in 1942 has shown an even more skilful and determined Red Army and the US Army is looking forward to the day when it can fight beside the Red Army and bear our full share of the common burden and go forward with it to victory.
Mayor La Guardia sent his personal greetings to his colleague, the Mayor of Stalingrad. The mayor sent what was then probably considered an optimistic but correct prediction that the only German soldiers who would enter Moscow would be an army of prisoners.
Litvinov, in his speech, asserted:Every act of international aggression beginning with 1931 could have been prevented by sincere co-operation between the Soviet Union and the other great powers.
No one can fail to recognise the fatal mistake made in so long ignoring the Soviet Union as a powerful factor of peace. This mistake was undoubtedly one of the causes of the present war which has brought upon humanity greater suffering and hardships and caused greater destruction than the sum of all the wars in the preceding century, not excluding the Napoleonic Wars. Sincere and close co-operation between the great powers and the Soviet Union, on the other hand, would have destroyed the raison d’être of Hitlerism and upset all the calculations of the aggressive countries. It was not hard to prove that such co-operation could have prevented each and every act of international aggression since 1931, crowned by the present war. This was a somewhat hypocritical remark, as Litvinov himself had refused international co-operation when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. 
Wallace, the Vice-President, gave a very optimistic address:Both the Soviet Union and the United  States retreated into isolationism to preserve their peace. Both failed. Both have learnt their lesson. I am here this afternoon to say it is my belief that the American and Soviet people can and will throw their influence on the side of building a new democracy which will be the hope of all the world. However, there was no evidence that Stalin would continue to act other than as a ruthless dictator. 
Litvinov stated that, although Roosevelt was less friendly to the USSR than when he met him in 1933: ‘Roosevelt is more friendly than any other prominent American.’ I wonder whether Litvinov appreciated the respect Roosevelt had for Litvinov because when, on 5 May 1943, Roosevelt decided to write to Stalin to suggest a face-to-face meeting between the two. Roosevelt stated that Litvinov ‘was one of only two persons with whom he had discussed the subject.  
  Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: I doubt we need so much minor detail from a single event, and some of this is POV waffle and OR:
As the 1941 campaign had shown the strength of the Red Army, the enthusiasm of the US Army was unbounded. The campaign in 1942 has shown an even more skilful and determined Red Army and the US Army is looking forward to the day when it can fight beside the Red Army and bear our full share of the common burden and go forward with it to victory.
Mayor La Guardia sent his personal greetings to his colleague, the Mayor of Stalingrad. The mayor sent what was then probably considered an optimistic but correct prediction that the only German soldiers who would enter Moscow would be an army of prisoners.
Litvinov, in his speech, asserted:Every act of international aggression beginning with 1931 could have been prevented by sincere co-operation between the Soviet Union and the other great powers.
No one can fail to recognise the fatal mistake made in so long ignoring the Soviet Union as a powerful factor of peace. This mistake was undoubtedly one of the causes of the present war which has brought upon humanity greater suffering and hardships and caused greater destruction than the sum of all the wars in the preceding century, not excluding the Napoleonic Wars. Sincere and close co-operation between the great powers and the Soviet Union, on the other hand, would have destroyed the raison d’être of Hitlerism and upset all the calculations of the aggressive countries. It was not hard to prove that such co-operation could have prevented each and every act of international aggression since 1931, crowned by the present war. This was a somewhat hypocritical remark, as Litvinov himself had refused international co-operation when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. 
Wallace, the Vice-President, gave a very optimistic address:Both the Soviet Union and the United  States retreated into isolationism to preserve their peace. Both failed. Both have learnt their lesson. I am here this afternoon to say it is my belief that the American and Soviet people can and will throw their influence on the side of building a new democracy which will be the hope of all the world. However, there was no evidence that Stalin would continue to act other than as a ruthless dictator. 
Litvinov stated that, although Roosevelt was less friendly to the USSR than when he met him in 1933: ‘Roosevelt is more friendly than any other prominent American.’ I wonder whether Litvinov appreciated the respect Roosevelt had for Litvinov because when, on 5 May 1943, Roosevelt decided to write to Stalin to suggest a face-to-face meeting between the two. Roosevelt stated that Litvinov ‘was one of only two persons with whom he had discussed the subject.  
  Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: From "Ambassador to the United States and later "