Talk:Stalin's Missed Chance

message: After reading this article, I think that something is really wrong with it. The claims seem absolutely fantastic. Such extraordinary claims need to be backed up by serious evidince and I can't find a single piece of evidence in the article. Moreover, the analysis seems to be very flawed. The claim that the Red Army could have defeated Germany, had it attacked, seems very problematic for too many reasons. It is enough just to look at the poor performance of the Red Army in Finland. More significantly, had Stalin planned an attack, he would have certainly taken into account the possibility that his plans would be found out by Germans through intelligence, and prompt Hitler to strike first. Thus Stalin's insistence on ignoring the overwhelming amount of intelligence evidence of German plans for attack makes absolutely no sense.
I think that Wikipedia should be a prime source of reliable information. Thus highly speculative and apparently unlikely claims should be clearly marked as such. 
This article must, in my opinion, be rewritten to:
1) Add clear supporting evidence for the claims if it exists.
2) Add criticism, which in reality is obvious.
3) Emphasize the highly speculative nature of the claims.
If this can't be done, I think it is much better to delete the article altogether than leave it as it is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.97.98 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Problematic Article

message: I believe the 'Harvard reference' is necessary, for the material is presumably copyrighted. What I've used for this article is almost exclusively the summary of Meltyukhov's book. I'll try to add soon more material covering the Soviet offensive plans (from the corresponding chapter). 
Please report me before revising. Constanz - Talk 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article set up 

message: Could you check the sources for the final quote by Meltyukhov?  It seems to me that 
:"have lead to" 
should be 
:"have led to", 
and 
:"than it occurred in 1945." 
should be 
:"than it acquired in 1945."
Shenme 00:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.I've misspelt, it should be 'have led to'. 2.  The phrase in Russian is presumably a bit different ('than it really happened/occured in 1945'). Acquired is basically OK, it gives the meaning. May-be we could replace direct quotation there with reference to the author's point. Constanz - Talk 08:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in "Had the Soviet assault taken place" 

message: When the axis invaded on june 21 they hade around 4.3 million men but on the page it says 81.6%=1.4 million so the % or the numbers are wrong
(Deng 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course you are the person who knows it better than Russian historian Mikhail Meltyukhov.:)--Constanz - Talk 14:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to 'fix' anything here, as the article is about Meltyukhov's research results. because 81,6% cant be 1.4 million if 100% is 3.3 million germans and 1 million axis allies  -- what do you refer to? -- where have I posted such figures and percentages? --Constanz - Talk 11:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I should thank you for vigilance; yes, I hadn't marked that this table shows only a strip of border. the high numbers of Soviet troops is due to fact that Red Army had concentrated there; as Meltyukhov believes, in order to deliver strike against Wehrmacht. --Constanz - Talk 08:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  % must be wrong

message: Hi, could you add more specific citations so as to ensure it doesn't look like your original research? I've removed as source the webpage with not reference for their figures. --Constanz - Talk 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that, but it will be a while, since I have just come out of hospital. Andreas 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some removals

message: I've got another suggestion: let us try to keep this article confined to M.'s book, as far as it's possible. I've recently read a study that supports some of his crucial points (with the view of military planning), but also disagrees with the possible outcome of a Soviet assault. I'd rather not bring in too much citations from the source; I think a section on the reception of the book (outside Russia) should be added (although there's not much heard about any reception at all, in case we omit Eastern Europe and, alas, IHR guys, who have read the book and probably concluded that it proves the existence of a global masonic-Zionist conspiracy...)--Constanz - Talk 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another note

message: Stating that he got a positive review from the Holocaust denial institution is totally unacceptable as it present his entire scholarship as friendly to the Holocaust denial, a gross lie. If the institute is of such credibility that it is considered to be a HD-institution, its reviews are not worthy to be cited at all. Piotrus should have then just removed the info about this review from the article which I will do now for him. That he instead made this edit just casting shadow on the scholar is not only gross violation of NPOV, and example of WP:TE but violates WP:BLP as well. --Irpen 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting confusing.  Irpen, maybe you would care to explain carefully this diff of yours. It looks like you yourself have recently mentioned a favorable review of "Stalin's Last Chance" in an HD publication.  What gives? Did you take the time to check that this non peer-reviewed journal you cited as evidence of the author's reliability is published by Institute for Historical Review, a nasty Holocaust denial outfit?  Balcer 14:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodwin's law

message: Wikipedia states: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability".
I believe that the subject of a possible Russian attack in World War II is important enough to be noted. 
I also believe that if you have subjects in Wikipedia that are largely based on speculation, like pre-historics, you should meet and thus allow modern historic speculations on basis of the same criteria you used to meet and allow subjects on pre-historics.
I also believe that an encyclopedia that has the goal to hold all knowledge of the world should note every theory that ever existed. 
Further I believe that verifiable facts supporting (or debunking) a theory should always be noted in such an encyclopedia.
Further I believe that non-verifiable or yet unproven facts which form the basis of any theory should also be noted and should be noted as respectively non-verifiable or yet unproven. So that everybody can make his own decision on the theory on the basis of knowledge about the factuality of statements about the theorie or the underpinning information. 
I do not believe in deleting subjets just because the information in it is not verified on factuality. 
I believe in labeling subjects or the information contained therein as unverified until they are checked and proven to be factual.
Deleting theories, especially those who can shake common "knowlegde", before they are proven destroys the scientific proces and the open dialogue of say and heresay, prove and counterprove. An institution like Wikipedia should support and never work to destroy this scientific proces and open dialogue.
Comment from new poster: I agree with above viewpoint. I've read many histories of Germany's invasion of Russia. All describe various mysteries about Stalin's state of mind, how armies were positioned, what Russian plans were. I'd love to read this book and judge for myself whether this is history or fantasy. I assume other historians are attempting to get into archives to verify citations. 
But just on the surface and as nothing more than an amateur reader, this claim sounds plausible to me. Neither dictator trusted the other or wanted to coexist. Both were looking for the right moment to stab the other in the back. Neither was sure what the other was up to. It's possible they both wanted to invade at the same time. 
Soviet doctrine was to fight an offensive war on the other guy's territory. The Soviets hadn't built all those tanks, etc. for peace. But just as Hitler postponed for the Balkans, Stalin might have postponed because none of his generals was ready.
In any event, the fact that there's an author claiming to find evidence of attack plans in Russian archives is important. Common sense says that the theory ought to be aired to create a debate, as the post above suggests. Stu Rand (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability