Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact/Archive 1

message: It's simple, really. Litvinov was both a Jew and an advocate of an alliance with the western democracies against the Fascist powers. When Stalin became convinced that Britain and France wouldn't fight (although he was wrong about this), he fired Litvinov and replaced him with Molotov, whose foreign policy ideas were consistent with Stalin's--to buy time to get the USSR ready for war, even if it meant making a rotten deal with Hitler to do it. John
What about a paragraph worded:
:Litvinov's line, as an advocate of an alliance with the Western democracies against the Fascist powers, seemed less feasible than Molotov's program of buying time to get the Soviet Union ready for war. 
--Ruhrjung 10:12, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  wordings on Litvinov 

message: It's mostly accepted in Polish historiography that Stalin pretend to make deal with western allies only to make pressure at Hitler, when his initial offering to divide Poland were ignored. Waiting for discussion before i will change the article to reflect this opinions.
Also, there is something wrong with one paragraph which ends suddenly in mid of sentence.
szopen
Paragraphs ending in the midsth of sentences are unfortunately not quite uncommon on wikipedia.
If you clearly qualify that opinion as "widely agreed" or "held" or "believed" or... by Polish historians, I think it would be of great value. If you, on the other hand, aspires to claim the Polish view to be nearest to truth, then we are in for troubles and edit wars and more people giving up on wikipdia. I hope you realize this.
--Ruhrjung 09:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin cincerely negotiating with the Western European powers? 

message: :see for molotov's comment: http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue18/jacobs18.htm
Christopher Mahan 19:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fascism a matter of taste" 

message: *"By early 1941, the Nazi and Soviet empires-in-being shared a common border running through what is now Lithuania and Poland." 
Germany controlled millitary and politically, not just Lithuania and Poland, but also Finland, Hungary and Romania, all three countries in war with USSR from June 1941, even in the South and North, the German army was not exactly on the Soviet borders on June 22, 1941. In fact, the Soviet and Nazi empires shared a very long border. It could be possibly that Soviet Union didn't realize (or didn't want to believe) this fact. --Vasile 23:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union, or<br> the Nazi empire vs the Communist empire 

message: The pact duration was less than two years and affected in different ways these countries. Polish state was destroyed and divided. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania "joined" the USSR. Romania and Finland lost some territories to the Soviet Union that was not able to destroy them. There are any arguments that make possible to consider this  disorderliness creating pact a "non-aggression dividing spheres of influences" one? --Vasile 03:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of the pact 

message: There have been plenty of different versions of the phrase to sum up the effect of the secret protocoll for the affected smaller countries. I'm not quite sure any more which wordings I have contributed with, and which I've opposed before. :-)
However, at what might be a second thought, I've come to the conclusion that the partial invasion of Romania and the attempted but aborted full invasion of Finland do not really warrant the phrase "put an end to their sovereignty" — which is why I now changed that to "injured their sovereignty." Romania and Finland moved in direction of becoming satellite states, but the degree of dependency is surely possible to debate thoroughly. And also if they had developed into full-fledged satellite states, it's disputable if that is the same as their sovereignty having been "put to end."
--Johan Magnus 13:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the word violate is more appropriate than injure? --Johan Magnus 13:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Not just sovereignty was affected for these coountries. Some states preserved their sovereignity, but they lost territories or change their political orientation. Polish simply diassapeared from the map. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania became republics inside USSR. --Vasile 14:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. None of the affected countries preserved their sovereignity. It was, I agree with Johan, in all cases "violated" or "injured". The degree was different, and the gains were Soviet in some cases, German in some cases, and both in some. The Moscow Peace was by Moscow, and initially by Berlin, interpreted as a carte blanche for the Kremlin to interfere in internal Finnish affairs and also to veto far-reaching defense cooperation with Sweden, that in fact would have confirmed and cemented the new Finnish-Soviet border, but the Soviet Union clearly communicated to Finland how eagerly the Red Army waited for the next oppertunity to finish the invasion that had been interupted in March. /Tuomas 13:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "put an end to their sovereignty" 

message: * Announced about this Soviet move, Ribbentrop had stressed on June 25 in his reply to the Soviet leaders, the strong German "economic interests" (oil industry and agriculture being nominated) in Romania, ensuring that Romanian territory wouldn't be transformed into a battlefield. Ribbentrop claimed that this unexpected German interest rose from his concern over the "faith" and "future" of what he pretended to be "those 100,000 German ethnics of Bessarabia". 
 
Germany already proved its economic interests in Romania. The new German so-called "interest" in Bessarabia was a response to the new Soviet real interest for the entire province of Bukovina - not just the northern part as the second ultimamtum said. Germany did not want the desintegration of Romanian state as happent with Poland.--Vasile 14:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At that time, Ploiesti was only one the most known oil field of Romania. One German interest was in entire Romanian oil industry. Anyway, for Hitler the economic aspect was not the most important interest in Romania. (It isn't the nature of the war the subject of this article.) --Vasile 02:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are pushing the pov that the interest in Romania was primarily ideological and not due to economic factors? Interesting! /Tuomas 06:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ploesti]] [[oil field]]s