Talk:Soviet-German relations before 1941

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the article, we find the assertion: "Three-eighths of the oil used by Germany in 1940 came from the Soviet Union including high-octane spirit for the Luftwaffe to fight the Battle of Britain."

Although this section of the article (unlike several others) is footnoted, no source is cited for this sentence. I have not been able to find any source elsewhere. Can someone provide a reference to the source for this information"

Stephen.r 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)




Contents

[edit] Soviet-German, American-German, Anglo-German cooperation etc

Many countries traded with Germany and invested to Germany before 1933, and after 1933. For example, the USA were one of the largest trading partners and investors of Germany till 1941.

Wall Street Syndicate Manager | Participation in German industrial issues in U.S. capital market | Profits on German loans | Percent of total

  • Dillon, Read & Co. $241,325,000 $2.7 million 29.2
  • Harris, Forbes & Co. 186,500,000 1.4 million 22.6
  • National City Co. 173,000,000 5.0 million 20.9
  • Speyer & Co. 59,500,000 0.6 million 7.2
  • Lee, Higginson & Co. 53,000,000 n.a 6.4
  • Guaranty Co. of N.Y. 41,575,000 0.2 million 5.0
  • Kuhn, Loeb & Co. 37,500,000 0.2 million 4.5
  • Equitable Trust Co. 34,000,000 0.3 million 4.1


  • TOTAL $826,400,000 $10.4 million 99.9


Many countries promoted the increase of military potential of Germany. The volume of German-Soviet trade was simply insignificant in 1933-1939 in comparison with the German-American trade. The Versailles restrictions of German armament have been cancelled by Britain de facto in 1934...

Ben-Velvel

I don't see how the U.S. participation in German financial and industrial markets affects the point of view of the material discussed regarding Soviet support of the German avoidance of the strictures of the Versailles Treaty. Perhaps you could explain. tswold 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title disputed

Putting the POV article aside, the title is strange. Soviet-German cooperation also included the Soviet relationship with East Germany, with West Germany and even with the unified Germany as they merged before the Soviet collapse. --Irpen 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So you prefer Soviet-Nazi cooperation? Constanz - Talk 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you always have to be combative Constanz? How about neutral and descriptive Soviet-German relations between the World Wars? --Irpen 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read 1939-1941 section? The war had started. I'm not combative at all, I'm just improving the article. Their relations included military cooperation, to the extent of Soviets helping National Socialists win the allies' blockade. Constanz - Talk 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating an article on German-Russian relations, coverign foreign relations between those countries. The 1930s-1941 section can be split off to Soviet-Nazi relations. Basically, but changing cooperations for relations, I think this POV problem can be settled.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps give a new title to 1939-1941 section of the current article and set up a new article. I'm looking for some new materials for this purpose. --Constanz - Talk 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This article won't be it as it covers also the relations with pre-Nazi Germany. The point is that the limited Soviet cooperation with Nazis needs to be given in the full context of that time's international relations. Every major force was "cooperating" and competing with each other depending on the self-interest. As far as Nazis are concerned, the Soviet were not only cooperating with them, but at times opposing them much more than any other power. At the time of the shameful Munich deal, the Soviets were the only power willing to confront Hitler and back its obligations to Czechoslovakia militarily. Before signing the MR Pact Soviets were actively pushing for an anti-German alliance with the Allies and Poland, the effort Poland rebuffed. True enough Soviets traded with Hitler but so did every other power in Europe. Also, Soviets took advantage of the political situation for political and territorial gain but it was not uncommon and even Poland did the same participating in partitioning of Czechoslovakia. Soviets considered alliances with both sides but so did everyone. The anti-Soviet German-Polish alliance was also seriously on the table at time as a variant for compensating Poland in the East for the lands Hitler wanted in its West. Soviet-German relations between the wars is a legitimate and encyclopedic topic but it was not, nor could it be, the history of "cooperation". Presenting article under this title is tendentious.
The scope of the article titled Soviet-German relations between the World Wars would allow to cover the entire spectrum of the SU-DE relations without tendentiously presenting them as "cooperation" which they certainly were not. I do not see two years of WW2 being covered as a problem, as those had the direct relationship with what proceeded them. We can present those as the "aftermath". But current title is plain wrong. I am tagging the article. Constanz, you must be happy to bring this to an ArbCom's attention as well. --Irpen 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Soviet-German relations before 1941? Soviet-Nazi ralations before 1941? Alex Bakharev 06:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Support the first one. The second one is too narrow as the article also covers the pre-Nazi time. --Irpen 07:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So do I, can we move it and get rid of the POV-title tag? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian version

Colchicum, did you see this article in Russian WP? It includes a lot of interesting information that was not included here.Biophys 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I mean "Kama", "Tomka", "Lipetsk" and economic relations.Biophys 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lipetsk is already here, and I think that the main virtue of Wikipedia is referencing rather than detailed description (which is prone to vandalism and propaganda and is very time-consuming). As to the economic relations with Nazi Germany, well, I have just started :) Colchicum 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legalisms of civil war

The phrase "which led to their illegal intervention on the monarchist side in the Russian Civil War." seems non-neutral POV, although I claim no scholarship in Russian history. What is the basis for declaring that foreign assistance in a civil war is "illegal" - in this instance or in general? Was French aid to George Washington "illegal" - or does it only become illegal if the country supported the side that loses? Removing "illegal" or perhaps replacing it with "failed ", "unsuccessful" or "futile" would be more neutral POV.StreamingRadioGuide 08:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this claim. It is not only POV (well, personally I think that such wording is a nonsense, because there is (fortunately) no international authority to enforce international law), but also irrelevant to the issue. Colchicum 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katyn

Several sources make notion that Katyn was coordinated with Gestapo. It should be briefly included in the article. --Molobo (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me those are more allegations. A lot can be alleged. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.—PētersV (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Since a question regarding those allegations was presented by Polish Foreign Ministry and is expressed in scholary works it is notable. Of course we will not present it as proven but as theory, difficult to establish due to classification of over 116 documents from 183 about the case by the Russian government.--Molobo (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of documents going back to the 30's for which the the Soviet now Russian (or other former SSR) secrecy term is just now expiring. We're speculating that because the documents have not been released they contain worst news than the Soviets just being responsible. When their term expires, we'll know. I just can't shake the (editorial) feeling that since the Poles have a very big axe to grind with both sides, how better to do it than to speculate about Nazi-Soviet collusion? It's quite possible too, but somewhere there has to be a discussion of hard evidence beyond the allegation. —PētersV (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh there is an open document about joint fight against Polish resistance by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union[1]. The bottom line however is that calls from Polish Foreign Ministry and scholary work on the subject is notable enough to be mentioned.--Molobo (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)