Talk:Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941

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 02:35, 8 May 2006

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)

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)

Oil

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)

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)

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)

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)

Undue?

In 1937, the last Soviet ambassador to Germany of Jewish origin, Yakov Surits, was replaced by an ethnic Russian.

Unless a source is presented stating that this was done to please the Germans, this piece should stay out per WP:UNDUE. --Illythr (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a source stating exactly that and I believe it is one of the sources already cited elsewhere in this article. I don't remember which one, as I wrote this a year ago, and I don't have the articles handy right now, but I will look for it a bit later. Colchicum (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also may I ask you not to change referenced statements disregarding the cited sources. Colchicum (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph was hanging all by itself, so I wouldn't know it was sourced.

I generally try to make the wording more neutral without changing the facts presented, but if you feel I did remove something (as opposed to change the way it was presented), feel free to point that out.

As for the Soviet/Czechoslovakian position - I think that the Soviet position was rather unimportant during the Munich Conference, whereas the Czechoslovakian one was - seeing as how it was the fate of that country that was being decided in absentia. Still, since this article is about Soviet-German relations, perhaps that passage can be reworded somehow, to point out that the Soviet Union did not like the way it was swept aside in such an important European matter. --Illythr (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, many Wikipedians from various sides have tried to "correct" the article content and layout according to their tastes regardless of the sources, so right now it is sort of difficult to be sure that the resulting wording is faithful to the sources, but this particular fact I remember.

It is trivial and doesn't make much sense here that Czechoslovakia opposed the Munich Agreement. We are talking about the Soviet-German relations. Of course the Soviet position was rather unimportant for the fate of the Sudetenland, but it had important ramifications for the French-Soviet, British-Soviet and hence Soviet-German relations, and this is what we are discussing here. Feel free to reword the passage if it doesn't read correctly.

What worries me more is that I have had no chance to write about the decisions which led to Barbarossa (when and why it was decided, when and why it was set for June 1941, what the Germans did, what the Soviets knew and prepared, different proposed accounts etc), which would certainly be appropriate here, and it is unlikely that I will ever have time to try again, hence the expansion tag. Unfortunately even the article Operation Barbarossa contains almost nothing about the actual planning and absolutely nothing about different POVs, providing only some hardly relevant rambling about Mein Kampf and the German racial policy instead. The whole paragraph is ridiculous or reads amateurish at best. It looks like a negligent student is trying to recall anything remotely relevant to the issue and pass an exam. Wikipedia sucks. I am getting more and more disappointed. Colchicum (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent question. Why Hitler was so mad and illogical? Did he indeed started to plan the invasion because Stalin occupied Bessarabia, in violation of the secret protocols in the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (and thus threatening the axis oil reserves in Romania)? I remember a segment about this in "Stalin" by Radzinsky, where he supports Suvorov's version...Biophys (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also look Causes of World War II. But I guess you would not like it.Biophys (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, there's persuasive documentation that Hitler invaded the USSR because Stalin occupied the Baltics, besides just Hitler's announcement of the invasion in which he accused Stalin of breaking the terms of the M-R Pact by occupying the Baltics. On the original topic, Stalin was a virulent anti-Semite—note also that Molotov replacing Litvinov, who was a Jew. Nothing to do with pleasing or not pleasing Hitler. —PētersV (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you provide a link to this documentation? I'm curious. As for Stalin's motives - exactly, or maybe he was displeased with the lack of success those guys had - heaps of reasons there... --Illythr (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not online on the impact of Stalin's Baltic invasion on Hitler, it's a monograph on the diplomatic background to M-R et al. There's been speculation Stalin booted Litvinov to improve diplomacy with Hitler, but I haven't seen anything that substantiates that claim. —PētersV (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Parochial"

Not so "parochial" that Hitler didn't get Stalin to agree to supply war material and transmit radio signals to support the Luftwaffe invasion of Poland, getting WWII off to a rousing start. Let's dispense with the judgemental opinions of Hitler's opinions. —PētersV (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop with the "parochial prejudice" edit. It will keep getting deleted as it is one author's value judgement on behavior, not an encyclopedic recounting of an action. If you want to contribute to an article on Hitler's personal belief system that would be an appropriate place, but not in this article. —PētersV (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

Please keep it "Soviet-German relations before 1941" as it was.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, see below move request. Lklundin (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg

Resolved

The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Germans and Soviets demarcation BT.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Article doesn't mention the Spanish Civil War. Should be pointed out considering the Soviet Union directly supported the Republic fighters and Nazi Germany supported the Nationalists by way of arms and vehicles. User:n/a 04:03, 29 March 2009 (PST)

Rudolph Hess

The article doesn't mention the mission of Rudolph Hess in Scotland. Hitler's offers to Great Britain for peace and the information on next war against Soviet Union.--Deguef (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Ian Kershaw's Hitler (London : Penguin Books, 1998, 2000, 2008) ISBN 978-0-14-103588-8, p. 615. "...Hitler's motive for contemplating a secret mission such as Hess attempt to carry out would be difficult to grasp." ... "Last thing Hitler wanted was any hold-up through diplomatic complications arising from the intercession by Hess a few weeks before the invasion [Barbarossa] was to be launched." Peltimikko (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

- Hitler was planning war against Soviet Union and, according the views of some authors, was ready to pay a price for peace on reasonable terms with Great Britain in order to concentrate resources and efforts and to have free hands on the coming eastern front. According to these sources, the father of the idea of peace with GB was undobtedly Hess, but Hitler accepted this idea and gave his OK to Hess's mission. This could perhaps be the most acceptable version of the mission. Otherway it would be very difficult to explain the life sentence given to Rudolph Hess at Nuremberg. According to Piknett, Prince & Prior, the peace talks were not at the beginning, but in the final stage at the moment of the mission. --Deguef (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of Ribbentrop-Stalin letter (1940) ?

The section "World War II : August tensions" states:

Ribbentrop wrote a letter promising Stalin that "in the opinion of the Fuhrer … it appears to be the historical mission of the Four Powers — the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Germany — to adopt a long range-policy and to direct the future development of their peoples into the right channels by delimitation of their interests in a worldwide scale."

The immediately following section, "World War II : Soviet negotiations regarding joining the Axis", states:

After Germany entered a Tripartite Pact with Japan and Italy, in October 1940, Ribbentrop wrote to Stalin about "the historical mission of the Four Powers -- the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Germany -- to adopt a long range-policy and to direct the future development of their peoples into the right channels by delimitation of their interests in a worldwide scale."

Thus, the first passage implies that the letter dates to August 1940, whereas the second passage dates it to October 1940. Which is correct?

Both passages cite the same source: Philbin III, 1994, pages 49-50.

72.74.182.137 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Union friend of Nazi Germany before 22 June 1941.

Many people may not know this but the Soviet Union was a great friend of Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union actually sent aid and supply's for Hitler to invade and capture England. They did everything the could to keep Hitler as a friend. They even captured Poland together and divided it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941 which is clearly favored among the suggested titles and captures the article's scope better. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Germany–Soviet Union relations before 1941 → Germany–Soviet Union relations to 1941 – The article covers the period all the way to the Nazi invasion of the USSR and a common interpretation of 'to 1941' is 'to some point in 1941'. Lklundin (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Shadow007 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose new title doesnt make much sense. "Germany–Soviet Union relations upto 1941" is better than suggested; but I believe current one is just fine. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Germany–Soviet Union relations (1918–1941)? Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941? Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom, oppose all alternates suggested so far. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the title originally suggested, because "to 1941" is ambiguous; whether 1941 is included in the scope depends upon whether "to" here means "until" or "through." "Through," or the alternatives I suggested, would not be ambiguous. Dekimasuよ! 03:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  The ambiguity is deliberate, as the nom explains. It would not make sense to include all of 1941 or none of it, since the first half of it and the second half were quite different. Srnec (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  The article currently includes Operation Barbarossa, which continued into December. If the intent is to exclude the war, it can always have a title that makes that explicit, e.g. Germany–Soviet Union relations before World War II. Dekimasuよ! 17:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose While I agree with the rationale, I can't see why the suggestion is an improvement. Something like "before Barbarossa" or "until Barbarossa" would be much more straightforward. RedUser (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks weird, "to 1941", who says that, without a preceding "from"? The open ended begin is a little issue. Suggest Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941 as better. Germany–Soviet Union relations from 1918 to 1941 would be the long form of what has been proposed. Someone else will fix the dashes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support this or Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941. The present title is inappropriate as this phase of relations continued well into 1941.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear, I would support Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941. Dekimasuよ! 17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Volga Oblasts and ASSRs in 1940.jpg
• Western portions of the Ukrainian SSR 1940.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Third period

Ukraine was known for being the “breadbasket” of Europe…not so much Russia. It’s due to Ukraine having very rich black soil and a climate that allows them to have multiple harvests. Shelly098 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)