This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul Siebert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Erlikman book
You should be able to find the Erlikman book in the Library of Congress. I got the book in Russia back in 2004. Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN5-93165-107-1--Woogie10w (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Library of Congress Info:
LC Control No.: 2004402626
LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/2004402626
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Ėrlikhman, Vadim.
Main Title: Poteri narodonaselenii︠a︡ v XX veke : spravochnik / Vadim Ėrlikhman.
Variant Title: Poteri narodonaselenii︠a︡ v 20. veke
Poteri narodonaselenii︠a︡ v dvadt︠s︡atom veke
Published/Created: Moskva : "Russkai︠a︡ panorama", 2004.
Description: 174, [1] p. ; 24 cm.
ISBN: 5931651071
--Woogie10w (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Zemskov Data
I have the book The Stalinist Penal System by Otto Pohl. This book has a recap of Zemskov's statistics on the Gulag. Pohl believes that the actual total's were higher when one takes into account summary executions and deaths in transit camps. The offical figures claim 338,000 Soviets were taken into custody by the NKVD out of 5,229,000 repatriated in 1945-46. Zemskov says there 148,079 in exile in 1947. What happened to the other 190,000?--Woogie10w (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Statistics on Soviet citizens freeded in Germany 1945
The repatriation data comes from : Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN5-86789-023-6
Total held in Germany: 5,917,000. 3,632,000 Civilians, 2,016,000 Military
Total Repatriated 5,229,000. 3,438,000 Civilians, 1,790,000 Military
Of Whom:
Drafted into Military: 1,645,000
Returned to civilian Life: 3,246,000
In custody of NKVD: 338,000
Remained in western countries: 688,000
Those folks came to New York [1] When I was little,50 years ago, my dad would go to the Ukrainian market to buy Kilbalsa and bread. He called them Rusyns They still live near 7th street, but the market is closed--Woogie10w (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Axis close in
Dear Paul,
If you sincerely commiserate Estonians as victims of communism, you should understand that part of the tragedy was the fact that the only uniform, the Estonians were allowed to fight against Soviet re-occupation, was Nazi German. People knew, it was dangerous and hated the uniform, but they were desperate to get a chance to fight for their country. The Estonian political leaders called the people not to resist German conscription. The verdict of Nuremberg Trials excluded "those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes" from any criminal charges. In 1950, the U.S. Displaced Persons Commission declared that: "The Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, so only a person with little historical knowledge would call the Baltic countries part of the Axis because of the existence of Baltic Waffen SS. Sincerely, Erikupoeg (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Traditionally the 1938 events in Austria are referred to as "annexation of Austria", while "occupation of Austria" is the Allied rule in Austria 1945 - 1955. The differences between how the German and Allied arrived or how they ruled during the period, has nothing to with the term used to call the period. Although "Annexation of Baltic states" is synonym to "Occupation of Baltic states", the latter is a more common term among history publications. Erikupoeg (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Axis close in
About occupation of Estonia: If you look at Occupation of the Baltic states#Recognition and non-recognition of annexation and occupation, you'll see, that no more than four countries recognized the annexation of Baltic states de jure, while the rest recognized it only de facto or not at all. This is hardly explained by 'some political reasons for such a statement (Cold War etc)' suggested by you.
About Holocaust in Estonia: Various Estonian police formations and less than 3% of Estonian Self Defense were actively involved in the arrest and killing of 963 Estonian Jews[2] and about 10,000 Jews deported to Estonia from other parts of Europe.[3] The police were also actively engaged in actions against Estonians deemed to be opponents of the Germans. Despite the criminal activities in which numbers of policemen were engaged, it is not reasonable to assign responsibility to the Estonian police structures as a whole.[4] Anti-semitism was not exercised by Estonian civilians, rather the opposite.[Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001), Collaboration with Nazi
Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police. Contemporary European History 10.2, 181-198]
About Estonia as an Axis ally:
Being an Axis ally requires being a country, which Estonia wasn't in 1944. Underground, the Estonian politicians lead by Jüri Uluots, the acting Head of the State pursuant to Constitution of Estonia, were fighting the German authorities to become a country. For the purpose, the Soviets had to be kept behind Estonian borders. The only way to do it was dressed in a German uniform. On September 18, with the Germans on the leave, the Estonian government, freshly appointed by the acting Head of State, declared Estonia's neutrality in the war over the radio, in English. The Estonians having an impact on the German side had nothing to do with Estonia as a side in WWII, as it did not exist as a country until September 18 1944. Similarly, Ukrainian Insurgent Army consisting in Polish citizens, which had an impact on the German side, did not make Poland or Western Ukraine an Axis ally. Erikupoeg (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:You are a little bit inconsistent. If a small amount of forcibly mobilized Estonians fought against the Soviets,...
I don't see the inconsistency there. Roughly a half of the troopers in the Battle of Narva were Estonians. Most of the Estonians were drafted forcibly, in the sense that they were denied the formation of national units. Parts were volunteers, including Finnish Infantry Regiment 200, the police and border guard units.
You wrote:...I doubt if was their resistance that stopped Soviet advance, and if they, unlike Dutch and Norwegians, deserve a separate mentioning in such a global article.
The current statement in the article does not say, that Soviets were stopped by Estonians alone, but uses the term included. Perhaps a more accurate term could be used. Unlike the Dutch and the Danes, the Estonians were defending the re-establishment of the independence of their country. Attempts to compete the Soviets out on re-establishment of statehood were made along Eastern Europe, including actions by UIA, Warsaw uprising, Slovak National Uprising, and more. Some of these targeted the Germans as the major threat to their independence, some the Soviets. These ambitions had notable success in Estonia, keeping the Soviets out for eight months, and establishing the national government both de jure and de facto. I would agree to make the statement more general, attaching the Battle of Narva and the Estonian campaign for independence to the entity of ambitions for re-establishment of independence along the Eastern Front.
You wrote:My opinion is (and I agree with the US Commission) that Estonians (like other nations) are not responsible for the SS past of their compatriots, but...
As I pointed out before, Nuremberg trials explicitly stated that the Baltic SS formations were not envolved in any crimes, so there's nothing to be responsible for, except for warfare against the Soviets.
You wrote:...the Battle of Narva is not glorious page of Estonian history.
I agree, but this does not mean, the fact should be erased.
You wrote:There is absolutely no analogy with UIA, by the way. Almost all of them were ethnic Urkainians, and they fought, among others, against Poles, mostly civilians, so Poland, for sure, bear no responsibility for their actions. In contrast to that, I think, despite Poland didn't exist from 1939 to 1945, the Poles are responsibe for what Armia Krajova did during WWII.
Now, that's inconsistent. How come the Armija Krajowa and Estonian Waffen SS get attached to a nation, and the UIA don't!? The UIA were extreme nationalists, remember? Erikupoeg (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
All of those three have a direct relation to their nations: AK to Poles, UIA to Urkainians and Estonian Waffen SS - to Estonians. In the latter case the connection was not so obvious, because, as the US commission correctly pointed out, those non-Germans who served in Waffen SS opposite their will are not responsible for the crimes of the latters. You refer to Nuremberg trials that stated Estinoan SS didn't commit any crimes. You probably know that some decisions of this trials were disputable. Estonian SS really didn't commit serious crimes as compared to big SS. However, they were a part of Waffen SS, they fought, among others, for Germans, therefore they indirectly helped SS to kill Jews, Belarussians, Russians, Poles etc. In contrast, advancement of Red Army helped to save many, many lives, so anybody who opposed its advancement is indirectly responsible for Nazi's crimes. I beg you to understand my major point. I don't blame Estonians in anything and I comassionate them (among Jews, Russians, Belorussians etc.), until they (you) try to turn your shame into your glory. I fully agree that first Soviet occupation had much severe consequences for Estonians than the occupation by Nazis. Baltic nations are very separate case, because Himmler personally favored them (in contrast to your neighbours), and this fact alone makes you Nazi's ally (without, I fully agree, your will). Your life was better under Nazis then under Soviets, however, it is hardly an excuse for fighting for Germans. Sinserely yours --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see, how you blaming or not blaming, Estonian shame or glory has anything to do with Wikipedia? It's not a PR site. Wikipedia is about facts, and the following is a major fact in the history of the World: Hundreds of thousands of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Western Ukrainians fought for the independence of their countries on the German side, establishing a shadow government in Western Ukraine and a constitutional government in Estonia.Erikupoeg (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I, probably, didn't explain something that was obvious for me. This article, in its present version, only briefly mentions the most pivotal points of this war. If we take Eastern Front as an example, even the Battle of Kursk was mentioned only very briefly, majority of decisive battles and important events have not been mentioned at all. Although Wikipedia is about facts, not all facts can be presented in Wikipedia. Therefore, if you consider Estonian resistance to deserve explicit mentioning in this context, then you imply Estonians were important participants of the war, more important that Western Urkainians, Lithuanians and Latvians. On other hand, you also will have to present evidences that they fought for their independence only, and not for Dritte Reich, and I don't think it would be so easy (By the way, UIA at least pretended it fought against both Nazis and the Soviets). It would be also not easy to explain as how Estonians who fough against the Soviets to protect their borders and independence appear to be neutral in the war. If those military attempts were considerable, there would be no reason to talk about neutrality. It seems to me that real war contribution of Estonians allows them not to be mentioned in this article in details (as compared to other Eastern Europeans) and this is a good chanse for you not to remind peoples about you SS past. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Generally, it looks good, although I have some questions and proposals. First, not only Bulgaria and Romania were occupied, they also joined the war at the allies' side, so if you add something about that it would be fine. Second, I think it it is important to note that Romania was the last Nazi's oil sourse. Third, I would remove a notion about Bessarabia and Bukovina, because the Soviets had already annexed those territory before 1941, so it sounds like the Soviet took more. Fourth, while hundreds of thousands of Estonians etc sounds not completely clear: is it a total number or each of these nations were represented in Wehrmacht in such an amount? As regards to Urkainians, I am aware of Galicia division only, so it sounds like a hyperbola. Fifth. your reference on countries occupied by the Soviets in 1939-1940 sends me at non-informative page. What did you mean? And the last question. What do you know about Lithuanian and Latvian attempts to establish a government? If there were any, they should be mentioned. If not, just write about Estonians, Poles and West Urkainians. I think the rest is fine. Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
^The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II". Zaloga, Bagration 1944: The destruction of Army Group Centre, 7.
^Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
^Estonia. Sept.21 Bulletin of International News by Royal Institute of International Affairs Information Dept.
^ ab [http://yurizhukov.com/doc/070900_Zhukov_UPA_Final.pdf Yuri Zhukov, "Examining the Authoritarian
Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", Small Wars and Insurgencies, v.18, no. 3, pp.439-466]
^The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II". Zaloga, Bagration 1944: The destruction of Army Group Centre, 7.
^Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
^The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940 – 1990. University of California Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
^Subtelny, p. 474 Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 800. ISBN0802083900.
^Estonia. Sept.21 Bulletin of International News by Royal Institute of International Affairs Information Dept.
Polish/Soviet duplication of war dead
The article in Lusskie Poteri is the one by Mihalev on pages 82-95. The key point is that the Polish and Soviets are both counting the losses in the annexed territories, the Soviets also include the Baltic states and Romanian(Besserabia/Bukivina) war dead in the total of 26.6 million( 25.3 million plus 1.3 million increase in infant mortality). On page 83 Mihalev says the Soviet figures include 10 million in the annexed Polish regions. The annexed Polish territory in 1939 population was 13 million, in 1945 the Soviets gave Poland back territory with 1.4 million, and 1.6 million Polish citizens were allowed to leave in USSR in 1945. The Soviet figures are adjusted only for population transfers, they do not take into account that the Polish figures also include an estimate of war dead for the annexed territory. In the footnote on Poland the sources cited K. Kersten and T. Piotrowski estimate Polish losses in the annexed territory at 2.5 million, these losses are also included in the Soviet figure. To avoid a duplication we must subtract them from the Soviet total, along with the Baltic states that have a separate line. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at page 126 of Ludskie Poteri, the Russians claim 64,000 Estonians were victims of premediated German war crimes. The Russians have added insult to injury by including victims of Stalin along with victims of the Nazis--Woogie10w (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly, I don't have this book before me right now, so, please, explain me what did you mean. Are they old Stalin time data, or these are the data of contemporary research? This is Soviet era data, there is no contemporary research in Russia, that I am aware of, on Soviet civilian losses that would breakout the victims of Hitler and Stalin. I cited the data on Estonia to point out the potential problems with Soviet and modern day Russian statistics. Ludskie Poteri, published by the Russian Academy of Science, claims 7,420,135 Soviet civilians were victims of Nazi premediated murder, including 64,000 Estonian civilians. On Wikipedia I cannot engage in original research or offer my own judgements, I can only cite the sources and allow the readers to form their own opinions. Based on our knowledge of Estonian losses detailed in this excellant report [5], it is obvious that the Soviet/Russian data includes victims of Stalin as well as Hitler. Let me know if you need additional data, I will gladly take the time to answer you --Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Soviet casualty figures have three points that need to be take into account when assessing losses in WW2.
1- The official figure of 8,668,400 total military dead includes the following. A. Confirmed deaths in battle and deaths due to non combat causes- 6,885,100. B. Estimated missing in action 500,000. C. The balance of 1,283,000 are deaths of POWs. This data is from Krivosheev. The western estimates of POW dead are around 3 million. Which brings the total losses to 10.5 million.
2- The Russian figure for total war dead based on the Russian Academy of Science report of Andreev estimated a total demographic loss of 26.6 million from 1941-45. This figure includes an estimated 2.5 million deaths in Polish territory that was occupied by the USSR in 1939 and ceded by treaty to the USSR in August 1945. The Polish also include these deaths with their war dead. To avoid a duplication these losses must appear with the USSR or Poland, but not in both countries. Western historians have always counted these losses with Poland. The Russians make an adjustment in their population only for net population transfers, and do not take adjust their figures for the fact that Polish are also counting the losses in the annexed territories.
3- The Russian figure of 26.6 million war dead is a demographic loss, deaths that occurred in excess of the pre war level. The figure includes an estimated 3.0 million deaths in the territory not occupied by the Germans. Contemporary Russian sources place the entire blame for these losses on Germany, repression by the Soviets is not considered as a component of the war losses of 26.6 million . --Woogie10w (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments on
1. Do I understand correct that the real number of military losses is in between 8,600,000 and 10,500,000?
2. Therefore, to be consistent, should we assume the Soviet total losses were ~23,600,000?
3. Generally, such a blame looks rather reasonable, because NKVD pressure was known to be lower during the war, executions of deserters (or those who was considered deserter) was a direct consequence of the war, increased mortality in Gulag camps was generally due to a food shortage (direct consequence of the war), increased mortality among refugees, obviously, must be attributed to Nazis and direct mortality of civilians in Eastern regions was partially a result of deterioration of a health system (a direct consequence of the war also). That is obvious. One statement is not correct: Soviet leadership is responsible for too high military losses. That is another story, however. Thank you very much for your data and for your explanations. Sineserely yours, --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Nr.1 Confirmed dead per Krivosheev are 6.9 million, MIA per Krivosheev are 500,000 and POW deaths per every historian in the west are about 3 million. Then total military war dead are 10.4 million, not 8.7 million.
Nr.2 If the Polish are also counting 2.5 million in the annexed territories, we cannot include them again in the Soviet total. That applies also to the Baltic states & Rumanian Besserabia/Bukovina.
I would like to see this book, the author is a critic of Krivosheev. I know of it from the Axis History Forum.
Title: Liudskie poteri v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine 1941-1945 gg: statisticheskoe issledovanie Author: S N Mikhalev Year: 2000 ISBN-10: 5-85981-082-2 / 5859810822 Woogie10w (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Nr. 1. That is what I mean: 8.7 according to Russian and 10.4 according to Western sources. Do I understand correct that no reliable sources give greater numbers?
Nr. 2. Ok.
Nr. 3. The term victim is too vague. Actually, the whole population of Soviet Union, Europe and Asia are indirect Stalin's victims. However, it is too complex to describe it with numbers. Zemskov's type data are something more concrete: it just tells how many prisoners were in Gulags, what was the amount of convicted, sentenced, executed. Of course, that is just a starting point for further research and speculations, however, it seems to be a reliable starting point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion
I think our recent discussion at my talk page was unproductive and went in wrong direction. Could you please use talk pages of articles to discuss WP content? If you have any specific complaints about my conduct, there are other forums for that. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I started to use your page because you placed your response on my post there. If you have a feeling there is not an optimal place for that type discussion, feel free to remove it, as well as this section, from your page. However, arbitrary removal of separate parts of discussion doesn't seem correct. Especially for a person fighting for a speech freedom. Rebyata, davayte zhit' druzhno... :-)
Thank you. I got your message. Sure, Rebyata, davayte zhit' druzhno.... I simply feel that discussion started by ellol was completely unproductive. As about Zemskov, let's discuss this and other similar questions at articles talk pages if needed.Biophys (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
That link to the revised Krivosheev book is very interesting, this edition has a lot of data that was not in the 1992 edition. The section in civilian losses has data that also appears in Ludskie Poteri from 1995. He explains clearly how that figure of 26.6 million war dead was dervived. Thanks agiain for the link, I really appreciate your posting it. I must go to sleep. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, after a nights rest I started to review the revised Krivosheev book, the data on WW1 is new to me and very interesting. Regarding WW2 Soviet losses, I would like to hear your opinion. If we post to Wikipedia the official figure of 8.7 million war dead, the total POW loss becoms 1.3 million, this does not agree with the standard view in the west that 2.5-3.0 million Soviet POW perished in German hands. Personally I side with Krivosheev and the historians in Russia that believe that only 4.0 million soldiers were captured by the Germans, the remaining 1.7 million being civilians, even though they were conscripted reservists. They were not part of military formations. I would like to hear your opinion on this topic. Here is a link to article by Krivosheev, in which he answers his critics [6], I was suprised when he wrote that the record keeping system is in a bad state, men listed as war dead being alive!--Woogie10w (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As you see, that work looks like a very detailed thorough study, so we have to be respectful towards it. At least, I would like to read it, along with its critiques, again before telling anything. I'll let you know when I am ready for further discussion. As regards to the record keeping system, you can check it by yourself. Go to http://www.obd-memorial.ru/Memorial/. This online database contains about 20,000,000 records about KIA and MIA Soviets (military only). It is not complete and the work is still in progress. It is still rather confusing, because some persons are sometimes mentioned several times. That is understandable, because different type records form different sources were combined together. If you enter any non abundant Russian name there you probably find several persons with identical first and second names, birth and death dates. Sometimes the date of the death may differ by 1-2 days, but, if the place coincides both records seem to relate to the same person mentioned twice. As I already mentioned, I checked this database by myself. I entered my grandfather's name and the name of my friend's grandfather. Both of them were officially MIA, however, I couldn't find their names in this data base. My short poll among several persons whose ancestors fought during WWII gave the following results: a majority (not overwhelming) was able to find their names in this data base. Others (similar to me) didn't find their names there. One person did find his grandfather's name, although in in reality he survived (he simply was severely wounded). Therefore, some persons were mentioned several times, some weren't mentioned at all and some survived peoples could be there also. I conclude, in its present state this database neither contradict nor confirms the official number of 8.5 million. However, it is necessary to take into account that the number of military losses wasn't derived from that database. I don't think, for instance, my grandfather was unaccounted, because my mother was getting a monthly allowance until she attained her majority. You agree such a payment requires some legal ground. All the best --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer me. I became aware of the controversy in Russia over Krivosheev’s data on the Axis History Forum Axis History Forum. This blog has a number of Russian members who are knowledgeable, I am sure you will find it of interest. We have similar problems with military records in the US. My fathers WW2 records were destroyed in the St, Louis fire of 1973 [7]. My dad was with the 342nd Ordnance Depot Co, and saw action in Normandy, Aachen and the Battle of the Bulge. When he died in 1975 he was receiving the maximum pension (100%), for war related wounds. On my mothers side of the family the Revolutionary War records of my GGG grandfather were lost in the Burning of Washington, the records were reconstructed later from reports in the state of Virginia. He was stationed at Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) with the 13th Virginia Regiment--Woogie10w (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
WWII - Structure
Do you have a problem with me moving your post from my talk page to the article talk page?
As it happens I am formally from a former Soviet republic, but, I see myself as a historian first.
Having said that, my approach is very logical. An article is no different to any construction, albeit its a a data-made one. What happens with structures is that they are built around frameworks, and with clearly defined parameters. In the case of the World War II article that framework, given the subject is a conflict, are the theatres of conflict. The choice is not mine, but of the actual participants in a global conflict. They are primarily based on considerations of logistics as combat operations anywhere need resources. The terminology I propose is also nothing new since this is a military history article, and military history as nay discipline, has its own language which is necessarily, well, military.
I also understand what you mean about three types of people. However, the issue here is history. If something is unsourced it can be deleted. Quite frankly I don't care much for ethnic passions. The inclusion of Estonian conscripts in the auricle an excellent example of irrelevant minor detail that seems overwhelmingly important to the undoubtedly Estonian editor. So, for me the two words that define writing history articles of such global reach are context and perspective, and not consensus.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Manners will get you nowhere even if you try. Civility in Wikipedia is simply misused to advance one's point of view despite facts or good arguments. I have been blocked several times for contrived claims of incivility after trying for some time get the other editors to see facts, or even acknowledge sources IN THE ARTICLE. It is simply futile.
Writing military history articles, as any article, demands of the editor to remain relevant to the subject. The core issue here is level of detail (here taken in the literal context of graphics). You can find this briefly mentioned here [8] where it says
Without knowing who it is you are writing for, it is easy to be irrelevant. Knowledge of the target audience allows the writer to stay firmly "on message."
Your job as a technical writer is to serve others. You are a conduit for information. You have to transfer what is in the heads of the creators of the product, into the heads of the people using the product.
The language, organization, and level of detail you use, depends on your reader. Your number one task is to understand what they actually need to know, and how they're likely to best find that information when they need it in their life.
So the question becomes, is the average English-speaking reader, when reading about a summary of the Second World War, be interested in the effect 20,000 Estonian conscripts had on the outcome?
However, it goes beyond this. If these Estonians are included, why not other minority participants? Why are the far more numerous Scots not explicitly mentioned although they had participated also? There was an entire division (51st) sacrificed in France in 1940, never mind other units. What about the tens of thousands of Kazakhs? The French Army had far more North Africans serving in regular divisions, so what about them? Shouldn't EVERYONE get a mention? I am for example far more concerned about the lack of mention of the contribution to the war made by women, than I ma by Estonian conscripts, and they constituted (on all fronts) hundreds of thousands, particularly in resistance movements.
The first order of the day is to define the criteria for what is to be mentioned in the article. I don't mind consensus building there, but all need to understand the application of styles of rhetoric in the article and that in exposing the detail, one needs to classify "groups of objects or ideas according to a common topic in detail". In effect the article needs to be about the sub-categories in the Category:World War II, and that is another story.
Despite my Wikipedia record, I am neither unreasonable nor customarily rude. I do have a personality trait that I recently saw mentioned in a book about infantry. See page 4 of "House to house" by David Bellavia [9]. I have a genetic predisposition for low bullshit tolerance. There is no cure :) I have had mates in the infantry in my younger years, and strongly associate with their creed of the team is #1 because with no armour (aka "wikinetworking") of range (aka "administrative privileges") to protect them, so they rely on sheer skill (editing) and relying on each other and on their tools of trade (sources), in this case the ability to find references to the subject matter of the article. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Paul, being polite will simply get you a month's worth of fruitless discussion.
"Working slowly" as you put it is a really bad approach, which is also contrary to the very name of Wikipedia.
Have you ever seen a building built with no plans or foundation laying? Its not just not done, its dangerous. However, you are welcome to go and try. I'm not sure you will do better with Estonian editors than I had experienced with Rumanians, Poles, or members of what was formerly Yugoslavia. I do not enjoy wasting my time in talkfests. Life is far too short for that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Re "going global": delete A3 & F20 & copy the others as posted, pending any changes needed, with reference my comments on them, & any other issues raised. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply Paul, but I have been very busy lately.
Looking again at the text, I still do not like the approach. First 6 months on the Eastern Front involved fighting and loss of territory equivalent to three times those of France. If it was an article about German invasion of the United States, would you start with the amphibious landings on the Atlantic coast and pick up the story again somewhere in Kansas?
For all intents and purposes a reference article is not like a book summary but a technical document. As far as I'm concerned my approach suggested earlier where military, diplomatic, economic and social events are graded to put them into perspective is the correct approach. In any case, I'm unable to contribute now, but will return in a week I think.
I don't know what your perspective is, but as far as I'm concerned the war was won, at least in Europe, on the Eastern Front, and the article must reflect this. I think the recently published book The myth of the Eastern Front (Cambridge University Press) would be good guide for this task.
Do I understand you correct that your proposal is to extend Eastern Front story? Of cource, those 6 month were a very important, probably, a key point of the war, the moment the tide had started to turn (in contrast to the current section name). Had Hitler reach the A-A line as he planned, the Germany would become invinsible, and, judging by the NYT paper I cited, in 1941 many Americans realized that very well. To my opinion, the only reasonable approach to describe WWII is to focus on the battlefield where two third of Allied and Axis soldiers (not only European, but total) were killed, i.e. Eastern Front, because WWII was mostly and primarily the war between the USSR and Germany. However, I foresee a serious problem if we try to do so. The present public opinion (in contrast to the attitude during the war and the post war period) has been formed in such a way that people simply refuse to believe the article written in that manner. Folks would prefer to trust a bullshit like that I cited on the talk page than to accept the truth about WWII. Because this truth is couner-intuitive and uncomfortable. As a result, even if we will manage to convince other editors and our editing will not be reverted, the reader's opinion about this article will be:"I was told that it is impossible to trust Wikipedia, and now I made sure that's the case".
My second point is that the article is written in such a way that it pays not enough attention to the battles at all, whereas diplomatical and humanitarian aspects are overemphasized. If we extend Eastern Front, we have to tell more about the battle of France, for instance (to my opinion, it deserves that), although I am not sure we need to tell about evrything in details. My proposal is to write the article in such a manner that urges reader to wisit appropriate dauther article. Anyway, am am waiting for your return and we will continue. Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The answer to the "people simply refuse to believe the article written in that manner" is to cite sources
The answer to the second point is to use a skeletal structure first. I have now realised that if I go far enough into Oberiko's review, his method was not methodical at all.
Balance can not be achieved without a methodical approach.
Quite simply what is needed is a thematic matrix, created in a spreadsheet.
There were essentially five theatres of war (West to East): The Atlantic, Western Europe (and the Med/North Africa)), Eastern Europe (and Scandinavia), Western Asia (inc. South-Western), and the Pacific (inc. China by virtue of Japan being in the Pacific).
Each theatre experienced diplomatic, economic and military strategic milestones.
A strategic milestone is a diplomatic decision (agreement, alliance, protocol, etc.), economic effort (production, budgets, denial of raw resources, etc.) or military event (campaign, strategic occupation, effect on national morale through non-strategic victory or defeat) that significantly affected the theatre.
The article needs to be taken apart, and its parts deposited in the theatre columns by quarter because a quarter is a strategic period of activity governed by seasons which affect economics and military activity if not diplomacy. First quarter is the 3rd quarter of 1939 and final preparations for invasion of Poland. Last quarter is the 2nd quarter of 1945; 24 quarters in all.
Once this is done, the less significant decisions, efforts and events can be weeded out.
There will be consequences that will be disputed. For example the Commonwealth North African Campaign was conducted by a "short" army against 4-5 full strength Axis divisions. After Barbarossa it is dwarfed in magnitude, and barely mattered despite being seen as strategically important for the UK. It would have been strategically important had German or UK knew of the oil deposits in Saudi Arabia, alas...
After all theatres are completed, get references for each sentence
Counting quarters per theatre multiplied by the three sectors of interest, there should be a minimum of 360 sentences. Some sectors will be missing a sentence here and there, and in some two sentences will be required, so the total will be between in the 350-400 sentence region.
There are currently 120-odd paragraphs, which is about 17 paragraphs per year, with about 840 sentences, counting section headings and picture captions. There is therefore a way to reduce the size and increase the accuracy of coverage if a systematic approach is used. Conducting a revision as you are doing it now will not significantly achieve anything different to Oberiko's version, and still leave the article open to revisions of the irrelevant type. I would suggest that the methodology be included into the article, or a separate article be included under the historiography of Second World War category--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Citing sources will not help, because there are different sources telling mutually contradicting things. I notice a considerable shift towards "western-centric" point of view, for instance. And your problem is that you focus on logical arguments, although for majority people psychology is more importany factor.
The answer to sceletal structure is that some periods of the war, as well as some theatres, were much more important than others. For example, I would say, in 1941 the Western theatre simply ceased to exist (as compared with Eastern Front), and re-appeared in 1944 only, etc. Eastern Front, as well as Pacific< appeared in 1941, so the major events of the war took place in the West before that time. I also would disagree with combining China with Pacific. I conclude, your approach is too formal (if I understood it correct).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
List of battles by casualties
I didn't destroy it for formal reasons. Most of it was unsourced. I put a template on it calling for sources. This template was there for several months, however, nothing got sourced. Afterwards I removed all unsourced material. It is possible to use the existing sourced data in wikipedia and their refs to make this a proper list, but I have not yet been able under my time constraints. The reason I deleted the unsourced stuff is that I could bring the growth of unsourced material to no halt. So cutting it from the start and making it grow with sources only was the best approach. Also, this is a list informing people about numbers and the problem was that they were mostly wrong, sometinmes listing only POW, deads or a mixture. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
crimes against that page
Wandalstouring carried out acts of vandalism upon that fatefull page. And even he knows he did it. It is as you said imposible to so called properly source the page. Wandalstouring deleted months posibly even years of hard work. Thats why he should be punished for his actions. Thats why I sent the warning and removed the imprperly plassed template. It was plassed there without just cause and out of false acusations. The people of Wikipedia do not deserve such act of vandalism against us. sincerly--Dt23 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for back up . Im the guy who posted the complaint against User:Wandalstouring
Good thing we are on the same side on this. I have looking for guy whose ben making those disruptive edits based on bogus "sourcing" for the past week.
Thanks for support on the issue--Dt23 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul. You seem to have good intentions about fixing the Second World War articles, but be warned, Wikipedia, and the Military History Project participants are not into production of quality articles. Quality is an undefined value in Wikipedia. For the most part Wikipedia seems to have evolved into a social network more concerned with achieving compromises at the expense of quality, and reflecting points of view of those with administrative rights to block editors who show dissatisfaction with lack of discussion and citation of facts that define quality (to me). Before you embark on editing Second World War articles be aware that there are lots of editors with agendas other than military history in Wikipedia, and that what will happen in all likelihood is that you will find yourself frustrated, or abandoning the project.
However, should you choose to proceed...below is my advice.
Because most people who contribute to Wikipedia are not professional editors, but "editors" by Wikipedia definition, they do not understand the process or project management of large areas of knowledge, such as the Second World War. When you look at the collective subject-area in Wikipedia, it amounts to hundreds of articles, with thousands yet to be written. Those that are in existence are usually badly referenced, and more often than not uncited. There are some popular subjects, but, what the Military History Project has lacked is a "global" management of the Second World War article creation and editing as a whole. Regardless of the existence of the "task force" no substantial concerted effort to coordinate the work was, or is undertaken. To illustrate, when I tried to rationalise the categorisation of articles into four main areas of sociology, economics, diplomacy and military articles, I met with criticism and was told to stop changing categories although they made little sense and articles were being deposited with no sense or order. And this, from Project administrators.
The approach to large subject-area article editing has been commented on elsewhere, but in the European Theatre of World War II, as with all articles that are used for summary, the content should reflect the contents of the Category:World War II European theatre. Moreover, it would be nice if the category name matched the main article name.
As you see in the category, there is some confusion as to what a "theatre of war" is.
World War II Eastern European Theatre (20)
World War II Mediterranean Theatre (5)
Military history of France during World War II (5)
Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II (9)
Naval battles and operations of World War II (European theatre) (3)
My preference is to not do things "by half", plan, and approach a project by structuring work that needs to be done.
I would suggest that that the article can in fact be renamed World War II in Europe as the main article for the Category:World War II in Europe, and then divide it into theatres as per categories.
These need to be "straightened out" as follows (in chronological order)
World War II Eastern European Theatre (20) -> Category:Eastern Front (World War II) (there was never an Eastern European Theatre either for Germany, Soviet Union or the Western Allies that I know of)
Of course this article deals with the military aspects only. Societies and diplomatic activity were not part of military theatres, and economies were national, international, but yet a part of the war efforts. Still...
Rather than the current structure
Preceding events
Outbreak of war in Europe
Germany assumes dominance in northern Europe
War comes to the west
The war in the air
The Mediterranean and Balkans
The Eastern Front
Allied invasion of Italy
Allied invasion of occupied France
End of the war in Europe
You would have
Situation in Central Europe
Eastern Front - Poland
Northern naval campaign 1940
Northern European Theatre - Norway
Western European Theatre - France
Western European aerial campaigns - Britain
Mediterranean naval campaign 1939-42
Atlantic naval campaign 1939-1942
Baltic naval campaign 1940-41
Western European Theatre - Resistance movements 1941-1944
Mediterranean Theatre - North Africa
Southern European Theatre - Balkans
The Eastern Front - Soviet Union
Black Sea naval campaign 1941-42
Northern naval campaign 1941-43
Western European aerial campaigns - Strategic bombing
I think, your and my vision of the WWII history coincide almost completely. The difference is in a strategy of data representation. Since the article is for comparatively superficial readers, it must be a relatively simple and captivating reading. Therefore, we need to follow you plan although a breakup of the text should be less frightening. Here are some comments:
Baltic naval campaign 1940-41 What concretely do you mean?
Western European Theatre - Resistance movements 1941-1944 In actuality, major real resistance (besides occupied Soviet territories) was concentrated in Yugoslavia and Poland. The western resistance was generally a post-war myth.
You will note that the Eastern Front is called "partisan" and not "resistance". It can not be dismissed that there was resistance in Western Europe to German occupation, even if not in the form of extensive combat partisan formations. The rest of the myth also can be addressed here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front - Soviet Union too much to fit into a single section
Black Sea naval campaign 1941-42 too small for a single section: besides Soviet Black Sea fleet there were almost no other fleets there. Or you include siege of Sevastopol there?
You are wrong on this. Kriegsmarine and the Rumanian navies in particular conducted a campaign which also included Italian fleet units. The Soviet naval defensive operations, the evacuations from Odessa and Sevastopol, and their defences all contribute to what is a naval campaign--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Western European aerial campaigns - Strategic bombing move closer to the end
The Eastern Front - Partisans 1941 - 1944 move closer to Kursk
Again, the Polish partisans begun to operate more effectively after British started to supply the more organised Home Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front - Northern Russia which period? What concretely: Murmansk? Leningrad?
The Eastern Front aerial campaigns - Kuban Why separate from the next section?
This is aerial, a massive air campaign that easily equalled in numbers of aircraft to the Battle of Britain and lasted longer, but is virtually unknown in the West. Sorry, I put these in wrong order because was adding aerial operations after and typed in wrong place. The Kuban aerial campaign was 1943--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
yes, but of course it was a massive strategic campaign for Germany, and not just the "battle" of Stalingrad (in general "battle" is used as a weasel word in the West to belittle the scale of warfare on the Eastern Front)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front aerial campaigns - Kursk aeral AND Kursk, or aeral OF Kursk?
Severla strategic operations in advance to Dnepr line, so including Kharkov. In Western "popular" history of the Eastern Front focus on cities negates what happened outside these operations. The "third" Kharkov was in fact a massive frontal offensive of course--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Black Sea naval campaign 1943-44 +Recapture of Sevastopol?
Mediterranean aerial campaigns - Strategic bombing Were there any strategic targets there?
The campaign was conducted from North Africa against Italian and Rumanian navies, later in support of invasions of Sicily and Italy, and later still from Italian bases against Germany and Rumanian oilfields--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front aerial campaigns - Dnepr Dnieper descent + Battle of Dnieper/breakage of Eastern Wall?
Baltic naval campaign 1941-45 Do you have something to tell?
Actually this is 1942-1945, and includes mining in the Gulf of Finland, German logistics and their interdiction, Naval operations during the Leningrad siege and later Soviet offensive operations in support of ground offensives--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front - The Baltic so you separate Eastern Front from Northern theatre?
Yes, I do. The events of combat against Finland were only barely connected with the Eastern Front during the siege of Leningrad, but refusal by the Fins to advance effectively made their front quite separate from the German efforts. Soviet offensives against Finland were only affected when Bagration was planned, but Soviet operations in Norway were entirely separate from the operations in the west. The proof is in the Leningrad Front which continued to exist to the end of the war although the other Fronts were all renamed and were well into Germany--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front aerial campaigns - Lithuania Kurland pocket?
Western European aerial campaigns - France Strategic bombing?
This is the tactical air support in support of Normandy, the airborne operations, and the subsequent campaign against German logistics....and strategic bombing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front aerial campaigns - Belorussia Don't think we need to separate from the next one:
The Eastern Front aerial campaigns - Germany Don't think we need to separate from the next one:
Same as for Belorussia. Many seem to forget that Luftwaffe flew thousands of aircraft to the last few weeks of the war--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Eastern Front - Germany
The Eastern Front - Hungary and Austria Czechoslovakia?
End of the war in Europe Or it goes here? I also think you missed Eastern Prussia/Konigsberg and battle of Smolensk (1943). Where Leningrad goes? I have no comments on the rest items, although generally I think such a detailed division is redundant.
Prussia/Kongsberg goes into The Eastern Front - Poland and Rumania
Redundant? My understanding of a theatre and a campaign may be somewhat different. Most Western authors simply ignore wider contexts of some well known large city-named operations. A campaign is at least 3 months long, and fighting went on everywhere outside of the few well known "battles". However, the list I suggested can be somewhat trimmed (maybe).
Anyway, we have to start and see how it looks like. As regards to the WWII article, I would like to introduce already edited section because the present version is too bad. Could you look again at the whole section on the WWII talk page and let me know if it can be put into the article for a while? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Paul, but I have decided not to contribute to the WWII article unless there is a consensus to adopt a more professional (and I don't mean "civil") approach by all contributing editors. What makes me a bit regretful is that I had not spoken up before, and did not look into the methodology used by Oberiko before. I have lots of other stuff to contribute, so not short on editing needs. However, if the Project coordinators want things done properly, they need to commit to something more viable than the current concept which is tantamount to plastering over the "cracks".
I think this professional approach would include, in the fist instance, creation of article foundation by creating a relationship between the Category:World War II. This in turn would lead to creating an article structure in the same way a building is built in a skeletal form, and only later will the rest of the article be compiled. In doing so the contents of the WWII article need to be correlated to the contents of other articles in the category, and this would involve a team effort the like of which I have not seen so far unfortunately. I also want to see a reasonably senior administrator present on the project of WWII editing who can resolve nationalistic conflicts before I get blocked for incivility because I do intend to submit to Wikipedia behavioural modification which is why I have stopped actively contributing to the Eastern Front article area--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Red flag over Berlin
Sorry, I merely commented on the two images based on what I could see in the photos. It appears that these were taken by Yevgeny Khaldei, and presumably he was an employee of the Soviet government, and probably a soldier. Soviet/Russian copyrights have been changing lately, and I don't know the current status of these things.
If the image turns out to be copyrighted, then it is probably usable under fair use to illustrate particular articles only.
Hi Paul, In my view it's probably best to keep discussions of the content of very high profile articles such as this to the article's talk page so that interested editors (eg, those who've watch-listed the article) see it. Discussing article content in detail on user talk pages carries the risk that the text you develop there isn't supported by other editors. That's just my view though! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Finland
A thing off the discussion on WWII talk page. You said: "It seems to me that additional emphasis can be done on the difference between the resistance of the Finns and the Romanians (the former did that without any appreciable German help, by the way)." Without the German resistance in Narva, the Finns wouldn't last half a month under the Soviet amphibious and air attacks from Tallinn 83 km from Helsinki. Mannerheim was well aware of that and regularly checked the situation in Narva. So was Stalin, who kept enormous pressure at Narva and Tannenberg Line for seven and a half months.--Erikupoeg (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That is why I think it makes sense to modify the last sentence of the previous section ("The subsequent Soviet offensive towards the Baltic ports was halted at the Estonian border for 8 months by the German Army Group North.[1]") adding that that resistance hampered subsequent Soviet offensive operations in the Baltic region. Your version is welcome.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I actually had experienced the approach in real life. Some 10 years ago, the municipal authorities of my home city began introducing household water meters to keep track of water usage on a more individual level. As the process of installing one was somewhat expensive (yes, the residents had to pay for it), some households had failed to comply and continued to rely on present block-wide counters (installation was strongly encouraged, but voluntary). Meanwhile, the policy has had some unexpected backlash - the central water output did not coincide with the usage reported by the residential meters, sometimes by a vast amount (the old Soviet waterworks had fallen into severe disrepair by that time and were leaking all over the city). But somebody had to pay for all that water. So, a quick solution was found: the entire block-wide discrepancy was charged to those residents who didn't have a residential counter installed, sometimes resulting in elderly pensioners receiving bills for the amount of water normally spent at an average car wash.
Sorry for littering your talk page with offtopic, but it was quite surprising to discover such a cheap ripoff tactic being used to juggle human lives in an ostensibly serious historical work. --Illythr (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Good example. BTW, did I understand you correct that you, in actuality, don't blame me in any negative connotations when I used words "garbage" and "human losses" in the same sentence (because your note on the talk page can be understood in who ways)...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you merely came up with an apt (if somewhat blunt) way of describing it. In fact, when exact data is unavailable, rough estimations do need to be based on something are acceptable. It's just that the way it is done in the article - employing a method that would maximize enemy losses to create the "invincible German armies vs an never-ending Red Flood" impression, concluding that the Germans have left by themselves after getting tired of slaughtering Russians (typically forgetting about Ukrainians, Belorussians and many other nations who were there as well) - is what I find disgruntling in this version of history (if that is indeed the aim of the author, and not a misinterpretation of his words).
You've just reprodused what I said (and partially what I implied) with some oversimplifications. Laar's estimations do based on something, although the methodology he use is flawed. Therefore it is incorrect to tell that estimations are based on nothing. They have been done in incorrect way.
As regard to subjects sensitive to many people. I myself belong to them, my grandfather was MIA. I also suspect that many other editors also had relatives who perished during WWII. However, this should apply no limitations on the use of any scientific terms and definitions. Standard error, or garbage collector belong to them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
As English is not my native language, I can sometimes be unclear with it. Here, I changed my post to reflect the idea I was trying to convey with it - pretty much what you're saying. --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul,
Do you think there is room to mention "Market Garden" in "Allies close in" section?
Would like to hear your opinion before I add anything to your excellent work on the subject.
Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hard to tell before I see it. Feel free to play with the new version and let's see. BTW, if you add some reference there it would be great. I plan to do that before I insert this section into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The Talk page is such a mess with Valeofruin's odd political rants that I figured I would just add this here.
You earlier made this edit, stating "the cited source doesn't contains the statement:"which was aided by Soviet signals for German bombers."
Just to let you know, it does. Roberts (the source) states (page 60): "Stalin's co-operation with Hitler in the military sphere was more circumscribed but still valuable to the Germans. When German bombers attacked Poland in September 1939 they were aided by directional signals from a Soviet radio station."
That is a little bit strange. The 60th page of the source (The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152247) is reproduced below. Could you please show me the words cited by you?
"This statement was reputedly delivered at a meeting with Ernst Weizsacker, State Secretary in the German Foreign Ministry, on 17 April 1939. There followed, in Watt's view, a series of German signals of goodwill, including Hitler's speech of 28 April which omitted any attack on the USSR. Watt also speculates that during that last fortnight of April there may have been secret Soviet-German contacts that we still do not know about. At any rate, on 4 May the Soviet Union issued a massive public signal of its intentions by replacing Litvinov with Molotov as People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Watt summarises: Litvinov's dismissal and Molotov's accession were followed by a series of visits to the German Foreign Ministry by Georgi Astakhov [Soviet Charge in Berlin] on 5 May and 9 May... and then again on 17 May... The Soviet decision had clearly been taken.7 However, had the Soviet decision been taken? Watt, like successive generations of historians of the Nazi-Soviet pact, was labouring under the handicap of access only to German documents on relations between the two states. His interpretation of Soviet policy was perforce based on essentially second-hand accounts- accounts tainted by German preoccupations, perceptions and policy objectives. It should come as no surprise that quite a different picture of Soviet policy towards Germany emerges from Moscow's own records of its relations with Berlin. The most glaring example of this discrepancy between Soviet and German diplomatic records concerns that infamous meeting between Merekalov and Weizsacker on 17 April 1939. Merekalov's report of the meeting makes it clear that the ostensible purpose of the meeting-to complain about the non-fulfilment of Soviet contracts with the Skoda arms factory in German-occupied Czechoslovakia -was the real one. He records no political remarks of his own, let alone the dramatic words attributed to him by Weizsacker. Indeed, according to Merekalov's account it was Weizsacker who did all the talking about politics, concluding with the 'quasi-formal statement' that 'Germany has differences of political principle with the USSR. All the same it wants to develop economic relations with it'.8 From Moscow's point of view, therefore, the signals for detente emanating from the Merekalov-Weizsacker meeting were, if any, coming from the German side, not the Soviet. Did the Soviet side interpret Weizsacker's remarks in that way? Was the absence of an anti-Bolshevik tirade in Hitler's speech on 28 April perhaps taken as a further sign of German overtures for rapprochement? Was the sacking of Litvinov on 4 May Moscow's reply? That Moscow would interpret Weizsacker's insipid comments in such a way is unlikely, to say the least. The omission of an anti-communist attack by Hitler was unusual, but it was not unique. Moreover, the Nazi dictator's ire on this occasion was directed elsewhere: against Poland in his denunciation of the 1934 German- Polish non-aggression agreement, and against Roosevelt, who a fortnight earlier had had the temerity to ask Hitler if he planned to attack any other countries, following the German occupation of Prague in March 1939.9 With regard to Litvinov the full story of his dismissal has yet to emerge. However, there is a good case for reading his departure from office as the result of a combination of internal politics and a desire by the USSR to signal to the British and French, who were dragging their feet over Soviet proposals for an"
You're right, it's page 43 of Geoffrey Roberts' 2006 book Stalin's Wars (in the bibliography of the article), not 60 of "The Soviet Decision . . . ", and I cited to ref name "roberts" thinking that was to the Bib source "Stalin's Wars". Here is the exact text: "Stalin's co-operation with Hitler in the military sphere was more circumscribed but still valuable to the Germans. When German bombers attacked Poland in September 1939 they were aided by directional signals from a Soviet radio station."
Good. Now I understand where it comes from. By the way, I am aware of the fact of bomber guiding, my only objection was that I remembered for sure that that fact hasn't been mentioned by Roberts in that concrete article. To my opinion, the sources provived by you are an additional proof that there were no substantial military collaboration between Germany and the USSR, although some coordination took place. The facts mentioned by you deserve mentioning as an exceptions of the rule, in a footnote. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree that it wasn't substantial. There was a little coordination going on, with is worth mentioning, but they mostly each just moved in to the various allotted territories.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
WWII Revision
hi, can u pls tell me why u undid my revision at WWII?
The only thing I adedd is that the germans were halted due to the heavy russian winter.
This is quite important as in history Napoleon made the same mistake.
So I'm wondering what's wrong with that?
It's listing some causes behind the facts --Bizso (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lieber Herr Siebert, da besteht wohl keine Chance, Hermann Rauschning in wwII einzubringen. Wie ich schon sagte, hat die Reichsregierung in den Zwanzigerjahren eine ganze Reihe von Weißbüchern über die Vorgänge im ehemaligen deutschen Osten herausgegeben. Ich konnte sie jedoch nicht bibliographisch nachweisen. Eine wichtige Quelle ist aber Heinrich Bauers Stresemann Biographie, die diese Dinge erwähnt. NickD bedroht mich übrigens auf meiner Talkpage mit dem Rauswurf aus Wikipedia. Herzlichen gruß: user:jäger, 22. June 2009, 23,45 CET —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
Technical issue
As an administrator, I'm empowered to conduct a few administrative tasks, but I don't have any special technical knowledge. That said, I have a few suggestions to help troubleshoot your problem. It sounds severe – I've never heard of a web page restarting a computer.
Make note of which web browser and version causes the problem (e.g. Firefox 3.0.5). Can you try a different web browser, or version and see if the problem still occurs (e.g. Konqueror, or Firefox 2). Does it happen if your logged out of Wikipedia? Can you try turning off Javascript, CSS, and plugins in your browser?—if this helps, then restore one at a time to determine which is associated with the problem.
The talk page is very long—398 kB of wikitext. I'll start by archiving most of that, and let you know when I'm done. If you still have a problem, I can look through the code and see if there's any weirdness. Let me know how it goes. —MichaelZ. 2009-02-02 20:49 z
Okay, it is now down to 53kB of wikitext. Let me know if you still have trouble. —MichaelZ. 2009-02-02 20:50 z
Neutrality and factual accuracy issue
(I'm moving this to your talk page so it's not on both at the same time)
Dear Mosedschurte, I think, we can find a way out of the impasse by ourselves. You are really a good writer, and I think your contribution is really valuable. Many your edits raise no objections from me, and some of them I fully support. Therefore, in general, it would be incorrect to say that you are biased writer. Nevertheless, the Molotov-Ribbentrop and Nazi-Soviet collaboration issues are serious violations of WP neutrality and factual correctness policy, and we need to resolve them ASAP. Let's assume for the beginning that the root of the conflict is just simple mutual misunderstanding. Therefore, let me describe the problem how I see it. You assume that Gemano-Soviet contacts and secret negotiations took place in spring and summer 1939. That is exactly what the 'German school' states, and, nolens volens, you definitely are a proponent of this school. However, other points of view exist on that account, therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to state that these secret negotiations were a well established fact. Other scholars state the directly opposite, and they have a solid ground for such a conclusion. This ground is an "archival revolution", a massive release of previously classified archival documents after the USSR dissolution. For instance, Roberts states: "My own interpretation of the Soviet documents is well known: that Moscow neither responded to nor made any overtures to the Germans until the end of July 1939 at the earliest. The reason for this was that until summer 1939 Moscow was intent on a triple alliance with Britain and France. I have also described Soviet foreign policy in 1939 as passive, reactive, ad hoc, incompetent even." According to Carley, "Soviet deceitfulness—though Stalin was certainly proficient in it—appears no worse than that of France and Great Britain." Other scholars who support this point of view are Watson, Gorodetsky, Taylor. They definitely are not a fringe theorists and you cannot ignore their opinion. Similarly, the same problem exists with the Nazi-Soviet talks in 1940. Only German school insists that the alliance with Hitler was a major Stalin's strategic goal, and, in that sense, the articles you wrote are also extremely biased. The economic collaboration is also represented incorrectly. For some reason, you forget to say that the economic relation were effectivelly terminated in early 1930 when Hitler came to power (0.9% of total German import and 0.6% of total German export). By the way, did you asked yourself where other 99% came from? Frankly, you have not much sources to unequivocally support your (and the German school's) idea of close collaboration between Nazi and the USSR. That is why you systematically use the books of other authors who do not support this idea. However, to support the point you are pushing you have to misrepresent these sources. That is very sad. Brief examination of your talk page demonstrated that at least one other user (Stor stark7) shared my point of view on that account. Unfortunately, I repeated the above arguments many times and that had no effect, probably because I was unable to make myself clear enough. However, probably, the problem is not with me. You have to concede that you satisfy many criteria of disruptive editing and tendentious editing.
You repeatedly disregards my questions;
You repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits;
You repeatedly blamed me in the “vandalism”;
For some reason you refuse to assume my good faith;
In connection to that, I propose you to discuss again the possibility to resolve major neutrality and factual accuracy issues in some articles you wrote. I promise to be polite, correct and concrete. If this discussion appears fruitless I am intended put appropriate tags into the corresponding articles and then I will follow all steps described in the WP:DE and WP:IDHT pages. I will follow these steps accurately and patiently until I reach a desired result. Do not consider these words as a threat. I am always ready to return to a friendly collaboration. However, it wouldn't be honest not to inform you about the steps I plan to take. I strongly believe I will not need to do that, however. Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: "You assume that Gemano-Soviet contacts and secret negotiations took place in spring and summer 1939."
--I don't, and there seems to be perhaps a language barrier issue.
--Having read many books on the topic, what actually happened, in the most summary form, is that they were discussing a potential economic deal since 1938, with the obvious issue that they would provide Germany with the raw materials for war that it couldn't really get elsewhere. As the Soviets negotiated with France and Britain in the spring of 1939, they secretly TALKED (NOT NEGOTIATED with Germany) about the idea of doing a political deal, but were not close to doing so because of the political hostilities between the sides. It wasn't until July that Germany and the Soviets finally began negotiations of any sort about a potential political deal.
--The difference about which there seems to be a disconnect with you is that EVERY source states that they were secretly talking about negotiations early on, but not that negotiations had begun. The examples are numerous and listed from
Re: "you definitely are a proponent of this school"
Honestly, these attacks have got to stop. To be blunt, you making an NPOV claim about another editor is, well, pretty laughable, but I won't even go there.
I'm not even sure you realize how much this crosses the line of civility. I'm not taking any particular "school of thought" editing the articles. In fact, I generally tend to steer clear of any historians' statements or conclusions regarding topics in articles that I edit. Please stop the attacks.
Sidenote: I don't mean this as an attack, but on Talk pages, you seem to exhibit a pattern where you recite long block quotes from sources -- most of which not only have I read, but from which I regularly cite -- that aren't particularly on point (sometimes almost random blocks of text). This may be a language issue. For example, as we've discussed on Talk pages, you took single sentences of the intro paragraphs/abstract of both Watson and a Roberts paper, and expanded them into conclusions not only not supported by the articles themselves, but in complete contradiction to the articles.
There seems to be a pattern of general blunderbuss attacks using vague notions you generate from reading specific quotes in texts, and you then view any piece of text cutting against the vague notion you've generated as "incorrect" or in some other "school of thought" on the issue, when no conflict really exists.
Re: "Similarly, the same problem exists with the Nazi-Soviet talks in 1940. Only German school insists that the alliance with Hitler was a major Stalin's strategic goal"
Again, I have no idea of the point here, as nowhere on Wikipedia have I seen that Stalin considered an Axis Pact deal a necessary strategic goal. Everywhere that I've seen it raised, he considered it -- and clearly every source (except Falsifiers of History maybe) states that much.
Re: "The economic collaboration is also represented incorrectly. For some reason, you forget to say that the economic relation were effectivelly terminated in early 1930 when Hitler came to power (0.9% of total German import and 0.6% of total German export)."
First, Hitler didn't come to power until 1933 (and not effectively dominating until '34). Maybe you should read Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations#Mid-1930s_deterioration_of_relations, that has complete breakdown figures of the imports for those years, specifically discusses the deterioration of relations and massive drops in imports. Not in vague notions, but in terms of specific numbers. By the way, I added much of that article.
Re: "Frankly, you have not much sources to unequivocally support your (and the German school's) idea of close collaboration between Nazi and the USSR."
I don't have any idea of "close collaboration" between the countries. There are activities with which they coordinated, not a single one of which listed that I know of is particularly in historical dispute, and those are the only one mentioned. I can't even remember using the word "collaboration" with regard to their general activities.
You repeatedly disregards my questions - This is somewhat ridiculous. I answer a lot of your questions (unlike most people), but this isn't a deposition. No one has to answer every question.
You repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits - actually, no, in fact, I've highlighted them later in discussions.
Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw - this is patently untrue, and I generally even stay away from historians' conclusions in texts anyway.
You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people - Actually, to be honest, in most cases, I've given up attempting to persuade you. I haven't seen a single other person disagree on the issues of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Nazi-Soviet economic relations or related issues. In the Stalin article, there was a dispute with another editor repeatedly reverting all changes (not on the topic of World War II, but all of them), and an administrator weighed in stopped him, as I had suggested.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: "In connection to that, I propose you to discuss again the possibility to resolve major neutrality and factual accuracy issues in some articles you wrote."
That wasn't very specific.
Here's an alternative: comporting with Wikipedia rules on discussion, open a discussion on an Article's Talk Page if you think something is incorrectly cited or stated.
If you do that, I will of course discuss any particular issue in any article on any talk page.
Thank you. Probably your response is a first step out of an impasse. Before we continue productive collaboration, let me point out the following. I didn't attack you, I am just trying to characterise your writer's style. If you know Latin, you should understand that "nolens volens" means "willy-nilly". I am just telling you how you look like, once again it is not an attack. With regards to alleged "a language barrier issue", let me remind you that neutrality and factual accuracy is much more important than good style and correct grammar. I concede you fixed my poor grammar and style many times, however I did the same fith the facts and sources you provided. With regards to accuracy and bias, let me analyze, for example, one section of the Soviet–German relations before 1941 article you extensively edited recently. I appreciate your comments on my comments and, I think you don't mind to continue the discussion on the appropriate article's talk pages.
After Germany entered a Tripartite Pact with Japan and Italy, in October of 1940, Stalin wrote to Ribbentrop about entering an agreement regarding a "permanent basis" for their "mutual interests."[2] Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis and potentially enjoy the spoils of the pact.[3] Molotov insisted on interest in Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Greece,[4] though Stalin had earlier unsuccessfully personally lobbied Turkish leaders to not sign a mutual assistance pact with Britain and France.[5]
Ribbentrop asked Molotov to sign another secret protocol with the statement: "The focal point of the territorial aspirations of the Soviet Union would presumably be centered south of the territory of the Soviet Union in the direction of the Indian Ocean."[4] Molotov took the position that he could not take a "definite stand" on this without Stalin's agreement.[4] In response to a written German draft four powers agreement, Stalin presented a written counterproposal, including the Soviets joining the four power Axis if Germany foreclosed acting in the Soviet's sphere of influence.[6][7] Germany never responded the couterproposal.[8][9]
The section states that "Stalin wrote to Ribbentrop about entering an agreement regarding a "permanent basis" for their "mutual interests."". In actuality, the source (Roberts) states that it was Hitler who instructed Ribbentrop to wrote Stalin. Ribbentrop wrote Stalin and invited Molotov for negotiations. Stalin's letter was just a response on this invitation. Conclusion: direct misinterpretation of the source to create an impression that the initiative came from the Soviet leadership.
The section states: "though Stalin had earlier unsuccessfully personally lobbied Turkish leaders to not sign a mutual assistance pact with Britain and France." In reality Turkish-Soviet relation has only indirect relation to the subject. Conclusion: looks like an attempt to distract a reader form the major point, the Nazi-Soviet relations;
The section states: "Stalin presented a written counterproposal". The sources states that it was not a counter-proposal (Stalin's own project of a Nazi-Soviet treaty, or the Four Powers Pact), but just a memorandum that outlined the conditions for Soviet adherence for the pact . I am not a native English speaker, but I am able to feel the difference. In addition, according to one source, Donaldson&Nogee, Hitler considered this proposal as a blackmail. In other words, it is not clear from the source what real Stalin's intentions were. Conclusion: a hidden attempt has been made to overemphasise the Nazi-Soviet contacts. Final conclusion: every attempt is being made to overemphasise the interest of the USSR in the alliance with Hitler. The grammar and style are perfect, but neither neutrality nor factual accuracy criteria were met. I would be grateful if you demonstrated me that your intentions were different, and I was wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Correct on (1) and (2), and that paragraph was copied from another paragraph. All of the details are contained in German–Soviet Axis talks. I changed the Soviet-German relations article (which has a lot of other problems, as well), to reflect that Stalin was only responding to Ribbentrop and took out the Turkey, etc. clause.
On the Nov. 25th counterproposal, it was most definitely that. On Hitler thinking he was a blackmailer, try reading German–Soviet Axis talks, which again, contains details of what transpired. It contains the exact quotes of Hitler calling Stalin a blackmailer.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Good. Of course I read the sources and I know the Hitler's words you refer to. My point is that if Stalin requested concessions that caused so angry Hitler's reaction, that meant he was not necessarily serious in his attempts to join the Axis. One more comment, and after that we will continue on other talk pages. You are frequently making such errors (that fact is quite understandable taking into account the fantastic speed you are working with). However, you never do mistakes that present Stalin (or, broadly speaking, the Soviet Union) in more favourable light. That creates an impression of your extreme anti-Soviet bias. It is not an accusation, just an explanation my inadequate (to your opinion) reaction. As a result, I have to behave as a Stalin's advocate, although in actuality I am definitely not. Try to think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, but realize that some of the ones in these articles are as a result of me moving or copying text and cites that are originally not accurate, just to organize the article or add information that is lacking. Most of the time, it involves typos or other inaccuracies that don't particularly weigh for or against Stalin.
As an aside, many of your comments focus upon whether something is pro or anti-Stalin. It's not really something I think about, especially in the context of the pre-1945 Soviet foreign policy.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Not completely agree. I am not a Stalinist. To my opinion, Staling was a greatest disaster for Soviet people. However, sometimes I cannot agree with the emphases you do. Although you repeatedly claim you have no POV, you very frequently write as a biased writer. As a result, I have to conduct a discussion in a pro- and anti- vein. Probably, the most striking example is Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, it would be better to continue on the article's talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
^David M. Glantz (2002). The Battle for Leningrad: 1941-1944. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
^Roberts 2006, p. 58 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRoberts2006 (help)
^Brackman, Roman, The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, London and Portland, Frank Cass Publishers, 2001, ISBN0714650501, page 341
^ abcBrackman, Roman, The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, London and Portland, Frank Cass Publishers, 2001, ISBN0714650501, page 343
^Donaldson, Robert H. and Joseph L. Nogee, The Foreign Policy of Russia: Changing Systems, Enduring Interests, M.E. Sharpe, 2005, ISBN0765615681, pages 65-66
Hello, Paul. I do not have a grasp of the professional historians discussion on the number of people actually taken into GULAG. Zemskov's data are that there were about 4 million prisoners overall, from 1920s to 1950s.
Perhaps these numbers are disputed or discussed by other professional historians.
But the situation when Zemskov's data aren't shown at the Wiki Gulag page is IMHO abnormal situation.
Zemskov's data are shown (Ref 6, in the Gulag article). The graph "Gulag prisoner population statistics from 1934 to 1953" is based on Zemskov's numbers. No serious historian dispute his data. Conquest (in the footnote 5, ibid), and even Anne Appelbaum (ref 2, ibid) use Zemskov's data, although Appelbaum does it incorrectly (see the article's talk page). Zemskov never stated that there were about 4 million prisoners, btw.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. GULAG was a prison system that involved a number of 'true' criminals, as well. But Zemskov wrote that "actually the number of people convicted for political reasons (for 'counter-revolution crimes') in USSR from 1921 to 1953, i.e. in 33 years, was about 3.8 million people" ("в действительности число осужденных по политическим мотивам (за "контрреволюционные преступления") в СССР за период с 1921 г. по 1953 г., т.е. за 33 года, составляло около 3,8 млн. человек.") GULAG: (historically sociological aspect). I meant these data that aren't explicitly shown, as far as I can see. ellol (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This it too complex a question. Some de facto political prisoner were treated as criminals. On the other hand, some ordinary criminals were convicted as political ones. Therefore, the actual number of political prisoners is hard to establish...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess, political prisoners were simply those convicted by the article 58? I remember, that, Solzhenitsyn wrote about clear distinction between political and not political prisoners. ellol (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Политические аресты нескольких десятилетий отличались у нас именно тем, что схватывались люди ни в чём не виновные"
About article 58: "Парадоксально: всей многолетней деятельности всепроникающих и вечно бодрствующих Органов дала силу всего навсего ОДНА статья из ста сорока восьми статей не-общего раздела Уголовного Кодекса 1926 года."
Etc. Solzhenitsyn constantly refers to "political" and "criminal" prisoners, positioning one group against the other. ellol (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You are probably right. Although the number of 14 million passed through GULAG (with the average number of prisoners in between 1 and 2 million) is impressive, in actuality this number is surprisingly low. The population of the USSR was about 150 million during that time. In the present day's USA (~300 million) the prisoner population is about 2 to 3 million. In other words, it is normal for such a large country to have about 1-2 million prisoners convicted for ordinary crimes. Therefore, not the number of 14 million matter, but the brutality of the camp system, as well as those 4 millions "political" prisoners who committed no crime. I think, it makes sense to reflect that fact in the article. Let's discuss that on the article's talk page--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Paul and Ellol, don't forget to consider that the prisoner population in the United States may be abnormally high for a country of its size. — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Many of the ideas you mention are correct to my mind. This article won't go away. No doubt it will be pushed in this direction or that. Most of those discussing it seem to have much the same constructive ideas. I am quite surprised, actually. The message of the Holocaust Center etc. must be getting through. Wallie (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Most editors working on this article are very constructive, friendly and polite, so I have no doubts that it is quite possible to improve the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Re your:
"Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah :::(Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term used to describe the program of complete eradication of European Jewry planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler during World War II. In its broadest sense, the terms is used to describe the deliberately planned Nazi genocide of various European ethnic and social groups: approximately six million Jews, and nine to eleven million others, including ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, the disabled, homosexual men and political and religious opponents."
I think this is really great and states the two viewpoints in a way both sets of people should be happy with. Would you be able to now put it in the article? I would definitely support it all the way. Wallie (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Debates about the Holocaust are not new. In my 1969 Sociology professor Frankel compared the bombing of Vietnam to the Atomic attacks on Japan and Auschwitz. His argument was that the US bombing of Japan and Vietnam was racially motivated as was the killing of Jews at Auschwitz . A student Stefan Karl who was born in Germany remarked” what about the bombing of Germany, was that also wrong” Not so said Prof Frankel because it was necessary to stop the killing of Jews at Auschwitz. Then an older woman from Taiwan Miss Liu remarked “ was it not also right to bomb Japan in order to stop the killing of the Chinese “ Not so said Frankel because the Japanese were not attempting genocide in China. Miss Liu became very upset and told the class of the Nanking Massacre. Frankel cut her off, "Miss Liu you are disrupting our class, we have to move on". --Woogie10w (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Back in the 1970's most Americans would not recognize the name of Eli Wiesel. The term Holocaust was only used by the general public after the 1978 TV series. I was in Germany in 1978 when it ran in the US, the Germans made jokes about it!! --Woogie10w (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course the word holocaust existed long before the 70s. The discussion is about its use to refer specifically to Nazi systemetized murders, particularly of Jews. That 'Shoah' was sporadically translated as 'holocaust' from the 50s is not in doubt. However it was not until the 70s that the primary meaning of the word came to refer to Nazi death camps. Before that the dominant meaning was nuclear war. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me some advice. Someone sent me this page. [13] Can you tell me who puts out "the Holocaust Historiography Project". I asked the sender, but got no response. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Holocaust Historiography Project" seems to be a private web site where some research has been presented that didn't pass the peer-reviewing procedure. Formally speaking, it cannot be considered a reliable source, regardless of who concretely owns, develops and supports this site. However, de facto the site seems to be very nice and many sources it cites satisfy the reliable source criteria. To my opinion, the information from the secondary sources the site cites can be used in the Holocaust article (obviously, the article should cite these sources, not the "Holocaust Historiography Project", and all facts must be carefully checked). In addition, if you want to use this site in the article, I can try to provide a reliable sources that support one or another claims the site contains. Just let me know. Regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Paul. I just wasn't sure about this site, but from what you say, it seems well intentioned, which is the main thing. Naturally, all facts need to be carefully checked, as you say. Wallie (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't believe someone hasn't given you one of these yet.....
Civility Award
For remaining calm and collected (and showing me it's possible to remain calm and collected) in the face of months of obstructionism and obscurantism at Eastern Bloc. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Paul Siebert. Could you please explain this [14]? Hitler's alliance with Stalin started the war, and the two aggressors - Nazi and Soviet, closely cooperated between 1939 and 1941. This has to be mentioned in the article, at least in partial form. Tymek (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tymek, please familiarise yourself with the Estonia in World War II talk page: the question you ask has been dissected in details there. Briefly, the statement "Hitler's alliance with Stalin started the war" is incorrect for following reasons: (i) there were no alliances between Germany and the USSR, just a non-aggression treaty; (ii) there were neither cooperation nor even coordination between Germany and the USSR during the most crucial period of the invasion; (iii) the decision to attack Poland was made by Hitler even before MRP was signed; (iv) WWII started with declaration of war on Germany by the UK (with domonions) and France; the USSR didn't declare a war on anybody and nobody declared a war on the USSR in Sept 1939. The (iv) serves an additional argument agains inclusion of Soviet invasion into the Chronology section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Did Germany declare war on Poland on Sept 1, 1939? Did Germany declare war on the Soviets? Did Japan declare war on the USA? Besides, a non-aggression treaty, together with a secret protocol, which divided Eastern Europe between the two aggressors, makes an alliance, don't you think so? Tymek (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they did, although post factum. And, definitely, the UK and France did declare war on Germany after the latter attacked Poland. However, no country (including Poland herself) declared war on the USSR after September 17. That is why your edit is irrelevant to the "Chronology" section: Soviet invasion of Poland had no relation to the outbreak of WWII. With regards to the "War breaks out" section, the fact that the USSR invaded Poland is already there. With regards to alliance, please, familiarise yourself with definition of alliance and non-aggression treaty.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleting vandalism to your talk page
Paul--I deleted this edit [15] to your talk page as it seems to be a case of vandalism (the same anonymous IP also vandalised my talk page). Regards.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the revised version, [16], it has a lot of data on WW one that did not appear in the earlier edition. I assume you can read Russian Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This book is critical of Krivosheev, it can be obtained in the US Library Congress Liudskie poteri v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine 1941- 1945 gg: Statisticheskoe issledovanieby S. N Mikhalev.
Krivosheev's math is fuzzy, his total war dead do not reconcil to the balance of men conscripted, discharged in the war and the number on duty in 1945. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the reference for Krivosheev, I used the English translation in print rather than the Russian original. I remember when the Russian edition came out in 1994, I spent hours with it and improved my Russian reading skills. Also there may be a copyright issue with that translation made for internal US government consumption. You may want to run that by the Wikipedia copyright experts.
--Woogie10w (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Paul, I like what you have done. StevenWT (talk)
Re: A question
Hey, I am really not competent enough to verify the document but I have just forwarded the question to a friend of mine who is a professional historian, specialising on the beginning of the Soviet occupation of Estonia. I expect to get an answer in a few days. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939
Hi! Seems you have very good access to sources, so it would be useful and interesting if you do find any deep analyse of the Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939. I have not noticed full story how the speech was found again, and its authenticity. The Finnish historian Ohto Manninen mentioned the incident shortly in his book, but there is a small conflict: Was it first published by the "Swiss journal Revue de Droit International" or by the "French newsagency Haves"? And second question: who was this "Bushuyeva"? Why did she find only French translation? Peltimikko (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Last warning: If you threaten me or another editor again, or accuse any other editor of being a "Nazi POV pusher", I will take steps from the admin to have you permanently banned
Accusing another editor of something as vile as being a"Nazi POV pusher", not just once but twice, is so beyond the pale and in violation of WP:Civil and other Wikipedia policies that I'm not even sure what to say. It gets no lower than that. That is it. We are done. After months of threats and outrageous statements, you even one-upped yourself with that one.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I will recover Spanish Blue Division and the Belarussian Central Rada as belligerents in Eastern Front.
1st. The original edit did not say "Spain" but rather "Spanish Blue Division" participated in the Eastern Front, surely everyone understands Spain was officially neutral.
2nd. Belarussian Central Rada was surely a puppet regime of the Axis, but no ban says that a puppet regime should not be listed as belligerent(for example, Yugoslav Front and Chinese Front of WW2 both list a number of Axis puppet regimes as belligerents).
You are much too arrogant to be a reference checker
I have added Spanish Blue Division as a belligerent of the Eastern Front of WW2.
The German OKW documents listed the Blue Division as a German-allied division(the rise of the third reich,page 911), See discussion page for more details. -- It was the German High Command, rather than OKW, I did not remember it right, now I correct it.
Newly added:
You are not a convincing and respectful reference checker. I have clearly clarified the reference book, the page, the paragraph and the sentence(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, page 911, paragraph 3, line 2-line 6, ISBN0-09-942176-3, only the ISBN was given later). You pretended not to see it and said "I found no sources supporting these claims so far". As a reference checker, your arrogance is unbelievable and unbearable.
You may be interested in reading and/or submitting evidence to this arbcom case. Evidence may be submitted here, but if you do submit evidence, you must do so before the 25th (less than 48 hours). Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul, thanks for responding on the arbcom page. You may want to reconsider your position and think about submitting evidence. Are you aware that the arbcom is examining the mailing list, and that you are the subject of at least 13 e-mails in that set? Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am unaware of any details of this story, and, frankly, have no desire to. I am not surprised with the fact that I was discussed by someone from that group, because, as far as I understand, my edits break the picture they tried to create. However, I cannot present any example when I was under collective attack organized by this group. I cannot tell for sure such attacks never took place. My point is that I didn't notice any serious attacks.
One more point. I know some examples when some Eastern European mailing list's members acted as each other's meatpuppets, or as usual tag team. However, I also know examples of opposite behaviour, when they were absolutely correct and perfectly honest. If I will present some evidence to arbcom, I will present both.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
By all means, please do. I wouldn't expect anything less. However, I suggest you review their e-mails about you first. I recall that all 13 e-mails are conveniently titled "Paul Siebert". However, I must inform you of some disappointing news. I am mentioned in at least 14 e-mails. So, I'm one up on you. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not a member of arbcom, nor am I an administrator. I have no authority whatsoever on Wikipedia. As for the e-mails, they are easy to access, as somebody released them in several repositories on the internet. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, since I believe that the major bad thing Eastern European mailing list's member committed was a violation of moral rules, I don't think we can use immoral means against them. I believe reading someone's private e-mails is deeply immoral, and I think I have a right to do that only if I personally was under attack organized by this groop. In actuality, these guys didn't (or couldn't) do any appreciable harm to me, therefore I would like to refrain from reading their e-mails.
With regards to evidences, frankly, I don't want these editors to be completely banned. Their ban will result in a loss of balance in many articles, and WP will not benefit from that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The analogy with the Ostrich is hardly relevant here. I would be really insulted if there were no strong opinions on my account in the European mailing list e-mails. The fact that some of them went ballistic after reading some my edits is quite normal, and it is quite natural for them to discuss my edits using strong words. However, all of that is their private business provided that they limit themselves with private exchange with private opinions, and provided that they refrain from any coordinated actions that might cause my ban or something like that. Since I was not a victim of such actions, I have no rights to interfere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. That doesn't mean that I refuse to help to anybody attacked by this group. I am ready to provide all possible help, however, in that concrete case I don't see how my interference can be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Provided they refrain from any coordinated actions that might cause my ban or something like that. So you are speaking from ignorance, then. You haven't read the messages, but hope for the best, is that it? Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't hope for the best, I simply don't consider them serious opponents. I admit they possibly tried to engineer something against me, however, I simply didn't notice anything. Of course, sometimes they were able to force me to change my edits, however, that took place because their arguments were stronger than mine.
I see no crime when someone writes to his friends to join a discussion and to bring new arguments, facts or sources. The only violation I cannot and will not tolerate is the attempt of someone to openly propose to wait for neutral third opinion and simultaneously to privately ask his friends to join a discussion as an allegedly neutral third party. Do you imply they did that? One way or the another, if you found the evidence of that, the arbcom will find too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I though PētersV was the only member of the list's group who participated in the discussion. Do you imply that Yachtsman1 or Mosedschurte are the members of the Eastern European list too?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I expected that. Mosedschurte is a serious opponent, and I fully understand his decision not to align with the list's group. With regards to Biophys, and others, am I right if I propose that the less strong some editor is the more actively he resorted to off-wiki communications? In connection to that, let me guess: Biophys or Radekz were among of the most active participants whereas e.g. Marting did that much less frequently? Correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You didn't read the link to the evidence. Biophys says he sent e-mail back and forth with Mosedschurte and that Mosedschurte requested help dealing with me. That's according to Biophys, of course, so who knows if it is even true. I don't know about the rest. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
(od)Firstly, if my memory does not deceive me, Mosedschurte asked some list's members to help dealing with me, but he did that infrequently and, more important, using on-wiki means. Therefore, I don't think off-wiki contacts between Mosedschurte and the list's members were extensive. Secondly, I noticed that Biophys has already brought his apologies for his behaviour, and you accepted them. Therefore, it seems to be incorrect to continue presenting more evidences against him after that. Moreover, he is not among your most serious opponents, I would say he is not a serious opponent at all, and by trying to destroy him you do not make your own position better. Just forgive and forget. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul, I'm not sure what is occurring in this discussion, but every time I raise an issue, you avoid it and begin talking about something that either hasn't occurred or isn't part of this topic. I'm afraid this will be my last comment here. To reply directly to your comment above, after Biophys replied, I did not continue presenting evidence against him, but rather questioned him about the content of the list material and its purpose. I have not tried to "destroy" him or any other editor, so I take offense at your statement. In fact, I archived the discussion and he returned the next day to continue discussing it. I have archived it again without reply. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Paul. I appreciate that. There is nothing you do not know in these emails. You have/had content disputes with Mosedschurte and he said nothing beyond that. A couple of the group members had concerns if Paul Siebert was your real name. I said that you probably has a nick, just like most people here, and I think you are Russian native speaker based on your excellent language skills. I certainly have no idea who you are in real life, and I suggested them to leave you alone.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Viriditas. Let me explain what, in my opinion, is occurring in this discussion (and, please, correct me if I am wrong). You are trying to convince me to present evidences against the members of the EE mailnig list group. Your major arguments is that I has been being discussed by them privately and they organized some actions against me using off-wiki means. I fully understand your point, however, I don't think I can join the anti-EE mail list campaign for very simple reason: I cannot provide any serious examples of their successful coordinated actions against me. Of course, by reading their private e-mails I would probably be able to put forward some accusations against them, however, I see no reason to do that because all this information is already available for ArbCom and I believe they are quite able to do necessary conclusions by themselves. Moreover, I believe the campaign based on stolen e-mails (if performed by non-ArbCom members) may have an opposite effect on the ArbCom's decision.
In general, I believe that immoral actions as a rule are unpractical (although the reverse is not true). Therefore, although I agree that WP would benefit if some restrictions had been imposed on some list's members, I don't think your actions help to achieve such an outcome. Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. Pyotr Chaadaev noted that "Socialism will prevail not because it is right, but because its opponents are wrong". I am afraid that the activity of some anti-EE list members may force ArbCom to make a decision favorable for EE mail group.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Biophys. Frankly, I regarded some members of EE mail list as honest and neutral editors. Now my opinion has changed. I believed that that even on-wiki coordination of my activity with friendly editors should be avoided, and is acceptable only in extraordinary cases. My contribution list [17] testifies that when I needed in a third opinion I usually addressed to editors having the opposite point of view. I did that assuming that my opponents were honest. You guys disappointed me.
With regards to origin of my nick name, I cannot believe it was just an idle curiosity. Obviously, you guys cannot do nothing with me because I use only absolutely reliable and neutral sources and try to avoid any bias in my edits. Therefore, it is natural to expect that some of list's members tried to establish my nationality in futile attempts to use that fact against me. You asked me about that on my talk page (I understand now that you didn't explain me real reasons of your question), you probably even tried to make some conclusion based on grammatical errors I make: for instance, since I experience some problem with articles, you probably were able to conclude that there is no articles in my mother tongue. However, as far as I use reliable sources and remain neutral, the origin of my nick name, my mother tongue and my nationality is my private business.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I always thought your native language was German because the mistakes I saw made sense when put in German. In any case, I'm thinking the same thing about the "anti-EE members" - their effort to undermine their own credibility, even as they have what looks like pretty much damning evidence, is astonishing. Also kudos to your sense of restraint - I, for one, was unable to suppress my curiosity and acquired the archive at the first opportunity. --Illythr (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's ironic that the actions of the EE group eventually had the effect directly opposite to what they expected to get. In my opinion, that is true that EE point of view is probably somewhat underrepresented in Western scholarly sources. Obviously, some EE editors united to compensate what they saw as a bias, however, by using dishonest means they discredited the idea they fought for. It was the major EE-group's crime, in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I said I wasn't going to return here, but you both seem to have addressed the topic I was asking about after I left, so perhaps you can help me understand. Who are the "anti-EE members", and what are the "EE editors". You both mistakenly assume that outside participants are aware of this internecine war and have as much insight into it as you both share. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As the evidence page shows, many editors outside of this conflict were affected by this group. So, Illythr and Paul, if the two of you refuse to participate by introducing evidence to help the arbcom understand this case (as I originally requested), then please explain here, in general terms, who this group is, what they are fighting about on Wikipedia, and what the list was used for. I asked Biophys this question and he refused to respond. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is simply a way for us to discern the involved parties. "EE list members" are the members of the Eastern European mailing list, whose offwiki actions and their effects on their onwiki activity are to be evaluated in the ongoing Arbcom case. As Paul notes, they have severely compromised the point of view they defend by engaging in these activities (incidentally, I disagree with Paul in that their views are underrepresented in Western sources - I think that these views are actually dominant there). "Anti-EE list members" are their opponents (mainly those, who were discussed in the list correspondence in a... negative manner). These opponents seem intent on undermining their own position in that, instead of focusing on coolly disseminating and presenting what already looks like damning evidence, they keep bringing out old grievances and writing vengeful posts (I mean, really, what is this entire section supposed to be about?) thus creating an impression that the entire Arbcom case is a mere formality before the mass executions can begin. Just because of this, I suspect, the Arbs might make a decision that is more favorable for the EE mail list group than it otherwise would have been. --Illythr (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
My question remains unanswered. I'll ask again: what are the beliefs held by the members of the EE mailing list, what kind of POV do they defend on Wikipedia, and who are their opponents? There is some talk of this mailing list being used and directed by others in a proxy war, therefore the answers to these questions are of the highest priority. I am unclear why the two of you are reticent to shed light on this topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
As I am not a member, how can I speak for their beliefs? I guess they believe themselves to be the good guys - don't we all? As for why we won't join the investigation - Paul has already explained his motives here. As for me - I cannot provide any serious examples of their successful coordinated actions against me - even after reading the list. There are numerous cases where I have opposed some of the list members and other members have appeared to step in for my original opponents. I have even come to expect such behavior in the contentious articles I edited (or tried to edit). However, this all seemed to be merely like-minded editors acting in unison - not that I liked it, but nothing criminal there. My perusal of the list confirmed that I had largely passed "under the radar" of said group (mainly due to avoiding the more controversial articles), thus I have nothing to add to the (already quite voluminous) evidence. --Illythr (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some kind of language barrier which might explain why I am unable to get a direct answer from the two of you - two editors who know more about this list than most. Let me clarify. What do you personally see as their motives? What was this mailing list being used for, in your opinion? Please be specific, and brief examples might help as well. I am not talking about arbcom here, but rather trying to understand the purpose of this mailing list from the perspective of someone who knows more about the topic than I do. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The contents of the mailing list is currently available from several public sources on the Internet. If you are eager to find an answer to your questions, but are not satisfied with the evidence and opinions presented on the Arbcom case page, nobody can stop you from downloading and examining it yourself. Now, a specific answer to both questions: Beyond what was already said here, I would like to leave my personal opinion about this group's actions to myself and let the Arbcom do their job. Please refer to the Evidence section of the case, or the list itself, if you so desire. I have nothing to add to it. --Illythr (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it beyond curious that neither you nor Paul are able to tell me what this mailing list was trying to achieve in as much as one word, even though you interacted with its members on a daily basis and were aware of coordinated editing. Instead, you both chose to remain silent all this time, and continue to remain silent. Very curious, indeed. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the last time, so I'll make it more explicit: If you think I'm the kind of person that would jump at this (admittedly excellent) opportunity and take my petty revenge for every past grievance I had with these guys in the past, you are mistaken. In fact, your obvious baiting has briefly made me want to go and defend them before Arbcom, despite irreconcilable POV and, apparently, ethical differences I have with them. That is quite an accomplishment on your part, I must admit. --Illythr (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Illythr, please be a man of your word, and follow through with your threat to defend the EE mailing list group before arbcom. BTW, you are entirely misinformed about what occurred at Vecrumba's talk page, and I would be more than happy to be given the opportunity to correct you. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Heheh, the effect was rather brief, so don't hold your breath - there's more than enough fecal missiles hitting the rotating blades over there for me to add some of my own. As for the... "Vecrumba incident" - you're welcome to do so on my talk page, if you wish. Frankly, it looked like a prosecutor looking a suspect in the eye saying "Confess, you scum! Confess and repent - it will make you suffer less... in the afterlife." As for your little jab at me below - I do my thinking for myself. I also prefer to keep it to myself - if I can help it. --Illythr (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
(od)Below is my personal opinion that may be right or wrong. One way or the another, by writing the below text I had not intentions to insult anybody. The personal motives of the EE mail list group seem to be obvious. Majority of them live or have strong personal ties with Eastern European countries (becides Russia), all of them are nationalists, majority of them are anti-Communists and some of them are Russophobs. In addition, since many of them live in countries that were victims of two totalitarian regimes in XX century, and, most importantly, forgotten victims, they look at world history through the prism of their nations' sufferings, and are unable to see broader perspective. As an example, I can mention the discussion on the Estonia in World War II talk page [18]: I found evidences that, contraty to common beliefs, Estonia was not only a victim during 1930s, but, for a short time it became an active player whose behaviour (frankly, stupid, but not more stupid than behaviour of French, British, Soviets and other key players) contributed into WWII outbreak. I propose to include that into the article, but, interestingly, the EE editors simply didn't understand my point!! Thus, the first key trait of EE editors is that they consider their countries as passive victims Secondly, they think their countries were forgotten victims, betrayed by Western powers in 1945, and forgotten by western historians in 1950s - 1990s. Thirdly, they project it on themselves: a small group of Baltic and Polish editors surrounded by neutrally-condescending Western wikipedians and aggresive Russians. As a result, their decision to unite was quite understandable, the only problem was that they went too far. Frankly, since I didn't read their e-mails, I cannot tell how far... And, lastly, since their countries were either parts of the USSR or within its sphere of influence, all these editors are anti-Communist and anti-Soviet. I see no problem with that, provided that it doesn't go against common sense. However, as a rule it goes: for instance, some of them see no difference between neo-nazism and neo-Marxsism[19], or try to equate Nazism and Communism. What else can I tell? Many of them are severely affected by local propaganda, but are unfamiliar with basic works of western historians. As a result, they try to fix WP text based on their beliefs, without reading the sources (see[20] and[21] for explanation). The most recent striking example can be found there:[22](to understand what the dispute was about, look at my post in the middle of the section:[23]). I do not collect all mistakes or misinterpretations they make, because I have no appreciable difficulties dealing with them, so I never plan to go to ANI or to do something like that. I just tell what I remember. I think this essay becomes too long, so let me finish. I am ready to answer your other questions. I see nothing incorrect or insulting in such essays because, if the persons I am writing about read my talk page (and I believe they do), they, probably will look at themselves inder different angle and that may lead to avoid unneeded edit wars or shameful quarrels. One more point. I will object against using of this materials against EE group: they have already been punished enough. Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Paul, for trying to answer my question. I have no plans to use this information against anyone. I'm simply trying to find out what this is all about. And, I do not leave my thinking to arbcom or any other organization. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Eh. As far as I remember, some of us just said that some of your edits were irritating, some people wondered whether Paul Siebert was your real name (given the Soviet spy) and some of us noted that you always use reliable sources (which you do, just a bit selectively). That's about it. And in fact out of the hundred of edits you make, I only found a few problematic - it'd be strange if there were none. Hell, I think at one point we even thought about inviting you to the group (though I think this was later). Thank you for showing some class here.radek (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Re: selectivity, I can tell absolutely honestly: I try to read everything I can found in the databases available for me. I try to take all sources into account, the only example where I was wrong (and, btw, no one of you guys fixed it so far) was my claim that Raack's articles cannot serve as a support for Suvorov's "theories". After reading his articles again I realized that he in actuality does support Suvorov. I plan to fix this error in close future. In general, I look pro-Soviet and pro-Communist mostly because I see much more anti-Soviet and anti-Communist bullshit on WP pages than pro-Soviet one, so I simply try to compensate for this bias. Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I look pro-Soviet and pro-Communist mostly because I see much more anti-Soviet and anti-Communist bullshit on WP pages than pro-Soviet one - I think this depends on the specific sub-area. There probably are some articles which go overboard on the anti-Communism (particularly those which are related to non-Bolshevik strains of Communism or Communist parties in the West, Latin America and Asia). I don't think this is true for Eastern European topics though (and this is also the sub-area where a healthy dose of anti-Sovietism and anti-Communism is warranted in the interests of NPOV - since it reflects historical reality, and, more importantly for Wikipedia, is reflected in reliable sources).radek (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, Viriditas, it seems there's no end to your fishing expeditions. I don't necessarily agree with Paul, he puts more stock in official Soviet accounts (that would be reports of meetings, et al. as opposed to fabrications of history) than I do, but that's understandable given backgrounds. I am always glad to debate Paul on the merits of sources and on their fair representation. If editors stuck to real sources we'd be able discuss articles in good faith, even heated (in the positive sense of fully engaged), debate. Whatever you think you're looking for here, you won't find it. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Paul, on the above, I was just stating you're not anyone's adversary (as in, someone who needs opposing because they further their editorial position through bad faith). Apologies I didn't see/jump in sooner. Shortbread or oatmeal-raisin if you have them. :-) VЄСRUМВА ♪ 13:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Radek. Glad to see that the discussion has drifted to something interesting. With regards to my alleged anti-Communism, let me reproduce one aphorism. I don't remember who said that, and I am even not sure if I reproduce it correctly, but the main idea was that "Fascist is the man who sees no nuances and prefers simple solutions". Obviously, I have neither desire to offend anybody nor to draw any parallelisms, I just would like to point out that unneeded generalisations and refusal to see details are very dangerous. I don't want to start any long discussion now (although I will be glad to do it in future), let me just remind you one example (your clash with PasswordUsername and me in the Soviet war crimes article) when excessive dose of anti-Communism worked against NPOV, and, more importantly for Wikipedia, directly contradicted with what reliable sources said. Again, by writing that I don't want to renew old disputes, I just give an example both you and I are familiar with. Cheers
Thanks. I... uh... don't like sweets. But thank you. Yes, generalizations are dangerous. Yet, sometimes they very much apply.
On the Soviet war crimes article - I admit that I misunderstood your point and what the source said. Perhaps just because of the bad faith prevalent at the time I jumped to conclusions and then I was unwilling to back down. My basic reaction was "people are trying to whitewash Bolshevik crimes again even when sources say so!" - which was inaccurate but based on a good chunk of truth; Budenny's columns really were responsible for pogroms and I assumed that an effort was being made to hide that fact. But you were right on the specific break down of pogroms of Reds vs. Whites. Had the Wikipedia functioned the way it's supposed to (good faith, etc.) this probably would've been a small matter to clear up (put the responsibility on Whites for most of the pogroms but not neglect to mention Budenny's crimes as well). Please note that I did more or less concede the point by writing "Looking at it again, I can see how the text in the source can be interpreted differently. Probably need more sources here."radek (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I remember that. Again I didn't want to renew that dispute or to re-accuse you in anything. I showed that just as an example. With regards to Budennyi, I provided exact numbers of pogroms' victims, and it is clear from these numbers that the Red Army did commit pogroms, although they killed only ~700 Jews. Re: "Reds vs. Whites", you understand it incorrectly: it was a big surprise for me to learn that the Whites also committed not many pogroms. The detailed table (unfortunately I cannot copypast it here, because it is not in electronic form, although can re-type it de novo if you are really interested to see it) states that majority pogroms were perpetrated by Ukrainians: the pogroms went in the following order: Hrygoriiv's bands > Ukrainian nationalists (Directoria) >> Whites > Reds > Poles Ukrainian nationalists (Directoria) > Whites > Hrygoriiv's bands > Miscellaneous bands > Reds > Poles.. But, more importantly, the Reds was the only Civil war's party that made systematic and sustained efforts to suppress anti-Semitism and to punish pogromists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So what's your take on Makhno? Didn't the Bolsheviks also accuse him of carrying out pogroms? From what I understand he spent all his years in exile trying to deny it. But pretty much everything you read on the guy is either adoring hagiography or based on Bolshevik propaganda.radek (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The other problem here is the usual lumping of various anti-Bolshevik factions into a single category "the Whites". The Czech Legion is generally considered a White force, and some works even put the SRs into the camp. Obviously these guys weren't the same as Denikin - even Wrangel wasn't the same as Denikin. So a more specific presentation (i.e. pogroms perpetrated by Denikin's forces vs. other White units) would probably better represent the situation.radek (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for the error: I incorrectly reproduced the relative amount of pogroms' victims. Below is the table 2 from the Abramson's article ("Murders during recorded anti-Jewish attacks, 1918-1920):
Perpetrator
Number of pogroms or excesses
Number murdered
Murder in each pogrom
Hryhoriiv's bands
52
3,471
67
Directory
493
16,706
34
White army
213
5,235
25
Miscellaneous bands
307
4,615
15
Red Army
106
725
7
Others
33
185
6
Polish army
32
134
4
Total
1,236
31,071
25
The table doesn't tell about Makhno explicitly, probably he was among "Miscellaneous".
Re: "Didn't the Bolsheviks also accuse him" AFAIK, they accused all their opponents in pogroms, however, your question is irrelevant, because both you and I agreed to avoid useing Soviet sources when it is possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh I know, I wasn't proposing using Soviet sources in Makhno article or anything - I was just wondering what your own personal opinion of the matter was. You know, original research.radek (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
My personal opinion is as follows. Since anti-Semitism was common in Russian empire (as well as in the rest of Europe), then all Civil war parties were willing and able to pogrom Jews. The scale of pogroms depended on three factors: willingless and ability of the leaders to suppress pogromost tendencies, concentration of Jews in certain region, and duration of hostilities. Since no parties, besides the Reds, tried to punish pogromists, only a second and third factors determined a pogrom's scale as a rule. Jews lived mostly in western part of Ukraine and Kresy, whereas Makhno fought mostly in South-Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia. He simply had not enough Jews for pogroms.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Full disclosure
Paul, I'm not using your comments against the group, but I thought they were important enough to share with someone who may or may not share your views. I've asked User:BirgitteSB to take a look because she is interested in this topic.[24] Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Paul. While I understand your moral qualms and desire to avoid Arbcom proceedings, I worry that you do a disservice to Wikipedia to leave those proceedings in the hands of those whose approach it with glee. I am disheartened by the situation. But refusing to take the opportunity to learn everything we can from it serves no one. As much as I sympathize with the preference to remain above some of these things, leaving them instead in the hands of the partisan, the ill-informed, and the incompetent is moral question in it's own right. I am too far behind to be able to identify what is important and relevant in the this topic area and pull together any really useful evidence. I hope Arbcom will prove worthy of your faith, but I can't help remembering that is made up people who got suckered into dealing with Arbcom cases non-stop (without compensation!) ;)--BirgitteSB00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Birgitte, Please, don't exaggerate a moral component of my decision to abstain from participation in Arbcom proceedings. I simply think I have nothing concrete to tell. Peoples are expected to leave evidences on the Arbcom page, but I have no serious evidences (both pro and contra), and I don't see how my general thoughts might be useful for Arbcom members who, I believe, have much more information than I do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the evidence most lacking is how the opaque coordination generally affected (or not) the editing in this topic area compared to similar topic areas. This is something only someone familiar with these articles could offer. Besides that I don't think it such a matter of concrete evidence. But I also had hoped the participation of those who were editing these article yet associated with either extreme might help with rejecting the Battlefield mentality. When there are only sides speaking out it against one another it is hard to convince them that there really is a third way. That is all rather naive though. Stay out of it; I've forgotten now why I even stuck my fork in there. It's just hopeless aggravation.--BirgitteSB04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Birgitte, I admit I am not familiar with details of arbitration procedure, so my assertions on that account may be incorrect. If you believe the information on "how the opaque coordination generally affected (or not) the editing in this topic area compared to similar topic areas" may be helpful, I can try to provide such information. Do you think the statement like: "Editors A, B and C worked on the articles XXX, YYY, ZZZ, and some visible coordination took place between them. However, the level of coordination didn't exceed the coordination between editors sharing the same POV and whatchlisting the same pages. I saw no appreciable attempt to organize staged RFCs or something of that type." would be helpful? In addition, I would like to avoid presenting evidences against editors who already brought their apologies for their behaviour. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I am less interested than comparisons between coordination between with the list vs watchlist coordination than opaque coordination (list or watchlist) vs transparent collaboration. I am just wondering what effects on articles (if any) can be seen. I know these tactics frustrate editors and hold back the articles by attrition. And the "other side" are all parties too. I am not suggesting you only present evidence against EE list members. Or even that it really be focused on individual editors. What has the existence of a Battleground done to articles in this topic area, is really what I want to know. While EE editors have apologized for some personal offenses, I believe that none of them have shown understanding that they harmed Wikipedia. I am probably wrong about none, but I can't recall this. I can't say that I have even paid much attention to this at the individual editor level. Except to be honest I feel a bit differently about the admin. Mostly I want support for the argument that the whole Battleground approach is inferior. Evidence that shows damage done by all parties for what it is would help because the focus on the revelations from the list while ignoring the other half the battleground reinforces their feelings of persecution. Right now each side exaggerates the damage done by the other and then there is extra evidence against EE from the list. If we don't convince them that we have a point about condemning this sort of behavior; I don't know that anything Arbcom can do will make an impact. Arbcom isn't good at convincing. If you think you have a chance of convincing them, I think it would be helpful.--BirgitteSB07:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul, you apparently misunderstood my previous comment. No, I asked the question about your nick only because I wanted to ask the question (no one else asked me in emails or elsewhere to do that), and the question was innocent. And no one tried to out you. Of course, I made a kind of opposite claim in emails: that you know who I am in real life because you pointedly described me in WP space the building where I worked in Moscow, but this is something different Biophys (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It was easy to combine three facts: your nick, your edits of articles devoted to membrane proteins, sodium channels or molecular mechanics, and your familiarity with who Ovchinnikov was. With regards to my vision or your motives, I am glad that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify things a little bit. I said this, and you replied that. What made me suspicious was the fact that the Institute had very little to do with Biophysics. In fact, none of the labs had word "Biophysics" anywhere in the title. But that's OK. I do not think that anything of that deserved Arbcom attention. We do not need more drama.Biophys (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And no, I was never involved in any Soviet disinformation campaigns, as you seem to suggest in the diff above. Biophys (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read that my post carefully you should notice that I wrote that such a possibility cannot be ruled out theoretically, therefore everyone, including yourself, can be blamed in collaboration with KGB. In other words, my point was that accusations in secret collaborations are impossible to refute, therefore, noone can throw such accusations without very solid evidential base. I believe, I made myself clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but it was you who brought claims of "collaboration". All I said was that Zemskov and others (like Applebaum) quite possibly bought disinformation planted by the KGB. This has nothing to do with us or any people I ever knew.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: " All I said was that Zemskov and others (like Applebaum) quite possibly bought disinformation planted by the KGB." You should not throw such accusations without solid basis. It is both immoral and incorrect (see falsifiability)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Paul. I thought I'd ask you a 1930s Soviet question, since I thought it likely that you'd have tons of sources on the period of Soviet-German relations before 1941, given your extensive work on discussing World War II and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the other editors on those articles, plus your obvious knack for the details on the period. Here [25] (a rather longish thread), Galassi claims that Soviet-German rapproachment started in 1936, which I have a hard trouble following given the timeline of the actual events (e.g., the USSR and Germany waging a proxy war in Spain, the Soviet negotiations with Britain and France, etc). If it's not too much trouble, would you mind taking a glance at the disputed material? Thanks either way. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no direct evidences of early Nazi-Soviet rapprochement. Geoffrey Roberts (The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78) based on the analysis of de-classified Soviet archives concluded that all three hypotheses describing the possible start of the Nazi-Soviet rapprochement ('Molotov', 'Potemkin' and 'Stalin speech' hypotheses) are not supported by available documentary evidences. Interestingly, even the Merekalov-Wiezsacker meeting (17 April 1939), that was believed to mark a start of alleged secret negotiations, was just a technical visit of the Soviet ambassador to German Ministry of Foreign Affair where he presented a note requesting to remove any obstacles for fulfillment of Soviet contracts with Czech Skoda plants. By contrast to what Weizsacker wrote in his report, Merekalov made no clear statements about possibility of rapprochements (and wasn't authorized to do that). My source is (Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939. Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts. Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 921-926)
Even 3 May, 1939 (Litvinov's dismissal) was not a start of rapprochement. The articles devoted to that issue discuss it primarily not in the Nazi-Soviet context. Below are the quotes:
"In the light of all these considerations it is possible to formulate the following hypothesis: that the foreign policy factor in Litvinov's downfall was the desire of Stalin and Molotov to take charge of foreign relations in order to pursue their policy of a triple alliance with Britain and France - a policy whose utility Litvinov doubted and may even have opposed or obstructed. It was this source of policy difference - very likely connected to issues of who was in charge of foreign affairs - that triggered the final decision to remove Litvinov from office". (The Fall of Litvinov: A Revisionist View Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 639-657)
"By replacing Litvinov with Molotov, Stalin significantly increased his freedom of manoeuvre in foreign policy. Litvinov's dismissal served as a warning to London and Paris that Moscow had a third option-rapprochement with Germany. After Litvinov's dismissal, the pace of Soviet-German contacts quickened. But that did not mean that Moscow had abandoned the search for collective security, now exemplified by the Soviet draft triple alliance. Meanwhile, Molotov's appointment served as an additional signal to Berlin that Moscow was open to offers. The signal worked; the warning did not." (The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact Author(s): Albert Resis Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 33-56)
"The choice of Molotov reflected not only the appointment of a nationalist and one of Stalin's leading lieutenants, a Russian who was not a Jew and who could negotiate with Nazi Germany, but also someone unencumbered with the baggage of collective security who could obtain the best deal with Britain and France, if they could be forced into an agreement." (Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722)
"The French and British governments were startled by the dismissal. Payart reported that the Soviet government was fed up with British stalling. Litvinov's disappearance could signal a move toward neutrality or, worse, an agreement with Germany, but this seemed unlikely for the moment."End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939 Author(s): Michael Jabara Carley Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1993), pp. 303-341)
In general, I believe that we have to accept the Roberts' conclusion:
"My own interpretation of the Soviet documents is well known: that Moscow neither responded to nor made any overtures to the Germans until the end of July 1939 at the earliest. The reason for this was that until summer 1939 Moscow was intent on a triple alliance with Britain and France. I have also described Soviet foreign policy in 1939 as passive, reactive, ad hoc, incompetent even" (Review: On Soviet-German Relations: The Debate Continues. A Review Article Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Reviewed work(s): Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations, 1922-1941 by Aleksandr M. Nekrich Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 8 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1471-1475)
And finally, according to Jonathan Haslam , "There are few unresolved questions concerning the origins of the Second World War that have provoked as much disputation as the issue of Soviet policy toward Nazi Germany." (Author(s): Jonathan Haslam (Cambridge, the UK) Reviewed work(s): Stalin's Drive to the West, 1938-1945: The Origins of the Cold War. by R. Raack. The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War: Russo-German Relations and the Road to War, 1933-1941. by G. Roberts Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 785-797)
Thank you, Paul – this is quite helpful material. Are you at all aware, by the way, of any historians who take the Great Purge as an attempt to get closer to Nazi Germany? The only relevant changes in the Soviet cabinet I've come across in my own research is the removal of Litvinov. (Galassi's argument, in a nutshell, is his interpretation of a book by Nora Levin to mean that Stalin purged, esentially, the bulk of the leading Bolsheviks in the thirties, starting in 1936-37, in order to seek rapproachment with Hitler in 1939, and he sees this as something fit to include in the article Jewish Bolshevism, which, to my understanding of this period in history, seems extraordinarily far-fetched.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nekrich and some other proponents of what Roberts dubbed a "German school" argue that Stalin's primary goal was the alliance with Hitler. However, I am not sure any of these scholar explicitly stated that purges were aimed to prepare a soil for the Nazi-Soviet alliance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've also never seen any such conclusion presented in that sort of matter, and I don't think it's proper to claim so without reliable sources. It's interesting that Galassi is now trying to connect the Great Purge to Alexei Losev, an anti-semitic academic released from Gulag in 1929 [26], mentioned in some unrelated article; I guess this is WP:SYNTH-type original interpretation at its best. Anyway, Paul, a thousand thanks for all of the sources and input on this subject: you've just been massively helpful, just as I'd assumed you'd be. ;-) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Stalingrad
Hey Paul! as you probably already know, I nominated the WW@ article for GA status (and if that works then Ill go for FA) but Now I am also going to try to get the battle of stalingrad to GA ststus as well. I posted a comment on the talk page. If there is anything that you can do to help, I would love it. Thanks--ColdplayExpert20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is Winter War technically considered part of WWII?
Hi, Paul. I noticed that some Wiki pages – like List of wars 1900-1944 – identify the Winter War as part of World War II: to what extent this is correct I have serious doubt about. Namely, the subject is generally covered in full-scale World War II general histories that attempt to elucidate the background and causes of World War II and should be covered in the same extent in relevant Wikipedia articles, but I don't think it's technically part of World War II, and some sources I have seen [27] (this is only a limited preview) seem to be explicit about this, and given this, to explicitly label the 1939-1940 Finnish-Soviet conflict as "part of World War II" would be inaccurate.
I'm currently discussing this topic with Peltimikko, who notes that historians like Conquest see World War II as a successive series of conflicts from the time of the proxy confrontations in the war in Spain and would like to seek dispute resolution on the subject. (I don't know if one goes about asking for help on user talk page disputes the way one does on articles, and I then suggested asking you for a possible third opinion in going forward to a consensus in this dispute, which he's OK with.)
I would like to learn your opinion on whether Zydokomuna article should be merged or somehow dealt with taking into account the existence of Jewish Bolshevism. These two articles describe the same phenomenon. I assume that it may be an option to have a summary section on Poland in Jewish Bolshevism. I have also noted that the connection of Jewish pogroms in Belarus by Polish military (Minsk, Pinsk, Vilno, Mozyr) with Zydokomuna is surprisingly missing in Zydokomuna article and the article is very biased in that respect. Dzieki. Vlad fedorov (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Definitely, some WP:CFORK issues exist that should be resolved ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article."). Obviously Zydokomuna is a Jewish Bolshevism's daughter article, and corresponding section should be created in a "Jewish Bolshevism" article (with the link to "Zydokomuna"). Other possibility is to convert "Zydokomuna" into a "Jewish Bolshevism"'s section. To me, the first way seems to be preferable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Username RFC
Hi there. If I've interpreted your comment at WP:RFCN correctly, you have misunderstood "If the username is NOT blatantly inappropriate, and the user has made no recent edits, do not post as there is no need to take any action." Please note the use of "and" there, not "or". That sentence is designed to reduce the number of RFCs where the user hasn't edited recently AND doesn't have a blatantly inappropriate name; still allowing RFCs on users who have edited recently but whose usernames aren't "blatantly" inappropriate. WP:RFCN is, in fact, designed for names that aren't blatantly inappropriate and so require discussion; blatantly inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:UAA where they get processed swiftly. -kotra (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right, I already realized that myself after I posted it. However, one way or the another the discussion has come to its logical end, it is archived now, and I doubt we need to return to that concrete issue any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have posted it after your sector in the talk page of Eastern Front. No changes will be made unless we reach a consensus or we settle the dispute through Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Waiting for reponse.Vulturedroid (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear from you again. I looked briefly at you post and I am not fully agree. Please, give me a couple days to read it more carefully and to respond in details.
Thank you. I hope that, in case you still do not agree, we can begin a new round of discussion following my proposal in session 3. That is:
1. I hope you can make a full list of PoVs to deny seperate belligerent status of Spain; That means, every aspect that you have not been convinced will be listed (sorry for bothering, I will surely treat them seriously);
2. I will counterprove these PoVs one by one; (By this step, I hope both of us can raise all reasons we have)
3. (newly added) If step 2 still fails to reach a consensus, I suggest we initiate the dispute resolution procedure because neither of us can convince the other with all exsiting PoVs.
Frankly speaking, I really do not understand why such a simple piece of fact has to be proved in an extremely complicated manner. I think it is logically crystal clear. Hopefully we can clear things up soon.
PS: I have also noticed your session regarding "Ukraine". I did not add it, but I think UIA was a seperate belligerent. Some of your logical conflicts have been pointed out there, and I hope I can have your interpretation of these logical conflicts in the PoV list as well. I would not argue over Rada or UIA, but I want an interpretation on UIA logical conflict, a brief one will be enugh. Thank you.Vulturedroid (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Though personally I still hold my point, I give up the debate for good. Spain will not be added.
I sincerely believe you are dedicated to Wikipedia (aside from some debate tactics in the early stage). But I also sincerely oppose your logics, some of which are beyond my ability to understand. Perhaps this was due to my own limits. Anyway, you won the debate. Congratulations. Vulturedroid (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
My goal was not to win but to establish truth. Note, although two other editors supported my POV, I didn't use that fact as an argument in our dispute. My major objection was that you didn't convince me because you didn't address some important points, that, probably, were self-evident to you, but, in actuality, they needed in a proper evidence. Frankly, I do not understand why you see no logic in my (and the others') arguments, however, I believe, in future we will be able to come to consensus on other questions. You seem to be very honest and sincere person, and I believe it is the most important thing. Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe both of us were pursuing the truth. By "won the debate", I was not suggesting you scored a victory over fact, it meant the debate's over and your opponent gave up. English is not my 1st language so there might be some ambiguation. Also, I wasn't implying you used others' support. Wikipedia is a public place, majority decide what's suitable, and the minority quits voluntarily and automatically, that's "majority decision".
Regarding logics, talking more would be too much. The debate's over and sb's unhappy with length. But I did not say/think other opponents have those problems. Anyway, this could be due to my own limits as well.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I deleted the section more than two weeks ago before you joined the discussion. If you want to re-insert this section then please provide reasons. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't check the article because the very idea to delete a section when the discussion is in progress about its relevance seems absolutely weird to me. It is so blatant violation of the rules that I couldn't believe it was possible. I'll restore the section and, please, do not remove it until the discussion is finished. Otherwise your behaviour will be reported.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Making you aware re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Termer
Dear Paul, after you were told tl;dr, I am going to mention the repeated requests for sources by Termer, followed by the tl;dr statement, as relevant to the dispute. [[28]] relates to ongoing conduct disruptive to bettering the encyclopedia on the talk page. It doesn't relate to the content proposed by any editor, or the direction of the article. I'd do this when I have the opportunity much later today. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well there are about 10 more problems left (as noted by the reviewer at the bottom). I need all the help that I can on the final push to get this GAN passed. If you can help in anyway at all I would love it. Thanks--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the section headings are problematic. Cliches like "the tide turns" should be avoided (We need to get concensus to change some of the titles. I tried earlier but to no avail)
I realize that the minimum lead size is 3 paragraphs, but for an article of this magnitude IMO 3 is not sufficient to give an overview of the entire text (Well THis isnt that big of a deal so I dont really need your help on that)
Currencies, especially historic ones, should be converted (Well Twilight Helryx tried to fix this before but she couldnt fix the Reichmarks to USD. If you can that would be great. However we cont find any conversions on the internet)
General final copy-edit for clarity and fluency
(Well I guess you can onl do this if you speek British-English. none the less, it would be a great help if you can)
Say something about why estimates vary so wildly for death toll Im sure you can tell us all why in a heartbeat. I have a feeling that the answer has something to do with the fact that many of the deaths of POWs and Concentration camp prisoners went unmentioned)
Referencing format should be consistent per WP:CITE (I have no ide how to do this. I really need your help on this)
All book references need a date and publisher; all web references need an access date and publisher/author (where available). Some are currently missing this information (Well I started this but I cant find a few of them. If you can sweep through this one more time that would be great)
Notes that appear more than once should be named and appear using the proper multiple-ref formatting (Once again I am clueless on how to do this. I tried before and I just messed up the whole article)
Tertiary sources should be avoided when reliable secondary sources are available (I guessing that means twe need more primary sources. You seem like the person to go to about this problem)
Per WP:EL, some of the external links need to be culled (I dont even know what this means!)
Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg needs publisher/creator and source (If you can fix theis that would be great. If not then we can just replace the image)
Source link on El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg appears to be broken (Same as above)
The first source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg is broken. Also, the permissions for that image require a photo credit (Same as above)
OK. Well the one thing that I really need you help on is "Some are missing ISBNs, some are missing dates, some vary in italicization, some have extra punctuation marks, some are missing punctuation marks, some books have date in parathese after author while others put it after publisher...Compare (for example) current refs 28 and 29 - same source (different pages), completely different formatting." Several of the citations are missing this vital information. I fixed alot of them a while back but some still remain. You help would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk16:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Lots of reasons! Primarily the WWII category is a mess and I am trying to clear up. As there are several categories regarding WWII operations, it seems only logical to have one for Operation Barbarossa. Best --Dodo19 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Barbarossa definitely belongs to WWII category, so creation of new category for Barbarossa does not imply removal of Barbarossa from the WWII category. Consider a possibility to restore categories your removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul, what do you think about communist terrorism? Is it valid to mix some terrorist organizations somehow connected to communism with various state terror campaigns in Communist countries? (Igny (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
Obviously, someone wants the word "communism" to be associated with as many nasty words and definitions as possible. Of course, this article's content should be moved to the terrorism article (interestingly, the latter article even do not mention "Communist terrorism" as a separate type of terrorism). BTW, the same is true for "Mass killings under Communist regimes": the mass murder (the article mass killing redirects to, that is supposedly a "Mass killing under Communist regimes"'s mother article) mentions neither "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a separate mass killing category, nor Valentino's, Goldhagen's, etc works. (IMHO, the very fact that so much efforts and WP space is devoted to killings under Communists, whereas almost no attention is paid to other mass killings, and to the mass killing issue in general, is a clear sign of someone strong bias) In my opinion, a redirect from mass killing to mass murder should be removed, the "mass killing" article should be extended by moving part of mass murder's, Mass killings under Communist regimes', Holocaust, Nazi war crimes, American war crimes' etc content there, and, if necessary, series of "Mass killings under..." daughter articles can be created. That should be done first, and only after that can I switch to communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Paul, this is approaching vandalism. This image is non-free. Therefore, its use must meet our non-free content criteria. You are damaging our encyclopedia, and wasting my time. Stop it, now. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Rather than replacing the non-free image with a free image, you replace it, twice, with another non-free image, without even attempting to add a rationale to the other image page? Not acceptable. You can't hope to reach some kind of ridiculous compromise by using a smaller image... Just deal with it. I'm sick of the "debate", I'm sick of the semantics. If you don't get it after this time, fine, just take my bloody word for it. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I did attempt to add a rationale, however, for some unknown reason WP site was unavailable for me. Right now I am busy in real life, but I'll do that in next few hours. With regards to your other points, the dispute is won not by those who became sick of the debate, but those whose arguments are stronger. You proposed no additional arguments during last several rounds of the discussion, and that doesn't mean you are right. With regards to "semantics", it is what WP calls a "content dispute". Under no cirsumstances such a dispute can be considered a disruptive editing of vandalism (in what you tried to accuse me). I would say the opposite: at some point your position started to resemble a kind of WP:wikilawyering ("Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express"). I don't think it is good way to conduct a discussion. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I've proposed no new arguments because there are other things I would rather do. I don't need to sit here and entertain you, and I do not need you lecturing me. This is rapidly approaching somewhere it doesn't need to be. Your legalese, accusations and semantics are changing the tone of this "debate" from someone refusing to get it to someone being actively disruptive. I've got very little interest in what you think any more- if you want to retain any respect, the decent thing to do would be to just deal with this issue before I'm forced to do it in a cack-handed way. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, all I meant was that if I was to replace the image with free one, it's possible I would choose a misrepresentative image, as WW2 is not an area of expertise of mine. Thus, my replacement would be cack-handed, by which I mean clumsy. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Understood. However, two things remain unclear for me. Firstly, since you acknowledge you are not an expert in WWII, how can you judge whict image is (and which isn't) an adequate replacement for the image you propose to remove? Secondly, you maintain that I misinterpret your arguments. However all your recent argumants can be summarised as wollows: (i) I am right because I know this subject better; (ii) I am an administrator, so my opinion weighs more than yours. I would be grateful if you took a time and explained me what concterely is wrong with my arguments (especially regardong the adequateness of the replacement). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. Your words on the possibility to choose a misinterpretative image is in actality a threat to disrupt Wikipedia to demonstrate your point. I doubt it is acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have not once used either of those arguments, and I resent your claim that I have. I suggested you may do well to take my word for it, and I pointed out the pointlessness of a third opinion due to your previous actions. Further, I have not threatened to "to choose a misinterpretative image" or "disrupt Wikipedia to demonstrate your point". This is the perfect example of you misrepresenting (or misunderstanding, but, as we have established, you are not an idiot, so I can only assume you are doing it deliberately) my position and my words. If you'd rather, I'll just remove the image altogether, then there is no threat that I would choose a misrepresentative image. J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe, the hypothesis of misunderstanding is more plausible. There are two possible reasons for misunderstanding. Firstly, since I am not a native English speaker, I probably cannot feel some nuances of the text written by an advanced writer. The second reason is that you may be simply not clear enough. For example, whenn you write that
"I don't need to sit here and entertain you, and I do not need you lecturing me.",
I see no explanation for these your words other than that you are not going to discuss the subject seriously, because you already decided what is correct and what is not, and you are not interested to hear arguments from others. Please, explain me if I misinterpreted your words, and if yes, then what other interpretation is possible?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact you are not a native English speaker may actually explain some of the misunderstandings here- I accept some of the terms I have used have perhaps not been the most clear. What I meant by that is that the fact that you are not happy with the explanation offered does not mean that I have to sit around and continue to explain it. The problems have been explained, several times. It would be good if you would now deal with them, as you are probably in a better position to do so than myself. J Milburn (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll probably take a little break to ponder on what you say. If I your arguments will not satisfy me we will continue. I also recommend you to think about my arguments because some of them seem not to be addressed (or even completely ignored by you). Try also to think about the following: since the decision on adequacy (or non-adequacy) of a free analogue requires not only awareness of NFCC rules, but also of the article's subject, do you think you are educated enough to make a decision about the Khaldei's photo. Maybe, the opinions of those who knows more about the WWII history should be taken into account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. Sorry, I promised to take a break, but some of your posts required my urgent interference. Let's both take a break. Good night (or good morning).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I am taking the historians' views into account on editorial issues, it's just a shame you aren't taking my views into account on the issues on which I am knowledgable- Wikipedia policy. It's funny that you're now trying to use the same argument in reverse as the one you recently accused me of. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
When you asked me to clarify the editorial issue (importance of the Reichstag's capture) I did that. When I ask you to explain me how your interpretation of the non-free criteria is compatible with existence of non-free iconic historical photo in general you provide no satisfactory explanation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of violating WP:POINT again. Removing an image that lacks a fair use rationale is not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". If you continue to make these accusations against me, I will be making much more serious accusations against you. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you've continued to edit war. This really is not acceptable. Again, I've lost interest in this pathetic argument. Could you please deal with this? If you add that image back again, you really are going to be facing blocks. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
We both continue to edit war. And, please, take into account that majority of editors are on my side and you seem to exhaust your arguments and resorted to threats.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a final warning. Do not change the image on this article again. You may continue to discuss the issue, but if you yourself change the image again, I will block you.
I am not getting involved in whether the image meets policy or not. However, the rule is that material of disputed copyright usage stays out of the article until there is a consensus that the material meets the policy. There is not.
If you wish to continue to debate this, you should persue one of the mechanisms for dispute resolution and accept the consensus that emerges.
Please note, I am not involved here, and I take no view as to whether the image meets policy or not. However, where there is doubt or debate it remains out until the issue is settled.
Given that your edit waring here has previously resulted in my having to lock the page, I am instructing you not to replace this image and not to edit the images on the article. If you obtain a consensus that the image can be changed, then someone else will do it. If you change the image again, you will be blocked.
Your interference is very strange. I though the conflict has been almost resolved: J Millburn and I agreed that a collage would be a better replacement for this non-free photograph, and I started to work on it, however the collage has not been created yet, so no adequate replacement exists so far. Therefore the policy is not violated, and the image can stay here for a while (I believe for a couple of weeks). In that situation your post and J Millburn's behaviour is ridiculous, unproductive and offensive. I urge you to remove this post (along with my responce) from my talk page, and I ask J Millburn to revert his recent edit. The fact that you both are administrators doesn't warrant for such a behaviour. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. "Given that your edit waring here has previously resulted in my having to lock the page..." It was not my edit warring. I tried to restore the last article's stable version, and I was supported by majority of the editors. I realise that WP is not a democracy, however, under no circumstances my behaviour could be described by the words "edit war".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As I say I'm not getting involved in the details. If you have a dispute with an administrator, then use the dispute mechanisms I've pointed you to. Do not replace an image which is currently being contested. If there's a clear consensus that the image is compliant with the policy, then another editor will change the image. You should not. (And for the record, I have not been contacted by the admin in question - and your unfounded allegations otherwise are a failure to assmume good faith.--Scott Mac (Doc)15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If you are not involved, please, explain me the following: during our dispute with J Millburn it was me who proposed the way out of an impasse, and my behaviour suggested that I am intended to avoid an edit war. However, immediatelly after J Millburn unilaterally made the edit based on wrongly understood consensus you warned me not to continue the edit war. I always prefer to assume good faith, however, something in your behaviour needs in explanations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, since the dispute was about the image in the infobox, and no clear arguments or objections were put forward against this image in the main article I reserve a right to place it in the main article at any moment when I found it appropriate. I also believe that the discussion in this section is relevant only to this concrete infobox and has no relation to other articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This discussion further demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of our NFCC. Your assertion that "I though the conflict has been almost resolved: J Millburn and I agreed that a collage would be a better replacement for this non-free photograph, and I started to work on it, however the collage has not been created yet, so no adequate replacement exists so far. Therefore the policy is not violated, and the image can stay here for a while (I believe for a couple of weeks)." is completely wrong. Non-free content may not be used if it is replaceable, not if it is replaced. Equally, we do not generally allow non-free infobox images for living people, as they could feasibly be replaced. You have repeatedly shown that your problem is not with my actions, but with our policy, and continued to make baseless accusations and threats. I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith here, you are really stretching my patience. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid your and mine understanding of the word "replaceable" are different. You interpret "replaceable" as "theoretically" replaceable, whereas I believe that "replaceable" means that someone found a concrete repcalement and a consensus has been achieved among the editors that such a replacement is satisfactory. Anyone can claim the image is replaceable, and such a claim cannot be a serious ground for image removal. Therefore, I believe, my interpretation is closer to common sense. In connection to that, let me point out that a saw a compromise as follows: if my suggestion to create a collage is supported by more than one editor, planned to I prepare it (I even wanted to discuss the images I am intended to use with you, but now I am not sure I want to do that), to present it on a talk page, and, if the editors found it an adequate replacement, we assume the Khaldei's photo replaceable and I (or you) replace the infobox image. Until that moment, the old image should stay in the infobox, because it is "replaceable" only in theory. You decided to go in another way, and, again, the fact that you are an admin and I am not does not warrant such a behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry to be so frank, but, quite simply, your interpretation is wrong. Your idea is simply not the way things work here. Again, I point you to the example of non-free images of living people. The general rule is that they are not allowed, and this is almost universially accepted (and is universially enforced), as they are theoretically replaceable with a photo that is yet to be taken. So, sorry, but you're not going to get anywhere arguing down that route. We do not wait for people to find a replacement before we stop using non-free content; we just don't use it at all if a replacement is possible. If you aren't going to accept that, then I'm afraid we're going to continue to disagree, and your actions and arguments are going to continue to be wholly contrary to the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't apologize, it is always good to be frank. I partially accept your arguments, however, I think that application of the same rules to living persons and historic photos is a mistake. If we do that, than everyone can contest any image under a pretext that some free analogue can be found somewhere. It is nonsense, so only a direct comparison of non-free image with its free analogue can give us an answer if the latter is a good replacement. Unfortunately, I still see a problem not in NFCC, but in your interpretation of them (I am frank too, as you see). --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, the problem is not with the rules but with you. However, it seems to be more appropriate to continue this discussion somewhere else. I propose arbitration. Do you agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration will be rejected, RfC are generally time wasting and I do not accept mediation in this case. Ask for second opinions on the NFC talk page, if you like. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, arbitration is not the right venue, and you are not likely to like what they'd say to you. If you file a case, it will most probably be rejected. The best thing to do it to file an RfC which will invite more users to come to the talk page of the article and review things. However, I think you'll not really like that result either, but that's your perogative.--Scott Mac (Doc)20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
My primary goal is not to win but to understand truth. If I'll see that someone analyzed the case really thoughtfully and the decision will be that J Millburn's interpretation of policy is correct I'll be satisfied. However, the idea that any theoretically replaceable non-free image should be removed (different theories exist), and that the iconic and historical images can be in articles only if they are being heavily discussed (who sets the limit after which a discussion becomes heavy) seems weird.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have not commented on the NFCC and I am not entering into that debate. However, whatever the NFCC policy means here, as long as the image is disputed it stays OUT. Use the dispute resolution to resolve the dispute. If it is resolved in your favour, then someone will replace the image. I've nothing more to add, and I'm not getting into an argument with you. My warning stands. (Please don't add talkback to my page, I watchlist pages when I leave messages).--Scott Mac (Doc)16:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining me the rules. It was what J Millburn appeared unable to do. Now I see that he contested the image compliance with NFCC, and, according to a policy (could you please, provide a concrete quote, btw) it stays OUT until the dispute is resolved. However, unfortunately, your understanding of the dispute is wrong. The dispute was about the image in the infobox, not about the image in the article. I doubt NFCC states that is some concrete usage of an image is disputed, "OUT" has a relation to this particular usage only. In other words, if usage in the concrete article's infobox is disputed it stays out this particular infobox only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I quote from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". Note please, that it is "valid" not when you believe it to be valid, but when any dispute as to its validity is resolved through the use means. Replacing disputed images without recource to dispute resolution methods is disruptive editing.--Scott Mac (Doc)17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, but placement of the image into another place is not a replacement. Since only placement of the imaje in the infobox has been contested, and J Millburn expressed no clear objection against this image in the main article, the quote you provided has no relation to this particular case. Thank you for the quote, newertheless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring on Mass killings under Communist regimes
Hi Paul, just a reminder about the articles 1RR restriction which limit you have exceeded at least 3X [29][30][31] etc. Please help to build a consensus instead of insisting on your preferred version. --Termer (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, read the 1RR warning carefully. It just recommends to abstain from editing without discussion on the talk page ("reverting more than once without discussing it on the talk page is considered disruption"). Taking into account that I always extensively discuss my edits on talk pages, your allegations are ridiculous. I'll remove this your stupid commentary if no additional arguments will be provided by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, you either missed or ignored the discussion [32] speaking about the removal of this commentary style lede. Also, the word "discussion" has a specific meaning, it means you discuss changes with other editors, you come to a consensus and then edits are made. Discussion is not posting lenghty essays on the talk page containing only opinions why you need to revert the article to your preferred version.--Termer (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Neither I missed nor ignored anything. With regards essays, you should be more consistent: when I try to limit a size of my posts you request for clarification; when I answer in details you accuse me in posting essays that are unsupported by citations; when I provide sources you accuse me in spamming a talkpage with redundant material. One way or the another, I see no reason to continue this pointless discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why Keitel would be placed as one of the "axis leaders", but not Himmler or Goering, the two men who were actually the most powerful men in Nazi Germany next to Hitler? I understand that Goering lost favor during the war (maybe 1941 and onward), but Himmler should really be put up there. Heinrich Himmler was, without a doubt, the most powerful man in the Third Reich (after Hitler) from at least 1940 and onwards until the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
All second commanders in the list (Zhukov, Marshall, Brooke, Togo and Keitel) were primarily involved in military planning or direct military command. Himmler, although he possessed enormous power in the Third Reich, was primarily involved in internal affairs. That is why I believe his name should not be in the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, not completely. From contemporaries' point of view it was definitely a turning point (and the first major battle lost by Wehrmacht in summer, when no complaint on "the General Frost" worked). Therefore, although, based on the present-days knowledge, it might be not a real turning point, this battle had heralded that the turn occurred. In addition, please, keep in mind that, although I voiced against your block, I still disagree with most of your edits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I neither read nor participated this discussion for two reasons. Firstly, such a discussion is senseless: the article with such a name will always get a needed support from a considerable fraction of Wikipedians; secondly, to delete this article would be incorrect, because it tells about well established facts. I am not satisfied with both the article and, in a lesser extent, its title, however, it doesn't mean I support the article's deletion. It needs to be re-written in more neutral way, some material should be added, some should be removed, however, it is a completely different story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that was just a nudge with two goals in mind: 1. to make you lose your cool, and 2. to be polite enough to avoid accusation in harassment. I think so because I am all too familiar with such behavior of my opponents who even coordinated this tactic off-wiki in the past. (Igny (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
Mass killings
I will be happy to re-write the passage and show how it can be written neutrally. Unfortunately I do not have access to Jstor, although part of the review is in the discussion archive.[33] Could you please provide me with the summary of the book in the review. Thank you. TFD (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
They are starting to annoy me. I'm glad that you are so cool, calm and collected. I don't understand why the ammunition from your precision weapons is not having more effect. Well, it's great that you are providing such high quality and well supported statements - doing all of it alone is hard work and usually unrewarding, and clearly I'm not as thorough as you are. As you are doing a much better job at it than I am, I think I'll fall back into a less belligerent support role. Many thanks for being there. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry for that. --viniciusmc 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viniciusmc (talk • contribs)
btw
Thank you for your comments and support on my amendment (though I think you overestimate the extent to which the members of the list agreed with each other on various issue)radek (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubts that there were (and probably are) a lot of disputs and disagreement between EEML members. In actuality the whole EEML case was a result of WP's own serious intrinsic flaw: despite WP:DEMOCRACY, consensus building procedure too frequently becomes a simple vote. I personally have nothing against EEML acting as one large collective brain (either on- or off-Wiki coordinated), provided that it produces new arguments, not just tries to overwhelm an opponent with the number of votes. Anyway, welcome back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Before starting wikilawyering one should familiarize oneself with WP policy and guidelines. 1RR deals with multiple reverts of the same edit, not reverts of different and non-connected edits. Therefore what I did was just a second step of normal BRD procedure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
