Talk:Vyacheslav Molotov: Difference between revisions

	Vyacheslav Molotov has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 18, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article contains a translation of Молотов, Вячеслав Михайлович from ru.wikipedia.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 9, 2017.

Template:Vital article

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence not only isn't supported with a citation but is also impossible to support: "Molotov, like Stalin, was pathologically mistrustful of others, and because of it, much crucial information disappeared". There is no psychological evaluation cited, and this would simply be abuse anyways since plenty of people have had unfavorable psychological diagnoses that aren't included in their article. It's part of a very unscientific bias on Wikipedia, where opponents of capitalism, imperialism, and the NATO countries can have all kinds of wild opprobrium slung at them that can't possibly be falsified. Also, there is no indication whatsoever of what is meant by the "crucial information" to which the author refers. The fact that the great majority of Wikipedia editors are fanatical anticommunists does not mean that they can violate their own standards in their articles -- sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusammenbruch (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Litvinov's Jewish ancestry was a problem in dealing with Nazi Germany, why wasn't the fact that Molotov was married to a Jew an issue? (86.147.59.233 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

It says

However Polina's feelings were not reciprocal. Although virtually all historians assumed that when Polina was released she returned to live with her husband. Holroyd-Doveton has discovered a statement by the Italian Communist Vittorio Vidali that he was told by Yelena Dmitryevna at the 20th Congress that Polina refused to return to her husband. It is hardly surprising. It is difficult to believe any wife would not be infuriated if they were being tortured while their husband was holding high political office. It appears that the couple both decided to keep it secret and eventually had a quiet reconciliation perhaps after Khrushchev demoted Molotov.

And the ref -- for the whole paragraph I assume -- is "Vidali, Vittorio. Diary of the Twentieth Congress. p. 18." (My guess is that the Holroyd-Doveton's biography of Litvinov cites Vidali, in which case the ref is malformed and should be to the proper page of Holroyd-Doveton.)

• If "virtually all historians assumed that when Polina was released she returned to live with her husband" then that would be the consensus of historians and we should go with that. (But it says "assumed so maybe they no longer do, after Vidali's revalation.)
• But that'd be a bit odd since it seems the proof is that Holroyd-Doveton read something by Vidali who (says he was) told something by Dmitryevna who I guess (says she was) was told something by Polina... and anyway Vidali's a Bolshevik I guess, so he probably has some axe to grind. Not something to make a roomful of historians change their minds I wouldn't think.
• And anyway, we say "It is hardly surprising. It is difficult to believe any wife would not be infuriated if they were being tortured while their husband was holding high political office" and it looks like it's us talking, and who are we to make such judgements. Maybe Vidali (or Holroyd-Doveton) is making these judgements, in which case we'd have to say "According to Vidali..." if we wanted to report these kinds of judgements at all (which, I wouldn't -- who is this Vidali person, and let the reader decide what to think about all this). I don't have the book so I don't know what it says, so I can't do any of this.
• It also says "It appears that the couple both decided to keep it secret and eventually had a quiet reconciliation perhaps after Khrushchev demoted Molotov, which is kind of vague.
• Also Polina Zhemchuzhina's includes this same exact passage with the same ref.

In short: I'm inclined to delete this paragraph from both articles and will do so absent objection. Herostratus (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your points, and will delete the paragraph. Basically the same thing with the same source is included in the Polina Zhemchuzhina article, so I'll remove it from that one as well. The next paragraph is also really weird: However, Molotov now, according to Stalin's daughter, became very subservient to his wife. Molotov yessed his wife in the same way he had previously yessed Stalin. I think I get what it's trying to say, but it's very poorly written. I guess we could try to rewrite it with actual English, but I don't have access to the sources to check them, and I don't know if it's worth including at all. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "stipulate" an invasion of Poland?

The word "stiuplate" means "1. to make an express demand or arrangement as a condition of agreement (often followed by for), 2. to arrange expressly or specify in terms of agreement: to stipulate a price." The full text of the Secret Protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is available online, and while it does discuss a division of spheres of influence in Poland and Eastern Europe, it does not actually discuss an "invasion" of Poland or any other country. Therefore, whatever other agreements were reached or not reached, and whatever else followed the signing of the Pact, neither the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact nor its Secret Protocol "stipulated" an invasion. I am reverting accordingly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literal text in this article: «The most important part of the agreement was the secret protocol, which provided for the partition of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and for the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia (then part of Romania, now Moldova).^[1] This protocol gave Hitler the green light for his invasion of Poland, which began on 1 September».^[2] Why not remove that as well? Also in case it wasn’t obvious enough, when the treaty refers to «sphere of influence» it means annexation. Pickelhaube103 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That "literal text" doesn't mean the Pact or Protocol itself "stipulated" an invasion given the literal meaning of "invasion" and "stiupulated". Moreover, your interpretation of "sphere of influence" meaning "annexation" requires a source stating "sphere of influence meant annexation" to avoid WP:OR. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1: There’s already two sources provided in the text did you forget them?

2: My point was that is weird for you to delete the part of the leade which says that The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact lead to the partition of Poland, While simultaneously not deleting a part of the text futher down which said the exact same thing.

3: There’s also Tens of others of wikipedia pages which say that the molotov-ribbentrop pact lead to the partition of Poland (Including the actual Molotov-Ribbentrop pact page). why not change them?

4: Judging by How future events would transpire, i think it’s pretty clear that the molotov-ribbentrop pact meant annexation, since all territory that was supposed to be put under the soviet «sphere of influnce» under the treaty was directly annexed (without the Germans ever voicing protest at this).

5: It is a consensus among historians that the partition of Poland was a direct result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

6: There where joint German-Soviet victory parades in Poland. Seems Kinda planned to me. Pickelhaube103 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point made. No one disputes that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact led up to or even facilitated the invasion of Poland. The point is that nothing in the Pact itself explicitly "stipulated" (required) it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why didn’t you just change the word stipulate for facilitate instead of deleting the whole thing then? And of course the treaty stipulated an invasion of Poland, that is the reason why the invasion started eight days after the signing of the pact, why the Soviets assisted German air forces by allowing them to use signals broadcast by the Soviet radio station at Minsk, why the Soviets invaded eastern Poland seventeen days after the German invasion, why there were joint German-Soviet victory parades, Why the Germans and Soviets signed an agreement co-ordinating military movements in Poland, why a German-Soviet meeting discussed the future structure of Poland, why Hitler said: «Poland never will rise again in the form of the Versailles treaty. That is guaranteed not only by Germany, but also Russia.», and why every single historian believes the pact stipulated the partition of Poland. Pickelhaube103 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one has any obligation to write something into the article. I have some interest in correcting inaccurate statements, so I removed the portion of the sentence regarding the supposed "stipulation" based on my familiarity with this episode of history and my reading of the actual text of the Pact, including the Secret Protocol. If you want to include the word "facilitate", in the sense that the Pact facilitated the invasion after the signing of the Pact, I think that's accurate and that's completely fine with me. I am not fine with text claiming that the Protocol "stipulated" unless you can provide evidence, for example quotes, of reputable historians writing that "the Protocol's reference to 'spheres of influence' was actually understood as annexation." The rest of your reply is completely irrelevant to the point, again. A lot of things happened after the Pact, but were not necessarily "stipulated" by it, even if you can show some connection between the series of events. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly know you’re just strawmanning, I never argued that you «had an obligation to write something», i was merely pointing out that your words didn’t match your actions. Secondly as i’ve already pointed out further down in the text there are two sources given to support the already existing consensus among historians that the pact stipulated an invasion of Poland. I will now show you that text (again).

«The most important part of the agreement was the secret protocol, which provided for the partition of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and for the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia (then part of Romania, now Moldova).^[1] This protocol gave Hitler the green light for his invasion of Poland, which began on 1 September.^[2]» Pickelhaube103 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]