Talk:Falsifiers of History

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This looks like a pro-Nazi civil POV pushing[edit]

Nekrich (p. 202-205) wrote that Stalin rejected the Hitler's proposal to divide the world. Roberts (p. 57-59) is more concrete, namely, that Hitler instructed Ribbentrop to try to involve the USSR in the block with Japan, Italy and Germany. According to Roberts, Stalin's response was generally positive, however, impasse was quickly reached during the negotiations.

Based on these two sources, I wrote that

"Falsifiers also included the claim that, during the Pact's operation, Stalin rejected Hitler's offer to divide the world[1], without mentioning that the Soviets considered Hitler's offer to join the Axis seriously, and agreement was not achieved only because the parties failed to come to common terms.[2]"

Mosedschurte reverted this text, that correctly reflects these two sources to the following:

"Falsifiers also included the claim that, during the Pact's operation, Stalin rejected Hitler's offer to divide the world[1], without mentioning the Soviet counteroffer to join the Axis.[3]"

From this text, the reader may conclude that the proposal to join the Axis came from Stalin, not from Hitler. Not only this edit incorrectly reflects what the source (Roberts) says, this, as well as many other Mosedschurte's edits overemphasize Soviet activity during 1939-41 events, and, accordingly, understate the role of Nazi Germany. In other words, it looks like a ''pro-Nazi pro-German civil POV pushing.
Such a pro-Nazi pro-German POV pushing is intolerable and will be reported if that will repeat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the section header WILL be used to sidetrack this discussion into meaningless accusations involving Godwin's law (even if it's not applicable here). Consider rewording. (feel free to delete this post as offtopic once read) --Illythr (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Illythr, your reference to the Godwin's law is absolutely justified. You are quite correct that accusation in a hidden pro-Nazi POV pushing means that continuation of discussion became impossible. Frankly, it was exactly what I wanted to say, namely, that I feel that any discussion with Mosedschurte is a pure wasting of time. Mosedschurte is constantly blaming me in disruptive editing and POV pushing ("rv seriously revealing POV push; added source", or "Look before you disrputive revert" are only the most recent examples) without any attempt to explain what my DE or pov pushing consists in. As a result I came to a conclusion that any discussion with him is impossible. With regards to my alleged POV pushing, let me remind you that my point of view is that "that while Stalin was ruthless in his domestic policy, he was opportunistic, yet basically cautious and defensive in his foreign policy." This words were taken from prof. Raack's article (R. C. Raack "Stalin's Plans for World War II" Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 215-227), and these words are a fortiori valuable because Raack, who himself doesn't share this opinion, conceded that this point of view is "one of the widespread idees fixes connected with the history of Western, essentially British and American, relations with the Soviet Union" (his own words). In other words, the point of view I am "pushing" is a majority point of view, whereas the ideas Mosedschurte supports are the revisionist POV, that was dubbed a "German school" by prof. Roberts. In addition, the attempt to accuse the USSR in Nazi Germany's sins looks like an attempt to implicitly whitewash Nazism, although, frankly, I don't know if it is real a pro-Nazi POV or just pro-German.
That is why I appreciate your advise to consider re-wording, because, although we all are humans, and, therefore, our patience is not unlimited, we, nevertheless must observe some basic rules of politeness.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I am more or less satisfied with the last Mosedschurte's wording, however, my warning holds valid.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that on articles actually relating to WWII Goodwin's Law does not apply, never mind the implied incivility in your comment.radek (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing another Wikipedia editor of "Nazi POV pushing" is so outrageous and such a blatant violation of WP:Civil and a variety of other policies, one wonders how to even respond. It almost gets no lower. Not only that, but Paul Siebert appears to fundamentally misunderstand the word "counteroffer": "an offer or proposal made to offset or substitute for an earlier offer made by another.".
If Paul Siebert accuses me or any other Wikipedia editor of something as blatantly vile as being a "Nazi POV pusher" again, administrator action for his permanent blocking will be sought. This is one of a long line of outrageous threats and accusations by this editor, and should anyone see him doing it on another article, please feel free to refer back to his accusations here for further reference.
Finally, I have now further clarified in the article -- utterly needlessly for people who understand the basic English word "counteroffer" -- that the Soviet "counteroffer" was in response to the "offer" from Germany. As a reference for anyone reading this, the existence of these offers is long-settled undisputed (by serious historians) history, as is catalogued in great detail by multiple sources here. Good God, we even have copies of the various parties' offers and I've seen no serious historian every dispute the existence. This entire WP:DISRUPTIVE editing exercise is not only outrageous in terms of its accusations, but counterproductive to the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Nekrich, Ulam & Freeze 1997, p. 202–205
  2. ^ Geoffrey Roberts "Stalin's wars: from World War to Cold War, 1939-1953" Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 0300112041, 9780300112047, p. 57-59.
  3. ^ Nekrich, Ulam & Freeze 1997, p. 203

The use of the “Falsification(s) of History” in the 21st century context[edit]

Maybe the article should note that despite the denunciation of Stalin’s crimes in Russia, still today the government there use the term “falsification of history” do condemn Estonian and Latvian interpretation and attitudes towards the history of these countries and the Soviet Union during and after World War II, as we can see on this Russia Today article: Medvedev says no to false history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.194.43 (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prompt[edit]

Stalin and the Soviet writers seem to have acted promptly by bureaucratic standards. Their reply appeared a week or two after the American publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1937, Trotsky wrote about "The Stalin School of Falsification". This might have given Stalin the idea for his own title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falsifiers_of_History&oldid=1211624686"