Talk:Stalin's Missed Chance

Very Problematic Article

After reading this article, I think that something is really wrong with it. The claims seem absolutely fantastic. Such extraordinary claims need to be backed up by serious evidince and I can't find a single piece of evidence in the article. Moreover, the analysis seems to be very flawed. The claim that the Red Army could have defeated Germany, had it attacked, seems very problematic for too many reasons. It is enough just to look at the poor performance of the Red Army in Finland. More significantly, had Stalin planned an attack, he would have certainly taken into account the possibility that his plans would be found out by Germans through intelligence, and prompt Hitler to strike first. Thus Stalin's insistence on ignoring the overwhelming amount of intelligence evidence of German plans for attack makes absolutely no sense.

I think that Wikipedia should be a prime source of reliable information. Thus highly speculative and apparently unlikely claims should be clearly marked as such. This article must, in my opinion, be rewritten to:

1) Add clear supporting evidence for the claims if it exists.

2) Add criticism, which in reality is obvious.

3) Emphasize the highly speculative nature of the claims.

If this can't be done, I think it is much better to delete the article altogether than leave it as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.97.98 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The above appears to me to be strange. How is one to add evidence etc., when this is a Wikipedia article rather than an original research paper? The article is about an important book, all the more important because its author has some harsh words for Suvorov, while providing evidence for Suvorov's theory. The book should be described, paraphrased briefly if you like, while refraining from any temptation to add evidence for the subject-matter. ChalSeismo (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Article set up

I believe the 'Harvard reference' is necessary, for the material is presumably copyrighted. What I've used for this article is almost exclusively the summary of Meltyukhov's book. I'll try to add soon more material covering the Soviet offensive plans (from the corresponding chapter).

Please report me before revising. Constanz - Talk 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote in "Had the Soviet assault taken place"

Could you check the sources for the final quote by Meltyukhov? It seems to me that

"have lead to"

should be

"have led to",

and

"than it occurred in 1945."

should be

"than it acquired in 1945."

Shenme 00:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1.I've misspelt, it should be 'have led to'. 2. The phrase in Russian is presumably a bit different ('than it really happened/occured in 1945'). Acquired is basically OK, it gives the meaning. May-be we could replace direct quotation there with reference to the author's point. Constanz - Talk 08:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

% must be wrong

When the axis invaded on june 21 they hade around 4.3 million men but on the page it says 81.6%=1.4 million so the % or the numbers are wrong

(Deng 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

And of course you are the person who knows it better than Russian historian Mikhail Meltyukhov.:)--Constanz - Talk 14:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about If you look at YOUR own post on the eastern front talk page YOU are the one who posted this graph

	Red Army	German Army (inc allies)	Relation
Divisions	190	166	1.1 : 1
Personnel	3,289,851	4,306,800	1 : 1.3
Guns and mortars	59,787	42,601	1.4 : 1
Tanks (incl assault guns)	15,687	4171	3.8 : 1
Aircraft	10,743	4846	2.2 : 1

And YOU gave this source

Source: Мельтюхов М.И. Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939-1941 (Документы, факты, суждения). — М.: Вече, 2000. Page 478, table 47 --

And dont delete this graph again just because it proves that you are wrong and it proves it so completly either you are wrong in this articleor you are wrong on the eastern front talk page article because 81,6% cant be 1.4 million if 100% is 3.3 million germans and 1 million axis allies (Deng 18:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

The problem is still here, there are 3 graphs in WIKI that I have found and all of them show 3 diffrent things. Someone needs to find out which one is correct and fix the other 2. (Deng 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

No need to 'fix' anything here, as the article is about Meltyukhov's research results. because 81,6% cant be 1.4 million if 100% is 3.3 million germans and 1 million axis allies -- what do you refer to? -- where have I posted such figures and percentages? --Constanz - Talk 11:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up and look I explained it all no more then a few lines up, and dont play the fool when I explained it the first time you deleted the graph from the talk here with the comment " why post it here? " And to answer why post it here is because to show where you posted it the first time and to show that the graphs dont match. But the fact reamis you give 2 diffrent graphs and they dont match at all and that is why I posted the other graph here so that you can see that they dont match att all.(Deng 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

I should thank you for vigilance; yes, I hadn't marked that this table shows only a strip of border. the high numbers of Soviet troops is due to fact that Red Army had concentrated there; as Meltyukhov believes, in order to deliver strike against Wehrmacht. --Constanz - Talk 08:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The chart in the article appears to be misleading to me

Where on earth is Ostrolenka? I can see why German forces south of the Carpathians do not matter, but unless Ostrolenka is on the Baltic Sea shore (which I doubt, but I can not find it on a map), there would be more German forces that could enter into combat in Poland/East Prussia in reaction to a strike against German forces in the sector covered by the graph. Andreas 15:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusion indeed (it looks as if one has to look up the original again...). See map: http://feefhs.org/maps/ruse/poland3.jpg, where Ostrolenka can be found near Lomzha (larger script).--Constanz - Talk 16:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The text before this table 59 says (my/babelfish poor translation):In accordance with the Soviet operational plan basic events had to unroll at the front from Ostrolenka to the Carpathians, where the troops of the Southwestern front and left wing of West[ern front] would have delivered main attack on the enemy troops. The ratio of the forces of sides at the front of Ostrolenka - the Carpathians is shown in Table 59, data of which testifies that Soviet army had located forces, capable of accomplishing the tasks assigned to them. Troops of the North Western [front] and right wing of Western front had to [... engage action in Eastern Prussia, Memel and Suwalki region...] The forces of Northern Front were prepared for the offensive against Finland, and Southern Front - against Rumania. However, first priority measures were the actions of the Red Army on the Soviet-German boundary from Baltic [sea] to the Carpathians. (op cit, c.503)--Constanz - Talk 16:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging. In that case I would say the chart is misleading (and very cleverly chosen to be so!), since he ignores the whole of AG North and AG Centre's 9th Army to the north of Lomzha. A strength of three armies (18, 16, 9) and two Panzer Groups (4 and 3), with 631 tanks in Panzergroup 4 alone. These forces where directly on the already very long northern flank of Pavlov's forces in the Bialystok salient. If you have not done so already, I suggest getting 'The initial period of war' by Glantz, to get an idea of the placements. I do not find it credible to neglect these German forces, and to presume they would remain inactive. Andreas 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked Mueller-Hillebrand. Panzergruppe 2: 950 tanks, not 900 as Melthyukhov states. Panzergruppe 3: 783. Panzergruppe 4 862 (not 631). Additional to that up to 377 Sturmgeschuetze (total present in the Wehrmacht in June 44, not all of them would have been in Poland or East Prussia). Even including the forces from the Soviet Baltic Military District you get nowhere near 8.7:1 anymore. So much just for the AFVs. Then there are the man and guns. Then there is the fact that German guns had a higher calibre (105 vs 76mm as standard divisional, 150 vs 122 as heavy divisional), therefore higher destructive power. Etc. etc. The table is, in my view, deliberately misleading. Andreas 20:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems so, yes. I have to re-read this chapter again, which is not an easy job. It seems that I've summarised the ideas correctly, so the confusion has to be attributed to the author. BTW, Ostrolenka is also spelled Ostroleka, but it seems the latter and the former are still the same place.--Constanz - Talk 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph before In accordance with the Soviet operational plan basic events had to unroll:

However, picture will be incomplete, if we do not attempt to represent at least hypothetically, how could the events have developed, if Soviet management had carried out its initial plan and attacked Germany on June 12, 1941. At this time German troops completed preparation for the operation "Barbarossa" and concentration at the Soviet boundaries, where in the strip from the Baltic to the Black Sea [the German army] was already expanded to 81,6% of divisions out of those, which it was provided to the evening of June, 21. On June 10 the divisions of the first echelon began to be secretly derived in 30 km near-boundary strip. Remaining troops either were in motion to the East or awaited their turn for the transfer in the camps. Luftwaffe also was completing redislocation after Balkan campaign. Wehrmacht had neither defensive nor offensive group, and Soviet attack at this moment would have placed it to a very complex situation and would have made it possible [for the Red Army] to raid its forces into parts. (Мельтюхов 2000:502-503) --Constanz - Talk 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ostroleka-Carpathian strip was the place were Soviet leadership had (according to Strategic Devlopment plan etc) planned to deliver the main strike. This probably gave the author a pretext to give table representing only troops in the particular region. Meltyukhov's book includes this graph: http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/s07.gif. --Constanz - Talk 09:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some removals

Hi, could you add more specific citations so as to ensure it doesn't look like your original research? I've removed as source the webpage with not reference for their figures. --Constanz - Talk 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can do that, but it will be a while, since I have just come out of hospital. Andreas 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

According to guidelines, we have OR, if the contribution

1. introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

I think you may be near to the definition in some cases:

• Additional to those tanks are up to 377 Sturmgeschütze, the total number present in the Wehrmacht in June 41, although not all of them would have been in Poland or East Prussia),
• Also to consider are the additional men and guns...
• The table as presented by Melthyukhov is not fully capturing the reality of the situation north of the Carpathians. (if so, it's better to argue on talk and remove the table,avoding value judgements. Naturally, here is only my citation from the study, and as such, is maybe torn out of context.)

• The Mechanized Corps also lacked motor vehicles and artillery tractors which would have been necessary to conduct a deep operation. is in need of citation.

Also:

• The same applied to manpower, which ranged from 43% at 14th Mechanized Corps to 67% at 6th Mechanized Corps did not have reliable sources, and a comparison to German counterparts would have been worthful.--Constanz - Talk 10:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot understand why does it seem that M. suggests Red Army had concentrated to this strip, whereas he has yet written ‘’However, in case of Red Army’s invasion to German controlled territories, the concentration on Southern regions was comprehensible, since a strike in that direction, would have cut Germany off from the basic allies and Romanian oils. Whereas main assault in the north-western direction would have led to the collision with main forces of German army and it would have required the breakthrough of fortified areas. ‘’(Meltyukhov 2000:381) In fact, the current table and his graph seem to cover the very strike through fortified regions (?)

And according to Zhukov proposal may 15, 1941:

The immediate task is to break German army east of river Visla and in the Krakow direction to cross the boundary on river Narev, the Visla and to seize the area of Katowice, for which:

a) to deliver the main strike by the forces of South-Western Front in the direction of Krakow, Katowice, to cut Germany off from its southern allies;

b) the deliver the supporting strike by the left wing of Western Front to the direction of Warsaw, Demblin with the purpose of tying the Warsaw group and seizing Warsaw,--Constanz - Talk 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I can't understand what does this talk on Southern version of assault indicate. According to graphs by M., there is small diference between these two variants. --Constanz - Talk 09:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Another note

I've got another suggestion: let us try to keep this article confined to M.'s book, as far as it's possible. I've recently read a study that supports some of his crucial points (with the view of military planning), but also disagrees with the possible outcome of a Soviet assault. I'd rather not bring in too much citations from the source; I think a section on the reception of the book (outside Russia) should be added (although there's not much heard about any reception at all, in case we omit Eastern Europe and, alas, IHR guys, who have read the book and probably concluded that it proves the existence of a global masonic-Zionist conspiracy...)--Constanz - Talk 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability problems

I am uneasy about this long article. It discusses in full, exhausting detail a book which has made almost no impact at all outside Russia, has never been translated into English, and has not even been reviewed by respectable Western scholars in the field (Glantz, Overy, etc.). Given that the book supports a highly controversial claim that the Soviet Union was preparing to invade Germany in 1941, a claim not supported by any respectable Western scholar, we may be on very shaky ground here.

Should Wikipedia be the vehicle to advance in extreme detail the viewpoint of obscure authors, especially when it is this controversial? What is the justification for having such an exhaustive article on this subject?

At this point, I am leaning towards greatly condensing the text in this article and incorporating it into the Mikhail Meltyukhov article. That article is essentialy a stub, so there is plenty of space. Balcer 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, let's consult Wikipedia:Notability (books). Here are the criteria it lists that can justify having an article about a particular book:

• 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
• 2. The book has won a major literary award.
• 3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
• 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
• 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

Obviously the book not not satisfy criteria 2 to 5. I am doubtful it satisfies criterion 1, as the number of reviews of the book is small to say the least.

So, I am leaning towards listing this article about the book for deletion as failing notability requirements. Balcer 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a "notability" problem here. Clearly, this is an interesting book, on an important topic. Why the personal attack on Mikhail Meltyukhov ("obscure author", "no impact at all", etc)? It looks like the author is known enough to have a WP article on him, and the book definitely had some impact -- otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it, would we? I say let's keep the article, and make it even better, not suppress it. Turgidson 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is an interesting book on an important topic has nothing to do with notability. The fact that the author has a biography article on Wikipedia does nothing for notability either. Wikipedia criteria for book notability are very clear and I listed them above. Please provide specific evidence that it fulfills some of those criteria, if you believe the article should not be deleted. Balcer 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I just stated my opinion, you stated yours -- this is not an AfD debate, and I'm not here to respond to your demands, which I find unreasonable. You want to suppress the article (for whatever reason), go ahead and start an AfD. I maintain my position that it's better to develop such an article (in which a lot of work has been put already by many editors, and which covers an interesting, notable topic), than expending time and energy in trying to delete it. Turgidson 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to start an AfD just yet because I want to give other editors a chance to provide evidence that the book is in fact notable, without the time pressure of a formal AfD process.

Any content worth preserving from this article can be moved to other more suitable articles. I already mentioned the article about the author, which cries out for expansion. We could move content to an article devoted to the book's subject, maybe German-Soviet conflict in counterfactual history, or Hypothetical Soviet pre-emptive strike on Germany in 1941 (these are working titles, I am sure something better can be devised). Those articles would not violate Wikipedia notability guidelines, and would be comprehensive in presenting both arguments for and against various theories. In its present state the article lists Metlyukov's theories without any counterarguments.

Wikipedia notability guidelines exist for a good reason. Let's apply them. Balcer 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the article needs improving and should deal more with what Meltyukhov himself writes on the subject. However, I am a little confused by the claim that the book does not satisfy criterion 1. I have come across at least 12 texts dealing with the book (in Russian, German, Estonian and English). How big has to be the number of reviews not to be "small"? Do these reviews have to be to necessarily in English? I think that this notability criterion is fulfilled, if you just look at the Russian sources. One can't rule out that, by now, it is the basis of a course in several Russian universities.

The book itself is notable (perhaps not in the Wikipedia sense of the concept) as it presents unique archive data not available for researchers to whom the Moscow archives are unavailable due to distance and the Russian visa border. Page- and paragraph-long citations from previously non-printed sources make up a significant portion of the 600 pages. His theories are quite firmly backed by references to and quotations from primary sources, which makes the book invaluable in military history because of the raw data itself. By the way, some texts never get translated into English and therefore their content should at least be easily available for the interested via some other means (I understand that this point of view may be again be heretic in the Wikipedia context; I apologise). Also, Meltykhov's views seem to contradict official Russian history and those of "historians in uniform", which makes it notable as a dissident work.

All right. I will enumerate some facts which perhaps will prove its correspondence to criterion 1. The book has been translated into Estonian and is in the process of being published by the Estonian Defense Forces. A chapter of it has been translated and published in the Estonian-language general interest magazine Akadeemia in 2001.

Also, the work seems to be an oft-cited source at least in Russia and Estonia in academic historic discourse. Magnus Ilmjärv has been mentioned in the article. But also, I can find this article, this one and this one and this Russian academic history journal Otechestvennaya Istoriya article in a superficial Google search. Major General Ants Laaneots (currently Commander of the Estonian Defense Forces but otherwise a notable military researcher, formerly the Commander of the National Defense Academy), has used the book in his article on the Winter War in the defense journal Kaitse Kodu! (2004, no. 5); and Urmas Salo in his MA dissertation.

Another issue is whether this set of criteria should be used to assess this book. "literary award", "plot summary" - those seem to refer to works of fiction, not scholarly or scientific studies. Isn't there another set of notability criteria for such texts? Ohpuu 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, academic books are exempted from the five strict criteria Balcer quoted above. I quote from the same page:

Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.

The book is quoted fairly frequently in the newspapers and in the academia and has been creating quite a fuss (in the fields of history & military history, at least in Eastern Europe; but this is natural as it concerns the Western European aspects of the war marginally, and in deep only in prewar diplomacy) and therefore is quite notable. Ohpuu 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is an open question whether Stalin's Missed Chance is an academic book (and not an exploration in what-if history). Still, even for academic books, the rule is that common sense should prevail, with which I fully agree. Since it is definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia to have an article about every single academic book out there, if we are to have one about this book, a solid case must be made for it.

So, let's go point by point:

• 1.Do we have any evidence that the academic press which published it is notable and has a good reputation?
• 2. Do we have any evidence that the book is influential is its specialty area? A single review in a Western historical journal that we have so far is not enough. A few reviews on websites whose reputation is difficult to judge is not very convincing.
• 3 Is it taught or is required reading in academic institutions?

Answering these 3 points would be a good start. Balcer 21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Ohpuu made quite a good case, and already answered to a significant extent points 2 and 3 above (btw, one can make a numbered list by using # instead of *, no need to add numbers by hand). Why not give him credit for all the effort he put into explaining things in so much detail? I cannot speak to point 1, maybe one can explain more the background on where the book was published (maybe that's in the article, but I could not find it), but it seems a bit picky. Are we applying such strict criteria and so much scrutiny to each and every (academic) book rating a page on WP? Let's make sure standards are upheld, for sure, but let's also try and keep a sense of balance and fair play in all this, I'd say. Turgidson 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, as I see it, is that Stalin's Missed Chance is a work exploring alternate history, and such works, while often fascinating, are usually not considered academic by serious historians. Hence trying to keep this book as an "academic work" for which Wikipedia notability standards are relaxed is questionable at best.

Let me expand a bit here. The problem with "what-if" history is that the number of possible branching points of such history is infinite. Consider this example: Hitler was a great fan of travelling by airplane, at least in the early years of the war. Given the level of airplane technology of that time, there was a significant probability that any one of those trips could have ended with a crash and his death. Clearly Hitler's death at an earlier date would have changed history considerably, and produced a completely alternate timeline. Would I read a book written by a knowledgeable and intelligent author which would propose an alternate version of history if, say, Hitler died in a spring 1941 plane crash? I probably would. Would serious historians consider such book as a serious academic work? Quite simply, no.

Meltyukhov's history is all very well if one assumes that in his alternate timeline Hitler does not die in a plane crash and Stalin does not choke on a pretzel, slip on the stairs or die in a train disaster. But once you start messing with alternate history, just about anything becomes possible, including unlucky deaths by key persons. Hence the value of such history drops disastrously the further one departs from what actually happened. Predicting months and years into the future, as Melyukhov's attempts to do, is no longer history but literature. Balcer 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, is it an alternate history? I had read this Wikipedia article before I reached the end of the book and took it for granted that it was (I am currently reading The Years of Rice and Salt; I also liked Vladimir Sorokin's Goluboye Salo well enough to recommend it and therefore have nothing against works in this particular sub-genre of SF). However, counterfactual content in Stalin's Missed Chance just did not show up. Maybe 10 out of a total of 666 pages may be speculations but even Viktor Suvorov is more counterfactual than Meltyukhov. Suvorov's chapters often include mock speculations and assumptions for pages, but Meltyukhov mostly summarizes, quotes, paraphrases from the sources themselves, and he has a couple of passages of about 5 pages (gotta check) where he explains the general state of international relations without referring to anything (as the facts are common knowledge and can be checked against general reference). Counterfactual speculations do not exceed a paragraph at a time, neither do they form a consistent train of thought or a storyline. I suspect that the 10 pages of counterfactual content

The second edition has 1700 references altogether. This means that if Meltyukhov chooses to say something, he usually has the reference to back it up. Judging by the preface and introduction, he seems to have consciously avoided any suspect statements. For a book addressing Russian history, the author remains unbelievably calm and matter-of-fact.

Therefore: classifying the book as counterfactual history is misleading (hopefully this was not out of malice, which is even today not uncommon towards researchers who address the Russian part of the history of World War II with a point of view different from that of Leonid Brezhnev or the current official ideology of the Russian Federation as supported by the Ministry of Defence).

So, for the general good (so that others would not be fooled like me), I will remove the counterfactual history claim until clear references to counterfactual content are revealed. (The digital version of the first edition is available, see the bottom of the article).

Ohpuu 10:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my five cents.

The "what-if" example about Hitler being killed in an airplane crash is quite dissimilar to what is the subject-matter of Mel..'s book. Simply because he discussed the actual state of things near the Soviet-German border to show (like Suvorov did in his Icebreaker and elsewhere) that Stalin did not do anything toward defense, while amassing great numbers of manpower and armour.

The logic is simple: if no defense, then what? If an offensive was being prepared, then the current map of Europe is unjust, Stalin's territorial gains are arbitrary and so on. Is that important enough? I think yes.

An airplane crash is an accident, but the great masses positioned where they were are no accident, but reflected some plan. That is the difference between your (Balcer's) example and that discussed in the book. ChalSeismo (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Goodwin's law

Stating that he got a positive review from the Holocaust denial institution is totally unacceptable as it present his entire scholarship as friendly to the Holocaust denial, a gross lie. If the institute is of such credibility that it is considered to be a HD-institution, its reviews are not worthy to be cited at all. Piotrus should have then just removed the info about this review from the article which I will do now for him. That he instead made this edit just casting shadow on the scholar is not only gross violation of NPOV, and example of WP:TE but violates WP:BLP as well. --Irpen 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. Irpen, maybe you would care to explain carefully this diff of yours. It looks like you yourself have recently mentioned a favorable review of "Stalin's Last Chance" in an HD publication. What gives? Did you take the time to check that this non peer-reviewed journal you cited as evidence of the author's reliability is published by Institute for Historical Review, a nasty Holocaust denial outfit? Balcer 14:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Once I saw the claim that this institute is of such reputation, I moved to discard its review as useless. It could be used if there were serious allegation of Meltyukhov's connection with HD circles but since he has none, the review from an unscholarly organization does not prove anything and should be discarded from the article. I take no position on the claim that IHR is indeed an HD institution as I did not check that article. So, for now I take the claim at face value. In any case, I don't see what else you want from me. I answered your question more than once. --Irpen 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Wikipedia states: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability".

I believe that the subject of a possible Russian attack in World War II is important enough to be noted. I also believe that if you have subjects in Wikipedia that are largely based on speculation, like pre-historics, you should meet and thus allow modern historic speculations on basis of the same criteria you used to meet and allow subjects on pre-historics. I also believe that an encyclopedia that has the goal to hold all knowledge of the world should note every theory that ever existed. Further I believe that verifiable facts supporting (or debunking) a theory should always be noted in such an encyclopedia. Further I believe that non-verifiable or yet unproven facts which form the basis of any theory should also be noted and should be noted as respectively non-verifiable or yet unproven. So that everybody can make his own decision on the theory on the basis of knowledge about the factuality of statements about the theorie or the underpinning information.

I do not believe in deleting subjets just because the information in it is not verified on factuality. I believe in labeling subjects or the information contained therein as unverified until they are checked and proven to be factual.

Deleting theories, especially those who can shake common "knowlegde", before they are proven destroys the scientific proces and the open dialogue of say and heresay, prove and counterprove. An institution like Wikipedia should support and never work to destroy this scientific proces and open dialogue.

Comment from new poster: I agree with above viewpoint. I've read many histories of Germany's invasion of Russia. All describe various mysteries about Stalin's state of mind, how armies were positioned, what Russian plans were. I'd love to read this book and judge for myself whether this is history or fantasy. I assume other historians are attempting to get into archives to verify citations.

But just on the surface and as nothing more than an amateur reader, this claim sounds plausible to me. Neither dictator trusted the other or wanted to coexist. Both were looking for the right moment to stab the other in the back. Neither was sure what the other was up to. It's possible they both wanted to invade at the same time.

Soviet doctrine was to fight an offensive war on the other guy's territory. The Soviets hadn't built all those tanks, etc. for peace. But just as Hitler postponed for the Balkans, Stalin might have postponed because none of his generals was ready.

In any event, the fact that there's an author claiming to find evidence of attack plans in Russian archives is important. Common sense says that the theory ought to be aired to create a debate, as the post above suggests. Stu Rand (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)S. Rand 4/25/09

One Sided

This article seems to me to be presenting the facts in a lop-sided way, ignoring that Stalin had purged most of the good officers and that the Red Army logistics and armaments were heavily outclassed by the Germans. For a reputable counter-argument I suggest Ian Kershaw's "Fateful Choices" which has a chapter devoted to exploring Stalin's choice not to attack. The thrust of his argument is that the Red Army was not a match for the Germans at the crucial time, which is precisely why it got so badly mauled in Barbarossa - the whole drive of Soviet negotiations and indeed the non-aggression pact was all part of a Soviet attempt to buy enough time to build up their own capacity. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article presents facts as seen by the author of this book. Every author has his/her POV and biases. The thing is, we can't have a criticism section here, since the book has only been mentioned by some Western authors but none of them has published a review (which is partially due to the fact that many mainstream Western authors don't speak Russian). Secondly, regarding your suggestion

For a reputable counter-argument I suggest Ian Kershaw's "Fateful Choices" which has a chapter devoted to exploring Stalin's choice not to attack. The thrust of his argument is that the Red Army was not a match for the Germans at the crucial time, which is precisely why it got so badly mauled in Barbarossa - the whole drive of Soviet negotiations and indeed the non-aggression pact was all part of a Soviet attempt to buy enough time to build up their own capacity.

1. If you have 2:1 to 8:1 superiority over your enemy on crucial items, how can you really say you are 'no match' to the other side?! Both sides had their own weak spots, but all in all, the Red Army outnumbered the German side and as the now accessible ideological documents of the time reveal, the Soviet leadership not only was not afraid of any kind of German assault, but really believed in Soviet superiority.
2. The argument that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact could somehow have helped to buy time is refuted by simple evidence. Removing the buffer zone of Poland could definitely not have contributed to Soviet 'defense effort'. What is more, assured neutrality of the Soviet side definitely encouraged Hitler to attack. Other depictions, esp. of the pre-Perestroika era, tend to whitewash Stalin's intentions, basically painting him as an idiot, who 'bought time' by encouraging aggression, helped Hitler with raw materials and then, having 'postponed' the inevitable war a few years was still 'caught by surprise'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (1), numerical superiority, in and of itself, is rather meaningless in discussions of 20th century [indeed, 21st century as well - for instance, how many tanks are the Iraqis currently fielding against the US-led occupation of that nation, now in its sixth year?] conflict. Neither the T-26 nor the BT-7M was anything like a match for the German Pzkw III, even setting aside their poor serviceability records, and these made up the bulk of the Soviet Armor in June, 1941. The USSR was in the process of mobilizing poorly [for the most part] trained and led [as much due to their inexperience as any other factor] troops against an already-mobilized and experienced enemy. The citing of a "superiority of numbers" argument out of context, especially in this case, is absurd. And the "belief in Soviet superiority" was most certainly shown to be misplaced by the Soviet-Finnish war. Else why would the RKKA have instituted sweeping changes after it?

Regarding (2), here is another out-of-context argument which, on closer examination, completely falls apart and is, itself, refuted by the evidence. In the absence of a Nazi-Soviet Pact splitting up Poland and creating a buffer region setting the Nazi-Soviet border was it was agreed upon in the Pact, Germany would simply have absorbed ALL of Poland, and likely Lithuania as well [as had been initially agreed in the Pact], putting the border with Nazi Germany that much closer to Leningrad, Moscow, etc. This would also have presented the USSR with difficulties in annexing Estonia and Latvia, Bessarabia, or attempting to subjugate part or all of Finland, all of which would then have been seen by the Nazis as provocative in 1939-40, when the USSR was even LESS prepared to fight the Axis. The only ones apparently "painting him [Stalin] as an idiot" are you and Meltyukov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.52.98 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)