Talk:Percentages agreement

Sources

Cite your sources on quotes.

-G

Everything in the article is covered by the source under References, even the quotes. So I don't see any need for inline citations. Vints 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Upshot

[1] Is "upshot" a non-neutral word? Vints (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why, but "result" feels a bit more formal and encyclopedic than the colloquial "upshot". Anyway, is this really important? Turgidson (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure influence?

I don't quite undesrstand what "90% influence in Romania" is supposed to mean. How do you mesure influence? Where they talking about splitting up the territory of these states or what could they mean?--El Duende (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Not a question of territorial division, although this later happened with Germany (not part of the percentages agreement) but such division had been neither side's intention in 1944 as far as I know. Good question though - how you measure influence. To me, 90% implies that Romania should be fully within the Soviet sphere of influence. The remaining 10% just means that the Soviets shouldn't go so far as to annex it or anything that drastic. This is just a guess though. 81.151.45.242 (talk)

A Forgery?

How can a paper created in October 1944 appear in Spain during 1943? The whole business smells of a British effort to undermine Soviet credibility.

An extremely good question and an inconsistency I had overlooked. Looking into it.

—67.180.86.254 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

political purposes

"However, doubts should be raised regarding the accuracy of Churchill's account, which seems to serve political purposes at the time" Care to explain what the political purposes were/reference something that does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.24.31 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Percentages agreement2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Percentages agreement2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Understanding Stalin

Am I the only one who sees that Stalin ticked only at the place where he gets 90% of control? Plus "You keep it"? Seems to me that viewing this as a bit of a mockery or power play at Stalin's side would fit into Stalin's personality as described by other sources, and would be consistent with the subsequent negotiations of percentages as well as with what politically happened towards Bulgaria, Hungary and Yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlada mc (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

misrepresentation of sources

GPRamirez5, rather restoring your edits, please show how: 1. Sources support the claim that "Britain supported the White Terror" in Greece. The source you provided [2] doesn't even mention White Terror.

2. Sources support the claim that Stalin wanted a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe " to ensure protection against another Western attack". The source provided [3] (which is a crappy source) doesn't say anything about any "Western attack". It doesn't say anything about Hungary or Romania in this context. Furthermore, claiming that the alliance between Hungary and Romania and Nazi Germany was in any way relevant here is daft, since at the outbreak of WW2 these countries were officially neutral, while it was the Soviet Union which was Hitler's ally.

3. Sources link the "Percentages agreement" with the deportations in Romania. The source provided [4] makes no such synthesis AFAICT.

4. Sources talk about "Machiavellian diplomacy" and "public calls for moral policy" - it's not in the source provided [5].

It looks like you just made up a bunch of stuff yourself, then added in inline citation to sources (some of them reliable some of them not) to make it look like the material was properly sourced. It's not. Volunteer Marek 18:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

More on Sources

What is posted on mainspace is quite incredible unknown history. Better credible sources can be found in Winston Churchill's books, all of which are listed at the bottom of his Wikipedia biography, and easily accessed with a free subscription to Internet Archive. Only a sorry sap would think Churchill would made anything up. Lord Milner (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

But sometimes he might omit some things? Eio-cos (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Subheadings

I've added some subheadings to make the article easier to read. More can be added. Sometimes the article wanders off into different subjects. Eio-cos (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)