Misplaced Pages

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:58, 28 November 2005 editSuperDeng (talk | contribs)1,937 edits →I added some counter part to the nazi pro propaganda← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:00, 6 January 2025 edit undo3OpenEyes (talk | contribs)453 edits forgot to sign. my bad 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{todo}} {{Talk header}}
{{Article history|action1=PR
==Archives==
|action1date=05:04, 11 December 2009
* ]
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Eastern Front (World War II)/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=330239589


|action2=GAN
==Move page to Eastern Front (WW2)==
|action2date=03:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to move this page so as to avoid confusion with the Eastern Front in World War I. Is "Eastern Front (WW2)" acceptable? ] 14:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
|action2result=not listed
|action2oldid=335221955


|currentstatus=FGAN
:I just got an edit conflict saving my naming rationale... Of the various names, "Eastern Front" is by far the most common in English sources, and although there have been many eastern fronts, this is by far the biggest of all and could be said to "own" the term. Also, of the dozen-odd links to the term from existing WP articles, every one expected to link to this one. So the usual thing to do is to let this one be "Eastern Front" by itself, and add a note in italics to the top linking to ]. See ] for something similar that I did just yesterday.
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C
|Russian=y|Aviation=y|German=y|Italian=y|Polish=y|Romanian=y|WWII=y|Nordic=y|British=y|French=y|US=y|ANZSP=y|Canadian=y
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|mil=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}}
}}
{{To do|2}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive %(counter)d
}}


Why does there need to be a separate article at all? There is nothing in this article which does not already appear in the main WW2 articles. ] 22:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Hey, I can't spend every minute of the day on Misplaced Pages! :-) This article is the right place for the more detailed description of the campaigns that would be excessive detail for the already-too-long WWII article. Somewhat of a placeholder right now, but destined to expand - surely the largest and bitterest struggle of the war deserves more than three paragraphs, eh? ] 06:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Russia's attack on Finland ==

I restored the reference to ]. First of all since I think the truth has to be honored. Secondly, since I guess Kahkonen's wording pretty soon could be exchanged for the usual less truthful stuff from Soviet history books (i.e. "Finland attacked SSSR"), which is somewhat less likely if a hint to German troops in northern Finland is kept in the text. Finally, this wording might be seen as a NPOV-balanced compromise version. ;-) /] 09:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

:Ok, thats better :-) ] 10:15 10 May 2004 (UTC)

So how do we add in the Soviet Campaign in the East meaning Asia during 1945? ]

:I actually think that should be a seperate campaign (even though it is a small one), but I don't know what name to give it. ] 14:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== 'Counteroffensive' Section ==

Much of this section must be moved to ] and replaced by summary here. It looks like recent editors were not aware of the separate article on the topic. ] 23:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Great Patriotic War ==

I believe that the ] deserves a short article of its own. It should explain specifically:
# History of the term
# the starting date controversy
# Differences between the terms ], ] and the ]
Note that, although the term is quite popular even in the West, it is not equal to WWII or Eastern Front. ]]]] 23:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

:Are there significant differences between the Great Patriotic War and the Eastern Front? So far as I know, the main change would be the inclusion of the Finnish War(s), which are already listed as being considered part of the Eastern Front by many. ] 13:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::My ''feeling'' (if such are of any value at all) is that this article ought to be re-named (and focused) on the ], while an article on the ] could be fairly much shorter. In my opinion, it's yet another expression of Americo-centrism or Western-centrism to call the article on the Great Patriotic War for the Eastern Front, '''but''' I see that it may be easy to misinterpret me here. I am not in favor of parallell articles in principle. I would not at all like a situation were virtually the same scope was covered by two articles, one with the "eastern name" and one with the "western name". /] 00:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:::This '''is''' the English and not the Russian WP, so we're expected to title according to what's most familiar to English readers. Calling it Americo-centrism seems a little like an attempt to lean it towards the Soviet POV - to some extent the Soviets brought it on themselves by embedding POV into the name, not unlike the Confederates calling it the "]", or the Bushies calling it "]", and you'll notice that both of those link to more-neutral titles (at least as I write this :-) ) ] 05:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::::Our policy is that articles names should be that which '''english''' speakers most commonly call it. This is BY FAR most commonly called the Eastern front, so the article belongs here. ] 06:46, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

:::::Last point from me on the issue, I don't really think the Fin's much care for the title Great Patriot War anyway. ]

::::::Just avoid to include the Winter War of November 1939 &ndash; March 1940.<br>--] 08:30, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


Due to the move to the current name of '''Eastern Front (WWII)''', the following sentence is wrong:
:''The war began as Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941 4:00 am, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union; and ended on 8 May 1945 when Germany surrendered following the Battle of Berlin.

The World War II did not begin on 22 June 1941. For that matter the war did end after the "Battle for Berlin" but it did not end '''because''' of that battle. (BTW for the Soviets the war finished on the 9th not the 8th). It finished because Hitler was dead and Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz the new Führer of the Third Reich was willing to surrender as the Eastern and Western Fronts had met (of which there is no metion in this article). ] 23:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==Poland==

This article is about the ''' Soviet-German War''' or '''German-Soviet War'''. There are other campaings in the Eastern Front of WWII. I think either this artcle needs expanding to include a mention of them with links to them or this article should be moved to another name like '''Soviet-German War''' and a replacement article with a brief overview of each campaing/war be put into its place.

The primary campaing that should be mentioned as part of the Eastern front which is not mentioned at the moment is the '''Polish September Campaign''' of 1939.
But there should also be a mention of German counter-partisan operations in Yugoslavia, {Fall Weiss, (1942), Operation Weiss II, Operation Weiss III, and Operation Schwarz all which involved up to half a dozen divisions of German soldiers}, as well as the partisan operaions in Yugoslavia. ] 23:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:As has been stated on ] neither the ] nor the fights in Yugoslavia and Greece are usually referred to as Eastern Front. That's why they were left alone, as separate sub-categories of the WWII operations. ]]]] 23:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be using a circular argument here. In that discussion you said
:''However, take a look at '''Eastern Front''' and '''Eastern Front (WWII)''' and check what are these articles about.
It reminds me of the old war song that went "We're here, because we're here, because we're here". I am suggesting changing this article to include all the campaings on the eastern front of World War II, between all the contestents not a subset as it is at the moment.

I would agree that the '''pre-Barbarossa''' operations in the Balkans including '''Operation Margarethe''' are not part of the Eastern Front but that the 1942-44 partisan war is. Or are you saying that none of the partisan operations which took place behind the Eastern front should be mentioned in an article on the Eastern Front? ] 02:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::No, the partisan warfare both in Poland and the USSR could be treated as part of the Eastern Front (although technically speaking most of these actions took place far away from the front itself, that's what the partisan warfare is all about..). However, neither the Balkans 1941 nor Poland 1939 seem like a part of Eastern Front to me. ]]]] 03:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

The understanding of what's the true scope for this and other articles is for natural reasons inviting to confusion. The concepts and perceptions are of course different in different languages. The Great Patriotic War and the Eastern European Front is seen from a certain distance by the English speaking world - that's unavoidable - and it would probably be in vain to try to create distinctions that are not recognized by native English speakers anyway.

My proposal is that an article on the ''front'' concentrates on the actual front. Other events connected to the Great Patriotic War can be covered by articles of their own, that can be referred to from many articles &mdash; but a brief reference to another article is much less prone to cause discussion than the inclusion or exclusion of the actual account. /] 08:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


==Additional reason why the Nazis lost that should be mentioned==
* One important reason why the Nazis lost was the unnecessary alienation of the civilian population that was hostile to the Soviets by German arrogance and Nazi racial policy, treating the Slavic popuation as ]en. The Nazis could have profited from the civilian hostilty to communism and Ukranian nationalism. (See also ], ], ], and ). The Soviet POWs were not sufficiently fed, which the Soviet soldiers got to know in the course of time. In other words, the Germans left the Soviets no choice. Hitler objected to slavic ]s because of his opinions on the race of slavic people until the very last moment, see ]. ] 12:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


EDIT: There were also men who joined up from non-Axis countries. Which made Hitler believe there was more than enough anti-communist non slavic men to pool from.

It was members from Beligium, France, Greece, Spain, etc who believe in the NAZI belief who defended hitler's bunker and were spread out throughout the defence of Germany. Just a higher percentage ratio at hitlers bunker. Only the commanding officers were German.

== Historiography ==

I think that the section Historiography needs attention.

:''As V-E Day came, Allied forces in Western Europe consisted of 4 ½ million men, including 9 armies (5 of them American—one of which, the Fifteenth, saw action only at the last), 23 corps, 91 divisions (61 of them American), 6 tactical air commands (4 American), and 2 strategic air forces (1 American). The Allies had 28,000 combat aircraft, of which 14,845 were American, and they had brought into Western Europe more than 970,000 vehicles and 18 million tons of supplies. At the same time they were achieving final victory in Italy with 18 divisions (7 of them American).''

--] 13:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Proposed background section ==

The following was contributed by . I think the proposal would need considerable editing to fit into the article, and I do not have the required time right now. Reading the contribution, I wonder if it maybe was rather thought of as an introduction to the article on ]. In any case, the text would need serious work with regard to ].

:''The decision to go eastwards had been made partly because of Britain's surprisingly stubborn resistance in the Western theatre, and partly because the Nazi government harboured (credible) suspicions of the Kremlin's ominous military actions since 1939. Hitler had long considered invading the U.S.S.R., even before he had launched his concentrated campaign against Britain. He had a morbid fear and rabid hatred of Communism and vowed to quash its primary champion once and for all.''

:''Furthermore, when the Germans were busy overrunning France in June 1940, Stalin had already seized the opportunity to gobble up the Baltic States (old German territory which Hitler had hoped to re-annex into his Reich). Later on, again without notifying Hitler, the Soviet government made demands on Romania to hand over Bessarabia. This brought the Soviets closer to the precious oilfields vital to feed the German war machine.''

:''Hitler waged war on the Soviet Union against the grave misgivings of his generals, but his ego refused to listen. When the High Command argued that it would mean a two-front war, he retorted that they could not risk defeating Britain first as long as Soviet Russia remained a threat at the "back door".''

:''Thus the grand scheme was carried out on an early June morning in 1941. The two-front war, which Hitler himself originally condemned, but later brought upon himself, had begun &mdash; with fatal consequences for his Thousand-Year Reich.''
--] 08:26, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

* The decision analysis is wrong. Britian's resisance was not a reason for going East.
* "Nazi government harboured (credible) suspicions of the Kremlin's ominous military actions since 1939" LOL
* The "gobble up the Baltic States" was agreed in treaty with the Germans!
* Don't know about the Rumania bit.
* 2 fronts. Did he say that?
* Last paragraph would do without the first sentence. ] 18:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Anon proposals ==

I moved the following from my talk page, I believe it belongs here. ]]]]

::No, how could I forget Poland. I don't think I did, but the Polish campaign was hardly part of the same war as what's covered by the article on the Eastern Front, i.e. what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War.

::But wouldn't it be fair to tell that the Soviet Union actually didn't succeed in their attempted invasion of Finland? After all, they managed to take eastern Poland and the Baltic republics, but only some tenth of Finland, which was far less then they had aspired to. /M.L.

:That's the same confusion I had with this article. Currently it's about the Eastern Front of World War II. As such, Polish Defence War of 1939 was a part of the same war, but not the same front. If we renamed the article to ] that would be much easier, but so far saying that the war started in 1941 even if several sentences above it is stated that "the war" refers to ], would be misleading.

: As to whether Soviet Union succeed in Finland or not is a matter of dispute, I believe the completely neutral statement I proposed is much better. Especially that from other perspective, the Soviet Union managed to crush all Finnish resistance by March 1940 and forced the nation into submission - which is equally true. I'd say let's stick to simple, NPOV sentences. Also, what they aspired to is not that clear either. ]]]] 08:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

]
::Halibutt, you must have been reading Soviet history books. No, it's established beyond doubt that the Soviet Union attempted to conquer all of Finland (including ] of course), but (in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) halt at the Swedish border &mdash; at least temporarily. I consider attempts to falsify the history on this point as pro-Soviet propaganda, that there is absolutely no excuse for now, after the collapse of Communism in Europe.

::It's not a "neutral" statement to give the impression that an invasion was somehow realized when the truth is that the operation was aborted after over four months of heavy fighting. And it makes a brutally confusing impression when the article somewhat later can't avoid to mention that the Finns fought back a second time, in July 1941. The Soviet Union had most definitely not ''"managed to crush all Finnish resistance",'' a wording that would seriously offend not so few Finns. ] was still in Finnish hands, some miles from the old border, and ] was approached, but far from conquered, by the Red Army.

::I've expressed support for renaming this article before. /] 10:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::You got my words wrong, Tuomas. I had no intention to offend any of the heroic defenders of Finland. I personally also resent that the French general staff did not approve to send the Polish Carpathian Rifle Brigade to aid the Finns and sent it to Narvik instead. This however does not change the fact that by the beginning of spring the war was lost for Finland. No serious help arrived, much of the defence lines along the borders was lost and there wasn't much chance for continuation of organised resistance. The Finns would most surely conduct armed operations for months if not years, but the battle-hardened Finnish troops would not be able to sustain technical and numerical supperiority of the enemy for much longer. That is why Mannerheim asked for peace negotiations.

:::The Winter War was not won by the Finns since it couldn't have been won. The heroic defence against overwhelming odds can be considered both a moral and tactical victory. The Moscow Peace was also a great success of Finnish diplomacy (contrary to what might seem from the harsh peace terms). However, on a larger scale claiming that the Finns won the war is an overstatement. It was a draw at best, if not a defeat.

:::Anyway, back to the topic. The invasion did not fail since Soviet Union effectively did invade Finnish land. The war was fought entirely on Finnish soil and in the effect it was Finland who lost territory. Perhaps the Soviets wished to gain more from this conflict and that's what I personally believe. However, I have yet to see a document proving that the Red Army did not successfuly invade Finland and was repulsed on the borders.

:::Finally, stating that there was a Soviet invasion of Finland is not more POV than stating that there was a failed invasion of Finland. I did read Soviet history books too (fascinating lecture, really), but I can think for myself. ]]]] 11:35, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

::::Successful invasions there are many of in history. ] and ] comes easily to mind. That doesn't say that the following occupation is a similar success. But in the case of Finland, the Soviet union had to (temporarily!) give up its plans for an invasion when they after four months had conquered about five percents of the territory they aimed at. They did so, well knowing that the occupation would be as problematic as the fightings had been. Equally much (approximately) they gained in the peace negotiations, and some more after the peace, but you can not call this a realized invasion of Finland. It was an ''attempted and aborted'' (if you find the word ''failed'' too judgemental) invasion. Already in November 1940, Stalin had to be halted by Hitler not to finish the invasion. By then, noone else could. /] 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When the Soviet Union invaded the Baltic states etc it was, attempting to reinstate the old Russian Empire Boarders which the Soviets had been forced to conceded when they signed ] with the Germans when Russia finished participating in WWI. In the ] if the Tsar had still been on the throne a pound for a penny Russia would have had all of its pre-war territory returned to it whether or not Finland had dragged back kicking and screaming. This did not happened because the victors of WWI detested and feared the Soviet regime. The ] in the late 1930s stalled in part because France and Britain would not recognise the right of the Soviet Union to interfere against "a change of policy favourable to an aggressor" in old Russian Empire areas given up in 1917, which included Finland. When invading Finland why would the Soviets not have taken the whole country if the Finns had not put up such a good resistance? I think that Stalin would have annexed the country and not put in a nominally in independent government, (like he did in Eastern Europe in 1945,) because as far as Stalin and many Soviets were concerned, Finland was in the same category as Estonia etc. To say that the Soviets won and the Finns lost is not true. The cost for the Soviets was not worth the price they would have to pay for the rest of the country, so they setteled for more than the Finns were willing to give, which is why the Finns went for round two.

I do not think that the the ] should be included in the Eastern Front because it is not normally considered to be part of WWII as it is not clear on who's side the two warring parties were fighting on (apart from their own).
:Maybe they didn't fight on anyone's side. Well, a Finnish view would be that the Finns fought on the side of the West, defending Scandinavia, as has been the Finns' role since Christianization some 900 years ago. :-)) /] 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But I would include the ] because as Churchill said "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." The Finns had thrown in their lot with Hitler and could not expect any further moral or material support from the Western Allies.
:The Finns were in dire need of protection against a 50 times as big neighboring aggressor; and none except the Germans had help to offer. It was, according to contemporary views, the lesser of two evils. A pity that the rest of the West joined the Communists. But of course it has to be mentioned as a front of the Great Patriotic War. /] 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be renamed to "Great Patriotic War", "Russo-German War", "Nazi-Soviet War" or something similar. I think War (and not theatre or campaign) is an appropriate as part of the name because just as the ] was part of the ] it was by and large self contained and different from the other campaigns and fronts. This front article should be a brief overview (smilar to the current time line) of all actions on the Eastern Front from '''1939''' until 1945 with links into detailed articles of all the wars and campaigns on the Eastern Front. If this was done then it would be possible to mention the Winter War in a paragraph giving context, between the Polish campaign of 1939 and the start of the Great Patriotic War. It would allow a starting paragraph about the German 2 Front dilemma, and the Western problems with Stalin's demands for the same thing (part of the reason for the strategic bombing campaigns which tied down 100 of thousands of German troops and thousands of guns). At the moment the way this article is structured there is no easy way to include this material because it is an article about the Great Patriotic War not the Eastern Front. --] 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I do not agree that the Winter War was fought at something that contemporaries considered an "Eastern Front". News coverage from that time (in English) didn't use that term. I don't know about the Polish campaign, but I wouldn't think so in that case either. The context of the Polish Campaign and the Winter War is rather the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. /] 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Tuomas, I believe the conflict is because of the words used. Some native speaker should confirm this, but as far as I can tell the verb "to invade" does not mean "to invade and conquer" or "to invade successfuly". If so, then the invasion of Finland was factual, not attempted. ]]]] 15:23, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

:::Or maybe that the invasion of ] was factual? ...however, their aim wasn't Karelia, it wasn't even ], it was all of Finland - and they were delayed. --] 15:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"attempted Soviet invasion" implies that the invasion did not take place. "attempted Soviet occupation" would be better because it implied an invasion took place and its failure is recognised.

:''"...unfinished invasion..."?'' <tt>;-))</tt>
:Do you '''really''' see ''"invasion"'' as synonym to ''border incident'' and ''border transgression?'' Also native English speakers must differentiate between an attack that is met at the border and fought at the border, and one that reaches beyond the border region. ...then it's only a question of how broad a border region is considered to be. In the case of the ] the main defence line did nothing like crumble, although it was ultimately broken; but that was after two and a half months. The day after, Soviet peace conditions were presented, a week later, all hopes for regular troops from Sweden were lost, and only enticing French delayed peace negotiations for ten more days. During this time, however, secondary defense lines were held. The invaders reached the first town at the last day of the war. To me, the invasion was avoided by the border defense, but I'm no native speaker of English, of course!
:We must, naturally, follow the lead of wiser people. In this case that of native speakers. Please excuse my scepsis. --] 17:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


It does not really matter what the contempories called it, because the lable given to historic events often become the norm after the events. For example no one who fought in the ] called them that, No one who fought in the Great War called it "World War '''One'''" because they did not expect there to be a second one! It is quite a common name to use eg "", by Anita J. Prazmowska, February 2004, ISBN 0521529387. I also suspect that it was a name used during the four weeks it existed. Certainly in the Official German relply to the British decleration of war they talk about the Eastern Frontier and "if soldier falls at the '''front'''". --] 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Copied from my talk page: (]]]])
::I think you must remember that Finns, like Poles, have lived in the shadow of the Soviet power and distorted Allied propaganda. One must also consider that Finns rightfully feel "proven right by history". In the 1930s, it was common to regard Finns, as Poles, as warmonging exaggerated Nationalists, aiming at expanding their country at the expense of their peaceful neighbours. And Soviet propaganda actually had some success to explain the necessity of a border adjustment, that in retrospect only would have served the purpose to make Finland easier to penetrate. Having been told that Stalin was a nice man who surely wouldn't attack unprovoked, and who surely didn't attempt to conquer Finland, distrustful Finns feel that now, after access to Soviet archives was granted, if not before, the rest of the world finally must understand the danger Finland was in. You are pushing wrong buttons, by hinting at Stalin maybe was a nice man who didn't intend to take more than the homes of 412,000 Karelians, Finland's industrial heart and power source, and cause some "minor" disturbance in Finland's food production, since the thesis of "limited" aims (much more limited than so!) was purported by Soviet propaganda both before and after the war. --] 16:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I'm afraid both you and Tuomas see in my words more than I actually wanted to say. I'm not suggesting that Stalin might've been a nice guy; I couldn't be further from such suggestions. It was not my intention to comment on the nature of the conflict, its reasons and outcomes either. I was merely nit-picking at the phrase used in one of the earlier versions of the article and pointing at the fact that it might actually be misleading. Whether Stalin wanted to take 5% of Finland, 50% of it or 100% is completely irrelevant here. What is important is that he invaded Finland. He did succeed in invading the country but did not succeed in occupying it or forcing it into submission. That's what I wanted to say and nothing more. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ]]]] 16:41, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

::No, no-one believes you to be a follower of Stalin. ...only that you might be too much influenced by similar propaganda. ...and, it makes a considerable difference to me, if the Red Army achieved 5%, 50% or 100% of its objectives. In the first case, which is closest to the truth, I think "failure" is close to an euphemism. :-) --] 17:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Let's take some other similar incidents for comparison then. The Germans seized approximately 5 to 15% of Soviet territory during the ]. Was it an ] then or not? It's not a question of your beliefs, it's a question of logic. ]]]] 19:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
::: :-) ...Yes, that invasion was ''initially'' quite successful as the army thrust forcefully through the border; although ultimately failed as the Wehrmacht never came close to the aimed goal at ]&ndash;]. --] 17:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Straw Poll on name of the article==

Since there seems to be some discrepancy about the name, should we hold a vote to determine if it should be changed, and what it could be changed to? ] 14:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<center>Please sign with <nowiki>#~~~~</nowiki></center>
<center>Feel free to add more naming proposals</center>
<center>Please add comments in the comments section not in the Votes section.</center>

===Arguements for change and alternate names===
* If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "''For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see ]''" for those who thing the EF and GPW are the same thing (I suppose that is most Americans, because the US came into the war after the start of the GPW!). This way the GPW could remain clean without including details other events which happened on the Eastern Front before the start of the GPW and during the war like Yugoslavia and the Warsaw uprising. Redirects can exist from alternative names '''German-Russian War''' etc. ] 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

====Great Patriotic War====
#]]]] 15:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)



===Arguments against change / votes to keep as Eastern Front (WWII)===

* Change not properly explained yet. ] 11:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

===Comments===
see:] "''Note that informal ]s can be held at any time if there are enough participants in the discussion, but publicizing the survey can get more of the community involved and increase the weight given to the results.''"

:What are the justifications for the options in this poll? ] 19:02, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

I've never really cared for the Soviet-centered name "Great Patriotic War", but it is by far the most common and well known. Also, we need to distinguish between this event (Which widely known as the war against Germany and Finland) and the smaller Soviet Campaign in East Asia. ] 20:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:So what are the pros and cons of the two options? ] 20:24, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

::Good point, I'll add a sub-category for that. ] 20:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::The "arguments" section above doesn't explain why a change of name is necessary and what the relative points of the two proposals are. In particular, why is "Eastern Front" bad? Does "Great Patriotic War" imply any POV on the conflict? (Does "Eastern Front"?) Will there be edit wars over the name? What is the war called in Germany? I have read the discussion above and I am still in the dark on these points. ] 22:10, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

==Requested moves==
Please see: ] to GPW --] 16:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I only posted the "Requested moves" on that page because the move to GPW is not possible unless one is an admin. I thought that as we had had a straw poll here it was a formality. It seems that the majority of people who read the "Requested moves" page have diffrent views from those who edit this page. The comment from the first person to vote sums it up ''There is no indication that the straw poll on the talk page was advertised in any way so as to solicit the opinion of community beyond a few editors of the page''. The few editors of the "Requested moves" page clearly think that they are a more representative sample than the people who edit this page. So given the block by the editors on that page. What is the best work around? ] 22:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:I don't see any discussion there any more. I thought the matter is already solved so I simply did not check that page soon enough. What were the odds there and how many wikipedians took part in that discussion? Anyway, I believe that the only thing we could do is to list this page on requested moves once again. After all that requested move was not advertised either... ]]]] 13:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

== Casulties on the eastern front (WWII) ==

In the page "Eastern Front (WWII)" at item 5 "casulties" one can read:
By most estimates some 4 million Axis troops and 11 million Soviet troops fell in battle or died as POWs.

In the page "World War II casualties" at the item Axis soldiers killed one can read:
Germany: 3,500,000 (includes Austrians and Sudeten Germans in German Army as well as other nationalities forced to join the Wehrmacht)

If 3,500,000 Germans soldiers died in WWII and 4 million Axis troops died on the eastern front,
who were the 500,000 non German Axis soldiers killed on the eastern front? :-)

Seriously, one of those two numbers ought to be incorrect. I don't know which one.

Remember "German" and "Axis" were not the same. '''German''' deaths were 3.5 million BUT '''Axis(German, Romanian, Italian, Bulgarian, Austrian etc.)''' deaths were 4 million. By the way majority of credible sources, Western and Eastern, agree that the Soviet Union(not just Russia!) lost 20 million civilians so that would mean the other 7-8 million Soviet deaths had to be Red Army personel. It was impossible for the Red Army to lose 12 million soldiers as Stalin only mobilized 10-11 million soldiers.--] 03:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alain Fournier

Matematically, you are right, of course. But given the chaotic situation in the Soviet Union and Central Europe after the war, all estimates are necessarily rough.

Besides, the nature of a project like Misplaced Pages makes this kind of contradictions hard to avoid, and nothing to be really upset about. Misplaced Pages isn't perfect, but if we are lucky our efforts may result in step-by-step increasing quality. The best thing to do must be to '''attribute''' different figures to authoritative sources.
:--] 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Yes you have a point but some figures are ridiculous. The USSR lost more Red Army troops than civilians? Like I said, some claims are too far fetched to believe.--] 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

== German POV ==

This article really needs to be weaned a bit from the German POV. It reads mostly like a German campaign history. We need to give equal detail to the Soviet formations, plans, commanders, etc., as to the Germans. &#8212;] 09:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:]. ] 21:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Soveits discouraged rape????? ==

I guess Ilya Ehrenburg, the Russian propoganda minister, never told the Red Army on approach to Germany

"Violently break the racial pride of the German woman. Ravish them as booty."
:Original source, please. ] 21:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The propaganda ministry accused Ehrenburg of inciting the rape of German women. Yet while Ehrenburg never shrank from the most bloodthirsty harangues, the most notorious statment, which is still attributed to him by western historians, was a Nazi invention." &ndash; Page 25 "Berlin the downfall" by Antony Beevor. ] 14:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==] discussion==
====] &rarr; ] ====

* '''Support'''. It was agreed in ] that '''Eastern Front (WWII)''' would be moved to '''Great Patriotic War'''. It was carried 4 votes to 1 (or 0) (not sure if gdr was voting or commenting) and the last vote cast was more than a month ago. Please move both page and talk page. ''However, if the move was previously fully discussed on the article's Talk: page, it can be moved right away.'' please do it ASAP ] 13:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Tentative oppose''' There is no indication that the straw poll on the talk page was advertised in any way so as to solicit the opinion of community beyond a few editors of the page. And there is no strong evidence presented that "Great Patriotic War" is the name most commonly used in English to refer to this conflict. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 13:56, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

* '''Strenuous Objection.''' ] is an exclusively Russian euphemism for ] that no English-speaking Misplaced Pages reader would ever search for, and anyone less than an academic, history buff, or war buff would ever be familiar with in the first place. It may be fine for the Russian language edition of Misplaced Pages, where Russian speakers would be familiar with the phrase (moreso than they are with the Western ''World War II''), but as for the English language Misplaced Pages, keep it as it is. Certainly adding the pre-1941 information to the article is necessary, perhaps as a section entitled "Beginning of the Great Patriotic War" but the GPW was only part of the operational theatre on the Eastern Front and should not be confused as being the ''entire'' Eastern front. I doubt you would consider the efforts of the Greeks, Bulgarians and the Poles part of the GPW, but they were part of the effort on the Eastern Front. Something many scholars include when discussing the war in the East. The requested move is akin to renaming the ] article to ]. No one would ever look for that save a few Southerners still jaded that their side lost. &mdash;] 14:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
** You say '' GPW was only part of the operational theatre on the Eastern Front and should not be confused as being the ''entire'' Eastern front.'' Which is precisely why I think it should be renamed to GPW. If the article is expanded to include the other conflicts then there can not be redirects from names like "Great Patriotic War" and "Russo-German War" "Soviet-German War" or "German-Soviet War" because the article would cover more than those names imply and redirects to subheadings do not work. For this reason people who edit the current page are refusing to allow the additions you are suggesting -- because they define the Eastern Front to be only the German-Soviet War. If the current article was moved to GPW then the Eastern Front could be developed along the lines of the ] in the style of the ] -- brief sections with links to main articles. At the moment the coverage of the Eastern Front is as if the Western Front only included those campaigns which occurred after the Americans entered the war. ] 17:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*** Still not swayed. Still object, just as strenuously. Expand the article. No need to rename it to a title rank with Soviet sloganiering propaganda no one in the West uses on a regular basis, much less attends to more than required for a footnote. &mdash;] 19:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
**** If we expand the article to be the Eastern European Theatre, then we'll end up having to link to the Soviet-German War from within it regardless, just as we link to the ] and ]. Unless you're advocating having them all on one page, which would, IMO, make it terribly long and unwieldly. ] 03:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. The name ''Eastern Front'' is much more common in English. -- ] 15:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
** ''This commentis from the Talk:Eastern Front (WWII)'' &mdash; If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "''For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see ]''" for those who thing the EF and GPW are the same thing (I suppose that is most Americans, because the US came into the war after the start of the GPW!). This way the GPW could remain clean without including details other events which happened on the Eastern Front before the start of the GPW and during the war like Yugoslavia and the Warsaw uprising. Redirects can exist from alternative names '''German-Russian War''' etc. ] 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

* '''Support''', mostly for the same reasons why ExplorerCDT opposses. The article at present is about the Soviet-German War, not every action taken East of Germany. Presently, we want to isolate it from the ] and the ], which already have their own pages. As shown above, Eastern Front, while usually meaning to the GPW, can also refer to the Eastern European Theatre as a whole and is therefore ambiguous. For my last points, GPW is, while perhaps not quite as common, is certainly a very well known term and doesn't seem to be that distant a second and does not (even in Russia) include combat outside of the Soviet-German War.
**Agree with separating the specific conflict from the general front but is this the best name for it? ] 16:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
***I'll be honost, I don't like the name Great Patriotic War. But, really, here are our choices: Soviet/Russo-German/Axis War; Eastern Front (WWII); GPW. The first is accurate, but little known, so it's automatically at last place. The second is common, but ambiguous (as we can see in this very discussion), and ''already'' a disambiguation. The third is common, non-ambiguous, but seems pretty ]. Commonality is always the first deciding factor, so the first option is out. Clarity, AFAIK, is the second priority, so that puts the GPW ahead of Eastern Front (WWII). ] 03:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*In which case I '''Support'''. ] 13:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' - the name is POV...it buys into Stalin sending poorly armed men to be cannon fodder as being "Patriotic" and ignores that there was more to this war than Russia defending itself. The deportation of all sorts of minorities took place in the context of this war. Justifying Stalin's actions as "Great Patriotism" is really giving him too much credit. Do we really want to buy into Soviet-era doublespeak? Maybe we can call it '']'' to make sure we address all sides (of course this still leaves out the Finns and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Also, seems to separate it from the broader WWII context. &mdash; In addition, then do we rename the ] '''War Against the Americans to Save the Nation'''? I could see using ''Second Indochina War'' since it gives context, but the Vietnamese name gives the entire war to one side. ] 16:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: Barbarossa does not include any of the other major battles / phases of the Soviet-German War such as ], ], ] or ]. ] 16:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::I know, I was just fishing for another one-sided name to make a point - I realise it was a poor analogy, especially since I am arguing for '''completeness'''. ] 17:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::Are you aware that it was named the Great Patriotic War because Napoleon's Russian Campaign is known as the ] in Russia? Far from justifying Stalin's actions, it is a sign of the weakness of the communist system (like the opening up churches), that they had to delve into the Tzarest past and appeal to ] instead of communist ideology. The trouble with any other name like the more accurate "Axis-Soviet War" is that any other name even less well know, or "Soviet-German" less accurate. As to the use of the word "war", at the moment we have an article called ] (which is a misnomer because it includes the bombing of Australia, and fighting in Asia and on the Indian Ocean), but is used because it is argued that most Americans use the term. That does not make it any less part of World War II. In a slimlar way there is the ] which is part of the ]. "Completeness": Do you think that the operations in Italy and Norway should be included in the Western Front article? If not why not as you are proposing that everything on the eastern front should be in one article which is already large and still skimps on many actions involving numbers of men an material which dwarf the Western Front. For example the attack on East Prussia and Poland in early 1945, or the eastern front in 1939, or the war by the Partisans in Yugoslavia etc?] 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::The "Great Patriotic War" refers to the Soviet Union defending itself against the onslaught of the German army and the subsequent attack on Germany/German occupied Europe by the Red Army. It does not refer to the deportation of minorites. The deportation of minorities is merely a nasty side-effect of the Great Patriotic War (if not just something that Stalin did which had nothing to do with the Great Patriotic War). As for appealing to "Rodina": Russia was not fighting for Communism; it was fighting for its survival. When urging people to conquer far-away contries to spread Communism, you must appeal to Communism and not to Rodina. When urging people to defend their country, you may appeal to Rodina, because that is what they are defending, or to Communism, because by defending Russia they are ensuring the continued influence of the Soviet Union. As an analogy, when the United States is fighting in Iraq, it is because it is "spreading freedom in the Middle East". However, if the United States is under attack by foreign enemies and you see posters urging people to fight to defend their country, that does not indicate that there's anything fundamentally wrong with Democracy, or Capitalism for that matter.

:::::The Soviet Union didn't consider everyone who came before the Revolution to be inherently evil. The United States does not hold the view that there was something fundamentally wrong with Louis XIV of France, or Charlemagne (although a view is held by some that we are all pious and enlightened people while anyone who lived before us and ordered his people to fight bloody wars for the expansion of territory or benefited from slave labor or spent their evenings in the gladiator arena was inherently cruel and sadistic), however, if a dictator springs up somewhere in Europe, the US will object as dictators do not belong in our modern world, after the advent of democracy. So too, the Soviet Union didn't consider those who fought against France in the Napoleonic wars to be enemies of Communism. They were heroes and defenders of the Russian people, the people who would a century later form the Soviet Union. In World War II, when Russia again had to defend itself against an enemy who threatened to completely annihilate it, the government may well call it the "Great Patriotic War" to bring back such feelings of patriotism without it being "a sign of the weakness of the communist system". (And by the way, Communism and Atheism are seperate things. If the United States takes "under G-d" out of the pledge of allegiance, that won't be a sign of the weakness of the American system.)

:::::By the way, why must an article have the most widely known name? An article should have the most technically correct name. A redirect can then be set up from the most widely know one. ]

*'''Oppose'''. I ''agree'' with renaming this article so that a proper overview of the Eastern Front can be written in its place, but I ''oppose'' renaming it to "Great Patriotic War", as this is very one-sided. ] or ] would be better names. Popularity is not the only thing that we take into account when picking a name for an article: if it were we would have to call the article "Eastern Front". ] 17:04, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
::Personally I do not mind what it is renamed too because with any name redirects will be possible. I just happen to to think that GPW is the best of a bad bunch. But it would worse not to move the article to a any new name. ] 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::But why is it the best of a bad bunch? You've failed to explain this. GPW is popular, but not neutral. The alternatives are neutral but not popular. I think that neutrality is a more important principle for Misplaced Pages than matching popular usage. ] 11:06, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
:::: Because none of them are well known. There are two other alternatives "Axis-Soviet War" "German-Soviet War". As I said above "''Personally I do not mind what it is renamed too because with any name redirects will be possible.''" Of those two the former is more accurate than the latter but is less well known and the latter is less often used than GPW. Please explain why you think that GPW is not neutral? After all it was the great war of World War II and both sides fought with patriotism (more so than for ideology).

*'''Agree'''. "East(ern) Front" is an ambiguous name, and ], even if one-sided, is the most commonly used unambiguous name in English. The name may be jingoistic, but it's what the war is called. "German-Soviet" or "Axis-Soviet" may be precise, but they are not at all commonly used. AFAIK it's just the ''Ostfront'' in German, which does not clearly identify the war. Barbarossa is just as one-sided as GPW, and refers only to one operation; it would be like calling the whole of 1944&#8211;45 in the West "Operation Overlord". I haven't heard any other good alternatives. (Google test: "Great Patriotic War", ca. 70,000 hits; "German-Soviet War", ca. 1,000 hits; "Axis-Soviet War", exactly one hit.) &#8212;] 22:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose.''' I've never heard of "The Great Patriotic War," so I'll assume that the majority of other wikipedians haven't either. ] 04:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Same here, but I have repeatedly heard of the 'eastern front'. I would argue that 'Eastern Front (WWII)' isn't particularly ambiguous. Also, it gets about 100,000 hits, as does 'Eastern Front (World War II). Seems like there has got to be other alternative resolutions of the issues referred to by 'Philip Baird Shearer 17:21, 17 Dec 2004' (which seem to be at least in part contradicted by 'Timrollpickering]] 16:47, 17 Dec 2004'. ] 05:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. ] is POV (Soviet), and the existing title is perfectly adequate, and probably more familiar/understandable to the average reader. ] 20:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. I'm yet another English speaker who has always heard this war referred to as the Eastern Front of WWII. And I would certainly expect NPOV concerns if someone entered "Eastern Front (WWII)" and was redirected to "The Great Patriotic War." It makes a great deal of sense that Russians would call the war something different, but they are a minority of English speakers, and I see no reason why their name for the war should be regarded as more correct. (Google gets a roughly even number of hits for either term, depending on how you parse "Eastern Front WWII", but while general WWII history sites are responsible for most of the Eastern Front hits, most of the "Great Patriotic War" hits are at Russian sites or sites devoted to Russian history.) --] 21:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::So on which front was the Polish campaign of 1939 fought? On which front was the Partisan conflict in Yugoslavia fought. On which front was the ] fought? Did you read the comment above?:
:::* Yes, I read it, but I find it unconvincing in light of overwhelming popular usage; a disambiguation heading can deal with those. --] 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "''For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see ]''"
::This would also alow "yet another English speaker" to know that the Russians call it this (and the reason why they do see ]). If the article is expanded to include all the conflicts on the Eastern Front then the redirects like ] will be wrong. As I said above GPW is not a perect name but it is the best of a bad bunch (see what ] wrote on the 18th for the details of why this is). ] 23:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::It can be mentioned in the first paragraph that the Russians call it (or some specific part of it) the Great Patriotic War. I still don't think the name of the article should be changed. --] 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Eastern Front starts in 1939.
::"Eastern Front" + 1939 = 44,000 hits
::"Eastern Front" + Soviet = 67,000 hits
::"Great Patriotic War" = 59,000 hits
:So claims that GPW is an unknown term is ridiculous.
:The article clearly says it is Soviet-german conflict, hence the name is correct.
:"Eastern Front" is yet to be written. ] 05:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

**First off, whichever you call it, most sites say that the war began in ]. Second, your first search limits the search to pages that specifically mention the year ]. If you do that with "Great Patriotic War", the results are devastating:
:::"Great Patriotic War" + 1939 = 10,700 hits
::Using 1941 for comparison:
:::"Eastern Front" + 1941 = 61,600 hits
:::"Great Patriotic War" + 1941 = 25,600 hits
::And, as I mentioned in my previous post, the bulk of the Great Patriotic War results on Google appear to be from Russian sites and sites dedicated specifically to Russian history. I maintain that "Eastern Front" is the more common term in the English-speaking world, as well as being better NPOV. --] 09:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. POV &ndash; ]] 02:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. POV and "Eastern Front" is more common. Fighting in the Balkans and in Poland is not generally known as the "Eastern Front," in any event. ] ] 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

* '''Support'''. The Great Patriotic War is the name that correctly points out that importance of the so-called "Eastern Front" for both Russians and Germans, as well as for the final outcome of the WWII, cannot even be compared with warfare somewhere in Africa or in Australia. I believe it is for the Russian people to decide how events of their history should be called. For us in Moscow it is by no means the "Eastern front", it is actually the "Western front". The term "Eastern Front" is used in European countries east of Germany to refer to the war with Japan. Thus, the term "Eastern Front", as applied to the Soviet-German war, seems to be arbitrary and partisan. ] 6:52, 23 Dec 2004 (GMT)

* '''Support'''. I believe the last thing anyone can blame me for would be a pro-Soviet stance, but the war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is in importance and numbers more than motivating an article of its own, and for that what this article covers ''The Great Patriotic War'' is the most appropriate title. The English language habit not to make any clear distinction between "the Eastern Front" and the 1941-1945 Russo-German war to me signifies an ignorance that is far below the appropriate level for any encyclopedia. Remember, we are discussing only the title of the page. Redirects and article introduction still gives plenty of ways to avoid misunderstandings. /] 20:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. "Eastern Front" is by far the most common usage for this very important part of WWII in English. Explanations of the historical context(s) of The Great Patriotic War, the Winter War, the Polish conflicts in the larger theatre -- and any other wars, campaigns and/or political actions or developments -- can be prominently linked at the beginning, or the end, or within the body of this article on the Eastern Front. Further, I think the Russian, Finnish and Polish versions of Misplaced Pages should choose to decide what they want to do with their version (and views) of this subject as they wish. Cheers, ] 03:17, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
::The article is already at 32K and that is with the time-line stripped out. There are major sections of the Axis-Soviet war overview missing for example late 44 throught the end of the war (with the exeption of the Battle of Berlin). Where for example is the sections on Hungary (with the shenanigans of ], the siege of Pest and then Buda), Czechoslovakia and Austria? Another example: the whole of the fall of Sevastopol is covered by "except Sevastopol, which held out until 3 July 1942" and its recapture "and Sevastopol in May". So where is the room for the other conflicts in this page like this example, the defence of Prague by the elements of the ], which is part of the Eastern Front but not directly part of the Axis-Soviet War? ] 00:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Belorussian or Byelorussian Front ==

Should the link be to "Belorussian Front" or "Byelorussian Front"? As this subject came up on the "Battle of Berlin" page and it effects this one, please see the discussion under ] ] 19:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Far Eastern Front==
I placed a link to Operation ], the Read Army's campaign against Japan in August of 1945.--] 17:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== ] ==
I have heard mention , do not remember where, that Suvorov believed Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was a pre-emtive strike as the huge Soviet build up was a prelude to Stalin's invasion of the west. Cin anyone elucidate further. I do realize that many Russians, esp ex-KGB types are trying t discredit Suvorov by saying that he was sowing disinformation by being a false defector. --] 16:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: '']''. Some time ago you could also have seen it in ] (only ref to "Icebreaker" is left there now, without going into detail). ] 23:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you read Colonel David Glantz's latest works, he has a pretty good critique of Suvorov.

Read his book "Icebreaker", in which he does state just that. If true, supposely asured by some and refuted by others, then it could change the way we look at world war two.--] 16:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Given the Wehrmacht's successes in 1940, the Franco-British failure, and the Red Army's bad record from the ], Hitler would have attacked eastwards anyway. In his views, a fight on life and death with the ("Jewish"-) Communist Slavs was unavoidable. If we are to believe Suvorov, maybe the decission to launch Operation Barbarossa in 1941 seems more ''rational,'' but that's all. ...and Hitler wasn't precisely rational anyway. But he had reasons to believe that the Western Europeans would join in to crush the Bolsheviks. That was one error of his. And he had become overconfident in the superiority of his forces. That's of course another fatal error, although in 1941 many Western analysists estimated the Wehrmacht's superiority similarly exaggerated as did Hitler.
:It all boils down to personal beliefs and convictions. Do you want to believe that Stalin aimed at the ] waiting passively while the war went on in the West until the armies were worn out and his forces could arrive as liberators, or do you want to believe that Stalin in fact aimed at nothing but the territory of the old ], that chiefly was acquired in 1940? You can interpret our knowledge on the Soviet Union to fit both convictions. --] 18:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Not everyone believe in ], but those who do can for instance read:
::''Now let us consider the second possibility, a German victory. Some think that this would confront us with a serious danger. There is some truth in this, but it would be a mistake to regard the danger as so close at hand or as great as has been proposed.''
::''If Germany should prove to be victorious, she will leave the war too weakened to start a war with the USSR within a decade at least. She will have to supervise the occupation of France and England and ''
::''In addition, a victorious Germany will have vast territories; the exploitation of those will also absorb Germany during several decades.''
::''Obviously, this Germany will be too busy elsewhere to turn against us.''
:--] 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Phases of the war==
I think it would be easier to structure and segment this article if we had definitive phases to go by. Are there any official/well-known campaigns within the Axis-Soviet War? Asides from Barbarossa, Bagration and possibly Kursk, I don't really see any. (For example, after Barbarossa, what is the generally accepted name for the phase of the war that next occurred?) ] 17:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:] you might like to look at ] --] 12:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a few more subheadings to make the structure clear. The phases of the war are pretty clear, but I don't think there are commonly-accepted names in English for them (or even for many of the battles). I used this structure, with corresponding main articles:
# ] (June to September 1941)
# ] and ] (September to December 1941)
# Soviet counter-offensive: ], ] (December 1941 to May 1942)
# ], ], ] (May to November 1942)
# ], ], ], ] (November 1942 to June 1943) (''it would be nice to have a summary article of this phase of the war'')
# ] (July 1943 to August 1943)
# Recapture of the Ukraine (August 1943 to May 1944) -- ''no main article''
# ] (June 1944 to December 1944) -- ''no article on Lvov-Sandomierz operation''
# Soviet advance into Eastern Europe: ] (January 1945 to March 1945) -- ''no article on advance into SE Europe''
# ] (April 1945)
My personal preference is to have geographical names for campaigns and battles rather than operation names, because (1) the operation codenames don't tell you where or when something happened; and (2) an operation was planned and exeucted by one side so a description of it tends to make the article include only one side of events. Hence I think an article name like ] would be better than ], and ] better than ]. Popular usage might mean we are stuck with some of these, but I note that on the western front ] redirects to ] so maybe there is hope. ] 19:25, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

:I thought that there was an operation called ]. Not an elegant name but that how it is called. ] 20:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, ] would be a good name for the main article on the Soviet advance into Poland, Prussia and East Germany. There would also need to be an article on the southern advance into Romania, Hungary, and Austria. ] 21:02, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

==Straw Poll On Requested moves==

There is a Straw Poll taking place on ] on where votes for "Requested Moves" should be placed. As this page was listed on the RM page and despite a majority for the move on this page before posting, it was rejected on the RM page, people who watch this page might like to contribute to the straw poll on the RM page. ] 12:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Maps ==

I drew some summary maps for the whole war. Here they are in miniature:

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Let me know if there are errors. ] 15:16, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

: I'm no expert on the battles, but the maps are very clear and attractive. If you're going to be doing any updates, would you consider adding a dotted line indicating the pre-partition borders of Poland to the first map? Good job. ''&mdash;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-03-21&nbsp;19:48&nbsp;Z</small>''

::I agree that the maps are very readable. May I ask what program you use to make them? ] 21:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Drawn in ], using the ] for flood-filling and ] for PNG compression. I would prefer not to add the 1939 Polish frontier. I understand that you might want to know where it was, but it played no part in the 1941&ndash;1945 war so I think it would be best to show it in another article. You can see several maps in the ] article showing the 1939 frontiers. ] 21:23, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

::You, Gdr, have earned quite some respect with your additions and improvements. With regard to the relevance of the old Polish-German border to the opening of hostilities in June 1941, I would however like to disagree with you:
::An important point in the pre-war negotiations was a Soviet interest in using Polish territory as an advanced defence zone. It is possible that the Blitzkrieg advance would have been initially equally successful, also if the Wehrmacht had started behind the Polish corridor (a build-up in East Prussia had however reasonably been a too obvious warningsignal), but the change of preconditions, that the occupation of Poland resulted in, can hardly be deemed irrelevant.
::Regards!
::--] 19:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, I take your point. And in 1945 Silesia is important too. So I will think about it. ] 14:26, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

==Industrial Production==
Where is the article about the production of war material and other resources? One cannot understand the front without taking into account these resources and output of the war industry. Thanks for the maps btw. ] 16:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are u sure that the Germans produced 17,000 during 1943? It seems less. ] 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, I see that ] claims more like 13,000. I was relying on Richard Overy, who gets the figure from Zaloga and Grandson, ''Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War II'', 1984. I'd be inclined to go with the lower number, if it weren't for the fact that ] doesn't have any references. ] 23:16, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

== Controversies ==

In tidying up the page, I cut some controversies on the grounds that (1) the issues aren't at all clear-cut; and (2) there isn't the space in a high-level overview article like this to go into controversies: it's better to just say what happened and link to more detailed articles. In particular, I cut:
# Discussion about whether it was a mistake not to advance on Moscow in August 1941. (Even if Moscow had fallen historian differ as to whether Germany could have won the war.) This probably deserves its own article.
# Discussion about whether the Soviets deliberately avoided relieving the ] in August 1944. (Some historians think that callous indifference combined with stiff German resistance were the culprits, not a deliberate policy.) This already has its own article: ].
] 19:11, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

This is a subject to controversy, still the fact that Red army has reach the Warsav on september 16, and they have start the liberation of Warsav later, can be mentioned.
] 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Indeed. The fact ''is'' mentioned, and there's a link to the ] article, which covers the subject in much greater detail than we can possibly go into here. ] 10:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

::Exactly due to the reasons given above by ], I reverted the change by ]. I do not dispute the factual accuracy. It's just that when making essential edits, please make sure you read the full article. ] 20:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ok :-)] 21:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Moving the page to "Eastern Front (World War II)" ==

Are there any objections to moving this page to ]? The article dealing with the Eastern Front during the First World War is at ], and besides, "World War II" is more formal than just "WWII". ]''']'''] 08:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

:Maybe we don't need to consider the degree of formality that much for what we put in disambiguation parentheses? --] 09:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: I noticed that this is such, and moved it. IIRC, there's a naming convention that says we should expand acronyms in those places. --] 02:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: Now I saw that it was just that one (EF/WWI) that was expanded fully... but I moved the rest to follow suit now that I was at it. You guys figure it out which is best in the long run, just keep it consistent. --] 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't really belong under the name "Eastern Front" regardless of how it's disambiguated, so this proposal is a bit pointless. It would be better to work out a good name for it. You can see above that a move to "Great Patriotic War" failed; maybe a move to "German-Soviet War" would succeed? ] 16:00, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

== Soviet contribution obscured ==
The following piece removed form the recent addition:
:''; this decisive contribution to winning WW2 in Europe was long obscured in the ] due to ] conditions.''

While it is generally true, its place is not in an intro. If there is enough '''factual''' material about diminishing of the Soviet role, a separate subsection is welcome. ] 22:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I think the downplaying of Soviet sufferings'' and ''contributions are worthy of a prominent mentioning. I see the merits in your reasoning Mikkalai, of course, but this is a somewhat exceptional and rather crucial aspect of the recent history.
:--] 06:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is already over the 32 KiB recommended limit, and misses sections on important subjects such as leadership, tactics, logistics, equpiment, intelligence, the partisan war, nationalism, the naval war, the air war. I think that historiography comes a long way down the list of priorities for inclusion. If you were to write an article on, say, the ], I think it would be appropriate for this article to refer to it in the "See also" section. ] 10:18, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

==All the protagonists==

I think that this article could do with an additional section describing the protagonists who fought on the front. As it was an ideological as well as a nationalistic war, many people fought for reasons other than nationalism, so the traditional alignment of nations (tribes) does not cover this conflict adequately.

In many cases the Great Patriotic war was overlaid on a host of small civil wars in which the protagonists could and did align themselves in the greater war in the hope of gaining advantage in the local war. This was best shown in Yugoslavia where there the Soviets, British and Germans were supporting the various groups, but it also happened in other east European countries another good example is the "Warsaw Uprising".

There are also the traditional national interests were people change sides because their government does so. For example at the moment the introduction mentions that the Romanians fought for the Germans, but later in the war they switched sides when their government did, as did some of the Italians.

The ] lists that 2nd Polish Army, the 1st and 4th Romanian Armies and the 1st Czechoslovakian Army Corps all fought for the Soviets in the front line in formed national units. The ] were fighting in the same battle on the side of the Czechoslovakian partisans having been formed and commanded by the Germans to fight against the Soviets.

Ani-communism and anti-fascism were strong motivating forces for may people. That young urban Jewish people joined communist partisans in the woods of Eastern Europe no matter what their own personal political beliefs is under understandable. But the motivation of the personnel in the Spanish ] and the foreigners in the SS divisions (like the ]) who fought on the Eastern front should be mentioned. --] 11:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, it would be nice to have this kind of material. Perhaps you should write it? But I'm not sure it belongs in the overview article: space is limited, and in an overview of such a huge event as this we have to focus on the "big battalions" and leave the detail to other articles. ] 21:39, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
:: It is not necessary to list each and every small soldier. Sufficient to say for each country whether and when some parts of it fought at what side. ] 15:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

== Renaming ==

It would be nice to rename this article to make way for an article on the whole Eastern Front of World War II, perhaps along the lines of ]. The previous attempt to rename to ''Great Patriotic War'' failed, but maybe some other name would be acceptable.

*The BBC uses ''Soviet-German War'' .
*''Russo-German War'' is marginally more popular on Google, but it's ambiguous with other Russo-German wars and ignores the participation of the non-Russian republics.
*''Axis-Soviet War'' is rare on Google, but it indicates the participation of Italy, Hungary, and Rumania.
*Other names?
] 22:59, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

:I would avoid Axis-Soviet War since Japan had a non-aggression treaty with Russia, meaning it wasn't really the Axis who were at war with the Soviets. Soviet-German war seems to me to be the most accurate to me.

:Could I recommed that you use the name "Eastern European Theatre of World War II" for an article on all combat east of Germany? It would be quite unambigious and line up with our other "...Theatre of World War II" articles and categories. ] 00:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite because, just as there is a Western Front, well known because Stalin was always asking for one, people will look for an overview document called "Eastern Front" not "Eastern Theatre". At the moment there is a debate about how to handle some of the voting on ], I suggest leave it a week or so until that debate is put to bed and then we will reput the question to WP:RM (again) as a move with multiple possible pages and use ] to decide the issue. I think that the "Eastern Front (WWII)/Rewrite" will help with this. ] 15:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

== is this goerbel's work?! ==

this whole article reads like a piece of Nazi propoganda--] 20:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Can you you be specific about what you object to? ] 21:32, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)


I think he means how it states the russians lost about a million men for every 20 miles they advance or so. Or what the main page indicates. And that doesn't even cover defencesive loses in the earlier years.

Also would the cossaks, (and other western USSR anti-soviet partisans) beef up the russian loses? Even though some did surrender to Nazi's and inflating the casualty numbers when Germany first rolled accross during operation Barbarrosa?


I also don't like where the word Germans were used when the term NAZI could have been. There is a difference, and all the NAZI's in the world don't all live in Germany.

== Industrial output section ==

I reverted this contribution by 195.66.199.218, referring to the description of Germany's focus on qualilty of material, and in particular the Tiger tank:

:However the pre - last sentense is doubtfull,many experts considered ] is the best tank of World War II).

This is a good point: taking into account fuel, ease of maintenance, robustness, cost of manufatcure etc the T-34 was arguably the best all-round tank of WW2. But this article is on too broad a scope to get into this kind of detailed debate. So is there a better choice of examples to illustrate the ] section? Is the section even painting a fair picture? Please comment. ] 16:32, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

== Stalins speech ==

When Stalin stated that the enemy had lost 4.5 million men, the best of its airforce had been destroyed, etc., and Russia had lost only 450,000 men, this was a lie, yes; but the people knew that the numbers were switched and Stalin knew that the people knew

I would like to see this included that it was a lie yes but the numbers were switched and the people knew that and stalin knew that the people knew ;)

Something like that would be nice to see


Does anybody know where you can download the speech video because it would be so cool seing it with 750k Soviet troops screaming their longs off and then marching directly to the front :D

== Who did what list if possible ==

I would like to see a list of who did what

There are some nice lists on how many tanks and self propeled guns were made by some countries but one thing is very odd why hasent any one typed in the total that the americans made there is only how many they made per year of each type but no total nummbers that is very odd

It would be so lovely to see a simple list of how many nazies died because of the soviets, how many nazies died because of the british how many nazies died because of the americans etc etc

How man soviets died because of the nazies how many soviets died because of the italians how many soviets died because of the hungariasn etc etc

And how many died because of land fights/air fights/sea fights/other fights

Basiclly who from what country killed who from what country during the war during a year during a month if possible


Why isnt there a list of how many air planes were made by the Soviets and what types and why are there only 2 types of soviet air planes listed?

Such lists would be so great to see and it would be so easy for everyone to see that the soviets did the bigest part by far in stoping the nazies

== Mobilized forces ==

12 million for Soviet Union seems too little. 12 mil. is the peak standing force, I think in 44-45, but many more than 12 million were mobilized. Coupled with the reported losses (8 mil) that gives an unrealistic death toll of 2 out of 3. It was certainly high, but not that high.... ] 5 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

:Yes, the numbers in that section are clearly wrong. I've cut them for the moment. We can restore them with a reference. ] 10:32:10, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

==Northern Front 44,45==

It would be nice to include the refrences in to the Eastern Front into this article particularly the fact that on 18 Oct 44 Soviet troops cross the Norwegian frontier. Anyone like to do it? ] 17:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

==Soviet casualties of Operation Bagration==
This article says that the Red Army had 765,815 dead, missing, wounded and sick, as well as 2,957 tanks and assault guns during operation Bagration. The article ] says that the Soviets had 110,000+70,000=180,000 casualties. A huge difference. ] 09:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

== ferocity ==

article lacked the hallmark of this theatre- fixed


== I added some counter part to the nazi pro propaganda ==

In the overivew it is only stated about the Russian raips and nothing about what the Axis did, this is clear NAZI propaganda. You must show the whole picture

As the axis advanced into the Soviet Unnion they started their extermination campagin. The whole Soviet society should be destroyed the country turn into a mega slave labour camp and all Soviets should be exploited to the max and then thrown away lie toilet paper. And that is exactly what the axis did. All Soviet females between 15-25 were sent to brothels, killed, used in medical experiments or sent to factories. All Soviet females 25 or older were killed, used in medical experiments, sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet males were killed, used in medical experiments or sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet children were used in medical experiments, killed or were used to clear mine fields. The Axis would march the Soviet children in columns into mine fields.

Just saying the Soviets rapid german women without saying all of that is clear pro nazi propaganda which was used by the nazies them sleves during ww2 and that people still only qute that part shows what a big gap in knowledge exists in peoples mind

You must allways put everything in perspective


{{Merged-from|Eastern Front}}
] 2005-11-28 03.15 CET
{{archives|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|index=Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive index}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== Date cleanup ==
: The second sentence seems to describe the German attitude, but it's formed as a simple statement. This passage is full of factually incorrect statements. For example, not all Soviet males were killed or enslaved; I am certain that millions survived the war. Please try to find a book or other source, and paraphrase it for the article, to make sure that your contribution is ]. The situation was much more complex, and keeping it more real would be better for article balance. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-28&nbsp;02:32&nbsp;Z</small>''


Article states the following "At 03:15 on 22 June 1941, 99 of 190 German divisions, including fourteen panzer divisions and ten motorized, were deployed against the Soviet Union from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They were accompanied by ten Romanian divisions, three Italian divisions, two Slovakian divisions and nine Romanian and four Hungarian brigades".


This is most certainly not true, because Hungary only declared war against the Soviet Union on June 27th and so couldn't have supplied any brigades for the original invasion 5 days before. The source for this I cannot review directly, as the reference points to an offline Russian book published in 1973.
: Well if you are going to have that the German women were rapied then you must put it in perspective
My source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160505212551/https://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/diplomacy39-45.html
And yes not all were killed but all who got captured were either killed or sent to slave labout camps etc etc, source is Russia's War by Richard James Overy. He is a British history professor that has won many prices in history. Also most Universities have it spellt out in their history text books
And yes things are more complicated but there is a need to counter the pro nazi propaganda that so often in detail mentions Soviet atrocity and never ever says one word about Nazi atrocity


Btw, in light of this error, it might generally be useful to review any other info sourced from the 1973 Russian book. As you might know, during the Soviet era, certain historical events really weren't publishe in th official histories as they actually had happened. I recommend Antony Beevor instead, he's got nice war books, and he's not publishing in a totalitarian state which was a direct participant in the conflict the page is about.
Also yes there were Soviets who survied because the axis never ttook control over the whole country just a small part about 1/10


== Disappearance of Ondrej Sobola ==
] 2005-11-28 04.09 CET


There seems to be an extra article merged into this one, I don't think the disappearance of an Austro-Hungarian soldier in 1918 is relevant to the eastern front, as well as the two see also sections.
@], did you mean to do this? ] (]) 04:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


== Too many commanders and leaders ==
Someone here keeps removeing my edits so then i must just keep adding it


Recently I attempted to trim down the commanders and leaders section, as it looked like there were far too many, including unnecessary minor commanders and those who didn't lead campaigns on the field. However someone kept reversing the edit for unclear reasons. I definitely think this section should be trimmed down and we should reach a consensus on which commanders should remain in there while which ones are unnecessarily displayed and should be cut out. ] (]) 03:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
] 2005-11-28 04.15 CET


== The overall assessment of the forces of the sides is underestimated (1941-1945) ==
: Please don't call other editors by denigrating names. If anything, that will just make it harder to get things done. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-28&nbsp;05:02&nbsp;Z</small>''


1. Sources of the total forces of the sides are not given ] (]) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
: Ok, changed from pro nazi to right wing In my comment to the removal of my editing one line up


:https://web.archive.org/web/20100328080054/http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_01.html ] (]) 11:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
] 2005-11-28 07.15 CET


== Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2025 ==
:: I suggest you don't label other Misplaced Pages editors with any kind of names; this can be considered a ], which is against Misplaced Pages policy. It can only cause bad feelings, and hurt co-operation. Please stick to writing about the text of the articles, the facts, and the sources. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-28&nbsp;06:43&nbsp;Z</small>''


{{edit semi-protected|Eastern Front (World War II)|answered=yes}}
: Ok as you wish have changed from right wing to someone, but the facts are still the same this is aht the axis forces did this is what happened ] 2005-11-28 07.55 CET
Add additional sources for verification it has been this way from two years nwo it must be fixed! ] (]) 12:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> I will add a request for more sources. I am not qualified enough in the WWII subject to edit this, however (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) 16:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:00, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eastern Front (World War II) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former good article nomineeEastern Front (World War II) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 11, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 1, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGermany High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / South Pacific / Balkan / British / Canadian / European / French / German / Italian / Nordic / North America / Polish / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
Canadian military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
Nordic military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Polish military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconUkraine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Military Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHungary High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPoland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Eastern Front (World War II): edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2017-11-08

Short mentioning of fear of the German people of Soviets due to propaganda and real atrocities e.g. Nemmersdorf massacre which caused even mass suicide and caused the German military to fight the Soviet to the end and surrender to the other Allies (should probably have a hotlink to unconditional surrender somewhere in there).

Give a sourced overview on casualties counts.

Wartime economies, military production, Soviet industrial evacuation/relocation

Priority 2


The contents of the Eastern Front page were merged into Eastern Front (World War II). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Date cleanup

Article states the following "At 03:15 on 22 June 1941, 99 of 190 German divisions, including fourteen panzer divisions and ten motorized, were deployed against the Soviet Union from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They were accompanied by ten Romanian divisions, three Italian divisions, two Slovakian divisions and nine Romanian and four Hungarian brigades".

This is most certainly not true, because Hungary only declared war against the Soviet Union on June 27th and so couldn't have supplied any brigades for the original invasion 5 days before. The source for this I cannot review directly, as the reference points to an offline Russian book published in 1973. My source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160505212551/https://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/diplomacy39-45.html

Btw, in light of this error, it might generally be useful to review any other info sourced from the 1973 Russian book. As you might know, during the Soviet era, certain historical events really weren't publishe in th official histories as they actually had happened. I recommend Antony Beevor instead, he's got nice war books, and he's not publishing in a totalitarian state which was a direct participant in the conflict the page is about.

Disappearance of Ondrej Sobola

There seems to be an extra article merged into this one, I don't think the disappearance of an Austro-Hungarian soldier in 1918 is relevant to the eastern front, as well as the two see also sections. @Davidgoodheart, did you mean to do this? NotEvil(1); (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Too many commanders and leaders

Recently I attempted to trim down the commanders and leaders section, as it looked like there were far too many, including unnecessary minor commanders and those who didn't lead campaigns on the field. However someone kept reversing the edit for unclear reasons. I definitely think this section should be trimmed down and we should reach a consensus on which commanders should remain in there while which ones are unnecessarily displayed and should be cut out. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The overall assessment of the forces of the sides is underestimated (1941-1945)

1. Sources of the total forces of the sides are not given 46.56.182.61 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20100328080054/http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_01.html 46.56.182.61 (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add additional sources for verification it has been this way from two years nwo it must be fixed! 45.49.246.117 (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I will add a request for more sources. I am not qualified enough in the WWII subject to edit this, however (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 16:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Eastern Front (World War II): Difference between revisions Add topic